Case for unification: “I sense that republicans don’t actually know the answer themselves”
On the subject of polls, I’d blogged Owen Paterson’s thoughts before Alex Kane’s column came online:
My own view is that this is the perfect time for a referendum. Bring it on, in fact! In 1973 we never got the chance to have a proper debate about the realities, consequences and ramifications of Irish unity. As is so often the case the nationalists ran away from it. In one sense, of course, you can’t blame them for not wanting a forensic examination of unification, for once you have sidelined the blarney, mythology and teary-eyed ballads about martyrs and incompetent revolts, you quickly discover that there’s nothing else in their cupboard.
So let’s cut the nonsense and have the debate. If Sinn Fein and the SDLP are convinced that Irish unity really does represent some sort of political utopia then perhaps they should set out the case. Let me put it bluntly: what would ever make me choose to swap my citizenship of the United Kingdom for a newly united Ireland? I only ask the question because I sometimes sense that republicans don’t actually know the answer themselves. Instead, they seem to have convinced themselves that there will come a day when there are more Roman Catholics than Protestants in Northern Ireland and that those Roman Catholics will, when given the choice, choose to vote themselves out of the United Kingdom.
This touches on an important difference between any future Scottish exit from the Union and Northern Ireland’s. In the former case, the destination is febrile, protean and the final outcome can be trimmed somewhat what the maximum number want/will settle for.
In the case of re-unifying Ireland, there’s the tough matter of retrofitting a fragment of the UK to a small but, by its own account, imperfectly formed Republic to which there are limitations as to how it might be reformed to suit the needs and wishes of any prospective northern partners.
Obelisk – “Right now the Republic’s economy is in dire straits, but a decade ago we had the Celtic Tiger. Who is to say that something similar won’t occur again?” Yet even at the height of the Celtic Tiger there was no overwhelming call among people in the south for unification. Unless a huge section of that population agrees, it will never occour. And no one has yet convinced them that putting up with all the financial and security concerns that attend the annual 12th July is in their interest. They are not a divided people, like the north, and don’t want to take on problems that are really nothing to do with them. Can’t say I blame them either!
MrPMartin – “I’ve nothing against the Republic but I dont want to be culturally or politically part of it. This may seem like anecdotal but it carries a fair degree of weight but every time I watch a political or current affairs programme on RTE, as much as they are well made and informative etc, they are, to me, just that little bit foreign and different in the much the same way I feel when I watch France 24 on Sky.” Most people in the south feel the same way about the north. And despite a United Ireland been part and parcel of their cultural heritage, no one has yet given them good, practical reasons why they should take on the north and all its problems. There will never be a United Ireland until there is a united Northern Ireland. And even then …
WEIDJM – some of your arguments must surely have found a home among the millions of Irish people who have made Britain their home over the generations. Why else would so many still prefer to make it their new home rather than, say, the USA? Its not just the British of NI who have found a home in the UK, many from the Republic have happily done so. Which indicates to me that the south still has some way to go to make itself look more attractive to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, never mind those who value being part of the UK.
Billy Pilgrim – exactly why so many in the south still see the Irish of NI as not quite their fellow countrymen. Sad, I agree, but there it is.
There is much further to go – further than anyone in either communities understands – before a United Ireland is even plausible. We have two communities in the north, and the one in the south, all mutually looking incomprehensibly at each other.
A Notion Once Again ??
** groans **
We get this every time the debate comes up.
They are not a divided people, like the north, and don’t want to take on problems that are really nothing to do with them.
Can you provide a link to a poll supporting this nonsense? Of course, we’ve all seen the most recent (to my knowledge) poll on southern support for a UI, taken in 2006 and stating support to be at 80%. Perhaps you have a more recent poll of Southern opinion?
Do you have any proof that the south don’t want us or are you just spouting your opinion without any basis in fact? Provide me a link, as I have provided you with one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland
The GFA set in stone what has to happen for a UI to occur. 50% + 1 vote for it in the North, a referendum is held in the South and Bob’s your uncle. No need to convince the poor downtrodden Unionist community that Ireland wouldn’t behave in the same way as Northern irish Unionists when they ran the show. It’s a vote and if you don’t like the result, well, dry your eyes.
