First Minister of Northern Ireland makes the case for the Union #indyref #fb

From the excellent Belfast News Letter 18/2/2012
Platform:

Proposals for an independent Scotland are poorly thought out, but unionism must offer a positive alternative, says PETER ROBINSON -

THE history of the relationship between Northern Ireland and Scotland is a never-ending story of interaction between the two countries.

The Union binds all its four constituent parts together but the relationship across the North Channel has always been a special one.

Now, as the Scots embark on a debate about whether they shall remain within our United Kingdom, it is of particularly keen interest to us.

We know enough about our Scottish friends to know that dire threats will not be the way to unionist success.

We also know that it will be their decision and not ours. However, what we can do is leave them in no shadow of doubt that we want them in our Union.

For the past and present show us the way to the best future - that we are better together.

As the story of the Union has unfolded, each part contributed much to its politics, its economy, its culture and to its defence.

Through the common project of the empire we gave our values and learning to the world - technical innovation, parliamentary democracy, belief in the rule of law and fundamental,  freedoms, philosophy, literature and sport.

After securing democracy from the Nazi onslaught, we set about creating a new Union building national institutions like the NHS.

Our unity meant that as the empire faded the UK retained a place in the world politically and economically that schism would have frittered away.

This has never been truer than now. The UK is not immune from the global winds of recession but we can see from the experiences of Greece and the Republic of Ireland how much more vulnerable small nations are.

As to the future, our prime minister has made it clear the Union is happy to evolve.

With the Union, the Scots know what it has delivered, does deliver and will deliver. What of the alternative future?

Even in these early stages of the debate, it has become clear no one has a real vision for an independent Scotland.

On questions about basic issues like the economy, currency and defence the plans appear as if they have been drafted up on the back of a beaten bookies' docket.

So let us not fear this debate but welcome it. For I believe it will not only secure Scotland's place in the Union for years to come but re-energise the idea of the Union throughout our country.

Together, we have achieved so much. Together, we are stronger. Together, we will have the best future.

■ Peter Robinson is First Minister of Northern Ireland and leader of the DUP

First Minister Peter Robinson on Twitter
DUP Website
DUP on Twitter
DUP on Facebook
DUP on YouTube
Kilsally on Twitter - a Northern Irish perspective on Twitter

--------------
Scottish independence: Wales and Northern Ireland make unity plea
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/13/scottish-independence-wales-northern-ireland

.......In his strong plea for Scotland to remain in the UK, Robinson made clear that Northern Ireland unionists would lose their closest relatives in the UK if Scotland left. The Northern Ireland first minister said: "If what we have seen over the last few days is a trailer of things to come then unless we like seeing the sight of our own blood we might want to stand back somewhat. While we recognise that clearly this must be a decision for the people of Scotland to take on their own it has clear implications for the rest of the UK.

"I speak as a unionist but also as an Ulster Scot. Clearly I have a massive interest in what happens and what decision the people of Scotland will take. They do need to know that there are many people throughout the UK that feel they have a very valuable contribution to make to the UK as a whole who want to see them continue to do that."

In a reference to the Scots who travelled across the Irish Sea during the Ulster Plantation, Robinson said: "We cherish the relationship that we have. Nowhere else in the UK would the bonds be more tightly drawn between any other part of the UK from NI's point of view than with Scotland.

"Our peoples have moved from one side of that small stretch of water to the other and back again many times over the centuries. So we have a massive interest and I don't think we can sit idly by and simply indicate that it is a matter for Scotland alone. It will have implications for us all. We hope that Scotland knows just how much we want them to remain within the UK.".........
-----------

12:48 GMT, Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Video at the link: British Irish Council
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/northern_ireland/newsid_9676000/9676822.stm

The first minister said he very much hoped Scotland would remain an "integral part of the United Kingdom", on 17 January 2012.
In his statement on the recent meeting of the British Irish Council (BIC), Peter Robinson said the subject of Scotland's independence had gained media attention due to the presence of Scotland First Minister, Alex Salmond, even though it was not discussed.
Delegates at the meeting included the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Owen Paterson.
With the inclusion of members outside the UK, Mr Robinson said that Scotland could remain part of the council even if it gained independence.
"Even if Scotland was to take the decision, which all, I'm sure, in this house would unanimously agree that we would not want them to take, it would not stop them being a member of the BIC," he said.
Mr Robinson also said it was ironic, "that the moment when there seems a real possibility of some form of break-up of the United Kingdom that Northern Ireland was not the cause of it".

