Is a referendum on the St Andrews proposals needed in the South, asks Mark Hennessy
The Belfast Agreement, agreed in 1998 after tortuous talks in Stormont, Hillsborough and elsewhere, was never supposed to stand still, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said yesterday.
The proposals put forward by the Irish and British governments in St Andrews will change legislation drawn up after Good Friday, and will change the relationship between the Northern political parties.
Last week, the Taoiseach indicated that he wanted to hold a referendum in the Republic next March, though last Saturday night, Enda Kenny opposed it, preferring a Dáil resolution instead.
Though no one in Fine Gael wants to say it, the party is concerned about granting Mr Ahern the chance to portray himself as the man who brought peace to Ireland just months from an election.
Neither, however, do they want to be seen as breaking the traditional all-party consensus on the North that has existed in the Dáil for nearly 20 years, lest the public think them churlish.
In the Dáil yesterday, Mr Ahern may equally have pulled back a little for now, saying that the "fundamental principles" of the Good Friday Agreement "remain unchanged".
The agreement was "never intended to be static", and it would have been reviewed in 2004, four years after it came into effect, had the Northern political institutions not collapsed, he said.
Now lawyers must decide if the St Andrews deal - if implemented - changes the agreement itself. If it does so sufficiently, voters in the Republic will have to go to the polls.
In May 1998, 56 per cent of the electorate accepted the Belfast Agreement, and the changes to the Constitution it brought in its wake, with 94 per cent of those who voted supporting it.
The Belfast Agreement actually combines two deals: the British/Irish Agreement and a separate one between the governments and Northern Ireland's political parties in the multi-party talks.
One, the British/Irish Agreement, is an international treaty and, therefore, it cannot be changed without a referendum in the Republic because of the constitutional rules here.
The other, the multi-party talks agreement, is not, though it was included as an annexe to the British/Irish Agreement when the issue went before the electorate North and South nine years ago.
The first question facing Attorney General Rory Brady as he pores over the Scottish proposals is whether the British/Irish Agreement is being amended, and, if so, by how much. St Andrews proposes that ministers of a new NI Executive should act together as a collectively responsible cabinet, just like cabinets do in most other places in the world.
This is new, startlingly so in NI terms. Prior to the Executive's disbandment in October 2002 after allegations that Sinn Féin had spied on other parties, NI ministers controlled their own patch.
Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness, for example, moved as education minister to get rid of the 11-plus schools examination - despite the fury of most unionist politicians.
Furthermore, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must pledge their willingness fully to operate the Executive, and work on the North/South Ministerial Council. Again, this is new territory.
Secondly, the Taoiseach and British prime minister Tony Blair have found a formula to ensure that the DUP does not have to vote for Martin McGuinness, while Sinn Féin would avoid having to do the same for Ian Paisley.
Back in 1998, the multi-party talks agreement ruled that the two most senior offices should be filled jointly by a cross-community vote of 60 per cent, or more of the Northern Ireland Assembly members.
Now, the governments are proposing a change so that the DUP would propose Dr Paisley, Sinn Féin would nominate Mr McGuinness, while other ministers would be appointed by the old rules.
This all requires amendments to the House of Commons Northern Ireland Act, 1998 - thereby falling under the so-called Strand One issues that are not a matter for Dublin.
However, the changes have a knock-on effect upon the North/South Ministerial Council, the British/Irish Council and the British/Irish Intergovernmental Council - all mentioned in the British/Irish Agreement.
Referendums have had to be held here if significant changes are made to treaties, following Raymond Crotty's successful Single European Act Supreme Court constitutional challenge in 1987. Nevertheless, the Good Friday deal was not cast in stone.
Changes necessary to create fully functioning Northern political institutions were always considered possible, as long as the main architecture was not harmed.
So nothing is being proposed now that runs counter to the aims of the Belfast Agreement so acceptable in 1998.
Instead, tactics are being amended. The strategy remains the same.