Tag: DUP

Why won’t ministers come clean about the impact of cuts on disabled people? – Frances Ryan

June 20, 2018June 20, 2018 · 11 Comments ·

Published in the Guardian on Tuesday 19 Jun 2018

“Being hit by the bedroom tax is bad enough, but losing your sickness benefits too is even harder.”

Disabled people protest about cuts to benefits Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

Back in 2014, armed with only a laptop and phone, disabled campaigners started a hunt for the truth. As policies including the bedroom tax, the abolition of disability living allowance, and the rollout of controversial out-of-work sickness benefits hit, War on Welfare (Wow) called on the coalition government to carry out a cumulative impact assessment of the wave of disability cuts to measure the effect on disabled people. It resulted in a debate in parliament – the first time disabled people had secured a debate in the main chamber of the House of Commons – but no action.

Now, four years on, Wow has gained the backing of a cross-party coalition that wants Theresa May’s government to calculate the overall impact of the so-called welfare reforms on disabled people. Every party except the Conservatives is in favour of a Commons debate on conducting this assessment, including the DUP. In light of the pressure over Northern Irish abortion reform, their support for detailed analysis of the impact of Tory disability cuts is another awkward clash between May and the DUP’s 10 MPs propping up her administration. But more than that, it’s a sign of hope that ministers may have to finally investigate just what damage their disability cuts are causing – from the social care crisis to cuts to multiple parts of the NHS, to the disastrous rollout of universal credit; now delayed for an extra year until 2023.

Last week’s damning report by the National Audit Office (NAO) on universal credit castigated the system’s inability to protect and support “vulnerable claimants”. It follows the revelation this month that the government was forced to say it would repay thousands of severely disabled people made worse off under the UC system ahead of the high court ruling last week that it was “discriminatory” to have docked two disabled men’s benefits after transferring to UC. Following pressure from disability groups, this week ministers made another U-turn, this time to stop repeatedly testing some disabled people for personal independence payments.

The government’s austerity programme has resulted in multiple reductions in income since 2010 that have hit disabled people all at once and disproportionately. Being hit by the bedroom tax is tough – but losing your sickness benefits as well after being found “fit for work” is even harder.

If you need an insight into the damage these policies have done, just go to Wow Voices, a website set up by campaigners that features disabled people explaining the impact of cuts on them. One woman with terminal breast cancer writes of how, for the last 18 months, she’s been told she needs to be reassessed for her benefits every six months, and she’s frantic about the thought of losing her support. “I’ve cried more about this than my terminal diagnosis,” she says.

The UN’s damning report in 2016 into the UK’s “violations” of disabled people’s rights has put further pressure on the government over its treatment of disabled citizens. Meanwhile, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s own cumulative impact assessment shows that families with a disabled adult and a disabled child will lose £5,500 a year by 2022 as a result of tax and benefit changes – contradicting the government’s claim that such analysis would be “too complex” to do.

This month, research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found around 650,000 people with mental and physical health problems were officially destitute in the UK last year – that means being so poor, they can’t afford deodorant, the electric, or regular meals – with social security changes found to be a key cause. It’s bad enough for ministers to take away state support from disabled people en masse, but to refuse to analyse its effects is the definition of irresponsible. The Conservatives must finally shine a light on the impact that disability cuts have had. What are they so afraid of?

The government refuse to carry out a cumulative impact assessment of welfare “reforms”. Again

I write voluntarily, to do the best I can to raise awareness of political and social issues. In particular I research and write about how policy impacts on citizen wellbeing and human rights. I also co-run a group on Facebook to support other disabled people going through ESA and PIP assessments, mandatory reviews and appeals.

I don’t make any money from my work. I am disabled and don’t have any paid employment. But you can contribute by making a donation and help me continue to research and write informative, insightful and independent articles, and to provide support to others. The smallest amount is much appreciated – thank you.

Labour member in Northern Ireland issues hunger strike ultimatum – Max Webster

July 18, 2017July 19, 2017 · 3 Comments ·

Matt Beeching

Matt Beeching is a member of a political party you may have heard of, and one quite a lot of us voted for in the 2017 general election.

Nothing unusual about that; except he’s something of a rarity: he’s a member of a political party that fields no candidates in either local or national elections, because Mr Beeching lives in Northern Ireland (originally from Eastleigh, Southampton UK); And he’s a member of a party with one of the biggest affiliations in Europe – the Labour party.

And because of what he sees as terrible wrongs, he says he’s making a stand.

Matt Beeching is presently on hunger protest. He served as a secretary of Upper Bann Labour branch.

Labour agreed a pact not to field candidates against the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)* in the six counties, and it’s this that’s at the heart of Matt’s decision, he says.

He posted a statement to Facebook on Monday the 17th at midday declaring his intentions, citing both the status of abortion in Northern Ireland (it’s illegal, a stance backed by the DUP, Sinn Fein, and the SDLP), and the inability of the Northern Ireland Executive to discharge its duties in something approaching a fair and democratic manner.

“The SDLP is no longer a party of the working class,” Beeching told me on the phone earlier from his Portadown home.

