| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1238.1 | The fireworks have begun... | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Fri Jul 09 1993 10:15 | 12 |
| > sovereignty of Northern Ireland. The UK government says this would not be
> acceptable to the majority of the population in Northern Ireland.
I think in all due respect, HMG, that it would be acceptable to *all*
the peoples of Ireland...
Gee that's incredible, Mary Robinson greets Gerry Adams one week, the
next week Ireland quiety blurts out that, indeed yes, it would like
joint sovereignty of 6 counties in NI, what's next? Move the capital
back to Cork??? ;v)
/g
|
| 1238.2 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | First Gennifer, now US | Fri Jul 09 1993 12:22 | 6 |
|
"The card' is the American card. Major had to bend over backwards to
get Clinton to relent on special ambassador to NI, according to news
reports I read in England over the weekend. This announcement is
probably the lead-in to forcing that issue to reopen.
|
| 1238.3 | British refuse to comprimise... | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Fri Jul 09 1993 16:12 | 5 |
| There was a story about the Irish proposal on page 7
of the Boston Globe 7/9/93. However, the British
ruled out any possibility of joint Irish / British
sovereignty over NI, and thus are avoiding the
inevitable for a few more years...
|
| 1238.4 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | First Gennifer, now US | Fri Jul 09 1993 16:25 | 4 |
|
Nothing's inevitable. It could be that joint sovereignty could lead to
more bloodshed than the current arrangement.
|
| 1238.5 | Maybe so, Maybe not... | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Fri Jul 09 1993 16:52 | 11 |
| You're right. It possibly could lead to more bloodshed, but it's
certainly worth a try. There is too much bloodshed now anyhow.
The inevitable part is that Nationalists will be a majority in 20
years or so.
I would think that joint sovereignty would be a natural transition for
the British, as they eventually pull out from Emerald Isle.
I would expect that under joint control, security in NI would be better
and tighter than is today. Maybe I'm an optimist.
|
| 1238.6 | | NOVA::EASTLAND | First Gennifer, now US | Fri Jul 09 1993 17:28 | 9 |
|
I guess if I were the British government and I was going to do
something that could be perceived as abandoning the loyalists, I'd
_really_ abandon them and try to give the Republic total sovereignty,
then try to wash my hands of it (perhaps with the risk of billion pound
damage bombs in the City of London from the UDA instead of the IRA).
Any kind of joint sovereignty would be perceived as an transitional step
to reunification, wouldn't it?
|
| 1238.7 | | KOALA::HOLOHAN | | Mon Jul 12 1993 11:29 | 15 |
|
re. .5
Nothing is inevitable when the British are involved.
What's to stop them from redrawing a new border so
that Nationalists won't be a majority in a new and
"improved" statelet? They've done it before, they
could do it again. What's to stop the British from
tightening the screws on the Nationalist even more,
in an attempt to increase their emigration?
You've heard the saying, fool me once, shame on you,
fool me twice, shame on me.
Mark
|
| 1238.8 | A Major Blunder... | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Mon Jul 12 1993 12:38 | 15 |
| >Any kind of joint sovereignty would be perceived as an transitional step
>to reunification, wouldn't it?
Well, er yes. Unification is what the majority in Ireland (the whole
island) and England would like to gradually see evolve. The latest
polls in both nations support this. It needs to be done in a peaceful
and gradual manner however. And the rights and culture of the Protestant
minority need to be strongly protected and fostered.
One problem with the Major (or Mayhew) flatly rejecting the call for
joint sovereignty is that it unfortunately fuels the fire of the IRA.
The British response was poignantly arrogant. It doesn't bode well
for the future stability of the area, considering that this was the
first major public statement from the Republic concerning the future of
Northern Ireland.
|
| 1238.9 | | TRIBES::LBOYLE | Beware th man with the silicon chip | Mon Jul 12 1993 13:04 | 12 |
|
Spring's `statement' was not a statement. It was a response to a
question from a journalist, along the lines of "What should the two
governments do if talks with the Northern parties lead nowhere?"
Whether or not the Northern parties can agree, the government's still
have a responsibility to try to advance the situation. The suggestion
was not to impose joint authority, but that some joint authority
solution might be developed and put to the people in a referendum.
Mr. Spring is not the only one to have nodded in the direction of joint
authority. This is also a view entertained by the British Labour
Party, and by the SDLP in the North.
|
| 1238.10 | A good related article | TALLIS::DARCY | Alpha Migration Tools | Mon Jul 12 1993 13:22 | 2 |
| There was a good article in this week's Economist about John Hume
being "fumed" about Major's rebuff of joint sovereignty. Good reading.
|