13/07/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Mark Carruthers looks at the political developments of the week and questions policy makers on the key issues.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Just two months to go until Scotland decides if it should stay


As the campaign heads for the final furlong,


what are the issues and arguments that will determine the result?


The SNP's deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me live.


David Cameron's scheduled a major cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday.


Many of those tipped for promotion are women.


So have efforts to promote diversity in public life barely started or


And don't know whether to support Germany or


Fear not, we'll bring you our political guide to the World Cup.


Coming up here: A peaceful Twelfth at the Ardoyne flashpoint and praise


for those involved - but there's still no sign of a resolution. So,


what next for Twaddell Avenue? Join me in half-an-hour.


It's World Cup final day and as usual the BBC's snagged the


Yes, eat your heart out, ITV, because for top football analysis


we've got Gary Lineker, Alan Hansen, and Alan Shearer.


And for top political analysis you may


as well tune in to them too because all we could come up with is Nick


David Cameron will reshuffle his cabinet on Tuesday.


The Sunday papers are full of stories telling us who'll be


in and who'll be out, though they don't really know.


The Mail on Sunday has one of the more eye-catching lines,


reporting that former defence secretary and right-winger Liam Fox


is in line for a return to the political front line.


But there's general agreement that women will do well and some


of the old men in suits guard will do badly.


Here's senior Tory backbencher David Davis speaking to this programme.


It's good to make parliament more representative.


But you've got to do it in a way that doesn't create


injustices, and you can't put people in a job who can't do the job.


And I've seen that too over the last 20 years, people being


accelerated too far too fast and they come to


a screeching halt where they have to catch up with themselves.


I am not going to give an example. Is this not a bit cynical? He is


going to promote these women into cabinet positions, but they will not


be able to do anything. I am sceptical of Cabinet reshuffle. It


is an un-written pact in that the media and the government have a


great interest in talking it up. The government says, haven't we


refreshed ourselves? Generally it doesn't refresh the government.


David Cameron wants to send out a new signal. You're going to see the


old guard getting a P 45 and you will see a lot of women come in and


a lot of younger men. We will find there will be a lot of resignations.


A lot of, dear Prime Minister, as I told you 18 months ago, I want to


move on. Because the Conservatives have this perception of not being


very good with women and not being good with black and ethnic minority


voters, they are going to want to do something about that. Why did he


voters, they are going to want to do do it before? This reshuffle might


be the triumph of the a list. A lot of the women coming through the


be the triumph of the a list. A lot ranks have been from the a list


which was a half measure because they knew they could not bring all


of them in. You are going to they knew they could not bring all


more women but that is a result of a long-term strategy.


more women but that is a result of a not the world's most raging


feminist. He is doing this for practical


feminist. He is doing this for an image problem for the party and


he has to solve it. He was stung by that picture of the all-male bench


at Prime Minister's Questions because visibly it gave you


at Prime Minister's Questions about. I do not think he has allowed


it to be all-male since that embarrassing image. I can understand


the criticism made of this approach women being promoted by talentless


but you have to be very harsh to look at them and say that they would


have much less to offer than the likes of Andrew


have much less to offer than the pro-feminist. The tests for David


Cameron is that having pro-feminist. The tests for David


expectations he has to give pro-feminist. The tests for David


substantial jobs. They have to be given departments to run or big


portfolios to carry. If they are given media campaign positions in


the run-up to the election it looks perfunctorily. He is under some


trouble to perhaps suggest a female commissioner to the European


trouble to perhaps suggest a female Commission. Jean-Claude Juncker has


made clear that if he proposes a woman candidate they will get a


better job. Saying they would like ten out of the 28 to be women. We


are going to get the name of the British candidate at the same time


as the reshuffle. The first face-to-face meeting, he will be


able to put a name. There are other names in the frame. People like


Archie Norman. That come from? His name is in the frame. There would be


great scepticism of giving it to Andrew Lansley. People would think


he was the man who mucked up the reform of the NHS. Who is it going


to be? Either a woman or a man. I would not be surprised if they go


for someone believe dynamic. Someone who would square the party. Would


that not mean a by-election? It might. She is a high profile


Eurosceptic. She is a very competent former banker. It would be the smart


choice. I have no idea but my favourite rumour is Michael Howard.


That had some legs for a while. The Mystic Megs of Fleet Street


predict with confidence that the PM is going to promote more women


in his cabinet reshuffle. The move can be seen as part


of a move across British public life to do more to make our institutions


less male and less white. But as the list


of schemes to encourage diversity grows ever-longer, have we abandoned


the idea of appointment by merit? Tunnelling. Hard hats, and all for


new trains. It does not get more macho than the Crossrail project.


When Crossrail looked at the construction industry they realise


that less than 20% was made up construction industry they realise


women and they asked, can we fix it? They are trying with a recruitment


drive that has brought in female engineers like this woman. She even


has a tunnel named after her. Having more female engineers and


construction brings a bigger range of opinions, a bigger range of


ideas, more diversity, into the industry, and makes it better as a


whole. It is the issue being grappled in another male dominated


workplace, the Cabinet. There is about to be a reach shuffle and the


rumour is David Cameron is going to promote a lot of female ministers.


It was a lack of promotion that annoyed Harriet Harman this week.


She claimed Gordon Brown did not make her Deputy Prime Minister


because she was a woman. It was strange that in a hard-fought highly


contested election to be deputy leader of the Labour Party, and


having won against men in the Cabinet, to succeed to be deputy


leader of the Labour Party I discovered that I was not to be


appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. For women in this country, no matter


how able they are, the matter how hard they might work, they are still


not equal. There are initiatives to make the world feel more equal. In


the City the EU wants a quarter for women in the boardroom but that goal


of making 40% of the top floor female. At the BBC the boss of the


TV division says no panel show should ever be all-male. In the ever


glamorous movie business the British film Institute announced their new


thematic system to get lottery funding projects improving diversity


on screen and off and helping social mobility. Employers like Crossrail


are not allowed to positively discriminate but under the quality


act of 2010 if two candidate for a job are just as good you are allowed


to base your decision on characteristics like race, sexuality


and gender. Some worry it has chipped away at the idea of hiring


on merit. A woman and three men going for a job, two of the men are


really good and the woman is not quite as good but she gets the job


anyway. That will create injustice, a feeling that she did not deserve


the job, resentment. It does not advance equality in society at all.


On this project they want to leave a concrete legacy of a more diverse


construction industry. The question is, what tools do you use when it


comes to the rest of society? I'm joined now by


Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a columnist for the Independent,


and by Munira Mirza, the deputy mayor of London responsible


for education and culture. Cabinet wee shovel coming up punches


though. Should David Cameron be promoting women? He is going to do


it anyway. He should have a long time ago. It does not feel quite


right that a few months before the election it would do the party a lot


of good to be seen as a party properly reflective of the entire


population. He should promote women because they are women? I think he


should think about lots of different factors, whether the people he wants


promote have proven themselves in their current reefs, whether they


are good performers in the media, whether they represent different


parts of the party, but the main principle is to promote on basis of


merit. There are many talented women who fill that description. It should


be that merit is the important thing rather than what you were born with.


The thing about positive discrimination as it flies in the


face of that kind of principle. You are shaking your head. We have


always had positive discrimination. Men of a certain class have


appointed in their own image because they feel most comfortable with


that. We have had unspoken positive discrimination in this country and


every other country throughout history. We are asking as women, all


minorities, let us get into the same game. What do you say? You cannot


solve the racism or the sexism of the past by more racism and sexism.


It is not the past. There are complex reasons why a smaller number


of women will appear in certain industries. It has a lot to do with


childcare, education, expected. You cannot short cut that by setting a


target. That is not how you achieve equality. Things are changing and


more women are appearing in engineering and so on but it will


take time. My worry is that these kinds of measures are


counter-productive and undermine the perception that women can do it on


their own merit rather counter-productive and undermine the


perception that women can do it than because they need a helping hand. It


is not a helping hand. It is to say, we are as good as men and these


hidden barriers. Dot. Either they are not as good or they do not want


it, which ourselves that it is not happening, or there are barriers.


it, which ourselves that it is not How we judge meritocracy is at the


heart of it. Are lots of How we judge meritocracy is at the


won there are not that many women, such as engineering. We need more


engineers generally. I such as engineering. We need more


fine to try to encourage such as engineering. We need more


to study that subject. By setting a target you put pressure on an


organisation. You tried to ignore the complex reasons why women do not


go into those sectors. I think an all-female short list achieved


miracle in Parliament. This is following up from having an


injection of women coming up because the system was changed and a large


percentage of women went into Parliament under the all-female


short list were brilliant, so why not? So if the Prime Minister is


mailed the Deputy Prime Minister has to be female and vice versa? Yes,


absolutely, 50-50. We need to reflect the population. If we want


to play this as a symbolic gesture, ideally we should have one of each.


Why should a man get the job if you have a great female prime minister


and a great female Deputy Prime Minister? I personally wouldn't mind


this. I hear the disgruntled man and I want to come -- them to come with


us. You're choosing people on the basis of traits they were born


with. Are there too many Indian doctors in the NHS? I would argue


not. Given that we tend to have male prime ministers rather than female


ones, and we don't see another female one coming down the pipe very


quickly... In the time before women short lists by the way. If you had a


male prime minister with a female Deputy Prime Minister, wouldn't that


give some balance? Why women? Why not working class person, which


group do you prioritise? I would go with you that we need something


fundamental to change. This idea that what we have now is a


reflection of a genuine meritocracy is highly questionable. I would


argue that when you look at the statistics things are changing.


argue that when you look at the statistics things There are more


women appearing in parts of public life, that is a long-term trend, but


if you are trying to appoint people on what they were born with... That


is not the only reason but it is an additional reason. She has to be


able to do the job, obviously. I am saying the policy of hazard to


discrimination explicitly state that you should choose somebody who is


female because they are female. At the moment there is already enough


suspicion about women who are successful to get to the senior


position and if you institutionalise it you reinforce that suspicion.


