The Haass Process

As Richard Haass and Megan O’Sullivan work to bring this current process to a conclusion it is clear that there will be no surprises. Many years ago the republican movement ceased to believe in the rapid achievement of its objectives by political or military means and settled instead for a process of progressive realisation. As a consequence that which is considered an agreement by other participants, whether Belfast Agreement, St Andrew’s Agreement or this latest attempt by Haass is considered to be a mere step in a process by republicans. Therein lies the source of unionist frustration in that republicans are always pressing for more where unionists are placed immediately on the defensive, having formerly tried to reach that final elusive agreement which allows us all to move on. That final agreement will not come, while Haass may resolve some issues unionists will know that whatever republicans fail to achieve this time will form the basis of future negotiations, future demands for concessions and again unionists will be presented as the intransigent partners. Unionist frustration will be intensified not only by the words and commitments as they appear in any Haass proposal but by the extensive reinterpretation of their meanings by republicans. One example to be released by those involved in the negotiations was the early call by Haass for the introduction of a Bill of Rights as agreed in the Belfast Agreement. That is a republican interpretation of the consideration of whether rights supplementary to the existing legislation, to take account of the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, was required. The subsequent process resulted in the development of, what some advocates considered to be, the most expansive Human Rights demands in the world. So what of this process which cannot give justice, cannot give truth, cannot solve the parades issue and may only provide for the flying of the Union Flag in limited circumstances. At best the victims of the conflict will have access to a support service worthy of the name, some victims may get some answers, both honourable objectives. At worst, hundreds of thousands of former soldiers and policemen will spend the rest of their lives waiting on a call to appear before a panel to be quizzed on where they were and who they were with 20, 30 or 40 years ago knowing that the only answer acceptable to republicans will be the rewriting of history. It was George Orwell’s narrative on the authoritarian government in his novel 1984 which stated “And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ The mantra, the objective and the authoritarian control are the same in fiction as in real life republican politics in Northern Ireland. Where now for unionists? Whatever the results of this process it is not the end there will be more negotiations. It is time for unionists to determine what it is they really want, what will get them on the front foot, what will put pressure on republicans or governments. Too many times we have entered the process on the defensive it is time to change the rules of the game.

Basil and the end game

Posted on January 4, 2013 by stephennicholl So Basil first voted Ulster Unionist at the time of the Belfast Agreement, which begs the question of just what political allegiances, if any, he exhibited before that time. In a recent Belfast Telegraph interview he states “I first voted Ulster Unionist at the time of the referendum on the Belfast Agreement. I later joined the UUP to find a way forward that encompassed the spirit of the Agreement and I shall be asking the party if those principles are what it still believes in.” Basil of course would have recognised that the Belfast Agreement itself was a defining moment in Ulster Unionist history with many in the party still committed to the view that the agreement was too one sided. Indeed what Unionism in general is discovering is that whether it was the Belfast Agreement or the St Andrew’s Agreement the term agreement is meaningless when it comes to how Republicans interpret history. For them the progressive realisation of Republican objectives remains the priority whether it is advancing symbols of Republicanism or removing symbols of Britishness. As Unionism struggles to decide how to both address an imperfect political system which is delivering poor governance at the same time as dealing with opponents whose word will never be their bond Basil decides to chart his own course. He complains that the party is moving away from what he perceived the position to be in 1998, in truth his perception was wrong. Ulster Unionism stretched itself to breaking point to advance the Peace Process, Ulster Unionism considered the Agreement to be the end point, Republicans and Basil have taken it only as a start. Basil joined the UUP and entered politics, not because of his unionism, but because of his opportunism. His defining ideology is egotism to the point where he has actively and successfully undermined the political careers of several UUP candidates. His politics are parasitical and while I have no doubt the media will feed his lust for attention I doubt if any other party could afford to bask in his shadow as no doubt they would have to should he seek to join them.

