By Andy Pollak

I think it would be fair to say that something like 90% of people in the Republic of Ireland never think about Northern Ireland these days, other than, very occasionally, as a place to go to do some cut-price shopping. The North doesn’t even enter their consciousness.

A striking example of this was on the evening of Friday 21st August, when the viaduct across the Malahide estuary which carries the main Dublin-Belfast railway line collapsed, with the prospect of serious disruption of that vital communications link for up to six months. In the reporting of this incident on RTE over the following weekend, it was as if the North did not exist. In the dozen or so news bulletins I heard, this was a ‘commuter’ line serving north Dublin and Louth. The 800,000 passengers who take the Enterprise express every year were simply invisible. It was not until the Sunday night that this changed, brought about — it seemed to me — by the spokesman for the Automobile Assocation, of all organisations, underlining the ‘iconic’ importance of the Dublin-Belfast line to the island of Ireland.

The deep economic crisis in the South is, of course, all-consuming when it comes to both politicians’ priorities and public concern, and this understandably leads to a turning inward of public opinion, a concentration on one’s own serious problems and a lessening of interest in the neighbour’s. That plainspoken Fianna Fail politician Martin Mansergh — the main architect of the Southern dimension of the peace process — articulated this well when he told the annual conference of the Institute for British-Irish Studies in June: ‘The Republic is engaged in a major struggle to maintain, within the EU and the euro zone, its economic viability and sovereignty. It is hardly the moment to press claims to the North which we have renounced, and, it has to be said, the advantages and flexibility of joining up with a small sovereign state in the present global turmoil are for the moment a lot less compelling today than they were two or three years ago.’

If the South’s economic crisis has pushed the prospect of a united Ireland well into the future in the view of one of Ireland’s most far-sighted political leaders, for ordinary people it is now a nonsense for more practical reasons. A survey this summer by the Southern magazine Consumer Choice found that the cost of commonly used services was now on average 30% higher in Dublin than in Belfast.

Dublin people now pay 45% more for a mechanic; 33% more for a plumber; 29% more for a dentist; and 25% more for a driving instructor or a chiropractor. The gap between dental charges can be even more dramatic: Consumer Choice found price differences for a routine dental examination and polish between the two cities of up to 54%. Those of us who live and work between the two jurisdictions know that to go to the doctor in the South costs €50 just to walk into the surgery, whereas consultations are free in Northern Ireland. Unemployment in the heavily subsidised North is currently running at 6.7%, compared to 11.7% in the Republic.

It is reasonable to ask in these circumstances how anybody in their right mind could advocate moving to a united Ireland as a way forward for the island. Even the most fervent republican must accept that until the Republic has sorted out its massive problems of bank indebtedness, public finance overspend and loss of international competitiveness, Irish unity is simply off the agenda. One of the South’s most eminent economists, Frances Ruane, director of the Economic and Social Research Institute, estimated this month that the Republic would not return to the economic situation pertaining in 2007 before the latter half of the next decade — which, with some ironic symbolism, would mean not before 2016 at the earliest.

As Martin Mansergh said, the barriers to cooperation, communication and understanding, both within Northern Ireland and between North and South, have never been lower. Let’s concentrate on continuing to lower those barriers. Whether it is through the work of the Community Relations Council, One Small Step, and other ‘shared future’ organisations in Northern Ireland, or the North/South bodies — particularly those, led by InterTradeIreland, working towards an ‘island economy’ — Cooperation Ireland and the Centre for Cross Border Studies across the border, let us continue building on the success story of ‘cooperation, cooperation, cooperation’ which has done so much to underpin movement towards peace and reconciliation on this island. There is enough work in that difficult, painstaking process to keep us all busy for the next 10 years and more. We should be wise enough to concentrate on what we can achieve together as good neighbours rather than raise the level of threat once more by continuing to demand the impossible.

By Paul Bew

First published in The Guardian on 18 February 2010

As part of the Good Friday agreement, the Irish constitution dropped the territorial claim over Northern Ireland as embodied in articles 2 and 3 of Éamon De Valera’s Bunreacht na hÉireann. Since then, the Irish constitution, borrowing from the ethos of the old constitution of the Bundesrepublik, evokes the settled will of the Irish people to achieve unity by peace and consent.

How is that project going? Not very well, it has to be said. The 2001 Northern Irish census revealed that without significant Protestant conversion to the nationalist project and indeed without the complete collapse of the small but significant Catholic unionist tradition in Northern Ireland, Irish unity, based on consent as the Good Friday agreement insists, was decades away at the earliest. It is this reality which helps to explain Sinn Féin’s new and welcome openness towards dialogue with the Protestant and unionist community in northern Ireland.

