Ireland - What are the main differences between the beliefs of the Republicans/Nationalists and the Loyalists/Unionists?

Question 1 – What are the main differences between the beliefs of the Republicans/Nationalists and the Loyalists/Unionists?

There are a number of differences between Nationalists and Unionists and their beliefs. The Nationalists are predominantly Catholic and they do not want Ireland to be part of Britain. They see the British as an occupying army and most believe that the British have no right to be in Ireland, they think it’s unfair that the British came into Ireland in the 1600s and have stayed there. They feel angry about how the British have persecuted the Catholics in the past, and they believe that they still don’t get treated as well as the Unionists. They campaign for equal rights in different areas, especially housing and jobs. Nationalists see Ireland as one place and generally want one united state, though not all Nationalists want exactly the same thing.

Unionists, on the other hand, are mostly protestant and want to keep Northern Ireland as part of Britain. Many see themselves as British instead of Irish and believe they belong to Britain. However, ancestors of theirs have been in Ireland since the 1600s, so they see themselves as originating from there and believe it is their homeland. They also see that the union with Britain is good for them from an economic point of view. They are outnumbered in Ireland though, and fear domination by the Catholics so need Britain in many ways to keep them protected from being overpowered.

In a direct comparison of the two, their general views are the complete opposite. The Unionists are mostly protestant want to remain part of Britain. The Nationalists are mostly Catholic and want Ireland to govern itself, many want Ireland to be united as one free state. The Unionists see Ireland as their homeland, as their ancestors have been there since the 1600s, yet still call themselves British. The Nationalists still feel that the British are an occupying army, and think its wrong that they are still there. The Unionists also feel that being part of Britain is good for them economically, whereas the Nationalists feel they get a bad deal. The Unionists mostly share their main religion with Britain so feel happy with them, but the Nationalists feel angry about how the British have treated the Catholics in the past.

Though these are the two main groups, not everyone that is classed as a Nationalist or a Unionist feels exactly the same; there are differences within the sides. Some people are more extreme than others and some can be more violent. Within the two sides they have different political parties that have different methods and slightly different objectives.

On the Nationalist side two notable parties are the SDLP (Social Democratic Labour Party), lead by John Hume, and Sinn Fein, lead by Gerry Adams. The SDLP have always been committed to peaceful and democratic methods, and see the importance of disarment. They want to see a United Ireland. Sinn Fein is now practising peaceful methods but in the past have had links with paramilitaries such as the IRA, who practise less peaceful techniques. This Party wants a United Ireland like the SDLP, but also wants to break all links to England, and be totally separate. The more extreme Republican groups are Paramilitaries, one example is the INLA but the most well known is the IRA. The original IRA was set up because some people wanted to use more extreme and violent methods to get their message across. Now however, the IRA is not a violent group, but the Real IRA, a splinter group, do practise violent schemes. It is this group that are now the violent front of the IRA. The other side and many others see these paramilitary groups as terrorists and thugs, but to the Republicans they are brave freedom fighters.

The Unionist side also has differences within itself. The UUP (Ulster Unionist Party), led by David Trimble, is the biggest party in Northern Ireland, and is the voice of the majority of the Protestants. They are a peaceful party and represent the more reasonable Unionist views. The DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) is a more uncompromising political party, and its leader, Ian Paisley still uses past happenings against the Catholics in his speeches. An example of how they are different from the UUP is the reaction to the proposal of allowing Northern Ireland to rule itself with a government of Catholics and Protestants. The UUP agreed, mainly to stop the violence, but the DUP disagreed, they wanted to stay British and don’t want to compromise (however the UUP were the majority, so it passed – The Good Friday Agreement). Though the DUP is less compromising, they aren’t violent. The PUP (Progressive Unionist Party) led by David Ervine, has strong links with loyalist paramilitary groups and does not want to disarm unless the IRA does. The biggest Loyalist paramilitary groups are the UDA (Ulster Defence Association and the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force). From these, there are many splinter groups such as the UFF (Ulster Freedom Fighters).

Though there are differences within the sides, most people can be classed as Nationalist or Unionist, and the main differences between them are: Nationalists are predominantly Catholic and want to see a United Ireland, Unionists are predominantly Protestant and want to remain part of the UK.

