What role a monarch in a 32 county Ireland?
Thanks to Boland’s Ghost for pointing us in the direction of Gay Mitchell’s latest kite flying exercise, when he asks if there would be a role for a monarch in a 32 county Republic. It is, as Boland notes, a role back from the position held by Collins in treaty negotiations, since the Irish Republican project has never had more than a derisory response from the island’s original republicans (ie Ulster’s Presbyterians), it may be the least it can do to at least picque their interest.
Rory,
Let’s have the blade from a workshop in the Titanic quarter and a rope of Belfast linen.
I’m not particularly hung up on monarchies myself, logically they do appear to be somewhat anachronistic, but I get a good chuckle out of people saying republics are by necessity better than monarchies. If that were the case then republics, no matter how bad, would be better run places than monarchies, no matter how benevolent.
So then Argentina would have a happier history than Australia, Haiti would be a shining beacon compared to Bermuda, New Zealand would be a hovel compared to the magnificently administered Madagascar, poor old Canada would forever be regretting they hadn’t the enlightned government of the Soviet Union, Albania would scoff in derision at the shitehole of Denmark, Bosnians would wonder what on earth was to be done about that hopeless basket case Sweden, Norwegians would be applying for asylum in Belarus, the Dutch would be studying intently the constitution of Serbia and the Spanish would be wistfully looking back to the days of Franco before that bastard Juan Carlos took control, worst of all would be the poor Japanese, not just subject to a monarchy but an emperor no less, oh how much must they regret not being part of the Peoples’ Republic of China!
Republics are a logical answer but don’t believe the logical answer is necessarily always the happiest one.
In relation to the royal family, if you substitute england for zimbabwe and protestant for black:
QE2=Robert Mugabe
Can anyone else think of any similar comparisons
Yes the point is taken that monarchies are irrational and a waste of time. Soap operas always are, but people still continue to watch them. It’s like the child of Atheists saying, does God know that we don’t believe in Him? Note how many times the phrase “the Queen” has been used on this thread to refer to Bessie Battenberg, as if she were the only exemplar of that species. Unless Ireland has its own monarch to gawp over, people will continue to turn to the British one.
Paddy – you’re not suggesting our very own Irish queen are you?! Don’t you know that we already have one – the Rose of Tralee! What more do you want from a Head of State but a pretty face and a personal wish for world peace?
But … in a UI – with due sensitivity to ‘cultural diversity’ – perhaps “Rose of Tralee” should be re-named, “Belfast Thistle” (in recognition of Scottish symbolism). Could I suggest a crown of thorns too?
IJP
“…..The objective was to see, just see, if Nationalists would even consider the idea – in the context of a compromise necessary to make such a new state stable.
Since few Nationalists would even countenance re-entering the Commonwealth (remember lads – compromise), the answer was not impressive.”
What about this for a compromise:
Why doesn’t the UK re-instate the O’Neills as Kings of Ulster (I believe there is even a direct male descendant knocking about in Spain somewhere).
This will have the happy consequence of…
1. Being good for local tourism.
2. It would increase opportunities for photographers.
3. It would prove that unionism and allianceism were capable of compromise, generosity and making the kind of grand gestures.
4. It would satisfy republican monarchists.
5. Not only would it revive Ulster’s (and Europe’s) oldest royal family – they could then give their royal assent to any legislation passed by a future assembly.
6. It would be such a success that it might persuade the authorites in the republic to rejoin the commonwealth.
“Why doesn’t the UK re-instate the O’Neills as Kings of Ulster (I believe there is even a direct male descendant knocking about in Spain somewhere). ”
No his name is Conor O’Neill and he lives in Ramsay Street, Melbourne, AUstralia.
Dan – ‘QE2=Robert Mugabe
Can anyone else think of any similar comparisons’.
Yes, you to a fuckwit
(crash, there goes the man)
What an illogically reasoned and farcical argument. By making ridiculous comparisons you do yourself no favours what so ever.
Illogically reasoned indeed mo chara. The English monarchial dictatorship did a lot more damage than their Zimbabwean/Rhodesian counterparts ever have or will. About 100million peope died as a result of the British/English Empire.
Nick J,
I tried to make the analogy simple, for it is a simple and correct one. The way in which some people in this island pledge blind loyalty to such a barbaric institution is reminiscent of the Japaneses’ relationship with Hirohito during WWII.
‘QE2=Robert Mugabe’
I didn’t get much sleep last night, I couldn’t figure out why a ship was being related to Mugabe!
100 million eh, thats more than the Nazi’s, the Soviets, the Imperial Japenese, WW1 and WWII killed all together!
You would have thought somebody would have done something about that wouldn’t you.
Seems to me like another huge dollop of hyperbole with little or no historical evidence or facts.
‘I tried to make the analogy simple, for it is a simple and correct one.’
So did I
(Oh, and last time I looked it was a constitutional monarchy, not a babaric monarchical dictatorship, perhaps its all changed since Breakfast News this morning?)