To make matters worse, the shattering economic crisis of the public finances in Dublin combined with the clerical sexual abuse scandals have turned that society inwards in a way which also weakens such momentum as there was for Irish unity. In 1998 Dublin took out a long-term option on Irish unity if it could be achieved relatively painlessly. Today, with the stability of Northern Ireland dependent on a subvention which works out at £20,000 per annum for every family of two, nationalist or unionist, for many a year to come Dublin policymakers will be happy to allow the British taxpayer to pick up the burden. Therefore, Sinn Féin’s new encouragement of dialogue is very generous, and perhaps a little foolhardy.

The problem in part lies with the brilliance of the Sinn Féin leadership. It has been superb at emoting and creating widely accepted personality cults of its dual leadership within its own community. No embarrassing revelation can dent the emotional investment which has now been built up. But superb as this exercise has been it has its counterpart in the equally dramatic failure to make any progress towards Irish unity. The very strengths of the current leadership are also its equally profound weakness when it comes now to the need to engage the unionist community.

The IRA campaign has been cleverly described by Eamonn McCann as the pursuance of the civil rights movement by inappropriate means. In other words, a violent campaign whose effect has been to give the northern nationalist community a place in the sun within Northern Ireland. Gordon Brown’s multimillion handout to the Irish language this week is but the latest proof both of that place in the sun and the way in which it is underwritten by the Unknown British Taxpayer, the true hero of the Troubles.

McCann’s formula has the advantage that it explains why the failure of the IRA campaign to achieve its stated objective – British withdrawal and Irish unity – has nonetheless placed the political wing of the Republican movement in such a strong position within Northern Ireland, but also explains the great difficulty that Sinn Féin now has. Because it needs to reach out to unionists it cannot admit that the means were inappropriate.

Combined with this is a genuinely threadbare understanding of the traditions within the unionist community – either its liberal and progressive elements, or its conservative and reactionary elements. It is no good simply repeating arguments which were around at the time of the Anti-Partition League of 1948 to the effect that the unionists really are Irish, that other people see them as Irish and that they had best come to terms with the rest of the Irish people.

The truth is that Ireland is not defined by a shared imagined community of one people but two. I began by drawing attention to German approach on the issue of unification. Germany, after all, is a case of one people whom the great powers wished to see divided for much of the second half of the 20th century. Ireland is a case of two people whom the great powers wish to see united, if at all possible.

The German example, therefore, of relatively successful unification therefore cannot be taken too far but it is worth noting that it provides a good evidence of the intellectual humility required for such a project. At a time when many German intellectuals were opposed to unification in 1991, Karl Heinz Bohrer published a celebrated article entitled Why We Are Not a Nation and Why We Should Become One, which both faced up to the case against unification and gave significant reasons why it should happen. It would be a remarkable thing if sometime soon we were able to read an article as serious with the same title from the pen of Gerry Adams.

By Martin McGuinness

This article originally appeared in the Guardian on 18 February 2010

We have recently completed a lengthy and difficult negotiation at Hillsborough aimed at consolidating our political institutions and implementing outstanding previous agreements.

It should not be a surprise that these were difficult negotiations, as I am an Irish republican and others here have a completely different view. I believe in a united Ireland. Others wish to maintain the union.

This should not, however, mean that we are incapable of respecting each other, treating one another as equals or proceeding on the basis of partnership, respect, fairness and equality. I am utterly determined to work in good faith and with a good heart with my unionist colleagues, for the good of the entire community.

Sinn Féin signed up for previous agreements on Good Friday and at St Andrews and we believe that an agreement made must be an agreement implemented. At Hillsborough we agreed to: a date to give effect to the transfer of policing and justice responsibilities to our power sharing government; a process to see powers on parading transferred to our administration before the end of this year; and a process to implement the outstanding issues from St Andrews, including progressing Irish language rights and north/south institutions.

However, our considerations are not limited to today. We are looking and working towards tomorrow. This Saturday I will be in London to address a conference Sinn Féin is hosting on the question of Irish unity. We believe it is important, in the context of the Good Friday agreement, that we begin to discuss and plan for a united Ireland. This is not a hollow ideological discussion. There are a number of identifiable trends leading to Irish unity within a meaningful timeframe. Ireland is too small for two separate administrations. Partition is costing communities across our island.

There is a draw towards the greater integration of services, structures and bodies on an all-Ireland basis in order to deliver quality services and economies of scale. I am encouraged that many unionists support the development of these types of structures on the basis that they are mutually beneficial. Further administrative changes need to take place alongside important social, economic and civic trends. These all point towards the realisation of reintegration of both states presently on the island of Ireland into one independent country.

