A wonderful word that …”Agreement”…..come to think of it ….a wonderful word that “differ”, too .Look at them ; don’t they look just a bit odd when you pull them out of context ? Words taken in isolation are wonderfully abstract things to look at , aren’t they? What about the word “agreement” sitting there ?
Agreement ? So what does it mean to you , eh?
Peter Hain, who used to be one of Norneverland’s long list of Secretaries of State ….thinks that in terms of realpolitik the very idea of “agreement” or “an agreement” is really only a bit of craic and isn’t , at bottom, really any kind of contract at all. To him…..he basically said this on the radio , in relation to the St Andrews Agreement and I’ll suppose that would apply to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement too or any other agreements , come to that,…. that agreements are really only a sort of high-faluting fudge to keep the natives quiet and malleable for short periods of time .They are not actually really binding.You might concur that they are not worth the paper they are written on or even the time wasted ,arguing the agreement out in the first place.That’s the impression that Peter Hain left me with, but then I’ve lived long enough to see that politics in Norneverland, Ireland are all but unworkable because the small artificial state was set up in such a way to have inherent instability built into its very fabric and no amount of “agreeing “is going to supercede that simple fact.Democracy had nothing to do with any of it.
Look up the word”agreement” in a dictionary and you’ll get a right old list of words to describe what an agreement is.There’ll be stuff like :
“accord”,” concurrence”, “consensus”, “harmony”, “accordance”, “unity”, “unison”, “concord”, “like-mindedness”, “rapport”, “sympathy,” assent”, “acceptance”, “consent”, “acquiescence”, “endorsement”, “confirmation”,”contract”, “compact”, “treaty”, “covenant”, “pact”, “accord”, “deal”, “bargain”, “settlement”, “concordat”, “protocol”, “entente”, “arrangement”, “understanding”, “pledge”,” promise”,” bond”……
Wow!! …..that’s quite a list isn’t it? An agreement has also been called things like :
“a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action”.
Now …let’s face a few hard facts .Some of those words might mean something to honorable and truthful people who might even have a full grasp of their mental faculties and who might even have a highly developed moral -code.On the other hand , an imbecile or otherwise mentally under-developed person , or one with dishonorable intent ,might not understand what this collection of words means at all, so they may as well be written in Greek, Latin or possibly even Gaelic. In that pre -“Use- Of -Reason” scenario, an agreement may as well be some nonsensical graphitto scribbled on a wall or on a passing train carriage.
In the real world of politics , agreements are the very stuff that allows society to rub along , but in the fantasy land of Norneverland , Ireland , words like “agreement” and its host of synonymns , are what is more likely ,quickly thrown into a bag and tied tightly, never to be opened or used.
The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)have literally shown no understanding of what an agreement means and it is quite possible that the same holds good for the Tories(Conservatives) in Westminster , the bigger fish at whose bum the DUP currently nibble .They might sign an agreement but they do not actually understand what it is for and do not really care at all.It’s just an old bag of assorted words.Edwin Poots of the DUP said as much on the radio , too.He did not want to accept as fact that although he did not really agree with several clauses in the St Andrews Agreement ( which was hammered out after the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement), when that document was signed . The actual Agreement was signed as a piece and was designed as a complete cake to be eaten whole by everyone involved …containing , as it did enough give and take to be acceptable across the board.It was “whole cloth”, in other words.
What kind of utter nonsense is this for any astute politician to come out with, live on radio, unless he was sure that his potential supporters did not want to countenance the whole truth, the sharing of power ,or even the very idea of politics at all ?Then again, little Norneverland was hacked out of Ireland in the last century , not by democrats , but by very frightened, duplicitous people It’s hard to believe that any politician would leave himself without a negotiating position , like this, for any future in politics.Where did he expect to go from here?No one is about to respect a politician whose word is apparently not his bond.(There’s a dark joke in there!)
In this respect, both Edwin Poots and Peter Hain are on the same page.The question that really needs asking is why would anyone want to attempt to negotiate any kind of agreement with people like that when they already know that the end results are null and void already?
paddykool2 