05/11/2015 The View

"Possible but not probable" - the words of the Secretary of State

On The View tonight, we try to find out just how far away

Theresa Villiers hedges her bets on whether or not a Stormont deal

No, I'm afraid to say I don't think there's a concluded agreement as

yet. I think it's possible we could have a deal next week. Yes.

As the Ulster Unionists signal their intent to mark the centenary

of the Easter Rising, how should we handle 2016 - a year of potentially

It is important for me to hear directly from unionists how they see

1916. I want to hear a critique of the Easter Rising.

The mosaics falls, unfasten the doors.

The DUP wields a Petition of Concern to veto a vote on same sex marriage.

So, is it a useful legislative tool - or an

And the painting that's outraged the Orange Order.

With their art critics' hats on, Alex Kane and Paul McFadden give

The Prime Minister's deadline for a deal may have expired last week but

the parties are still talking and there's speculation that a Stormont

House Mark 2 arrangement could be imminent.

I've been speaking to the Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers.

Is she optimistic a deal can be done?

. I think it is possible. I agree we can't go on indefinitely with this

process. I think the pressures will grow such

process. I think the pressures will difficult beyond next week to get a

successful outcome. I think some of the gaps are closing so I approach

next week with a degree of hope, partly offered I'm convinced that

all of the five parties around the table at the Stormont House talks

all want to make this work, so they are all focused on trying to get a

solution. You say it is possible, would you go so far as to say

probable? I wouldn't go that far, no. So there is no sense that a

shadow deal is already in place and the parties are simply selling it to

their own members and cross-referencing all of the detail

that's in there and the final announcement is going to be made by

the Prime Minister next announcement is going to be made by

are saying that's wrong, if people are hearing that or thinking that or

believing that they're off the money? I'm afraid I wouldn't be that

optimistic. As I say, I think what the talks have been going reasonably

well in the round table format at Stormont House and I think the

parties have been engaging with one another on a bilateral basis with

great seriousness. I think genuinely some of the gaps are closing between

them, but no I'm afraid to say I don't think there's a concluded

agreement as yet. I think as I've said it's possible we could get to

that stage but sadly I don't think we are at that stage yet. Forgive me

for saying, that's quite pessimistic. I think public

for saying, that's quite one of expectation at the moment.

There's a belief out there we one of expectation at the moment.

seeing the beginning of the choreography that will lead to an

announcement on a deal next week. choreography that will lead to an

on the jungle drums. choreography that will lead to an

Well, I'm encouraged that that's what you're hearing on the network.

You are what you're hearing on the network.

know than I am and you are not saying that. What I am saying is

that the leaders of Northern Ireland's

to make this place work. We've been to make this place work. We've been

hearing strong signals from the to make this place work. We've been

they are prepared to work together to make this place work. We've been

and make compromises to deliver a successful outcome. I'm encouraged

by that. It sounds like others successful outcome. I'm encouraged

as well. Is the veto over national security a continuing sticking

point? That's a problem for nationalists in

particular. a problem for nationalists in

Fein said that's a line in the sand and it needs to be resolved if we

can sign up to a and it needs to be resolved if we

been movement on that issue? It's a very difficult issue. That's one of

the issues where a resolution is, doesn't look easy to achieve. But

the issues where a resolution is, are on both sides of the argument we

are reflecting intensively to see whether there's a way that we can

find a way to make sure that we maintain our duties, crucial duties,

to protect national security. If we were to depart from that we would

give assistance to terrorists around the world. But we are reflecting

very carefully to see if there's a way that we can provide the

reassurance that the nationalists are seeking on this. But it is

difficult, you are right to highlight that issue. You've said it

is difficult. Is there possible there can be a deal without

agreement on that is this are there elements on the discussions you

might decide to set to one side, to park, to deal with at a later stage?

Or does this to be an all encompassing Deal or No Deal at all?

