Speech by John McCallister MLA, NI21 Deputy Leader, to Towards a New Ireland conference

A pro-Union member of the Northern Ireland Assembly addressing a Sinn Féin conference in London! Times have indeed changed. I will leave it to others to decide which change is the most symbolic – my presence at this conference, or this conference being held in the first city of the United Kingdom. Seriously, however, I do thank Sinn Féin for the invitation to address this conference and to share my perspective and analysis from a robustly pro-Union perspective. If my comments at any time seem unduly harsh or perhaps unfair. Be assured that such is not my intention. I am here in good faith to promote political dialogue and debate which will aid reconciliation and mutual understanding in Northern Ireland.

The New Ireland?

It is somewhat strange that Sinn Féin has described this conference as “Towards a New Ireland”. I say strange because for the overwhelming majority of people on the island of Ireland. We now live, post-1998, in the New Ireland. We no longer live on an island scarred by conflict. We no longer live on an island in which there is undisguised hostility between Dublin and Belfast. We no longer live on an island in which economic, social, cultural and political relationships stop at the border. We already live in the New Ireland. The New Ireland in which shared interests produce close co-operation between Belfast and Dublin. Shared interests which find institutional expression in cross-border bodies. The New Ireland in which the vast, overwhelming majority of citizens share democratic values and reject the path of violence. The New Ireland in which we realise that the intricate network of relationships in these Islands is not something we can – or desire to – opt out of. It is in this context that Sinn Féin’s campaign for a border poll is distinctly odd. A mere 15 years into these new relationships and new institutions, why should we even consider a border poll. Not least when opinion polls indicate a near complete lack of desire for significant constitutional change? Why seek to inject a toxic dose of 1950s politics into the institutions and relationships of the New Ireland in the 21st century?

The will of the people

To state the obvious – I am not a republican. But one of republicanism’s founding principles – the belief in popular sovereignty – is an honourable principle. The referenda on the Good Friday Agreement were an act of popular sovereignty. The institutions of the Agreement were created and are sustained by the overwhelming consent of the people of the island of Ireland. Contrast that overwhelming consent – that exercise in popular sovereignty – with the latest opinion poll indicating that only 3.8% of people in Northern Ireland want a United Ireland as soon as possible. Popular sovereignty can be uncomfortable for politicians of all persuasions. But the will of the people, North and South, has been given clear expression. The institutions created by the Agreement, the new relationships established by the Agreement, are grounded in the will of the people. And it is not the will of the people to replace the existing constitutional settlement on the island of Ireland with something different. In such circumstances, surely it is in the interests of all of us – in Northern Ireland and across the Island – to heed the will of the people. And focus our energies on delivering on the promise of the institutions and relationships created by the Agreement. In a shared Northern Ireland, in a reconciled Island, in Islands working in partnership. The call for a border poll may satisfy the demands for ideological purity. But it fails in heeding the will of the people, in building on the achievement of 1998.

Making Northern Ireland work

There is another important and destabilising aspect to the campaign for a border poll. Perhaps I can illustrate this by pointing to two words missing from the publicity associated with this conference – ‘Northern Ireland’. The inability of Sinn Féin representatives to utter these two words is not merely cosmetic. When Her Majesty the Queen spoke in Irish at the reception in Dublin Castle, it was not merely cosmetic. It was a historic declaration of respect for the nationalist tradition. When the discourse of unionist representatives embraces both ‘Londonderry’ and ‘Derry’, it is not merely cosmetic. It is a sign of respect for both traditions in the Maiden City. The respect I mention in these two examples both contributes to and is an expression of a desire to build a shared and reconciled society. The campaign for a border poll. The inability to utter the phrase ‘Northern Ireland’. These suggest a hesitancy on the part of Sinn Féin when it comes to building a shared and reconciled community in Northern Ireland. Make no mistake, this is the real challenge and the demanding work for the next generation of politicians and citizens in our part of these of Islands. Perception is, of course, important in politics. Its importance is greatly magnified in a divided society. The perception outside of the republican constituency is that the border poll campaign, and the continued inability to speak of ‘Northern Ireland’ is suggestive of a lack of vision on the part of Sinn Féin when it comes to the political challenge facing us over the next generation.

