It’s always
good to spark a debate, and my recent column and blog ‘Planning for Irish
Unity’ certainly did that. My core argument was the need to move those
parties which aspire to Irish unity beyond their traditional republican
rhetoric and to get them involved in the real work of planning for unity. In
particular I argued that the Irish government has a duty, a constitutional
imperative, to plan for unity now. Why would a government, any
government, not plan for the future?
The future is
not about a single step-change in which we go to bed one night in a partitioned
Ireland and the next morning wake up in a united Ireland. It’s all about
process. A process of change. A Process of transition. A process of
transformation. It’s about agreeing how we will organize our society. It’s
about how we share our future. It’s about all of us having our say and playing
our part in this.
Can Sinn Féin
do this on our own? The answer is obvious – no. The Irish government has a duty
and a constitutional obligation to make preparations for unity. To examine the
economic arguments. The cultural and social dimensions. The political dynamics.
To take account of the significant shifts in population and identity
demographics in the North in recent decades. To open this process up and in
consultation with, and through a process of inclusive dialogue, to persuade
those – unionists, nationalists and others – who have reservations about unity
- that Irish unity makes sense for them, for their families and for the future.
The Irish
government is best placed to create the space in which all of this can take
place. Mary Lou McDonald suggested some time ago that the Irish Government
establish a Forum to which all are invited and non are excluded. This dialogue
could discuss the political shape of a new Ireland; a new constitution; the
protections needed to assuage unionist concerns; the economic positives that
will benefit all; the timeframe for a transition period and how long it should
last and so much more.
It could also
engage with our friends and neighbours in Europe. Almost 30 years ago the EU
financially and politically supported German reunification. The EU through its
negotiations on Brexit has demonstrated concern about the peace process and the
future of the Good Friday Agreement. It has already accepted that in the event
of Unity the North would automatically become part of the EU. This European
good will can be harnessed.
All of this
needs to be planned for now. Not after a referendum on Unity. As I said in my
previous column, that is the one big lesson of Brexit. A referendum without a
plan is stupid. I wrote; “So a referendum on unity must be set in a
thoughtful inclusive process which sets out a programme of sustainable options.
Including, phases of transition”.
The response
to my column was both funny and serious. Funny because the SDLP sought to claim
that Sinn Fein was shifting our position by calling for a plan. Serious because
others haven’t been listening to what republicans have been constantly saying.
The usually well informed commentator, Alex Kane said that I was “long-fingering
the unity project”. He asked “is Adams preparing the ground
for a row-back? Has it finally dawned on the party that Sinn Féin’s ‘ourselves
alone’ approach to unity isn’t working? Are they simply buying themselves more
time?”
In part,
republicans must accept some responsibility for this failure by others to grasp
what our approach has consistently been. So I thought it would be useful to
remind readers of a few examples of Sinn Féin’s approach to the issue of Irish
unity. In my first meeting with John Hume in September 1986 I put it to John
that we needed to cooperate to get the British Government to set aside the
Government of Ireland Act. This was the Act by which Britain claimed
sovereignty in Ireland. Two years later Sinn Fein presented proposals to the
SDLP during our talks in 1988 calling for an alliance of Irish political
parties and opinion to achieve “maximum political unity in Ireland”
to secure Irish Unity.
We
called for the launch of a “concerted political campaign
internationally, using Dublin government diplomatic resources, to win
international support”; and we proposed a “debate, aimed at leading
to dialogue” with unionists to assure them of “our full commitment to their
civil and religious rights and be persuaded of the need for their participation
in building an Irish society based on equality and national reconciliation.”
In 1987 Sinn Féin published Scenario for Peace. This was the public launch
of our developing peace strategy. Among
other initiatives it called for an all-Ireland Constitutional
Conference that would seek agreement on a
new constitution and system of government. We dealt with
the future of unionism and once again argued for the
British government to repeal The Government of Ireland Act.
In February
1992 Sinn Féin published ‘Towards a Lasting Peace in Ireland’. It
was a time of secret talks with the Irish and British governments, with
political opinion in the USA, and private conversations with John Hume. The
Sinn Féin document called for a peace process and it spelled out a strategy to
achieve it. In particular, the document placed the onus for progress very much
of the two governments with sovereign power and authority. It was an explicit
recognition that republicans did not have the political strength on our own to
effect the scale of change that was required.
Six years
later, on 9 March 1998, a few weeks before the Good Friday Agreement was
achieved, I set out in a keynote speech the broad outline of the sort of
all-Ireland bodies and constitutional change that Sinn Féin believed were
necessary in any agreement. I also said that nationalists want an “effective,
peaceful, political strategy” to achieve a United Ireland. This means
an alliance of Irish political parties, with the “Irish government
playing a leadership role” and with a “common position worked
out between Dublin, the SDLP and Sinn Féin”.
During and in the run into the negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement
Sinn Féin pressed both governments on the need to end the
Government of Ireland Act. In our first meeting in Downing
Street we made this point clearly and in detail with British PM Tony Blair. I
told him that a new Act needed to allow for an end to British rule
that was least disruptive and most beneficial to all the people who
live on the island of Ireland. Our point that the British Government
needed to start unravelling the Act of Union by ending the
Government of Ireland Act and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, was
made repeatedly by us. Our hard work paid off when in the Good Friday
Agreement negotiations the Government of Ireland Act was replaced by
legislation which declared “that if there were majority consent for a united
Ireland that wish should be given effect.”
Sinn Féin’s position was that the unionist veto had to end; consent had
to apply both ways. It is not just unionist consent but nationalist and
republican consent as well. This very significant break-through
opened up the potential for the development of an entirely peaceful way to
end the union with Britain. It is that which should be the focus of all our
efforts. That has been Sinn Féin’s focus.
In 2005 we
published ‘A Green Paper on Irish Unity’ in the Dáil. In my introduction I
wrote: “In this discussion documents we are calling on the Irish
government to publish a Green Paper and to begin the practical planning for
Irish unity now.”
In June 2009,
speaking in New York at a one-day conference on Irish Unity I told our
audience: “Irish unity is bigger than Sinn Féin. We have no monopoly on
this primary national and international issue. It is the business of everyone
who desire peace and justice and freedom and prosperity for the people of
Ireland. This can and will be established if we come together and plan and
organise.”
Finally,
speaking in the Mansion House on 21 January 2017 I said: “There is an
onus on the Irish government to prepare a real plan for unity. A First Step in
this would be the development of an all-party group to bring forward a Green
Paper for Unity. In addition, plans should be developed for an all-island
National Health Service and for all island public services through a ‘United
Ireland investment and Prosperity Plan.”
So, these are
just a few examples. But to ensure that there is no misunderstanding let me
repeat. There needs to be planning for Irish unity. Now. There needs to be
planning for a referendum on Irish Unity. Now. The Irish government has a key
leadership role in this. There is a need for the rest of us – whatever our
electoral differences and competitiveness on other issues - to work together
for unity. And there must be a dialogue with unionism. They need to plan the
future also.
Comments