I believe it would be best to try and make progress on all the issues

on the table. Obviously it would be best to do that. But is it a

requirement that that happens? In theory it would be possible to agree

on the other matters without reaching consensus on the national

security matters, not least because legislation on that doesn't require

a legislative consent motion. But I think it is important that we

continue to strive to try and find something with which all sides are

content. That's an interesting point. Is it your view as Secretary

of State that all of the five main parties would have to sign up to any

deal? Or could it be a two-party, three-party or four-party deal? We

heard from Mike Nesbitt, the Ulster Unionist leader, saying don't assume

the Ulster Unionists will sign up to this. We could sit in opposition to

it between now and next May. Is that an ideal situation? It is not an

ideal situation. My goal is certainly an agreement to which five

parties can sign up and receive support from the UK and the Irish

Governments but I'm realistic enough to know that degree of successful

outcome isn't guaranteed, as I've said. But would it work as a two,

three or four-party deal, or does have it to be a five-party deal? I

think we could make workable progress with a deal that wasn't

necessarily enthusiastically endorsed by all five parties. After

all, I think the Stormont House agreement Part 1 was a big step

forwards, and yet at least two of the parties were lukewarm in their

reception to it. The point is it fell apart. Yes, so we all need to

try and make lessons so make sure if there is an agreement next week it

will stick, and everyone has that in mind. We are all working hard to try

to ensure we avoid the problem that arose in relation to welfare top-ups

where Sinn Fein said she didn't understand what they signed up to.

We are working to see if we can deliver something that's clear to

all concerned. You said a moment ago if there's a deal next week, so it

is still in your head that that's a possibility and next week is the

time that it needs to happen? I think it is possible that we could

have a deal next week, yes. And if the parties don't manage to do that

and the clock keeps ticking, what's to stop it running on to Christmas

again for the third year in a row? You are actually not in a position

to put the operation on it, are you? Well, as everyone knows, it is

almost impossible to set dead lines for this kind of process, but

there's a recognition around the table in Stormont House that we've

been at this process for many weeks. It is time that we started focusing

on trying to get to a final agreement. That may not happen next

week but I certainly hope it does. You sound a bit more optimistic now

than you did six or seven minutes ago, when you sounded quite

pessimistic. Have you got a fixed position on this? I'm realistic

about the state of the talks. As I've said, I think that the gap

between the parties on some key issues has been closing, but there

are some very difficult problems still to be resolved. So I approach

next week with a degree of hope, because of the commitment the

parties have shown to try to make a success of this process. But I think

it is still going to be a very difficult task. It could well be

that we get to the end of the week and we haven't had a successful

outcome. I wonder, are you privy to those private conversations, the

bilaterals between the DUP and Sinn Fein? Is it possible that you are

being cut out of some of the deal making that's taking place between

Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness. Forgive me, but you have

