A Blind Date With The Justice Department
So we are over another hump, and without having to fly off to an English country home. Result.
The DUP is pointing to the fact that the process paper published today contains no date for devolving justice as proof of their victory. It makes for strange reading with its groups of activities, bereft of a timescale by which they should be achieved. We shall have to wait for Cilla to pull back a curtain on a date to be determined before we know exactly who our new Justice Minister might turn out to be.
Helpfully, however, informed sources reckon the whole business should play out over a matter of months, not years. That points to the Minister taking office sometime next year.
The only date in the document published today was May 2012 (the "sunset clause" for the cross community appointment procedure). Although the arrangement would then be brought to an end there is nothing in the document to suggest a new Justice Minister will be appointed then, meaning that a candidate chosen by cross community vote will probably occupy the position until the Assembly election after next, which takes us to 2015.
The date which isn't in the document but which undoubtedly has significance is June next year - the next European election. The calculation the DUP will have to make is - is it better to have a Justice Minister either identified or in post before their contest with Jim Allister or afterwards?
The Traditional Unionist MEP has renewed his onslaught on the DUP pointing to the role of Martin McGuinness in appointing a new Attorney General and, should vacancies arise, appointing members of the Judicial Appointments Commission who in turn will select our judges.
However this is likely to have less resonance with voters than the simple message: Gerry Kelly = Maze escaper = Justice Minister. It's arguable that if the public is exposed to the notion of, say, David Ford, Naomi Long or Stephen Farry as Justice Minister they will increasingly shrug their shoulders and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Sinn Fein were less visible than the DUP today in spinning the deal (and in the spirit of open government which pervades the Executive neither the FM nor the DFM hung around for questions after their announcement). Was that because republicans are sheepish about failing to get a definite date? They may take solace in the thought that the transfer of powers would never have been advanced so far by now without their pressure tactics.
Shaun Woodward warned on "Stormont Live" that just because a local politician asks for more cash after doing a deal does not mean they are going to get it. However tonight came the first sweetie with the news that the shortfall in the Historical Enquiries Team is to be made up (it was handy that shortfall was advertised so close to the point of the agreement).
The HET required only £1.5 million, whereas other Executive demands will be far more expensive. Making up for a civil service equal pay claim stretching back decades and compensating for the continued failure to introduce water charges will cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Still we are now in an era of tax cuts and massive government borrowing. Let's just get the banks to print some more money and worry about the consequences later. If Gordon can do it for the UK, why not for Northern Ireland?
I'm 
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~21~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark
"informed sources reckon the whole business should play out over a matter of months, not years."
And who would those "informed sources" actually be?
No identities needed, an affiliation would do.
Just so we could assess whether their insistence on anonymity was part of an attempted mis-direction.
It could play out in a matter of months, of course. But then again, it might not. At the minute conditions on the ground are the deciding factor in the new agreement. In fact, that's been the case in all the agreements..
Including St Andrews.
Just a pity no SF representatives were prepared to appear today to be questioned about their new agreement.
Complain about this comment
Mark
DEAL: WHAT DEAL?
Can someone please set out for me the details of the deal reached between the two Fascist Parties in the Coalition?
And I mean the whole deal!
Susie
Carryduff
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#3
I agree wholeheartedly that full details should be made available...but will not hold my breath waiting.
Perhaps wee Reggie or ineffective Mark will let us know what they have been told about it?
Complain about this comment
I am somewhat curious as to why this meeting was "private" ie the public were not allowed.
why was this?
surely in a democratic society and setup the electorate have the right to know exactly what is happening and exactly what is being agreed to and signed up to?
Oh sorry was getting carried away their and confused. Of course we dont have democracy even in the slightest here
How more undemocratic can Stormont become Mark? Can you ask why the public are being kept in the dark and why we were shut of of the actual discussion only to have to wait until Saint Martin and Saint Peter came out to "dumb it down" for us? or is that "spin it" for us?....
who knows
Complain about this comment
surely in a democratic society and setup the electorate have the right to know exactly what is happening and exactly what is being agreed to and signed up to?
and a right to know about Jim Allister's expenses
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I have to congratulate you on yet another excellent blog. If we all listen to Jimbo or other political parties we would be living in cuckoo land. Jim Allister said on Friday - "There are clear signs that the way is being prepared for a deal with IRA/Sinn Fein on the 11+". Today he says -"I now fully expect a sell-out on academic selection at 11". As you mentioned on Friday Jim Allister produced a "best guess". It certainly seems that way. What also interests me is what Jim said after the St. Andrews Agreement. He said and again I quote "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." Goodness me. What has Jim being saying the last couple of months? What has changed his position? Is it the fact that in order to achieve votes he needs to carry out the work of Sinn Fein? From now on I will no longer call Jim Allister - Jim Allister or Jim Bowen (super smashing great) I will call him Jimmy McGuiness.
