Showing posts with label Northern Irish Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Northern Irish Politics. Show all posts

Dr John Coulter ✍ With an inevitable realignment in Unionism on the cards should any Stormont settlement be agreed, there needs to be a similar realignment within Irish Christianity if the faith is to have real relevance not just in 2024, but for the remainder of this decade.

Given the massive support for what was effectively a national strike day last Thursday across Northern Ireland and the return of Stormont kicked further down the political road, Christians of whatever denomination need to get a grip on the situation.

Put bluntly, Christians need to stop back-stabbing each other over petty theological issues and focus on how the Christian Church as a body can become a very significant force for good within the community.

Ironically, as a starting point, the Church must come up with some solution to combat the influence of the so-called judgemental gossips which plague so many places of worship, congregations and fellowships.

For generations, church gossips have been unofficial power brokers within places of worship, largely because of the perception that it was ‘unChristian’ to sue a church gossip for defamation.

In reality, folk tended to settle their differences behind closed doors, or swept the issue under the carpet, or forced the people at the centre of the gossip to leave the place of worship.

The power of the church gossips is not necessarily the accuracy of their accusations and allegations, but the speed with which these gossips can get their information around a place of worship.

The majority of gossiping content in places of worship generally starts like a traditional game of Chinese Whispers - with a legally unsubstantiated rumour coated with copious amounts of exaggeration and embellishment until the original situation is blown well out of proportion.

In journalistic terms, imagine publishing or broadcasting a story about someone’s private life without first checking facts, observing legal codes or adhering to media ethical codes? There would be very serious consequences for the journalist if even poor punctuation changed the meaning of the story.

Church gossips, when caught out by inaccuracy in their information, generally speaking deploy an ‘opt out’ clause. They demand mercy, compassion and forgiveness, quoting the famous New Testament passage from St Matthew’s Gospel where Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive someone who had wronged him.

Peter suggested seven times, but Christ said it should be seventy times seven. Imagine a journalist trying to use Matthew’s Gospel as a defence in a defamation action in court. Any judge with a titter of wit would either hold the journalist in contempt of court for cheek, or recommend that the journalist seek serious psychiatric counselling as a matter of urgency.

In reality, we journalists do not enjoy the same immunity under the defamation laws which church gossips have enjoyed for generations. In practice, there needs to be an even playing field between journalists and church gossips.

To use a secular proverb - what’s sauce for the goose, should be sauce for the gander. There has to be equality between journalists and church gossips. If a journalist can end up in court for defamatory reporting, then more church gossips should be brought before the courts for defamatory gossiping.

Ironically, with the crises over the Rwanda Bill, and the conflicts in Yemen, Gaza and Ukraine along with the electoral threat to the Tories from the Right-wing Reform UK party, the current Conservative Government - like a misfiring soccer Premiership team - is pushing Northern Ireland further down the league of importance and into the danger zone of political relegation.

So now is the time for the Christian Churches to step up to the mark, put on hold their petty bickering about whether women should wear hats to worship, what instruments to play in praise, and put pressure on politicians to find a workable solution to the Stormont impasse.

As I said on my live analysis piece on GB News television on Thursday morning as the national NI strike got underway, history will not look kindly on any party or politician responsible for flushing devolution down the political toilet.

As I prepared to go on air shortly after 6 am that day, my thoughts were of my late dad, Rev Dr Robert Coulter MBE, who was a North Antrim UUP MLA for 13 years from the Assembly’s first mandate in 1998 until his retirement in 2011.

What crossed my mind were the chats at my parents’ home between dad and another 1998 mandate UUP MLA, the late Sir John Gorman of North Down. Those bay window conversations, as I dubbed them, would often continue into the wee small hours about how devolution could be made to benefit the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Dad and Sir John must be spinning in their graves at the politically cataclysmic scenario which has now unfolded at Parliament Buildings.

It’s no use the Christian Churches merely organising a united Day of Prayer for political stability - they need to put words into action and apply as much pressure as possible on the political representatives.

Sinn Fein currently has a two-seat majority over the DUP entitling the former under present rules to the First Minister’s post. Might the DUP be secretly hoping the Secretary of State pushes the election button and triggers a fresh Assembly poll to give the party its three needed target seats to outgun the republican movement in the Chamber?

Whilst a snap election is one option, given the cost of living crisis and the severe winter weather, many of the political parties will not want to hit the campaign trail, especially if they have to prepare for a snap Westminster General Election if the Sunak administration loses any potential vote of no confidence.

During yet another failed attempt to get a Stormont Speaker elected last Wednesday, a number of MLAs in their speeches were hinting that the lifetime of the current Assembly mandate - even devolution itself - could be running out.

Later this week, we should know for definite what the Secretary of State’s mind is for future governance in Northern Ireland. Given the crisis in the Tory Party, he is most likely to kick the political can down the road and bring in emergency legislation to extend the status quo in the hope the DUP will sign up to his pre-Christmas deal.

If not, he has the option of introducing a hybrid Direct Rule, whereby he gives more financial powers to senior civil servants, especially the permanent secretaries at the various departments, leaving the Secretary of State as a final decision maker.

Perhaps Unionism’s Plan B in this scenario is to resurrect former UUP boss, the late Jim Molyneaux’s model for Direct Rule - with Northern Ireland elected MPs and peers taking on the ministerial roles.

That would certainly place Sinn Fein in a political pickle as from its foundation in 1905, the party has continued to operate its outdated policy of abstentionism and refusing to take its Commons seats.

But ever since Sinn Fein entered the electoral arena seriously during the 1981 hunger strikes, the party has voted to drop abstentionism in both the Dail and Stormont. It’s only a matter of time before the British Government can create a scenario or agenda whereby Sinn Fein MPs will walk into the Westminster Commons Chamber.

In the meantime, if tens of thousands of workers can show the strength of their opinion in last Thursday’s strike, surely the tens of thousands of Christians can get out of their pews, too, and lobby the politicians for a successful resolution?

If Jesus Christ can take positive action against the money changers in the temple by overturning their tables, then Christians have the perfect example to take positive democratic action to get good governance restored in Northern Ireland.
 
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

Christians Need To End Back-Stabbing To Make Church Relevant In 2024

Tommy McKearneyAfter almost two years without a devolved administration, the northern state appears politically deadlocked.


The latest round of talks in Hillsborough castle between the British government’s Chris Heaton-Harris and the five largest parties in Stormont have concluded without a definite restoration of the institutions. This in spite of the fact that four of the five parties involved were willing to accept the Treasury’s offer/bribe of £3.3 billion. An offer contingent, though, on the restoration of the Assembly and ominously described as final by the Secretary of State.

On the surface, the stumbling block appears to be the DUP’s refusal to budge on the issue of the Windsor framework. In reality, the problem goes deeper than one party’s obstinacy. At its heart lies the contradiction inherent within Northern Irish unionism. For that constituency the issue is how to make Northern Ireland function successfully without making any concession to those seeking an alternative constitutional arrangement.

Nobody epitomises this dilemma better than DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson. During his address to the party’s recent annual convention he made clear the problems created by a non-functioning Assembly. He stated that such a situation risked having Northern Ireland deemed a failed and ungovernable state and urged party members to; ‘… to face up to new realities and adapting to new circumstances…’.

Lending weight to his analysis was support from former party leader Peter Robinson. A close acolyte of party founder, Ian Paisley, Robinson was never a weak-kneed liberal, as evidenced by his storming of Clontibret, Co Monaghan. Prior to the recent talks, he publicly advocated accepting what was on offer, return to Stormont and thereafter negotiate further change.

Notwithstanding this powerful intervention, plus silence from his party executive, Donaldson felt unable to abandon the rejectionist line. A stance he maintained after the roundtable talks that included the significant financial inducement mentioned above.

Meanwhile, rejecting the Treasury offer is causing the DUP ongoing local difficulties. There has been persistent complaints from many quarters about failings in the local health service centred on lengthy waiting lists, a problem not helped by the absence of a Stormont based health minister. More recently three large public sector unions have been forced to take strike action in order to secure restoration of pay, lost to inflation.

The fact that both these issues were addressed through the Treasury offer of additional funding, subject to Stormont reconvening, discomforted the DUP and its leader. Several striking trade unionists were unambiguous when interviewed on TV. They blamed the politicians for preventing a pay raise that was clearly available. Under pressure, Donaldson sought a meeting with senior trade unionists and in an effort to curtail popular discontent desperately called upon Heaton-Harris to increase public sector pay.

So why did the DUP leader not simply ‘go with the flow’, bow to reality, accept the payoff and lead his party back into Stormont? The answer is twofold. In the first instance, there was the opposition from powerful Unionist figures and institutions. Second is the aforementioned contradiction within unionist policy making.

Leading the fundamentalist challenge was the TUV’s bitter but articulate front-man Jim Allister. Deploying the old Paisleyite stratagem of labelling Unionist opponents as unreliable Lundys, Allister sarcastically described the talks as beginning ‘to smell a lot like sell out’ and followed up by postering this message across the six counties. Immediately after the talks ended, the TUV leader came out demanding total revocation of the Windsor Framework.

While Jim Allister may still be deemed more of an irritant than a major electoral threat to the DUP, opposition to compromise emanating from another quarter has to be taken much more seriously by Donaldson and his advisers. One day before the Hillsborough talks ended, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland (the Orange Order’s governing body) issued a communique to all its lodges[1]. The message emphasised that it supported continuing the Stormont boycott until UK and EU ‘fully address matters of trade within the UK and the imposition of EU laws in Northern Ireland’. Equally ominous, the circular continued; ‘…Grand Lodge is committed to examine how best our structures will be used to encourage voter registration and turnout ahead of a general election.’

When taken in conjunction with the knowledge that some senior members of the DUP share this absolutist position, the future for the Stormont Assembly is at best uncertain. Should Donaldson agree to return while the framework remains in place (in reality it’s going to stay), he will face strenuous and probably irresistible opposition. Should he continue to stay out, the outcome for hardline Unionism may be worse still.

Out of office, absolutist unionism will find it has diminishing influence with and loss of purchase over the levers of power. Much if not all, will then depend on how other key players analyse and respond to the situation in both the short and long term.

What if Britain’s ruling class decides its self interest is better served by maintaining a healthy working relationship with the financially powerful EU rather than by placating the eccentric demands of what is fast becoming a minority in the north of Ireland.

What if the British are serious about negotiations being finished and opt to move forward on demands being made by, among others, the Alliance Party and Tánaiste Micheál Martin, that no single party have the ability to bring down the Assembly and Executive. A proposal that could lead to replacing D’Hondt selection with that of a qualified majority mechanism wherein hardline unionism could well find itself powerless and in opposition.

What also if the Dublin government’s referral of Britain’s Legacy Act to the European Court of Human Rights is a subtle stratagem designed to pressurise the UK government into taking steps to break the northern impasse. While a settlement along the lines mooted above might allow the six county state a temporary stay of abolition, it would be at best short-term and all the while damaging for unionism.

The largest unionist party is therefore faced with a difficult choice. It must either re-enter Stormont while the framework remains intact and endure the likelihood of a hard-line rebellion inflicting damage not only on party but on the political entity it purports to uphold. The alternative is to abstain and risk having a non-unionist executive imposed by a Tory government.

Almost 60 years have passed since the then Prime Minister of the six counties, Terence O’Neill, warned that Ulster stood at the crossroads. Something similar may well be said of Ulster unionism today but with one significant difference: now it has fewer options, if any.

[1] Framework still has to be changed. Order. Newsletter 20/12/23

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

Stormont Deadlock


Staff the Northern Ireland Office with Northern Ireland Westminster MPs with East Derry MP Gregory Campbell as Secretary of State, and Sinn Fein has to take its Commons seats to get Ministerial posts in the new-look NIO. That’s the hard-hitting proposals from controversial commentator, Dr John Coulter, in his latest Fearless Flying Column.

Strike When Iron Is Hot

The jungle drums are hammering out the beat that more elections could be on the way in the North. Political commentator, Dr John Coulter, uses his Fearless Flying Column to explore the view that it’s not republican unity which Unionism fears most, but tactical voting which could see Sinn Fein overtake the DUP as the North’s top dog. 

Tactical Voting & Top Dogs

Sean Bresnahan, a republican from Tyrone and member of the 1916 Societies, with an opinion piece on the upcoming elections to Stormont. He writes here in a personal capacity.

At present and with elections looming, there are increased suggestions republicans should assist an electoral strategy to Stormont, entering in opposition to the Sinn Fein-DUP coalition.

Stormont Serves The British Rule Alone