Origin of Consent Principle

[turnip]

After watching the final episode of Garret at 80 this evening - one point stuck in my mind.

Garret argued that in the 1970's FG (inspired by his own policy beliefs) and labour adopted the principle of consent in policy documents. The view was apparently also secretly held by Lynch.

Has Garret's ideas become the cornerstone of current British-Irish policy on NI?

Does his leadership on the NI issue cast a legacy on contemporary Irish politics that no other Taoiseach post deValera can claim?

Can any historians shed light on the exact development of the consent principle?

[Catalpa]

After watching the final episode of Garret at 80 this evening - one point stuck in my mind.

Garret argued that in the 1970's FG (inspired by his own policy beliefs) and labour adopted the principle of consent in policy documents. The view was apparently also secretly held by Lynch.

Has Garret's ideas become the cornerstone of current British-Irish policy on NI?

Does his leadership on the NI issue cast a legacy on contemporary Irish politics that no other Taoiseach post deValera can claim?

Can any historians shed light on the exact development of the consent principle?

What Consent are you talking about?

The consent of a minority of people in Ireland to overide the majority perhaps?

Some principle!

[Libero]

Can any historians shed light on the exact development of the consent principle?

A very good question.

While many question it's worth (and one just has, without though giving us much of an argument), it's hard to dispute that it has become a cornerstone of policy, a policy overwhelmingly endorsed by the Irish people. And Fitzgerald did provide outstanding leadership on creating political movement, movement that evolved from the confusion of Thatcher's "out, out, out" to something a lot more coherent and with its own force and momentum.

That said, two observations stick in my head.

The first is about credit. It seems to me that while Fitzgerald was more an architect of what became the peace process, Ahern will take more applause for putting in hard work and good judgment and overseeing the main successes. I think great credit is due to both, who were the right people at the right time.

Secondly, and more narrowly on 'consent', I think it's often overlooked how the GFA makes consent binding on both 'sides'. If a majority in the North vote for a united Ireland, political unionism is in theory duty bound to cooperate with a new constitutional arrangement along those lines, just as nationalists are taken to accept the legitimacy of basic British sovereignty so long as the numbers support it.
Of course one doesn't have to be have a pathological mistrust of unionism to question just how they'd go along with the principal of consent when they're not the ones with the majority.

[BarryW]

The first is about credit. It seems to me that while Fitzgerald was more an architect of what became the peace process, Ahern will take more applause for putting in hard work and good judgment and overseeing the main successes. I think great credit is due to both, who were the right people at the right time

The extent of Fianna Fáil revisionism in relation to the Principle of Consent should not be forgotten.

Writing in the Irish Times last Summer, Bertie Ahern (ie. Martin Mansergh) wrote that the Anglo Irish Agreement (bedrock of the Principle) was "a shaft of light at a time of despair"

This was a slight......err.... re-adjustment.....of his position on the issue in 1985 when he said:

We cannot pretend that this agreement will improve things, when patently it will not. We cannot pretend it is wonderful when we know it is a disaster

I find it impossible to detect any positive aspects for either the Nationalist population, the Irish Government or the country as a whole

The tragedy is that we can now become bogged down in the Northern quagmire, without any certainty that the lot of the Nationalist minority will be bettered in any way

I would dearly wish to find in this agreement a sentence that would assure me that ........the movements towards reconciliation would be enhanced by this agreement

In fact, the contributions of the Fianna Fail leadership to the 1985 Dáil Debates on this issue make for troubling reading.
There are inconsistencies within and between each of the main speeches on the issue of the principle of consent. Their positions lacked any kind of conviction or uniformity. But amid all the verbal somersaults you could distill the FF position on the Principle to the following.

They were in favour of a principle of the consent of a majority in relation to the form of unity - but not to unity itself
They also objected to the expression of the Principle in an international agreement, in the way that it was.

This was an extremely bizarre, contradictory and unnecessarily complicated position to take, and it is clear that it was taken, not on the grounds of conviction, but purely for petty partisan spite and resentment of the progress that had been made with the British.

Libero it's probably true that Ahern will get the lions share of the praise for the peace process sucess as a whole. But for establishing the principle of consent as the mainstream.......he doesn't deserve and ounce of credit, as the record shows

[merle haggard]

The principle of consent is merely a tarted up formula of words for the age old unionist veto over Irish unity and sovereignty . Fitzgerald certainly did not invent it , he was merely a nationalist spin doctor who helped market it as something lofty .
The British invented it . It was simply a continuation of their undemocratic and sectarian policies in Ireland . Fitzgerald was simply a gobshyte native apologist for this undemocratic veto which in essence means "protestant" votes outweigh "catholic" ones . The principle of consent is indistuingishable from Ulster says no except for he manner in which it is spun and marketed

[stringjack]

It was simply a continuation of their undemocratic and sectarian policies in Ireland . Fitzgerald was simply a gobshyte native apologist for this undemocratic veto which in essence means "protestant" votes outweigh "catholic" ones .

