http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php?disp=comments en-UK http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Thu, 15 May 2008 14:33:34 +0000 Michael Shilliday [Member] c5493@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Post updated. http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5493 Wed, 14 May 2008 21:18:51 +0000 Michael Shilliday [Member] c5490@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Richard, I'm getting tired of this. I never said Sewell applied to Northern Ireland, and I never said it applied to the legislation at hand, why are you continuing to argue on the basis that I did?! http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5490 Wed, 14 May 2008 19:37:53 +0000 richard james [Member] c5489@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Michael,<br /> <br /> I fully understand the argument you are trying to make. However Sewel is a straw man. Even if we worked on the assumption it applied the Sexual Orders Bill wouldn't constitute a violation of it. Neither exempted or reserved powers are covered by Sewel, even those that the Government wishes to transfer. Can you comprehend that?<br /> <br /> As for evidence I would happily provide it if the UYUC blog archive hadn't been pulled down. I believe your argument was along the lines of it's a stonkingly terrible deal for Unionism but we must roll over anyway. No doubt the DUP must burden the heaviest responsibility for accepting one at St Andrews but the UUP was criticising them at the time for not being enthusiastic enough about the deal, so is hardly in a position to throw mud. What we have is another example of constructive ambiguity, both Unionist parties were fully aware of the ILA but were prepared to pay virtually any price to get the Assembly back. They don't want to face their electorates wrath over agreeing to one so they will let Westminster legislate so they can huff and puff, and not blow the Assembly down (the only card they have to block one).
I fully understand the argument you are trying to make. However Sewel is a straw man. Even if we worked on the assumption it applied the Sexual Orders Bill wouldn't constitute a violation of it. Neither exempted or reserved powers are covered by Sewel, even those that the Government wishes to transfer. Can you comprehend that?

As for evidence I would happily provide it if the UYUC blog archive hadn't been pulled down. I believe your argument was along the lines of it's a stonkingly terrible deal for Unionism but we must roll over anyway. No doubt the DUP must burden the heaviest responsibility for accepting one at St Andrews but the UUP was criticising them at the time for not being enthusiastic enough about the deal, so is hardly in a position to throw mud. What we have is another example of constructive ambiguity, both Unionist parties were fully aware of the ILA but were prepared to pay virtually any price to get the Assembly back. They don't want to face their electorates wrath over agreeing to one so they will let Westminster legislate so they can huff and puff, and not blow the Assembly down (the only card they have to block one).]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5489 Wed, 14 May 2008 14:41:36 +0000 Michael Shilliday [Member] c5487@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Personally, I'd say legislating for statutory rape while trying to offload it to the Assembly creates that argument. http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5487 Wed, 14 May 2008 14:37:13 +0000 beano [Member] c5486@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ <em>"It is not a massive intellectual leap to see them doing it over something the Assembly has competence over at present."</em><br /> <br /> Actually I disagree on that point. It would lead people to, quite correctly, question the point of devolution in the first place - and I don't think the government want that. "It is not a massive intellectual leap to see them doing it over something the Assembly has competence over at present."

Actually I disagree on that point. It would lead people to, quite correctly, question the point of devolution in the first place - and I don't think the government want that.]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5486 Wed, 14 May 2008 14:17:58 +0000 Michael Shilliday [Member] c5485@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Richard,<br /> <br /> It is quite clear you do not understand the argument I am making.<br /> <br /> 1) I didn't say the convention applied to Northern Ireland, I said "It is somewhat different, in that the Assembly couldn't have made this decision at present" and "If the Sewel Convention ever applied to Northern Ireland"<br /> <br /> 2)I didn't say that the Government were wrong and the Assembly were right on the particular issue at hand, I said "I wont comment on the substance of the legislation in question"<br /> <br /> I don't remember calling on the DUP to accept St Andrews, maybe I did, there is no evidence for that but I'll check it out later today. However, it is perfectly within reason for the DUP to live up to their commitments on that score without creating some monstrosity of an Irish language Act, or indeed a bill of rights. The problem is that they seem determined to close their ears to those issues, perhaps under the assumption that Westminster wouldn't go over their heads. The Government has demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to ignore their wishes and legislate how they please over something the Assembly will soon have power over. It is not a massive intellectual leap to see them doing it over something the Assembly has competence over at present.
It is quite clear you do not understand the argument I am making.

