OTR’s – UUP “prepared to acquiesce in such proposals”

Title quote from today’s Newsletter.

From yesterday’s Hansard

In the Hillsborough negotiations, different parties again found themselves talking to the Government about different issues. There was to be a joint declaration at the conclusion of those talks, and it was originally to have five annexes. One of those annexes was to deal with the subject of OTRs. Another dealt with the establishment of the IMC and a menu of sanctions demanded by the UUP.

The UUP was very clear that it wanted no part of the provisions relating to OTRs

  • Onlooker

    Yet the UUP failed to reject the Joint Declaration Michael! If you don’t reject it, you by default are accepting it.

  • traditional unionist

    Thats a very simplistic view of events Onlooker!

  • Ginfizz

    TU/Rebecca Black

    There’s nothing simplistic about it. The UUP endorsed the Joint Declaration, despite later attempts at historical revisionism by the new leadership.

  • Traditional unionist

    It did not accept the Joint declaration, it also did not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If not for UUP support for the declaration, the IMC wouldnt not exist. The IMC of course being Jeffreys reason for resigning the whip.

  • Ginfizz


    So they did support the Joint Declaration? In exchange for the IMC, tehy delivered this – funny I don’t hear Reg trumpetting this glorious UUP victory?

  • Traditional unionist

    Regardless of your opinions on my views, i would thank you to recognise that the coherance and standard of my delivery is a differencial that you do not credit me with.

  • Ginfizz


    The standard of your delivery is nether here nor there Miss Prim!

    The truth (an alien concept to the Ulster Unionists, I know) is that the OTR legislation finds its roots in the Joint Declaration, which was negotiated and signed up to by the Ulster Unionist Party. Deny that, if you can.

  • Ginfizz

    Traditional Unionist says “It did not accept the Joint declaration” and in the next sentence says “If not for UUP support for the declaration, the IMC wouldnt not exist”

    Ulster Unionists – Simply Simple.

  • Rebecca Black


    I am not traditional unionist, from my knowledge TU is a one of the young unionist boys known as a fairly prolific blogger.

  • Ginfizz

    And yet, Rebecca within an hour of me climing you were TU, you “appear” on here to deny it.

    Strange coincidence don’t ya think?

  • Traditional unionist

    Unreliable knowledge is a terrible thing rebecca.

    I put that badly, I will give you that. The UUC voted to not reject the declaration as per the motion that was put, supported by Jeffrey Donaldson and others. That does not equate to support, it equates to not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  • Ginfizz

    Fair enough you aren’t TU. But you are an Ulster Unionist – maybe you could dig TU out of the hole he/she has dug for themselves – did the UUP support the Joint Declaration?

  • Ginfizz

    By not rejecting it, you endorsed it. Stop trying to revise historical fact. The root of the OTR legislation is in the Joint Declaration – that was negotiated by the UUP – SF/IRA and the British Government. The SDLP and DUP had no part in it. Do you deny that?

  • traditional unionist

    Odd that Mark Durkan seems to know better than you ain’t it?

  • alex benjamin

    Gin fizz,

    For the record the UUP did not sign up to the joint declaration, our executive resolution where we stated that it was not a satisfactory basis on which to proceed is a matter of public record. We kept the bits we liked (IMC) and dismissed the rest. I am quite happy to forward the relevant documents to you if you’d like to provide me with a e-mail address.

    This is not the nub of the matter however Gin Fizz. Durkan’s comments coupled with our position on the Joint Declaration should clear this matter up for you relatively quickly. If however you seem to be struck by DUP-itis and stick resolutely to a line even when the facts prove to the contrary, then so be it!

    Personally i think what’s really interesting is that the Party who promised to end concessions and who had a huge picture of a young woman in their 2003 manifesto saying ‘I don’t want an amnesty for on the run terrorists, have not said this issue is a dealbreaker.

    I’d also love to find the young woman concerned and see how she feels today after 2 years of DUP running tings proper!

  • Ginfizz


    Mark Durkan criticised the “side deal, shadow deals and psuedo deals” that the government has reached with Sinn Fein since the signing of the GFA, yesterday in the House of Commons, when talking about this legislation. The SDLP and the DUP weren’t invited to Hillsborough when the contents of the Joint Declaration were thrashed out.

    It was agreed between the UUP (Reg Empey – Chief Negotiator), the Provos and the British Government. The OTR legislation was concieved at Hillsborough and born yesterday. Thank you UUP.

  • Ginfizz


    That’s a cop-out and you know it. You cannot cherry-pick the bits of the document that you like and then try to reject the bits you don’t. It came as a package and you accepted it as a package.

    The Donaldson motion offered a clear opportunity to reject the document and the UUC chose not to. The OTR legislation finds its root in the Joint Declaration, which both the DUP and SDLP had no part in – it was entirely the creation of your party, the British government and the Provos.

  • alex benjamin

    gin fizz presumably these are the same side deals that have accelerated under the DUPs stewardship?

    Anyway, forgive me for being obtuse but you still haven’t answered the question…is it a dealbreaker? and did the DUP not promise to end concessions and made a big play about not wanting an amnesty in their manifesto?

  • alex benjamin

    lol it’s not a cop out, look i’ll hold my hands up and say fair point if i thought you had one but i don’t.

