Interesting pitch. Not that far removed from the DUP's idea that stablity of any revived institutions outweighs the need to rush to have them up and working again.

And is this a first sign of Alliance's post conflict credentials:

"a party which is capable of doing the hard work on the ground which is one way of attracting notice from people who are not necessarily concerned about the big political picture but who want to see somebody working for them".

Not exactly visionary, but a sign they're learning from the success of both Sinn Fein and the DUP.

I wouldnt read to much into it. They are just making noises to feel important. In the end if there is agreement between SF and the DUP, Alliance will accept it.

This is a pretty worrying development for anyone who supports the agreement.

At first glance you wouldn't care at all. No-one really cares what the execrable, contemptible, damnable parasites of the Alliance think really, do they? I mean, what real relevance does the view from the golf club really have to most of us?

Trouble is, the Alliance is no ordinary political party - if it was, it would have wound up years ago. No, the APNI exists for one reason - to be the stalking horse for the NIO.

Which is why this latest suggestion about tampering with the agreement is worrying. Personally, I have contempt for David Ford and couldn't care less about his plum-cheeked exhortations for us all stop being so beastly. But what I do care about is the origin of this latest brainwave.

Or in short: when the British government's very own P. O'Neill speaks, we should take it very seriously indeed.

(Even if he only speaks for the tiniest sliver of the population.)

Billy, the bulk of this argument is in the party's review document. As recall it led to a very hastily convened head to head with the DUP, after its publication.

Billy

Why would anyone totally buy into or accept something that actively discriminates against them?

People have started terrorist campaigns over things like that...

To paraphrase Basil Fawlty "David Ford ; specialised subject "the bleeding obvious".

[i]In the end if there is agreement between SF and the DUP, Alliance will accept it.[/q]

Or, in the end if there is agreement between SF and the DUP, Alliance will have created it?

The headline of this blog is misleading. Ford does not say that the GFA doesn't work: he's only referring to the mechanics of the Assembly.

willowfield "Ford does not say that the GFA doesn't work: he's only referring to the mechanics of the Assembly".

Like it or not the Assembly is the heart of stand one of the agreement. Without it strand one of the Agreement has failed.

As strand one has failed the North/South institutions are not operating meaning that strand two is going nowhere.

That leaves strand three and the six monthly meetings of the various assemblies. That can go ahead, but without N.I. representation.

Saying the the the Agreement is fine apart from the assembly (even that is obviously untrue given the failure on decommissioning) is like saying you have a wonderful toaster and the only thing that's wrong is that the heating element doesn't work!

Like it or not the Assembly is the heart of stand one of the agreement. Without it strand one of the Agreement has failed.

Partially failed. But if it gets fixed, by definition, it won't have failed.