“Seems to me like another huge dollop of hyperbole with little or no historical evidence or facts.”
Perhaps. But the death toll of the British Empire certainly numbers in the millions.
I think Unionists imagine that the rest of Ireland is opposed to Monarchy simply because the Brits have one. That’s just not true, we’re opposed to Monarchy full stop in any form.
If some politician stood up and said we should re-instate the O’Neills as Kings of Ireland he’d be laughed right out of it.
Monarchy, to us, is a primitive superstition, akin to adults believing in Santa, thunder being created by hairy Norwegian dudes with hammers, or studying chicken entrails.
We also believe it is psychologically invidious – by accepting Monarchy in any form you accept that some people are superior to you by right of birth, that you are inherently inferior and should Know Your Place. It is anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic.
Irish republicanism (in the broadest sense, i.e. everybody from RSF to the PDs) is based on the ideals of the French and American Revolutions. We’re not in favour of Republics just to annoy the Brits you know. Ironically the republican ideal largely stemmed from European Protestant thinking in the 17th century which gave birth to the Enlightenment. We consider the fundamental ideals of our Republic to be from that European tradition.
I’m perfectly willing to talk about new flags and anthems (though I think these are fluffy symbolic issues with no real weight and certainly no real protection for Unionists post-Unification, and if Unionists really want to do away with a flag that is supposed to represent them as equal partners well who am I to argue?), happy to discuss Constitutional protections, cultural inclusion programmes, discrimination/equality oversight mechanisms, interesting institutional reforms (say of the Seanad, or of local tiers of Government having Swiss Canton/German Lander style foreign treaty powers), possibly some sort of formal linkages between the British and Irish States provided these links take the form of an equal partnership between two sovereign states…
But spare me a load of mystical quasi-religious wibbling about Monarchies.
Incidentally, the point about dual citizenship isn’t a matter for the Irish, it’s a matter for the British. The current Irish Constitution has no problem with citizens holding multiple other citizenships. It’s up to the British State to promise to allow the children of current Unionists access to British citizenship post-Unification. There’s really nothing we can do about it.
Ciaran- ‘possibly some sort of formal linkages between the British and Irish States provided these links take the form of an equal partnership between two sovereign states’
Such as what? Am interested to know what formal linkages would be on offer which arn’t already available through the EU?
I, my family, friends and most of the people I work with are all Irish Republicans. We look forward to the peaceful reunification of a 32 county Republic. ‘Hopefully it isn’t that far away! If, as someone has said, the Head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary and the Commonwealth can accommodate a Republic, then I just don’t see the problem. If all this is true and it is a compromise that can bring peace, I have no doubt that if it went to a referendum, it would be endorsed by a majority of Irish Republicans. It might not be an ideal form of government but then neither is the one we have now and if it really means we would get the peaceful reunification of a 32-county Ireland – it definitely gets my vote! I couldn’t care less what the politicians say. They’re getting their salaries for doing nothing and despite massive wages they can’t agree on anything.
Commonwealth? Bring it on!
“Ciaran- ‘possibly some sort of formal linkages between the British and Irish States provided these links take the form of an equal partnership between two sovereign states’
Such as what? Am interested to know what formal linkages would be on offer which arn’t already available through the EU? ”
Well at the moment, AFAIK, there are certain rules wrt voting rights that UK Citzens have in Ireland and vice versa. Perhaps something along those lines, or fast track Naturalisation for citzen’s if so desired?
Also probably little things – British Army recruiting in Ireland, perhaps some formal University schloraship funds etc.
What would you like to see, if the situation arose?
Nick J – no idea!
I’m just wondering aloud on ways to have some sort of linkage to Britain that Unionists could make use of to still feel like they have some real involvement in this “British Family” youse believe in, but that wouldn’t be an intolerable imposition on the rest of us!
Seats in the Lords, a different role for the BIIPB, allowing a ceremonial role for the Monarchy in opening sessions of Unionist-controlled local councils…stuff like that maybe. It’s kindof up to Unionists to come up with ideas though, we simply do not understand or believe in the whole concept of a British Family, and have absolutely no interest in tying ourselves back into the UK, so any ideas we come up with will probably sound daft to youse!
Personally I think youse would be better off focusing on constitutional and institutional rights and cultural protection mechanisms – real stuff – rather than getting in a lather over fluffy abstract symbols that at the end of the day don’t put food on the table or keep your family secure. But that’s just me.
dantheman: No such requirement exists in any other HoS in europe so in this respect the royal family is clearly the most racist in this aspect.
(1) What on earth makes you think there is no such requirement elsewhere in Europe?
(2) What is racist about it? There are English Catholics and Irish Protestants…
Kensei
I would not want to countenance living in a UI with a significant still “Unionist” minority. That’s a recipe for instability, and there’s only one place that’ll lead…
I would countenance living in a UI where “Unionists” have been persuaded that a new all-island state is at least tolerable and takes full and genuine account of their British (and Protestant) identity. That might be stable.
