BELFAST: Northern Ireland began voting Thursday in snap elections to resolve a political crisis fueled by bad blood and Brexit, which is testing the delicate peace in the British province.
Long-simmering tensions boiled over in January when the Sinn Fein party — once the political arm of the Irish Republican Army — brought down the province’s semi-autonomous government.
That triggered fresh elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, a legislature in Belfast in which representatives of once warring communities have shared power on and off since a 1998 peace deal.
Observers predict a similar outcome to the May 2016 elections, in which the conservative and pro-British Democratic Unionist Party won slightly more seats than the socialist and pro-Irish republican Sinn Fein.
If the two parties cannot resolve their differences within three weeks of the vote, the assembly’s executive could be suspended and the province fully governed from London.
“I’d be more pessimistic than optimistic that the DUP and Sinn Fein can get back in a government together quickly,” Jonathan Tonge, a Northern Ireland politics expert at Liverpool University, told AFP.
Martin McGuinness, a former IRA commander who became the deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, resigned in January in protest over a botched green energy subsidy scheme.
It had been instigated by First Minister Arlene Foster, head of the DUP, when she was economy minister.
Deeply engrained historical enmity was also exacerbated by the June vote for Britain to leave the European Union, which the DUP supported but Sinn Fein opposed.
McGuinness is not standing again due to ill health, and his successor as Sinn Fein’s leader in Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, has signaled a possible way out.
“We’re up for going back into government but only on the basis of equality, respect and integrity,” she told AFP on the final day of campaigning on Wednesday.
“We cannot go into government with Arlene Foster as first or deputy first minister while there is a shadow hanging over her, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find a way forward.”
Foster has appealed for unionists to resist Sinn Fein’s demands for her to stand aside pending an investigation into the energy scheme.
“If you feed a crocodile it will keep coming back for more,” she told a party rally.
In the streets of Belfast, there was disillusionment over the scandal.
“I’m just fed up with all the corruption and all the scandals to do with the heating and all the rest of it,” civil servant Catherine Aouad said.
Annette Martin, who works for the Marie Curie charity, said: “I’m not sure I expect an awful lot, to be honest, but I still wanted to make my vote.”
Prime Minister Theresa May has said Britain will leave the EU’s single market and likely the customs union after Brexit, which would make the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland the only land border with the European Union.
The possibility of a return to border checkpoints has revived memories of “The Troubles,” three decades of strife over British control of Northern Ireland, in which more than 3,500 people were killed.
Sinn Fein’s leader in Ireland, Gerry Adams, has described Brexit as a “hostile action” by the British government, which would have a “negative impact” on peace agreement in Northern Ireland.
There are also concerns about damaging cross-border trade.
British minister James Brokenshire emphasised the importance of a “frictionless” border during talks in Brussels this week, and promised to “take no risks” with political stability in the province.
Ireland’s Prime Minister Enda Kenny and European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker also agreed last week that there should be no return to hard borders.
In last June’s referendum on EU membership, Northern Ireland voted by 55 percent to remain in the bloc, but was outvoted by an overall British majority of 52 percent to leave.
Casting his ballot in east Belfast Thursday, Neal Wilson, a 34-year-old public sector worker, said he believed the fears were overblown.
“There is a lot of talk about how the Troubles will come back because we are not in the European Union. It’s actually very insulting for the people here,” he said, predicting a successful outcome from Brexit.
Polls close at 2200 GMT but results are not expected until Saturday.
Northern Ireland holds snap election in shadow of Brexit
Northern Ireland holds snap election in shadow of Brexit
London police using withdrawn powers to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies: Probe
- ‘Cumulative disruption’ cited to ban, reroute rallies but power granted by concept withdrawn by Court of Appeal in May
- Network for Police Monitoring: This demonstrates ‘ongoing crackdown on protest’ that has reached ‘alarming point’
LONDON: London’s Metropolitan Police have used powers that have been withdrawn to clamp down on pro-Palestine rallies in the capital, legal experts have said.
The Guardian and Liberty Investigates obtained evidence that police officers had imposed restrictions on at least two protests based on the principle of “cumulative disruption.” But that power was withdrawn by the Court of Appeal in May, according to legal experts.
All references to cumulative disruption have been removed from relevant legislation, yet the Home Office and the Met continue to insist that police officers retain the power to consider the concept when suppressing protests.
On May 7, five days after the powers were withdrawn, the Met banned a Jewish pro-Palestine group from holding its weekly rally in north London, citing the cumulative impact on the neighborhood’s Jewish community.
Last month, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to change the route of its rally on three days’ notice, highlighting the cumulative impact on businesses during Black Friday weekend.
Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer, said: “There is no reference to cumulative disruption in the original (legislation). The regulations that introduced this concept were quashed in May 2025, so I fail to see how this can still be the approach taken by police. There is no legal basis for this whatsoever.”
The Met appeared “not to care” if it was acting within the law, the Network for Police Monitoring said, adding that the revelation surrounding “cumulative disruption” demonstrated an “ongoing crackdown on protest” that had reached an “alarming point” by police in London.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans in October to reintroduce the power to consider cumulative impact in toughened form.
But Nick Glynn, a retired senior officer from Leicestershire Police, said: “The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don’t need any more. If they are provided with them, they not only use them (but) as in this case, they stretch them.
“They go beyond what was intended. The right to protest is sacrosanct and more stifling of protest makes democracy worth less.”
Cumulative disruption was regularly considered and employed in regulations if protests met the threshold of causing “serious disruption to the life of the community.”
The Court of Appeal withdrew the power following a legal challenge by human rights group Liberty.
Ben Jamal, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s director, was reportedly told by Alison Heydari, the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, that her decision on imposing protest regulations “will be purely around the cumulative effect of your protests.”
She reportedly added that “this is not just about Saturday’s protest but it’s a combination of all the impacts of all the processions so far,” referencing “serious disruption” to the business community.
“You’ve used this route in November 2024, and you’ve used it a few times before then as well. So, there is an impact.”
The repeated disruption to PSC-hosted marches, the largest pro-Palestine events in London, was a “demobilizer,” Jamal said.
It also caused confusion about march starting points and led to protesters being harassed by police officers who accused them of violating protest conditions, he added.
A Met spokesperson told The Guardian: “The outcome of the judicial review does not prevent senior officers from considering the cumulative impact of protest on the life of communities.
“To determine the extent of disruption that may result from a particular protest, it is, of course, important to consider the circumstances in which that protest is to be held, including any existing disruption an affected community is already experiencing.
“We recognise the importance of the right to protest. We also recognise our responsibility to use our powers to ensure that protest does not result in serious disorder or serious disruption. We use those powers lawfully and will continue to do so.”
