“When we discuss these issues with genuine mutual understanding..”
Former Ireland rugby international Hugo MacNeill, in the Irish Times [subs req], calls for a wider debate than the one previously suggested by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.. and leads the way into it by paraphrasing the oft-quoted poet John Hewitt
“Firstly, I am an Ulsterman steeped in the traditions of this place. Secondly, I am Irish, of this Ireland. Thirdly, I am British, and finally, in a more diffuse way, I am European. It may make it easier for you to understand if you remove one of those elements but if you do you are no longer describing who I am.”
Hugo MacNeill starts by describing his interest in the question of identity [subs req]
The question of the North has always fascinated me. So too has the relationship between Ireland and Britain. Why? It is a matter of who – and what – I am. Ancestors from Glenarm in Co Antrim; a family involved in Irish history; growing up in Dublin; at college in Trinity and Oxford; playing rugby for Ireland with my Ulster team-mates; living in England for nearly 20 years; and now back in Dublin but working in London two days a week for an international organisation.
And he ends with a call for a less narrowly defined, “new framework, a new language in which these issues are discussed”
There is now a relationship between Britain and Ireland that would have been unimaginable just over a decade ago. We no longer believe in the stereotypes: the mischievous, cunning Irish; the haughty arrogant English.
These changes bring fantastic opportunity on the one hand and great challenges on the other. In turn they demand changes in the way we think about many economic, social and cultural issues. They also demand changes in the way we think about the North and indeed the South.
We need a new framework, a new language in which these issues are discussed. We need to explicitly recognise the changed and changing context in which they play out, in all parts of our island and with our UK neighbours. Pursuing one path based on one set of beliefs or assumptions, whilst not recognising the wider set of changes, the views of the other parties, will lead to a narrow and increasingly divided society, principally in the North (where such matters do continue to be of daily importance), but also on the wider island.
When we discuss these issues with genuine mutual understanding we are more likely to build a better future for all the people on this island whilst continuing to strengthen the bonds with our neighbours across the Irish Sea. This will probably involve a richer, less black or white, more complex set of assumptions and relationships than have been discussed to date. However, it’s a big and worthy prize. Let’s go for it.
The paraphrasing by Hugo MacNeill is from a paragraph in this letter from John Hewitt to John Montague in 1964
I always maintained that our loyalties had an order to Ulster, to Ireland, to the British Archipelago, to Europe; and that anyone who skipped a step or missed a link falsified the total. The Unionists missed out Ireland: the Northern Nationalists (The Green Tories) couldn’t see the Ulster under their feet; the Republicans missed out both Ulster and the Archipelago; and none gave any heed to Europe at all. Now, perhaps, willy nilly bundled in the European rump of the Common Market, clearer ideas of our regional and national allegiances and responsibilities may emerge, or our whole sad stubborn conglomeration of nations may founder and disappear for ever.
Harry: If breaking the mirror involves civilised, thoughtful pieces like the John Hewitt piece, bear it in mind that it’s relatively easy for the middle classes to posit such a philosophy. For the average working class bloke it means walking up to a nutjob, tapping him on the shoulder , and in my experience taking your life in your hands. I lost one of the best jobs I ever had in the ’70′s for having the temerity to argue with a deputy editor on a provincial rag that perhaps any street or village that housed catholics wasn’t a ” Fenian hole “
Mick H,
What I actually said was that the Belfast Agreement was:
“…a settlement to agree to determine future sovereignty without the use of such force.”
Just before that I also said:
“You rightly identify force as the basis of Northern Irish state/law”.
So where are we missing each other?
Oilibhear
I didn’t mean to imply everything about the language is negative. Of course there are many positives. I was merely trying to highlight some issues that need addressing if the language is going to make it as far as 2100.
“But it’s similarily rude to ignore the Irish language as if it was a bad smell that would go away sooner or later.â€
That is also true. But its only future is through a purely cultural prism above politics, rather than as a political football.
If the Irish language (or pedantically speaking, Ulster Irish, a dialect which of course most Connaught and Munster Irish speakers have difficulty understanding) continues to be perceived as one of the Horsemen of the Fenian Apocalypse those who consider themselves British will never feel comfortable about it, let alone their kids being taught it.
Ta eagla orthu.
The laudable growth of Welsh has not seen any great movement to secede from the UK. Perhaps it’s because of their more culture-driven approach.
Beano
I agree that it would be an onerous burden on the taxpayer, and that I believe that a prolonged enforced education would have the same sorry result as it had in the Republic.
How about, as a compromise, one year compulsory Irish kindergarten?
Of course, when I say Irish kindergarten it would have to be a curriculum based on a 21st century forward-looking language with no reference to the past or struggling or Celtic Mists or bodhrans or bishops or keening.
The schools would have to be totally mixed and the schools’ ethos recognize constitutional realities. Above all, it should present the language in a fun, exciting way, focusing on speaking, singing, and games.
After that, it should be optional, paid for by parents, but with a subsidy, with a neutral curriculum all the way up.
Ideally the kids rather than the parents should decide if they wanted to continue. A father from a green persuasion should be prepared to listen to “but I don’t like it daddy†in the same way a father from an orange persuasion should be prepared to listen to “but I like it daddy.â€
That might produce small mixed classes of kids who want to be there just because they love the language.
And if enough kids like it, then stick up some road signs in Irish.
As for the rest, they will have had a year of language training at an early age that will stand to them when they go on to learn French, Spanish, Chinese, etc.
I am a Catholic and a Nationalist and totally happy to embrace all four categories:
Ulsterman: Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan I
count amongst my favourite
spots on the planet.
British: And utterly ashamed to be so,
thanks to the desecration of
British decencies perpetrated
on my people by Unionists.
Irish: Proud to wrap the green white
and orange flag around me
European: The one and only Mainland
HENRY94
The bottom line for Irish nationalism is political independence.
Then Irish nationalism should be happy. Yet clearly it is not.
But in our case the British identity of the minority was hostile to the democratic will of the people of Ireland as a whole.
The Irish people as a whole clearly determined that they were two separate peoples. Read some history and check out some election results.
In my view you can’t honestly claim to be Irish and to be a democrat and to support partition.
Why? If you recognise peoples’ democratic right to self-determination, you have no option but to support partition, Irish or otherwise.
More self-serving claptrap. British nationalism in ireland hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Unionists are a nation within a nation, not a nation apart from a nation. They refuse to take their rightful place within the nation, preferring instead to cause untold trouble for everyone across the island in order to suit themselves. They do this through force.
The british are happy to use them to do this, since britain has always preferred to keep one foot in ireland. There is little to suggest they intend to do otherwise in the future. Consider how america seems to have switched its focus on foreign policy in europe from Bonn to London from the mid-nineties to today. Britain, allied to america, is setting itself up on the fringes of europe as the spoiler of european unity yet again, at least to a degree discernible in foreign policy objectives. Disunity in europe over the war in Iraq, the restructuring of the british military in line with a vision of closer anglo-american (i.e. bi-lateral) military co-operation in the future as well as the restructuring of the european and american military blocks along franco-german and anglo-american lines all lead one to suspect that britain’s relationship with europe – and hence its interest in ireland – will remain in flux or closer to the traditional models of power blocs than generally believed for some time.
It is not in our interests as irish people that we remain subject to these influences such that our sovereignty and culture are constantly toyed with.
Pete,
Necessity has nothing to do with the neglect of certain layers of allegiance which Hewitt noted.
Rather it was a deliberate attempt by the political groupings concerned to ignore those allegiances and, in doing so, emphasise both their specialness and the difference of the other. ‘
Where does a circle begin ? At any point presumably . Which came first the deliberation or the necessity . Hewitt wrote his letter in 1964 almost 10 years before the UK & ROI joined the EEC . I agree that both ‘allegiances’ chose to deliberately ignore the ‘other’ or if not ignore try to minimize it’s importance. At some point in time this became a ‘necessity’ to either win power ( De Valera) in the Free State or to maintain power (Brookeborough) in NI.
Maybe a definition of ‘necessity ‘ is where we differ.
Let’s not forget Hewitt was a poet .So too was Pearse . Dealing with the harsh political realities was perhaps not the forte of either . McNeil still speaks a truth especially for those on this island and the neighbouring island who have more fluid ‘identities’ and are comfortable with both . I suspect that for a large number of people in NI that McNeil’s degree of identity comfort is a long way off and may never be achievable .
Let’s also not forget that it’s a rugby game on Saturday not ‘national political identification ‘ day .
lapsedmethodist .
‘If breaking the mirror involves civilised, thoughtful pieces like the John Hewitt piece, bear it in mind that it’s relatively easy for the middle classes to posit such a philosophy. ‘
Or to paraphrase Harry’s line ‘smash partition and let the people bleed ‘
Partition as Martin Mansergh was inevitable from 1911 on and 100 years later almost ‘repartition’ may also be inevitable . Next time around though a neutral international agency should be given the job of redrawing a new political border IMO.
Good post lapsedmethodist.
Harry,
‘Never mind what they say watch what they do ‘
‘The British are happy to use them(Unionists ) to do this, since Britain has always preferred to keep one foot in Ireland. There is little to suggest they intend to do otherwise in the future. ‘
Realpolitik -Harry . The UK has a legitimate interest in protecting it’s ‘western flank’ . The question is whether they are using the best means to achieve this by keeping one foot in NI .
As for our sovereignty and culture being toyed with ? Anglo American influence is here to stay . The question is how much of it we want and how much we’d rather discard . The evidence appears to be that the former exceeds the latter by a wide margin.
‘British nationalism in Ireland hasn’t got a leg to stand on. ‘
Not true there are still three wheels on the unionist wagon .
Wheel 1:
The local Unionist majority in the 6 county Northern Ireland State and the statistical improbability of a pro UI nationalist voting majority for the next 50 too 100 years if ever .
Wheel 2:
The continued financial support by the english taxpayer for the public sector dependent NI State .
Wheel 3:
The determination of Northern Ireland Republicans to maintain the political objective of a 32 county UI rather than focus on a more achievable objective like 30 county Republic after a fair and agreed Repartition of NI by a neutral international agency such as the UN/EU etc.
‘
Unionists are a nation within a nation, not a nation apart from a nation.’
Actually from a Unionist point of view they are both . Which is another reason why a fair and agreed Repartition of NI is the only practical solution which allows unionists to maintain their political identity . If there is such a thing as a British ‘nation’ then unionists are a part of that nation in NE Ulster.
willowfield:
You have a point when you state to Harry
‘If you recognise peoples’ democratic right to self-determination, you have no option but to support partition,
By extension the same logic would apply to supporting Repartition!
HARRY
More self-serving claptrap. British nationalism in ireland hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Unionists are a nation within a nation, not a nation apart from a nation. They refuse to take their rightful place within the nation, preferring instead to cause untold trouble for everyone across the island in order to suit themselves. They do this through force.
The exact same logic could be used to describe Irish nationalists in the wider British nation:
Irish nationalism in the British Isles hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Nationalists are a nation within a nation, not a nation apart from a nation. They refuse to take their rightful place within the nation, preferring instead to cause untold trouble for everyone across the islands in order to suit themselves. They do this through force.
GREENFLAG
You have a point when you state to Harry ‘If you recognise peoples’ democratic right to self-determination, you have no option but to support partition, By extension the same logic would apply to supporting Repartition!
Not really when you consider that not a single vote has been cast for it.