sluggerotoole--2020-02-02--Interview: Jim Allister MLA talks about his Special Advisors bill…

Next Monday the Northern Ireland assembly order paper will contain a private members bill from one of the few non-government party MLAs in the chamber .
That member is Jim Allister .
His tenure in politics spans decades and he has been present over the course of many political changes including the function or dysfunction of local institutions , he issued a challenge to the Assembly members : As someone keen to see massive reform in how our politics functions I spoke to Mr Allister on the hill about his bill and about the general culture in governance here exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sam McBride ’ s “ Burned ” .
Mr Allister pointed me to section 29 of the NI Act 1998 , in it the committee system is tasked with the purpose “ to advise and assist each Northern Ireland Minister in the formulation of policy with respect to matters within his responsibilities as a Minister.
” Here Mr Allister made the compelling point that without an official opposition the committee could not hope to hold the government to account with such a remit .
Recently the finance minister , Conor Murphy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are appointed , how they operate and how they are remunerated .
Mr Allister supports the spirit of such a change , but he reiterates his point made many times on the media ; The code would have no justiciability in the courts and no independent enforcement mechanism .
Allister aims to change this by putting such ethical rules on statutory footing .
He explained to me that : “ There only is a code of conduct because of my first SPAD bill , the 2013 act requires there to be codes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his party voted against that.
” He explained , “ The purpose of my bill is to clean up the mess with government , to bring some order where there is disorder.
” He believes that not only did RHI expose this disorder at the heart of NI government but that “ people were confronted with the shambles of government and it seemed to be necessary if we are going to do anything about that that we should have legislation.
” He points to his time since 2011 as an MLA as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen the mess of government at close hand .
The civil service as the mediators of permanent governance work within a disciplinary code which means that they are accountable for their actions , in the realm of politics it becomes murkier as to who one is answerable to .
Mr Allister ’ s bill would begin discussion about who the various players in politics actually are subject to ; “ it starts by a focus on SpAds because they were well exposed by RHI and it tackles issues like the fact that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and since they are [ effectively ] civil servants I ’ m saying we should make them subject to the civil service disciplinary procedures.
” This is part of how his bill would “ …really hone in on making the system that they ’ re central too , better.
” On the subject of making the system better we discussed his proposal to create two new criminal offences , firstly he wants to make it a requirement that government business should only be conducted on government email systems .
This was exposed during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used private email accounts to conduct official business on thereby making an official audit trail difficult and in some cases nigh impossible to trace .
He noted that there would also be a defence of ‘ reasonable excuse ’ if an extraneous circumstance could be proven .
The second criminal offence that this bill would create is to stop privileged government information from being used outside the business of government – particularly if it were to be used for the private benefit of those in government or their families .
To tie up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government function better Mr Allister said ; As we focus our attention on the code of conduct perhaps we have missed the other important document which is the code of appointments , in this Mr Allister is concerned with Mr Murphy ’ s proposed changes ; “ I take issue what he [ finance minister ] has [ proposed ] with the code of appointments , he has taken out that the minister had to choose from a pool of talent , had to keep a record of his reasons , that record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and all of that has been removed.
” He described it as a ‘ retrograde ’ step , and when I put it to him that some claim this to be a ‘ civil service power grab ’ before the RHI report is even published he doesn ’ t subscribe to this notion but did say that the change in the codes is part of a “ pre-emptive strike ” on the eventual publication of the report .
He relishes the debate around all of these proposals , I put it to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill and amendments were to come forward then this legislation could become of prime significance in our statute book and could become the ‘ go to guide ’ for all ethics in public office .
He hopes , particularly if it passes the first reading , for it to reach committee stage where members can propose amendments which will make the legislation a ‘ vehicle ’ for important legislative changes .
Like him or loath him , Jim Allister has been steadfast in his scrutiny of the institutions of government here .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharing model and he sees it as a paradox that Sinn Fein , a party not believing in the existence of the NI state , should share power in the governance of such a state , I think that he does believe in the responsible administration of government .
This sense of public duty is something that is the driving force in Mr Allister and every legislature needs such conviction in its members if it is to function to the highest possible standard .
For now he is our ‘ one man opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ naughty corner ’ but with the precedent of Colum Eastwood ’ s decision to walk out in the last mandate and form an official opposition the debate will rage on as to whether the approach of 5 party power sharing government will deliver .

Next Monday the Northern Ireland assembly order paper will contain a private members bill from one of the few non-government party MLAs in the chamber. That member is Jim Allister. His tenure in politics spans decades and he has been present over the course of many political changes including the function or dysfunction of local institutions, he issued a challenge to the Assembly members:
“if people are serious about cleaning up this place then they should have nothing to fear from the type of proposals I am putting forward.”
As someone keen to see massive reform in how our politics functions I spoke to Mr Allister on the hill about his bill and about the general culture in governance here exposed in its sometimes ugly waste and incompetence by Sam McBride’s “Burned”. Mr Allister pointed me to section 29 of the NI Act 1998, in it the committee system is tasked with the purpose “to advise and assist each Northern Ireland Minister in the formulation of policy with respect to matters within his responsibilities as a Minister.” Here Mr Allister made the compelling point that without an official opposition the committee could not hope to hold the government to account with such a remit.
Recently the finance minister, Conor Murphy, proposed a new code to how SpAds are appointed, how they operate and how they are remunerated. Mr Allister supports the spirit of such a change, but he reiterates his point made many times on the media;
“You can have all the codes you like, you can have all the fine decorations and guidance and everything else, but at the end of the day its only legislation that makes things change.”
The code would have no justiciability in the courts and no independent enforcement mechanism. Allister aims to change this by putting such ethical rules on statutory footing. He explained to me that: “There only is a code of conduct because of my first SPAD bill, the 2013 act requires there to be codes of conduct and appointment – interestingly Mr Murphy and his party voted against that.”
He explained, “The purpose of my bill is to clean up the mess with government, to bring some order where there is disorder.” He believes that not only did RHI expose this disorder at the heart of NI government but that “people were confronted with the shambles of government and it seemed to be necessary if we are going to do anything about that that we should have legislation.” He points to his time since 2011 as an MLA as being a period over which he has seen the mess of government at close hand.
The civil service as the mediators of permanent governance work within a disciplinary code which means that they are accountable for their actions, in the realm of politics it becomes murkier as to who one is answerable to. Mr Allister’s bill would begin discussion about who the various players in politics actually are subject to; “it starts by a focus on SpAds because they were well exposed by RHI and it tackles issues like the fact that they are not subject to the disciplinary code and since they are [effectively] civil servants I’m saying we should make them subject to the civil service disciplinary procedures.” This is part of how his bill would “…really hone in on making the system that they’re central too, better.”
On the subject of making the system better we discussed his proposal to create two new criminal offences, firstly he wants to make it a requirement that government business should only be conducted on government email systems. This was exposed during RHI when some high-ranking people in government used private email accounts to conduct official business on thereby making an official audit trail difficult and in some cases nigh impossible to trace. He noted that there would also be a defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ if an extraneous circumstance could be proven.
The second criminal offence that this bill would create is to stop privileged government information from being used outside the business of government – particularly if it were to be used for the private benefit of those in government or their families. To tie up the theme of making the bureaucracy of government function better Mr Allister said;
“I want to require such basic things as that all meetings are minuted, if you have a meeting you log it so that its known who you met. If you are a minister or SPAD you shouldn’t be going about meeting people secretly behind closed doors, never for it to be seen in the light of day. None of these issues can be adequately covered in codes.”
As we focus our attention on the code of conduct perhaps we have missed the other important document which is the code of appointments, in this Mr Allister is concerned with Mr Murphy’s proposed changes; “I take issue what he [finance minister] has [proposed] with the code of appointments, he has taken out that the minister had to choose from a pool of talent, had to keep a record of his reasons, that record had to be with the permanent secretary and all of that has been removed.” He described it as a ‘retrograde’ step, and when I put it to him that some claim this to be a ‘civil service power grab’ before the RHI report is even published he doesn’t subscribe to this notion but did say that the change in the codes is part of a “pre-emptive strike” on the eventual publication of the report.
He relishes the debate around all of these proposals, I put it to him that if the larger parties supported the bill and amendments were to come forward then this legislation could become of prime significance in our statute book and could become the ‘go to guide’ for all ethics in public office. He hopes, particularly if it passes the first reading, for it to reach committee stage where members can propose amendments which will make the legislation a ‘vehicle’ for important legislative changes.
Like him or loath him, Jim Allister has been steadfast in his scrutiny of the institutions of government here. Although he doesn’t agree with power sharing model and he sees it as a paradox that Sinn Fein, a party not believing in the existence of the NI state, should share power in the governance of such a state, I think that he does believe in the responsible administration of government. This sense of public duty is something that is the driving force in Mr Allister and every legislature needs such conviction in its members if it is to function to the highest possible standard. For now he is our ‘one man opposition’ over in what some call the ‘naughty corner’ but with the precedent of Colum Eastwood’s decision to walk out in the last mandate and form an official opposition the debate will rage on as to whether the approach of 5 party power sharing government will deliver.


sluggerotoole--2020-02-01--The Orange needs to go back to basics and look at what it stands for in 2020 and beyond…

