Conservatives entitled to be proud of the Anglo-Irish Agreement

A little over two months ago marked the passing of the 25^th Anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The anniversary resulted in posts by Brian Walker of Slugger O’Toole and by and other articles by Newspaper journalists across Ireland.

One of the curiosities of the Agreement is that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, James Molineaux was not consulted as the negotiations progressed. This is most odd. That the negotiations were taking place was not a state secret. From time to time, the fact of these discussions was made public. The SDLP was certainly consulted. In about September 1984, the Conservative Party, in edition No. 31 of their contact programme (“CPC 31”), published a detailed brief on the state of the negotiations at that time. It was available for sale in the Conservative Party bookshop for anybody who wanted to buy a copy. A link to this document can be located on the Conservative Party Archive website.

It is not as though the Ulster Unionists were sitting there doing nothing about the political problems either. In May 1984, they published their own document “the Way forward” (also for sale in the CPC bookshop). 

Perhaps when the Government archives are published in 3-4 years time, we will have a more precise picture on unionist consultation.

CPC 31 mentions the three proposals put forward by the Irish Government which were rejected by Mrs. Thatcher.  These were: a unitary state; a federal or confederal state; or joint authority. Dr. Fitzgerald, writing in the Irish times, recalled Mrs. Thatcher’s public reaction to those proposals in November 1984, some time after they were rejected.

On Open Unionism, in a post entitled “Reflections on the Anglo-Irish Agreement,” Turgon articulates the mainstream unionist view of the agreement. He recalls the sense of betrayal felt by unionists following the agreement. The Government would have known how Unionists would have reacted to the proposals, regardless of whether or not they had been consulted.  Why, then, did they risk alienating the great mass of the unionist population?

Better security was often cited as the main reason for it. Certainly, Mrs. Thatcher put a strong emphasis on the importance of better security but if that all there was to it, the agreement would not have taken place.

The 1981 hunger strikes proved to be a watershed in Northern Ireland’s political history. It launched the political career of Gerry Adams and later Sinn Fein representatives. This development worried the ROI Government, particularly.

The Catholic population in Northern Ireland was a large minority but barely represented in Parliament. In the 1983 General Election, the number of seats in Northern Ireland had been increased from 12 to 17. Still, the representation of the Catholic Population at Parliament was very small. Of those 17 seats, Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein had been elected as MP for West Belfast in place of Gerry Fitt. The only other non-unionist MP to be elected was John Hume in the constituency of Foyle.

The Government, rightly, perceived that there was a link between support for terrorism in the Catholic community and the lack of political representation. Looking for a solution to this problem remained a Government policy, despite the collapse of Sunningdale.

James Prior, Northern Ireland Secretary of State (1981-1984) summarised five principles which had to be observed, if there was political advance. These are set out in set out in contact programme document No. 31 at page 5: They were:

(i) The Constitutional position of Northern Ireland of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom can only be changed freely given consent of its people. This is not a matter of law. Any other approach would be immoral, undemocratic and unworkable.

(ii) Not all of the political aspirations of the two communities can be completely or equally satisfied. There are two identities to be accommodated, in an environment where alienation exists on both sides.

(iii) The government and administration of the Province must ultimately remain a matter for Parliament. This means that there cannot be any Unionist or nationalist veto over the framework which Parliament prescribes.

(iv) The distinctive needs of Northern Ireland are best met through a devolved administration commanding support from both sides of the community. In the absence of agreement the Government will continue to administer the Province in the way it judges to be in the best interests of all the people and of the United Kingdom as a whole. The determination of the majority to maintain the Union must be upheld but this must be balanced by showing due regard for the minority’s interests in any internal arrangements.

(v) Geography, history and economic interest together with the identification many in Northern Ireland feel with Dublin call for a closer relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic.

