No role for unionists in national debate on the Union..?
I’VE been going through the bottom few entries on the daily Newshound digest, following the national debate on Britishness. It’s a debate from which Northern Ireland’s tribes could either learn from, criticise or contribute to in some way. But I found Gordon Brown’s Telegraph article today extraordinary. Despite it’s title – We must defend the Union - there is not one single mention of Northern Ireland. It is clear he does not regard NI as part of the Union in any real or meaningful way, since there are four mentions each for Scotland, Wales and even England. As Jack Straw launches a consultation on a “statement of values that define British citizenship and on the case for a full British bill of rights and duties setting out rights and obligations for all citizens”, it is pretty clear that one part of the Union has no part to play in defining what Brown calls our “shared values”. Brown’s “bonds of belonging that make us all feel part of a wider Britain” simply do not appear to extend to Northern Ireland.
Oddly, unionist politicians have contributed very little to this debate thus far; perhaps they can cry ‘Me too!’ in the consultation, but something tells me our ‘unique status’ as a place apart means they’ll be ignored – as usual. One unionist who seems to be espousing the ‘British values’ Brown suggests is Alex Kane, who wrote recently: “There is an overwhelmingly convincing socio-economic-political-philosophical-intellectual-historical case to be made for the Union and for the constitutional and geographical integrity of the United Kingdom.
But it is a two-way process and unionists in Northern Ireland are going to have to begin to promote the case for themselves.” Kane concludes: “If the Union is to survive then we have to prove that it is a Union of benefit to everyone.” How would a unionist convince a Scot living in London that NI’s current contribution to the Union is “of benefit” to them?
As I said elsewhere Brown gets no votes in NI (his choice) so when he is trying to build a platform for his party to get votes NI is not too high on his agenda. If Labour organised here and had some chance of getting votes you can be sure it would be a full part of his rhetoric.
This of course may not be too far off!
“They surely don’t think that their sectarian parade fest would be counted as part of a ‘British Day of Celebration’. ”
What about Catriona’s Ruane’s friends with placards telling us Jesus is a fag? How friendly is that to Catholics? She is about to ban cruxifixes in schools!
Give me the Orange Order any day of the week. We know were we are with the loyal orders. We need to reach out to the Orange Order to declare mutual opposition to SF’s perverts in our school plans!
Our schools will be ‘Ruaned’ if SF have their way.
The first premise behind Belfast Gonzo’s post (the rest of the UK don’t love us no more because Gordon didn’t include us in his article…oops,hang on a minute, he did) has been pretty much torn apart by Fair Deal and others, but after the irrelevant, yet still revealing, opinions from our nationalist and republican friends a summary probably would be useful at this point anyway:
1.Gordon Brown does not believe in the Union because he’s a conviction Unionist, Gordon believes in the Union because Labour’s and his future depends on Scottish and Welsh labour MPs. Northern Ireland does not elect any labour MPs
2.Salmond is the most capable nationalist politician of his generation- as mentioned previously, he has managed to cause a bigger threat to the integrity of the UK than 30 odd years of provo bombs and Sinn Fein “initiatives”. If Brown is genuinely interested in the future of the Union for its own sake, then Salmond and the SNP are the people he needs to worry about- put bluntly, Irish nationalism is not capable of breaking up the Union (for a clue why have a look at SF’s policies and actions since “getting power” and, indeed, the “intellectual rigour” behind some of the comments delivered up by nationalists here).
3.In certain key constituencies, Labour still relies on the Irish vote- this vote traditionally would believe in the concept of the “United Ireland.”
4.And finally, but not least, he did mention Northern Ireland in the article.
So, I won’t lose too much sleep over an article written for the benefit of middle-England and the Labour apparachniks in Scotland.
Two much more pressing matters, however, which should worry Unionists, wherever they are in the Uk, are the facts that Salmond and the SNP are running rings around their unionist opponents in Scotland and as a side-result of this, discontent amongst a section of English society at their perceived disadvantage in comparison with what’s happening to their fellow citizens in Scotland, Wales and England. And as Belfast Gonzo points out, Northern Irish unionists have generally avoided getting involved in this argument.
