Should the Republic join the Commonwealth..?
OVER at Open Kingdom, Conn Corrigan argues that if ‘Ireland to rejoin the commonwealth, it would send out a message to Northern Protestants not simply that their Britishness would be tolerated (which implies a kind of reluctant acceptance) – but would be actively promoted in a united Ireland.’ He argues that if republicans are serious about convincing unionists that a united Ireland is in their best interests and that their way of life would not be under threat in one, this would be a good way of signalling to unionism that Britishness and Irishness are no longer (if they ever were) incompatible. Violence didn’t work, and if republicans are seeking for a means of persuasion, wouldn’t this go some way towards addressing unionist concerns in a way that the ill thought-out idea of a ‘Sinn Fein unionist outreach officer’ never could?
my use of the term ‘headed’ did not refer to a single person or ceremonial position, which was pretty obvious, i was merely alluding to the fact that britian is the senior member as the only thing all member countries have in common is being former british colonies !
don’t bang your head too hard !
RS,
“Britian is the senior member as the only thing all member countries have in common is being former british colonies!”
Well I guess that’s almost true but the question is;
given there’s an organisation in the world which has 30% of the population and,
is composed mainly of english speaking parliamentary democracies like Ireland’s,
and given that the British Empire was voluntarily wound up 60 years ago by a democratic socialist UK government elected through universal suffrage,
and given that even the modern UK could be said now to be more colonised than colonising with large populations from nearly every commonwealth nation,
should Ireland continue to keep its distance because these countries only have these common features as a result of the past empire of a Britain that no longer exists or should we put history in its place and use the world as we find it?
Who’s stuck in the time warp on this one?
I have some English relatives who get very chippy about being accused of colonialism and like to point out that their ancestors were simple working people who never left England – the descendents of the colonists are living in the the colonial states – and most of their ancestors were Scots and Irish.
During the 1980′s Britain’s defence of the South African apartheid government became such a scandal that the Canadian and Australian Governments combined to suggest that Britain should be thrown out of the Commonwealth.
Maybe we could make it a condition of Irish entry to the Commonwealth that Britain should be asked to leave?
After all Ireland has friendly relations with governments all around the world and particularly in the EU.
Britain has managed to quarrel with just about everybody, especially in the EU and at times doesn’t even have the semblance of an independent foreign policy.
Think about it – after all we are just two off-shore islands whose major selling point is as an entry to Europe. Wouldn’t one without imperial hangovers and a more developed democracy make a much more attractive partner?
Why should we all have to carry the over-populated rusting post industrial relic that is modern Britain for ever?
It is acess to developing markets, preferably ones with lots of commodities that we need while most of the Commonwealth need acess to the huge market that is the EU.
We’re a natural fit in my view as opposed to the strange unnatural entity that is a result of cramming undemocratic imperial structures into a smokescreen of smoke and mirrors.
try telling the people of the US that as a former colony (colonies?) they should join the commonwealth and pay homage to the queen and see what the response you get is. (right to bear arms and all that!!)
did i mention england???? or the english????
ireland has every right to keep its distance, considering what was carried out in the name of the empire. for ‘voluntarily wound up’ read ‘unsustainable and unwanted’ by those colonies occupied. and if the south were to join the commonwealth, that would mean unionists having to admit ireland was a colony, not sure they would be willing to face that fact !
Some of the misunderstandings of the Commonwealth of Nations expressed here by Irish ultra nationalists does not do the Irish educatiom system proud. I though the Irish had lost their chip on the shoulder and could face the future without the old point scoring and racism so common from both sides in the past.
As a citizen of a commonwealth nation who is also a proud Australian republican (and yes we will get our republic) I would welcome the Irish Republic to our house. We already regard them as family so it would be fun have them inside. But at the end of the day it is a decision for them alone. I just hope if the decision is considered it is considered factually and not in the intellectually dishonest way that opponets of the commonwealth have tried here.
The commonwealth is not the British Commonwealth, it is the Commonwealth of Nations. All nations are equal.
It has no trading status and confers no automatic recipricol rights between citizens of member states.
It is however regarded by most people in Australia at least, as a valuable friendship society and generally a progressive force for good.
De Valara thought so too and often tried to use his connections in countries like Australia to benefit Irelands interests.
Join or not its up to Ireland, but don’t try to trash something worthwhile to justify your decision not to join.
Give me the great freedom fighters Mandela, Ghandi, Nehru. You can keep Adams.
“Maybe we could make it a condition of Irish entry to the Commonwealth that Britain should be asked to leave?”
LOL Lib – very good. Quite like the Games though -would love Ireland to host. Only point of the body is that it’s the only time Wales get to compete in athletics etc as a country.
Red Kangaroo,
Ghandhi, Nehru and the rest acknowledged their debt to Irish republicans of their day like McSwiney and De Valera quite openly just as Mandela and the rest of the ANC have gone out of their way to acknowledge that they owed Sands, Adams and modern republicans for the inspiration they provided during the worst days of the British backed apartheid regime.
As part of Europe the Irish have a need to establish their postcolonial credentials and the Commonwealth will do nothing for us. The South Africans needed to establish their willingness to deal with former enemies.The two cases are quite different since Britain and Ireland are long past that stage.
With the American and British attempts to build a new Empire in tatters the last thing Ireland needs is to tie itself into that nonsense.
Far better to identify ourselves with UN structures where aspirations towards equality are a little more sincere, even if still compromised.
Dewi,
It’s simply not that important. If unionists showed any real interest in the Commonwealth then it might be a goer, provided always that the Brits pay.
Lib, I am not making the case for Ireland to join. It’s entirely up to the people of Ireland. I was making it clear Ireland would be a welcome member and if you don’t wish to join you don’t need to justify for your decision by trashing the institution. Perhaps it’s just not relevant anymore?
As for
“Ghandhi, Nehru and the rest acknowledged their debt to Irish republicans of their day”
Un disputed and so what? What does that have to do with Ireland re joining the Commonwealth. I am not disputing the inspiration provided to people all over the world by Ireland’s fight for independence. Our own Labor Party based its system of parliamentary solidarity on Parnel’s Irish Party system at Westminster
“and the rest of the ANC have gone out of their way to acknowledge that they owed Sands, Adams and modern republicans for the inspiration they provided during the worst days of the British backed apartheid regime.”
Again so what?
As a member of the Australian Labor Party I received a letter from the ANC following South Africa’s liberation thanking our Party and the Australian Trade Union movement for our solidarity and support.
Of course the ANC along with the SDLP and the Irish Labour Party are our sister parties.
I’m a little unsure as to whether Siphonophore might not be an elaborate loyalist trolling expedition in disguise, but hell, I’ll rise to his bait anyways…
The problem with the kind of territorial “50% + 1″ nationalist strategy espoused by Siphonophore is that even if it “succeeds” it doesn’t bring Irish Unity any closer at all.
Oh sure, if you win a referendum on a 50%+1 basis, you’ll get to raise the tricolour over Stormont and City Hall, lots of singing and dancing etc. everybody gets good and drunk, – but the day after the divisions between Irish people will remain exactly the same. The tricolour of a supposedly ‘united’ Irish state ain’t gonna be any more acceptable on the Lwr Newtownards Road on the day after a referendum than the Union Jack of a supposedly ‘united Kingdom’ is acceptable on the Falls Road today.
It’ll be more a case of congratulations for painting this wee dot on the map your favorite shade of green and hey, guess what, you’ve just inherited a Quebec situation – a rebellious province stuffed to the gills with folk who just can’t wait the 7 years until the next Principle of Consent Referendum comes around when they’ll get the chance to secede.
Some basis for sustainable unity that is!
I’m not sure what it’ll take to have it sink in to the minds of some that the 19th century style territorial irredentism form of nationalism just won’t cut it – won’t solve anything, it wont bring true Irish unity any closer (except on the map which counts for what exactly?) – in fact it most likely drive Ireland’s two traditions even further apart than ever before.
Surely in this day and age the only true form of Irish unity which matters is the unity that comes from growing fellowship and friendship between Ireland’s two historic traditions – the only kind of unity which matters to Irish people on the ground.
The 50%+1 paint-the-map-green stuff is an adolescent fantasy more reminiscent of the imperial designs of the likes of Cecil Rhodes – Cape-to-Cairo! Lisnaskea-to-Bushmills! – than anything that’ll lead to any kind of sense of proper unity between Irish peoples on the ground.
For the Republic to rejoin the Commonwealth would send a clear signal that it’s far more interested in building unity between the Irish people, than in trying to bludgeon a section of the Irish people into some kind of pre-conceived 19th century notion of what the Irish nation should be.
Both President McAleese and Bertie Ahern are for it, and I’m sure most Irish people will be too, so bring on the referendum on rejoining the Commonwealth! If we vote for it then that will be a great leap forward for relations between the two traditions – if we vote against it then at least Northern Unionists will know where the limits to nationalism’s professed friendship lie.
Ozy,
at the last election the vast majority of people voted for parties, the SDLP, Sinn Fein the Alliance and strangely enough the DUP who made no secret of the fact that they intended to set up a working Executive and Assembly.
Only the UUP’s co-operation was in doubt and they were the big losers.
Loyalists know that they are guaranteeing the future of a separate NI with devolved power, whether that power be devolved from London or Dublin.
Nationalists know that they will have acess to real political power for the first time and believe, rightly or wrongly, that will lead inexorably to a complete British withdrawal.
Nobody gets all they want but unionists get stability, while nationalists get the opportunity to build real political power. Everybody wins.
The Commonwealth is a sort of joke – nobody cares. We’ve had a long war and that sort of thing like the Ulster-Scots nonsense or some of the wilder ‘ourselves alone’ nonense about setting up a North Atlantic Cuba is best left for the spoofers. Peace and prosperity for our grandchildren are what counts.
To get there we will be good little Europeans and take all the multinational jobs we can get. That’s a plan which frightens nobody and which the vast majority of us seem to be agreeing on.
PaddyReilly: “As for Britishness being tolerated, they are already our largest minority in the Republic by a long shot.
Really? Are you sure you are not mistaking returning Irish with English accents for the real thing? I thought the largest minority was the Chinese.”
Check the census – born in England. Did you ever wonder why the number of protestants in the republic had suddenly increased? Mass conversion? Same immigration is happening in NI… global realities I’m afraid.
Ozy,
you put forward an argument as to why Ireland should join the Commonwealth.
1. “Ireland actually fathered the modern Commonwealth by helping to bury the old Empire”
I see no reason for us to join so as we can become world leaders in helping others overcome their post-colonial pain.