And to achieve it, you would have to re-enter the Commonwealth and much more, not as a “sop”, but as part of building the new state that is fully embraced by all.
Because in the end, a UI is worthless if it doesn’t overcome our divisions and enable us all to feel affiliated to the same flag, the same anthem, and the same institutions.
dantheman
QE2 = Robert Mugabe?
New candidate for the “Pathetic attempt at the ‘Most Oppressed People Ever’” award.
Get a grip, you’re better than that.
Ciaran
You’re playing the Nationalist game there.
This is not about “sops” to the British identity – that’ll just create mass instability. It’s crazy tokenism.
A UI will only be successful if it positively embraces the British identity that is part of all of us – whether currently we care to admit it or not. And that identity is not to do with that other island or its institutions, but to do with this island and the people who live in it.
In a UI I would want nothing to do with the institutions of the British state, but I would want a fair reflection of my personal British identity within the institutions of the Irish State – without being patronized!
Ciaran Irvine
Your 5.59 post illustrates to me that you have absolutely no notion of how the British regard the monarchy.
Your
“Monarchy, to us, is a primitive superstition, akin to adults believing in Santa, thunder being created by hairy Norwegian dudes with hammers, or studying chicken entrails.
We also believe it is psychologically invidious – by accepting Monarchy in any form you accept that some people are superior to you by right of birth, that you are inherently inferior and should Know Your Place. It is anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic”
shows a complete lack of understanding of the British mindset.
The monarchy exists in its present form because the people allow it to do so.
If we really thought there was a better and a necessary way then it would be given consideration.
However when all things are considered why not – it provides continuity with our past – good and bad.
The Queen is respected throughout the UK and of course the world (except Irish Republicans of course).
Any nonsense about them not being worth the money is blown apart by the huge tourist attraction.
I dont for one minute consider Charles as superior to me – Ultimately it is the position he holds that I defer to not him. That position is that he has been permitted, by the people, to represent all the people and by paying homage to the King I am doing so to my country – its laws, traditions and values – and of course the people itself.
A 1000 year old tradition going back to when my ancestors wished/had to be goverened by kings adds a bit of weight to the matter – better than Galloway or Livingstone or maybe somebody from Big Brother.
Anyhow as I said earlier spare me the stuff about Irish Republicanism being on a par with American and French thinkers.
If this had been the case then post 1921 De Valera would not have been talking about a Catholic Constitution for a Catholic people. There would have been true separation of State and Church and the lack of that is the real danger of superiority of one citisen over another.
IMHO the deference shown by Irish Catholicism to the Vatican is evidence of wanting to be goverened by an earthly king.
What kind of Republic enslaved thousands of Irish women to drunken abusive marriages and a life of 13 plus children – was it what the people wanted or was it what an unelected and foreign king dicated ?
In many ways I would say Irish Protestants are more deservinbg of the Republican mantle and its not just the 1798 rebellion.
Just look at our churches and how we elect our leaders and elders. Look at the autonomy and democracy within institutions like the UUP and the Orange Order.
Infact Paisleyism and paramilitarism are modern day scourges on those traditions
Unionism decisively changed its allegiance to the monarchy in the 19th Century because it was a Protestant monarchy that helped secure their right on the Island. In addition the power of that king had been made subject to Parliament.
The kind of stuff you are talking about and the attitide to Royalty was what the English Civil War and ultimately the Glorious Revolution were all about.
You really need to get inside the mindset of those who support a constitutional monarchy before you go sounding off about it.
Again a meeting of minds seems impossible given the diametrically opposed nature of the views.
It is, for an irish nationalist, not about unionists in a way. It’s about the british government’s presence on this island, its influence and its army. In particular it is about the way the british have used ireland for their own ends even when this is detrimental to the furtherment of the quality of life of the majority of people.
From that point of view a monarch and all the other aspects of IJP’s “you would have to re-enter the Commonwealth and much more” is unacceptable to very many – perhaps the vast majority – of us.
However IJP’s “In a UI I would want nothing to do with the institutions of the British state, but I would want a fair reflection of my personal British identity within the institutions of the Irish State – without being patronized!” sounds interesting. If I knew exactly what he meant that might be worth talking about.
John East Belfast makes some valid points regarding the kind of catholic triumphalism which was allowed to flourish under deValera and his ilk but his vitriol is unbalanced overall and takes away from the power of what he is saying. I guess that’s because he’s a committed unionist with a profound dislike for irish nationalism.
All in all there is one other way to deal with these issues – we can face down unionism’s intimidation and defeat them.
That too is an option for the irish people of the island of ireland if they want to build a future free of debilitating influences and free from the english who see our land as something to be toyed with for their own strategic ends.
JEB – Well of course I’ve no understanding of the British mindset and views on the monarchy, I’m an Irish republican! Sheesh!