Choose two events in the last 100 years that are particularly important in shaping the views of today’s:

Loyalists / Unionists / Protestants;

Home Rule 1880 - 1914

Home Rule really is at the heart of all the conflict in Northern Ireland. In the 19th century, the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, as it had been since the 1600s. Home Rule was the idea that Ireland, although still part of the British Empire, would rule itself from a Parliament based in Dublin. The Nationalists wanted this, as they believed it would give them better chances. However the majority of Unionists were against it, as they were heavily outnumbered in Ireland, and believed they would do badly from this arrangement.

In the 1880s, the Nationalists, with the help of Irish American funding, started to pressurise the British Government to set up Home Rule. Support also came from a small number of Protestant landlords and professionals who thought that with their involvement, Ireland would be efficiently governed from Dublin.

A rise in strength from the Nationalist side also led to a rise in strength on the opposing side. Home Rule was rejected in Parliament in 1886 and 1893, but if anything this just made Nationalist feeling stronger. In 1912, due to pressure from Nationalist MPs, the Home Rule Act was passed. This angered the Unionists greatly and they did not accept the new law. They held huge rallies to show Nationalists that they felt strongly opposed to Home Rule and would use any means necessary to put an end to it. Edward Carson led the unionist opposition. His ideals were to get rid of Home Rule completely, though he based his campaign in Ulster. He told people about economic problems and emphasised the fact that ‘Home Rule’ was effectively ‘Rome Rule’. Though at first Nationalists believed they were bluffing, they had to be taken seriously when they armed themselves, and the Irish Volunteers were set up. At the outbreak of World War One however, Home Rule had to be put to the side.

All of this greatly affected Unionists at the time. Unionists all opposed Home Rule, and it worked because they had the support of England. One reason England supported was because there was a general anti-Catholic feeling, and also English politicians were worried about losing valuable trade with Ireland. Another thing was that they were worried if Ireland got Home Rule then other countries in the British Empire would also try to get it. The Unionists were made up of a variety of groups. Though they were predominantly protestant, there were a few Catholics. Most of the people opposing Home Rule were generally landowners or professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, and most of the Unionists lived in Belfast or North East Ireland. There were a variety of reasons as to why they opposed Home Rule. Many Protestants wanted to be ruled from London because it was a predominantly Protestant place and so the decisions would be good for them. If Home Rule came in, many were worried that the Catholic Church would play a big part in Ireland’s ruling – hence the name used by Carson ‘Rome Rule’. Most of them also believed that being ruled as part of the United Kingdom was good for them economically, and that Home Rule could make them poorer. A lot of them also did not want to break up the United Kingdom; they wanted to keep it as one.

Though all Unionists opposed Home Rule, there were tensions and disagreements within Unionism. Moderate Unionists felt that support for Nationalism was simply because of the backwards economy and poverty in the rural areas of Ireland. They thought that the best way to defeat Home Rule was economic reform and development. Hard-line Unionists however, disagreed with this and believed that the only way to defeat Home Rule was total resistance, as it was just a Catholic plot against the protestants. Also many Protestants were reluctant to join with the Orange Order, because they considered them a rudimentary extremist religious ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Nationalists at the time that all this was happening felt that they were doing badly under rule from England. They wanted to be able to govern affairs from a parliament in their own country. There were of course, as with Unionism, differences within the sides. Some, when the Great War came, were willing to fight with the Unionists and forget for the while the issue of Home Rule. However there were those who refused to fight alongside their Unionist and British enemies.

