Irish Unity

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

First of all, I wish to thank the University Philosophical Society for inviting me to address you tonight.

I stand here in front of you as a Nationalist. And a social democrat. I am 100 per cent committed to the Good Friday Agreement.

I am also 100 per cent for a United Ireland. (But I also recognise that someone else can say that they too are 100 per cent for the Agreement but also 100 per cent for the union between the north and Great Britain. That’s a strength of the Agreement).

Our vision is a reconciled people living in a united, just and prosperous new Ireland.

The Good Friday Agreement answered John Hume and the SDLP’s long call for an Agreed Ireland.

John Hume’s concept of an Agreed Ireland was not only to achieve a political agreement among parties and governments but to have that agreement democratically ratified by the people of Ireland, north and south. The double referendum respected and recruited the sense and source of legitimacy of both traditions:

• For nationalists, the wishes of the clear majority of the Irish people.
• For unionists the wishes of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

Arrangements which were made legitimate in the ethos of each tradition could enjoy shared allegiance from both and democratic participation by all parties.

The Agreed Ireland has not removed the differences between unionists and nationalists. But it has overcome the barriers to shared democratic responsibility and opportunity which resulted from how those differences previously expressed themselves.

The incontrovertible legitimacy of the structures and prospectus of the Good Friday Agreement as the expressed will of the people of the island has removed any pretence to validity for violence in the name of any cause.

Our disappointment that the Agreement has not been implemented with the pace and purpose promised does not diminish its validity. We would prefer if instead of evasion, posture-games, stand-offs and delays, the integrity of the Agreement had been properly reflected in an integrity of delivery on their responsibilities by all parties.

In honesty, the Agreement has not been delivered to the full and much of what has been delivered is far from being worked to its full potential. These concerns are not evidence of the Agreement failing, but of it being failed on a number of counts over the years.

We are now hopefully, on the threshold of overdue further completion of the Agreement, with the transfer of remaining Justice and Policing powers to the Assembly. The sooner this is achieved the better. It would be better still if it was done in proper compliance with the Agreement’s provisions for democratic inclusion.

The SDLP’s clear objection to the unnecessary departure from “inclusion according to mandate” and our concern at the gratuitous but dangerous further vetoes conceded to the DUP do not translate into opposition to devolving justice now. More than any party we have always wanted and pushed devolution and we have driven the delivery of Patten throughout - with other parties either resisting this effort or rejecting this task for years.

There are still other provisions of the Agreement which need to be taken forward. Among these are the Bill of Rights for the north; the Charter of Rights for the island of Ireland; the Civic Forum; the North-South Consultative Forum and, not least, the North-South Parliamentary Forum.

I know that some believe that the SDLP and I are too precious and pedantic about adherence to the Agreement. But our diligence is not because of how much we wrote into the Agreement but because the Irish people voted for it. It is a covenant of honour between the two great traditions who still retain their different legitimate aspirations. If we are not diligent in honouring the promises, purposes and provisions of the Agreement, we will not only weaken trust in each other but also reduce democratic confidence in the political process to fulfil its mandates.

The Agreement of course provides for the possibility of change in its institutional operations. Review mechanisms are provided for. It will be legitimate for parties to offer and agree adjustments, easements or enhancements of different aspects and strands. It also provides for future referendum on the option of a United Ireland.

In two documents in the past number of years, the SDLP has outlined how we would envisage the review mechanisms of the Agreement being employed in the event of a vote for a United Ireland.

As a nationalist party the SDLP’s goal has been not only to secure an Agreed Ireland but to achieve a United Ireland.

Those of us who believe in a United Ireland have the right and duty to promote that vision while still faithfully working and protecting the Agreement. Indeed the SDLP has previously set out how we see unity in the context of the Agreement and the Agreement in the context of Irish unity. Our paper “A United Ireland and Agreement” sets out a vision a United Ireland that respects and builds on the same commitments that lie at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement.

Until now, no other party has done this; no other party has posed or answered such questions. While I can say that my party has the clearest, worked-out approach to unity, I do not believe that one party’s stance is enough. The cause of unity will not be best advanced by parties competing with rival versions and claims for partisan advantage rather than national advance.

Nationalists throughout the island have a right to ask all their parties how we intend now to advance unity while underpinning and respecting the Good Friday Agreement.

