Signes encourageants de la part du DUP ?

Peter Hain, secrétaire d'Irlande du Nord, a exprimé son optimisme de voir à nouveau un partage des pouvoirs possible malgré un apparant DUP intransigeant.
On connais l'ultimatum du 24 novembre pour que Unionistes et républicains trouvent un arrangement pour la direction de la région, et malgré les rétissances connues du DUP à partager le pouvoir avec des "papistes", Mr Hain reste très confiant sur l'évolution du Peace Process et sur le résultat du 24 novembre.

Tu penses qu'il y croit vraiment, ou qu'il essaie de s'en convaincre en même temps qu'il tente de le faire pour l'opinion ?

Franchement je ne sais pas.
Et je vais te dire, je ne me dégonfle pas, je viens de lui envoyer un mail pour lui poser la question. On va voir si il a le temps de me répondre ?

Si tu as une réponse, tu nous dis, ok ?
Moi si je croise Bertie ou McDowell, je leur demande leur avis...

Ok
Pour McDowell laisse tomber, il vient manger ce soir à la maison. Je lui demanderai .

Figure-toi que je l'ai vu hier (c'est petit Dublin... lol), mais j'ai pas franchement eu le temps de lui demander, c'est pressé un Ministre...

C'était d'ailleurs sans doute parce qu'il était en retard pour aller chez toi...

A l'approche des périodes électorales les politiques sont pourtant souvent moins pressés. T'as loupé le coche !

En même temps, hier, il était objectivement pressé : conférence de presse en début d'après-midi pour l'annonce officielle de sa nomination, interview télé à 18h, soirée de PDs pour fêter la nouvelle direction, et au milieu de tout ça, le diner chez toi !

Toutefois, ce que tu dis est vrai, dans les mois à venir (c'est encore un peu ici pour la campagne), ils seront tous beaucoup plus disponibles...

Le DUP a une justification assez intelligente pour ne pas partager le pouvoir.
Les Unionistes (de tout bord) disent: pourquoi devrions nous partager le pouvoir avec le "Sinn Fein" dans le NORD (pour des raisons de convenience j'appelle les Provos comme cela) si deja les partis dans le SUD refusent de partager le pouvoir avec le meme parti?!

Comme je l'ai explique dans un autre message, la cle de tout cela c'est le rapport a l'Etat.
Pour un parti constitutionel, l'etat a le monopole de la violence legitime (c'est la definition de Max weber je crois)
Il n'y a qu'une armee, police, et gouvernement legitime.
Pour les partis vraiment constitutionels dans le SUD (ie Fianna Fail, PD, etc) il y a encore un "point d'interrogation" sur le Sinn Fein si il est totalement constitutionel (et pas juste en apparence) - a cause de criminalite, vigilantism, etc. Il est encore trop lie a des trucs illegaux et extra-constitutionels dans leur esprit que pour etre "veritablement" constitutionel. Alors pas de chance a ce stade-ci de coalition gouvernementale avec le SF.

Les Unionistes dans le NORD vont utiliser cet argument entendu dans le SUD pour refuser de partager le pouvoir.
De plus, ils ont un autre argument de taille. Le SF voudra des Ministres. Le DUP et l'UUP vont alors dire: On ne peut pas avoir des Ministres qui font/passent des lois et qui simultanement refusent de reconnaitre les forces de police chargees de les appliquer/veiller a ce qu'on respecte les lois.
Il faudra que le SF reconnaisse la police (c'est une question de temps avant qu'ils ne le fassent) pour etre au pouvoir.

La réponse des partis du Sud est la suivante :
- ils ne veulent pas du SF en raison de son programme, notamment économique, pas à cause de la criminalité.
- eux ont le choix, le DUP non, selon les termes du GFA.

Toute excuse marche.
- L'"empire criminel" des Provos est encore tres loin d'etre termine, et c'est une question de temps avant qu'un nouvel incident vienne perturber les choses.

- Pour ce qui est de l'argument economique, c'est de la rhetorique. L'experience montre dans le Nord que Provos n'ont pas de probleme a avoir une orientation neo-liberale, privatiser et etre pro-capitaliste.
Ci dessous un article qui montre que le DUP, le SF et l'UUP ont la meme attitude pro-patronat.

Three parties right, one party 'left'

(Eamonn McCann, Belfast Telegraph 14 September 2006)

"Why not create a Knowledge Bank—similar to that in Wales—to provide tailored, focussed and unified support mechanism for businesses with the potential to be high growth."

And why not put a question mark at the end of the sentence?

And shouldn't "mechanism" be plural?

The quote is from the Ulster Unionist Party's submission to the Economic Sub-Group of the Hain Assembly's Preparation for Government Committee. It's included, along with the submissions of the other Assembly parties, in the 116-page unanimously-agreed report which will be debated at Stormont today (Thursday) and tomorrow (Friday).

"Although while a broad agenda, some initial actions can be indicated." That's another sentence from the UUP document. It appears in a paragraph to do with "the emerging skills deficit" which "must be addressed by a partnership of government, schools, colleges, universities, employers and trade unions." And NI political parties, obviously.

It would be inappropriate to identify the MLA whose name is appended to the UUP submission when nobody admits authorship of the DUP document. Whoever it was appears to believe that syntax is a levy on line-dancing. "Believing that the sharing of a land border with an economic competitor whose headline corporation tax rate is 12.5%, the DUP supports the lowering of Northern Ireland's headline corporation tax to below 12.5%." Quite.

The DUP wants an edge against a rival economy—corporation tax reduced to a lower level than obtains in the South. Sinn Féin, on the other hand, wants to make common cause with separated brethren—the same rate across the island. It would be wrong to say that the parties take the same approach or offer identical policies. It would be right to say that, in practical terms, there's only a percentage point of difference between them.

Says the DUP: "Northern Ireland needs a serious dose of introspection within its Government department's [dear God] vis-à-vis their relationship with the business community and the promotion of a genuine partnership between Government and business with Government taking on the role of facilitating entrepreneurial opportunity."

Says Sinn Féin: "We should say yes to goal driven tax incentives which increase R&D activity, aid new product and process innovation, enhance worker training and development, help our entrepreneurs break into new markets and aid environmental improvements."

Either statement could fit comfortably into a policy statement from the Confederation of British Industry or an election appeal by Michael McDowell on behalf of the Progressive Democrats

The overlap in the positions of the two parties seen as crucial to the re-formation of an Executive will have helped achieve unanimity in the drafting of the sub-group's report. Whether the rank and file of the two parties is content with the report may be a different matter.

Perhaps differences emerged among MLAs on August 29th when the report was considered by the Preparation for Government Committee. Hard to say. The PfG Committee complained loudly a few weeks back about a lack of media interest in its proceedings. Then it conducted its debate on the economic report in secret. Hansard's account reads: "It was agreed that the committee's deliberations on the sub-group's report would not be included in Hansard. The committee then considered the report."

"Sources" have been quoted suggesting that Sinn Féin MLAs—despite two senior members of the party having signed off on the report—were unhappy at the vagueness of references to a "peace dividend." One wonders whether this was the only source of unease in party ranks.

The documents aren't formal statements of party policy, but submissions by pairs of MLAs to a sub-group of a committee of a suspended Assembly. But if they can be taken as indicating the broad thrust of party thinking —if they can not, the exercise has been a pointless charade—then the main ideological divide at Stormont on economic matters lies between the DUP, Sinn Féin and (insofar as it's possible to tell) the UUP on the Right and the SDLP on the Left.

This is not to say that the SDLP is on the Left, but that, on this evidence, it's to the Left of the Unionist parties and Sinn Féin.

The SDLP opens by suggesting a programme for Government based on "working with unions, business and the voluntary sector on a new basis of real social partnership." Alone among the parties, it seems aware that there's more to economics than tossing public money to plausible entrepreneurs. "The Government, the Public Sector, Trade Unions, Voluntary Sector and Public Representatives should combine in a working relationship."

No other party envisages a role for trade unions or the voluntary sector in the formation of economic policy. Neither the DUP nor Sinn Féin mentions the existence of trade unions.

The SDLP is the only party to state opposition to privatisation and water charges, specifically pledging to "oppose the proposal to turn the Water Service into a Government-owned Company (GoCo) as this would be a step towards privatisation."

It calls for "new, 'not-for-profit' models for investment...in public services," and suggests that "income derived (might provide) a civic dividend for more hard-pressed communities."

The document urges "major capital investment for the Belfast-Derry rail line to make certain the line remains open for future generations," and envisages the link being extended through Donegal to meet the line north from Galway.

To say that the SDLP stands to the Left of the Unionist/Sinn Féin alliance is not to say much. To say that the SDLP document is the most literate of the four submissions is to say next to nothing.

But worth saying, all the same.

Le programme du SF dans la République est très à gauche, tu ne peux pas le nier. Ce qu'ils font au Nord est un problème entièrement différent.

Non, ce n'est pas "entierement different", et le programme du SF est tres loin d'etre "tres a gauche". Il est vaguement social democrate. Il est aussi a gauche que le "socialisme" de Mitterand ou Jospin.
Pour ceux qui sont interesses par l'evolution de leur programme economique, je reprodit un article qui compare leur programme de 1971, 1986, 1993 et 2006 ce qui montre l'evolution. (webmaster desole de mettre un article en Anglais, mais il vaut le coup)

The taming of Sinn Fein
by Sara Burke and Vincent Browne
VILLAGE MAGAZINE Thursday, February 23, 2006


Having espoused Marxism and nationalisations, Sinn Féin is now just a vaguely left-of-centre social democratic party. If Bertie Ahern needs to 'discover' a policy convergence between Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin after the next election, he will have little difficulty
Thirty five years ago Sinn Féin (or Provisional Sinn Féin) was espousing Marxist ideas: public control of the means of production and exchange; the nationalisation of the banks and all key industries. They were also against foreigners owning land here and against the European Economic Community (EEC), as it was then. Fifteen years later, Sinn Féin was continuing to indulge in Marxist rhetoric, talking about the "robbery" of the working class, the abolition of capitalism and a democratic system of common or public ownership of key industries and institutions.

But by 1993 all that had toned down considerably. Capitalism was not to be abolished, there was no talk to publicly control of key industries, the banks were not to be nationalised, although there was to be a State bank. "decentralised socialism" was the buzz word.

Now EU membership is celebrated. The Financial Services Centre is extolled, lots about encouraging enterprise and the only radical note: increasing corporation profits tax from 12.5 per cent to 17 per cent.

In the trajectory from the "long war" to the everlasting peace, Sinn Féin has also moved from radical socialism to mildly left-of-centre social democracy, hardly different from the SDLP, for example.


1971: 'Eire Nua – the social and economic programme of Sinn Féin'

'Eire Nua' was published just after the split in the republican movement between what was known as Official Sinn Féin, led by Tomas MacGiolla (and Official IRA, led by Cathal Goulding) and Provisional Sinn Féin, led by Ruairí Ó Bradáigh (and Provisional IRA, led by Sean MacStiopháin). The "Officials" were regarded as Marxists who had "diverted" the republican movement away from the national question to economic and social issues in the 1960s. The Provisionals wanted to restore the central "mission" of the IRA: to drive the British from Ireland through force of arms.

Provisional Sinn Féin (now known simply as "Sinn Féin", led by Gerry Adams) was a mere adjunct to the Provisional IRA, a political "face" for what was almost entirely a military movement. They were not interested in politics but they did provide a few policy documents, largely to counter Official Sinn Féin claims they were conservative nationalists, happy with the status quo, economically and socially.

The vice-president of Sinn Féin, Daithí Ó Conaill (who was also one of the key leaders of the Provisional IRA), produced a document known as 'Eire Nua', part of which was their economic strategy. Ó Conaill and Ó Bradaigh were very committed to the idea of a "Federal Ireland", as advocated in the constitutional part of 'Eire Nua', but nobody paid much attention to the economic section.

