NI Westminster Election 2017

[backstothewall]

It's going to be a hell of a couple of months

[DannyInvincible]

It's amusing seeing the DUP being referred to as "the Irish DUP" in the British and international media. Bet they're loving that! :rofl:

More seriously though, I hope they're finding the extra scrutiny and exposure to a more widespread audience uncomfortable. It's certainly demonstrating the scale of the chasm between the British values of most Britons and the regressive values of northern unionism.

If the DUP can influence/govern via direct rule, what then is the incentive for them to work towards re-establishing the devolved institutions at Stormont and involve others who won't be as congenial to their wishes as their new Tory partners in Westminster?

Also, surely the DUP's influence/presence in government at Westminster is incompatible with the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. I don't regard the British government as a neutral player when it comes to northern affairs anyway, but they have at least claimed to be a neutral "broker" or "mediator" in recent decades. Now that the DUP will have a role in the next UK government, however, it will make a total mockery of any such notions of governmental neutrality. What safeguards might be put in place to protect the rights and interests of the nationalist community? What if Jeffrey Donaldson was to become secretary of state for the north, for example?

Interestingly, the DUP allege that they didn't actually promise an Irish language act at St. Andrew's (so they say there's no duty on them to facilitate it) and claim that it was actually the British government that promised it. The St. Andrew's Agreement stated:


"The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language."

If the DUP are now going to form part of or play a role in the next British government, however, won't they be obliged to deliver on that promise? Maybe they're unwittingly putting themselves in a bit of a bind on that front...

The DUP also repeatedly claim to want a "frictionless border" in Ireland, but they were recklessly pro-Brexit and also reject the prospect of special status. One of their demands to the Tories - in return for offering the support of their ten MPs - is that the north will not be granted any special status that differentiates it from Britain's post-EU status. If you want the border to be "frictionless", some form of special status will be a prerequisite, however, so their stated wishes don't quite add up.

[backstothewall]

"I told her that there were a number of things that count to me more than the party. One of them is country, one of the others is LGBTI rights.
I asked for a categoric assurance that if any deal or scoping deal was done with the DUP, there would be absolutely no rescission of LGBTI rights in the rest of the UK, in Great Britain, and that we would use any influence that we had to advance LGBTI rights in Northern Ireland."

If I was labour i would be terribly worried about Ruth Davidson as Tory leader.

I'd sleep soundly in my bed facing David Davies or Boris on the other hand

[BonnieShels]

I appreciate how good she is in the grand scheme. But she's still a unionist. And she's still a Tory.

[backstothewall]

The deal is done so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40236152

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords...

[CraftyToePoke]

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords...

Go on, expand on that. Please. You are usually very accurately and entertainingly ahead of the curve on here on these developments.

As an aside, as one who lives in England, it has been nothing short of repeatedly f**king hilarious these last two days watching the horror dawn on people of what DUP actually means. (& not the letters either)

[DannyInvincible]

The deal is done so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40236152

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords...

No deal just yet. Yesterday's announcement was made by Downing Street in haste. Maybe they were eager to get things wrapped up before the DUP's day of rest today... Anyhow, negotiations are to continue through to next week.

The whole thing just goes to show how utterly desperate and craven May is. Word is that she'd prefer a formal coalition - obviously to secure her position more firmly - rather than a less formal "confidence and supply" arrangement, but, naturally, other Tories aren't so keen on forming a coalition with an outfit like the DUP. (Imagine climate-change denier Sammy Wilson as environment secretary!) No doubt, there are moves against May underway from within her own party. Boris Johnson is flat-out denying that he has any designs on taking over - he's probably overcompensating - so my money would be on him doing a Brutus and stabbing his leader in the back.

I'm sure the EU's Brexit negotiators are keeping a close eye on all this chaos and are finding developments more amusing than intimidating. They probably can't wait to get stuck in themselves.

Meanwhile, latest polling indicates that if another election was called, Labour would be likely to win relatively comfortably: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/873674408224862210


Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 45% (+5)
CON: 39% (-3)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 3% (+1)

(via @Survation / 10 Jun)
Chgs. w/ GE2017

Corbyn still thinks there's a chance he could form a government regardless, based on the apparent precedent of 1974: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-prime-minister-ted-heath-harold-wilson-labour-party-minority-government-a7783336.html


On 28 February 1974, Heath lost [the general election], but he messed around for a few days trying to cobble together a deal with the Liberal Party to stay in power. Like Theresa May, Heath was a stubborn man who liked the job. In the meantime the Labour leader, a wily old fox, simply ruled out any deals at all with other parties and sat and waited for Heath's efforts to collapse. They duly did.

Wilson then formed a minority government, and was careful to only introduce measures that wouldn’t immediately attract automatic and rabid opposition from the Tory benches. For their part, the Conservatives and the liberals were very unwilling to inflict another election on the public only a few weeks later. So Heath ordered his MPs to abstain, and Labour got their Budget through.

This is interesting as it shows how incompatible the Tories and DUP might prove to be based on their previous voting records: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/10/our-friends-in-the-north-the-dup-and-the-tories-arent-ideologically-close/

Any pact will surely prove to be very fragile.

[CraftyToePoke]

Enda Kenny weighing in with a tweet that he has reminded May of her duty to the GFA and particularly now there is zero Nationalist voice in Westminster.

[DannyInvincible]

Crypto-Tory Peter Mandelson has been appealing to people (via a piece in the bloody Daily Mail!) to get behind Theresa May in the "national interest": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4592416/Peter-Mandelson-says-party-moderates-stand-PM.html


I believe if she shows flexibility, most of the country will back her.

It would be churlish for people like me and other Remainers not to give her political backing.

There are Labour MPs who want to work in the national interest and will support her if she does the right thing for the country.

Mainstream Labour MPs, who worry about the impact of the continuing Corbyn revolution on centrist voters, should be prepared to stand by the wounded PM, and likewise she should welcome their approach in the national interest.

You couldn't make it up.

[osarusan]

I'd imagine Corbyn would be content in opposition for the time being, as the Tories stumble along through Brexit negotiations for a while, with increasing public astonishment at what the DUP is, probably a leadership change at some point.

The next few months are going to be nothing but negative headlines for the government, so Labour will be hoping to make hay...as long as they can keep their internal and grassroots energy and momentum going.

[backstothewall]

Go on, expand on that. Please. You are usually very accurately and entertainingly ahead of the curve on here on these developments.

As an aside, as one who lives in England, it has been nothing short of repeatedly f**king hilarious these last two days watching the horror dawn on people of what DUP actually means. (& not the letters either)

That was noting more than a Simpsons quote added for a bit of entertainment.

My take the whole situation is that it simply won't work. I'd imagine there will be another election called immediately after the party conferences in September. Votes probably cast on 26th October or 2nd November. The tories will change their leader at their conference. Corbyn will change the Labour party position on Trident, as well as the rules for leadership elections, and give local parties the power to deselect a sitting MP.

Then they will do it all over again. The tories are in trouble, and have been for years. The last time they won an election with a majority in double figures was in 1992. A very long time given that the UK has an electoral system designed to provide "strong and stable" governments. The Cameron governments papered over the cracks but this election has exposed their problems for the world to see.

[Gather round]

There are times you look at Northern Ireland and feel they deserve every misfortune that befalls them

There are times when I read Mr or Ms Anonymous sneering on the internet and think “Away and sh*te...”


More seriously though, I hope they're finding the extra scrutiny and exposure to a more widespread audience uncomfortable. It's certainly demonstrating the scale of the chasm between the British values of most Britons and the regressive values of northern unionism

They can probably handle ill- or semi-informed criticism from people (below) who can't vote against them. Are you being entirely serious about the other? This country (England) has millions of people who share their prejdices against gays and abortion and probably aren't too hot on the Theory of Evolution. Remember, this is an election where they don't trust people to mark 1,2.3 on a ballot paper...

OK, Kay Burley (Sky News). How can TM as a woman deal with an anti-abortion party? Ask Leo Varadkar if you can't get the Saudis on speed-dial.

Ruth Davidson (Tory leader in Scotland). No-one will stop you getting married to your female partner, or insist on bowler-hatted marchpasts before every Celtic home game. Self-obsessed hypocrisy, I'm afraid.

Shaun Lord Snooty Woodward (ex Labour NI secretary, previously a Tory MP). There isn't and can't reasonably be a 'rule' forbidding two British political parties dealing with each other. If that contradicts the GFA then tough, the latter will need to be replaced.

Gerry Adams TD: thanks for clarifying this weekend that your party isn't interested in goings-on in the Brit Parliament. And well done on your election results. As most Nat voters in Belfast, Derry and South Down clearly share your attitude, you can't expect a movement with no MPs to have a veto in Parliament.

Imagine Sammy Wilson as Climate Change Secretary? No need for hysterical flights of fancy- not least as Michael Gove has previous on the same issue. Do you think the 10 DUP MPs will get 11 Cabinet jobs or what?

Of course, you're right it probably won't last. Good article by 'Salmon of Data' on Slugger


I'd imagine there will be another election called immediately after the party conferences in September

I was at my local count on Friday morning (finishing, farcically at 715am with Dudley North settled by 22 votes). Local UKIP big cheese Bill Etheridge lost 80% of his vote and barely saved the deposit, but still claimed to look forward to doing it again in October ;)

Two cautions for Labour. Despite the membership they are still short of cash and big donors- and a very large proportion of their MPs are cool on Corbyn, many likely agree with Mandelson quoted above.

[DannyInvincible]

BBC anchor Simon McCoy pretty much laughs in the face of Tory MP Alan Mak who's still repeating the "strong and stable leadership" mantra in spite of his party's election disaster:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw129jaW4Sk

[DannyInvincible]

Are you being entirely serious about the other? This country (England) has millions of people who share their prejdices against gays and abortion and probably aren't too hot on the Theory of Evolution. Remember, this is an election where they don't trust people to mark 1,2.3 on a ballot paper...

The DUP's anachronistic views, whilst apparently popular in the north-east of Ireland, are way out of step with mainstream thinking in Britain, which, as you suggest, can be quite reactionary as it is. The British media, both on the right and left, have been lampooning the DUP all week because they regard them as so exotic, alien and retrograde.

The following comment by a commenter called Neil on Slugger O'Toole (https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/12/alastair-campbell-and-jonathan-powell-are-wrong-the-dup-poses-no-threat-to-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-3354791723) humoured me:


"I hope the DUP enjoy their moment in the sun, it's certainly not coming without a cost. The dawning realisation that a sizable chunk of your fellow British people view the DUP with contempt. We'll see how well they stand up to scrutiny now that they're attracting the attention of the kind of journalists that hack phones, as opposed to the normal NI type who circulate party press releases.

We'll see how this one pans out, but this 'deal' isn't a deal yet. As I said, imagine after all these years the vote actually fell within that magic, tiny margin where the DUP become relevant and they find that they're too toxic for the Tory party."


Ruth Davidson (Tory leader in Scotland). No-one will stop you getting married to your female partner, or insist on bowler-hatted marchpasts before every Celtic home game. Self-obsessed hypocrisy, I'm afraid.

Heh, her "expression of concern" did seem a bit like grandstanding alright.


Shaun Lord Snooty Woodward (ex Labour NI secretary, previously a Tory MP). There isn't and can't reasonably be a 'rule' forbidding two British political parties dealing with each other. If that contradicts the GFA then tough, the latter will need to be replaced.

