Caoimhin O’Muraile  ✒ The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) was signed on 10th April 1998 and was in fact two agreements fused into one, giving it legal status in International Law, such as it is. 

The first was an agreement signed between two sovereign nation states, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, known as the British Irish Agreement (BIA). The second was the Multi-Party Agreement (MPA) signed between the parties, or most of them in “Northern Ireland” the Ulster Unionist Party, the Progressive Unionist Party – associated with the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), the Ulster Democratic Party – linked to the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), Sinn Fein – linked to the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), the Alliance Party and the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. 

The agreement, in my view needed much more clarification to dispel any ambiguities which would arise and the question is, would any half decent shop steward have signed such an agreement? In my – albeit rusty – experience certainly not! Even the British negotiating side were reportedly surprised not more clarity was requested by the nationalist/republican side during the MPA talks particularly Sinn Fein. 

The first flaw in the whole charade was on decommissioning of weapons by those organisations, not at the table, which held them. For example, it appears to me the IRA were under no obligation to decommission arms as they were not party to the talks. What the agreement suggested was those parties with links to armed groups would; “use whatever influence they may have” to secure decommissioning of arms by these organisations. A fair enough stance, certainly not unreasonable, but neither a guarantee the organisations bearing arms would agree. 

Threatening to kick Sinn Fein out if the IRA did not comply with the agreement and was not on the table, the warning signs were there even at this early stage for all to see. All the SF leadership had to do was approach the IRA, as they had many times before, and “use whatever influence they may have” asking the organisation to decommission or disarm. All the IRA had to reply was, along the lines of perhaps; we have listened intently to the request by Sinn Fein for us to decommission and, after serious deliberation, we, the IRA, do not think such a move prudent at this time. We will, however, guarantee not to fire a shot in offensive anger but do reserve the right to defend ourselves, or wording along those lines. They could have added an intent to review the situation at a later date. That way SF had followed, to the letter, the terms of the agreement having “used whatever influence they may have” with the IRA who politely turned down their request. The same rule may have applied to loyalist parties associated with armed groups.

For the record no other IRA organisation historically has decommissioned, handed over their weapons. During the War of Independence, the first moves the British made towards talks demanded the IRA hand over their weapons. The organisation refused. The British then dropped this demand. After the Civil War, which followed the War of Independence, the IRA of the day were ordered to dump arms by Frank Aitken in May 1923 and just go home. In 1972 the Official IRA called a ceasefire and again dumped arms, there was no decommissioning. Why then was this time different?

Secondly, and as far as constitutional change for the six counties goes, more important much more clarity was needed before anything should have been signed. The British Secretary of State for “Northern Ireland” has the final irrevocable say on whether a border poll can be held on whether the North of Ireland wishes to become part of a united Ireland or remain as it is, part of the United Kingdom. He/she has the exclusive right to decide whether conditions exist which suggest a change in the constitutional position of the six counties exist or not and whether this warrants a border poll! Has public opinion changed to suggest a poll may change that constitutional position? Only the Secretary of State can decide that. More warning bells should have been ringing out with alarm at this unilateral approach not involving the Republic of Ireland Government who are supposedly joint custodians of the GFA. 

In the eyes of many, certainly since Brexit, 2016, conditions have changed. For example, 55.8% of the electorate in the North voted to remain within the European Union while only 44.2% wished to leave. This vote was in line with Scotland who are also making noises about leaving the UK, and only England and half of Wales voted to leave the EU, and the only way the north could remain part of the EU is by being part of a united Ireland. Something else which Brexit changed was the attitude of many, once hostile to the 26 counties, in the North of Ireland towards obtaining an Irish Passport. After Brexit, according to RTE news, there was a 70% increase in applications from within “Northern Ireland” for Irish passports. Most people in nationalist/republican areas already had one so these applications must have come from the unionist/loyalist community, people who, thirty years ago, would have balked at the thought! Do these constitute sufficient change for a border poll? No, not according to various British secretaries of state whom, it would appear, are not really interested in changes in the conditions on the ground in the North of Ireland but moreover keeping hold of that territory at all costs irrespective of what the GFA says. And where are the fellow custodians of the agreement, the Irish Government? Nowhere to be seen!

Let us now move on to some of the more obvious ambiguities of the GFA itself, of which there are far too many to cover each one so I have concentrated on the issue of constitutional change. The full text of the Good Friday Agreement also known as the Belfast Agreement is very long so I looked at the following on page 593. “The two governments:

1) Recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland.

2) Recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self- determination on the basis of consent freely and concurrently given, North and South to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting this right must be achieved and expressed with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

3) Acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people of Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, fully exercised and legitimate, to maintain the union and accordingly that Northern Ireland stays as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish, and it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people.

4) Affirm that, if in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self- determination on the basis set out in 1+2 above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both governments to intervene and support in their respective parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

There are pages of ambiguous waffle such as these brief extracts form the text of the GFA. Let’s look at the rubbish above; on the one hand it is up to the people of the island of Ireland to exercise their wish for unification, and on the other, it is up to the people of “Northern Ireland” to decide. What then happens if, as laid out, “if in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination” basically meaning, as far as I can see it, an all-Ireland referendum, to run “concurrently” which poses problems in itself - the vote goes overwhelmingly in favour of unification in the 26 counties but in the North of Ireland a small majority vote to remain part of the UK? Does this mean, as it appears to do, that a minority of the “people of the island of Ireland” can veto the wishes of the majority of the “people of the island of Ireland?” If that is the case the wishes of the majority of the people on the island of Ireland are meaningless! And when does the British Secretary of State decide when the conditions for a border poll are correct? What constitutes the conditions being correct? All questions, and there are many more far too voluminous for a blog, which at very least should have been clarified. The question here is why were they not, especially by the Sinn Fein side?

The point about consent being “freely and concurrently given” give rise to problems because the two jurisdictions have different systems. The 26 counties have a written constitution and any change in that constitution must go to referendum. So, if a vote in the South of Ireland went in favour, as expected, of unification then articles two and three may have to be changed again. That would mean another vote. It would also mean if, by a small majority, the people of the six counties voted to remain in the UK, those changes would have to accommodate such a possibility, meaning the unionists in the north would have an indirect say on our constitution. The UK has no written constitution on which to vote so, even allowing for the British side agreeing to an all-Ireland referendum on the constitutional status of the six counties it would be very difficult for such a referendum to run concurrently. The timing would be out because we would have to, in effect, have two votes. One on unification the other on constitutional change. Not impossible but more difficult than it first appears.

This GFA appears like an agreement between employer and employee’s representatives, trade unions normally, guaranteeing a pay increase of 20% at a time not determined at the negotiations in the future. This pay rise will be subject to the share-holders agreeing and then, end equally binding, to the Board of Directors agreeing which no meeting of whom has been set aside to discuss such a pay increase. Such a deal would be unthinkable, no date given for implementation of the pay rise, no agenda for a board meeting to discuss it and all subject to hundreds or thousands of shareholders agreeing. Such a hypothetical deal effectively would give the employers, despite what their negotiating team discussed with the unions, a veto over the agreement, irrespective of how the 15,000 employees voted. This would not be dissimilar to the veto the Ulster Unionists/Loyalists have over the rest of the Irish population regarding unification under the ambiguous terms of the GFA. What kind of shop stewards committee would sign such an ambiguous deal, let alone put such rubbish to their members?

The GFA may have brought about peace to the six counties, the question is for how long? And finally, a little about the involvement of the USA in the whole charade. Senator George Mitchel, no doubt a very well-meaning man from the point of view of the USA, invested a lot of time along with the two governments and political parties in securing something which is meaningless when examined closer without clarity. Apart from one thing, that is US investment in the area. A job starved work-force, low wages and huge profits I am sure were not far from the good senator’s mind, and certainly those who appointed him on behalf of the US bourgeoisie, the US Congress.

Let us all hope the peace lasts but for me many unanswered questions remain, not to one day raise their ugly head. As the generation which signed the GFA age and die it will be up to the next generations to uphold it and preserve it. Will they be prepared to do that, once it become obvious it offers the working-class nothing? Time will tell but a return to war and conflict is unimaginable.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

The Good Friday Ambiguous (Agreement)


Caoimhin O’Muraile  ✒ The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) was signed on 10th April 1998 and was in fact two agreements fused into one, giving it legal status in International Law, such as it is. 

The first was an agreement signed between two sovereign nation states, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, known as the British Irish Agreement (BIA). The second was the Multi-Party Agreement (MPA) signed between the parties, or most of them in “Northern Ireland” the Ulster Unionist Party, the Progressive Unionist Party – associated with the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), the Ulster Democratic Party – linked to the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), Sinn Fein – linked to the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), the Alliance Party and the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. 

The agreement, in my view needed much more clarification to dispel any ambiguities which would arise and the question is, would any half decent shop steward have signed such an agreement? In my – albeit rusty – experience certainly not! Even the British negotiating side were reportedly surprised not more clarity was requested by the nationalist/republican side during the MPA talks particularly Sinn Fein. 