Harriet Harman is still complaining women are not being treated fairly.


I think the policy reinforces the prejudice that women are not getting


there because they are treated on the same basis. Although you may not


want to have the all-female short list forever, wasn't it the kind of


shock to the system that made a visible change in female


representation, which the Tory side hasn't got? Of course it will work


short-term but longer term it has a very degrading effect on the


principle of equality and the fact Harriet Harman is saying she wasn't


treated equally, whether it is true or not, the perception is still


there. A number of women find this position must be reserved for a


woman lying patronising, and speaking of patronising women, you


spoken your Independent column, she presses all of the buttons for white


people... Was that patronising and offensive? Probably. I wrote it


because I felt that at the time but the point is that I was a token when


I was appointed. The paper brought me in because I was a woman and I


was a muslin or whatever. You are not writing about yourself. I was


writing... It doesn't mean you don't criticise other women. We absolutely


have to be tough, Manira is tough and so am I. Do you want to take


back what you wrote? No. Do you really think positive discrimination


has gone too far? I think there is already a suspicion out there that


in certain sectors women are being promoted for the wrong reasons or


ethnic minorities are being promoted for the wrong reasons. That is a


shame and my worry is that by tying funding to your ethnicity or your


gender, by saying you will get a promotion if you check that box, but


you feel that resentment and prejudice and undermine the case for


inequality. I wanted to be treated equally, because I am capable of


doing that job. Only two months to go before Scotland takes its biggest


constitutional decision in 300 years - should it quit or stay with the


UK? For some in Scotland campaign has been going on forever. What has


been the impact on the campaign to date?


Alex Salmond says Scotland would remain part of the European Union


with sterling as its currency in a monetary union with the rest of the


UK, but he has also promised more public spending, increased child


care provision and free personal care for the elderly. The SNP claims


it would leave people better off by ?1000 though that partly depends on


the price of oil. With the Better Together arguing against


independence, it has naturally been attacking the SNP on all fronts.


George Osborne says there will be no monetary union. President Barroso


told the BBC it would be extremely difficult for Scotland to join the


EU after a yes vote. His successor this week said he agreed. Unions


claim Scotland benefit by ?1400 by being part of the UK. A poll this


morning shows a significant lead of 57% for the no campaign, leaving the


SNP to claim it will go their way in the last ten weeks. Nicola Sturgeon,


the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, joins me now. You want an


independent Scotland to keep the pound, stay in NATO, stay in the


EU, Scotland already has all of that but you cannot guarantee it would


have any of it in an independent Scotland, why take the risk? All of


these things should be the case because they are in the best


interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK but we want the powers to


enable us to grow our economy faster, to be productive, and


overtime increased the prosperity of people living in Scotland. We also


want powers over our social security system so that we can create a


system that meets our needs, one that also has a safety net for the


most vulnerable people in our society. Independence is about


letting us decide our own priorities. You didn't answer my


question, you cannot guarantee you would be able to keep the pound


within a monetary union, stay in NATO and the EU, you cannot


guarantee you could produce any of these things, correct? I would argue


that we can because these things are also in the interest of the rest of


the UK. No country can be prevented from using the pound, I suggest we


use that within a formal monetary union. We have had the UK minister


quoted in the Guardian saying the position of the UK Government right


now is one based on campaign rhetoric and following a yes vote,


of course there would be a currency union. Who is that minister? The


Minister is unnamed, but nevertheless that story in the


Guardian was a solid one and not substantially denied. So you are


basing your monetary policy on one on named minister in one story?


Basing it on Common sense because monetary union would be in the best


interests for Scotland but also overwhelmingly in the interests of


the rest of the UK, given their trading relationship with Scotland


and the contribution Scotland's exports make. We are having a very


good debate and the UK Government and the no campaign, and this is not


a criticism, want to talk up in -- uncertainty to make people feel


scared, but after independence there will be constructed process of


negotiation. Let's stick with the monetary union because most


economists agree it would be very good for an independent Scotland to


have a monetary union but George Osborne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander


are unequivocal, they say you won't get it. You claim they are bluffing


but again you cannot guarantee that so why the risk? I would say the


benefits of independence are substantial but I would also say to


George Osborne and his counterparts in the other parties that it would


be a very brave Chancellor that says to businesses in the rest of the UK


that they have to incur unnecessary additional transaction costs of half


a very brave Chancellor that says to businesses in the rest of the UK


that they have to incur unnecessary additional transaction costs of


half. What we are doing is making a case that is based on common sense


and voters in Scotland will listen to that case being put forward by


the other side as well, and they will come to a judgement of the


common-sense position. Let's look at EU membership because you haven't


been able to guarantee the monetary union. When President Barroso said


that a seamless transition to EU membership for an independent


Scotland was anything but certain, and one said it could even be


impossible, you dismissed him because he was standing down, but


been -- venue EU president says the same, do you dismissed him? What we


are doing... I should say at the outset of this, we have said


repeatedly to the UK Government, let's go jointly and ask for a


formal opinion on the EU commission. The EU commission have


said they will only do that at this stage if the UK Government ask for


it, they are point blank refusing to do that, you have to ask why? It is


in their interests to talk up uncertainty. Scotland is an integral


part of the European Union, we have been for 40 years, we comply with


the rules and regulations... Mr Juncker knows all of that but he


still says it will be anything but a seamless transition. He said you


could not join the European Union by sending a letter, that is not our


proposal. We set down a robust proposal and the timescale we think


is reasonable under these circumstances. There are many


nationals of other states living in Scotland right now, if we were to be


outside of the European Union for any period of time, something the


current treaty doesn't even provide for, they would lose their right to


stay here. The interests of Scotland and the interests of European Union


are in favour of a seamless transition. It comes down to common


sense and people in Scotland will make


sense and people in Scotland will their own judgement on who is


talking the common-sense. What about NATO, two years ago you told


Newsnight the SNP's position is that we wouldn't stay in NATO. We had a


democratic debate, we looked at whether it would be in the interests


of an independent Scotland, which forms a significant part of the


territory of the North Atlantic and the party changed its mind. It did


so in a thoroughly democratic way. That is the nature of democracy.


Would you accept the protection of the NATO nuclear umbrella? There is


no doubt the SNP's position is that we do not want nuclear weapons in


Scotland. That is not what I asked. The world rid themselves of nuclear


weapons. One of the interesting point is of the 28 member countries


of Natal 25 do not have nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland...


I asked if you would accept the nuclear umbrella. The key feature of


NATO's military dog train is now clear shrike. We would accept the


basis of which NATO is founded but we would argue two things. We want


Trident removed from Scotland rather than have a situation where might we


are spending ?100 billion over the next generation replacing Trident


and we would argue within the international community that the


world should move much more quickly to rid itself of nuclear weapons.


That is the principal position and won the SNP has held consistently


for many years. You would get rid of one of the key parts of the NATO


deterrent based in Scotland. You would kick that out. You would not


accept all of the club rules because you do not like the idea of nuclear.


Why would they like a member like you in? Because Scotland is a


significant part of the territory of the North Atlantic. You do not


subscribe to the rules. 25 of the member states of NATO are


non-nuclear members. You are saying you do not follow the doctrine. NATO


has said it wants to move away from reliance on nuclear weapons. An


independent Scotland would be entering the majority mainstream of


NATO as a country that did not have nuclear weapons. By leading by


example our moral authority and encouraging others to do likewise


would be increased. Money and oil, the finance minister has said that


an independent Scotland would increase public spending by 3% a


year. He would pay for that by borrowing. Your First Minister says


he is going to stash money in an oil fund. You're going to borrow and


save. How does that work? There are two points. Firstly in terms of the


outlook for finances and what is one of the central debates of this


referendum campaign, austerity that we know will continue if we stay as


part of the Westminster system versus prosperity. The economy can


afford a higher level of increase in public spending while we continue to


have deficit levels at a sustainable level. What is the point of


borrowing and saving at the same time? People who have a mortgage and


the savings account would not themselves what the wisdom of that


is. This is based on recommendations of our expert fiscal Commission that


as borrowing reduces to sustainable levels it makes sense to start


saving a proportion of our oil wealth. In Norway, which has many


similarities to Scotland, they have an oil fund worth ?500 billion.


Scotland is part of the Westminster system is sitting on a share of UK


debt. We can continue to allow our oil wealth, our vast oil wealth, to


be mismanaged or we can decide we are going to manage that resource


better in the years to come. Your figures do not add up unless you are


about oil prices and revenue and you have been consistently wrong in your


predictions. Last year you forecast that revenues would be the .7


billion more than they actually work -- 3.7 billion. The cost of the


Scottish school system gone. There were particular reasons for that in


terms of interruption to production and bigger levels of investment.


Used ill have to find the money. Let me explain. They are based on robust


assumptions, firstly a production estimates that is in line with the


estimates of the oil and gas industry. Use of figures that are


based on production of 10 billion barrels of oil. Oil and gas has been


wrong as well. It is 24 billion left to be recovered. That is what is in


the UK Government's oil and gas strategy so production in line with


industry estimates and an oil price of $110 per barrel which is flat in


cash terms would be a real terms reduction. The Department of energy


is estimating $128 per barrel so our estimate compared to that is


cautious. These are robust estimates based on robust assumptions. Except


they have been wrong. Finally, we hear a lot from you and your fellow


nationalists, you want a Scandinavian style social democracy,


you know how to spend the money but you never tell us about social


democratic levels of taxation. Also should grizzlies have higher levels


of tax in Scotland does at the moment -- all social grizzlies. I


want a Scottish style of social democracy. Free education, free


medicines and balancing the books every single year. We want to get


more people into work in Scotland, raise the level of distribution in


the Labour market and make the economy more productive so we are


raising the overall tax revenue. Over the last 33 years we have


generated more taxpayer head of population than is the case and the


rest of the UK. Those last 33 years, some of those years oil prices would


have been high and in others they would have been law but we take


different decisions. A report showed that if we go as part of the


Westminster system down the plate -- route of replacing Trident then the


cost will be as high as ?4 billion every year. Our share of that is the


hundred million pounds a year. Let us get access to our own resources


so we can make different and better decisions about how to spend the


resources we have. You are promising Scandinavian style social democratic


levels of public spending but you say you will not need a top rate of


tax of 56% which is what Scandinavia has, that all 25%, which is what


Scandinavia has and VAT of 15%. You are going to have the spending but


none of the taxes that make it possible in Scandinavia. For


mischievous reasons you are met -- misrepresenting what I am saying.


The Scottish economy can afford it and we want to generate more wealth


in our economy. We want to use the existing resources Scotland has. We


are the 14th richest country in the world in terms of what we produce.


We do not want to be wasting resources. We want to be spending


resources on the things that other priority for the people of Scotland.


These are the benefits and the opportunities really get if we take


the opportunity of voting yes and becoming independent.


Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.


No resolution to the controversial Ardoyne parade,


but no violence either, after a generally peaceful Twelfth weekend.


But what's the next step to ending the stand-off?


I'll be talking to the North Belfast DUP MP Nigel Dodds


With me throughout the programme are Jim Flanagan of the Ballymena


Guardian and Professor Peter Shirlow from Queen's University.


So, there's been something of a collective sigh of relief that


the Twelfth of July weekend has seen no repeat of the violence


of recent years at the Ardoyne flashpoint in North Belfast.


Members of the local Ligoniel lodges were prevented from returning past


the Ardoyne shops on the Crumlin Road by a Parades Commission


ruling - a ruling that the wider Orange family disputed,


However, the Orange Order remains adamant its campaign will continue.


We have united unionism around this issue and shattered the myth that we


stand alone. As we speak there are protest parades the length and


breadth of the problems. Do not underestimate the significance of


the six minute stoppage earlier today by every orange man and banned


on parade. That stoppage says to the world that the Justice and hatred


that stops people expressing their culture along a show called Sheard


Road. Six minutes. The tide is turning. Far from going away, we are


preparing to enhance our campaign and our efforts are being redoubled


politically and through further peaceful and lawful means. The more


and the SDLP MLA for the area, Alban Maginness.


Things passed off peacefully, as you and others hoped they would. Does


that transformed the landscape and others hoped they would. Does


the future? It is a very positive development. All of us were very


pleased at the end of the day at how things worked out, in north Belfast


in particular. There was a lot of tension, anger and frustration at


the Parades Commission. People felt strongly that threats of republican


violence had won the day. Nevertheless, the unity of purpose


and leadership at all levels and the positive engagement of a range of


people on the ground managing the situation they deliver a dignified


protest and a strong message, but done in a peaceful and lawful way.


That enables us to have a strong platform to move forward. You could


argue that the Parades Commission got it right because it would just a


response that everybody is happy with. I don't think you can take


that from that at all. There was leadership and begin -- a unity of


purpose that resulted in a peaceful day. That is what we always wanted


purpose that resulted in a peaceful to see. We have been very clear


throughout the years at Ardoyne that we did not want violence. The vast


bulk violence have come from


republicanism, violence have come from


dissident republicanism as violence have come from


2012. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. Can we allow


threats of violence from republicans to sway decision-making in Northern


Ireland? The Parades Commission has created a position that needs to be


addressed. The issue has not gone away. There is a concentration and


determination more broadly than in North Belfast at all levels of


unionism to make sure this issue is probably addressed. Do you think


things have changed for the better? I think we should banquet


things have changed for the better? achieved yesterday. That was a


peaceful Twelfth, by and large. That is an important step forward. I


think we have one a bit of space and time to try and resolve the problem


in Ardoyne on a negotiated basis between the two communities. And to


find a local resolution to this particular problem. I think that has


been won by the good sense of those both on the unionist side and the


nationalist side. Would you pay tribute to Unionist leaders? They do


pay tribute. It is what they should have been saying all along. I think


it is important that people on the Unionist side, on the leadership


side, they keep repeating to their reporters that the determination of


the Parades Commission, although they may not like that


determination, that it should in fact be complied with and any


protests that there might be should be peaceful. I certainly believe


that that is progress and if we can continue that way I think we can


create an atmosphere where we have very positive negotiations. What


impact will this have on the psyche of Unionist leaders and the Unionist


rank and file and people in the Orange Order, to hear political


opponents actually giving you credit. I assume isn't something


that you are very used to! Martin McGuinness and the police constable


both said very positive things, as the church leaders. Does that help


for the future because people are getting credit for a different


approach? Many make it clear that Unionist leaders and the Orange


Order have always been forthright in their denunciation of violence and


have always been clear in their call for peaceful demonstrations or


protests. The last year at Twadell Avenue has been peaceful. Every


Saturday there is a parade there and it has been peaceful. That is not an


accident, it has been work on the ground by people in the community,


Orange Order and politicians. It has been very hands-on. It has. What has


happened is that people have taken this issue and there is now a unity


of purpose around at a high political level, as well as local


level and there is a determination to acknowledge right across the


board on the part of unionists to make sure that others acknowledge


the seriousness of this issue and how it can impinge on other issues.