----------
Unionists can use Salmond`s ideas, says businessman

A SCOTTISH business-man with strong links to Northern Ireland has urged the province's politicians to work with Scotland for the benefit of both regions.
Iain McGill, who runs an employment business between Scotland and Northern Ireland, said that unionists should em¬brace some of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond's ideas - but use them to strengthen the case for the Union.
Mr McGill, whose father is Scottish and mother is from Larne, singled out Mr Salmond's call for Scotland to lead the world in creating renewable energy from its rugged landscape.
The businessman who was brought up in Scotland and has stood for the Conservatives in Edinburgh - told the News Letter: "The potential for Northern Ireland and Scotland to work to¬gether on tidal energy in the North Sea between Scotland and Northern Ireland is enormous; it could be a massive eneregy producer for the whole of Europe.
"It's not a Scottish North Sea, it's not a Northern Irish North Sea it's a big natural asset that we share.
"I see Alex Salmond running ahead on that and I think the guys in Northern Ireland - on both sides of the unionist- nationalist debate - are missing a trick with that.
"They should be saying: Here's an asset we have; Alex Salmond trumpets that Scotland's going to be the renewables leader in the world; Scotland's going to provide power for Europe.
"He's presenting a posi-tive vision for how he sees it running. But actually we would be more powerful together because that sea is not entirely Scotland's.
"If that- vision is right then actually Scotland, Northern Ireland and UK PLC should be saying: 'We've got this North Sea between us, let's maximise that and make it the world leader in tidal power'.
"I see his vision of an independent Scotland being a world leader in re-newable energy actually being stronger if we have both coasts of the North Sea, not just one coast of the North Sea."
Mr McGill, a strongly pro-Union voice in the Scottish independence debate, said that he did not believe Scots would vote for independence.
"We're in a better position to be taking risks together and sharing the rewards together.
"From a Scottish side, when you look at the banks collapsing we would not, as a small nation, have been able to bail them out and help the economy by sustaining them."

Posted via email from Kilsally's Ulster

DUP MP Donaldson calls for UK-wide Unionist movement at Liverpool Orange Order demonstration

DUP MP Donaldson calls for UK-wide Unionist movement at Liverpool Orange Order demonstration

Union under threat across the UK - Donaldson

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Union-under-threat-across-the.6283370.jp
Original article by Michael McGlade in the News Letter at the link above.

RE-ELECTED Lagan Valley MP Jeffrey Donaldson has called for a UK-wide movement to defend the "integrity" of the Union.

In his address to an Orange Order gathering in Liverpool at the weekend, Mr Donaldson said there were those within the political establishment who wanted to dismantle the UK's constitution and to break the "historic link between the Sovereign and the Church".







Videos: Act of Settlement Orange Rally, Grand Master Of The Loyal Orange Institution Of England Liverpool May 2010





Videos: Act of Settlement Orange Rally, Jeffrey Donaldson DUP MP, Liverpool May 2010



He told the Orange brethren on Saturday that any attempt in Parliament to scrap the Act of Settlement will be opposed.



"We strongly oppose any attempt to tinker with the constitutional arrangements that have helped maintain political stability in the United Kingdom for over three centuries," he said.



"Hundreds of thousands of people fleeing persecution have sought haven in this country because of the freedoms that are at the heart of our constitution.



"Our Christian heritage must be protected and it saddens me that there are church leaders who fail to speak up for that Christianity and its link with the constitution yet some even advocate that Islamic Sharia Law should apply in the UK."



The DUP man said this type of "muddled thinking" had blunted the ability of the Church to give leadership.



"Fundamental to maintaining political stability is the need to ensure that the Sovereign owes sole allegiance to this country. That was the main purpose of the Act of Settlement, ensuring that our Monarch owed their allegiance to no other State or person and that the only higher authority was Almighty God.



"We will oppose any attempt in Parliament to scrap the Act of Settlement."



War memorials in cities, towns and villages across the UK were, he said, testimony to the sacrifice that each part of the country has played in maintaining democracy and liberty.



The MP continued: "Today, we have men and women from every region of the UK serving under the Union Flag in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.



