Paisley: a proper deal will lead to stablity…

At a reception given by the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland in Bournemouth last night, Ian Paisley, when asked by Slugger why his party was determined to hold to its conditions on re-entry into Stormont, even after Hain’s deadline of 24th November:

“If they don’t accept democratic norms before they get into government, they will never accept them afterwards”.

  • tKMaxx

    Mick
    A deal on the 24th or not? I suggest not. The DUP is posturing as not to get the blame. Many of their boxes are being ticked to make it easy for them to move. The meeting the Catholic Archbishop is a PR stunt -well timed. Its purpose is to reassure middle class church going catholics that the DUP dont mind sharing power with good catholic citzens. It was supposed to occur months ago but did not. Its good PR. You will find the 24th will be a gentle let down – no agreement but a plan for what used to be called rolling devolution which will be sealed with an election,

  • Skintown lad

    i don’t like Paisley but I can’t find anything here with which to disagree. You can’t have people trying to board the democracy bus who simply don’t fit in the door.

  • Mick Fealty

    Just commented on it elsewhere on Slugger… where I suggest whatever the strategic motive (and anyone would foolish to doubt that is a strategic), it has further potential to decommission some nasty and residual anti-Catholic mindsets out in the Loyalist constituency…

  • circles

    Skintown – who is allegedly not suitable to get on this bus, who sets the criteria to get on and who appointed The Veto / Say No Party to be the conductors? Since when are the DUP our local guardians of democracy?
    This whole idea of the “permanence” of the IRA ceasefire is the same DUP wheeze we’ve had for years. Do they want to hear the P word from P. O’Neil, Gerry A, someone in a balaclava…., or rather wait for evidence? How long would they like to wait before they can be sure that something is permanent?

  • POL

    This is not about getting a more durable solution this is paisley doing what paisley does best,nothing.Paisley is and always has been a bigot theres no changing that no matter what political slant you put on it. In fact the only reason he`s meeting Brady is to protray himself as a reasonable man and to attempt a semblence of the political.Brady doesnt speak for irish Nationalism never mind Republicanism.So whether he meets him or not it`ll still be the same Doc at the end of the day, unapologetically sectarian in mindset and as a result just not up for a deal.

  • Butterknife

    POL due to censureship i did not understand the word bigot. Did you mean instead to use any of the following words instead?

    bug, crank, diehard, doctrinaire, dogmatist, enthusiast, extremist, fanatic, fideist, fiend, flag-waver, freak, jingoist, maniac, monomaniac, mule, no-neck, nut, opinionated person, partisan, persecutor, pig, puritan, racist, red-neck, relisher, sectarian, segregationist, sexist person, stickler, superpatriot, zealot

  • Yokel

    Face it lads, Paisley’s mob are having a great time at the moment. Who’d have thought it….

  • Skintown lad

    “Skintown – who is allegedly not suitable to get on this bus, who sets the criteria to get on and who appointed The Veto / Say No Party to be the conductors? Since when are the DUP our local guardians of democracy?
    This whole idea of the “permanence” of the IRA ceasefire is the same DUP wheeze we’ve had for years. Do they want to hear the P word from P. O’Neil, Gerry A, someone in a balaclava…., or rather wait for evidence? How long would they like to wait before they can be sure that something is permanent?”

    1. Are you seriously saying that having illegally and violently gained funds, refusing to support the police and having in the wings a mafia-type organisation which intimidates the electorate is consistent with the principles of democracy? I think the criteria for democracy are fairly well known the world over and not just set by the DUP. We just want to get with being like a normal country. Normal countries aren’t ruled by these sorts of organisations.

    2. Who said anything about a ceasefire? That can surely only be the first step towards a submission to democracy. Just because you take the first step, it doesn’t mean we can ignore the rest.

  • Skintown lad

    Is it very obvious that people on here have chosen not to engage with what Paisley is actually saying. Instead they have relied on being able to fire off a few easy shots about his admittedly dogged and sectarian character. But again, that does not defeat his argument.

  • circles

    Skintown –
    1)I can only assume that you are unaware of the latest IMC report on the IRA and prefer to bang out the usual “godfather of whatever”. Fingers in ears time and keep repeating it – maybe the truth will disappear. Now the DUP are less than squeaky DUP themselves having contacts to mafia-type, sectarian organisations. And as for normal countries – normal countries do not generally have a quasi-religious anti-catholic leader as the head of their biggest regional political party – in case you haven’t noticed, we haven’t been living in a normal country.

    2)I’ll ask you then – how will the DUP define the “permanence” of Sinn Fein’s peaceful intentions? Is it alright for them to pur off indefinitely any kind of movement while they wait for forever?

  • circles

    What argument would that be Skin?
    That No is always a good answer?
    That catholics are loveable dupes and the pope is the whre of Babylon?
    That he’s a good loyal fella and only those dastardly rebellious republicans can’t be trusted?
    That there is today a need for no compromise and the ultmate bllod sacrifice for Ulster (as h reminded us all this summer)?

  • Skintown lad

    Ah yes Circles. More cheap shots, still no real engagement with what he is saying.

    Let’s make this simple. Let’s say for instance that Paisley got up one morning and got out of the right side of the bed. He went to Stormont and announced that he had said some things in the past that were out of line, sectarian, hate-filled even. He said that in the past he had even had some association with people he shouldn’t have had, even though he condemned their violent acts. Let’s say for instance that he announced that he wanted to wipe the slate clean, to govern Northern Ireland properly, and to govern it with everybody who was properly elected. Let’s say for instance that he wanted to govern Northern Ireland without his slightly dodgy associations of the past. He announced that his associations of the past were wrong, that he had for many years been following a squeaky clean and completely above board political career. Let’s say he announced that he was confident that in the future his party would remain squeaky clean, would not have any association whatsoever with organised crime and that he would assist the police in rooting out these elements of our society.

    The only thing he requests in return is that all other parties do the same.

    Now, do you find that reasonable?

  • circles

    Most certainly. Not only that, I would not even ask the Good Doctor to provide proof that his change of heart was permanent nor to pull on his sack cloth and ashes. I’d grasp the opportunity with both hands.
    The thing is Skin that he has not done this. Indeed his party seems to be on red alert to find anyway to counter this latest peace offensive of the IRA, and be able to say no to entering government with SF. They search for conditions rather than compromises. I think you’d agree that those reasons are disappearing and the DUP manouvering is becoming increasingly desperate. I won’t be long until the Shinners get behind policing too and the question facing the DUP must already be what smoke screen can they throwup next.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Skintown lad: “Ah yes Circles. More cheap shots, still no real engagement with what he is saying. ”

    **Fantasy / Whataboutery Cut**

    Ah, yes, skintown lad — more sophistry, no real acknowledgement with what he actually does.

    Y’see, what a body says isn’t nearly as important as what they actually do. Who cares if a politician says all the right things if they never follow-through?

  • Skintown lad

    So, Circles, the only thing that is holding up this whole process up is Paisley not owning up to rubbing shoulders with a few loyalists once, even though he has condemned the violence and made his position clear as to the future? Not the whole Sinn Fein refusing to support the police etc thing?

    Right.

  • POL

    POL due to censureship i did not understand the word #####. Did you mean instead to use any of the following words instead?

    B1got.

  • Greenflag

    DC,

    ‘Who cares if a politician says all the right things if they never follow-through? ‘

    Who cares ? Obviously the people of Northern Ireland care enough to re-elect the same politicans and politcal parties that have been delivering no results for the past 30 years or more !

    ‘Never mind what I do watch what I say ‘ would seem to be an appropriate motto for NI’s political parties and by the way for some of the Dail’s opposition parties based on yesterday’s flagellatory indulgence .

  • Skintown lad

    For the avoidance of doubt, my position is that I hate the fecker, but I believe Paisley wants to govern Northern Ireland, and that he would be prepared to supress his obviously puritanical streak in order to do so alongside his understandably distrusted fellow MLAs in Sinn Fein. But he is not able to supress that side of him without the flip side, the assurance that Northern Ireland is going to be properly governed by organisations who are fully accountable through every aspect of their make up and have a respect for the most fundamental thing of all, the rule of law. These are huge stumbling blocks for him and rightly so. His bluster is one thing, but underneath it lies fairly important and internationally recognised principles. You can denounce that as looking for excuses if you wish, but I think he has a point.

  • POL

    Methinks theres gonna be another political scandal making an appearance due to the dupers being on the ropes.Anyone wanna guess what it`ll be this time.

    Sinn Fein member never paid electric bill,

    or,

    Senior republican passes wind, the ceasefire has been breached.

  • Greenflag

    Butterknife,

    Thanks for the abbreviated list :). I guess the comprehensive list would have exceeded the post limit ?

  • Greenflag

    Skintown lad ,

    Now, do you find that reasonable?

    Sorry Skintown – It may look reasonable on paper and even spoken by some people but in the case of Paisley it does not sound credible .

    About as credible as the apology of that televangelist Swaggart that Smilin Jim Barbary coast posted on another thread .

  • Skintown lad

    The trouble is that republicans see this whole thing as “who has moved most”. Unionists look at it within the context of ordinary democratic principles and say “who had the furtherest to move?” and “who is still lagging behind?”. For unionists, the answer is still, not surpriingly perhaps, republicans. And I don’t see how any international impartial observer with democratic principles in mind could, while of course acknowledging that republicans have moved most, fail to determine that they both had the longest way to go and are still lagging behind.

  • Skintown lad

    Skintown lad ,

    Now, do you find that reasonable?

    Sorry Skintown – It may look reasonable on paper and even spoken by some people but in the case of Paisley it does not sound credible .

    _____________________________________

    my point was to illustrate that it is not Paisley’s high horse manner that is holding the process up, rather it is a refusal by republicans to come up to scratch on the old ‘fit for Government’ poser

  • Dread Cthulhu

    skintown lad: “Unionists look at it within the context of ordinary democratic principles and say “who had the furtherest to move?” and “who is still lagging behind?”. ”

    That would be Unionism’s useful stooge / little brother, Loyalism. Y’know, the folks demanding millions of pounds and years worth of safe harbor to milk their criminal empire for the last penny before ending their organized criminality and making an effort to act like law-abiding citizens.

    skintown lad: “And I don’t see how any international impartial observer with democratic principles in mind could, while of course acknowledging that republicans have moved most, fail to determine that they both had the longest way to go and are still lagging behind. ”

    Looking that violence statistics and the IMC report, the pro-Union violence and criminality far outweighs the Republican activity. Drug dealing, exiling, etc., are still the activiity of the day.

  • Skintown lad

    Sorry, I’m not sure I get your point. Those loyalist organisations to which you refer have their own political representation which get only miniscule support. If I was using those comparatives, I would be complaining about how far dissident republicanism has to travel (even further), not mainstream republicanism. The support base is about the same.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Skintown Lad: “Those loyalist organisations to which you refer have their own political representation which get only miniscule support. If I was using those comparatives, I would be complaining about how far dissident republicanism has to travel (even further), not mainstream republicanism. The support base is about the same.”

    Are you suggesting that there is no connection or contacts between the Loyalist organizations and the outwardly respectable Unionist parties? You seek to make a distinction of style over substance. The reason that the Loyalist’s political wings are underdeveloped is that they had no need for them — they were “defending” the status quo. Unionist parties handled the politics, whilst the Loyalists handled the violence.

    Your ramblings are too cute by half, skintown lad. Unionism has shared the podium with its share of paramilitaries, so this mock moral disgust over SF / PIRA is and always has been a bit of mummery.

  • Skintown lad

    OK Dread, if I accept what you are saying for the moment, let’s consider what to do about it, to take the process forward:

    1. Make Unionists declare a commitment to peace
    2. Make Unionists declare a commitment to exclusively democratic means
    3. Make Unionists condemn paramilitary violence both existing and past
    4. Make Unionists support the police in their fight against criminals whether organised or not, and whether loyalist or republican

    Oh hang on, it doesn’t appear we have much to do. Is there anyone else we can persuade to do the same?

  • nmc

    Skintown Lad,

    There are many issues to address on your posts, let me start with policing. It is very easy to talk about the rule of law, and how Sinn Fein don’t endorse the police, but ask yourself why. Perhaps because of the collusion with Loyalist death squads, perhaps because of the ingrained sectarianism in the overwhelmingly protestant force. Some people on this site seem to think that the police should be allowed to murder without any reaction from the people (victims) who have to put up with them. I do not, it is the moral duty of the people to stand up against what they see as wrong. So Paisley can complain about SF not signing up to policing, that does not mean he is in the right.

    As for SF having the farthest to go, where is the evidence for this? The latest IMC report says that the SF and the RA are committed to peace and democracy. The only thing that is outstanding is the Police issue which you refer to, and they are attempting to deal with this, what more do you want? Your reference to a “mafia” type organisation is therefore bollocks, as they don’t exist anymore, but don’t let that put you, or Big Ian off bitching about it.

    Oh, and incidentally,

    rather it is a refusal by republicans to come up to scratch on the old ‘fit for Government’ poser

    that is one of the more offensive posts by someone who is trying to come across as a reasonable person. Again who decides who is fit for government and who is not? Big Ian of incitement to violence, urging people to burn the houses on the Lwr Falls fame? The same man who has numerous associates in Loyalist paramilitary organisations? Wise up.

    Your blanket statement “a refusal by republicans to come up to scratch on the old ‘fit for government’ poser” paints you as sectarian as the doc, no wonder you agree with him. Incidentally, to save confusion, not all Republicans are in SF, some of us unwashed types might actually meet your “fit for government” criteria.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    As stated elsewhere, skintown lad, talk is cheap. Look at what a body does for what is important.

    Unionism talks a wonderful game, but deny them a triumphalistic march through a Catholic neighborhood or organize a Republican march, and the old double-standard comes crashing back, despite all their pretty lip-service to democracy. Unionism cherishes the right to offend catholics, but is unwilling to accept that it is a two way street — the right to offend is the right to shut up and be offended as well.

    If Unionism cannot handle simple things like freedom of speech, why should they be taken seriously on serious and complex matters??

  • Skintown lad

    i’m not sure anyone would find the ‘fit for government’ question offensive in the context of the history of Northern Ireland, less still am i sure anyone could infer i was sectarian from my mention of it. if you knew my religious persuasion you would not make that assumption either. on that basis i’m afraid our approach to the question of how to take the process forward differs so substantially i cannot begin to argue with you, save that i will acknowledge republican concerns about the police, and suggest that an organisation committed to democracy seeks to change a tool of the constitution from within, not by attacking it from without.

  • nmc

    refusal by republicans to come up to scratch on the old ‘fit for Government’

    Allow me to spell it out, quickly, as I’m off home now. A number of politicians in Northern Ireland who are not in SF and are Republicans, say for example a Republican SDLP man, are perfectly entitled to be in politics, even by the DUP’s (double) standards. Your statement refers to Republicans not coming up to scratch, fit for govnment, etc. This is a blanket statement talking about Republicans in general. It is sectarian to suggest that all Republicans are unfit for govnment. Ciao.

  • Skintown lad

    I was using labels normally used in any discussion about NI politics. Those labels may be incorrect as you see them but that does not make me sectarian. I am happy to confirm that the SDLP are not as unfit for Government as Sinn Fein, if that makes you feel any better, but again I do not see how the expression of a purely political, non-religious, belief makes me sectarian. It is this sort of blind firing off of meaningless shots which clouds the real issue. It is very neat that you have ended the thread in this way, thus illustrating my earlier point that there is an unwillingness to deal with the question of who is actually holding the process up, and a tendency rather to resort to character assasination, in the first instance that of Paisley and in the second, mine.

    (I acknowledge that you are not here to respond so do not infer anything from your silence)

  • aquifer

    What Paisley said was an important point. Whether that means we will have power sharing before his corpse stiffens is another matter.

    It attacks everyone’s civil rights if one political contituency has a democratic plan A but operates subversive plan B and retains violent plan C.

    If we allow, say, irish separatists to do this we invite all sorts of jihadists, stalinists, feminists, animal rights advocates, and assorted ethnic cleansers to do the same.

  • Skintown lad

    Strange that only 1 person in 33 posts agreed with me that it would help to understand what Paisley is actually saying. You could be forgiven for forgetting, on this evidence, that more people in Northern Ireland agree with him than they agree with any other party’s line. Or perhaps it is this lack of understanding/willingness to listen from republicans that drives unionist voters to support a person they would normally have nothing to do with.

  • kensei

    “It attacks everyone’s civil rights if one political contituency has a democratic plan A but operates subversive plan B and retains violent plan C.”

    No, it really doesn’t. Plans B and C are predicated on everyone else suddenly changing because of them. They won’t, and Plan A is the only game in town.

    And once again, this isn’t how democracy works. People gett he representation they voted for. A quarter of the population voted SF, they need dealt with regardless of mythical plans B or C.

    “If we allow, say, irish separatists to do this we invite all sorts of jihadists, stalinists, feminists, animal rights advocates, and assorted ethnic cleansers to do the same.”

    No, that’s nonsense. Neat, though, putting “irish separatists” (separate?), that are over 40% of the population here with minority groups that would break 1%. Who, you’ll also note, have no political representation at all.

    The more I read here the more I realise Unionists either don’t understanfd democracy, or just plain hate it.

  • Greenflag

    ‘Strange that only 1 person in 33 posts agreed with me that it would help to understand what Paisley is actually saying. ‘

    Help what exactly ? People have been listening to Paisley for 30 to 40 years . Irish people are under absolutely no misundertanding of what Paisley is , and what he stands for .

    One word -Paisley !

    Paisley’s attempt to cloak himself at this late stage under a cloak of reason and democracy just won’t wash .

    The white washed crow soon shows black again !