There was nothing wrong with the Government’s principles or motives for signing the Agreement.  As it turned out, the Agreement yielded very little in terms of security gains. However, the political gains are still underrated. The agreement, fully supported by the SDLP helped many Northern Irish nationalists to see the UK Government in a new light. The agreement also secured formal recognition, by a Republic of Ireland Government, that Northern Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom.

Today, the scars of the Anglo Irish Agreement are still felt by unionists. At the Ulster Unionist Party conference in December 2008, David Cameron felt compelled (albeit in an oblique manner) to make an apology for the signing of the Agreement.  Looking back on that speech, David Cameron’s apology had more to do with appeasing Ulster Unionists than taking responsibility for a political wrongdoing.  He should not have made that apology, unreservedly. 

The unfortunate thing is that many Northern Irish Unionists still do not seem to recognise their community’s failure to be fair to Catholics in the past was a major cause of the Anglo-Irish agreement coming into effect. In CPC 31, the Conservatives said this about a UUC proposal to turn the regional Assembly into a super council:

“The local Government was the sphere where most of the discrimination has tended to take place; matters such as housing and education are thus extremely sensitive.”

Back in 1985, power sharing seemed a long way off and Northern Ireland unionists were angry. They can not deny that the Agreement was a stepping stone to the Belfast Agreement.

In years to come, they will not be able to deny that the Belfast Agreement (and therefore the Anglo Irish Agreement) paved the way for peace, prosperity, a stronger union and a shared future for Northern Irish people.

Conservatives, meanwhile, should not be ashamed of the Anglo-Irish agreement. They have every reason to be proud of their government’s achievement at the time.

The GAA, Nationalist Identity and Sectarianism

In recent times, the GAA has been compared with the Orange Order as being its Republican equivalent.  At the end of the continuum of sectarian bigotry where criminality festers, a GAA clubhouse is just as likely to be damaged as an Orange Hall. 

Just over a year ago, Margaret Ritchie MLA and Minister for Social Development set the cat amongst the pigeons when she attended a GAA conference in Belfast.  At the conference, she addressed sectarian attacks on Orange halls and GAA venues.  Her remarks on that subject were reported in the press and went down badly with members of the Orange Order.  In response, they handed her a letter of protest. 

On December 3, 2008, the Belfast Telegraph reported as follows:

 “The minister condemned all such attacks, but reportedly said that the GAA and Orange Order could not be described as reflections of each other, insisting that the GAA had reached outside its nationalist heartland towards other communities.

She was quoted as saying: “While the loyal orders have some progressive people around who wish to move them forward to a better place, they remain unlike the GAA, sectional and sectarian and deeply divisive in our community.”

At first sight, Margaret Ritchie’s viewpoint is not an unreasonable one to arrive at when one compares the big differences between the two organisations. If one organisation is about religion and the other about sport, they cannot possibly be opposites.  Furthermore, there is no rule against a person from any particular religion from joining the GAA.  In the case of the Orange Order, Catholics are excluded from membership. 

I differ with Margaret Ritchie’s remarks in two respects.  It is wrong to say or imply that the GAA does not have any connection with sectarianism.  I also take issue with her comment that the GAA had reached outside its heartland towards other communities.  The reality is that their success in this area has not been more than minimal and whilst it is fair to say that some Protestants have been involved in Gaelic sports, the GAA certainly has certainly not integrated with the Unionist Community.  At this point, I would like to discuss another sport played widely in Ireland which does integrate Nationalists and Unionists – Rugby Union.

Lord Maginnis is a well known member of the UUP.  He is my former MP.  He identifies himself as British.  Many years ago, Maginnis also used to call himself Irish.  That he felt the need to suppress the Irish part of his identity was part of the tragedy of the troubles.  It was a reaction not simply to terrorism but to part of the Republican campaign which was to squeeze out and eliminate the British identity from Northern Ireland.  Yet Ken Maginnis is still an Irishman.  He is also a fan of rugby and devotedly follows the Irish team.

The Irish international rugby team represents the 32 Counties of Ireland internationally.  It is not the only sport which represents both parts of Ireland but certainly the only major one in Ireland.  Before the match, the National Anthem Amhrán na bhFiann is played.  Though it was tolerated by them, Irish Unionists did feel somewhat excluded by its inclusion.  In 1995, the IRFU commissioned Phil Coulter to write a politically neutral anthem for the Irish Rugby team.  The song, Ireland’s call has been proudly adopted by all Irishmen.  By that action, the IRFU effectively nailed any identity problem that it might have had with its National team.  Ireland’s Call has now been adopted by the Irish Hockey, Cricket, Rugby League and A1GP international teams.

Unlike the IRFU, the GAA’s identity is tied to Nationalism.  This is not surprising given its history.  At the time of its inception, it formed part of a wider movement of cultural Irish Nationalism which now forms part of the history of the birth of the 26 county Irish State.

Throughout its existence, the GAA has nurtured its Nationalist identity through pre-match rites, its rules and its literature.  Rule 15 requires that the flag of the Republic of Ireland is flown and that Amhrán na bhFiann is played at all matches.  It was also an isolationist institution until relatively recently.  At one time, a player of Gaelic sports was banned from playing other sports.  Some of its past rules such as the ban on British security forces playing GAA games were undoubtedly sectarian. 

Unofficially, the GAA has been linked to Republican terrorism.  In the past, there have been allegations that it funded the IRA.  It is also alleged that some clubs continue to glorify IRA men. 

I would certainly not wish to brand all GAA supporters as IRA supporters or sympathisers.  Many of the people I know who are also GAA members would have nothing to do with the IRA or its memory but it is a fact that every now and then, some members of the GAA organisation make overt gestures of sympathy for the IRA in the name of that organisation. 

Rule 7 of the GAA rules strictly forbids sectarianism. Unfortunately, the rule on its own is impotent.  The GAA has failed to prevent a culture of sectarianism from having developed in its own following, hence the appalling case of Darren Graham, a protestant who, in 2007, felt compelled to give up playing GAA sports.  He later returned to his club after receiving an apology from the Fermanagh GAA Board. 

For all of the above reasons, it is hardly surprising that the GAA is perceived by many as being a sectarian organisation and one which the Unionist Community is generally alienated from.  

The GAA carries with it the nurturing of the ancient Irish sports, such as hurling.  These sports are a part of Irish heritage.  Elsewhere on this website, I have argued that the Irish Language should not be allowed to be hijacked by Republicanism.  That argument extends to all other parts of Irish heritage.   No part of Irish heritage should be the preserve of a single community. 

So can the GAA move forward from here?

In a sense, only they can answer that.  It all depends upon what they want from their longer term future.  Do they wish to enhance the interest in their sport?  Do they wish to adopt a modern sporting ethos by removing politics from its aims and objects?  Do they wish to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and combat sectarianism?  I believe that they can achieve all of those things by doing one thing.  That is that they follow the Irish Rugby Football Union model and take measures to change their identity to a cross-community one.  For example, could they eliminate rule 15? 

I am not the first person to make this argument.  Ed Curran of the Belfast Telegraph has reached a similar view about the GAA.  Whether anybody inside the GAA will give these issues serious thought is another matter.  We can but hope that matters will change for the better.

There is nothing British about this lot

I was not able to watch Question time on the BBC live last week.  However, I did listen to it on the radio in my car. 

Nick Griffin

There have been a number of issues raised about the BNP.  Should they be allowed air time?  One of the parallels I can think of is the during the late 1980s when the Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher made it illegal for the television and radio media to broadcast the voices of members of Sinn Fein.  Mrs. Thatcher is famously remembered for this quote

“starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

Unfortunately, the attempt to block out Sinn Fein was ineffective.  Broadcasters were still allowed to show members of Sinn Fein being interviewed.  What they could not do was broadcast their voices.  Broadcasters got around this, firstly, by introducing subtitles.  Later, broadcasters switched to dubbing.  Sinn Fein members’ voices were replaced with those of actors.  The whole clampdown ended in farce.

Of course, the Government could have taken further measures to prevent imitation broadcasting of terrorists.  They did not. 

Fast forward to 2009.  Peter Hain and others have criticised the BBC for allowing Nick Griffin a platform on Question time.  Let us forget the 1980s and suppose that refusal of access to air time on radio and TV was actually effective in limiting the BNP’s political interests.  Would it have been right?

The BNP has 2  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”2 “>MEPs and 56 councillors.  Whether we like it or not, the BNP represent a certain section of the electorate.  However, it can also be argued that by the time they were proscribed, Sinn Fein also had elected representatives. 

The BNP may be a group of thugs and fascists but they are not the political wing of a terrorist organisation.  There is no provable link between what they say over broadcast media and terrorism.  Peter Hain is perhaps still emotionally driven by the anti-fascist and anti racist passion of his youth.  During the late 1960s, he (then as leader of the Young Liberals) led protests against sports links with South Africa.  However, he is an experienced politician and a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.  He should, at this stage of his career, have a more mature and rounded view about the balance of the Public Interest. 

On the programme itself, Griffin was made to look ridiculous.  Two incidents stand out.  One was his attempt to justify his change of opinion about the Holocaust.  The other was his attempt to be an apologist for the Ku Klux Clan.  I don’t believe the broadcast will have advanced the interests of the BNP at all.  If anything, I think it will diminish them.  The BBC is to be congratulated for taking its difficult and controversial decision.

The overwhelming majority of decent people abhor everything the BNP stand for.  Perhaps one of the worst aspects of their existence is their name.  Lets be absolutely clear.  There is nothing British about this lot.

Money well spent?

This afternoon, I listened to BBC4 radio broadcast about the reaction to the recently announced further delay in the publication of the findings of the Saville Enquiry.  It is now scheduled to be published in the Spring of next year.

It is more than 10 years since the Saville enquiry was launched.  Altogether, this enquiry has now cost more than £200 million.  It is the longest and most expensive public enquiry in UK (and probably world) political history.  It dwarfs the previous record for an enquiry (by Lord Scarman into Sizewell (1987) which took two and a quarter years). 

We cant do anything about the cost now.  The matter has to run its final course.  Let us hope that there will be no more further delays.

It has been argued that Saville misinterpreted his terms of reference.  It has been stated that his approach should have been broader and less detailed but would that have achieved closure? 

Given the amount of time that the enquiry is taking, one must assume that Lord Saville will leave no stone unturned in the quest for truth and that when the findings of fact finally emerge, they will almost certainly be unchallengeable.  If that means that closure will soon follow then in the eyes of many (including my own), it would mean that the money was worth expending.

Victim’s lawsuits against Adams and McGuinness could make legal history

Yesterday, it was reported in the Belfast Telegraph that victims of IRA violence during the 1970s were to sue Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.

The action, if it goes to a trial will be almost as interesting from a legal point of view as it will be from a political view.  The following is my partially informed view of the case, wearing my lawyer’s hat.

The first obstacle to be faced by the victims is the laws on limitation of actions, which prevent claims being brought if the incidents giving rise to the claim happened more than a certain length of time before a legal action is launched.  These laws, as they apply to Northern Ireland, are set out in the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (“the Order”). 

The action brought by the victims will be in Tort for Assault.  Most actions in Tort are subject to Article 6.  Where Article 6 applies, the time limit for bringing an action is 6 years from when the cause of action accrued (i.e. when the incident happened).  Where a personal injury occurs, Article 7  applies and the time limit is 3 years from when the cause of action accrued or the PLaintiff’s (victim’s) date of knowledge, whichever is the later.  

An initial look at the law suggests that the victims are more than 20 years late from bringing an action but their claim can still succeed if they can use one of the exceptions set out in the Order. 

One of those exceptions relates to the Plaintiff’s “date of knowledge”  referred to in Article 7(4)(b)  of the Order.  Another is the Court’s discretion to allow an action to be brought out of time under Article 50 of the Order.   The provisions relating to “date of knowledge” and the Court’s discretion under Article 50 are connected in the sense that they only apply to personal injury cases. 

Before last year, it was thought that neither the “date of knowledge” provision, nor the Court’s discretion under Article 50 could be used where a claim arose out of non-accidental injury.   Putting it another way, it was thought that if the personal injury arose as a result of an an assault, the limitation period was 6 years under article 6 but if it was a negligence claim, the limitation period was 3 years from the Plaintiff’s date of knowledge which could be a very long time after the event.  In the case of Stubbings –v-Webb [1993] AC 498 which was about child sexual abuse,  the House of Lords held that term “negligence, nuisance or breach of duty” under Article 7(1) only referred to non-intentional torts such as negligence. 

Last year, in the case of A –v- Hoare [2008] UKHL 6, the House of Lords overruled its earlier decision in Stubbings v Webb.   Now, the term “breach of duty” does apply to personal injury resulting from assault. 

From my reading of the Belfast Telegraph report, the victims may be able to say that they did not have the requisite knowledge to bring a claim because they did not have knowledge of the evidence linking the attacks to Messrs.  McGuinness and Adams.   Part of the victim’s case could well be that until papers were released  from the Foreign Office to the Public Records Office they did not have the knowledge which would have caused the 3 year period to begin running.    

There is one other exception under the Order which the victims might rely upon.  That is in respect of concealment.  Article 71 of the Order can apply if any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant.  If there has been deliberate concealment, time (the 3 – year period) does not start to run until the concealment has been discovered or if it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. 

Of course, without knowledge of everything which is in the victims’ solicitors file, it is not possible to know exactly which of those exceptions in the Limitation Order they will rely upon.  One thing is for certain.  The Limitation law will be very carefully considered by both sides.

Those interesting legal aspects do not necessarily end there.   Lawyers will be familiar with the term “vicarious liability.”  This is liability which can be fixed against a defendant because of an association which exists in law linking the person who carried out the act with the Defendant.   The doctrine requires the Defendant to have some sort of responsibility or control over the third party who committed the wrong.  Normally, vicarious liability is associated with Employers and Business Partners but what about being an official in an organisation which is responsible for the Act?  The victims might be able to prove conclusively that the attacks were carried out by the IRA but may not have any evidence to link them either to Adams or McGuinness.  If they can prove, however, that McGuinness and Adams were members of the IRA (perhaps this will be no problem in relation to McGuinness but trickier in relation to Adams) they may then be able to ask the Court to invoke the doctrine of vicarious liability.  It is not as easy a point as it looks.  In normal kinds of vicarious liability, the relationship between third party and defendant is a legal one. 

One thing is for certain.  These lawsuits will make news like few others.

Condemnation by politicians of sectarian arson attacks must be unequivocal

Yesterday, it was reported that there had been arson attacks on Orange Halls and GAA Club Buildings.

Orange Halls have been under attack for years but this is the first that I have heard of an Arson attack on a GAA Building.  It seems likely that the attacks on GAA buildings are retaliatory attacks.  Whatever the motive, there can never be no moral, political or legal justification for violence of any kind. 

Ironically, this news comes during a week when I have started to write about sectarianism as a theme. Over the next few weeks, I will develop that theme further. 

Sectarianism has many causes for its sustenance.  The history of the Orange Order and Catholic attitudes towards that institution will be featured in future posts about sectarianism on this weblog.  

As far as these attacks and any others are concerned, the reaction of all politicians should be to condemn them without equivocation.  It is not acceptable that politicians use the incidents to criticise the Orange Order or any other victim, as has happened when this sort of incident has occurred previously. 

Sinn Fein will continue to look inconsistent over security – Politicians should try to steer the agenda back to “normal” issues

The Stresses and strains within Sinn Fein are really beginning to show in a public sort of way.  

On Monday, in the Belfast Telegraph there was a report with a picture of Ian Paisley entitled “My former Deputy has shown real leadership says Paisley”.  He was obviously very pleased with the impassioned criticism of the dissidents by Martin McGuinness, even suggesting that McGuinness has put his life on the line.

A day later, it was reported that Gerry Adams stepped up his warnings against use of Special Forces.  

Gerry Adams knows very well that special forces have capabilities that the Police do not yet have.  He is also well aware of the justification that Sir Hugh Orde has for making use of them.   I do not know whether privately thinks that, on balance, it is right to use Special Forces.  He may actually believe, genuinely, that if special forces are used, it will increase the activity against the security forces and lead to more (net) loss of life that there would be if no special forces are used. 

I am sure that Ian Paisley would not put Gerry Adam’s statement in the category of showing leadership.  However, in a sense it was. 

Gerry Adams was not campaigning to the Government or the Police.  He knows that he will have no influence over the Government or the Police on operational security matters.  He certainly wasn’t trying to make any point to the people he was visiting in the USA.  He was campaigning to his own supporters, particularly those who are ex provisional IRA. In the minds of a significant number of Republicans, any conflict between dissidents and British soldiers is a form of war.  

Nobody knows how these stresses within Sinn Fein are going to pan out.  Sinn Fein will continue to demand that special forces are not used.  It may even suit them to have the media focus continue to debate what they say about security. 

Politicians from other parties, particularly the UUP, need to avoid the temptation of loudly criticizing Sinn Fein on security.  Indeed, there is no political capital to be made in doing that.  Instead, ways need to be found to switch the focus back to their record in office, particularly their failure in Government over academic selection and the eleven plus. 

Are Martin McGuinness’s words too potent for their own supporters?

Imagine the world of a former provisional IRA terrorist (I call him “John X”). 

He is somebody who is likely to be middle-aged.  Following the ceasefire of 1994, he has not committed an actual terrorist attack.  He may have still have been involved in some illegal activity, including some local vigilante action against drug suppliers but he will probably not have fired a shot in anger for 15 years or more.  In the intervening 15 years, he has assimilated into normal life.  He has become a tradesman, married and raised a family.  His republican activities are now as a Sinn Féin activist carrying on voluntary work which helps to keep the party machine running and win elections. 

John X is happy with the Good Friday agreement.  When he was a terrorist, he did not think that democracy was the way forward.  Now, he believes the propaganda which has been handed down by his leaders that one day, there will be a United Ireland because Catholics in Northern Ireland will become the majority religious community.

John X is happy with Sinn Féin’s electoral progress as it climbs higher and higher in the polls.  He was uncomfortable with the fact that Sinn Féin finally came around to supporting the PSNI.  His doubts were put to rest when he saw his party do so well in the Assembly elections of March 2007. 

John X has a republican friend called Peter Y who also fought with the Provos.  Every now and again, he meets up with Peter Y for a few pints.  Peter Y never agreed with the Good Friday Agreement.  Peter Y keeps telling John X that Sinn Féin “have sold out the memory of the hunger strikers”

“They sold out to give Adams & McGuinness a nice fat pension from politics”, says Peter Y.  John X thinks Peter Y is an “asshole” but he respects his views and they remain friends.  John X knows from sources inside Sinn Féin that Peter Y is an active member of the RIRA but John X does not let on to Peter Y that he knows this.

In May 2007, there is a general election in the Republic of Ireland. John X is very annoyed with the result.  Sinn Féin went into it with 5 seats in the Dáil Éireann.  They expected to be returned with 12 and only ended up with 4.  He is re-assured when “Grizzly” (Gerry Adams) comes on the telly and tells the public “We will just have to up our game”.  And John X knows that he will because there is nobody greater or cleverer than Grizzly.

By the summer of 2008, the Executive is has stopped its weekly meetings because the DUP is procrastinating on Police and Justice.  John X is happy.  Grizzly plays politics like a game of chess.  There can only be one winner.  

In the Autumn of 2008, John X gets a shock.  A Sinn Féin activist tells him that he has to persuade Peter Y to stop what he is doing “otherwise he will soon be caught”.

It is the beginning of November 2008 and at last, John X is able to meet up with Peter Y for a drink.  By this time, both men are aware of rumours that the DUP and Sinn Féin are on the verge of striking a deal to get the Executive back again.  “The DUP have Sinn Féin by the balls” says Peter Y.   “Sinn Féin have played their last card in the peace process.  They know they’ll be unpopular if they dont get back to work soon.   Look at stupid bitch Ruane?  Do you think she’ll win votes for you”

John X is annoyed with Peter Y’s taunts.  John X raises the subject of Peter Y’s involvement with the RIRA and tries to persuade him to get out of it “for your own sake”, John X tells him sincerely.

“Feck you. You’ve been brainwashed”

Peter Y downs his pint, slams the beer glass on the bar and walks out without looking at John X or saying goodbye.  John X is amazed by Peter Y’s reaction. 

A fortnight later, the John X watches Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness announce their agreement to re-instate executive meetings.  Very little information emerges about when Police and Justice will be devolved.  John X is perplexed.  Later he hears from another activist, to his dismay, that SF had no choice but to cave in otherwise they would lose popularity.  At this point, John X is dismayed.  ‘Surely they dont think they’ll lose votes to the SDLP?’  He thought that party was a ‘dead duck’.   For the first time, John X is made to doubt his party’s supreme position within the Catholic community. 

Over the Christmas period, Mrs. X invites Peter Y and his family to John X’s house.  John X is surprised by this and even more surprised when he sees Peter Y full of smiles as if their last meeting did not happen.  As has happened often, the drink begins to talk and Peter Y is back to his taunting of Sinn Féin having sold out.  As usual, John X tells him that the position is legitimated by everybody in Ireland voting in favour of the Good Friday Agreement. 

“The will of the whole Irish people should be respected”, says John X but Peter Y has an argument for this point as well. 

“the men of 1916 did not have a mandate from the Irish people at the time either.  They got theirs later.  We’ll get ours later” 

The two men finished that day as friends again but it was the last time they met.  

It is February 18th, 2009 and John X is at Sinn Féin’s Ard Feis (party conference) in Dublin.  John X always enjoys the trip to Dublin.  It is time for some backslapping with old comrades.  The only thing John X doesn’t want is that they ask about Peter Y.  His old comrades dont ask him anything.  However, one party official singles out John X and pumps him with questions. 

“Haven’t heard from him for months”, says John X who is, by this time, irritated by the man’s interest in his friend. On his way back from Dublin the following day, questions swirl around his mind about his friend Peter Y  

On March 7th 2009, the news hit the television screens.  On the previous day, Martin McGuinness angrily criticised Sir Hugh Orde for his decision to deploy special army intelligence forces.  Now, two soldiers form the Massereene Barracks in Antrim were killed by gunmen.  John X’s head is swirling.  Pennies are dropping like the jackpot in the fruit machine.  “So that’s why they were so anxious to find out about Peter Y”, thought John X.  By this time, he is in fear that Peter Y will be killed by somebody within his own political organisation.  

Wednesday March 9th and the man who was John X’s former high commander in Derry booms out his words “THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE ISLAND OR IRELAND”  With those words ringing in his ears, he walks to the bathroom and looks in the mirror.  Hot  tears pour down his cheeks.   