1) I didn't say the convention applied to Northern Ireland, I said "It is somewhat different, in that the Assembly couldn't have made this decision at present" and "If the Sewel Convention ever applied to Northern Ireland"

2)I didn't say that the Government were wrong and the Assembly were right on the particular issue at hand, I said "I wont comment on the substance of the legislation in question"

I don't remember calling on the DUP to accept St Andrews, maybe I did, there is no evidence for that but I'll check it out later today. However, it is perfectly within reason for the DUP to live up to their commitments on that score without creating some monstrosity of an Irish language Act, or indeed a bill of rights. The problem is that they seem determined to close their ears to those issues, perhaps under the assumption that Westminster wouldn't go over their heads. The Government has demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to ignore their wishes and legislate how they please over something the Assembly will soon have power over. It is not a massive intellectual leap to see them doing it over something the Assembly has competence over at present.]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5485 Tue, 13 May 2008 19:33:20 +0000 richard james [Member] c5477@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Michael,<br /> <br /> It is quite clear you do not understand how the Sewel Convention works. Even if we're working on the assumption it applied to the Assembly it wouldn't on this issue, as I explained earlier (it doesn't cover powers that may one day be transferred either). <br /> <br /> The problem isn't that the Government hasn't listened to the Assembly. It has and probably found the objections cited by MLAs as barking. How can anyone take seriously claims that lowering the age of consent to sixteen would make Northern Ireland a magnet for paedophiles from the RoI? They aren't exactly fighting them on the beaches of Holyhead!<br /> <br /> You would have an argument if the Government were to legislate for say, an Irish Language Act. The problem Unionists face however is they endorsed one in the St Andrews Agreement and the Government could simply argue it was honouring the commitments made there, and acting to stop Unionists reneging on their pledges. Nor are you exactly in a position to criticise the DUP about it, after all you publicly called on them to accept St Andrews on the UYUC blog and you weren&#8217;t exactly ignorant of the Irish Language Act contained within it, were you?
It is quite clear you do not understand how the Sewel Convention works. Even if we're working on the assumption it applied to the Assembly it wouldn't on this issue, as I explained earlier (it doesn't cover powers that may one day be transferred either).

The problem isn't that the Government hasn't listened to the Assembly. It has and probably found the objections cited by MLAs as barking. How can anyone take seriously claims that lowering the age of consent to sixteen would make Northern Ireland a magnet for paedophiles from the RoI? They aren't exactly fighting them on the beaches of Holyhead!

You would have an argument if the Government were to legislate for say, an Irish Language Act. The problem Unionists face however is they endorsed one in the St Andrews Agreement and the Government could simply argue it was honouring the commitments made there, and acting to stop Unionists reneging on their pledges. Nor are you exactly in a position to criticise the DUP about it, after all you publicly called on them to accept St Andrews on the UYUC blog and you weren’t exactly ignorant of the Irish Language Act contained within it, were you?]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5477 Mon, 12 May 2008 14:55:03 +0000 Michael Shilliday [Member] c5472@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Once again, I am not stating a position one way or another on the substance of the legislation, also, I don't see anyone objecting to anything other than the age of consent provision in the legislation.<br /> <br /> Secondly I wasn't suggesting that the convention definitely applied to Northern Ireland. What I was suggesting is that if there was any assumption anywhere that it did, this drives a horse and cart through that assumption. The Government has demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to tell the Assembly they are desperate to offload a policy area to them, ask their opinion on legislative issues on that policy area, and totally ignore that opinion in the meantime. That isn't rational unless it is to do with forcing their hand by being deliberately unpopular (watch the abortion issue grow from that perspective)<br /> <br /> Also, I fail to see how it is unreasonable to expect that the Government listen to the Assembly's opinion on an issue they are chomping on the bit to get them to take from them. It is not ridiculous to suggest that the Government should act in a manner that suggests that they think the Assembly is capable of administering a power it is to have.<br /> <br /> That being the case or not is another argument entirely, one that the Government aren't publicly engaging in. Yet.
Secondly I wasn't suggesting that the convention definitely applied to Northern Ireland. What I was suggesting is that if there was any assumption anywhere that it did, this drives a horse and cart through that assumption. The Government has demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to tell the Assembly they are desperate to offload a policy area to them, ask their opinion on legislative issues on that policy area, and totally ignore that opinion in the meantime. That isn't rational unless it is to do with forcing their hand by being deliberately unpopular (watch the abortion issue grow from that perspective)

Also, I fail to see how it is unreasonable to expect that the Government listen to the Assembly's opinion on an issue they are chomping on the bit to get them to take from them. It is not ridiculous to suggest that the Government should act in a manner that suggests that they think the Assembly is capable of administering a power it is to have.