2. It gives Ireland a whole extra set of diplomatic tools in terms of outreach to developing countries
Ensuring that we get our international development spending up to 0.7% of GDP and investing ourselves directly rather than handing the money over to corrupt regimes would do more for outreach. Perhaps we could demand all Commonwealth members also provide 0.7% of their GDP before we countenance joining.
3. By resolving the last vestiges of Anglophobia, it would greatly reconcile the Reform / Southern Unionist types to the modern Irish Republic which can only be helpful in building bridges with their Northern Unionist counterparts.
It has nothing to do with Anglophobia. It’s to do with the fact we have gotten along for half a century without it and nobody noticed the difference. A modern Republic (like the USA for example) has no need for this. As for southern unionists, there were only 36,000 of those voters in 1918 when were still in the UK, how many do you think there are now?
4. It would open up a whole new dimension for Ireland in terms of cultural and sporting links, allowing our athletes to participate at the Commonwealth games and giving any number of other professions the ability to participate in the sort of CW groupings mentioned above.
We already have our own cultural links, built up over the last century. Also, our athletes would be better served by the Irish government investing in sporting infrastructure than this. Is that the height of the Commonwealth, join and even you will get a medal?
5. It would be a significant step along the road towards ultimate reconciliation with the Northern Unionist tradition
What has the Commonwealth ever done for the Northern Unionist tradition? Anyway, Unionists would see us joining the Commonwealth for what it would be – a meaningless sop.
Joining would only be significant if it meant something to either side. The only way Ireland joining would be significant would be if a significant minority wished it. That situation will only come about if unification happens.
I agree with Ozy and think Ireland should rejoin not because of sops to anyone but purely for its own social,political,commercial and sporting advantage.I would add 4 other advantages to Ozys list;
1-Get (amateur) GAA added to the Commonwealth Games sports…the home nations,canada,oz nz etc could all field teams…the internationalization of GAA would be fanatastic and allow the non professional aspects of the GAA to be perserved.
2-India and China via HK and Sinagore membership are the future commercial global empires…all links,ie political,university,sporting etc links should be leveraged to mobilise the irish diaspora within the Commonwealth to strenghen beyond the EU, all irish links to the future economic powers.
3-irish aid will be better delivered and leveraged via commonwealth structures.(Bono told us that)
4-ireland can change the commonwealth culture to its own image and be a part of de britishising the institutions…ie an Ireland/India famine watch/studies commonwelth org would be a very powerful although slightly uncomfortable for some of our british friends,although I expect they would be grown up enough to support it.
Probably the most important role the commonwealth has played is in helping the British adapt to a realistic view of their position in the world order.
It is suprising, but commendable that many of Britian’s former colonies have helped in this by joining this organisation in spite of them having taken one up the political jacksie. It has also helped Britain learn to relate properly to countries and to learn that just becuase another country has some stuff that they should not always think it necessary to go and take it.
It’s rather like a bullys organisation run by the bully to help him overcome his unfortunate behaviour.
It is measure of the success of commonwealth that Britain’s desire for foreign military adventure seems to be under control, but as Suez, Iraq illustrate there is the occasional relapse form time to time.
On behalf of many people in the 26 counties I must apologise to my northern brethern about the nasty spiteful behaviour of that Dublin wanker “The Dubliner”. He never stops at demonising anything to do with northern nationalism, he has this fetishisitic worship of the 26 county state. We’re not all like that dublin fuckhead down here.
The only thing all member countries have in common is being former British colonies
Curiously, this is not true. There are African countries which have joined which were never British Colonies. The reason seems to be that it improves relations with neighbours who are already in the organisation. Or maybe there are freebies going.
Check the census – born in England. Did you ever wonder why the number of protestants in the republic had suddenly increased?
Being born in England does not preclude you actually being returning Irish. The increase in Protestants is from an all-time low and partly stems from Northerners and Africans. I can’t imagine real English people settling in Ireland and then going to Church. Ollie Reed was a pious member of Murphy’s Bar.
in fact it most likely drive Ireland’s two traditions even further apart than ever before.
But I thought the Chinese are going to outnumber Prods before long? So promoting yourself to Ireland’s number two tradition is a bit unfair. I told you we should join the Chop Suey Club.
It’s rather like a bully’s organisation run by the bully to help him overcome his unfortunate behaviour.
Yes, I like this comparison. Forget not that Ireland only obtained Free State status after pressure from Canada and Australia. The British Government favoured genocide.
The nth amendment generated zero goodwill from Unionists
Actually, we don’t know this. It certainly didn’t generate 100% goodwill, or even 25%, but maybe 1% of former Unionist voters were impressed. It has to be admitted that the Unionist vote has gone down.
So I would say, let Jaffa have his Commonwealth, on condition of Irish Unity. It might generate a further 1% goodwill, which as things stand, could be crucial.
We have to remember than on the day that Ireland is reunited, all historical grievances (on the Irish side) will be wiped out. There will be such euphoria we will agree to anything. When you get to marry the woman of your choice, you even agree to visit her mother, obnoxious aunt, moronic schoolfriends etc.
by It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it,
I initially said that I see no reason for us to join so as we can become world leaders in helping others overcome their post-colonial pain.
Having read your post might I add that I see no reason for us to join so we can help Britain overcome its post-imperial pain.
If Britain is looking to relate properly with other countries might I recommend looking at the treatment of the state’s constituent countries.
I look forward to the end of considering Holyrood, Stormont and the Welsh Assembly “provincial” parliaments.
try telling the people of the US that as a former colony (colonies?) they should join the commonwealth and pay homage to the queen and see what the response you get is. (right to bear arms and all that!!)
Posted by heck on Jan 12, 2008 @ 01:26 AM
Jaysus…Don’t get that one going. We’ve only got the two Armalites, and they’re needed for the raffles!
“But I thought the Chinese are going to outnumber Prods before long? So promoting yourself to Ireland’s number two tradition is a bit unfair. I told you we should join the Chop Suey Club.”
Do you mean in the South or the North? If the former, officially there are only 11,500 Chinese in the South. In reality unofficial figures put them up to 150,000 because of those coming in on student-visas and then disappearing instead of registering with the authorities. The Census showed around 180,000 Protestants, almost a doubling of their number since 1996. It is true that most of the increase is probably immigrant but even if you excluded them, it seems that the numbers are growing anyway, partly because of the flouting of the Ne Temere Church rule in mixed marriages and also a few Catholics converting because of scandals in the Church.
If this is to be gesture then can we have the gesture made both ways, even if just in a small way? Returned gestures are the strongest kind. They acknowledge the efforts made by both parties and tie the parties together in their efforts.
So, the south rejoins the Commonwealth? OK, I’ve no problem with that. Never mind the wretched poor of ex-colonial Africa and Asia that we have no reason for calling our “brothers” – if anything they must hate us, Irish included, for what we did to them. But, it would, I suppose, tie a tighter bond between countries that we in Ireland genuinely do share a common tradition with such Australia and New Zealand, even Canada and at a stretch South Africa. (It would do nothing to strengthen the relationship between the Republic and the UK, that can’t get any stronger.)
But if we’re building bonds, and if this is to demonstrate good will and respect for tradition to Northern unionists, then how about a small return favour? The Republic rejoins, but at the Games we compete as one team, north and south together. If nothing more, it’s just a small symbolic gesture.
(Incidentally, it always quite annoys me to hear that the south “left” the Commonwealth. It declared itself a republic, and it was told that it was no longer welcome. India does the same thing three years later, and – oh! – suddenly, it’s not a big deal anymore. That’s a big slight. So how about an apology, if we ever do rejoin?)
Brian Boru
Yes, you are quite right. It is the Poles that are are predicted to outnumber the Protestants in Ireland and become Ireland’s largest ethnic minority. Cancel the Chop Suey application: let us join the European Union instead.
Oilifear
“But if we’re building bonds, and if this is to demonstrate good will and respect for tradition to Northern unionists, then how about a small return favour? The Republic rejoins, but at the Games we compete as one team, north and south together. If nothing more, it’s just a small symbolic gesture.”
Good Idea
“(Incidentally, it always quite annoys me to hear that the south “left†the Commonwealth. It declared itself a republic, and it was told that it was no longer welcome. India does the same thing three years later, and – oh! – suddenly, it’s not a big deal anymore. That’s a big slight. So how about an apology, if we ever do rejoin?)”
Don’t have a problem with that either.
But Ireland declared itself a republic overnight, even Dev didn’t know about it. The old British Empire was just collapsing and the new Commonwealth was emerging. The actions of the Irish Government left many Irish citizens resident in the old empire potentially illegal. In Australia a special act were passed to give Irish citizens the same rights as what were then Britsh subjects, A moved oppossed by the pro empire sectarian Australian conservatives
In Australia a special act were passed to give Irish citizens the same rights as what were then Britsh subjects
Once again thanks to the Australians, who, with the Canadians, intervened on Ireland’s behalf in the 1920s. To some extent I think the Unionist affection for the Commonwealth is mistaken: they think of it as some British Imperial relic but as time goes by it becomes more and more the preserve of Fenian-loving radicals. Nelson Mandela’s support for Sinn Féin’s point of view should also be noted.
Red Kangaroo, good points re: the declaration of the republic in 1948. The story is apparently that the Canadian governor, of Scots-Irish ancestry, broke protocol embarrassing John Costello in some hoo-haw involving toasting to the king and other symbols. This spurred Costello to declare a republic and be damned with it all. Not pretty – for any side. If anything London, and elsewhere like you say, is to be respected for the manner in which they received it.
Corrigan is certainly on the right track. Winning the confidence of Protestants in joining the rest of the people on the island in building a new nation in which all can feel at home is what Nationalists need to be doing.
However, joining the Commonwealth is not our starting point, but maybe a discussion for another day.
There are two major, current issues which could produce the very same highly desirable effect, i.e. marching and the name of Londonderry.
Regarding marching. I’m in favour of Nationalists letting the loyal orders march wherever they please and being as positive about it as possible regardless of what provocation they receive in the contentious areas. The loyal orders were born out of the ethnic conflict in Ireland and as the conflict mellows and subsides, so will the loyal orders and their marches.
Regarding Derry. There is probably no better opportunity for Nationalists to make an immense statement of intent towards conflict resolution with Unionists than on the issue of the name of the city. Of course so much has already been done on the political front, but when it comes to cultural issues, Unionists feel, as much as ever, that they’re under attack.
Given that Nationalists are in such a majority in Derry now, for them to embrace Londonderry as the city’s name would be to demonstrate in real terms that the Unionist identity would be cherished, protected and embodied in an all-island nation.
Get smart, get generous.
Now that the age of colonialism in Ireland is ending nationalists will expect to be allowed to express their own identity.
That will entail a lot more than changing a deliberately provocative colonial name. It will also involve a celebration of all that has been denied for so long.
