16 October 1997 Edition
Consent - a two edged sword
Tony Blair's handshake with Gerry Adams marks the end of the symbolic stage of the Stormont talks. The real business of negotiations can now begin.
Blair himself launched the first salvo on Monday by reiterating the unionist definition of consent in relation to any settlement. Unionists of various shades have been at pains, particularly in recent weeks, to wring from the British the guarantee that there will be no solution without the agreement of a majority of the Unionist parties and a majority of the population of the Six Counties. In other words, a Unionist veto.
But consent is a two-edged sword. Blair and the Unionists believe that unionist consent will be required for a United Ireland while nationalist consent will not be required for the maintenance of the Union.
Nationalists and republicans have other ideas. These talks represent an historic opportunity. Northern nationalists were never asked for their consent to the partition of Ireland - it was imposed at the threat of terrible war. They were never asked whether they wanted to remain in the Union. Even now, with talk of democracy, consent, consultation and negotiation, nationalist consent is still not being sought. Even worse, according to Tony Blair, Unionist consent is an over-arching issue and one that nationalists must accept in order to be perceived as democrats.
If nationalists are not entitled to say ``No'' to the Union then unionists should not to be entitled to say ``No'' to a United Ireland. Republicans will not accept two democratic rule books - one for Unionists and the other for nationalists.
The issue of consent is central to the current talks process. It will rise to the top of the agenda as the talks progress. Sinn Féin representatives will uphold the democratic, republican position that the British government or any section of the Irish people cannot veto the right to national self-determination.
The consent of all sections of our people must be sought for any political settlement. But republicans will not allow this logical and sensible position to be misrepresented and misused as an argument for the maintenance of partition and the current status quo.
Blair himself launched the first salvo on Monday by reiterating the unionist definition of consent in relation to any settlement. Unionists of various shades have been at pains, particularly in recent weeks, to wring from the British the guarantee that there will be no solution without the agreement of a majority of the Unionist parties and a majority of the population of the Six Counties. In other words, a Unionist veto.
But consent is a two-edged sword. Blair and the Unionists believe that unionist consent will be required for a United Ireland while nationalist consent will not be required for the maintenance of the Union.
Nationalists and republicans have other ideas. These talks represent an historic opportunity. Northern nationalists were never asked for their consent to the partition of Ireland - it was imposed at the threat of terrible war. They were never asked whether they wanted to remain in the Union. Even now, with talk of democracy, consent, consultation and negotiation, nationalist consent is still not being sought. Even worse, according to Tony Blair, Unionist consent is an over-arching issue and one that nationalists must accept in order to be perceived as democrats.
If nationalists are not entitled to say ``No'' to the Union then unionists should not to be entitled to say ``No'' to a United Ireland. Republicans will not accept two democratic rule books - one for Unionists and the other for nationalists.
The issue of consent is central to the current talks process. It will rise to the top of the agenda as the talks progress. Sinn Féin representatives will uphold the democratic, republican position that the British government or any section of the Irish people cannot veto the right to national self-determination.
The consent of all sections of our people must be sought for any political settlement. But republicans will not allow this logical and sensible position to be misrepresented and misused as an argument for the maintenance of partition and the current status quo.