Fortnight Publications Ltd.

We've Moved: Now It's Your TurnAuthor(s): Peter BarrySource: Fortnight, No. 267 (Nov., 1988), p. 10Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25551729 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 00:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.128 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:07:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

We've moved?now it's your turn Peter Barry

A | S A MEMBER of Garret FitzGerald's government which negotiated the

I Anglo-Trkh Agreement, I have fol

lowed its operation closely and with keen inter

est from the opposition benches. Anyone who

has read the history of our island this century must realise that it was the most significant event since 1922, creating an unprecedented

political melting pot especially in Northern Ire

land. In that respect, as a catalyst which has

forced a radical rethink among the unionist com

munity, the Agreement has worked as intended.

It is part of a process, a means rather than an end.

The Anglo-Irish Conference is also part of

that process. I will be the first to welcome its

eventual replacement by a body which can work

effectively towards our common goal of peace and stability in Ireland. It must be said, more

over, that the political melting pot, the end of the

logjam in Northern Irish politics, did not come

with the advent of the Agreement in 1985. It has

been evolving, north and south, over the last 20

years, since the civil rights marches of 1968. As

Yeats said in another context: "All is changed,

changed utterly." If a week is a long time in politics, 20 years

is an eternity. I remember in 1968/9 Fine Gael

members in my own Cork constituency having to be restrained from marching on the north in

support of the nationalists there. Who would

have thought, as they watched the British em

bassy burn in 1972, that relations would be so

normal and cordial today? Indeed the Agree ment has provided a structure through which

potentially explosive issues between the two

governments can be defused at a conference

meeting called by either government. Both north and south have been forced to

rethink old attitudes about a seemingly intrac

table problem. During 1983/4, nationalist poli ticians representing Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, La

bour and the SDLP participated in the New Ireland Forum. Our report showed a radical

rethink on the side of constitutional nationalists.

We recognised "the right of unionists to effec

tive political, symbolic and administrative ex

pression of their identity, their ethos and their

way of life" in a new Ireland. A year later, the

Anglo-Irish Agreement recognised "that a con

dition of genuine reconciliation and dialogue between unionists and nationalists is mutual

recognition and acceptance of each other's

rights". Unionists must realise that we in our part of Ireland have made substantial strides, now

internationally recognised, in our acceptance of

their rights as citizens of this island.

BOOST FOR FORTNIGHT

FORTNIGHT has benefited to the tune of ?2,500 from a grant from the

Ireland Fund. (This charitable body has no connection with the

International Fund for Ireland.) The money has been allocated for

direct mailing by Fortnight to

targeted potential subscribers,

particularly in the United States.

Fortnight greatly appreciates the

kind assistance of the Ireland Fund, which will help significantly in our

efforts to market the magazine.

It is to the unionist community that many

politicians on both islands are now looking for the final unlocking of the political impasse.

Week by week there is evidence of an internal

debate in their ranks. Leading members of both

of the unionist parties, particularly the Official

Unionists, have been giving their views about

the best next move. Two options seem to be

attracting particular attention: (a) opening dis

cussion on devolved government within North

ern Ireland and (b) discussion with Dublin under the aegis of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental

Council established in 1981. The two are not mutually exclusive. In Fine

Gael, we feel that talks on a devolved, power

sharing administration are desirable in them

selves and would be a necessary precursor of

any discussions on a wider Irish framework, such as some kind of federal or confederal

arrangement as recently mentioned by Martin

Smyth. In the context of such a new Ireland,

what has become known as the totality of rela

tionships between the islands of Ireland and

Britain might be fully exposed. We in the south

are not afraid to explore new relationships. We

have been rethinking our attitudes for nearly 20

years, despite what is claimed about some ar

ticles of our constitution. What we want to see is

parallel movement north of the border.