Education Area plans

Posted on November 22, 2012 Strategic issues to be considered in relation to the Antrim-Ballymena area plan. In considering the options presented within the Antrim-Ballymena area plan there were a number of strategic issues within the plan which required clarification, it is also clear that the options presented represented a narrow selection of the range of options that could have been considered. Given that the plans as presented represent the infrastructure available to deliver education over the next 20 – 30 years The change in the proposed profile of Parkhall students will require a re-profiling of the of the enrolment figures for Parkhall and Antrim Grammar by reducing the number of pupils at Parkhall and increasing the numbers attending Antrim Grammar in the 16-19 age range. In option 2 of the area plan Cullybackey High School becomes an 11-16 co-educational school with 850 pupils, an increase of 150 pupils over its current enrolment 700 pupils drawn from the 11-19 age group. This raises the issues of where the additional pupils are to be drawn from, what the cost implications are of increasing the school size or the increase in travel costs due to taking pupils from a larger catchment area. The proposals in the area plan options presented are contrary to the widely accepted view that educating children together is the best model to address sectarianism. The absence of such an option severely limits the public discussion on the area plan process. In this context an option which created a partnership between Antrim Grammar, Parkhall and St Benedicts would have been worthy of inclusion. The merger of Ballymena Academy with Cambridge House Grammar school will create an all ability comprehensive school albeit with the ability to self-select the pupils in attendance. Again this raises the question of why this particular merger is presented in isolation from the range of alternative options available. What are the long term strategic benefits to society of considering a merger between St Louis Grammar and Ballymena Academy or a merger between Cambridge House and Slemish College? Why were such options not placed before the community to discuss? Given the reduction in pupil number in any merged Ballymena Academy/Cambridge House model it is likely that such a reduction would be achieved by restricting intake numbers through the selection process. Should any merger not take place a reduction in Grammar school numbers by restricting the numbers of pupils which could be taken with lower grades would quite possibly negatively impact upon the intake of one or other of the Grammar Schools unequally. Such a decision would result in a further change in education provision in the near future in an unplanned, unstructured manner. The need to ensure clarity and focus around the delivery of the 16-19 entitlement in relation to subject areas is not best served by trying to present most schools as 11 – 19 schools. There has been no consideration in these proposals for the need to focus 16-19 provision on a limited number of sites. The area plan also fails to adequately outline the integration of the NRC into much of the current 16-19 provision. In summary the proposals presented in the area plan represent the wishes of a few schools as opposed to a structured rational assessment of all of the potential options for the delivery of education in the Antrim Ballymena area in the future. A wider discussion, focussing upon delivery as well as infrastructure is still required to ensure that all of the best options have been considered.

