Reforms that undermine Belfast Agreement will be ‘dangerous’, experts warn

Repeated Stormont collapses and the parlous state of Northern Ireland’s public services have fuelled the desire for change, but reforms that undermine the Belfast Agreement will be “dangerous”, a report today declares.

Published by University College London’s Constitution Unit and written by Conor Kelly, Alan Renwick and Alan Whysall, the report examines possible reforms that could be “plausibly” made without upending the 1998 agreement.

The UCL team, who say the agreement has been “rightly celebrated around the world”, warn that the Stormont institutions have had “mixed success”, especially because of the lack of voice for middle-ground political voices, such as the Alliance Party.

So far, Stormont has had “a limited record of delivery”, with Northern Ireland facing “a mounting list of problems in healthcare, public finance and other aspects of good governance”, they said.

Fionnula Flanagan: I remember the ‘No Irish or dogs’ signs. I didn’t want to live in a country that took that attitude towards me

John Hemingway obituary: Last surviving Battle of Britain pilot

Joe Lynskey Disappeared case: ‘When he came out of the monastery he came out for the cause. And the cause executed him’

Proposing a list of possible reforms, though siding with none, the UCL report said “the simplest reform option” would be to return to the pre-St Andrew’s Agreement rules where the First and Deputy First Minister are elected by cross-community majorities.

Since 2007, however, the largest party in the Assembly nominates the First Minister and the largest party in the other designation nominates the Deputy First Minister. If either refuse to do so, the Executive cannot be formed.

“No party would formally have an outright veto over Executive formation. Parties would need to present a joint ticket to the Assembly, which any two parties could do,” the report’s authors said.

Naturally, a nationalist or unionist party with 50 per cent support in the Assembly could block any ticket in a cross-community vote, but they would have the opportunity not to take up either position without blocking the operation of the institutions.

In the past, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was reluctant to be seen voting for a Sinn Féin candidate but “over a quarter of a century on from the end of the Troubles, however, this risk may now be less significant”.

[ End of segregation in Northern Ireland is a long way off, report findsOpens in new window ]

Such a reform would worsen the situation for Alliance, however, which does not designate as nationalist or unionist – since it could never win the backing of more than 50 per cent of nationalist and unionist MLAs even if it becomes the largest party.

More radical reform would see an end to mandatory coalitions at Stormont, where an Executive would be endorsed as a whole in an Assembly vote, subject to weighted majorities to guarantee cross-community support.

The size of the weighted majority required could vary from 55 per cent to 70 per cent, though it could be set anew after each Assembly election to include nationalists, unionists and Others.

Depending on the threshold chosen, it could end the ability of any one party to prevent an Executive being formed – especially if it was set at two-thirds, since neither Sinn Féin nor the DUP holds a third of the vote on their own.

A middle ground option could see the First and Deputy First Minister elected if a joint slate received the support of 50 per cent of unionists, nationalists and Others, or a weighted majority vote of the Assembly, possibly requiring two-thirds support.

The St Andrew’s Agreements could be kept, the report outlined, but with a change, whereby the third largest party in the Assembly would be entitled to nominate a First or Deputy First Minister if either of the two largest parties withdrew.

Such a move might prevent the collapse of the institutions but the authors warned that the party passed over “might be large enough to block the business of the Executive” thereafter, leading to gridlock.

The titles of First and Deputy First Minister could be changed, too, to Joint First Ministers to reflect the fact that the positions are of equal rank, and the support of both is needed for any action by the Executive.

“Some argue, with this change, parties might spend less time during election campaigns focused on who will be First Minister and more time on substantive issues. Any such effect, however, would be small,” the authors write.