John X could hardly sleep that night. McGuinness’s voice kept ringing in his ears

“THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE ISLAND OR IRELAND”.  In the middle of the night he goes to a store cupboard and seeks out a shoe box.  He pulls down the box and opens it.  He pulls out the revolver and feels it.  Old urges come back to him ….

 ********************

That is where I end this (entirely fictitious) narrative.  The fear I have is that there are real John X’s out there who could be lured back into terrorism if things do not go right for them politically.  It has already happened with one of them one report reveals in the Sunday Times.  Times are very dangerous at the moment.  Of one thing I am sure.  This is an extremely difficult time for Sinn Féin.  Many of their supporters will indeed be troubled by what Martin McGuinness said.  Does this mean it is a good time or a bad time to make a dash for normal politics?  

In the next few weeks, Conservatives in Northern Ireland will be asking themselves that question.  At the moment, I do not profess to know the answer.

Spare a thought for Jim Allister and the TUV

Spare a thought for the leader of the Traditional Unionist Voice, Jim Allister. 

Having left the DUP following the St. Andrews agreement, which he maintained was a “u” turn by them after they promised not to go into government with terrorists, he is now scratching his head as he watches Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness stand shoulder to shoulder condemning the terrorists.

The head-scratching becomes more furious as he reads that unionist supporters are praising Martin McGuiness.  Shock horror, one unionist supporter even said he was proud of Mr. McGuinness.  They have not only forgiven the godfather of yesterday’s terror, they have made him into a hero.  Can this really be part of God’s plan?

Not surprisingly, the TUV is doing its utmost to persuade potential supporters that there is no difference (in terms of evil wrong-doing) between what has just happened and what happened in the past.

“the murder of David Johnston by the IRA in June 1997 was just as wrong as these recent killings. This is a point which Martin McGuinness will not be making”

One political point which the TUV is trying to exploit is Sinn Fein’s opposition to the stepping up of security with the use of the Army.  Jim Allister says this

“Sadly, I fear, the political expediency of not offending IRA/Sinn Fein sensitivities will fetter such an essential response and, therefore, more brave policemen and soldiers will be sacrificed.”

That point is slightly inaccurate.  There probably will be more murders but that will have been nothing to do with Sinn Fein’s opposition to the use of troops.  Sinn Fein does not make any decisions on security.  So long as that remains the case, Sinn Fein’s anomalous view of security is unlikely to have any political impact.  

Whatever happened to the puritanical protestant community?  It is still there but it has now become much more adaptable.  Political views have been reconciled with moral consciousness.  There are now very few who have not come to terms with the trade off that was necessary to obtain peace.  

Most DUP supporters are quite content to draw the line under the distinction that today, Martin McGuinness and Sinn Fein are no longer part of an organisation which conducts terror.  As long as no evidence turns up to the contrary, Jim Allister and the TUV will not be able to gain any political capital out of the recent atrocities.

Best security for Northern Ireland is paramount

There has been almost nothing in the political news except for anything connected with the shootings in Antrim and Craigavon.

Much of the analysis arising from that has been about how it affects Sinn Fein. I do not propose to add to the analysis. There is no shortage of that elsewhere on the blogasphere.

Sinn Fein will do whatever is necessary, politically, to ensure that their supporters do not start supporting dissident Republicans.  Since Sinn Fein is now on the side of peaceful government, Conservatives and Unionists should not concern themselves about how Sinn Fein handles itself politically. What is important is that we, as a political force, make the right political response to the new phase of violence.

There should not be any controversy about this. Northern Ireland still suffers from the 30- year troubles which ended in 1998. We have an economy which has suffered from under-investment resulting in a public sector which represents 77% of Northern Ireland’s Gross Domestic Product.  If we are ever going to build up a strong private sector, we need a sustained period of peace. 

That is why a Conservative government should spare no expense in providing Northern Ireland with the best security that is available to maintain peace. Anything short of that is a false economy.