What we need to do is build on what we have achieved so far, but


recognise that the problem is not resolved and there are real issues


there. Does it allow a bit more wriggle room to be built into the


negotiation process, which might allow some kind of compromise to be


produced? It will depend on whether the words of republicans and


nationalists are actually translated into action. All we are asking for


is tolerance and respect. The six minutes that it takes to walk down


the road in the morning, which was done with great tolerance and


respect in terms of both the Orange Order and residents, that could not


be repeated in the evening. Let's see whether or not the breathing


space created is translated into action, not just in words from


nationalist leaders but in terms of their actions to put their talk of


tolerance and respect into action. Has that breathing space been


created? I think it has. We need to work very hard and almost


immediately to try to recreate the dialogue that was suspended prior to


the Twelfth. I think the principles of tolerance and respect are


important principles. I would hope that we could create a compromise in


Ardoyne around those two principles. It is very important to have local


community engagement and I believe that all of us politicians should be


encouraging it. What about this issue that Nigel Dodds raises, how


come the community in Ardoyne can put up at the parade going down the


road but will not bring any discussion about going back up in


the afternoon? I don't think there is any contradiction there. If you


listen to the judgement of the judge in the High Court last week whenever


he commented upon the situation, he said it was quite clear that there


are significant differences between the morning parade and an afternoon


or evening parade. He made that very clear. If a High Court judge comes


to that conclusion and if the Parades Commission comes to that


conclusion, it is fair and reasonable for the residents to come


to that conclusion as well. Can we get into a few specifics? The


Parades Commission ruling is the same as it was last year. I am told


by a senior figure in the Parades Commission that there has to be


overwhelming evidence brought to the table that will change an existing


decision. How do we move this forward? How do you draw the sting


out? How do you put the Ardoyne stand-off in the past tense so we


don't have to go through what we have been through again in 12


months? It comes down to the tolerance and respect on both sides.


That has to be the case. It can't be a denial of fundamental rights. We


need to exercise those rights on both sides in a way which promotes


tolerance and respect. In relation to the Parades Commission and what


has been said, every application has to be judged on its merits. I am a


bit concerned when to be judged on its merits. I am a


from inside the Parades Commission indicate that things have to be


different in order to make a different decision because each


application for each parade has to be judged on its own merits. That is


an important point of principle. The point is, if nothing has changed,


there is no evidence to change things, then the previous ruling


will inevitably stand. I understand what you're saying. There was change


this year in the sense that there had been intense dialogue directly


involving the Orange order with residents, and with the Orange order


and the Parades Commission, and despite of all that they still ruled


against the Orange Order. Also, the potential for disorder, and that


disorder was coming from republicans. That is a very


disorder was coming from destabilising and worrying


development. 12 months ago the violence came


development. 12 months ago the sides. Yes, the violence


development. 12 months ago the violence that has ruled the


Commission in terms of what they decided to do in 2012, over the last


two years. What the Parades Commission said is that there has to


be sustained and sincere dialogue and respect for the determinations


of the Parades Commission. That was not the situation. If that changes,


the Parades Commission will have to consider that, but nothing as yet


there has changed in that direction. Let's pause this discussion for a


moment. the Queen's academic Pete Shirlow


and the journalist Jim Flanagan. Peter, what do you make of what has


happened over the last couple of days? There is a breathing space.


Management and negotiation, although those talks broke down in June, we


are seeing a very different attitude. Even within the Orange


Order, what has happened in Derry with the apprentice boys, talking


has been the key to resolution. I think what we are witnessing is a


wake-up call in many ways for those who would claim to represent both


sides. They are starting to understand that there has to be a


process that has taken much further than it has been. Unionism has to


make sure when they talk about respect and parity of esteem, what


that means, as well. The language needs to be put into real action and


positive outcomes. Is there a breathing space? Has the landscape


changed? I think certainly the fact that the parade yesterday passed his


fully means there should be credit given all round. It doesn't change


the fundamentals. There is a potent cop tale of grievance in the


unionist community about this parade. It is important that while


there may be a breathing space it doesn't last indefinitely. There is


a temptation to think it is over, so that is OK until next year. We


should grasp the nettle now. I interviewed the police constable on


Thursday night when he does not want to send 100 peace officers up to


Twadell Avenue every night, costing ?40,000 a day. We always say that,


but we never talk about it until the next June! There is a more focused


attempt now being made to deal with this. 40 years ago the Ulster


workers Council strike led to many people being injured. We still have


the effect of that. We are in a different place. We should start to


celebrate that a bit more. They are difficult issues, but they are not


taking us back to the past. Will the nettle be grasped, or will we put it


on the long finger until 11 months's time? I trust not. The


problem over the past year was that the dialogue commenced in April.


