Conference tallis::celt

1306.0. "Declaration no contribution - Father Des Wilson" by KOALA::HOLOHAN () Mon Jan 03 1994 11:54

DECLARATION NO CONTRIBUTION
By Des Wilson

The Declaration issued by Albert Reynolds and John Major was a reminder of the
Downing Street of 1969.  That 1969 Declaration promised reforms.  None were
delivered.

The same atmosphere surrounded this Reynolds/Major document, the Downing
Street meeting, the media management, as speculation grew about an initiative
which, in the end, produced little.

MISSING

Paragraph five of the Declaration gives an idea of the cynicism with which the
document was composed.  It says that people must be free from certain kinds of
discrimination, by class, sex, religion, color.  A statement of this kind is
accepted by most people - discrimination under these headings is either too
unpopular, or too expensive.   What the Declaration carefully refuses to
outlaw is discrimination against citizens because of their political beliefs.

UNIQUE

Discrimination bases upon political beliefs is a major problem in the British
jurisdiction in Ireland.  The civil servants who drafted the document decided
to leave the way still open for political vetting, internment without trial
and other measured against political opponents.  The Declaration is based upon
the undemocratic premise that a government can refuse the people the right to
elect their own representatives and be heard through them.  The British have
always refused this right to the Irish people.  There was never a period in
Irish/British history in which the British acknowledged the full right of the
Irish people to choose their own representatives.  This Declaration does not
say that from now on the democratic principle will be observed, that all
representatives will be heard.  Instead, it says that they may be heard, but
only after some months, the number of which is not determined.  The people
under British rule in Ireland are then the only people in the European
community whose elected representatives are not heard unless, and until
another body - separate from the elected representatives - stops attacking the
government.  This is an unprecedented situation, which cannot be reconciled
with democratic principle.

AVOID

In this Declaration, the two government heads have carefully avoided defining
what this meant by a majority.  This is important because we have no way of
guaranteeing that the British will not arbitrarily and unilaterally declare in
the future that 90% majority consent is required for political change.  The
British government did this with the Scots when they asked for a parliament of
their own.  The cabinet, which is essentially English, unilaterally declared
that a majority of 51% of the actual electorate - not just those who voted -
would be required to give the Scots a parliament of their own.  In view of the
proportion of the population who vote, this would, in effect, mean that about
70% of the people actually voting would have to ask for such a parliament.
This magnitude of vote was highly unlikely.  The British have never declared
what they mean by a majority for change in Ireland, but would, presumably,
tailor it to their own need.

OBLIGATION

In the Declaration, most of the obligations are placed upon the Dublin
government and the Irish people, just as they were in the Anglo-Irish
Agreement in 1985.  They are to be required to change their constitution or
laws, to make changes in their social life to remove aspects of it which
displease the Unionists.  However, experience has shown that such concessions
inflame further antagonism from Unionists, rather than create reconciliation.

Also, the strongest opposition in Ireland to welfare provisions, or to
liberalizing the laws about divorce, abortion, homosexuality, etc., have
historically come from Unionists and the Protestant churches.  The abortion
laws in the south of Ireland are now actually more permissive than those in
the northeast, where therapeutic abortions are only allowed.

CONSENT

Most serious of all, perhaps, is the declaration that there will be no
substantial change without the consent of the "majority."  It is in the
interests of the British Unionists to ensure that there will never be  a
majority for substantial change.  The traditional way in which Unionists
ensured this was by forcing Catholics to emigrate, by keeping them without
houses or jobs and by periodic pogroms.  A declaration that there may be
substantial change if a majority wants it will make Unionists do what they see
as necessary, physically to prevent such a majority from emerging.

HILLSBOROUGH
The Declaration, although it now enjoys much the same intensity of induced
support as the ill-fated, undemocratic Anglo-Irish Agreement, must be seen as
hindering, rather than helping, the possibility of democracy in Ireland, and
even as holding the needs of many troubled years to come.

SLIGHT

Even the slightest acknowledgment by the British of citizens' rights is
impoverished and mean.  For example, no government can give Irish people the
right to have aspirations towards unity and democracy, they have that right
already.  A measure of British government cynicism is that first they refuse
to admit this right and then pretend that granting it is an act of supreme
generosity.

It is to be hoped that Americans will not be seduced into believing this Joint
Declaration is a democratic document or that it will, in any way, contribute
to peace, justice and democracy in Ireland.

                                  **********

The Irish People is available by sybscription from:

The Irish People
363 7th Ave, Suite 405
New York, NY  10001
$30 per yr.