Alliance Leader Sean Neeson and the party’s Justice Spokesperson Steve McBride will meet tomorrow, Monday 19 October, with General John de Chastelain, Chairman of the Decommissioning Body. Speaking in advance of the meeting Sean Neeson insisted that the decommissioning issue not be allowed to delay the process any longer.
Sean Neeson said:
“Decommissioning has been allowed to fester like an open wound in the side of the Agreement. Republicans and Loyalists should look upon decommissioning as an opportunity to build confidence in the process across the community. But Unionists must not look upon it as a precondition to fulfilling the obligations that rest on David Trimble as First Minister. He must move immediately to establish the Executive.
“If the Executive is not formed then the North-South Ministerial Council cannot be established before the October 31 deadline. If that deadline is missed then David Trimble and the Ulster Unionists will have breached the Agreement. We cannot afford to ignore deadlines as though they do not matter. David Trimble should seize upon the goodwill being shown towards him in the wake of the Nobel Prize and get the implementation of the Agreement back on track.”
NOTES:
The Alliance Party representatives will meet with the Decommissioning Body at 2.00pm on Monday at Rosepark House.
Showing posts with label Steve McBride. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve McBride. Show all posts
18 October 1998
04 February 1998
McBride criticises Parades legislation
Cllr Steve McBride, Alliance Party spokesman on Justice and Human Rights has criticised government proposals to amend the forthcoming Parades legislation to require objectors to give two weeks notice of protests against marches.
Cllr McBride said:
"The Parades legislation now before Parliament is extremely important, but the latest proposed government amendment is unwise, unworkable, and unhelpful. It seeks to throw a sop to Unionists by drawing a false comparison between marchers and protesters which will not be in any way helpful in resolving these difficult situations. Those who organise marches are part of organisations and obviously make their plans in advance - they can reasonable be expected to give notice in good time. Protests on the other hand can emerge at short notice and are not normally organised by formal organisations, and of course protesters are in any event covered by general public order legislation. To effectively make illegal a protest for which two weeks notice has not been given is an infringement of civil liberties and one which will simply lead to increased tension and argument. This vital legislation on a crucial issue should not be endangered by this spurious and misguided political juggling act."
Cllr McBride said:
"The Parades legislation now before Parliament is extremely important, but the latest proposed government amendment is unwise, unworkable, and unhelpful. It seeks to throw a sop to Unionists by drawing a false comparison between marchers and protesters which will not be in any way helpful in resolving these difficult situations. Those who organise marches are part of organisations and obviously make their plans in advance - they can reasonable be expected to give notice in good time. Protests on the other hand can emerge at short notice and are not normally organised by formal organisations, and of course protesters are in any event covered by general public order legislation. To effectively make illegal a protest for which two weeks notice has not been given is an infringement of civil liberties and one which will simply lead to increased tension and argument. This vital legislation on a crucial issue should not be endangered by this spurious and misguided political juggling act."
06 October 1997
Alliance calls for paramilitaries to meet Commission
Alliance Party Justice Spokesman, Steve McBride, had called for paramilitary groups to meet directly with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning.
Speaking after a meeting with the Indepenednt Commission at Castle Buildings, Stormont, Cllr McBride said:
“Decommissioning is an imporatant issue. We have to set in motion a process which will make sure that the guns really are silenced forever and which can build confidence in the good faith of those currently holding illegal arms.
“The political parties cannot solve this problem. Those organisations that have weapons have to become directly involved. They - the paramilitary groups - need to be speaking directly to the Commission at the earliest opportunity so that a realistic beginning can be made to a process which is inevitably going to be long and difficult but which must be brought to a successful conclusion.
“The direct engagement of those groups with the Commission will be an important test of their commitment to the process.”
Speaking after a meeting with the Indepenednt Commission at Castle Buildings, Stormont, Cllr McBride said:
“Decommissioning is an imporatant issue. We have to set in motion a process which will make sure that the guns really are silenced forever and which can build confidence in the good faith of those currently holding illegal arms.
“The political parties cannot solve this problem. Those organisations that have weapons have to become directly involved. They - the paramilitary groups - need to be speaking directly to the Commission at the earliest opportunity so that a realistic beginning can be made to a process which is inevitably going to be long and difficult but which must be brought to a successful conclusion.
“The direct engagement of those groups with the Commission will be an important test of their commitment to the process.”