Post-peace process Sinn Féin?

The peace process has fundamentally transformed relationships within Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland, and between our islands. These transformed relationships have, in many ways, out-paced our politics. Our citizens, our businesses, and our cultural figures are seeking ways to flourish in and through those transformed relationships. Their reality is a post-peace process reality. Our politics… well, we have some catching up to do. Now, yes, I know that there are challenges for pro-Union political opinion in adapting to the post peace-process relationships and realities. But I am not here addressing pro-Union political opinion. I am addressing Sinn Féin – the second largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. A party with a significant democratic mandate and with significant democratic responsibilities. I know Sinn Féin has travelled far from the 1970s and 1980s. My hope, however, is that the journey is not yet over. In fact, for the sake of our society, the journey cannot yet be over.

Let me illustrate this by asking you to imagine a hypothetical unionist political conference held in another great city in these islands. Imagine it took as its theme the promotion of the integration of Northern Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom. The same old integrationist certainties from the 1980s would be on display. There would be no need to mention power sharing, or Irish identity or relationships with Dublin. That wouldn’t be needed because integrationist ideology bypassed all those parochial concerns. Such a conference would not be addressing – or listening to – 21st century Northern Ireland or 21st century Ireland. From the imaginary unionist conference let’s turn to today’s Sinn Féin conference. Are you really prepared to address – and listen to – 21st century Northern Ireland and 21st century Ireland? Or do prior ideological convictions, shaped in another era, continue to determine your interaction with the rest of us in Northern Ireland, Ireland and these Islands?

The example of London

I began by thanking Sinn Féin for the invitation to speak at this conference. And I meant it. This is how democratic politics is meant to work – free debate and the exchange of ideas. I robustly and vigorously disagree with Sinn Féin on a wide range of issues. But robust and vigorous disagreement is the lifeblood of democratic politics. So I’ll end with something to promote robust and vigorous disagreement. My belief in the Union is not about ascendancy or sectarian triumphalism. It is about securing the common good for the people of the society in which I live. Having a conference in London demonstrates something of my beliefs. This great city has been defined over centuries by monarchy and parliament. It is here that many of the decisions have been taken – both for good and bad – which have shaped the history of these Islands. This is also a city in which over 175,000 Irish people live and work. London GAA and London Irish are testimony to the presence of the Irish in this city. And on 17th March this year, 10 Downing Street was bathed in green light. This vibrant, dynamic city demonstrates what I believe the Union is about… inclusive and pluralist. Many at this conference will disagree with me. I hope, however, that out of our disagreements and debates can come a shared commitment to building a Northern Ireland for all, in the New Ireland and in a new era in the history of these Islands.

Speech by Francie Molloy MP, Sinn Féin, at Towards a New Ireland conference

The excellent attendance and interest in today’s conference underlines just how much Irish people living here in Britain – whether second, third or even fourth generation Irish people, those who’ve been here for a long time, or those who are newly arrived – remain interested and engaged on the issue of Ireland’s political future; its constitutional future and how that affects the relationship between Britain and Ireland. So I’m delighted to see so many different people here from the community and in this particular session.

The fact is that one cannot divorce the political developments in Ireland from the community here – it has a direct correlation and impact. So it makes absolute sense that the diaspora has a crucial role and must have an actual say in both politics at home in Ireland; but also in affecting British government policy here.

Britain’s colonial – both historic and current – role in Ireland is at the root of the circumstances of the diaspora around the world. The huge depopulation of our island is unprecedented in Europe – through conflict, famine and of course the massive scourge of emigration which has sent thousands upon thousands of people overseas for generations – indeed for centuries. Ireland is the only country in Western Europe – probably in the whole of Europe – whose population actually declined since the early 1800s. And of course we are experiencing that now as a consequence of government austerity policies.

So the changes and fortunes of the diaspora are inextricably linked to the political situation In Ireland. That is particularly true for the Irish in Britain. People here suffered clearly in many different ways during the most difficult times of the conflict. People suffered from victimisation, discriminatory policies and an atmosphere comparable to that which the Muslim community is experiencing at the moment. Indeed emigrants from Ireland suffered the same kinds of prejudices and discrimination that many immigrants from British colonies around the world also experienced.

And during that time and despite an atmosphere designed to silence the Irish community about what was happening in their own country, it was by and large Irish people – alongside other people of goodwill here – who did speak out and ensured that political campaigns and discussions in relation to the conflict were kept on the table. That played a crucial role in achieving the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement, and something reflected in the huge support for that here in Britain.

And there is no doubt that the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process has also had a huge impact on the situation of the Irish here in Britain. Irish people here and around the world have of course contributed hugely to the economic, social and political fabric of the country. But most recently that has begun to be recognised and celebrated. The confidence and organisation in the community is clear to see – it has always been there, but with the peace process, people feel more able to participate and stronger in the ability to do that. And that is vital, as there are a number of issues now which we need to keep on the agenda of governments and of the political parties.

So we have some clear changes – what are the challenges?

As Mary and Jenny have both spoken about, there are clear issues for the community here. Politically having a say at home is an important political issue. So that means the right to have a vote. And can I commend Mary and the Votes for Irish Citizens Abroad Campaign for all of the work it has done in regard to this, and getting it on the agenda. We have been pleased to support this campaign from day one.

It is meaningless for the Fianna Fail/Labour government to pay lip service to the diaspora, or to appeal to people to come back to Ireland to spend money and support the economy, when they refuse to give people a say. Indeed, this and previous government’s failed austerity policies are what has driven and is driving people – especially our young people – out of our country. Tory austerity policies are doing the same in the north. And yet people are then disenfranchised and can’t vote.

This is a simple thing to change – a vote for the President, and we also support looking at some kind of vote too in the Oireachtas. We also believe that the vote should also be given to those in the north of Ireland and that there should be real northern representation in the Dáil (for MPs such as myself to represent Irish voters in the north in parliament in Dublin too).

So doing that would give some concrete say for the diaspora.

Secondly, there is a challenge to influence the British government. At present the government is playing fast and loose with the Good Friday Agreement. This can’t continue and the voice of Irish – and progressive – people in Britain has to be heard. We cannot allow the British government to continue to play such a negative role around the peace process. With a Westminster election in the next 18 months, there is a clear job of work to get the issues we discussed this morning on the political agenda. The Irish in Britain organisation and Jennie do brilliant work, with the all-party Irish in Britain group in Westminster as well – to get their voice heard among politicians.

It’s very important to continue to do this. Because as we’re discussing the next phase of the peace process, that has a big effect on the diaspora here. Whether future waves of people are forced to leave Ireland, whether people chose to come here, or elsewhere, or whether people want to choose to go back to Ireland – the connection between our two islands is always going to be very strong.

We believe that a united Ireland is the way forward. That is why we want a serious discussion around this – like we are having today.

Speech given by Sinn Féin economy spokesperson, Conor Murphy MP, addressing the ‘Ireland’s Economic Future’ seminar

There is no doubt that a planned and agreed approach to economic development across the island of Ireland would have a positive impact on trade, investment, economic growth, workforce skills, productivity, innovation, research and development.

Even those politically opposed to reunification do not attempt to contradict this analysis but continue to use unverifiable and unsustainable arguments about dependence on subsistence from the British Exchequer and scare tactics about the ‘South’ not able to afford us.

If they are so secure in these assertions, what do they have to fear by examining the case for economic integration on the island as a precursor to political integration? Sinn Féin believes that there is potential in an all-Ireland situation, with larger economies of scale, with a population of six-and-a-half million people, with all of the different fiscal regulations and transaction costs being regularised, that you will actually create a better economy.

The economic arguments against uniting Ireland being put by those opposed to Irish unity are full of misinformation. Not only is the British Exchequer refusing to provide verifiable figures for revenue generated in the North, but proponents of the union with Britain produce figures that they claim a new national government in Ireland would have to replace, as though absolutely no revenue is generated in the North at all.

A new national government in Ireland would not automatically have to replace the £10 billion subvention that it is claimed the Northern executive receives from the Westminster government.

If you scrutinise the figures – which we have been doing for quite a period of time – the £10 billion actually contains up of £6 billion that you wouldn’t be required to spend in an indigenous all-Ireland economy.

