Opinion

Brexit is reason for bringing down power-sharing

Sinn Féin’s decision to pull out of the Northern Ireland Executive is flagrant and obvious. They want to make it much more difficult for the British to negotiate Brexit and put an extra strain on the British by blackmailing them with the peace process. The cash-for-ash controversy has been going on for some time and it is no coincidence that Stormont’s eminent collapse is happening now with the onset of Brexit. This is outrageous carry on and it goes some way to explaining the unfitness of Sinn Féin to be in the executive with these type of tactics. Sinn Féin seem to be living in the land of the convenient and that also goes for the Irish government, who are on a grand tour of the EU to try and shore up their own position ahead of Brexit and put extra pressure on the British government by telling other EU governments of their contempt for the British democratic decision and to cast the British in a bad light because of their decision. They do this in the hope of squeezing the British as much as possible because they do not like the decision made. Enda Kenny also tried to interfere in the British referendum to decide on continued membership of the EU, by trying to sway Irish votes in Britain. If the position was reversed there would have been uproar, if a British prime minister tried to interfere with a Irish decision on the EU. Again the Irish attitude seems to be very convenient. Sinn Féin’s choreography is blatantly obvious to see and it is brazen beyond belief that they would pull down the executive to suit disgruntlement over Brexit. The timing is unquestionably remarkable with very intensive Brexit negotiations under way. DUP’s Nigel Dodds made it clear that there were much wider issues being brought into the fray by Sinn Féin – so the cash-for-ash controversy is not the sole reason for the collapse of the Executive. The big question is why wait until now to pull out all the stops and bring down power-sharing?


The answer is quite simple and straight forward – Brexit.   

MAURICE FITZGERALD


Shanbally, Co Cork

Problem at Stormont lies in the apparatus of government

The debacle and distrust engendered by the RHI scandal among others has led to the inevitable fall of Stormont mk2. I say inevitable because for many it was only a matter of time.

The real failures lay in the nature of the beast not in the corrupt or inept practices of those in power, although it did hasten its demise.

The fault lies in the apparatus of government, in its structures and implementation of policy.

The state, illegitimate to many, set up in 1922 at the point of British guns, was a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people.

Thus, the whole basis upon which this undemocratic false state within the union of the United Kingdom was built was on discrimination, bigotry and sectarianism.

The founding fathers of the state  failed to accept, embrace or indeed acknowledge that we are two people, two identities, two cultures, coexisting in harmony and disharmony, side-by-side,


cheek-by-jowl.

From pogroms and bias, to discrimination and Gerrymandering.

So we have had the systematic failure of unionism in 1922 to accept nationalism, revisited in 1969/1970 and again in 2017.

Strong unionist leaders, still refusing to embrace nationalism on an equal par, are not what is needed. In fact I would argue the opposite is required.

I view Stormont as a partitionist assembly administering British policy in Ireland, but for those who want to make it work I advise unionists to put need before creed .

When the government puts equality for all, regardless of race, colour or religion and truly has the interests of society at its very core then they can move forward.

Equality for all now or no return to Stormont.

Until that happens, if ever, I say suspend Stormont, put the monies they squander on double jobbing RHI, Nama, Red Sky etc to good use in housing the homeless; increasing welfare payments; raising the  minimum wage to £10 per hour and supporting schools, hospitals and those in poverty.

To those who advocate a voluntary coalition at Stormont I say no return to unionist majority misrule ever.

FRANCIS HUGHES


Belfast BT14

Much more than a ‘scandal’

John Gilliland has voluntarily released information on his involvement in the RHI scheme (January 11).


He said that he expects to earn £80,000 per year, over 20 years, for three boilers he has in the scheme. This amounts to £1.6 million. He also said that the actual cost of running the three boilers was £50,000 per year, so he will have a surplus or profit from the scheme of £30,000 per year, for 20 years, amounting to £600,000. Mr Gilliland seems to believe that it is perfectly reasonable to make a £600,000 profit at the expense of taxpayers.

For a person in an above average, well-paid job, their Paye tax each month might be £500. Such a person would have to pay this amount in tax, every month, for 100 years in order to pay off the £600,000 profit that Mr Gilliland will earn from the scheme. Of course Mr Gilliland is only one of almost 2,000 non-domestic beneficiaries of this scheme and there have been rumours of people who will earn more than £1 million.

I understand that the RHI scheme was intended to provide an incentive for people to switch to renewable energy. However, the amounts of money in question clearly go far beyond what would have been an appropriate incentive. The word ‘scandal’ doesn’t begin to describe what is happening.

MARTIN MELAUGH


Coleraine, Co Derry

Message to beneficiaries of botched RHI scheme

The Department for the Economy has declined to disclose information about participants of the botched RHI scheme, despite those involved in the scheme being told that by signing up to it, they were consenting to the publication of the information. Legally the beneficiaries of the scheme may not be doing anything unlawful but that does not make it okay. I’m sure there are reasons why there is a reluctance to release the information which will come to light in due course however my message to the beneficiaries of the scheme is that if they think they are going to be collecting 60p profit on every £1 burned for the next 20 years from such a clearly botched scheme then they need to catch themselves on. Surely they can come together, act with a bit of decency, accept that the scheme was flawed and renounce it. 

D O’FARRELL


Co Tyrone

Impassive to political danger

Despite First Minister Foster’s Machiavellian resolve in not standing down she has made us all aware that she is impassive to political danger and did not know when to draw back before her prestige and dignity were irrevocably committed. A lack of humility suggests she is not equipped to participate in a political system based on ambiguity and dependant on consensus. Her idiosyncracy has been well catalogued, but on a positive note she may well be the catalyst that highlights to the electorate the utter incompetency of all those in whose hands we have place our trust.

WILSON BURGESS


Derry City