DUP talked up resistance to an Irish act – yet now they have no veto

It is just over a week since the ‘New Decade, New Approach’ deal was thrust upon us, and it is concerning that the DUP – who were first out of the blocks to endorse the deal – have as yet been unable to answer a number of important questions.
Jamie BrysonJamie Bryson
Jamie Bryson

I posed a number of questions via this newspaper (Jamie Bryson: Deal is concession to nationalism that DUP promised they would not make, News Letter online, January 11) in a riposte to Arlene Foster’s op-ed carried that same day (This deal is fair and balanced, January 11) – as did Jim Allister QC (DUP can’t veto any aggressive Irish new language agenda, January 15), again via this newspaper.

On Saturday, the News Letter deputy editor Ben Lowry said the paper would be willing to publish a different analysis of the Irish language legislation from the one given by Mr Allister, if the DUP has one.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The DUP made much – both via Jeffrey Donaldson on the BBC Nolan Show and Arlene Foster’s contribution to this newspaper – of the assertion they would have an effective veto over the standards to be imposed by the Irish language Commissioner.

I dispute they have, in practice, any such veto. In any event it is simply absurd to suggest that such a veto – if it existed – could trump the commissioner exercising his or her statutory functions, namely to “enhance” the Irish language.

However, if we are to offer the DUP the benefit of the doubt, then it is crucial that they outline for the unionist community precisely which standards they will find acceptable, and which standards they will use their ‘veto’ to block?

Furthermore – and separate from the issue of standards – in my view it is beyond dispute that the deal includes a stand-alone Irish Language Bill which would amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

I submit that this is even worse than a stand-alone Irish Language Act, given that the 1998 Act which it would amend is something the House of Lords has determined is, in effect, a constitutional statute – essentially setting out the constitutional basis for Northern Ireland. Clearly the successful passage of such a Bill would conflict the DUP’s repeated promises that there would be no stand-alone Irish language legislation.

Therefore two questions arise: firstly, will the DUP sign a Petition of Concern – which the TUV would sign and surely so too would the UUP given they have (despite accepting an Executive post) criticised the Irish language legislation in the deal – in order to block the passage of the stand-alone Irish language legislation?

And secondly, if they will not sign a Petition of Concern, then will DUP members vote for, or against, the passage of the stand-alone Irish language legislation?

If we even look to the first week of ‘New Decade, New Approach’ there is one truism upon which all parties agree: We do not have an endless supply of money, and therefore the Executive must prioritise.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

If we then logically move on from that to the next stage of any coherent thought process, we arrive at another truism; the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and political parties agree that our main priorities are – health, education and improved public services. As such we have identified the priorities, and therefore the available finances should be directed towards those key priority areas.

The logical conclusion therefore is that issues such as the Irish Language and Ulster Scots must give way. Spending money on such pursuits would be to divert much needed financial resources from the most important areas, in order to satisfy the political demands of a minority.

Only in the world of the ‘process’ would logic be suspended in order to arrive at another conclusion; namely that Irish Language and Ulster Scots commissioners should be equally as important as doctors, nurses and mental health specialists.

That is the problem when you build a political system which requires the feeding of a constant concession-meter in order to incrementally satisfy the political demands of one part of a mandatory coalition. Eventually the divided house will collapse in on itself, as we have seen for the past three years.

• Jamie Bryson is a prolific loyalist blogger, based in Donaghadee