    I’ll tell you what, give it another year or so and then come back and talk to me. Once you lot have had another year of wonderful negotiating on behalf of Unionism and another year of realising that you can’t stop the government making side deals and acting unilaterally when it chooses, the rose tinted spectacles might come off.

  • traditional unionist

    Have you read the hansard quote!?! Durkan categorically states that the UUP had nothing to do with OTRs. If you think he lied to Parliament I suggest you write to the Speaker/your MP and register a complaint to that effect.

  • Ginfizz


    Wahts very sad Mr. Benjamin, is that you actually will the DUP to fail. By the way, still writing the melodramatic PSNI bashing articles?

  • Impartial Reporter

    If the UUP was opposed to the OTR’s section of the Joint Declaration, the entire document should have been rejected. It wasn’t. They failed. They paid the price.

  • alex benjamin

    not at all gin fizz, i merely point out that for all their crowing, talk of new dawns, unionist confidence etc and all their talk of ending concessions etc, etc, of trecherous UUP people etc etc, and having taken it in the neck from that party on numerous occasions, i find that the DUP are all talk no trousers (apologies to rhonda in adavance for this sexist comment.

    If you guys deliver then fair play. But so far it’s just been blame everything nasty that you’ve been powerless to stop on the UUP and frankly not much else.

    As for the melodrama, i would ‘toucher’ but it’s a bit naff to bring that into a debate. Besides you still won’t answer me on the dealbreaker/concessions/manifesto stuff…so let’s get back to that and leave the petty stuff at the door. Agreed?

  • alex benjamin

    Impartial Reporter

    if the dup are against the OTR legislation(as per manifesto and end concessions promise) they should say it’s a dealbreaker. They haven’t. They paid the price.

  • yerman

    Alex Benjamin,
    Quiet day in the UUP press office today??? Surely when the party is advertising for a junior press monkey to assist you it might be assumed that you have more to do than post on blogs.

    Mind you, it was very funny when you used to be on here ranting at Alex Kane. Lets hope you decide to write a book too, the one by that fella Kerr was a real hoot to read just what a shambles the UUP really is.

    I assume that part of the job description for a UUP press officer these days is the ability to revise history….. you’ve made a valiant attempt, just a shame you dont have better material to work with and the unfortunate problem that you cant change the facts.

  • alex benjamin

    ah, welcome to the fray yerman, once again another DUP luvie who can’t stick to the points raised…and frankly i can’t be bothered replying to the personal idiotic ramblings…now if you want to have a debate let’s have one…

    what are the facts as you see them yerman?…and do any of the points that i have made about manifesto, promises on concessions and delabreaker not hold water in your view?

  • The UUP is not going to suffer from the disgraceful Bill because it has already slumped too far. But its Joint Declaration debacle of 2003 was a milestone in the slow motion implosion of the party. The UUP should have had the innate self-interest not to become entangled in the unpalatable aspects of the Declaration and Jeffrey’s UUC motion provided that opportunity. But the Trimble rabbit was too transfixed by the Tony stoat and too desperate for another crazy leap with the Shinners. As usual.

    As for the DUP’s position now, well, their people can argue for themselves. But if I was Alex Benjamin, I wouldn’t assume that the DUP will suffer from side deals unless their fingerprints are found near them. Oh and the Alan McFarland nonsense on the UUP website isn’t going to claw back any ground either.

    BTW, agree with Yerman, Kerr book was a hoot. So the UUP really was that badly run …

  • yerman

    Thanks for the welcome Alex.

    I do admire your attempt to deflect – however, as you’ll well know, debate has the ability to meander. That’s one of the qualities of this site.

    High professionalism really to have you slog it out on this site. I’m sure Reg is proud. Mind you, I think you’ve at least managed something of a record. Going by Kerr’s book it seems that you all were in the pub by this time every day during the election campaign.

  • alex benjamin

    ah, welcome to the fray yerman (another DUP luvie who seems unable to stick to the points)…tell you what let’s leave your idiotic personal ramblings about me to the side and get to the debate…

    so what are the ‘facts’ as you see them? and did the DUP not promise to end all concessions, had in their manifesto statements like ‘i dont want an amnesty for on the run terrorists’ clearly implying that the DUP could stop this frok happening and why if this is not therefore a dealbreaker for the Party? (that’s the third time i’ve asked now!!!)

  • alex benjamin

    apologies for the double post…meandering is fine, and i still were still getting personal…pity…so are we going to have a debate and are we going to address my points or are we going to deflect attention away by talking about kerrs book, pubs, my proffessional role etc, etc?

  • alex benjamin

    stuff you lot then…i’m going to the pub lmao

  • Mr Benjamin goes to the pub at 5.30. Has a general election just been called?

  • Traditional unionist

    Jeffrey’s UUC motion

    Careful, he gest upset if you attribute him to the recquisition. Would be interesting to see how the DUP could live without the IMC, which they voted against in parliament.

  • I have never interpreted the DUP promise about no more concessions as anything more that a promise not to agree to them and facilitate them.

    I wonder if the UUP had been the main party, would they have put so much effort into campaingning against the Bill.

    If Arlene Foster had still been in the party would she have found that party as active in this regard.