Northern Ireland Assembly Debate on Policing and Justice Matters

Extract

[...] Following this, we will review the assessment of the current situation regarding Policing and Justice Matters, as told by each party participating in the debate. To finish, we will dress the desired outcome for Sinn Féin, UUP and DUP. I - Context Good Friday Agreement When first mentioned, the Good Friday Agreement was not accepted by all. Unionists committed violent acts, to which the IRA responded with an attack. Starting in December 1999, the Good Friday Agreement reestablished peace in Northern Ireland, thanks to a political solution, ending thirty years of violence. [...]

[...] St Andrews Agreement The St Andrews Agreement reunited Sinn Féin and the DUP, in 2006, just two years before the committee we are studying took place. Following it, the Northern Ireland Assembly was reinstated, as reminded by the chairman in the text: "as required by section 18 of the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006". This is also the moment when Sinn Féin decided to support the PSNI, courts and the rule of laws which is a major factor of the debate here. The agreement planned the devolution of policing and justice power within two years. [...]

[...] "Sinn Féin is the obstacle to this step. He mentions the uncomfortableness of Martina Anderson, member of Sinn Féin, while questioned about the IRA army council, insinuating that the situation is mishandled: "Her silence speaks volumes". Desired outcome Sinn Féin Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Féin, exposed that the situation is blocked as DUP has to give agreements to the process so it can continue. Rather than talking about the content itself, what he is asking is a respect of Sinn Féin work, rather than a constant critic: "People at this side of the Chamber will not be lectured by people in unionism. [...]

[...] All in all, the abstract does not show a very constructive exchange as there is no real content, everyone stays on their own mind and is not open to suggestions. It actually feels like the opponents are not listening to each other. Issue raised The objective of this paper was to answer the question "how are the three parties defending what they think is the best interests of the community in front of their opponents?". The three parties rely on the previous agreements, use concrete examples to rest on their opinions. Somehow, they also make assumptions and seem very suspicious towards each other. [...]

[...] Opening This abstract illustrates very well the climate of the scene, and we understand the difficulties and challenges of communication. In order to go deeper in the heart of the debate, and really discuss the actual measures taken or to be taken regarding Policing and Justice Matters, it would be interesting to either study the following of the report, or maybe a report of a following meeting. [...]