POLITICS
At last, the British and Irish people find something they can all agree on
SIMON HEFFER
Dublin terter the non-summit here last Friday, the Irish, who feel Mr Major's contacts with the IRA give them much to be upset about, were colourful about what happened between Mr Reynolds and Mr Major. `Albert chewed his balls off,' was the received wisdom among the Irish hacks. To maintain the consensual, coffee-morning façade of 'working together', it was impor- tant for the British to have something to be upset about as well. We chose Dublin's unquestionably stupid decision to leak a draft set of proposals about what one Irish diplomat termed the 'theological' point about self-determination of the Irish peo- ple. The Unionists, who believe Dublin has no right to believe the future of the North is anything other than determined already, feel Mr Major is about to betray them. He depends on them to keep him in power, so had legitimate cause to be angry.
Nobody here believes the Irish govern- ment does not have contacts with the Provi- sional IRA too; but the Irish are better at keeping them quiet than our Government has been. Innocent until proven guilty, the Irish therefore poured torrents of savage indignation on Mr Major for presiding over a government that has 'contacts' (i.e., nego- tiates) with terrorists. This, they rightly argue, is a worse crime than leaking a gov- ernment discussion document. There was outrage here after the British had present- ed the events as morally equivalent, sug- gesting we had as much to be angry about as the Irish. We, the Irish contend, had bro- ken the Anglo-Irish agreement by not hon- ouring an obligation to discuss security matters. Furthermore, given the role of Mr Reynolds in all this is to reflect, in a civilised way, the feelings of nationalists in the North, he has to have their trust. He repudiated the Hume/Adams talks because, his friends say, our Government said it would be helpful for him to do so. It was not, therefore, pleasing to him to find out that, while he was repudiating Sinn Fein, the Government urging him to do so was having 'contacts' with the IRA.
Mr Reynolds has discovered what we on this side of St George's Channel have known for some time, that Mr Major is a slippery customer. Even when caught fid- dling the books ?here is no hint of shame, no element of remorse, no tincture of apol- ogy. We saw it over the ejection of Britain from the ERM, and in the breach of promise over taxation; now the Irish see it in government conduct over the future of the six counties. Mr Gene Kerrigan, a lead- ing Dublin commentator, writing in The Sunday Independent after the non-summit, characterised Mr Major's glib performance at the press conference thus: 'John Major lied again, and Albert Reynolds just sat there beside him and grinned.' Mr Kerrigan continued: 'We know that Major lied to the rest of us, but there's still the question of whether he lied to Albert when the two were alone. And, if so, did Albert grin?' Albert certainly went out of his way to give Mr Major an easy time, implying that there were more important matters than our Government's reputation for honesty: but he, too, had heard the deeply embarrassing guff from Mr Major about his stomach turning at the thought of talks with the IRA, and he, too, is fed up with having his intelligence insulted by a man with an 0- level shortage lecturing him on the seman- tic difference between 'talks' and 'contacts'.
This argument, though, distracts one from the question of whether the IRA will be persuaded to give up violence, go into what an Irish official called 'six months' quarantine', and then send Sinn Fein to the conference table. The line here is that Mr Reynolds is prepared to tone down Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution, which profess the claim to the North, in return for a political settlement there that the nation- alists could accept. This takes us back to the 'theological' point about 'self-determi- nation'. The chances of an agreement are remote. The old idea of some sort of pan- Irish forum (in which, naturally, the Catholics would have a majority, as they do in the island of Ireland) has been raised here again, to Unionist horror. The notion, too, that there might be an opportunity for self-determination via the ballot box at the end of any 'talks' upset the Unionists too, though the Irish are now saying that there could be referenda on both sides of the border, and that both referenda would need to be favourable to a united Ireland for that goal to be achieved. This all seems such a statement of the obvious that one wonders what last week's talks, this week's talks and next week's talks are all about.
The Irish — not that they have any con- tacts, of course — say the IRA are so keen to end hostilities that some sort of promise
by Mr Major to allow these referenda, in return for a dilution of Articles 2 and 3, might be enough to bring peace. However, in the North it is clear there is still a faction of the IRA that will not surrender on these terms, just as their fathers founded the Provos because of the weakness of the Offi- cial IRA, and just as one element could not accept the deal done in 1921/22 between Michael Collins and Lloyd George. When some talk fatuously of a 'peace deal between Messrs Major and Reynolds, they forget the two men are not (whatever the duel at Dublin Castle might have suggest- ed) at war with each other. Mr Reynolds and Mr Major can agree whatever forms of words they like; but it still will not appease the most hard-line fanatics on both sides, who are beyond taking notice of the normal persuasive forces of civilised governments.
Nor are the fanatics the only problem. Mr Major wants an agreement that he can, however inappropriately, present as a peace deal, since it would (if not exposed as a fraud) regain him much of the good repu- tation he has lost in the last three years. It is, though, becoming increasingly clear to him that the Official Unionists, who only three weeks ago were 'working with' him are now coming round to the view that he is after all the Devil Incarnate. John Taylor, the Unionist MP for Strangford, who was until recently all sweetness and light towards the Government, told an audience in Newtownards on Monday night that joint referenda would signal to the world that Ireland was one nation, which the Union- ists firmly believe it is not.
'If John Major ever agrees to such sur- render,' Mr Taylor added, minatorily, 'then I must advise you as my constituents that the Unionist understanding with the Gov- ernment is ended as far as I am concerned, and I would be happy to test your opinion at an early United Kingdom election.' Mr Taylor, perhaps recognising that Articles 2 and 3 are like Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution, feels quite happy for them to stay in the Irish Constitution if the price of removal is a process of alleged `national' self-determination. But without `self-determination', however meaningless, there can be no deal that Mr Reynolds can urge Northern nationalists to support. Either way, Mr Major is going to be humili- ated. Whether at home, abroad, or both is all that remains to be decided.
Previous page
