The discussion so far has raised more questions than answers. The primary one being whether we really need an all island charter when, in theory at least, the European Convention on Human Rights already covers both parts of the island? There’s also the question of whether an all-Ireland charter pre-supposes a future unification of the island? Although the debate has not as yet probed this as thoroughly as it might.

There’s the two speeds of progress in legislation in the two states. Despite the controversy experienced in Northern Ireland in formulating a widely acceptable bill of rights, the UK has already translated much of the convention into law already with the Human Rights Act of 1998. The Republic has yet to consider fully what extensions, if any, it will legislate for in Irish law. Is it possible that an informal charter can bridge the gap?

The provision of ‘minimum standards’ under the convention was taken to mean different things to different people. One contributor felt that children’s rights and those of the disabled might provide fertile ground for an extension of the convention. Clearly it allows for a sliding scale of legislation to be tempered by local/national consensus.

The enforceability of an island-wide charter was questioned. In what is still a broadly conservative society, one contributor asked, "How can you force those fundamentally opposed to gay rights to legislate and promote policies that enhance gay rights? How could you censure them for failure?" In particular how a programmatic charter would face the popular challenge of a referendum in the Republic of Ireland, without a means of resolving, or at least standing outside, such apparently conflicting values?

At a fundemental level what's at work here, in my opinion, is this - Gerry Adams continues to see himself as being of the same political standing as the Irish Taoiseach or the British Prime Minister (or indeed the democratically elected leader of any country). Far from his intended aim of presenting himself as a statesman, his perpetuating of that image, by claiming to speak for the people of Ireland, shows contempt for democracy here.

By Tom Kelly

As Labour delegates gather in Brighton, it would seem that the burden of office is becoming too much for some of them. Somehow they have forgotten how hard it was to convince the public to trust them with the running of government.

Outside the conference centre every type of malcontent is gathering, placards in hand and chants at the ready. Tory fox hunter is shoulder to shoulder with Militant supporters and anti-war groupies are joined by fathers battling for justice.

Funny enough, one does not see angry masses of Northern Ireland citizens joining protesters calling for a return of devolution. I wonder why not? Could they share the sentiments of Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind in that “Frankly they don’t give a damn”?

Looking at British politics it is bewildering to understand why Labour is not returned election after election. However, a closer look at Labour in government and it is not hard to understand at all. A bit like the north, protest comes easier than progressive politics.

Blair, Brown and Mandelson may have made Labour electable for government but they can not make it sustainable in government. Making Labour fit for government is akin to painting the Forth Bridge, no sooner have you finished one end, when it’s time to go back to the start.

Whatever the shortcomings of this government, we have had longest period of economic growth since the Second World War, the lowest inflation rates in 30 years, the lowest interest rates since the 1960s and the lowest unemployment levels since the 1970s. Education and health are two priorities of the government and public sector reform is well under way.

So what is going wrong and can we ever be pleased?

More of us are employed and we have more money in our pockets than at any time. So why are we grumbling and – if we are so unhappy – will any of the alternatives make us any happier?

Well for me, if the alternative is the Tories I don’t mind borrowing the totality of Ian Paisley’s vocabulary by saying ‘No!’ because Michael Howard is exploiting unfounded fears among the public about immigration and crime. As for his economic policies it is impossible to cut taxes and raise levels of public expenditure at the same time.

One has to ask if any of the public sector union leaders who have spent the past two years flexing their muscles, really feel that they will get a better a deal from the man who, with Thatcher, brought in anti-union legislation crushing their very membership?

If they continue to engage in strike action, freezing the country and bringing it to its knees how long will the public sympathy last? Much debate has taken place about the role of trade unions in the Labour Party.

To an outsider, trade union influence in the party seems about as useful to Labour as the Orange Order is to the Ulster Unionist Party. Too many trade union leaders are determined to undermine any Labour government.

It is a myth that only the Blair government is feeling the antipathy of union leaders. They kept Labour out of office during the 1930s. They undermined Attlee despite the widespread social reforms brought in by that government. They had Wilson on a string and brought Callaghan to book.

Any would-be pretender to the Labour throne would do well to accept the support of fair weather friends from the trade union movement or the serial protesters on the back benches with more than a dose of caution. Instead of bewaring the ‘Ides of March’, it will be better to remember the ‘winter of discontent’!

There is no doubt that Blair has damaged his relationship with the public and his party. Comparisons with Thatcher are not helpful. In policy terms, Blair is no Thatcher but his (and her) failure to understand the nature of the British parliamentary system undermines his authority.

