SDLP's push for joint sovereignty
Eamon Phoenix
The SDLP's proposals for joint sovereignty over the North and the transfer of policing to the control of the two sovereign governments failed to find favour with the British government in 1973.
This clash of views and the SDLP's vision of a united Ireland by 1980 emerged from this year's Stormont State papers.
On December 12th, 1972, the secretary of state, Mr William Whitelaw met an SDLP delegation, led by Gerry Fitt MP, and including John Hume, Ivan Cooper, Austin Currie and Paddy Devlin. The SDLP said the basis of their proposals was to secure harmonisation and reconciliation.
The two most important aspects were the need to set up joint sovereignty over Northern Ireland and to secure an acceptable police force. The minutes read: "They had with some difficulty come to the conference table but had done so in no spirit of submission. They were aware of the difficulty of balancing Protestant and Catholic points of view.
"Equally, they were aware that Catholics could no longer be treated as second class citizens. In this context, army harassment of the Catholic population was putting difficulties in the way of progress towards a political settlement. The threat from the Provisional IRA was not what it was. The army should, therefore, act impartially between the two communities."
The SDLP delegation believed the secretary of state was "aiming basically for a pragmatic settlement in the hope it would win the common ground in the middle. It was also based on the immediate situation and thus any new settlement might not last, especially since non-sectarian parties had never flourished in Northern Ireland."
In their view, it was a short term solution merely to look at Northern Ireland as the basis for any settlement. "A framework of reconciliation should be provided on the basis of absolute equality between the two communities. What was needed was the long-term certainty of political union by 1980 within the context of the European Economic Community." It was also, they stressed, important to make radical concessions to the minority community. The mistakes of 1920 should not be repeated. Mr Whitelaw said the process of consultation was continuing and was based on an assembly with devolved powers. "The minority should be given a share in the government but how this was to be done was a problem of extreme difficulty."
He found in the SDLP's proposals many aspects which would be repugnant to the majority in Northern Ireland. One had, therefore, to face the fact that violence might continue. As far as the question of joint sovereignty was concerned, Mr Whitelaw accepted the need for co-operation with the Republic, not least in security measures, but he believed it was important to explain carefully to the Northern majority what any proposal for a Council of Ireland might entail.
He stressed the ultimate question of Irish unity was "a matter which only the Irish themselves could decide". The SDLP replied that, in their view, there was a clash of national aspirations. The Unionist majority wanted to remain British and would continue to do so under the concept of joint sovereignty.
Equally, the minority community could not be denied the same rights and aspirations. "Joint sovereignty will involve shared political control for law and order, for taxation and finance, and for a range of social, economic and political functions. The basis for this would be a National Senate of Ireland which would deal with matters of common concern."
In this scenario, the Republic would give up its claim to sovereignty over the North, while the system would be headed by two commissioners. However, Mr Whitelaw said that any concept of an all-Ireland Council was bound to be seen by militant Protestants as the first step to a united Ireland.
He foresaw difficulties over the SDLP's proposals but felt that there should be "some sort of institution which provided co-operation between the North and the South". The SDLP said the RUC was not acceptable to the Catholic community. Mr Whitelaw said there were major difficulties in devising the kind of police force the SDLP had in mind. The RUC would not accept being treated in the way suggested.