The attendance record of NI’s MPs at Westminster is pathetic, apart from one or two isolated examples I’ve read no articles concerning the wider picture from pro-Unionist journalists here, the DUP seem content to become Scottish nationalism’s allies in a joint fight against “Westminster” and on a much more micro-level, Unionist bloggers have generally ignored the debate on the UK-wide sites such as Our Kingdom or on the Daily Telegraph.
If Scotland falls or alternatively, England takes the hump and walks off, then the Union is over, that’s the stark reality and that’s the wider debate which we should be getting involved in, not getting too worked-up and involved in sectarian dogfights with SF over Princess Di mugs and statues of New Zealand presidents- the fact that they’re resorting to such tactics shows their desperation.
As an Englishman I find unionists from Northern Ireland quiet strange and certainly an embarrasment. Not allowing Catholic school children access to school is something that I certainly would never want to see here in Britain.
Do you find Asians from England quite strange and certainly an embarrassment because bombing people on public transport is not something that you like to see in Britain?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMiNRr5hSYM
Slugger O’Toole Admin,
Just because you haven’t heard it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been said …
“The weakness of Unionism is that they haven’t said to people in Crossmaglen, for instance, ‘you are British citizens or subjects’. Not in a shoving it down your throat way, but you have the opportunity to be a Gaelic-playing, Guinness-drinking, Irish-language-speaking Briton.”
That paragraph comes across as very patronising, in a sort of “you can drink your firewater, keep your glass beads and hunt buffalo once a year if you sign here” kind of way.
The crux of this is Irish self-determination, not the opportunity to drink Guinness, play GAA or speak Irish.
Moving on. One weakness of Unionism has been that it was (and by the looks of things still is) completely incapable of tolerating or nurturing, for lack of a better term, Irishness.
But Alex Kane doesn’t accept this, instead he comes from a starting point where the Union in fact has an “overwhelmingly convincing socio-economic-political-philosophical-intellectual-historical case”.
So either the opportunity was there as Alex implies and Nationalists were simply too Irish to appreciate the socio-economic-political-philosophical-intellectual wonderland they were living in or else the opportunity was never on offer.
But that was then and this is 2008. What appears to be happening now is that we have an attempt in Britain to codify the common values of the constituent parts of the Union as British.
But NI Unionism has over the last 80 years already codified its values as being British rather than Irish so how can it enter into a debate about Britishness when Britishness is the single defining point of NI Unionism.
If anything, NI Unionism should be entering this debate looking to rediscover its Irishness but instead some unionists see an easier option of discovering the rump Irish left out of the NI British value system and telling them they can be British and play GAA, drink Guinness and speak Irish. Alex Kane seems to think they always could but just didn’t realise it.
But the Irish can do all that without being British so why bother? If unionists like Alex Kane were advocating a new start, then maybe more would bother. But instead his argument starts from the premise that the Union has been a force for good in Ireland and will continue to be. That is one point of view guaranteed to bring a circular conversation.
One thing these circular conversations never seem to acknowledge is that the whip hand in such matters lies with Unionists. Why? Simply, because ‘possession is nine tenths of the law’. And the law in this case is British.
True but the whip hand is frailer than it has ever been. The only reason unionism is even considering stretching the hand across the divide in search of new unionists is because there isn’t enough unionists in the old pool.
If British Unionism has been slow to extend a political hand across the divide, Irish Nationalism has hardly been setting the world alight either.
The Irish State made its peace with Britain and the British people a long time ago. As for northern Nationalists, it was for the Union to show them that their interests were best served by remaining part of the UK. It didn’t with obvious results.
“Irish Nationalism’s biggest obstacle in attaining a united Ireland is its own complacency. Discuss.”
Irish Nationalism doesn’t know what a united Ireland is or could be. That is the biggest obstacle.
And as Belfast Gonzo points out, Northern Irish unionists have generally avoided getting involved in this argument.
