Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Voting clash may signal deepening tensions between Stormont chiefs
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
enlargeDeepening tensions between Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness have surfaced ahead of the resumption of Executive meetings tomorrow.
Relations between Stormont’s top two took a dip — the first time any strain between them has become public — after the DUP leader called for changes to the Assembly voting system to help prevent deadlock and delays.
But Mr McGuinness regards the current inbuilt safeguards, requiring cross-community votes, as central to the Good Friday and St Andrews Agreements, although a review in the lead-up to 2015 is already pencilled in.
The Deputy First Minister said Mr Robinson had returned from five weeks in Florida suffering from sunstroke and spending too much time in Disneyland.
Mr Robinson today dubbed the attack “cheap and nasty” but declined to respond further and made clear Sinn Fein had not been given sight of his speech in advance.
The spat could signal an increasingly combative tone between the First Minister and Deputy First Minister who are rumoured to have had an increasingly poor working relationship in recent months.
The DUP leader said Mr McGuinness had “got wrong” parts of his call for a 65% voting threshold in both the Assembly and Executive which would require dropping the current ‘community designation’ of MLAs as unionist and nationalists.
But in his speech, at an Ulster Hall seminar examining how devolution can improve delivery, Mr Robinson also claimed Sinn Fein had resiled from a major document on the ‘Shared Future’ strategy which had been 99% agreed.
And he offered, whether Mr McGuinness agreed or not, to meet with Ulster Unionist and SDLP Ministers in the Executive to help assuage their disgruntlement over how the Executive has been conducting business.
Sir Reg Empey had declared it a “huckster’s shop” which a senior SDLP source described as an insult to huckster’s shops.
Today Mr Robinson argued his party and Sinn Fein had been able to reach a higher level of agreement than the Labour and Conservative parties would be able to do if they were in government together.
And he rejected Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister’s call to withdraw from the Executive as a return to “Dublin-influenced Direct Rule”. Mr McGuinness, however, fears the DUP leader has succumbed to hardliners in his own party in the aftermath of its loss of votes in the European election.
Mr McGuinness said he would meet Mr Robinson half-way if power-sharing was approached in a spirit of equality and partnership but added: “If he wants to adopt a different more antagonistic approach then I'll also meet him half-way on that.”
Ulster Unionist Assembly deputy Danny Kennedy said Mr Robinson’s proposals were designed to thwart Sinn Fein if it becomes the largest Assembly party after the next election.
Alliance leader David Ford said his party had long supported dropping the sectarian designations in favour of weighted majorities on key votes.
- Text Size
peter move on the future is here equal rights no more one sided times anymore the loyalists can not accept it they have no choice we are in the 2000s not the 1900s jerry f you need to move on two
Posted by ray .. usa | 15.09.09, 15:46 GMT
Joint rule would be an actual solution to the problem. If the assembly fails i hope this happens. No one can deny Sinn Féin have tried to make a succes of the crrent set up.
Posted by Éamonn | 11.09.09, 11:57 GMT
Dublin has a bit more to think about now. Like being skint and the european tap being turned off.
JerryF - let me help you. You don't understand it.
Posted by spud | 10.09.09, 18:56 GMT
scrap this talking shop and re-appoint these guys on minimum wage temporary contracts without additional benefits - suddenly, we'd see a change in attitude.
its an inefficient organisation comprising a bunch of sad inexperienced 'politicians' who lack any cohesive strategic vision for this island.
sadly, we're ALL suffering as a result.
Posted by ian farmer | 10.09.09, 18:22 GMT
Let me see if I understand this. If the nationalists get into power, we'll just change the rules? Wouldn't it be easier just to go back to denying them the right to vote at all?
Posted by JerryF | 10.09.09, 05:41 GMT
Peter is running scared after the intervention of Jim Allister after the European elections splitting the unionist vote. Anybody for Martin Mc Guinness for First Minister? This will happen in two years time and Peter knows it. What about Joint Authority if the Assembly is scuttled? An even better bet! And will we see more shenanigans if the Tories are elected, from Peter? Too late, the GFA is set in stone!
Posted by Patrick | 09.09.09, 16:40 GMT
If all the sectarian commentators would look at what is being proposed it would not mean any lessening of protection for nationalists, but rather a situation in which the two communities are encouraged to work as a single entity by making a veto dependent on the size of a majority for a particular piece of legislation rather than the designation of those attempting to veto it. The present situation is like that of Israeli rightists who claim that legislation passed in the Knesset isn't valid if Arab votes were needed to make up the majority. Is that what nationalists and republicans want?
Posted by Tom Mitchell | 09.09.09, 16:12 GMT
Unfortunately, the reality is Northern Ireland is a long way from being 'normal, yet, and still needs a corrective re-alignment in many of it's political and social systems and policies. This was clearly recognised when the Agreement was drawn up, and the DUP signed up for this too.
The great pity is that Peter Robinson, with Empey playing the field and dragging the game down, is reverting to the infantile instincts which prevailed in the sectarian state. It shows political immaturity, but more worryingly a belief that a return to those far from normal days is possible. Watch out for those Tory's accross the water...
Posted by sam simpson | 09.09.09, 15:56 GMT
The agreements have been signed. Committments given and recognition sought internationally for the new political dispensation here.
It's too late for the DUP to try negotiate any change. This is the deal they signed up for.
To propose changes such as that suggested by Peter Robinson doesn't indicate political maturity. But rather a childish attempt to turn back time and disregard the undertakings they agreed to.
Sorry lads, its too late for this nonsense. It's power sharing - as agreed or joint rule.
Posted by ger | 09.09.09, 11:49 GMT
If Mr. Robinson would embrace the concept of equality there would be no need to change anything. Unfortunately, unionists seem incapable of voluntarily dispensing political power on an equal and fair bases.
The illusion of inclusion is a DUP trick that is long past it's 'use by date.'
Posted by Jim | 09.09.09, 11:41 GMT