The outside world might regard Paisley as an anachronism, but he remains a powerful force. The pro-agreement parties must therefore win an important early battle to ensure that Paisley does not manage, as Parnell did in the Commons in the last century, to hold up assembly business and poison the atmosphere. He has promised to harry and harass Trimble, and no one has any doubt about his capacity to do so. This means he cannot rely on commanding the support of 50 per cent of Unionists in the assembly. Those rejectionists could turn into the Belfast equivalent of John Major’s “bastards”.
Vital assembly votes could turn into the sort of cliff-hangers seen in the final days of John Major’s government, with energy expended not on running the country but on coaxing doubters into the right lobby.The Rev Ian Paisley, who is a master not just of wrecking rhetoric but of procedural negativity, will have a strong presence in the assembly. It is not yet clear how many he will be unable to rely on, but it looks like being at least half a dozen. Perhaps the new executive will be born today and perhaps it won’t, for there are vital procedural matters to be cleared up first.David Trimble has got his proposal past his party’s Council, but in the process he has lost some members of his assembly party. It seems possible that he may be right in his timescale, for, like life itself, the process looks destined to be one damned thing after another. The next damned thing crops up today, when the Belfast assembly meets to appoint the new power-sharing executive that is to govern Northern Ireland. Indeed it is difficult to imagine any point in the foreseeable future at which the new political institutions can confidently be declared to be safe and secure.One of the architects of the peace process who was asked whether it would work replied: “We should know within ten years.” That was two years ago. The peace process has taken a giant step forward, but many more obstacles lie ahead; and while it is more likely than not that it will overcome them, there can be no absolute confidence that it will.
Thus the champagne corks, like most of the guns, are silent and likely to remain so.
Who will authorise the use of the intervention force, and what legitimacy will it have? The leading European countries may consider an intervention in a conflict is necessary; such moves may not necessarily have UN support.Dr F H CHOWDHURYHickling, Nottinghamshire. SO WHY haven’t supporters of the Good Friday Agreement been up all night, leaping into fountains and deliriously celebrating David Trimble’s famous victory in the Ulster Unionist Council? Why has the sound of gunfire not been replaced by the pop of champagne corks?
The answer to those looking in vain for euphoria is, to use words which have appeared before on these pages, that the outcome was historic without being definitive, momentous but not decisive. This Anglo-French venture in European defence is bound to raise suspicion in President Clinton’s mind, however much he may offer apparent support.The plan will also undermine the UN’s peace-keeping role. The UK has been an active member of Nato and a staunch ally of the US France sees no long-term American role in Europe. Despite Nato’s preparedness in the defence of Europe and its unequivocal commitment to it, America prevaricated and the Europeans were in disarray during the Balkan crises. The Anglo-French defence entente will clearly affect Nato in the long run. Such an alliance between the UK and France, especially when the latter has been the most lukewarm member of Nato, will harm the treaty.
France has resented American domination in the European security matters in the post-war years.
France and UK have not been reliable partners in defence and foreign policy before and after the Second World War. It also kicked America in the teeth for its reluctant intervention in the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo. Sir: Last week’s agreement between the Prime Minister and President Chirac to form a rapid reaction force ready to move into action in an emergency is more of a French initiative than a British one. My speech was specifically about the collapse in producing culture of its in-house series.
This distinction was clear to everyone who turned up; unfortunately for Colin, he failed to send any BBC drama reps to a festival that focused exclusively on the future of TV drama
GUB NEAL
Head of DramaChannel 4London SW1. I actually had no arguments with the BBC’s in-house drama serials – the standard of which is frequently excellent. Sir: Good to finally get some response from the BBC to my Birmingham speech from Colin Adams (Right of Reply, 23 November). Places and communities that should add to the potential of Britain will continue to add to her problems until government recognises that opportunities require resources.Cllr MIKE STOREYCouncil LeaderLiverpool. Sir: I read of the pounds 214m refurbishment of the Royal Opera House whilst still reeling from the news of the demise of the Bournemouth Sinfonietta I would question the unfair division of arts funding We also in the South- west need a cultural life
MARY LETHBRIDGE
Mortehoe, Devon. At the same time we will ensure that we increase spending on education and savings will be made through far more efficient and effective use of our resources.
We had thought that, with the Government’s alleged support for urban regeneration, cities like Liverpool would receive a fairer deal than they did under the Tories.Alas, new Labour is also failing the millions of people who live in our cities.