At how many Massrocks are masses still being quietly celebrated? And how much mention of such a colourful tradition is there on press, radio or even tourist board literature?
The strange lack of balance of the reporting of sport on our local television stations has already been mentioned, and it’s not going to go away.
The local Feis is a tradion I remember (with a shudder given my personal contributions!) from my youth. How often are these massively supported functions reported?
There’s a vibrant tradition out there and the Irish Language Act is not the only reform which will be introduced over the next few years.
This doesn’t have to be onesided – one knows that the white middleclass middleaged men who run our society had an amazingly rest
Now that the age of colonialism in Ireland is ending nationalists will expect to be allowed to express their own identity.
That will entail a lot more than changing a deliberately provocative colonial name. It will also involve a celebration of all that has been denied for so long.
At how many Massrocks are masses still being quietly celebrated? And how much mention of such a colourful tradition is there on press, radio or even tourist board literature?
The strange lack of balance of the reporting of sport on our local television stations has already been mentioned, and it’s not going to go away.
The local Feis is a tradion I remember (with a shudder given my personal contributions!) from my youth. How often are these massively supported functions reported?
There’s a vibrant tradition out there and the Irish Language Act is not the only reform which will be introduced over the next few years.
This doesn’t have to be onesided – one knows that the white middleclass middleaged men who run our society had an amazingly restricted view of unionist culture.
Surely there’s more to loyalism that pipebands and sectarian football teams. Are there no Scottish dance traditions? No other musical tradions? Or if they have died out can they not be revived?
Get smart, get generous.
Get lost.
I propose instead that Nationalists should ally themselves with that (probably substantial) proportion of the Protestant population who don’t give a hoot about place names, and are not impressed by marches and the damage, disruption and they cause.
Damien Okado-Gough
The name Londonderry was introduced to celebrate defeat of one section of a community over another section. Allowing it to stay as it is or allowing the marching up and down, often through or beside a ‘defeated’ community, is not the way to eliminate secatianism but to encourage it. Unfortunately for loyalists/unionists a large part of their culture is the culture of ‘superioity’ – it offers no attractions for those whose defeat it celebrates.
For everyones sake this culture ought to be discouraged. The vast majority of British mainlanders to whom it is supposed to show common cause think it is ridiculous and embarassing and has bugger all support except in pockets around Scotland where sectarianism is rife. This is the awful reality for Unioinsts which in the main they cannot face up to.
One of the reasons the GFA/STA was shoved down the throat of the Unioinists was because there was little sympathy for a community ( who were loyal but receiced none in return even though they were on the receeiving end of some terrible violence) because their culture showed them off in the worst possible light to their paymasters and political landlords.
There is now no need to go marching up and down banging the drum as we have a settlement. Sectarianism is to be discouraged, let’s change the name back to Derry and let loyalists find something positive to march about.
PaddyReilly
“But of course there are people like Oliver Read. I can’t imagine him being interested in Ireland being in the Commonwealth.”
I think someone should tell him about Ollie, eh!
“re-unification”
I take it in Irish terms this refers to the North and the Republic unifying under British rule, as this was when Ireland only ever operated as one entity.
Tell who?
I mention Ollie Reed because, being the cousin of a friend or friend of a cousin, he was at the edge of my circle of acquaintances and his doings were frequently reported to me. Though he did not enjoy the blessing of bás i nÉirinn, it was there he was buried and it was a grand funeral. If he spent one second of his life in Ireland campaigning for said country to join the Commonwealth, I would be extremely surprised.
He is, I think, a symbol of and witness to the affection that exists between the Irish and the real British: the genuine article, not the po-faced Northerners who, for sectarian purposes, choose to describe themselves as such.
I think that, anyone, who believes that the Republic joining the Commonwealth would have any appeal to unionists and help to persuade them of the merits of a united Ireland, deceives themselves. You can not persuade people who do not want to be persuaded.
PaddyReilly said: [i]Get lost.
I propose instead that Nationalists should ally themselves with that (probably substantial) proportion of the Protestant population who don’t give a hoot about place names, and are not impressed by marches and the damage, disruption and they cause. [/i]
PaddyReilly,
It’s that very proportion of the Protestant people we want to ally themselves with Nationalists and what I suggest is designed to do just that.
Sammy,
I’m not at all convinced that Unionists wanting to retain the name Londonderry is about demonstrating superiority over Nationalists or gloating over past victories. Nor do I think that average Unionists think for a second that they are superior to Nationalists. I believe that they feel under threat and that making a stand on these issues is an attempt to retain their dignity. They’re on the back foot and we all know it. It would be a wise Republican who worked to guarantee their dignity.
What I suggest is designed to defeat sectarianism rather than to provoke it, which is exactly what confrontations over marching and the name-change have done. Violence pushed unity further and further away. Only nonviolence can bring it closer.
As a Republican I believe that a central part of building the nation is diminishing the ethnic divide as much as possible. Stoking ethnic tensions is as unrepublican an activity as I can imagine.
In a nutshell, what is more important, winning petty victories over place names and archaic marches, or the advancement of a lasting peace through national unity?
Would you rather have a British administrated Derry, or an Irish administrated Londonderry? I’m a Republican, the latter would do me just nicely.
PaadyReilly on Oliver Reed
“He is, I think, a symbol of and witness to the affection that exists between the Irish and the real British: the genuine article, not the po-faced Northerners who, for sectarian purposes, choose to describe themselves as such.”
Ha, Ha, Ha.
Oliver Reed was a pretty good actor and a notorious piss-head who chose to live in the Irish Republic for tax reasons. I´m sure he would be somewhat ambivalent towards your hatred of Northern Ireland Protestants.
Dr. Who:
“‘re-unification’
I take it in Irish terms this refers to the North and the Republic unifying under British rule, as this was when Ireland only ever operated as one entity.”
Northern Ireland was a part of the Irish Free State (i.e. independent from the United Kingdom) for one month after independence at the turn of 1922/23. The parliament of Northern Ireland voted to partition Ireland and return Northern Ireland to be a part of the United Kingdom. Re-unification is thus the return to the last known point of unity on the island of Ireland i.e. a largely autonomous Northern Ireland within an independent Irish state comprising the whole island.
Prior to this, Ireland was an independent kingdom since year dot until 1801, though since the middle ages it’s genuine autonomy was curbed by foreign interference. In practice, London could never govern directly in Ireland, until the Irish legistlated for the Act of Union in 1800, just meddle with the process for it’s own benefit. Until 1923, Ireland had always comprised a single legal jurisdiction independent from other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.
I´m sure he would be somewhat ambivalent towards your hatred of Northern Ireland Protestants.
I do not hate people from the North of Ireland whose religious background is Protestant, particularly as part of my own family fall into this category. It is those who, describing themselves as ‘British’, then proceed to enumerate the many ways in which they are superior to the mere Irish, who are the objects of my disdain.
Damien Okado-Gough,
‘Londonderry’ – given the reason for its introduction is to many an offensive name, just as the practice of marching up and down to celebrate victory over a community you happen to share a small space with is offensive.
Appeasement on this issue has a certain appeal if as you suggest the community on the receiving end of this ‘culture’ were to gain something tangible in return. But this is arguable either way and failure to confront the issue and discourage it may foster division and even in the long run contribute to a return to violence.
siphonophore: he 5th amendment to remove the special status of the Catholic Church generated zero goodwill from Unionists. The 15th amendment to allow divorce which brought Irish law into line with Northern Ireland similarly generated zero goodwill from Unionists. The 19th amendment to alter Articles 2 & 3 generated zero goodwill from Unionists – in fact we were lectured on how we had finally done “the right thingâ€.
Well, you *had* finally done the right thing.
Though on another forum at the time I was appreciative about the 19th amendment, while also pointing out that it was about time too…
As a Republican I believe that a central part of building the nation is diminishing the ethnic divide as much as possible. Stoking ethnic tensions is as unrepublican an activity as I can imagine.
Yes, and as a UK resident, I find that NF marches through Jewish/ Indian areas do not improve ethnic relations. I am glad that they do not happen any more. I cannot imagine how any sane person would imagine that giving them (the NF) free rein would diminish the ethnic divide.
Equally, I think that if the town council of Cardigan vote to change the name to Aberteifi, that is what should happen. I can’t see that Cardigan’s English heritage is of any great import.
Damien Okado-Gough: It’s that very proportion of the Protestant people we want to ally themselves with Nationalists and what I suggest is designed to do just that.
Fair play to you for your other contributions on this thread – still, a note of guidance:
For Nationalists to look for ways to improve relations with Unionists is intrinsically a good thing (a good ‘deed’ in fact). And of course, if your dreams come true it will make Ireland a far better place. But you needn’t expect it to earn a single extra vote for a United Ireland in a referendum. A Unionist will remain a unionist. With 2 options on a ballot paper, guess where we will put the X? Maybe it will be that much less deeply engraved.
That’s why the more aggressive republican posters here reject any notion of accommodation. Counting votes is all they have left now the bombing is over. For them it’s still an ongoing boxing match, and scoring points on the opposition is an end in itself. With the Principle of Consent embedded, North and South, it’s becoming difficult to understand their mentality – why are they not ready for nation building?
a cross post from another thread, if you’ll allow me, this little piece referred to me is very interesting…..
‘Following the absorption of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the British set about shoring up their rule by the tried and true strategy of pitting ethnic group against ethnic group, tribe against tribe, and religion against religion. When British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued his famous 1917 Declaration guaranteeing a “homeland†for the Jewish people in Palestine, he was less concerned with righting a two thousand year old wrong than creating divisions that would serve growing British interests in the Middle East.
Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a “Jewish homeland†in Palestine meant for the British Empire: “It will form for England,†he said, “a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.â€
Storrs’ analogy was no accident. Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer, and where the devastating effectiveness of using foreign settlers to drive a wedge between the colonial rulers and the colonized made it a template for worldwide imperial rule.
Divide and Conquer Revisited
Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Menachem Begin normally take credit for creating the “facts on the ground†policies that have poured more than 420,000 settlers into the Occupied Territories. But they were simply copying Charles I, the English King, who in 1609 forcibly removed the O’Neill and O’Donnell clans from the north of Ireland, moved in 20,000 English and Scottish Protestants, and founded the Plantation of Ulster.
The “removal†was never really meant to cleanse Ulster of the Irish. Native labor was essential to the Plantation’s success and within 15 years more than 4,000 native Irish tenants and their families were back in Ulster. But they lived in a land divided into religious castes, with the Protestant invaders on top and the Catholic natives on the bottom.
Protestants were awarded the “Ulster privilege†which gave them special access to land and lower rents, and also served to divide them from the native Catholics. The “Ulster Privilege†is not dissimilar to the kind of “privilege†Israeli settlers enjoy in the Territories today, where their mortgages are cheap, their taxes lower and their education subsidized.
