The intention, initiative, of those who have been anxious
to sponsor recent meetings at which Unionist unity is the
theme, is to be commended. We have made that plea for years,
in this paper, for the reason that remains - disunity among
Unionists has so weakened Unionism that nationalists and republicanc
have joyfully jeered: "See how these Unionists fight
one another." The disagreements among Unionists are never
hidden what is not so apparent is that in about 90 per cent
of what Unionist politicians declare to be their manifestoes,
there is no disagreement. The attacks one on the other are
centred now on how they disagree on much wanted devolution
and how and by whom Northern Ireland is governed. Since 1998
and the Belfast Agreement, Unionsim has been divided into
the pros and cons on it. But even in this main cause of contention
there is consent that cross-community government is necessary
in our divided society. That was the intention of the first
government of Northern Ireland. Its plans were thwarted for
reasons that require no re-counting here. The same nationalist
intransigence has affected this society since 1922. It is
just that to the recognisable majority of unionists, the Agreement
has failed by accommodating those who have not met the initial
obligation of membership in the Assembly, complete rejection
of violence and the threat of violence. The attitudes to the
Agreement are well argued, especially by those who feel that
the Unionists who entered a coalition government, trusting
the promises of nationalists and republicans have been deceived.
They claim correctly, that using the threat of violence, that
private army, republicans have been hugely benefited to the
disadvantage of Unionists. The reasons for goverment concessions,
in multiplicity, have included the determination to prevent
the reoccurance of the terrorist attacks on Great Britain.
To appreciate that is to question a Blair philosophy which
seeks to eradicate terrorism from the world, but is otherwise
disposed to terrorists over here. Those who opposed the Agreement
want it replaced by another one, better balances and more
strictly disciplined, just and fair to society as a whole.
They remain convinced that something short of that will not
do. It would appear, though, that the determination of the
governments to restore the Assembly, showed in the pressures
on the Agreement parties on March 3-4 and in the promise to
present their plan in a few weeks. The setting back of the
election to May 29 was to allow the parties that much more
time to think on what they must do. The imponderables remain,
of course, and with the question - what will be the position
if the Assembly resumes and the strengths of the parties are
different? We shall ponder the matter no further for conjecture
only adds to confusion. We add one thought on Unionist unity,
it is encouraging to see among those who are pressing for
unity a few who have been charged with being separators rather
than uniters. We do allow, of course, that circumstances alter
cases.
|