And how would that argument run, bearing in mind the audience? I would have thought Unionisms best option would be to keep its head down, to avoid stoking the fire.
But NI Unionism has over the last 80 years already codified its values as being British rather than Irish so how can it enter into a debate about Britishness when Britishness is the single defining point of NI Unionism.
Because being British and defining Britishness aren’t the same thing?
‘But instead his(Alex Kane’s ) argument starts from the premise that the Union has been a force for good in Ireland
Eh ? Most of Ireland has experienced little good under the Unionand many would say the experience was disastrous for most parts of the country. Perhaps Alex should have restricted his ‘good zone ‘ for Northern Ireland but even there he would have to restrict it to a small area around Belfast.
‘and will continue to be’
Where ? Northern Ireland is at the bottom of the GDP league table among British regions . It’s GDP per person is just about half that of the Irish Republic . It’s been a political basket case for the better part of its existence and it’s economy is 70% dependent on the public sector i.e the English taxpayer . And Alex thinks thats good ?
‘That is one point of view guaranteed to bring a circular conversation.”
I would’nt think so . Just an end to any credibility Alex may have had with Irish Nationalists even those of a moderate stance .
‘Irish Nationalism doesn’t know what a united Ireland is or could be.’
Of course it does . Its just an extension of a 26 county Republic to a 32 county Republic-end of story . What’s the problem with that ? It works for the 26 so why not for 32 ? Oh you mean the Prods . But sure we have them here too and it works for them here too so what’s the problem ?
‘That is the biggest obstacle’
I agree, which is why I favour a 30 county Republic following a fair repartition overseen by a neutral international agency.
But NI Unionism has over the last 80 years already codified its values as being British rather than Irish
Not true – only since the Troubles.
quobol,
I noted in my post that it wasn’t the premise of Gonzo’s piece. But I was merely suggesting that if people were going to take cheap shots, this might be something worth bearing in mind.
George,
Patronising attitudes are a given when it comes to the one way lectures handed out to unionists on this site. ‘Does he take sugar?’ just about sums it up.
Unionism’s problem is not (in the short term at least) comparable to Nationalisms. They are attached to the Union, but not necessarily interested in getting close to the base of it.
In A Long Peace? we adverted to Arthur Aughey’s use of Schopenhaur’s parable of the porcupines to describe the relationship between Britain and Northern Ireland:
A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on a cold day in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with their quills, they were obliged to disperse. However the cold drove them together again, when just the same thing happened. At last, after many turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that they would be best off by remaining at a little distance from one another. In the same way the need of society drives the human porcupines together, only to be mutually repelled by the many prickly and disagreeable qualities of their nature. The moderate distance which they at last discover to be the only tolerable condition of intercourse, is the code of politeness and fine manners; and those who transgress it are roughly told—in the English phrase—to keep their distance. By this arrangement the mutual need of warmth is only very moderately satisfied; but then people do not get pricked. A man who has some heat in himself prefers to remain outside, where he will neither prick other people nor get pricked himself.
That’s not too far short of Dec’s line, btw. As the Irish Times notes in its editorial today, the real basis of this debate is Labour’s crisis in Scotland (and to a lesser extent Wales). That’s one reason why NI is not included explicitly. It is no longer a problem. It’s constitutional crisis has been fought and settled.
It’s something that’s been repeated this morning by Michael Wills in a speech at IPPR this morning (http://tinyurl.com/39wxro).
Unionism’s job (apart from making NI’s current status more appealing to more of its population) is to build stronger east west links between Northern Ireland and the rest of UK. I suspect that will require some stronger UK wide thinking from the parties than that currently on display (giving the majority of MPs a single job status might help in that regard, the MLA/Ministers cannot have time to pay attention to matters relating to the wider UK) and seeking to input into the national debate.
Some of this may happen naturally. Brown is going to be severely up agin it in 2009/10. If he survives at all, it may be in a hung parliament. Or if Cameron continues to outplay him, the Tories will be in that position. In which case that could be a moment when the DUP might find it to their advantange to play up to some of the national UK issues.