“They have no interest in the trade union movement. Labour do care
about the working classes, and about unionising workers, but without funding or resources we can’t effectively help people.”

Matt’s Facebook statement goes on to say: “I firmly believe that there is a large cross section of voters in Northern Ireland that are grossly under-represented that truly desire a different approach to the standard orange and green politics.

I am not angry, I am not upset, I am calm and reserved. Therefore, I am prepared to take this action to its ultimate end, however I am hopeful and trustful that the powers that be, that can meet these demands and do not allow this to get to that point. The ball is in their court.”

Beeching, a resident in Northern Ireland for seventeen years, clearly cares about what is happening to the people of the province, but feels that being on the periphery of politics is “meaningless”.

He says: “The Labour party has 3,000 members in Northern Ireland, which is amazing, but without influence we’re not taken seriously. There’s people here who need us and it’s wrong.”

Matt says he feels he has no choice, and that this is a cause “worth dying for”, it says in his Facebook statement.

His hunger protest demands are as follows:

• Labour UK to allow Labour Party Northern Ireland members to stand candidates for elections at all levels of government in Northern Ireland including Local, Regional Assembly and General Elections;
• Labour Party UK to give Labour Party Northern Ireland full regional status and all support, funding and representatives on NEC as per Welsh and Scottish Labour;
• Labour UK to furnish Labour Party in Northern Ireland members full parity in benefits and support as with the other regions;
• Sinn Fein Northern Ireland and The Democratic Unionist Party to come to an agreement and form the Northern Ireland Executive and to start Northern Ireland Assembly parliament as quickly as possible, and to start representing the people that elected them.

He says: “Yes, there’s a review underway at the moment, thanks to the surge in support for Labour in the province, but there’s no timetable, no clear process, no criteria.”

For Beeching, the Labour-shaped hole is proving to be a real issue. And so he says he feels forced to take extreme measures.

“From midnight tonight (17th July 2017) I will refuse to eat any food solids, of any kind, until such time as the… demands have been met in full,” his Facebook statement reads.

“This is not a decision I have taken lightly, but feel passionately that it is the only course of action left to take.”

I asked Beeching about the Labour response. He said: “They are aware of it. And yes they’re worried, but this was my decision; I didn’t seek permission from the executive. I am a committed Labour activist and Corbyn supporter. I wish no harm to him or Labour or what the party represents.”

Beeching says: ”People are suffering harshly from Tory austerity… people are suffering now, as we speak but it’s going unchallenged and I don’t think the SDLP are effective in doing that because they only appeal to middle-class nationalists.”

So again, I cannot and will not support, vote for or join a nationalist party. I feel this is unfair and wholly undemocratic. This is something I feel very strongly about.”

In a Facebook live broadcast today, Beeching said: “We are told to support and vote for the SDLP but the system is null and void…

If we are to bring about change in the United Kingdom, we should also recognise the failings in Northern Ireland that affect people and especially to those who vote Labour, and want to vote Labour, but cannot do so.

“Labour’s National Executive Committee is currently undergoing a consultation process on the issue of putting up candidates and it is right that it runs its full course,” adds Matt.

This is indeed a very difficult situation. It is hoped that representatives from the Labour Party will speak with Beeching in the hope of bringing his hunger protest to an early and satisfactory conclusion.

* The SDLP; Irish: Páirtí Sóisialta Daonlathach an Lucht Oibre) is a social-democratic and Irish nationalist political party in Northern Ireland. The SDLP currently has 12 MLAs in the Northern Ireland Assembly; but lost its three remaining Parliamentary seats in the 2017 general election.

The SDLP has fraternal links with other European social-democratic parties, including the Irish Labour Party and British Labour Party (neither of which contests elections in Northern Ireland), and is affiliated to the Socialist International and Party of European Socialists.

The SDLP party platform advocates Irish reunification, and the further devolution of powers while Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom.

Jeremy Corbyn had already launched a consultation on standing candidates in the region after Labour membership there swelled under his leadership.

Guest post by Max Webster, Editor for Provocateur.

Editing and additional information by Kitty Jones

Radiate Coinage – Hubert Huzzah

July 4, 2017July 7, 2017 · 7 Comments ·

The Deal between the Democratic Unionist Party and the Conservative and Unionist Party can be criticised for a lot of reasons. The accusation that it is a bribe is roughly denied by the Conservative and Unionist Party. The claim that it should trigger payments to Scotland under the Barnett Formula are dismissed because this is additional money and not expenditure for issues for which the devolved administrations, as distinct from Westminster, are responsible. The Barnett Formula dismissal and the denial of bribery combine to suggest that the Conservative and Unionist Party have made a fundamental error of negotiation.

Big Data is all about bringing together large data sets from multiple sources, combining them, using statistical argument and data processing power to draw conclusions. It is as much about exploring the data as deciding what to do. The Conservative and Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party – the CUP and DUP – insistence that this is legitimately extra money that is additional spending can be examined through the ideas of Big Data. The existence of Electoral Law makes understanding the money correct incredibly important for the CUP and DUP and Democracy. The money needs to be additional to whatever would have been spent had the DUP not been part of the Government but also it needs to be money that is extra across the whole budget in order to fall outside of the Barnett Formula.

