Sinn Fein in government? Over my dead body! – Paisley

The relatively peaceful Twelfth over-shadowed a politically significant speech by the DUP leader. After Ian Paisley’s uncompromising speech on compromise (pun intended), the two governments should be in little doubt as to the prospects for a deal this November. Given that any deal will have to involve not only Sinn Fein in government, but also jointly operating the office of First and Deputy First Minister with Ian Paisley, is it possible for the DUP leader to utter these words and, only a matter of months later, join Sinn Fein at the Executive table?

  • willis

    The answer is probably no!

  • Stephen Copeland

    Maybe he has just received the results of his latest medical examination? People will most certainly be doing lots of things ‘over his dead body’ fairly soon. It’s a pity it has to be that way, but it’s his choice. It means that rather than have any control over what happens (and some day something will happen), he is opting out and ensuring that when deals get done, his input will be zero.

    A far more sensible position would have been to try to ensure that a stable deal got done while he was still in the driving seat of unionism. That way he could have gone to his maker (beelzibub, IMHO) knowing that he had had an influence on the overall outcome. On his deathbed, Paisley is going to be tortured by the knowledge that he will never know how it all ended!

  • Prince Eoghan

    “Sinn Fein in government? Over my dead body! – Paisley”

    Does this mean that the long awaited deal with Robinson et al has been done. And we are only waiting on the dear old chap to pop his clogs, then Unionists will finally be able to act like normal democrats, and share power.

  • Brian Boru

    Plan B how are ya?

  • Prince Eoghan

    “A far more sensible position would have been to try to ensure that a stable deal got done while he was still in the driving seat of unionism. That way he could have gone to his maker (beelzibub, IMHO) knowing that he had had an influence on the overall outcome. On his deathbed, Paisley is going to be tortured by the knowledge that he will never know how it all ended!”

    A bit like how Edward longshanks cursed Scotland from his deathbed. As soon as the auld bastard kicked it, his son and heir was off to the fleshpots of London rather than battle with the Scots. Now there is a guy who would have enjoyed the twelth’s festivities;¬)

  • lib2016

    More wind and piss signifying nothing. Have the Brits got the backbone to follow the people’s decision and introduce the GFA or not?

    Stormont? Who knows or cares? – On every local council unionism have proven that they don’t want powersharing. Time to move on without them. They may try to play catchup but it will be too late.

    Drumcree proved that they were all bluff ad bluster when the Brits faced up to them but there’s the danger of a new generation of republicans emerging if a functioning democracy isn’t introduced soon.

  • willis

    Look I don’t want to be churlish about this, PE but there is no requirement on a democreat to share power with anyone. The reason the DUP/UUP will have to share power eventually is that their mandate doesn’t amount to a pitcher of warm spit compared to the electorate of there island.

  • Kevin

    When Paisley packs his suitcase for the final trip to the promised land he would be well advised to leave room for a few yards of that Proverbial Sackcloth he talks about…..he is going to need it.

  • terry tadpole

    God it doesnt augur well.

    No deal.

    Virtual joint authority. (As if we dont already have it)

    Another march toward the cul de sac by outraged unionists. ( they need to be outraged at least once every ten years just to remind themselves they have a pulse)

    Figure in more dead Fenians, and its really something to look forward to.

    Oh go on Ian drop dead.

  • DaithiO

    Well that man becomes an even more grotesque caricature of himself. After the people north and south overwhelmingly endorsed the GFA he takes it upon himself to ride roughshod over it.

    His intransigence will serve only to alienate the unionists of the north who view Paisleys lunacy with increasing disdain.

    Whether or not it’s over his dead body it is inevitable, history will not judge this bigot kindly IMHO.

  • Nevin

    Papa Doc in his own words.

    PS I don’t suppose there’s any chance of the Sinner ‘legitimate’ government being disbanded before the November deadline along with its associated fascism and mafiaism? Now that would call Papa Doc’s bluff …

  • DaithiO

    Ooops, I used the B-I-G-O-T word !

  • Nevin

    Wee Jeff’s ‘much done, more to do’ speech. Has he been spending too much time with the new friend of the loyalist godfathers?

  • Stephen Copeland

    Nevin,

    Papa Doc in his own words.

    Holy cow, that speech is simply dreadful. It is so full of crap that it really seriously needs to be deconstructed and mocked.

    Any chance of a moderator giving us a special ‘hang-over special’ thread on Paisley’s speech so that we can mercilessly take the piss out of him?

  • Fair Deal

    My, my everyone seems in a rush to pack up and go home this morning.

    During a period of negotiation strong public positions are adopted and you are all shocked?

    On a number of occassions nationalist contributors have acted as ‘translators’ of IRA statements so perhaps I should return the favour.

    In an unscripted part of his speech he used the phraseoligy SF/IRA and that is the significant statement as the DUP seek the IRA’s disbandment any powersharing would be with SF alone.

  • Admit it FD, he dropped a clanger that no one, AKA Robbo and crew, had been expecting.