If partition never existed then nationalists in the North would be enjoying the same prosperity as their Southern countrymen. So in reality if it wasn’t for Unionists the 32 counties of Ireland would have proven undeniably that we didn’t need England’s money or England’s chains. We could prosper of our own accord as our ancestors long believed.
No one in Britain gives a damn about NI except the BNP and ex British soldiers who hate the IRA. NI is part of Ireland, a different country and a different people. Yeah, it’s under UK political jurisdiction but the majority of people in Britain don’t care any more about it just because Unionists wave Union Jacks like crucifixes.
Irish Unionists proved when they were in sole control of NI they had no real respect for British democratic values. They behaved like colonial despots and people in Britain see their outdated sense of Britishness – ie, colonial supremacy – as an embarrassment. Unionists are, in truth, a troublesome tribe of people that most people in Britain and Ireland would like to emmigrate to the North Pole and cause arguments with snow men.
Posted by P&J;:
‘Sinn Fein Oath: “these Protestant robbers and brutes, these unbelievers of our faith, will be driven into the sea, by fire, the knife or by poison cup until we of the Catholic faith and avowed defenders of the Sinn Fein action and Principles, clear these Heretics from our lands.”
This nonsense first saw the light of day back in the 60′s in (I think) Paisley’s Protestant Telegraph. It’s basically written by a loyalist imagining what other loyalists would think a SF oath consisted of. The fact that you can reproduce it here and now in 2008 without any hint of suspicion or gullibility is perhaps an indictment of the low educational standards perpetuated by the 11+.
ps – don’t give up the day job
‘If partition never existed then nationalists in the North would be enjoying the same prosperity as their Southern countrymen.’
Not necessarily the case . In fact we in the Republic might not have achieved the degree of political independence needed to achieve the kind of economic success that has been possible over the past 20 years .If there had been no partition Ireland would probably have had a Home Rule type parliament and we would probably be in the same situation as present day Scotland or Wales . Unionisms strong resistance to Home Rule helped to push moderate Irish nationalism towards full republicanism .
Now and again you might want to thank Unionists for their resistance . In a perverse way they helped the Irish to do what we needed to do i.e break the political connection with Westminster.
And you have to hand it to the Unionist resisters they unfailingly manage to stiffen up any opposition . They could have had the SDLP but they obviously preferred to assist SF to become the big ‘green’ party in NI.
I’ve never really understood ‘Unionism’ and now that I think about it I’m not sure it can be understood .
Actually scratch that. It’s written by a loyalist who’s been on a 3 day buckfast bender while smoking crack, been abducted by Fenian-loving aliens, been prodded, poked and violated, then dumped back incapicated into the arms of a gang of Paedophile priests armed with hurley sticks and a bottle of Johnson’s baby oil.
Fair Deal
While acknowledging my error, I really don’t think it undermines the point that Brown, at least in hiw article, “does not regard NI as part of the Union in any real or meaningful way”.
A passing mention towards the end is hardly a ringing endorsement for Ulster.
BG
Please note Dewi did point it out before I did. I’d missed his comment just as you missed the second page. To err is human.
As I argued earlier the piece was much more about Scotland and Salmond. You will also see from my other thread there may be means to start addressing this issue substantively. Such things may may not come off this week however in a possible hung parliament Unionist parties should be taking a serious look at such matters.
‘Unionism’s job (apart from making NI’s current status more appealing to more of its population) is to build stronger east west links between Northern Ireland and the rest of UK.
Where’s the benefit . With the NI economy already 70% dependent on the English taxpayer how much stronger do you think the east west economic dependency link should be ? 80% ? 90% ? 100% ?
As for the political link ? The East is not that bothered . Perhaps once in a century or two Unionist MPs might be lucky enough to hold the balance of power for a brief period . Did unionists benefit from the last time they were in the ‘lucky ‘ position . Was James Molyneaux successfull with his ‘full integration’ policy? Why do SF now share power with the DUP in Stormont?