'Eire Nua' opened with: "The constitution of Sinn Féin advocates not merely the complete overthrow of English rule in Ireland, but also the setting up of a Democratic Socialist Republic based on the Proclamation of 1916. Among our objectives are the establishment of a reign of social justice based on Christian principles by a just distribution and effective control of the nation's wealth and resources." The Christian principles reference was an important assurance to the Provisional rank and file who might have thought Provisional Sinn Féin was following Official Sinn Féin into atheistic communism.

'Eire Nua' said it was trying to strike a balance between Western individualism and capitalism, with its poor and hungry amid plenty, and Eastern Soviet State socialism, with its denial of freedom and human rights (the later was intended as a "dig" at Official Sinn Féin which then and subsequently had close ties with the Soviet Union and other communist states including North Korea, where many of them went on subsidised trips).

The document went on a lot about co-operatives and promoting indigenous industry. And there were peculiar bits including demands that the means of production and exchange of wealth must be controlled by the people and administered democratically; finance institutions and all key industries must be under state control including industry, agriculture and fisheries; the state must have complete control over the import or export of money; only resident citizens of the Republic will be allowed to own, purchase or lease land in Ireland; private enterprise will have a role to play but at a much smaller scale than to date; foreign power blocs and the EEC will be avoided; trade with neutral or smaller nations and with Africa and Asia will be expanded as "we have more in common with developing countries of the world where 2/3s live in poverty than with the rich club of former colonial powers in the EEC" (unfortunately, then as of now, they had no money to finance trade).

But nobody paid much attention to the economic strategy and the dept of commitment by the Provisional republican movement was very questionable.


'Sinn Féin Policy 1986'

By 1986 Ruairi Ó Bradáigh and Daithí Ó Conaill had been eclipsed in Sinn Féin and had lost their position in both it and IRA (both had been members of the IRA army council but by 1986 neither of them was). 'Eire Nua' was also formally abandoned and the new economics was intended to signal an end to the old political conservatism. Gerry Adams was very much the leader of the faction that took over both Sinn Féin and the IRA but economics was not still much to the forefront of concern.

The a rd fheis of that year ratified the strategy whereby Sinn Féin representatives elected to Dáil Éireann could take their seats there – up to then Sinn Féin had adopted an abstentionist stance, holding there was no legitimate Parliamentary institution in Ireland because of "British contrived" partition.

The 1986 policy document begins: "We believe that the present system of society is based upon the robbery of the working class and that capitalist property cannot exist without plundering labour; we desire to see capitalism abolished and a democratic system of common or public ownership erected instead." The introduction names this system as socialism which "will come as a result of the continuous increase of power to the working class".

It emphasised that Irish unity itself would be "insufficient": "After British withdrawal, political control without control of the wealth, economic and resources of the country is clearly insufficient. Republicans are intent on restoring the ownership of Ireland to the people of Ireland."

It said economic policies North and South are not capable of producing effective job creation, and that the only way to create full employment is through state investment and the development of workers co-operatives under community control. It opposed any increase in indirect taxation and favoured a progressive, more equitable tax system, which it did not detail. It advocated the establishment of state-run companies to make "maximum use of natural resources and raw materials"; the establishment of a state construction company; and public control over the credit and investment policies of commercial banks, pending full nationalisation.

This too was largely rhetorical and without much traction within the movement itself which then was focused primarily on what was known as "the long war" and establishing a political base by winning seats in Westminster and Leinster House.


'Sinn Féin Policy 1993'

By 1993 Sinn Féin was in "peace process" mode, although the IRA cessation did not take place until August 1994.

The 1993 policy document opened by describing Ireland as the most under-developed country in Europe, with the highest unemployment, emigration and poverty and least ability to create indigenous economic growth (this was to be transformed over the following few years). Its content focused on the development of the peace process: "how peace is established is the challenge and responsibility facing us all".

Its economic section opens with calls for "an all-Ireland democratic economic plan, the development of an integrated economic strategy through consultation with industry, trade unions, political representatives and local communities".

The earlier stuff about nationalisations was gone and said Sinn Féin wanted to present "a visionary and credible alternative based on decentralised socialism that would be realistic, flexible and adapted to the Irish people".