The Barnett Formula is a principle for calculation and a formula. Expenditure on issues for which the devolved administrations, as distinct from Central Government, are responsible is governed by the Barnett Formula’s principle. Any change in England will automatically lead to a proportionate matching change for the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The principal issue is control. If Central Government directs and controls the expenditure then the expenditure falls out of the Barnett Formula principle but if the expenditure is controlled by the devolved administration then it falls inside the principle.

The first claim being made by the CUP and DUP Government is that the money is not covered by the principle which means that the expenditure is controlled by Central Government and is therefore exempt from being matched by payouts to other administrations. In essence the DUP must do as instructed with the expenditure.

This requires a particular interpretation of the actual Formula part of the Barnett Formula.

There are four parts to the Formula:

F: the amount of extra funding in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland
P: the population proportion compared to England
E: the additional funding given to England
C: the extent to which relevant English departmental programme is comparable with services carried out by the Devolved administration

F = PEC (1)

Once you know PEC it becomes possible to work out F. Which seems pedantic to say but it highlights how people understand mathematics. It also highlights how the CUP and DUP are seeking to reinterpret the Barnett Formula for their own purposes. The essential attempt at reinterpretation is to suggest that this additional money which would mean that the extent to which relevant English Departmental programmes can be compared ceases to have meaning. In essence the Barnett Formula is avoided by suggesting there is something exceptional about Northern Ireland and so the Barnett Formula can be ignored.

The Barnett Formula was a 1979 innovation to help negotiate in Cabinet between Departments in the lead up to devolution of powers and, according to the House of Commons Library, has no legal standing or democratic justification. The danger for the Barnett Formula is that it is uniquely sensitive to negotiating positions: once you know PEC you can work out F.

If the Government of the day gives £X to England or Scotland or Northern Ireland or Wales then it is possible to infer how much additional money the other three places might legitimately expect. The CUP and DUP have insisted that the money falls outside of the Barnett Formula and so those expectations can be driven by one thing and one thing only: the per capita amount. The extent to which relevant English departmental programme is comparable with services carried out by the Devolved administration is irrelevant to additional money outside of the Barnett Formula and so the expectation amount depends upon the strength of the bargaining position. It is a real example of a municipal market at work where each identifiable region negotiates with Central Government for additional money. For the CUP and DUP, committed to free market economics this is an obvious development that fits with their stated ideological stance.

What is clear from the CUP and DUP agreement is that the outcome is based upon negotiation not formulation. It is an outcome that can be applied across constituencies. By understanding the claim that the CUP and DUP make – that this is not a bribe or corrupt practice within either the letter or spirit of Electoral Law – the amounts given to the ten DUP Constituencies forms the basis for calculating what every single Constituency should seek to negotiate to achieve. This is money that is outside the Barnett Formula and so can only be calculated on the basis of a per capita basis. In other words, the Government only avoids the accusation of corruption by accepting an adaptation of the Barnett Formula.

The Government is, effectively maintaining that funding is not corrupt. Which suggests that all Constituencies – or at least those constituencies that argue for it – should receive a proportional funding allotment. In short, the CUP and DUP formula is a per capita allotment. Using the same principle as the Poll Tax, the CUP and DUP have devised a Poll Credit – a kind of reverse Poll Tax. In the same way that the Poll Tax was a tax levied on every adult, without reference to income or resources, the Poll Credit is a benefit disbursed outside of reference to equitable principles. What can be understood from the Benefit disbursement is that the Government consider an additional amount of financial support should be given to People who demonstrate those qualities that are admired by the CUP and DUP. In short it is a Tamworth Manifesto Formula.

The Tamworth Manifesto defined what it is to be a Tory. It is a document central to the ideology of the Tories for almost two centuries. It sets the Tories against “a perpetual vortex of agitation” and proposes “reform to survive” as being the central principle of Tory Ideology. That principle of “reforming to survive” has replaced the principle of the Barnett Formula with a Tamworth Principle. It is a principle that relies on expenditure only when necessary for the survival of the Tory Government. In short: it puts a price on Tory power and it is the price that the Tories would seek to pay in any negotiations.

The CUP and DUP will claim that the people of the United Kingdom will benefit from the Tamworth Formula. The benefit – the Poll Credit – comes about from knowing what the price the Tories are willing to pay for support in Parliament. We know it amounts to about £1.5Bn between ten DUP Members of Parliament. To be more precise, their constituencies. The Poll Credit would be the amount per capita – per head – the Tories are willing to pay for support. Using the Tamworth Formula with the known figures of £1.5Bn distributed to the DUP Constituencies as follows:

Infrastructure £750m
Roads £150m
Broadband £150m
Health Service £200m
Health Service Deficit £50m
Mental Health £50m
Community Deprivation £100m
Education £50m
Total £1.5Bn

This equates to a Poll Credit per person of £3,985 based on the Electoral Populations of the DUP seats. The detail for the spending of that £3,985 is as follows:

Infrastructure £1,992
Roads £399
Broadband £399
Health Service £531
Health Service Deficit £133
Mental Health £133
Community Deprivation £266
Education £133
Total £3,985

Which comes from applying the Tamworth Manifesto principles. The DUP and CUP avoid the accusation that there is a bribe being offered or accepted. A bribe would be absurd: no Parliamentary Party would ever consider offering or accepting anything so corrupt. Particularly not when Public Money was involved. This Poll Credit is in addition to any planned spending – to avoid being regulated by the Barnett Formula.

