Then and now
The Belfast Agreement is now 10 years old. Jim Allister has produced a press release contrasting the positions of the DUP 10 years ago with the position now. Even those who fully support the DUP position might care to look at the change in language which has occurred.
Just a few choice parts of Allister’s message:
“The unholy alliance is now exposed – Trimble, Ahern, Hume and Adams – partners in the campaign seeking support for the all-Ireland deal. Perhaps now that Sinn Fein are in harness with the Glengall Street leadership we will see the “odd couple” – Adams and Trimble campaigning together.” – Peter Robinson
Now we see McGuinness and Paisley campaigning for all sorts of things together
This also from the pen of Mr. Robinson:
“The hapless fools who ask what our alternative is to such a process are implicitly suggesting there is no alternative to a united Ireland process. They are not entitled to make that claim as there are many alternatives to Dublin Rule. Complete and total integration within the United Kingdom is one such alternative and the fashion of devolution given recently to Scotland within the United Kingdom is another. However, these pint-sized political thinkers are not really asking “have you got an alternative?” They are implicitly asking “what alternative have you that the IRA will accept?”
The reality is of course that the St. Andrew’s Agreement offers a small, but very small gain for unionists over the disastrously bad (for unionists) Belfast Agreement. To have gained so little having promised so much can only be explained as either extremely poor political negotiation, or a blinding lust for power (or both).
I agree entirely that the IRA has decommissioned some weapons but it clearly remains extant. There is greater accountability in government and some semblance of cabinet government but it is only a semblance. The d’Hondt mandatory coalition remains, the interlocking vetoes, the cross border bodies which unionists must be involved in, the First / Deputy First minister system; with the added “benefit” of the largest party now being able to select the first minister. That short term political decision is a classic example of the error the DUP made at St. Andrew’s. It is only not a problem if the DUP can blackmail the unionist population to keep them the biggest party or if they admit that in reality the First and Deputy First ministers are co-equal.
What that decision on the First minister is illustrative of is that the DUP cannot get out of the mindset of trying to defeat and surpass its enemies in unionism. I fear the DUP is more interested in “Leading in Ulster” than “Leading for Ulster.”
Personally I would be very happy to be wrong and for the DUP to move the whole agreement in the direction they have recently suggested. I just remain utterly unconvinced that they can achieve this. My biggest criticism of them is that I fear they know this to be impossible, have always known it to be the case, and that they are using such suggestions as a smoke screen to cover their capitulation; not in the face of overwhelming odds but in the face of being offered power. I would be genuinely delighted to be proven wrong.
dub:
I found your contribution very intriguing, and you’ve showed be a perspective that I’ve not considered before. Thanks.
Comrade Stalin and co, you do not seem to realise that the reason many Unionists see only loss in the GFA arrangements is that the ability of Irish nationalism to function unfettered in the North and normal econmics to operate on the island are the very 2 things that preservation of the Union was meant to prevent ever happening, as far as Unionists were concerned.
Indeed – but the unionists lost that in 1972. It took them a while, but I think by now they realize that they will never get it back. That dream was finally put to a stop when Trimble became UUP leader.
The natural answer to the question of how do you solve a civil war between unionists and nationalists, is that you get rid of unionism and get rid of nationalism. I see the GFA as the beginning of the end for both. How indeed can there be a unionism where there’s any kind of co-operation with the republic ? How can there be nationalism when the nationalists who oppose the state are sittng there operating it ?
Nevin,
‘It appears that the Irish delegation tried to pull a fast one near the end of the talks and Ahern wanted to punch Trimble’
An awful pity he did’nt . Apart from Trimble deserving one there would have been no GFA -mass Unionist walkout -collapse of negotiations -reintroduction of DR and Bertie would have probably won an absolute majority in the Dail Election!
And to round it off Nevin you might now be enjoying your much wished for ‘joint sovereignty’
But then Bertie always had beeter manners than that ignoramus and short fused Trimble!
George,
*Did it ever occur to you that the Provos losing was a victory for Irish nationalism as a whole? The GFA is an agreement for constitutional republicanism, the “majority” republicanism on this island.*
Actually that’s a fair point, if you want to say who were the “winners” and “losers” with the GFA then constitutional northern Nationalism was the clear victor but the victory was over the militant Republicans not Unionists.
John Hume, the SDLP, the original NICRA won; ie reform of the Northern Ireland state to allow equality for all as opposed to the revolutionary destruction of the state a la Sinn Fein, the IRA.
Militant Irish Republicans suffered a major defeat, reformist northern Nationalists won hands down, for the Unionists it was earnings neutral.
So the Royal Ulster Constabulary became the Police Service of Northern Ireland just as a decade earlier the Ulster Defence Regiment became the Royal Irish Regiment, “Ulster” was out and the Ireland identity was recognised, but they didn’t become An Gardai Siochana nor Oglaigh na hEireann.
….. and despite the occassional complaint most people seem content with the way the constitutional arrangements are.
And contentment is a very difficult thing to overcome.
Those who try to stir things up, on either side, IMHO, will come away with much less support, which in politics, should be a big no-no.
That’s 4 cents now.
)
RS,
“what have you got to fear from a language?”
Perhaps the way republicans use a legitimate historical language as an exclusive political tool. I grew up in the north and can (well, could) speak gaelic Irish reasonably well. I lost the desire to take it further when I saw how many of my fellow religionists were using it to wind up proddies.
Here’s another quote from Jim’s web site.
“It [the DUP] alone, invigorated by the influx of additional talent, has shown initiative and imagination in pushing towards durable and democratic devolution. While Trimble and his party, still smarting from defeat, flounder about and implode with on-going internal dissension, the DUP has set about leading Unionism with vigour and determination. Its roadmap for devolution shows fresh thinking and a stark contrast to the failed Belfast Agreement which the Trimble/Adams/Durkin axis tried to foist on Ulster. I look forward to the Unionist people further endorsing the DUP’s leadership and strategy in the Euro election”
[b]Quote above was by Jim Allister on 29 March 2004.[/b]
He’s a fine one to be quoting back anyone on a positon 10 years ago when he was saying this 4 years ago.
Portey,
that was before the DUP’s U turn on government with the Provos.