"As we struggle to recover from the impact of recession, we are stronger together than we would ever be apart. Yet despite the strength that comes from unity, there are nationalist elements that seek to dismember the Kingdom and destroy the Union.



"The case for the Union is a powerful one but it is often unspoken. I advocate the creation of a UK-wide movement that will draw together political and civic unionism in a campaign to promote the maintenance of the Union and to defend the integrity of the United Kingdom."













Videos: Act of Settlement Orange Parade, Liverpool May 2010



http://youtu.be/83FhVLq_qqg?a

http://youtu.be/JHdsDO9uzv4?a

Let`s keep Northern Ireland moving forward

Despite the goings on in East Belfast the election results have seen the DUP claw back voters. The 2009 Euro elections saw the DUP achieve 88,346 first preference votes (18.2%) whilst the election to Westminster has seen the percentage go up to 25% of the vote (168,216). Now this is still down 8.7% on the previous Westminster election but in overall terms considering the recent DUP `annus horribilis` I would think the DUP should be pretty happy with the result. Even in East Belfast Peter Robinson scored a hefty 32.8% of the vote (Gregory Campbell was elected on 34.6% in East Londonderry, William McCrea was elected on 33.9%).

There are problems with the way the Institutions work and hopefully they will be looked at and reviewed long before the 2015 date set in St Andrews. But the one thing that seems clear from the results is that people have responded to the positive message and vision the DUP put forward for Northern Ireland. People want to see bread and butter issues dealt with, they want to live in peace, they want jobs, better hospitals, better schools for their kids.

The other thing that strikes me immediately is the conciliatory & muted tone amongst Unionists. There has not been much crowing or jeering on anyone`s part, be it DUP, UUP/Tory or TUV. The feeling on the ground seems to be that Unionist Unity talks are the way forward.

The prospects of voluntary coalition

This is originally posted at my Blog. If the videos are not showing up then click the link.

The prospects of voluntary coalition
http://wildwoodsoftyrone.blogspot.com/
by Kilsally


Voluntary coalition seems to be a shibboleth connected with Jim Allister and TUV but in reality all three Unionist parties would prefer voluntary coalition with some form of qualified majority voting put in place to enable a more normal form of Assembly inline with Wales & Scotland which would include a formal opposition, compared to the mandatory coalition we currently operate where nearly all the parties are in government and will remain in government almost indefinitely.

Last week the News Letter ran a series of live webchats with David Vance (TUV), Reg Empey MLA (UUP-Tory) and Rev Willie McCrea MP (DUP).

Reg Empey was asked:
Will the Conservatives & Unionists be seeking changes to the Northern Ireland institutions such as a move to a voluntary coalition with a qualified majority voting system?

Reg: "I think all unionists would look to change in the Stormont system in the long term. I know that the Conservatives would respond positively if the parties wanted to go in this direction. What is not yet clear is what model we could follow. Over a year ago Mark Durkan suggest using a Bill of Rights combined with a voluntary coalition. I think we could all look at that and explore possibilities."

Rev McCrea was asked:
Why does your party operate mandatory coalition with Sinn fein when voluntary coalition at Stormont would be much better?

McCrea`s reply: The DUP desires a voluntary coalition. In the 2004 DUP European Manifesto presented to the people by Jim Allister we stated that we would accept a mandatory coalition only as a first step. Our position hasn't changed and we continue to work towards our ultimate goal.
I can assure you that if it was possible to have a Government which did not include Sinn Fein tomorrow then the DUP would grasp that with both hands. However, the answer does not lie in tearing devolution down and replacing it with unaccountable Direct Rule - which Jim himself referred to as Dublin Rule.

Vance has this to say on being asked:
If Stormont collapses and Labour is still in government how would you stop them implementing their law banning grammar schools?

Vance: "Academic and vocational educational excellence is vital and a minority Labour govt would not do as you suggest. Ruane is destroying our system everyday and yet the DUP keep her in power, isn't that shameful? "

The Labour government was in the process of introducing a law to ban grammars. Devolution stopped it becoming law so how would TUV stop a Labour government from implementing it?

Vance: "Education is a devolved matter. We have a ruinous Ruane wrecking it, but the DUP keep her in power. I wonder why?"

To me he seemed to avoid the issue just as Jim Allister did in the News Letter pages when I queried him.