  • DaithiO

    FD, it loses a lot (of shite) in translation !

  • the weighmeister

    Big Ian is the man, its time for all ya knackers to accept his mandate.

  • Nevin

    Fair Deal, Doddie didn’t forget to mention Sinn Fein/IRA but he did, er, forget to mention the loyalists who, in his own words, as ‘cowardly assassins sneaked and skulked their way through hedges and ditches to shoot or bomb the innocent’. Hasn’t Doddie got the guts to name and shame the villains in the pan-Unionist family?

  • fair_deal

    Do you mean that ‘translations’ of comments have no value and that all statements must only be taken at their face value?

  • fair_deal

    Nevin

    He has done so plenty of times. Perhaps you should read Paisley’s comments in the Assembly about not sharing power with the UUP because of their association with terrorism to find the consistency in position you desire.

  • kensei

    “Do you mean that ‘translations’ of comments have no value and that all statements must only be taken at their face value?”

    No. But at leats “transaltions” of IRA statements could be somehow connected to what was said. And the Doc has less of a habit of speaking in code.

    There are a number of ways a strong position could be set out, but this just seems to kill things dead. The deadline is November! How could he manage such an about turn?

  • Billy

    While Paisley leads the DUP – there is no prospect of them going into govt with Sinn Fein. The trouble is, I believe, that at 80 years old -he is more concerned about his legacy than anything else . I think that, having finally become the elected majority leader of unionism (a bit late in the day to actually achieve anything)- he now wants to ensure that he is remembered as the unionist leader who didn’t “sell out”.

    So, while he’s still breathing, no deal I fear – even though this will lead to the advancement of de-facto joint authority.

    Despite their protestations to the contrary, the DUP face a difficult time when Paisley senior shuffles off.

    The pragmatic wing of the party is lead by Peter Robinson who has spent 25 years building a power base – important to note he is NOT a member of the Free Presbyterian Church. His recent speeches and interviews show that he is clearly much more likely to deal than Paisley.

    However, the religious fundamentalist element – led by Nigel Dodds – again a long term member and a lifelong Free Presbyterian are much more likely to stick to the “No Surrender” Mantra of Paisley.

    When you throw people like McCrea, Paisley (junior), and Allister into the mix – we should see some interesting times for the DUP.

  • TAFKABO

    The deadline is November?

    Aye, sure it is……

    This speech of Paisleys is, if anything, an indication that negotiations are either underway or about to begin.
    He is of course playing hardball, and there’s no harm in that.
    People want to know how he can do a Uturn?
    Well he’s a politician ferfuxsake, he’ll find a way, and if it’s in the interests of Sinn Fein, they’ll do what they can to help him find away.

    Remember not a bullet, not an ounce?

    People do U-tuns that are quickly forgotten all the time.

  • fair_deal

    kensei

    “at least “transaltions” of IRA statements could be somehow connected to what was said”

    I used Paisley’s own words and placed them in the context of what the DUP has said it wants to achieve.

    Connected how exactly? By saying the word the IRA chose actually means a different one. Like those who tried to say last July’s statement meant the IRA was going way yet it is still about? Much as I enjoy this debate I realise it is somewhat off the topic of Chris’s thread so I’ll stop now. Apologies Chris.

    Billy

    1. The DUP isn’t the UUP.
    2. Some have been trying to push this narrative for a few years now and there has never been damn all to back it up.
    3. Conspiracy theories invariably reach the conclusion the theoriser began with.

  • willis

    Good Analysis Billy.

    I think de-facto Joint Authority will be with us for some time.

    However I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on any split. Robinson is a very calculating politician. He will have seen the brutal way Jim Wells was dealt with by Baby Doc.

  • lib2016

    During the 80’s Robinson (like Trimble) was an advocate of independence for ‘Ulster’. I don’t think that either London or Dublin can wait around for another ten years while unionism finds more objections to powersharing. Ye Gods! The IRA must be disbanded. Which IRA? …and how long will it take to set up another one?

    Unionist will attach themselves to whatever short term tactic seems plausible, just like others who waffle about joint authority when what they mean is that both countries should get to subsidise Norn Island.

    At the end of this year unionists will be given an offer they can’t refuse. They have only themselves to blame for wasting the last thirty years instead of building relationships at home and abroad.

  • Pete Baker

    As Fair Deal has already indicated, the actual quotes from Paisley’s speech – as recorded in today’s Guardian – are subtly, but importantly, more nuanced than the PA report and the post title might suggest.

    From the Guardian:

    “No unionist who is a unionist will go into partnership with IRA-Sinn Féin,” he told members of the Independent Orange Order. “They are not fit to be in the government … And it will be over our dead bodies that they will ever get there.”

    Carry on..

  • Nevin

    Fair Deal, surely it would have been a good idea for Doddie to have mentioned the misbehaviour of loyalists when he was addressing OO folks in Broughshane? Presumably there were loyalist paramilitaries in the audience? Why couldn’t he raise himself above the level of the peanut gallery?

