Commitment to democracy cannot be an each-way bet

The Good Friday agreement is a peace settlement overwhelmingly endorsed by the people, North and South, 12 months ago. At the heart of it are partnership-based institutions to be established on a three-strand basis, covering the internal government of Northern Ireland, co-operation and partnership on the island of Ireland, and a forum between the two governments and the devolved administrations of the two islands.

The agreement also provides a framework to resolve the main outstanding problems, i.e. human rights and equality, the reform of policing, prisoner releases and the disposal of arms. It will establish an advanced form of democracy in Northern Ireland which will be governed on the principle of mutual consent. Instead of concentrating all political attention on constitutional issues, political energies will be channelled increasingly into economic and social progress.

Anyone who was realistic and understood the history knew back in April 1998, at the time the agreement was concluded, that its implementation would not be easy. There were, and are, a number of very difficult obstacles to be overcome if the agreement is to enter fully into force. However, a good deal of progress has already been made and the ground has been laid for advances along a wide front.

All of this is being done against the background of continuing opposition; some of it violent, some of it political. This has, over the past year, made for an uneasy peace, broken by the terrible bombing of Omagh, and by sectarian attacks, including the murder of Lurgan solicitor Rosemary Nelson.

There are also continuing tensions over Drumcree, where some local members of the Orange Order and their hangers-on have subjected the Catholic population of the town to intolerable pressure and intimidation.

I welcome the clear dissociation of the main Protestant churches from the violence and disorder which have, unfortunately, been associated in recent years with the annual march at Drumcree.

I warmly welcome in particular both the report to the Presbyterian General Assembly and the resolutions passed by large majorities at the Church of Ireland Synod, including a model declaration, in regard to historical documents, that "negative statements towards other Christians should not be seen as representing the spirit of this church today", and regret that "words written in another age and in a different context should be seen in a manner hurtful to or antagonistic towards other Christians".

We support efforts to find a lasting resolution to the Drumcree situation that will not see it resurface year after year to impede efforts to establish peace, not to mention its destructive effects on the Northern Ireland tourist season.

We have no problem at all living with the genuine cultural traditions of Orangeism. But the resignation of the vice-chairman of Glasgow Rangers shows that crude sectarianism of the type which people have routinely had to put up with in Northern Ireland is not socially acceptable anywhere else in Britain.

I look forward to the day when responsible Orange leaders will no longer tolerate, let alone encourage, sectarian baiting, and when the voters of Northern Ireland decisively reject the sectarian politics of the past which has no place in the modern world, and which does so much damage to the reputation and interests of Northern Ireland on a wider stage.

It is a disgrace that people should be intimidated out of their homes because of their religion in places like Larne and Carrickfergus, and I would like to see Mr Paisley and loyalist leaders, as well as the police, use all their influence to condemn and stop this type of behaviour which makes a total mockery of any notion of civil and religious liberty or a pluralist society.

Until the agreement is fully up and running, there is always the danger that the peace process might unravel. I am sure that people understand very well in the nationalist community that the possible political purpose behind many of the attacks on Catholics is to provoke retaliation which would frustrate the inclusive implementation of the agreement and force the republican movement into error.

At the same time, we have always sought to encourage constructive loyalist participation in the peace process and accept the mainstream loyalist parties as an authentic expression, though by no means the only one, of working-class unionism. Many of them are working hard at the community interface to defuse violence. As an inner city TD, I can relate to many of the social problems faced by their community, which was not always well treated.

In establishing the new institutions, there are democratic principles to be observed. It is not possible in the long run to maintain a semidetached attitude to democracy or to remain "slightly constitutional". The commitment to democracy has to be wholehearted and unconditional, not an each-way bet.

The Good Friday agreement, while no doubt containing many things unpalatable to one or other community, represents a fair compromise which deserves the full commitment of all participants.

Participation in government is not compatible with any resort by associated organisations to armed violence or the threat of it. That position is guaranteed in the agreement and understood and accepted by all parties. As I reminded people at Arbour Hill, de Valera was prepared to say unequivocally in July 1923, after the Civil War: "The war, so far as we are concerned, is finished."

Sinn Fein's entry into government will effectively convey the same message, if its support for the agreement does not already do so.

No one is happy with the quantity of arms, legal or illegal, in circulation in Northern Ireland. A resolution of the decommissioning issue within the parameters of the agreement is essential and it is not something which will go away.

All participants in the agreement reaffirmed their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations, and to use any influence they may have to achieve that within two years under the implementation of the overall settlement.

That part of the agreement requires the same good faith to be shown as every other part of the agreement. It is not necessary to make it a precondition of other progress, and still less the litmus test of the entire agreement at this midway stage.

I continue to be concerned at the exploitation of the decommissioning issue to try to block the implementation of the agreement altogether by people opposed to the agreement from the beginning, some of whom have no real interest in peace.

But I understand the legitimate concerns of people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, throughout the island, who want to see a normal, civil society develop in Northern Ireland, with paramilitary weapons and a lot of other weapons permanently removed from the equation as part of a general demilitarisation.

I accept that the cross-community consensus necessary to sustain the work of the institutions under the agreement will depend on the confidence that all of the main obligations in the agreement, including the commitment to decommissioning, will be fulfilled in the time-scale set out in the agreement.

The important work which Chris Patten and his commission are doing on the reform of policing will only come to fruition in the context of the Good Friday agreement. The agreement has also been the framework for many other positive developments, such as the release of politically-motivated prisoners, and the long overdue initiative to locate and return the remains of some of the disappeared.

All our sympathies are with the families at a very difficult and emotional time, and I very much hope that the Garda will be successful in finding the disappeared.

Immediately after the European elections, there must be intensive dialogue to agree the basis for moving forward decisively with the agreement by June 30th. Inflexible and rigidly restrictive interpretations of key clauses in the agreement, which make the situation impossible for others, will not take us anywhere.

Since the agreement rests on the basis of mutual consent, each party must have some regard to the legitimate needs of others, and actively contribute to the search for mutual accommodation. The attitude that the onus for movement lies entirely with the other side, that there is nothing more to give, or of passing the blame to others, serves no one.

Everyone recognises that they have obligations to fulfil under the agreement. There needs to be more than a lukewarm commitment on the part of all concerned to making it work. It is easy to knock down all constructive suggestions and say "No". What we need now is a willingness to say "Yes" without prejudice to positions of principle. Indeed, the principles at issue on either side at this juncture are most likely to be honoured by ensuring the success and continued implementation of the agreement.

There is a lot at stake for everyone in the successful implementation of the agreement and, most of all, the consolidation of peace. It will open up a new era for relations on these islands, alongside important constitutional developments in Scotland and Wales. I cannot imagine that Northern Ireland will wish to be left behind on July 1st with an assembly that is not functioning as intended.

Political stagnation, unfortunately, means economic stagnation. The spectacular performance of our own economy in recent years shows what can be achieved on this island today. Both investors and tourists need an assurance of political stability. The Northern Ireland economy needs to be able to keep pace if it is to compete effectively.

The agreement also provides the basis for much-strengthened mutually beneficial North-South co-operation. Those who want to see North and South grow closer, whether for economic or political reasons or both, will only see this in the context of the agreement.

A return to sterile political confrontation or worse would not help Northern Ireland, nor could it serve any long-term nationalist or unionist interest, since the consequences of failure are incalculable. I am convinced that those who are prepared to give the most will gain the most, and that public gratitude will go to those who are most instrumental in breaking the impasse.