Firstly, neither liked the Commons process of accountability and both adopted an autocratic leadership style – some would say presidential.
The British public don’t like presidential leaders, despite the fact that historically their strongest and most effective leaders were among the most autocratic.

The Liberal Democrats are the ‘Liquorice Allsorts’ of British politics. They are offering everything to everyone. Some call it an a la carte policy menu. Others say it is more of a political stew and one is better not asking for detail of the ingredients.

When it comes to the cut and thrust of a general election, Charles Kennedy is just not going to be at the races. So like it or lump it, it is Labour for another term.

Harper’s Weekly once wrote that President Lincoln was a ‘storyteller, despot, liar, braggart, scoundrel, perjurer, butcher, and tyrant’. So perhaps Blair can take comfort.

However, if integrity is missing from the political conference season, then there is an over-abundance of it in one part of Belfast.

At the weekend, former Presbyterian moderator John Dunlop called an end to his pastoral duties at Rosemary Presbyterian Church and he will be sorely missed. If ever a man can epitomise the living Word of God, then he comes close.

I am probably biased in favour of another Newry man, but the first time I encountered John was after he wrote an article in The Irish Times criticising Newry as a ‘cold house for local Protestants’.

I responded by saying he obviously had been away too long from his home place to know what he was talking about. Thus, he started a dialogue and a friendship lasting nearly 10 years.

John Dunlop has shown the type of leadership that unionism sorely lacks. Many commentators have said that the unionists needed a de Klerk – and no doubt some may think John fitted the job description.

To me, that would be an insulting comparison. John Dunlop is a unionist Mandela, and he used every day to emancipate his people from false allegations against them and false misrepresentation of them by unionist leaders.

John will be missed by his congregation but he was one man who "Frankly, did give a damn". Let’s hope that, with more time on his hands, he will continue to do so.

First published in the Irish News.

Nevertheless, the News Letter reports that on Good Friday 1998 a meeting of UUP officers was interrupted at a point of deadlock by a request from US President Bill Clinton to speak to UUP leader David Trimble.

Stephen Dempster writes and quotes from 'Not By Might':

The meeting was adjourned and during the breather, Ken Maginnis asked Jeffrey for a private chat in a side room.

"It was en amotional encounter because both had served in teh UDR and both lost friends and comrades as a result of terrorist violence. Ken maginnis identified with Jeffrey's 'understandable concerns' but implored his to set them aside and back the leader nonetheless.

"At one point he broke down in tears as he begged him to consider his position very carefully for the sake of party unity."

Jeffrey appreciated the argument, but responded: "Look Ken, that is all very well, but my conscience is more important to me than party unity.

"How can I leave this building and go out to walk the streets of Lisburn or Moira and look the people I represent in the eye and tell them this is a good agreement when I am sure it isn'?

"How can I urge them to support something which I believe in my heart to be fundamentally flawed? How can I?"

As they awaited the party leader, Jeffrey was in a dilemma and phoned his friend and mentor, former UUP leader Jim Molyneaux.

"You've got to be true to your conscience Jeffrey," he said.

* * *

Paraphrasing, a vote by the party officers then followed - the 'ayes' had it "by the narrowest margin possible". When Trimble left with his delegation to join the other parties in the conference room, Donaldson was asked to join him. He replied that it would be "farcical of me to endorse the Agreement", before Trimble shrugged and went upstairs. Donaldson famously walked out around this point, and the rest is history.

The article ends with Donaldson asking: "What will history's verdict be on my decision? What kind of price am I going to have to pay for obeying my conscience?"

* * *

And from a nationalist perspective, SDLP founder Austin Currie recalls in the Belfast Telegraph:

The question I ask myself time and time again

Had I known the consequences of what I intended to do, at Caledon, would I have proceeded with it? I have asked myself that question many, many times over the years.

Would I have gone ahead had I known, or even suspected, that the action I was about to take would initiate a process that would lead to the loss of nearly 4,000 lives?

Would I have gone ahead had I known that my intended action and other actions stemming from it would transform the political scene in Northern Ireland and destroy a political regime which, at that time, appeared permanent and unchallengeable; would I have proceeded?

These are some of the questions I have wrestled with for more than 30 years, particularly in the aftermath of barbarous events, such as have occurred at Enniskillen and Omagh, McGurk's bar, Greysteel and Bloody Sunday, or when people personally known to me, such as Jim and Gertie Devlin, were murdered in cold blood.

The answer is 'No', I would not have proceeded if I had had knowledge of these things.

The injustices being suffered by the Catholic population of Northern Ireland were great and caused much suffering to individuals.

And the initial injustice of a nation divided by a foreign country against the wishes of the great majority of its inhabitants was also great. But none of these injustices justified the loss of a single life, never mind close to 4,000.

What occurred over the following three decades was not inevitable. The deaths resulted from the decisions and actions of individuals, organisations and governments.

The men, women and children who lost their lives in the Troubles did so because of hundreds of decisions, some intentional, others unintentional, which resulted in their deaths.

Amongst those many decisions were my own - taken in good faith, with all the available information at the time and always, I can honestly say, from a desire to put right the wrongs that proliferated in Northern Ireland, and yet, not all correct, not all productive, not all to be proud of.

It was not inevitable, I have repeated to myself so many times over the years.

As the Irish Times reports - "[The Irish Comptroller and Auditor General] is critical of many aspects of the Department [of Education and Science]'s management in his findings, which include:
The Department did not at any stage set a budget or spending limit for the project. This meant that, at the time it went to the market seeking proposals, the Department had no reliable benchmark against which to judge the affordability of what the bidders were offering.

Before the deal with Jarvis was finalised, the Department estimated that it would result in a cost saving to the State of around 6 per cent when compared to the traditional approach. Our analysis found shortcomings in the Department's estimation. It is likely that the final deal with Jarvis could be between 8 per cent and 13 per cent more expensive than conventional procurement and operation."

The Minister for Education and Science, Mr Dempsey, defended the Irish Government's position, pointing out that “the five schools in the first PPP were built within 3½ years, compared to up to five years for traditional construction.”

Other are not so convinced - "Responding to the report, Mr Jim Dorney, general secretary of the Teachers' Union of Ireland, said the miscalculation by the Department of the cost to the State was worrying.
'Like all the major education partners, we believe it vital that not a cent of Exchequer funding for education is wasted, especially when the latest OECD report showed that we spend a lower percentage of GDP on education than all our EU neighbours.'"

The private company involved in the contracts under scrutiny in the Irish Republic, Jarvis Ltd, is also a preferred bidder and holder of many PFI contracts here in the north. Jarvis Ltd seem to be increasingly aware of their own bad press and appear under different monikers in PFI contracts, a policy that they argue is standard industry practice.

Worth noting in all this is the last NI Audit Office report for 2002-2003 released in June this year. The press release in June that accompanies the full report (pdf format) highlights both the predicted level of payments from existing signed contracts here and the ongoing battle to increase transparency in relation to PFI.

“The report records that estimated payments on signed PFI contracts in Northern Ireland over the period 2002-03 to 2027-28 will be in the region of £666 million and that this figure is likely to increase as Northern Ireland’s £2 billion strategic investment programme rolls out.

However, despite a call from the Assembly’s Finance and Personnel Committee in 2001 for the long-term spending implications of PFI to be made visible, and being a requirement of Department of Finance and Personnel guidance from 2000, the Audit Office found that no report on financial commitments had ever been made to the Assembly.

The Audit Office report highlights the action being taken by Treasury to increase transparency in relation to PFI in England and encourages the adoption of a similar approach in Northern Ireland.”

Whether that transparency will be helped or hindered by the creation in April 2003 of the Public Private Investment Unit, within the Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and how the reported proposals from the DUP to decouple the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may affect that PPI Unit, remains to be seen.

From Colin Harvey

Ø What does the Agreement prescribe and what would it add?

What is required by the Agreement? And what understanding of human rights is contained in it? Are we talking about measures to protect the majority community in Northern Ireland in the event of a change in constitutional status? What could the Charter add? How will it fit with existing human rights guarantees? Should we even be discussing this prior to getting a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland?

These are only some questions which could be raised and which must be answered during the process. The reference in the Agreement is, of course, vital. But what will the Charter add to existing guarantees? Can the Charter process bring all communities into the conversation?

The obvious answer is that the Charter could make real the commitment to equivalence in the Agreement. It could also offer values within which to frame future co-operation on the island. It could provide guarantees to the two main communities in Northern Ireland that their rights will be respected in the event of a change in constitutional status.

Previously:

What background arguments will support the proposed Charter? Will they be persuasive across a range of communities? How can we ensure that the process is inclusive and effective?

Sinn Féin councillor Brendan Lewis said that the legislation was counter to the Good Friday Agreement.

To quote from the article –
“If we are seen to be agreeing to this law then what we are saying for example is that my home village will be no longer known as Camloch but should be called Crooked Lake, which is the English translation,” Mr Lewis said.

One may not agree with the law, but that does not give one an excuse or the right to break the law.

It’s sad that the councillors have chosen this path rather than lobby for change as suggested by SDLP assembly member Dominic Bradley.