a bit part. Having encouraged the parties throughout to be speaking to

one another, because as we started this conversation by saying it is

Northern Ireland's leaders that are the solution here. They are the ones

who are the key to success or failure of this process, so I've

been engaged for nine weeks in intensive series of discussions both

in a round table format with all parties and individually with

bilaterals and tri--laterals with individual parties. It is a

combination of both those things which is crucial to delivering a

solution. And in the meantime this is set against the backdrop of

Northern Ireland's stuttering economy. We had nearly 900 jobs

going in Ballymena this week. 50 jobs in West Belfast at a

supermarket yesterday. You can understand people being depressed

about the political landscape. As depressed frankly about the economic

landscape. Well, obviously the announcement by Michelin is a

disaster for Ballymena and for all the individuals who work there. I

and the Minister Ben Wallace will be working closely with the Northern

Ireland Executive to do all that we can to try and provide mitigation

for this situation. I think we do need to keep in mind that there is

economic recovery across the United Kingdom and that includes Northern

Ireland. But it is a terrible blow what's happened to Michelin. It is

important that we do all we can to try and mitigate it and in

particular I think... Personally I think it is vital that Transport for

London keep buying buses from Right Bus and extend the orders there so

that we can make sure that the businesses that do remain in the

area continue to thrive. I've been in discussions on those matters. I

think it is crucial that we do all we can to bring opportunities to

those who are facing the loss of their jobs as a result of disastrous

news. You've just used the word disaster twice. That's very strong

language from a Secretary of State about an announcement of jobs

losses. Yes. A disaster? Yes. What's does that say about Tory economic

policies in Northern Ireland? Does it not suggest that as the

Archbishop of Canterbury said of the weekend, Northern Ireland as far as

economics are concerned is a place apart? What we've done is we are as

a Government seeking to make the UK the most competitive place that we

possibly can for businesses like Michelin. Tell that to people in

Ballymena. And that includes reductions in corporation tax. Part

of the reason behind the process I'm undertaking in Stormont House is to

enable the devolution of corporation tax here to be thrived so rates come

down even further. But the reality is that Michelin found it was not

competitive compared to its other plants. We need to find a way to

deliver of opportunities to those who will be losing their jobs. What,

finally, Secretary of State, is your message to people watching this

interview tonight who are extremely nervous about a deal not being done

or possibly extremely nervous about a deal being done? They don't know

quite what to make of what's happening here. They don't like

what's happening in terms of the status quo but they know the

politicians have got to do better. They are not sure what that means

for them. This is a time of great uncertainty for people and you don't

know exactly what's likely to happen over the next week to ten days. What

do you say to people at home unnerved by the current state of

lay? We need be realistic, it is impossible to predict with certainty

what outcome of next week will be. The crucial thing is we need to make

this place work. The '98 peace settlement was a huge achievement,

rightly hailed around the world of a miraculous example of how bitter

enemies can work together for the common good. The settlement has been

under extreme stress but it was a huge achievement and it is worth

saving. That means it is important for Northern Ireland's leadersed to

be prepared to make compromises to find a way forward, to give the

executive a sustainable budget. Without a sustainable budget,

without welfare reform, we don't have workable institutions and we

will be inexorably heading for a period of suspension of direct rule

which nobody wants to happen. Would that be a disaster, to use your word

from earlier, for everybody in Northern Ireland? It would be a

serious political setback which is why I'm working hard to avoid it.

Obviously suspension has occurred from time to time during the period

since the '98 agreement. From that point of view it will be nothing

new, but Northern Ireland has come so far. I think the devolved

institutions have delivered a huge amount and the right way to run

Northern Ireland is locally elected leaders making decisions about this

place on behalf and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

That's why this is a settlement that's worth fighting for. That's

why all of the parties need to be focused next week on delivering a

settlement which saves the institutions and enables them to

continue. Secretary of State, thank you very much. Thank you.

Theresa Villiers hedging her bets on a deal next week.

And if you want to share your thoughts on what she had to say,

Now, 2016 will see the marking of two major historical

anniversaries - the Battle of the Somme, and the Easter Rising

Tonight the Ulster Unionist Party has said it's likely to be present

in Dublin at some point next Easter, potentially holding its own event.

Our political correspondent, Chris Page, has been considering how the

The events of that year really change the course of Irish history,

the direction of this island. 1916 is a defining year for Irish

republicans. It is a big anniversary because of

the sacrifices that were made at the Somme. In this part of the world,

many find history endlessly fascinating. It is also complex and

contentious. The way people view events of the past is generally

shaped by their current political views. History may never feel that

far away here but next year it will feel particularly close. The

movement started here inspires... There is all ready lots of interest.

These people are doing a course on centenary is. They are getting a

talk at Cray gave in house. It is here the UDF had its headquarters

later the building was a hospital for the Ulster volunteers who fought

in the First World War. What sort of interface between past and present

will next year bring? It is a massive year and as in 1966, it

always happens at a time when the dynamic is changing, now we have the

up-and-down peace process going on, 1916, as an event is the last thing

we need but we need to come to terms with these things. 100 years ago, it

is easier to deal with now than in the 1960s. We have the diaries,

Testament and witness statements and so much work has been done by

historians looking at these events in a more objective and balanced

way. There are new ways of exploring old

stories. This mural shows a man who features in a graphic novel telling

how the man gave his life to protect his fellow soldiers. At the Battle

of the soppy threw himself onto grenades which slipped into a

crowded trench and he was awarded the Victoria Cross. By showing our

loyalty to Britain we hope they will reward us by getting rid of home

rule. That is why I'm here. The graphic novel part of a project

called creative centenaries looks at this woman must Winifred Carney was

a suffragette, socialist and subversive. She took part in the

rising and was one of the group which occupied the General Post

Office in Dublin on Easter Monday. In indication of how nuanced

narratives can be, she married a former UVF man who fought in the

First World War. George McBride. Or though it was a hands across the

divide marriage it was because they shared a revolutionary socialism,

she was a nationalist and republican as well and George didn't have that

perspective because he was a Protestant from another part of

Belfast. But they shared and by the late 20s and 30s that was the common

denominator because the situation had changed so much. Winifred Carney

was the secretary of this man, James Connelly, this is where he lived in

West Belfast. There will be a programme of events to mark the rise

in which he was a leader of. A former Sinn Fein Lord Mayor is an

organiser. He says he would like to see unionists play a role. History

doesn't run along parallel lines, there is no one narrative that

covers the story but I would appreciate it if you'd lifts came

and put a view of 1916 or a critique of 1960 -- if a unionist came. I

think there are issues that are important. It is a decade of

centenaries, this is the PEEP leader playing Sir Edward Carson at an

event to mark the 100th anniversary of the formation of the Ulster

volunteers. Does he expect much interaction for the 2016

anniversaries? There is talk about UVF flags and colours and there is

no reason why people cannot do that because the flags are interesting,

they carry the battle honours from the First World War and Peter Flack

has an interesting past. I'm sure nationalist audiences could do that.

People need to be saying we would like to hear something about this.

We asked other parties for their perspectives. The SDLP will attend

events, the Alliance are keen to find a way to engage with a event

should not give validity to violence. The DUP say Unionists are

unlikely to want to take part in rising commemorations. The Ulster

Unionists say they are positively considering the issues. Ulster

Unionists, including representatives, have gone to the

cemetery in Dublin where some of the British soldiers who died in the

rising are buried. So, we would like to enhance that to mark the

centenary so that is one thing and also we are giving positive

consideration to our own event, not to celebrate but to challenge, to

challenge the causes and consequences of the Easter rising.

Mike Nesbitt signalling the Ulster Unionists' intention to mark

Familiarity with the nuts and bolts of our legislative process

is normally the reserve of Assembly anoraks - but it's safe to say that

a lot of people have at least some understanding

of the controversy surrounding the use of Petitions of Concern.

It was originally created and put into statute as a way of protecting

minorities. It wasn't to give the largest party in this house a veto.

They are using a mechanism established to protect minorities to

force their religious dogma on all of the citizens. We have had Sinn

Fein using the petition to exclude when we wanted to change the

definition of a victim and they joined with the SDLP in a petition

of concern in relation to welfare reform. So, position heal thyself.

Differing views in the chamber on Petitions of Concern - and,

of course, we had the controversy this week over the DUP's veto

Joining me to discuss the issue are the Green MLA, Steven Agnew,

and Dr Alex Schwartz from Queen's University, who's followed closely

the use - and the accusations of misuse - of the mechanism.

You are both welcome to the programme. You signed a petition of

concern to block welfare reform, what was your justification? I think

I had a simple decision to make, I had stood on a platform of defending

public services, a key public surface, Social Security was under

threat. The risk of cutting the incomes of the poorest in society

and I had the choice to make a stand against that, I sought to amend the

bill and improve it and work with other parties. Those amendments were

a petition of concern and the final bill was cut and paste or the Tory

government implemented in Great Britain. It has been disastrous. I

chose to sign the petition of concern. So, you satisfied yourself

that in that circumstance the ends justified the means. I think that's

right. There is a question about whether or not we should have a

petition of concern, it is something the Green party opposed in the Good

Friday Agreement. In fact it relies on designating and enshrining

sectarianism in the system. We thought it was the wrong method. It

needs to be reformed. But you used it! That is where you have to play

the game you are in. Those are the rules. There is a situation where

thousands of my constituents and people across Northern Ireland were

going to be disadvantaged. You cannot criticise another politician

for using it because you have used it! There is use and misuse and

abuse. I use it to protect my constituents and those across

Ireland. Those who use it to protect their own minister from criticisms

in the assembly on the privileges committee, we recommend sanctions.

Parties have said they will block it and that is abusive. Alex, you could

say one person's use is another person's misuse. Right, to

understand what is an appropriate use and what is a misuse, you have

to think about what the purpose of the procedure is. There are two key

elements of having a power-sharing democracy in a divided society. One

is the power-sharing government which we have an executive and a

veto procedure so that the partners to power-sharing can block decisions

that affect their grouping interests. That is why we have the

petition of concern to protect the distinctive group interests of

British Unionists and Irish nationalists. The problem we have is

there is nothing built into the procedure to prevent it being used

for decisions that have nothing to do with interest. So party politics

which has nothing to do with minority interests. And that is the

problem we face, we have seen an increase in the use of the petition

of concern and the issues it has been used for. We see the big

parties using them and criticising the other parties for doing the same

thing. There is a degree of double standards. I would not single any

parties out because the main parties have been guilty of this sort of

misuse of the procedure. The question is what do we do about it

to fix the situation? Well, do you think it needs to be fixed? And can

be fixed? It needs to be fixed and the assembly institutions are not

working. And I think there has been a number of bills, my own children's

Bill about better co-operation between government... Which was not

blocked. No, thankfully. The opposition Bill seeks to reform and

I think that proposal of moving away from the designation to a majority

requires a number of parties to sign up to any petition. I think that can

help better corporate decision-making. How could the

system be made more effective and more accountable? Well, there are

several options that we might consider, one is to get rid of the

cross community voting altogether but we are not at a place in

Northern Ireland where that is a wise prudent thing to do. The sort

of thing that might be a better idea is trying to include additional

levels to limit the procedure to certain issues so we could devise

rules, broad categories of the sorts of things we think the procedure

should be used for. So one category would be cultural identity,

symbolism and flanks and those things which have an obvious

unionist or nationalist dimension. Another category could be the legacy

of the conflict, the past and that would have a distinctive unionist or

nationalist aspect. So you could have a built in so the speaker of

the house could accept or reject petitions of concern on the basis of

those grounds whether they fit in the categories or not. Within those

criteria, issues that welfare reform and same-sex marriage probably would

fall outside the remit. There are some issues that would fall in the

categories and some which would clearly not fall in those

categories. And some issues are more controversial. I do not want to take

a stand on those particular views. Some are questionable, the most

recent one is questionable in terms of a clear unionist interest at

stake and I am not entirely sure the race. And that is the challenge,

that nebulous bit in the middle between the big constitutional

issues and bread-and-butter politics.

We solve one problem and create another. As long as we enshrine in

our Assembly and institutions we perpetuate the divisions that exist

in our society. We are coming up to 20 years on from the Good Friday

agreement. We need to move away from the two communities' language. We

are a diverse Northern Ireland now. We should be moving away from that

language and addressing those so-called bread and butter issues on

their merits rather than which side of the community you are from. Given

what you've heard from the Secretary of State tonight and given that

these talks are continuing up at Stormont, are you optimistic that a

deal is being cooked up? I think the word I've been picking up is that

something will be agreed. I don't know what that looks like, but the

clear situation is that the DUP is desperate not go to an election.

Alex, a final one for you, reform of the petition obvious concern was

discussed. It was discussed in the current process. What are the

chances of Sinn Fein and the DUP agreeing to reform something that

they've both used to their benefit in the last few years? I wish I had

a crystal ball. But the fact that all the parties have abused it means

they all stand to gain something by fixing the problem. They would

decide notice the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland to

put a lid on this and de-escalate this and make the system work better

for delivering the goods for people here. That would be something they

could all hopefully unite around. It is going to be fascinating to see

how it pans out. Thank you both. Let's hear of what tonight's

commentators think. Evening to you both. The Secretary of State says a

deal is possible but not probable. It was bit mixed. At the beginning

of the interview she made me sound like Polly Anna she was so downbeat.

And then something clicked in her head that she may be doing huge

damage to what she hopes be an agreement. My understanding is that

the DUP and Sinn Fein are pretty close to a deal. I would still be

shocked for all her negative view on this if a deal wasn't done in the

next ten days. If the Secretary of State came in with a key message,

what was that key message? I think it is hard to discern any particular

key message or theme in that interview. It was a bit unsettlings

for a lot of people. She said they could reach agreement on the other

matters without agreement on the national security veto. The gap is

closing but there are difficult issues that need the be resolved.

She said workable progress. If there's a deal, and it is a big if,

it might not be enthusiastically endorsed by any of the parties. It

is worth saying in terms of the Ulster Unionist Party they are not

in the executive, so in one sense it doesn't matter if they agree to this

deal. Even if they agree to at this time they are not getting their

Minister back. They'll end up with a deal pushed through by other

parties. Is the bottom line that it only matters if it is between the

DUP and Sinn Fein? For instance if the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP

are left outside the tent? The SDLP parked it twice. They would like

alliance on this, they need the Justice Minister on board. Board.

And do you get a sense, Paul, that clock is ticking for a deal to be

done crit Italy before the DUP conference on 21st November? I would

understand why people in the Usain I would understand why people in the

DUP and Peter Robinson would want a deal done. You can't say with

uncertainty that a deal will be done next week. Let's move on to the

subject of commemorations. We've got news that the Ulster Unionists are

planning to be in Dublin at some stage next year for their own event.

All significant is that potentially? I'm not sure. The trouble with all

of this is you have two competing contradictory narratives of history,

which suits both parties, because they have two competing

contradictory end games and constitutional outcomes in mind. I

think we are not going to have a situation where all parties sit down

and agree on history. It worries me slightly, maybe it is a good step,

but it worries me that he is going to have something almost like a

competing event to say, this is our history. We don't understand each

other's history. I didn't learn Irish history at school. I didn't

learn it inform I was in my mid 20s. He said he want his version of

events to be challenged. History belongs to all of us. I think people

have had fixed ideas about what happened here in the past. A lot of

the time they have had inaccurate views about what happened in

different areas and aspects of our history. There is an interesting

thing happening in Derry next year where schools are going to engage in

a process of commemoration, about the Somme, 1916, and the Rising.

They are going to learn it together, which is an interesting way to try

to advance it. I think you will stem cell end up with two versions of

history. Here's a bit of ours and here's a bit of yours and we don't

know why it happened. Let's talk about the controversy over the Joe

McWilliams painting, which appears to per tray members of the Ku Klux

Klan. It is hard to spot when you look at the whole painting, 7 feet

by 5 feet. There are the Orangemen seeming to be portrayed as

chancemen. Rtrayed as chancemen. As Klansmen. Are people right to be

offended? They may find it offensive but I think some art does set out to

provoke, not necessarily to offend but to provoke. Some people might

say that given the event being depict there had, members of the

order did set themselves up to be, maybe not pilloried, but to have

attention drawn to what they have done. But that's art. You do need to

catch yourself on. Look at Scarfe and Ian Knox. Sometimes savage

depictions of people. I don't go out of my way a offend but I know every

day I will write something that will annoy someone intensely. I can

understand why some Orangemen might be offended. My father was a former

county grand mastery. Get over it. Don't be afraid of criticism. That's

how that artist sees them. We've heard unionist politicians saying we

don't support censorship but this is a shared public space, publicly

fund. While this exhibition has been brought in, nonetheless it is

acceptable. My view is if they don't support censorship they are looking

to introduce censorship. That's ridiculous. Leave it hanging there.

There'll be other things that people will be offended for all sorts of

reasons. I would rather be offended now and then to say we are going to

stop everything. Thank you both. That's about it from The View

for this week. Join me for Sunday Politics

at 12.50 here on BBC One. Just before we go -

in a week of protests against arts cuts, there was one unlikely comment

that caught our eye. It came from a Minister who's never

afraid to stand up for herself I know he understands the question.

He just doesn't like the answer. I think the member needs to put up or

shut up. Well I think you have a brass neck. It's a pity I couldn't

put words in your mouth. A little more respect from you, please. We

don't need that for pure ignorance. I resent that remark. I think that's

ridiculous. You have a complete brass neck...

The Ulstermen head to Wales for the second time this season -