Do we need to go over this again?

[Libero]

In response to merle's post...

1. How can the principle be equated to a unionist veto when, at least in theory, it obliges unionists to go along with a nationalist majority? That's the opposite of a veto.

2. How is the principle undemocratic when it has been endorsed by the electorate on the island of Ireland? (I know we'll go around in circles on this, but you can hardly expect to deride a core principle of the GFA as undemocratic and not have an actual democratic result pointed out to you.)

3. Besides, do you really think that a majority in the Republic or the island of Ireland want a united Ireland over the heads of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland? (The GFA result and simple observation of political preferences suggests they don't.) I put it to you that if the people of Ireland are happy to insert that condition to achieving national unity, you are entitled to criticise that as wrong and bad and unpatriotic, but you can't really call it undemocratic, at least not while using the English language in the same way as the rest of us.
Or are we really back to the tired dismal idiocy where you talk lovingly of democracy and people's sovereignty so long as the people agree with you, and dismiss them when they don't?

[KeithM]

I put it to you that if the people of Ireland are happy to insert that condition to achieving national unity, you are entitled to criticise that as wrong and bad and unpatriotic, but you can't really call it undemocratic, at least not while using the English language in the same way as the rest of us.

Aye and there's the rub. these people have their own little lexicon. What we call an armed robbery they call "fundraising". I could give you several other examples, but I fear you're in far a few anyway.

[Sidewinder]

In response to merle's post...

1. How can the principle be equated to a unionist veto when, at least in theory, it obliges unionists to go along with a nationalist majority? That's the opposite of a veto.

2. How is the principle undemocratic when it has been endorsed by the electorate on the island of Ireland? (I know we'll go around in circles on this, but you can hardly expect to deride a core principle of the GFA as undemocratic and not have an actual democratic result pointed out to you.)

3. Besides, do you really think that a majority in the Republic or the island of Ireland want a united Ireland over the heads of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland? (The GFA result and simple observation of political preferences suggests they don't.) I put it to you that if the people of Ireland are happy to insert that condition to achieving national unity, you are entitled to criticise that as wrong and bad and unpatriotic, but you can't really call it undemocratic, at least not while using the English language in the same way as the rest of us.
Or are we really back to the tired dismal idiocy where you talk lovingly of democracy and people's sovereignty so long as the people agree with you, and dismiss them when they don't?

The thing is though....

As soon (for the sake of argument) as there is a majority in the north in favour of unification, you'll get exactly the same people as now trumpet the "principle of consent" arguing that 50%+1 is not enough, and what we need is 50% of Unionists, or 50% of Northern Prods (because it has always been about using sectarianism).

50% of Unionists is obviously insane. If anyone needs to ask why, I give up.

Insisting on 50% of northern Prods is just an attempt to perpetuate sectarian gob************************ery and plug it into the DNA of the new 32-county state.

You'll also have the Doom Brigade telling everyone how bringing in a few hundred thousand mad psycho murderous Prods who want to kill everyone is a dangerously stupid move - while at the same time they claim to be the Real Republicans (TM)

The herd won't even be able to see the blatant contradiction in this line of argument.

*sigh*

[merle haggard]

The people of Ireland wanted peace like anyone would . Britain made it a precondition of entry to peace talks that British sovereignty was accepted as legitimate and non negotiable . Britain has no right to demand that of any Irish person . That is undemocratic , there was then no other outcome which could result from the talks from the outset , the unionist veto was pre-dtermined by Britain.
The spin on this board has now changed from Fitzgerald inventing this "principle of consent" to because these British preconditions for peace have been accepted they are democratic , so at least thats a positive . At least there is recognition of the fact its a British political clause and not one invented by Fitzgerald or anyone else .It is democratic as in the election of saddam hussein was democratic . The result was predetermined from the outset .
The British demanded this convoluted formula of words be accepted by the Irish people and their politicians marketed this as peace , promised them the world and unity if it was inserted - they interpreted it for the people as a means to unity and an end to the conflict in Ireland . It is neither . The Irish people have been denied the democratic option of an end to British interference in Ireland , that choice is not permitted as a rsult of foreign colonial interference in the affairs of the entire island. That is undemocratic , but no doubt youll carry on arguing this denial and interfernce by a foreign power is perfectly so ..