There is something worryingly out of sync with the Loyal Orange Intuition when over three weeks after the “ New Decade , New Approach ” deal is agreed upon by politicians which brought about the immediate restoration of Stormont , senior delegates of the Institution meet to discuss the deal .
The outworking of such a discussion was always going to be predictable , one might even say boring , however , the actions of the Orange have reinforced their status as being almost irrelevant and certainly not fit for purpose and it is this that I wanted to discuss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior delegates of the Orange Institution had an “ urgent ” meeting to in effect reject the deal agreed upon by local politicians ( many of whom were Orangemen ) .
It seems bizarre that since the initial proposals drafted in February of 2018 there has been no “ urgent ” meetings called by the Orange to discuss the lack of government or indeed to form a credible policy that they could present to politicians .
In fact , before Christmas of 2019 almost two years after the Orange rejected the initial proposals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a viable alternative .
It was inevitable that political Unionism was going to have to bypass the institution in order to get an agreement passed .
It ’ s almost incredulous that it has taken the Orange so long after Stormont has got up and going to even meet and respond to the deal , their intervention now is a clear example of closing the stable doors when the horse bolted three weeks ago .
It took the Orange so long to have this meeting that the response whilst predictable has been viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illustrates that the Orange is in huge difficulty .
If we take a step further back , grassroots members have still not been consulted on this official response by the Orange ’ s leadership .
For my own lodge , the deal or anything about the Irish language was not even on the agenda for January ’ s meeting and rolling up to the district it was also absent from all itineraries there .
This is a scene replicated across Fermanagh and indeed the Grand Lodge of Ireland , yet the Grand secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much anger amongst the membership with regards to this deal .
This is inherently inaccurate as no internal vote or discussion has taken place that could warrant such a statement .
It is even more concerning that most rank and file members were unaware of the meeting this week in Tyrone of senior delegates to discuss the deal , a huge problem is developing in which the leadership seems unconcerned and uninterested in having a conversation with its members .
When Sinn Fein refused to release the results of their internal party poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were critical , however , the Orange is open to being accused of worse when all opportunities to have a debate/poll on important issues are stifled .
This week ’ s intervention by the Orange was most confusing as they had no suggestions of what they wanted ; did they really think their statement would result in Stormont folding ?
Was the long-term goal just to have Stormont ’ s restoration kicked down the road indefinitely ?
The lack of any positive vision or of constructive input has made Orangeism seem like an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , health education , finance , justice etc should be Orangeism ’ s concerns and not opposing an Irish language commissioner , the pettiness and ludicrousness of this are nauseating .
Some initial thoughts on where the Orange goes from here : The Orange needs to go back to basics and look at what it stands for in 2020 and beyond .
I ’ m sure that yet again at the Fermanagh Twelfth we will be told by the County Grand Master how the Orange is a non-political organisation but this is ludicrous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did this week , in fact , the Orange played an unnecessary role in delaying the restoration of Stormont since 2018 .
Furthermore , whilst not every Orangeman or woman is a Unionist most are and one of the fundamental planks of the organisation within Northern Ireland is its Unionist credentials .
By claiming we are not a political organisation would in effect mean we would have to become neutral on the Union , is that really a position that the Orange wants to adopt ?
The supreme idiocy of the Orange Institution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then opposing the one that was formed actually undermined Northern Ireland ’ s positions within the UK even more , if Northern Ireland doesn ’ t work then its place within the Union is unsustainable .
Further irony is that as a Reformed Christian organisation we continually release very unchristian statements , opposing any form of outreach on the Irish language was certainly damaging towards the Orange .
Many within the Orange family accept that the current Irish government ( and previous governments ) have gone out of their way to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a very welcome visit to the Orange Heritage museum in East Belfast .
It therefore doesn ’ t chime very well when official Orange statements blast Simon Coveney for playing a role in the restoration of power sharing .
Again , whilst being unchristian , forgetful of what the Irish government has been doing for Orangeism , it also seems to ignore the reality that the Republic of Ireland is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement ( remember that agreement championed by a leading Orangeman at the time ? )
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change within the Orange and this needs to start at the leadership level .
Unfortunately , I don ’ t believe Mervyn Gibson who is in effect the most senior Orangeman holding the role of Grand Secretary is leading the Orange in a progressive direction .
His association with an illegal bonfire in July 2019 would not have been accepted by the Orange of the past and his recent statements regarding the Irish language have been uncharitable and are against the ethos of the Orange .
Drew Nelson , Mr. Gibson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult act to follow , Drew was a modernising and strong influence within the Orange , unfortunately , his work has not continued under the current regime and the Institution is declining as a result .
There is also a need to look at the senior roles within the Orange and possibly redefine them , the Grand Master ( Edward Stevenson ) has been in the role since 2011 but despite being the most senior person within the Institution the role has become more symbolic and almost invisible rather than practical and new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitive criteria .
The Chief Executive Officer of the Orange is the most elusive role within the organisation and clearly is not working out as intended .
These three roles need to be made full-time roles , they need to be salaried and they need to have a clear list of objectives with each candidate voted in by the 34000 members across Ireland for two years at a time .
The Orange needs to be more agile in how it deals with events .
Communicating weeks after an event has happened with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceptable in this era .
The message needs to be better presented , more reflective of membership ’ s attitudes and more progressive , one might even say it needs to be more Christian .
The Orange Institution has made one error after another down throughout the years , the time has long since passed when we need to evaluate the mistakes of the past , recognise them and try to improve from them .
As an organisation , we seem intent on repeating the same errors of the past in the hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next time – insanity !
Overall this is another damaging week for the Loyal Orange Institution , its ineffective , irrelevant and completely unsatisfactory handling of complex , fluid situations have left it sidelined .
As it stands the Orange is not fit for purpose and is beginning to turn many of its members off lest we even begin to talk about non-members .
The key problems is a lack of identity in 2020 , the misunderstanding that Irish in any form dilutes Orangeisms needs to be addressed .
Orangeism is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ membership and our failure to adapt to a changing and more inclusive world .

There is something worryingly out of sync with the Loyal Orange Intuition when over three weeks after the “New Decade, New Approach” deal is agreed upon by politicians which brought about the immediate restoration of Stormont, senior delegates of the Institution meet to discuss the deal. The outworking of such a discussion was always going to be predictable, one might even say boring, however, the actions of the Orange have reinforced their status as being almost irrelevant and certainly not fit for purpose and it is this that I wanted to discuss today.
This week in Tyrone 120 senior delegates of the Orange Institution had an “urgent” meeting to in effect reject the deal agreed upon by local politicians (many of whom were Orangemen). It seems bizarre that since the initial proposals drafted in February of 2018 there has been no “urgent” meetings called by the Orange to discuss the lack of government or indeed to form a credible policy that they could present to politicians. In fact, before Christmas of 2019 almost two years after the Orange rejected the initial proposals, they were still unable to present a viable alternative. It was inevitable that political Unionism was going to have to bypass the institution in order to get an agreement passed. It’s almost incredulous that it has taken the Orange so long after Stormont has got up and going to even meet and respond to the deal, their intervention now is a clear example of closing the stable doors when the horse bolted three weeks ago. It took the Orange so long to have this meeting that the response whilst predictable has been viewed as irrelevant by most onlookers, this illustrates that the Orange is in huge difficulty.
If we take a step further back, grassroots members have still not been consulted on this official response by the Orange’s leadership. For my own lodge, the deal or anything about the Irish language was not even on the agenda for January’s meeting and rolling up to the district it was also absent from all itineraries there. This is a scene replicated across Fermanagh and indeed the Grand Lodge of Ireland, yet the Grand secretary Mervyn Gibson has advised that there is much anger amongst the membership with regards to this deal. This is inherently inaccurate as no internal vote or discussion has taken place that could warrant such a statement. It is even more concerning that most rank and file members were unaware of the meeting this week in Tyrone of senior delegates to discuss the deal, a huge problem is developing in which the leadership seems unconcerned and uninterested in having a conversation with its members. When Sinn Fein refused to release the results of their internal party poll on the Northern leadership election, many were critical, however, the Orange is open to being accused of worse when all opportunities to have a debate/poll on important issues are stifled.
This week’s intervention by the Orange was most confusing as they had no suggestions of what they wanted; did they really think their statement would result in Stormont folding? Was the long-term goal just to have Stormont’s restoration kicked down the road indefinitely? The lack of any positive vision or of constructive input has made Orangeism seem like an almost alien concept to mainstream Northern Ireland, health education, finance, justice etc should be Orangeism’s concerns and not opposing an Irish language commissioner, the pettiness and ludicrousness of this are nauseating.
Some initial thoughts on where the Orange goes from here:
Mission Statement
The Orange needs to go back to basics and look at what it stands for in 2020 and beyond. I’m sure that yet again at the Fermanagh Twelfth we will be told by the County Grand Master how the Orange is a non-political organisation but this is ludicrous when we intervene in politics as we did this week, in fact, the Orange played an unnecessary role in delaying the restoration of Stormont since 2018. Furthermore, whilst not every Orangeman or woman is a Unionist most are and one of the fundamental planks of the organisation within Northern Ireland is its Unionist credentials. By claiming we are not a political organisation would in effect mean we would have to become neutral on the Union, is that really a position that the Orange wants to adopt? The supreme idiocy of the Orange Institution’s actions in delaying a deal and then opposing the one that was formed actually undermined Northern Ireland’s positions within the UK even more, if Northern Ireland doesn’t work then its place within the Union is unsustainable.
Further irony is that as a Reformed Christian organisation we continually release very unchristian statements, opposing any form of outreach on the Irish language was certainly damaging towards the Orange.
Many within the Orange family accept that the current Irish government (and previous governments) have gone out of their way to protect Orangeism within the Republic and Leo Varadkar made a very welcome visit to the Orange Heritage museum in East Belfast. It therefore doesn’t chime very well when official Orange statements blast Simon Coveney for playing a role in the restoration of power sharing. Again, whilst being unchristian, forgetful of what the Irish government has been doing for Orangeism, it also seems to ignore the reality that the Republic of Ireland is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement (remember that agreement championed by a leading Orangeman at the time?)
Leadership
There is a need for urgent and immediate change within the Orange and this needs to start at the leadership level. Unfortunately, I don’t believe Mervyn Gibson who is in effect the most senior Orangeman holding the role of Grand Secretary is leading the Orange in a progressive direction. His association with an illegal bonfire in July 2019 would not have been accepted by the Orange of the past and his recent statements regarding the Irish language have been uncharitable and are against the ethos of the Orange. Drew Nelson, Mr. Gibson’s predecessor was always going to be a difficult act to follow, Drew was a modernising and strong influence within the Orange, unfortunately, his work has not continued under the current regime and the Institution is declining as a result. There is also a need to look at the senior roles within the Orange and possibly redefine them, the Grand Master (Edward Stevenson) has been in the role since 2011 but despite being the most senior person within the Institution the role has become more symbolic and almost invisible rather than practical and new blood is needed here alongside a more definitive criteria. The Chief Executive Officer of the Orange is the most elusive role within the organisation and clearly is not working out as intended. These three roles need to be made full-time roles, they need to be salaried and they need to have a clear list of objectives with each candidate voted in by the 34000 members across Ireland for two years at a time.
Communication
The Orange needs to be more agile in how it deals with events. Communicating weeks after an event has happened with no internal discussion with its members is not acceptable in this era. The message needs to be better presented, more reflective of membership’s attitudes and more progressive, one might even say it needs to be more Christian.
Retrospective Analysis
The Orange Institution has made one error after another down throughout the years, the time has long since passed when we need to evaluate the mistakes of the past, recognise them and try to improve from them. As an organisation, we seem intent on repeating the same errors of the past in the hope that there will be a better outcome the next time – insanity!
Overall this is another damaging week for the Loyal Orange Institution, its ineffective, irrelevant and completely unsatisfactory handling of complex, fluid situations have left it sidelined. As it stands the Orange is not fit for purpose and is beginning to turn many of its members off lest we even begin to talk about non-members. The key problems is a lack of identity in 2020, the misunderstanding that Irish in any form dilutes Orangeisms needs to be addressed. Orangeism is being diluted and ultimately destroyed by its own membership and our failure to adapt to a changing and more inclusive world.