In short, the Tamworth Manifesto principles give a quantifiable and reasonable demand for each and every Member of Parliament to begin negotiations for additional spending in their Constituency. Not only does the additional expenditure in non-DUP Constituencies demonstrate that this is not a bribe, it also demonstrates that, for purposes of reforming to survive the Tory Party must entertain, seriously, negotiations with Members of Parliament for specific amounts of funding to be spent in their constituency. Within the constraints of the spending allocations defined by the DUP and CUP Confidence and Supply arrangement, Members of Parliament would be reasonable in seeking £3,985 per Voter in their Constituency.

Disbursing £3,985 per voter, in additional spending, would be the sign that the Conservative Party has taken seriously the Localism Act 2011 and the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. Going against the spirit of these Laws – that the Conservative Party sought, and put in place, during a Coalition and then again during a Majority Government – would be a rejection of the core principle of the Tory Party as put forward by the Tamworth Manifesto. In short, the Government has unwittingly announced the starting price for the ending of Austerity.

It is a long price list. The total value is £138,157,375,788 or about £138.2Bn. The figure is not exact as there are roundings of values and the total includes the money already given to the DUP. It amounts to about £69Bn of additional spending. That is over and above the expected budget. Because, anything else would be a bribe. The full list of Poll Credit amounts, listed by Constituency is several pages of figures. But it is instructive. Ranging from Na h-Eileanan An Iar, the cheapest, at £53,239,298 through to Bristol West, the most expensive at £386,699,750. This is not some reflection of the politics of each MP but of the Poll Credit principle that arises from the abolition of the Barnet Formula principle. Indeed, some MPs with the highest price include Theresa May at £298,924,238 or Leo Docherty in Aldershot at £208,339,956 or even Phillipa Parry at £94,070,366.

The difficulty with these sort of notes is that it is difficult to show all 651 price tags without the text becoming tedious. Adding a formula into any kind of document, according to anecdotal evidence, cuts the audience by half. Turning it into an infographic obscures a lot of information.

Sometimes detail is necessary. For example, if the money were distributed by Party then the picture would be something like this:

Conservative £71Bn
Democratic Unionist Party £2Bn
Green £0.25Bn
Independent £0.1Bn
Labour £55Bn
Liberal Democrat £2.2Bn
Plaid Cymru £0.5Bn
Scottish National Party £5.5Bn
Sinn Fein £1.3Bn

It is an inexact set of figures. Approximations of where bidding should begin. But this is the kind of political marketplace the Tories have created in order to pretend they are not being propped up with a bribe.

—

Picture: Item from the “Installation Works from The Chapman Family Collection 2002” (Jake and Dinos Chapman).

Guest post by Hubert Huzzah

Theresa May faces legal challenge regarding DUP ‘arrangement’

June 20, 2017June 24, 2017 · 4 Comments ·

Image result for DUP Tory arrangement

Talks between the DUP and the Government “haven’t proceeded in a way that DUP would have expected”, sources have told Sky News.

Apparently, Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) is urging the Government to give “greater focus” to the negotiations and that the “party can’t be taken for granted”. It has been widely expected that the DUP will want more money for Northern Ireland as part of the deal.

A day before setting out her legislative measures in the Queen’s Speech, Theresa May has yet to secure a deal with the DUP to allow her Government programme to survive a Commons vote.

The talks have been ongoing since the Conservatives failed to win an outright parliamentary majority in a disastrous General Election on 8 June.

May says she is confident that the DUP will eventually back her, but a deal remains elusive.

The wider context of politics in Northern Ireland is adding to problems, and the government’s involvement in attempts to restore the power-sharing executive at Stormont is under criticism. Many of us have said that this is problematic because May cannot claim impartiality in negotiations, since she is relying on the DUP to prop up her government. There are also worrying implications for the Good Friday Agreement, and many of us have been concerned that a Conservative and DUP arrangement may be in breach of the agreement, and may compromise the important peace deal.

Almost on cue, the Guardian reports that Theresa May is facing a landmark legal challenge over her proposed deal with the Democratic Unionist party on the grounds that it breaches the Good Friday agreement.

An experienced legal team, which has been involved in constitutional challenges, is planning to apply for a judicial review of the deal once it is announced.

High court judges would be asked to examine whether the pact breaches the British government’s commitment to exercise “rigorous impartiality” in the Good Friday agreement.

The case, which could be heard in the supreme court because of its constitutional significance, follows warnings by politicians from all sides that the deal risks undermining the peace process in Northern Ireland.

The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, said on Tuesday that the deal to support the Conservative’s minority government may not be sealed until after the Queen’s speech.

It is understood that the legal challenge has been in preparation for some time but that any action would be announced after the prime minister outlines the deal in the coming days.

