THE
NORTHERN IRISH CRISIS
Multi-party
Talks & Models for a Settlement
Daltún
Ó Ceallaigh
REVIEWS
AN
PHOBLACHT-REPUBLICAN NEWS (15/1/98)
Coming
to Terms with the C Word
The detailed knowledge of the constitutional issues between Ireland and Britain and the talent for political analysis which he displayed in his previous books have been applied again in this latest work by Daltún Ó Ceallaigh. Its publication is timely as it focuses on possible scenarios for constitutional compromise in the current negotiations.
It is timely also as it comes during yet another of unionism’s recurring crises. Having repeatedly told their people that they will not lead them towards the political change which is inevitable, the unionist leaders face rebellion from their grassroots. Unprepared for change, conditioned to react in a Pavlovian manner to any progress, or perceived progress, for nationalists, unionism is fundamentally challenged by the talks process. In this book Ó Ceallaigh analyses that challenge and assesses the possibilities for advancing nationalist objectives in the conditions arising from the Stormont talks.
The first part of the book consists of a very useful analysis of the development and decline of ‘constitutional republicanism’. Other sections analyse the issue of consent itself and the nationalist consensus. Models for a settlement are put forward “not as definite answers in themselves, but as ways of trying to grapple with several realities and injustices of the immediate situation’’.
Ó Ceallaigh says they do not constitute the preferred option - “that remains a united Ireland in the deepest sense of the term’’.
The author introduces new concepts, some of which may grate with republicans.
“Multilateral consent’’ is put forward by way of a riposte to the unionist/British consent argument, and in recognition of the reality that Dublin and the SDLP have already conceded much ground to the British and unionists on the straight nationalist argument for the whole of Ireland as the unit of consent. He explains it thus: “The multilateral perspective includes northern nationalists, and indeed also the people of Britain and of the 26 Counties in so far as they are affected by any settlement. That is the way to outmanoeuvre the gerrymandered or hegemonic consent so often spoken about. (Another manner of dealing with this aspect is to speak of ‘democratic consent’ and then go on to define that as multilateral, i.e. unionist or unilateral consent is not democratic.’’
Suggesting what might be an “honourable compromise’’ for nationalists Ó Ceallaigh states that “the task is to move forward while also leaving the way open for further national development’’.
While a unitary Irish Republic is the ideal for nationalists “it is not fully operable at this juncture. … However, northern nationalists have certain fundamental human rights of both a libertarian and a national kind, and the latter need to be accommodated to some extent now, which may also be seen as a possible interim arrangement’’.
Ó Ceallaigh then outlines his ideas for optional jurisdiction and redeliniation. Basically they boil down, in the first instance, to individual citizens in the Six Counties being able to opt for Irish or British statehood, and in the second, for electoral districts being able to opt in or out of the United Kingdom or the Irish state. This would be incorporated in constitutional change, with Britain repealing the Act of Union and Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act.
He suggests that the Irish and British governments should each have an office in every District to which citizens could relate as they chose. The idea of redeliniation is put forward as a means of breaking down the sectarian Six-County state but, while he denies that it amounts to repartition, it is hard to see how, in practice, it could be anything else.
Perhaps these ideas are less important than the author’s argument in favour of strategic thinking regarding constitutional compromise. As republicans we must assess how such agreement can be reached while leaving the way open for further movement towards our ultimate goal in the next phase of struggle. And struggle there must be. As Ó Ceallaigh states: “The background to the talks for nationalists should be an intensive and sustained political and ideological struggle.’’ And again: “It is not sufficient to plead; one must organise’’.
Read this
thought-provoking book.
Mícheál
MacDonncha
BOOKS FROM IRELAND (Irish Books & Media [US], Spring 1998)
This book is an attempt to assess the possibilities for advancing nationalist objectives to the conditions arising from the Stormont Talks, with regard to the broader historical and political context.
Chapters deal with Republicanism in the 20th century, models for a settlement, consent and compromise, and a nationalist consensus. Written in December of 1997, the book puts forward some novel ideas, viewed not as definite answers in themselves, but as ways of trying to grapple with realities of the immediate situation. “Today’s speculations my become tomorrow’s solutions.”
BOOKS
IRELAND (February 1998)
Ideas for strategies to grapple with the ‘several realities and injustices’ include ‘optional jurisdiction’ and ‘redelineation’. Whether ingenuity and originality can prevail where goodwill and common sense cannot may be dubious, but Ó Ceallaigh is well aware that [through] “insisting on the ultimate now ... one will end up with less than the realisable.” That is the true spirit of negotiation.
Creative approach presents positive options for settlement
‘Historic’ is a word that is bound to be bandied about a little too much as we near the deadline for the completion of multi-party talks. I think ‘historic’ may be too strong a word for the outcome of the current talks process as whatever settlement reached will, by virtue of the changing fortunes of republicanism vis-à-vis unionism, he transitional. The problem of course, as always, is how transitional will any agreed arrangements be? In politics what you get and what you expect often differ.
Daltún Ó Ceallaigh’s new book follows on from his Sovereign People or Crown Subjects? and Britain and Ireland: sovereignty and nationality, both of which have contributed to a wider understanding of the Irish crisis.
This new book comes out at a crucial stage in the peace process and Ó Ceallaigh sets out to assess “the possibilities for advancing nationalist objectives in the conditions arising from the Stormont talks, while having regard to the broader historical and political context.
Such analysis is obviously timely and makes the important point that the current peace process is more about the partial advancement rather than the complete fulfilment of nationalist/republican aspirations.
Ó Ceallaigh looks at the problems of an accommodation between nationalists and unionists with some creativity. He looks at novel arrangements such as ‘redelineation’ and ‘optional jurisdiction’, as ways out of the majoritarian impasse created by partition. He also tackles head-on the vexed issue of’ ‘consent’, offering the notion of ‘multilateral consent’, which includes northern nationalists, and the people of Britain and Ireland as “an effective nationalist riposte” to the narrowly hewn unionist idea of consent (i.e. unilateral consent).
An important point that this book makes is that "all major breakthroughs in modern Irish history for the national position have come about when it was possible to put something like this (nationalist consensus) together".
Such consensus has begun to see the advancement of the republican project politically. The task is, according to Daltún Ó Ceallaigh, “to move forward while also leaving the way open for further national development”.
Enda Finlay