Politicians practise 'plausible deniability'

Mark Devenport BBC Northern Ireland political editor

Here's a puzzle. When can you be vehemently opposed to something which you want to happen as quickly as possible?

Answer: when you are a politician who believes something highly unpopular with your supporters is inevitable, and you want it to take place when someone else will carry the can.

Peter Robinson held a wide-ranging news conference

We have seen a couple of examples of this phenomenon in the last week.

On water charges, we have witnessed howls of outrage from local politicians, some of whose parties appointed ministers to the old Stormont executive.

True, the executive never announced the introduction of water charges. But its finance department did run a "consultation" which did not give the public a chance to say no.

Direct rule ministers, responding to the Treasury's agenda, are now ramming through the "tap tax" and local politicians are in the relatively comfortable position of being able to plausibly deny responsibility.

I think it was Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, Admiral John M Poindexter, who first put the notion of "plausible deniability" into the political lexicon.

During the Iran Contra hearings in the late 1980s, the admiral told a US Congressional hearing that he "made a very deliberate decision not to ask the President.... (to approve funding arms sales to the Nicaraguan Contras).... so that I could insulate him from the decision and provide some future deniability for the President if it ever leaked out".

'Controversial annexes'

Northern Ireland politicians are old hands at this game.

Back in April 2003, when I reported a 56-page document was being circulated among the local parties gathered at Hillsborough Castle - which included annexes on the vexed questions of "on-the-run" paramilitaries (OTRs) and the creation of an Independent Monitoring Commission - the Ulster Unionists were hot and heavy in their denials.

No such document existed, they insisted.

Aspect of Joint Declaration prompted Mr Donaldson to leave UUP

Sure enough, when the British-Irish joint declaration and its associated papers were published, the controversial annexes were separated from the main text.

A few more staples, a bit of diplomatic origami, and hey presto - you had plausible deniability.

"On the runs? Nothing to do with us, governor," said the UUP.

"Monitoring Commission? Completely unacceptable to us," insisted Sinn Fein.

Now the baton of unionist leadership has passed to the DUP, they too are getting into the plausible deniability game.

Prisoner releases

Allowing "on-the-runs" to return without serving any time in jail is, of course, anathema to the DUP.

It was, after all, this aspect of the Joint Declaration which prompted Jeffrey Donaldson and his allies to part company with the Ulster Unionists.

So, now they hold the whip hand, are the DUP promising to overturn any concessions on OTRs before participating in a future executive? Not quite.

Here's a suggestion - next month's Leeds Castle talks could benefit from an independent chai

After returning from his summer break, DUP deputy leader Peter Robinson held a wide-ranging news conference.

Questioned about the OTRs, he maintained that some issues such as prisoner releases were irretrievable and "past the post".

Supporting Aileen Quinton, whose mother was killed in the Enniskillen bombing, the DUP Fermanagh assembly member Arlene Foster put the emphasis on her party's desire to find out what David Trimble and the Ulster Unionists had already agreed to concerning "on-the-runs".

The implication is that this is "irretrievable". So the DUP strategy is not to block the return of fugitives, but to blame the UUP for concession - "Not on our watch. They let the victims down."

Perhaps we could christen this "plausible manoeuvrability".

Here's a suggestion - next month's Leeds Castle talks could benefit from an independent chair.

Someone who knows about arms, leaks and negotiating sensitive deals. Could Admiral John Poindexter be available?