    As for Paisley, he didn’t speak to ‘Adams or his ilk’ yet here’s an exchange with one of the ilk in the Agriculture Committee:

    [i]578.

    Mr McHugh: May I ask a question about beef? Will I have time to come in again later?

    579.

    The Chairman: That will depend on the generosity of the Deputy Chairman who will be in the Chair at that time. If you want to ask a question about beef now, go ahead. I am trying to give every party an opportunity.

    Why can’t Papa Doc preach what he practises? Doesn’t he realise his hypocrisy can be so easily exposed?

  • Stephen Copeland

    … the actual quotes from Paisley’s speech

    Why is the DUP so reticent about putting what IKP actually said on its web site? Instead we are treated to the senile ramblings of an elderly bible basher/blood sacrifer.

  • Rubicon

    Nevin – thanks for the link to the speech – it made grim reading but it’s perhaps not as conclusive as posted by Chris Donnelly – the u.tv link does not enclose the statement in quotes. Was it an interpretation or a statement from Paisley? Nevin’s link to the speech says nothing of this quote attributed to Paisley.

    Fair Deal – you seem to be aware of “unscripted” parts of Paisley’s speech. Did he say, “Sinn Fein in government? Over my dead body!”

    If he did say this then there is very little room for the “translation” you suggest. Such a position should be rigorously challenged by the media and the remaining political parties should pack up their bags and leave Hain’s Assembly now – there would be absolutely no point in continuing the sham until November 24th.

    What chance the media will challenge Paisley over this? Did he say it? The BBC site quotes Paisley as saying Sinn Fein “were not fit for government.” – from which a very different ‘translation’ could be made.

  • Pete Baker

    Rubicon

    I’ve linked to the Guardian report above, which quotes the relevant lines.

    On not being fit for government.. Denis Bradley had some pertinent comments on that topic recently

  • Rubicon

    Thanks for the exact quote Pete – you posted it while I was trying to find it. The actual statement does leave some (but not much) room for ‘translation’ that could provide a basis for the u-turn that TAF suggests could happen.

  • Moochin photoman

    weighmeister

    as far as i know the travelling community by and large are no more likely to vote for Paisley than u for a United Ireland.

    By the way the spelling of your’e name and your “knackers ” comment were to say the least racist. i imagine that you had a good old chat round the bonny discussing mein kampf u b i g o t t e d idiot

  • Kevin

    The real truth is that the Loyalists will not share power with Catholics. To do so would constitute rendering aid to Catholics, which is contrary to the oath of the Orange Order, hence all the lame excuses not to.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Kevin.

    Shoosh, we kid them on we don’t know that their reasons aren’t political.

  • I see Sinn Féin’s Gerry Kelly met with police last night to discuss the security operation around last night`s return parade by Orangemen past the flashpoint Ardoyne area.

    He said: “In normal circumstances, political representatives would need police on the ground on the day of a march to de-escalate the situation.”

    Hmm- the SDLP for slow learners? The move must be welcomed however- it’s about time that people in all nationalist areas were afforded the opportunity to make full use of the PSNI- perhaps SF are finally realising this.

  • kensei

    “As Fair Deal has already indicated, the actual quotes from Paisley’s speech – as recorded in today’s Guardian – are subtly, but importantly, more nuanced than the PA report and the post title might suggest.”

    You aren’t serious, right?

  • Pete Baker

    Too subtle for you, kensei? 😉

  • peter fallow

    This is a sensible approach by the DUP. Trimble’s failure showed that house-training these people requires stick not carrot – strength, not compromise.
    When unionists can be sure that republicans will not steal, spy and subvert when granted access to Stormont, then perhaps they can be tested over a trial period.
    They have a long way to go.

  • Prince Eoghan

    Kensei.

    I’m afraid he is. I had to go and clean my specs, in case they were so dirty that I had missed something. I hadn’t

  • fair_deal

    “The real truth is that the Loyalists will not share power with Catholics. To do so would constitute rendering aid to Catholics, which is contrary to the oath of the Orange Order, hence all the lame excuses not to.”

    1. Is that why a voluntary coalition has been offered to the SDLP?
    2. You don’t take an oath to join the OO.
    3. Ian Paisley isn’t a member of the OO so he isn’t bound by the non-existent oath.
    4. The last NI Executive contained four members of the OO, David Trimble, Sir Reg Empey, Sam Foster and Nigel Dodds. So nice theory shame about the facts.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Nevin: “PS I don’t suppose there’s any chance of the Sinner ‘legitimate’ government being disbanded before the November deadline along with its associated fascism and mafiaism? Now that would call Papa Doc’s bluff … ”

    About as much chance as the Loyalist mafia’s disarming.

    Deal with the plank in your eye before you worry about the mote in mine and we’ll get along just fine.

  • FD-

    a) the SDLP doesn’t wish to be ‘offered’ anything by the DUP. It has a solid mandate which entitles it to a place in government (alongside SF and the UUP also).

    b) the DUP made such an ‘offer’ in the plain knowledge that the SDLP would (and did) oppose such a ‘voluntary coalition’ as it was anti-Agreement and flies against the whole concept of inclusive power-sharing.

    I could make an offer to Ian Paisley to invite him to join the SDLP- that doesn’t make me any great friend of hardline unionists, as I know perfectly well he would never make such a move. It’s easy to make offers on one’s own terms and when one knows there is no chance of them being accepted- it proves nothing.

  • Betty Boo

    So, people under house training by the means of sticks of strength have a long way to go.
    And for how long has it been tried yet?
    The answer surely put me off the idea to get myself a nice fluffy, green or orange, pet male. I wouldn’t be much for compromising my space either.

  • Kevin

    FD…Its easy to make an offer to somebody you know can’t deliver. You do take an oath when you join the OO. Paisley’s anti Catholicism credentials are well known. How many days did the first Executive last. The theory is still intact.

  • fair_deal

    El matador

    The point was not the rights/wrongs or like/dislike of the notion of a Voluntary Coalition but to rebutt Kevin’s false claim of religious exclusion.

    The offer was also made to the backdrop of the McCartney murder and Northern bank robbery but the SDLP said no to positive politics and working with others opting for to wait for the provos to do something.

  • Or perhaps they said no to a rubbish and exclusive executive invented in the minds of a party with an historical (and current) dislike of all things nationalist.

  • Stephen Copeland

    Fair_deal,

    … but the SDLP said no to positive politics and working with others …

    Do you actually believe everything you write, or are you paid to do it? I ask because I do not think that anyone actually believes what you just wrote to come even close to reality.

    The SDLP said no to refusenik DUP-style exclusionism, aka negative politics. ‘Working with others’ … the DUP ??? Please ….

  • lib2016

    End of the year = another confrontation with the Brits, as over the Anglo-Irish Agreement and Drumcree. Remind me again who won those!

    Nationalism has delivered decommissioning, broken the links with irregular fundraising and awaits it’s Christmas present, all wrapped up in a nice Orange ribbon.

  • seanniee

    Big Ian’s speech shows he is compltely NUTS.
    Only in the 6 counties would people vote for him.
    Or maybe the red necked parts of America.

  • Greenflag

    ‘Why can’t Papa Doc preach what he practises? ‘

    How can you be so naive Nevin. Haven’t you heard of Bishop Casey , Fr Cleary and Presbyterian Moderator Uprichard ? Hypocrites one and all .

    ‘Doesn’t he realise his hypocrisy can be so easily exposed? ‘

    Paisley knows that to be a successful Unionist politician it pays to be a hypocrite . You get more votes that way . The Act of Union was forged by hypocrites and bribery . Why would you expect those who continue to support the Act to operate by any other ‘principle’.

  • fair_deal

    kevin

    “Its easy to make an offer to somebody you know can’t deliver.”

    Mark durkan can’t deliver his party? The SDLP delivered on Policing Board participation without SF presence they could have done the same again.

    “Paisley’s anti Catholicism credentials are well known”

    You didn’t base your claim on anti-catholic credentials but being bound by an “oath” to a group he doesn’t belong too.

    “How many days did the first Executive last. The theory is still intact.”

    Poor attempt at shifting the goalposts. Your “oath” theory means an Executive would be an impossibility and would have no OO members on it. Yet both impossibilities happened.

    The executive began in Dec 99 ran to Feb00 , suspended for three months, started in May 00 and ran to October 02 (with two 24 hr suspensions in that time) So the Exectuive operated for approximately two and half years/913 days, yet your theory means it shouldn’t have operated for one.

    “You do take an oath when you join the OO”

    No you don’t.

  • Gum

    “No country, suffered more than this whole island of Ireland, and no locality of any country in the world suffered like loyal Ulster.”

    Can any unionist, even members of the DUP, agree with this line from paisley’s speech yesterday? Unimaginable suffering goes on in parts of our world that get zero news coverage, often because its simply too distressing. Paisley’s thinking here is so blind – does he really think that ulster is the centre of the universe? Just to put things in some sort of context – 3,000 died in 25 yrs in the troubles. 38,000 die a month in the Congo today. We aren’t that special, and we have had it lucky compared to so many others.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    seanniee: “Big Ian’s speech shows he is compltely NUTS.
    Only in the 6 counties would people vote for him.
    Or maybe the red necked parts of America. ”

    Now there is an ignorant statement. The only elected official in high office that I can think of, off the cuff, is the Senior Senator from West Virgina. This makes you wrong on two counts. He represents a heavily unionized state which he regularly paves over and is left of center. Also, as he represents West Virgina, it is a hill-billy part of America who are, by and large, descended of Protestant Scots-Irish stock.

    You are entitled to your own opinion, Seanniee, bigoted tho it may be. Your own fact, however, are another matter entirely.

