This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards,but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Skip to content....

text size: Decrease text-size Increase text-size

Skip to content....

Allister responds to St. Andrews Agreement

17 October 2006

Response by MEP Jim Allister to the St. Andrews Agreement:

The “St Andrews Agreement” – which is an agreement, at this stage, only between the two Governments – undoubtedly contains some potentially positive elements, which provide for considerable advancement on the failed Belfast Agreement. It also, though, has negative aspects which must be faced as the DUP considers whether or not to support the plan.

Among the potential positives are:

• the compulsion on Sinn Fein to support the police and the rule of law – the DUP was assured by the PM that the “Pledge of Office” of incoming Ministers will be altered to require them to expressly bind themselves to uphold the rule of law and endorse the PSNI as the only lawful police service in Northern Ireland;

• though there is an aspiration that policing and justice should be devolved by May 2008, the fact that adequate community confidence apparently remains a pre-requisite, means that the largest unionist party can veto the devolution of such powers;

• the introduction of accountability in respect of decisions by Ministers and in North/South bodies should prevent repetition of rogue decisions by rogue ministers in defiance of the wishes of the Assembly;

• the commitment to introduce a cap on domestic rates and possible further relief for pensioners on lower incomes are worthwhile concessions;

• the undertaking to retain the option of academic selection, so that it can only be removed by a cross-community vote of the Assembly, thus securing a unionist veto, is good news.  However, it should be observed that this concession is not within the Agreement, but is contained in a side letter to the DUP from the PM.  This points up the possibility that other undisclosed side deals exist with Sinn Fein.  So, caution is essential and transparency must prevail;

• the prospect of additional financial aid, if it translates into a meaningful and sustained package, is welcome, though tying the consideration of proposals to the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review may be a limiting factor.

• the commitment to an election – much preferable to referenda – before an Executive can be formed is an important democratic gain and an imperative as the DUP needs a mandate to enter a mandatory executive.

• The end of the nationalist-inspired ban on the Northern Ireland Grand Committee sitting in the Province, is welcome.

• The commitment to appoint a permanent Victims Commissioner is worth having.

 

However, in considering the acceptability or otherwise of the Agreement we must also consider its negatives:

• It anticipates admitting Sinn Fein to government after a very short testing period.

• Very importantly, there is no default mechanism in the event that a Party departs from exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Thus if Sinn Fein/IRA robbed another Bank, there is no mechanism to expel them from government and so all the DUP could go is pull out of the Executive and bring devolution crashing down.  Thus, as in the past, the innocent Parties suffer equally with the guilty. Yes, there are words in paragraph 11 about a determination that default by one party should not hinder political progress, but there is no substance. No penalty stipulated and no means of delivering a penalty.

• The prospect of default by Sinn Fein is, as history since 1998 amply demonstrates, no mere academic concern. Sometimes we like to think that if only Sinn Fein would fulfil all the reasonable policing and democratic tests set, then they would be just like the rest of us, playing by the same democratic rules. It should be remembered however, that Sinn Fein is part of a revolutionary Marxist organisation and that such organisations thrive on creating and perpetuating political instability. Didn’t “Stormontgate” and the Northern Bank robbery  - both calculated actions - do exactly that. Might such again not serve their purpose?  They are hardly going into the government of  a State they don’t believe in, and which they are avowed to subsume into an all-Ireland Republic,  to bring it constitutional stability and prosperity! Thus, the absence of a mechanism to punish and exclude them if they default is a major weakness. Sinn Fein helped destroy gullible Trimble by persistently “bowling short” on its commitments. I suspect they’ll try it again.

• Most far-reaching is fact that the St Andrews Agreement sets in motion a process which delivers Sinn Fein (and indeed all sizeable parties) into government in perpetuity with no democratic option of the electorate being able to evict any of them.  It provides for Government, without an Opposition, because it maintains the absurd d’Hondt mechanism. This means the basic right of the electorate to evict a Party from government is withdrawn.  So long as a Party secures a handful of Assembly seats they are guaranteed a place in government as of right and for ever.  It is correct that under the Agreement the Institutional Review Committee of the Assembly could change this, but, frankly, nationalist parties are never likely to agree to do so. Thus, this Agreement would probably saddle us with anti-democratic d’Hondt and a mandatory executive for decades to come.

• The Agreement commits HMG to introduce an Irish Language Act. Its terms are unspecified but it is likely to contribute towards sanitising Northern Ireland of its “Britishness”.  It could impact on our education system. It is essential that the terms of the Bill are published well in advance of 10 November 2006.

• There will be early legislation to open up all Civil Service posts to EU nationals, most relevantly Republic of Ireland citizens. At present a UK citizenship limitation exists in respect of top posts.

• Special, but unspecified, steps are to be taken to promote employment and enhance re-integration of former prisoners. Will the relevance of criminal records be diminished in the employment field, including the Civil Service?

 

So, there are many negatives to be balanced against the positives.

If the DUP should support the Agreement then, clearly, and particularly because of the very short testing period, full and verifiable delivery by Sinn Fein is crucial and cannot be compromised. Given the DUP’s longstanding insistence that the structures of the IRA must be disbanded, it is hard to see how matters could progress beyond the January 2007 IMC report if it did not convincingly confirm that the IRA’s “Army Council”, which is the apex of its military command and still exists, had been disbanded. Also, criminality needs to be expunged, not merely and conveniently “privatised”. If there is genuine support for the police then it should manifest itself in people from republican communities coming forward to give evidence, leading to convictions in court.

back to list 

NI politics