16 March 1995
Alliance welcomes Framework document
Alliance welcomes Framework document
16 March 1995
The Alliance Party is a liberal party. We recognise the diversity of society in Northern Ireland and our objective is to create a fair, just and peaceful society based on respect for all sections of our community and on the widest possible participation in government and decision making. We believe that the problem is essentially within Northern Ireland and can only be resolved by the people of Northern Ireland agreeing on a common way forward.
On that basis we welcome the publication of the framework document as a basis for discussion between the Northern Irish parties. We have in fact pressed for the publication of such a document since the last talks process ended in 1992, as we considered that the Northern Ireland parties would not enter into realistic debate until the two governments gave an indication of their thinking. What is now needed is serious dialogue between the parties here to take the process forward.
British policy in Northern Ireland has tended to be a matter of walking a tightrope, moving cautiously forward while attempting to keep a balance by satisfying everyone, or at least by offending everyone equally. The balancing act has become even more difficult recently with the government’s narrow parliamentary majority prompting both official unionists and Tory backbenchers to throw their weight around. But the two governments may have got the balance not far short of right in the Framework document.
What is particularly welcome in it is the commitment to the principle of consent. The unequivocal recognition by both governments that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is an essential starting point for progress. It offers unionists the prospect for having their fundamental requirement underwritten not only by the British government but also by incorporation in the Irish constitution. That represents a major step forward for unionists, who have always been haunted by insecurity and by the fear of a British betrayal. That unionist politicians spurn the commitments made is more a measure of their political ineptitude than of the importance of what they are being offered.
The proposals for devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in which powers would be shared across the community, for the adequate protection of rights, and for North/South institutions which would provide for effective co-operation and a positive relationship between the two parts of this island also provide a starting point for discussion. However, the specific proposal made on each of these areas need a lot of work.
In our view any effective proposals must reflect the diversity of Northern Ireland, must be based on the participation of the `Northern Ireland people in decision making, must be accountable, and must be straightforward and transparent - people will not trust institutions or proposals which have a sense of sleight of hand to them. On that basis the framework document leaves a good deal to be desired. For example, its paragraphs on human rights are conspicuous for their vagueness. It may surprise some people to realise that this is an area on which the Northern Ireland parties are substantially agreed - we all want o see the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated in NI domestic law, as at least a starting point on the rights issue. So why this vagueness and this talk about charters? Why not a specific commitment to incorporation? No doubt the simple answer is that the British government, and no doubt the Irish, have their own agendas about human rights, and incorporating the Convention isn’t part of them.
Similarly, why is such a complex and improbable structure proposed for devolution in Northern Ireland? Not only an Assembly with proportionate distribution of offices - which is straightforward and fine and readily comprehensible by everyone - but also a directly elected three man “panel” to oversee it. That proposal - effectively for a collective presidency on the perhaps unfortunate model of the former Yugoslavia - would exclude all but the representatives of the traditional blocks and thus would promote rather than reduce sectarian division , and would muddy the waters of accountability by leaving it unclear where power really lay. Equally it has to be clear that any North South bodies are practical agencies for co-operation, accountable to the Northern Assembly and the Dail.
Transparency and accountability are really the keys here. We need institutions which are straightforward, capable of being worked collectively by people with widely differing political viewpoints, and capable of reflecting the wide diversity of opinion and community in Northern Ireland. The government - and the Northern Ireland parties - need to concentrate on the practicalities of setting up workable institutions capable of commanding widespread support and confidence. And they need to do so with a greater sense of urgency than has tended to be displayed up to now.
Steve McBride
(Chairman, Alliance Party)
16 March 1995
The Alliance Party is a liberal party. We recognise the diversity of society in Northern Ireland and our objective is to create a fair, just and peaceful society based on respect for all sections of our community and on the widest possible participation in government and decision making. We believe that the problem is essentially within Northern Ireland and can only be resolved by the people of Northern Ireland agreeing on a common way forward.
On that basis we welcome the publication of the framework document as a basis for discussion between the Northern Irish parties. We have in fact pressed for the publication of such a document since the last talks process ended in 1992, as we considered that the Northern Ireland parties would not enter into realistic debate until the two governments gave an indication of their thinking. What is now needed is serious dialogue between the parties here to take the process forward.
British policy in Northern Ireland has tended to be a matter of walking a tightrope, moving cautiously forward while attempting to keep a balance by satisfying everyone, or at least by offending everyone equally. The balancing act has become even more difficult recently with the government’s narrow parliamentary majority prompting both official unionists and Tory backbenchers to throw their weight around. But the two governments may have got the balance not far short of right in the Framework document.