I was trying to explain to you Monarchists how we view Monarchy, and hence why we reject re-introducing it into the fabric of society. It was an attempt to explain that rejection of Monarchy isn’t done just to be “anti-British” but because we have a very different philosophical basis for our society with deep roots in European philosophy and the French and US Revolutions. That’s where we look to as the source of our political philosophy and ideals, not London.
You will have to understand and accept this too. And spare me the “Papist Plot Rome Rule” wibbling, please. It isn’t the 1950s you know. Oh, and Republicans aren’t naughty children pretending not to be British. That goes for you too Mr Parsley. I was quite open in saying that any proposals we can come up with will almost certainly be flawed because we simply don’t “get” either Monarchism or Britishness. They don’t make any sense to us. If youse want them incorporated into the state youse will have to explain why you value them (and even then it probably won’t make sense). It’s up to Unionism to make proposals here on post-UI linkages to Britain, because anything we say will be from a position of complete bafflement and incomprehension about what youse actually care about!
Harry
May I ask – how old are you ?
Ciaran Irvine
“JEB – Well of course I’ve no understanding of the British mindset and views on the monarchy, I’m an Irish republican! Sheesh!”
I just thought/hoped that you might have been interested in learning something rather than shouting over my shoulder
“It isn’t the 1950s you know”
You were the one touting the Enlightenment and 18th Century Revolutionaries in your post as support of the Irish Republican pedigree – I was just pointing out that it was well into the 20th Century (and beyond the 50s)before the words met the actions.
Anyhow joining the Commonwealth should be seen as joining friends from a position of strength.
Absolutely nothing to fear.
JEB makes some good points about constitutional monarchy in Britain. And the Irish constitution is much more like the British constitution than the US or French ones. Basically, we in Ireland and Britain don’t think that one person should have so much power.
No matter your politics anywhere on these islands, we’ve had centuries of intertwined history and should make more of an effort to get into each other’s heads. My long journey to Irish republicanism started by reading great tomes of British history.
Both states have made mistakes. Dev’s theocracy is a blight on Ireland that scarred many people, but then the country of the Glorious Revolution still has religious restrictions on it’s head of state. The list is endless.
Let’s all get together and make a constitution and a country better than the UK, France, the RoI and the US put together. It wouldn’t be too hard when you look at some aspects of them today
“I would not want to countenance living in a UI with a significant still “Unionist” minority. That’s a recipe for instability, and there’s only one place that’ll lead…”
Such an incredible twist of logic. A state where over 40% vote for parties whose aim is to leave the satate is stable, whereas a state where 15% or less of the population feels the same is much more so?
“I would countenance living in a UI where “Unionists” have been persuaded that a new all-island state is at least tolerable and takes full and genuine account of their British (and Protestant) identity. That might be stable.”
There is no way in God’s earth can we convincce everyone of that fact, pre any handover. There are a lot of things we cn do, but any way you like it a significanty amount of people are going to be pissed.
I believe if the state is run properly, it will bed down with time, however. And after 70 years of majority will deciding Constitutional arrangements, tough if Nationalism gets majority. You set up the rules, you live by them. Otherwise, I expect the same rules to be applied in reverse, right here, right now.
“And to achieve it, you would have to re-enter the Commonwealth and much more, not as a “sop”, but as part of building the new state that is fully embraced by all.”
No. I would guess that most people in Ireland don’t really want to rejoin the Commonwealth. But they would probably do it in the event of a UI to make Unionists more comfortable. It isn’t a sop. We don’t “have” to do anything if we got the magical 50%+1, but it is an important to reach out to other people. Don’t underestimate that or denigrate it as an impulse.
I am sure the Irish people will embrace the new state in whatever form is agreed. They’d have to, because they’d need to vote for it.
“Because in the end, a UI is worthless if it doesn’t overcome our divisions and enable us all to feel affiliated to the same flag, the same anthem, and the same institutions.”
I don’t believe that is the case. It is certainly greatly diminished, but I still believe the situation is still better than what we have right here, right now because that is already broken.
What you are saying is basically sticking impossible preconditions to a UI. It’s not going to solve all the problems. It’s not, in and of itself going to break down all the barriers, though it probably will some. What it does is offer to a chance to agree a new system, and gives us a chance to tackle those problems properly.
“The monarchy exists in its present form because the people allow it to do so.
If we really thought there was a better and a necessary way then it would be given consideration.”
This is only partly true. The status quo and nostalgia are a powerfuul force. I also don’t believe most people get the significance of a written Constitution versus the situation in the UK.
“However when all things are considered why not – it provides continuity with our past – good and bad.
The Queen is respected throughout the UK and of course the world (except Irish Republicans of course).
Any nonsense about them not being worth the money is blown apart by the huge tourist attraction.”
I believe France has more visitors than the UK. Lots of them come to see the castles the French monarchy built. They’d still come, and you could invent or adapt traditions as you see fit. The argument doesn’t stand.
The Queen may be well respected, but her family generally isn’t. And you may strike lucky, and get a good monarch. But you may equally get a bad one. There is no mechanism to get rid of bad or merely medicore ones. That argument doesn’t stand either.