sluggerotoole--2020-02-01--Assorted thoughts on the realities of border polling and reunification

There is no question that the brexit process is having a seismic effect on the ties that bind the UK ’ s four constituent parts .
The union has never been weaker , not just because the UK now has a government that clearly places little value on it , but also because the populations of Scotland and Northern Ireland are questioning its value in ever greater numbers .
I ’ ve heard arguments – from supporters and representatives of one political party in particular – that these events put Irish reunification firmly onto the agenda .
I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing for a border poll in these circumstances is within the spirit and intent of the Good Friday Agreement .
I think we should look carefully at these assumptions .
Let ’ s start by talking about the border poll provisions of the 1998 Agreement .
It ’ s true that the current power to hold a border poll at any time comes from the Agreement via it ’ s associated legislation , the Northern Ireland Act 1998 , which includes a slightly modified version of the border poll legislation from 1972 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ creates an obligation upon the Secretary of State to call a border poll when certain circumstances arise .
But the Agreement makes no provision requiring the Secretary of State to hold a border poll to test public opinion .
He is only mandated to hold the poll to confirm public opinion , in the event that he believes that a majority in favour of reunification is likely to exist .
This wording is carefully designed to prevent judicial review of any decision not to hold a border poll , as the Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belief and not according to any independently verifiable scientific , political or legal standard .
Therefore , it should be clear that the Agreement was manifestly not designed to create a pathway to Irish reunification .
It is something which is important , but lesser : a promise from the British government that it will facilitate reunification if that is what people appear to want .
This is no innovation of 1998 – the British government formally made this commitment in the early 1970s ( and indeed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The important detail is that the pathway to Irish reunification must be built before the referendum is called to confirm that a majority wishes to proceed along it .
If you think this sounds like a classic chicken and egg situation , you ’ d be right .
The border poll will not be held until the case for reunification has been proved .
But the case for reunification can not be proved without some sort of poll .
This contradiction reflects the overall intention of the Agreement to park this entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t occur under the rules of the Agreement , then when can it happen ?
The answer to that is like anything else : when political circumstances mandate it , in which case the two governments will act , signing treaties and legislating as necessary , to hold a poll .
So when does that happen ?
This is a matter of opinion , but we can look at the conventions that already exist .
A referendum on independence was held in Scotland a few years ago because the SNP sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold one , which the UK government could not ignore .
The UK ’ s referendum on leaving the EU occurred because the Prime Minister at the time felt it necessary to promise one to win the 2015 election ; having won that election he could not ignore his promise .
I believe a similar convention must apply in Northern Ireland .
If , or when , parties which either seek Irish reunification , or seek a referendum to test support for Irish reunification , win 50 % +1 of the votes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically impossible to block a border poll from being held even if the Secretary of State persists in the belief that it is not likely to pass .
So where do we stand on the 50 % +1 possibility ?
That ’ s easy enough to answer : nowhere .
Nationalism is busy shedding all of the electoral gains it has made since 1998 .
It ’ s share of the vote is at a 20-year low , at just under 40 % .
This is significantly down from the all-time peak nationalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1999 European elections .
I ’ m aware of the point that Unionism ’ s vote share has dropped like a stone since the brexit result was announced , losing around 7 % almost overnight following the brexit vote .
But the weakness of the union , and of political Unionism , does not automatically mean that there is strong support for reunification .
This is borne out by the fact that disillusionment with unionism is not being translated into votes for nationalist parties .
There is no evidence of any demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative nationalist party to address the shortcomings of the existing ones .
What of the Alliance Party , the Greens and other constitutionally unaligned groups ?
It ’ s true that a great many Alliance and Green voters aspire to a united Ireland .
But what is also true is that these parties have ruled out supporting a border poll in the short or medium term in favour of focussing on repairing Northern Ireland ’ s economy and political institutions , redoubling efforts on rebuilding community relations , and proposing solutions for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , education and infrastructure .
The position of the centre ground on border polling has now been reconfirmed in three successive elections .
Turning to the state of play in southern Irish politics , the election coming next week holds out the prospect of Sinn Féin being in government for the first time since 1922 .
Commentary on the many real , imagined and unimagined complexities of this is beyond the scope of this article .
But could a Sinn Féin Tánaiste kickstart reunification from the southern end ?
In the first instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Irish government to trigger a border poll under the terms of the Agreement .
But an Irish government could begin planning for the event of reunification , a key Sinn Féin demand in recent years .
However , I think any reunification planning exercise would , in practice , end up looking like the UK Government ’ s plans for a hard brexit .
Nobody took those planning exercises seriously for two reasons – firstly , the government had no serious vision for what the UK would look like under a hard brexit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brexiteers included , believed in their gut that a hard brexit was a realistic outcome .
So they went through the motions , knowing that all the plans would be shelved .
As part of any debate within government of reunification , you have the strong likelihood of the Department of Finance , which has always ( except once ) been held by the majority coalition partner , producing reports which show that reunification will cause severe economic stresses in Ireland necessitating spending cuts and tax increases .
Those reports will be discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Assembly looking into this matter and will be used to divide Sinn Féin ’ s activist base by undermining its top manifesto commitment .
I see no immediate pathway to Irish reunification that is grounded in political reality .
I think the biggest problem is that those who seek Irish reunification have no strategy .
Organising rallies of the faithful ( with a few carefully selected token non-nationalists invited along ) in the Waterfront Hall , in hotels along the border , or in assorted meeting rooms around Westminster isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mary pass ” strategies , borrowing from the Brexit model of calling the poll and then winging the outcome , are going to scare people away .
For reunification to happen , nationalist parties will need to look at building a broader coalition .
I have seen nothing in the past two or three years to suggest that Ireland ’ s largest political party has any interest in doing this , much preferring to stand with its traditional base over contentious issues .
I am not here to relitigate debates over matters such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; but I can tell you that I will never vote for any party which says it wishes to build a new state for everyone but appears to refuse to acknowledge that every section of opinion on the past deserves a place in it .
So if no reunification , then what ?
I think the truth is that what happens will be a little boring .
Northern Ireland will slowly , by osmosis , move away from the UK and towards Ireland and Europe as businesses and populations follow the path of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Irish government and the EU will , in the background , influence more and more of the decisions taken here in line with its national interest , with the British government quietly rubber-stamping where it needs to .
We will , I suspect , end up settling into a comfortable groove , looking something like a joint protectorate of Ireland and the UK – technically and officially part of one , practically part of the other , always in dispute but with most people getting on with their day to day lives as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where people are broadly content , if not enthusiastic , about their lot .
If the question comes up about whether we should join a united Ireland the obvious retort will be – why bother ?
Photo by Tumisu is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