This analysis is supported by the rise in support for Sinn Féin. The most recent electoral test – the European election – gave Sinn Féin the largest share of the vote, while the assembly election of 2007 showed around a 4% spread between the four top parties in the north – the DUP, Sinn Féin, Ulster Unionists and SDLP.

In this context, Sinn Féin is committed to promoting a united Ireland in the interests of all of the people of every part of Ireland. Dialogue between republicanism and unionism has always been difficult, but it was only through dialogue that we were able to foster and develop the present peace and political process. Genuine dialogue based on respect and equality still remains critical.

With patience and mutual respect, grounded in anti-sectarianism, we can move forward into a better future in which we cherish all our people equally. We can accommodate each other’s aspirations in a manner which does not demand the surrender of cultural or traditional identity.

We believe that Irish unity, on the basis of equality, offers the best future for all the people of this island. But we want to listen to unionism about why they believe the union is the best option. Opening up a debate around these key issues is the way forward.

It is particularly important that people in Britain, and in particular the huge Irish diaspora, are part of this discussion, in particular to influence British government policy.

The British government, as a signatory to the Good Friday agreement, accepted that it is for the people of Ireland, north and south, to determine the island’s future. The peaceful progressive realisation of Irish unity is the best way forward. Governments and all interested sections of society should consider and begin to plan for reunification.

Interview first published in the New Statesman on 18 February 2010.

Will the recent breakthrough have the historic significance of the Good Friday Agreement?

The Good Friday Agreement was an incredible breakthrough. But it’s my view that the Hillsborough Agreement could see politics in the north come of age, and see us all move forwards on the basis of equality and partnership.

To what extent has your own thinking changed over the decades?

I’m still an Irish republican; I absolutely believe in Irish unity and am working to achieve that. But over the course of 15 years or more, people like myself and others have been working to end the vicious cycle of conflict.

The latest polls say you are poised to become first minister. What would that mean to you?

Others are more fixated on that than I am. I am basically content doing the job I am doing at the moment. I want to work with Peter Robinson as First Minister in a positive, constructive way, and leave the elections to the electorate.

Since forming your alliance, how has your view of Ian Paisley and his values changed?

Obviously Ian Paisley and I were regarded as very bitter opponents. When we decided in March 2007 to govern together, both of us understood that we weren’t going to change our views, but that we had to work with one another if we were to end the conflict and move forward. It was pretty amazing we were able to strike up the relationship that we did. But I value it, and I regard Ian Paisley as a friend.

Do you think IRA terrorism on the mainland damaged the cause of a united Ireland?

War is terrible. There is nothing romantic about war. But the community I come from believes it has in effect been discriminated against. I come from Derry where, before the IRA fired a gunshot, Samuel Devenny was beaten to death by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and Seamus Cusack and Desmond Beattie were shot dead by the Royal Anglian Regiment. Sometimes it’s like the blame for the conflict rests only at the door of Irish republicans – whereas I believe it rests at 10 Downing Street and the offices of unionist parties in the north.

Would a Tory government threaten your cause?

Well, I’ve met with Owen Paterson [the Conservative shadow Northern Ireland secretary] and David Cameron, and they made it clear that they are prepared to stand faithfully by the agreements that have been made. Being involved constructively in the north of Ireland is a steep learning curve. I hope whatever government is elected will come at this as positively as Labour did in recent times.

Will there be a united Ireland in your lifetime?

Well, I’m working to achieve that. I believe that the agreements we have made allow us to go forward – and I’m quoting Ian Paisley – to bring to an end the old hatreds and divisions that have been so much to our detriment.

How does your faith affect your politics?

It doesn’t affect my politics at all. We have to govern by treating every single citizen equally.

So you believe Protestants are just as faithful as Catholics are?

Absolutely.

How do you deal with receiving death threats?

I never let it weigh me down. I have a job to do. Overwhelmingly, the people of Ireland support the peace process. There are unionists who have tried to bring it down; there are people associated with small, unrepresentative armed groups on the republican side who are also trying to destroy it. I’m going to do everything in my power to ensure that they don’t succeed.

Do you ever fear for your family’s safety?

No. If these people take action, I presume they will take it against me. But I’m not going to let that put me off doing the work that I am doing.

Have you ever killed a man?

I made my statement to the Bloody Sunday tribunal, where I admitted that I was a member of the IRA in Derry during a very difficult period of our history. As a former member of the IRA, I accept all the responsibilities that are due to me. But in terms of the individual circumstances, I don’t comment on that.

What do you regret?

