Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Economist Article On Irish Election
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:09:20 EST
 <lisehgINN43n@news.bbn.com><92353.170236RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> <ljce0bINNcg0@news.bbn.com>
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:51:38 EST
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Economist Article On Irish Election
 <1992Dec15.145918.28845@news.nd.edu> <lisehgINN43n@news.bbn.com>
 <92353.170236RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> <ljce0bINNcg0@news.bbn.com>

In article <ljce0bINNcg0@news.bbn.com>, mbrennan@bbn.com (Maeve Brennan) says:
>In article <92353.170236RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> Aengus Lawlor writes:
>>In article <lisehgINN43n@news.bbn.com>, mbrennan@bbn.com (Maeve Brennan)
>says:
>>>Articles 2 and 3 have no practical merit, only symbolic.  I am in favour
>>>of removing them from the Irish constitution since they are understandably
>>>
>>>Furthermore, it is consistent with the Anglo-Irish agreement which
>>>the Irish government signed:
>>>
>>>
>>How exactly to you see the points being in conflict with Articles 2 and 3?
>>
>
>Articles 2 and 3 asserts an undeniable right over the 32 counties,
>whereas the points in the Anglo-Irish agreement are much softer
>in tone, recognising and respecting the wishes of the majority
>of the inhabitants of NI to remain in the UK.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement has that "softer tone" precisely because of
Articles 2 & 3. They are not really comparable, and any comparison should
be made with the UK law that governs the status of Nortehn Ireland. (The
Republic of Ireland Act, for instance, portions of which were posted here
last week).

>Since my original posting, I've read some PD election material,
>which advocates revising (rather than deleting) Articles 2 and 3 to
>expressing an *aspiration* to an united Ireland.  Perhaps this idea
>would work best?
Until the McGimpsey case, most people thought of it as an aspiration (at
least, nobody ever actually did anything concrete about it). In that case,
the Supreme Court ruled that the Artcicles are not just aspirational, but
that they impose a duty on the Irish Government to work towards a United
Ireland. This, of course, didn't prompt the government to change anything,
one way or another.

Despite the fact that the political parties actually have policies on this
issue, there has been little or no public discussion of the issue. (The
Irish Emigrant mentioned that Robert Ballagh, the artist, wrote some
articles in the Irish Times in recent weeks. Is there any chance
of a synopsis of his arguements (against change), anyone?)
>
>>It may be just selective memory on my part, or possibly biased reporting in
>>the Irish media, but Articles 2 and 3 weren't even on the Unionist agenda
>>when the Anglo Irish Agreement was signed.
>>
>
>I don't know about this.  You'd have to look it up.  I only took steps
>to deal my ignorance on NI in 1988.  As somebody else posted in an
>earlier article, a great many southern Irish people don't really think
>about NI, which results in a great deal of ignorance.
I wasn't admitting to ignorance, I was suggesting that the interest in
Articles 2 & 3 is a rather new phenomenon. And the problem with people
not thinking about Northern Ireland isn't that it results in ignorance,
it's that the extremists have a proportionally louder voice, because they
sometimes seem to be the only ones speaking. One of the reasons why there
is so little public discussion of the issue, even in the great talking
shops that Irish pubs are supposed to be, is that many people feel just as
guilty denying the idea of a United Ireland as they do supporting it,
because on the one hand, they've been taught that their grandfathers
fought for Independence, and on the other hand, they've been taught that
support for a United Ireland is support for the IRA.
>
>
>I wondered why these people wished ill on the South.  IRA violence aside.
>Perhaps it's because they feel the South is pressing on its borders?
>They can listen and watch RTE radio and television, and occasionally
>hear ordinary southerners express a desire for Irish unity.  In 1980
>(about) I remember an RTE programme which visited a Fianna Fail cumann,
>where the cumann members expressed their desires for a united Ireland.
>When asked what their reaction was to Northern unionists who didn't
>wish to be part of a united Ireland, they responded by saying "too bad,
>they'll have to get used to it" (or words to that affect).
And you think removing or revising Articles 2 & 3 would reassure these
Unionists that these guys had all gone away? Dream on!