Although Jim Allister did answer me (although he totally avoids answering the question) on a News Letter webchat prior to the European elections in 2009:

Me: How would you make the British Government enact legislation to allow voluntary coalition and why is mandatory coalition not a viable temporary solution in your opinion, considering that is has stopped pro-Republican legislation completely to-date?

Jim Allister: "By refusing to operate mc and insisting that if devolution is to prevail then it must be on the democratic basis which respect the fundamental right to vote a party out of govt and permits an Opposition. There is nothing temporary about mc, because it can't and won't be changed without SF's assent."

However I do agree with Jim when he states "What we need is a system where you can have opposition, people who are both in and out of government.

"A voluntary coalition where those that are in government are bound by policies that they all support."

Other parties have also come out in support of a move to voluntary coalition.
Trevor Lunn of Alliance on TUV in News Letter webchat:
"I had hoped we were leaving their type of politics in the dustbin of history but sadly they are still with us. they are a backward looking intolerant minority and i hope the electorate will give them their cards "

Should mandatory coalition be replaced by a better form of government?

Lunn: "Ideally a straight forward parliamentery system as in westminster is preferable but that is not going to happen here . Voluntary coalition is probably the next ambition for Northern Ireland but we are not due to review the present system until 2015."

Alliance leader David Ford also thinks `Voluntary coalition a better way' according to an article in the News Letter.

"A VOLUNTARY Stormont coalition would produce better government than the Executive has thus far delivered, David Ford says, but he does not believe that simple majority rule would be sustainable.

"Clearly we do have to move to a more normal structure in the long-term, such as a voluntary arrangement as advocated by the DUP"

“Alliance has long held the view that we must get rid of sectarian designations, move towards a weighted majority to carry key votes in the Assembly and form the Executive through voluntary coalition.”

The Nationalist SDLP has also toyed with the idea of eventual voluntary coalition.
Mark Durkan told an audience at New College, Oxford: “I remember, at the time, saying that the system of designation was necessary because of what we were coming from but should not be necessary where we were going.

“I argued that such measures with their arguably sectarian or sectional undertones should be bio-degradable, dissolving in the future as the environment changed.

“Most, if not all of us, had such future adjustments in mind when we wrote the review mechanisms into the Agreement.

“As we move towards a fully sealed and settled process we should be preparing to think about how and when to remove some of the ugly scaffolding needed during the construction of the new edifice.”

This was of course pounced upon by the DUP:

The DUP’s Upper Bann MP David Simpson has welcomed the SDLP’s acceptance that Mandatory Coalition is not the best form of government for Northern Ireland and has also stated that it underscores the failure of the Belfast Agreement. Mr. Simpson said,

“I welcome news that Mark Durkan and the SDLP have eventually caught a glimpse of page 29 of the DUP’s 2007 Election Manifesto and have recognised that our policy is not only wise but practical. While for years the SDLP ignored our arguments and clung to the binned Belfast Agreement it is welcome that they have saw the light. At long last they accept that Mandatory Coalition and designation voting is not the best form of government for Northern Ireland.

While the SDLP and the other negotiators of the failed Belfast Agreement have in the past staunchly defended Mandatory Coalition it is encouraging that Mr. Durkan has broken ranks and joined the DUP argument of needing to move away from the Mandatory Coalition model as soon as possible. Indeed, even Reg Empey, one of the lead negotiators of the Belfast Agreement, is seeking talks on the matter.

The Democratic Unionist Party has long argued that while we achieved fundamental changes to the Belfast Agreement, delivering a fair deal, we have still not reached a final settlement. Indeed, when Peter Robinson was elected as First Minister in his inaugural speech he underscored the need to move to normal democratic structures.

“We must work to transform the institutions to ensure that we move smoothly to democratic normality in the years ahead.”
- Rt. Hon. Peter Robinson MP MLA 5th June 2008

The Democratic Unionist Party rejects the current Mandatory Coalition structure but we stated that we were prepared to work it for a limited period. As a result of our negotiations at St Andrews, the legislation was changed to require a report to be made to the Secretary of State by the Assembly within a set period on how it was going to be changed. This report would be the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee – a Committee established as a result of DUP pressure.

We want to move to normal democratic structures as soon as possible. We believe a Voluntary Coalition Executive without designation voting would bring us close to a final settlement in Northern Ireland. I look forward to the SDLP and the UUP joining my Party and voting for the removal of Mandatory Coalition whenever the Assembly & Executive Review Committee discusses this matter shortly.

It is certainly ironic but welcome to hear Mark Durkan and Reg Empey, two architects of the failed Belfast Agreement, join the DUP’s argument for a final settlement in the Province. ”

First Minister and DUP leader Peter Robinson has continually referenced that mandatory coalition was not the final destination.

When the DUP opted for devolution last year Jim Allister had already endorsed the DUP devolution strategy. Anyone who has any doubt about this can look at Jim’s European Election Manifesto complete with its two-page spread supporting “Devolution Now”. For those who don’t want to take time reading the text there is a photograph of Jim and colleagues holding the “Devolution Now” policy document in Washington while selling the DUP’s devolution strategy to US politicians and officials.......

The party did not like the mandatory coalition structure but were prepared to work it for a limited period and the legislation was changed to require a report to be made to the Secretary of State by the Assembly within a set period on how it was going to be changed.......

Set beside these factors were some certainties. If we did not proceed with devolution the Labour government were lined up to take a number of deliberately damaging decisions on Water charging, Rates, Education, the Irish Language and a major reorganisation of Local Government which would have left more than half the country under republican control.

In addition the government was threatening that it would move to Plan “B” – a proposal that they said would involve a stronger partnership between London and Dublin in controlling the future of Northern Ireland.

While we did not expect that Plan “B” would be instantaneous Joint Authority we all knew that since the Anglo Irish Agreement in 1985 the government of Northern Ireland under Direct Rule had changed, and changed utterly. Day by day Dublin was increasing its influence and control.

Jim Allister had in 1985, in common with all DUP representatives, identified that Direct Rule was now effectively Dublin Rule. His speeches in the Assembly during this period demonstrate how he viewed Direct Rule under this new arrangement, as not only amounting to greater Dublin involvement but of now being the apparatus of Joint Authority. If Direct Rule had become the vehicle of Joint Authority in 1985 I need not overstate the worsening of the situation by 1998 when additional measures were put in place to strengthen Dublin’s role and authority under the Belfast Agreement.....

The only alternative Jim Allister can offer is disguised Dublin Rule through a London/Dublin Joint Partnership which, in real terms, is what he advocates under the guise of Direct Rule. It means London, acting in league with Dublin and constantly seeking to placate republicans. It leaves London and Dublin taking decisions which affect our futures. This is not a prospect which is good for unionism or for Northern Ireland. Jim Allister once insisted that Direct Rule was in reality Dublin Rule. Now he advocates it.

Politics is about choosing from “a menu of the attainable”. Everyone with a modicum of intelligence and a smidgen of honesty knows what the menu options were which faced the DUP when they inherited the leadership of unionism.

· The first option was to continue the style of devolution where republicans held government office without having to change.

· The second was Dublin Rule through the only form of Direct Rule on offer.

· The third was to negotiate a new form of devolution which forced republicans to dump their weapons, end their terrorism, abandon their criminality, support the police, respect the Courts, abide by the Rule of Law and introduce accountability to the decision making process.

Reg Empey owned the first option. Jim Allister favours the second option. The DUP believe the third option is the safest and best option for unionism and we will use it as a base from which full and normal democratic standards can be delivered.

....We offer a better way. We offer unionism strength and confidence. We have the courage and skill to challenge the republican agenda. We offer direction and engagement in improving the lives and livelihoods of our people. We offer the chance for unionists to make the future better rather than watching while others make it worse.

We offer hope rather than fear.”

Peter Robinson at a conference entitled "How can devolved government deliver for citizens"
Part 1, 2 & 3 of DUP Leader & Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson's speech to the launch of the Evolve Public Policy Forum at the Ulster Hall in Belfast. Mr Robinson's speech included proposals by the Democratic Unionist Party to improve devolution in Northern Ireland. The event was also addressed by former Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell.


Peter Robinson stated at the conference that there was ` no need to wait until 2015 to change voting rules and end community designation.......`we should not await an "arbitrary" date.`

"The St Andrews Agreement provides for a review of arrangements by 2015 but we should address problems when they exist and not await an arbitrary date,"

"It is not always going to be possible to reach an accommodation and as a result of our voting system a failure to agree means deadlock - this has been the case on a number of issues,"

"As a consequence of this, new voting arrangements for the Assembly and the Executive will be required,"

"As a moral and practical matter, community designation is fundamentally flawed.