The Home Rule situations still affect Unionists today. It was not an issue that was ‘put to bed’, it has always been an area of conflict. It arises in many of today’s peace attempts and proposed agreements. It has never been solved, but steps have been and still are being taken to try and settle the issue. In 1995, the Joint Framework Document had the idea in it of a North-South council to involve both Unionists and Nationalists. This was seen as a good idea by many, but there were still suspicious Unionists that worried this may lead to a united Ireland, and the Nationalist paramilitaries were still reluctant to give up their weapons as they did not fully trust the British government. The Good Friday Agreement was an attempt to better the situation in Ireland. Many Unionists accepted it as a step in the right direction, but there were and are still those who completely dismiss the idea of Home Rule in any shape. Ian Paisley is an example of this; he is dead against Home Rule in any form, but most Unionists are happy to accept a halfway agreement. He, for one, still uses Home Rule in his arguments today and still sees it as a hot issue. When the Anglo-Irish agreement was introduced he was not happy and said he would ‘Never, never, never.’ accept the agreement. He used similar tactics to those of Carson in 1912. In general, Unionists see Home Rule as a problem that can lead to violence and as many don’t like this idea, they will accept a compromise. However, still there are those who will not negotiate, and also those who will use violence to try and get what they want.

Anglo - Irish Agreement - 1985

The Anglo-Irish Agreement was the second attempt at peace in Ireland, coming after the Power-Sharing Executive and the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973-4, which failed due to a Unionist Strike. The Irish government needed to be involved to solve any problems. This new agreement set up an intergovernmental conference, meaning that the Northern Ireland secretary and the Irish Foreign Minister would meet regularly. It also stated that there would be cross-border cooperation on security, politics and legal issues, and that a civil service would be set up with both sides being represented equally. Britain accepted that there may one day be a United Ireland, but only with the consent of the majority of Northern Ireland, and the Irish government accepted Partition and the principle of consent.

In general Unionists were very angry about the agreement. They felt betrayed because the Nationalists had been given a say in their lives without their consent. They tried to use every Constitutional protest against the agreement, and all 15 Unionist MPs resigned their positions. They saw the agreement as a terrible deal, and were extremely against it.

There were no disagreements as such within Unionism, as in general they didn’t like the agreement, but there were different levels of feeling and action. Ian Paisley, leader of the DUP, made reference to 1912, comparing the current situation to that of the struggle against Home Rule. The paramilitaries reacted very violently, and there were violent clashes between loyalist paramilitaries and the RUC. The UDA made threats to murder all the civil servants involved. Many ordinary people though, wanted peace more than anything, and so chose to back the SDLP. Their feelings were the same in general, but their actions were different.

The majority of Nationalists thought that the agreement was fairly plausible; that it had potential. John Hume, the leader of the SDLP, supported it and made comments about it helping to settle the disputes in Ireland. After the Anglo-Irish agreement, support for the SDLP increased, and more people, including some Unionists, backed it. Most normal Nationalists just wanted peace. More extreme Nationalists like Sinn Fein were not happy with it, for it meant accepting things that were not what they wanted. Gerry Adams said it would not work and he was against it. There were most certainly differences of opinion among the Nationalists.

Today the Anglo-Irish is still considered an important development. Since the agreement, the DUP, lead by Ian Paisley, have tried to get Sinn Fein banned and have refused to work with them, showing the negative feelings caused by the agreement are still on-going with some Unionists. It has also lead to further attempts at peace, improving on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. By the early 1990s it was becoming apparent that normal Protestants and Catholics alike wanted peace, they didn’t want conflict and violence ruining their lives. In the 1992 general election Sinn Fein lost to the SDLP for the West Belfast seat. Not only Catholics voted for them, but some Protestants too. This shows that people had come a long way since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that many people just wanted peace. Another attempt at peace, the Good Friday Agreement, was similar to the Anglo-Irish, in fact almost identical, but many people were willing to accept it. It stated that a new Assembly of 108 members, a Catholic and Protestant mix, would be set up and important decisions would need consent from both communities. There would also be a North-South Council of ministers, and a review of policing in Northern Ireland. Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution that claimed the North as Irish territory would be removed, subject to a referendum.

In May 1998, when people were asked whether they accepted the Good Friday Agreement, 71% of those in Northern Ireland said yes. Some people, obviously, still disagreed, Ian Paisley of course being one of them – accepting no compromise. Decommissioning was also proving hard. This referendum however, showed that most people just wanted to have a peaceful life. So, though there are still problems left not completely solved coming from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, it did help in the process of peace and was a step in the right direction for the welfare of the Unionists.