>Reading the Irish newspapers recently after the election, I read that
>the DUP didn't think much of Dick Spring because he didn't discipline
>one of his TDs who said that Northern protestants should return to
>Britain if a united Ireland was achieved.  The DUP also indicated their
>desire for the removal of Articles 2 and 3, and suggested that it
>be raised at the next Anglo-Irish talks.
Actually, Bell said that Unionists who don't consider themselves Irish
should go back to Britain, as far as I can remember. Not disciplining him
was one of the few things Dick Spring was faulted for (before he entered
into negotiations with FF, that is). And whose party was George Seawright
in, anyway? (The Reverend George advocated the burning of Catholics. In
incinerators, no less).

And it's a good job Ulick won't get to see that line about the "DUP
indicating their desire", etc... The DUP more or less made the deletion
of these Articles a pre-condition of the recent talks. The Irish Government
said that they were "on the table", along with the UK Republic of Ireland
Act. According to the DUP, the Irish Government acted in bad faith, and
weren't prepared to discuss the articles, but we'll never really know, in
all probability.

Bear in mind that it would really suit the reverend Ian if there was a
referendum on the issue, and it was defeated, or barely squeaked through.
Even if there was a 70-30% vote in favour of revising the constitution,
he'd still complain about the fact that more people voted against it than
the total unionist population of Northern Ireland, and that it wouldn't
be safe to continue talks when the odds were stacked against him.

>So is it unreasonable that Unionists perceive the Irish Republic
>pressing on its borders?  Do Articles 2 & 3 contribute to this
>perception?
Much more to the point, would the sanitizing of the Irish Constitution
achieve the desired effect of reassuring the Unionists? What would the
actual benefits be of such a change? Moderate Unionists are already
prepared to talk to, and deal with nationalist politicians and the Irish
government. While these people would appreciate the gesture that the
revising of these articles would represent, they probably recognise that
the symbolic benefit to them would far outweigh the symbolic price it
would represent to the nationalist community.
[stuff deleted]
>
>I do believe that deleting/re-writing Articles 2 & 3 would contribute
>to reducing Unionist fears, though I may be misguided along with the
>PDs and Fine Gael.  Reduction in fear or suspicion is a difficult
>thing to measure or quantify.  But as I said in my earlier posting,
>anything Southerners can do to reduce Northern suspicion and fear
>is a good thing.
But would deleting or revising Articles 2 & 3 actually do anything to
reduce such fear and suspicion? Bear in mind that if even a small number
of people expressed excessively republican opinions on the matter, that
would tend to raise unionist fears, not reduce them, even if such people
were heavily outnumbered.
>
>>I would be interested in hearing how the "ordinary unionist" views these
>>articles, and also in hearing how that view has changed over the last 5 to
>>ten years. The week before christmas is probably the worst possible time to
>>post such a request, though, as many of the potential audience are likley
>>to be away home for a while.
>
>I've seen very few postings (if any) on the Net from anybody from an
>NI unionist background.  I'd also be interested to see unionist
>opinion presented here.
The population of this group would probably dissuade many people from getting
involved in such a discussion, especially unionists. At times there is no
shortage of people ready to jump in on either side of an issue, but the
number of those people with actual experience of the realities of life in
Northern Ireland tends to be small.
>
>> The other important aspect of this issue is how the nationalist community
>> in Northern Ireland would be affected by any such change. I think it's
>
>I agree that this is important.  So perhaps the PD idea of changing the
>tone of articles 2 & 3 to an aspiration would be agreeable to both
>communities?
Any change in artices would be seen as a concession. Even a change to an
aspiration would represent a concession. It won't be given freely by the
people who have most at stake (the Northern nationalists). Even if most
people in the Republic could be convinced to wash their hands of it (and I
don't think they could), the debate would cause more political ruptures
than the abortion debates did.

The only scenario in which the articles could be sucessfully revised, would
be as part of an over-all agreement that would lead to a new Northern
Ireland that had the support of both communities and both governments.
The recent "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" formula would
allow the sort of bartering that would be needed. (Some people will object
to the tone of that, but any such discussions would amount to horse-trading).

The other possibility that gets tossed around occassionally, is that the
Irish constitution might be re-written from scratch. The PDs proposed that
as well, a few years back, but don't seem to be pushing the idea as hard
any more. In this type of scenario, leaving the territorial claim out, or
phrasing it in a more conciliatory way, would not necessarily be seen as
a concession, and would be much more aceptable to many people. The danger
is such an approach is that framing such a document is no easy task, and
it's not clear that a purely political document would get the nod from the
electorate, especially in this day and age of "anti-politics".

Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"