"It is deeply undemocratic, it entrenches community division and hinders the development of normal politics in Northern Ireland and in practice means that the votes of all Assembly members are not equal."

Mr Robinson acknowledged this was an initial safeguard but said there were other ways to provide community confidence.
He said the DUP was proposing the introduction of weighted majority voting.

"Where a cross-community vote is required by legislation or triggered by a petition of concern, a proposal would require the support of 65% of Assembly members present and voting to pass," he said.

Mr Robinson said this would mean "that no single political party would have the capacity to block proposals which otherwise could command widespread support".

A News Letter article quotes Robinson as saying:

"This would increase the relevance of all Assembly members and would encourage cooperation and compromise between the parties," he added.
Later this month the DUP will publish detailed proposals for developing devolution.

"I would hope by 2015 we would be in a position to move to a more normal form of government in terms of a freely formed coalition but even before then we can make important improvements to the existing arrangements,"

Alex Kane the former UUP director of communications and News Letter columnist wrote several pieces calling on Allister to explain the TUV's viable alternative despite being a sceptic himself.

Let's be clear about this, there is no way that a British Government will agree to the legislation which would be required to allow the UUP/TUV/DUP/SDLP/Alliance to set up a voluntary coalition which would exclude and isolate the largest nationalist party.

There is no way that Sinn Fein would stay in an Assembly which could find a way of excluding them.

There is no way that the SDLP or Alliance would agree to a deal which embraced Jim Allister and rejected Martin McGuinness.....

All of which brings me back to Jim Allister and the TUV If he does make a significant breakthrough in 2011, it will add a new and potentially interesting dynamic to the process. Often a new dynamic is the best way of effecting change. Now, given the hard-nosed political realities that surround the Assembly and Executive, I think that he would be making a profound tactical error if he built his entire strategy on trying to exclude or emasculate Sinn Fein. Only the electorate can do that.

What he needs to do, therefore, is address the issue of the Assembly's inherent inadequacies and set out a clear strategy for resolving them. Better that, than setting himself to an anti-Sinn Fein battle that he cannot possibly win.

The blunt fact, Jim, is this: if you get to the Assembly with a TUV grouping then you will have to negotiate with Sinn Fein. So you may as well tackle them on issues where you can make progress. I can understand why you left the DUP and why you created your own party: but you now have a duty to prove that you do have that viable and available alternative. Good luck!

A look at the DUP manifesto`s on their website reveals one contradiction. On the whole their manifestos prefer voluntary coalition but offer mandatory coalition as a temporary solution with the one slip being the Westminster 2005 manifesto which contradicted itself by stating MC as a possibility and then stating:

"Inclusive, mandatory coalition government which includes Sinn Fein under d’Hondt or any other system is out of the question. If executive devolution cannot be set up on a satisfactory democratic basis, then the only option is to make Direct Rule more accountable and acceptable. We will work with the Government to provide the maximum accountability in these circumstances and attempt to integrate Northern Ireland more firmly within the United Kingdom........“We believe a voluntary coalition supported by democratic parties across the community offers the best way forward.”"

The DUP released a document entitled "Devolution Now" which Jim Allister endorsed:

Devolution Now took account of the political realities in Northern Ireland declaring that only those who were committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means should exercise any Cabinet-style Ministerial responsibility.The proposals suggested that powers would be devolved to the Assembly and not the government departments as under the Belfast Agreement.The Assembly would be empowered to determine how such power was to be exercised.The document outlined some possible models which could result from such a development.

The administration could either be in the form of an Executive or an arrangement where the Assembly acted as a Corporate Body responsible for decision making in an agreed manner.The Executive could be either a Voluntary Coalition with collective cabinet responsibility or a Mandatory Coalition (involving parties committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means) with arrangements for accountability and effective decision making.