(b) Republicans / Nationalists / Catholics;

Easter Rising - 1916

In 1916, James Connolly and Patrick Pearse led the Irish Republican Brotherhood in an organised and armed uprising. It was called the ‘Easter Rising’, and took place because the people involved wanted Home Rule to be considered again after being put to the side because of World War One and hoped the rising would show that there was still a strong Nationalist feeling in the country. Many Irish refused to fight in the British army because of this strength of feeling.

The rising began on Easter Monday 1916 with an attack on Dublin Castle, and lasted for 5 days. The rebels took over the General Post office in Dublin and hung banners proclaiming that an Irish Republic had been established. They also took other main areas, and because the police had no real warning of a rising, a lot of the rebels’ objectives were seized with almost no opposition. The British hit back by bringing in a gunboat and using artillery. There was a large amount of fighting in the streets of Dublin, but the rebels were heavily out numbered. Soon, the rebels surrendered. Though it only lasted 5 days, the Easter Rising caused a lot of death and injury. 300 civilians, 60 rebels and 130 British soldiers were killed and over 2000 injured. As a result of the rising, 77 rebels were sentenced to death, and 15 were executed. One of these was James Connolly who had to be shot sitting down because his injuries from the uprising were so severe.

At the time, the uprising didn’t have support from all the Nationalists, and many people in Dublin did not take part. To begin with, the citizens of Dublin were shocked and outraged at the destruction they had caused. However, the executions of the leaders drew sympathy for them from the public, who were horrified about their treatment. People saw them as Republican martyrs, they had died for their cause. This caused many people who had been against the rising initially, to change in favour of it. Also, as a result of the rising and its leaders martyrdom, membership of the IRA increased.

The Unionists are likely to have known that the rebels were outnumbered by them, but were probably shaken by the Rising. It showed them that a lot of Nationalists were very passionate about their cause and would die for it. The Irish Protestants most likely felt a bit worried, as in Ireland they were the severe minority. If Home Rule cam in, they would do badly.

The Easter Rising still affects Nationalists today. The martyrs are still remembered and admired by many. An example of how the rising has continued to affect Nationalists happened during the time when the policy of internment was used. This policy meant that people were put into prison without a trial. The Catholics were mostly affected by this procedure. In Maze prison republican prisoners went on hunger strikes, as they wanted to be treated as political prisoners, and not common criminals. They compared their struggle with that of the Easter Rising, and claimed that they were fighting for freedom. The conditions in the cells were usually terrible; it could be dark for 23 hours a day. Bobby Sands was a senior IRA member. He had been in prison since 1976 and in 1981 went on a hunger strike. He died after 70 days, and around 100,000 people attended his funeral. He had followed the example of the martyrs in the Easter Rising and had put his message across very strongly by doing this. The Easter Rising affected the IRA members most as they followed in the martyrs’ examples, but it still affected the rest of the Catholic and Republican population, as it made a lot of them come to support the martyrs’ cause.

However, there are other views about the rising, and some Nationalists do not see it as an extremely important event. Though many view it as a key turning point in history that still strongly affects them and still use it in political debates today, some see it as insignificant within Irelands troubles. The Historian Lee believes that there was more initial support for the Easter Rising than the traditional view suggests, and so the executions did not drive people to join Sinn Fein as much as is commonly believed, because for one thing, Sinn Fein wasn’t really involved in the Rising itself. So, though the Rising is remembered by many, not all Nationalists feel the same about it and it’s outcome.

Bloody Sunday – 1972

On 30th January 1972 a Nationalist demonstration took place to protest against the policy of internment. Marches had been banned, but around 15,000 people decided to ignore the ban and held a march in Derry. The atmosphere at first was good humoured, and the Provisional IRA had been asked not to have their weapons in the area – they could only take part as normal civilians. However, the march path, heading towards the centre which was outside ‘Free Derry’, was blocked by British Paratroopers. Not wanting trouble, the march organisers lead the march away, but local youths hung back to confront the soldiers. As they were causing a riot, the paratroopers asked permission to arrest troublemakers. What exactly happened next is still uncertain, as there are different stories from different people.

Some – mostly Unionists and British – say that the first shot was fired by the rioters, but others, mostly Nationalists, say that the British troops opened fire on innocent unarmed men.

The known facts are that the British fired on the crowd and killed 13 civilians, with 14 more being injured, one later dying.

The majority of nationalists saw Bloody Sunday as a massacre and believe that the civilians were unarmed. They think that the victims were murdered innocents. Catholic priests had no problem with saying that the dead were murdered. Nationalists believed that they were protesting against a very just cause because internment seemed to be aimed very much at Nationalists not Unionists. They claimed they were exercising civil rights, not attacking British soldiers and so the troops behaved very irrationally by shooting. The Irish Prime Minister at the time, Jack Lynch, labelled the killings at once as “unwarranted attack on unarmed civilians”. Many Nationalists felt extremely strongly about the happenings, and demonstrators burned down the British Embassy in Dublin on February 2nd 1972. Also in February, an official IRA bomb at the Aldershot HQ of the parachute regiment killed 3 civilians. These events showed how many Nationalists felt about Bloody Sunday. Most Unionists however trusted that the soldiers would not have fired unless they were fired upon. The British soldiers claimed that they were given reason to shoot because they heard a shot, and though it didn’t hit them, they believed it showed that there was IRA presence in the area. Not all Unionists believed they knew this as actual fact, but they believed that the British would not have fired if they had not had good reason to do so. Though these were the general feelings within the sides, not all Nationalists and Unionists felt the same.

There were most definitely conflicted feelings as to what happened on that day. A report at the time, the Widgery report, (conclusions of an inquiry made at the time by the Lord Chief justice, Lord Widgery), stated that not only army, but also civilian witnesses made it clear that there were a substantial amount of civilians armed with firearms, and that the soldiers had been fired on by IRA gunmen while trying to make arrests which is why they opened fire. However there was no evidence to prove this, as there were no guns found, and it could not be proven that any of the dead had been in contact with any weapons. It was extremely controversial. The report, published in April 1972 was met with disbelief amongst the Nationalist community.

The short-term affects of this were quite large. Edward Heath, the British Prime Minister at the time, suspended the Stormont Parliament because of the escalating troubles – such as the burning of the British Embassy and the IRA bombing, and imposed Direct Rule from Westminster, which remained until December 1999. Bloody Sunday also shocked people outside the UK and so funding for the IRA increased, as well as membership to the group, and the IRA step up their bombing campaign – they now believed more strongly that defence would not get the British out of Ireland, only attack. Direct Rule affected the Nationalists because thought they were pleased to see Stormont out of Irish Unionist control, they saw it as a sign that Britain were not planning to leave Ireland and it seemed to make the link between Ireland and Britain stronger and more threatening to the Nationalists.

Bloody Sunday is still an area of contention today because it is still not concrete who fired the first shot on that tragic day. John Major, the Prime Minister at the time of the 20th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, said that the victims killed were innocent. This, however, did not satisfy the relatives of the deceased. Now and inquiry set up by Tony Blair and led by Lord Saville is still ongoing, he called for the inquiry on the grounds that ‘compelling new evidence’ had been found. Also, Martin McGuinness became the most senior member of the IRA to reveal his role when he confirmed that he was 2nd in command of the IRA at the time of Bloody Sunday and was proud of it. Bloody Sunday inquiries are still underway, and the results have yet to be published. Today, Bloody Sunday is still not past news, and people still have strong opinions on it, so modern inquiry is important as the results could shake Ireland into more violence and conflict.

3. Previous attempts to bring peace to Northern Ireland have failed. What problems will need to be overcome if the current peace talks are to succeed?

In your answer you should consider:

two previous attempts at peace;
the breakthroughs which have been made;
the problems that still exist.

There have been several attempts at peace in the past of Ireland. Two recent attempts at peace have been the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.