The Good Friday Agreement states that "the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction [over the north] shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality":

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d57d7e59787aad22cd9d0fbb803f8244d4a2170b30b14e3201 fc5094b895605e.png

In theory, if the DUP won enough seats to form a government by themselves, there's little that could be done about that, but surely any responsible non-Ireland-based British party with designs on forming a government should not be inviting coalitions or "confidence and supply" arrangements with unionist (or, indeed, nationalist) parties from the north of Ireland if they're obliged to remain rigorously impartial in their dealings with the region. The possibility of neutrality is necessarily compromised by such a blatant conflict of interest.

With what are you going to replace the GFA?


Gerry Adams TD: thanks for clarifying this weekend that your party isn't interested in goings-on in the Brit Parliament. And well done on your election results. As most Nat voters in Belfast, Derry and South Down clearly share your attitude, you can't expect a movement with no MPs to have a veto in Parliament.

What are you referring to? Did Adams say he expected some sort of veto in Westminster?

It's interesting to hear the demands in the media for Sinn Féin to take their seats, especially from southern parties like Fianna Fáil and the Irish Labour Party. Considering these parties - supposedly national - refuse to contest elections north of the border, they can hardly lecture others on such matters.

Also of interest, I note that a Tory actually suggested reform of the parliamentary oath of allegiance back in 2006 in order to facilitate Sinn Féin, although nothing ever became of it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510037/Change-the-Oath-of-Allegiance-to-help-Sinn-Fein-says-Tory.html

I'm not convinced that would make a difference anyway, especially judging by the unequivocal statements of Adams and other Sinn Féin members since the election. The rationale, which has remained unchanged for a century, was outlined pretty clearly again by Danny Morrison on Eamonn Mallie's site the other day and it doesn't merely relate to the oath: http://eamonnmallie.com/2017/06/forming-executive-dup-difficult-now-sinn-fein-danny-morrison/

Sinn Féin would surely have to have a vote involving party members at an Ard Fheis to change a policy like that. Taking their seats might seem like a no-brainer to the many urging Sinn Féin to take their seats, but I don't see it happening for a few obvious reasons:


Sinn Féin's seven MPs were elected in the knowledge and on the promise that they would abstain from Westminster. That's what the largest number of voters in the seven constituencies where Sinn Féin won their seats voted for. For Sinn Féin to go back on that would essentially be to renege on an election promise.
Abstentionism has been a core party policy of Sinn Féin's for a century, the purpose of which has effectively been to allow Irish electorates to use their vote to reject British rule in Ireland.
Expressing an oath of allegiance to a monarch, whether foreign or not, would be an obvious contravention of republican principles. (In saying that, republican socialist Bernadette Devlin took a pragmatic approach and managed to get round it without damaging her republican credentials when she was elected to Westminster in 1969 as a Unity candidate.)
Sinn Féin rejects Britain's asserted right to legislate over part of Ireland. If Sinn Féin were to start legislating in Westminster - or over Britain, in other words - they'd leave themselves open to accusations of gross hypocrisy. Arguably, their entire raison d'être would be seen to lack coherency and they'd perhaps lose credibility too. I'm sure unionists and "dissidents" would have a field day.

Whether one agrees with the rationale or not, the logic behind Sinn Féin's abstentionism is at least pretty solid.

[Gather round]

Morning DI. Variously

1 Yes, the DUP are popular locally- and they've got a lot more popular since March (vote share up from 28% to 36%). Let's not pretend that jump has anything to do with gay marriage or creationism, eh?

2 The English media have ridiculed NI for decades. Because of the violence, not old-fashioned social attitudes. Since 1970, it's been easier to caricature Paisley and Adams than analyse their own parties' role in the situation. Non-role, when it comes to anything as inconvenient as challenging Unionists and Nationalists in elections

3 I'd treat this supposed contempt from English opinion with a big pinch- it may pass quite quickly. For Tories, they'll tolerate bribes to the DUP if the alternative's a Labour government. While Labour voters clearly weren't bothered being led by a guy who has been as close to paramilitarism as it's possible to get without actually backing a shooting war. It hasn't directly affected England for a long time, so voters aren't bothered by it. Or do you think anyone in Derby or Coventry is outraged by the lack Irish language laws? Nobody in Dublin or Cork is ;)

4 Neil on Slugger may have a short memory. NI politicians likely to be shocked by phone-tapping? Unsurprisingly, I go more with editor Mick Fealty on that site (see his 6 reasons article)

5 Essentially, you are saying that NI parties can't join A Brit government, or even wave it through from the Oppo benches where the DUP are today. Like some of the has-been Brit politicians I mentioned, and most starkly NI's own Paddy Ashdown. Although I notice that Naomi Long agreed with Jim Allister and Robin Swann that this is pretty insulting (and may be unrealistic, if there isn't another quick election, or if there is but the result is still a hung Parliament)

6 NI is now two mutually antagonistic blocs both with 40%+ support, with the others stopping either of them getting 50% domination. While there's still volatility, a deal set in stone for a forced coalition for 3% of the country isn't necessarily what's needed (even before you consider the other 97% needing a government)

7 OK, I'm avoiding the question. I don't know what replaces GFA- GAA, GTA? Nationalist voters in NI don't want representation in London or seemingly to revive Stormont. Ask again after the 29 June deadline

8 I mentioned Gerry Adams, but he's only one of many effectively calling for an Irish Nationalist veto over who forms the British Government. It's a risk- great for SF if the May Govt collapses and there's another election, not so much if she limps on for 5 years

9 Southern Parties (FF and Labour) are taking the p*ss calling for SF to join Westminster. English political journalists are just displaying their ignorance. You're right, SF's POV is consistent and it isn't going to change

[DannyInvincible]

A very good article by Jonathan Cook on "the media's wretched failings over the past two years in maligning Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn" with reference to George Monbiot's admission that the liberal-leaning Guardian was part of the problem and Noam Chomsky's "propaganda model": http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017-06-14/monbiot-still-cant-admit-medias-core-problem/

[DannyInvincible]

Since 1970, it's been easier to caricature Paisley and Adams than analyse their own parties' role in the situation.

True; a variant of the infamous oul' "two warring religious tribes" myth, that.


4 Neil on Slugger may have a short memory. NI politicians likely to be shocked by phone-tapping? Unsurprisingly, I go more with editor Mick Fealty on that site (see his 6 reasons article)

I think Mick is deluding himself if he genuinely thinks "White Protestant British Irish folk in Northern Ireland are routinely abused and demonised in a way no other group on these islands are (https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/12/six-reasons-why-the-dup-must-be-considered-on-its-merits-rather-than-its-faults/)". Such a hyperbolic claim is either for rhetorical effect or he's not been paying attention to the nasty treatment of Muslims in England over recent years.

His other points are a bit stronger, although I still take issue with the DUP-Tory deal because I feel it compromises the Tory government's duty of impartiality.


5 Essentially, you are saying that NI parties can't join A Brit government, or even wave it through from the Oppo benches where the DUP are today. Like some of the has-been Brit politicians I mentioned, and most starkly NI's own Paddy Ashdown. Although I notice that Naomi Long agreed with Jim Allister and Robin Swann that this is pretty insulting (and may be unrealistic, if there isn't another quick election, or if there is but the result is still a hung Parliament)

I'm saying that's what the GFA is saying. If the British government is to remain rigorously impartial in its dealings in respect of the north of Ireland, then the Tories, who wish to become that government, shouldn't be entertaining the notion of a "confidence and supply" arrangement with unionists in order to secure power as it creates a rather obvious and undeniable conflict of interest. You must at least acknowledge that it creates a conflict of interest, no? How could the Tory government hope to remain impartial when, as Colum Eastwood put it, the DUP tail will be wagging the Tory dog?

For what it's worth, I believe the same restrictive principle would apply to Labour if they were trying to do similar with a nationalist party in order to form a government.

Have you a link to Naomi's comments?


Nationalist voters in NI don't want representation in London or seemingly to revive Stormont.

Maybe more and more are seeing the light of Irish unity as the solution to the present and worsening political and economic crisis they're facing.


8 I mentioned Gerry Adams, but he's only one of many effectively calling for an Irish Nationalist veto over who forms the British Government. It's a risk- great for SF if the May Govt collapses and there's another election, not so much if she limps on for 5 years

In what sense is he calling or a nationalist veto over who forms the British government? He and others are simply reiterating the terms (or, at least, their understanding of the terms) of the GFA.

[Gather round]

1 Yes, I probably should have side-stepped that bit in MF's article about prejudice faced by Unionists. Grade A Mopery ;)

2 The basic problem is that your “duty of impartiality” (to 1% of the state's population, don't forget) contradicts the duty to form a working Government for the other 99%...

3 The British Government- ANY British Government- can't be “rigorously impartial” for that reason. As long as you have a UK it will have localised and separatist parties with electoral support. Even in a FPTP electoral system they may hold the balance- there are still 57 after last week (down from 77)

4 Anyway the point is hardly lost on SF,who've been gurning about how impartial or not the Brits are since 1998 (just like they did for decades beforehand)

5 Yes, I acknowledge a conflict of interest. There are relatively simple ways to get round that- by bringing in a 'neutral' chairman for talks, say- but my (2) above applies. The GFA may be unworkable in its present form, but that's not necessarily a disaster- nor does it have to risk the Peace Process, or whatever other euphemism Nationalists use. Put crudely, do they think if Foster manages to negotiate a few new hospitals or schools in Ulster Country, that the dissos & UDA/ UVFwill step up the 'War' in response, and get support for it?

6 I'm not sure you're right about the mirror-image of the current row, ie if Labour were four or five short and did a deal with PC on confidence and supply. Now that English voters seem prepared to ignore the smears the media throw both at Labour and Nationalists (a huge change in itself), why not Leanne Wood insisting on that new bypass or upgraded rail line? Obviously there are differences- no Welsh Republican Army or Cymric Volunteer Force , but the basic principle is the same as per my (3) above

7 Naomi, Squeaky Jim and the UUP (actually Steve Aiken not Robin Swann) were interviewed on BBC (either Talkback or Nolan) on Monday or Tuesday. I'll check back

8 Aye, Nationalist voters are keener on a UI than they were a year ago. They're still only on 41% support though (ie SF + SDLP)

9 The Veto Adams is asking for looks pretty obvious to me. In the sense that if it has feathers and goes quack it's probably a duck. BTW I accept that GA and you both understand the GFA perfectly well, but if the bigger picture contradicts it then something just has to give...

[DannyInvincible]

Sky News Australia thought (http://www.dailyedge.ie/sky-news-australia-sinn-fein-dup-3448353-Jun2017/) Gerry Adams was a man called "Sinn Féin" and that he was a member of the DUP who opposed the prospective DUP-Tory deal:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCcBsHRUQAApsiJ.jpg

[DannyInvincible]

2 The basic problem is that your “duty of impartiality” (to 1% of the state's population, don't forget) contradicts the duty to form a working Government for the other 99%...

Whilst the British government most definitely has legal obligations by virtue of having entered into an inter-governmental agreement - the GFA - that has status in international law, the Tories, on the other hand, aren't legally obliged to form that working government of which you speak with the DUP. In fact, they're not even legally obliged to form a government at all. Maybe you could argue they have some vague moral obligation to attempt to form a working government for the people of the UK or in the UK's national interest or whatever, but they could also just as easily pass up the opportunity and let Labour and other progressives have a stab at it instead.

(Excuse my pedantry, but isn't the duty of impartiality relevant to approximately three per cent of the state's population?)


3 The British Government- ANY British Government- can't be “rigorously impartial” for that reason.

Why did the British government agree to undertake such a duty then? Perhaps pure or perfect impartiality isn't practically possible, but that doesn't mean the British government can just decide not to bother about even making an attempt at being impartial. There remains a duty to at least try and be as rigorously impartial as it can be in its dealings relating to the north of Ireland. Hopping into bed with the DUP is as far from trying to be impartial as could be possible.


4 Anyway the point is hardly lost on SF,who've been gurning about how impartial or not the Brits are since 1998 (just like they did for decades beforehand)

I think there's a considerable degree of validity in such "gurning". British intelligence was running Denis Donaldson as an agent as late as December of 2005. Why so, if Britain was supposedly impartial?

The British government is still in breach of its ECHR article 2 (right to life) duty to provide effective, independent and transparent investigations into cases in the north where agents of the state killed people due to the use of lethal force, where the actions of the state or negligence on the part of the state resulted in deaths and where the state has been accused of colluding in killings.

In fact, the British government has actively obstructed the process of resolving legacy issues - or truth and justice matters - despite agreeing during the Haass talks that resolutions were needed and would be pursued. It has disingenuously passed the buck of dealing with these issues to Stormont, as if the British government had been a neutral observer refereeing "two warring religious tribes" and had no role to play in the conflict itself or as if the deaths requiring effective investigation weren't consequences of its overall security policy and practices. Disclosure of the truth has been deliberately withheld under the dubious and unverified cloak of "national security", whilst the DUP has also been allowed to impede progress by holding back promised funding for legacy inquests.

Britain has further failed to provide information on the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings and has reneged on its Weston Park commitment to hold an inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane. Why the British reluctance to disclose the truth and provide justice if Britain is supposedly impartial?

The British government has also failed to honour its obligations in compliance with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, has failed to fulfil its promise to deliver an Irish language act, despite formal criticism from the Council of Europe, and, likewise, has again allowed the DUP to obstruct progress on this front.

Other commitments that the British government has failed to honour include the establishment of a civic forum in the north, the establishment of an all-Ireland civic forum, the formation of a bill of rights for the north, the establishment of a joint north/south committee of the two human rights commissions and the production of an all-Ireland charter of rights.

To pinpoint just a few examples of partisanship in its governing role prior to the peace process, there was collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, there was the long-term refusal until 1992 to proscribe the UDA and there was the lopsided application of the policy of internment without trial; for every Protestant interned, there were 19 Catholics subjected to the same. No unionist community ever experienced anything like Bloody Sunday or the Ballymurphy massacre at the hands of the state's forces. Onward to the modern day, Britain is still looking out for Britain's interests when it comes to its dealings with the north of Ireland and is reneging on its promises, plenty of which I've outlined above. That's not impartiality, as far as I'm concerned.

In spite of all that, the British government is at least obliged to try to be impartial. If a deal is struck with the DUP, however, the British government can't even credibly pretend to be so any longer.


5 Yes, I acknowledge a conflict of interest. There are relatively simple ways to get round that- by bringing in a 'neutral' chairman for talks, say- but my (2) above applies. The GFA may be unworkable in its present form, but that's not necessarily a disaster- nor does it have to risk the Peace Process, or whatever other euphemism Nationalists use. Put crudely, do they think if Foster manages to negotiate a few new hospitals or schools in Ulster Country, that the dissos & UDA/ UVFwill step up the 'War' in response, and get support for it?

The concern is that unionists and DUP constituencies will benefit disproportionately from this arrangement at the expense of nationalists and non-DUP constituencies, considering the DUP look out for unionist interests first and foremost. How might an independent talks chairperson safeguard against that in order to protect supposedly-equal nationalist rights and interests? What talks would he or she be chairing anyway? This deal with the Tories surely negates or at least diminishes any incentive for the DUP to enter into talks with other opposing parties in order to get power-sharing up and running again, no? If the party can get what it wants direct from London by dragging desired concessions out of the Tories in return for the offering of support in Westminster, why trouble itself with the frequent disagreements and potential rigmarole of power-sharing?

Whilst I think talk of peace being under threat is somewhat overblown, the deal will clearly undermine the notion of parity of esteem, which is a core concept underpinning the Good Friday Agreement. In that sense, it undermines the northern political process.

[DannyInvincible]

6 I'm not sure you're right about the mirror-image of the current row, ie if Labour were four or five short and did a deal with PC on confidence and supply. Now that English voters seem prepared to ignore the smears the media throw both at Labour and Nationalists (a huge change in itself), why not Leanne Wood insisting on that new bypass or upgraded rail line? Obviously there are differences- no Welsh Republican Army or Cymric Volunteer Force , but the basic principle is the same as per my (3) above

What's the relevance of Plaid Cymru? As far as I know, the British government is under no internationally-agreed obligation to remain rigorously impartial in its dealings with Wales and the Welsh assembly. As you acknowledge, Wales doesn't have two institutionally-defined and historically-conflicting communities with and between whom the principle of parity of esteem has been agreed as a method by which to help them overcome conflict, resolve their differences and move forward together in peace.

When I referred to Labour hypothetically striking a similar deal with a nationalist party, I meant a nationalist party in the context of the north of Ireland; either Sinn Féin or the SDLP, in other words.


7 Naomi, Squeaky Jim and the UUP (actually Steve Aiken not Robin Swann) were interviewed on BBC (either Talkback or Nolan) on Monday or Tuesday. I'll check back

In the news report at very beginning of Tuesday's Talkback show (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tflvt), Naomi Long is reported to be concerned about the potential impact the DUP-Tory deal may have upon the restoration of power-sharing. She's then quoted saying the following:


"In every previous talks process, we have seen the government, at some point, having to use so leverage over the parties locally and to force them to make a decision around talks and to force them to move forward. I don't see honestly how James Brokenshire can be in a position to do that given that his position is entirely dependent upon the support of the DUP."

From that, she sounds like she'd have an issue with a potential undermining of impartiality resulting from any deal in theory. Did she change her tune in the space of a few hours to saying that opposing the concept of formal "confidence and supply" deals between northern parties and the British government would amount to an insult to the people and parties of the north of Ireland? Or is it just that she has an issue with the DUP deal in practice whilst not necessarily having an issue with deals generally in theory? Can those positions be reconciled?


8 Aye, Nationalist voters are keener on a UI than they were a year ago. They're still only on 41% support though (ie SF + SDLP)

As has been apparent from other polls also, a NILT survey conducted in 2016 after the Brexit referendum has indicated a slight rise in support for unity: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/16/northern-ireland-life-and-times-survey-suggests-slight-increase-in-support-for-irish-unity-and-cross-community-support-for-abortion-reform/

If the Brexit decision has caused that, I envisage support for unity rising even further once the Brexit process becomes more real or concrete and its effects begin to be felt materially.


9 The Veto Adams is asking for looks pretty obvious to me. In the sense that if it has feathers and goes quack it's probably a duck. BTW I accept that GA and you both understand the GFA perfectly well, but if the bigger picture contradicts it then something just has to give...

I don't concur with such a reading. It's rather misleading to portray this as nationalists attempting to assert a veto. This isn't a case of nationalists making a unilateral demand of the British government. This is a case of holding the British government to a legal obligation it has previously bilaterally agreed to honour. To remind someone of their agreed obligations is entirely legitimate, fair and reasonable.

And I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes "the bigger picture". Ireland and Irish affairs are my "bigger picture" or primary concern; not Britain or British affairs, which are secondary and mainly relevant to me insofar as I lived in Britain for a few years and have friends there or insofar as British affairs might have some bearing upon Irish affairs. I understand you may well feel differently, at least until you finally come round to seeing the light anyway! ;)

[Gather round]

Morning all. Thoughtful stuff as ever Di: I hope to reply on Monday or Tuesday ;)

[DannyInvincible]

Morning all. Thoughtful stuff as ever Di: I hope to reply on Monday or Tuesday ;)

Ha, no bother. Enjoy your weekend!

[DannyInvincible]

Theresa May's robotic appearance on Newsnight with Emily Maitlis the other evening was embarrassing as she was interrogated on governmental responsibility for the Grenfell Tower fire disaster:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftY1NlPk5YY

Things aren't looking good for her and supporters of a hard Brexit are now threatening a leadership challenge within ten days (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-leadership-challenge-queens-speech-brexit-boris-johnson-amber-rudd-david-davis-a7795556.html) if she is seen to be going soft on the matter in the queen's speech.

Just on the Grenfell Tower disaster, I thought George Monbiot's article on "what 'ripping up red tape' really looks like" was excellent: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/grenfell-tower-red-tape-safety-deregulation


For years successive governments have built what they call a bonfire of regulations. They have argued that “red tape” impedes our freedom and damages productivity. Britain, they have assured us, would be a better place with fewer forms to fill in, fewer inspections and less enforcement. But what they call red tape often consists of essential public protections that defend our lives, our futures and the rest of the living world. The freedom they celebrate is highly selective: in many cases it means the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor, of corporations to exploit their workers, landlords to exploit their tenants and industry of all kinds to use the planet as its dustbin. As RH Tawney remarked, “Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.”

...

Crucial public protections have long been derided in the billionaire press as “elf ’n’ safety gone mad”. It’s not hard to see how ruthless businesses can cut costs by cutting corners, and how this gives them an advantage over their more scrupulous competitors. The “pollution paradox (http://www.monbiot.com/2017/01/20/the-pollution-paradox/)” (those corporations whose practices are most offensive to voters have to spend the most money on politics, with the result that their demands come to dominate political life) ensures that our protections are progressively dismantled by governments courting big donors.

[CraftyToePoke]

Not sure which thread best hosts this, (here or the Unity one) but an interesting read, worth hitting the link for the detail included also, which is such that it reasonable to think this is at an advanced stage. So I suppose my questions are, how independent is the body who will decide if this goes ahead ? & how much May might be cornered into discussions / delays / changes, on it by the DUP at present if that body is open to influence ?

And, even if the subject is merely broached, the maintaining a neutral stance in the ensuing political process London is committed to in return for the end of the IRA campaign is surely dead.



Sinn Fein is set to become the largest Northern Ireland party at Westminster under proposed boundary changes, according to the UK's leading election prediction website.

The political landscape would be dramatically altered from last week's outcome, with the DUP losing three seats and Sinn Fein gaining two.

The redrawing of the electoral map would leave republicans with nine MPs to the DUP's seven, Electoral Calculus has predicted. Any boundary changes must be approved by a vote in Parliament.

Given the drastic consequences for her party, Arlene Foster may prioritise the issue in her discussions with Prime Minister Theresa May over support for the minority Tory government.

The predictions are based on the results from last week's Westminster poll, the 2014 local government election results, and the most recent census data. That information is applied to the new constituencies proposed in the Boundary Commission's blueprint.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/boundary-changes-could-make-sinn-fein-biggest-party-in-northern-ireland-35831665.html

[backstothewall]

It will be extremely difficult to come up with any boundaries that won't make SF the biggest party at Westminster.

There is still a clear unionist plurality among the population but the tendency among unionists to move to the greater Belfast area has created a half a dozen constituencies with negligible nationalist populations.

East Belfast
East Antrim
North Down
Lagan Valley
Strangford
South Antrim

Nationalist constituencies on the other hand tend to be more 60:40. Unionism has effectively Gerrymandered itself through migration.

[DannyInvincible]

It will be extremely difficult to come up with any boundaries that won't make 21ST the biggest party at Westminster.

I assume you're referring to Sinn Féin, but what is "21ST"? :confused:

[backstothewall]

I assume you're referring to Sinn Féin, but what is "21ST"? :confused:

Just another example of the difficulties foot.ie has with mobile browsers.

I typed SF, but somewhere between chrome mobile and here it was auto-corrected to 21ST

[Gather round]

@ Danny

1 Sure, we have legal obligations to pay parking fines and the TV licences. And not to have a working government? Do you think the latter's less important?

2 A Tory Government nodded throughby the DUP will be unstable.A Rainbow Coalition wouldn't get the chance to be unstable- Labour and the SNP would struggle to work together, and even if they did you'd be over-reliant on Caroline Lucas or Sylvia Hermon always turning up

3 Your pedantry betrays your bias- you think everyone in NI agrees that the Tories need to be impartial. In reality, most Unionists aren't bothered as they almost all prefer May to Corbyn. Those Unionists are 49% of local voters, who overall are only 2.5% of the national total. So about 1.3% are with you. Don't pretend that many in England are bothered. They're too concerned about real violence around them than notional dissidence in NI

4 The Brits agreed to supposed impartiality because they a) wanted a deal, b) hoped that they wouldn't need Unionist backing in Parliament and c) thought they could bluff through even if b) didn't work. As I've repeated a few times, I don't think they were ever impartial. By listing all that evidence of how biased they are, presumably you agree?

5 They've tried to go throughthe motions. They'll continue to do so. Of course I realise that their relationship with the DUP makes that much more difficult, but since you clearly think they (Brits) have never had that impartiality, it does rather beg the question why you put so much trust in them for so long?

6 Do you have any specific worries about the Tory/ DUP deal? Foster has said there'll be nothing about abortion, sexuality or other devolved issues in the negotiations. It'll be tax changes locally (on businesses, air travel etc.). The Tories will likely row back on benefits payable nationally because of pressure from Labour. As for pork-barrel projects, don't forget that both the DUP leadership are from Nationalist areas. Fermanagh people should be pleased ;)

7 DUP say they want Stormont back. They might not really mean it, but they didn't pull the plug to bring it down. Them's the breaks...

8 Compared with threats of return to violence (which however unlikely is at least easily understood), parity of esteem is just a vague soundbite, certainly outside Ireland

9 I mentioned Plaid Cymru not least because there's a real if small chance of them holding the balance in Westminster. There's no chance of Sinn Fein or the SDLP doing that, as we're agreed. If PC did briefly hold thtat clout, they'd get the goodies and English voters would whinge for a while. Life would go on

10 Naomi Long is worried about Stormont not returning, understandably enough. Without it, she has very little platform and Alliance's vote may fall back. Her slight chippiness at being sneered at by has-beens like Paddy Ashdown doesn't contadict that

11 Agreed, support for nationalism is rising. But we know the total Nat vote doesn't fully reflect it. That may change as Brexit bites

12 We're talking about formation of a British government. That's why what English voters variously want or are indifferent about dominates the bigger picture

13 I reserve the right to see the light at the appropriate moment...


@ Crafty

14 The Boundary Commission is theoretically independent, but like most British Government funded bodies it generally does what the British Government of the day wants (in this case, referring the previous Cameron regime, by cutting the number of seats overall and redrawing them to have roughly the same number of registered voters). Which is basically a gerrymander, because in Britain's electoral geography Labour seats tend to be in cities and towns with smaller electorates, while the Tories' are suburban and rural with fewer young and transient people who are less likely to register. In other words, electorate sizes differ often quite starkly, overall populations less so. The plan was to cut the number of Labour seats, with mny/ most of those remaining in inner cities having enormous Labour majorities, while surrounded by Tory areas with smaller yet comfortable margins, which funnily enough isn't too different from...

15...Northern Ireland. As above, SF could win seats in places like Limavady (if it's merged with Magherafelt) or Lurgan (if it loses Banbridge), while the DUP waste a surplus getting 80% in Carrick and Larne, or wherever. Broadly the point BttW makes above. Even given the quirks of FPTP it would clearly be absurd for the current 49:41:10 breakdown to return more Nationalist than Unionist MPs. Of course there's a way round that, effectively mutually agreed gerrymander which gives 9:8:1 for Alliance, as an example

16 May could well drop this anyway, more hassle thanit's worth. I mean, she's set to abandon the Government's entire economic strategy: carving up a few Sperrin villages looks small beer

17 For the little that it's worth, Electoral Calculus's final prediction on 7 June was as follows

Tory 361 (wrong by +43)
Labour 216 (wrong by -46)
SNP & PC 51 (wrong by +12)
LibDem 3 (wrong by -9)
Green 1 (correct)

Even I was closer than that...


@ BttW

18 As per (15) above, the Boundary Commission just needs to replace existing gerrymanders with others to resolve the problem. Don't worry too much about county, district or ward borders, or if some constituencies look a bit odd. Birmingham City Centre, for example, would become a semi-erect penis ;) Belfast should only be three seats- as it's just voted 40:42:19, one each for the three blocs?

19 Three of the seven Nat-held constituencies (Foyle, Souh Down and West Belfast) have a bloc vote of more than 70%

20 For a moment there I thought you were predicting a comeback by NI21...

[backstothewall]

18. I largely agree. There is wisdom in viewing these proposals as a starting point for negotiations. If one seat ends up with 60,000 people and another ends up with 80,000 It hardly matters for Westminster as long as everyone is content with the final arrangements.

What would you think about multi-member constituencies as a solution?

19. You are quite correct on those the specifics but it was a generalisation which I think still stands. As you said unionists problem comes down to towns like Carrick & Larne.

[backstothewall]

18. Further thoughts on 18. Don't underestimate how inflexible nationalism will be about this. You are quite right that it's unfair but I'd suspect the attitude will broadly be "Aww shucks. That must be awful for you".

I'm not saying something can't be done to even things up a little, but Belfast has been accidently gerrymandered for years. I don't remember unionist politicians saying that anything had to be done about that. If nationalism agrees to something to resolve this there will have to be a quid pro quo.

Perhaps that quid pro quo could be to do something with the Assembly boundaries to ensure every constituency will elect a nationalist. Reducing Belfast to 3 seats will make it possible in South-East Belfast, and some mild tinkering could make it secure in East Antrim, Lagan Valley and whatever becomes of Strangford & North Down

[DannyInvincible]

1 Sure, we have legal obligations to pay parking fines and the TV licences. And not to have a working government? Do you think the latter's less important?

I know of no legal obligation to form a government. Direct me to it if it exists. Can the British queen force citizens to form a government by law? Upon whom is this obligation supposedly effective? Elected officials are entitled to attempt to form a government on the basis of a democratic mandate arising from a general election, but that's not quite the same thing as a legal obligation.


3 Your pedantry betrays your bias- you think everyone in NI agrees that the Tories need to be impartial. In reality, most Unionists aren't bothered as they almost all prefer May to Corbyn. Those Unionists are 49% of local voters, who overall are only 2.5% of the national total. So about 1.3% are with you. Don't pretend that many in England are bothered. They're too concerned about real violence around them than notional dissidence in NI

I'm fully aware not everyone in the north agrees that the Tories need to be impartial in this instance. That's the very problem. The issue is people who purportedly support the GFA yet do not believe that the Tories need to be impartial when their ambition is to form a government that is supposed to be duty-bound by the GFA. Those two positions aren't compatible or reconcilable, as far as I'm concerned.


4 The Brits agreed to supposed impartiality because they a) wanted a deal, b) hoped that they wouldn't need Unionist backing in Parliament and c) thought they could bluff through even if b) didn't work. As I've repeated a few times, I don't think they were ever impartial. By listing all that evidence of how biased they are, presumably you agree?

I do, but I still feel they are under duty to at least attempt to be impartial, so nationalists will naturally and justifiably protest when we see blatant evidence of reneging or contravening conduct.


5 They've tried to go throughthe motions. They'll continue to do so. Of course I realise that their relationship with the DUP makes that much more difficult, but since you clearly think they (Brits) have never had that impartiality, it does rather beg the question why you put so much trust in them for so long?

When did I ever give the impression I trusted old perfidious Albion? I don't trust the British government one iota. (That might change somewhat if Corbyn managed to bring his radical programme with him into government in the UK.)


6 Do you have any specific worries about the Tory/ DUP deal? Foster has said there'll be nothing about abortion, sexuality or other devolved issues in the negotiations. It'll be tax changes locally (on businesses, air travel etc.). The Tories will likely row back on benefits payable nationally because of pressure from Labour. As for pork-barrel projects, don't forget that both the DUP leadership are from Nationalist areas. Fermanagh people should be pleased ;)

The de-incentivisation of the re-establishment of the power-sharing institutions (and the potential absence of all that comes with power-sharing) is a major concern, obviously. I also fear there'll be even further intransigence and entrenchment on progressing legacy issues. It's a virtual certainty there'll be no Irish language act.

There was pre-election talk that Britain's same-sex marriage and abortion legislation might be extended to the north of Ireland if direct rule from London was to become an inevitability. That might have offered some consolation, but with the DUP potentially propping up the Tories now, there'll certainly be no solver lining to looming direct rule for gay people, women and human rights activists in the north.

It's difficult to pinpoint specific concerns though really considering we don't yet know the specifics of the deal - we'll have to wait and see and I can get back to you on that in time in greater detail - but, for now, I broadly fear unionist interests receiving favourable treatment at the expense of nationalist and/or other minority interests, considering that looking out for unionist interests, as opposed to nationalist and/or other minority concerns, is naturally what unionists do, funnily enough. If the deal will benefit everyone in northern society equally and the power-sharing institutions are re-established with agreed promises delivered upon, that would be ideal and any major worries may well have been unfounded, but I'm just not confident that will indeed be the case. Can you blame me? Remember RHI?...

A strong and operational Stormont with a functioning and united executive would obviously be in everyone's best interests and would be the much more preferable alternative to this DUP-Tory deal.


7 DUP say they want Stormont back. They might not really mean it, but they didn't pull the plug to bring it down. Them's the breaks...

As Conor Murphy said, Sinn Féin and nationalists/republicans are essentially being asked to compromise on the compromises now. Compromising on the compromises isn't acceptable. If the DUP truly want Stormont up and running again, then they could come round to getting working on delivering the promises that have been agreed. The DUP claim they didn't promise an Irish language act at St. Andrew's, for example. They claim the British government promised it, even though the DUP agreed with everything in the document, but, if that is so, then couldn't they be using their newfound influence to exert pressure on the British government to fulfil its promise? Or they could just get working on it themselves.


8 Compared with threats of return to violence (which however unlikely is at least easily understood), parity of esteem is just a vague soundbite, certainly outside Ireland

But we're talking about Ireland - or the north in particular - and the guiding philosophy that underpins its entire political arrangement.