‘I suspect that will require some stronger UK wide thinking from the parties than that currently on display (giving the majority of MPs a single job status might help in that regard, the MLA/Ministers cannot have time to pay attention to matters relating to the wider UK) and seeking to input into the national debate.’
The input into the national debate in the UK from NI Unionists will always be limited simply due to the numbers . In addition most MLA’s /MPs /Councillors will be so busy looking over their shoulders to make sure the Stormont House of Cards doesn’t collapse on top of them that they won’t have time to input . Thinly stretched I’d say .
‘That’s one reason why NI is not included explicitly. It is no longer a problem. It’s constitutional crisis has been fought and settled. ‘
In theory perhaps . Some of us will defer judgement until we see how the settlement works in practice . Early days yet .
Mick,
the real basis of this debate is Labour’s crisis in Scotland (and to a lesser extent Wales). That’s one reason why NI is not included explicitly. It is no longer a problem. It’s constitutional crisis has been fought and settled.
This seems to imply that the agreed definition of Britishness being sought needs no input from NI.
Unionism’s job (apart from making NI’s current status more appealing to more of its population) is to build stronger east west links between Northern Ireland and the rest of UK.
What good is this if the links being sought are merely to unionists and not to Northern Ireland as a whole? This simply helps to perpetuate the sense of division.
Kane is falling into this trap by seeing the Britishness debate not as a potentially radical new start but as a way to highlight the benefits the Union has brought to its constituent parts.
But this view almost automatically excludes the Irish nationalist minority as, for them, it is based on the premise that their “perceived historic reality” didn’t occur.
Some of this may happen naturally. Brown is going to be severely up agin it in 2009/10. If he survives at all, it may be in a hung parliament … In which case that could be a moment when the DUP might find it to their advantange to play up to some of the national UK issues.
Once again, what good is this to Northern Ireland if unionists are only going to use such an advantageous position to further their own ends, without a thought to the greater need of community as a whole.
(We could have the same discussion about the issues Sinn Féin would push in the Dáil if they were in a similar position.)
Greenflag
“Did unionists benefit from the last time they were in the ‘lucky ‘ position . Was James Molyneaux successfull with his ‘full integration’ policy?”
Everyone can learn from their mistakes.
The “full integration” proposals were in the tories 1979 election manifesto. The balance of power period immediately predated that. They were not co-terminus.
“A passing mention towards the end is hardly a ringing endorsement for Ulster.”
Ah Hello, Ulster is the Irish province consisting of Antrim, Armagh, Cavan, Derry, Donegal, Down, Fermanagh, Monaghan & Tyrone.
I would suspect you meant the statelet of Northern Ireland there which is made up of two thirds of the Irish province of Ulster.
Did ya see them Dublins wans headbutting that lad from Monaghan, I love the dubs they really add a bit of crack to Football. What about the Kerry lad get a one match ban for a hand jesture. As a Mayo man me self he should have got life : ) Only messing but ya have to say kerry C**ts, they win to much.
Any auld Unionists up for a game of Fottie. Londonderry has the ball etc….
And how would that argument run, bearing in mind the audience? I would have thought Unionisms best option would be to keep its head down, to avoid stoking the fire.
Dec
I regard as “unionist” anyone in the UK, not just Northern Ireland, who still believes(for whatever reason be it economic, cultural, political or even, as in Brown’s case, purely selfish)in the concept of the Union. If they stopped bothering about inconsequential minutiae and started looking at the bigger picture, then Irish unionists would realise they have as much a part (and right) as anyone else in the UK to play in the overall argument about whether the UK remains a united entity or not.
To an extent I agree with you about “keeping the head down”; I think Labour’s continual attempt to define and push a narrow form of “Britishness” on a population, who by and large were comfortable with their present national identity, is counterproductive, especially when they’re facing such a wily operator as Salmond.
However, that doesn’t take away the real objective costs that a break-up of the UK would entail and that’s what people with greater political and tactical skills than the present Labour administration would be moving the discussion towards, instead of constantly allowing the nationalists to fight the battle on subjective, cultural grounds.
George,
“This seems to imply that the agreed definition of Britishness being sought needs no input from NI.”
