Opinion

Newton Emerson: Unionist fury is not what it used to be

Newton Emerson

Newton Emerson

Newton Emerson writes a twice-weekly column for The Irish News and is a regular commentator on current affairs on radio and television.

Arlene Foster signed a book of condolence and issued a graceful written tribute to Martin McGuinness. Picture by Hugh Russell.
Arlene Foster signed a book of condolence and issued a graceful written tribute to Martin McGuinness. Picture by Hugh Russell. Arlene Foster signed a book of condolence and issued a graceful written tribute to Martin McGuinness. Picture by Hugh Russell.

ARLENE Foster issued a graceful written tribute to Martin McGuinness, demonstrating a communication skill that could have saved Stormont, unionism and herself if deployed at any point before three months ago.

But then she made such a meal of attending the funeral it is a wonder republicans did not take serious offence.

In the case of other unionist statements, it is useful to know the difference between honouring McGuinness and rebuking the DUP leadership for mishandling Sinn Féin.

Tributes from across the world and the political spectrum alluded to McGuinness's journey from an IRA past, of which he was "very, very proud". This acknowledgement of victims was appropriate and no less than McGuinness often did himself.

The one notable exception was Irish President Michael D Higgins, who bizarrely made no reference at all to the first part of McGuinness's life.

Perhaps the bereaved will get more respect from President Adams.

**

Welcome to the Sinn Féin hokey cokey. Addressing a major party meeting the night before Martin McGuinness's funeral, Gerry Adams said a Stormont talks extension is unacceptable and a return to direct rule is unacceptable, so "British-Irish partnership arrangements" must be "developed" under the remaining structures of the Good Friday Agreement, as unionists were threatened with 11 years ago in the context of St Andrews.

Without an executive, those structures consist of a couple of talking shops that cannot be developed into anything significant.

But no matter. What matters is that Adams is now 'putting it up' to everybody, as he likes to say - demanding that Dublin be in because Stormont is out, while Sinn Féin shakes it all about.

The problem, as with Peter Robinson's hokey-cokey, is that while all this looks very clever in theory, in practice Adams has nowhere to go if London - or Dublin and London - just wait him out.

**

There was "unionist fury", according to various broadcasters and newspapers, when Taoiseach Enda Kenny said: "I have spoken very clearly to the British prime minister and we are both agreed that there will be no return to direct rule from London."

London replied it is has sole responsible for "political stability in Northern Ireland", which is the diplomatic equivalent of shrieking 'don't touch my stuff'.

However, the main unionist reaction was from DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson, who said Kenny was "pushing the boat out a little".

Unionist fury is not what it used to be.

**

The Irish National Teachers' Organisation deferred a planned strike over pay on Thursday as a mark of respect to Martin McGuinness, who was the modern Stormont's first education minister.

"We hope that a resolution may be found before INTO is forced to announce another half day strike," its statement concluded.

Perhaps the union could also wait until there is an education minister to pressurise, as taking pointless industrial action shows no respect to anyone.

**

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The Committee for the Administration of Justice, a south Belfast-based lobby group, has claimed all the issues at the Stormont talks would have been addressed by a Bill of Rights.

Its briefing paper on this is a masterpiece of circular argument, stating for example that marriage equality would be covered by the bill's 2008 proposal for a right to civil partnerships, as long as that had been changed since to same-sex marriage.

But how would it have been changed, in the absence of political consensus? CAJ does not say, but does accuse the British government of "derailing" a bill by insisting on political consensus.

This is pretty much all you need to know about how the rights sector thinks: there is no need for consensus, as long as everyone agrees with it.

**

An extraordinary detail has emerged in Conradh na Gaeilge's proposal for an Irish Language Act.

Promotional material from the influential language group is claiming "only a certain small percentage" of "civil servants" will have to be "competent to provide services in Irish", with the cost of this being trivial and its impact on others non-existent.

However, the full document for the proposal requires 10 per cent of all appointments throughout the "public sector" to "have both spoken and written Irish in the future".

With fewer than 2 per cent of pupils in Irish medium education, this implies hugely preferential treatment, placing non-speakers at a significant disadvantage. Is it worth being so divisive and discriminatory for a make-work scheme to translate government guff?

**

An entire block of Victorian central Belfast has been knocked down since November, with the first three buildings destroyed while they were being considered for listing by Belfast City Council, an already-listed building damaged in February and the remainder flattened over a weekend earlier this month.

The Ulster Architectural Heritage Society has expressed dismay at this speculative demolition, noting the developers behind it are partners with the council "on a number of significant projects".

The cleared site, near the old Belfast Telegraph building, is earmarked by the council for a £100m-£150m 'cultural hub' to include "a film centre, museum and art galleries depicting the 'Belfast Story'".

Only in Belfast would this be a reason to knock heritage buildings down. Anywhere else, the facades at least would have been preserved.

newton@irishnews.com