Talks Latest

Latest from the talks and first up is Sinn Fein’s Conor Murphy striking a pessimistic note;

The DUP have not addressed the equality and rights issues, which caused the collapse of the political institutions.

“Nineteen years after the Good Friday Agreement and ten years on from St Andrew’s the DUP have blocked an Acht na Gaeilge, the Bill of Rights, marriage equality, respect, anti-sectarian measures and progress on legacy issues.

“The DUP’s anti-equality approach has been emboldened by their alliance with a Tory government, which has put its own survival first.

“The DUP opposes rights for Irish speakers, it opposes rights for ethnic minorities and for women.

“It opposes rights for gay and lesbian citizens even though there is a majority in the Assembly for marriage equality.

“The political institutions must be built on equality so that a rights based society can emerge.


“That is the only basis on which the institutions can operate.”

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Over days I have explained this carefully to you with quotes and links. That you can still be questioning that Arlene has what is called “Individual Ministerial Responsibility” for RHI and appear to be insisting on still working the old see-saw of “they got away with it, so why can’t we?” suggests that you are unable to see past the opaque orange lenses. Please take these impediments away how you are looking at this, go and read what I’ve sent you to explain the matter, and if you still believe that she is not bound by individual ministerial responsibility to resign, explain your case in regard to the code of behaviour as to why the custom does not apply to her actions.

    You are simply saying “let her off, its been done before by others in the past,” but this is simply not an argument against demanding that conformity with the proper ministerial code of behaviour is the correct way to go here. Its using the same flawed logic as those arguing that because the British were not called to account for the deaths in their concentration camps in the Boer war, accordingly the Germans should not have been regarded as accountable, 1939-45, and Nuremberg Trials should not have happened.

    While this may be a game to you it is not a game for the wider community, but a sound opportunity to bring some much needed probity and accountability into our public life. Going back to the pre-local election threads on Slugger, this straightforward need was recognised by commentators from all parts of the community. It is only since the loss of the DUP seats and the SF surge that the wagons have circled and the requirement to rally round Arlene has come into play. I fully understand how this is being used by both political camps, but it still remains a matter of important principal for anyone not blinded by the demands of faction.

  • Zeno3

    Do you Seaan have no idea how our system functions. Its not the way every other one in world functions or even close. Explain why the assembly don’t collapse or any ministers resign over the fine or the hospital scandal?

  • Zeno3

    The old saying Seaan is if you don’t know it’s a game you’re probably the ball.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Just to help you in your future responses, Zeno:

    “Answer: a solution to a problem or dilemma.

    Evasion: the avoiding of an argument, accusation, question, or the like, as by a subterfuge”

    Please don’t begin think that the second thing is somehow the same as the first. I’m referring to how the system should function as an assembly derived from the Westminster system of democracy and with codes that should mean it operates according to its rules, you to the manner in which the actions of local politicians who are also evading issues are making it entirely dysfunctional.

  • Zeno3

    I know what evasion is Seaan. I’ve brought up the EU fine and the hospital scandal and had no response from you. You have now switched to how the system SHOULD work from how it actually does works. They are two different things.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    “You have now switched to how the system SHOULD work from how it actually does works. They are two different things..”

    No, actually, Zeno. All systems have a standard of operating, which can be flouted. In England this can be readily rectified, but here Stormont has been slow to put in place anything which be able to act independently to bring ministers to book. Simply because the system has no means to be applied, it dose not in any sense mean that how Arlene or others are acting is acceptable, any more than a mugger is somehow justified in an attack simply because there is no police presence at the moment of his action. You are hitting another logical fallacy (your speciality?) in that how and should cannot be used as proofs in this context. The system of accountability does work as I’ve pointed out to you in endless earlier answers, that is “how’ it works, but when it is ignored or flouted, it “should” be applied rigorously to ensure the probity of public life.

    Also, please remember, RHI is the situation we are actually discussing, and bringing in other disconnected instances to somehow suggest that they can justify flouting the system is evasive “whataboutery” in the classic sense, not proper argument to the point at issue. You appear to have no real answers to offer and accordingly try and distract attention from the actual issue under discussion.

    So two simple questions which should bring this back down to earth and away from your efforts to muddy the waters with such evasions. Do you believe that ministers should be expected to police their own conduct in matters of ministerial responsibilities? Do you believe that the common practice of individual ministerial responsibility according to the Westminster system which in the general rule for all assemblies derived from the British system should not apply to our assembly? If you feel the answer is “yes” to both you are seemingly happy for our system to descend into corrupt and sleazy practice. If “no”, then why are you arguing against me?

  • Zeno3

    Do Ministers in Northern Ireland automatically resign when a mistake is made by their Department? No.
    Are you calling for Arlene to resign? Yes.
    Have you called for any other to resign? No.
    Have you fallen for the SF spin that this collapse is all about RHI?
    Now link me to any post you have made calling for her resignation.

    This project had to be approved by two Departments. Health and Finance.
    Did any of them resign?

    Oh wait, sorry maybe I shouldn’t post those links because this is about RHI and that is just deflection and whatabbouttery. Eh Seaan?

  • SeaanUiNeill

    “If you feel the answer is “yes” to both you are seemingly happy for our system to descend into corrupt and sleazy practice.”

    Ok, now we all know where you stand on the matter with the implication of your refusal to make a straight answer here. Your mind is made up that supporting Arlene “right or wrong” is far more important than any call for probity or correct behaviour in our political life. And you are more than prepared to revert to the usual whataboutery tactic to obscure the blameworthiness of such a stance rather than engage in any logical argument rooted in the common political practices within the British system. Thank you for so openly confirming my original point.