9 I mentioned Plaid Cymru not least because there's a real if small chance of them holding the balance in Westminster. There's no chance of Sinn Fein or the SDLP doing that, as we're agreed. If PC did briefly hold thtat clout, they'd get the goodies and English voters would whinge for a while. Life would go on

That may well be the case, but it still has no relevance to the situation in the north of Ireland considering there's no duty of impartiality effective upon the British government in its dealings with Wales or Welsh parties spiring from some Welsh-related agreement. English voters can feel however they want, but their government still has to fulfil its internationally-agreed duties.

[Gather round]

@ BttW

1 I think we're largely agreed on the need for some Mutually Assured Gerrymandering then (likely resistance from Nationalists acknowledged, although I think May's about to drop her idea anyway)

2 In an ideal World I'd prefer the Brit Parliament to be elected by STV, like the Dail or Stormont. Three areas- bigger Belfast, eastern Suburbia, western Rural (with apologies to any Derry readers)

@ DI

3 Talking Heads probably speak for me on this- 'Don't worry about the Government'. We'll have one, it'll offer some small bribe to the DUP, then the rest of us can get on with holding it to account. Good luck with your legal case in the meantime...

4 The Brits can never be impartial dealing with a separatist political movement that wants to split from Britain, while at the same time always potentially needing the votes of local Unionists that don't. Isn't the problem that you effectively accept this on the one hand, then on the other keep repeating the opposite?

5 I support Nationalists and Unionists co-operating and compromising on everything from emptying the bins to Brexit, Sovereignty and the like. If/ as the GFA is hidebound by Nationalists gurning about impartiality that they've never really believed in,it's likely out of date and needs replacing

6 Interesting that you might trust a future (possibly imminent) Corbyn government. I think I could give it a qualified welcome...

7 So your main concern with a Tory/ DUP deal is that Unionists might lose interest in something Nationalists rejected months ago? Stormont's fcuked, and if doesn't return won't be widely missed. Even without the Orange/ Fenian bickering, what's the point of a 'Parliament' that doesn't pass any laws?

8 RHI? Almost forgot...no not really. I think we're agreed that in any sensible system Foster would have resigned last year and would now be sweating on possible criminal charges. Of course there's the possibility that she will persuade May to write the whole thing off, or worse that the DUP will feel emboldened that they can get away with anything

9 Isn't there a real possibility that the DUP is ready to compromise, specifically on the Language Act? Foster visiting schools recently, and so on. I can't see that being covered in any Tory deal

10 What we- from John Major, Bertie Ahern and Bill Clinton down- are actually talking about is the possibility of renewed violence in NI. Even though every Nationalist party in Ireland says there's no chance of it happening. So one soundbite is self-contradicting, then you're following it up with another that's largely meaningless, or about as philosophical as apple pie. I hold the DUP and SF in equal low esteem- will that do?

11 OK, I'll admit to repeatedly mentioning Plaid Cymru because I fancy that Leanne Wood (clearly shared by the national (ie English) media given the amount of coverage she gets ;) )

[backstothewall]

@ BttW

1 I think we're largely agreed on the need for some Mutually Assured Gerrymandering then (likely resistance from Nationalists acknowledged, although I think May's about to drop her idea anyway)

The house upswing in registration has evapoarted the bulk of the potential advantage for the tories of the change from total population to number of registed voters. No reason for them to bother now. But there will still have to be a review here. It's now way overdue

We are agreed on the basics though. A fairly good example is North Down the Ards peninsula area. There is enough people there for 2 MPs, and that being the case it's totally obvious that Hollywood along with Bangor is one constituency, and Newtownards along with the peninsula its the other one. The boundary comission can't do that though because North Down would have about 20,000 more people than Ards. But you and I both know the Mps will be Sylvia Hermon and whoever the DUP put up, so the number of people per constituency makes bugger all difference anyway.

The whole thing needs both to be allowed to sit down with a big map and some colouring pens and let the horse trading begin. You and me could get it done in an afternoon and produce something sensible

[DannyInvincible]

An interesting development here yesterday as former UVF leader Gary Haggerty pleaded guilty to over 200 terror charges, including five murders: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40379903

The most concerning thing about this is that he was an informant at the time and his violent activities were actually encouraged by his RUC Special Branch handlers.


All of the killings, and the majority of the other offences, took place while Haggarty was working as a police informer.

...

The BBC understands he told his interviewers that some of his Special Branch handlers not only protected him from arrest and prosecution, but also actively encouraged his activities.

[DannyInvincible]

Really enjoyed this discussion between Owen Jones and Frankie Boyle on general current affairs in the UK:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyFZX39joSM

Well worth a watch if you can find a quarter of an hour to spare. Boyle is actually a much better social commentator than most of those specifically employed to perform that role!

He talked about:

Theresa May and the mess in which the rudderless Tories ("a group of people pretending to represent a constituency of people that they don't represent") find themselves;
the British public school system that effectively acts as a conveyor belt for the type of "broken sociopaths" that might get into Tory politics and have no scruples whatsoever in representing the interests of capital whilst lying to ordinary, working people about where their true interests lie;
the Tory party being full of "disaster capitalists" who are used to profiting from crises and catastrophes;
the Grenfell Tower fire and how some people in authority decided that the risks that had been very intentionally overlooked there were affordable in the pursuit of profit, the political fall-out from the disaster and the law of corporate manslaughter, the punishment for the committal of which is a fine to a corporate entity or company, which Boyle asserts is intentionally designed as a fudge or in such a way so as to render those responsible for such disasters effectively unaccountable;
the DUP and the oddity of British people who've insisted that the DUP are "part of Britain" never having bothered to actually learn about the party and their ultra-conservative social values;
people on the Left asking Sinn Féin to take their seats out of ignorance of Irish affairs;
Westminster-centrism;
the housing benefit cap being about ridding city centres of disgruntled young people, poor people and ethnic minorities and situating them in edge-of-city Parisien-style banlieues that are easily-fortifiable by police and security forces when rioting or social unrest breaks out and where the re-isolated (self-)destruction will be of no real concern to the political establishment and economic elite seeing as it's "out of way" and no longer occurring in areas they may wish to frequent or in the areas with which they interact;
the "self-contained" establishment media culture that doesn't really understand the lives and concerns of ordinary people, ethnic minorities or people from refugee or migrant backgrounds;
Corbyn;
social media and the greater democracy and diversity it brings to reporting, where more representative and more relevant voices now have a platform to get their message out rather than just the local MP or a parish priest or whoever, although Boyle does add that anyone seriously intent on challenging the system needs to be more sophisticated than merely regurgitating memes;
Scottish independence, the SNP not offering anything really radical and political fatigue in Scotland;
self-censorship within comedy as a form of self-protection, damage-limitation or out of a fear of societal stigmatisation;
"free speech";
the hypocrisy of right-wing outlets like the Daily Express getting outraged and trying to have Boyle prosecuted on "obscenity" grounds after he made a joke about the Queen whilst at the same time accusing the Left of "political correctness gone mad";
society's pseudo taste-based morality where people get outraged about, say, a certain play in a theatre or maybe something a celebrity has done half a decade ago and eternally condemning them as "immoral" for that whilst simultaneously having no issue with their government selling arms to tyrants or our taxes funding the bombing of civilians across the globe;
the self-professed arbiters of societal morality;
and, optimism for the future (with some significant caveats).

He got through a lot in less than fifteen minutes, but all very fascinating and insightful stuff.

[Gather round]

@BttW:

NI should have only 17 seats (down one) even if they keep 650 overall. Easiest way to to that while keeping the roughly 49:41:10 balance (or if you prefer the 46:40:14 result from March before the Centre got squeezed) would be to

- cut Belfast to 3 seats (losing North), with about 20,000 voters transferred to the North Down/ Strangford areas and a similar number to South and East Antrim

- accept that the latter four would all still have comfortable Unionist majorities, and a redrawn West and East Belfast would still be 'safe'. Alliance might win the remaining seat with tactical voting, but whether or not that probably keeps 2 non-Unionist seats in the City

- make small changes to the country seats to make them more similar in size (eg at present Upper Bann has 8,000 more voters than next door Lagan Valley). That keeps a Unionist West of the Bann and the same number of Nationalists there

As the only remaining marginal would be a rejigged South Belfast (barring a miraculous SDLP comeback in FST), the likely result would look rather different to Electoral Calculus's prediction- ie Unionist 9, Nationalist 7 or 8, possibly Alliance 1

@DI:

Just when you think the Brits can't get any more lovey-dovey with Unionist Paramilitaries...

Thanks for the Boyle/ Jones clip.

[Gather round]

On the DUP-flying-in-straight-from-1690-with-attitudes-to-match thing, I have advised my Green colleagues over here to stop sounding off about them. Briefly

1 We (ie England) have had legal gay marriage for all of THREE years. Germany still doesn't have it. Not quite the difference with the Orange Planet you might think, eh?

2 Most political parties in both parts of Ireland oppose extension of abortion rights. Just like the DUP

3 Whatever prominent individuals may say, it is not DUP policy to deny Climate Change

4 Whatever such individuals may do, it hasn't yet made creationist teaching widespread in schools

5 The DUP isn't to blame for the lack of electoral reform, particularly in England- they've been working with it for 40 years. The supposedly Progressive Labour Party ARE at fault. And in any case there'll be 8 or 10 Unionist MPs from NI whatever system is used, so a balance of power is always possible

6 The DUP's vote rose sharply (as did SF's) between the March and June elections. This had basically nothing to do with 1-4 above. It's all about fear of each other's supposed electoral dominance

7 Sneering at a party with 10 MPs as "fringe" when we have only one isn't just daft, it's hypocritical- Caroline Lucas would never have described Plaid or the pre-2015 SNP in those terms

[DannyInvincible]

So, the grubby DUP-Tory deal has been finalised. Its detail can be read here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621794/Confidence_and_Supply_Agreement_between_the_Conser vative_Party_and_the_DUP.pdf

I suppose the money can be considered a convenient replacement for all that cash the DUP squandered over RHI...

Anyway, just getting the chance now to respond properly to your other points in post #83 (http://foot.ie/threads/221573-NI-Westminster-Election-2017?p=1925552&viewfull=1#post1925552), GR.


3 Talking Heads probably speak for me on this- 'Don't worry about the Government'. We'll have one, it'll offer some small bribe to the DUP, then the rest of us can get on with holding it to account. Good luck with your legal case in the meantime...

There's an agreement in place that has standing in international law. Whilst I don't envisage legal action being taken by nationalists, republicans or the Irish government, for the British government to renege on or show total disdain for that agreement is exceptionally poor form.


4 The Brits can never be impartial dealing with a separatist political movement that wants to split from Britain, while at the same time always potentially needing the votes of local Unionists that don't. Isn't the problem that you effectively accept this on the one hand, then on the other keep repeating the opposite?

I don't see why it's necessarily the case that the British government can never be impartial. Why does it need to have a position just because it's dealing with a national independence movement that happens to be active within an area of its jurisdiction? It doesn't have to oppose that simply because it might lose authority over the region of Ireland in which that movement is active.

It doesn't always have to be the case either that whatever party is in power in Britain will be "dangling from the tassle of an Orange sash" (as George Galloway humorously put it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxQefsIsvVk&feature=youtu.be&t=4m58s)) to prop them up and provide them with parliamentary stability.