That being the case or not is another argument entirely, one that the Government aren't publicly engaging in. Yet.]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5472 Mon, 12 May 2008 08:47:27 +0000 richard james [Member] c5468@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Michael,<br /> <br /> Both are issues which are not the responsibility of the respective devolved institutions. It is ridiculous to argue that because a power may one day be devolved that the Government should act as though it already has been.<br /> <br /> There is no contradiction in the Governments position. It may be in favour of devolving policing and justice powers but until then the responsibility for doing so falls on it. Its duty is to legislate for the good governance of Northern Ireland, not to pander to the hysterical fears of MLAs who foresee an invasion of Ulster by Republican paedophiles.<br /> <br /> While I don't accept this is an example of arm twisting to get Unionists to accept the devolution of policing and justice I wouldn't rule it out happening with other issues. The best way to prevent it would be for both the UUP and DUP to state clearly that they don't want these powers devolved rather than saying they are waiting for the right time. The ambiguous position of the two parties leads the Government to believe they need a fire lit under them to warm up cold feet. On the other hand if both were willing to make it an issue over which the Executive would fall, I'm pretty sure a hasty retreat would be beaten.
Both are issues which are not the responsibility of the respective devolved institutions. It is ridiculous to argue that because a power may one day be devolved that the Government should act as though it already has been.

There is no contradiction in the Governments position. It may be in favour of devolving policing and justice powers but until then the responsibility for doing so falls on it. Its duty is to legislate for the good governance of Northern Ireland, not to pander to the hysterical fears of MLAs who foresee an invasion of Ulster by Republican paedophiles.

While I don't accept this is an example of arm twisting to get Unionists to accept the devolution of policing and justice I wouldn't rule it out happening with other issues. The best way to prevent it would be for both the UUP and DUP to state clearly that they don't want these powers devolved rather than saying they are waiting for the right time. The ambiguous position of the two parties leads the Government to believe they need a fire lit under them to warm up cold feet. On the other hand if both were willing to make it an issue over which the Executive would fall, I'm pretty sure a hasty retreat would be beaten.]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5468 Mon, 12 May 2008 07:13:27 +0000 richard james [Member] c5467@http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/ Beano,<br /> <br /> As the Sewel convention was central to Michael's point, I'm not creating a straw man by pointing out where and where it doesn't apply. The Government isn't overturning legislation made by the Assembly so Michael's argument here is erroneous.<br /> <br /> The Sexual Orders Bill only applies to Northern Ireland as the provisions within it are already in force elsewhere in the United Kingdom. All it does is strengthen the law against paedophiles; broaden the definition of rape to include forced penetration of the mouth; give greater protection to vulnerable people from abuse by those in a position of trust; outlaws kerb crawling and brings the age of consent into line with that in the rest of the UK. Only a fevered imagintion could see something sinister behind this bill. Paul Goggins reasons for ignoring the MLAs probably has more to do with finding their puritanical objections absurd than some nefarious scheme to thrust policing and justice upon us. <br /> <br /> If you feel my example is flawed then I would appreciate if you could explain why. The difference between an excepted and reserved matter is minimal. Neither concern devolved administrations, only Westminster.
As the Sewel convention was central to Michael's point, I'm not creating a straw man by pointing out where and where it doesn't apply. The Government isn't overturning legislation made by the Assembly so Michael's argument here is erroneous.

The Sexual Orders Bill only applies to Northern Ireland as the provisions within it are already in force elsewhere in the United Kingdom. All it does is strengthen the law against paedophiles; broaden the definition of rape to include forced penetration of the mouth; give greater protection to vulnerable people from abuse by those in a position of trust; outlaws kerb crawling and brings the age of consent into line with that in the rest of the UK. Only a fevered imagintion could see something sinister behind this bill. Paul Goggins reasons for ignoring the MLAs probably has more to do with finding their puritanical objections absurd than some nefarious scheme to thrust policing and justice upon us.

If you feel my example is flawed then I would appreciate if you could explain why. The difference between an excepted and reserved matter is minimal. Neither concern devolved administrations, only Westminster.]]> http://www.everythingulster.com/blog/index.php/2008/05/07/look-what-we-ve-got-now-what-s-coming#c5467