Once again the issue of Irish is being used as a political football and this can only reinforce the mistaken perception among many Unionists that the Irish language issue is politically partisan rather than inclusive.

The situation appears chronic in the US. In part it's because all states are under a legal obligation re-draw boundaries every ten years, and that the officials charged with the drawing of the boundaries are under the direct control of whoever previous set of elections.

In states like Texas and Maryland, where one party holds all the major state offices this gives a single party the opportunity to effectively grow its state-wide representation regardless of the choices voters may make in the ballot box by stretching bounadaries (in some cases for 100s of miles) to gather groups of Democrat or Republican voters together in one constituency.

Tensions are growing around the issue with pressure on the House ethics committee to investigate the role of the majority leader, Tom de Lay for his role in Texas, though it's hard to see it making any difference where the US Supreme Court felt unable to act.

But in a game which both parties play as and when the opportunity arises the real problem appears to be the long apathy amongst voters, and the concomitant loss of competition amongst the political classes which naturally arises from the 'political fixing of boundaries'.

In 2002, 81 of a total of 435 Congressmen ran unopposed.

As Coca Cola reveals that it is to rationalise operations in Ireland (that is, close one of the two plants, one of which is at Lambeg, Lisburn), Councillor Ferguson told the Irish News (subs needed):

“The closure of this plant would have an enormous impact across my constituency,” he said.

“Unemployment levels are already high and the loss of 500 jobs would only compound the situation.”

Mr Ferguson said that if a rescue package for the plant could not be found, he would be urging Coca-Cola to site their new Irish headquarters “as close as possible” to Lambeg.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
While it would be hard to criticise an elected representative for standing by his constituents at a time of potential employment crisis, it makes Sinn Fein's support for a boycott of Coca Cola look very silly indeed. Maybe the party is looking for another hefty donation from the company?

But if the boycott had actually been successful, surely the Coca Cola plant closure would have been acceptable, nay, desirable?

And if Cllr Ferguson is determined to seek a rescue package for the Lambeg plant, I have no doubt he will be working to ensure it isn't one of those nasty 'cut and run' financial packages he has been rightly critical of in the past.

He asks:

"Where is the value-add in 'real' journalism as opposed to 'nearly' journalism? This is a commerical question as much as a cultural one. If a key part of the brand and raison d'etre of news porviders is not quality, then what distinguishes them from the other pundits? And what justifies the investment in traingin and the charging model which allows 'real' jornalism to continue to be funded by the licence fee or the advertising community?"

Primarily he argues journalism must become more careful with its choice of words, particular in dealing with high controversy. He cites the Gilligan debacle as a point in case: "The irony is that if Dyke and Gilligan had got their words right, they might have won the fight".

Accountablity he argues is much more central to a fair and honest long term settlement. He further adds that "...it is Sinn Fein and the SDLP who want, not majority rule, but totalitarian rule in their chosen departments. The reason is because their true objective is not fair, effective, and good government for all the people of Northern Ireland, but transitional institutions for their goal of Irish unity".

By Colin Harvey

The Belfast Agreement contains a clear commitment to human rights. Human rights protection remains a fundamental pillar of the peace process. And all-Ireland human rights measures are, or should be, part of this process.

The Agreement led to the creation of two human rights commissions. It set in motion discussions about how human rights might be better protected. In Northern Ireland it resulted in a Bill of Rights process which is still ongoing. But this is not the only human rights instrument mentioned.

The Agreement also refers to the ‘possibility of establishing a charter - reflecting and endorsing agreed measures for the protection of the fundamental rights of everyone living in the island of Ireland’.

This proposed Charter of Rights for the island of Ireland should be an important element in the overall implementation of the Agreement. But who has heard of the Charter of Rights? You might know about the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. If only because of the rows, resignations and recriminations.

But there is another proposed instrument. It does not as yet exist (rather like the Bill of Rights) but it is mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement. The Joint Committee of the two Human Rights Commissions is charged with considering it.

Work has begun, but in contrast to the intense arguments in Northern Ireland over the Bill of Rights, it has received little public attention. So, a debate is overdue. That is why we have decided to organise a conference on the subject.

The Agreement’s provisions on the Charter raise several questions. As they should do. Any such document should be the result of extensive deliberation. And we remain at an earlier stage in the process. I assume here that a Charter of Rights would be a good thing. You may not agree with me.

You may think there are enough human rights instruments already. You might think: what about responsibilities? Or, you might distrust the idea of an all-Ireland Charter. If so, this is a useful time to enter the debate. What should be done about the idea of a Charter of Rights for the island of Ireland?