The journey of a thousand miles starts with a

single step, as the Chinese proverb states. In the

context of Ireland in 1988, that step is the first

bilateral review of the workings of the Anglo Irish Agreement. In Fine Gael we have recently

proposed the lines along which such a review

might proceed: Each government should institute pre-Inter

governmental Conference consultations with

the constitutional political parties in its jurisdic tion.

The conference should examine the fundamen

tal economic and social implications which the

completion of the internal market in the EC will

bring about in 1992. There must be a regular schedule of conference

meetings?for example ten per year. Too many of the meetings in the last 18 months took place as a result of tension in Anglo-Irish relations.

The two governments must work, in accor

dance with article four of the Agreement, to

bring about devolution on a basis which would

have widespread acceptance. Fifteen years ago, the Sunningdale Agree

ment seemed to herald a new political dawn for

Ireland. Those hopes were dashed within six

months. The Anglo-Irish Agreement has weath

ered three years of bitter opposition within Ire

land and Britain and is to be reviewed this month

to make it more effective. I take no partisan satisfaction in seeing that it has been sustained

by the Irish and British governments. I am proud as an Irishman to have participated in the first

major political initiative with our British neigh bours concerning Northern Ireland, one that has

evolved into a permanent landmark in the politi cal landscape of these islands.

It is nearly ten years now since Fine Gael

published Ireland: Our Future Together, a pol

icy document on Northern Ireland which

changed attitudes within our party and our state

with regard to Northern Ireland in general and

unionism in particular. The central policy rec

ommendation of an Irish confederation is even

more relevant now than it was then. As we move

towards a post-1992 Europe, we are witnessing the evolution of a type of European confedera

tion whereby individual states retain internal

resppnsibility for many of their affairs, while

ceding authority over others to an umbrella

body. Might we not look forward to such an

arrangement, writ small, in this island? Eco

nomic development, agriculture and tourism are

areas where an all-Ireland approach would be

more profitable than the present arrangement. It is in the European context that Ian Paisley,

John Hume and John Taylor have sat in one

assembly and worked for the common good of

their communities with fellow-Irishmen and

fellow-Europeans. Nineteen ninety-two could

have a very special significance for all of us.

To suspend ...

Nigel Dodds T'

| OM KING'S recent statement that he did not know what the unionist posi

i_I tion was neatly summed up the North

ern Ireland Office's attitude to unionists

throughout the whole period of the disastrous

Anglo-Irish Agreement. That attitude has been

to ignore the unionist point of view and to

disregard what unionists are saying about a way

forward politically in Northern Ireland. The fact is that unionist leaders, from July

15th 1987 until May 26th 1988, engaged in discussions with the secretary of state and, at the

end of January this year, placed before him fair

and reasonable proposals for an agreement which could supercede and replace the present failed Agreement. Mr King said at the time that

the proposals were constructive. Despite the

passage of many months and despite frequent

requests to do so, Mr King has studiously avoided giving a response to the outline propos als. He has failed to indicate whether he believes

they form a basis for negotiations which can lead

us out of the present impasse and whether he is

prepared to move towards suspending the work

ing of the Agreement to further that process. Instead the secretary of state has embarked

on a series of efforts designed to induce union

ists to become involved in the process of the

review of the Anglo-Irish Conference. He

claims it would be "farcical" for unionist repre

sentatives, who have complained about lack of

consultation, to refuse his offer of an input into

the review. What would be truly farcical would

be for unionists, having been deliberately ex

cluded from all consultations about an agree ment so antagonistic to their position, to sit

down and participate in talks about how that

agreement can be made to run more smoothly.

Yes, unionists do want negotiations but they will not involve themselves in a process which

will, at most, result in cosmetic changes to and

fine-tuning of the present Agreement. It is clear

that the NIO recognises the unionist argument about lack of consultation to be a very telling one. Hence the clamour to get the unionists

drawn into the review process. If this succeeded

the NIO, without conceding anything, would

have overcome what is one of the most potent

10 November Fortnight

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.128 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:07:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions