09/05/2013 The View

probably the most ambitious set-up proposals that have ever been

brought forward. This is a decisive step change where we can move

forward. Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness were clear about its

significance. Can today's initiative seal the deal on a shared future?

I'll be asking the five main parties for their views.

They're thinking big - more than two months since those dramatic

resignations, Basil McCrea and John McCallister say their ambitions

don't stop at opposition. But it is our intention to form the Government

of Northern Ireland. We are not shy in our ambition, but we are

realistic about the challenge And making sense of the week in politics

and sharing their thoughts on the resignation of the week, we're

joined tonight in Commentators' Corner by the Professors, Heenan and

Wilford. In front of us.

And you can, of course, follow the programme on Twitter.

The First Minister says it's the most ambitious set of proposals to

tackle underlying divisions in the history of Northern Ireland. Martin

McGuinness says it's a decisive step forward and clear evidence of the

two men's ability to work together. But what are the chances of success,

given the history of similar initiatives? It all started back in

2005. Three years later, with devolution restored, it had been

re-christened by the First and Deputy First Minster as "Cohestion,

Sharing and Integration". And it was two years after that, in February

2010, when OFMDFM announced a final draft was almost ready. But just a

few months later, the Ulster Unionists, SDLP and Alliance

criticised it for lack of vision. To break the stalemate, an all-party

CSI working group was set up at Stormont. But one year later and the

Alliance pulled out followed by the UUP. And with still no document to

show, by January this year, Peter Robinson revealed the sticking

points were flags, parades and the past. Which brings us to today's

announcement and another new name - Together: Building a United

ambitious set of proposals on a shared future ever. Let me start

with 10,000 reasons! 10,000 of our young people not in education,

employment or training are going to be given a unique opportunity of

work experience, leisure, volunteering, charity work, but in a

shared way. It's unique. Let's all come together to build this united

community. In the summer, 100 of our post primary young people will get a

unique opportunity to have a residential together, learn

together, to play sport together. Ten of our areas will have a social

development, a mixed housing scheme. John... Ten shirt campuses.

For urban villages. Where's the evidence that these new proposals

would lead to greater significance sharing? The 10,000 proposals we

don't currently have. We have 46,000 of our young people not in

education, employment or training, that's one in four. That's not

acceptable. We are going to give 10,000 of our young people aged

unique one-year opportunity with a stipend to come together, to work

together and get an accredited diploma at the end of it. It'll cost

millions! If we don't do it, it will cost even more. This programme of

work was over ten years. But I do believe, over the four or five

years, we can secure the funding to do it. The 10,000 that Jonathan Bell

has gone on about their, it is the funding coming from existing funds

all additional funds? That would be additional funds. It will come. If

we require further funding, we should be working with the British

government and our executive colleagues. Is the funding in place

at the moment? If you have 10,000 young people, will be �1000 a year?

If it is, that's �10 million. a significant amount of money but it

is not beyond the means. Which means you'll find it? That's different

from saying you have identified it. We can argue over the pounds,

shillings and pence is over this proposals, but we are capable of

securing that funding. We deal in tens of millions of pounds on a

daily basis. The importance of today's announcement is that it is a

step up. No 1's saying it is a final solution. It is a step forward.

step forward, a step in the right direction? We have a lot of

headlines and it -- very little substance. They have picked off the

headline. I have real concerns about putting up headlines without

substance, without knowing where the money is coming from without

acknowledging what has already been done. In my case, without taking

account of the realities. We have a danger of disappointing people.

your party going to be involved in the working group set up to try to

deal with some of the other issues that have not been sorted out? A

couple of months ago, we proposed a five party working group with an

independent share and bringing in a civic society. Peter Robinson

rubbished that in the assembly. Yet that is exactly what is being

proposed today. We will be looking at those proposals and seeing how we

can make progress. Do you accept that the direction of travel is hard

to argue with? There's nothing new. There are some headlines. It is not

funded yet. Where exactly is it funded? I looked at some �10 billion

we were spending, looked at the cost of these proposals, and we are

confident we will resource and deliver. How much will it cost?

Let's concentrate on what we are doing. We have got the funding for

it. Tell us how much it is going to cost. Were looking at round about

half �1 billion. Some of the work has to be tended, though. We are

determined to deliver for 10,000 of our young people on a shared basis,

on a cross community basis, because as the First Minister said, we have

to give the young people the future. Half a billion. For the whole

package? Over what period of time? We are looking across. There are

things we can do immediately. Some pieces of work will have to be

funded. But let no one be in any doubt: We will deliver. Why are you

talking down 10,000 of our young people? 46,000 young people are not

in education, employment or training. I will not rubbished these

proposals, but what is rubbish is the fact that I had not been made

aware of them in advance. The executive had no discussion or

input. The political party, which I represent, is committed to a shared

future and wants to see progress made but had no input. Why does that

matter? It fundamentally matters because the entire community,

including all the political parties, have to be involved in this work.

This has to be a shared future not a shared out future. A number of

actions have been announced today. To bring forward some of the most

difficult aspects of our shared future. Exactly, to deal with the

difficult bits you too could not sort out between you! How has the

peace process moved forward? We got agreement on the issues.

everybody had to be involved in that. I am a wee bit disappointed by

the tone. But they didn't know anything about it until it was

announced today. Fundamentally, that the issue, John. Calm down! Your

fellow members of the executive did not know about this and your

attitude is, so what? That sums up the attitude of the two main

parties! In the wider issue of a divided society moving forwards, the

first and Deputy first Minister stood up and said, these are the

plans moving forward. Does the general public really care as to

whether John David knew the details? They want to know will leadership he

given to our society. It doesn't matter, he says. The point is, you

know now. This is a divided society. Every time we have made

progress, it is by having everyone in the room and dealing with the

issues as a collective. It is not about siphoning of people to do side

deals. Every time we have ended up in a cul-de-sac... We ended up in a

cul-de-sac over parades. They did a deal and a deal player -- fell flat

on its face. Sinn Fein and the day you be took themselves off aside,

did the deal and it fell flat on its face. I don't want this process to

end up being a fiasco. But it has to be said that in terms of getting off

on the wrong foot, you couldn't possibly get off on a worse foot in

an all-party executive where you have excluded the majority! Here's

the bottom line: The SDLP will participate in any process. We do

not leave the process, we stay with it till the end. We rode to be

Deputy First Minister saying we were available. The point that needs to

be said: We have written on four or five occasions on the past, this

issue and other issues. No reply. had the document my hand today.

Before we released it, before we announced it, the STL P released a

press statement rubbishing it. Before they had read it and seen it.

The SDLP... How stupid was that? a guy who spent two years trying to

turn a good sea and is, -- trying to chair negotiations, let's see a

collective approach. Thank you.Do you want collective government?

me bring in David. He will be part of that negotiation. Your party

walked away. Will you stay in from now on? They rubbished the process

and have now accepted it. If we are talking about collective

government, perhaps those who published the report can explain how

they can produce this proposal. or out? How it is that they can

announce proposals for what is the responsibility and professional

expertise without any consultation with the Minister, how they can

pronounce -- announce proposals about peace walls when they had no

other consultation, they have complete ignorance of funding.

need to move on from the issue of consultation. A timescale is most

unhelpful and is not in the programme of government. I have more

questions for the two people on my right. Will your party be part of

The representatives from the largest parties need to understand

the dynamics. Northern Ireland is deeply divided. There is a huge

danger that we continue to drift into what might be called a benign

apartheid. That isn't helpful. The attitude that we have heard tonight,

that dismisses the involvement of other parties, this so what

attitude, isn't helpful. And a caution people who use those terms

to step back and say, others can make a contribution. People want to

see a shared future, not a shared out future. We need to think about

bringing things to its conclusion, I want to put this to - you want

young people to work together. Yet, you say openly you cannot agree on

key issues, sticking points, parades and flags and the past. You

want them to get on and it is important to do that, but you

reserve the right to engage in arguments when you want to on these

critical issues. What example does that set? The only people arguing

or those of posing and attempting to move the attempt to move the

situation forward, what be clearly say is, we do not have agreement on

the path, not on flight start macro Iago one flags whenever you want.

Of course, but we can go into a room and talk and sort things out.

What we have said... You have singularly failed to do that so far.

We have resolved in many issues. Not those big issues. Let me finish

one sentence. I have sat in studios over 10 years discussing aspects of

the peace process and journalists like you have told me... Be never

told you anything. You told us we would never share power with the

DUP. Outside Newtownards tonight, Celtic, from Twinbrook and Belfast,

playing my team, are strangers, under 15, boys and girls together,

all parts together. Great - what about the flags? We will do that

together. The junior ministers. have to leave it there. There is

hard work to be done. We all need to be at it and not ignored.

have to draw this to a gentle manner conclusion. Thank you and we

look forward to further discussions in due course. More than two months

since Basil McCrea and John McAllister quit the Ulster

Unionists and formed their own pro- Union party and since then, nothing.

We thought you would find out what has been happening behind the

scenes. This report from Gareth Gordon. I have informed the party

leader and have sent a letter with my resignation with immediate

effect. We had to sell it, having talked to a number of people, to

set up our own party and we feel confident we have a message that

will go down well with the electorate. I am generally grateful

to the member for giving way, it isn't a platitude because were it

not for his generosity, neither myself nor Mr McAllister would have

had a chance to speak on this issue. It is more than two months since

Basil McCrea and John McCallister announced they were forming a new

party and since then in public at least, there has been silence. They

say you only get one chance to make a first impression, so have they

are blown theirs? This week, the former party leader took to his

Twitter to suggest they are lost. Not true, but if you track them

down, they are in Stormont, when they revealed the new party would

be lodged in four five weeks. are not finding any criticism, are

you? The mood I get is people want us to put together a package and

they're more interested in the message. The only people getting

agitated about the timing and the name, are people like yourself.

Worried about having something to report. So the imperative to get

that out is, we will work to our own time frame. And we're very

serious about what we have to do, there are really challenging issue

is which we must get right, there is a bit of responsibility on us to

do that and they will take the time to do this right and when we launch,

we will have a significant number of answers to pertinent questions.

Questor is like, what will the party be called? He will not tell

you at the moment. You will be one of the first to know. Will the word

Unionist be in the title? We are clear already that although we are

pro United Kingdom, we are looking for a party that has focused upon

Northern Ireland and we want to reach as wide a range of people as

possible within that broad parameters. So the title Northern

Ireland will be in the name? could tender that, but he will have

to wait. What are the chances of success? We ask an expert in

marketing. They have been very brave to do this in the

circumstances they find themselves in. But I think it would be quite a

challenge for them over the next couple of years to establish long-

term credibility. A political party is much the same as a business. It

has a customer base, it essentially has a stake holder gripping and

everything it stands for represents that product. And that requires

finance and resource commitment over an extended period. Have they

got that? An Archer, frankly. in the 1990s, the Women's Coalition

became a player in the peace process and one of the founder-

members says establishing a new party is difficult but not

impossible. The in terms of starting a new party, people should

not, if they want to join, they should not enter with trepidation.

Political parties might like to think it is rocket science but

actually, it is just common sense, and of course it has to be backed

by good organisation and of course if you're starting in a party, you

don't have the same amount of profile. Therefore, you have to

have some clear messages. Basil McCrea and Tom McAllister said they

will have members and supporters from all walks of life. But their

renditions do not end at opposition. When you start up any new party it

will take time to get an organisation and an infrastructure

everywhere. So we will be planned and considered in the way we tackle

things but it is our intention at some stage to form the government

of Northern Ireland. We're not shy in our admission but we are also

realistic and the challenge in front of us. So you could be a

party of government? That just serious, we intend to. That is why

we're going into this. We do think that we need to get reform of the

institutions in Northern Ireland and we think we need a position and

we will certainly provide an effective opposition and until we

get ourselves into government, and when we are in government we will

work for the common good. So what could be one day, Basil McCrea,

First Minister? I would like to see that. It does not matter to me

whether it is John or myself or maybe somebody else who comes along.

What you aspire to the leadership of the community, the whole

committee and I stress that. We are looking to do what is right for the

common good. The gospel according to John and Basil. As told to have

Gareth Gordon. Professors Heenan and Wilford. Let's talk about the

shared future. Lively discussion between representatives of the five

main parties. What did you think? There was an irony because they're

talking about a shared future and clearly there is no shared presence,

present, and only shared agreement between the parties who formed the

Executive. It was remarkable that John O'Dowd was able to spend

Steven Farry's money as part and parcel of this fight for the bane

pounds promised. If I was him I would like to know that my budget

was being addressed in that sort of way. It struck me that this

confirms the situation may have in government, no collective agreement.

And the risk is that although it is ambitious and that is welcome, that

it could unravel because there seems to be such a lack of

agreement. And a lack of knowledge amongst the other parties about

what this deal consisted of. We don't know if this 500 millions

figure has been arrived at. A there is no argument about the direction

but the issues of flags have not been resolved and tonight, there is

no great evidence of it being about to be resolved? It is a step

forward but not any big change and it isn't clear how it could be.

Many of these ideas have been around before and there are a key

issue is around the issue of funding and the very contentious --

contentious issues, we're not any closer to solving these. Listening

to that, it seems very little is possible. You a moment of the we?

Nigel Lawson, his intervention in the debate saying it is now time

for the UK to pull out. It was one thing for Nigel Farage and the

fruit cakes, as it were, to campaign on that basis but when the

former Chancellor comes out and says it is time to leave, a big

beast has entered the debate and two former chancellors have added

their voices. They have also said that Britain should leave.

yours? The Queen's Speech yesterday, the pomp and pageantry but very

little content. It was startlingly spas. Most people were very

surprised by how little it content and what was left out rather than

what was in there. Understandably, Labour said it is an example of the

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 102 seconds

Gareth Gordon did his level best to get the name of the party out of

them. If you hear that, you heard it here first. Is that a deal?

is a deal. I will tweet that. do you think? The likely lads?

Actually, the BT to it because they saw me some months ago. A Queen's

University is one step ahead! it make any difference or not?

we will have to wait and see. It might dent the mould but it will