Talk about uniting Ireland must move beyond occasional rhetoric. Rhetoric which can veer from tones of menace on one had to no meaning on the other.

All of us who are nationally minded democrats on this island should develop and agree an attitude about unity which can be neither dismissed as a nationalist fantasy or denounced as a unionist nightmare.

I believe we have a shared duty to assure nationalists throughout the island that we have a coherent, competent approach to persuading for unity without jeopardising the Agreement we now have. Equally, we have a shared duty to reassure unionists that we have a vision that does not threaten them or subvert the Agreement - and would not trap their identity or thwart their interests.

We have explored and touched on such things before in both the Forum for a New Ireland and then, in a different context, the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the 1994-’96 period. We have unfinished business from that Forum. It was working on a paper which, among other points, espoused the goal of unity by consent. This paper was never produced because Sinn Fein rejected the principle of unity by consent and denounced it as simply a Unionist veto. They then denied and prevented a democratic nationalist consensus on unity.

However, they have now implicitly embraced the principle of consent in accepting the Good Friday Agreement and agreeing an end to the IRA.

The SDLP would call on all parties to return to the mode of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation or a smaller strategic commission to build a consensus and develop understanding that were previously frustrated.

So called republican dissidents seek to recruit a new generation with the lie that only they and their continuing physical force are seeking a united Ireland. The rest of us have a right and a duty to show that we are committed to a convincing pursuit of unity by democratic means. We should combine to disarm these dissident groups of their subversive premises and sinister logic.

We also need to set out a 21st Century vision for unity. One that is conveyed in language of this century – rather than one carrying the baggage of the last century

An argument for unity that is not just about redressing grievance and righting a wrong. But an agenda for unity that is about achievement, potential and rights into the future.

A concept of unity that has learned from the construct of the Agreement and the context of the European Union.

A prospectus for unity which is written more for the positive expectations of your generation than from the negative experiences of previous generations.

We could agree a scenario for unity that can begin with retaining a regional Assembly in the North with whatever cross-community protections are still agreed to be needed. But one where we use the review process to adjust the scope of such devolution in the context of the strong Northern presence in the United Ireland parliament as compared with its small presence in the UK Parliament.

A model of a united Ireland that also retains and sustains the British-Irish frameworks contained in the Agreement. Just as North-South arrangements are especially valued by nationalists in the North but benefit all, so too for unionists with British-Irish structures in a United Ireland.

This would demonstrate to Unionism that the Agreement did not just challenge and change them but nationalism going forward too.

Remember, it will not only be some unionists in the north who will have to be persuaded to vote for unity. Recent events show that we cannot take people in the South for granted in a referendum. We cannot now rule out that some might fear unity as a departure from the status quo, diluting their electoral power, diverting money and allowing too much for other interests.

There could also be understandable fears, North and South, that canvassing the case for unity could detract from the Agreement or distract from its development.

We need to assure all the people of Ireland that come a referendum they will not be voting to abandon the Agreement if they vote for a united Ireland. A vote for a united Ireland should be an affirmation of the Agreement, not an aberration of it.

In a referendum everyone will need to have confidence that the key principles and protections of the Agreement endure whether the outcome for the North is United Ireland or United Kingdom.

Those of us who advocate unity will need to anticipate and answer such concerns and more. We can use a reconvened Forum or a new commission to do so. We can ensure, well in advance of the centenaries in 2016 of the Easter Rising, the Somme and other battles that we minimise the contention or contrivance which they might bring.

Those parties who aspire to unity need to ensure that politicians’ talk about a united Ireland is not debased into partisan rhetoric for competitive tactical interests.

We will not promote real belief in the prospect of unity if nationally-minded parties simply fall to questioning each others’ credentials and commitment.

Democratic nationalists throughout the island have the right to have a visible consensus around a viable process for achieving a democratic united Ireland.

All democrats on the island, including unionists and others, will want to know that the coherent democratic pursuit of unity will in no way jeopardise the Agreement we already have, impede the development of its institutions or retard the important process of reconciliation.

That commitment can be provided on the part of nationalist Ireland through a new Forum or Commission. It could offer a warranty that the Agreement will remain - a dedication to maintaining the principles on which it was constructed. It would also represent the best guarantee for those of us who strive for unity to realise it - in partnership with those representing all traditions in our country.

Back to Events