The DUP has “flatly rejected” blame for the Stormont talks impasse, as declared by secretary of state Julian Smith and Tanaiste Simon Coveney.
It is unusual for talks chairs to point the finger so clearly, let alone four days into a four-week schedule. US diplomat Richard Haass blamed unionists for the collapse of the talks he chaired in 2013, but only in retrospect.
Still, pinning the blame for stalled talks entirely on one party is not the unprecedented outrage alleged by some observers.
The British and Irish governments did exactly the same to Sinn Féin during talks at Hillsborough Castle in 2004, also aimed at restoring devolution. That led to the St Andrews process, which both governments finally got over the line by focusing blame on the DUP.
A lesson often overlooked from the past quarter-century of talking is that putting the foot down with Sinn Féin and the DUP works. There is an argument it is the only thing that ever works.
**
Loyalists have grumbled about a call from all four main churches to reach a Stormont deal, seeing it as implied criticism of the DUP and asking why there have been no similar calls over the past three years.
In fact, the churches have issued regular joint statements for the return of Stormont over the past three years, including in 2017, when many would have seen this as implied criticism of Sinn Féin.
There is just no pleasing some people.
**
Serious reform of Stormont’s structures does not appear to be a priority on the talks agenda, despite the growth of Alliance pointing to a new tripartite politics. The fact the DUP is arguing over tweaks to the petition of concern means the whole architecture of unionist and nationalist designation presumably survives, although no doubt it is to be ‘reviewed’.
On the other hand, perhaps no review is necessary. The legislation enacting the Good Friday Agreement does not actually specify ‘unionist’ or ‘nationalist’. For the petition of concern, it only requires “cross-community support”. For appointing first ministers, it only mentions the largest and second-largest “designations”.
‘Other’ is a designation and could be considered a community. If Alliance, the Greens and People Before Profit ever outnumbered unionists or nationalists in the assembly, legally the architecture could cope. Politically would be another matter.
**
Any Stormont deal will hinge on an Irish language act, for which the DUP has still laid no groundwork among its base. Grassroots unionist concern is rising again over fears of discriminatory job quotas or a language commissioner with powers of compulsion, such as a criminal offence of non-cooperation. These were initial Sinn Féin proposals that did not appear in the 2018 draft deal with the DUP. However, many unionists believe even a deal that looks similar will still open the door to endless legal activism.
It would assist matters if the Equality Commission and the wider rights and equality sectors gave assurances they would protect non-speakers from discrimination and compulsion and would not take up the activist cause. No doubt they all have statements to this effect prepared and only a typically modest reluctance to get involved in politics has prevented their immediate publication.
**
Prof Rafael Bengoa, author of the eponymous report into reforming Northern Ireland’s health service, has suggested introducing performance-related pay - for example, by rewarding nursing teams for reducing hospital readmissions.
This is a highly controversial idea, even if presented as a bonus scheme. Applying market ideology in health always raises fears of privatisation.
In response, Nipsa deputy general secretary Pádraig Mulholland, a member of the Socialist Party, told the BBC the health strike is a “heroic struggle” and Bengoa’s remarks were a useful warning to “the trade union movement in all its glory”.
Beyond the simple Stormont politics of demanding more money, the health crisis is becoming a battleground for ideologues of all persuasions.
**
Because we do not have enough arguments to be getting on with, Fianna Fáil senator Mark Daly is trying to start a controversy over entitlement to vote in a border poll.
“It is the sole decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and he has refused to say who he is going to allow to vote in the referendum, which is also a power given to him as part of the laws passed after the Good Friday Agreement,” Daly said.
“Until we know who is allowed to vote we cannot say whether a majority is or is not in favour of a United Ireland.”
This is a bizarre claim, given there has never been any question the full electoral register would apply to a border poll. British and Irish citizens are eligible to vote in all elections and referendums in the UK. EU citizens could only ever vote in council and European elections, so they are not being disenfranchised in a border poll by Brexit.
Senator Daly often calls for planning for a united Ireland to remove dangerous uncertainty. So why is he adding dangerous uncertainty?