“I dont for one minute consider Charles as superior to me – Ultimately it is the position he holds that I defer to not him. That position is that he has been permitted, by the people, to represent all the people and by paying homage to the King I am doing so to my country – its laws, traditions and values – and of course the people itself.”
Why should he have that office? Why should I pay him money? Why should anyone that objects not have their moiney back. His only legitimacy is that he was born into the role. He has no mandate, in the way that a elected Head of State has, and no need to ever refresh it.
“A 1000 year old tradition going back to when my ancestors wished/had to be goverened by kings adds a bit of weight to the matter – better than Galloway or Livingstone or maybe somebody from Big Brother.”
No, it isn’t. You might get someone from Big Brother, but equally you may have got a really good person. Moreover, you have a mechhanoism to remove bad ones. Thnis is a nonsense. You don’t have respect for the British people, if that is your attitude. You have contempt for them.
“Anyhow as I said earlier spare me the stuff about Irish Republicanism being on a par with American and French thinkers.
If this had been the case then post 1921 De Valera would not have been talking about a Catholic Constitution for a Catholic people. There would have been true separation of State and Church and the lack of that is the real danger of superiority of one citisen over another.”
De Valera resisted pressure to make Catholicism the state religion. He also added mention of the Protestant Churches to the Constitution, which for it’s time was an enlighted document. The problem was that the Irish State was fundamentally weaker than the Church for a long time. If a million Prods with no truck with that had have been in, we may have done a hell of a lot better.
At any rate, we are not talking timeless ideals here. We are talking about a situation that no one longer exists in the modern republic.
“IMHO the deference shown by Irish Catholicism to the Vatican is evidence of wanting to be goverened by an earthly king.”
No, it’s the precise opposite, and I think you are showing a lack of understanding of Catholicism.
“In many ways I would say Irish Protestants are more deservinbg of the Republican mantle and its not just the 1798 rebellion.
Just look at our churches and how we elect our leaders and elders. Look at the autonomy and democracy within institutions like the UUP and the Orange Order.
Infact Paisleyism and paramilitarism are modern day scourges on those traditions”
I would fully agree that the foundations of Republicanism and Democracy lie in Republicanism. But you’ve clearly abandoned those ideals here, for the moment.
“You really need to get inside the mindset of those who support a constitutional monarchy before you go sounding off about it. ”
Sure, then I can tell they are still idiots and fools. I’m sorry, I have no truck with it at all. English, Spainish, dutch, Japanese whatever.
I like to dress as Rhonda Paisley at the weekend.
Arrghh! people are still debating this as rhough it were serious. Be careful or we all will be considered crazy enough to put together in the Big Brother house.
In the US tricky exploitative rogues often sport badges, car decals and the like with the symbol WWJD? (What would Jesus do?). The suggestion is that whatever this gross thieving hateful prick might get up to it had the full appoval of old Jesus himself and you better go along with it or else you were going to Hell (or at least round the back of the warehouse for a righteous kicking by the company goons).
I favour the WWHD rule of life myself – what would Homer do?. And so I think on any burning issue of the day that I am in Moe’s Bar and I ask, “So, Homey, wadda think about we get ourselves like a King or a Queen or something?”.
Homer replies, “You English guys, you crack me up. That Comic Relief thing. – funness”!
I think the meat of Mitchell’s speech is here:
“I therefore raise this question as we stand at the grave of Arthur Griffith. If a united Ireland by consent, as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement, and the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, could come about are we prepared on this part of the island to re-visit the ideas of Griffith as to how we might accommodate a sizeable number of our fellow Irish who live on the island with us?”
If we are serious in our pursuit of a new all-island political arrangement for Ireland, those of us who favour this idea would have to think long and hard about it. We would have to rethink our sense of irish nationality in order to accommodate those whose primary identity is British. This is uncomfortable territory for many of us who were brought up on the comforting rhetoric of traditional Irish nationalism.
Given that Mitchell was speaking at a commemoration to Griffith, and Griffith had put forward the idea of a joint monarchy, I would suggest that Mitchell was playing devil’s advocate here deliberately. He may or may not believe in the idea himself, but he is positing it as one of the obstacles we would surely come up against if a new all-Ireland political arrangement were to emerge.
He also refers to Sinn Féin’s policy for achieving national unity:
““If we are not prepared to think outside the conventional box and act as persuaders, however gently, are we, the inheritors of Griffith’s tradition, abdicating to hard-line so-called Republicans the sole role of advocates for unity? What a dreadful thought.”
The SF strategy seems to hinge on trying to turn the tables on the principle of consent – i.e. if we wait long enough, and the demographics go our way then when eventually 50%+1 of the population of Northern Ireland vote for a United Ireland, then we have one.
OK, that’s how we could maybe achieve one, but it’s not how we could sustain one.
If those of us who prefer an all-Ireland solution can come up with a new dispensation that not only accommodates the British identity of Northern Ireland’s unionists, but actually cherishes it, then we might be on to something. It may not even involve giving the UK monarch a role in the new Irish nation, but it would most certainly have to allow for a British identity within the new Irish citizenship.
I agree that incorporating britishness into the irish identity is mind-bending for nationalists, but a queen of ireland is not going to be part of that bent-mind. The issue for nationalists is mainly british influence and political/military interference in our land and its implications for the future of our country. Accomodating unionists sense of britishness is of course related to that but in a way different. One should have no illusions about the desire for britain to influence this island and how such influence has traditionally acted against our interests – right up to the present day. Just because a british minister (Peter Brooke) said that Britain doesn’t have any ‘selfish economic or strategic interest’ doesn’t mean it’s true, despite having become a truism. In itself the words might imply that now, in the opinion of the britain, our economic and strategic interests are shared – and therefore not ‘selfish’ – rather than that they don’t exist at all. And a little thought will make people understand that if they think ireland no longer has any significance for britain (even a britain so heavily allied militarily and economically with the US) then similarly you might say that Taiwan has no strategic interest relative to China in this age of aircraft and missiles or Japan has no strategic interest in relation to North Korea and China, or Cyprus has no strategic interest or Israel or the Cape of Good Hope or Gibraltar – which is a patent nonsense.
It is these considerations we should be weighing as well as the rights of the unionist people to retain and express their identity. We should not be naive about Britain’s predatory view of ireland and should suit ourselves in our decisions.
There is a good case to be made for a Constitutional monarchy but there is no prospect of a British monarch ever being acceptable in Ireland.
Why not consider one of the other European royal houses. We could have all the advantages of the system without the divisiveness or indeed the embarrassment of the Windsors.
Even then it would be a very hard sell.
“OK, that’s how we could maybe achieve one, but it’s not how we could sustain one.”
Look, can we just kill this one? It’s an attempt to add a further precondition to a UI rather than just the consent one that was agreed. A United Ireland is endgame, unless suddenly the entire island decided it wanted to rejoin the UK. Unionism represents only about 15% of the United Ireland. The situation if findamentally more stable than it is now.
It would be bad if Unionists could not be accomodated and made welcome, and it detrimental to the new state. But it isn’t going to threaten it’s existence.
Kensei
You accused others of putting words in your mouth, so don’t put them in mine.
I’m Protestant, I’m British – but I’m not a Unionist. You should be more careful than that.
I’m going from an assumption that the current situation is not stable. It’s up to you to show how your preferred constitutional settlement improves that.
I’m not going to change the constitutional settlement for any reason other than it offers stability.
And I’m the kind of guy you need to persuade.
Well said, Gerry.
IJP
“I’m Protestant, I’m British – but I’m not a Unionist”
I suppose you are a small u unionist though ?
Do you not feel the Union is worth defending ?
“You accused others of putting words in your mouth, so don’t put them in mine.”
I am not putting words in anyone else. Was that you anyway? I thought it was someone else.
The clear implication of such a statement is that there shouldn’t be a United Ireland even in the event of 50%+1 because it wouldn’t be stable, or Unionists wouldn’t want it, or the like. It is placing further preconditions. The symetric argument, that I hate being in the increasngly authoritarian UK with bugger all say in anything, doesn’t seem to register.
“I’m Protestant, I’m British – but I’m not a Unionist. You should be more careful than that.”
Impossible preconditions do not an open mind make.
“I’m going from an assumption that the current situation is not stable. It’s up to you to show how your preferred constitutional settlement improves that.”
40+% unhappy population > 15-% unhappy population
The problem with current arrangements or an independent Northern Ireland, is that vast amounts of people are going to be unpersuaded and still desire reunification. Relative to the size of the state, this is hugely destabilising. Such problems exist to an extent in UI, but the relative amount of unhappy people is much smaller and hence less destabilising.
It’s like mixing paint. There is no going back, realistically. Stability is enforced by finality. It’s harsh, but this forces people one way or another, to confront reality. This in turn forces down barriers.
Unionism has potentially big influence in a United Ireland. Those who don’t vote now because of tribal politcs have the chance to vote for real parties. Everyone gets a chance at a real say in their future. This to me, is the most important thing.
Chance of greater prosperity, more happy people, more stability.
I also believe people would be better able to express themselves in a United Ireland. Britishness becomes just another group of people along with the Eastern Europeans and everyone else we’ve taken on board. Attitudes change when Britain is no longer claiming territory here. Orange marches may still remain anti-Catholic, but they are substantially less scary in a UI context.
Carte blanche on a new Constitution. That is about as good as it gets, when it comes to ensuring freedoms and rights.
Basically, the only thing it seems to me that we’ve got in common here, other than we both live here, is that in some sense we’re both Irish (cue people telling me they are British/Ulsterish/Ulster-scots/Other). I’d rather build a state on that, rather than on a “British” one that can only divide.
“I’m not going to change the constitutional settlement for any reason other than it offers stability.”
What about greater stability? What about the same stability but more prosperity? Or better education? Or being better able to change things?
That’s an awful big precondition.
“And I’m the kind of guy you need to persuade.”
I agree. I’m just not sure you really want persuaded.
posted by Kathy C
Hi all,
Did anyone happen to read what a judge in the US wrote regarding Pres. Bush’s spy program. The judge stated in no uncertain terms that in the US we do NOT have a heriditary monarch and bush couldn’t do what he did….I put that in becauce some are saying that the world over people except Irish Nationist like and admire the queen…what doggy do do…..lots in the US don’t like the queen or the thought of a hereditary monarch. I find it interesting that some are saying for the good of peace…they’ll think of a role for queenie….I’m so glad in America when we had our revolution against the british monarch we didn’t accomadate them…No …what we did was WIN our independence. We didn’t have to bend over for the monarch…and we don’t lower our flag or bend our knee for the monarch…if you people want to…wow…that says volumes about you.
Kensei
We can’t just “kill this one.”
My preference is for an all-Ireland solution, but I certainly don’t want one where anything up to 20% of the population are opposed to the state itself, which is exactly where we would be if we just pursue the numbers game.
The simplistic approach to unification goes like this – “we wait till there are more nationalists than unionists and then we get our United Ireland. Sorry, unionists, there’s more of us now, so we call the shots. That’s democracy.”
But that’s a bit like building a house with walls, floors, a roof, doors and windows…but in our haste to build it forget about the foundations. We have a house, but it will not be very stable.
If we are to have a united Ireland, then we we have to be sure that it will be as stable as possible. To do this, we have to reassure the British people of Northern Ireland that our intentions are noble. That their identity will be as valid as any other in a new state. That the symbols and mechanisms of the new state would be scrupulously unbiased toward either community.
The thing is that if we could make a start on doing this now, we might even be able to achieve our goal a lot earlier than if we just wait for the demographics. Reading discussions on Slugger, I often see a unionist commenter writing something like “Well, you’ll never persuade unionists to agree to a united Ireland with that sort of argument…” That to me suggests that unionists are open to being persuaded. Not all of course, but I reckon a critical mass could be achieved over a much shorter period of time than just using such crude tactics as waiting to outbreed them.
But there are a good few obstacles in the way. Convincing the British people of Northern Ireland that this is the way to go and that we really mean what we say is only one part of it. The other is convincing ourselves (i.e. advocates for a united Ireland), of how we need to realign our thinking and our approach to our own national identity. And this is what Mitchell was doing when he made his speech. To anyone who is a nationalist by instinct, the thought of the British royal family having any role in a putative united Ireland is a very uncomfortable thought indeed, (one to which I personally would be opposed, btw.) But it is exactly these sort of questions we should be asking ourselves.
Are we serious in our pursuit of a united Ireland? Or do we just pay lip service to it?
“The simplistic approach to unification goes like this – “we wait till there are more nationalists than unionists and then we get our United Ireland. Sorry, unionists, there’s more of us now, so we call the shots. That’s democracy.”
Correct. That is what they are saying to us, right now with regard to the current state of affairs.
I am all for convincing Unionists and reassuring them, fashioning a vision of an Ireland where they feel they can play an important role, as well as with say, the ton of Polish people that have arrived. It may indeed be necessary to realise a UI. But if we couldn’t a the 50%+1 emerged, the bottom line remains and the “We couldn’t if ….” is nonsense that should not gain any currency at all.
Kensei
But it isn’t, actually.
Northern Ireland as it is is not what Unionists want (and rightly not). The basic issue of where sovereignty lies is, but there’s a lot that isn’t. It is the nearest we can get to compromise while remaining in the Union.
In the same way that majority rule for Unionists in NI is no longer on the table (and rightly not), majority rule for Nationalists in any context is not on the table either.
And forget that nonsensical “more Poles” argument. There are more muslims in the UK than there are people in NI, but that doesn’t mean the UK Government should forget about Irish Nationalists!
Gerry
But it is exactly these sort of questions we should be asking ourselves.
I’m delighted to see that at least one Nationalist is asking these questions!
My broader point is that neither Unionists nor Nationalists are asking the right question though.
Unionists ask: “How do we secure our future within the Union?”
Nationalists ask: “How do we get a United Ireland?”
But realists ask: “How do we make this place stable, prosperous and fair?”
It seems neither “side” is prepared to take on that latter, far more important question.
“But it isn’t, actually.
Northern Ireland as it is is not what Unionists want (and rightly not).”
Yes. They want majority rule.
“The basic issue of where sovereignty lies is, but there’s a lot that isn’t. It is the nearest we can get to compromise while remaining in the Union.”
What? That sentence does make sense. Where sovereignty lies, what laws you are under and your ability to change those laws seems startlingly important to me.
“In the same way that majority rule for Unionists in NI is no longer on the table (and rightly not), majority rule for Nationalists in any context is not on the table either.”
