“Northern Ireland must work to a solution that will work”

It’s not entirely clear just how good-natured those exchanges noted earlier were between Ian Paisley and Peter Hain, with one report describing Hain as grim-faced, but other reports fill in some of the detail of what was said.. and the BBC’s Mark Devenport adds a tangential note on the breakfast’s sponsor – Belfast Chinese restaurateur, Man Lee House [mischeivous by Mr Devenport, that should be the “Foo Kin Noodle Bar” – Ed]
Just to add, what most of the reports pick up on is the DUP leader’s reference to calling for an immediate election should any deal be reached.. something for the UUP to ponder over..

And the Guardian report has several quotes from both Peter Hain’s speech and Ian Paisley’s including the one I’ve used in the post’s title

Speaking to a breakfast audience at a fringe meeting, Dr Paisley said he was not prepared to “take the godfathers of violence into government. There cannot be two police forces, two laws or double standards.”

He said Sinn Féin’s “£200m organised crime empire” must be demolished. “Sinn Féin must cross the river of no return,” he said.

An Independent Monitoring Committee report is expected in the next fortnight declaring that Sinn Féin has ended its paramilitary activity.

He also said he did not merely want a Sinn Féin statement promising to cooperate on police issues, but evidence on the ground that cooperation was occurring.

Suggesting the November 24 deadline might have been set to give Tony Blair a legacy, Dr Paisley added: “Northern Ireland must work to a solution that will work, rather than to a deadline that is both unrealistic and is only designed to square with other domestic requirements.

“Ulster people have demonstrated over and over again they will not be bullied, and if they are bullied, they will become more and more obstinate. No Ulsterman responds to threats.”

He added he was unconcerned if there was no agreement by November 24, saying he would sleep perfectly well if he was excluded from Downing Street, as he had in the past.

, , ,

  • jim

    “No Ulsterman responds to threats” as in Ulster Loyal Prod I take it as he doesn’t talk for me. Well he can certainly make threats.

  • Greenflag

    ‘“Ulster people have demonstrated over and over again they will not be bullied, and if they are bullied, they will become more and more obstinate.’

    Paisley does not speak for Ulster . He represents just over half the Protestant people of Northern Ireland not Ulster and that amounts to approx 30% of the voters of Northern Ireland not Ulster .

    In all of Ulster’s nine counties Paisley would represent maybe 20% of the electorate .

    Presumably Paisley is here also referring to the Irish people of Ulster not just those in Northern ireland . Does Paisley acknowledge that the Irish people are the majority in Ulster?
    Does he acknowledge that the Irish people in Northern Ireland were bullied by HMG into accepting Partition and that they were bullied by a succession of Unionist governments into remaining part of the UK ?

    Otherwise those of us who know better might conclude that Paisley’s ‘people of Ulster’ refers only to those who vote only for the Party of God -Paisley’s God !

    ‘No Ulsterman responds to threats’

    So Paisley was’nt expecting any response that time he marched his devout supporters up a mountain at 2.00 a.m ?

    What a pity a passing flying saucer did’nt take the barking Ayatollah of Ballymena away to the Andromeda Galaxy or somewhere further afield 🙁

    “Northern Ireland must work to a solution that will work, says Paisley .

    This is a perfect expalnation of why Paisley has been saying NO and other variations on the simple negative for his entire political career .

    He knows that a 6 county Northern Ireland cannot be made to work .

  • tomyammomn

    “Northern Ireland must work to a solution that will work, rather than to a deadline that is both unrealistic and is only designed to square with other domestic requirements”

    Then why did he exclude himself from the solutioning when the GFA was in negotiation.

  • Yokel

    Greenflag you know what Paisley means by Ulsterman, jesus you are pathetic as him using semantics like that.

    We have problems in this country, your pronouncements are about as wasted as his. The differnce is he has a bit of power & influence and you have precisely…none

  • Greenflag

    tomyammom ,

    ‘Then why did he exclude himself from the solutioning when the GFA was in negotiation.’

    He knows that a 6 county Northern Ireland cannot be made to work .

    And also he’d have had to talk directly to Catholic /Republican /Fenian politicians like Adams or McGuiness . And God told him not to . But God was careless and did’nt say the same to Tony Blair , or Bert Ahern or Bill Clinton or Mitchell etc etc . Very slipshod of God now that I think of it !

  • Greenflag

    Yokel,

    ‘We have problems in this country’

    Of this I am aware Your comment has touched my heart . Never before have I come across people with more troubles than the people of Northern Ireland . Please accept this reply as a token of my deepest sympathy . Now go away (notice I did’nt say #### off) and annoy someone else .

    ‘The difference is he has a bit of power & influence and you have precisely…none ‘

    I know so what ? Everyone is entitled to my opinion now that we have the web 🙂 I don’t care for Paisley’s opinion . And I don’t have any problem sleeping either .

    Here’s a suggestion Yokel – If Paisley agrees to shut up and stop making stupid inaccurate remarks I’ll stop posting . Now that’s fair isn’t it ?

  • pacman

    Influence – yes. Power? What power?

  • A Chinese sponsor?
    Fookin Hell!

  • Reader

    Greenflag: If Paisley agrees to shut up and stop making stupid inaccurate remarks
    Are you actually disagreeing with the statement “Ulster people have demonstrated over and over again they will not be bullied, and if they are bullied, they will become more and more obstinate.” or are you not disagreeing? Isn’t it the case that you agree with the statement as such, while disagreeing with what you read in his mind?