...delivers a Nationalist or Republican First Minister in Northern Ireland. That at least is the only conclusion to draw from the following:
A collective of unionist and loyalist groups has called on their political leaders to publicly declare support for a series of red lines for restoring powersharing.
The amalgamation of groups, which have come together under the title Union of Unionists, have written an open letter to the leaders of the main unionist parties asking them to state their position on five key tests.
The 16 groups that have signed the open letter to the DUP, UUP, TUV and PUP include the Apprentice Boys of Derry and the Loyalist Communities Council - the latter a representative group for three loyalist paramilitary organisations.
But note the following:
Along with commitments around over-riding the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol and protecting UK sovereignty, the groups are also demanding reform of Stormont laws to prevent the scenario of a first minister not being drawn from the largest community designation (unionist or nationalist) in the Assembly.
Under changes brought about by the 2006 St Andrews' Agreement, the largest party at Stormont is entitled to the first minister's job, regardless of whether that party is from the second largest designation.
That means Sinn Féin will be entitled to the first minister's job if it is returned as the largest party on 5 May even if, overall, more unionist MLAs than nationalist MLAs are elected.
The pro-union amalgamation claims that would run contrary to the original principles of the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast agreement.
And:
The open letter states: "There can be no democratic basis for the election of a non-unionist First Minister if the largest designation of MLAs is unionist.
"This was the intent behind the FM/DFM provisions in the Belfast Agreement as passed by referendum, that FM and DFM, although co-equal should be drawn from the largest and second largest designations and have the confidence of the NI Assembly. These provisions should be restored."
All very interesting. But one major problem arises. Between 2006 and 2021 they did not once bother to complain about this particular feature of the St. Andrews' Agreement - an Agreement, let us recall, which was drawn up in order to allow the DUP to enter into direct power-sharing with Sinn Féin. Somehow this supposedly egregious breach of the GFA/BA and democratic approaches concerned them not in the least, wasn't worth mentioning, didn't have any impact.
If that seems to be predicated on bad faith, then there's the following:
"The core ingredients of the Belfast Agreement were a balance between the constitutional and identity rights and aspirations of both communities in Northern Ireland."
The letter concludes by claiming the Northern Ireland Protocol has shredded the provisions of cross-community consent in the 1998 accord.
"We reaffirm our commitment to a shared and peaceful Northern Ireland whereby all citizens can feel comfortable and be treated with equal respect and dignity within the United Kingdom," it stated.
"As a political leader of unionism we ask you to publicly declare your commitment to these tests, and to support the grassroots campaign to encourage transfers of votes within the unionist family.
"This can maximise unionist representation in the next Assembly should it transpire that sufficient changes have been made that enables unionism and loyalism to support the restoration of the powersharing institutions."
Again the problem is that the Protocol has been challenged in court and proven not to breach the provisions of the GFA/BA. This has been supported on appeal.
They can continue to fulminate against this but the rulings were very clear:
Normally, Stormont must approve controversial issues by a cross-community vote, but the protocol will be subject to a straight-majority vote.
The court found the Northern Ireland secretary had the power to do this on two grounds: that it was necessary to reflect the will of Parliament in implementing the Withdrawal Agreement Act and that it concerned international relations, which is not a devolved matter.
Further areas of challenge concerning human rights law and EU law were also rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment