Getty
Show Hide image

Return to direct rule in Northern Ireland 'inevitable', says DUP's Sammy Wilson

The senior DUP MP hits out at Sinn Fein - and says his party will not allow Arlene Foster to stand down.

A return to direct rule in Northern Ireland is “inevitable” and there is “no chance” that negotiations between the DUP and Sinn Fein will produce a functioning executive within the three week deadline set by ministers, according to the senior DUP MP Sammy Wilson.

In an interview with the New Statesman, Wilson accused Sinn Fein – who won just one seat fewer than the DUP in last month’s snap assembly election – of being uncommitted to Northern Ireland’s devolution settlement, arguing the republicans’ red lines indicate they have no intention of forming a new executive.

Sinn Fein cut short power-sharing talks last week, having criticised Northern Ireland secretary James Brokenshire’s approach as “waffle, waffle, and more waffle”. Further cross-party talks reportedly collapsed moments before they were slated to resume on Tuesday night.

Wilson’s admission that talks at Stormont look destined for failure come days after Brokenshire threatened parties with the prospect of a third election in the space of twelve months should talks end in deadlock. Though Brokenshire maintains he is “not contemplating anything other than a return to devolved government”, East Antrim MP Wilson said Sinn Fein’s insistence that DUP leader Arlene Foster step aside made a deal between the two parties virtually impossible. 

“There is no chance of a settlement in three weeks,” he said. “The government has then got to make a decision: do they extend the talks period for a while or do they simply accept the inevitable and impose direct rule? I don’t think they can afford to extend the talks period for too long.”

While Sinn Fein have stipulated that they will not return to government while the scandal-hit Foster is still in post, Wilson said his party would “not allow” the former first minister to resign – and went on to claim Sinn Fein’s insistence that she did so revealed it was angling for a return to direct rule. “That kind of attitude is symptomatic where they are about devolution,” he said. “I don’t believe they’re serious about making devolution work again.

“They’re never going to say they want direct rule publicly, but the conditions they’ve laid down are an indication that they’re trying to ensure that they can blame any recriminations from their electorate on Arlene Foster.”

He added: “The one thing I am absolutely sure of is that no party is going to allow another party – and especially not a party which has sought to demonise their leader – to decide who their leader and ministers are going to be. Politicians should never accede to a demand from their opponents to rule someone out for a certain position and we will not do that.”

Wilson, a former Stormont finance minister, went on to say that Sinn Fein’s insistence on setting what were in his view unworkable red lines ahead of negotiations – chief among them Foster’s departure, an Irish language act and a new, independent body for dealing with outstanding Troubles cases – meant that the second election mooted by Brokenshire would exacerbate rather than resolve the impasse.

“I see no reason why Arlene would or should stand aside, and indeed I think it would be wrong for her to stand aside. But say she does: you’re still left with all of Sinn Fein’s other red lines,” he said. “The Irish language act, issues around the security forces and the past – all toxic in of themselves. Arlene stepping down would embolden them to push those issues as well. So it’ll be just as difficult – and perhaps even harder – to form an executive after a second election, especially if Sinn Fein’s vote goes down.”

With Sinn Fein running second in some polls in the Irish Republic - ahead of governing party Fine Gael - Wilson argued that a return to government in the North would undermine its anti-austerity platform. “I have no doubt that, since the elections in the Republic are in two years’ time, and because they’re riding quite high in the polls, they’re painting this picture of a promised land where you don’t have to make hard choices or have austerity. It’s convenient for them not to have to take decisions in Northern Ireland lest parties in the south point out they’re shutting hospitals, putting through a tough budget and compromising on Brexit – otherwise they’ll be branded hypocrites when they claim they’re against austerity in the republic and Gerry Adams would see his poll ratings slide very, very quickly." 

Wilson also predicted that in the event of a second election unionist parties would regain their overall majority at Stormont, which was lost for the first time in almost 100 years at last month’s election. Though the DUP’s election campaign has been much criticised in the press and by senior party figures including Ian Paisley Jr for its negative focus and relentless attacks on Sinn Fein, Wilson said the republicans’ approach to negotiations had vindicated his party’s decision and denied it had ran a “scare campaign", and accused the Northern Irish media of "hyping up" and "scandalising" the £500 million Renewable Heat Incentive scandal that brought the last executive down. 

“I don’t think the tactics were wrong,” he said. “We’d said that this was an election that was designed to bring Gerry Adams back onto the scene and that Sinn Fein had replaced Martin McGuinness with a puppet leader in the form of Michelle O’Neill – Gerry Adams was looking for someone who he could dominate. And that’s what’s happened subsequently, of course! Plenty of people have said that at press conferences she stands there like a nodding dog and he does all the talking, and the same is true of negotiations – he’s the one that’s taken the lead there.”

Wilson added he was yet to detect any open or private dissent against the DUP’s embattled leader, who on Saturday said her party was "not quite there yet" on whether it would nominate her for first minister. “Even if there were people who wanted that, I think they know that in the hothouse political climate in which we live at present that would cut your throat politically anyway,” he said. “If anything, people have been so incensed by the way that Arlene has been treated throughout the election and the unfair way that she and our position has been portrayed. We are even more determined to ensure she doesn’t step down.”

Patrick Maguire writes about politics and is the 2016 winner of the Anthony Howard Award.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Europe's elections show why liberals should avoid fatalism

France, Germany and the Netherlands suggest there is nothing inevitable about the right's advance.

Humans are unavoidably pattern-seeking creatures. We give meaning to disparate events where little or none may exist. So it is with Brexit and Donald Trump. The proximity of these results led to declarations of liberalism's demise. After decades of progress, the tide was said to have unavoidably turned.

Every election is now treated as another round in the great duel between libralism and populism. In the Netherlands, the perennial nativist Geert Wilders was gifted outsize attention in the belief that he could surf the Brexit-Trump wave to victory. Yet far from triumphing, the Freedom Party finished a distant second, increasing its seats total to 20 (four fewer than in 2010). Wilders' defeat was always more likely than not (and he would have been unable to form a government) but global events gifted him an aura of invincibility.

In France, for several years, Marine Le Pen has been likely to make the final round of the next presidential election. But it was only after Brexit and Trump's election that she was widely seen as a potential victor. As in 2002, the front républicain is likely to defeat the Front National. The winner, however, will not be a conservative but a liberal. According to the post-Trump narrative, Emmanuel Macron's rise should have been impossible. But his surge (albeit one that has left him tied with Le Pen in the first round) suggests liberalism is in better health than suggested.

In Germany, where the far-right Alternative für Deutschland was said to be remorselessly advancing, politics is returning to traditional two-party combat. The election of Martin Schulz has transformed the SPD's fortunes to the point where it could form the next government. As some Labour MPs resign themselves to perpeutal opposition, they could be forgiven for noting what a difference a new leader can make.

2016 will be forever remembered as the year of Brexit and Trump. Yet both events could conceivably have happened in liberalism's supposed heyday. The UK has long been the EU's most reluctant member and, having not joined the euro or the Schengen Zone, already had one foot outside the door. In the US, the conditions for the election of a Trump-like figure have been in place for decades. For all this, Leave only narrowly won and Hillary Clinton won three million more votes than her opponent. Liberalism is neither as weak as it is now thought, nor as strong as it was once thought.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.