  • fair_deal

    SC

    1. Putting forward proposals isn;t being a refusnik.
    2. The SDLP operated on an everybody in policy (whether you run guns, gather intelligence, kneecap people exile them etc) while the DUP operated on a democrats in policy. The SDLP had a clear opportunity to move with the McCartney and Northern Bank robberies and get an executive up and running for the past two years but opted to stay on the sidelines.

  • TheVoiceOfTreason

    Isn’t it time Papa Pan finally went back to Never Never land ?

  • Stephen Copeland

    fair_deal,

    Re: 1 and 2. You’re not dealing with a child here, so skip the ‘pop-up book’ version of events. You know, I know, and the whole world knows, thaat the DUP are desperately trying to cobble together an exclusionary arrangement – a politically negative arrangement.

    They refuse to participate in most of ‘normal’ politics, they oppose the democrraticaly-mandated GFA, they did not sit around the executive table, ‘no’ is their favourite word – they are refuseniks.

    If they are so keen on inclusive politics, then lets see some evidence from where a little bit of politics still goes on – the local councils.

  • kensei

    “The SDLP said no to refusenik DUP-style exclusionism, aka negative politics. ‘Working with others’ … the DUP ??? Please .”

    Actually, the SDLP said no to complete electoral destruction.

  • Kevin

    FD…SDLP do not have the majority Nationalist vote. OO is anti Catholic. I wasn’t aware that I had to be so precise to put forward a theory that is formulated from 50 years of Protestant anti Catholic persecution so if this constitutes moving the goalposts then so be it. As for the oath you are wrong. The first Executive was destroyed by the same anti Catholic subversives in and out of the OO. Next time I will have a lawyer write my comments for me to make sure the wording is correct.

  • heck

    “over his dead body”

    does anyone think martin Ingram’s former employers might be considering helping him along?

    after all most of you seem to believe they use human bombs to kill british soldiers. Compared to that, helping paisley to have an “accident” would be a minor task.

    Honest Tony would then be able to have power sharing as his legacy.

    Or then again maybe they could direct one of their agents in the IRA to wack him and following the usual orgy of unionist outrage honest tony would have an excuse to have majority rule.

    it hurts my head to think about

  • circles

    Fair_Deal:
    My heart goes out to you on this one, really does. Now you may try and make the best out of this, but there really can be very little denying that Reverend Ian Paisley, the leader of the largest political partyn the 6 counties, has really lost his mind. He is not fit to be involved in active politics, and none of his DUPes have the bals to tell him this.
    We’re not talking about tough negotiating stances here. We’re talking about an extraordinarily influential politician blabbering and babbling on about blood sacrifice, the ancient enemy, and that “compromise, accommodation, and the least surrender are the road to final and irreversible disaster”.
    God help us all!!!

  • Rubicon

    Fair Deal – with your insight in to the DUP can you illuminate me as to what exactly it is that permits/enables that party to share power with SF?

    In as far as it remains unclear what SF’s continued objection to the PSNI is based on (it used to be Patton – but seems to have moved beyond that), what is the DUP looking for, how will it know that it has got it, what evidence are they looking for and will it include ‘guilt by association’ in a way that could make the DUP appear hypocritical?

    (Specifics used not to be a DUP problem – remember the photographs? Is the absence of specifics a consequence of; 1. internal division, 2. an intention to say “no” or, 3. the stance of a party wishing to gain as much as it can during negotiations before saying “OK”?).

    What’s your insight? If it involves option 3 – wouldn’t some specifics help – unless option 1 also applies?

    E.g.; I assume a SF party worker getting a parking ticket does not constitute ‘criminality’ but McGuinness or Adams found in possession of Semtex would. In between these extremes a decision is required.

    What specific measures does the DUP require? Or – to put it another way, what precisely is Paisley looking for before he’ll drop “IRA” from references to SF in a way that allows him to say that he hasn’t done a u-turn on his declaration yesterday?

  • Turbo Paul

    The press call this time of year the “Silly season”

    I believe Mr Paisley was offering his usual hardline to an enthusiastic crowd on an emotion filled day for Unionists.

    However, I want to remain optimistic and hope that as we move closer to Nov Mr Paisley may just curb the usual hardline spin and get down to honest negotiations.

    As with all political speeches, the devil is in the detail, and from this I draw hope, as FD pointed out earlier.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Turbo Paul: “I believe Mr Paisley was offering his usual hardline to an enthusiastic crowd on an emotion filled day for Unionists. ”

    A fair notion — chavish Loyalist posturing to get a cheap “pop” from the crowd.

  • Nevin

    Dread, what plank? 🙂

    Those who know me will be familiar with the collective term that I introduced for loyalist and republican paramilitary fascists and mafiaists: AAShole. The AA was in ‘honour’ of two of the better known ‘faces’ from the dark side of life here: Adair and Adams.