It’s more simple than that. There is no real British problem. There is a political problem in Scotland. Labour is afraid Salmond is after its base, and the Tories (up till Christmas, when internal counsel seems to have arrived at the idea that they were playing a dangerous anti-union game) have been trying to put the wind up a Scots PM.
There is a kernel of truth in your statement though: even if it has little to do with this particular skirmish. Unionists are passionate about the retention of the union for Northern Ireland (it only exists through a countervailing pro-state force of arms (albeit of a different type) to the one the south accomplished its independence by). Yet, although historically indifferent to Home Rule, they have done little in that time but fight a rearguard action against a perceived over-weaning influence of London in Northern Ireland.
Likewise, when was the last Northerner (after TK Whittaker) who has wielded serious influence in Dublin? Each side in NI wants the kudos of belonging to the other, but heretofore have not been prepared to invest in the relationships to make it work.
oneill
Maybe we’re coming at this from slightly crossed purposes. My point would be that if NI Unionists entered this debate (how the Union works for them and what they’ve contributed to wider UK life), they would be bringing almost nothing of relevance (and even a few uncomfortable truths) to the table:
Economic: hmm, lets gloss over that;
Cultural: Right, moving on swiftly;
Political: I imagine the lasting image most British people have of Unionist politics is Ian Paisley. Shouting.
And then, we have Fair_Deal on another threading for more UK flags, British days and a general ‘up your hole’ attitude to the people who share this landmass with him. Does any Unionist seriously think that is going to safeguard the Union? Is it possible, that with the collapse of the institutions and powersharing that moves such as this would inevitably cause, that that is going to sway the minds of English voters who may begin to think (in greater numbers) begin to think that a 300 year old act of parliament isn’t worth the bother any more?
‘Everyone can learn from their mistakes’
Can doesn’t mean they will or even want to . Some are destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over . Eventually they call it experience . There is no profit in such repetition . Some call it the path to perdition.
‘The “full integration” proposals were in the tories 1979 election manifesto. The balance of power period immediately predated that. They were not co-terminus.’
Mrs Thatcher won a thumping majority in 1979. She opposed devolution as a matter of principle and policy . Why did’nt she implement James Molyneaux’s integration policy ?
She did’nt see it as in Britain’s longer term interest. She preferred to deal with Fitzgerald and Haughey anyway and they got more from their exchange with her than poor Molnyneaux for all his loyalty to the Union.
Dec
“‘up your hole’ ”
Please quote rather than misrepresent.
Plus if you bothered to read the thread you’d see it was about the full package of reform not simply around the relatively minor flag regulation.
FD
On the general issue, NI being part of the UK has everyday consequences that includes symbolry so I have no problem with it so no I have no problem with the suggestion.
There are nationalist minorities in NI, Scotland and Wales and all of participating in the various governments so .
Sorry, but that’s ‘up your hole’ as far as I can see. Presumably, in the event of a United Ireland, you’ll be the first out erecting triclours.
Please quote rather than misrepresent.
Pot. Kettle. Black.:
Also Unionism can hardly be expected to stand idly by while nationalism (and its pal Bob Collins) tries to strip the place.
Ps Your casual linkage of Equality legislation and an implied ‘Pan-Nationalist Front’ takes me right back to the 80s.
Dec
My point would be that if NI Unionists entered this debate (how the Union works for them and what they’ve contributed to wider UK life), they would be bringing almost nothing of relevance (and even a few uncomfortable truths) to the table:
The Union has different benefits for different parts of the UK and if they enter such debates with such a parochial outlook, then of course they’ll not make much headway on the overall question.
And I have already entered this debate on other forums; it is possible, even for Northern Irish unionists, to see the bigger picture and present coherent arguments on a UK-wide as opposed to narrow NI basis. Ironically (or not, probably thinking a bit more about it) there is much more general acceptance on such sites of my right to a dual British and Irish identity than I think I would get on here.
“Likewise, when was the last Northerner (after TK Whittaker)..to have influence in Dublin”
Mary Patricia McAleese ? or don’t Presidents count?
‘Mary Patricia McAleese ? or don’t Presidents count? ‘
Not in the a unionist universe they don’t . Not part of the bigger picture ye see . Queens is different .Now they count especially when they’re givin out dem purple purses
‘there is much more general acceptance on such sites of my right to a dual British and Irish identity than I think I would get on here’
So who is actually disputing your right to a dual identity? You are who you are .
Anyway just remember that a poltician is somebody who in the final analysis will lay down your life for his country .
“Anyway just remember that a poltician is somebody who in the final analysis will lay down your life for his country .”
ain’t that the truth, boyos firing into barracks, often a trevor would do more damage by blowing a fart out the back of his pants,
and for what? To prove we had a war, well it was all a lie, it wasn’t worth killing anybody for
and it wasn’t a real war, it was the Mick version of the weather underground
Oh, and the IRA were defeated, by the folks who murdered Harry Holland and Frank McGreevy.
We’ve a shinner Education Minister fussin’ with her e-mail craggy Island addys as if that all that was effin’ important.
SF have copped onto a wee bit off Tammanny Hall and they think they’re big-shots,
they’re not, they’re just eejits who if they’re not watched will stuff our schools with L99 candidates.
‘and it wasn’t a real war’
Of course not and none of the 4,000 dead are really dead
. Their relatives , families and friends just imagined it .
‘it wasn’t worth killing anybody for’
Most wars aren’t but that does’nt prevent them. They’re mostly about bigger countries bullying smaller ones and they always have an excuse or they’ll manufacture one . They’re either bringing civilisation or the bible or democracy or the right religion or republicanism or unionism to people who don’t want it . And of course they always want the land , money , gold, resources etc .
I wouldnt be unduly harsh on Ruane . They are all locked into a no opposition sectarian carve up which no matter what is the only way politics can operate in the ‘failed’ state as long as exists in it’s present 6 county format . Don’t be too disappointed . What you have is a as good as it’s ever going to be . Mr D’Hont and HMG have seen to that.
DC
The state should express its identity and it should do so throughout the UK. A unionist says something unionist how disgraceful of me.
“you’ll be the first out erecting triclours.”
Perhaps you’d look at my reply to CD on the topic of tricolours.
“Pot. Kettle. Black.:”
I directly quoted you. Also the statement I made about the thread is accurate. Hence:
“notes that the in-out approach to Northern Ireland of Brown’s constitutional programme”
“full inclusion in Brown’s Britishness programme”
When Parnell asked a question on the issue of flags I said:
“I just knew the mention of flags would lead us into a cu-de-sac and not the main question.”
“Your casual linkage of Equality legislation and an implied ‘Pan-Nationalist Front’”
Yawn.
Dewi,
“Mary Patricia McAleese? Or don’t Presidents count?”
I could not possibly comment…
“Of course not and none of the 4,000 dead are really dead
. Their relatives , families and friends just imagined it .”
Well try living in Detroit for thirty years and counting. What we had, wasn’t a war,
it was just the preamble to Harry Holand and Frank McGreevy being murdered.
G.
“I wouldnt be unduly harsh on Ruane ”
She is going to resign because of it. Pettigrew, Volpe and Sgro were far harder targets.
SF are looking vulnerable.
What will an audit show, how many sex offenders are in our schools? Who thought it was a good idea for sex offenders to teach our kids?
What is the point of a so-called vetting system if sex offenders are allowed to teach?
It will have to be a proper audit, no Angela Smith MP style of fake BS this time. We will find out who is teaching the kids.
I’ll stay on it until I feel better about the issue. My patrons in the USA want to do it.
So do I.
G.
‘Well try living in Detroit for thirty years and counting. What we had, wasn’t a war’
Well if you compare those killed with overall population, the equivalent death toll in the states would be over 600,000 I believe.
Gregory – everybody’s heard you mun.
It wasn’t a real war. SF want us to think it was, but that is not true.
It was just an icky period in our history.
At least we got rid of Stormont. IRA surely did that for sure and SF got it back for us.
