Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Ed Curran: Why Robinson is right to step back from a deal he cannot sell
Monday, 26 October 2009
I could go back 30 years and more and produce more examples of how nationalists and the British and Irish governments pushed unionist leaders into making deals they could not sell to their side of the electorate.
First off, there was the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973 when the nationalist side insisted on a Council of Ireland, which the dogs in the street in those days knew was a step too far for the general unionist population. Result: power-sharing collapsed and we went back to worse than square one.
Then 1985, and the Anglo-Irish Agreement, signed by Margaret Thatcher and Garret FitzGerald over the heads of the unionist leadership of the day. 'This will not work,,' was the final line on the editorial in the Belfast Telegraph and how right that proved to be because, once again, the unionist population was left behind in the scramble to strike a deal between London and Dublin.
The past decade has taught all sides a lot more sense and injected a degree of patience in politics which before was missing. In fairness to the Democratic Unionist and Sinn Fein leadership, they bite their lips more often these days even if they are far from seeing eye-to-eye on many fundamental issues.
That's how responsible politicians should behave and the pity is that we spend half a lifetime waiting for that moment to arrive. If only in times past, one side had shown half the understanding of the other's difficulties, we might not have lost so many lives and collectively would have been much better off.
Why should we have some understanding of Peter Robinson's obvious tardiness to sign the dotted line and get the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the justice system under the control of the Stormont Executive? Why should unionists be so unhappy with the thought?
I think the answer is pretty obvious. Firstly, the transfer of policing and justice to Northern Ireland from Westminster represents a massive dismantlement of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland link. About the only aspect of government which I would consider on a higher plane would be granting Stormont the right to have control over the Inland Revenue and raise its own taxes.
This is a watershed moment for the constitution of the United Kingdom, devolving powers which rested last with attorneys general and ministers of home affairs up until 1972 when the parliament at Stormont was suspended. The difference then and now, of course, is that those powers are being restored into hands of a very different environment where Sinn Fein,at some point, could control the tiller.
I suspect that many in the judicial system are not too keen on the idea of either side being involved and remain quite comfortable with being controlled directly from London, thus ensuring a fairly stable oversight.
The attitude locally on policing is likely to be different, conditioned by the lack of community confidence in the current PSNI to deal with neighbourhood crime. Undoubtedly, the transfer of policing powers will be sold to us all on the basis that we can influence the PSNI in the future in a way that we couldn't in the past.
The second concern we should have on this issue rests on the ability of the Stormont Executive.
It has failed to date to agree on a number of important matters, most notably a resolution to the 11-plus debacle, so what confidence can we have that it will handle policing and justice?
The fact that neither the DUP nor Sinn Fein can field the minister responsible and that the Alliance leader David Ford is expected to be given the post tells us all what a hot potato could be on his plate.
The Executive is a lame duck administration because its coalition format means decisiveness is a dirty word. Peter Robinson recognised this in his recent comments calling for a weighted majority voting system at Stormont to replace the current mind-numbing inertia.
On policing and justice, he is right to be cautious because he is between a rock and a hard place. He and his party have nothing to gain, but a lot to lose if he has misjudged the mood of unionists on this issue. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have no such problems. They can hail the transfer of policing and justice as a huge victory for republicanism, an act of separation between London and Belfast.
None of us knows what the unionists think on their doorsteps, but it will be too late for the Democratic Unionist Party to find out at the polling stations next spring. I think someone in the media could do an enormous service if they were to conduct a simple opinion poll on this issue and confirm how people - particularly in the unionist community - feel. Failing that, I would hope the DUP are doing their own sampling.
So what if Peter Robinson calls it wrong? I think he won't, because he is too long in the political tooth to allow himself to be railroaded into a decision he and his party may live to regret. He is right to be cautious and the Shinners are right to keep giving him the 'time and space' to deliver.
My own view is that the transfer of policing and justice is no vote-catcher in the unionist community and an enormous attraction for nationalists. From past experience, that is no reason to rush a deal because everyone can be left with nothing.
Mr Robinson is right to seek the confidence of his community.
- Text Size
My goodness Evergreen. What a response. How are you able to live your life with such a chip on your shoulder. How about you sit back and have a nice cuppa. Also try having a look over what you have written. i would suggest you look at the facts and not your own little blinkered view of what has happened. My hurt ego. dont make me laugh mate. nothing you have said could even come close to that. History is not a one way street my poor misguided friend. try having a balanced view. you might learn something. now run along.....
ps you know nothing or my religion or beliefs so dont assume anything. it just makes you look foolish
Posted by Woody | 29.10.09, 16:15 GMT
Woody,
Is that the best you can offer ?
My "bitterness" is simply in response to the continuous onslaught against my religion and country by paranoid Unionists. You had your own little set up for 50 years and screwed it up big time with your bigotry and hatred, which is now directed against a people whose crime was to fight for freedom and justice in their own country (the Republic) and have done you no harm.
You seem to have a problem with the truth Woody. If I am "unbelievable" please tell me what I SHOULD believe. But could you address the facts, and leave your hurt ego out of it.
Posted by Evergreen | 29.10.09, 07:00 GMT
Evergreen. you are so far off the mark it is unbelieveable. your comment shows more of your own bitterness than the feelings you are supposedly having a go at.
Posted by Woody | 28.10.09, 13:28 GMT
This has already taken too long. It is time to move on.
Posted by JerryF | 27.10.09, 11:00 GMT
Same old story - the tail (UU) thinking it can STILL wag the dog. A jumped up local council (Stormont) with less than 2% of the population of the UK - a figure which includes the almost 50% nationalist population - still can't see the light.
Even the Tories know the game is up lads.
But even though you hate us so much, here's a bit of astute friendly advice for you Unionists. Start to focus on EUROPE and European identity, as we in the Republic do. Ready or not, the world is passing you by. At least you will be treated with respect, and not as a bunch of embarrassing paranoid Paddies. (Truth !!).
The alternative is the unthinkable nightmare. Unity with us repulsive lepers in the Republic. But for the record, we don't want you either until you earn our respect.
Slan go foill.
Posted by Evergreen | 26.10.09, 22:02 GMT
I always think, Ed, that when you write about Unionists and their feelings, you are in fact writing about yourself and what YOU feel. In this regard you are following the example of De Valera, who only had to look into his own heart in order to know the right thing to do. But it's time you admitted it: your're a dyed-in-the-wool Unionist and an opponent of anything, beyond rugby, that smacks of Irish unity. It's a perfectly respectable point of view (though not one I hold myself). But when you're writing about issues like policing and justice, or indeed talking to anyone who represents the Nationalist or Republican position, you really ought to wear a Union Flag lapel pin. Then we'd know where you stand.
Posted by Walter Ellis | 26.10.09, 21:54 GMT
sorley if you want to talk about vetos think ruane, and is your idea of progress always referring to past i could do this all day ,st barthomews massacre france, spanish inquisation, aztacs civilization,and many many more...but i wont, ill let you get on with your pathetic whineing you sound hard done by
Posted by william | 26.10.09, 18:01 GMT
Ed, it really would be progressive if we could move beyond this sort of sectarian/tribal politics.
Posted by Monkeymagic | 26.10.09, 13:26 GMT
Call it what you like, its the old Unionist veto on progress as always.
Posted by Sorley | 26.10.09, 12:01 GMT
To Ed's the case for more patience, I make four points. He says: ".. the transfer of policing and justice to Northern Ireland from Westminster represents a massive dismantlement of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland link. " Yes, it is a significant move, but this is an overstatement. Devolved J&P would operate in a framework of UK law which is nigh impossible to dismantle, under a UK Supreme Court in which NI is represented. 2.Much of the actual power is either exercised operationally independently, or delegated already - policing to a Policing Board which we're familiar with; and judicial appointments to an independent board. 3. Most of these powers were long held in pre-devo Scotland. 4. Patience perhaps, but for how long? What has to change? A full generation of SF/IRA to fade away as N Dodds once suggested? And what about the benefits of binding in nationalists to an accountable J&P system to change the background in which terrorism can still flourish?
Posted by M | 26.10.09, 12:01 GMT
One of the most blinkered views of recent history I've read in recent years. Sunningdale, Anglo-Irish Agreement and now the transfer of policing and justice powers - everything was *ALWAYS* too early. Had the British & Irish gov'ts been content to sit on their hands, as Curran seems to advocate, when does he think any of their equality proposals could have happened. The answer is 'Never, never, never'. (Familiar?) All he has to do is count the number of Unionist-controlled councils to see how many power-sharing agreements there are or how many commitees are chaired by Nationalists or Republicans. 'What we have, we hold' as brought to a fine art. Curran's article would be a joke if his misguided view wasn't so tragically pathetic. As the old song says, 'When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn...'
Posted by Raised Eyebrow | 26.10.09, 11:17 GMT
Hilarious polemic from the oh so apolitical Telegraph !
Posted by matt | 26.10.09, 07:38 GMT