the education debate

Posted on October 18, 2012 by stephennicholl So during the debate on the 2nd stage of the Education Bill just what did Mervyn Storey DUP Chairman of the Education Committee say. In response to a question from David McNarry on the future of grammar schools Mervyn stated; “A legal document, in the region of 10 or 11 pages, that was made available to us was as conclusive as the answer from the Education Minister a few moments ago about how to break down the definition between the employing authority and the employer. Not having any legal background, I do not want to tread too far into that territory other than to say that their (OFMDFM) heads of agreement was an attempt to ensure that the concerns, particularly among voluntary grammars, about the voluntary principle were enshrined in legislation in such a way that it did not take away from them the autonomy, responsibility or place they have had but recognised that we were still moving to a place where there would be the establishment of a single employing authority. In direct answer to the Member, I believe that there will be no change to that current arrangement and system other than that the employer will be ESA. The Committee needs to take time to be clear in members’ minds that that is the case and to have every possible assurance that we are not moving to a situation in which this Bill will be used for some other purpose, reason or means.” Surely if the heads of agreement was signed off by Peter Robinson then it should represent more than just an attempt to ensure that concerns were met. Surely if the DUP delivered on the heads of agreement they would not need the additional reassurance that the Bill will be used for other purposes. Mr Storey then, in response to a question from Basil McCrea about the recognition of the voluntary grammar school principle said; “That is where we want to get to, and that is why I believe that the issue that I raised at the start about schedule 2 and the linkage between the Bill and the ‘Heads of Agreement’ needs to be clear. It should have been clearer before we got to this stage. However, having got to this stage, the work that we have ahead of us with your party colleagues on the Education Committee is to ensure that recognition is reflected in a way in which we understand…….. Unfortunately, however, when you are dealing with the party that is responsible for bringing the Bill to the House or with the Department of Education, one can never be sure that that is exactly how it is, but the duty and role that has been vested in the Committees is to ensure that, when it comes to the minutiae and the detail, we are as clear as we possibly can be and that we have as many checks and balances as possible in place to ensure that those who have concerns have them mitigated.” So Mervyn is clear then, the heads of agreement negotiated by Peter is not the robust protection required and there remains concern about Sinn Fein’s intentions. And so Jim Allister asks; “Has the Member any concern that the Trojan Horse for moving matters towards the destruction of the voluntary grammar schools might well be the area-planning powers now in the Bill?” To which Mervyn replies; “I share his concern, and not only on area planning. We need to look at every element of the Bill, and I will come to the inspectorate later on. It will raise more concerns for me, although I share concerns about the area planning process.” So Mervyn shares Jim Allister’s concerns about the process not just about area planning but about other elements as well. He continues, “As mentioned by Mr Allister, the Bill will make ESA the area planning authority for schools in Northern Ireland. The Committee recently spent some time considering the operation of the area planning process. I do not intend to discuss that at length at this time. It is sufficient to say that the majority of Committee members are most unimpressed by the area planning and viability audit process that has been exercised to date……… We have issues with the current process, and, if we have issues now, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we will have issues with the area planning that is outlined in the Bill. Clause 27 requires an adequate opportunity for persons to make representations to ESA on revisions to area plans. Given its recent experience, I expect that the Committee will wish to deliberate on exactly what will constitute an adequate opportunity.” Still stating the fundamental flaws in the Bill he states, “The Education Bill is yet another cause for concern for many in the education sector, including, as I said, our principals, teachers, boards of governors and others……. The majority of Committee members are just about content to allow the Bill to go to Committee Stage, albeit with some reservations and issues that they believe will have to be further explained and ironed out and amendments that will have to be agreed.” On his party’s concerns he states, “The Bill seeks to confer certain responsibilities on ESA and the board of governors with regard to the Irish language sector.” “when we come to the Bill, lo and behold, the integrated sector has disappeared. It is not in the Bill, but the Irish-medium sector is.” “Furthermore, there are differences in the approach to the role given to boards of governors in the controlled sector with regard to being the submitting authority for schemes of management and the approach to the role in the Catholic maintained sector. That is another area that has given rise to concerns. We, as a party, need to be satisfied that no deals will be done by the Minister or his officials outside the Bill.” “That brings me to the clauses that deal with the inspectorate. I know that it was unfair to ask the officials, on their first outing to the Committee on Wednesday past, about that issue, but we took the opportunity to say to them that we had great concern about the inspectorate seemingly being used in the pursuit of political or departmental objectives.” “I get concerned when I see the powers that the Bill seeks to confer. Although it has been said that the powers will try to bring the inspectorate into line with other arrangements in the United Kingdom, I am concerned that we will have a situation where we have an inspectorate that is very strong in its powers. The provisions, we are told, are similar to those previously drafted, with the exception of the removal of the inspection powers for library premises, as requested by DCAL. I have to ask why the Department feels it necessary to have an inspectorate that can lift papers and lift computers. I place it on record that I trust that it is not being used by the Department as another method of spooking or spying on primary schools that are being put in a very difficult position around transfer.” Despite all of these concerns about the implications of the Bill and what the Minister would use the powers in the Bill for Mervyn and his colleagues were committed to supporting it. When considering why this should be the later exchange between Danny Kinahan and Mervyn are illuminating. Danny suggested that the “First Minister realised that he could not sell to his own party what he had agreed.” Mervyn’s angry intervention in response was to state, “Let me make it very clear: there are no differences between Peter Robinson and myself; and there are no differences between Peter Robinson and the members of this party.” So the question is, are the DUP supporting the Education Bill because it is a robust and transparent piece of legislation which they are happy to endorse? Alternatively are the DUP supporting the Education Bill because Peter stumbled on the heads of agreement and they have no option other than to vote for their leader?