What is particularly welcome in it is the commitment to the principle of consent. The unequivocal recognition by both governments that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is an essential starting point for progress. It offers unionists the prospect for having their fundamental requirement underwritten not only by the British government but also by incorporation in the Irish constitution. That represents a major step forward for unionists, who have always been haunted by insecurity and by the fear of a British betrayal. That unionist politicians spurn the commitments made is more a measure of their political ineptitude than of the importance of what they are being offered.
The proposals for devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in which powers would be shared across the community, for the adequate protection of rights, and for North/South institutions which would provide for effective co-operation and a positive relationship between the two parts of this island also provide a starting point for discussion. However, the specific proposal made on each of these areas need a lot of work.
In our view any effective proposals must reflect the diversity of Northern Ireland, must be based on the participation of the `Northern Ireland people in decision making, must be accountable, and must be straightforward and transparent - people will not trust institutions or proposals which have a sense of sleight of hand to them. On that basis the framework document leaves a good deal to be desired. For example, its paragraphs on human rights are conspicuous for their vagueness. It may surprise some people to realise that this is an area on which the Northern Ireland parties are substantially agreed - we all want o see the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated in NI domestic law, as at least a starting point on the rights issue. So why this vagueness and this talk about charters? Why not a specific commitment to incorporation? No doubt the simple answer is that the British government, and no doubt the Irish, have their own agendas about human rights, and incorporating the Convention isn’t part of them.
Similarly, why is such a complex and improbable structure proposed for devolution in Northern Ireland? Not only an Assembly with proportionate distribution of offices - which is straightforward and fine and readily comprehensible by everyone - but also a directly elected three man “panel” to oversee it. That proposal - effectively for a collective presidency on the perhaps unfortunate model of the former Yugoslavia - would exclude all but the representatives of the traditional blocks and thus would promote rather than reduce sectarian division , and would muddy the waters of accountability by leaving it unclear where power really lay. Equally it has to be clear that any North South bodies are practical agencies for co-operation, accountable to the Northern Assembly and the Dail.
Transparency and accountability are really the keys here. We need institutions which are straightforward, capable of being worked collectively by people with widely differing political viewpoints, and capable of reflecting the wide diversity of opinion and community in Northern Ireland. The government - and the Northern Ireland parties - need to concentrate on the practicalities of setting up workable institutions capable of commanding widespread support and confidence. And they need to do so with a greater sense of urgency than has tended to be displayed up to now.
Steve McBride
(Chairman, Alliance Party)
Alliance welcomes publication of Framework Document
The Alliance Party is a liberal party. We recognise the diversity of society in Northern Ireland and our objective is to create a fair, just and peaceful society based on respect for all sections of our community and on the widest possible participation in government and decision making. We believe that the problem is essentially within Northern Ireland and can only be resolved by the people of Northern Ireland agreeing on a common way forward.
On that basis we welcome the publication of the framework document as a basis for discussion between the Northern Irish parties. We have in fact pressed for the publication of such a document since the last talks process ended in 1992, as we considered that the Northern Ireland parties would not enter into realistic debate until the two governments gave an indication of their thinking. What is now needed is serious dialogue between the parties here to take the process forward.
British policy in Northern Ireland has tended to be a matter of walking a tightrope, moving cautiously forward while attempting to keep a balance by satisfying everyone, or at least by offending everyone equally. The balancing act has become even more difficult recently with the government’s narrow parliamentary majority prompting both official unionists and Tory backbenchers to throw their weight around. But the two governments may have got the balance not far short of right in the Framework document.
What is particularly welcome in it is the commitment to the principle of consent. The unequivocal recognition by both governments that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is an essential starting point for progress. It offers unionists the prospect for having their fundamental requirement underwritten not only by the British government but also by incorporation in the Irish constitution. That represents a major step forward for unionists, who have always been haunted by insecurity and by the fear of a British betrayal. That unionist politicians spurn the commitments made is more a measure of their political ineptitude than of the importance of what they are being offered.
The proposals for devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in which powers would be shared across the community, for the adequate protection of rights, and for North/South institutions which would provide for effective co-operation and a positive relationship between the two parts of this island also provide a starting point for discussion. However, the specific proposal made on each of these areas need a lot of work.
In our view any effective proposals must reflect the diversity of Northern Ireland, must be based on the participation of the Northern Ireland people in decision making, must be accountable, and must be straightforward and transparent -- people will not trust institutions or proposals which have a sense of sleight of hand to them. On that basis the framework document leaves a good deal to be desired. For example, its paragraphs on human rights are conspicuous for their vagueness. It may surprise some people to realise that this is an area on which the Northern Ireland parties are substantially agreed -- we all want o see the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated in NI domestic law, as at least a starting point on the rights issue. So why this vagueness and this talk about charters? Why not a specific commitment to incorporation? No doubt the simple answer is that the British government, and no doubt the Irish, have their own agendas about human rights, and incorporating the Convention isn’t part of them.
