The GFA was in fact two agreements, the ‘British Irish Agreement’ (BIA), being an agreement between the governments of two international nation states, Britain and Ireland, giving the entire document recognition in international law, such as it is. The BIA legitimised the second document; the ‘Multi Party Agreement’ (MPA), between most of the political parties in the Six-Counties, and was annexed to the MPA making one document which became known as the ‘Good Friday Agreement’ or the ‘Belfast Agreement’ depending on your point of view.
However, coming from a republican viewpoint the GFA leaves much to be desired, in fact it is a tissue of contradictions. I am not opposed to an agreement, no any sane person could be, even this one with much, much clarification and some amendments. The negotiators from the republican camp, all supposedly experienced in the art of negotiation, should not have signed this document without these clarifications and, where necessary, amendments being sorted out first. Why they did is open to many questions; could the negotiators on the other side of the table have had ‘the drop’ on the republican negotiators? This is one possibility which some have floated, does it hold substance? Only those involved can answer this and at least one man is deceased!
The British and Irish Governments were both eager to secure this agreement and Tony Blair, British Prime Minister, with Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach, undoubtedly put a lot of time and effort getting it over the line. That was all very well: firstly it relieved the Twenty-Six-County administration of claiming sovereignty over the North of Ireland, something they have never really been happy or easy with which is perhaps why they never even bothered to establish an office for Irish unification, as Germany did in preparation for their possible eventuality. Secondly it was/is hoped this agreement would relieve the British of the ‘headache’ they claim to have which is “Northern Ireland”, their terminology, meaning it would take the republican combatants, IRA and INLA off the stage. They have retained sovereignty without the war involved in holding it. This then brings us to the first point of disagreement and that is the role of the British Secretary of State having the absolute final say over any border poll on Irish unification. The GFA states that, ‘if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that “Northern Ireland” should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall make an Order in council enabling a border poll’. This essentially means no matter what the evidence may be on the ground, in the streets – and it is unclear what the conditions which would have to be met are – the Secretary of State has the ultimate say. If the Secretary of State decides he/she for whatever reasons the conditions are not met they can just say no to a border poll. If the same British office holder decides to ignore public opinion, choosing to interpret findings differently, he/she can veto any border poll demand and under this GFA nothing can be done about it. Surely this should have been amended to read along the lines of; ‘the British Secretary of State in conjunction with the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs will, after consulting all the interested parties, make a decision over the issue of a border poll for unification involving the people of the entire island’. Surely an experienced negotiator would have spotted the flaws in this piece of the agreement. It basically means the British Secretary of State can – some would argue on behalf of the unionists – veto indefinitely any border poll in the six-counties or on the island of Ireland. Recently in the House of Commons Robin Swan of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) asked for clarification that the “Secretary of State is a unionist”!
Other major issues of contention which should have been clarified are; ‘The agreement acknowledged: that the majority of the people of “Northern Ireland” wished to remain part of the United Kingdom’. It then states; ‘That a substantial section of the people of “Northern Ireland”, and the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland’. Both these views were/are acknowledged as being legitimate. The question is which point takes preference? The people of the entire island of Ireland or the people of “Northern Ireland”? For example, if a substantial number, but not a majority, say 43% of the people in the Six-Counties prefer unification and a huge majority in the Twenty-Six-Counties opt for the same, giving a large majority on the island of Ireland for Irish unity, do the unionists who voted against, 57%, in the North of Ireland get to veto the rest of the country? They would have secured a majority for the status quo in the Six-Counties but not on the island as a whole. Would the voters in “Northern Ireland” be regarded as a separate entity to the rest of the country? This is what the unionist/loyalists would want or, on the other hand, is the island to be regarded as one constituency as republicans would desire and the vote nationally for unification carry the day? This point was never apparently ironed out and the question is why was this the case? The can was kicked down the road and a very fucking long road it would appear! The British were reportedly surprised the republicans would give so much for so little, I see their point.
We are constantly told the people of the island of Ireland as a whole voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement which was not strictly true! The people in the Six-Counties, on both sides of the so-called divide, did vote in huge numbers for this agreement. This was not the case in the Twenty-six-Counties we voted primarily on amending articles 2+3 of the Irish constitution which would allow the state to sign up to the agreement. Articles 2+3 of the 1937 constitution, often referred to as ‘de Valera’s Constitution’, claimed sovereignty by the Dublin Government over the whole island. The people of the Twenty-Six-Counties voted by a sizable number to amend the constitutions articles 2+3 instead of claiming sovereignty over the whole island of Ireland to read; Article 2:
The British and Irish Governments were both eager to secure this agreement and Tony Blair, British Prime Minister, with Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach, undoubtedly put a lot of time and effort getting it over the line. That was all very well: firstly it relieved the Twenty-Six-County administration of claiming sovereignty over the North of Ireland, something they have never really been happy or easy with which is perhaps why they never even bothered to establish an office for Irish unification, as Germany did in preparation for their possible eventuality. Secondly it was/is hoped this agreement would relieve the British of the ‘headache’ they claim to have which is “Northern Ireland”, their terminology, meaning it would take the republican combatants, IRA and INLA off the stage. They have retained sovereignty without the war involved in holding it. This then brings us to the first point of disagreement and that is the role of the British Secretary of State having the absolute final say over any border poll on Irish unification. The GFA states that, ‘if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that “Northern Ireland” should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall make an Order in council enabling a border poll’. This essentially means no matter what the evidence may be on the ground, in the streets – and it is unclear what the conditions which would have to be met are – the Secretary of State has the ultimate say. If the Secretary of State decides he/she for whatever reasons the conditions are not met they can just say no to a border poll. If the same British office holder decides to ignore public opinion, choosing to interpret findings differently, he/she can veto any border poll demand and under this GFA nothing can be done about it. Surely this should have been amended to read along the lines of; ‘the British Secretary of State in conjunction with the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs will, after consulting all the interested parties, make a decision over the issue of a border poll for unification involving the people of the entire island’. Surely an experienced negotiator would have spotted the flaws in this piece of the agreement. It basically means the British Secretary of State can – some would argue on behalf of the unionists – veto indefinitely any border poll in the six-counties or on the island of Ireland. Recently in the House of Commons Robin Swan of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) asked for clarification that the “Secretary of State is a unionist”!
Other major issues of contention which should have been clarified are; ‘The agreement acknowledged: that the majority of the people of “Northern Ireland” wished to remain part of the United Kingdom’. It then states; ‘That a substantial section of the people of “Northern Ireland”, and the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, wished to bring about a united Ireland’. Both these views were/are acknowledged as being legitimate. The question is which point takes preference? The people of the entire island of Ireland or the people of “Northern Ireland”? For example, if a substantial number, but not a majority, say 43% of the people in the Six-Counties prefer unification and a huge majority in the Twenty-Six-Counties opt for the same, giving a large majority on the island of Ireland for Irish unity, do the unionists who voted against, 57%, in the North of Ireland get to veto the rest of the country? They would have secured a majority for the status quo in the Six-Counties but not on the island as a whole. Would the voters in “Northern Ireland” be regarded as a separate entity to the rest of the country? This is what the unionist/loyalists would want or, on the other hand, is the island to be regarded as one constituency as republicans would desire and the vote nationally for unification carry the day? This point was never apparently ironed out and the question is why was this the case? The can was kicked down the road and a very fucking long road it would appear! The British were reportedly surprised the republicans would give so much for so little, I see their point.
We are constantly told the people of the island of Ireland as a whole voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement which was not strictly true! The people in the Six-Counties, on both sides of the so-called divide, did vote in huge numbers for this agreement. This was not the case in the Twenty-six-Counties we voted primarily on amending articles 2+3 of the Irish constitution which would allow the state to sign up to the agreement. Articles 2+3 of the 1937 constitution, often referred to as ‘de Valera’s Constitution’, claimed sovereignty by the Dublin Government over the whole island. The people of the Twenty-Six-Counties voted by a sizable number to amend the constitutions articles 2+3 instead of claiming sovereignty over the whole island of Ireland to read; Article 2:
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.
Article 3:
It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament enshrined by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
The voters of the Twenty-Six-Counties were asked ‘whether they would allow the state to sign the agreement and allow necessary constitutional changes (Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland) to facilitate it.’ Changing articles 2+3 allowed just that:
Recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.
Does ‘in both jurisdictions’ mean the Thirty-Two Counties with a referendum worded the same way over the entire island of Ireland? After all 26 + 6 = 32. So can we assume the agreement means by ‘both jurisdictions’ the Six and Twenty-Six Counties referenda running concurrently as one constituency? The outcome of the vote over the whole island be binding in accordance with the GFA? The problem here is, the two jurisdictions have two entirely different systems constitutionally, so whether a referendum could run concurrently is questionable!
Has the GFA brought peace to the area once engulfed in conflict? Yes, to a certain extent it has and most of the populations in both jurisdictions would not swap what they have now for that of the past. War weariness had been a symptom in the Six-Counties among the populations of both sides for a number of years, a war weariness which, to a large extent, has been eradicated. But what of the volunteers of the IRA and INLA who had fought for a united Ireland? From the point of view of the INLA no agreement could ever bring about their ultimate goal of ‘national liberation and socialism’ simply because the GFA was signed and legitimised by the signatures of two capitalist governments, the issue of political ideology was never on the table. As for the IRA the question of political ideology did not arise as their representatives at the table, Sinn Fein, were/are not anti-capitalist. The political representatives of the INLA, the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP), are not signatories to the GFA, the party could never have gone down this avenue and still claim to be fighting for socialism. The IRSP now, without the revolutionary; ‘Army of the People, the INLA’ (as the song goes), look a little like other would be revolutionary socialist groups such as the Socialist Workers Party!
Who have been the victors or perhaps beneficiaries would be a better word? The population of the six-counties have certainly a safer way of life, that is beyond question, but the main winners are, firstly, the British and NATO. The British maintain sovereignty offering a vague hope of a united Ireland at some unspecified time in the future, while maintaining, an albeit, reduced military force as part of NATO on the island of Ireland. This presence no longer has the militarily aggressive IRA and INLA to fight, the war is over. The loyalist death squads are no longer needed, they were just used by the British anyway, so any activity from them can be clamped down on immediately. International capitalism can flourish and firms can move into the North of Ireland, knowing they will not be bombed out, and can exploit a job hungry workforce. Trade between the Six and Twenty-Six-Counties can flourish with none of the previous difficulties, holdups, kidnappings for ransom’s etc, and huge profits can be made by the few from the labour power of the many.
So, where next? A return to armed conflict? No, that is not an option, if for no other reason the populations of the Six-Counties would never stand for it. The days of the British Army raiding houses at the crack of dawn are long gone, and many people today will not even remember those dark days, many would not have been born. I do not have the answers but one thing is for sure, before this agreement was signed much, much more clarity and amendments added, should have been sought from the British side. My question is why was such clarity not sought? If this was a game of chess the term; ‘check mate’ comes to mind! Who to? The answer to that question the reader must decide for themselves!
Has the GFA brought peace to the area once engulfed in conflict? Yes, to a certain extent it has and most of the populations in both jurisdictions would not swap what they have now for that of the past. War weariness had been a symptom in the Six-Counties among the populations of both sides for a number of years, a war weariness which, to a large extent, has been eradicated. But what of the volunteers of the IRA and INLA who had fought for a united Ireland? From the point of view of the INLA no agreement could ever bring about their ultimate goal of ‘national liberation and socialism’ simply because the GFA was signed and legitimised by the signatures of two capitalist governments, the issue of political ideology was never on the table. As for the IRA the question of political ideology did not arise as their representatives at the table, Sinn Fein, were/are not anti-capitalist. The political representatives of the INLA, the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP), are not signatories to the GFA, the party could never have gone down this avenue and still claim to be fighting for socialism. The IRSP now, without the revolutionary; ‘Army of the People, the INLA’ (as the song goes), look a little like other would be revolutionary socialist groups such as the Socialist Workers Party!
Who have been the victors or perhaps beneficiaries would be a better word? The population of the six-counties have certainly a safer way of life, that is beyond question, but the main winners are, firstly, the British and NATO. The British maintain sovereignty offering a vague hope of a united Ireland at some unspecified time in the future, while maintaining, an albeit, reduced military force as part of NATO on the island of Ireland. This presence no longer has the militarily aggressive IRA and INLA to fight, the war is over. The loyalist death squads are no longer needed, they were just used by the British anyway, so any activity from them can be clamped down on immediately. International capitalism can flourish and firms can move into the North of Ireland, knowing they will not be bombed out, and can exploit a job hungry workforce. Trade between the Six and Twenty-Six-Counties can flourish with none of the previous difficulties, holdups, kidnappings for ransom’s etc, and huge profits can be made by the few from the labour power of the many.
So, where next? A return to armed conflict? No, that is not an option, if for no other reason the populations of the Six-Counties would never stand for it. The days of the British Army raiding houses at the crack of dawn are long gone, and many people today will not even remember those dark days, many would not have been born. I do not have the answers but one thing is for sure, before this agreement was signed much, much more clarity and amendments added, should have been sought from the British side. My question is why was such clarity not sought? If this was a game of chess the term; ‘check mate’ comes to mind! Who to? The answer to that question the reader must decide for themselves!
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
 was signed on 10th April 1998 between the British and Irish Governments and the inter...&p[url]=https://www.thepensivequill.com/2025/05/the-good-friday-agreement-27-years-on.html&p[images][0]=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbylvCBPH7196afB3AxDRySjkNCH_FqglUDJgCbm8xvyqJRZVwDuOPfR3Js0jx2MrxXvKntjHVM2KUqhU2jpu6UmDUE49Gb3T0nXiew47SZ0rzCQ5Xwjgch-C9tWx_p7Vdr1MD6Ky-kUyHWlkmpssGxjxBKhpVZQCaK0YDepfPDfZHmQjYfvHYgaM3/s1600/01%20Quill%20Hand.png){kind=link}
The GFA is very clear about where the right to determine the constitutional status lies. It is with the population of the six. That is the determining vote, not the one in the twenty six. If the North agree by 50+1 then the South's vote is also required to make it happen. If the North decide to reject Irish unity by 50-1 that carries and the Southern vote is 100/% for unity, the latter has no bearing on the outcome. The unionist veto remains in place - in that those who favour the union can veto Irish unity if they have the numbers.
ReplyDeleteThere was a border poll before - Gerry Kelly bombed London on the day it was held.
Exactly, so why could such an obviously weighted document be signed without at least making amendments, which is any negotiators right,and clarificatiin sought be signed?
ReplyDeleteCaoimhin O'Muraile