“An insult to anyone’s intelligence"

In today’s “Newsletter” one of the DUP’s twelve apostles said that “it would be an insult to anyone’s intelligence” for the government to say that the time between a Sinn Fein/IRA endorsement of policing and the elections pencilled in for March would constitute a “credible” testing period.

Mr Campbell stated that as Sinn Fein/IRA had “not committed even yet to calling the first of their two meetings to endorse any possible changes to their attitude to policing” the testing period is so short as to be “out of the question”.

Interesting phrase that, “out of the question”. Does anyone recall it occurring in any DUP publications?

Mr Campbell, if rumours in the media are to be believed, is unhappy with some of the contents of the deal struck at St Andrews. However, he seems to agree with his party colleagues, such as Mrs Foster, when they say that if Sinn Fein/IRA sign up to policing then there is no reason why the DUP should not go into government with republicans.

Well, since Mr Campbell’s comments, Mr Adams and co HAVE called the first of their two meetings. Republicans announced that they would hold a meeting of their national executive to consider a proposal for a special party conference next month.

It is a well known fact that the leadership of Sinn Fein/IRA (like that of the DUP) don’t do dissent. If Gerry and Martin are going to call such meetings you can be sure that they have the votes in the bag.

Mr Campbell may still think that the period to test republican bonafides on policing is too short but it doesn’t change the fact that the DUP WILL share power with republicans in the future.

Given that one of the two meetings Mr Campbell mentioned has already been called, is it not reasonable to assume that this will be in the not too distant future?

It is “an insult to anyone’s intelligence” to suggest that if murderers like Gerry Kelly sign up to a police force in which they will have a say (if not in some future executive position then at least through their representatives on the Policing Board) they are democrats.

It is “an insult to anyone’s intelligence” to say that any executive formed under the d’Hondt formula would be democratic.

It is “an insult to anyone’s intelligence” for the DUP to claim that St Andrews is anything more than the Belfast Agreement in a kilt.

It is “an insult to anyone’s intelligence” for the DUP leader to claim that when it comes to politics “the first rule is to stick to your policies and never deviate” when he is on record as saying that “the DUP will never negotiate Ulster’s future with the murderers of the IRA or their representatives and the DUP will not sit down with the godfathers of IRA terrorism”.

It is “an insult to anyone’s intelligence” to claim that the DUP “consulted” with the Unionist electorate when they ignored the numerous letters in the press which attacked the party for fundamental breaches of its manifesto.

It is “an insult to anyone’s intelligence” for the DUP to say that they are opposed to Irish language legislation when they failed to oppose the St Andrews Agreement Bill at Westminster.

“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?

What’s the Irish for Democratic Unionist Party?

St Andrews says that, “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”

Note the words “the Government” – i.e. not the Assembly. The Irish Language Act will go through Westminster – not Stormount – if the St Andrews Agreement is implemented in the form agreed to by the DUP.

What does “reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland” mean?

Well, the first thing that strikes me about this phrase is that it talks about “Ireland”. Ireland ceased to be a political unit when the border was drawn in the 1920s. It should be called the Republic of Ireland.

Then again – maybe not.

The proposed Irish Language Act has a model to work on – that in (the Republic of) Ireland. In the Republic you will notice the following things about Irish:
1. It is on all the road signs.
2. All government documents are in Irish as well as English.
3. You must be able to speak Irish to hold a government job.
4. Irish is taught in all the schools.

If this Act becomes law, the difference between Northern Ireland and the Republic will be eroded. We will be much closer to being a political unit again.

It is unlikely (but not impossible) that measures three and four will be enforced in Northern Ireland but don’t be surprised if the first two measures are implemented.

One question remains unanswered - will Mr Robinson and co. have to learn Irish before they get their ministerial cars?