Why Won’t The Sammy Show Just Go Off Air?!

Today in the Assembly Environment Minister Sammy Wilson attempted to defend his ridiculous decision to ban UK Government-backed ads urging people to be more energy efficient. The Minister was responding to an Assembly motion of concern over his recent position.

I watched the debate and I must say it was nothing short of an hour long episode of the Big Sammy Show. Wilson ranted, laughed manically, ranted, laughed and then ranted some more. As far as responsible or serious government goes- this was farce.

Wilson is single-handedly is making a mockery of the role of a Minister of Government and he is turning NI into a laughing stock.

The Environment Minster attempted to deflect some of the furore over his decision to censor the energy efficiency ads by singling out several MLAs with a pre-prepared brief that besmirched their environmental claims or green credentials.

But the Minister was missing the point.

MLAs are not the running the Department for the Environment- he is. It is about time he put an end to this self-induced side show and assumed some sort of mantle of responsibility and duty of leadership.

His performance may have been amusing but he is increasingly looking like a man that should not be allowed anywhere near instruments of power.

As I have posted before Wilson is a man who loves the sound of his own voice- he appears to revel in this figure of fun persona that he has crafted for himself - and simply is not happy when things are not revolving around him. He is a man who pays homage to populist sound bites and eco-sceptic dogma.

At one point the Minister questioned MLAs, who were supporting the motion, on what scientific evidence they based their assertation that there is a link between climate change and human behaviour. What on earth is Wilson taking with is porridge? He obviously has not heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)!!

Wilson chooses to simply ignore the work this international panel of leading climate scientists have been involved in, under a mandate by the UN, and during the debate today he did not even acknowledge the outcomes of the recent climate change discussions in Bonn.

At the end of the day this whole furore is not about Sammy Wilson censoring an ad, it is about an Environment Minister who refuses to accept international consensus that climate change is influenced by human behaviour.

While Wilson might think the whole debacle is one big laugh- the position he has adopted is immature, ignorant and irresponsible.

The Minister is completely entitled to have his own dogmatic, eco-sceptic views about the human impact on climate change but as a Minister he is bound to the Ministerial code and to addressing the environmental commitments published in the NI Programme for Government.

The Programme for Government unequivocally ackowledges the role of man in influencing climate change- Sammy Wilson and his party, the DUP, signed up to this! So Wilson's recent position towards Government-backed energy efficiency ads is extremely difficult to comprehend.

The Environment Minister’s current attitude is extremely unhelpful.

Whilst his attics may sometimes seem amusing, he should attempt to contribute something positive to the climate change debate instead of indulging his own political platitudes.

A starting point would be for Sammy to take stock of his own rogue emissions- judging by the amount of hot air he is currently polluting the NI political climate with!

This is a democracy and Sammy Wilson is entitled to his own opinion- but not to his own facts.

Only Way To Defeat Dissident Republicanism Is To Build a Shared Future

Following the recent shootings of police officer Stephen Carroll (48) and British Army personnel Mark Quinsey (23) and Patrick Azimkar (21) there has been much debate in the media and wider political circles on how to deal with the threat posed by anti-peace process or dissident republican groups that support violence.

Some have spoken of the need for greater security measures and a ruthless response to the threat. With some, including the egocentric Jim Allister MEP , even calling for the SAS to be deployed. Meanwhile others urge a more cautious and progressive approach.

Talk of sending in the SAS is pure folly. It would be a regressive and disproportionate measure that could throw us back into the dark days. Politicians need be careful in what they say as well as do. Backwards and provocative rhetoric employed by people like David Simpson MP can inflame, destabilise and threaten the very essence of everything that people have worked hard for over the past number of years. To encourage 'ruthless' response to the threat is reckless and nothing more than typical political posturing from the DUP.

Any response to the dissident threat must not be reckless or it could prove counterproductive. Any response must not undermine community confidence in the PSNI, undermine the measures that created accountable policing and undermine the process of demilitarisation that has been central to normalising society in the North.