There is no question that the brexit process is having a seismic effect on the ties that bind the UK’s four constituent parts. The union has never been weaker, not just because the UK now has a government that clearly places little value on it, but also because the populations of Scotland and Northern Ireland are questioning its value in ever greater numbers.
I’ve heard arguments – from supporters and representatives of one political party in particular – that these events put Irish reunification firmly onto the agenda. I’ve even heard the same people argue that pushing for a border poll in these circumstances is within the spirit and intent of the Good Friday Agreement. I think we should look carefully at these assumptions.
Let’s start by talking about the border poll provisions of the 1998 Agreement. It’s true that the current power to hold a border poll at any time comes from the Agreement via it’s associated legislation, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which includes a slightly modified version of the border poll legislation from 1972. It is also true that the Agreement creates an obligation upon the Secretary of State to call a border poll when certain circumstances arise.
But the Agreement makes no provision requiring the Secretary of State to hold a border poll to test public opinion. He is only mandated to hold the poll to confirm public opinion, in the event that he believes that a majority in favour of reunification is likely to exist. This wording is carefully designed to prevent judicial review of any decision not to hold a border poll, as the Secretary of State is only required to act to belief and not according to any independently verifiable scientific, political or legal standard.
Therefore, it should be clear that the Agreement was manifestly not designed to create a pathway to Irish reunification. It is something which is important, but lesser : a promise from the British government that it will facilitate reunification if that is what people appear to want. This is no innovation of 1998 – the British government formally made this commitment in the early 1970s (and indeed the Government of Ireland Act 1920 did envisage an eventual all-island government). The important detail is that the pathway to Irish reunification must be built before the referendum is called to confirm that a majority wishes to proceed along it.
If you think this sounds like a classic chicken and egg situation, you’d be right. The border poll will not be held until the case for reunification has been proved. But the case for reunification cannot be proved without some sort of poll. This contradiction reflects the overall intention of the Agreement to park this entire discussion.
So if a border poll can’t occur under the rules of the Agreement, then when can it happen ? The answer to that is like anything else : when political circumstances mandate it, in which case the two governments will act, signing treaties and legislating as necessary, to hold a poll.
So when does that happen ? This is a matter of opinion, but we can look at the conventions that already exist. A referendum on independence was held in Scotland a few years ago because the SNP sought, and won, a mandate to hold one, which the UK government could not ignore. The UK’s referendum on leaving the EU occurred because the Prime Minister at the time felt it necessary to promise one to win the 2015 election; having won that election he could not ignore his promise.
I believe a similar convention must apply in Northern Ireland. If, or when, parties which either seek Irish reunification, or seek a referendum to test support for Irish reunification, win 50%+1 of the votes in any election, then it will be politically impossible to block a border poll from being held even if the Secretary of State persists in the belief that it is not likely to pass.
So where do we stand on the 50%+1 possibility ?
That’s easy enough to answer : nowhere.
Nationalism is busy shedding all of the electoral gains it has made since 1998. It’s share of the vote is at a 20-year low, at just under 40%. This is significantly down from the all-time peak nationalist vote of 45.4% last seen at the 1999 European elections.
I’m aware of the point that Unionism’s vote share has dropped like a stone since the brexit result was announced, losing around 7% almost overnight following the brexit vote. But the weakness of the union, and of political Unionism, does not automatically mean that there is strong support for reunification. This is borne out by the fact that disillusionment with unionism is not being translated into votes for nationalist parties. There is no evidence of any demand within the electorate to set up an alternative nationalist party to address the shortcomings of the existing ones.
What of the Alliance Party, the Greens and other constitutionally unaligned groups ? It’s true that a great many Alliance and Green voters aspire to a united Ireland. But what is also true is that these parties have ruled out supporting a border poll in the short or medium term in favour of focussing on repairing Northern Ireland’s economy and political institutions, redoubling efforts on rebuilding community relations, and proposing solutions for the real problems we are facing in healthcare, education and infrastructure. The position of the centre ground on border polling has now been reconfirmed in three successive elections.
Turning to the state of play in southern Irish politics, the election coming next week holds out the prospect of Sinn Féin being in government for the first time since 1922. Commentary on the many real, imagined and unimagined complexities of this is beyond the scope of this article. But could a Sinn Féin Tánaiste kickstart reunification from the southern end ?
In the first instance, there is no mechanism for the Irish government to trigger a border poll under the terms of the Agreement. But an Irish government could begin planning for the event of reunification, a key Sinn Féin demand in recent years.
However, I think any reunification planning exercise would, in practice, end up looking like the UK Government’s plans for a hard brexit. Nobody took those planning exercises seriously for two reasons – firstly, the government had no serious vision for what the UK would look like under a hard brexit; and secondly, because nobody, brexiteers included, believed in their gut that a hard brexit was a realistic outcome. So they went through the motions, knowing that all the plans would be shelved.
As part of any debate within government of reunification, you have the strong likelihood of the Department of Finance, which has always (except once) been held by the majority coalition partner, producing reports which show that reunification will cause severe economic stresses in Ireland necessitating spending cuts and tax increases. Those reports will be discussed in public at any putative Citizen’s Assembly looking into this matter and will be used to divide Sinn Féin’s activist base by undermining its top manifesto commitment.
I see no immediate pathway to Irish reunification that is grounded in political reality. I think the biggest problem is that those who seek Irish reunification have no strategy. Organising rallies of the faithful (with a few carefully selected token non-nationalists invited along) in the Waterfront Hall, in hotels along the border, or in assorted meeting rooms around Westminster isn’t going to do it. “Hail Mary pass” strategies, borrowing from the Brexit model of calling the poll and then winging the outcome, are going to scare people away.
For reunification to happen, nationalist parties will need to look at building a broader coalition. I have seen nothing in the past two or three years to suggest that Ireland’s largest political party has any interest in doing this, much preferring to stand with its traditional base over contentious issues. I am not here to relitigate debates over matters such as, for example, RIC commemorations; but I can tell you that I will never vote for any party which says it wishes to build a new state for everyone but appears to refuse to acknowledge that every section of opinion on the past deserves a place in it.
So if no reunification, then what ? I think the truth is that what happens will be a little boring. Northern Ireland will slowly, by osmosis, move away from the UK and towards Ireland and Europe as businesses and populations follow the path of least resistance. Over time, the Irish government and the EU will, in the background, influence more and more of the decisions taken here in line with its national interest, with the British government quietly rubber-stamping where it needs to.
We will, I suspect, end up settling into a comfortable groove, looking something like a joint protectorate of Ireland and the UK – technically and officially part of one, practically part of the other, always in dispute but with most people getting on with their day to day lives as usual.
Imagine living in a place where people are broadly content, if not enthusiastic, about their lot. If the question comes up about whether we should join a united Ireland the obvious retort will be – why bother ?
Photo by Tumisu is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-02-01--In the brave new world outside the EU, the DUP have no survival strategy  for the Union

The quivering projection of Big Ben onto the facade of Downing St accompanied by its tinny recorded chimes while the Brexit deliverer skulked inside , said it all .
Boris Johnson did not want to be visibly identified with the big moment in case it all goes pear shaped .
In former times retreats on such a scale were the result of war .
That ’ s about best thing that can be said about Brexit ; the worst is that it ’ s heading for a bigger reverse , the breakup of the United Kingdom , achieved like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of absence of mind.
” In the interests of fairness , it should be said that an alternative version was brilliantly provided by the cosmopolitan novelist Louis de Bernieres .
Writing about his parents , “ they felt outraged at having endured two World Wars only to end up being subject to laws not drawn up by our own parliament .
It was easier for continental Europeans to compromise on democracy because they do not have the advantage of being protected , as we are , by the mere fact of being an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take us further .
It has been increasingly obvious to me and fellow Leavers for many years now that the English would be better off on their own .
It seems ever more likely that Ireland can be reunified , because all the very good reasons for the North resisting this have gone ; the Republic is no longer a corrupt , backward country , it is an energetic , vibrant place where anyone would love to live , including me .
We are an important trading partner ; if Ireland were being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU and opt for an Anglo-Irish economic zone .
England has no good reason for wanting to cling on to Northern Ireland , or to Scotland either .
I can hear a loud chorus of agreement for that .
But quite a leap is involved here .
How did an assertion of sovereignty translate into the possible breakup of the UK ?
From the beginning of the century it began to dawn that breakup was implicit in devolution as the project ’ s momentous untended consequence .
Sovereignty we began to realise was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in the people voting in the referendums of 1998 in Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland .
England with 84 % of the UK population didn ’ t get it and barely gets it now , although there are growing numbers in favour of an English parliament .
By the time the 2016 Brexit referendum asserted the sovereignty of the British people as a whole , it was already an anachronism .
Sovereignty had already been devolving to the people of Scotland and Wales whereas in Northern Ireland it had already gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old Stormont parliament as the vehicle of self determination .
Our Union was different from Scotland ’ s .
It had never been vested in Westminster but in ourselves , one way or another .
For our alternative had never been independence but unity with the south .
And so unambiguously it was written into the Good Friday Agreement.. Scotland has to ask Westminster ’ s permission to hold a second independence referendum whereas NI does not .
In the end the difference may amount to very little .
With Scotland and NI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Brexit referendum the Brexit fuelled surges for UK secession may be hard to turn back .
Devolution in 1998 was a typically piecemeal project whose fatal flaw was that it produced little change at the centre .
Had Tony Blair who had little interest in it reformed the UK constitution to complement devolution , the course of the last 20 years might have been different .
An elected Upper House with weighted representation for the Nations and regions in separate lists and electoral reform for the Commons might have produced a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for external scapegoats like the EU to express discontent .
So there is an irony in the Brexiteer claim that sovereignty has been re gained .
Sovereignty for the English perhaps but not for the Scot Nats , whose idea of sovereignty has been denied .
The clash between popular and UK parliamentary sovereignty will be played out over the coming years .
The majoritarian winner- take -all , first- past- the post electoral system is the pride and joy of the English in the two main parties .
This majoritarian version of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leave case rejecting the unelected EU institutions and reserving their particular bile for the European court of justice .
The loathing of foreign “ unelected judges ” extends to our own judiciary , witness Johnson ’ s only partly suppressed rage at the Supreme Court ’ s overturning of his prorogation bid and the vows to curb judicial review of controversial government decisions .
For the new Conservatives , decision making should be focused on elected parliaments rather than on rights which seem infinitely extendable and adjudicated on by the courts .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrangements figure in this ?
For the constitutionally conservative DUP , power sharing accompanied by the rights based regime they are required to operate offends their instincts .
Both unionist parties have done little or nothing to disabuse their people of the notion that it is still “ our state.
“ .We saw that so clearly in the “ flegs ” dispute .
Many are angry and bewildered when confronted with the visible cultural expression of an Irish Language Act , and are hardly consoled by Ulster Scots .
Their anger and low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) by the Newsletter nearly every day .
They have been left defenceless and prey to mischief makers .
If you live in an illusion you are likely to be depressed .
The unionist parties may need no reminding that it was majoritarianism quickly replacing PR that consolidated an uneasy supremacy for fifty years .
It produced a small and deceptive late echo in the confidence and supply deal with Theresa May ’ s minority government .
With its end , and in a remarkable role reversal with republicans , the self confidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challengers of the faltering Ulster Unionists has been replaced by querulous fear and drift .
The loss of the unionist bloc majority is a harbinger .
The same majoritarianism that consolidated the unionist hold on Northern Ireland in the early years of the state may take them into a united Ireland .
As yet they have no strategy to prevent it .