And isn't it unionists who are the real Irish separatists considering they separated and wish to keep themselves separate from the rest of the once-united Irish nation? ;)

Also, something that has puzzled me; if some (https://twitter.com/brianjohnspencr/status/802916136085917696) (many/most?) Irish Protestants and unionists consider(ed) themselves to be native Irish by 1921 (and I've no problem with acknowledging this, as to deny it would be to deny the Irishness of the likes of Wolfe Tone and other foundational Irish republicans), why did they refuse to recognise the democratically-expressed will of the nation for independence in 1918 and subsequently then seek to partition the nation of which they believe(d) themselves to be part?


5 I support Nationalists and Unionists co-operating and compromising on everything from emptying the bins to Brexit, Sovereignty and the like. If/ as the GFA is hidebound by Nationalists gurning about impartiality that they've never really believed in,it's likely out of date and needs replacing

Nationalists do believe in impartiality. The problem is that the British government don't appear to believe in it or in their own explicit promises. What nationalists do have difficulty believing in, however, is the notion that the British government might be a sincere and honest broker or arbiter when it comes to its dealings in respect of the north of Ireland, but that doesn't mean nationalists shouldn't continue trying to hold the British government to account, seeing as that government's dealings directly affect our lives and all...


6 Interesting that you might trust a future (possibly imminent) Corbyn government. I think I could give it a qualified welcome...

Heh, why interesting? I don't think I've ever kept my high regard for Corbyn under wraps. There are some JCs I do believe in. ;)

I did qualify what I said though by adding that it would be more likely to make a big difference to my sense of trust in the British government if Corbyn was able to implement the radical, dialogue-based, empathetic and socially just programme he'd probably personally prefer to implement (rather than the compromised programme of the recent Labour manifesto which, contrary to Corbyn's personal views, is pro-Trident and features no republican credentials, for example). I'm not sure that's likely though as it would be relatively revolutionary, considering how the British establishment presently operates.

I'd imagine if Corbyn becomes PM, he'll be compelled by the necessity of circumstance to water down and compromise on his strictest leftist principles in order to maintain the support of most of the centre-right Parliamentary Labour Party. That's kind of what he has had to do in order to be given a bit of space and peace since he was re-elected leader. So, any increase in my levels of trust for the British government or establishment would be dependent on significant structural changes that I don't really see as being likely to occur.

Out of interest, why would your welcome be qualified? His Irish republican sympathies? I think we can both agree though that even a watered down Corbyn government would be a very significant upgrade on the Tories?

[DannyInvincible]

7 So your main concern with a Tory/ DUP deal is that Unionists might lose interest in something Nationalists rejected months ago? Stormont's fcuked, and if doesn't return won't be widely missed. Even without the Orange/ Fenian bickering, what's the point of a 'Parliament' that doesn't pass any laws?

8 RHI? Almost forgot...no not really. I think we're agreed that in any sensible system Foster would have resigned last year and would now be sweating on possible criminal charges. Of course there's the possibility that she will persuade May to write the whole thing off, or worse that the DUP will feel emboldened that they can get away with anything

That's my fear though; that the DUP will think that they can get away with anything and now have a deal with the Tories to further bolster that sense and embolden them. My reference to RHI was really to make the point that the DUP can't even be trusted to look out for the interests of ordinary unionists, never mind nationalists.

Did you see The View last Thursday night (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08vd23m/the-view-22062017), by the way? Iain Duncan Smith's comments (from 9m24) on this highly contentious "military covenant" that features in the deal just betrayed a total lack of comprehension of politics and sensitivities in the north of Ireland.

He was asked:


"How do you sell the idea of a military covenant to nationalists?"

And responded:


"Well, the military covenant is a United Kingom affair. It is the fact that we want to look after and support our members of the military while they serve and after they serve. I was in the military myself and served in Northern Ireland, so my sense about this is it's the right thing to do and everybody wants to support it. I can't think why anybody would not want to support it and that is my position. It's the position, I think, of the DUP and I think that's fair. We ally on that and are not going to change for that."

Considering the "military covenant" will now be implemented in full (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40403434?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-40403501&link_location=live-reporting-story) in the north, the DUP and the Tories might as well just tear up the GFA. Both Sinn Féin and the SDLP vehemently oppose the "military covenant" but their objections are being brazenly ignored by the Tory government acting unilaterally and outside of a northern context in order to appease unionism. This is a perfect example of the British government demonstrating a complete lack of impartiality or neutrality on account of its deal with the DUP.

Even Jeffrey Donaldson effectively admitted, back in 2015, that a "military covenant" would breach equality legislation introduced as part of the Good Friday Agreement when he urged the Westminster government to unilaterally amend those laws at the time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32891020

The elevation of one set of victims over so many non-state victims is simply unacceptable. It's questionable too as to whether the potential prioritising of British soldiers for housing could ever be justified just as the Equality Commission has confirmed that Catholics in the north are, in general, still experiencing disproportionately longer waiting times: http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Publications/Delivering%20Equality/HousingCommunities-SummaryReport.pdf

Ben Lowry of the Newsletter was living in cloud cuckoo land talking (on The View) about the British army having "acted with extraordinary restraint overall" during the northern conflict. He bizarrely claimed also (at 23m01s) that unionists haven't been making demands (and that this "military covenant" was, therefore, an entirely reasonable demand), as if unionists have been holding back all these years and not pushing their own agenda at the expense of nationalist and other minority interests. When you've already been in a position of supremacy and privilege for nearly a century, I suppose that diminishes rather considerably any pressing need to be making the sorts of demands that those who've experienced long-term institutional and structural discrimination might be compelled to make, but, in spite of that, what Lowry said isn't even true anyway.

For one, there was that pretty crucial demand that has significance for the entire island of Ireland; wasn't the principle of consent, which maintains the existence of a failed statelet that impoverishes people and staggers onward solely by virtue of life-support from Westminster, a major unionist demand? And then there's stuff like demanding that unionist symbols be given preferential treatment over nationalist symbols or demanding that same-sex marriage not be recognised in the north. Lowry was talking through his hat and needs to be a bit more circumspect in his "analysis".

He also made the claim (at 25m33s) that "it is a fundamental thing that somebody who risks their life for their country should be very well treated by that society". Would he say the same about IRA (or even loyalist) volunteers who believed they were giving their lives for their respective countries and/or communities? I have a distinct feeling he wouldn't.

Back to this morning's announcement, there are further immediate concerns. The DUP have committed to supporting the Tories on all Brexit legislation; this is a major worry considering the DUP's wishes on Brexit, never mind the Tories' Anglocentric wishes, aren't even in line with the wishes of the people of the north of Ireland. There are also inherent and irreconcilable contradictions in those expressed wishes, such as the supposed desire for a "frictionless border" whilst simultaneously opposing any "special status" that keeping the border frictionless as it is would necessitate.

The Tories have also expressed, "[a]s the UK Government", that they "believe that Northern Ireland's future is best served within a stronger United Kingdom" and claim they "will never be neutral in expressing [their] support for the Union", so they're actually explicitly stating that they won't be neutral or impartial, despite also incompatibly claiming they'll uphold the terms of the GFA. The British government should not be making pronouncements like this if they are to act in accordance with the terms of the GFA, as it is for the people of Ireland alone to make the decision on our future. The GFA clearly set out that "it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland".

As the British government is a party external to the people of the island of Ireland, this aforementioned clause obliges the British government to refrain from imposing any impediment to unity. Arguably, pushing an anti-unity position or launching an anti-unity campaign would be to contravene this clause.

Also, for what it's worth, the deal will almost certainly weaken - and not strengthen - the Union in Britain, seeing as the Scots and Welsh have been denouncing it (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jun/26/brexit-eu-nationals-theresa-may-to-meet-arlene-foster-in-hope-of-finalising-torydup-deal-politics-live) since it was announced. In exposing the rotten core of the Union, the details of this deal will clearly bolster nationalist sentiment in Wales and sentiment for independence in Scotland. The Welsh first minister described (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jun/26/brexit-eu-nationals-theresa-may-to-meet-arlene-foster-in-hope-of-finalising-torydup-deal-politics-live?page=with:block-5950ebeae4b0cdea6d8652c8#block-5950ebeae4b0cdea6d8652c8) it as "outrageous" and as a "straight bung" that "all but kills the idea of fair funding for the nations and regions".

Ian Blackford, the SNP's leader at Westminster, said (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jun/26/brexit-eu-nationals-theresa-may-to-meet-arlene-foster-in-hope-of-finalising-torydup-deal-politics-live?page=with:block-59510067e4b0fd0bb54b5180#block-59510067e4b0fd0bb54b5180) the following:


"After weeks of secret backroom negotiations, the Tories have now signed a grubby deal with the DUP. For years the Tories have been cutting budgets and services, but suddenly they have found a magic money tree to help them stay in power ...

Only 24 hours ago David Mundell was categorically assuring us that Scotland would be in line for Barnett consequentials as a result of the DUP deal (see 1.37pm (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jun/26/brexit-eu-nationals-theresa-may-to-meet-arlene-foster-in-hope-of-finalising-torydup-deal-politics-live?page=with:block-5950feabe4b040bb3172c3e6#block-5950feabe4b040bb3172c3e6)) – so he has seemingly either been deliberately misleading people, or he is completely out of the loop even in Theresa May’s crumbling government.

This was the first big test of the new Scottish Tory MPs, but despite all of their bluster, they clearly have no authority and no influence – and now they have no credibility.

Ruth Davidson said they would stand up for Scotland – but instead they have bowed down to their Westminster bosses and sold Scotland out so they can cling to power.

SNP MPs will demand Scotland gets it fair share of any funding that is going to Northern Ireland – the Scottish Tory MPs should join us in standing up for Scotland and making sure that we get our fair share."

[DannyInvincible]

As far as legacy issues are concerned, the deal statement says that "the legacy bodies would function in a way which is fair balanced and proportionate and which will not unfairly focus on former members of the security forces". I think we all know that the final part of that sentence most likely means immunity from even investigation, which would amount to favourable treatment for those in the security forces, seemingly irrespective of whether or not they may have broken UK law or not during the conflict.

Does this mean the UK government has no intention of meeting it's ECHR obligations to provide effective, transparent and independent investigations into killings by state actors or killings in which agents of the state have been accused of colluding?

It's just crazy, appalling stuff and an exceptionally bitter, enraging, frustrating and saddening pill for those of us who are genuinely interested in truth, justice and reconciliation to swallow. Whatever about punishments or amnesties (and, for what it's worth, I advocate the idea of restorative justice and a general amnesty for all combatants as an incentive for transparency and truth-revelation that would hopefully in turn enhance long-term understanding, trust and reconciliation), it is still within everyone's interest that the state and its agents be called to account. In the main, families want frank admissions of unlawful wrongdoing; acknowledgement and recognition primarily.

Of course, there's also an argument there that, on account of the state's assertion of legitimacy, sovereignty and democratic authority over the north-east corner of Ireland, it voluntarily and unilaterally loads itself with responsibilities (such as disclosure of truth and the enforcement of justice) along with its asserted rights, irrespective of what other parties to any conflict may have or have not done.

It is also worth pointing out that the popular notion that other combatants (or republicans) have generally gotten off "scot-free" or that the balance of the scales of justice has favoured non-state players or once-militant Irish republicans is a grossly misleading misconception. Thousands of republican (and, indeed, loyalist) suspects and combatants were imprisoned during the conflict, whilst dozens are still being investigated, "lifted", charged and convicted in respect of pre-1998 activity and killings. Many others remain tight-lipped on their pasts in the knowledge that disclosing the truth would be to self-incriminate.

Meanwhile, the number of British military personnel to have endured a similar fate can be counted on the fingers of one hand; a total of four soldiers were convicted of murder whilst on duty in the north of Ireland. All were released after serving two or three years of life sentences and were allowed to rejoin the army. This is despite "some 150 cases of unjust killings and murders by security forces" (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/murray.htm), not to mention their collusion with loyalist paramilitaries who acted as effective proxies on operations - such as political and sectarian assassinations - that the wider army (with the exception of their small and covert, but legal, death-squads in the form of the SRU, MRF and FRU) couldn't get away with.

Anyhow, the DUP's only apparent duty in return for the £1 billion as part of this deal is to support the minority Tory government. It doesn't appear to be conditional upon the restoration of power-sharing and it seems the Tories have not used their position to exert any pressure on the DUP whatsoever to work towards restoring power-sharing. If the Tories truly had the best interests of the people of the north of Ireland at heart, they might have attempted to wield some influence on this front, but not a smidgen it seems. Is there even anything in this deal that might encourage Sinn Féin back into power-sharing? I don't see it. Also, how much of the agreed money will actually make its way into nationalist areas and west of the Bann? How will it be fairly distributed with no executive up and running at Stormont?

Support on other matters will be agreed on a case-by-case basis, so who know what other problems may crop up over the next parliamentary term?

I thought the following comment (https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/26/tory-dup-deal-reached/#comment-3386168470) by a poster called "Karl" on Slugger O'Toole showed the sort of insight and foresight on the matter that the DUP appear to be severely lacking:


"What [the DUP] should have done was kept out of the limelight, not made Theresa look like she couldn't handle them in negotiations, propped up the Tories for the good of the union and banked some political capital for the oncoming Brexit disaster.

What they have now is see the Scots and the Welsh squabbling about more funds, the English see this as the Celtic fringe fighting over their money, they have exposed unionism's loyalty to squeezing the British teet. They have also left a bad taste in the Tory mouth.

This is all going to come back on them in spades down the road.


9 Isn't there a real possibility that the DUP is ready to compromise, specifically on the Language Act? Foster visiting schools recently, and so on. I can't see that being covered in any Tory deal

It's a possibility. I hope it's her way of testing the waters with her supporters and gradually softening the party stance towards finally delivering (and not seeking further compromise on) what was previously agreed in writing.


10 What we- from John Major, Bertie Ahern and Bill Clinton down- are actually talking about is the possibility of renewed violence in NI. Even though every Nationalist party in Ireland says there's no chance of it happening. So one soundbite is self-contradicting, then you're following it up with another that's largely meaningless, or about as philosophical as apple pie. I hold the DUP and SF in equal low esteem- will that do?

Ha, I don't think parity of esteem is nebulous nonsense though. It's a pretty fundamental political and legal principle that helps move bi/multi-communal societies onward from periods of conflict. It is from that core concept that all else that is political in northern society stems; be that power-sharing or legal and socio-cultural equality.


11 OK, I'll admit to repeatedly mentioning Plaid Cymru because I fancy that Leanne Wood (clearly shared by the national (ie English) media given the amount of coverage she gets ;) )

Haha!

[DannyInvincible]

Theresa Villiers' car-crash interview with the formidable James O'Brien of LBC makes for cringe-worthy listening:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAsEqCLy-GQ

[DannyInvincible]

Steve Bradley (who was once a Foot.ie regular (http://foot.ie/members/2915-dcfcsteve) actually) has written a fascinating evidence-based piece for Slugger O'Toole on the north's sectarian-rooted east-west economic divide; 'The £400m for Infrastructure in the Conservative-DUP agreement will only exacerbate Northern Ireland’s east-west divide': https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/28/the-400m-for-infrastructure-in-the-conservative-dup-agreement-will-only-exacerbate-northern-irelands-east-west-divide/


There is an even more concerning issue that our east-west infrastructure imbalance also points towards. If you overlay NI’s current transport facilities onto a map of the province’s religious demography, it instantly becomes clear that our infrastructure provision is as much a problem of religion as it is economics or regional balance. Whilst any explanation of how this situation arose in the first place would doubtless be the subject of animated debate, it is indisputable that Northern Ireland’s infrastructure is currently polarised not just geographically, but also along sectarian lines:

https://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MAP-3-NI-Railways-vs-Religion-1.png

https://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MAP-4-NI-Motorways-vs-Religion-1.png

This is highlighted even more starkly if you compare our transport infrastructure with June’s Westminster election results, in which the electorate coalesced behind one party on each side of the religious divide:

https://sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Map-5-NI-Westminster-Results-vs-Railways-Motorways-1.png

[osarusan]

A foot.ie regular spoofer is what he was.

[BonnieShels]

That "analysis" is flawed beyond belief. The infrastructure that he deals with has been in place for decades. The sectarian nature of it is obvious but it was implemented pre-NI and during the "home-rule" period of 1922-1972.

You have to remember that the population densities (regardless of denomination) west of the Bann don't require major infrastructural spending such as bypasses and railways. The only thing that is required at present is dualling the A5/N2 from Aughnacloy to Derry via Strabane which we gave €400m a few years back. It's due to finally start construction later this year after years of legal wranglings.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/a5omaghstrabane.html

The railway to Derry is single track and requires dualling but the topography makes this difficult. Well, they could actually avoid the current route because it is actually mental (like most rail routes in Ireland) and hugs the coast for a lot of it after Bellarena (yes Bellarena has a station, but City of Derry Airport which the railway actually clips on the eastern runway does not...) and completely realign the route from Belfast to Derry. But there is no appetite for rail in Ireland as can be seen from the inaction over DU, MN and Kishoge down south!

[DannyInvincible]

A foot.ie regular spoofer is what he was.

Heh, actually? Why was that? I can't recall any specific issue. I don't know him personally, but I always remember thinking he was a diligent poster who spoke a lot of sense, not just here, but on Derry City Chat too.


That "analysis" is flawed beyond belief. The infrastructure that he deals with has been in place for decades. The sectarian nature of it is obvious but it was implemented pre-NI and during the "home-rule" period of 1922-1972.

To be fair to him, I think Steve acknowledges that and is arguing that the Tory-DUP deal will only exacerbate the historical imbalance that he highlights. He wrote:


"The additional £400m for infrastructure secured in the Conservative-DUP agreement therefore offers an opportunity to begin acknowledging and addressing NI’s transport apartheid. Yet the text of the deal suggests that it is more likely instead to exacerbate the imbalance."


You have to remember that the population densities (regardless of denomination) west of the Bann don't require major infrastructural spending such as bypasses and railways.

He responded (https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/28/the-400m-for-infrastructure-in-the-conservative-dup-agreement-will-only-exacerbate-northern-irelands-east-west-divide/#comment-3389989352) to the "smaller population density in the west" argument in the comments section and made the following points (which I think are pretty solid):


"1) Despite the absence of decent infrastructure, 27% of NI currently live in its three western counties. That is not an insignificant proportion (certainly not of the 'no-one lives there' level mentioned in some responses below). For perspective - 15.5% live in Belfast City, and 37% in the Belfast Metropolitan/Greater Belfast area (i.e. the old council areas for Belfast, Lisburn, Castlereagh, Newtonabbey, North Down and Carrockfergus)

2) If you look at a map of the population density of NI - Derry City and its environs, south-east County Derry and east Tyrone have relatively high densities. Their densities are identical if not higher than swathes of the east which have much better infrastructure. In particular, there is a ring of population density/concentration around Lough Neagh, for example, yet only its eastern and southern sides have the infrastructure.

3) As mentioned in the article, it's a chicken and egg scenario. Jobs and population gravitate away from areas of poor infrastructure towards those with better infrastructure. That is a fact. How will somewhere like Derry have a chance of attracting the job creation it needs when any foreign company would baulk at how awkward it is to get there from NI's key international gateways (e.g. stuck behind a tractor on the Glenshane pass, or spending 2 and a half hours on an infrequent one-track railway to arrive at the most isolated station on NI's train network which is also away from the city centre it should serve). And without the ability to attract employment to places like Derry, Omagh and Enniskillen, how is the west's population expected to grow significantly as a proportion of the province ? If the west is deemed not to have the population to justify better infrastructure, it will remain an under-performing/impoverished generator of outward migration (to the east and beyond), thereby continuing to justify its poor infrastructure ad infinitum.

4) Re cause and effect : the west was promised motorways to replace the railways it lost in the 1960s, yet never got them. The east by-and-large retained its railways, and then also got given the only sections of motorway that were ever built. Given the avowedly sectarian nature of the pre-Troubles Stormont government ("a protestant parliament for a protestant people"), it would be naive to pretend that religious demography played no part whatsoever in those decisions."

Just on the matter of Irish railway lines, I always found these comparison maps (https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/losing-irelands-railway-networks-to-partition-was-a-giant-mistake) pretty revealing in terms of how partition had a sort of double-whammy peripheralising effect upon border areas in Ireland, particularly the north-west of the country:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/6/6d/20060316095932!Ireland's_Rail_Network_1925-75.gif

https://www.irishcentral.com/uploads/article/157/MI-railway-network-ireland.jpg

Pre-partition, approximately ten rail-lines crossed what is now the border. Nowadays, only one line crosses the border; the line between Newry and Dundalk. The only counties in Ireland without any railway in the present day are all Ulster border counties; Donegal, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Cavan and Monaghan.

Partition led to Donegal - already geographically-isolated from its national capital, Dublin - being cut off from its main regional market town or commercial centre, Derry, by the new political-economic border. Derry, meanwhile, was separated politically and economically from its natural Donegal hinterland and also from London by geography.

There's a bit on the matter here by Roy Johnston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Johnston), which is interesting: http://www.rjtechne.org/century130703/1990s/polit90.htm


"Starting with the Northwest, pre-Partition it was possible to get from Westport to Sligo and on to Omagh and Derry by rail; the system also interfaced with the light rail system in Donegal at Strabane and Derry. There was the makings of a viable economic hinterland in the Northwest, which extended down to the West. The possibilities presented by this were killed by Partition; Derry was cut off from its natural hinterland; both Derry and its hinterland became declining peripheral areas of remote centralist capitals in Dublin, and in London via Belfast.

In the East, there was a rail complex linking Dundalk and Newry with the port of Greenore; Dundalk was linked directly by rail to Dungannon and Derry. We are talking of the 1921 situation, when rail transport, and connection to ports, was the key to economic development. The infrastructure was in place; given independence and a benign government close at hand, development of a vibrant economy was totally feasible. Partition killed all this, leaving Dundalk and Newry peripheralised."

[Gather round]

Reply to DI in posts #89- #91 above:

1 Sure, the GFA has international legal standing. But for me, it clearly isn't working fully and for you it's not sufficiently threatened to justify legal action. So we'll just muddle on, no?

2 The Brits can't be genuinely impartial because as long as NI remains part of Britain, because for that period the governing British party may need NI party support at any given point. What you want isn't really impartiality, but non-involvement. Which may happen, but not yet ;)

3 Same probably applies to the South. SF are a potential coalition party, so the other parties in that government can't be impartial ;)

4 From a British POV, both Unionists and Nationalists in NI are separatists- the former have almost always been more interested in staying out of the South than integrating with Britain. Ireland has never been politically united except under British rule...

5 I think for most of the 1886- 1918 period Unionists genuinely thought all of Ireland could be kept in the British state. Then eventually (as they saw it) they compromised and cut a deal

6 I know you are left-wing, obviously, and like Corbyn's politics. Just didn't think you'd be too fussed about who leads the British Govt. Maybe I confused you with Gerry Adams?

7 My qualified welcome for Corbyn is mainly because I support a Party clearly to the left of what until a month ago we thought was the majority of Labour MPs. I'll admit to mixed feelings about the election result- the Greens took a beating, but on the other hand I've been wishing and hoping for decades that Labour would turn left ;) Now if they take environmental issues seriously and abandon nuclear weapons...

8 Corbyn (and to some extent his supporters like Abbott and McDonnell) took a lot of abuse during the campaign about their support for Sinn Fein. I defended them- their attitudes were all over the place and sometimes as close as possible to paramilitarism without backing a shooting war, but they stayed just this side of the line

10 Agreed, after RHI etc. you shouldn't really trust the DUP to run a bath. That said, I've been surprised that much more criticism of them over here is about gay marriage and abortion

11 Aye, I'm a View regular, saw the IDS interview. As I've said before, the background to this is Britain becoming much more militaristic in recent years (since Iraq/ Afghan wars, basically). I'd prefer that as a country we weren't like that, but given that we are there is an inevitable knock on to NI. That's a bit of a cop-out answer, I know

12 Ben Lowry's interesting- a prominent unionist journo who's ready to talk to nationalists. He does strike me too as a bit of a bull****ter- you can justify state forces as morally better than paramilitaries without inventing things. I should remind you though that the unionist supremacy ended in the early 70s, after which unionists put up with 30 years of violence just like nationalists...

13 NI has effective special status (whatever it's called) for two broad reasons- the land border and still-present and oft-mentioned threat, however exaggerated, of a return to violence

14 Disagree about the Tory/ DUP deal weakening the union. I doubt it'll make much difference. Carwyn James is a grandstanding hypocrite- Wales benefits from pork barrel politics like everywhere else. As for Scotland, a successful IndyRef now looks about as likely as a Coleraine Euro run

15 The Tories want a return to power-sharing (just to avoid having to admit responsibility for the NI parties' inevitable failure to agree and co-operate). It's not a priority for them though unless large-scale violence returns

16 Where will the money go? Well the York Street traffic bottleneck's in a nationalist area. The N2/ A5 upgrade similarly. Where do you think it'll be spent?

17 To be fair, I didn't suggest parity of esteem was nonsensical, just vague. Political ideas are there to be tested and argued. They are entitled to respect, not automatic protection

[Gather round]

I've met [dcfc Steve] Bradley a couple of times, including when he gave a presentation at Birkbeck College in London Uni (the academic running that series, Sean Hamil, is from Downpatrick). SB is as forthright in person as on here ;)

I'm largely with Bonita above. Roll on the Aughnacloy Autobahn!

[backstothewall]

That "analysis" is flawed beyond belief. The infrastructure that he deals with has been in place for decades. The sectarian nature of it is obvious but it was implemented pre-NI and during the "home-rule" period of 1922-1972.

You have to remember that the population densities (regardless of denomination) west of the Bann don't require major infrastructural spending such as bypasses and railways. The only thing that is required at present is dualling the A5/N2 from Aughnacloy to Derry via Strabane which we gave €400m a few years back. It's due to finally start construction later this year after years of legal wranglings.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/a5omaghstrabane.html

The railway to Derry is single track and requires dualling but the topography makes this difficult. Well, they could actually avoid the current route because it is actually mental (like most rail routes in Ireland) and hugs the coast for a lot of it after Bellarena (yes Bellarena has a station, but City of Derry Airport which the railway actually clips on the eastern runway does not...) and completely realign the route from Belfast to Derry. But there is no appetite for rail in Ireland as can be seen from the inaction over DU, MN and Kishoge down south!

I'll go along with that.

The position of the Sperrins means that the obvious route to get from Belfast - Derry is always going to be south of Lough Neagh. That any infrastructure you build will pass alongside Dungannon, Omagh and Strabane, which are obviously more significant settlements than Magherafelt & Dungiven makes it all the more obvious. The M2 is a fine idea, but its a motorway to Coleraine and no more. That should be no surprise to anyone because that's exactly what the old Stormont had in mind when they built it.

Rather than throwing good money after bad trying to repurpose existing roads into things they will never be we ought to finish what we have and build what we need. For now that means doing Yorkgate junction and building the road from Aughnacloy to Derry.

Spending money on the A6 is mental imho. Once there is a motorway going round the other side of the lough the traffic is going to vanish from the A6. Far better getting on with the A5 and killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

I'd also see merit in changing the rules about what constitutes a motorway and reclassifying dual carriageways with no rights turns or roundabouts as motorways. At the stroke of a pen a ****load of motorway could be "built" here.

[DannyInvincible]

1 Sure, the GFA has international legal standing. But for me, it clearly isn't working fully and for you it's not sufficiently threatened to justify legal action. So we'll just muddle on, no?

I also agree it clearly isn't working fully, which is a wee bit of a problem. There is no muddling on though at the minute (seeing as the institutions created by the GFA aren't currently functional, nor is it looking likely they'll be functional any time soon), so what's to happen, who knows?...

Of course, Brokenshire (Jokenshire?) demonstrated his total impotence and irrelevance again yesterday. After extending his "final and immovable (https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0611/881921-brokenshire-stormont-deadline/)" deadline of 4PM on the 29th of June to yesterday afternoon, the "serious and dire" consequence of which he was warning if parties failed to come to an agreement by this new deadline unsurprisingly turned out to be, yup, another deadline extension... The paper threats are comical, but people's patience is wearing thin.

And it's not that I necessarily think the GFA isn't sufficiently threatened to justify legal action. I just said I hadn't envisaged anyone taking legal action. Turns out I was wrong though. One of your own - Ciaran McClean - challenged it the other week: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/22/legal-challenge-made-against-possible-dup-deal-with-tories

It will be interesting to see the outcome.


2 The Brits can't be genuinely impartial because as long as NI remains part of Britain, because for that period the governing British party may need NI party support at any given point. What you want isn't really impartiality, but non-involvement. Which may happen, but not yet ;)

Heh, maybe so, but short of non-involvement, I'd naturally still prefer to see them at least try and be as impartial as is practically possible, in accordance with their explicit obligation.


3 Same probably applies to the South. SF are a potential coalition party, so the other parties in that government can't be impartial ;)

There's no duty upon the Irish government to be impartial though.


6 I know you are left-wing, obviously, and like Corbyn's politics. Just didn't think you'd be too fussed about who leads the British Govt. Maybe I confused you with Gerry Adams?

Ha, it concerns me at least insofar as goings on at Westminster and Downing Street directly affect my own life and the affairs of my country, community and family. The UK government is still administering the north-eastern corner of Ireland, after all. I also have close friends in Britain, from having lived in Manchester for over half a decade, with whom I'm still in regular contact, so some sense of attachment to and interest in what's going on over there undoubtedly remains. Even if I had no connection to the place, the hara-kiri of Tory Brexit would still nevertheless be morbidly fascinating viewing from a distance.

Corbyn's views on Ireland would probably closely align to my own, so perhaps having him as PM would be beneficial, as far as my own aspirations are concerned. And I generally prefer to see the Left doing well globally. At the same time though, talk - both north and south - of uniting Ireland has never been so loud in recent decades as it has been over the past few months since the Tories decided to bulldoze part of Ireland out of the EU against its will. There's an actual public debate in progress now. So, maybe, after all, the Tories are doing a better job than Corbyn ever could on bringing us closer to Irish unity, despite the latter's obvious sympathies.


7 My qualified welcome for Corbyn is mainly because I support a Party clearly to the left of what until a month ago we thought was the majority of Labour MPs. I'll admit to mixed feelings about the election result- the Greens took a beating, but on the other hand I've been wishing and hoping for decades that Labour would turn left ;) Now if they take environmental issues seriously and abandon nuclear weapons...

If Corbyn had his way, nuclear disarmament and forestalling whatever climate change we still have the power to prevent would be party/governmental policies.


12 Ben Lowry's interesting- a prominent unionist journo who's ready to talk to nationalists. He does strike me too as a bit of a bull****ter- you can justify state forces as morally better than paramilitaries without inventing things. I should remind you though that the unionist supremacy ended in the early 70s, after which unionists put up with 30 years of violence just like nationalists...

Some paramilitaries were proxy state forces, whilst other clandestine state units (the SRU, FRU and MRF, for example) operated in a manner no different from those members of paramilitary organisations who were engaged in the intentional sectarian slaughter of civilians.

Anyway, I'm not so sure I agree with your determination as to when unionism's supremacy came to an end. 1998 might be a better cut-off point, if you have to insert one along the historical time-line. Up until then, there was no power-sharing, equality and human rights protections weren't satisfactorily guaranteed, there was no recognition of the validity of the Irish nationalist identity or of the legitimacy of the nationalist aspiration for Irish unity, the RUC still existed, Operation Banner remained in full swing and there was no formal all-island element to governance of the north. As far as nationalists and republicans were concerned, those factors were indicative of continuing unionist supremacy and helped fuel conflict up until the eventual cessation of violence. Although it's not even as if the GFA and the principle of parity of esteem are being properly implemented since either.


13 NI has effective special status (whatever it's called) for two broad reasons- the land border and still-present and oft-mentioned threat, however exaggerated, of a return to violence

14 Disagree about the Tory/ DUP deal weakening the union. I doubt it'll make much difference. Carwyn James is a grandstanding hypocrite- Wales benefits from pork barrel politics like everywhere else. As for Scotland, a successful IndyRef now looks about as likely as a Coleraine Euro run

Ha, we'll see how things pan out, I guess. The real effects of Brexit - which, of course, hasn't actually been effected yet - are still to be felt.


16 Where will the money go? Well the York Street traffic bottleneck's in a nationalist area. The N2/ A5 upgrade similarly. Where do you think it'll be spent?

Newton Emerson said on last Thursday's The View (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08w2kgf/the-view-29062017) (at 29m02s) that a Tory-DUP committee will meet "to decide the money of the one billion package", so I assume they'll be distributing the money. It'll be spent wherever they decide to spend it then. Emerson also added, ominously, that this decision-making process will at least "create the optics of a replacement government or a new executive that Sinn Féin is locked out of". He's right, of course.


17 To be fair, I didn't suggest parity of esteem was nonsensical, just vague. Political ideas are there to be tested and argued. They are entitled to respect, not automatic protection

Heh, I don't see much of a line between calling something "meaningless apple-pie" and dubbing something "nonsense", but fair enough. Isn't it debated and tested though as a principle? And, arguably, ideas are entitled to protection if they form pivotal elements of bilateral or multilateral agreements of a quasi-constitutional nature.