Most opposition to changes from South

Sinn Fein delegates voted by a large majority yesterday to back the Belfast Agreement, despite considerable opposition to the proposed changes in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution.

Most delegates who opposed the changes came from the South. They argued that a Yes vote in the referendum on the agreement would enshrine the "unionist veto" in the Constitution.

It was also argued that Sinn Fein was losing an opportunity to win nationalist support in the South by leading the campaign for a No vote.

But many were apparently persuaded by Mr Gerry Adams's appeal for them to back the party leadership yesterday, even if they intended to vote No on May 22nd. "Vote with the ardchomhairle today and then on May 22nd vote whatever way you want," he said.

Nearly all of those who opposed the leadership pledged their continued support for the party and said it was important to maintain unity.

Mr Adams had begun the debate by saying experience had taught the party that it had a better chance of success when it took a flexible approach. He asked that speakers be kind to each other before declaring: "Let battle commence!"

Proposing the ardchomhairle motion that the party call for a Yes vote in the referendums North and South, Ms Rita O'Hare said there were elements in both referendums which presented real difficulties for republicans and nationalists.

But she said the proposed amendment to Article 29 of the Constitution was a practical assertion of the Irish Government's right to exercise authority throughout Ireland. "We should also note that the proposed change to Article 2 will confirm a constitutional right to citizenship for the people of the six counties," she said.

Mr Alec Maskey (ardchomhairle) said the agreement did not guarantee anything "but surely there is no way that we can stand on the sidelines watching others squander these opportunities which we helped to create".

Mr Paul Donnelly (Dublin) said that by saying Yes to the document, no matter how it was dressed up, the party was accepting the unionist veto. "I would say vote No to this document and vote Yes to the Assembly," he said.

Mr Larry O'Toole (Dublin) said thousands of people in the 26 counties were against changing Articles 2 and 3. "What we have to ask ourselves is, will Northern nationalists be even more exposed with the removal of Articles 2 and 3?"

Ms Daisy Mules (Derry) said the document was not a settlement but an opportunity to move the party's agenda forward. Territory was being conceded in the proposed changes to Articles 2 and 3, but citizenship strengthened and "our nationalist rights remain the same".

Another Northern speaker, Ms Cathy Mackle (Coalisland), said the agreement was "just the first step on the road" towards achieving a British withdrawal from the North. "A No vote today will please the British government and the unionists. When did we ever do anything to please them?"

Ms Geraldine Cusack (Dublin) said members were being asked to accept a transitional period in which the principles of sovereignty were being abandoned. Promoting a No vote in the South would not damage the party's electoral chances in the North. "The reverse is probably true," she said.

Ms Aine Nic Gabhann (Dublin) said a majority of the Dublin membership had "great difficulty" with the agreement. Most cumainn were in favour of retaining the status quo on Articles 2 and 3.

A Sinn Fein Youth representative, Ms Kaniah Ni Chiosoig, said the Oxford dictionary defined a country as a "nation or state, the land it occupies".

"If we change this definition of country to people and their citizenship as is proposed, we will abandon the citizens in these 26 counties to a landless state of mind," she added.

"Are we to become the only state in the world with no defined national boundaries? On the other hand there will be no uncertainty about the six counties; they will become an indisputable part of Britain."

Mr Padraig Wilson, officer commanding IRA prisoners in the Maze, urged the ardfheis to support the motion. He said the struggle was not over and there was a lengthy road ahead, but a Yes vote would move the situation forward.

Mr Martin Meehan (Belfast) said he understood the concerns being expressed, but Articles 2 and 3 meant nothing to the people in the North "when we were being burned out in 1969 . . . it was a piece of paper and it meant nothing".

Mr Gerry McHugh (Fermanagh), also supporting the motion, said one of the party's strategic objectives had been to divide unionism and this had been achieved.

Mr Francie Molloy (ardchomhairle member from Tyrone) said he did not believe Articles 2 and 3 were being diluted, but that they were in fact being strengthened. The new wording recognised his birthright as an individual, instead of being a claim to territory.

The party treasurer, Mr Joe Cahill, said he found it hurtful when people asked if the agreement was what people in the republican movement had died for. He might have been hanged in 1942 and people would be saying, "That's not what he died for". But they had never had an opportunity in 1942 - or since - as good as the one they had today to bring about the Ireland for which those people had died.

Concluding the debate, Mr Martin McGuinness said the whole world was watching to see whether Sinn Fein was going to go back or move forwards. "I`m calling on each and every one of you to move forward with this Sinn Fein leadership," he said to sustained applause.

The motion was passed by a large majority, without a full count being taken.