The quivering projection of Big Ben onto the facade of Downing St accompanied by its tinny recorded chimes while the Brexit deliverer skulked inside, said it all. Boris Johnson did not want to be visibly identified with the big moment in case it all goes pear shaped. In former times retreats on such a scale were the result of war. That’s about best thing that can be said about Brexit; the worst is that it’s heading for a bigger reverse, the breakup of the United Kingdom, achieved like the rise of Empire “in a fit of absence of mind.”
In the interests of fairness, it should be said that an alternative version was brilliantly provided by the cosmopolitan novelist Louis de Bernieres.
Writing about his parents, “they felt outraged at having endured two World Wars only to end up being subject to laws not drawn up by our own parliament. It was easier for continental Europeans to compromise on democracy because they do not have the advantage of being protected, as we are, by the mere fact of being an island.”
The logic of Brexit should take us further. It has been increasingly obvious to me and fellow Leavers for many years now that the English would be better off on their own. It seems ever more likely that Ireland can be reunified, because all the very good reasons for the North resisting this have gone; the Republic is no longer a corrupt, backward country, it is an energetic, vibrant place where anyone would love to live, including me. We are an important trading partner; if Ireland were being strictly rational it would also leave the EU and opt for an Anglo-Irish economic zone.
England has no good reason for wanting to cling on to Northern Ireland, or to Scotland either.
I can hear a loud chorus of agreement for that. But quite a leap is involved here. How did an assertion of sovereignty translate into the possible breakup of the UK?
From the beginning of the century it began to dawn that breakup was implicit in devolution as the project’s momentous untended consequence. Sovereignty we began to realise was newly vested not finally in parliament, but in the people voting in the referendums of 1998 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. England with 84% of the UK population didn’t get it and barely gets it now, although there are growing numbers in favour of an English parliament.
By the time the 2016 Brexit referendum asserted the sovereignty of the British people as a whole, it was already an anachronism. Sovereignty had already been devolving to the people of Scotland and Wales whereas in Northern Ireland it had already gone in 1973 after direct rule replaced the old Stormont parliament as the vehicle of self determination. Our Union was different from Scotland’s. It had never been vested in Westminster but in ourselves, one way or another. For our alternative had never been independence but unity with the south. And so unambiguously it was written into the Good Friday Agreement.. Scotland has to ask Westminster’s permission to hold a second independence referendum whereas NI does not. In the end the difference may amount to very little. With Scotland and NI defying the English and Welsh majority in the Brexit referendum the Brexit fuelled surges for UK secession may be hard to turn back.
Devolution in 1998 was a typically piecemeal project whose fatal flaw was that it produced little change at the centre. Had Tony Blair who had little interest in it reformed the UK constitution to complement devolution, the course of the last 20 years might have been different. An elected Upper House with weighted representation for the Nations and regions in separate lists and electoral reform for the Commons might have produced a more settled UK, less liable to reach for external scapegoats like the EU to express discontent.
So there is an irony in the Brexiteer claim that sovereignty has been re gained. Sovereignty for the English perhaps but not for the Scot Nats, whose idea of sovereignty has been denied.
The clash between popular and UK parliamentary sovereignty will be played out over the coming years. The majoritarian winner- take -all, first- past- the post electoral system is the pride and joy of the English in the two main parties. This majoritarian version of sovereignty lies at the heart of the Leave case rejecting the unelected EU institutions and reserving their particular bile for the European court of justice. The loathing of foreign “unelected judges” extends to our own judiciary, witness Johnson’s only partly suppressed rage at the Supreme Court’s overturning of his prorogation bid and the vows to curb judicial review of controversial government decisions. For the new Conservatives, decision making should be focused on elected parliaments rather than on rights which seem infinitely extendable and adjudicated on by the courts.
How do Northern Ireland’s unique constitutional arrangements figure in this? For the constitutionally conservative DUP, power sharing accompanied by the rights based regime they are required to operate offends their instincts. Both unionist parties have done little or nothing to disabuse their people of the notion that it is still “our state.“.We saw that so clearly in the “flegs” dispute. Many are angry and bewildered when confronted with the visible cultural expression of an Irish Language Act, and are hardly consoled by Ulster Scots. Their anger and low morale is described (or perhaps deepened) by the Newsletter nearly every day. They have been left defenceless and prey to mischief makers. If you live in an illusion you are likely to be depressed.
The unionist parties may need no reminding that it was majoritarianism quickly replacing PR that consolidated an uneasy supremacy for fifty years. It produced a small and deceptive late echo in the confidence and supply deal with Theresa May’s minority government. With its end, and in a remarkable role reversal with republicans, the self confidence that had made the DUP such effective challengers of the faltering Ulster Unionists has been replaced by querulous fear and drift. The loss of the unionist bloc majority is a harbinger. The same majoritarianism that consolidated the unionist hold on Northern Ireland in the early years of the state may take them into a united Ireland. As yet they have no strategy to prevent it.


sluggerotoole--2020-01-31--“Britain has not left Europe; it has just stepped into another room”