I regret the bitter conflict on the island of Ireland, and that many people lost their lives. I absolutely regret that the body politic failed those people, and that a blind eye was turned by successive governments in London – and by some in Dublin – to the plight of nationalists.

Is there, or was there, a plan?

The planet we live on is an extraordinary place; scientists tell us we’re unique in terms of the universe. I wonder about how we have arrived here, and who was responsible for that.

Are we all doomed?

I don’t believe we’re doomed at all. Here in Ireland we’ve seen extraordinary circumstances. We are looking forward to a bright future.

By Ken Livingstone

This article originally appeared in Left Foot Forward, 16 February 2010

One of the most moving moments I experienced as Mayor of London was the first St Patrick’s parade we held in the city.

We knew that there was strong support for recognising Irish Londoners’ immense contribution to the city by making the celebrations an official part of our annual calendar, but even we were astonished by the massive response.

Tens of thousands kept joining the parade and eventually we had to shut Trafalgar Square as it was full to overflowing. This moment symbolised the sea change that there has been among Irish people not just in London, but across the country, which has accompanied the peace process and the Good Friday and subsequent Agreements.

The recent agreement at Hillsborough was the latest step forward in what has been an incredible positive advance, which many thought could never happen. Unparalleled opportunities for peace and reconciliation have been created, and the basis for addressing the deep rooted discrimination and exclusion in the north of Ireland, and for a new, inclusive arrangement. Despite the current economic crisis, affecting all of us and hitting Ireland particularly hard, there still exists immense good will and the prospect of economic prosperity in place of conflict and division.

A clear lesson of Ireland’s peace process is that dialogue and inclusivity, to address the heart of any problem, is the key to resolving conflict. During the time of the 1981–86 Greater London Council and many subsequent occasions, I was attacked for advocating this approach in relation to Ireland. Later governments came to accept that developing a political process and solution through dialogue was indeed the way forward.

Whilst many conflicts throughout the world have unique issues, which require specific responses, this fundamental lesson applies to most of them — not least in the Middle East.

Through inclusive dialogue, based on democratic mandates, the Good Friday Agreement laid out a clear basis forward. The principle of self-determination and the recognition of the political legitimacy of those who want a united Ireland are also clearly enshrined. For those of us in Britain who have long supported this, there is a clear opportunity now to develop the discussion and to support and assist the process — and to affect what the government here does.

One of Labour’s great achievements in government has been the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. This carefully negotiated document works in many aspects, but in particular because it ensures power sharing and an end to any notion that there can be one-party rule, or reducing anyone in the community to second class citizens.

The Tories’ attitude to the north of Ireland has recently led to accusations that they are playing with fire amid concerns that they may tamper with the institutions agreed under the Good Friday Agreement. A future Conservative government threatening to attempt to alter or roll back what has been achieved would be making a very serious mistake indeed — and one doomed to failure. Instead, there clearly remains a positive way forward, building the Agreement and supporting that. As London’s largest ethnic minority, Irish people in London have a huge role to play, alongside other progressive people with an interest.

After decades of prejudice, anti-terror laws and anti-Irish vilification in some sections of the media and elsewhere, today it is infinitely more possible for Irish people to feel their voice can be heard — including on political issues relating to Ireland. In London, including all sections of our diverse community in the life of the city is absolutely important for the city’s life and future. Linked to that is understanding that we are not isolated, but, as a world in one city, injustice in any other part of the world affects us and all our communities here.

That is why I am particularly pleased to be participating on 20 February to join the discussion on Ireland’s future and how we, here, can support what continues to be a hugely positive progression in the relationship between our two islands.

Ken Livingstone is the former Mayor of London.

By Michael Burke, Socialist Economic Bulletin

12 February 2010

The case for a united Ireland should not rest solely on arguments for democracy and against injustice, important as those are. The fact is there is a strong economic case for ending Partition, and one which would benefit almost the entire population of the North, across all communities.

Legacy of colonialism

The whole of Ireland was a colony of Britain. Colonies are usually characterised by a model of development which is aimed at the easiest extraction of goods and raw materials to be used by the imperial centre. Yet, long before Partition in 1922, the area around Belfast and on the North-East coast much more closely resembled an industrial area of mainland Britain. Shipping, linen and, latterly, aircraft appeared to place Belfast on the same footing as the industrial centres of Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool with which it traded. It was wholly unlike most of the rest of Ireland, even the nearby counties in the North, which mainly rested on agriculture. Most of Ireland, it was often said, had been cleared of its people to make way for England’s cattle. As a result the majority of Ireland, the oldest capitalist colony was also an archetypal one. The relative privileges afforded the producers around Belfast formed the economic basis of the relative privileges granted to Protestants in the North. These have been cemented by sectarianism and finds its political expression in Unionism.

At the time of Partition, per capita levels of output and income in what became Northern Ireland were on a par with Britain as a whole. By contrast, output and income in what has since become the Republic of Ireland were a fraction of those in the North. Neither of those two points is true any longer. The Northern economy has sunk below that of Britain (which has itself been experiencing relative decline on a global basis). And the economy of the Republic has experienced an era of superior growth which has seen per capita incomes catch up and then surpass both the North and Britain as a whole. In the latest data, average (median) weekly earnings in the North were £357, in Britain they were £397 and in the South (after adjusting for both currency and price differentials) they were £532.

The global economy

The recent economic boom in India, some decades after Independence is testimony to the fact that independence is a necessary but insufficient condition for economic prosperity. A deepening integration with the global economy is also required. At the time of Ireland’s Partition, 98% of the South’s foreign trade was with Britain, chiefly the export of live cattle. The entirety of Irish official economic policy was for decades aimed at maintaining the dominance of the big farmers who served the British market. However, diversification was forced on Ireland, not least by Britain’s relative decline. A steady economic outperformance from the late 1960s onwards gave way to a genuine economic boom of the early 1990s as the Irish economy became properly integrated with the European and the global economy.

That path is road-blocked for the NI economy. It is not integrated into the global economy, and is becoming less so, as its traditional industrial strongholds fade away. Its ‘external sales’ amounted to just £12.5bn in 2008/09. Excluding sales to Britain, actual merchandise exports were just £5.9bn. By contrast, the Republic’s exports amounted to €86.8bn over the same period. Only 14% of those were to Britain, compared to 53% for NI. This contrast is even starker in relation to imports.

Inequality

The government of the Republic is currently engaged in a savage attack on public sector pay and provisions, drawing envious admiration from George Osborne and David Cameron in Britain. The economic gains post-independence and the prosperity that accompanied them owe nothing to the progressive or far-sighted policies of successive governments; there have been none. Economic success, with a handful of exceptions has arisen from foreign multinationals taking advantage from a well-educated workforce located in a prime conduit for trade between the two major blocs of the US and EU.

The interests represented by Fianna Fail in particular have shifted from the large farmers to their property speculating and banking successors, and indices of wealth and social inequality are unchanged since Partition. In fact income inequality both North and South are above the EU average, and on a par with Britain. The maintenance of this status quo is the economic platform of almost all the main political parties, with the notable exception of Sinn Féin. Representing a similar social base, the economic policies of Fianna Fail and the DUP are virtually identical. The viciousness of their economic policy arises from material weakness, not strength. The campaign for cuts in public sector pay and welfare payments, and now a reduction in the minimum wage is led by representatives of the fast food chains, the shopkeepers and the bookmakers.

Both economies are also leading examples of the unequal treatment of women, not only in employment and the workplace but in all aspects of social life. But the North also remains a bastion of sectarian discrimination. One of the many gains of the Good Friday Agreement was the establishment of the Equality Commission of NI. It has monitoring powers over all enterprises with more than 10 employees. The changing political climate that led to the establishment of the Commission has seen the rapid erosion of large areas of sectarian discrimination in public sector employment. Before the current economic crisis, a rising population and falling unemployment produced a situation where employment growth amongst Catholics outstripped that of Protestants. Nothing like that success has been registered in the private sector. However, the battle for equality is far from over. A Catholic is still more than twice as likely to be unemployed. Discrimination in other areas, such as housing, remains endemic.

These inequalities are part of the DNA of both societies. It is no accident that those struggling against those inequalities are confronted with the idea of transforming the political basis of both states North and South, as well as the social relations within them. That transformation would benefit the overwhelming bulk of the population, North and South.

By Jeremy Corbyn MP

This article originally appeared in the Morning Star on 9 February 2010

A new chapter has opened up in Ireland’s future. Gordon Brown confirmed to Parliament on Monday that an agreement had been reached between the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin over policing in Northern Ireland — the last contentious barrier in the devolution process.

Brown described the deal as a significant and defining moment.

Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams said that ‘many had thought it wouldn’t, couldn’t happen — that our respective positions were too far apart — but it did, as a result of very intense discussions by Sinn Féin and the DUP.’

Adams went on to describe the agreement as ‘hugely important and symbolic’ and he said that the current situation is ‘an opportunity to build society based upon respect, equality, partnership and fairness.’

In the Commons, Peter Robinson was publicly very supportive of the agreement he had reached, as was his fugitive rival for leadership of the DUP Nigel Dodds — although Dodds seemed to be slightly backhanded in his remarks concerning the Parades Commission and Sinn Féin’s role in it.

The question of the future unity of Ireland now moves centre stage.

It is important to understand Ireland’s history — the colonial conquest, the brutal way in which Irish nationalism was repressed, and the legacy of the violence under British occupation over many centuries, from Cromwell’s death squads in the 17th century to the famine of the 19th century. This was caused by British refusal to distribute the food that was necessary to save the lives of starving people who were denied access to fertile land and the opportunity to feed themselves.

The brutal oppression of the nationalist cause in the latter 19th century led to the 1916 Easter Rising, the declaration of independence and then the counter-attack and execution of the republican movement’s leaders. Radical republicans paid the ultimate price for standing up against colonial domination.

The ensuing civil war, encouraged by British divide-and-rule tactics, finally led to partition in 1922. For decades the population of Northern Ireland was deliberately divided on religious and social grounds. Poverty, discrimination and oppression sparked the 1968 civil rights movement and then the presence of British troops for the next 40 years.

The division of Ireland is a colonial creation, and the development of cross-border institutions, the Irish language and close cultural developments indicate that the reunification of Ireland is becoming closer and increasingly inevitable.

The prospect of Sinn Féin becoming the largest nationalist party and holding many of the major offices would have been dismissed as a pipe dream only 20 years ago. From the early 1970s onwards, there was a parliamentary consensus to maintain the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Emergency Powers Act and, later, a travel and broadcasting ban on republican leaders.

The Labour Party and the many trade unions refused to even discuss Ireland throughout the 1980s. But attempts to isolate Sinn Féin ultimately failed and a political process took over from the daily conflict and death on the streets of Northern Ireland.

One should recognise the enormous step taken initially by Adams and SDLP leader John Hume in reaching a common position, followed by the 1994 and 1997 ceasefires and huge progress since.

Recent events give the conference hosted by Sinn Féin on Saturday February 20 enormous new momentum. Hosted at Congress House in London, Putting Irish Unity on the Agenda will discuss a strategy for achieving a long-term aim of a united Ireland.

While the conference takes place against the backdrop of a deal with the DUP and with the final piece of the devolution jigsaw put down on the board, there are big, looming problems.

In the last decade the economy of the 26-county Irish republic has boomed. The so-called Celtic tiger encouraged a financial services economy and massive growth in house and land prices. The current comatose state of the tiger has created the conditions for the return of mass unemployment, increased social divisions and denied the aspirations of many of Ireland’s young people.

In response Brian Cowen’s Fianna Fail-led government has slashed public spending and increased taxation. His belief that this will solve Ireland’s problem is more than simply short-sighted. Just as anywhere else, it will spark a cycle of economic decline.

In contrast, a united Ireland dedicated to the principles of social justice and an economy planned for the needs of the people rather than as a tax haven for the super-rich could deliver on the aspirations of those who laid down their lives in the 1916 Easter Rising — and since.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.

By Gerry Adams MP, President Sinn Féin

This article originally appeared in the Guardian on 6 February 2010

It was another ‘Good Friday’ in the peace process yesterday. Hillsborough Castle was the setting for the final piece of the jigsaw of devolution which saw agreement between Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionist party on the transfer of policing and justice powers and other outstanding matters arising from the Good Friday and St Andrews agreements.

Many had thought it wouldn’t, couldn’t happen. That our respective positions were too far apart. But it did, and it was achieved primarily as a result of very intense discussions between Sinn Féin and the DUP. This is a hugely important, as well as symbolic moment. This is the political parties in the north of Ireland demonstrating our ability to negotiate a successful agreement together. It marks a new phase in the process.

The current crisis had been in progress for some time. Last year I had warned the British secretary of state that the political institutions were not sustainable in the longer term because they were not functioning on the basis of equality and partnership. Sinn Féin’s strong view was that the governments were in default of their obligations as guarantors of the Good Friday and the St Andrews agreements. London and Dublin are not facilitators. Their function is not to ‘close the gap between the parties’. Their duty is to uphold the agreements and hold the parties to what they had signed up to.

Ten days ago a protracted negotiation began. Sinn Féin’s focus was on getting agreement between the parties in the north. As the DUP finance minister Sammy Wilson put it, we needed a deal ‘made in Ulster’. But it could only be accomplished by the leaders of unionism working genuinely to secure a new beginning which would see the proper functioning of joined-up government based on equality and citizens’ rights.

The agreement that has now been reached will not only see the transfer of powers on policing and justice in April, but also by the end of the year the transfer of responsibility from London to Belfast for dealing with the issue of parades. We have also agreed a process to progress the rights of Irish language speakers, clear the backlog of executive papers and decisions which are still pending, and advance the all-Ireland aspects of the St Andrews agreement. It is a detailed and timeframed agreement.

