EDITORIAL: The 'deal' agreed to by representatives of nationalist Ireland at Stormont last Friday is an enormous disappointment. It is likely to copperfasten partition on this island for many years to come, perhaps for decades.

It will permit the restoration of a fully functioning local administration in Belfast for the first time since, 26 years ago, the Stormont administration was destroyed.

And for the first time ever, the vast majority of Irish republicans will be obliged to accept the legitimacy of the six county statelet. For by accepting the right of a majority of people within that statelet to act as the key determinant of future political structures on this island (through the 'consent' clause), Irish republicans will by definition be accepting the legitimacy of that statelet as a political entity.

And they will be conferring upon the majority within that statelet the capacity to frustrate in future the democratic will, not just of the Dublin government but of the London government as well.

It is no small irony that in 1915, when the state of Northern Ireland was but a twinkle in the eye of Craig and of Carson, it was described as a "total fraud" by no less a person than Lord Lansdowne. But 83 years later, with the nationalist proportion of the population approaching 45 per cent, that state is to be legitimised more or less indefinitely by the combined forces of Irish nationalism.

Worse still, as part of this 'deal', the Irish people living in the 26 counties will be expected to strike down from their Constitution the definition of the national territory contained in Article Two of the 1937 Constitution.

Instead of confidently asserting that the national territory consists of the entire island of Ireland, its territorial seas and its offshore islands, the Irish people will be obliged to include some well-meaning drivel in our national Constitution to the effect that anybody born on the island or anybody of Irish ancestry may seek citizenship rights of a 'Republic' which will henceforth not apparently dare to define the parameters of its national territory.

We will become the laughing stock of Europe: the first country ever to vote part of its national territory out of existence and the first country unable to define its national territory. The SDLP leader John Hume and his associates hold that concepts of nationality based on the definition of territory are 'old fashioned'; that may indeed be so, but has Hume or anybody else noticed any other western country seeking to remove the definition of its territory from its founding documents?

Bizarrely, under the terms of this pact, Irish people will be told that it is no longer 'respectable' for them to assert that the soil of Armagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry, Antrim and Down is Irish. But English people who do not live or work in Ireland and who may never even have visited this island will continue to assert their ownership and proprietorship of the territory of the six counties through the Act of Union (1800) and the Northern Ireland Constitutional Powers Act (1973).

Yet again, the 'deal' long-fingers every issue that is either of importance to nationalists or potentially embarrassing to Britain. The issue of policing is to be referred to a commission, as is the issue of prisons. Even the so-called north/south bodies -- which Dublin asserted days ago were a sine qua non of any agreement -- are to be postponed, until a unionist-dominated Belfast assembly is in place and can ensure that they are toothless entities, capable of no organic growth and answerable to the old gang at Stormont Castle.

The planned assembly in Belfast reflects in many ways the thinking of the SDLP, and it must be presumed that the 'concessions' made by the UUP to the SDLP in this regard were made in return for the SDLP's agreement to the emasculation of the north/south dimension as part of the 'settlement'.

A grandiose local government comprising 108 elected representatives is to be put in place, along with a cabinet of 12. But even this concession by unionism does not come without strings attached. For it would appear that in the dying hours of the negotiations Trimble secured from Blair a pledge that regardless of the electoral mandate enjoyed by Sinn Fein, no member of that party could wield 'cabinet' power prior to the decommissioning of weapons by the Provisional IRA. In other words the price for Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness taking their rightful places in a Stormont cabinet (Sinn Fein has 16 per cent of the vote and would by right be entitled to two seats) is effective decommission -- a precondition likely to cause massive problems in future.

The terms of settlement are clear. Either the IRA hands over its weapons so that Sinn Fein leaders may become part of some partitionist 'cabinet', or the six counties reverts to direct rule from Westminster. There could be no happier set of alternatives for the Ulster unionists, many of whom are in any case wedded to the concept of direct rule.

The prisoners also feature in this cynical process. Aware that the 'deal' was far too heavily weighted in favour of the forces of Ulster unionism, at the last minute the authorities in Dublin, London and Washington decided that a'sweetener' had to be offered to what is called the broad republican family. Hence the plan to allow the progressive release of prisoners over a two-year period. But once again the releases will be conditional on the political 'good behaviour' of the political manifestations of republicanism, and -- who knows -- may even in time be linked to the whole question of arms decommissioning.

This 'deal' is a rescue operation for Ulster unionism (which is hopelessly divided and which is losing political control right across the six counties), yet we are all expected to stand up and applaud it, and to pretend that it represents a massive breakthrough for Irish nationalism.

And anybody who dares to speak out against this deal will be told that they are either in favour of violence, or openly courting the risk of civil war. Yet we must call a spade a spade here, as we have always done, and state that what has been negotiated must represent a massive disappointment, given current demographic trends in the six counties and given the fact that Irish nationalists are in a clear majority in 30 of the 32 counties.

Once again the political elite in Dublin and London speaks of a balanced constitutional settlement.

Yet where is the balance in what is proposed in relation to constitutional matters?

Ireland is supposed to 'hive off' a large part of its national territory, six counties in four of which there is a functioning nationalist majority. Britain promises to incorporate into its domestic law a commitment to legislate for the creation of a united Ireland if a majority within the six counties desires to enter a united Ireland.

Yet anybody who is not a fool is aware that Britain has formally made the same commitment on four previous occasions.

This commitment to legislate for a united Ireland if a majority in the north so desire is contained in the Ireland Act of 1949.

It is contained in the Northern Ireland Act of 1973. It is contained in section five of the Sunningdale Agreement.

It is contained in the opening section of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985.

In short Britain is making the same promise for the fifth time in 50 years, and in return the Ahern government and the entire Dail opposition is willing to tour the country urging the people to vote for a palpable lie: namely that the soil of Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry, Antrim, Down and Armagh is British and not Irish.

For when we agree to alter Article 2 along the lines suggested, there will be only one claim extant in international law to ownership of the territory of the six counties. That will be a British claim. And it will be the only claim to be recognised by the international courts.

Indeed if a situation were to arise in the future where prisoners were, for example, being brutalised in northern prisons and jails, the Irish government could no longer raise the matter either in EU courts or at the United Nations. The Irish government would quite simply have no locus standi in such forums; rather it would be held to be interfering in the domestic affairs of a foreign country whose territorial integrity it had agreed to respect.

It is of course obvious also that that the consent of northern nationalists is not being sought in relation to the planned constitutional changes, which will mean that Irish people living in the six counties enjoy the same status as Irish people living in Kilburn and Boston. Mary McAleese might reflect next Christmas when she puts her 'candle in the window' that she will henceforth be part of the very diaspora that she seeks to encourage with her Christmas candle.

But back to more mundane matters. Deputy Ahern believes that Articles 2 and 3 are not of great concern to northern nationalists. He thinks that northern nationalists are more concerned with practical issues such as policing and prisons and equality. And there has been a great deal written in recent days and in recent documents about these matters.

Let us look at the evidence of what has actually been happening. The Dublin government made a series of recommendations to the NIO as to who might be appointed to the parades commission. The people suggested were moderate, sensible people. But the recommendations were ignored.

Instead the NIO decided to appoint Glenn Barr and Tommy Cheevers to the commission. Does this tell us something about the planned commission on policing? Does this send a signal about the planned commission on prisons?

And what say will the Dublin government have in relation to such matters now that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been consigned to the dustbin of history?

Are there any plusses in all of this for Irish nationalism? Well, within a a year there might -- repeat: might -- be some north/south bodies with some kind of coordinating role in relation to minor matters of public policy. And a considerable number of prisoners -- both nationalist and loyalist -- will presumably be able to go home to their families, which is no bad thing.

It is possible that some tentative steps may be taken towards the creation of a police force that represents more fully the composition of the population, but here progress is likely to be painfully slow.

The biggest benefit of all, of course, is peace. There is no guarantee that the latest agreement can deliver a total peace, but it would seem most likely that if there is to be more violence it will wither away over time.

And that of course is the single greatest achievement of Hume and Adams, of Reynolds and of Ahern and of Mowlam and Blair. For in this day and age no individual and no family should have to live in fear of political violence. And no political organisation should ever contemplate making threats of violence against another.

The support for the settlement agreed last week is strong not because many people are happy with its terms, but because virtually everybody in this society wants peace. And they are right. Lack of political principle is one thing, but the need for peace is of far greater importance to ordinary people seeking to raise their families and develop their careers and their businesses.

That does not mean that we should blind ourselves to political failures. What has been done in the past week represents a bad deal for Irish nationalists, whatever way you look at it. The spin-doctors would have you believe that it's a great step forward: the reality is that our political masters are well on the road to the creation of a constitutional morass.

Meanwhile they have handed unprecedented political gifts to the forces of Ulster unionism, gifts that were almost spurned on several occasions in the past week.

Return to the Irish Broad Front Movement home page