“Delivery”

In a piece for the “News Letter” on 30th December (the day after Sinn Fein/IRA made plans for their party conference) Dr Paisley said that what constitutes “delivery [by republicans] on support for the police, the rule of law and the courts has been spelt out loud and clear” by the DUP.

If anyone hadn’t yet head the DUP definition of their latest buzz word, Dr Paisley helpfully provides it:
“For example, no one could, on the one hand, claim to support the rule of law and the police, on the one hand and, on the other, be a member of a secret illegal army council. Support for the police would include willingly assisting the police with inquiries; encouraging the community to bring forward evidence that can be used without fear of intimidation in cases such as rape, murder or other serious crimes. It would see to it that the previously won ill-gotten gains of crime be no longer exploited for political gain and those available should be returned.”

However, this definition leaves a number of issues unresolved.

1. As Dr Paisley knows, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris resigned from the IRA Army Council in the last 18 months. However, they still exercise control from outside. Note there is NO requirement that the Army Council be disbanded. On this point, he differs from Mr Alister MEP.
2. Do the cases of “murder or other serious crimes” on which Sinn Fein/IRA must provide information include ‘ENNISKILLEN’, ‘LA MON’ or Jean McConville and all the other terrorist atrocities committed by the DUP’s future coalition partners?
3. Does Dr Paisley believe that the twenty six million pounds stolen by the IRA two years ago is “available”? How much does he anticipate will be returned? One would imagine that is would be a VERY considerable sum. The personal fortune of Gerry’s friend, Thomas “Slab” Murffy, is said to run into millions – all built on cross border smuggling and similar activities which would gererate “ill-gotten gains”. Is the return of these “ill-gotten gains” a precondition for entry into an executive?
4. And am I the only person who thinks that if such profound questions have to be asked about a political party they are not fit for office?