Newton Emerson: SF defence of DUP’s Stormont veto smacks of self-serving cynicism

Why would Sinn Féin, alone of all the parties at Stormont, object to a reform of powersharing that would most directly benefit Sinn Féin?

There is a groundswell of support to change Stormont’s rules so the DUP cannot block an executive being formed after next month’s assembly election, as leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson threatened again this week over the Brexit protocol.

Alliance has always sought to end mandatory coalition and is now pushing that policy to the fore in its election campaign, spurred by the DUP’s threat. Every other party agrees some moderation of the rules is required. Only Sinn Féin insists on no change, yet removing the DUP’s veto would allow the appointment of a Sinn Féin first minister and presumably enable an executive in which Sinn Féin was by far the largest party.

Many people believe the prospect of a republican first minister is the real reason the DUP will not commit to returning to office. Bizarrely, Sinn Féin is not only upholding the DUP’s veto but pushing it to the fore in its own campaign.

Newton Emerson: Loyalist attack on Coveney requires a serious response

---

Newton Emerson: Sinn Féin is playing the long game amid election that is its to lose

---

Newton Emerson: North should return to idea of paying for itself

---

Newton Emerson: NI Protocol hasn’t gone away you know

---

With no explanation that adds up, plus a whiff of double standards over her party's lengthy walkout, O'Neill was reduced to saying 'rules are rules'

“We will defend, not renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement”, deputy leader Michelle O’Neill told her party’s election launch two weeks ago.

This was rather precious. The agreement has often been renegotiated and its own terms require regular major reviews, plus ongoing review of Stormont’s operation through an Assembly committee.

As recently as January, changes agreed in the 2020 New Decade, New Approach deal were enacted to allow one of the two largest parties to leave the Executive for up to six months, or for over a year either side of an election. There was an even more fundamental reform in 2016, when official opposition was introduced.

O’Neill told the election launch a five-party Executive worked well during the pandemic and “this is what the public want to see more of – co-operation and delivery” with “a unity of purpose”.

Even if that is the public’s first preference, its next preference is for any Executive rather than none. Voters made this clear in the Alliance surge of 2019, after Sinn Féin collapsed devolution for three years.

With no explanation that adds up, plus a whiff of double standards over her party’s lengthy walkout, O’Neill was reduced to saying “rules are rules” when pressed on reform last week by UTV.

The obvious suspicion is Sinn Féin fears a change to the rules to exclude the DUP this time would be used to exclude republicans in future.

But Alliance’s proposal, around which wider opinion is coalescing, would not forcibly exclude anyone. Leader Naomi Long is suggesting a type of “voluntary-mandatory” coalition, where the two largest parties would be offered a place but could turn it down. She calls this a “coalition of the willing”.

Nationalists and Alliance already hold enough seats to form such a coalition on a simple majority basis. Cross-community protection could be maintained by requiring at least one unionist and one nationalist party in the Executive – the UUP if not the DUP, for example – or through weighted majority voting in the Assembly.

An opinion poll last week from Liverpool University found all these reforms would have strong public support.

Sinn Féin might want to retain its own power to collapse devolution, should it decide walking out would serve its interests again

If the UUP refused to be the required unionist party in a Sinn Féin-led Executive, that would reveal it as too weak or arrogant to share power: a matter for the electorate to judge, perhaps requiring further reform. Minor parties are often crucified in “normal” coalition systems – ask a Progressive Democrat, if you can find one – so it is not outrageous to expect smaller Stormont parties to put themselves on the line.

If there are no good reasons for Sinn Féin to reject voluntary-mandatory coalition, there are several bad ones.

In the short term, it allows the party to posture as willing to govern while the DUP makes an obstructive fool of itself. In the longer term, Sinn Féin could say it was prepared to make Northern Ireland work but the illegitimate six-county entity proved ungovernable – a best of both worlds for republican cynicism.

Sinn Féin might want to retain its own power to collapse devolution, should it decide walking out would serve its interests again. The most vexing possibility is that it does not want to be left alone at the top in a Northern Executive, exposed to difficult decisions and unpopular responsibilities.

Mandatory coalition means everyone is each other’s mudguard. Sinn Féin seemed to regret even the smaller parties acquiring the option of opposition. In the talks leading up to New Decade, New Approach, it demanded the UUP, SDLP and Alliance return to the executive, which they had all left in 2016.

If Stormont collapses again, the fault will be the DUP’s. But in the talks that inevitably follow, it will look very odd for Sinn Féin to be demanding the DUP’s return while everyone else is trying to move on with or without it.