If an Executive could not be formed or if an executive collapsed, powers would be transferred from the Executive/Ministers to the Assembly.The decision making process advocated in the Corporate Assembly Model was not inconsistent with the modus operanda in local government. The DUP declared it would not operate the Mandatory Coalition with Sinn Fein before it met the Blair Necessities but would operate the Voluntary Coalition with parties including the SDLP immediately.The document added,“If the SDLP is unwilling to operate a Voluntary Coalition in the absence of SF then we would be willing to operate the Corporate Assembly Model until either the SDLP agree to operate a Voluntary Coalition or SF/IRA deliver on the Blair Necessities. (Acts of completion, set by the PM requiring the winding up of terrorism.)

And the European Manifesto to which Jim Allister was previously elected said:

“A mandatory coalition to include Sinn Fein is only possible when they are demonstrably committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.”

It added:

”We believe that only when the Blair Necessities have been met can Sinn Fein be entitled to a place in Government. The political process must not be put on hold to await the IRA.”

To finish Sammy Wilson has stated:
"The DUP has made it clear that it does not view a mandatory coalition as ideal but we have put measures in place to review this mechanism. We have reached a fair deal but not our final destination.”

In analysing all that, it is clear there is a consensus among the parties (with the exception being Sinn Fein)on moving to a different system. The problem is how to achieve it. Any move would require British government support and presumably legislation enacted at Westminster and quite possibly Irish government support in order to amend the Good Friday Agreement which is an international agreement. There is no chance of that happening under Labour without the nod from Sinn Fein and TUV`s stated aim of collapsing Stormont and returning to direct rule in the absence of voluntary coalition would have seen a raft of pro-Republican legislation enacted via Westminster by Labour leaving Unionists voiceless. It was devolution that actually stopped several of those pro-republican changes from being enacted at Westminster.

TUV`s third option from their manifesto is stronger local authorities with a corporate body over them, (which presumably includes Sinn Fein)rather similar to the `Super Councils` that would see Northern Ireland split in half between Green and Orange councils.

For me, the TUV policies do not stack up as being realistic. It is idealism and to me detrimental to Unionism. To use an analogy, it is like wanting to buy a mansion but not being able to afford it. The DUP & UUP have decided to buy more modest house and gradually do it up, whereas TUV have decided to sleep in a tent until they can afford the mansion. Most people I believe will take the same opinion as the UUP & DUP and so deciding who to vote for comes down to who you think will have the most influence to enable legislation at Westminster. Will it be the Ulster Unionists due to their linkup with the Tory party or will it be the DUP. At first glance it would probably seem like the UUP are in a very strong position if the tories get into government in tomorrow`s 2010 general election but the DUP could quite likely turn out to be kingmakers in a hung parliament with the tories relying on DUP votes or indeed Labour for that matter since the DUP have not tied themselves down.

The decision is yours as Peter Robinson tells us at the end of the northern Ireland leaders debate last night.

The other factor to take into account of course is Sinn Fein`s complete turn around.
You can google both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness saying they would never enter a devolved Stormont and calling on those support the police and supplying them with information to be `dealt with`. Yet here they are in Stormont calling on people to work with the police to catch dissident Republican terrorists.

Mid-Ulster election analysis: DUP

As a Unionist West of the Bann with an incumbent abstentionist Sinn Fein MP (Martin McGuinness) elected on almost half the vote (47.5%) and a whopping 11,000 majority (Ian McCrea of the DUP on 23.5% being the next nearest competitor) it can seem somewhat inconsequential as to whom you vote for (especially after all the recent scandals)....but here is the run down for a Unionist voter in Mid-Ulster in 2010:-

Ian McCrea for the DUP:

Website:-    http://ianmccrea.com
Party:-        http://www.dup.org.uk
Twitter:-     http://twitter.com/ianmccreamla 
                  http://twitter.com/duponline
Facebook:- http://www.facebook.com/ian.mccrea
FB Group:- http://bit.ly/bY7N3v
DUP FB:-   http://bit.ly/d95mOZ
YouTube:-  http://www.youtube.com/user/dupchannel
Manifesto:-  http://www.dup.org.uk/Manifesto2010.asp



A Cookstown councillor and Northern Ireland Assembly MLA, son of prominent DUP MP Rev William McCrea who previously was MP for Mid-Ulster until 1997 when boundry changes saw Sinn Fein take and keep the seat (McCrea Snr currently elected as MP for South Antrim).



















BBC News - Party Election Broadcasts - General Election 2010: http://bit.ly/aelBbO All the UK Party Election Broadcasts so far.