  • Ranier

    Meh, i wouldn’t worry too much about this speech, just blood and thunder guff on his favourite day of the year.

    I’m still startled by some of the DUP supporters and their claims of Democratic purity, their rock solid beliefs that they will only share power with democrats.
    Aye right, because the DUP has never, ever engaged in any kind of anti-democratic activity at all…

  • kensei

    “Those who know me will be familiar with the collective term that I introduced for loyalist and republican paramilitary fascists and mafiaists: AAShole. The AA was in ‘honour’ of two of the better known ‘faces’ from the dark side of life here: Adair and Adams.”

    It deeply concerns me Nevin that you may believe this clever or funny.

  • fair_deal

    SC

    ” a politically negative arrangement. ”

    Fully functioning democratic institutions aren’t a negative.

    Rubicon

    I am an outsider looking in but my impressions are.
    1. Too much media analysis tries to look at the DUP through the prism of the UUP and they are two different political animals. Like all organisations it does have rivalries and differences of opinions but to be talking of wings and splits is taking it way too far.
    2. The DUP have basically looked at the UUP experience and apply the lessons learnt. One of those lessons is not to respond immediately to republican moves nor assume that one republican move means more will automatically flow.
    3. The DUP are looking for a different type of deal. They aren’t going to buy into the likes of the various patch-up jobs we have become used to in this process nor do they want a return to yo-yo government. They’ll grasp the nettle for a good enough deal and not before and they will take the vast amount of their support with them.
    4. As regards the republican movement there have been a number of specifics e.g. end of criminality disbandment of the IRA support for policing.

    Note on the photographs they were actually a compromise proposal, the DUP had sought video footage.

    “what precisely is Paisley looking for before he’ll drop “IRA” from references to SF in a way that allows him to say that he hasn’t done a u-turn on his declaration yesterday?”

    As I said earlier the disbandment of the IRA.

  • willis

    “They’ll grasp the nettle for a good enough deal and not before and they will take the vast amount of their support with them”

    Well I hope so but I won’t hold my breath.

    What has been really encouraging is the incredible reduction in Loyalist fury towards the Irish Republic. I suppose they feel they now have more in common with Michael McDowell than Peter Hain.

  • fair_deal

    Other comments on devolution and power-sharing from Ian Paisley

    “I’d love to be First Minister”

    “Once they quit their terrorist path, I will have to do a good deal of swallowing,” he said.
    “I’ll have to do a good deal of biting my lip in future days.”

  • Kevin

    FD….Disbandment of the IRA, if this were to happen what form of proof would be required, and how long would the verification period be? Is Paisley likely to be still around at the end of it or is this just another of the DUPs trick tactics???

  • Stephen Copeland

    Fair_deal,

    Fully functioning democratic institutions aren’t a negative.

    And ‘functioning democratic institutions ‘ you will get, just as soon as you (i.e. the DUP – you seem to be acting as their spokesman here) realise that democracy implies a respect for the mandate of all elected representatives. Trying to pick which parties can play is actually the antithesis of democracy. Everyone else understands this, and I presume the DUP really do too, but they’ve just painted themselves into a corner, and have to wait for IKP to die before they can do a u-turn.

  • fair_deal

    Kevin

    I can’t speak formally for the DUP but the IRA hold whatever meetings they have to by the Green Book take the decision, announce the decision to disband and then independent confirmation by the IMC.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    This plan, Nevin…

    “PS I don’t suppose there’s any chance of the Sinner ‘legitimate’ government being disbanded before the November deadline along with its associated fascism and mafiaism? Now that would call Papa Doc’s bluff … “”

    Firstly, to worry overly-much about quiescent terrorist organization what has begun the “climb-down” from their associated criminality with nary a word for the Loyalists. Each major Unionist political party has had its flirtations with the Loyalist mafias and terrorists, from PUP’s open association to UUP climing into bed with the UVF to Papa Doc’s red berets and more quiet relations.

    Ergo, clean up your own patch before troubling others about the same sins. Talking a good game, even a even-handed good game, is just talk unless matched by deeds. You may dislike the PIRA, and goodness knows I have a few opinions I don’t discuss in public. You may distrust the PIRA (and I do), but they have done something that none of the Loyalist gangs have done — decomissioned. They have disarmed, they have held their ceasefire and they are in the process of decriminalizing, per the IMC, all reservations reserved. My mote, as a Nationalist, is what to do with the left-overs. Your plank is to either catch-up or shut-up. We are rapidly coming to a point where we need more than words from both sides.

  • Turbo Paul

    #

    Other comments on devolution and power-sharing from Ian Paisley

    “I’d love to be First Minister”

    “Once they quit their terrorist path, I will have to do a good deal of swallowing,” he said.
    “I’ll have to do a good deal of biting my lip in future days.”
    Posted by fair_deal on Jul 13, 2006 @ 05:44 PM

    If Mr Paisley had offered these comments at the gathering yesterday, then that would be news worthy.

    FD, by giving us these quotes, allows us to sigh with relief, and not take too seriously the tough words used.

  • fair_deal

    Stephen

    ‘functioning democratic institutions ‘

    The inclusion of terrorist and criminals would mean it isn’t a democratic institution. Also the old system you wish to put back up kept falling apart so reforms/changes are needed to ensure they fully function.

    “Trying to pick which parties can play is actually the antithesis of democracy.”

    1. There is more to democracy that getting a vote.
    2. The automatic right to executive power is exceedingly rare in a democracy.
    3. The RoI’s democracy must be in a terrible state as the parties are falling over themselves to say they won’t include SF in any of their possible coalitions after the next election and they did the same in the last election.

    “democracy implies a respect for the mandate of all elected representatives.”

    All a mandate entitles a party to is elected representatives.

  • Nevin

    Dread, the notion that the loyalist and republican godfathers are going to embrace democracy and forgo criminality might be swallowed by the short plank brigade but let’s hope the members of the IMC have more sense …

    PS My ‘patch’ is pretty clean already!!

  • McGrath

    It is fitting that after the RIP’s passing, Neil Horan should take over leadership of the DUP.

  • Stephen Copeland

    Fair_deal,

    All a mandate entitles a party to is elected representatives.

    Unless the constitution decides otherwise. And it does. SF are constitutionally entitled to play a part in the executive – and the DUP cannot unilaterally remove that right. Unfortunately the ‘constitution’ in this case is a flexible as the British government’s zigzags, so they have tweaked things to ‘suspend’ that part of the constitutional structure.

    In a ‘real’ country the constitution is largely fixed, predictable and above the control of one single political party.

  • Rubicon

    Thanks for the response FD – I can’t say I disagree with your point regarding media commentary. Your 2nd point ascribes to the DUP a sensible learning process. I suspect that lesson has been picked up by parties south of the border too. Your 3rd point though is an expression of the negative (what they won’t do) and a prognosis that a positive will follow. I have my doubts – politics can be cruel when assessing failure even when the party isn’t to blame (re – the SDLP – though I’d insert the word “mostly” as a caveat to their demise).

    Your 4th point is a generality that’s difficult understand. An end to “criminality” – what is “criminality”? How is it measured? What failure exists in the criminal justice system that explains why the DUP are bringing this issue in to the political process? Would the DUP be better off trying to rectify whatever they believe the failures in the justice system?

    Support for policing is (for me) a reasonable requirement and it is fairly easy to understand when this can be viewed to have occurred.

    Disbandment of the IRA – I can’t see this happening and expect it to cause the DUP a lot of problems. Will nationalists be allowed to break devolution because the UVF exists (and is not on ceasefire – much less decommissioned). Perhaps some will believe that loyalists are not linked to the DUP, perhaps it is true.

    So – does it all depend on the word “linked”? Is “linked” an organisational link? Is “linked” by objective OK?

    The instability of the 1st mandate hinged on the non-delivery of PIRA decommissioning and an alleged case of spying that was never proven in court but apparently conducted by a British MI5 informer.

    Since these issues are history – isn’t it the DUP that is now the source of instability?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Nevin: “the notion that the loyalist and republican godfathers are going to embrace democracy and forgo criminality might be swallowed by the short plank brigade but let’s hope the members of the IMC have more sense … ”

    I said “climb-down,” not “clean bill of health.” Compare that to the Loyalism, which like shooting so much that, in the absence of a Taig to terrorize, start in on one another. We have a double bill this summer — a UDA house-cleaning and the annual UVF / LVF steel cage deathmatch. In the meanwhile, PIRA is at least making some progress in the direction of decriminalization — again, defined by the IMC, not me. Maybe they’re just the tallest pygmies in the tribe, but its still progress.

    Nevin: “PS My ‘patch’ is pretty clean already!! ”

    Ah, another one of the “spides will be spides, we can’t do anything about them” brigade…

  • Nevin

    Dread, the evidence given to the NIA Select Committee over recent weeks indicates that the loyalist and republican godfathers are still in business. I’ve pointed out in the past that some bankers, lawyers, accountants and business people are also feeding from the same trough. It’s likely that the republican scams are a little more sophisticated/tightly controlled than the loyalist ones.

    Why the attempted spide diversion? Do Adair and Adams remind you of spides?

    No, I’m one of those folks who believes that the two governments will pay almost any price to appease the loyalist and republican godfathers, leaving ordinary decent folks to go hang.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Nevin: “the evidence given to the NIA Select Committee over recent weeks indicates that the loyalist and republican godfathers are still in business.”

    The IMC hasn’t declared the Republicans out of business, simply in the process of a climb-down. The UDA is apparently mulling over matters, with a minority in favor of decriminalization, whilst the LVF and UVF are cheerfully gearing up for feuding season. The best asnwer you can come up with is that maybe PIRA has a better class of crook?

    As for the “spides will be spides” comment, its a matter of differentiation — following your posts, you give lip-service to the notion that both sides are bad, but your answers are almost always “Republicans first,” as in this thread. Frankly, seeing as we have the potential of a double dose of Loyalist fraticidal violence this summer, I’d like to know when do Unionism’s illegitimate thugs get to give up the gun. Every Unionist I put this sort of question to — when does Loyalism have to start progressing to a “normal” culture — I get this mush-mouthed, hand-wringing whinging that it just can’t be done. Want to regulate bonfires, if only to limit sectarian expressions and damage to estates? Can’t do it — the spides will object. Want sectarian flags and murals taken down — gotta ask the spides before you do anything. Want the city fathers to act like they’re worth the trouble of electing? Not unless the thugs let them. A body might as well vote PUP — at least then the city-fathers will know what the spides want, rather than having to ask over every little issue.

    Adair is a thug. Adams like to pretend he never was a thug and probably rates “ex-thug” and then only probably.

  • Nevin

    Dread, the, er, thread does refer to the Sinner parapoliticians in the title and I indicated how they might call Papa Doc’s bluff. However, in my use of the AAShole label I’ve always AFAIK placed Adair first and Adams second. Perhaps I ought to make the occasional switch 😉

    It would be nice if Bush had the same leverage over the likes of Adair that he has over the likes of Adams. Sadly, he’s likely to go along with much of the appeasement on offer from Blair and Ahern.

    I’ve not yet checked out who’s paying for the nice new flags in Bushmills (mostly Northern Irish and Scottish) and what conditions were applied but they’ve been joined by a bright new UFF one. I’ve also not found out whether or not the Hungerstrike Commemoration poster was (temporarily) removed from the vicinity of the Orange Hall in Ballycastle yesterday.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Nevin, mealy-mouthed comments and half-witty acronyms are not what are going to solve the problem. Unionism under DUP lacks spine, save where SF is concerned. The want to lead, they just don’t want to make any hard decisions or take any political risks. One start to wonder whether they like the annual spectacles of armed Loyalist thugs killing one another whilst they wash their hands in the fashion of Pontius Pilate, disowning their ideological bastard children in the process, whilst all the while trying not to offend them.

    The old reverand can go out and throw some red-meat and you can meander on about “parapoliticians” all you want. That’s not going to keep your fellow travellers from shooting one another.

    As for American involvement, would you rather we turn the mess over to the UN? Bush has no pull with Adair because Bush has notion Adair wants. Adair was a pimp and a drug-pusher and hood who occasionally claimed a political position, if killing non-combatants to maintain the political status quo can be called a political position. Adams at least wants his annual invite to the St. Patrick’s Day gala to keep him on his best behavior. Beyond that, the US is there to facilitate, not micromanage. If Engalnd and Ireland want to embrace these goombahs, who is the USA to get in the way? Its not a solution most folks would reccommend, but if it works for the folks you elect, who are they to comment?

  • Billy

    Fair Deal

    I’m not comparing the DUP position to the UUP. I agree that the DUP negotiating position will be much harder than that of the UUP.

    However, it is just a negotiating position. Paisley’s 12th speech is just so much empty rhetoric. Study of Paisley’s career/history shows that he has to be the top dog – forming his own church, party – the Independent OO etc.

    His influence, however, is rapidly waning. It is well known that Paisley junior is not highly regarded by Peter R, Nigel D, and Jeffrey – (when you hear him speak this is hardly surprising). There was a considerable effort to get him to run for the European seat (and keep him out of the way). However, he (with his father’s backing) wants to be the next North Antrim MP.

    Both Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds are intelligent men. I have no doubt that, whichever of them replaces Paisley senior, they will move Paisley junior to a lower position (out of the
    Public eye) – where he will be less of an embarrassment.

    In the past anyone who incurred the wrath of Paisley senior within the DUP or FP Church (or both) has suffered i.e. Jim Allister – a rising star in the early 80’s – then he upset Paisley (within the FP church according to my information) and was the almost unheard of for well over 10 years until he had “redeemed himself”.

    I am not claiming that there will be a total or dramatic split within the DUP but it is clear that there will be a power struggle.

    Both Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds want the leadership and they do represent different attitudes within the party. I believe that, over time, the more pragmatic members will negotiate (rather than see de-facto joint authority). This will inevitably cause conflict with the real anti-Catholic element – Allister, McCrea, and the Bible belt fundamentalists.

  • lib2016

    “Both Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds …do represent different attitudes within the party.”

    Neither of them represent anything that can have a cross-community appeal. Small leftist parties have this absurd habit of overestimating the importance of doctrinal differences so unfortunately it’s something I know a little about. 😉

    We already have as close to joint authority as we are ever likely to get and somebody has to retain ultimate authority to act until NI proves capable of governing itself.

    What will happen gradually is that power will gradually be handed over from London to Dublin as the demographics continue to change.

    The DUP don’t want to deal, probably because they realise that it would split their support?

    Fine – On with the Good Friday Agreement and let them play catch up!