Substantial support for the Northern Ireland Agreement was expressed at Sinn Fein's ardfheis yesterday when the party concluded a two-day debate on the issue.
The agreement will be debated further when the ardfheis reconvenes probably in two weeks. A decision is likely to be taken then on the party's stance in the forthcoming referendums, North and South.
After initial negative reaction to the document on Saturday, a number of delegates who spoke yesterday proposed that it be viewed as a further step towards the realisation of the party's objective of a united Ireland.
Opponents of the deal expressed particular dismay at the proposal to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution and the prospect of Sinn Fein's taking seats in a Northern Ireland Assembly. Speakers were unanimous in their praise of the party leadership for getting what they said was the best deal available.
The Sinn Fein chairman, Mr Pat Doherty, said there were gains in the document and there were dangers. The gains came from the Sinn Fein negotiators as the SDLP had "bottled out" on every strand, except Strand One. "We need to be sophisticated enough, clever enough and even devious enough to take whatever decisions we decide to take," he said.
"Let us focus very, very clearly on the pluses and on the dangers, but let's not be fearful. We have the ability to smash British rule in our country," Mr Doherty added.
A leading party figure, Mr Joe Cahill, told the congress: "Don't be afraid of change. Whatever changes may come in the future, I guarantee you, will not cause us any problems."
He told people who had doubts about the Stormont talks process to bear in mind that "had we not been there the document we have today, flawed and all as it is, would have been shit".
An ardchomhairle member, Mr Joe Reilly, said the document was contradictory and ambiguous, but the party had to look at the "big picture". His personal view was that the party should enter the Assembly. "Unless we are in there, bringing our strength, our experience, our knowledge and our confidence, then this struggle will take a step backwards," he said.
Cllr Pat McNamee (Newry and South Armagh) said the party had to assess whether it could use the agreement to further its republican objectives. "Whatever is necessary for republicans to do to advance our struggle, that is what we will do . . . and whatever we do we must do it together," he said.
Mr Martin Meehan (Belfast) drew applause when he said the IRA remained undefeated and "no one should diminish the supreme sacrifice of the volunteers of Oglaigh na hEireann". If there was a possibility of preventing one more young man or woman losing their life in the cause of Irish freedom, they had a duty to explore every possibility.
"For unionists this is as good as it gets," said Mr Glenn Mac Bradaigh (Belfast), "for nationalists it's just a start."
On Saturday, Mr John Murtagh (Dublin) said no republican could sign up to the agreement under any circumstances.
"It's true that some republicans see positive elements to this document and that for the first time ever there will be cross-Border bodies with executive powers.
"But the question we must ask is whether this is worth the price we are being asked to pay: recognition of British rule in Ireland, acceptance of partition and the destruction of the claim to nationhood in the Irish Constitution. The consensus among Dublin members is, at this stage, a resounding No," he said to applause.
Mr Arthur Morgan, an ardchomhairle member (Louth), warned about getting hung up on Articles 2 and 3. To warm applause, he said he "wouldn't give you tuppence for the entire '37 Constitution, never mind two Articles of it".
However, Mr Mike Egan (Galway) said the proposed new wording for Articles 2 and 3 guaranteed the unionist veto.
The idea of the Assembly had come as a surprise to him. "The Assembly represents everything that we fought against, so I'd be very wary about us handing over power to an Assembly that's going to basically, maybe a year or two down the road, give us a big stick to beat our own people with."
Mr Daithi Doolan (Dublin) said the agreement was inherently flawed. "Its concessions are basic human rights, the Irish language, prisoners, RUC, justice. They're not concessions, they're human rights, and human rights should never be up for negotiation."
Mr James McBarron (Cork city) said the agreement would not end the sectarian state, nor would it end British rule. "In fact it won't even provide that dynamic towards a united Ireland." People did not realise how big a setback the removal of Articles 2 and 3 would be psychologically in the South.