Northern Ireland Independence

Alan -

I recall now that you mentioned independence in respect of an article by
Paul Fitzimmons. Can't recall what publication the article came from, but I
think you indicated that both sides of the religious divide here were
willing to give Paul's ideas a fair hearing.

Out of interest, I've just come across a similar article by Paul. It may be
of interest to those who are active in debating the proposed booklet on
unionism v. independence.

Paul's article is from a magazine called 'The Other View' and it's produced
by ex-loyalist and republican paramilitaries. I've been in touch with Paul
and he's very interested in getting feedback on his ideas. His e-mail
address is at the end of the article.

Most folks who advocate independence come from a Protestant background, so
it's interesting to read the views of a Catholic Irish-American, who is a
member of the US Republican Party.

All the best. Article to follow.

- John.

Northern Ireland Independence - by Paul A. Fitzsimmons.

As an Irish-American Republican who attended QUB's Faculty of Law in the
mid-1980's, I was pleased to receive an invitation from The Other View to
address a topic which has been a subject of considerable study for me: the
possibility of a fair and workable six-county independence, should
conventional "peace process" approaches continue to fail as, of course, they
've long done.

Obviously, the overall thought underlying possible independence is that - if
logistically feasible - immediate "freedom" from London at the cost of
permanent "freedom" from Dublin might be an acceptable exchange for Northern
Catholics generally, as might be the exact converse for Northern Protestants
generally.

Such acceptance is not inconceivable. An April 1997 Belfast Telegraph/QUB
opinion poll showed that roughly half of each of Northern Ireland's
Protestant and Catholic communities would at least "tolerate" a settlement
involving independence, and that poll was of course taken without any actual
independence plan to evaluate.

A framework for independence would need to include the following elements:
(i) a dual citizenship option for any in Northern Ireland - and any of their
progeny - so desiring it; (ii) a basic form of government which would afford
Northern Catholics a genuine opportunity for political participation (this
can indeed be done); (iii) constitutionally established individual and civic
rights; and (iv) long-term continuation of economic subventions. (For anyone
interested in further details, the Belfast magazine Ulster Nation reviewed
my small book on this topic back in 1995 (see
http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/independence_for_n_ireland.htm). More
recently, the online Belfast magazine The Blanket published several related
articles by me, including: "The Whys and Hows of 'Independence for Northern
Ireland'" (http://lark.phoblacht.net/independence.html, 10 September 2001);
"What do Republicans want?" (http://lark.phoblacht.net/republicanswant.html,
3 March 2002); "Dissident Republicans: Rebels Without A Plan"
(http://lark.phoblacht.net/withoutaplan.html, 17 April 2002); and "Reunion
versus six-county independence" (http://lark.phoblacht.net/reunionvs.html,
23 June 2002).)

In a sense, though, constitutional "details" may be less critical to the
concept of possible independence than would be the specifics of how an
independence plan would be developed and how that plan would be tested at
the polls. Independence, if it ever happened, would have to be the product
of joint efforts by the British and Irish governments later approved by a
supermajority (probably between 66 and 75 percent) of those voting in an
independence plebiscite in Northern Ireland. The following implementation
steps might well be followed:

1. The British and Irish governments would expressly ask Northern Irelanders
to encourage their respective political representatives to take part in a
transparent constitutional convention presided over by outside
constitutional experts.

2. After a constitutional and financial package for independence has been
approved by Britain, the Republic, and the EU, and after adequate time for
public discussion, the British government would hold a simple-majority
plebiscite in Northern Ireland on the following test-drive issue: "Do you
want to see a shadow election held to establish who would hold office under
this scheme if that scheme were later approved in a supermajority
plebiscite?"

3. If the majority did not want to take that test-drive, negotiated
independence would be well proven to be inadequate and rightly abandoned.

4. If the shadow election proposal did receive majority support, shadow
officials would then be chosen, but those officials would have few powers.
Assuming that the proposed constitutional government were in the form of a
presidential system, the elected shadow president and shadow legislators
would be empowered to select, in accordance with that system, an executive
cabinet and members of the judiciary. The only other power they'd have would
be to convene themselves in their shadow positions; at least in theory, they
might convene to discuss whether to recommend voter approval of the ultimate
supermajority plebiscite on the issue of Northern Ireland's negotiated
independence.

5. After some appropriate period of time following an approved shadow
election, the supermajority plebiscite would be held. Rejection thereof
would entail abandonment of an independence approach. Acceptance thereof
would trigger a transition period, likely to be subject to a final
"condition precedent" of independently approved decommissioning, whereupon
the shadow members (executive, judicial, and legislative) of the government
would be certified as official.

Perhaps the most important point regarding this development/testing approach
is this: at the final "supermajority plebiscite" stage, each side would have
the ability to veto any independence proposal. Therefore, approval of an
independence proposal could happen under this approach only if both sides
decided broadly to support that proposal. If both did so, Northern Ireland
would obtain - unlike as a result the Good Friday Agreement scheme - an
honest, straightforward, fair, workable, and stable government, and her
society as a whole would markedly improve.

Should the GFA suffer an irremediable failure, the British and Irish
governments will need to try to find another way forward. Surely one thing
they might then try to do would be to use all the fudge, smoke, and mirrors
at their disposal to launch into an effort ostensibly aimed at a
"Sunningdale Mark III," perhaps hoping at least to buy another six or eight
years of relative peace while local politicians ritualistically march up the
Stormont hill and march down again. An alternative - something for them to
do before trying to repeat yet again the failures of the past - would be to
attempt a one-year-long formal examination of possible independence.

A surmountable impediment to the British and Irish governments adopting this
new tack is the staunch, almost-universal reluctance of the "intelligentsia"
in Ireland and Britain to take on the independence issue honestly. As but
one example thereof, I wrote the following, in a June 2002 edition of The
Blanket, regarding Republican writer Ciarán Irvine:

To his credit, Mr. Irvine puts thought and effort into trying to address the
Northern Ireland question. He does so, however, by proposing reunion, which
he sincerely wants but which Unionists have repeatedly rejected and which
they disdain unto this day.

Mr. Irvine might instead say something along the following lines: "I want
reunion, and you Unionists want continued union. A theoretical middle ground
exists: six-county independence. Right now, I strongly think independence
would not work, and I might in any event ultimately decide not to support
it. However, the unarguable fact is that possible independence hasn't yet
been formally examined, and I'd be willing to help examine it now, in good
faith, if you would do so as well."

Which of these two proposals does Mr. Irvine believe would have a greater
impact on the Northern Ireland situation?

Mr. Irvine's response to this squarely-put question was silence, perhaps
because he did not want to admit aloud the obvious answer: while his
advocating an independence inquiry might have only a small impact on the
Northern Ireland situation, his hackneyed call for reunion will have, and
has had, none whatsoever.

The Other View is published, I've been told, "by a group of former loyalist
and republican prisoners as part of a project designed to stimulate
constructive dialogue between loyalists-unionists and
republican-nationalists." Naturally, I wonder whether members of that
frontline group would publicly address a similar question hereby put to
them.

[email protected]