Dáithí Ó Ceallaigh, a former Irish ambassador who played a crucial role in the negotiation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement told an audience at the Trinity Long room Hub that a redefinition of nationalism was central to “unlocking” engagement with the British government on Northern Ireland.

The Behind the Headlines discussion ‘Debating the Anglo-Irish Agreement, 40 years on’, was led by Professor Lindsey Earner-Byrne, Chair of Contemporary Irish History at Trinity College Dublin and featured experts Dr Shelley Deane (DCU), journalist Sam McBride and Professor Michael Kerr (Kings College London).

Not forgetting the very trying “human hours that went into relationships”, Professor Earner Byrne asked the panellists about the negotiations, and the approaches of both British and Irish governments.  

Watch the recorded video of the discussion here: 

At the outset, Ó Ceallaigh said that the negotiation with the British government took the best part of two years, however he said that the both the Irish government and Irish opposition parties had “come together” and were in agreement that the old notion of a simple approach to a united Ireland was “no longer valid”.  

“Prior to 1982, most Irish governments…their view was a simple one: Ireland should rightfully be united, it shouldn’t be divided, and it’s up to the British to convince the Unionists to join a united Ireland.”

O’Ceallaigh described how the consent principle in the Anglo-Irish Agreement – that Northern Ireland’s constitutional status would only change with the consent of a majority of its people – was a fundamental change in how nationalism was now imagined.  

Dr Shelley Deane, an expert in Security and International Relations at the School of Law and Government in DCU and member of the ARINS project team, said that this change in language from “a majority” to “the majority” was also significant.

She said a new focus on a non-violent approach was also central, and a recognition that a space had to be created for nationalism that would allow Unionists “not to feel so excluded by it.” It was also imperative that the alienation felt by Irish nationalists in the North be addressed. Overall, she argued that the Anglo-Irish Agreement set in place parameters to create a moderate middle. On this note, she said the role of the EU in bringing together both Governments could not be understated.

Listen back to a live audio recording now: 

There was also renewed pressure for the British government to do something following the atrocities of Bloody Sunday, Professor Michael Kerr said. According to the Professor of Conflict Studies, Thatcher was now convinced by her deputy party leader and former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, William Whitelaw, that the price for ending violence in Northern Ireland was to give the Irish government a role.

Sam McBride, the Belfast Telegraph’s Northern Editor said that Unionists “didn’t like the Irish government having a formal role in Northern Ireland.” He argued that this “explicit” involvement through the Anglo-Irish Agreement was met with Paisley’s famous "Never! Never! Never!" speech and mass rallies and resignations of Westminster seats. While the Anglo-Irish Agreement did ultimately push Unionists towards the Good Friday Agreement, McBride said they “threw the kitchen sink at trying to wreck this.”

The relationship between Thatcher and Irish Taoisigh Charles Haughey and Garrett FitzGerald was also highlighted as part of the discussion. Professor Kerr described Garrett FitzGerald as “historically important”, and unlike Haughey – his “flamboyant” predecessor - FitzGerald was within a circle of people around Thatcher that she actually trusted. “She had a taoiseach she could do business with”, Professor Kerr added.

For a curated conversation on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, see here: 

The Trinity Long Room Hub Behind the Headlines series is supported by The John Pollard Foundation.