In a United Ireland there would be a PR system similar to the South at the moment. With proper oversight in a second chamber and Constitutional equality clauses, that should be all needed for everyone. You’re trapped in Partitionist mentality. In a UI, it would be left wing or right wing government, not Nationalist or Unionist. We get proper grown up government.
You think FF gives a stuff about all our nonsense?
“And forget that nonsensical “more Poles” argument. There are more muslims in the UK than there are people in NI, but that doesn’t mean the UK Government should forget about Irish Nationalists! ”
No, you are missing my point. Even right now, there are probably half a million or more, recent immigrants. That is almost half of the Unionist population on this Ireland. Any new structure has to work for them. A UI offers Unionism no special treament or position. It offers them the ability to have their identity respected, the chance to shape the state and the chance to build a better future. Any system put in place has to work equally as well for the recent immigrants, be they Eastern European, Asian or African and respect those people in precisely the same way.
“But realists ask: “How do we make this place stable, prosperous and fair?””
Realists? A question that cannot be answered without reference to the National question, and can’t be resolved until it’s resolved. Wishing that away won’t change it.
‘majority rule for nationalists…….is not on the table.’
Don’t be silly…majority rule for unionists is not possible because they have proven and continue to prove their complete inability to understand democracy. As a dependent people they are in no position to demand anything and must be satisfied with the crumbs London chooses to give them.
Nationalists don’t require majority rule to be put on anybody’s table. We’re not anybody’s subjects and when we are in a position to introduce majority rule we will do so….and no power on earth, certainly not a tatty empire in the last stages of disintegration will stand in our way, nor would it wish to do so.
Funny how eager unionists are to forget their position ‘on the wrong side of history’. No-one else forgets it for a moment nor would the unionist leadership allow us to for a moment.
posted by Kathy C
Hi all,
Many of you seem to overlook an important factor in the dimension. What does the Irish Disporia want… It is the Irish Disporia that has funded alot of the pro-unification plans over the years…it is the Irish Disporia that help fuel the Irish economy in tourism and investment…and the Irish Disporia want a united Ireland and the Irish Disporia don’t like the british monarch. When the Irish Disporia’s wants are factored into the equation…it isn’t just a unionist-nationalist equation. Oh, and don’t forget to factor in the surege of nationalism in england that is pro england and not so pro-northern irish dup/uup unionist. There’s lots of factors to think about.
Kensei
No, you are missing the point and worryingly so.
For example, you say the ‘national question’ has to be resolved.
Who are you to say it isn’t?
lib2016
For example, simple incorporation into the current Republic of the North would mean, in theory and in practice, majority rule for Nationalist Ireland.
And it’s not an option.
It’s time you did some real thinking.
If you continue to tell Unionists “We’ll respect your identity, honest” while then dismissing the issue of how to include and embrace the British identity at the heart of the new Ireland, frankly, you can forget all about a UI because of your own point – FF doesn’t give a stuff, and won’t be bothered about unity without a least some degree of consensus.
You’re not doing anything to get it.
“No, you are missing the point and worryingly so.”
No, I’m really not.
“For example, you say the ‘national question’ has to be resolved.
Who are you to say it isn’t? ”
For a start, we don’t have a functioning Assembly. Second the number of people that want a UI has not vanished, rather it is getting bigger. If it’s resolved, someone cocked up the resolution.
“For example, simple incorporation into the current Republic of the North would mean, in theory and in practice, majority rule for Nationalist Ireland.
And it’s not an option.”
1. It isn’t majority rule for Nationalism. the Republic doesn’t live in a sectarian timewarp thankfully.
2. Fucking the country with crappy government does no one any good.
“It’s time you did some real thinking.
If you continue to tell Unionists “We’ll respect your identity, honest” while then dismissing the issue of how to include and embrace the British identity at the heart of the new Ireland, frankly, you can forget all about a UI”
I am all for recognising their identity, I am all for allowing them to, indeed helping them, to express their identity. There is even a role for those symbols and the like in the state. I am all for thinking of ways to help Unionism in a UI scenario.
You miss the point. Ireland is a Constitutional Democracy. It isn’t like the UK. Your rights, and your identity will be enshrined in the Constitution. If the State attempts to violate those rights, then you can go to the courts and have the law overturned. It is unthinkable a community with so many lawyers, judges and politicians wouldn’t be part of that system, and able to use it effectively. The fragmented nature of Irish PR also means that it is quite likely ‘Unionist’ politicans would wield a lot of power.
What you don’t get, is special treatment above and beyond everyone else. You don’t get a sub government to go off and do what you want. You don’t get to screw up the whole government of the country so you have a veto on everything. That happens here, only because the nature of our politics means that 1. Votes split across tribal lines and 2. Unionism can’t be trusted with power. This is not the case in a UI.
Of course, having said all that, the Constitution, weighted voting, second chamber oversight and local government could be on the table in a UI scenario.
“because of your own point – FF doesn’t give a stuff, and won’t be bothered about unity without a least some degree of consensus.”
Fortunately, it goes straight over their heads.
You’re not doing anything to get it.