Adopting a cautious and measured approach to dealing with the security situation is vital. The recent riots in Lurgan, following the arrest of prominent republican Colin Duffy, warn of this. The type of gung-ho measures, promoted by the likes of Jim Allister, could only serve to aggravate the situation.Dissidents will seek to exploit any reponse for maximum PR, fueling their propaganda and helping to act as a recruiting tool for them.

During the past week or so I read an article by Kevin Toolis regarding the ideology of dissident republicanism. It was a very interesting piece that posed a few hard questions for decision makers. How can we defeat a radical and fundamental ideology similar to that espoused by the likes of Al Qaida? It is a difficult task that can only be achieved by winning the battle for people’s hearts and minds.

Toolis talks of dissident republicanism as a determined and ancient political doctrine that has survived for nearly a hundred years, sometimes in incubation and at other times raising its head to commit indisputable acts of barbarism such the Omagh Bombing and the recent shootings.

It has survived in the dark corners of people’s minds and in the impoverished estates across the North. Here it is regrouping and taking hold in the psyche of another generation of young people. It is thriving in those poor and dilapidated areas that have not overtly benefited from the new political dispensation, and in the people who are too young to remember the terrible times of the Troubles.



An important lesson that the Troubles taught us was- that those people who are susceptible or vulnerable to the influences of violent political extremism tend to be disenfranchised young men from the poorest of socio-economic backgrounds. This is true of the young men who rioted and created make-shift road blocks recently in Lurgan. These people are alienated from the peace process and the benefits that it has brought.

I believe it is not political ideology that primarily drives the recent events in places like Lurgan, Craigavon and Massereene. Political dissent is a related component but only in the sense that it is the visible symptom of the wider underlying problem of poverty and social exclusion in republican areas. Political dissent is a by-product of poverty and riots, instability and support for dissident republicanism the bedfellows of disenfranchisement and social exclusion.

On the contrary to what David Simspon et al may think - if we truly want to build a peaceful society and tackle the threat of dissident republicanism - we don’t need draconian or ruthless security measures. People must not forget that over zealous security arrangements were a major aspect in sustaining the Troubles and the feelings of isolation and oppression felt by many in the nationalist and republican family. We must not forget the lessons of the past in this respect.

I support the PSNI in their work and in their efforts to bring these people to justice. But security responses alone are are not enough and if we want to build a better and brighter future, a peaceful and egalitarian society we as a society must invest in our young people. We must tackle social exclusion and poverty in the run down estates of the North and give young people a future that they can believe in.

Strong social responses, through socio-economic regeneration and education initiatives, in impoverished areas of the North are vitally needed in order to address the malign influences of isolation, disenfranchisement, social exclusion and poverty- the catalytic ingredients of dissident support.

Only by addressing these fundamental issues, in areas such as the Drumbeg Estate, can the war against the dissidents ever be won. By giving young people a viable alternative and a reason to buy into society we can strangle the dissidents' support base. Young republicans who support dissident groups can be brought into society through measures that foster social inclusion and address the sense of disenfranchisement and oppression felt by many of them.

Violent dissident republicanism has no place in our society and the recent protests across the North show that the vast majority of people just want to move on with their lives and build a better, peaceful future for themselves, their children and for society as a whole. So let’s give young people, from places like the Drumbeg Estate, a viable alternative, a stake in society and investment in their futures. Only by doing this, will society be able to move forward.

We owe it to Stephen Carroll, Mark Quinsey, Patrick Azimkar and the thousands of people who were killed or injured during the Troubles to move forward and create a better society- one that is based upon mutual respect, commitment to democracy, adherence to the principle of consent and a dedication to creating a better life for our children.

Together we can build the Shared Future that we all need and aspire towards!

Death once again stalks this land

On Saturday night two soldiers were shot dead and four others wounded during an attack outside an army Barracks in Masserene, Co. Antrim. My deepest condolences go out to those people and their families.

The Real IRA has claimed responsibility for the attack through a statement issued to the Dublin based Sunday Tribune newspaper.

The attacks took place just one day after it was announced that the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), part of UK Intelligence Services, were to be deployed to the North to counter the recent and considerable increase in dissident Republican activity.

There had been considerable political fall-out off the back of this announcement with both the SDLP and Sinn Fein claiming that the Policing Board had been undermined and should have been informed prior to the decision.

