GAA chose unity over leadership role

At around six o'clock on Saturday evening, with cabin fever enveloping the waiting press corps outside the GAA's special congress, held in camera, to consider deletion of Rule 21, a certain amount of ribaldry broke out.

By this stage it was all around the building that some tortuous evasion was on the cards in the conference hall. Resonant bulletins were composed: "Historic Fudge", "Landmark Deferral" etc.

So it turned out. Half an hour later, the delegates adjourned for 15 minutes while the compromise was thrashed out. Eventually, four hours after the congress had started, it concluded and the media assembled in the Ulster Room, an appropriate location on an afternoon when opposition from the northern province had successfully scuppered the motion for abolition.

There Joe McDonagh, president of the GAA, whose initiative the special congress was, had the doleful duty of reading out the motion which had been unanimously accepted by the meeting but which ran directly contrary to the following - his words at April's annual congress:

"As a matter of policy we have previously declared `that in the context of an acceptable political settlement in which the national and cultural traditions of the people of all Ireland are equally recognised and respected, the concept of an exclusion rule will have no relevance to us'. "I believe that this time is now upon us. The agreement reached in the multi-party negotiations say in respect of the participants' views on Policing and Justice, and I quote:

"`They believe that the agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole'.

"This is consistent and in accord with our own policies and aspirations and I believe we must now take a leap of faith in support of the process. I believe we must now play our part in the evolution of peace and equity, even if it means some risk. I believe that we must shown vision, courage, leadership and unity and not stand idly by."

On Saturday, six weeks later, he had been forced into retreat and acceptance of the following:

"The Gaelic Athletic Association is committed to the cause of reconciliation among the people of all Ireland based on mutual trust and tolerance. Recognising that the concept of an exclusion rule has no relevance in a situation where the national and cultural traditions of the people of all Ireland are equally recognised and in response to the British-Irish peace agreement, approved in referenda by the people of all Ireland, Cumann Luthcleas Gael pledges its intent to delete Rule 21 from its official guide when effective steps are taken to implement the amended structures and policing arrangements envisaged in the British-Irish peace agreement."

So the leap of faith was never made and the issue of Rule 21 has reverted to the 1995 position: the rule will go at some unspecified moment in the future when what appears to be a totally intangible criterion is met.

Although scheduled for a 2.30 start, the congress was delayed by nearly half an hour. It emerged that 295 delegates had registered and that consequently 99 would be the benchmark for rejection of the motion which was to be voted on in a secret ballot.

Early indications were that the abolition camp was in happy enough form and marginally ahead in their quest for a two thirds' majority. Gradually, as the afternoon wore on, the expressions became more drawn as it turned out that Scotland and Canada, expected to be in the `yes' camp, had not arrived.

Opposition to the proposal was led by the Ulster counties, eight of whom spoke against - Cavan being the exception - and Cork, who framed the amendment which was ultimately accepted. It also became evident that the opposition was more cohesive and determined.

As the debate progressed, reports from delegates indicated that whereas it was intense, there wasn't the rancorous atmosphere feared by some.

It also emerged that in the course of the debate, elements of the pro-abolition side were proving flaky and various suggestions for avoiding the issue were floated. One proposal suggested deferring the matter for another year. Laois and Longford advanced the idea of withdrawing the motion.

One of the motion's proponents maintained after the conclusion of congress that had the motion been pushed, it could have been carried but the consensus was that it would fall short of the necessary weighted majority.

By now, there was pressure on McDonagh to yield to some form of compromise. Some of his supporters believed that it would be preferable for the motion to be voted on even if it was to be defeated.

Eventually Cork forwarded the amendment which McDonagh was to present to the press conference. In the words of one delegate: "It (the amendment) came at the exact right time. People were looking for a way out and it got immediate support."

In the face of largely hostile questioning, McDonagh seemed to indicate that the sake of preserving unity had been a more important consideration than the motion's prospects of success.

"The importance of unity has always been a very important aspect in our association's affairs. A major concern was that we leave the room unified. In unity is strength," he said before going on to describe the congress as "a most encouraging and invigorating experience".