For instance we wouldn’t be helping fund the exploits of the British army, Imperial museums in England, Scotland and Wales, umpteen members of royalty, their entourages and their dozens of residences and the other myriad of areas that are simply to do with the British establishment.

And this doesn’t take account of the savings that would be realised through the elimination of the duplication of every tier and aspect of government on the island of Ireland.

The north cannot realise its full economic potential operating in isolation from the rest of the island while being held to ransom by the stay as we are at all costs ideology of political unionism and island of Britain focused economic policies of the British Exchequer.

Having an all-island corporation tax policy would help create thousands of jobs in the north, yet David Cameron puts his political fight with Scotland ahead of the economic interests of the North of Ireland. An all-Ireland air passenger duty would help in the quest for new routes to Europe, North America, the Middle East and Asia, forging key links to growing economies. It would help attract foreign, direct investors and encourage more tourists to come to our shores. The promotion of the island as a single market would also produce dividends in these areas.

The mantra that the price tag of Irish re-unification is too costly is predicated on highly dubious guesstimates by the British Treasury, Unionist politicians and partitionist elements in the South of Ireland. Accurate figures on all revenue raised and actual expenditure specifically relevant to the north of Ireland are being deliberately withheld by the British Treasury, Excise and Customs and conveniently ignored by successive DUP Finance Ministers.

It does not make economic sense to have an island nation of 6.5 million people split into two separate tax, currency and legal systems, and two separate economies with split populations of 4.6m and 1.9m people in competition with each other. In the context of Irish unity, there would be a sovereign government able to access the full range of fiscal facilities required to build an economy specifically conducive to the needs of the population of the whole island while the additional – and growing – population would contribute through the full range of taxation measures to the Irish Exchequer. It would provide economies of scale and a bigger market with more effective indigenous industries and greater ability to attract FDI. Transactions costs would be eliminated thus leading to greater efficiencies. With national integration we would be in a stronger position to access not only existing European, American and British markets but the emerging markets of South America and Asia.

A new stronger economy arising from the integration of both existing states into a new, agreed Ireland can deliver sustainable economic prosperity that the present status quo is incapable of delivering. We need a new approach to economic development across the island, one which does not promote austerity, perpetuate two fractured economies, and force thousands of young people to emigrate in search of employment opportunities. There is no difference between the effect of the London or Dublin austerity policies that are crippling the lives of our people. But co-operation alone will not deliver prosperity for the people of Ireland. An economy which is built on fairness and equality will deliver a brighter future for all our people in a united Ireland.

There is a better way for the people of Ireland and it is through taking control of our own sovereign economic and political destiny. I challenge those opposed to Irish unity to enter the debate based on full disclosure of accurate economic figures and not on the basis of scaremongering and the misrepresentation of revenue streams.

London Irish Centre 19th October 2013

Other speakers at the conference are addressing important issues such as the holding of a border poll and the question of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. I will suggest that the overriding conclusion from fifteen years of implementation of the Agreement is that we need a new multi-party agreement, linked to a new inter-governmental treaty.

The Good Friday Agreement has delivered much of what it promised. The first and most tangible benefit is the end to killing and maiming. The detailed provisions on rights, equality, policing, justice and so on have worked reasonably well. A limited, but potentially expandable, agenda of North / South integration has been achieved. Relations between Ireland and Britain have never been better. However, the power-sharing Executive has the negative effect of perennially cementing group identities and has made normal governance unattainable.

In their statement marking fifteen years from the Agreement, the Catholic Bishops’ Council for Justice and Peace vividly summarised where the island of Ireland stands today:

‘Those communities worst affected by the violence continue to experience the highest levels of socioeconomic deprivation, unemployment, antisocial behaviour, drug abuse and suicide among young people, in addition to the ongoing threat of paramilitary violence. This situation is mirrored in the most deprived communities in the Republic, where the threat of violence and the lack of hope for the future are part of the daily reality of too many young people.’

The Good Friday Agreement was negotiated on a rising tide of prosperity and self-confidence in the Republic arising from EU membership and globalisation. Utter revulsion at the methods used in the conduct of the thirty years of conflict was also a major factor.

In the North, probably the single greatest factor was war fatigue – on all sides. The IRA finally acknowledged, not only that they could not bomb a million Protestants into a united Ireland, but they had no chance of persuading them either if they continued running a paramilitary campaign. Equally, unionists and loyalists had to accept that nationalist identity and aspirations to Irish unity are entitled to a legitimate space and that the Republic is entitled, as of right, to a say in how the North is run. A decisive factor was the acceptance by the two sovereign governments that a purely internal solution would not work. Now, however, since the seismic financial crash that started in 2008, economic and political confidence has collapsed. As the economic tide has receded, the submerged reefs and rocks of sectarianism are being exposed again. They never went away, you know!

The last twelve months began with the festering controversy over the flying of the union flag over Belfast city hall. We still have the perennial controversies and ritualistic rioting over marches and commemorations. Attacks on the police have escalated, to the point where the Police Federation called for a six-month long moratorium on all parades. Dissident Republicans continue trying to progress their hateful agenda of shootings, bombings and assaults. To this dreary catalogue we may add incidents like the controversial commemorative parade in Castlederg, County Tyrone, the despicable treatment of the Lord Mayor of Belfast when he visited Woodvale to inaugurate a community facility, and unionist and loyalist intransigence over the idea of a peace centre at the site of the former Maze prison.

Is there not a real danger that these events are just the tip of a very deep iceberg of sectarianism? If the two governments continue to ignore this resurgence of sectarianism – and if politicians in the North continue to exacerbate it – how long will it be before these events tip over into a pre-Agreement level of inter-community strife?

Looking back at the factors that led to the Agreement, three conditions seem necessary for a resumption of political development and progress. Both sovereign governments, and politicians on both sides, need to face up to the reality that this continuing, relentless austerity is putting the limited achievements of the Good Friday Agreement under intolerable strain. The struggle to build peace on the island is inextricably bound up with the campaign against austerity.

The second pre-requisite is for the two sovereign governments to prioritise and re-engage with maintaining and enhancing what has been achieved under the Good Friday Agreement. The only time there has been real political progress is when the governments have been closely involved.

The third essential element is the re-emergence of independent, international third party facilitation. The president of the US Council of Foreign Relations, an experienced diplomat, Richard Haas, is chairing talks that are intended to tackle some of the most divisive issues, like parades, flag and emblems. The All-Party Panel includes representatives from the Assembly parties and will present a set of recommendations that will be supported by all the parties, before the end of the year.

However, the reported agenda and ambition of these talks is too limited. The key to progress is not just to tweak the existing Agreement, but to move decisively to a new one. One that learns from the successes – but more importantly – the failures of Good Friday Agreement One and that absorbs the lessons of the past fifteen years of implementation.  There should be no prior limitations placed on where the Haas discussions might go or what they might lead to. Good Friday One is not the terminus of peace and normality. It is merely a bus stop on the road there.

What is even more important than setting out a specific agenda for talks is the spirit in which the parties approach talks. The parties need to move beyond a mechanistic ‘tit-for-tat’ understanding of parity of esteem, where one side or the other will not make a political concession unless guaranteed a response by the other. It is time for ‘generosity of esteem’, as well as ‘parity of esteem’.

This approach is illustrated by the story of my own family. My grandfather, Erskine Childers, served twice in the British forces: firstly, in the Boer War and secondly during World War I. He migrated from being a Liberal Party Home Ruler to a Sinn Féin TD in the first Dáil and, ultimately, one of the fiercest opponents of the Treaty. He was executed by firing squad on 24th November 1922 for possession of an ornamental pistol, given to him by Michael Collins two years earlier as a wedding present. On the night before his execution, in his condemned cell, he charged my father with the responsibility of shaking the hand and forgiving every member of the Free State cabinet who had condemned him to death. My father carried out that solemn duty.

That is the kind of spirit of esteem we need to display now to move the Good Friday Agreement forward.  We – the leaders, politicians and people on both sides – need to grasp and shake the hands, and finally forgive, those who, in the past, would have condemned us to death politically, if not literally. We need to recall, and live, the lines of Michael Longley’s wonderful poem ‘Ceasefire’, which might well have been written about my grandfather’s act of reconciliation:

‘I get down on my knees and do what must be done
And kiss Achilles’ hand, the killer of my son’.