Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Tiocfaidh ar bóAuthor(s): Alan GreenSource: Fortnight, No. 352 (Jul. - Aug., 1996), pp. 20-21Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25558948 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 02:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.185 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:30:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I CURRENT AFFAIRS C

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .C . .......

A butcher's window in the nationalist New Lodge

Tiofaidh arLb6

The beef crisis may be easing, but what are the implications

for an all-Ireland agricultural policy,

asks ALAN GREEN

During the continuing BSE crisis there has been widespread and understandable concern, expressed by farmers and politicians alike, about the implica tions for the future of the valuable Northern Ireland beef sector, indeed for the whole regional agri-food industry. Not only does the beef sector make a very important contribution to the health of the North ern Ireland economy but, despite the traditional reliance on the British market, some 75% of locally produced beef is now exported to countries outside the United Kingdom. In this context the blanket ban imposed by the EU on all exports of beef and beef products has potentially disastrous consequences for the local beef sector and allied processing indus try.

For some, however, the BSE affair has not only important economic aspects but wider political rel evance, particularly in the light of the peace process and moves to deepen cross-border cooperation. One wag, for example, has been heard to question how the gardai have managed to stop cattle crossing the border when for many years it had been unable to do the same with terrorists. More seriously, farmers' unions, government ministers and politicians from across the political spectrum have united to press the case of the Northern Ireland beef industry at both the United Kingdom and European levels. Whilst such cross-party lobbying is not unusual, particularly by Northern Ireland's three MEPs, some commenta tors have found it significant that unionists have been stressing the differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The

DUP, for instance, have advocated a separate status foi Northern Ireland cattle and the Ulster Farmers'

Union, with historic links to the Northern Ireland state and the unionist elite, has demanded that local beef be classified separately from British beef so that access to the European market can be regained, a demand supported by livestock auctioneers and meat exporters.

An Irish News editorial has found it 'deeply ironic to hear unionist politicians react to the crisis by

going out of their way to point out that Northern Ireland is not really British after all' and has been amused by the DUP's efforts to stress the vital signifi cance of the Irish Sea. The attitude of unionists, however, should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the history of rural politics in Northern Ireland. The unionist case is consistent and explica ble in the context of traditional tensions between claims of parity and particularity. Since partition

Ulster unionists, fully supported by the Ulster Farm ers' Union, have always demanded parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, especially where agri cultural subsidies are concerned, but at the same time have sought flexibility to adapt policies to suit the particular conditions of the Northern Ireland agricultural industry. Although difficult to recon

cile, these tensions were evident in the debates on marketing schemes in the 1930s and on the post-war agriculture acts. The same pattern has continued in

the direct rule period. During the milk quotas con troversy in the mid 1980s, for example, unionist politicians demanded more generous treatment for

Northern Ireland producers than those in Britain (no less that parity with producers in the Republic)

because of the special features of the regional dairy sector. In this wider context, therefore, the demands

20 F o R T N I G H T JULY/AUGUST 1996

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.185 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:30:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

* CURRENT AFFAIRS f

that the Northern Ireland beef sector be treated differently from that in the rest of the United King dom has many historical parallels. The claim for

special treatment in connection with BSE isjustified

by reference to different regional conditions of production, including the fact that Northern Ire land has a much lower incidence of BSE than in

Britain. Some 34% of cattle herds in Great Britain have reported one or more cases of BSE compared with 3% in NI which has recordedjust over 1% of all registered BSE cases in the United Kingdom. So

according to the Livestock Marketing Commission Northern Ireland beef is different from British beef and should be treated differently not only because the industries are separated by the Irish Sea, which provides a natural barrier against the spread of

animal disease, but also by less intensive production, better processing methods and much superior schemes of regulation, inspection and quality assur ance.

Not surprisingly the drive for separate status for Ulster beef is supported by nationalists.John Hume has condemned the European Commission's deci sion to include Northern Ireland in the beef ban as completely unjustified and expressed sympathy with local farmers who have found themselves lumped

together with their British counterparts. For Hume the immediate objective is to ensure that Northern Ireland beef is clearly distinguished as separate from

British beef, a demand rejected by Sir Patrick Mayhew and the NIO. The Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA), the small farmers

organisation generally sympathetic to the national ist political case, has also called for a ban on British beef imports in order to establish a BSE-free status in

Northern Ireland and argued that Northern Ireland beef must be clearly distinguished from 'tainted' British beef.

At root here is the nationalist conviction that the interests of farmers in Northern Ireland can be

better addressed in an all-Ireland context. A single integrated agricultural policy for the island as a

whole has been frequently advocated by the SDLP and other nationalists. In the BSE case this clearly

would have enabled Northern Ireland cattle to es

cape the export ban by being treated in the same way as cattle in the Republic which has an even lower incidence of BSE. Although such a developmentwas ruled out by the British government in the mid 1980s the framework documents clearly open the door to executive all-Ireland agricultural arrangements

within the CAP as well as the harmonisation of a range of other policies. Moreover, as the BSE issue again highlights, protection against animal disease has always had an island dimension. Ironically, in the 1920s the British government refused to grant spe cial treatment to live animal shipments from North ern Ireland because of the practical impossibility of sealing the border. During the Stormont period animal disease policy was one of the few areas where there were good relations and well-developed coop eration between the governments of Northern Ire land and the Republic. Nonetheless unionists, whilst quite prepared to establish 'friendly cooperation' with the Republic have consistently opposed mean ingful all-Ireland arrangements and cross-border bodies with executive powers. The BSE issue con firms thatwhilst unionists are frequently prepared to

argue that Northern Ireland should be treated dif ferently as a region within the United Kingdom, there is no reason to suppose that common ground on issues like BSE will make it any easier to get agreement on fundamental constitutional issues concerning cross-border cooperation and all-Ire land bodies.

ItWO ceers for thI

The Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) of the European Union takes place in Dublin in 1996 dur ing Ireland's Presidency of the Union. Since the IGC is an important event which reviews how the EU is

working and revises the Maastricht Treaty, it is an opportunity for community groups to lobby for a

more egalitarian Europe. It is a sad fact that in the European Union, 18 million people are unemployed, 3 million are homeless and 53 million are living in poverty. The Reflection Group appointed to pin point relevant issues for the conference identified the main challenge facing the Union as the 'challenge to reconcile itself to citizens'.

This would include consideration of problems around human rights, discrimination, equality, and action to tackle racism and unemployment. On the surface, this sounds as though it should provide a common rallying ground for all who want to rise above narrow sectarian issues to develop progressive

policies relevant to poor people all over the EU. In reality, most grass roots groups representing the socially excluded will not be actively involved, or indeed interested in, this IGC.

The reasons are fairly obvious. Obscure terminol ogy used in relation to European issues is extremely off-putting for the average person. Additionally, even though most EU legislation has had a positive impact on social and working conditions, UK social policy operates in direct opposition. This makes

many feel powerless to affect change. The EU White Paper on Social Policy set out targets to decrease poverty and unemployment. The UK blithely disre gards this, continuing policies of cut backs and de regulation which undermine public services and increase poverty.

In particular current UK Government policies discriminate against women working in low paid, insecure jobs through rendering them more prone

With Ireland about to take up its Presidency of the European Union the scene is set for the Inter

Governmental Con ference in Dublin later this year. Brid

Ruddy reports on the options for the poor.

JULY/AUGUST 1996 FORTNIGHT 21

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.185 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:30:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions