Look at 1985.   This is when all the Unionist MPs resigned — as it was then freely described in the media — to protest against the Anglo-Irish Agreement (an outrage that they shared, although not for the same reason, with Fianna Fail).   Led by James Molyneaux — now a real Baron, unlike Gerry Adams — and Ian Paisley (Baron Bannside), they resigned to … to run again for their old seats in by-elections!  So if we’re having a laugh at the need to take these procedures seriously, note that the title would have been held for just a few minutes by each of the Unionist MPs to process their resignations, whereupon they set about disregarding their office of profit under the Crown.  Hopefully the subjects of the stewardships were not insulted by the revolving door nature of their 1985 overlords.

Final footnote: Jim Nicholson, who resigned as MP, lost his seat to Seamus Mallon when he ran again.  But there’s no indication that the title curses subsequent election prospects.

But leave that aside. 

The theme of the speech was that we in Ireland now have the “space” to take a comprehensive view of the events of one hundred years ago and that this will make the commemorations a more worthy enterprise than they otherwise would have been –

In fact, there is so much to look forward to if we are prepared to seize the future.  We can banish that “giant albatross” of history from around our necks and replace it with a garland of hope for our better future. I am greatly encouraged by the conversation that has already begun – across the entire island of Ireland. It is a conversation which can deepen the process of reconciliation and help us to write another proud chapter in our history.

One thing is missing.  The Irish Civil War.  You can read that speech 10 times and see perhaps one oblique reference to it.  Yet to try and tell a history of Ireland  for this period without discussing this war would be nonsensical.    But the official position seems to be that our vaunted “space” and “conversation” about early 20th century Irish history still has its limits.

It is a starting gun on raising the profile of the EU’s role in stabilising the country as well as an echo of ICTU/SIPTU’s call for social solidarity to address the down turn.

Only in the recent past have political leaders on the island been able to find the will and imagination to identify a path through the barriers to reconciliation.

…

The Irish people, North and South, have for their part accepted that Northern Ireland remains in union with Britain unless and until the majority in the North desire otherwise.

No shock but an interesting time to stress the principle of consent and the need to understand and co-exist. On Europe

Since 1973 therefore, we have applied this principle to guide our participation in what is now the European Union. Our membership puts Ireland squarely at the centre of one of the world’s most influential players. Amplified by the Union, Ireland’s voice, unlike that of the first Dáil, can no longer be ignored internationally.

Our influence within the Union is pervasive, whether at the highest levels of its institutions, or as a mediator helping to resolve different positions at inter-governmental meetings. We have been extremely successful participants in the Union and it has given us a reach and a power unachievable to us alone…

The truth is that Europe empowers us. It gives us a place at the table, from which we can deploy our resources, our influence and our sovereignty to the benefit of the Irish people…

Alongside peace and a respected place at the heart of Europe, together we have also used our independence to build a stronger, fairer Ireland.

Europe will increasingly be tied not only to our previous successes but to our weathering of the worst downturn. Which gives a neat segue to Cowen’s next paragraph’s

In every decade since our independence, this country has faced serious economic challenges. Despite the hardships involved, we confronted each of those challenges successfully….

The scale of the adjustments now required represent a major political, economic and social challenge for every single person in this country.

Everybody in this country will be affected and everybody will have to play their part in overcoming the challenge.

With unemployment rising, we must not allow the full burden of adjustments fall on those who lose their jobs.
Those who are in employment, whether in the private or the public sector, will also share the burden. A particular responsibility lies on those who have benefitted most from the rapid growth of the economy over recent years, whether as investors, self-employed or employees. They are being asked to show solidarity with those who are less well off.

It is that sense of solidarity which marks Irish society at its best. It is the spirit which gave rise to the social partnership process, which has contributed so much.

Social solidarity,(a call to pull together and tighten our belts?) and Europe are the central planks of a recovery and while we only need to nod to Europe at the moment it is not beyond reason that we end up heading to Brussles in need of more sophisticated assistance.

Even if we don’t go with the bank crisis, there are two funds we have already passed on (the globalisation adjustment fund and the EIB small and medium business credit scheme. It may have seemed politically impossible to take the funds following the defeat of Lisbon but with a renewed election cycle to think about we may have to head over and from there, social solidarity and republican values will carry us over the line.

At least it looks like a narrrative, though not an economic plan, nor a coherent policy strategy. But it is a start. The one everyone has been crying out for.

But Fine Gael and the Conservatives are closer to a similar position on taxes; the Irish government with tax increases imminent (the income levy) and Gordon Brown promising increases in national insurance (and VAT?) within a couple of years, while FG and the Conservatives are opposed to any tax increases.  On the other hand, Lisbon is a bit of a landmine for Dave, as he surely hopes his promise of a UK referendum will be moot by the time he might be in a position to offer it, as it would be highly likely to generate a No result.  Whereas FG have the luxury of an unambiguous pro-Lisbon position that allows them to outflank FF as the reliable Europhiles in Ireland.  And on Northern Ireland, it can’t have much more of a tour d’horizon although Enda was perhaps curious to see what Dave might say at the UUP conference next week.

So all in all, there was probably more meat in the discussion of strategy than policy.  Enda could certainly take note of Cameron’s approach in PM’s questions — one very pointed question at the start which then leads into a broader to and fro with Gordon Brown, with the hope of a soundbite that makes it the evening news.   For example, I thought Cameron’s line about Brown giving the UK “the debt levels of Italy and the accounting practices of Enron” was not bad at all.  Among the many questions prompted by comparing the two leaders, one perhaps stands out.  Cameron has a rapport with many London voters and Boris Johnson shows that the party can overcome the image of buffoonish toffs to win elections there.  But does FG have electoral buoyancy in Dublin?  It’s hard to see an election win without it.

Why are they needed then? Does Ahern see the soldiers as some last bastion of secular politics that might be able to transcend the divides of northern society and return the ‘moderates’ to the heart of the political system? Or does it really irk him that Sinn Fein have currently got the ‘all-Ireland Party’ thing cornered?

There are all sorts of questions raised by this move to expand into the north, not least the dynamic of a relationship between an FF Taoiseach and a DUP/UUP First Minister when they are competing for seats and not just partners across borders.

Anyhow, the Northern Strategy Committee will also be considering the submissions which Bertie wants from all 3,000-odd Cumainn across the country, which are due in by Easter-naturally.

Mr Ahern said that each of the party’s 3,000 cumann around the State had been asked to hold a special meeting between now and Easter to discuss the possibility of becoming a 32-county organisation.

Firstly, what exactly is the point? Fianna Fáil is a pragmatic organisation. While unity remains part of its agenda one has the sense that the party is comfortable with the outworking of the GFA. So why organise?

Consider the task ahead. It would necessitate the establishment of branches across the North. Sure, there are nascent ones already extant in Derry, and for all I know Belfast. But recent political history provides less comfort than one might expect for the establishment of political parties, either new ones such as the Progressive Democrats who had a considerable first flush of enthusiasm when founded with large (and to those of us on the left troubling) public meetings which as time progressed dampened down to more realistic levels of political activism and support. The quixotic efforts of the NI Conservatives provides an equally dismal example, and the continuing twisting of the British Labour Party around this issue is a salutary lesson for those who would attempt same from south of the Border.

And then consider the issue of what particular niche FF might occupy. Is it to the left or right of the SDLP? Where does it position itself in relation to SF? In merger with either party, and at this point such a merger seems only marginally feasible with the former, what would be the implications for the ‘host’ party? It is not difficult to see some within the SDLP being less than delighted with the prospect of FF establishing a reverse take over for any number of reasons. There is a further problem. Sinn Féin has the enormous advantage of being first mover. It is not merely the dominant force in Republicanism and Nationalism in the North, it also happens to be have the greatest representation and authority within the Executive on behalf of same. That’s no small achievement and if the GFA continues it allows it scope to exercise that authority to its own benefit. Now FF might well attempt to play the ‘internal opposition’ card, but consider the already difficult electoral terrain upon which the GFA is constructed. Each contest assumes a communal hue [CJ on IrishElection goes into some detail on this very point], but particularly those for Westminster. Which of course leads to the next question. Would FF – were it to win a seat at Westminster – take that seat? The SDLP already does, the generally moderate Nationalism which FF might be predicted to target, considering that SF has at this point cornered the ‘Republican’ end of the electoral market. So do we see an abstentionist FF? That’s not going to play terribly well in some quarters. Or don’t we, which won’t play well with others?

Secondly, what might we expect the response to be? In this respect we must consider the response from both the Nationalist community and from Unionism.

For the former the obvious question would be ‘what took you so long?’. And it is a difficult one to answer. Logically the extension of Fianna Fáil northwards was something that should have happened much sooner. While it is true that Unionist parties were autonomous from UK parties, the UUP retained close if somewhat fractious links with the Conservatives. This ‘sponsor’ mode was of enormous benefit to Unionism across the 20th century – indeed one of the more striking aspects of contemporary British Conservatism is how there remain pools of extremely traditional (dare I say reactionary?) sentiment in favour of a muscular Unionism. Yet no such relationship existed this side of the Border with the Nationalist Party. Yet this was so illogical a stance – on the face of it – and so counterproductive in diminishing the authority of Nationalism and Republicanism in the North in the face of Unionist hegemony that at this remove it is hard to understand why it happened. Sure, the idea that Nationalism should speak with one voice in the six counties was presumably part of the reason, and the fear that divisions within the South would simply be replicated in the North further weakening Nationalism no doubt played upon those making the decisions, one also wonders if it was also a legacy of the NP growing largely out of the IPP. The one serious intervention during the late 1940s by the Anti-Partition Campaign was so abysmal that it may well have served to dissuade any further attempts. Yet this lack of contact wasn’t just a philosophical issue. It had serious practical implications, and for evidence of same consider the incredible ignorance of the situation in Belfast and Derry in 1968/9 on the part of avowed Republicans in FF and in the South. In the context of the limited geographic space of this island such ignorance demonstrates the limitations of the rhetoric and reality of unity. Simply put the Southern polity after partition (with the notable exception of Michael Collins) ceded the North to Unionism.

So one might expect that there would be a degree of coolness on the part of Northern Nationalism. But assume for the sake of argument that it works, that FF begins – either through merger or alliance with the SDLP, or alternatively on its own – to attract significant support. The obvious problem after that is just how to retain the support. If FF is organising then it must, logically, organise with unity as an aspect of its programme. This incidentally is a problem shared by SF and the SDLP as well but to a less pointed degree because they after all are not part of the governing party in the South. Expectations would be raised that FF could make significant progress. But in the context of a GFA which resides as much on communal calculation as on persuasion of Unionism is that progress possible in the short or even medium term? I don’t think so. And I also suspect that a dynamic which reared itself unpleasantly during the last election, this idea of SF in the Republic being ‘controlled’ from the North might operate to an even greater degree. Sure, that might make some of its potential base happy, but it might well be pure poison as regards Unionism.

Because the response of Unionism to this development would be quite interesting. A strengthening FF might convey a very different threat to that of SF and whether the reality matched the projection it is only fair to say that Unionism is rather skilled in projecting the worst. Photo-ops at the Boyne are one thing. Seeing a brace of Assembly seats fall to FF, perhaps even an FF Minister in the Executive would be quite another. And there is naturally one place Unionism might go. An identification with British parties – to a much greater degree – would be the rational upshot of this. Now, basic power politics suggests that no British party will act against its own interests, which is why the Unionists have broadly been continually disappointed since 1973 or so. But that doesn’t mean that such alliances might not have a pernicious dynamic of their own in a context where the GFA looked to be somewhat shaky. And one point about the GFA is that it depends in large measure upon the benign oversight of London. I can’t see that changing today, or tomorrow, but five years down the line? Ten? [incidentally that is an argument for a much more free standing revision of the GFA/BA in order to prevent precisely that sort of occurrence]

Which in a way demonstrates that the simple act of Fianna Fáil ‘advancing itself as a political party in the North’ is fraught with contradictions, few enough of its own making. Having said all that I’d actually be in favour of a low-key presence with a view to the party developing further as time progresses.

So, what’s going to happen. I don’t know, and as the old saying goes I’m willing to bet neither do you or anyone else. There was a certain ambiguity about the statement by the SDLP which went:

The SDLP has previously ruled out a merger but last night the party responded to reports of the reopening of the debate saying: “The SDLP has always taken the view that once the institutions of the Good Friday agreement were up and running again, there would be a potential for political realignment within the North and between North and South.

How very interesting. Even more so the benign response from Mark Durkan.

As a true republican party, we believe that the social and economic interests of the people of the entire island are best served by ever-deepening cooperation between North and South.

We all need to approach these issues with the aim of maximising the opportunities of the new political alignments for the people of Ireland and not just increasing the number of parties contesting elections in the North…

It’s hardly news that the SDLP faces problems. In some respects despite the energy of the Hume and others it inherited the tendency to fiefdoms that the Nationalist Party had. Contrast with the still impressive discipline of SF and add in an aging party profile, and the future, while not bleak, looks uncertain. Political formations do strange things in times of stress. Sometimes they will act entirely contrary to their own best interests. The problem here being just how to determine the best interests of the SDLP.

The response from Unionism – what response so far (bar a few mutterings from Reg Empey)? – is interesting in itself. In the context of the GFA I find it hard to believe that FF would not have flagged this development up for the DUP, even in an informal fashion. That the UUP is outside the tent on this one is revealing. And I suspect it might have been an easy sell to the DUP. But let’s see if and how that response develops.

Still, it might be worth pointing to some useful outcomes for those of us who are keen to see the ever more complex web of relationships on this island (and indeed the one to the East) develop in a way which tilts to some forms of unity while retaining sociopolitical links for Unionism with what remains of the UK. The establishment of an overt FF presence would be a positive development if it led to some form of clear representation within the Dáil or Senate – or indeed within the broader RoI polity. It might have potential if it were a means of underpinning a peaceful transitional period across the next decade or so. It could act (in tandem with SF) as a means of underwriting the rights of Nationalism and Republicanism in a very real form above and beyond the GFA. But this will demand serious management of expectations on the part of those who would lend it support within the six counties. I’ve noted this on P.ie, but one could envisage a situation where FF began to develop significant support and representation leading to pressure from that base to push further. A sort of ‘are we there yet, are we there yet?’ dynamic could evolve where FF was continually forced to meet the expectations of those for whom it would represent the fastest possible route to unity.

Now that, in the words of one B. Ahern, would be a challenge.

First Minister the Rev Ian Paisley and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness are scheduled to greet Gordon Brown at Parliament Buildings, Stormont, on Monday when he makes his first visit to Northern Ireland as British prime minister.

Mr Brown is due to join the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and leaders of UK devolved assemblies for the first meeting of the British-Irish Council since devolution was restored. The North-South Ministerial Council, another key institution of the Belfast Agreement, will meet the following day in Armagh.

Choreography is everything. According to Moriarty the BIC meeting was to be held last week, but Brown was unable to make it due to ‘diary difficulties’, well, that and the small issue of settling into his new job. Problem was Paisley is said to have stated that if Brown wasn’t there, well then, neither would he be. Needless to say he has his own fish to fry on this issue:

Dr Paisley has made a point of emphasising that the East-West relationship should have equal billing with the North-South link, which is why the two institutions are meeting on the same week.

“For too long the East-West axis was the poor relation of North-South business. We are committed to redressing the balance and that is why there will be a British-Irish Council meeting in addition to a meeting between Northern Ireland Ministers and the Republic’s Government on Tuesday,” said Dr Paisley yesterday.

Martin McGuinness has adopted a somewhat more muted tone and noted that ‘both summits were important’. Yes, indeed. But which is more important?

Anyhow, whatever the optics, it is good to see Brown engaging at this level only a couple of weeks into his premiership. And Paisley might like to ponder on the fact that ‘Britain’ is not quite as it used to be.

Michael White, writing in the Guardian yesterday, suggested that although:

Not many people in England seem to care very much…nationalist politics within the British (or is it Atlantic?) Isles take a significant step forward today when a politician called Ieuan Wyn Jones is appointed deputy first minister of Wales.

The first minister, Labour party stalwart Rhodri Morgan, was taken to hospital suffering from heart problems early this week. As he is out of action it seems likely that he will be the representative of the Welsh Assembly. And this is significant? It is indeed, as Ieuan Wyn Jones is the leader of Plaid Cymru.

A remarkable deal has been hammered out between PC and Labour. This entails:

a [Labour promise] to review Welsh funding and to give the Welsh language official status that will require basic service information to be written bilingually in the private as well as public sector.

Now, let’s consider the line up at the meeting of the British-Irish Council. Scotland will be represented by the able and charismatic Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party and now head of the Scottish Executive. Ieuan Wyn Jones represents Wales as part of a PC/Labour coalition. And Northern Ireland is represented by the Democratic Unionist Party (arguably taking on more and more an sort of Ulster nationalist identity) in tandem with Sinn Féin.

So, in a strange inversion of the Sinn Féin aim to have people serving in governments both north and south of the Border, here we see Nationalist representatives of the constituent elements of the United Kingdom, bar of course that constitutional anomaly – England itself.

How different all this must seem from the heady days of constitutional reform in the late 1990s when – presumably – the idea was to lock Labour administrations in power in Scotland and Wales. In truth, Labour remains pre-eminent, but the Nationalists are doing remarkably well. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Offer people a forum to exercise even limited power and they will generally take it. Add to that the incentive of democratic elections and chances are they will break against you every once in a while.

As White notes:

It is all a bit sudden, but the tectonic plates of nationalist sentiment are slowly shifting. In Edinburgh a minority SNP executive is managing to keep the buses running on time, and in Belfast Sinn Féin now shares power with Ian Paisley’s DUP. Labour’s hegemony is eroding.

So this, somewhat disunited Kingdom, is the all but inevitable outworking of processes that were relatively predictable. But the tenor of the times is another thing entirely. Because the nature of the Nationalist parties is bound to alter the nature of the BIC. I think this is all for the good. It provides an example to the DUP of how Britain itself is changing, and relatively quickly. And a further example is provided in the way in which there is a coalition in Wales and how that is engaging with overlapping identities. The SF/DUP rapprochement is remarkable. But it is only the most remarkable of any number of events.

These pave the way for future developments where we can expect to see the ties that have bound the UK loosening, but not being discarded entirely. The Republic also has a part to play in the future, by demonstrating that there is a shared history between these islands but that this can be encompassed within multiple political and cultural identities. That I suspect will see the North and South on this island develop ever deepening linkages whereas the process will probably be quite the opposite between Scotland, England and Wales. But not to the point where political centrifugal forces lead to no linkages at all.

Anti-GFA Republicanism has one reasonably strong argument in reference to the Good Friday Agreement. That is that the cross-border/all-island aspects will run into the ground because it is not in the interest of the British or Republic to engage with them on any significant level. I’ve always felt that argument to be willfully pessimistic, if only because I suspect that SF in government will provide part of the dynamic. But in the context of a changing Britain, one where Scotland is eager to work closely with the RoI and Wales perhaps to the exclusion of England, then there will be pressure external to this island to see broader movement on this island because they will be seeking to emulate in part such movement themselves.

I have no idea how this will play out. Does it shore up Fianna Fáil, or Sinn Féin politically? Or, indeed, the DUP? The last election saw the North recede as a topic of any great interest to the electorate in the Republic – not that it has ever been very central to electoral choices. That seems unlikely to change.

Finally, the initial point Michael White makes is important. Not many people in England seem to care very much. That is troubling, and a subject for another day.

Gerry Adams and his colleagues could have sealed a deal with the former Unionist leader David Trimble long before the 2002 election in the Republic. All that was required was a sufficiently persuasive concession on IRA decommissioning – a list of weapons put beyond use, for instance – and Trimble would probably have survived. A powersharing government would thus have been in place for the 2002 poll and Sinn Féin well positioned to market itself as an experienced party of responsible government to Southern voters by the time of the 2007 election.

But the party leadership decided otherwise. The decommissioning issue was strung out for many more years even though an IRA Convention in 1999 had given the group’s leadership the go-ahead to dispose of weaponry as they thought fit. The effect, and very possibly the intention, was to polarise Northern politics even further. David Trimble became isolated from his electorate and was eclipsed by Ian Paisley’s DUP while the SDLP shrank in the shadow of Sinn Féin.

The result was that Sinn Féin became the largest nationalist party in the North. Any analysis of this period must therefore examine the possibility that this was deliberately contrived, that the Provo leadership delayed decommissioning in order to foster Sinn Féin’s electoral growth.

But there were other consequences. Refusal to fully decommission meant that the war had not been totally ended and that the IRA was still operational long after its sell-by date. From that came the Northern Bank robbery of some £26.5 million (€39 million) in December 2004 and then a few weeks later the grisly cover-up of the unauthorised IRA murder of Robert McCartney in Belfast.

The evidence that these two events were a tipping point in Sinn Féin’s standing with the Republic’s electorate is compelling. Before the Northern Bank/McCartney murder, opinion polls showed that Sinn Féin was supported by about 12 per cent of the electorate while Gerry Adams’s personal approval rating stood at 51 per cent, only two points behind Bertie Ahern. By March 2005, Sinn Féin’s support had fallen to about 8-9 per cent while Adams’s standing had dipped to 39 points.

Sinn Féin’s support and that for Gerry Adams never recovered from the Northern Bank/McCartney episodes.

The completion of IRA decommissioning didn’t reverse the trend in the Republic’s opinion polls, nor did the July 2005 “end of war” statement by the IRA or even the creation of a powersharing government with Ian Paisley. It was all too late, the Republic’s voters had been sickened. In the event Sinn Féin won a meagre 6.9 per cent of the vote in last week’s election, evidence that the pollsters had read the electorate’s mind pretty well.

Whilst, as he goes on to point out, it is impossble to know whether an early deal would have made a significant difference to Sinn Fein’s fate south of the border, the poll trends strongly suggest that the events of 2005 had a determental effect on its actual performance last week. Being stuck outside the machinery of government also gave them little opportunity to close the credibility deficit in its economic policy.

Ultimately, he argues, the procrastination of the IRA may have consolidated Sinn Fein’s power in the economic walled garden of Northern Ireland, but it also cost it any bounce it may realistically have expected in the Republic. However, Moloney suggests that the loss of forward momentum on such a talismanic issue may prove more problematic internally than with its public profile with voters:

Until last week Sinn Féin’s image was of an infallible, irresistible political behemoth which gobbled up or trampled everyone in its way. The image was created and sustained by a dizzying and seemingly endless series of electoral successes, stretching back nearly a decade and a half. But that too was the party’s weakness. Like a shark, Sinn Féin always needed to be moving forward, ever a threat to those around it; staying still or going backwards could be fatal. It will be interesting to watch how the DUP now interacts with Sinn Féin in the Belfast Executive or whether the SDLP’s battered morale is boosted by this result.

As with the party so with its leadership, especially Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams. His ability to take the Provisional movement down a road of disarmament and huge ideological compromise was largely due to an almost mystical faith in his strategic foresight on the part of a substantial section of the Sinn Féin and IRA grassroots. Their faith, until now, had been justified by a remarkably successful track record in both the military and political fields. How they respond now to this, his first major failure, will be the story to watch in the coming months [emphasis added].

Indeed.

Given the decisions he has had to make, would Dr Paisley have any difficulty if Bertie Ahern were to invite Sinn Féin into government after the General Election this month? “No I wouldn’t,” he replies laughing. “I taunted him with that before. I said, ‘why not bring them into your government?’. But now [ the Taoiseach] says he doesn’t like the theology of their politics.” But it wouldn’t worry him? “Oh, if they bring them in, I would probably mock them and say ‘we showed a good example’.”

Yet it is a moot point about just how much the DUP ever considered the possible bounce their delayed signing up to St Andrews (aka GFA 1.1) might give their erstwhile political opponents in the southern context. As such, Feeney’s last question stands:

Now do you think that oul’ curmudgeon Paisley knew he was playing a part in Bertie’s election campaign and if Fianna Fail makes a deal with Sinn Féin does Paisley realise the part he also played in creating the opportunity for Sinn Féin in the south?

Though, given the energy his Ulster Unionists expended on fights they could not win, it may also be that, in the purely political sense, he doesn’t really care…

The Irish Government today faced further calls to rejoin the Commonwealth.Following appeals in the North’s Assembly yesterday for Ireland to rejoin the international organisation headed by the Queen after 58 years, the secretary general of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) Dr William Shija, said the time had come for Ireland to embrace the diversity offered by the group of 53 nations from across the world.

Interestingly enough Eamon O’Cuiv is interested in us joining as a reaching out thingy for the unionists. All I can say is not a good idea.

Got this link from Freestater. The reform movement is an organisation whos aim is to bring Ireland back into the Commonwealth. One of there aims are a council of the isles. This would allow a common forum for us to discuss issues of mutual interest fisheries, the North, bird flu etc . Considering we are in the EU this means that such an organization already exists just on a grander scale. The interaction between the states already exists without the need to create an additional excuse for Political junkets. Also they say

The altering of the present Constitution to reflect a new Ireland as a member of a multi-cultural E.U.

Now how doesn’t the constitution reflect a multi-cultural E.U. We all have equal right freedom of religion freedom of thought etc. I’m not sure what they mean by that one. Another of there aims is the Separation of Church and State. Correct me if I am wrong but that has already happened in Ireland in the 70s. There is no state church. Unlike the U.K. They also want more representation in the Senate for minority sections of the population. The Taoiseach should nominate five such representatives from his senate seats. This I have to agree with but not just from the British tradition as they claim to be but African, Eastern European etc.

They want the National Anthem to be rewritten to reflect the heterogeneous nature of the Irish of today, rather than the narrow, violent nationalism of another time. The french national anthem says Oh, do you hear there in our fields The roar of those fierce fighting men ? Who came right here into our midst To slaughter sons, wives and kin. Should it be changed because it reflects violence against wives. No it is their anthem. People who sing it don’t want to slaughter wives. Neither do Irish people want to go fight the English. I do know some unionist that do actually feel intimidated by the song. But it is only a song. Don’t read into the lyrics. Most Irish people don’t even know them. The Reform Movement believes that English and Irish should be made equal official languages to reflect the reality of the Irish situation. The Constitution article 8 says.

1. The Irish language as the national language is the first official language. 2. The English language is recognized as a second official language.

It doesn’t mean anything both are official both are equal. English is used more. What possible thing would happen if this was changed. The only manifestation of the 1 2 situation is that sign posts have Irish on top and English below. On duel signage something has to go first. Don’t forget English tends to be in larger letters. They also talk about the compulsory role that Irish has been made to play in our schools which has resulted in the shameful lack of other language instruction, especially in the primary school curriculum. Which I have talked about before. They also want it to be recognized that people in Ireland should have the right to hold a British passport. This should only be on the same terms as people in England. I.E the granny rule. If you qualify that way i.e. can show that you are indeed of British stock then you are entitled to one. But we can’t have people taking random Irish passport for many reasons. Neither can the British have this.

This passport thing is an issue for the British government not the Irish government it would be their decision. Their big policy seems to be Ireland rejoining the Commenwealth. Which was also favored by none other then Dev, Lemass and Eamon O’Cuiv. They mention that the commonwealth accounts for Twenty-three per cent of world trade. Yet the Commonwealth has no economic policies . It is not like the EU. It accounts for 23 per cent of trade as it has 30% of the world’s population. No other reason it is merely a distortion of figures point. There is no real trade benefits to joining. There is also no loss of sovernity involved in joining it. Also the Commonwealth is in decline.

Countries are looking away from one another and looking to regional partners instead eg the EU. Also it has been shown by Zimbabwe who have left the organization that it has no power to influence member states to adhere to Human rights and democratic principles. The only benefit to Ireland would be that our athletes would get to run in the commonwealth games and is that really worth a referendum. And to pay for our ministers to swan off around the world for a few more weeks a year

But most of all what I find wrong with all this is the people who argue that it would be a means to reach out to the unionist to further the aim of a united Ireland. The reason they want to be in the U.K is because they see themselves as British first. It has zero to do with any affinity to the Queen, hell I am sure some of them are probably republicans. Trying to make out to them that the queen is the only barrier to unity is dumb. They want to be British not Irish and until we realize this and that we can’t molly codle them into a united Ireland the soon we learn to live together. Try saying to someone from Newcastle “would you join Ireland if we joined the Commonwealth” because to a Unionist person from Ballymena it is the exact same feeling.