Paisley: “I’m not in favour of Powersharing…”, but….

Interesting line from Ian Paisley (at the rather jolly launch of his party’s manifesto), who was clearly nodding to some of his critics arguments on the dysfunctionalism of an inclusive Executive. Noel McAdam reports:

“I am not in favour of power-sharing” he dsaid. As the party launched its election manifesto yesterday, the DUP leader said he hoped a promised review would bring Stormont back “to a proper democracy”. Mr Paisley said the problem was that the Government was insisting the current system at Stormont must remain. Any review will come after a power- sharing Executive, which includes Sinn Fein, is formed.

Interestingly, it also, kind of shifts the focus of the blame onto London. Something that was anticipated by David Trimble in the Lords (last paragraph of his contribution) the other night (after he name checked Slugger):

There is a strand of thinking among those in the DUP that they would be happy to operate something if it was imposed upon them rather than having to vote for it. I remember DUP members who said of the Belfast agreement that we should never have agreed to it. It would have been all right if it had been imposed on us, then we could have worked it, but somehow it was wrong for us to agree to it. I suspect that the same thing is happening again and what we are seeing is the beginning of a little ritual dance that will result in that.

But I fear that the people of Northern Ireland will not be content with it. In fact, I have grave reservations about whether the people of Northern Ireland are ready for the devolution of policing and justice powers. Certainly their temper in recent times would indicate that they are not. I doubt very much whether things will change so dramatically in just over a year, but that is a matter we can pursue later.

, ,

  • Greenflag

    ‘ the DUP leader said he hoped a promised review would bring Stormont back “to a proper democracy”.’

    Stormont was never a proper ‘democracy’ . It was a one party sectarian carve up from the day it was established in 1920. Paisley is hallucinating if he believes that such a Stormont will ever be returned to the 6 county NI State, review or no review . The Irish people of Northern Ireland will never accept it ! neither will HMG or any Irish Government!

    Paisley could of course ‘restore’ what he terms ‘proper democracy ‘in a smaller 2 county sized Unionist State following a fair and agreed repartition by a neutral interational agency of the territory of Northern Ireland .

    Paisley as expected is already loosening the third wheel on his wagon before the DUP coach even rolls into town.

    ‘There is a strand of thinking among those in the DUP that they would be happy to operate something if it was imposed upon them rather than having to vote for it.’

    What a gutless bunch of janus faced hypocrites ! So this is what DUPism /Paisleyism is made of ? They want the power but not the responsibility that goes with being seen to vote for it ! So much for ‘accountability ‘ then !

    Why would any unionist vote DUP? Fear of SF and a UI can be the only reason

  • Nevin

    The trinitarian DUP: yesterday’s men say YES, NO and MAYBE

  • Papist lovin’ Romanist

    Stormont was never a proper ‘democracy’ . It was a one party sectarian carve up from the day it was established in 1920.

    Well, considering the man is quoted as saying, ‘I’d rather be British than fair’, this view is right in keeping with his mindset. Ah, the good ol’ days when everybody knew their place….

  • Queens Unionist

    But Trimbles comments are indeed laughable.
    has he forgotten what he did when he was in Power, surely not?
    you jump…

  • confused

    Greenflag

    Vote DUP for fear of SF or UI?

    A very good reason to do so?

    NOW you know something of Unionist mind set.

  • Mick Fealty

    Good question. It might pay to wait courteously for an answer. Because they undoubtedly will, and in numbers.

  • parcifal

    One of the differences is between Monarchy and Presidency.
    Republicans want to be citizens, to be free to elect their leaders and shape their own destiny.

    Monarchists are happy to be ruled as subjects, and prefer to be told what to do. Its easier.

  • The Dubliner

    ‘There is a strand of thinking among those in the DUP that they would be happy to operate something if it was imposed upon them rather than having to vote for it.’ – Greenflag, quoting Trimble

    That is Trimble taking a swipe at the DUP (he attributes the comment to a DUP member, who he doesn’t name [probably because he doesn’t exist], and extrapolates it into the verified results of a group mind-reading session that involved Madame Trimble, fairground mindreader, a tent, and the collective minds of the DUP hierarchy. The subtext is that he was progressive and proactive, whereas the DUP are reactionary; so, he may have been a dismal failure whose party was overtaken by the DUP, but at least he died for a noble cause that befits the “noble lord” and all of the adulation and commendation heaped upon him by his fellow unelected loafers in the upper house. The reality is that the ‘peace process’ was “imposed upon” him by Hume and Adams (and the pan-nationalist alliance) and held out until he had no choice other than to vote ‘yay.’

    His comment below is more interesting (and not just because his assertions are based on hearsay via message board posters on Slugger):

    “The noble Baroness also mentioned the McCartney case. I speak from memory—my source on this is the website under the name of Slugger O’Toole; perhaps people should check my source. Slugger O’Toole’s website noted a day or two ago that, among those who had assented to the nomination of a Sinn Fein candidate, one Mr Alex Maskey, were two persons alleged to have been in the pub where Mr McCartney was on the occasion of the assault on him that resulted in his murder and who have not given statements to the police. A number of persons who were there have given statements but, according to Slugger O’Toole, those persons have not. The fact that two persons who were there in the pub who have not co-operated with the police are so close to the Sinn Fein candidate that they signed his nomination paper would not give one any great comfort.”

    It “would not give one any great comfort” to those who believe that the state should not engage in the sectarian murders of hundreds of its own citizens that many of the states forces who were in the Special Branch office where murderous crimes were sanctioned have “not given statements” to the Police Ombudsman and that the boss of the said office, Ronnie Flannagan, was “nominated” to the highest policing office in the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, but Trimble (and the rest of that unelected, self-aggrandizing ilk) – in common with all unmitigated hypocrites – finds no discomfort in that.

  • Mick Fealty

    Unless you know different, that is not hearsay TD.

  • Greenflag

    confused ,

    ‘NOW you know something of Unionist mind set.’

    It was just a guess but thanks for your confirmation 🙂

  • Greenflag

    TD,

    I thought Trimble was no great politician but I’d rather see him as First Minister than the big mouth wearing the dog collar :).

    ‘The reality is that the ‘peace process’ was “imposed upon” him(David Trimble) by Hume and Adams (and the pan-nationalist alliance) and held out until he had no choice other than to vote ‘yay.’ ‘

    Correct and the same is now happening with Paisley and power sharing -and probably will have the same result. Suspension number 5? 6?

    Trimble’s ‘knowledge source’s ‘supposition that the DUP will operate something that’s imposed as long as they don’t have to vote for it must give great comfort to those NI Republicans who dream of a UI . So on the appointed day of the UI referendum DUP voters will only have to stay home and it”ll be a UI not with a bang but with a whimper ?

    Why not cancel this useless Assembly election then and just have the referendum ?

  • Nevin

    “Monarchists are happy to be ruled as subjects, and prefer to be told what to do.”

    King Ian? King Gerry?

  • parcifal

    nevin, my comment was within the context of Paisely preferring something to be imposed on him.

    Gerry Adams won’t be satisfied until a united ireland occurs, power-sharing is a stopping off point.
    However unionists need not fear because SF are committed to making NI work for all the people, and will not be underming Stormont, but rather strengthening cross border bodies to make a UI more attractive, so that one day we can all be under the one roof.

  • Reader

    parcifal: Monarchists are happy to be ruled as subjects, and prefer to be told what to do. Its easier.
    Ah. That would be why the DUP have always been so biddable?
    If you guys are having so much trouble with: “It would have been all right if it had been imposed on us, then we could have worked it, but somehow it was wrong for us to agree to it.”, then I’ll try to explain: If something is imposed on you, you can complain, protest, do civil disobedience, walk out and filibuster. If you vote to accept something you don’t like, then your hands are tied by embarrassment. I suppose it’s like SF and the Principle of Consent.

  • parcifal

    Reader, what’s your preference?