Lawyers are believed to have found a lead claimant to fight the case, similar to the role that the investment banker Gina Miller had when she won a supreme court ruling ordering ministers to introduce emergency legislation to authorise Britain’s departure from the EU in January.

It is understood that potential lead claimants have been warned to expect significant press attention – Miller has said the Brexit case made her the most hated woman in Britain – and that the claim will need to be crowdfunded.

Lawyers are understood to be keen for the judicial review to be heard before the end of this year at the latest.

An announcement of a deal between the Conservatives and the DUP to form a minority government was expected last Wednesday but was delayed due to the Grenfell Tower fire, in which it was announced that at least 79 people died or are presumed dead. Many expect that number to rise.

Politicians from all sides have warned the prime minister that striking a deal with Arlene Foster’s party could put the fragile peace in Northern Ireland at risk.

Sir John Major said last week that a deal risked alienating armed republicans and loyalists, and cause resentment in other parts of the UK if the government made promises to spend large amounts of public money.

The Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, also accused May of not honouring the Good Friday agreement after meeting the prime minister last week.

The Guardian is also aware that a Northern Ireland law firm has considered a similar challenge.

The legal challenge is likely to focus on subsection five of article 1 of the 1998 Good Friday agreement, which states that the UK and Irish governments “affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities.”

The phrase “rigorous impartiality” and what it implies is likely to be the crucial legal issue to be tested.

In a commentary last week, Colin Harvey, professor of human rights law at Queen’s University, Belfast, wrote: “‘Rigorous impartiality’… is central to the Good Friday agreement and to the British-Irish agreement (an international treaty between the UK and Ireland). The concept flows from the complex right of self-determination on which the current British-Irish constitutional compromise is based.

“Any deal between the Conservative party and the DUP that infringed the above principles or strayed directly onto Good Friday agreement territory (such as, for example, ruling out a unity referendum) runs a real risk of being in breach of article 1 of the British-Irish agreement.”

Related

The DUP: history and controversy

I don’t make any money from my work. But you can support Politics and Insights and contribute by making a donation which will help me continue to research and write informative, insightful and independent articles, and to provide support to others. The smallest amount is much appreciated, and helps to keep my articles free and accessible to all – thank you.

Sinn Fein’s MPs ‘will fly to London to take up their Westminster offices’ according to the Sun

June 14, 2017June 14, 2017 · 7 Comments ·

The Sun announced this morning in an exclusive that the Irish Republican party will travel to the House of Commons to take up their seats – despite their century-long policy of abstention in the UK Parliament.

Sinn Fein won seven seats in the Westminster general election, running on an abstentionist ticket that has always been the party’s policy. It’s unlikely that the Sun’s headline is correct. By abstaining from Westminster, Sinn Fein make a powerful statement – that they and the people who vote for them reject British rule and British interference.

However, there has been growing concern among the left nationalist parties in Northern Ireland about the implications of an alliance between the Conservatives and the right wing DUP. That’s worth some discussion.

Fianna Fail is planning to take on Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland election – with several politicians ‘interested’ in joining them. However, Darragh O’Brien said the party’s move north is not in reaction to what has happened in the UK general election. Given the mocking tone of this tweet, it’s highly unlikely Sinn Fein are going to suddenly change principles they’ve held over a hundred years.

Northern Ireland is still without an Assembly following the 2017 elections and Fianna Fail are planning to contest any future election.

Sinn Fein have expressed a pressing concern about the potentially damaging impact that the Conservative and DUP alliance will have on the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). It isn’t likely that any intervention on the part of the current UK government would be impartial, as required by the GFA, as they are depending heavily on being propped up by the DUP, to remain in power.

Their concerns are shared with other parties. Ulster nationalists say: “It’s of critical importance to remain mindful, the DUP vehemently opposed all proposed peace deals including the 1998 Good Friday Agreement peace deal. In fact, the DUP’s anti-democratic refusal to honour full implementation of the GFA is what caused the collapse of the Stormont mandatory power-sharing Assembly.”

“The DUP has sought to rebut the above concerns, arguing its coalition efforts are no different to Sinn Féin achieving its goal to secure a role in governing Southern Ireland. However, this is a strawman argument. It’s based on ignoring the above ‘rigorous impartiality’ clause imposed on the UK government. Also – given the Irish government has no sovereign control over N Ireland, Irish Sinn Féin’s endeavour in the Republic of Ireland is not incompatible with the above or indeed the below additional provision of our peace agreement:

They go on to say: “Similarly, the Tory government must be obliged to acknowledge the DUP’s historical and current links with paramilitary terrorist gangs.”

“The DUP has consorted with the still active Ulster Defence Association terrorist gang since its creation in 1971. Notably, in 1975 the UDA bombed Biddy Milligan’s pub in London. Here in 2017, UDA terrorists are still killing UK citizens with guns supposedly supplied by the Ulster Resistance gang founded by the DUP.”