The Protestant privileges were a constant sore point with the native Irish; although in fact, most Protestants were little better off than their Catholic neighbors. Rents were uniformly onerous, regardless of religion.
Indeed, there were numerous cases where Protestants and Catholics united to protest exorbitant rents, but in virtually every case, the authorities successfully used religion and privilege to split such alliances. The Orange Order, the organization most responsible for sectarian politics in the North today, was originally formed in 1795 to break a Catholic-Protestant rent strike.
Ireland as Imperial Laboratory
The parallels between Israel and Ireland are almost eerie, unless one remembers that the latter was the laboratory for British colonialism. As in Ulster, Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories have special privileges that divide them from Palestinians (and other Israelis as well). As in Ireland, Israeli settlers rely on the military to protect them from the “natives.†And as in Northern Ireland, there are political organizations, like the National Religious Party and the Moledet Party, which whip up sectarian hatred, and keep the population divided. The latter two parties both advocate the forcible transfer of all Arabs—Palestinians and Israelis alike—to Jordan and Egypt.
Prior to the Ulster experiment, the English had tried any number of schemes to tame the restive Irish and build a wall between conqueror and conquered. One set of laws, the 1367 Statutes of Kilkenny, forbade “gossiping†with the natives. All of them failed. Then the English hit on the idea of using ethnicity, religion, and privilege to construct a society with built-in divisions.
It worked like a charm.
The divisions were finally codified in the Penal Laws of 1692, divisions that still play themselves out in the mean streets of Belfast and Londonderry. Besides denying Catholics any civil rights (and removing those rights from Protestants who intermarried with them), the Laws blocked Catholics from signing contracts, becoming lawyers, or hiring more than two apprentices. In essence, they insured that Catholics would remain poor, powerless, and locked out of the modern world.
The laws were, in the words of the great English jurist Edmund Burke, “A machine of wide and elaborate contrivance and as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.â€
Once the English hit on the tactic of using ethnic and religious differences to divide a population, the conquest of Ireland became a reality. Within 250 years, that formula would be transported to India, Africa, and the Middle East.
Sometimes populations were splintered by religions, as with Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims in India. Sometimes societies were divided by tribes, as with the Ibos and Hausa in Nigeria. Sometimes, as in Ireland, foreign ethnic groups were imported and used as a buffer between the colonial authorities and the colonized. That is how large numbers of East Indians ended up in Kenya, South Africa, British Guyana, and Uganda.
It was “divide and conquer†that made it possible for an insignificant island in the north of Europe to rule the world. Division and chaos, tribal, religious and ethnic hatred, were the secret to empire. Guns and artillery were always in the background in case things went awry, but in fact, it rarely came to that.
It would appear the Israelis have paid close attention to English colonial policy because their policies in the Occupied Territories bear a distressing resemblance to Ireland under the Penal Laws
The Israeli Knesset recently prevented Palestinians married to Arab Israelis from acquiring citizenship, a page lifted almost directly from the 1692 laws. Israeli human rights activist Yael Stein called the action “racist,†and Knesset member Zeeva Galon said it denied “the fundamental right of Arab Israelis to start families.†Even the U.S. is uncomfortable with the legislation. “The new law,†said U.S. State Department spokesman Phillip Reeker, “singles out one group for different treatment than others.â€
Which, of course, was the whole point.
Imperial Blowback
As the penal laws impoverished the Irish, so do Israeli policies impoverish the Palestinians and keep them an underdeveloped pool of cheap labor. According to the United Nations, unemployment in the West Bank and Gaza is over 50 percent, and Palestinians are among the poorest people on the planet.
Any efforts by the Palestinians to build their own independent economic base are smothered by a network of walls, settler-exclusive roads and checkpoints. It is little different than British imperial policy in India, which systematically dismantled the Indian textile industry so that English cloth could clothe the sub-continent without competition.
Divide and conquer was 19th and early 20th century colonialism’s single most successful tactic of domination. It was also a disaster, one which still echoes in civil wars and regional tensions across the globe. This latter lesson does not appear to be one the Israelis have paid much attention to. As a system of rule, division and privilege may work in the short run, but over time it engenders nothing but hatred. These polices, according to Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, foment “terror,†adding, “In tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interests.â€
The policy also creates divisions among Israelis. Empires benefit only a few, and always at the expense of the majority. While the Sharon government spends $1.4 billion a year holding on to the territories, 27 percent of Israeli children are officially designated “poor,†social services have been cut, and the economy is in shambles.
By playing the Kurds against Syria and Iran, the Israelis may end up triggering a Turkish invasion of Kurdish Iraq, touching off a war that could engulf the entire region. That Israel would emerge from such a conflict unscathed is illusion.
Divide and conquer fails in the long run, but only after it inflicts stupendous damage, engendering hatreds that still convulse countries like Nigeria, India and Ireland. In the end it will fail to serve even the interests of the power that uses it. England kept Ireland divided for 800 years, but in the end, it lost.
The Israelis would do well to remember the Irish poet Patrick Pearse’s eulogy over the grave of the old Fenian revolutionary, Jeremian “Rossa†O’Donovan: “I say to my people’s masters, beware. Beware of the thing that is coming. Beware of the risen people who shall take what yea would not give.â€
Conn Hallinan is a foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at fpif.org) and a Lecturer in Journalism at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Reader,
“That’s why the more aggressive republican posters here reject any notion of accommodation”
Not sure if I get included in your description “aggressive republican posters” but as I pointed out above being against loyalists marches and other trappings (such as the name Londonderry) is about being against appeasement of sectarianism rather than against accomodation with Unionists.
