Slugger caught up with the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Quentin Davies in his Westminster offices a few weeks back. He spoke candidly on the nature of the Belfast Agreement and its implementation, as well as sharing wider historical observations on the nature of the Union itself. Read on.
The Belfast Agreement is far from an ideal document. But given the circumstances we�ve had in Northern Ireland over the last thirty years, and arguably on the island of Ireland for many hundreds of years, you were never going to get an ideal document. In practical terms, this agreement is probably the best we can hope for to give us a practical means for bringing about peace. But it is vital that it is implemented by all sides. However, whilst we support the Belfast Agreement, I deplore the way the government has handled the Belfast Agreement over the last five years or so, which has ensured that we have been going backwards for most of that time.
What mistakes do you think the government has made?
Firstly, they carried out their own commitments under the Belfast Agreement irrespective of whether other parties were carrying out theirs. The Agreement should have been considered to be a balanced and comprehensive document. It was therefore crazy for government to release prisoners without any decommissioning on the table at all, from the parties who were the beneficiaries of those releases. The document says that within two years decommissioning should be concluded and within two years the prisoners were to be released. Secondly, not content with delivering when others were not delivering, they then provided a bonus and went in for a whole string of unilateral and further concessions to Sinn Fein/IRA. The offer of an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists at Weston Park would have been implemented by the end of 2001 had it not been for the fact we succeeded in stopping it, so that very important card remains in the government�s hands. Other examples like the special status of Sinn Fein MPs, is an example of the government�s tendency to appease Sinn Fein and not to ensure that they carry out their obligations under the Belfast Agreement. The third great mistake they have made is not to respond at all to blatant and egregious breaches of the ceasefire agreement by Sinn Fein/IRA, starting with the episode and going to the FARC and Castlereagh.
So what is there left in the Agreement for Unionists?
I think there is something, but I understand that for Unionists it looks extraordinarily well disguised. And that has been the problem. The government�s tactics have not only indulged Sinn Fein, but has also engendered an incredible sense of betrayal, not only amongst Unionists but also people in the SDLP, who�ve been deeply offended by seeing all the bonuses, benefits and the ego trips given to the IRA, with SDLP and the Unionists taken for granted. But what is at stake remains exactly what was at stake in 1998. They haven�t been realised yet, but they are: an end to violence; an end to the attack on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland by nationalism; the acceptance of the status quo in Northern Ireland until and unless it is changed by democratic vote; the establishment of a new police force which has the allegiance of the Catholic community for the first time � a considerable benefit to all concerned; and ultimately a normalised peaceful society. Because of the general insecurity that many Protestants feel, one of the things that is most worrying me is the number of young people who are leaving. They are tending to go to university in Scotland and are simply not coming back. They don�t view Northern Ireland as an attractive place to spend the rest of their lives. This, given that it has so many things in its favour, both in terms of its human and natural environment. It can only be explained by political disillusionment or fear of the future. And that is something that could be addressed by a successful completion of the Belfast Agreement.
Many Unionists we have talked to believe that all the major benefits have gone to Nationalists.
Everybody in Northern Ireland will benefit from a successful peace process, on both sides. Peace and normalisation are a great craving among all the people of Northern Ireland. Clearly there have been difficult concessions from Unionism, some are symbolic, like the name and the hat badge of the police force. But the fundamentals of the Belfast Agreement are positive; whilst it is not perfect it is a fundamentally balanced document.
Why do you think that Unionists might hold a fear of the future?
Primarily it�s a fear that the Agreement is too weak and cannot prevent a return to paramilitary violence. There have been outbreaks of sectarian conflict and constant rioting in different parts of Belfast during the course of last year. I think there is a fear that this is not a good place to bring up your children. It also puts a brake on people coming into the province, including overseas investors who would not have the same questions in coming to Scotland or Wales, or even the Republic of Ireland.
Do you think the changes in the nature of the Union have strengthened or weakened it?
In point of fact, I think I was wrong to think that devolution was a dangerous or unsustainable trend. And I think it has been successful in Wales and Scotland and in Northern Ireland. So I think it is the way forward. In fact I very much regret, even though there was very little prospect of us doing it at that time, that we didn�t make progress with some of the ideas with federalism or Home Rule for all, as it was sometimes called, that were very much discussed before the First World War. In fact if it were possible to go back in history, my instincts would have been to be both a Unionist and a Home Ruler. It is regrettable that we weren�t able to keep the whole of the United Kingdom together, which included the whole island of Ireland. But that was made impossible by the abolition of the Irish parliament, which was a great mistake, it should have been reformed. Once gone it was very difficult to get back. After that we took responsibility here in London for everything that happened, including everything that happened that went wrong. Maybe if there had been an Irish parliament they would have taken some of the responsibility too. In other words we had a colonial administration in London, much as we had in India. Dublin Castle housed precisely the same kinds of personnel that we had in New Delhi. The re-imposition of direct rule was a great mistake in the 18th century and a great mistake in more recent times.
Do you think the Agreement is strong enough to retain within the Union the largest single block of anti-Union voters?
The great majority of Nationalist voters accept the democratic process and they accept that it would be futile and self destructive to create a united Ireland by force. They don�t wish to have a repressed, recalcitrant and embittered minority within any new all-Ireland state. What they want to have, however, is a society in which they are treated as equal citizens, which we all know they weren�t in the period between 1922 and 1972. The O�Neill administration tried to do something about that but it was blocked and destroyed by extreme Unionism. But the majority of Catholics want equality of opportunity, and if there is a democratic majority to have a united Ireland then that should be allowed to happen. The great majority of people on either side of the divide can live together under the terms of the Agreement so long as it is implemented fairly.
What about the economic prospects?
What�s very striking is that Northern Ireland has less foreign investment than either the UK as a whole or the Republic of Ireland. Now, you can say that it has a slight geographical disadvantage, in that it is much further away from the European single markets than England is. But when you look at the Republic of Ireland, which has done brilliantly, some ways of the most outstanding success in the modern world over the last ten years, it must be something to do with the uncertainties and the instability which comes with the problems that we have had in Northern Ireland. And I am sure therefore that the solution to the economic problems is a political one, and it must succeed.
Mick is founding editor of Slugger. He has written papers on the impacts of the Internet on politics and the wider media and is a regular guest and speaking events across Ireland, the UK and Europe. Twitter: @MickFealty
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