Of course, there will be some who will rail against it. The naysayers will study the details, seeking points of criticism. But they are the minority. The vast majority want this process to work. Public opinion in recent weeks has overwhelmingly favoured a deal.

So, new and important progress has been made in consolidating the political institutions. The judgment on our success, however, will be in whether the process and the institutions deliver for citizens. As the parties negotiated, hundreds more job losses were announced in Belfast and Monkstown in County Antrim. The number of unemployed is rising; families are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. There are increasing numbers of children living in poverty, while our elderly choose between heating homes and buying food.

The reality is that for two years the executive and assembly have not been as effective as they should have been in developing strategies to tackle these problems. There is now a significant opportunity to change that. An opportunity to build a society based on respect, equality, partnership and fairness. Sinn Féin is an Irish republican party. As Martin McGuinness said yesterday, we believe in a united Ireland. And in two weeks’ time we will be hosting a conference in London to discuss this very issue.

But that doesn’t mean that Irish republicans and unionists cannot work together in the interests of those we represent. We can, and Sinn Féin is determined to make positive use of the opportunity that now exists to do that.

By Mitchel McLaughlin MLA, Sinn Féin

This article first appeared on the website Socialist Unity on 20 January 2010

On 20 February Sinn Féin is hosting an important conference in London, entitled Putting Irish unity on the agenda. The aim of the event is to open up a new debate and discussion on the issue of Irish unity, in particular in the context of the recognition in the Good Friday Agreement of self-determination, and the principle that it is the right of the people of Ireland — north and south to determine their own future.

Whilst the northern six county state was created to ensure a unionist majority, over the intervening decades many developments have happened which are eroding this. Most importantly, the political struggle which, by challenging the endemic undemocratic nature of the state and the discrimination and injustice inflicted in order to maintain it, ultimately led to the peace process and the need for a new political dispensation with the Good Friday Agreement. Moreover, the economic dynamics, and the demographic changes, which have, among other things, seen a change in emigration and immigration patterns are also underpinning this, and all of which point to a possible constitutional change in a significant and foreseeable timeframe.

All of these issues will be discussed at the forthcoming London conference, not least because, as the Agreement states ‘if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self determination’ as set out in the Agreement ‘to bring about a united Ireland it will be a binding obligation on both governments’ to bring this about. That means the British government — so all of those in Britain with an interest should start to seriously discuss this now.

However, Sinn Féin believe that a united Ireland is not just about winning a poll, but about explaining and convincing everyone that a united Ireland is in the interests of the majority of all of the people of every part of Ireland. That is why the conference will see an important discussion on creating a dialogue with unionism.

Dialogue between republicanism and Unionism has always been difficult. But it was only through dialogue that we were able to foster and develop the present peace and political process, however fragile that may be. Genuine dialogue based on respect and equality still remains critical to progress the overall situation but particularly to resolve the current difficulties threatening political stability. Because of the experience of conflict and division, all too often political opponents are viewed with suspicion.

Too many within political unionism seem to view the process from the point of, if nationalists want it, even if it will enhance the lives of the unionist people as well, then it is nevertheless bad for unionism. Political unionism over the years has suffered from a leadership that has fluctuated between supremacist arrogance and a fearful, inarticulate uncertainty. This instilled a fear in many Unionists that, if respective roles were ever reversed, nationalists would imitate the sectarian excesses of Unionism.

Republicans must deal with these fears by redoubling our efforts to communicate with the unionist constituency directly, with a reassuring message that under no circumstances will we visit upon any section of society the exclusion, domination and discrimination from which we are emerging.

Republicans want peace and democratic change and are convinced that, unless radical decisions are agreed with the various representatives of unionism, then we are in danger of condemning future generations to continued conflict.

I believe that there is a better way forward. The British government, which is not trusted or respected by any constituency in Ireland, has been the common denominator that has subjugated and divided the people of Ireland for generations. I believe that with patience and in a spirit of mutual respect that nationalists and unionists can agree on their relationships to and with each other in peaceful co-existence on this island without the British government setting the terms.

Republicanism and unionism must reach a sustainable compromise through respectful dialogue, grounded in anti-sectarianism that will move us beyond the impasse of the present into a bright future that will cherish all our people equally. To achieve that, we must explore how we can accommodate each other’s aspirations in a manner which does not demand the surrender of cultural or traditional identity. Together, we must determine the terms of our relationship to this island. What is needed is a determined, strong leadership that does not seek a selfish outcome for our respective constituencies but one which will bring real benefit to all. We must show courage and respect in our dealings with each other and in the management of the process of continued change.

