Thursday
19Nov2009
CHUCKLE-VISION
Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 09:05AM 
It's touching, really.
The former Democratic Unionist leader Ian Paisley has praised Sinn Fein for keeping its word on power-sharing despite the dissident threat. Mr Paisley said he was encouraged and hoped relations between First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness would "steady".
The IRA must be delighted at this praise extended the way of Butcher Boy McGuinness and the crew.
Of course the reality is that all the DUP/IRA axis has delivered is institutionalised incompetence. I am certain unionist voters will weigh up Paisley's words of praise for the IRA and judgre accordingly at the polls.
tagged Chuckle Brothers, McGuiinness, Paisley
Chuckle Brothers, McGuiinness, Paisley 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (12)
Will you accept the result if there is yet again a pro-Agreement majority in the election?
I have not accepted the right of terrorists to sit in government, and will not.
So why go on about the voters? Either a vote counts or it doesn't. Isn't that what we agreed was wrong with the EU version of democracy? Only one acceptable outcome.
If you prick us do we not bleed, if you tickle us do we not laugh? If you wrong us shall we not revenge?
Unionist majority rule wronged a lot of people, and during the conflict we saw wrong on both sides, the past is being overcome,and laid to rest, and both sides recognise that we are the same. They've moved on, both communities have moved on, only a very small number are clinging and longing for the old days.
This photo is over used! Can 2 people from opposing sides not find the same thing amusing?
Henry
Precisely, and when the majority of unionists support voluntory power-sharing then I trust so will you.
G
The more Paisley endorses the IRA, the more support the DUP loses. Great news.
E,
It's not used enough.
David
Precisely, and when the majority of unionists support voluntory power-sharing then I trust so will you.
The majority of Unionists? What about a majority of the voters? We have had a referendum on the Agreement and it would be passed again today with an even bigger majority.
If TUV won a majority of Unionist voters they could bring about the suspension of the institution but they know that's not what people want. So they have come up with the concept of voluntary coalition as a fig-leaf.
At best they could get one electoral cycle out of it and even that is highly unlikely.
Looking in on this 'from the outside' as it were, there is a part of me which can understand that a lot of people in Northern Ireland probably think to themselves "well, at least this power-sharing coalition, fragile and imperfect as it might be, is better than a resumption of open hostilities and bombings etc". I can sympathise with such a view, though I do agree that individuals who engaged in past terrorist acts, ought not to sit in government but should face justice.
Out of interest, DV, if, just hypothetically, each and every individual in the Assembly who faced accusations of terrorism were removed from office and duly tried and sentenced, and the power-sharing assembly was to continue as it is, but made up entirely of individuals (from the same parties) who had never taken part in, nor sanctioned terrorism, then would you hold different views? (And I admit that I may, in my ignorance, be over-simplifying the issue, or posing the wrong question).
Tom,
No.
There are four simple problems that remain even IF the terrorists were thrown out.
1. The structure does not allow for Opposition. It is mandated i.e forced power=sharing and that is wrong.
2. The Executive does not allow for group responsibility. It sets up private fiefdoms.
3. 108 MLA's for 1.6m people is obscene. It should be about a quarter of this
4. All the North/South bodies would have to go.
the grand old duke of doc at it again do we really need to listen to this numptie.He preaches every sunday to a few at the martyrs -prehaps on what fellowship has light with darkness. or how can two walk together except they be agreed. It speaks volumes about this hireling- his very friendly and jovial time with friend or fiend martin and now his endorsement or their reliability ref sinn fiend keeping their word .Certaiinly casts a big shadow over Paisley and his word never never etc etc.His great fpc is fragmenting just as snowmen do when the heat increases- then just to leave a dirty stain on the ground.
1. The structure does not allow for Opposition. It is mandated i.e forced power=sharing and that is wrong.
It does allow for opposition. Nobody is obliged to enter government. But all the main parties ran on the basis of going into government. However if TUV run on the basis of going into opposition they are perfectly entitled to do that.
2. The Executive does not allow for group responsibility. It sets up private fiefdoms.
That's because politics in Northern Ireland has always been sectarian as the state was set up on a sectarian basis. If politics was about policy in Northern Ireland you'd have a point.
3. 108 MLA's for 1.6m people is obscene. It should be about a quarter of this
I agree. 108 is over the top. It was a number designed to accommodate the Alliance Party and should be halved.
4. All the North/South bodies would have to go.
You can have North/South bodies with the Agreement or a souped up version of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which would effectively be Joint Authority. Those are the only options. Paisley was faced with them and so would Jim Allister be if he led Unionism.
Thanks for replying to my question, David. Your first point is something I had not considered, and your answer makes very good sense. In a democracy, there must exist the option of voting the present lot out and voting a completely different bunch in. A forced coalition of all the parties, without an option for voters to throw the whole lot out and vote for something else, is not really a democracy at all. Well said.