A outstandingly successful campaign.
Top marks
G.
“Unionism’s job (apart from making NI’s current status more appealing to more of its population) is to build stronger east west links between Northern Ireland and the rest of UK.”
Feef, they’ve known that for 100 years, and they ain’t got a lot to show for it. Main problem isn’t intellectual, it’s salt water. Even their old Tory friends have read the writing on the wall and sloped off.
They’d be better off making common cause with the 1 million west Brits down south, and getting on a bus with some idea of where it’s going.
‘Cos NI unionism has run out of road.
“They’d be better off making common cause with the 1 million west Brits down south, and getting on a bus with some idea of where it’s going.”
If we tell the Poles that SF had gallant allies of a pointy helmet persuasion,
we might do quite well. Ok, they were the IRB’s gallant allies, don’t lecture me, but the Shinners were close by.
I’d love to do Polish election leaflets. I’ll need a translation for my first draft.
‘SF are gay-hugging Nazis’
Go for the ball not the man, type stuff.
It’d be a laugh.
G.
I’d love to see Unionist outreach to the new in-migrants – currently ain’t been a model of tolerance:
Armagh
Fermanagh
Lisburn
‘At least we got rid of Stormont.
I recall Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath finally putting the boot in – you know the UUP’s ally and the one the UUP are hoping gets into power after the next British General Election so that they won’t do the same again if they have to ?. I have a feeling that there is no end of masochists in the sadistic faction of the UUP or vice versa .
‘the equivalent death toll in the states would be over 600,000 I believe.’
IIRC that was the total dead in the American Civil War . Mind you the Americans are much more efficient . They did in 4 years what it would have taken the Northern Ireland slouches lets see 600,000 divided by 4,000 = 125 years times 40 ( length of NI not so civil war ) = 5,000 years .
I’ve always known that Northern Ireland’s productivity was on the low side but perhaps this is one area where that actually may have been a blessing (just don’t ask me from whom )
Hey Greg let’s do a deal on this Polish vote thing.
You don’t tell them about our snakin’ regard for Kaiser Bill – and we’ll keep schtum on the Stalin business.
A kind of non-aggression pact.
As a mark, or rouble, of our unholy alliance, you can translate stuff here … http://www.poltran.com.
I use it all the time whilst texting my mistress.
So it is Poles under pressure?
I really hate to say this, I really do.
I’ve been lobbied with Polish complaints about Ms C Ruane, I’m really not joking. She is being a complete pain in my arse lately.
(generally)
Having said that most firms in NI were in breach of their agreements with the Home Office re: sector bsed employment schemes (Sheffield),
(so if they can shaft immigrants they will)
The UK needs compromised labor and SF needs to wipe its nose. The DUP are a bit ambivalent about migrants rights. I’ve had their councils ask me to go easy on the odd employer.
G.
“You don’t tell them about our snakin’ regard for Kaiser Bill – and we’ll keep schtum on the Stalin business. ”
I think they are trying to not get beaten up.
And Gregory – if u r really in charge of something God help us.
“You don’t tell them about our snakin’ regard for Kaiser Bill – and we’ll keep schtum on the Stalin business.”
The Bolsheviks borrowed money from the OnhE when it was under General Collins,
The Saorstat got the collateral, which I presume means it is in the hands of the Irish govt.
(That is right?)
Now, in fairness, the Kaiser, was solicited a little bit by the Ulster Unionists, before, violent men, stormed the stamp counter.
(so they’re your gallant chums)
I’m appalled that little Belgium, and millions of Polish papists, I mean people, were violated by the SF/Prussia/IRA/Ruane gang.
Being a deeply felt position.
G.
“And Gregory – if u r really in charge of something God help us.”
I’m in charge of a lot, and God will probsbly help if asked. Ruane is going to lose her job. I’ll keep spending money until it is done.
There is no way SF are going to have sex offenders in schools in Ulster. Ms Ruane can go play at being Cardinal Law somewhere else.
Because the issue isn’t negotiable.
If that’s any help.
G.