.jpg)
Mise agus John Hume
On May 19th 1986 Fr. Alec wrote to
John Hume. John phoned Clonard Monastery the next day and the following day he
met the Sagart. John and I met shortly afterwards. The Hume Adams initiative
was a product of those talks. While there were other element and many more
contributors the Peace Process grew out of them. So did the Good Friday
Agreement.
Mise agus Albert Reynolds and John at Government Buildings, Dublin
In my opinion Seamus Mallon is not a
big fan of the Good Friday Agreement. He wrongly blames it and the two
governments on the decline of the SDLP and ignores other factors including his
own role in this development. So his recent claim that a “united Ireland by numbers won’t work” comes as no surprise. It
ignores the clear provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and undermines the
equal and democratic value which should be given to every vote. Mr. Mallon’s
proposition also seeks to rewrite the principle of consent contained within the
Good Friday Agreement.
His latest position gives an
unintended insight into his role in the negotiations which led to the Good
Friday Agreement. John Hume had a much more progressive and realistic position
which did not accept an internal - that is a six county- settlement. That is
one of the issues which we agreed on early in our talks in 1986. It was also an
important element in talks between the SDLP and Sinn Féin in 1988 and in the
first Hume Adams statement in April 1993. It is a central part of the Good
Friday Agreement:.
Mr. Mallon is now proposing that the
constitutional and political landscape should be rewritten to provide unionism
with an entrenched veto over the issue of rights, and in particular the right
to self-determination and independence subverted by partition almost 100 years
ago.
He does acknowledge the failure of
partition when the rights of nationalists and republicans were trampled on. How
could he do otherwise? But he repeats that mistake by raising the democratic
bar on unity in favour of unionism. He hasn’t moved beyond the deeply flawed
Sunningdale Agreement.
In short Mr. Mallon is saying that a
unionist majority can maintain partition, and the Union with Britain, but a
majority which favours a United Ireland cannot achieve this without the
agreement of a majority of Unionists.
As well as being at odds with the Good
Friday Agreement, this stance is also in stark contrast to other majority
decisions of significance taken in recent years. That is how EU treaties were
decided in the South. Two recent referendums there on marriage equality and a
woman’s reproductive rights were determined by a majority. The right of
nationalists in the north to vote in an election for the Presidency of Ireland
will be determined by a majority referendum vote later this year. If Scotland
holds a referendum on the Union it too will be determined by a majority. If
majorities are acceptable in those circumstances, why should a vote on Irish
Unity be any different?
Seamus Mallon’s proposal would also
make the task of progressing a rights based agenda in the North even more
difficult than it already is. Where is the sense of “belonging” in his “shared
home place” if the first thing he argues for is the relegation of the
rights of Irish language speakers and our LGBTQ+ citizens in the current
negotiations? How can “safety, security
and comfort” be achieved if not through the core principles of the Good
Friday Agreement – equality and parity of esteem?
And in case Mr. Mallon has forgotten,
the collapse of the Assembly and Executive in 2017, and of the talks last year,
was about more than language and marriage equality rights and the crass bigotry
of some in the DUP. The British government and the DUP also refused to honour
agreements, particularly around the issue of legacy. And then there was the
scandal of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI). Hundreds of millions of pounds
of public money squandered amid allegations of misconduct and corruption of DUP
officials.
As the political momentum and demand
for unity is growing as a result of demographic and political changes, greater
public politicisation, and the Brexit debacle, Mr. Mallon chooses this time to
propose changing the Good Friday Agreement. He must know such a change will not
be agreed.
He wants nationalists and republicans
to “stop pushing for unity”. We
should set aside our legitimate desire for unity until “there is a wider and deeper acceptance of it among the unionist
community.” How will we achieve that acceptance if we don’t encourage a
conversation about the benefits of unity?
Political change, and especially
around such a vexed issue as partition, is only possible if the arguments for
and against are debated publicly. We need a public discourse in which all of
the claims and counterclaims; pros and cons can be discussed.
Mr. Mallon’s proposition also misses
the main achievement of the Good Friday Agreement. That Agreement is not a
constitutional settlement. It never claimed to be one. By making consent a
requirement for both the Union and Irish Unity it removes the constitutional
veto once enjoyed by unionism. The Good Friday Agreement was and is an
agreement based on equality and parity of esteem.
Negotiating in the Cabinet Room, Downing Street in 2004
Of course every sensible United
Irelander wants the biggest majority possible for unity. That is the most
desirable outcome of a referendum on unity. By dint of their numbers unionists
have a very strong position. We cannot be blind to that. Persuading enough of
them to take control of their own affairs in a new agreed Ireland is a
historical challenge. Being aware, sensitive and committed to winning as many
unionists as possible to an agreed future in a new Ireland, and being generous
and imaginative about this is the only way forward.
But it does not include inventing a
new veto. Where in the tortured history of the northern state is there evidence
to support the view that nationalists acquiescing to unionism ever worked? On
the contrary – from the civil rights movement through the peace process, and
the many periods of negotiations - progress has only been achieved when
nationalists and republicans stood up for and asserted our rights alongside the
rights of everyone else. Its equality Stupid!
The thrust of Mr. Mallon’s argument is
that a United Ireland born out of a unity referendum, with a narrow majority,
risks a rerun of the past with the boot placed on the other foot. That
nationalists and republicans would do to unionism what was done to us for
generations. His argument is spurious and offensive. I know of no republican or
nationalist who believes for one instance that we are so stupid, so narrow
minded, so bigoted, so driven by hatred, as to do that. Nor do I believe that
there is any popular support for a return to the conflict of the past. The last
two decades have seen positive societal change. Citizens want that progress to continue.
Seamus Mallon’s willingness to change
the Good Friday Agreement and reintroduce the unionist veto threatens that
progress and ignores the lessons and failures of partition.
Finally, United Irelanders should
continue to raise that objective wherever and whenever we can. In recent years
there has been significant progress. Irish Unity is now firmly fixed on the
political agenda. We will not take it off that agenda nor will we acquiesce to
a new unionist veto. My preference is for a unitary state but as republicans
have said many times we are open to agreeing transitional arrangements. In
fact, transitional arrangements are a necessary part of our journey as an
island people. As republicans we are working for a shared space - a new
harmonious dispensation- in which sectarianism is a thing of the past and where
people of every political persuasion and none can live, work and socialise
together on the basis of equality. That’s the way forward.
Comments