“There are other major civil society concerns with the DUP that ought to alarm all decent people. These include not least numerous instances of alleged corruption and discrimination: Brextit dark financing; RHI grants scandal; NAMA millions; Red Sky housing; and sectarian use of state funds funnelled to its supporters in the anti-Catholic Orange Order and often to UDA and UVF terrorist led “community groups” of various hues.”

The backing of seven Sinn Fein MPs would reduce the Tory majority to just four

The active presence of seven Sinn Fein MPs in parliament would reduce the Tory majority to just four.

Sinn Fein’s presence at Westminster will inevitably spark fears among the Conservatives that they are planning to break their boycott and join other opposition parties in opposing Theresa May’s Queen’s Speech.

The Belfast Telegraph reports that a delegation of Sinn Fein MPs is traveling to London for a series of meetings with the Secretary of State James Brokenshire, other political parties and trade unions.

Sinn Fein’s Northern Ireland leader, Michelle O’Neill, said: “There is wide spread concern that Theresa May in seeking a deal with the DUP to remain in office will make the job of re-establishing the Executive more difficult.

“The British Government must demonstrate that they will treat all parties equally and fully honour the agreements. To this end I have sought a meeting with Theresa May as a matter of urgency.

“The deal at Westminster cannot undermine the agreements or the talks to re-establish the executive.

“Regardless of talks between the DUP and Tories all roads must lead back to an Executive, which delivers for all.”

Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, has warned Sinn Fein that the prospect of direct rule should scare Irish Republicans because the DUP now “have greater influence on the UK Government.”

She said: “If others decide that they are not coming back into the devolved administration here in Northern Ireland then those issues will have to be dealt with at Westminster.

“It is really for Sinn Fein to decide where they want those powers to lie.”

Jeremy Corbyn has already unveiled plans to present an alternative Queen’s Speech next week – including pledges to keep the winter fuel allowance, protecting the pensions triple lock and scrapping the bedroom tax, which he hopes will entice enough Tory MPs to deliver a government defeat.

The backing of seven Sinn Fein MPs would reduce the Tory majority to just four – which would bring the Government to the brink of collapse. That’s why there are such fears, I suspect. Whether or not they are justified is another matter. This does, however, indicate that the government is feeling rather vulnerable. Though I am not entirely sure of the Sun’s motive for publishing their article.

A defeat for May would topple her premiership and give Corbyn the chance to form a minority Labour government.

A Sinn Fein insider has refused to rule out taking the historic step of taking seats, if Corbyn offered a referendum on Irish unification. However, it is unlikely that the seven MPs will.

Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said a referendum on Irish unity was inevitable as rival parties reconvened in Stormont yesterday to restore power-sharing talks following the six-months deadlock.

He said: “One thing we can say for certainty, there is going to be a referendum on Irish unity.

“I can’t say when it’s going to be, but there is going to be such a referendum.”

The parties face a deadline of June 29 before direct rule is imposed on Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland Secretary James Brokenshire – who flew into Belfast to chair talks yesterday – said he believed a deal to restore power-sharing before the end of the month was possible.

He insisted, remarkably, that the DUP-Tory arrangement in Westminster was an “entirely separate” issue.

But tensions are mounting because of the DUP-Tory alliance, which puts the Good Friday Agreement in jeopardy.

Interesting times.

My work is unfunded and I don’t make any money from it. But you can support Politics and Insights and contribute by making a donation which will help me continue to research and write informative, insightful and independent articles, and to provide support to others.

The DUP: history and controversy

June 12, 2017June 12, 2017 · 10 Comments ·

Former DUP leader, Peter Robinson, (left) in paramilitary uniform, 1986.

The following story, first published in the Irish Times on 16 May, is of a massive donation to the DUP, which reads like a John le Carré novel – but voters need facts, not fiction.

What connects Brexit, the DUP, dark money and a Saudi prince? By Fintan O’Toole

If Northern Ireland were a normal democracy, the election campaign would be dominated by a single question: how did the Democratic Unionist Party end up advancing the cause of a united Ireland through its support for Brexit? More specifically: what role did dark money play in that extraordinary decision? This story has all the makings of a John le Carré thriller but democracy on this island needs facts, not fiction.

To recap briefly: two days before the Brexit referendum last June, the Metro freesheet in London and other British cities came wrapped in a four-page glossy propaganda supplement urging readers to vote Leave. Bizarrely, it was paid for by the DUP, even though Metro does not circulate in Northern Ireland. At the time, the DUP refused to say what the ads cost or where the money came from.

We’ve since learned that the Metro wraparound cost a staggering £282,000 (€330,000) – surely the biggest single campaign expense in the history of Irish politics. For context, the DUP had spent about £90,000 (€106,000) on its entire campaign for the previous month’s assembly elections. But this was not all: the DUP eventually admitted that this spending came from a much larger donation of £425,622 (€530,000) from a mysterious organisation, the Constitutional Research Council.

Mystery

The mystery is not why someone seeking to influence the Brexit vote would want to do so through the DUP. Disgracefully, Northern Ireland is exempt from the UK’s requirements for the sources of large donations to be declared. The mystery, rather, is who were the ultimate sources of this money and why was it so important to keep their identities secret.

The Constitutional Research Council is headed by a Scottish conservative activist of apparently modest means, Richard Cook. It has no legal status, membership list or public presence and there is no reason to believe that Cook himself had half a million euro to throw around. But the DUP has been remarkably incurious about where the money ultimately came from. Peter Geoghegan (sometimes of this parish) and Adam Ramsay of the excellent openDemocracy website did some digging and what they’ve come up with is, to put it mildly, intriguing.

What they found is that Richard Cook has a history of involvement with a very senior and powerful member of the Saudi royal family, who also happens to have been a former director of the Saudi intelligence agency. In April 2013, Cook jointly founded a company called Five Star Investments with Prince Nawwaf bin Abdul Aziz al Saud. The prince, whose address is given as a royal palace in Jeddah, is listed on the company’s initial registration as the holder of 75 per cent of the shares. Cook had 5 per cent. The other 20 per cent of the shares belonged to a man called Peter Haestrup, a Danish national with an address in Wiltshire, whose own colourful history we must leave aside for reasons of space.

No casual investor

Prince Nawwaf, who died in 2015, was no casual investor. He had been Saudi minister for finance, government spokesman and diplomatic fixer before becoming head of intelligence. His son, Mohammed bin Nawwaf, has, moreover, been the Saudi ambassador to both the UK and Ireland since 2005. When Five Star was set up in 2013, Prince Nawwaf was 80, had suffered a stroke and used a wheelchair. It seems rather remarkable that he was going into business with a very minor and obscure Scottish conservative activist. But we have no idea what that business was. Five Star never filed accounts. In August 2014, the Companies Office in Edinburgh threatened to strike it off and in December it was indeed dissolved.

It may be entirely co-incidental that the man who channelled £425,622 to the DUP had such extremely high level Saudi connections. We simply don’t know. We also don’t know whether the current Saudi ambassador had any knowledge of his father’s connection to Richard Cook. But here’s the thing: the DUP claims not to know either. And that is at best reckless and at worst illegal.

Arlene Foster told the BBC in late February that she did not even know how much the mystery donor had given the party. Then the party, under pressure, revealed the amount, but insisted that ascribing the donation to Cook’s Constitutional Research Council was enough and people should stop asking questions. Then, in early March, Jeffrey Donaldson told openDemocracy that the DUP did not need to know the true source of the money.

But this is simply untrue. The UK electoral commission is clear: “a donation of more than £500 cannot be accepted… if the donation is from a source that cannot be identified”. The legal onus is on the DUP to establish that the real donor was entitled to put money into a UK political campaign. If it can’t do that, it has to repay the £425,622. Since it has not done so, we have to assume it knows the true source is not, for example, a foreign government – which would be illegal.

The DUP has harmed Northern Ireland and endangered the union it exists to protect. How much did the lure of dark money influence that crazy decision? Any self-respecting voter would want to know.

—

So, who are the DUP? – Kitty S Jones

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) is more closely ideologically aligned to the Conservatives than previous coalition partners the Lib Dems, who have ruled themselves out of propping up any minority government. But who are they?

The DUP is a right-wing unionist political party in Northern Ireland. It was founded by Ian Paisley in 1971, at the height of the Troubles, who led the party for the next 37 years. Now led by Arlene Foster, it is the party with the most seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly and is the fifth-largest party in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Following the 2017 general election, the party has agreed to support a Conservative minority government, following a hung parliament, on a case-by-case basis on matters of “mutual concern”. The DUP have historic links with the Loyalist terrorists.

As social conservatives, they are a party that arose in part to oppose the civil rights movement and nationalism in Northern Ireland.

Conservatives and the DUP have ties that go back many years. When Enoch Powell was expelled from the Conservative party for his extreme racism and highly divisive politics, he moved to Northern Ireland.

As a unionist, Powell accused the Heath government of undermining the Government at Stormont. He opposed the abolition of the devolved Parliament in 1972. Following his departure from the Conservatives, Powell was recruited by the Ulster Unionists to stand in the seat of South Down, winning it in the second election of 1974. He continued to serve as an MP in Northern Ireland during some of the worst years of the Troubles. Powell strongly opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which gave Dublin a formal say in the running of Northern Ireland for the first time. In a heated exchange in the House of Commons on 14 November 1985, the day before the agreement was signed, Powell accused Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of “treachery”.

In 1997, Lady Thatcher said Powell was right to oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement, as she spoke of her regret over the deal.

He believed the only way to stop the IRA was for Northern Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, governed in the same as its other constituent parts.

His campaign manager was Jeffrey Donaldson. Donaldson said, “I worked alongside two of the greatest names in Unionism in the 20th century.

“Between 1982 and 1984 I worked as Enoch Powell’s constituency agent, successfully spearheading Mr. Powell’s election campaigns of 1983 and 1986.”

Donaldson is the longest serving of the DUP’s MPs.

Ian Paisley pictured with the Red Beret of the Ulster Resistance at a rally in Ballymena, attended by Peter Robinson and Alan Wright Ulster Clubs Chairman. Pacemaker Press Intl

Ian Paisley pictured with the Red Beret of the Ulster Resistance at a rally in Ballymena, attended by Peter Robinson and Alan Wright Ulster Clubs Chairman.

