From

March/April 2000
 
 

PARTITION BY COERCION
Partition - Never sought or democratically sanctioned by the Irish people

by Joe Dillon

The claim by the Unionists that coercion against them lay behind the demand for an end to partition must once and for all be exposed for what it really is, an attempt to deny in the first place that the Irish people are a sovereign nation. Indeed the plot to partition Ireland was hatched long before any boundary areas were decided and long before the overall population of what is now known as the six counties and the Twenty Six Counties had any say in the matter.

When Gladstone first heard the partition idea being mentioned, his answer which, is on record, was to say.

"To go down that road is to invite disaster for the Unionist and British viewpoint that exists in Ireland, and would one day lead to a situation where the largest body of opinion would challenge both politically and most likely violently this enforced arrangement."

He argued instead, that a devolutionary plan at that time - which later became known as the Home Rule Bill for Ireland - was the best option for securing Britain's long term plan for keeping British interests in Ireland secure, and the "British Isles" intact.

At no time did the British ever consider allowing Ireland to proceed democratically to decide their own future; in other words, Ireland was not to be recognised as a sovereign nation. So it will be seen that the British parliament to this present day has pursued her argument - that Ireland is not entitled to make her own political decisions outside of British involvement. However, the shift to the argument - that the British will leave Ireland if the majority of what is called the Six Counties asks them to do so, is now being used to accuse Nationalist Ireland of attempting to coerce the Unionist population.

This cunning development is necessary, in order that the British involvement in Ireland has the appearance of a democratic arrangement. In truth the British presence in Ireland exists today on the same basis as it always did and that is:

   a.That the Irish Nation does not have the right to national sovereignty.
   b.That the Unionists have a legitimate right to remain inside the Union.

It can be seen from the above argument that the various Treaties down through the years always insisted that the overall position would develop along the lines of a Westminster plot. Ironically, the twenty-six county state uses this very same argument for political stability. The Referendum held to allow Britain to maintain sovereignty over the Six Counties is proof of this.

We now have a situation where the British parliament is claiming internationally, that the Irish people have retrospectively sanctioned the British plot. This has indeed been a masterstroke for the real coercionists namely, British imperialists. It also raises the question, who is the real coercionists on the island?

In view of the Unionists position since they refused to attend the all Ireland Parliament, set up in Dublin on January 21 1919after the result of the December 1918 election and instead supported a continued attempt by Westminster to rule Ireland against the democratic mandate of the people for their own national parliament. The Unionist support for the British military campaign to crush Dail Eireann and the democratic wish of the Irish people, clearly puts them into the coercionist camp, and the slogan that "Home Rule would be Rome Rule" became their grounds for opting out. The Unionist T.D.s refused to attend the first meeting of Dail Eireann and make their case before the National parliament for a political arrangement. Instead they sought to deny the democratic will of the Irish people, leaving them equally guilty with the British for all the deaths that have occurred since, in the continued struggle for National sovereignty.

Apologists for the Unionists conveniently forget all this.

The subsequent passing of the two Acts of Partition by Westminster, which led to the setting up of the Free State in the south and Stormont in the north, led to the Civil War. We must bear in mind, that in the negotiations that led to the signing of the Treaty in 1921, the British had insisted that the Irish delegations could not be met as members of a sovereign Irish parliament. The British were meeting the Irish delegation as elected members under British administration as a result of the 1918 election.

The British made it quite clear that they alone were the Sovereign Parliament and rejected Dail Eireann's claim to be the Sovereign Irish Parliament. Initially, the Irish delegation led by Eamonn De Valera opposed the British position. He made it quite clear to the British, that as elected representatives of the Irish people, they were duly and oath bound to uphold the expressed will of the Irish people and could not accept the British rejection of Irish sovereignty.

A second meeting was arranged after fudge on the issue of sovereignty and a second delegation led by Michael Collins returned to London, entering again into discussions with the British. The main bone of contention was the issue of loyalty to he crown (Oath of Allegiance) i.e. sovereignty.

The British refused to consent in any shape or form to the Irish claim to sovereignty. Without dwelling too much on the reasons why the Irish delegation agreed to sign the Treaty, they returned to Dublin and an unbelievable blunder took place, when the Dail agreed to debate the Treaty document which challenged not only their own position as the sovereign parliament, but also the sovereignty of the Irish people.

A vote was taken and 64 to 57 voted in favour of the Treaty. It was subsequently put before a partitioned Ireland i.e. the Twenty Six counties for ratification. It is hard to imagine why a proper challenge was not mounted from within Dail Eireann to this violation of the declared will of the Irish people at the ballot box.

The argument that a small majority voted in favour of the Treaty is a nonsensical position to take up, as indeed is the claim that De Valera walked out. He did nothing of the sort. Having taken part in the vote and having not effectively challenged the presence of the Treaty document itself as being beyond the right of a sovereign parliament to debate in the first instance, he in effect failed to protect the sovereignty of Dail Eireann. When in fact what he should have done was to walk out in opposition to a document from a foreign parliament challenging the sovereignty of the Irish people. This fatal flaw in his position had detrimental effects for the Republican Army's position in the civil war.

The no longer sovereign Dail Eireann proceeded to set up a Provisional government under the Treaty Acts. And sought support for the Treaty before an electorate of 26 Counties. This alone violated the sovereignty of the Irish people and cannot be argued that it replaced the 1918 mandate. It can now be seen that the 26 county establishment joined in with the other two elements in the coercionist camp. They proceeded to use military force against those who opposed this violation.

They did this by setting up an illegal army. i.e. The Free State Army to challenge Oglaigh na hEireann, who were resisting the right of the former National Parliament to usurp the Sovereignty of the Irish people. Up to this present day, this situation has continued.

It is only with the lodging of a challenge by the 32 County Sovereignty Movement on behalf of the Irish people (April '98) that a proper move to correct both the Dublin Government's, British and Unionist's violation of National sovereignty has been laid before International arbitration.

While many people will be dubious as to whether the 32 County Sovereignty Movement will be successful in getting a hearing is understandable. Indeed obstacles arose the moment the document was lodged with the UN However, this challenge with the U.N is made on behalf of the Irish Nation, not on behalf of any party or sectional interests. It is my view that every true Irish person should actively give their support to this challenge made by the 32 County Sovereignty Movement at the UN.

The Dublin Government have notified the 32 County Sovereignty Movement that as a result of the signing of the Boundary Acts of 1925 they cannot challenge or raise the issue of sovereignty with the British. This remarkable admission will come as no surprise to Republicans, but it does explain how the Good Friday Agreement proceeded along the lines that it did, namely to accept Britain's claim to sovereignty over the Six Counties.

By allowing Britain to retain sovereignty through the Good Friday Agreement, demands now made by Sinn Fein for an end to the British and Unionists vetoes, defy logic.

One must remember that Sinn Fein entered into negotiations accepting the British and Unionist sovereignty over the Six Counties i.e. consent. They also called for support for the removal of Articles 2 & 3 from the Free State Constitution. Like De Valera the Sinn Fein leadership have failed to protect the sovereignty position of the Irish nation in negotiations with Britain. As a result of their position, Sinn Fein can now only argue domestically within the realm of Westminster, regardless of Sinn Fein propaganda. Sinn Fein can no longer argue for the Sovereignty position.