The reason the people on the UK mainland view loyalist marching as ridiculous is because they view it for what it is – sectarian drum banging. As you see it the Union is ‘safe’ – surely now the time has come to hang up the bowler hat and try and develop a culture that doesent allow the loyalist community to be seen by virtually all outsiders as deliberately provocative and sectarian.
“Winning the confidence of Protestants in joining the rest of the people on the island in building a new nation in which all can feel at home is what Nationalists need to be doing.” – Damien Okado-Gough
The problem with ‘confidence-building’ exercises as policy is that they are premised in irrational voodoo politics. The North has spawned enough witchdoctors. That is exactly the type of politics which should not be practiced by sensible societies. Progress by appeasement is a fallacy: society only regresses via that dismal expedient, conditioning those its treats like temperamental children to behave like temperamental children, learning that their temperamental shenanigans will be pacified by bribes and rewards, irrespective of actual entitlement. Since such voodoo antics are not based on a rational assessment of, or respect for, legitimate rights or entitlements, the rights or entitlements of others are violated in the process. I refer you to the abhorrent violation of the right to justice of the victims of your two main political parties’ temperamental shenanigans for the grotesque consequences of voodoo politics.
Due diligence is the proper means by which concerns about a deal are addressed. You do research before you sign the contract; and if any of your concerns are verified or different concerns arise, you seek to rectify them on terms that are satisfactory to you. Ergo, if those in the North who identify themselves as British ever feel that their sense of national identity is best served by joining the Irish Republic rather than staying within the UK (and it is utter nonsense to suggest that any rational person would ever reach that conclusion), then they need to undertake due diligence research into the proposal, covering areas such as whether or not the Republic’s constitution guarantees rights to all citizens irrespective of religion, etc. That is how adults do business.
Unfortunately, a man who considers himself British will no more be persuaded to join the Republic than a man who considers himself Irish will be persuaded to join the UK. A rational man will always conclude that his sense of national identity will be best respected by remaining a part of the nation state that he is loyal to. As I said before, a man may be persuaded that there are better parents than his, but even if g-d were to grant him the choice, he could never be persuaded to swap his parents for the better examples. These bounds, a man will die for. Recognising this, the game plan by some deluded souls is to make Ireland British in order to appease a tiny minority of the island’s population (14%), depriving the vast majority of their rights to a nation state and self-determination. This is an excellent recipe for sleepwalking into civil war.
Now, the problem in all of this is that northern nationalists conceded that their right to self-determination was not indefeasible (as the Proclamation of Independence described it as, and as Article 1 of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights uses it to apply to indigenous ‘peoples’) but should be considered to be subject to the will of a majority within the entity of NI (de facto, unionists). They grandiosely renamed the Unionist Veto as the Principle of Consent – in effect, saying that the veto over their right as an indigenous people to self-determination should have the status of a ‘principle.’ They sold out their own birthright in return for a return to Stormont. They also requested that the people of the Irish Republic acknowledge this new dispensation by amending Articles 2 & 2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann. The Irish Republic duly complied with this request by northern nationalists, with 95% agreeing in a referendum.
Before northern nationalists changed the ground rules in an international treaty, the two governments could have unified the island by agreement between them. Northern nationalists chose to remove this option from the two governments and to give it solely to the people of NI, effectively locking themselves into the dismal situation wherein they now have to persuade those who have usurped their right to self-determination to give it back to them. To persuade them of this, they have to seek to extend the GFA to cover all of island. In effect, they have to make the South as British as the North in order to have a hope in hell of persuading the Unionists to remove the border. The joker in the pack is that they are no longer nationalist, but are de facto unionists, seeking to re-unite the entire island under British rule. They don’t seek to extend national self-determination to the North; they seek to terminate national self-determination in the South by extending British control of part of the island to all of it. Maybe in 50 years, their grandchildren will see the joke but for now its really just sad.
Continued
Step-by-step, softly, softly, catches monkey, old boy, joining the Commonwealth is a step toward rescinding full Irish independence that was declared in 1949 when Ireland became a republic and removed the monarch as head of state. There are many irredentists within the Republic who never accepted the right of the Irish to national self-determination, independence and a nation state. They detest Irish nationalism and seek to undermine its manifestations in all cultural, political, economic, and sporting, etc, realms, dreaming of the day when they may be re-united with their beloved motherland. The Irish media is full of them, gravitating toward it as a means of venting their spleen at all things Irish. At least the North’s new Redmondite unionists (the former nationalists) have an ally in them.
One good reason to stay far away from the *ommonwealth (imho).
Using a current perspective, that is.
http://tinyurl.com/2dqm8s
A Unionist will remain a unionist. With 2 options on a ballot paper, guess where we will put the X?
Indeed. But it does not necessarily follow that a Protestant will remain a Unionist, or even a Protestant. It would be asking too much to expect him to become a Republican: but if he can merely be convinced that his comfort is guaranteed whichever way the vote goes, he might not bother to turn up to vote, and that would be a small help.
With the Unionist vote now below 49%, it only requires a small number of people like this to swap things over. Then nation building can commence. Would Commonwealth status for the final entity be sufficient to swing this? To be perfectly honest, I doubt it.