Despite the fact that the British government claimed neutrality and deployed military forces to Northern Ireland simply to “maintain law and order” during the Troubles, the British security forces focused on republican paramilitaries and activists, and the Ballast investigation by the Police Ombudsman confirmed that British forces colluded on several occasions with loyalist paramilitaries, were involved in murder, and furthermore obstructed the course of justice when claims of collusion and murder were investigated.

It’s often a forgotten detail that the British Army shot dead thirteen unarmed male civilians at a proscribed anti-internment rally in Derry, on 30 January, 1972 (“Bloody Sunday”). A fourteenth man died of his injuries some months later and more than fourteen other civilians were wounded. The march had been organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA).

This was one of the most prominent events that occurred during the Northern Irish Conflict as it was recorded as the largest number of people killed in a single incident during the period.

Bloody Sunday greatly increased the hostility of Catholics and Irish nationalists towards the British military and government while significantly elevating tensions during the Northern Irish Conflict. As a result, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) gained more support, especially through rising numbers of recruits in the local areas.

Government files declassified in 2015 show that the government thought the DUP may have used the Ulster Resistance as “shock troops” during protests against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The DUP is firmly opposed to the extension of abortion rights to Northern Ireland. Their leader, Arlene Foster, last year vowed to maintain the province’s ban on abortion, except where the life of the woman is at risk.

Official party policy does not provide an exception from their position on abortion even for victims of rape. The closest they’ve come to concession on the issue was leader Arlene Foster agreeing to “carefully consider” a High Court ruling that said banning abortion for rape victims was against British and European human rights laws.

DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr said gay relationships were “offensive and obnoxious” in 2005 and in 2007 said he was “pretty repulsed by gay and lesbianism”.

The party blocked gay marriage law despite it winning approval by Northern Ireland’s parliament in 2015. They used a legal tool to prevent same-sex unions passing it to law after it passed a knife-edge vote in the Assembly.

Gay marriage divisions threatened to derail this year’s power-sharing talks in Stormont when the DUP refused to back down.

The DUP’s former environment minister described climate change as a “con.” There are also creationists within the party.

Ulster Resistance Flag ‘C’ Division, bearing the Red Hand of Ulster emblem

During the Troubles, the DUP opposed attempts to resolve the conflict that would involve sharing power with Irish nationalists/republicans, and rejected attempts to involve the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland affairs. It campaigned against the Sunningdale Agreement of 1974, the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, and the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. In the 1980s, the party moved to create a paramilitary movement, which culminated in the Ulster Resistance.

Back in March, an election was triggered in Northern Ireland. The DUP had slumped in public opinion polls after it emerged that they are linked to a major financial scandal. The Renewable Heat Incentive, known locally as the Cash For Ash scandal, was set up under DUP politician Arlene Foster, and appears to have been badly mismanaged, resulting in a loss of some £400 million to the Northern Irish taxpayer.

After Foster refused to stand down, Sinn Fein walked away from the power-sharing agreement, thereby triggering the election.

Foster said she was willing to support a public inquiry into a botched green energy scheme that will cost taxpayers up to £500m and has triggered the current political crisis.

But the Democratic Unionist party leader said she was not afraid of elections to a new Northern Ireland assembly, while acknowledging that any campaign would be rancorous and “brutal”.

Lord Hain said today that the Conservatives have not been neutral regarding Northern Ireland (NI) since Cameron’s government, and have been headed towards “backroom deals” with the DUP for some time. This has all served to undermine the Balance of Powers at Stormont, and risks jeopardising the peace process in NI. As it is, the Assembly, estabished in 1998 following the Good Friday Agreement, is in crisis and has been for months.

The proposed DUP alliance will not help that situation one bit, nor can the Conservatives claim any neutrality in any interventions, since they are so dependent on the DUP to prop them up, permitting them stay in office. But it is power for the sake of power, rather such an alliance serving the national interest.

Northern Ireland’s political settlement is currently teetering on the edge of collapse. If that is to be prevented, somehow the DUP and Sinn Fein need to reach an agreement, re-establishing the Balance of Powers and they probably need support, to be encouraged into doing so. If the British Government is in a formal arrangement with the DUP that will, to put it mildly, greatly complicate the process. How can the Northern Ireland Minister possibly appear to be neutral in any negotiations? To risk peace in Northern Ireland for the sake clinging onto power is despicable.

Article 1 (v) of the Good Friday Agreement commits the “sovereign government” to exercise its power with “rigorous impartiality.”

As Matthew Scott‏ says: “Only by quibbling over the precise meaning of “sovereign government” can a deal between the DUP and the sovereign government in Westminster be understood as anything other than a breach of the Good Friday Agreement. The spirit of the agreement is abundantly clear: Britain is meant to be impartial between the Northern Ireland parties. It is not acceptable to be Perfidious Albion just to let a broken Prime Minister stagger on for a few more months. By even contemplating this deal Mrs May is playing with a blow-torch in a petrol station.”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

What connects Brexit, the DUP, dark money and a Saudi prince? By Fintan O’Toole

Share this: