“If we are serious about a truly shared future..”
The Irish News frontpage story [subs for now] picks up on SDLP leader Mark Durkan’s speech at the British Irish Association Conference at New College, Oxford. And the Sinn Féin response from Northern Ireland deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness. Adds UUP leader Reg Empey’s response. Added The DUP responds and the Alliance Party reportedly welcomes the speech. From the speech. [link added]
A formula for ‘sufficient consensus’ was a necessary confidence measure in the agreed rules for the [pre-1998] Talks. Therefore, it was not exceptional that such cross-community decision-making protections were also built into the institutions which resulted from those negotiations. As with d’Hondt, the referendum and the need to persuade and reassure was a strong consideration.I remember, at the time, saying that the system of designation was necessary because of what we were coming from but should not be necessary where we were going. I argued that such measures with their arguably sectarian or sectional undertones should be bio-degradable, dissolving in the future as the environment changed. Most, if not all of us, had such future adjustments in mind when we wrote the review mechanisms into the Agreement.
As we move towards a fully sealed and settled process we should be preparing to think about how and when to remove some of the ugly scaffolding needed during the construction of the new edifice.
We need to reflect on the dangers of the decision-making protections acting as decision making prevention on more and more important issues. The possibilities for political realignment with new or changing party offerings in the future could be stunted by permanent reliance to the present degree on designation. If we are serious about a truly shared future then we have to allow for truly shared politics where parties can – and have to – appeal across the traditional divides. The fault-line in our society will still be there but it should not determine the party political cleavage for future generations.
Protections of rights, interests and identities will still be needed but not only for, or only as, either unionists or nationalists. In the stance-off over other issues recently, little attention is being paid to the rut that the Bill of Rights debate is stuck in. There are those who dismiss the need for such a bill or for it to be robust and extend to some social and economic issues. Maybe they and the rest of us need to start thinking about how a sound Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland might offer more productive and articulate protection for all our rights in a new democratic society than vote-locks and tit-for-tat vetoes in perpetuity. ‘One man-one vote’ was the start of a journey – made longer and harder than it needed to be. ‘One side- one vote’ should not be the final destination of that journey.
That would probably have to be accompanied by poet Michael Longley’s process of civilisation.
And, of course, some people would “just have to be tolerant of that..”
Greenflag it will be around 2021. Scenario 2021 is the scenario in which support for repartition increases due to the increase in demographic support base for nationalism coming to an end at a level short of the necessary critical mass to generate a referendum victory for nationalism.
How about a 72 member assembly (4 MLA’s per constituency)with an executive formed by voluntary coalition, requiring approval of 60% of MLA’s, which would ensure at least one nationalist party was included. OFMDFM would remain a joint office, but the executive would be slimmed down to eight, including P&J;, by merging Economy and Trade, DRD with DSD, and DEL with Education. Designation system would end but the petition of concern system would remain requiring a 60% majority on contentious issues.
Any takers?
declan
Even if they win a referendum, Nationalists in the current scenario will face demands from unionists for repartition – snipping off the edges as they say.
So why wait until 2021. Now is the time.
See my plan at http://johnoconnell.org/an_irish_velvet_revolution.htm
Folks, could we stop falling for Greenflag‘s daft ploys re repartition, particularly on important threads?
Nationalists want a united Ireland, Unionist don’t. Repartition solves neither. Get over it. (Oh yes, and currently all of “Southerners”, “Northern Nationalists” and “Northern Unionists” have a share of the government – that puts me in the very small minority that has no executive representation on this island, so kindly leave me to wallow in my bitterness…!)
The issue was in fact the SDLP U-turn… where precisely does Durkan’s latest leave the SDLP? What is the point of it as a party, if it now accepts it was wrong on the institutions all along?
IJP:
Re-partition is another one of those ‘trapped-in-the-netherworld’ tactics. It’s an interesting kite to fly, but like independence, it can only be taken seriously as a possible outcome when someone, (ie, anyone) advocates it as a policy position.
“The issue was in fact the SDLP U-turn… where precisely does Durkan’s latest leave the SDLP? ”
Relevant again?
“Repartition solves neither”
Given the almost completey divided nature of our society perhaps it could, for 80 pecent of us solve both?
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/maps/2001religionwardsni2.jpg
It is my belief that in the event of 50 percent plus one voting for unity every unionist , alliance included will be screaming for it.
“The issue was in fact the SDLP U-turn… where precisely does Durkan’s latest leave the SDLP? What is the point of it as a party, if it now accepts it was wrong on the institutions all along?”
I don’t think Mark Durkan said the institutions were wrong but is looking ahead to a Bill of Rights that could bolster rights and remove the need for designation and perhaps d’Hondt.
As to where it leaves the SDLP, probably fairly popular as they usually tend to grasp the mood of the people who have a will to make devolution work on all strands, rather than try and kick dirt in Durkan’s eyes perhaps Alliance should build on this with a little more dignity. Recently the DUP-SF have proven to only have a will to be resolute and not make things work fast enough.
Of course the SDLP have been at times agreement fundamentalists, showing its conservative streak, but largely that party often talked of achievements, not of aggressive resistance, it always talked in a way that made sense post-GFA. I only wish that the SDLP would pick a theme, judge the right line of direction and stick by it. It is difficult, but as to LURIG’s previous post, I felt Durkan blew hot and cold over devolving policing and justice whenever he should have blown hot and talked of the changes in the political landscape.
But anyway crisis what crisis, only opportunities. The problem is will Alliance et al work with the SDLP to encourage debate and confidence that it isn’t each to their own when building not just a coalition of the willing but a coalition of the working, putting people first not just certain groups of other people.
Mark Durkan should be praised for setting the agenda and showing leadership when faced with understandable problems; just think of the achievement be thankful for it, and work alongside the SDLP, and any other parties willing to work with an ounce of respect.
Percy
Durkan’s right, but he’s put the cart before the horse.
The Left/Right Wing designations; the stuff of “normal” politics, will only work post irish-unification.
The reality is that there will never be Irish reunification under the Good Friday Agreement.
There’s just too much aggro between the parties of extreme Green and extreme Orange. No matter what the result of a referendum, there will be some degree of repartition to fix the problem.
I hope we can be grown up enough to recognise that and to recognise that if you have a sectarian agreement that shores up sectarianism then there will always be aggro between the traditions. That is not the recipe for unity, but for division and the never ending problem of the North rolls on.
That’s why Durkan is right. Powersharing was fine as long as all the parties are like the SDLP but they are not. Other parties are egoic, masculine, neo-Isrealite traditions that will always oppose compromise and will always crave for genocide of their opponents, which is what their refusal to understand their standpoints really means.
The issue was in fact the SDLP U-turn
What U-turn? When did the SDLP ever suggest that the GFA was a permanent solution?
As has already been pointed out Seamus Mallon was discussing this idea in the media months ago.
I take you point john, but the referendum mandates Parliament to legislate for Irish unity, should the majority be in favour of it.
What I just researched, and was missed due to IMC reporting, pete’s dull posts, and the USA conventions is the SDLP claims on the Policing and Justice Ministry.
Its worth quoting in full, as its been missed on Sluggers:
SDLP Leader Mark Durkan MP MLA said Sinn Fein is guilty of abuse of power and old-style majority rule in seeking to circumvent the Good Friday Agreement in order to ensure the minister for justice is a unionist
He said: “When we negotiated the Good Friday Agreement, the SDLP insisted in writing in the D’Hondt system for departmental ministerial appointments in order to ensure that parties could neither vet nor veto a particular minister. Now, Sinn Fein is conniving with the DUP to bypass the inclusive democracy people voted for in the Agreement.
“Forty years on from the start of the Civil Rights campaign, there is a concerted campaign to ensure that no nationalist need apply for the Justice Ministry.
“Sinn Fein has demanded that others should recognise and respect their mandate. Where is their respect for the SDLP mandate? They are using their numbers and DUP numbers to deny us the second ministry to which we are very clearly entitled. This is an abuse of power, party-political discrimination and a return to winner-takes-all majority rule.
“The DUP has never tried to hide its intention of tearing down the protections we wrote into the Good Friday Agreement – the new element is that Sinn Fein is now seemingly ready to help them.
“Sinn Fein spokespersons have made it clear their preference was for an Ulster Unionist minister or an Alliance minister. Since they have been rejected on both counts, no doubt Dawn Purvis of the Progressive Unionist Party will be getting a call any day now. But why are they so intent on keeping a nationalist out of the job?
“Early devolution of policing and justice could literally spike the guns of the dissidents who thrive on the political uncertainty which has been introduced once again by the Sinn Fein-DUP standoff. Use of the D’Hondt system would reaffirm commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and its protections.
“We in the SDLP have no selfish reasons for seeking this ministry, but we have every reason to seek to strengthen the Agreement and its power-sharing protections. “
Perhaps its not surprising then the SDLP are reacting this way!
Can anyone explain why SF are trying to deny the SDLP the P&J;ministry?
Funny how the powersharing model they advocated for decades is surplus to requirements immediately it benefits others over them.
Funny how one of the smartest posters on this site makes a transparent category mistake. As you know Mark, Alliance didn’t argue in favour of designation, didn’t argue in favour of d’Hondt, didn’t argue in favour of mandatory coalition and didn’t argue in favour of interlocking vetoes. The SDLP did all these things, which is why it is so refreshing to see them move away from those institutionally sectarian solutions.
Given the almost completey divided nature of our society perhaps it could, for 80 pecent of us solve both?
ggn,
if you think it would work for 80% of us, with the greatest of respect, you don’t actually know how to read that map you’ve linked to.
And Alliance will not be screaming for it in any eventuality. It’s not the line of the border that’s the problem, it’s the relationship between people, as I think John Hume once said.
“The issue was in fact the SDLP U-turn…”
Nonsence. Durkan is recognising that our society is changing. The system of designation was necessary 10 years ago as a temporary measure to ensure protection for both communities. This temporary measure would have been reviewed after several years, but instead the Assembly got suspended.
Durkan is suggesting that a strong Bill of Rights could protect minorities instead, allowing us to operate a normal majority voting system.
Can anyone explain why SF are trying to deny the SDLP the P&J;ministry?
Could it be they are putting party interests ahead of the interests of the Nationalist Community™?
Surely not.
Lads give over with the re-partition snake oil. Partition of Ireland of any sort is wrong.
As regards Durkan, it seems the SDLP don’t want to play the game they helped create if means they’re only bit part players. Understandable but no less cycnical.
It appears to me that the key to what Mark Durkan seems to be considering are in these lines -
In other words, it would appear, the opportunity exists to move away from a politics in which parties merely seek to be the “leaders of [either] the planters [or] the gaels” – but not leaders of the descendants of both.
What people need to ask themselves is whether they believe that move is a desirable objective?
And, if so, how can it be achieved?
The alternative would be to fossilize the politics we have and wish for whatever demographic you currently prefer.
The Bill of Rights being suggested has, so far, been blocked.. but it surely could provide the basic protection required against any attempt at abuse of [majority] office?
There are other implications of moving towards that more recognisable [elsewhere] politics in terms of the changing relationships north and south, as well as east and west.
And, as Mick has suggested, exemptions to those question can be applied for at your usual, and permanent, Netherworld outlet..
“ In one memorable rejoinder, a Union leader told Denis Healey (then Chancellor) that it was his Union’s policy that ‘pay increases had no effect whatsoever on inflation.’ “
Which “rejoinder” is memorable more by Healy’s spin and wilful distortion of the argument being presented by the union leader which was the very reasonable one that unions were obliged to seek increases for their members to alleviate the worst hardships of inflation which had already occurred. In other words it was price-rises which were pushing up the demand for wage increases to match a pre-existing rise in the cost of living.
Much as we have today in fact when rising inflation can hardly be said to have been caused by inflationary wage demands being met but rather in the main by a huge rise in the cost of fuel of which a large chunk went towards funding fat increases in dividend payments for those who don’t work. Inflation is already here. Unions would not be acting in their members’ best interest if they did not use all their strength to seek wage rises to match that inflation. Their members after all can hardly be expected to suffer for the anti-social actions of the oil companies and the insatiable greed of their investors.
It is a deliberately misleading fallacy to claim that nationality is irrelevant to the strife between competing nationalities within NI and that nationality and its nationalism isn’t determined by national borders. And it is a demented political fantasy to pretend that the problem can be resolved by pretending that the cause is different from the actual cause. It is Hume’s non-thinking that is primarily responsible for this dismal farce of a ‘solution’ that was born to fail and is failing before your very eyes.
Two competing nationalism with two competing claims to self-determination cannot share one sovereign territorial entity. That’s the unalterable reality of it, and no amount of media-proffered, mandarin-generated propaganda and engineering will change those fundamental dynamics. British people, in particular, see monarchy as an intrinsic part of their sense of national identity. Irish people do not, seeing monarchy and its system of privilege as being abhorrent to egalitarian principles and a republican democracy. These are not minor trifles that can be resolved by taigs and prods playing pool together at a local community centre or by spouting asinine shite about how we are all post-nationalist in Euroland. They are inextricably linked to nations which are inextricably linked to states.
This is why the two competing nations within NI continue to seek control of the state: it is how they exercise their claims to self-determination. It is why the Irish nationalists want an Irish Language Act but cannot have it because they do not live in an Irish nation-state. It is why the unionists want to wear Orange banners along the Garvaghy Road but cannot do it because they do not live in an Ulster-Scots nation-state. They both live in a state wherein sovereignty resides with the British people. Sovereignty is crucial, and territory is crucial to sovereignty, and both are crucial to the principle of self-determination.
In the end, only re-partition can solve the problem of how two competing claims to self-determination can be reconciled. It would be sweet if British people in NI would recognise that they could live within an Irish nation-state, but there are simply too many of them to be manageable and their particular brand of Britishness is predicated on supremacy to Irishness which makes it impossible for them to live in a state wherein Ireland is for the Irish – and forever will it remain so. Engineering which tries to turn Ireland into a pro-British entity in order to appease those who are British will fail, and if it succeeds by idiots falling for brainwashing and sentiment and a government being led by outside influences, then it will fail horribly in the long-term with hurried re-partition being the only outcome to avoid civil war.
I can’t really understand why Nationalists and Republicans want a united Ireland anyhow, apart from the iconic revolution they envisage it would be. It’s not as if southerners and northerners can be seamlessly moulded into one by a united Ireland or a Dublin parliament. The whole idea of a united Ireland ruled under Dublin is foreign to the Irish people who seek it. The idea never came from these shores, so how on earth the Irish think they can carry it off without repeating the errors of those who tried it before them, is woefully in error to say the least.
A Pipedream!
DAVE
Good post.
I also believe that there are too many people who identify with Britain in Ireland to lead to reunification. Even if the majority of NI did vote for it there would be resistance from Unionism, and to reach the stage where there would not be resistance would take another few hundred years.
I don’t really want to wait that long…
As I said,
It’s Belfast that’s the big deal in repartition (which otherwise I am beginning to sympathise with). Would Unionists be happy with a “province” that excluded the capital. (Whatever the uncertainties of demography elsewhere Belfast is turning green)
RG Cuan, if you are not prepared to wait that long, what is your next move?
Declan ,
‘Greenflag it will be around 2021. Scenario 2021′
I don’t envisage any referendum on a UI not in 2021 or earlier or even later . Even if there was the result would be just another sectarian headcount . If nationalists won you would still have the problem of the ‘alienated ‘ Unionists .
Repiublicans and Nationalists in NI have ‘committed’ to the present GFA agreement and power sharing – they must see it through as far as they can . If the DUP renege then Northern Irish Nationalists need to unite both Republican and NAtionalist and demand a fair ‘repartition ‘ of NI . 40 years is more than enough time to give the NI 6 county State a chance to resurrect itself -imo.
The Republic can be just as successful and perhaps more so with 30 counties (approx) as with 32 or 26 . Unionists do not need a 6 county area for a State. Even with just a two county area they would be double the size of Luxembourg and have just a slightly greater population .
At some point the ‘will’ to work the present ‘convoluted’ half settlement will run into the brick wall of stagnation and failure . At that point ‘repartition’ will present itself and will probably be touted first by Unionists . It will however need a neutral international organisation to administer and implement any ‘repartition’.
it seems the SDLP don’t want to play the game
If the game involves conspiring with the DUP to deny nationalists control of P&J;, then I don’t blame them.
“The Republic can be just as successful and perhaps more so with 30 counties (approx) as with 32 or 26 . Unionists do not need a 6 county area for a State.”
Well hypothetically speaking that would be a way to be rid of the ‘dreary steeples’ and I suppose you could throw Armagh into the mix too, and Co. L/Derry. Still doesn’t really add anything to the shared future debate at all.
……I can see it now have everything else re-partitioned apart from East Antrim and North Down, two principalities if you like, run like Monaco with Carrick Castle crammed full of gambling machines, with N Down operating like a cosy tax-haven while looking just like another English home county…but then I come round again after that little daydream…
As a matter of interest what ever did happen to the re-partition proposal put to people back in the 8os??
Oh…hold on, from Wiki:
Pollsters have rarely asked the population of Northern Ireland about their attitudes to repartition but it was asked twice in the early 1980s. In June 1981 and February 1982 the percentages of Protestants agreeing to repartition was 9% and 8%; the percentages for Catholics were 22% and 24%
Irrespective of the point Durkan was trying to make most Nationalists think that the SDLP is throwing a strop because of the P & J issue. Accuse me of being over reactive if you want but I think a Nationalist political leader stating that agreed, devolved government should be abandoned AND Unionists given TOTAL control wouldn’t go down too well with Catholics. What the hell was Durkan thinking? Is anyone giving him advice? This smacks of the SDLP throwing the baby out with the bath water because they weren’t handed P & J and to hell with the Nationalist community. Sinn Fein are VERY WEAK political negotiators and I was honestly thinking of giving my next vote to the SDLP but after this STUPID comment from Durkan I don’t know now. As I have stated before I think Mark Durkan SHOULD consider his position because of this ridiculous statement and speech. How can Nationalists take him or the SDLP seriously if they think that handing over TOTAL rule to Unionists is the answer? When I look at Belfast, Lisburn, Ballymena, Castlereagh and Ards Borough Councils and THEN listen to Durkan I despair. No wonder Robinson and the DUP rule the roost when they are up against such weak Nationalist opposition.
Repartition is hogwash, the guy who makes he most sense as both observer and participant is Dr.Suess aka Reg Empey:
“more chest-beating and then a deal between SF / DUP on P&J;”
Political circumstances are changing.The SNP are in Government in Scotland ,and getting stronger while Labour are doing everything possible to ensure that they lose the next election.If the SNP can gain sufficient support for independence then the Unionist people who identify themselves with Scotland as Ulster Scots would have to decide if they wanted to have this identity preserved or to have an Ulster English union.
Politics are changing in Ireland too,SF have been unable to make a significant impact on southern parliamentary politics and there is continual speculation about political re-alignment.
Back to Humespeak I’m afraid but it is about continually reviewing the Totality of relationships within this island and within these islands.
A Bill of Rights would provide safeguards for a minority community in whatever context.
Doing away with designations does not mean doing away with safeguards.It will not make anyone’s aspirations any less valid.
Despite quaint imagery about being imprisoned for evermore in an underworld by failing to appease others whom they are supposedly at the mercy of, Northern Ireland only exists because northern nationalists continue to allow it to exist. The fate of Northern Ireland is dependent on their mercy, and that mercy is dependent on the possibility of a peaceful resolution to their predicament. If none proves possible, then they’ll arise from the Netherworld – and all hell will break loose for those who try to keep them their (including the current leadership of northern nationalism). And that leadership will “just have to be tolerant of that.” The fate of British nationalists in NI, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the charity of taxpayers who would vote them out of the union if they were ever given that democratic option. No one in the south is going to abandon their fellow countrymen in the north to an unending sojourn in that dismal underworld, but they’re not going to drive a million British nationalists into the Irish Sea either. Repartition is the easiest way out. Unionism will wither away in its small enclave without the support of their keepers, the UK taxpayers, if the union fails due to resurgent Scottish and English nationalism. And even if the union collapsed in a decade or two, or those seeking to leave the UK surpassed the magic level, unionism will revert to type and use violence to resist democratic will, so unity wouldn’t happen even in a situation where the magic number was reached. It’s better to cut them loose and concede they have a right to determine their own affairs in a smaller statelet where they can make up the overwhelming majority.
This can be seen as an attempt by SDLP to move politics into post sectarian territory. New ground that probably neither SF or the DUP can advance to as time marches on.
Mick
I don’t even agree with that – absolutely no one on the Island takes a stance other than for or against a United Ireland. Re-partition solves nothing, for as Sammy says it’s the relationship between the people that is the issue and will continue to be until we tackle it.
ggn
The Alliance Party is in favour of the consent principle – if NI joins the Republic, the Alliance Party will continue to exist because division in the “northeast” will continue to exist, advocating policies which tackle segregation, re-balance the economy, and deliver sustainable public services – just as it does now. Again, it is the relationship between the people which is at issue, not lines on maps.
One of the things it’s worth learning in politics is respect for other people’s positions. Perhaps then the DUP and SF wouldn’t have made such a balls of the P+J deal, Victims’ Commissioner, etc etc.
percy
The reason the SDLP is being denied the P+J ministry is that it isn’t entitled to it.
The problem is the means by which it’s being denied.
According to the Executive parties’ logic, what should happen is a re-run of d’Hondt whereby the SDLP would get another Minister, but it wouldn’t be P+J (leaving aside the problem that the Agreement calls for no more than 10 departments for now) – but we all know, under those circumstances, that the DUP or SF would use its first pick to take P+J.
The real issue is that the position is in fact either the DUP’s or SF’s, but neither dare take it – perfect testament to the fact the system doesn’t work.
It would’ve been helpful if the SDLP had worked that one out nine years ago.
If the SDLP decided to follow through on this, as the party most vociferous in adhering to the designation system, it would be difficult not to look at the issue seriously.
If the SDLP tactically re-designated as ‘other’ in order to bring about the change it describes, it wouldn’t make any practical difference to ‘parallel’ cross-community votes, as the votes of ‘others’ are ignored.
However, if the UUP could be convinced to come along with them (a road that the UUP might be already on, if its potential link-up with the Tories is any indication of its desire for left-right politics), it would mean that the Assembly voting system could maybe be usurped.
Just looking at the two forms of cross-community voting, such a move by the SDLP and UUP would not affect parallel consent, i.e. a majority of those members present and voting, including a majority of the unionist and nationalist designations present and voting – since ‘others’ simply have no say here.
But a coalition of ‘others’ that encompassed the SDLP, UUP, Alliance and independents would have the necessary numbers to prevent the other form of key vote being carried – a weighted majority (60%) of members present and voting, including at least 40% of each of the nationalist and unionist designations present and voting.
While there would, in such circumstances, very likely be at least 40% of nationalists and unionists in favour of the proposal (in fact, it would probably be 100%, if the only parties so designated were the DUP and Sinn Fein), the other required condition may not be met.
If the expanded coalition of ‘others’ opposed the proposal, there would not be a 60% majority in favour. (It would be 56.3%, for the anoraks.)
Petitions of concern requiring 30 signatures to force such votes would ensure that the signatories to the ‘other’ designation could not be sidelined, as they are at present.
Admittedly, these circumstances are highly unlikely in the near future, and would be more likely if the SDLP and UUP were in actual opposition, or really prepared to ditch their designation. It would, however, be an opposition that could exercise real power.
But it makes you think…
Mark Durkan seem to me to be a decent man – but he’s forever choking on his own soundbites.
The SDLP has done some p3 maths and has realised that unionist apathy and fragmentation may deliver an assembly majority favourable to its socialist policies. What admirable devotion to principle by the party of Catholic Sectarian Advantage!
Dave, new Dave!
Its up to Republicans to challenge the supremacy you point out which is inherent within the Brit/Prod mindest; and that’s what equality is all about.
Perhaps then the sweetness might show itself where the apple and the orange can co-exist within a united Ireland framework.
“within a united Ireland framework.”
Percy, that’s a nationalist context for a unionist-nationalist tug-of-war …
Lobby politicians, stimulate debate on the issue until realignment is considered a reasonable option.
If a decision was made to abolish designations in the future ,in favour of a weighted majority voting system ,no one party would have a veto on political progress,it would in effect nullify the so-called triple lock that SF conceded to the DUP at St Andrews.
DC ,
‘Pollsters have rarely asked the population of Northern Ireland about their attitudes to repartition but it was asked twice in the early 1980s.’ In June 1981 and February 1982 the percentages of Protestants agreeing to repartition was 9% and 8%; the percentages for Catholics were 22% and 24% ‘
That was almost 30 yeara ago DC . How many were ‘polled’ , under who’s aegis was it held . I’m actually surprised that as many as 22% of RC’s polled in favour at that time . That would have been in the aftermath of the hunger strikes and ‘It’s a UI or nothing ‘ reemergence of SF as the leading ‘nationalist ‘ party ‘
Dave however is right on the nail in Post 5 above -when he states
‘Even if the union collapsed in a decade or two, or those seeking to leave the UK surpassed the magic level, unionism will revert to type and use violence to resist democratic will, so unity wouldn’t happen even in a situation where the magic number was reached. It’s better to cut them loose and concede they have a right to determine their own affairs in a smaller statelet where they can make up the overwhelming majority.’
The fact that the SDLP, DUP and others are ‘already ‘ after just a year ? of power sharing , wanting to change the ‘rules’ , is a strong indication that the ‘present’ settlement is not going to work longer term .
Conservatives (ex UUP), Liberal Democrats (ex Alliance), Labour (ex SDLP) and Greens in the “united community” block with Sinn Fein and the DUP outside in the “more Unionist than you” and “more Nationalistthan you” blocks is an attractive proposition.
If all committed to a shared future but were clear about the centre of gravity for their member’s aggregate constitutional preferences (personal choice in a liberal, pluralist UK for the tories, integration and reconciliation for the Liberal Democrats, decolonialism through civil rights and consensual unity for Labour) this gives most people’s priority.
To add a bit more variety a next step would be for the “UK” parties in the North to recognize and develop further their fraternal relations with their europarl sister parties in the south (The European People’s Party includes the Tories and Fine Gael; in the Council of Europe the liberal democractic and reform group includes Fianna Fail and the Liberal DEemocrats; the Party of European Socialism includes both Irish and British Labour parties. If someone wanted to advertise their nationalism they could hold cards for an all-Ireland and an all-UK party. So for example I might hold my Alliance membership card (rebranded LibDem) to allow me my tiny part in the running of the UK (including defence / monetary policy etc) for so long as the union exists, but also my Fianna Fail card, registering my interest in North-South projects and my long-term political affiliation in a united-Ireland.
This could spare southern parties the confusion of defending policy positions in two jurisdictions (especially if in government in one) but allow them a contribution to the development of their northern sister party’s positions. We could get used to seeing Fianna Fail and PD politicians (until they’ve all rejoind FF) at northern LibDem conferences for example, and the same in reverse.
This makes most sense east of the Bann where the Lib Dems (Alliance) have 35 or so council seats. Maybe it’s an Antrim and Down option. West of the Bann Alliance have no councillors – the SDLP have the liberal/social democratic franchise there as they take more first pref votes that the Alliance party and many/most of their transfers.
Q. Would west of the Bann nationalists vote for the Liberal Democrats if they were tied cross-border to Fianna Fail? Would they vote for Labour as the SDLP’s inheritors? Can Irish nationalism be wrapped, temporarily in a UK-party’s packaging? Could nationalists ever vote Tory if the Fine Gael relationship were strong enough.
Of course there is an all-UK tie-up available for the DUP if they want it.
UKIP.
Yes Greenflag me old China, but there was an agreement, a critical one – 1998 the GFA in which there was no option for repartition only consent for all Ireland or keeping up with a Union and a united link up with the Republic via NSMC.
Tatty bye now to repartition.
DC ,
’1998 the GFA in which there was no option for repartition ‘
In 1920 there was’nt an option either . Neither side wanted it -both sides got it. They almost got it right in 1920 . Best to leave to a neutral international organisation next time.
Tatty bye for the Assembly I’d say not now but odds on for later . A bird can’t fly on one wing and neither can it fly if one of the wings prefers to detach itself from the body of the bird whenever it sees fit. This bird is heading for a crash landing -the only question is when
“Tatty bye for the Assembly I’d say not now but odds on for later . A bird can’t fly on one wing and neither can it fly if one of the wings prefers to detach itself from the body of the bird whenever it sees fit.”
People are ahead of the politicians, we work together for each other, some work even harder and closer depending on the nature of the work – not just globalised companies but local workplaces too shows a matter of fact and truth that people are already ‘flying’ together.
So I don’t accept that divisions are that ingrained because at a local level, while people leave their houses, largely segregated, they mingle in the likes of the Odyssey and go back home with a shared experience, so it isn’t just in work but in play.
Time for that shared vision to enter the political realm like Alliance and Durkan seem to be suggesting should happen.
GREENFLAG
If people are serious about realignment as an alternative to the current stagnancy, how do they go about it?
What do you think is the way forward in order to get the issue in the public sphere?
Time for that shared vision to enter the political realm.
I agree, but does this shared vision also reflect the fact that two national identities share the same political jurisdiction?
Unless NI becomes truely shared – where all national expressions are allowed; where Dublin has as much say as London; where both Irish and UK flags fly from official buildings etc – then realignment is probably the best solution.
“I agree, but does this shared vision also reflect the fact that two national identities share the same political jurisdiction?”
They do but it depends on the amplification of these ‘two’ identities in a world, Europe and Britain and Ireland in which people expect culture and behaviour to be accommodated not aggressively fought out to fail. The national identities are in flux, the Ireland of today is not gaelicised to the extent that SF makes us believe that it is, Irishness should not be stunted that is true, neither should Britishness.
Given the challenges of today’s world with China showing that it is outdoing America by economics alone, so then economics will remain the basis of success. India too. China and India are 5 times the size of Europe and USA combined. We must be careful that the people and countries don’t grow old in comparison to these countries that seem to be growing anew.
It seems faintly embarrassing today to watch politics being played out to gridlock as a result of vetoes, especially as Britain and Ireland have largely reconciled in the fight to remain modern and economically effective; the politicians at Stormont seem stuck in a rut with 20th century ideology that even Britain and Ireland have moved on from, joining the European Union has changed the debate which has helped change the way NI operates. I don’t agree much with the old notions of sovereignty but more so with whether people’s values and beliefs and behaviours can be respected, and that everyone has access to power and opportunities fairly, especially now it is economics that is the baseline.
What Mark Durkan is suggesting is that a bill of rights should safeguard these national identities as best is possible and negotiated to a level that is acceptable and appropriate so that a shared vision can be constructed – like everything cultural, it is socially constructed, I see no reason why a shared vision cannot be constructed.
Perhaps the vision might best be induced if the Republic’s government joined in and helped out, but it is busy remaining modern and effective in this downturn, which is not the case up at Stormont, even if parts were to be repartitioned the people moving are out of kilter with the skills needed to successfully operate in the Republic’s workplace, that is why for example Gerry Adams flunked the leader’s debate at the last southern election, as he didn’t have the inherent attitudinal skills to win the hearts and minds of that electorate.
RG ,
‘What do you think is the way forward in order to get the issue in the public sphere? ‘
I don’t think the ‘public’ at large are much exercised by the issue in truth .
The French have an expression ‘reculer mieux pour sauter ‘ it means withdrawing or reversing in order to leap forward -think of the way a tiger retreats a few steps before lunging forward .
In evolution ‘withdrawing ‘ or reverting to a more embyonic state has been a traditional method used for a new species to evolve away from it’s parent species and thus make progress along a new track . But in order to make any advance it cannot be too specialised or too adapted to it’s present ‘niche ‘ or stuck in it’s present mode .
Unlearning is more difficult than learning . Going forward the DUP/SF means progressing along the narrow cul de sac -both parties have signed up for. As they progress the walls of the cul de sac will narrow and at some point one or other will try to reverse out . We are seeing this already .
In my view before there can be a going forward . there needs to be a going back to ‘Unionism’s ‘embryonic’ state ie the 1880′s and the then debate between Liberal Unionists and the Anti Home Rule Unionists .
Can they go back ? I don’t believe so. They have ‘specialised ‘ too far away from the original ‘tree trunk’ that both parties are now clinging on to separate branches which have become progressively thinner and thinner . Neither can now risk ‘turning ‘ around to retreat for they know that they no longer have the flexibility and may fall off . The UUP the party of the thinnest branch have tried to turn but have slipped and now find themselves hanging by their fingernails above the political chasm . Meanwhile they see Tory Boy clmbing up the main trunk with some kind of tool in hand . Is it some kind of rescue tool or is it a saw . Hard to tell from this distance .
DC ,
‘People are ahead of the politicians’
Indeed – ‘There go the people I must follow them for I am their leader’ is an old but true adage for most politicians . Every so often a ‘leader ‘ will emerge who will ‘lead’ rather than be ‘led’. In a divided society like NI I suggest that it’s almost impossible for such a ‘leader’ to emerge for he/she cannot emerge alone but must be accompanied by his alter ego from the other ‘side’.An emergence of a Mandela/De Klerk progressive duo does not seem a possibility for NI. The ‘Chuckie Brothers ‘ doesn’t quite cut it -too brief -but it at least moved one of the logjams . The devolution of P & J is the next big logjam .
‘It seems faintly embarrassing today to watch politics being played out to gridlock as a result of vetoes, especially as Britain and Ireland have largely reconciled in the fight to remain modern and economically effective; the politicians at Stormont seem stuck in a rut with 20th century ideology’
It beats the alternative DC . You surely meant 19th century ideology for Ireland both North and South were IIRC about 50 years behind the emergence of ‘nationalism ‘ which spread across central Europe in the mid 19th century. We were ‘ensconced ‘ ye see within the UK with most of us ‘traumatised’ from the Famine years to rise up other than a brief near lunatic episode in Tipperary somewhere .
I would not rule Alliance and the UUP deciding to form an opposition coalition at some point down the line – probably when it’s too late as per usual . But it’s very early days yet and as the ‘leaders ‘ have such a long way to go to catch up on the people their ‘minds’ are already engaged in trying to hang on to the hooks they are already impaled on. As the UUP are now looking at being embedded within the British Tory Party the UUP will find the SDLP being ‘repelled’ IMO .