Republicans and nationalists were only informed about this issue through media sources after Friday’s meeting of the Policing Board.

This action was counterproductive and only served to undermine the authority of the Policing Board and cause affront to hard fought democratic and accountability mechanisms.

Regardless, this attack has laid bare the severity of the current situation. Dissidents have proven beyond doubt that they still have the capability and determination to carry out attacks against the security services and against the democratic will of the people of Ireland.

Dissident republicans must realise that they are not the chosen few. They have no mandate or popular support for their campaigns- their actions are not legitimate. They have no political direction and do not have any clear strategy, or any strategy, to create a united Ireland.

History has shown that violence can not and does not work. Violence only serves to beget violence. These actions will only serve to further put off the prospect of a united Ireland and buttress unionist opposition to it.

Ordinary people want to get on with their lives, get a decent job, a decent and normal life. They do not want this. The overwhelming majority on the people of this island, North and South, voted for the Good Friday Agreement. They do not want this.

The signing of the GFA was a clear message that rejected the use of violence and committed popular support to the principle of consent. The consent principle is the only tool now to further nationalist and republican goals.

Former SDLP leader and Nobel Peace Laureate John Hume once said ''it is people who have rights, not territory, not land. Our people, unfortunately, are divided and cannot be brought together by and form of coercion, only through understanding, reconciliation and agreement''.

I sincerely hope that in this dark time, with all the progress that has been achieved perched upon a precipice, we must reflect on these words and our own experiences and reach the conclusion that peace is the only way forward.

We must all come together in opposition and in solidarity against these attacks and reaffirm our collective commitment to the paths of peace and democracy in the North of Ireland. We have come along way over the years and we must not and will not give up on building a Shared Future together.

I appeal to those responsible to please cease this activity. Ask yourselves deep down do you really want to go down this violent road again?

UK Climate Change Policy is all Rhubarb and Custard

Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in the US this week meeting with President Obama and the US Congress. The purpose of the visit was to discuss strengthening US-UK relations and addressing the current economic crisis. Brown used the opportunity to discuss a green economic stimulus package that he would like to see introduced to address the current crisis.

During his speech to Congress Brown spoke an astonishing amount of rhubarb- maybe he has been paying too much attention to the brand of politics of G-Obama! He paid much lip-service to the green economy and spoke of his desire to create a new low-carbon UK economy- a dispensation that could create 400,000 new jobs. Questionable statistics and questionable intentions.

Mr Brown claimed that independent research estimates that 1.3 million people will be employed in the environmental sector by 2017. These statistics even though questionable would undoubtedly represent a new era of ecological modernisation.

Before this can happen there needs to be an improvement in all sorts of environmental regulations- not just mealy-mouthed commitments but real-world actions to meet environmental targets. Rhetoric is simply not enough.

Brown mentioned a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. This is totally pie in the sky stuff considering current form. These targets are actually more ambitious (!) than the international targets set by UN International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC, an international body of experts, asserted that global carbon emissions need to be reduced 25-40% by 2020, 50% by 2050 and up to 80% by 2100.

Action needs to be realistic and perhaps the targets agreed at the climate change talks in Bali were much too ambitious. Will UN countries be able to reduce carbon emissions by 25-40% by 2020- only 11 years away?

The IPCC recommendations are unachievable as the UN process is totally out of sync with this kind of pace of action and implementation. Cue the alarm bells.

There will be a climate change deal later this year but the question remains whether the deal will be effective in terms of implementation and ambition.

Any post-Kyoto agreement MUST be more successful or effective- as Kyoto was only designed to reduce emissions by 2-3% of 1990 levels and even still most countries have not met these somewhat conservative targets.

With this in mind, what evidence is there to suggest that the UN targets agreed at Bali, and the even more ambitious ones promoted by Brown this week, are in any way achievable? None.

It was interesting to note that during Brown’s visit to the US he did not once mention where responsibility for the current financial crisis lies. This is at considerable odds with his own domestic policy- as Brown has continuously blamed the US for creating this current financial crisis.

