Donaldson following Paisley, following David Trimble…

That’s the proposition put by Hanson, the blogger at What need of further lies…

,

  • Jeffrey morphs into Lord Vichy before our very eyes!

    Listen, the DUP are salivating at the prospect of sharing power with those who they know to be the godfathers of terror. That makes them even worse than Trimble, whose arrogance blinded him to those realities. Trimble imagined he could outmaneouvre IRA/Sinn Fein, Paisley reckons he can outmaneouvre the unionist electorate with this ludicrous SAA. Little wonder there is dissent in the wind….

  • Observer

    Couldn’t agree more with Mr Vance!

  • Token Dissent

    It is a cheap shot for David Vance to argue that it was “arrogance” that solely directed Trimble’s agenda. People like Vance may like to stick to sniping from sidelines, claiming that they solely are arguing from a moral position, but frankly it is both a weak argument and one which will result in decay and defeat for unionism.

    Where are people like Vance when issues like collusion and loyalist terror are discussed? Issues that dent their vision of unionist history as a bastion of truth, law and order are simply ignored by Vance and virtually all of unionism.

    Trimble faced up to both political realities, and the moral responsibly of unionism to change. It’s just a shame that the current leaders of unionism are so painfully incompetent, and such slow learners.

  • Balloo

    Looks like the DUP have wheeled out wee Jeffrey to try and soothe and confuse the Shinners. Jeffrey once stood on the moral highground lauding it over Trimble, now he has sold his soul.

    As David Vance says the dups are going for it, while trying to blind the unionist electorate from the realities with deceit.

  • Percival

    Oh please Mr. Vance. Dissent in the wind? How many people turned up to Bob’s meeting in Carleton Street? What was it 75? This in the “hot-bed” of opposition. How many did he muster for Ballymena? My figures are 30.

    Sorry David, but the St. A A is a vast improvement on that which has went before. Save your Likud-style accusations of sell-out for Andrew McCann, he’s the only one likely to swallow it.

  • Token Dissent

    Pericival appears to be living in a not too dis-similar dream world to Mr Vance. The SAA a – “vast improvement on that which went before”! It is a weaker agreement, but one based upon the same fundamentals as the GFA. But I guess it’s ok to lie to yourself, if it allows you to face up to change.

  • Observer

    Trimble gave too much and too early.

    He brought Sinn Fein to the centre of the political process, mainly by his ‘No guns, no government’ stance which looked hardlined but which was to backfire on him – and he should have seen that after signing the deal he signed.

    I would argue that he believed he could conquer Irish Republicanism, for example, Sinn Fein/IRA accepting Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and the removal of Articles 2 & 3 of the Republics constitution. These where good achievements; however he did not take into consideration Sinn Fein’s ability to rock and ruin the process by playing short with their words and armourary and indeed position in relation to policing and justice.

    Whilst Timble was ‘kicked’ around by Sinn Fein with regards to decommissioning etc he was naive to think that he could pull the Unionist electorate with him.

    He was a factor in his defeat.

    He should be admired for his intelligence and political wisdom – however he made mistakes – he gave away too much in side deals and I think by him doing this it reflected his frustration – ‘Lets get on with it’. However such an attitude did not work in the interests of Unionism.

    I think the majority of the Unionist electorate would have moved with him if he hadn’t displayed that arrogance and been so naive. This played into the DUP’s hands.

    People only voted DUP because of what they offered – not because they trusted them. People always believe what they like to hear.

    The clock can’t be turned back however and I would say that Unionism will be a factor of its own defeat if its electorate does not get with reality and stand up to IRA/Sinn Fein instead of running away from them.

    Sinn Fein should accept the police and rule of law, then Unionism should consider doing business with them.

    Token Dissent you say:

    “Trimble faced up to both political realities, and the moral responsibly of unionism to change. It’s just a shame that the current leaders of unionism are so painfully incompetent, and such slow learners.”

    I don’t know where your political allegiances lie, nor does it matter; but Trimble should have got with reality and worked with the times instead of worrying that much about the future. In short he moved too fast for Unionism.

    All the DUP need to do now without an opposition is wave the Union flag and hold Unionism to ransom over this biggest party-First Minister thing (now that is in the interests of Unionism – NOT!).

  • Observer

    “Pericival appears to be living in a not too dis-similar dream world to Mr Vance. The SAA a – “vast improvement on that which went before”! It is a weaker agreement, but one based upon the same fundamentals as the GFA. But I guess it’s ok to lie to yourself, if it allows you to face up to change.

    Posted by Token Dissent on Jan 08, 2007 @ 04:23 PM”

    Token Dissent is right here.

    The DUPs deal – the St. A.A. – is a fairly similar deal to use Newton Emersons popular Portadown News phrase.

    Sinn Fein have made gains out of it too, otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to it.

    Its a case of smoke and mirrors.

    The fundamentals of the Belfast Agreement still exist – powersharing with reconstructed terrorists. No Unionist veto – this time as removed by St. A.A’s.

    The Government and DUPs game to sell this as something new is complete hyprocracy!

    What on earth have the last 8 years been about!?

  • PeterBrown

    No-one is more surprised at the willingness of our former colleagues in the UUP to apparently sign up to the GFA / Comprehensive Agreement with a cherry on top (SAA) than those of who worked alongside them in the UUP to prevent exactly that…as one shrewd observer out it whenever the DUP nominated Ministers “The only true Anti Agreement unionists are the dissidents in the UUP”

  • “What on earth have the last 8 years been about!?”
    The political ambition of the Disappointing Unionist Party.

  • Duncan Shipley Dalton

    Peter, sorry to see the scales fall away as you realise all the DUP ever wanted was to succeed the UUP not bring down the GFA. Its a shame so many decent UUP members were hoodwinked into helping them do it. The DUP had myriad opportunities to bring down the GFA but never grasped them. The only big question now is whether they do the deal for March or if we have to break another (unmovable) deadline and wait until the fall.

    Hanson ‘dissapointing’ means that you had some hope they would deliver something. Its a sad reflection on unionisms inner fear and instability that they ever grew beyond a party of one. To have any excpectations seems to me to be pure folly.(Unless of course you are a family member of the senior leadership!)

  • Well Done David!!

    The first Vichy in months

    (tho perhaps I’ve been inattentive as the snooze coefficient of politics amongst the dreary steeples has increased several dB in recent months)

    Good News, The Lion of Donacloney Is Back!!!

  • PeterBrown

    Sorry Duncan I never had scales on my eyes that’s why I fought the UUP position from within and didn’t immediately leave and join the DUP and even after the Ervine (I’ll not comment on his legacy if you can’t say anything good say nothing but sympathies to his family) debacle forced me to resign I didn’t join the DUP. Most of the UUP dissidents, as I think I alluded to in my previous post, felt this development was inevitable from the moment they nominated Ministers in opposition.
    In that sense at least I and an increasingly limited number of others have been consistent in our position unlike those in the DUP and lets face it Duncan even within the UUP who changed their minds when the levers of power came within reach…..
    In my experience no-one in the UUP was trying to help tthe DUP to bring down the Agreement we were too busy trying to prevent the UUP committing political suicide. Unfortunately others in the UUP were intent on following the GFA through to the inevitable conclusion. When the obituary of the UUP is written it will not be the opponents of the Agreement who will have blood on their hands it appears to have been a bizarre suicde pact involving the 1998 Assembly Party – is that an extraditable offence DSD?
    You would think that the DUP would learn but it appears that only some of them have…..

  • darth rumsfeld

    As I’ve said elsewhere, Donaldson is being consistent. He wants a different Agreement, not the GFA, and he’s pushing for it. He is, and always was, in favour of powersharing with an Irish dimension. He’s now hitched his wagon to a group within the DUP who are clearly better negotiators than the UUP.

    I completely accept that the DUP as a party has moved from its walkout in 1997 and DV and DSD are entitled to highlight that volte face. I also accept that the DUP may yet succeed in the key goal of leaving SF holding the baby of blame, as Trimble so spectacularly failed to do by caving in on 10/04/98. I’m just not holding my breath.

    PeterBrown is quite right too in stating that the anti-Agreement faction in the old UUP was always much more sound than the DUP on the aim of keeping SF out of power and not paying the Danegeld. Some of us happen to remain of that view, and we backed JD as the means to advance that end.

    Given that Jeffrey was the only person to whom the UUP was ever going to be able to pass the torch of centre ground Unionism for the next generation, to push him out was suicidal, and Reg is reaping the rewards of that folly. But still people like DSD don’t see that basic political fact. Blair has finally realised that Brown will undo his legacy, but Trimble never could make that leap re:JD. Contempt for one’s annointed successor has done for them both.

    BTW most Unionists-even the Great Bob- have shifted their position on the core issues. In the early 1980s Bob was a powersharing devolutionist, then an integrationist and now is the standardbearer of the perfectly reasonable and valid political belief that certain parties are not fit for government.It’s no crime to change one’s views, but it is deplorable to present the demonstrable and total lack of strategy, tactics and principle of Trimbleism as somehow the highwatermark of Unionist political thought.