Republicans believe that Irish unity, on the basis of equality, offers the best future for all the people of this island. Therefore it is our responsibility to spell out to unionists what sort of united Ireland we seek and to reassure the unionist people of their place in an Ireland of equals. Whilst we demand the entitlement to promote and to persuade for our vision of a United Ireland, we are also open to engage with unionism on their vision for the future. We’re willing to listen to unionism about why they believe the union is the best option. Opening up a public debate around these key issues can provide a better way forward.

Mitchel McLaughlin is a Sinn Féin Assembly Member and spokesperson on economic issues.

By David Adams

This article first appeared on 3 December 2009

The leader of the SDLP, Mark Durkan, is a decent, fair-minded man who has a wicked sense of humour and is excellent company. All of which makes him if not quite unique among the political classes, then close to it.

He happens also to be one of the most capable and responsible politicians in Northern Ireland. And, unusual again, he prefers thoughtful and thought-provoking analysis to lazy, platitudinous soundbites.

This tendency to detail hasn’t endeared him to a media that increasingly favours the simplistic over the complex. Its response has been to caricature him as a long-winded bore, which says more about modern journalism than it does about Durkan. Unfortunately for his party and beyond, Durkan has signalled his intention to stand aside as SDLP leader after next year’s Westminster elections. Hopefully, the new leader will continue to choose detailed explanation over headline-grabbing banalities. Never mind what the media prefers, clarity is what the people of Northern Ireland need.

Over the past year or so, Durkan has been calling for democratic nationalists in Ireland to come together to ‘set out a 21st century vision for unity’. His successor should continue lobbying along those lines.

The Belfast Agreement allows for the possibility of a united Ireland, so it makes perfect sense for responsible nationalism to determine what kind of unitary state it envisages, and, more precisely, to consider how unionists could be accommodated in it. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms of desirability of an all-island state, but another to specify how, or whether, it could actually work. If nationalism is serious about unity, it has a duty to explain to unionists precisely what it has in mind.

Those who believe that, if it comes to it, the six Northern counties could simply be tacked on to the Republic, and unionists would fit neatly in with a 32-county version of how things are in the South at present, are kidding themselves. That would be a recipe for perpetual instability across the island.

Yet, apart from periodic, non-specific utterances about ‘creating an island of equals’, this seems to be the extent of Sinn Féin’s post-unity thinking. They do have a half-baked notion of how to get to a united Ireland, which involves chipping away at the morale of unionists in the hope that sufficient numbers will tire of the hassle, allowing the rest to be dragged over a 50 per cent-plus-one line into an imagined unitary utopia. (Mitchel McLaughlin claimed in a radio interview last year that his party’s greatest achievement was keeping unionism in a constant state of upheaval.) But Sinn Féin hasn’t given the first thought or care to what would result if they did manage to bring almost a million reluctant unionists into a united Ireland For them, getting there is enough, whatever about uniting Protestant, Catholic and dissenter on the way.

In fairness to Sinn Féin, none of the southern-based political parties has been forthcoming with anything like a detailed post-unity plan either. The Éire Nua document, authored by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Dáithí Ó Conaill in the 1970s, remains the only serious bid by any strand of nationalism or republicanism to address the issue at all.

Responsible nationalism must move beyond advocating a united Ireland simply because nationalists believe it to be in the natural order of things, and begin to acknowledge that it must be designed to accommodate, and then be sold to, unionists.

Unity would bring with it huge economic implications (replacing the National Health Service provisions that Northerners enjoy not least among them), but more importantly, the South would have to undergo fundamental administrative and attitudinal changes to fit with Northerners.
At present in the Republic, there is, to say the least, no clear separation between church and State, particularly in relation to healthcare and, more crucially, education. Would the new citizens be expected just to go along with this state of affairs? There also remains a strong undercurrent of anti-British sentiment in the Republic. In light of this, how would the British identity of a substantial number of its citizens be respected and upheld (as opposed to being merely tolerated) in any future unitary state?

What I have written here only touches on some of the practicalities that need to be addressed. It also takes for granted that a majority of people in the Republic would agree to reunification. This is hardly a safe presumption to make, considering the political and social stability they enjoy at present, and the type of problems Northerners would inevitably bring with them.

Given the provisions of the Belfast Agreement, Mark Durkan is right to call on nationalists to move beyond meaningless rhetoric and set out their vision for unity. Whatever that may entail, one reality towers above all others: any future unitary state would have to accurately reflect and dutifully protect the full diversity of its citizenship.