When addressing domestic opponents and critics alike, Brown has always attempted to absolve and distance himself of any responsibility for this financial mess. He has consistently criticised the US and at the same time defended his records as PM and as the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Regardless, any talk of a Green New Deal must be taken with a pinch of salt. Brown is no authority on environmental issues. How can he talk about creating a low-carbon economy when he and his acolyte Lord Mandelson are so intent on massive airport expansions and creating a third runway at Heathrow Airport? He can not continue to ride two horses at the same time.

The expansion plans at Heathrow have been met with considerable local opposition and Brown ignored this, prompting the local MP to protest in Parliament. Brown’s record poses serious doubts over his green credentials and over his commitment to reduce carbon emissions.

It seems this Green New Deal he speaks of isn’t so much about protecting the environment as it is about protecting the political life of Gordon Brown.

This morning I had a good laugh as the Lord of Darkness, Peter Mandelson, got some comeuppance of his own for his Heathrow maldeavours. On his way to a low-carbon summit earlier today, Mandy was sprayed with green custard by an environmental protester. The protester, a member of Plane Stupid, was angry at Mandelson over the Heathrow debacle.

With this in mind, the government needs to be much more serious about creating a low-carbon economy and put actions before words. If done right the creation of a low-carbon economy will address climate change and create jobs at the same time.

Investments in renewable energy is vital in this process- as this can create jobs and in tandem tackle the twin threat of climate change and energy security.

But until this happens, when it comes to addressing climate change, Brown and Mandelson are just all rhubarb and custard.

European Social Model 2009

Regulatory competition, EU enlargement and economic globalisation, have all placed considerable pressures on the European Social Model. These pressures have been exacerbated by the recent financial crisis- with rising levels of public debt and decreasing levels of public expenditure across EU members states compounded by the collapse of currencies and banking systems across the globe.

In light of these pressures and with many EU states now clearly failing to meet the Lisbon Strategy’s targets it is imperative that the European Social Model is reformed.

The objectives of the Lisbon Agenda have shaped recent debates within the EU that stress the importance of competitiveness and innovation of the EU economy as a whole. But these objectives have been considerably undermined, and essentially made redundant, due to the impact of the recent financial crisis and the subsequent shift in priorities of European governments.

Much work needs to be done to reform pension provision, tackle unemployment and protect workers rights, integrate women better into the workforce, to raise secondary level educational participation, promote life long learning and reduce EU poverty in order to build the competitive knowledge based economy that Lisbon envisaged.

The current socio-economic challenges that face Europe and its people can not be addressed by states alone and must be addressed collectively as a regional project. The recent financial crisis has exposed the folly of standing alone in a globalised world- just look at what happened to Iceland who are now crying out for the security of EU membership. These news challenges are macro-economic, and micro-economic, there are external, and internal.

The European Social Model aspires to a certain type of society, a knowledge based society that is entrenched in the Social Europe Agenda. But to meet these challenges the European Social Model must reform and redefine itself in a Europe that is increasingly under pressure from the outside and within.

One notable aspect of the economic crisis is that it has highlighted that European-level regulation is as important as ever. EU regulations must now be used to foster solidarity and cooperation between EU member states at this time of crisis. Only through cooperation and solidarity can Europe survive this financial quagmire, we can not stand alone.

This solidarity can be achieved by the promotion of regulations to address the renewal of the European Social Model. The decision last December by the EU Parliament to revise and address the opt-out clauses of the EU Working Time Directive is one positive example of this.

Reform of the European Social Model must tackle issues of job quality; skills, life-long learning and career development; gender equality; health and safety at work; flexibility and security; inclusion and access to the labour market; work organisation and work-life balance; social dialogue and worker involvement; diversity and non-discrimination and finally overall economic performance and productivity.

The need to reform the ESM is apparent. In key areas EU member states are falling behind non-EU states such as Norway, Switzerland and the US, particularly in respect to Research & Development.

Reform of the European Social Model must not negate the Social Europe Agenda but must reaffirm this agenda through a process of competitive solidarity. It is important that the economic crisis is not used as an excuse to dilute social standards. Strong social standards are an important tool in fighting poverty and social exclusion- necessary ingredients for addressing the current economic malaise.