Speaking of John Alderdice, his thoughts at the weekend about joint authority were echoed soon after by Reg Empey. Those being that if the power-sharing arrangements are not restored (along with the devolution framework), next stop 'a benign form of joint authority'. That two voices of their stature - both former party leaders, one from Alliance and the other from the UUP doesn't impress Newton Emerson much.
Alderdice and Empey broke taboos and made headlines by taking discussion of joint authority beyond nationalism. If such speculation spreads, it could have a significant impact. But there is no guarantee this will improve the stability of Stormont – it could merely tempt people to consider an alternative.
For Emerson it's an illusion:
Irish governments have no mandate to spend southern taxes in the North or British taxes in the North, and almost all serious decisions involve serious money
The perverse allure of joint authority is that it cannot exist to any practical degree. An enhanced consultative role for Dublin would have symbolic power for nationalists, yet Dublin would have no actual power, limiting the potential to annoy unionists. Within unionism, cynics might quietly welcome an artifice that keeps nationalists happy while keeping Northern Ireland part of the UK.
And he brings forward examples from the past. And yet they're not great examples. He notes the Intergovernmental Council established in 1981 went nowhere. I actually had forgotten about that and it doesn't appear to have been particularly serious in the first place. Certainly not a joint authority. 1985 and the Anglo-Irish Agrement's intergovernmental conference complete with a secretariat in Northern Ireland was much more so, though he argues it was in operation of 'no consequence... the backlash it provided appeared ludicrous in retrospect'. Except he rather conveniently forgets that one of the features of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement that was significant to Unionism was the end of that conference and the closure of the offices at Maryfield. Yet that wasn't joint authority either, and nowhere near it.
He dismisses the idea that the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference which replaced that could possibly provide the kernel of joint authority:
Nobody notices or cares. London and Dublin decided the conference was irrelevant after the 2006 St Andrews Agreement and it did not meet again for a decade. Nobody noticed that either. Alderdice said the conference was a vehicle that might deliver joint authority. Its past suggests otherwise.
This isn't the first time he's poured scorn on these ideas. Last year he said much the same.
Now he has a novel criticism of the idea.
The DUP is often said to have been threatened with joint authority at St Andrews. Premiers Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern sent the party a letter warning that if Stormont were not restored they would operate the Belfast Agreement under "British-Irish partnership arrangements".
...
How have all these efforts at "partnership" amounted to so little? The fundamental problem is that any disagreement under joint authority comes down to indivisible sovereignty – somebody has to have the final say. There is also a double bind of no taxation without representation. Irish governments have no mandate to spend southern taxes in the North or British taxes in the North, and almost all serious decisions involve serious money.
Does he genuinely think that the two governments couldn't work reasonably well together in that context? If we are talking about history we can see both within the EU and bilaterally they've managed to do so time and again. Of course Northern Ireland is a more acute challenge, at least some of the time, but given the challenges faced prior to the GFA/BA and after it, again with considerable partnership between the governments on a range of issues it seems odd to think that 'indivisible sovereignty' would be a deal breaker. Indeed it's quite a telling comment on his part in respect to how he believes these matters play out. Of course there would be disagreements on some issues, but likely overall much more consensus than less. These are, after all, bourgeois governments, of whatever stripe.
Again curious that he seems so indifferent to Alderdice and Empey's thoughts. These aren't political neophytes. I was actually surprised by the formers analysis, not because I think it wrong but because he stated it. I'm perhaps even more surprised by Empey's. Then again perhaps they're trying to prod the DUP to return to the devolved structures, indirectly. Fair dues to them either way.
But reading Emerson's conclusion it's difficult not to think he's trying to convince himself as much as others that things will proceed along the lines he suggests:
A Sinn Féin government in Dublin would run into the same constraints. Polls show voters in the Republic do not want to pay for deeper involvement in Northern Ireland or make political compromises towards it.
So a Sinn Féin government might settle for an enhanced consultative role, while cranking up the optics and aspirational rhetoric. Britain would continue paying the bills and British direct rule ministers – they would not call it direct rule – could start taking the unpopular decisions Stormont has ducked for two decades. Taxes might rise but improved public services would follow. There would still be peace and unionism would have councils and Westminster to grandstand in as it shrank to the margins. After a few benign years of this gradual but inexorable process, where would a majority be found to end it?
Note that in this schema nationalism/Republicanism, and indeed others such as, well, Alliance, play no part at all and apparently have no objectives or aspirations of their own. As an insight into Emerson's worldview that tells us much, but does it seem remotely realistic?
No comments:
Post a Comment