The first flaw in the whole charade was on decommissioning of weapons by those organisations, not at the table, which held them. For example, it appears to me the IRA were under no obligation to decommission arms as they were not party to the talks. What the agreement suggested was those parties with links to armed groups would; “use whatever influence they may have” to secure decommissioning of arms by these organisations. A fair enough stance, certainly not unreasonable, but neither a guarantee the organisations bearing arms would agree. 

Threatening to kick Sinn Fein out if the IRA did not comply with the agreement and was not on the table, the warning signs were there even at this early stage for all to see. All the SF leadership had to do was approach the IRA, as they had many times before, and “use whatever influence they may have” asking the organisation to decommission or disarm. All the IRA had to reply was, along the lines of perhaps; we have listened intently to the request by Sinn Fein for us to decommission and, after serious deliberation, we, the IRA, do not think such a move prudent at this time. We will, however, guarantee not to fire a shot in offensive anger but do reserve the right to defend ourselves, or wording along those lines. They could have added an intent to review the situation at a later date. That way SF had followed, to the letter, the terms of the agreement having “used whatever influence they may have” with the IRA who politely turned down their request. The same rule may have applied to loyalist parties associated with armed groups.

For the record no other IRA organisation historically has decommissioned, handed over their weapons. During the War of Independence, the first moves the British made towards talks demanded the IRA hand over their weapons. The organisation refused. The British then dropped this demand. After the Civil War, which followed the War of Independence, the IRA of the day were ordered to dump arms by Frank Aitken in May 1923 and just go home. In 1972 the Official IRA called a ceasefire and again dumped arms, there was no decommissioning. Why then was this time different?

Secondly, and as far as constitutional change for the six counties goes, more important much more clarity was needed before anything should have been signed. The British Secretary of State for “Northern Ireland” has the final irrevocable say on whether a border poll can be held on whether the North of Ireland wishes to become part of a united Ireland or remain as it is, part of the United Kingdom. He/she has the exclusive right to decide whether conditions exist which suggest a change in the constitutional position of the six counties exist or not and whether this warrants a border poll! Has public opinion changed to suggest a poll may change that constitutional position? Only the Secretary of State can decide that. More warning bells should have been ringing out with alarm at this unilateral approach not involving the Republic of Ireland Government who are supposedly joint custodians of the GFA. 

In the eyes of many, certainly since Brexit, 2016, conditions have changed. For example, 55.8% of the electorate in the North voted to remain within the European Union while only 44.2% wished to leave. This vote was in line with Scotland who are also making noises about leaving the UK, and only England and half of Wales voted to leave the EU, and the only way the north could remain part of the EU is by being part of a united Ireland. Something else which Brexit changed was the attitude of many, once hostile to the 26 counties, in the North of Ireland towards obtaining an Irish Passport. After Brexit, according to RTE news, there was a 70% increase in applications from within “Northern Ireland” for Irish passports. Most people in nationalist/republican areas already had one so these applications must have come from the unionist/loyalist community, people who, thirty years ago, would have balked at the thought! Do these constitute sufficient change for a border poll? No, not according to various British secretaries of state whom, it would appear, are not really interested in changes in the conditions on the ground in the North of Ireland but moreover keeping hold of that territory at all costs irrespective of what the GFA says. And where are the fellow custodians of the agreement, the Irish Government? Nowhere to be seen!

Let us now move on to some of the more obvious ambiguities of the GFA itself, of which there are far too many to cover each one so I have concentrated on the issue of constitutional change. The full text of the Good Friday Agreement also known as the Belfast Agreement is very long so I looked at the following on page 593. “The two governments:

1) Recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland.

2) Recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self- determination on the basis of consent freely and concurrently given, North and South to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting this right must be achieved and expressed with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

3) Acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people of Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, fully exercised and legitimate, to maintain the union and accordingly that Northern Ireland stays as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish, and it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people.

4) Affirm that, if in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self- determination on the basis set out in 1+2 above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both governments to intervene and support in their respective parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

There are pages of ambiguous waffle such as these brief extracts form the text of the GFA. Let’s look at the rubbish above; on the one hand it is up to the people of the island of Ireland to exercise their wish for unification, and on the other, it is up to the people of “Northern Ireland” to decide. What then happens if, as laid out, “if in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination” basically meaning, as far as I can see it, an all-Ireland referendum, to run “concurrently” which poses problems in itself - the vote goes overwhelmingly in favour of unification in the 26 counties but in the North of Ireland a small majority vote to remain part of the UK? Does this mean, as it appears to do, that a minority of the “people of the island of Ireland” can veto the wishes of the majority of the “people of the island of Ireland?” If that is the case the wishes of the majority of the people on the island of Ireland are meaningless! And when does the British Secretary of State decide when the conditions for a border poll are correct? What constitutes the conditions being correct? All questions, and there are many more far too voluminous for a blog, which at very least should have been clarified. The question here is why were they not, especially by the Sinn Fein side?

The point about consent being “freely and concurrently given” give rise to problems because the two jurisdictions have different systems. The 26 counties have a written constitution and any change in that constitution must go to referendum. So, if a vote in the South of Ireland went in favour, as expected, of unification then articles two and three may have to be changed again. That would mean another vote. It would also mean if, by a small majority, the people of the six counties voted to remain in the UK, those changes would have to accommodate such a possibility, meaning the unionists in the north would have an indirect say on our constitution. The UK has no written constitution on which to vote so, even allowing for the British side agreeing to an all-Ireland referendum on the constitutional status of the six counties it would be very difficult for such a referendum to run concurrently. The timing would be out because we would have to, in effect, have two votes. One on unification the other on constitutional change. Not impossible but more difficult than it first appears.

This GFA appears like an agreement between employer and employee’s representatives, trade unions normally, guaranteeing a pay increase of 20% at a time not determined at the negotiations in the future. This pay rise will be subject to the share-holders agreeing and then, end equally binding, to the Board of Directors agreeing which no meeting of whom has been set aside to discuss such a pay increase. Such a deal would be unthinkable, no date given for implementation of the pay rise, no agenda for a board meeting to discuss it and all subject to hundreds or thousands of shareholders agreeing. Such a hypothetical deal effectively would give the employers, despite what their negotiating team discussed with the unions, a veto over the agreement, irrespective of how the 15,000 employees voted. This would not be dissimilar to the veto the Ulster Unionists/Loyalists have over the rest of the Irish population regarding unification under the ambiguous terms of the GFA. What kind of shop stewards committee would sign such an ambiguous deal, let alone put such rubbish to their members?

The GFA may have brought about peace to the six counties, the question is for how long? And finally, a little about the involvement of the USA in the whole charade. Senator George Mitchel, no doubt a very well-meaning man from the point of view of the USA, invested a lot of time along with the two governments and political parties in securing something which is meaningless when examined closer without clarity. Apart from one thing, that is US investment in the area. A job starved work-force, low wages and huge profits I am sure were not far from the good senator’s mind, and certainly those who appointed him on behalf of the US bourgeoisie, the US Congress.

Let us all hope the peace lasts but for me many unanswered questions remain, not to one day raise their ugly head. As the generation which signed the GFA age and die it will be up to the next generations to uphold it and preserve it. Will they be prepared to do that, once it become obvious it offers the working-class nothing? Time will tell but a return to war and conflict is unimaginable.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

4 comments:

  1. No way known the Unionist parties would have been allowed to sit at the table without the Republican movement disarming, by the Unionist people. This was a non-negotiable. It was an admirable thing the Provos did, and it showed us that they were perhaps serious about peace.

    If they had have said "No, we'll just hang on to them for now " then there was zero chance we'd have taken them seriously. Why would we? It would have been obvious to us they were just trying to see what they could get then go right back to doing more of the same.

    Once the Provo's put arms beyond use the Loyalists, as they said they would, reciprocated. We understood perfectly that if they so wished they could simply re-arm in the future. We accepted that and chanced peace would be more appealing.

    And fair play to everyone, violence has no place anymore in politics in Ireland. Our History is littered with obscenities but the GFA has stopped them from recurring. Whichever way you want to cut it, that's a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Caoimhin O'Muraile

    Steve R

    The point I am making is not whether they should or should not disarm, after all loyalists didn't, but the British insistence that SF could not sit at the table unless the IRA disarmed. This is not a demand of the GFA which asks parties to use whatever influence they "may" have to bring about decommissioning. That is not the same as threatening to kick said party out if they could not deliver, not the same at all as you know full well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoinhin,

      There's no difference between Sinn Fein and the Provo's as you know full well, at least back then. As far as the Brits and we were concerned, dealing with the shinners WAS dealing with the Provos. This slight of hand about 'influence they may have' simply doesn't wash, along with Adams saying he was never in the Ra!

      Delete
  3. Decent Article . Good Reading

    ReplyDelete