The aim of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was to set up an intergovernmental conference, meaning that the Northern Ireland secretary and the Irish foreign minister would meet regularly to discuss important issues. There would also be a cross-border cooperation on security, politics and legal issues. A civil service was set up with both countries equally represented. The British government said that Ireland could unite if they had the consent of the majority of Northern Ireland, and the Irish Government accepted this. It was intended to create peace because the Nationalists would be happier as they got a say in the running of Northern Ireland, and it would create better communication between both sides. It would help the process of peace because it was supposed to make both Irish and British governments ‘recognise and respect the identities of the two communities in Northern Ireland.’ (Source 6). This means that both Nationalists and Unionists would have to acknowledge that they were different, and respect each other. However, it was not particularly successful because the Unionists were very angry about the Nationalists being given a say in the running of their province. Ian Paisley made a statement that totally shunned the Anglo-Irish agreement. He said that he and his fellows would ‘ never never never’ (Source 5) accept the agreement and also said that they were ‘prepared to lay down our lives for Ulster.’ (Source 5). This means that many Unionists felt very strongly against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and were prepared to do anything to stop it, even die. It is impossible to create peace. They protested heavily and Unionist MPs resigned their seats. It is impossible to create peace with an agreement that people will fight over and won’t except, for it to work, it must be widely accepted. However, the agreement did have its successes in the way that it was believed to have decreased support for the IRA and increased support for the SDLP. Even if it didn’t create peace, it was making some people realise that they wanted peace and compromise was on the cards.

The aim of the Good Friday Agreement was very similar to that of the Anglo Irish Agreement. It would set up a new assembly of 108 members and all key decisions would need the consent of both communities in the province. A North-South council would also be established made up of ministers from the Republic and the new Northern Assembly. In addition, it stated that there would be a review on policing, because presently the police were Unionist. Early release for paramilitary prisoners was promised as well. It also included that the Irish government would remove articles 2 and 3 (claiming Northern Ireland as their territory) from the constitution, this would be subject to a referendum. It was meant to achieve peace in much the same way as the Anglo-Irish, it would create more connection between the two communities in the North and so hopefully generate more respect between them. It would also ensure that Ireland could no longer claim the North as part of its territory, yet still making sure there was a relationship between the North and South. The Good Friday agreement was much more successful than the previous attempts at peace. By now it was becoming obvious that most ordinary people from every part of Ireland wanted peace in their lives. In May 1998, when people were asked to vote on the Good Friday Agreement, 71% of those in Northern Ireland said yes. There were obviously still some who disagreed, such as Ian Paisley, and decommissioning proved hard, but in general it was successful, as the majority of people, Nationalist and Unionist, were willing to compromise for the sake of peace.

There is not a lot of trust between Nationalists and Unionists, as would be expected of two strongly opinionated groups living so close. It is impossible to have peace between two sides when they don’t trust each other. This is the main problem that needs to be overcome. It is hard to come to a compromise though, when 60% of those in Northern Ireland are Protestant and 40% are Catholic. Ireland has a terrible history of extreme violence, and so trust will be very hard to achieve. However, there have been significant breakthroughs.

One important breakthrough was the ceasefire of 1994. It was described by John Major as ‘another very important part of the jigsaw falling into place.’(source 2). There had been an horrific amount of violence in Northern Ireland for a very long time before this ceasefire. The IRA began an armed struggle because they had the Nationalist view, which saw the British as an occupying army, and believed that violence was the only way to get what they wanted. They believed that the British had no right to be in Ireland at all, and wanted a united Ireland, separate from Britain. The history of Ireland is a very violent one, and involves many deaths since the troubles first began over differences of opinion. The Nationalists believed that the British were an occupying army and wanted separation from Britain, whereas the Unionists wanted Ireland to stay part of Britain as they felt that though they were British by ancestry, Ireland was their homeland. Over a large amount of time there had been many deaths, many injuries and a lot of disrupted lives. This armed struggle included events such as Bloody Sunday, which is rightly named as it was a very violent armed occasion in which 14 civilians died. . Even looking at the beginning of 1994 alone, it is clear that there were a lot of deaths – roughly 65 from January before the IRA ceasefire in August, which was closely followed by a loyalist ceasefire. The ceasefire of 1994 was a very important breakthrough because it showed that after a terrible history of violent conflict, it was possible to stop violence and become peaceful. This ceasefire was believed to be ‘bringing to an end an era of violence in which 3,170 people have died on both sides.’ (Source 2).