That was far too late in the day. It only continued up until the


beginning of June. I think Jim makes an important point, the nettle is


being grasped because the Unionist leaders have said that we have a


plan, we have called for a commission of enquiry, we are


meeting the Secretary of State to talk about that. There will be a


high level and serious engagement as of now right through. The


seriousness of this and the unity of purpose and the peaceful conditions


that were brought about yesterday to create an opportunity for us. I need


to ask you about the front-page story, saying the Peter Robinson


will stand down in September and there are arrangements in place for


a seat in the Lords. Typical tabloid rubbish. We normally have a silly


season that starts in August, but it has started early. I am always


reminded when I read things like this journalist should be as


accountable politicians. They just invent new stories. So, no truth


whatsoever? None whatsoever. There are of rumours! -- there are lots of


rumours! Thank-you both for now -


we'll hear more from you later. Now, with the political year


at an end, time for a look back at some of the moments that stood


out for us - and there was no If it is just a few small areas of


outstanding disagreement, you might come back one further push? I don't


see the need for that. We have had a good campaign and is


our honoured by the people who have voted. It is essential that we get


out the truth of all that went on in order to restore public confidence


that has been so seriously damaged by this deal. Let us step up to the


plate, start grappling with the real issue is not manufactured ones.


Ethnic minorities have been attacked and I feel vulnerable when I walk on


the street. I am innocent of any involvement in any conspiracy to


conduct -- abduct or very Jean McConville. What is the political


lesson you have learned? Don't start a political party with Basil McCrea.


How are you keeping? Fine, thank you very much.


People are waiting to find out what the graduated response means in


reality. I think there is quite a serious situation that is developing


up there. We have other issues as well, the June monitoring round


remains unresolved, the OTR to. Nothing about the welfare reform


stand-off either. There will always be in. What we need to start doing


this year is be more positive. We have the city of culture in Derry.


We have seen the Giro d'Italia. The crisis that we have today do not


send us back to the past any more. A younger generation is being turned


off by politics and I think that is probably the real crisis. Despite


the protests, reconciliation projects will continue. What is


happening on the ground is important.


Let's pause for a moment and take a look back


at the political week gone past in 60 seconds with Martina Purdy.


Unionists may like to give the graduated response to a ruling on a


parade in north Belfast. A denial of cultural expression will have a


consequence. Friends in high places, the Taoiseach talks about the


cancelled Garth Brooks constructs. I am very disappointed that it won't


happen. The row over the decision by a bakery not to make a cake mated to


a Westminster. In terms to those of different sexes, tolerance and


equality of people with different sexualities, all of that is a very


important part of being British. It was awards night. Was it Danny in


like read that did it? Nobody put Peter Robinson into it? The winner


of Best Minister is Simon Hamilton! Simon Hamilton, the Best Minister? I


think it is a very good Simon Hamilton, the Best Minister? I


has a great grasp of his brief and is dealing really well with the


problems that the welfare cuts are creating. It was a draw between Jim


Allister and Anna Lo for the best MLA? Two very different people!


Democracy is the right to express your opinion. Anna Lo spoke very


well about the race issue. Jim Allister is the Rottweiler who will


always be there. People may dislike him in many ways for certain aspects


of those politics, but what we do like is the role he plays of


questioning the accountability of the Assembly.


will keep a bit safer. That is all the time we have.


So, plenty happening in Parliament this coming week, including


a controversial bill to make so-called assisted dying legal and


Lord Carey has intervened in the assisted dying debate. Will it make


a difference? It will make a difference because we have


established in the House of Lords, I am not sure who they speak for and


why they should have a privileged position, but he was a big opponent


and has made a change of heart. The fact that the Daily Mail has printed


this shows this is a big intervention. The Bill being pushed


through, is it now on the agenda? I think it is. There are international


examples of assisted dying elsewhere. The state of Oregon


passed a Bill similar to this in the 1990s and things have not got out of


control. That has not been an expansion or abuse. It has settled


down and become part of the furniture. That makes it easier for


this Bill, to make the case for it. Religious people may still have a


principled objection but most other people have a practical objection,


which is how to put in place safeguards to deal with unscrupulous


relatives or anyone else who wants to abuse this right? Once a


controversial issue is only being opposed for practical reasons it is


on its way to getting its way. What is the division, is it the Church


against everybody else? Is it a right and left division? What is


stopping it? It is a very difficult moral issue and there are people who


can have genuinely held Christian beliefs or non-Christian beliefs who


can be on both sides. I think that the Lord Carey intervention is


potentially a game changer not just because he is a former Archbishop of


Canterbury but because he was on the Evan Jellicoe side of the Church of


England. That is quite a big move. The response was to say, please


withdraw your bell and let us have a royal Commission. The Supreme Court


kicked the ball back to Parliament when they rejected the cases of


three people who had been taking the case and said, we could say that


banning the right to life is against the European Court of Human Rights,


but it is a moral issue and an issue for Parliament. Parliament needs to


decide. The data act that is going to be pushed through Parliament. In


record time. To comply with a European court judgement. Tom Watson


and David Davis, some dissent. Are you so prized with how united the


establishment, left, right and centre is? No. There is a great


quote saying this has been enacted under the something must be done act


and that captures it exactly. Even Cameron says he does not want to


look people in the eye and say that he did not do everything he could.


There is no end to the power of surveillance. It is all was about


drawing a distinction. I am always suspicious when politicians look


something up and said, we have all agreed. Are there at the centre is


right or is the political establishment right? I think the


establishment is right. I think it is stronger than other issues. We


are in a unique position where all three political parties have


relatively recent experience of government so they now that security


threats are not made up by unscrupulous people. The legislation


being proposed is not dramatic, it is to fill a gap that was created. I


do not see the political controversy. All three political


parties support it. David Davis and Liberty are against that, and always


are. Would you not have expected... The Lib Dems are in government, but


a bit more rebellion on the Labour backbenches? There is no political


controversy put outside parliament there's quite a lot of controversy


about this. My paper has taken an interest in this. It is interesting,


it does not feel, it is not a 1950s, three public school boys


setting, let us have this deal. The Liberal Democrats and Labour have


serious questions. There's going to be a sunset clause that will run out


in 2016. The Liberal Democrats, who asked pretty tough questions, have


said there are assurances. Ed Miliband did not go to public


school. For many English football fans,


tonight's World Cup final presents How do you pick


between two traditional foes Well, if you're


a political obsessive, like these three, you could always back the


nation according to how it votes. The website LabourList has produced


a political guide to the tournament. At the beginning of the tournament,


it was a fairly balanced playing field politically with 15 left wing


and 17 right-wing countries. England found themselves isolated in a group


with three left-wing countries. That was the least of their problems.


There was a clear domination of democratic regimes over


authoritarian with only six of oratory and countries making it


through to the finals and the only all authoritarian tie was dubbed the


worst match of the World Cup. By the second round 16 teams remained. The


left had a clear advantage with nine, seven from the right and


authoritarian countries all but wiped out. Two representatives


remained. Both were beaten by European democracies. By the


semi-finals, all was even Stephen. A right-wing Protestant Europe taking


on Catholics South America. With one victory


on Catholics South America. With one Brazil and Argentina beating the


Dutch, tonight's final repeats that pattern. Who will win? Angela


Merkel's Germany or Argentina? We're joined now


by Britain's only Labour adviser Should we read political


significance in to the fact that the only time England has won the World


Cup was under a Labour government? Of course. The problem is we did not


qualify for Euro 2008 when it was a Labour government. We have had some


pretty shoddy results under a Labour government. As someone under the


left, are you backing Argentina? Absolutely not. I do not think it


has anything to do with politics. It is a bit of fun. People should


choose it is Don Hoop plays the best football and the Germans have been


fantastic. They were great in 2010 as well. They started this model in


2008 and that is the sort of thing people should be supporting. Who


should a Eurosceptic support? I would not say Argentina because that


is the country that has tried to seize British sovereign territory


within my lifetime. You were not around for the Blitz. Believe it or


not, I was not. There is a strong political case to support Germany.


They are probably going to win the World Cup with a clear of -- with


players of Polish origin. That sort of cultural change they have forced


themselves to go through... You talk about them being right wing, but in


fact the way that the German league is structured, and I am an expert,


is based on ownership. It is very different from the Premier League.


It is about football as a usual good. The ticket prices are lower.


The fans are involved in running the club. It is a model that all English


football clubs should emulate. Germany had a strong football team


under centre right governments and centre left governments and a


coalition. A strong football team and a strong economy. The


Conservative MP who is the arch Eurosceptic wanted to get us out of


the European Union and was for a few weeks ago when people were making


jokes about Jean-Claude Juncker, he was outraged and said you should not


do that, so he could happily support Germany. What was interesting about


the authoritarian and democratic regimes, what is great is that the


World Cup is run by this open and democratic organisation Fifa. It is


similar to the EU in many regards. Two countries led by women. Maybe


gender is the thing. We did not win under Margaret Thatcher. There's one


big difference with the EU, you cannot flog six Dom Acta gets to go


to a European summit. Did you know that Italy won two world cups under


Mussolini? Can we draw any conclusions between a political


system and the performance of the football team? You can draw certain


parallels between maybe national cliches, so the Germans are


efficient and effective, which might reflect and the English are very


polite so we let everyone score first and go into the second round.


We put ourselves at the back of the queue. Is England going to qualify


for the European? We are going to win the European Championship. The


first country Scotland have to play is Germany. What could possibly go


wrong? Who is going to win? Germany. Germany. I am going to put a few bob


on Argentina. Are you going to be watching? Absolutely. Thank you.


This is the last Sunday Politics for the summer.


But we'll be back in early autumn and our first programme will be live


from Scotland, the weekend before the referendum


The Daily Politics is back tomorrow at noon and we'll bring you


the last PMQs before the summer on Wednesday morning from 11:30am.


Remember, if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics, unless


Download Subtitles