Brexit exposes GFA as a purely internal arrangement
Posted by Jim on February 11, 2017
Sean Bresnahan argues that the recent decision on Brexit by the Supreme
Court in London leaves no room for doubt that the Good Friday Agreement
amounts to nothing more than an exclusively internal solution.
Last month’s decision at the UK Supreme Court, that Brexit in no way
defers to the devolved administration in the North, should come as no
surprise. It reflects the cornerstone of the devolution set-up:
sovereignty resides at Westminster. Those who insisted otherwise, that
Stormont had somehow a veto, were chasing their shadow for the purposes
of effect – playing to the gallery, intent on distraction. We don’t need
a lawyer to know this.
For republicans, all of this reaffirms that the Good Friday
‘architecture’ is wholly internal, with Britain retaining power to
withdraw its ‘concessions’ should it ever be required do so. Indeed we
are seeing this play out as we speak. How can this be so in the face of
the Good Friday Agreement? The Agreement notwithstanding, constitutional
authority still resides within the UK Parliament: ‘Parliament giveth:
Parliament taketh away.’
As many of us argued from the beginning and is now before all in plain
sight, the Good Friday Agreement is essentially an internal settlement,
upheld by British law alone. It in no way breaches the ‘constitutional
integrity’ of the United Kingdom. It does not even contain
‘transitional’ elements that in time might effect that end – as the
republican leadership were forced to concede during internal discussions
in its wake.
That they were reduced to describing it as a ‘transition to a
transition’ – with ‘transitory potential’ at best – made plain that its
terms were in conflict with our fundamental position. That position was
and remains that an internal settlement – even one with all-Ireland
‘add-ons’ – is a non-starter and an anathema. It is outside and steps
away from republican core thinking. Essentially we are talking about an
aberration.
Beneath the appeals to have trust in the project and that the leadership
needed time – needed the same level of support and commitment afforded
the armed campaign – the reality was obvious for those who chose to
look: six inches in front of the face and five times in the first
section alone. That reality is that the Good Friday Agreement in no way
impacts the British sovereign claim. Indeed it codifies that claim, in a
body of text which republicans agreed to be bound by in return for the
‘right to aspire’.
All of this was obvious from the process itself, as many protested ahead
of the talks. The Multi-Party Talks were between parties internal to the
North, who ‘negotiated’ an agreement within strict parameters set out in
advance by the Major Government (with lateral support from Dublin).
Within its Framework Document, unilaterally determined by Britain, lay
the eventual ‘heads for agreement’. Everything subsequent is no more
than semantics and entirely for the optics.
Further to that again, the outcome of a ‘successful’ negotiation and a
political ‘settlement’ thereof required majority agreement within the
room, majority agreement in the Occupied Six Counties and a majority in
turn within the British Parliament. This removed all possibility that
anything other than an internal settlement could ever result from the
process.
We were already beaten before we began, the outcome predetermined. That
outcome? Britain’s sovereign claim intact and her ‘right to rule’
conceded, all wrapped up in an internal arrangement as that we opposed
from the outset – in essence the totality of all that the movement had
stood against. It’s a cliche of old but it still rings true: ‘for what
died the sons of Roisin.’
Last month’s decision on Brexit – denying a role to London’s ‘internal
colonies’ on matters impacting their own well-being – is a timely
reminder of the above and of where we stand now today. It invites us to
reflect on what has become of our struggle. With the legitimacy of
British constitutional law conceded, realising Irish self-determination
requires no mean feat. That is where we are at.
Ireland’s best hope might very well prove that the triggering of Article
50 comes to tear apart the Union, leaving us ‘incidental victors’, of a
sort, in the long fight to free our country. For sure we’ll take freedom
by any means going – and rightly so. But let there be no mistake. Should
this come to pass, the actions of those who stabilised the rule will
have played no part in the achievement.
Indeed if they had had it their way in the first place, if Britain’s
Supreme Court had backed their appeals, they would have succeeded in
blocking that pathway. That in itself – and not for the first time –
points to their direction of travel. Regardless their scheming, we can
only await what the time ahead comes to bring. Interesting times in
store for sure – of that there can be no doubt.