Another very important breakthrough was the republic giving up its claim to Northern Ireland. There had been so much violence fighting for a United Ireland from the Republic that it was an amazing breakthrough to have them removing from their constitution the articles claiming Northern Ireland. The struggle for and against Home Rule caused massive violent outbreaks in which many were killed, including the Easter Rising of 1916, which was an attempt to have Home Rule considered again for Ireland. This giving over of the North showed that most people didn’t want to fight, and that both British and Irish governments were trying to compromise for peace.

In 1998, 71% of voters voted for the Good Friday Agreement. This was a very important breakthrough. This result was quite a large majority showing that most were willing to forget the past and look to the future. The 1912 issue of Home Rule is at the heart of the conflict in Northern Ireland and this agreement compromised Nationalist and Unionist views on this issue. The Nationalists didn’t get their united Ireland, but the South became a republic. The Unionists didn’t get complete and total connection to Britain (rule from London) but the North is considered part of Britain. This came as close as possible to solving the conflict that had been raging through Ireland for many years. The votes for the Good Friday Agreement also showed that Ireland had come a long way since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, as it included very similar terms. This was a very important breakthrough in Ireland.

Although there have been breakthroughs concerning the conflict in Ireland, the two sides still don’t completely trust each other. This is the key problem that still exists, and it is noticed over issues such as decommissioning and prisoner release. Decommissioning is very hard because the two sides don’t trust each other, so they are very reluctant to give up all their weapons in case the other side might still have some. Prisoner release is also still a problem because people have very strong conflicting views. The prisoners themselves believe that they are political prisoners, as do their supporters, but the relatives and friends of the people they directly and indirectly killed believe they are murderers. If they are not released people supporting them may cause trouble, but if they are released, the families of the deceased and indeed a good many more may fight against this. Some of these men who have now been freed committed disgusting acts of murder, but for there cause. An example is the loyalist gunman who ‘walked into the Rising Sun Bar in 1993 shouting “trick or treat” before firing randomly, killing 8 people’. This was a gross misjustice to the people he killed, but to many loyalists it was an act of loyalty to their cause. This is the kind of man that was jailed as a murderer, but then released as a political prisoner. This is a problem that still exists – murderer or political prisoner?

Not only is the lack of trust between the sides a big issue, but there are also disagreements within each side. These need to be overcome if the peace process is going to carry on. Within the Nationalist side, there are problems with splinter groups. Most people probably label the IRA as terribly violent, but in reality it is the splinter groups – notably the Real IRA – that have carried out such violent attacks as the Omagh bombing and the BBC bombing (which was carried out because Panorama did a show that displayed the Nationalists in a very bad light, and the Real IRA took offence). These splinter groups need to join the peaceful forces of the main groups if peace is to be accomplished. Within the Unionist side there are problems between the UUP and the DUP, because the UUP is slightly more compromising. There have also been loyalists feuds which can be violent. A loyalist feud which erupted in Belfast left an 11-year-old in intensive care, after being shot when ‘her family’s home on the loyalist Ballysally estate in Coleraine was raked with machine-gun fire.’ (source B). This is an example of how the splits in Unionism will hinder the peace process.

In conclusion, though there have been many significant breakthroughs, there are still obstacles that need to be overcome. One of the obstacles that needs to be overcome is the lack of trust between the sides. For peace to be achieved, complete disarmament is needed, so both sides need to trust each other and give up all weapons. Another thing that should be done is to educate Irish children in a non-biased way, and teach them that they are just like the other side’s children, so educate them with peace. This will stop problems such as the trouble of Catholic children being scared of walking through a Protestant playing field because they may fight each other. Another key problem that needs to be put out of the way in order for peace to be achieved is the past. Both sides need to stop bringing up past hurts and looking to the future without the conflict. Marches such as the Orange Order need to be phased out, as this is just aggrivating the Catholics and rubbing the past in their faces. It is reminding them that Protestant William of Orange beat Catholic King James, which stirs up historic hates. With forgetting the past in mind, prisoners that were arrested during the troubles need to be released and their pasts forgotten. This needs to be done to enable Ireland to move on. If disarmament is carried out, trust achieved and the past forgotten, then Ireland will be able to move to a peaceful future.