Similarly, why is such a complex and improbable structure proposed for devolution in Northern Ireland? Not only an Assembly with proportionate distribution of offices - which is straightforward and fine and readily comprehensible by everyone -- but also a directly elected three man “panel” to oversee it. That proposal -- effectively for a collective presidency on the perhaps unfortunate model of the former Yugoslavia -- would exclude all but the representatives of the traditional blocks and thus would promote rather than reduce sectarian division , and would muddy the waters of accountability by leaving it unclear where power really lay. Equally it has to be clear that any North South bodies are practical agencies for co-operation, accountable to the Northern Assembly and the Dail.
Transparency and accountability are really the keys here. We need institutions which are straightforward, capable of being worked collectively by people with widely differing political viewpoints, and capable of reflecting the wide diversity of opinion and community in Northern Ireland. The government -- and the Northern Ireland parties -- need to concentrate on the practicalities of setting up workable institutions capable of commanding widespread support and confidence. And they need to do so with a greater sense of urgency than has tended to be displayed up to now.
Steve McBride (Chair, Alliance Party)
On that basis we welcome the publication of the framework document as a basis for discussion between the Northern Irish parties. We have in fact pressed for the publication of such a document since the last talks process ended in 1992, as we considered that the Northern Ireland parties would not enter into realistic debate until the two governments gave an indication of their thinking. What is now needed is serious dialogue between the parties here to take the process forward.
British policy in Northern Ireland has tended to be a matter of walking a tightrope, moving cautiously forward while attempting to keep a balance by satisfying everyone, or at least by offending everyone equally. The balancing act has become even more difficult recently with the government’s narrow parliamentary majority prompting both official unionists and Tory backbenchers to throw their weight around. But the two governments may have got the balance not far short of right in the Framework document.
What is particularly welcome in it is the commitment to the principle of consent. The unequivocal recognition by both governments that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is an essential starting point for progress. It offers unionists the prospect for having their fundamental requirement underwritten not only by the British government but also by incorporation in the Irish constitution. That represents a major step forward for unionists, who have always been haunted by insecurity and by the fear of a British betrayal. That unionist politicians spurn the commitments made is more a measure of their political ineptitude than of the importance of what they are being offered.
The proposals for devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in which powers would be shared across the community, for the adequate protection of rights, and for North/South institutions which would provide for effective co-operation and a positive relationship between the two parts of this island also provide a starting point for discussion. However, the specific proposal made on each of these areas need a lot of work.
In our view any effective proposals must reflect the diversity of Northern Ireland, must be based on the participation of the Northern Ireland people in decision making, must be accountable, and must be straightforward and transparent -- people will not trust institutions or proposals which have a sense of sleight of hand to them. On that basis the framework document leaves a good deal to be desired. For example, its paragraphs on human rights are conspicuous for their vagueness. It may surprise some people to realise that this is an area on which the Northern Ireland parties are substantially agreed -- we all want o see the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated in NI domestic law, as at least a starting point on the rights issue. So why this vagueness and this talk about charters? Why not a specific commitment to incorporation? No doubt the simple answer is that the British government, and no doubt the Irish, have their own agendas about human rights, and incorporating the Convention isn’t part of them.
Similarly, why is such a complex and improbable structure proposed for devolution in Northern Ireland? Not only an Assembly with proportionate distribution of offices - which is straightforward and fine and readily comprehensible by everyone -- but also a directly elected three man “panel” to oversee it. That proposal -- effectively for a collective presidency on the perhaps unfortunate model of the former Yugoslavia -- would exclude all but the representatives of the traditional blocks and thus would promote rather than reduce sectarian division , and would muddy the waters of accountability by leaving it unclear where power really lay. Equally it has to be clear that any North South bodies are practical agencies for co-operation, accountable to the Northern Assembly and the Dail.
Transparency and accountability are really the keys here. We need institutions which are straightforward, capable of being worked collectively by people with widely differing political viewpoints, and capable of reflecting the wide diversity of opinion and community in Northern Ireland. The government -- and the Northern Ireland parties -- need to concentrate on the practicalities of setting up workable institutions capable of commanding widespread support and confidence. And they need to do so with a greater sense of urgency than has tended to be displayed up to now.
Steve McBride (Chair, Alliance Party)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)