What did Jimmy McGuiness say about Policing and Justice after St Andrews? He said that "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". It now appears with the DUP on board this will happen and Jimmy can do nothing to stop it.
I hope Shaun Woodward and Gordon Brown get their cheque books out. Money needs spent on infra structure, water charges and the civil service back pay. How did these Senior Managers with their £10000 bonuses ever let this develop? If any Politician or Government body can’t be transparent with expenses and public money they should resign.
Stormontspy
PS. Does anyone know Jimmy McGuiness's expenses?
Complain about this comment
Nice to hear from you again traditional_unionist, and nice of you to come out with another hilarious comment.
From traditional_unionist I give you:
"Of course we dont have democracy even in the slightest here"
Read post no. 6 if you don't believe me.
I wonder what the people of Burma, Tibet, China, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Syria, Libya, Congo and Afghanistan would think of such raving nonsense.
Not having your views represented by those in power is not the same as absence of democracy.
Complaining about it in those terms is however a very traditional unionist pursuit, and of course a very traditional republican pursuit.
Funny how the TUV always sound like Sinn Fein 10 years ago, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
RJ,
you seem incapable of seeing actually what is happening at Stormont.
Is it mandatory collision? a system not used by any other country in the western world?
Is it a process of election which guarantee's a large party a place in the executive even if they havent got enough votes? a system not used anywhere else in the western world
is it mutual veto's from both of the main parties on any issues? again a system not used anywhere else in the western world
Is it an assembly almost half full of convicted terrorists? again not seen anywhere else in the western world
Is it an assembly where one party can stop everything by simply refusing to attend executive meetings? they dont agree to meet so the rest can't either and the party refusing to meet gets no punishment or consequences at all? again not seen anywhere else in the western world
I can go on about how undemocratic this current stormont setup is if you want? would you like that?
just say ;)
Complain about this comment
RJ,
You have hit the nail on the head. The TUV are like Sinn Fein from 10 years ago. It is interesting to see that traditional unionist didn't object to that.
Complain about this comment
I like the idea of mandatory collision between the parties, but I know what you meant.
Yes, it is a mandatory coalition, but that's what we voted for. I don't mind it.
Almost every government election in the western world that uses PR ends up with large and small parties in government that didn't get enough votes.
Happened in Scotland after devolution when the Lib Dems got their man in as Deputy First Minister and Justice Minister, with a far smaller share of the vote than Sinn Fein got here.
Also happens in Israel, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Wales, Austria and plenty of other countries. So you're wrong there.
Every coalition has minor partners that can bring the whole show down when they want as well. You call it a mutual veto - it probably is, but it forces agreement that is widely accepted across the community divide, and I like that.
Your comment about the assembly being almost half full of convicted terrorists hardly warrants a reply, but suffice to say it was another one of your type without thinking moments which - like "Of course we dont have democracy even in the slightest here" you will end up backtracking on.
Complain about this comment
RJ,
you seem to be getting confusing mandatory coalition with a voluntary one
Your trying to compare other countries who will have "cross community" issues and concerns, with a party here, SF/IRA who have no interest in the good governance of Northern Ireland.
and as for your reply about my part about stormont being almost "half full of convicted terrorists". what exactly have I not "thought" about when typing here? where's the inacuracy in my sentance?
As usual you have made an counter accusation against what I have said without backing yourself up.
some on. whats inacurate about it? or are you just one of these "peace process" guys who turn blind and deaf when people mention the reality as to what exactly stormont contains and stands for these days under the leadership of DUP/SF/IRA?
Complain about this comment
There are 108 MLAs. Half of that is 54.
Being generous to you would make 'almost half' at the very least 40.
There are 28 Sinn Fein and one PUP.
They can't all be convicted terrorists, which would make it even less.
Perhaps almost a quarter.
The reason I didn't back myself up on this occasion (you will find I did every other time you made stuff up) was because I didn't think anyone was dim enough to need 'almost 54' explained to them.
Complain about this comment
And by the way, I'm not confused about the difference between voluntary and mandatory. I was simply answering your point when you said:
"Is it a process of election which guarantee's a large party a place in the executive even if they havent got enough votes? a system not used anywhere else in the western world"
sic
Complain about this comment
RJ,
be as pedantic as you like
You know full well what I meant.
Perhaps you could simply address the issue and explain why you support something that is an insult to democracy?
Why are you happy and continue to support gunmen being able to threaten their way into government? Is that democracy?
And you did get confused. dont worry though, happens to the best of us ;)
Complain about this comment
You said almost half. You said it because you couldn't be bothered being sensible. Why would I think you meant anything else?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS