Showing posts with label DUP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DUP. Show all posts

Dr John Coulter ✍ With the political jungle drums sending out a beat of a potential deal between the DUP and the British Government which could see a pre-Christmas return of the stalled Northern Ireland Executive, stand by for a third major realignment in Unionism along the supposed Yes/No demarcation lines.

Even if DUP boss Sir Jeffrey Donaldson pulls off a festive outcome which sees Stormont up and running sometime before the Scottish Hogmanay celebrations, he will have to contend with a split party.

There will be those who will back the deal to restore Stormont, and there will be those who think there should be no Stormont at all until the Irish Sea Border is entirely scrapped.

The DUP currently has 25 MLAs and the key question will be how many of them will be in the party’s Stormont Yes camp, and how many in the Stormont No camp? Would there be enough in the No camp to trigger yet another DUP leadership coup which in the past saw both Arlene Foster and Edwin Potts toppled?

Given Alliance calls for a reforming of the Stormont designation system, how many of the remaining Unionist MLAs from the UUP’s nine, the two Independent Unionists and Jim Allister of the TUV could Sir Jeffrey rely upon to form a new alignment of pro-Assembly Unionists?

This third realignment in Unionism could decide its future direction for at least the next decade.

Indeed, this is not the first time Unionism has divided into the Yes and No camps. The first real alignment came in the February 1974 Westminster General Election shortly after the Sunningdale power-sharing Executive had been formed by ex-Northern Ireland Prime Minister Brian Faulkner, the SDLP and Alliance.

Faulkner’s brand of Unionism became known in that General Election as Pro-Assembly Unionists. Opposing him were three Unionist parties - the UUP, DUP and Vanguard, which comprised the so-called Treble UC, better known as the United Ulster Unionist Council, or Unionist Coalition.

While Faulkner’s Unionism was seen as the Yes camp to Sunningdale, the UUUC was the so-called No camp firmly opposed to Sunningdale.

The February 1974 election result was an overwhelming victory for the No camp, with its Unionist candidates taking 11 of the 12 Commons seats on offer.

While Faulkner’s Yes candidates scored 94,301 votes, or 13.1%, and no seats, the UUUC No camp had a combined vote of 366,703 votes or 51.1%, with only SDLP leader Gerry Fitt’s West Belfast bolthole alluding the No camp.

The second realignment of Unionism along Yes/No lines came in 1998 in the first Northern Ireland Assembly elections. In spite of a strong vote in the earlier referendum for the Good Friday Agreement, the gap between MLAs elected in Unionism for the Yes and No camps was considerably narrower compared to 1974.

The Unionist No camp was initially estimated at 28 MLAs compared to 30 pro-Agreement Unionist MLAs.

The No camp was comprised of the 20 DUP, five from Robert McCartney’s United Kingdom Unionist Party, and three MLAs from the United Unionist Assembly Party.

On paper, the UUP which was largely pro-Agreement under the late David Trimble had 28 seats along with the two MLAs from the Progressive Unionist Party.

However, what the Yes camp did not take into consideration was the small number of anti-Agreement Unionists in the UUP ranks. That figure at times tipped the balance either in favour of No camp Unionism, or resulted in an even split leading on one occasion for some Alliance MLAs to re-designate as Unionists to help the pro-Agreement camp win a vote.

However, in 2023 the real danger for Yes Stormont Unionism could come not in the Assembly chamber itself, but in next year’s expected Westminster General Election.

Any split in the DUP ranks could see the Stormont No camp putting up candidates against sitting Unionist MPs in constituencies where the DUP candidate was seen to be in favour of the Stormont power-sharing Executive.

Such a split vote could see previously safe Unionist seats captured by either Sinn Fein or Alliance.

Another danger for the DUP and Sir Jeffrey in particular is that unlike when former leader Rev Ian Paisley signed up to the St Andrews Agreement and entered a power-sharing Stormont Executive with Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness as his deputy, a number of DUP activists defected to Jim Allister’s hardline Traditional Unionist Voice.

Ironically, Sir Jeffrey could face a situation in the DUP which he faced in his anti-Agreement days in the UUP. This is that rather than quit the DUP, the Stormont No camp forms a pressure group within the party.

In the years immediately after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, the anti-Agreement UUP faction formed the Union First pressure group, with the pro-Agreement lobby rallying behind the Re:Union group.

The same situation faced Rev Ian Paisley in his fundamentalist Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster denomination which he founded in 1951.

After Dr Paisley entered the power-sharing Executive, rather than quit the Free P Church, many TUV supporters remained inside the denomination - a move which ultimately led to Dr Paisley having to ‘retire’ as Moderator of the denomination, a post he had held for much of the denomination’s existence.

Taking the latter as a benchmark, could any realignment within Unionism into Yes/No Stormont camps have a knock-on effect on Protestant denominations?

Put bluntly, could Stormont Yes MLAs face opposition in their places of worship from Stormont No camp worshippers, leading to splits in churches and the formation of new, independent churches?

In practical terms, both politically and denominationally, who has their foot on whose neck as we enter the festive season of good will to all men?
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

Third Time Around For Yes/No Unionism?

Tommy McKearneyJeffrey Donaldson’s speech to the DUP annual conference last month generated more interest than is normally the case for this event. 


The mainstream media concentrated not only on his support for a devolved administration but also his tacit acceptance of a Sinn Féin First Minister. Nevertheless, when viewed in its entirety his speech revealed much more than that.

His address illustrated the extent of the dilemma facing unionism, and how difficult it will be for its supporters to find an answer to their satisfaction. In reality, the North’s political process has not just stalled: it is fundamentally flawed.


Reading Donaldson’s speech leaves little doubt that he recognises the enormity of the challenge faced by unionism, although it is still not prepared to envisage an end to the union. In his effort to maintain Northern Ireland as a viable political entity, Donaldson is faced with the nigh-impossible task of appeasing the irreconcilables among his supporters while promoting a pragmatic agenda.

Aware that the present deadlock is detrimental to the unionist cause, he states bluntly that his supporters must not allow republicans to promote a claim that “Northern Ireland is a failed and ungovernable political entity . . .” The question is, though, how he proposes to fix this situation.

Several important points emerged throughout his analysis. To avoid the aforementioned failed and ungovernable entity, he was adamant that it is essential to restore the devolved administration at Stormont. Moreover, he was quite explicit in his rejection of direct rule from London, going so far as to say that “Westminster has imposed laws upon us that are not in tune with the needs or wishes of the people of Northern Ireland . . .”

Significantly, Donaldson emphasised throughout his address the need for achieving widespread support, saying that it is important to set about “restoring cross-community consensus that is essential for the political institutions to be re-established . . .”

So far so good and, up to a point, all very plausible. Nevertheless there still remains the major obstacle that is the Protocol and the Windsor Framework. And this really is a sticking-point, as Donaldson had to admit that, in spite of his best efforts to force the issue, the British government’s proffered resolution fails to meet the seven crucial points identified by his leadership colleagues and, more ominously, the party grass roots.

It is at this point that the matter becomes increasingly problematic for the DUP. As outlined above, it is clear that Donaldson and his closest advisers are convinced of the need, if not the imperative, to restore devolved institutions. They are aware too that the current British government is unlikely to make further major adjustments to its agreement with the European Union vis-à-vis the Protocol. Nor is it likely that a future Starmer-led government would be prepared to sour relations with Brussels in order merely to please the extremes of Northern Irish unionism.

The prolonged existence of an intractable impasse would, they realise, ensure the type of “failed and ungovernable entity” that would give rise to an irresistible demand for a border poll. Realists within the DUP leadership know that the result of such a referendum is no longer a foregone conclusion. Changing demographics, fractures within wider unionism, malfunctioning health and social services and an economy falling far behind that of the Republic are all factors arguing against the maintenance of the union.

Hence Donaldson’s plaintive call to all members of the party to be prepared “to face up to new realities and adapting to new circumstances,”all the while insisting that this has to be done in order to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. Elsewhere he says, significantly, that the DUP will have to determine whether there is a sustainable basis for moving forward.

It would be a mistake to doubt his sincerity or his commitment to maintaining the union, or his conviction that retaining the connection is possible. It seems, therefore, that he is preparing to modify certain DUP positions although without specifically saying as much. Whether he can manage this manoeuvre without risking a mutiny is far from certain.

To effect his plan he has made a pitch to London for assistance. Contained within an unusually long leader’s address were several suggestions in what are a set of proposals appealing in effect to the British government. This he has done with a view to winning a Westminster package offering sufficient political space to facilitate the breaking of the present impasse and allow a return to Stormont.

Among the points are a request that the British government establish an East–West council of the United Kingdom, a body that pointedly excludes the Republic. The thinking behind this initiative is surely to provide a comfort blanket for those spooked by the presence of minor customs checks at Larne and the absence of these at Newry.

Then there is the emphasis on a need for a financial sweetener—specifically, £1 billion for the health service and the funds for providing thirty hours’ free child care per week (as already exists in England), as well as a five-year plan to enhance the economy in general.

From all this it is now almost certain that speculation about the DUP’s return to Stormont is most probably based on fact. What is not at all certain is how this will go down with hard-line unionists. After all, it’s not all about customs checks in the Irish Sea: there will be, for many, the difficult-to-accept spectacle of Michelle O’Neill of Sinn Féin stepping into the role of Northern Ireland’s First Minister.

Then there is the disturbing prospect of Michael O’Neill (no relation) eventually leading his players out onto the exchequer-funded turf of Roger Casement Park in republican West Belfast.

With Jim Allister and his TUV only too willing to rubbish any compromise, the Donaldson gambit is not guaranteed to succeed. There may also be more than a few disenchanted members of his own party willing to pull the rug from under their leader’s feet. It would be ironic indeed to see Donaldson suffer the same fate that he helped inflict on David Trimble twenty-five years ago.

Nevertheless, and no matter what the immediate outcome, a partitioned northern entity will remain an unstable political anomaly.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

The North’s Political Process Is Fundamentally Flawed

Dr John Coulter ✍ As expected, the DUP’s annual shindig did not produce a magical breakthrough to unblock the Stormont impasse and all Unionism got was a lame-duck “making progress” waffle.

Given all the back-slapping which the DUP’s teams in the House of Commons and the Lords received, it is very clear the hardliners from the Westminster clique run the party.

Put bluntly, the numbers do not stack up for the party’s devolutionist wing to recommend a return of the power-sharing Executive this side of the Hallowe’en school holidays.

And also given the warm speech reception provided by DUP boss Sir Jeffrey Donaldson for Hilary Benn, British Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, its abundantly clear the DUP is now riding two horses ahead of next year’s expected Westminster General Election.

The policy is to continue talking to Sunak’s Tories, but also hold out hope of a better deal from Benn and Labour boss Sir Keir Starmer if Labour gets the keys to 10 Downing Street.

But all this, in terms of a deal with Labour, could be up to a year away and will the Westminster establishment have the patience to allow Northern Ireland to operate without a fully functioning Assembly?

With the bloody Israel/Hamas conflict in the Middle East now taking centre stage over even the current Russia/Ukraine conflict, the DUP will be hoping any bad news for Northern Ireland concerning the cost of living crisis, the NHS waiting lists, or the impact of the Windsor Framework will be pushed far down the political agenda.

In DUP strategical terms, the ‘long finger’ approach to power-sharing seems the obvious path, but that is assuming working class loyalism can be kept on a tight leash by political Unionism.

If working class loyalism gets a whiff that the DUP, or even political Unionism generally, is deciding to go back to Stormont and try to mess up the Windsor Framework from the inside, there is the real danger that those unelected voices who seem to be shouting from the sidelines in working class loyalism could decide that it was time for political Unionism and loyalism to part company tactically.

There is already talk of a resumption of street protests against the Windsor Framework. However, given the experience of a winter street campaign in the 1985/86 era against the then Anglo-Irish Agreement, is there seriously much of an appetite in loyalism for parades in the rain, hail or snow and freezing cold of an Ulster winter?

Yes, a few youths may decide to chuck some bottles and bricks at the PSNI in the dead of winter, but they would really be cannon fodder for the real threat - a resumption of a serious terror campaign against the Irish Republic.

Is there really a new Glenanne-style Gang of loyalists waiting in the wings, or is talk about a Right-wing loyalist backlash against the Windsor Framework merely childish sabre-rattling to gain a few media headlines?

The original Glenanne Gang was widely linked to the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan no-warning loyalist bombs which murdered around 30 people and injured dozens more.

Skeptics may say loyalism no longer has the capacity for a bombing campaign as the main loyalist terror gangs, the UDA and UVF, are more interested in criminality and drug dealing than combating the Windsor Framework.

However, the nature of terrorism has radically changed since the 9/11 attacks in America. Gone are the Seventies days of the Ulster Workers’ Council strike, which collapsed the then power-sharing Sunningdale Executive, when Northern Ireland witnessed massed ranks of loyalists marching in roads and streets.

Terror gangs are no longer organised along the lines of British Army regiments with battalions, brigades, companies and platoons. Radical Islam has perfected the concept of the cell structure where one small gang of a handful of activists does not know what another gang is doing.

This makes it more difficult for the security forces and especially the intelligence community to infiltrate these terror gangs.

Dissident republicans have already tried this tactic with the various factions - New IRA, Real IRA, Continuity IRA, ONH and Republican Action Against Drugs. Ironically, the decision by some of these terror gangs to work together has made it easier for the intelligence community to infiltrate them.

The strategy which modern day loyalists are likely to adopt in any violent campaign against the Windsor Framework is not likely to involve the UDA or UVF because of existing infiltration of them by the security forces.

The most likely campaign would be to conceive new small groups of terrorists who have no previous convictions or connections to loyalism. Such operatives would be difficult to spot as while they would be loyalists, they would not be associated with the Loyal Orders, loyalist marching bands or had a profile at previous anti-Protocol rallies.

They may not even be members of any Unionist party. In reality, they are ordinary Protestants operating well under the radar of the intelligence community.

A cell would be established with one target in mind and that is the only operation they carry out. This would be contrary to the strategies of previous terror gangs, such as the Mid Ulster Brigade of the UVF during the era of Robin ‘The Jackal’ Jackson, or Billy ‘King Rat’ Wright where numerous murders and attacks were carried out.

Likewise, it is unlikely such cells would cause chaos in Northern Ireland. The real target would be the Irish Republic. For example, in 1974 when it became clear Sunningdale was heading for the political rocks, the Irish government attempted to break the logjam by putting proposals on the table which amounted to joint authority by another name.

However, following the Dublin and Monaghan bombing massacre, the Republic’s administration withdrew its proposals. Similarly, in spite of the supposedly current booming Southern economy, does the Republic have the financial clout to withstand a no-warning and indiscriminate loyalist bombing campaign.

The Israel/Hamas conflict has clearly emphasised the horrors being suffered by the civilian populations. The South’s Achilles heel is not attacks on Gardai, the Irish Defence Forces or Leinster House elected representatives, but to target ordinary innocent civilians as was demonstrated in the 1974 attacks.

The delicate balancing act which the DUP, and political Unionism generally, must adopt is to keep the pro-Union community on board with any proposed return to Stormont whilst ensuring at the same time that militant voices within loyalism who would favour a use of violence remain unheard.

Just as Sir Jeffrey can state that he is the leader, not just of the DUP, but of overall political Unionism, another question remains - who is the real leader of loyalism? Put bluntly, are there being in the dark shadows now calling the shots?

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

Loyalist Protocol Bashing - Childish Sabre-Rattling Or Sinister Plotting?

Dr John Coulter ✍ In spite of the well-choreographed weekend DUP conference, its abundantly clear the hardliners run the party as the modernisers’ ‘Save Stormont’ message clearly fell on deaf ears politically.

Unlike the Trimble era in the Ulster Unionists in the years after the signing of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, the so-called No camp with the UUP was exceptionally vocal at meetings of the Ulster Unionist Council is expressing its displeasure at the party leadership’s direction.

Unlike the UUP in the late Nineties and early Noughties, the DUP carefully managed to give the public impression of a totally united party.

There was no ‘Banter at the Bus’ style confrontation between the DUP and UUP for the media. The UUP’s internal battles between the No camp pressure group Union First and the Yes camp pressure group Re:Union were not laid bare for the media to lap up.

If DUP boss Sir Jeffrey Donaldson had got his way, the party’s MLAs would have been marching up Stormont steps this morning to kick-start the power-sharing Executive.

His leader’s speech was clearly a back-slapping exercise in DUP party unity, with a clear emphasis that the Windsor Framework did not meet the party’s seven tests and although talks with the British Government were “making progress”, more laws were needed to secure a return of the Assembly.

But the reality must be faced - the hardliners in the DUP’s Westminster cabal have a firm grip on the party. Yes, Sir Jeffrey could have kick-started Stormont this morning, but that could have triggered a Sinn Fein-style walkout of hardliners at the party conference.

Remember the 1986 Ard Fheis to vote on whether Sinn Fein elected TDs should end their boycott of the Dail? When Northern modernisers Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness won the vote, out walked the hardliners who still backed abstentionism under the leadership of Rory O’Brady to form the fringe Republican Sinn Fein party.

Sir Jeffrey could have called the DUP hardliners’ bluff, but that would have sparked a major re-alignment in political Unionism again. In one camp, would have been Doug Beattie’s UUP along with Sir Jeffrey’s wing of the DUP under a ‘Start Stormont’ banner.

In the rival camp, would have been the DUP hardliners, Jim Allister’s TUV and the unelected voices within loyalism under their banner of ‘Shaft Stormont’.

Electorally, within Unionism at next year’s expected Westminster General Election, we would have witnessed a re-run of the February and October 1974 Westminster General Elections when pro-Assembly Unionists (who supported the old Sunningdale Executive) squared off against the hardliners in the so-called ‘Treble-UC’ - a coalition of four Unionist parties opposed to Sunningdale; the UUP, DUP, Vanguard Unionist, and United Ulster Unionist Party.

In spite of split Unionist votes in many constituencies, pro-Union candidates still held the majority of Northern Ireland’s Commons seats in 1974.

A split Unionist ballot paper in 2024 may not yield the same result with many nationalists silently, but tactically, voting for the best Pan Nationalist Front (Sinn Fein, the SDLP, or Alliance) candidate to unseat a Unionist.

This could see Commons seats, such as East Antrim, East Londonderry and Lagan Valley, which have been Unionist of one shade since their formation in 1983, fall to either Sinn Fein or Alliance.

Unionism is already a minority ideology in Stormont and across Northern Ireland’s 11 super councils in terms of seat numbers. A split Unionist vote, or indeed, increasing pro-Union voter apathy, could see this result replicated at Westminster with the majority of Northern Ireland’s Commons seat being some shade of nationalist green.

The bitter medicine which Unionism must now swallow is that the only way to curb the Windsor Framework is to internally implode it from inside the Stormont Chamber. Unionism has not learned the tactical lessons of 1974 and 1985. You cannot alter the game by shouting from the sidelines - it can only be done on the pitch! In this case, the pitch is inside the Stormont Assembly.

In 1974, when the might of Unionism and loyalism forced the collapse of the then Sunningdale power-sharing Executive, the pro-Union community had no workable Plan B to replace Sunningdale.

In 1985 following the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which gave Dublin its first real say in the running of Northern Ireland since partition in the 1920s, the Ulster Says No and Ulster Still Says No rallies across the Province had no impact on Dublin interference.

The Donaldson camp has clearly put party unity ahead of political progress and opted for the ‘long game’ - waiting for the outcome of the next General Election in the hope Tory rule comes to an end and Unionism gets a more favourable reception from a Labour Government under Sir Keir Starmer.

In the meantime, the people of Northern Ireland will continue to suffer the cost of living crisis with no functioning Stormont Executive in place. The gamble for the DUP then becomes not just the hope that Labour will win the General Election, but that pro-Union voters will stay loyal to the DUP/UUP ‘Save Stormont’ agenda.

Would a combination of hardline DUP, the TUV and street-protesting loyalism create enough electoral havoc for the ‘Save Stormont’ DUP that it results in Donaldson being toppled as DUP boss after the election?

The biggest threat to Donaldson, especially in his own Lagan Valley stronghold, is not the street protests, but unionist voter apathy or anti-Stormont loyalist candidates splitting the vote.

Likewise, what happens if the anti-Stormont brigade within loyalism turn its attention away from the streets and onto the ballot box, not just by putting up candidates, but by either organising a mass boycott of the election or a mass vote spoiling exercise?

The other high wire political agenda could be to allow certain seats to be lost to the Pan Nationalist Front to get rid of anti-Stormont Unionist MPs, in the hope that the seats could be won back at a future General Election with more moderate agreed Unionist candidates?

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

DUP Has Only One Choice - Save Stormont!

Dr John Coulter ✍ As a political commentator, I’ve earned a reputation for speaking my mind on issues and readers of The Pensive Quill and The Blanket before that will know how forthright I’ve been in expressing my views!

Mind you, as a Presbyterian minister’s son growing up in the heart of the north east Ulster Bible Belt in the Sixties and Seventies, expressing what I thought was not always the wisest of policies.

Here’s a link to some of my more youthful misadventures I’ve penned for The Pensive Quill.

This month, there has been extensive media coverage about the internal bickering going on within the DUP. I grew up in the heartland of political North Antrim where the DUP and the late Rev Ian Paisley established themselves electorally.

During the Paisley senior era, while the party may have had its internal problems, challenges and disputes, it always managed to keep them under wraps and largely away from the public gaze.

This year marked the 40th anniversary of my late dad’s first electoral foray when he was the Ulster Unionist Party candidate for North Antrim in the 1983 Westminster General Election.


After Paisley senior won the North Antrim Commons seat in 1970, standing as a Protestant Unionist, the forerunner of the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party in that constituency had either supported Paisley Senior as the agreed UUUC/DUP candidate, or had parachuted in an outsider.

But in 1983, my dad - Rev Dr Robert Coulter MBE - was the locally-selected North Antrim candidate for the UUP as well as being a Presbyterian minister, senior Orangeman and a lecturer in the Ballymena Technical College.

Five new Westminster seats had been created for the 1983 poll - among them East Londonderry and East Antrim, so the DUP had its eyes on a hat-trick of election victories in geographical north east Ulster.

The original DUP plan was for Paisley senior to run in the new East Antrim, much of which came from the old North Antrim constituency, with Jim Allister (then a North Antrim DUP Assembly Member in the former so-called Prior Assembly from 1982-86) running in the new-look North Antrim, and prominent former Coleraine Mayor James McClure running in the new East Londonderry constituency.

However, with the selection of my dad as the North Antrim UUP candidate, to keep his large majority, Paisley senior switched back to the new North Antrim, sending Jim Allister into East Antrim.

As a party, we knew we had a massive challenge in taking on Paisley senior in his home political turf. But it stopped ‘Big Ian’ from roaming into East Londonderry and East Antrim to canvass for Messrs McClure and Allister respectively.

The net result was that whilst Paisley senior comfortably retained North Antrim with a 13,000 vote majority, the UUP’s William Ross and Roy Beggs senior took East Londonderry and East Antrim. Ironically, both Commons seats later fell to the DUP.

But that 1983 election was a tough challenge as some of the Paisley supporters turned violent. During a canvass of the former Fair Hill Market in Ballymena, dad was punched and kicked.

He carried a personal protection weapon and the assault ended when a Paisley supporter went to punch dad in the ribs and hit the butt of his handgun! Realising some of the UUP team may be armed, the assault stopped almost immediately.

There is no suggestion that Rev Paisley knew about, sanctioned, or even approved of the assault on my dad by his supporters.

It was not the most pleasant of things for a son to see the bruises on his dad’s side. To say that I was angry is an understatement. I have made no secret about being a born again Christian. But being ‘saved’ certainly does not mean I am perfect. Born again believers have tempers, too.

After this incident in Ballymena, I took a phone call at our home. It was from a man claiming to be the Rev Ian Paisley and he had that deep booming voice Paisley senior was known for. Thinking it was a prank caller, I was just about to scream some abuse down the phone when my dad came alongside me.

Remembering the trouble I’d been in during that notorious mission hall service in the late 1960s for using bad language, I decided it was better to tell dad that a man claiming to be Ian Paisley was on the phone.

Dad took the call. It really was Paisley senior! He wanted to tell dad to stand aside in the election and let him give Sinn Fein an electoral drubbing!

Could you imagine the trouble I would have been in with dad and Rev Paisley if I’d used the same very unChristian language to the DUP leader and Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster that I had used to that young evangelist who was taunting me at the mission hall in the 1960s!

Sinn Fein in North Antrim in the 1983 election was a two man and a dog outfit and polled less than 3,000 votes compared to Paisley senior’s almost 24,000 votes and dad’s almost 11,000 votes.

There was no way dad would have stood aside. The fact that Rev Paisley was even calling him in the first place was proof enough the former was concerned, not about losing the seat, but about the fate of East Londonderry and East Antrim.

The old Fair Hill Market incident would not be the first time my dad would feel the wrath of DUP anger. A decade later, during the 1993 local government election campaign whilst out canvassing, a staunch DUP woman was so incensed by the UUP canvassers, she set her dog on dad and he was bitten and had to have a tetanus jab!

Dad had the last laugh as that was the year the DUP’s majority grip on the old Ballymena Borough Council was broken and dad became the new Mayor of Ballymena, the first UUP councillor to hold the post for around two decades.

However, bearing in mind the trouble I landed myself in by swearing at that young evangelist in Co Tyrone in the 1960s, there was one incident in the mid 1980s which I never told my dad about.

In 1985, the Anglo-Irish Agreement of that year sparked a street campaign by loyalists and unionists against the so-called Dublin Diktat. Ulster Says No rallies were held across Northern Ireland. I was a staff journalist at the Belfast News Letter at that time.

I was assigned to cover an Ulster Says No rally in Coleraine one Saturday. The weather was atrocious. It rained constantly, and I don’t mean a persistent drizzle - the heavens opened and it was pelting down!

It was so bad, I couldn’t use my notebook to report on the speeches as it would have turned to a soggy mess. I used my dictaphone to record the speeches. I was thoroughly soaked, and whilst I loved my job as a journalist, I returned home in a foul mood.

But that was only the start of my troubles. Instead of asking the then RUC for a crowd estimate, I asked the parade organisers and duly put this figure in my report.

You can imagine the anger which erupted with my line management when the nationalist Irish News carried an estimate of the parade which was about 1,000 more than my article!

To say that the news desk was angry with me was putting it mildly. The pro-Unionist Belfast News Letter’s crowd estimate was much lower than the nationalist Irish News report of the same Coleraine event!

After my dressing down, I simply wanted to find a corner of the Donegall Street News Letter building, hide and get on with my work. No such luck!

Suddenly, the telephone extension beside me rang and an angry male voice who gave his name as a very, very senior DUP politician spoke - asking me where I’d got my estimate from.

At virtually the same time, a senior News Letter executive appeared at the door of the room where I was working and shouted - there’s the man who can’t get his figures right!

I may be a born again Christian, but I constantly let the Lord down. I snapped. I yelled down the phone - ‘why don’t you just fuck off!’ And promptly slammed down the phone. The room of colleagues fell silent. I glanced over my shoulder to see the senior News Letter executive standing silent and gobsmacked, too.

Colleagues in the room were clearly shocked. They had never heard me use such foul language before, and certainly not to someone on a phone.

The journey home to Clough, Co Antrim, from Belfast that night was a long one. Questions and concerns flooded my mind.

Was the person on the phone really who they said they were? Was this person merely pretending to be a very, very senior DUP politician? Would I get home to find my dad furious at my behaviour? Would I get disciplined, suspended or sacked for telling a very, very senior DUP politician to ‘fuck off’?

When I got home, not a word was said. When I arrived at the News Letter the next day, nothing was said - and the incident was never mentioned to me ever again. This is the first time I have mentioned the incident since it happened after that mid 1980s Coleraine Ulster Says No parade.

During my dad’s time as a Stormont UUP MLA, I would meet this very, very senior DUP politician on a fairly regular basis. Nothing has ever been said.

I was tempted on a number of occasions during dad’s time at Stormont to approach this very, very senior DUP politician and politely and calmly ask him if it really was him who phoned me at the News Letter in the mid 1980s. But remember the secular proverb - curiosity killed the cat!

Dad passed into eternity in September 2018 without me ever talking to him about that News Letter incident.

Perhaps when I meet him again in eternity, I will confess what I said to that very, very senior DUP politician. I can well imagine dad’s reaction. It will be the same phrase as used by Captain Mainwaring in the hit TV sitcom, Dad’s Army, to Private Pike - ‘You stupid boy!’

As the very, very senior DUP politician has never mentioned the incident to me, I’ll placate my conscience by thinking - maybe it wasn’t him, but someone pretending to be him to give me another dressing down for quoting the wrong source for my Coleraine crowd estimate!

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

Giving The DUP Some Lip!

Dr John Coulter ✍ The time has come for Unionism to ideologically and strategically play the red card and bolster its relations with Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party ahead of any future General Election.

Unionism in general and the DUP specifically benefited from the confidence and supply arrangement the latter’s Commons team of MPs negotiated with then British Prime Minister Theresa May to keep her minority Tory Government in power.

Ironically, given the ongoing Conservative civil war and the financial allegations scandal which has engulfed the Scottish National Party north of the English border, Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour could be on the brink of getting their hands on the keys to 10 Downing Street, a feat which seemed next to impossible when ex-Tory PM Boris Johnson delivered an 80-seat plus majority at the last Westminster General Election.

Labour’s Commons foundation was always built on the guaranteed dozens of seats coming from Scotland, but since the SNP surge a few years ago, the majority of Scottish constituencies are no longer regarded to go red.

Predictions are already starting to emerge that the next General Election, due in 2024, could produce a hung Parliament - and this could once again land the DUP front and centre.

If the DUP can wangle a confidence and supply arrangement with May and her Tories, the DUP could find itself with enough MPs to dangle the keys of 10 Downing Street in front of Sir Keir.

And such a move would not require a major ideological shift for the DUP. Indeed, such a move would see the party returning to its original working class Loyalist roots which its founder, the late Rev Ian Paisley, envisaged when he launched the DUP in 1971 following the previous year’s election victories for ‘The Big Man’ at Stormont and Westminster.

Paisley senior’s success in the early Seventies was that he gave a political voice to two sections of the Protestant community which had been largely muted by the ruling upper middle class and aristocratic Unionist Party.

These were the Loyalist working class and evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Paisley’s embryo Protestant Unionist movement in the late Sixties and in 1970 was essentially a working class organisation.

Strip away the anti-republican rhetoric and Hell-fire sermons against Catholicism, and the Protestant Unionists and DUP were Loyalist Labour movements.

‘Big Ian’s’ big success initially in Stormont’s Bannside constituency and Westminster’s North Antrim seat a matter of weeks later was based partly on Paisley’s ability to get indoor toilets installed in working class housing estates.

Right up until the late Sixties, the crude ‘slop bucket’ was a key feature of many working class Protestant housing developments across North Antrim.

The fundamentalist Paisleyite rhetoric covered the fact the DUP was a bread and butter movement; a soft socialist party building a power base among the Loyalist working class. The DUP’s original ideology was essentially a political shotgun marriage between the Hard Right stance on the Union, coupled with a Soft Left agenda on bread and butter issues.

The DUP overtook its rival UUP in there 2003 Assembly election by eating into the middle and upper class pro-Union vote which traditionally had been the electoral foundation of the Ulster Unionists.

This was a strategy which eventually saw the DUP become a middle class mirror image of what the UUP had been in 1986 under its then boss Jim Molyneaux.

This influence by the UUP middle class continued after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement when a considerable number of key Ulster Unionists defected to the DUP from the Ulster Unionists, including current boss Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, past leader Dame Arlene Foster, and Peter Weir, now Lord Weir.

While Sinn Fein has been able to attract middle class Catholic voters to the party whilst at the same time retaining support in its working class republican heartlands, the DUP in trying to soak up middle class Unionist voters was perceived to be disconnecting from its traditional working class Loyalist power base.

But compared to the DUP’s soft socialism, other Left-leaning pro-Union movements, such as the Progressive Unionist Party tended to pursue a Hard Left, even an openly Marxist agenda.

Ideological discussions between the PUP and the political wing of the Official IRA, the Workers’ Party, dismayed the fundamentalist wing within the DUP. Indeed, such fundamentalist Christians tended to brand the Belfast-based PUP as the Shankill Soviet, believing such pro-socialist Unionists were more communist than unionist.

But if Starmer can purge the Labour Party of the Hard Left who once championed former Hard Left leader Jeremy Corbyn, then the DUP could fit quite snugly ideologically into a pact with Labour to make Starmer PM.

And just as the DUP had a cash list for Theresa May under confidence and supply, as well as a cash list for Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris to kickstart Stormont, so too, in the event of a hung Parliament or a Labour Government with a wafer thin majority, the DUP must have its shopping list fine-tuned either in terms of a cash boost or dumping the concept of a border poll, no matter how many seats Sinn Fein wins in the next Dail election in Dublin.

Indeed, in the past I have written about the need for a socialist alternative for Northern Ireland - and I don’t mean a looney left commie movement!

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

Time For DUP To Reclaim Its Working Class Roots And Suck Up To British Labour

Dr John Coulter ✍ The Orange Order has a brilliant opportunity to use its traditional Twelfth demonstration platforms to build both Unionist political co-operation as well as kickstart the Stormont Executive.

For generations, the Loyal Orders - and especially the Orange - have played a pivotal role in influencing Unionism politically.

But with Northern Ireland facing crumbling health and education sectors as well as a cost of living crisis, the time has come for the Orange to really step up to the mark and provide a constructive example to the Unionist family’s political leaderships.

I outlined the importance of the Orange as a catalyst for Unionist co-operation in an article published in 2016.

Although the Orange has openly voiced its opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Windsor Framework, the summer marching season could be the platform to create a mood within Unionism which could see the DUP re-enter a Stormont Executive come the autumn.

Okay, folk may point to North Antrim MP Ian Paisley Junior’s hard-hitting ‘ice age’ interview on the BBC Nolan Show as an indicator of a hardening of the DUP’s attitude towards the British Government and Westminster political establishment in general.

Then again, as someone who grew up with Paisleyism in North Antrim, and call me cynical, but I strongly suspect that the ‘ice age’ utterance has more to do with who runs the DUP than a clear statement of policy.

Ironically, just as the DUP found itself as a Westminster power broker when the then Tory Prime Minister Theresa May needed DUP MPs as part of a ‘confidence and supply arrangement’ to prop up her Conservative Government, the DUP could find itself back on the front row of British politics if after the next UK General Election, there seems to be a hung parliament and Labour needs DUP votes to prop up Sir Keir Starmer’s administration.

However, the DUP cannot afford to let the people of Northern Ireland hang about politically to await the outcome of any UK General Election, especially if a similar election in the Republic throws up a Sinn Fein-led, or even majority rule, republican movement government in Leinster House.

While the Loyal Orders can maintain their dogmatic stance against the Protocol and Framework, they could also use the platform speeches over the Twelfth - as well as the Royal Black Institution’s August Black Saturday demonstrations - to gently persuade the DUP of the necessity of having Stormont back, even in shadow form.

The Loyal Orders, especially the Orange, were once the cement which held the many strands of Protestantism, Unionism and Loyalism together. The upper class businessman and the working class labourer could both sit side by side in the lodge room and call each other ‘brother’.

While some may try to dismiss the Orange Order as a movement now for middle aged folk and pensioners, it should not be forgotten that almost every Orange lodge on parade on 12 July will be accompanied by a musical band.

Indeed, while membership of the Loyal Orders may have dipped over the past generation, there is a thriving marching band scene, especially among the flute band fraternity. Herein lies the influence of the Orange Order. It can be a forum for influence amongst that fraternity with many of these bands based in loyalist working class areas.

The real danger is that the DUP digs its political heels in so much over the traditional marching season that time runs out for devolution to return and some form of joint authority with Dublin, dressed up as 21st century Direct Rule, is foisted on Northern Ireland.

The Dublin government got its toe inside Northern Ireland’s door in 1985 with the then Anglo-Irish Agreement, which saw the Maryfield Secretariat established near Belfast.

Sinn Fein is pushing hard for the British Irish Ministerial Council to be given more powers in the running of Northern Ireland because of the devolution logjam.

Although the DUP held its council representation during last month’s local government poll, if the cost of living crisis bites even harder this year, at some point could the DUP be punished at a future Westminster General Election?

Perhaps the solution is for the Stormont Executive to be reformed by the DUP, but with limited powers until new legislation can be brought forward at Westminster to safeguard the Union for another generation?

This may be viewed as a sticking plaster solution for a major cost of living crisis, but at least the devolution engine would be ticking over. Come the 12 July, the Orange Order has a wonderful opportunity to turn the key in the devolution ignition.

With tens of thousands of people listening to demonstration speeches that day, the Order cannot afford to waste this golden opportunity to be the power broker of Unionist politics.
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

Orange Order Must Use Twelfth Demos To Kickstart Stormont

Dr John Coulter ✍ Joe Biden may be back in the United States and on the campaign trail to win a second term in the Oval Office, but the long-term consequences of his four-day unofficial Presidential election launch in Ireland, north and south, are still reverberating through the political establishment.

Unionism and Loyalism should conveniently dismiss all the ‘Vote Joe Again’ spin in many of the speeches, especially Biden’s desperate appeal to the Ulster Scots lobby in the United States by suggesting he had an English heritage.

Any Unionist or Loyalist who concludes these remarks represent a softening of Joe Biden’s staunchly pro-Irish nationalist stance is living in political cloud-cuckoo land. Biden is a committed constitutional Irish republican and the most pro-nationalist President to occupy the Oval Office since John F Kennedy in the 1960s.

Unionism and Loyalism should be genuinely fearful of one key line from his speech in the Dail: “The United Kingdom should be working closer with Ireland.”

Taken in conjunction with all the hype about the Biden billions in terms of American investment if the Stormont institutions are restored, this Biden remark was not a political gaffe or ‘off piste’ remark.

It was an assuredly deliberate broadside at the British Government that if the DUP does not agree to restoring the Executive and the Assembly, then Westminster and Dublin should work together to implement joint authority.

But the DUP is a politically ‘thrawn’ Ulster Scots movement. The party needs to be led by the hand back into Stormont, not shoved physically through Parliament Buildings’ revolving doors.

Realistically, no matter how cutting the Armageddon Budget proves to be, there will be no moves by the DUP on restoring power-sharing until all the votes are counted following the 18 May local council elections. Electorally, it will prove to be a ‘feast or a famine’ poll for the DUP.

If the DUP increases or even holds its tally of councillors, its Stormont boycott over the Protocol and the Windsor Framework will have proven to have been a big hit with the pro-Union community. Project Fear will have notched up another victory! That’s the feast result.

The famine result will be the opposite - losing seats to the hardline TUV, protest votes going to Alliance and the UUP, and even voter apathy among the pro-Union community as Unionists and Loyalists register their opposition to the boycott policy by staying at home - a tactic which could see nationalist and republican candidates win seats in traditionally pro-Union District Electoral Areas (DEAs).

Likewise, there will be no going back into Stormont until at after Black Saturday - the last Saturday in August hosted by the senior Loyal Order, the Royal Black Institution, which traditionally marks the end of the Marching Season.

Ironically, this post-election ‘time of reflection’ by the DUP is really about who controls the party - the Westminster contingent run by the original Paisleyite faction, or the modernising devolutionists, run by the UUP blow-ins.

Whichever faction comes out on top after the sashes, bowler hats, gloves, banners and bannerettes are neatly put away for another Marching Season will dictate if devolution in the form of the current Stormont Assembly will be restored, or mothballed for at least another generation - or maybe even resurrected to mark the half-century anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement in another 25 years.

In reality, I’d say the DUP has until the start of the new academic year in September - no matter what the outcome of May’s local council elections - to at least privately within the party decide whether to walk back into Stormont, or admit to Westminster that Parliament Buildings needs to be locked up permanently in terms of a fully functioning, power-sharing devolved administration.

Like the Protestants who endured the Siege of Londonderry in 1688/89, the DUP must calculate how much the pro-Union community - indeed, the entire Northern Ireland community - is prepared to suffer as many families (not just working class, or those on the poverty line, but also many middle class families) face the hard financial choices in the current cost of living crisis.

What many in the DUP’s pro-boycott camp have yet to explain is what their workable alternative is if Stormont cannot be restored. Taking Biden’s Dail remarks as a benchmark, there’s no guarantee for Unionists and Loyalists that Stormont will be replaced by old-style Direct Rule from London only.

Likewise, even if it is called ‘Direct Rule’, it may not be a form which existed for decades after the original Stormont Parliament was prorogued in 1972, with MPs from the Westminster parties taking over the various portfolios at the Northern Ireland Office.

The best the DUP could hope for is an NIO staffed by Northern Ireland-elected MPs, the so-called Molyneaux Solution, as favoured by the late Jim Molyneaux, the former UUP leader and staunch integrationist.

In the Eighties and Nineties, the Northern Ireland Conservatives lobbied successfully to have their constituency associations formally recognised nationally by the party - but that was in the hope that the pro-Union community would elect Tory MPs to many of Northern Ireland’s Unionist-held constituencies.

That ideal crashed and burned along with the equally disastrous Ulster Conservative and Unionist - New Force General Election pact.

Anyway, with Sinn Fein MPs continuing to operate their outdated abstentionist policy from 1905 by refusing to take their Commons seats, there’s little chance of Westminster allowing an NIO ministerial team made up of only those parties who formally take their Commons seats.

This would be especially true with Sinn Fein currently being the largest party in the Assembly, and if it comes out top again after May 18 as the party with the most councillors in Northern Ireland, as well as win a significant number of TDs in the Dail and becomes a leading player in a Southern coalition government.

So enter Biden with his joint authority push, presumably supported with his billions. Biden will push - dangling the inward investment carrot - for a system of government in Northern Ireland which gives Dublin a far greater influence than any cross-border bodies, the British Irish Intergovernmental Conference, or indeed the Maryfield Secretariat of the mid 1980s.

Biden will effectively be prepared to bankroll joint authority with all of nationalism, republicanism, liberal and civic Unionism backed up by ecumenical Protestantism signing up to this ‘Irish Unity by the backdoor’ deal. Unionism will again have been outmanoeuvred by a lack of constructive ideas.

Then the elephant in the room becomes whether the British and Irish intelligence communities can outwit sections of Loyalism who will attempt to reciprocate the atrocities of the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan no-warning bombs which murdered over 30 innocent people, leaving hundreds more wounded.
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

Will Biden Back Brits Over Joint Rule If Stormont Scrapped?

Dr John Coulter ✍ Where does Unionism in particular and Northern Ireland in general go if the DUP decides not to adopt the Windsor Framework?

While many organisations and parties right across the political spectrum are debating how the Windsor Framework will play out in practice, all eyes seem keenly focused on the DUP.

Essentially, what the DUP wants to avoid is the public infighting which plagued the Ulster Unionists in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement a quarter of a century ago between the No camp based around the Union First pressure group and the Yes camp based around the Re:Union pressure group.

This current debate, as we are weeks away from the Silver Jubilee of that that Agreement, has become a battle for the heart and soul of the DUP - and precisely who leads it.

On one hand are the modernisers around current boss Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the Lagan Valley MP who quit the Ulster Unionists as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. This camp would roughly favour most of the Windsor Framework and would kick start the suspended Assembly in the morning.

On the more militant wing of the DUP, mostly based at Westminster, are the traditional original Paisleyite wing fronted by the late Dr Ian Paisley’s son, Ian Junior, the North Antrim MP.

Throw in the Protestant Loyal Orders (Orange, Black, Apprentice Boys and Independent Orange Order) as well as the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) and the DUP modernisers are facing pressure from a number of sources across the pro-Union spectrum.

My personal preference is a twin-track approach. Let’s get Stormont up and running and the Executive Ministers back at their posts to tackle head-on the cost of living crisis, and at the same time, establish a special committee of MLAs to discuss the out-workings of the Windsor Framework.

But what the pro-Union family needs to consider is a Plan B if the DUP bends to the militants in the party and rejects the Windsor Framework. Does Unionism have an alternative?

Sinn Fein will quite naturally see a DUP rejection of the Framework as a chance to emphasise its call for Joint Authority of Northern Ireland by Dublin and London. But as former Tory PM the late Maggie Thatcher once said - that is out!

Again, the key question is whether Stormont itself could survive a DUP rejection? There are some mutterings the DUP could opt for a ‘half way house’ - agree to a Speaker to keep the Assembly on political life support, but refuse to take its ministerial positions in the hope of gaining more time to negotiate on the parts of the Framework its voter base finds unpalatable.

The real problem is that the DUP has its eye on the 18 May local government elections. Could the party lose votes to Jim Allister’s TUV, or see swing votes to the UUP, or even protest votes to Alliance? Indeed, could the Northern Ireland Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris (at the behest of PM Sunak) call the DUP’s bluff and implement a snap Stormont poll?

I am a firm supporter of the need for a fully functioning devolved Assembly. My late father, Rev Dr Robert Coulter MBE, represented North Antrim in the Assembly from 1998 to 2011 and was the UUP’s representative on the Stormont Commission for that period of time.

He was one of the backroom team which helped bring the Good Friday Agreement into reality, and prior to the Assembly, he represented North Antrim in the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue from 1996-98 and was UUP Chief Whip in that Forum.

Whilst I miss my dad terribly, in one way I am glad he is not here to see the absolute mess which the current Assembly finds itself it.

Perhaps Heaton-Harris’s role is to create legislation at Westminster which would allow those parties who wish to operate devolution to enter the Assembly, elect a Speaker and take up Executive roles.

Such a radical move in the situation where the DUP as a party rejects the Windsor Framework. After all, if Heaton-Harris can bring about legislation to extend the deadline for an Assembly election to January 2024, he can create a legal situation for pro-Assembly parties to kick-start devolution.

That will almost inevitably lead to a realignment within Unionism, only this time into pro-assembly and anti-assembly groupings. On one hand, you could see a merger between the UUP and those within the DUP who want devolution to work (even if the DUP as a group rejects the Framework), and on the other hand, the militant DUP, TUV and elements of loyalism who totally reject the Framework.

If Stormont cannot be saved, devolution will be mothballed for at least a generation. Perhaps Heaton-Harris may wish to consider the so-called ‘Molyneaux Solution’ once favoured by the late James Molyneaux when he was UUP boss.

This was to have the Northern Ireland Office staffed by Northern Ireland elected MPs (provided those MPs took their seats at Westminster). In such a scenario, the current crop of DUP, SDLP and Alliance MPs would take over the various roles at the NIO under Direct Rule with Sir Jeffrey obviously the firm favourite to be the new Northern Ireland Secretary of State.

This obviously would create a huge problem for Sinn Fein, which still operates its outdated abstentionist policy of not taking its House of Commons seats. If the Scottish and Welsh nationalist MPs can take their seats, why can’t Sinn Fein. After all, Sinn Fein does take its seats in the Assembly, the Dail and Europe.

With Unionists heading off to the United States for the traditional St Patrick’s Day celebrations, no doubt the Biden administration with its nationalist agenda will be heaping more pressure on the DUP.

Mind you, given Biden’s Vietnam-style retreat from Afghanistan, the last thing Northern Ireland needs is a politically lame-duck US President trying to tell us how to run a country!

But Stormont or no Stormont, deal or no deal, one element must be maintained - the gun and bomb must be eradicated from Irish politics. Dissident republicans have already shown their unwillingness go adhere to this; the last thing Ireland (north and south) needs is for a militant loyalist faction to go on the rampage over the Windsor Framework.

Sensible and level-headed political rhetoric will be required in the coming days.
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

DUP Says No, But Ulster Says Yes! What Then?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Ireland is full of historical recurrences reappearing in slightly different guises but essentially a remake of past events. 


The Good Friday Agreement in many respects is no different to this trend, as it mirrors the Treaty of Limerick, 1641 and the Anglo/Irish Treaty of 1921/22 by way of a sell-out. 

Like the GFA, the Treaty of Limerick was consisted of two parts: the first was a military surrender by the forces of King James II to those of King William III and the second was a guarantee of religious and civil liberties to Catholics in Ireland which were ignored greatly. The military agreement led to what is historically called  the “Flight of the Wild Geese” 1691/92. The GFA was also two separate agreements, the Multi Party Agreement (MPA) and the British/Irish Agreement (BIA), the latter being annexed to the former to give the GFA legal status. Like the Treaty of Limerick and the 1921/22 Agreement the latter which sold The Republic down the river, the GFA brings Irish unification no closer as the British Secretary of State can veto many aspects if he/she does not think “it is the right time” for say, a border poll. In fact, arguably the GFA is the sell-out of sell outs!

Since the signing of the “Terms of the Agreement”, leading to the “Anglo Irish Treaty” on 6th December 1921 no Irish Government has accepted partition as a done deal. Even the W.T. Cosgrave administration, pro-treaty, harboured hopes, based on the ill-fated Border Commission, that partition would be temporary. When de Valera came to power in 1932, he abolished many of the minor details of the treaty and in 1937, taking advantage of the constitutional crisis in London, he drafted his constitution of that year. Articles two and three of that constitution laid claim to the area covered by the six counties governed by Britain. Admittedly he did not do much to achieve the reconquest of the occupied areas but at least he had it written into the constitution of the time - the Dublin Government laid claim to the land, which has now been removed. Today we hear broadly accepted narratives like “Ireland and Northern Ireland” which accepts that two countries exist on the island of Ireland. Such discourse is used by both the twenty-six-county administration and the London Government as well these days as Sinn Fein.

Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 it has become noticeable that both Sinn Fein (P) who were then the political voice of the IRA and the Dublin Government have accepted partition as a living entity which, at least for the foreseeable future is here to stay. This is a historical first insofar as recognition of partition goes, even superficially, because part of the GFA was the removal, or replacement of articles two and three written into the 1937 constitution. 

As for Sinn Fein? Well, what can be said? They have, at very best, parked the bus, at worst driven it over a cliff as regards ending partition. From the twenty-six-county government we have grown to expect nothing less but Sinn Fein, the party who gave political weight to the IRAs military campaign for thirty years, surely nobody expected this did they? I remember a friend of mine and former comrade in the IRSP back in 1988 commenting saying “the Provos are talking of a non- use of weaponry.” So perhaps this about turn in political direction is not such a huge surprise after all! Some party members who, it is alleged, once held high ranking positions in the IRA are now sitting pretty as TDs in the Dail on a high salary. What then of the young volunteers they sent out on active service and, again in many cases, are now pushing up daisies in Milltown or other graveyards across Ireland? 

Like their predecessors who accepted the treaty in 1921/22 and formed the first “Executive Council” of Cumann na nGaedheal in league with the British they have probably conveniently forgotten the republican dead they themselves bear much responsibility for. These young men and women did not die for this. They did not sacrifice their young lives in order that certain elements of the leadership could enjoy well paid cushy numbers in politics, part of which is the betrayal of the republican ideal and certainly forgetting as an immediate issue the ending of partition. 

Again, there is nothing new about this, it has happened before and even as recent as the mid-sixty’s veterans of the War of Independence and the Civil War were sitting in Dail Eireann. In fact, Sean Lemmas, Taoiseach during the mid-sixties himself was a former fighter in both conflicts and did nothing to end partition, something he once thought worth going to war over! When Fianna Fail came to power in 1932, they were the anti-Treaty party in the Irish Civil War. Despite this, veterans and families of who fought on the anti-Treaty side had huge problems obtaining their IRA pensions even after de Valera introduced to 1934 Pensions Act which covered anti-Treaty veterans. Treatment of former volunteers from both sides was not good as unemployment after the Civil War was high as was emigration. For further reading on this I recommend No Middle Path,  Owen O’Shea chapters 14-20.

Today the modern Sinn Fein(P) appear to have forgotten the young volunteers who put them, inadvertently, where they are. Would it not have been more honest (that’s a joke) to have told the young volunteers something along the lines of; “you are all going out today to fight for not The Republic and ending partition by driving the Brits out, but even more importantly so we, in the leadership, can retire on well-paid salaries to Dail Eireann, now that is worth fighting for isn’t it.”? Would that not have been a more honest appraisal of events? Admittedly, not many if any would have volunteered but the leadership's consciences would have been clear!

The shift in policies by Sinn Fein is tantamount to Margaret Thatcher announcing she wished to enter talks with the Dublin Government about handing the six counties back! After this she may have announced compulsory trade union membership as a condition of employment and a massive nationalisation of industry programme before travelling to Argentina for talks over the Falklands/Malvinas!! Like all former revolutionary parties which enter the various bourgeois parliaments around the globe, and Sinn Fein (P) are no exception, they join a right-wing conveyor belt. They cease to be revolutionary in any shape. Both the Irish and British Labour Parties at their inception were, at the time, considered revolutionary. They were formed at a time when liberal democracy was in its infancy. Socialist politics at that time were revolutionary. Once they gained popularity, more so in Britain than the twenty-six-counties, and seats in the parliament the right wing charged begins. It becomes unstoppable and the net results are today’s variants of those once revolutionary parties founded by revolutionary thinkers. Today Sinn Fein epitomise such a shift!!

Let us skip forward now to the so-called “Northern Ireland Protocol” and the ability of a few hundred seventeenth century religious nutters to disrupt it. In fact, unless the Democratic Unionist Party agree to every I being dotted and T being crossed the whole thing, along with that joke of a so-called government, Stormont, collapses. Even if the new deal British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is negotiating on the “Northern Ireland Protocol” is satisfactory to both the UK and EU sides but not the DUP then there is no deal! Sinn Fein and the twenty-six-county government are bending over backwards to accommodate the DUP, even though this party does not represent a majority in the six counties. Sinn Fein are now the largest party in Stormont but insist on allowing the DUP to act as if they are. 

Even by the undemocratic standards of liberal democracy this is a joke beyond jokes. So, we have a situation where 25 DUP MLAs are holding the government of the 26 counties and 27 EU member states to ransom!! 25, 26, 27 how nice, neat and convenient for the DUP. How much longer are the majority going to be bullied by the minority of the DUP? If an agreement is reached tomorrow morning or, by the time of publication of this blog has been reached it will only be with the approval of the DUP. Therefore, in any future negotiations it will be the DUP, irrespective of how many people they represent, even as low as 20%, who will call the shots!! That is worrying, very worrying indeed. One night on TV a loyalist was caught off guard when he was asked; “if in a referendum a majority voted for a united Ireland, would you accept that verdict”. He answered an unreserved “no”. This then is very much in line with DUP thinking it would appear.

While the DUP deliberate over whether they will condescend to support any deal British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is trying to negotiate with the EU the people of the six-counties have no local government, no goods and services or any of the things promised by these parties, including the DUP in the election. Sinn Fein, the largest party in the assembly appear to be allowing the DUP to act as if they are the largest gang! Is this not taking the “chuckle brothers” bollocks a bit too far? The DUP, and their allies in the ERG (European Research Group) in Parliament only care about their own right-wing political aims. The electorate can go and whistle. Is it not time for the people, going without their daily needs due to no assembly sitting, courtesy of the DUP, is it not time for them, republican, loyalist, unionist, nationalist and neither to kick out the self-interested DUP once and for all? Equally, is it not time for Sinn Fein to stand up to this gang of proto-fascists with more than a religious tinge?

As for Sinn Fein (P) (I use the P to differentiate from Republican Sinn Fein who do not go along with this folly) I cannot recall anywhere in the world a party which has binned or, to be kind, done such a dramatic U Turn on their political position in such a short time span. The British Labour Party are now unrecognisable to that of 1905 and have been since the abolition of Clause IV, a commitment to the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, under Tony Blair back in 1997. 

This transformation, though gradually coming since the early eighties, has taken the best part of a century to achieve. The Irish Labour Party probably started their reforms six years after their formation in 1912, in 1918, under the leadership of Thomas Johnson when, in 1918 they agreed to stand “aside” in the general election of that year thus giving the Sinn Fein of the day a clear run. Would James Connolly have accepted the “labour must wait” position held by Sinn Fein as they pushed the labour party aside? I doubt that very, very much. 

So, let us move a little further afield and Germany or, to be a little more precise, West Germany. Founded in 1875 the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) are the oldest political party in the country, now a unified Germany. They adopted a Marxist position for the first eighty-four years of their existence until 1959 at their Bad Godesberg conference they agreed to reform and drop Marxism as their political position thus taking a bourgeois avenue. They too are unrecognisable compare to the original party. Here are three large parties in different countries who have abandoned their positions in favour of reforms and gentrification. It took all of them a number of years to a greater or lesser extent. It took Sinn Fein (P) the time it for the ink to dry on the GFA they had signed to start their reforms publicly. Gone has the thirty-two- county democratic socialist republic, gone has the demand for an immediate British withdrawal, in fact gone have most of the policies, including immediate Irish unity, which had made this variant of Sinn Fein a household name. And what of the IRA? Well, we can forget they ever came about, won’t mention them again and hope nobody else does eh!

So, we have Jefferey Donaldson, leader of the DUP calling all the shots with no apparent opposition either from the British Government, the EU or the twenty-six-county government now accompanied by Sinn Fein (P). Why not give Jeff Dono (sic) and his mob the keys to Number Ten and to the European Parliament, and, while we are at it, Dail Eireann kicking out Sunak and the MEPs of other countries and the TDs of the twenty-six-counties. Where could these leaders go? Broadmoor springs to mind as a permanent residence!!

🖼 Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist

What Would The Men And Women Of Easter Week Have Made Of This Farce?

Dr John CoulterWhen is an EU deal not an EU deal? Answer: when it’s purely in the interests of securing the leadership of the Tory Party!

Almost like the long-awaited date for another Stormont General Election which keeps getting pushed along the long finger, so too, we have similar mutterings as to the final small print in the supposed deal between the European Union and the UK Government over the Northern Ireland Protocol.

The DUP, like its time when it had a confidence and supply deal to prop up then Tory PM Theresa May’s Westminster regime, once again sees itself as front and centre when it comes to giving its blessing on any final arrangements. The so-called ‘Seven Tests’ must all be achieved, otherwise there will be no Stormont Assembly.

It’s a delicate issue I recently addressed on the television channel, GB News.

What we are really witnessing is a battle for the heart and soul of the Conservative party, so is it a question that the DUP is using the pro-Brexit group of Tory MPs in the European Research Group (ERG) as a lever to get its Seven Tests across the line, or is the ERG using the DUP’s Seven Tests to re-establish itself as the key body of influence within the Conservative party rather than the backbench 1922 Committee.

The bottom line is that the EU can’t get it through its political skull that the UK voted democratically to leave the European Union and is desperately holding onto to some straw that it can use Northern Ireland to have some hold over the UK.

Probably, given the leadership feuds within the Tory Party, the EU is hoping the next Westminster General Election will return a Labour Government led by Sir Keir Starmer which will formally seek to rejoin the EU.

Then again, does former PM Boris Johnson see the Protocol as the preferred political weapon of choice to push current PM Rishi Sunak out of 10 Down Street in time for a ‘BoJo Comeback’ ?

Okay, it was Johnson who devised the Protocol in the first place, but as a clever political strategist, did he implement the Protocol as a Trojan horse to wreck any EU deal from the inside?

So here are the key questions which still need to be resolved in the coming days:

What are the current obstacles in finalising the protocol?

  • Securing a deal which satisfies both the DUP’s so-called ‘Seven Tests’ which the DUP says it needs to kick-start devolution at Stormont;
  • Securing a deal which prevents a rebellion by the ERG in the Conservative party and puts PM Sunak’s premiership in doubt;
  • Securing a deal which the business community in both mainland Britain and Northern Ireland helps them cope with the cost of living crisis.

Does the finalising of the protocol suggest the return of functioning politics in Stormont?

  • Any final deal has to meet the ‘Seven Tests’ of the DUP before the party agrees to nominate a Speaker of the Assembly which will kick-start devolution again.
  • Can DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson sell the deal to the Christian fundamentalist wing of his party, especially his Westminster contingent;
  • Would the DUP be prepared to compromise on any issue to save Stormont, or must the deal effectively get rid of the Protocol because the DUP is looking over its shoulder at local council elections in Northern Ireland in May - would the DUP lose support and seats to the more hardline Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) party if it accepted the deal and entered Stormont.

Given the history of these negotiations post Brexit, how big of an issue is trust between Westminster and Stormont?

  • This issue is vital. As the DUP is not part of the UK negotiating team, it will be presented with a deal rather than create the deal itself; in this respect, there is a fear among Unionists in general that this deal could be more about securing the future of the Sunak premiership than securing devolution.
  • If the DUP did not accept the deal, could the entire peace process crumble in this the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement on 10 April 1998.
  • The Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Tory MP Chris Heaton-Harris, has already introduced legislation to extend the deadline for calling an Assembly election in Northern Ireland until January 2024; if there’s no deal acceptable to the DUP, could he also get legislation passed at Westminster which would also those political parties in Northern Ireland who want to make devolution work form a power-sharing Executive without the DUP. This would be a nuclear option.
  • If the deal is rejected by the DUP and devolution collapses, how sure can Unionists be that any Direct Rule from Westminster will not have a Dublin government input like the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985.

Ultimately, does the DUP have a Plan B up its political sleeve if the nuclear option becomes a reality that the deal does not get the blessing of the party’s Christian fundamentalist wing and devolution goes into mothballs for at least a generation.

Ironically, could we then see a Molyneaux solution? The former UUP leader was a committed integrationist who believed power should ultimately rest with Westminster.

His vision was that Northern Ireland should be governed by an NIO staffed by MPs elected from Northern Ireland rather than by MPs flown in from mainland constituencies depending on the party of government.

However, this was all based on the assumption in the 1980s that the UUP would always be the lead party in Unionism. Given the May 2022 Assembly elections, this is clearly not the case.

With no Stormont Assembly, would Sir Jeffrey be happy to take on the post of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under this Molyneaux arrangement?

Now for the next dilemma - would such a scenario force Sinn Fein to drop its historical and outdated policy of abstentionism at Westminster, take its Commons seats and be guaranteed a ministerial position in the new-look NIO?
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

DUP Is Support Act In Protocol Musical Theatre!