Tonight I ’ ll be spending time in my favourite local pub with democracy heads our broken-hearted Europhile landlord who has bought in a load of mainland European cheeses to share with the bar .
So , before that moment , here are some of the best links for the day that ’ s in it from both sides of that divide… – Tim Garton Ash , in The Guardian , counsels us Remainers to get over it and try to make the best of what comes next..
In every sector , we ex-remainers are entitled to say “ if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together , show us you mean it ” .
If you care about the jobs of workers in the car industry , for example , you must keep close regulatory alignment with the European single market .
For those of us who work in universities , the litmus tests will include continued access to European research funding , visas not just for academic superstars but also for lower-paid , younger staff , and low fees for EU students .
And we must retain full British participation in the Erasmus scheme , which in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British students studying abroad , as well as bringing more than 30,000 European students a year to this country .
It ’ s not for nothing people say the future of Europe rests with “ the Erasmus generation ” .
– In The Times today , my old mate Iain Martin notes… There has been enough hysteria already on both sides of the bitter divide since the referendum .
Those of us who are pleased that Britain is leaving the integrationist EU , because we regard it as incompatible with the self-government that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , must acknowledge that large numbers of our fellow citizens are disappointed and bored by the topic .
If Britain is to be rebalanced and improved it can not be done with 52 percent crowing and the rest stewing .
Most Brexiteers , bar the excitable minority wing who will display banners in London tonight , seem to be taking that more reflective view .
As the financier , Crispin Odey put it , the sensible time to celebrate , if at all , is after we see what kind of deal Boris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this from another friend , Musa Okwonga… My family and I don ’ t discuss the referendum result very much .
Several of them , dissatisfied with the state of things in the country , voted to leave the EU .
A few months later , one of them told me with sadness that many of her Polish friends had gone back to mainland Europe .
They had done so not because of the uncertainty over their jobs that Brexit had created , but because they felt unwelcome .
I gently told my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not the answer to the questions she was asking of modern Britain .
I told her gently because although I voted to remain , I am not , as a wealthy Brexiter barked in my direction recently , a remainer .
It is not a tribal identity that I have taken up in response to the xenophobic rants of Nigel Farage – who , I am desperately assured , does not represent our country , but whose sentiments were alive and well in the mouths of those work colleagues .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it is a glorious and beautiful right to get up and move to a place where you might find greater happiness or safety .
I took it because my suspicion , later confirmed by data , was that the leave vote was far too tainted by a hostility towards people of colour .
Louis de Be writing in the Irish Times… People are talking about a “ new relationship ” between the UK and Europe .
If you think that a relationship is all about trade agreements and extradition treaties , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come up with .
But the EU is not Europe .
Let ’ s not be confused .
Our relationship will be as it always has been , more than 2,000 years old , an oscillation between the polarities of love and hate , respect and disrespect , admiration and contempt , co-operation and churlishness , fascination and disregard , depending upon what providence throws in our path .
No family is constituted and determined by written agreement .
The Germans and the French , the Portuguese and the Spanish , the Scottish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family whether we ’ re in the EU or not .
Rearranging the fences between our houses does nothing to alter the fact that we are , and always have been , in the same village .
More soberly in The Atlantic Magazine , Tom McTeague writes… Brexit raises questions far greater than the debates over the rights and wrongs of the referendum decision and Johnson ’ s subsequent prosecution of it .
Brexit is a real-life proxy for some of the most fundamental questions facing all nation-states today : How to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; how to maintain the corrective power of national democracy within supranational institutions ; and ultimately , how ordinary citizens can retain control over their lives and livelihoods in a world in which more and more areas of life are deemed beyond national political control , whether in regard to trade and tariffs ( should Britain embrace free trade , protectionism , or a mix of both ? )
, or immigration and national citizenship ( who and how many people should be allowed into a country and when should they receive the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? )
.
Gaby Hinsliff on the emotional roller coaster ride of being a remainer and what comes next… Remainers are often not that comfortable talking about our identities as Europeans , but that doesn ’ t mean we don ’ t have them or feel them intensely at times like this .
And when I think about what it means to me to be European , as well as profoundly English , I inevitably end up not with the EU flag or the day-to-day business of the Brussels institutions ( touching as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to quote George Eliot on love as we were leaving ) , but a gut sense acquired in childhood that foreign isn ’ t frightening , and lives opened up to the world will be more exciting than ones shut away from it .
People who backed remain made and lost their case on more practical , hard-boiled economic arguments , steering clear of this muddier emotional territory .
But as Britain reaches tonight ’ s point of no return from Brexit , it ’ s the deeper gut feelings that are bubbling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU was finally lost in December , but the debate about how we can stay European – how to keep the door open , preserve the social and cultural ties that bind , prevent Britain becoming a crabby and shrivelled country alienated from its own continent – needs blowing wide open .
Martin Wolf nods stoically towards the need to embrace the new reality facing the UK , and the EU… The UK is also likely to find it hard to exercise much independent influence upon a world entering an era of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US , China or the future EU , it is an economic minnow , albeit a large one .
In such a world , reliance on multilateral institutions is likely to prove futile .
Again and again , Britain will face choices over which side to choose in struggles , perhaps over technology or standards , that are occurring far over its head .
All this will be very uncomfortable .
Not least , the UK will frequently find itself a supplicant in relations with powers greater than itself .
It will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may work .
But the control it is allegedly taking will be illusory .
And finally , although I am far more inclined towards Wolf ’ s pessimism , last word to this bushy tailed pro-Brexit view in this week ’ s Spectator editorial on immigration… Finally , tonight our heartsore local Landlord will be taking down the union flag he has loyally flown for years pledging to fly any EU flag until his country comes around to seeing sense… He ’ s not holding his breath .
And playing you out is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years ago this June… “ Brexit sailing apart – bon voyage ” by “ Brexit sailing apart – bon voyage ” is licensed under “ Brexit sailing apart – bon voyage “

Tonight I’ll be spending time in my favourite local pub with democracy heads our broken-hearted Europhile landlord who has bought in a load of mainland European cheeses to share with the bar.
So, before that moment, here are some of the best links for the day that’s in it from both sides of that divide…
– Tim Garton Ash, in The Guardian, counsels us Remainers to get over it and try to make the best of what comes next..
In every sector, we ex-remainers are entitled to say “if you really want to bring the country together, show us you mean it”. If you care about the jobs of workers in the car industry, for example, you must keep close regulatory alignment with the European single market. For those of us who work in universities, the litmus tests will include continued access to European research funding, visas not just for academic superstars but also for lower-paid, younger staff, and low fees for EU students. And we must retain full British participation in the Erasmus scheme, which in recent years has accounted for half the British students studying abroad, as well as bringing more than 30,000 European students a year to this country. It’s not for nothing people say the future of Europe rests with “the Erasmus generation”.
– In The Times today, my old mate Iain Martin notes…
There has been enough hysteria already on both sides of the bitter divide since the referendum. Those of us who are pleased that Britain is leaving the integrationist EU, because we regard it as incompatible with the self-government that is the norm elsewhere in the world, must acknowledge that large numbers of our fellow citizens are disappointed and bored by the topic. If Britain is to be rebalanced and improved it cannot be done with 52 percent crowing and the rest stewing. Most Brexiteers, bar the excitable minority wing who will display banners in London tonight, seem to be taking that more reflective view. As the financier, Crispin Odey put it, the sensible time to celebrate, if at all, is after we see what kind of deal Boris Johnson negotiates with the EU.
And this from another friend, Musa Okwonga…
My family and I don’t discuss the referendum result very much. Several of them, dissatisfied with the state of things in the country, voted to leave the EU. A few months later, one of them told me with sadness that many of her Polish friends had gone back to mainland Europe. They had done so not because of the uncertainty over their jobs that Brexit had created, but because they felt unwelcome. I gently told my relative that I was very worried Brexit was not the answer to the questions she was asking of modern Britain. I told her gently because although I voted to remain, I am not, as a wealthy Brexiter barked in my direction recently, a remainer. It is not a tribal identity that I have taken up in response to the xenophobic rants of Nigel Farage – who, I am desperately assured, does not represent our country, but whose sentiments were alive and well in the mouths of those work colleagues. It is a political position I took because I think it is a glorious and beautiful right to get up and move to a place where you might find greater happiness or safety. I took it because my suspicion, later confirmed by data, was that the leave vote was far too tainted by a hostility towards people of colour.
Louis de Be writing in the Irish Times…
People are talking about a “new relationship” between the UK and Europe. If you think that a relationship is all about trade agreements and extradition treaties, then clearly something “new” must be come up with. But the EU is not Europe. Let’s not be confused. Our relationship will be as it always has been, more than 2,000 years old, an oscillation between the polarities of love and hate, respect and disrespect, admiration and contempt, co-operation and churlishness, fascination and disregard, depending upon what providence throws in our path. No family is constituted and determined by written agreement. The Germans and the French, the Portuguese and the Spanish, the Scottish and Irish, we’re a family whether we’re in the EU or not. Rearranging the fences between our houses does nothing to alter the fact that we are, and always have been, in the same village.
More soberly in The Atlantic Magazine, Tom McTeague writes…
Brexit raises questions far greater than the debates over the rights and wrongs of the referendum decision and Johnson’s subsequent prosecution of it. Brexit is a real-life proxy for some of the most fundamental questions facing all nation-states today: How to remain prosperous and sovereign in a globalized economy; how to maintain the corrective power of national democracy within supranational institutions; and ultimately, how ordinary citizens can retain control over their lives and livelihoods in a world in which more and more areas of life are deemed beyond national political control, whether in regard to trade and tariffs (should Britain embrace free trade, protectionism, or a mix of both?), or immigration and national citizenship (who and how many people should be allowed into a country and when should they receive the same rights as the citizens already there?).
Gaby Hinsliff on the emotional roller coaster ride of being a remainer and what comes next…
Remainers are often not that comfortable talking about our identities as Europeans, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have them or feel them intensely at times like this. And when I think about what it means to me to be European, as well as profoundly English, I inevitably end up not with the EU flag or the day-to-day business of the Brussels institutions (touching as it was of Ursula von der Leyen to quote George Eliot on love as we were leaving), but a gut sense acquired in childhood that foreign isn’t frightening, and lives opened up to the world will be more exciting than ones shut away from it. People who backed remain made and lost their case on more practical, hard-boiled economic arguments, steering clear of this muddier emotional territory. But as Britain reaches tonight’s point of no return from Brexit, it’s the deeper gut feelings that are bubbling up. The battle to stay in the EU was finally lost in December, but the debate about how we can stay European – how to keep the door open, preserve the social and cultural ties that bind, prevent Britain becoming a crabby and shrivelled country alienated from its own continent – needs blowing wide open.
Martin Wolf nods stoically towards the need to embrace the new reality facing the UK, and the EU…
The UK is also likely to find it hard to exercise much independent influence upon a world entering an era of great power rivalry. Next to the US, China or the future EU, it is an economic minnow, albeit a large one. In such a world, reliance on multilateral institutions is likely to prove futile. Again and again, Britain will face choices over which side to choose in struggles, perhaps over technology or standards, that are occurring far over its head. All this will be very uncomfortable. Not least, the UK will frequently find itself a supplicant in relations with powers greater than itself. It will have to be nimble and humble. That may work. But the control it is allegedly taking will be illusory.
And finally, although I am far more inclined towards Wolf’s pessimism, last word to this bushy tailed pro-Brexit view in this week’s Spectator editorial on immigration…
The PM has made a good start by dropping David Cameron’s failed net migration target. That, too, showed the inadequacy of centralised planning. Whatever the details, there should be a clear message from Britain: that while we will be able to control migration from within the EU, we will be more liberal towards skilled and entrepreneurial people from all around the world. And that Brexit means doing globalisation better — in a way that carries greater public consent.
Finally, tonight our heartsore local Landlord will be taking down the union flag he has loyally flown for years pledging to fly any EU flag until his country comes around to seeing sense… He’s not holding his breath.
And playing you out is our Brexit playlist from that fateful day four years ago this June…
“Brexit sailing apart – bon voyage” by “Brexit sailing apart – bon voyage” is licensed under “Brexit sailing apart – bon voyage“


sluggerotoole--2020-01-31--Slugger TV looks at the new Executive

Slugger TV looks at the new Executive

This months show we look at the new Executive with Allison Morris and Sarah Creighton The Youtube version below has @ @ @ @ @ : You can also listen to it as a podcast , just search for Slugger @ @ @ @ @ favourite podcast app .
Or click play below for audio :

Donate to keep Slugger lit!
For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.
Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger.
While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.
If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated.


sluggerotoole--2020-01-31--What is your goodbye song for Europe?

