The Irish Times view on the Belfast Agreement: an indispensable framework

The agreement’s most severe test has been how to handle the pressures of Brexit - but its basic framework has proved to be resilient

Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble (left), U2 singer Bono, and SDLP leader John Hume on stage for the 'YES' concert at the Waterfront Hall in Belfast in May 1998 ahead of the vote on the Belfast Agreement (Photo:PA)
Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble (left), U2 singer Bono, and SDLP leader John Hume on stage for the 'YES' concert at the Waterfront Hall in Belfast in May 1998 ahead of the vote on the Belfast Agreement (Photo:PA)

The Belfast Agreement of 1998 provided an inspired framework to make inclusive peace in Northern Ireland, share governing power there, recognise cultural differences and embark on a joint Irish-British political journey with no agreed destination. It succeeded beyond expectations and has become an essential part of Ireland’s and the United Kingdom’s politics. By promising to do all these things together it was hugely ambitious, constructively ambiguous and arguably incapable of delivering effectively on each one. Twenty-five years on, its framework nevertheless remains indispensable for political order in and between these islands.

The agreement was, firstly, a comprehensive peace deal. It committed the parties to end military and paramilitary violence, decommission arms, release prisoners and transform policing. That great achievement brought an end to three decades of fighting and inter-communal confrontation. It laid down conditions for a more peaceable everyday life and for wider socio-economic wellbeing. These benefits were gradual but accumulative and are now taken for granted. Making peace was immensely difficult – and still faces some threats– yet its value must be fully acknowledged and cherished.

Mandatory powersharing was developed as a means of addressing the long-standing communal divisions in Northern Ireland. Its success is evident yet patchy as functioning administrations barely outnumber periods of suspended rule. Popular opinion has consistently favoured joint government. The agreement was built on hopes of recognising and reconciling differences, by including smaller political parties, women’s representatives and civil society movements. Here, too, the record is patchy. The large parties crowded out others and left promises of greater cultural integration untouched. Social change and secularisation since 1998 in both main communities created demands for greater voice and representation as identities loosen. Reforming rules and institutions is certainly possible, if the will is there.

The Belfast Agreement would not have happened without the deep political trust built up between Dublin and London officials alongside inspired political leadership. North-South ministerial councils and Irish-British inter-governmental ones created an equilibrium in the agreement. This allowed political compromises on nationalist territorial claims and unionist political consent to be agreed in April 1998 – and ratified in two referendums the following month.

READ MORE

Brexit fundamentally disrupted that political trust in 2016. It reopened debates on whether Irish unity within the EU is preferable to Northern Ireland’s devolution within the UK. The Belfast Agreement’s most severe test has been how to handle these pressures, but its basic framework has proved to be resilient and legitimate