It opposed social welfare cuts, was critical of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and called for the establishment of county development boards, rural development programmes, increased fisheries quotas and a state bank. (Previously the banks were to be nationalised.)


'EU Support for Irish Reunification, 2006'

Remember in 1970 Sinn Féin, or this version of it, was opposed to any truck with the European Economic Community (as it was then). Now the tone is one of celebration of EU participation. The 'EU Support for Irish Reunification', launched at the 2006 ard-fheis is placed entirely within a capitalist framework, although there are muted murmurings of discontent with "the increasing reliance on the market place and neo-liberal economics to allocate resources". It promises, vaguely, that "the governance of a united Ireland would be irresistibly driven" to address the need for greater indigenous-sector development.

It extols one of the most spectacular outgrowths of Ireland's recent capitalist history: "There has been an amazing growth of financial services associated with the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) in Dublin…. A similar development, in its infancy, is spurring growth in Laganside."


'Sinn Féin Economic Policy Module 1, 2006'

This document also launched at the 2006 ard-fheis begins: "Sinn Féin is committed to building a united democratic and socialist republic" with a vision for Ireland based on "equality and social justice". It rejects inequality and reaffirms its commitment to ending partition and to the core republican objectives set out in the 1919 democratic programme. But there is no socialism, aside from the language. It encourages support for business and enterprise, while emphasising the need for fairer taxes and the positive redistribution of resources to eradicate poverty and social exclusion (but lots of vagueness). It recommends increased funding to entrepreneurial projects and more money for education and training. It recommends an increase in corporation tax from 12.5 to 17.5 per cent and while "much needed wider progressive taxes" are called for, it does not go in to detail on them. It proposes a "programme of increased public spending and social spending to redistribute wealth". Hardly much different from the rhetoric of any of the other political parties.

The prospect of government office and power, especially in the South, has domesticated Sinn Féin. Bertie Ahern would have little difficulty in "discovering" policy convergence between it and Fianna Fáil if he needs to after the next election.p

Additional reporting by Harry Browne

Voici ce que Adams declare au grand patronat en 2004:

Recently, the Irish Times described Gerry Adams’ presence at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce business breakfast in the Burlington Hotel in the following terms:

"Displaying the more complex colours emerging in Sinn Fein's attitude to business, Adams's background message was that his party understands the need for pragmatism. Asked about public-private partnerships, he acknowledged that Martin McGuiness had reluctantly accepted the need for private investment while in power in Northern Ireland. "Well, we are against them" he said. "Having said that, Martin McGuiness, as education minister, faced the reality that he would either have no schools or an involvement in a qualified way with private finance, went for it. So I suppose you could argue that that is the emergence of pragmatic politics." Equally, Sinn Fein's acceptance of service charges in Sligo was justified by Adams, despite all of the party's railings nationally against such bills. ... "Our position is against it. But in terms of the actual practicalities of working out those matters, as part of local government, the party made compromises on it", he told the gathering. On taxation, Adams offered soothing words that meant little: "I am reluctant to say that we would do A or we would do B. We are not in principle against tax increases, but we have no plans to introduce them. We just think that there should be a far, far better way of doing business." (The Irish Times, 24 April 2004)

Le SF capitule au grand capital tout comme l'ANC accepte de se soumettre aux dictats neo liberaux.

Pour ceux qui sont interesse par cette question, j'ai plein de citations, d'analyses et d'anecdotes qui remettent en question l'illusion que le SF serait "de gauche".

Des 1986 Adams declarait que "le socialisme n'est pas a l'ordre du jour, et un vote pour SF n'est pas un vote pour un programme socialiste".

Ce qui motive le SF, comme tout politicien digne du nom, c'est la soif du pouvoir. Les principes sont sacrifies sur l'hotel de l'electoralisme

Même dans la version actuelle du programme (très allégée, on est d'accord), le SF est encore à gauche dans le paysage irlandais, trop à gauche pour former une coallition.

Le fait de comparer avec Mitterrand ou Jospin ne change pas grand chose : ces deux n'ont pas vraiment leur place en Irlande. Les systèmes sont trop différents que les positionnements relatifs soient comparables d'un pays à l'autre.