What is your goodbye song for Europe?

I am sure tonight as Big Ben strikes 11pm you will all be waving your Union Jacks and joining in a rousing chorus of Rule Britannia .
But what song symbolises the UK ’ s leaving of the EU ?
For me it has to be this classic from the Queen of Country herself – Miss Dolly Parton : If I should stay I would only be in your way So I ’ ll go but I know I ’ ll think of you each step of the way And I will always love you And I will always love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have , and all I ’ m taking with me So goodbye , please don ’ t you cry ‘ Cause we both know I ’ m not what you need And I will always love you I will always love you I hope life treats you kind And I hope you have all you ’ ve dreamed I wish you and happiness But above all , I wish you love And I will always love you And I will always love you I will always love you And what about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost love from the King himself ?
Quite as often as I could have And maybe I didn ’ t treat you Quite as good as I should have If I made you feel second best Girl I ’ m sorry I was blind You were always on my mind You were always on my mind And maybe I didn ’ t hold you All those lonely , lonely times I guess I never told you I am so happy that you ’ re mine Little things I should have said and done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were always on my mind You were always on my mind Tell me Tell me that your sweet love hasn ’ t died And give me Give me one more chance to keep you satisfied I ’ ll keep you satisfied Little things I should have said and done I just never took the time You were always on my mind ( you were always on my mind ) You were always on my mind You were always on my mind ( you were always on my mind ) You were always on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Photo by geralt is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

I am sure tonight as Big Ben strikes 11pm you will all be waving your Union Jacks and joining in a rousing chorus of Rule Britannia. But what song symbolises the UK’s leaving of the EU?
For me it has to be this classic from the Queen of Country herself – Miss Dolly Parton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDqqm_gTPjc
If I should stay
I would only be in your way
So I’ll go but I know
I’ll think of you each step of the way
And I will always love you
And I will always love you
Bittersweet memories
That’s all I have, and all I’m taking with me
So goodbye, please don’t you cry
‘Cause we both know I’m not what you need
And I will always love you
I will always love you
I hope life treats you kind
And I hope you have all you’ve dreamed
I wish you and happiness
But above all, I wish you love
And I will always love you
And I will always love you
I will always love you
And what about the EU side? Maybe this masterpiece of lost love from the King himself?
Maybe I didn’t love you
Quite as often as I could have
And maybe I didn’t treat you
Quite as good as I should have
If I made you feel second best
Girl I’m sorry I was blind
You were always on my mind
You were always on my mind
And maybe I didn’t hold you
All those lonely, lonely times
I guess I never told you
I am so happy that you’re mine
Little things I should have said and done
I just never took the time
You were always on my mind
You were always on my mind
Tell me
Tell me that your sweet love hasn’t died
And give me
Give me one more chance to keep you satisfied
I’ll keep you satisfied
Little things I should have said and done
I just never took the time
You were always on my mind (you were always on my mind)
You were always on my mind
You were always on my mind (you were always on my mind)
You were always on my mind
What are your suggestions?
Photo by geralt is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-01-31--Martina Anderson expected to join her two MEP colleagues at Stormont…

I saw some speculation that Martina Anderson might take Matt Carthy ’ s seat were he elected as TD for @ @ @ @ @ I guess it was always unlikely since she could hardly be named as a substitute @ @ @ @ @ time last May .
Turns out she ’ s taking over Ray McCartney ’ s @ @ @ @ @ all three former MEPs are now in or heading for Stormont .
Her DUP counterpart @ @ @ @ @ [ the department most involved over Brexit trade deal ] .
In fact , she @ @ @ @ @ officially selected , since , as the BelTel reports : A Sinn Fein source said @ @ @ @ @ candidate nominated to replace Mr McCartney , who is set to step down from the @ @ @ @ @ Sinn Fein spokesman added : “ A selection convention will take place tomorrow , the @ @ @ @ @ announced afterwards .
”

I saw some speculation that Martina Anderson might take Matt Carthy’s seat were he elected as TD for Cavan Monaghan next week. I guess it was always unlikely since she could hardly be named as a substitute when elected at the same time last May.
Turns out she’s taking over Ray McCartney’s Foyle seat, meaning that all three former MEPs are now in or heading for Stormont. Her DUP counterpart is ensconced as Economy Minister [the department most involved over Brexit trade deal].
In fact, she hasn’t yet been officially selected, since, as the BelTel reports:
A Sinn Fein source said Ms Anderson is the only candidate nominated to replace Mr McCartney, who is set to step down from the Assembly on Monday. A Sinn Fein spokesman added: “A selection convention will take place tomorrow, the results of which will be announced afterwards.”


sluggerotoole--2020-02-03--#GE2020: And in the final week it starts to get really interesting…

So , Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil are level pegging going into the last week and the government party , Fine Gael , is trailing ( if not by that far ) behind .
Who ’ d have thought it ?
Some folks are already counting the “ Unity Chickens ” barely two months after SF took a hammering in NI .
And of course , the temptation is clear enough : With his party standing just 42 candidates for a Dáil assembly of 160 deputies in total , I ’ d say Eoin ’ s optimism is unlikely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least despite the fact that its popularity is spreading upwards through the age groups .
But the Sinn Féin rise hasn ’ t come at the expense of its perennial target Fianna Fáil , whose leader has been laying down a clear anti-Sinn Féin line since 2011 .
Rather it ’ s the Fine Gael party that ’ s been suffering aggregate setbacks , roughly proportionate to SF ’ s rise .
I ’ ve been exploring the seeming paradox of this situation privately with friends for the last two weeks , suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be moving to SF directly from FG .
It suggests there ’ s a rag order fracturing going on .
Voters are fluid .
However , Colin Murphy , writing in yesterday ’ s SBP , lays out what I suspect has given rise to this oddly novel factor in this election : ie Fine Gael ’ s cavalier and offhand treatment of the unionist interest in finding an equitable and fair island-wide outcome to the Brexit process .
In Leo , a biography of Leo Varadkar by Phillip Ryan and Niall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a source who told them the Taoiseach held “ secret discussions ” with Simon Coveney during which he and Coveney decided “ to take a different tack to their predecessors ” and “ play hardball on the border ” realising this would antagonise the DUP .
The consequence of this new nationalist turn by the Fine Gael leadership was not only a hardening of relations with the DUP but a deterioration of relations with unionism as a whole , and the forsaking of any claim the Irish Government could lay to the position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step , Varadkar and Coveney undermined a key Fine Gael legacy .
As historian Paul Bew said , Brexit “ re-opened a Cold War between North and South ” , a Cold War which Fine Gael leader John Bruton had been instrumental in helping to thaw in the early 1990s .
This estrangement was cemented by Varadkar ’ s and Coveney ’ s excitable reaction to their success in influencing the EU-British proposals of December 2017 which gave us the backstop , the default commitment that the border would never harden .
Varadkar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bulletproof severely restricted his room for manoeuvre later on .
This “ new nationalist turn ” ( encouraged no doubt by some crude jeering of Brexiteers from prominent voices within the Dublin press ) may prove to be a dangerous ( or at least a premature ) break with Fine Gael ’ s traditional sharp antipathy towards Sinn Féin .
Brexit ( alongside an obvious domestic appetite for change ) seems to be further loosening long set cultural affinities to two parties which as lately as 2007 was able to command 65 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 between them , they barely managed to get to 50 % .
Sinn Fein , to borrow Brian ’ s analogy , is the stealthy fox who has been trying to get into the FF/FG chicken coop ( although only seriously from the run-in for the 2009 local government elections ) for years now .
But it is clear they hadn ’ t planned for this boost in the polls .
Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have spent most of their time trying to lay gloves on each other for the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 39 the seats will slide between them .
That ’ s why the gap between them is most likely the defining feature of the outcome of this election .
24 % for Sinn Féin is clearly way ahead of the party ’ s own estimate , but there are two emerging bumps in the road to be navigated between now and polling day next Saturday , and that ’ s the perennial legacy of its IRA past ; and a budget that has yet to face any real scrutiny .
Yesterday for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Féin ’ s record on IRA atrocities emerged for the first time in any serious way .
In the Sunday Independent Mairia Cahill broke the relative silence by asking who sets the policy for the party ’ s serial mistreatment of IRA victims .
She cited the troubling case of Paul Quinn : And the politics of it being , a matter of policy… For years , the party has had a policy concerning victims of the IRA , or indeed anyone , who has spoken out about the IRA .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condemn atrocious actions , or indeed to cast a cloud of doubt on the credibility of those speaking .
Where did this policy emanate from ?
It isn ’ t an unfair question , as the party is mainly homogenous in the response of its representatives whenever a scandal emerges .
Breege Quinn ’ s devastation is not historic ; it is very much a live issue .
She has been begging Sinn Fein to do the right thing for the past 13 years .
A simple phone call from McDonald to Conor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ard comhairle – could sort the issue out quickly .
Elaine Byrne writing in the Sunday Business Post , and a noted expert on political corruption in the Irish political system took a slightly different tack , by highlighting… That these issues are late breaking-through has much to do with the fact that the campaign is crammed into a very short space of time .
They have barely featured in any of the tv and radio debates .
In this regard , it has allowed the party to get right out on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play out is the issue of the SF bonanza budget .
In Northern Ireland , we have a fairly relaxed view of budgets .
A Finance Minister that isn ’ t responsible for tax-raising can take all the time in the world to set departmental spending rounds .
But in the Republic , it ’ s a vital role in making everything else happen .
This morning , the usually mild-mannered Fianna Fáil finance spokesman Michael McGrath highlighted a €4 Billion post manifesto adjustment in Pearse Doherty ’ s figures : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also highlights a point made in yet another article in yesterday ’ s SBP , which is the unsustainability of Pearse Doherty ’ s budget proposals , particularly in how it plans to raise money to pay its massively expanded spending plans .
A meeting of RTÉ ’ s General Election steering committee today ensured that Mary Lou will be included in what was to be the last leaders ’ debate , but which is now to be followed by another minor debate .
With just three participants both matters are likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s on tomorrow night .
From a tv point of view , it will be the last big roll of the dice for all three .
But the real campaigns out in the constituency are notoriously hard to call .
If you want a bit of crack , try Ivan Yates and Gavan Reilly ’ s Calling It podcasts .
And the next poll is out just after nine tonight from the Irish Times…

So, Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil are level pegging going into the last week and the government party, Fine Gael, is trailing (if not by that far) behind. Who’d have thought it? Some folks are already counting the “Unity Chickens” barely two months after SF took a hammering in NI.
And of course, the temptation is clear enough:
Could we really be heading for a Govt without FF or FG? Could we finally have a Left led Govt? 7 days to deliver real change. #TheTimeIsNow@businessposthq @REDCResearch FF 24% (-2)
SF 24% (+4)
FG 21 % (-2)
GP 7% (-1)
Lab 5% (+1)
SD: 3% (-)
S/PBP 1% (-1)
Ind/Otrs 13% (-1) — Eoin Ó Broin (@EOBroin) February 2, 2020
With his party standing just 42 candidates for a Dáil assembly of 160 deputies in total, I’d say Eoin’s optimism is unlikely to come to fruition in this election at least despite the fact that its popularity is spreading upwards through the age groups.
"Quite blatantly, @sinnfeinireland's problem is they don't have enough candidates…" @OdranFly is telling Ivan what we should be taking out of the latest opinion polls.@NewstalkFM — The Hard Shoulder (@TheHardShoulder) February 3, 2020
But the Sinn Féin rise hasn’t come at the expense of its perennial target Fianna Fáil, whose leader has been laying down a clear anti-Sinn Féin line since 2011. Rather it’s the Fine Gael party that’s been suffering aggregate setbacks, roughly proportionate to SF’s rise.
I’ve been exploring the seeming paradox of this situation privately with friends for the last two weeks, suggesting that the irresistible conclusion is that people must be moving to SF directly from FG. It suggests there’s a rag order fracturing going on. Voters are fluid.
However, Colin Murphy, writing in yesterday’s SBP, lays out what I suspect has given rise to this oddly novel factor in this election: ie Fine Gael’s cavalier and offhand treatment of the unionist interest in finding an equitable and fair island-wide outcome to the Brexit process.
In Leo, a biography of Leo Varadkar by Phillip Ryan and Niall O’Connor, the authors quote a source who told them the Taoiseach held “secret discussions” with Simon Coveney during which he and Coveney decided “to take a different tack to their predecessors” and “play hardball on the border” realising this would antagonise the DUP. The consequence of this new nationalist turn by the Fine Gael leadership was not only a hardening of relations with the DUP but a deterioration of relations with unionism as a whole, and the forsaking of any claim the Irish Government could lay to the position of honest broker. In taking this step, Varadkar and Coveney undermined a key Fine Gael legacy. As historian Paul Bew said, Brexit “re-opened a Cold War between North and South”, a Cold War which Fine Gael leader John Bruton had been instrumental in helping to thaw in the early 1990s. This estrangement was cemented by Varadkar’s and Coveney’s excitable reaction to their success in influencing the EU-British proposals of December 2017 which gave us the backstop, the default commitment that the border would never harden. Varadkar’s boast that the backstop was bulletproof severely restricted his room for manoeuvre later on.
This “new nationalist turn” (encouraged no doubt by some crude jeering of Brexiteers from prominent voices within the Dublin press) may prove to be a dangerous (or at least a premature) break with Fine Gael’s traditional sharp antipathy towards Sinn Féin.
One of the outcomes of all this is a resurgence of 32 county nationalism in the South, with Sinn Féin in the vanguard, something Fine Gael will struggle to contain, and which threatens to entrench unionist alienation from the South.
Brexit (alongside an obvious domestic appetite for change) seems to be further loosening long set cultural affinities to two parties which as lately as 2007 was able to command 65% of the total vote cast. In 2016 between them, they barely managed to get to 50%.
Sinn Fein, to borrow Brian’s analogy, is the stealthy fox who has been trying to get into the FF/FG chicken coop (although only seriously from the run-in for the 2009 local government elections) for years now. But it is clear they hadn’t planned for this boost in the polls.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have spent most of their time trying to lay gloves on each other for the very rational reason that in most of the 39 the seats will slide between them. That’s why the gap between them is most likely the defining feature of the outcome of this election.
24% for Sinn Féin is clearly way ahead of the party’s own estimate, but there are two emerging bumps in the road to be navigated between now and polling day next Saturday, and that’s the perennial legacy of its IRA past; and a budget that has yet to face any real scrutiny.
Yesterday for the first time, the question of Sinn Féin’s record on IRA atrocities emerged for the first time in any serious way. In the Sunday Independent Mairia Cahill broke the relative silence by asking who sets the policy for the party’s serial mistreatment of IRA victims.
She cited the troubling case of Paul Quinn:
Paul was murdered nine years after the Good Friday Agreement by shadowy figures who have never been prosecuted for the crime. Shadowy figures protected those killers. Life in Northern Ireland has never been normal, but the memory of Breege Quinn, Paul’s mother, sobbing as she told me her son was beaten so badly that she couldn’t even put rosary beads on his hands will haunt me forever. Such a simple ritual that couldn’t be observed because the animals who battered Paul left, as a doctor told his family, “nothing to fix”.
And the politics of it being, a matter of policy…
For years, the party has had a policy concerning victims of the IRA, or indeed anyone, who has spoken out about the IRA. It is either to deny, or refuse to condemn atrocious actions, or indeed to cast a cloud of doubt on the credibility of those speaking. Where did this policy emanate from? It isn’t an unfair question, as the party is mainly homogenous in the response of its representatives whenever a scandal emerges. Breege Quinn’s devastation is not historic; it is very much a live issue. She has been begging Sinn Fein to do the right thing for the past 13 years. A simple phone call from McDonald to Conor Murphy – and an instruction from the ard comhairle – could sort the issue out quickly.
Elaine Byrne writing in the Sunday Business Post, and a noted expert on political corruption in the Irish political system took a slightly different tack, by highlighting…
The absence of moral courage undermines Sinn Féin. Indeed, iin 2015 McDonald described Thomas “Slab” Murphy as a ‘good republican’. This, at the same time the alleged former chief of staff of the IRA faced nine charges of tax evasion. The non-jury Special Criminal Court found Murphy guilty. He was prosecuted on foot of an investigation by the Criminal Assets Bureau. In this context, Sinn Féin’s calls for the Special Criminal Court to be abolished and now ‘reformed and reviewed’ raises serious concerns. There are justifiable concerns about who influences Sinn Féin decision-making.
That these issues are late breaking-through has much to do with the fact that the campaign is crammed into a very short space of time. They have barely featured in any of the tv and radio debates. In this regard, it has allowed the party to get right out on the front foot.
The other factor yet to play out is the issue of the SF bonanza budget. In Northern Ireland, we have a fairly relaxed view of budgets. A Finance Minister that isn’t responsible for tax-raising can take all the time in the world to set departmental spending rounds.
But in the Republic, it’s a vital role in making everything else happen. This morning, the usually mild-mannered Fianna Fáil finance spokesman Michael McGrath highlighted a €4 Billion post manifesto adjustment in Pearse Doherty’s figures:
The sequence starts at about 8.56 in. He also highlights a point made in yet another article in yesterday’s SBP, which is the unsustainability of Pearse Doherty’s budget proposals, particularly in how it plans to raise money to pay its massively expanded spending plans.
Brian Keegan of Chartered Accountants Ireland:
Let’s set aside any objections on ideological grounds. The problem with the tax proposals in the Sinn Féin manifesto is that they are not sustainable. They would bring in additional money in year one, but not in years two, three and four.
A meeting of RTÉ’s General Election steering committee today ensured that Mary Lou will be included in what was to be the last leaders’ debate, but which is now to be followed by another minor debate. With just three participants both matters are likely to get an airing.
That’s on tomorrow night. From a tv point of view, it will be the last big roll of the dice for all three. But the real campaigns out in the constituency are notoriously hard to call. If you want a bit of crack, try Ivan Yates and Gavan Reilly’s Calling It podcasts.
And the next poll is out just after nine tonight from the Irish Times…
🚨NEW #GE2020 Poll 🚨 Sinn Féin on top. Sinn Fein 25%
Fianna Fáil 23%
Fine Gael 20% pic.twitter.com/Ymzbh6bAD0 — Darran Marshall (@DarranMarshall) February 3, 2020