  • Reader

    parcifal: Reader, what’s your preference?
    Between being beaten up and voting to have my nose broken? I don’t know. I am fortunate enough to spend most of my time in the middle ground, and just watch SF and DUP squirm. I’m a fan of both Power Sharing and the Principle of Consent.
    I did vote for a package that included prisoner releases. I didn’t like that bit. But that’s the decision I made. Have you worked out whether that makes me a monarchist or republican yet?

  • parcifal

    I’m enjoying the lesson reader.

    In a very particular sense one could hardly describe Paisleyism as dozy, far from it his belligerence towards HMG over the years would probably have resulted in finding himself in the tower of London in times past.
    I take your point and well made.

    So I’ve always been puzzled by the existential quandry within loyalism. loyal to what?

    Generally though, I guess I’m asking or certainly probing into the differences between monarchy and presidency. Does it make the population more docile to have ready made kings and queens, or is the political class more active awake and sharper as in say France where you’ve a presidency.

    As to your question, republican.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Reader

    “If something is imposed on you, you can complain, protest, do civil disobedience, walk out and filibuster. If you vote to accept something you don’t like, then your hands are tied by embarrassment.”

    I think the argument being put forward is that the DUP are unprepared to support ANYTHING – and not because there is any strong ideological or moral imperative, but because they lack the moral and emotional immaturity to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

    I think Trimble would argue that in 1998 he showed a bit of true Brit stiff-upper-lip and signed up to an agreement that he wasn’t thrilled about but that was in unionism’s best strategic interests. He would argue that this showed character and emotional maturity – in stark contrast to the emotion-driven reactionaries of the DUP.

    He would argue that, whereas he had the moral courage to take responsibility, the DUP are too cowardly to do likewise, so while they will de facto accept whatever is imposed, they will continue to act like a party of protest.

    All of which adds up to a picture of an incredibly childish party, unfit to run a student’s union let alone Northern Ireland.

    Now, this is what I think Trimble is trying to argue. Whether you agree or disagree, surely you’d accept that it’s a serious charge?

    Or has 85 years of partition now led to a situation where unionists so utterly divorced from any concept of responsibility that most simply can’t understand what Trimble’s trying to say?

  • parcifal

    In a Monarchy you get:
    A place for everyone , but everyone in his place
    In a Republic you get:
    A place for everyone, and everyone well placed.

    Just made that up 😉

  • Wilde Rover

    “There is a strand of thinking among those in the DUP that they would be happy to operate something if it was imposed upon them rather than having to vote for it. I remember DUP members who said of the Belfast agreement that we should never have agreed to it. It would have been all right if it had been imposed on us, then we could have worked it, but somehow it was wrong for us to agree to it.”

    Ah, not unlike the man who bumps into a few friends from his wild youth while out with his wife.

    If the friends are very insistent about going out for “a few drinks” and won’t take no for an answer then all the man can do is give his wife the “head side-tilt, half-grimace, open-palms” gesture that tells her he has just abdicated all responsibility concerning when he will come home, and in what state.

    However, if he is the one who has to suggest “a few drinks” and returns after a bender then he will definitely incur the wrath of his wife.

  • Reader

    parcifal: So I’ve always been puzzled by the existential quandry within loyalism. loyal to what?
    Well, a lot of the loudest of them probably can’t articulate it themselves, but it’s loyalty to an identity, rather than to a power structure. I’m used to seeing that as almost a rhetorical question from the nationalist side of discussions. What’s the difficulty in seeing the answer?
    It’s all the more ironic since republican loyalties are divided between a number of authorities – First Dail, or Proclamation, or one constitution or other, or flag, or army council. There’s a lot of appeals to authority that are ironic in the light of your characterisations of republican free will.

    parcifal: As to your question, republican.
    Nope – monarchist. But don’t worry, I’m no more likely to brown-nose toffs than you are to wrap yourself in a flag and wave a proclamation. The nice bit is that Tony Blair and Maggie Thatcher were never, and can never be, top of the heap. It’s the only humility either of them will ever know. And the person who *is* top of the heap can’t actually give orders other than to her domestic staff.