It reminds me tangentially of the NI football selection saga. Unionists don’t like the result so they spit the dummy out. If Unionists don’t like it, it’s self-evidently wrong. Like the attitude expressed above, if there was a succesful vote for a UI and God’s chosen people weren’t happy then we’d still need to talk them round. Bollocks, suck it up.
I say let’s have the referendum, so Heinz here can crow about how badly we were beaten as it’s never going to happen, or maybe I can crow about how it’s closer than you thought. Why not get some numbers on the board so we can figure out where we stand.
It’s strange Unionists seem so utterly opposed to the idea in spite of their incredible confidence that it would be a landslide vote to retain the Union. Well if you do why not have the balls to test the water?
Neil,
No need to convince the poor downtrodden Unionist community that Ireland wouldn’t behave in the same way as Northern irish Unionists when they ran the show.
Yes, that’s EXACTLY what you have to do. Have you learned nothing from history?
It’s a vote and if you don’t like the result, well, dry your eyes.
Not even a hint of concern for unionist fears? Not even a modicum of compassion or understanding? No wonder unionists are terrified of the day you’re in charge. Thankfully not all nationalists are so bitter.
“It’s strange Unionists seem so utterly opposed to the idea in spite of their incredible confidence that it would be a landslide vote to retain the Union. Well if you do why not have the balls to test the water?”
Where do you get the idea that the prod is opposed to a referendum?
Bring it on– The assembly can surely authorise and run a referendum ? Mind you they just might change their mind when the watch Scotland shit all over the bould Alex when he runs out of road.
GLC
‘…the case for ‘persauding’ Unionism into a UI is every bit as pointless as the case for persauding the ROI to join the UK.’
This is the position of the Real IRA.
If you are right about this – that it’s pointless to even try to persuade anyone of the virtues of unification – then why shouldn’t those who want unity just take up the gun?
(Personally, I think this is a crazy and immoral position.)
Publican
The south is not a divided community, as is the north, but that doesn’t mean it’s homogenous, either. There’s a very large constituency there that is very open to the idea that the existing state has failed them, and that it’s time to think of starting afresh.
It’s a perfectly logical republican position to argue that Ireland today is home to two failed states. They have failed in very different ways, but the myriad miseries suffered by the people over the past century have had very different causes.
But who can dispute the correctness of Connolly’s prediction that partition would ‘mean a carnival of reaction both North and South (that) would set back the wheels of progress … and paralyse all advanced movements whilst it endured.’
There are different traditions in Ireland, and huge differences within those traditions too. But the idea that a border could allow us, at a stroke, to never have to deal with those differences, has actually caused the fossilization of the traditions, and the degeneration of the people within them. The results have ranged from the Magdalene laundries to the Shankill butchers.
But Ireland has known such low points before. Oddly enough (or perhaps not) it’s usually in the north that regeneration begins.
Someone (IJP?) said earlier that Irish republicanism and the radical/enlightenment tradition are not so different. Indeed the former is the direct creation of the latter. Irish republicanism is the creation of Belfast Protestants.
Northerners (of both traditions) have always been at the vanguard of progressive, radical and/or revolutionary politics on this island. The fact that we have lived through a century of regression should not blind us to that fact, or convince us that we cannot be such a vanguard again.
BP,
Someone (IJP?) said earlier that Irish republicanism and the radical/enlightenment tradition are not so different. Indeed the former is the direct creation of the latter.
In theory, yes. In practice, what masquerades as “republicanism” in Ireland is as close to enlightenment liberalism as “unionism” is to the ideal of multinational, multicultural tolerance. Both are fine modern concepts which have been subverted and now serve merely as flags of convenience for our centuries-old tribal conflict.
Wolfe Tone said “for a fair and open war I was prepared; if that has degenerated into a system of assassination, massacre, and plunder I do again most sincerely lament it”. Ireland’s tragedy is that every idealist since has similarly underestimated the scale of Ireland’s endemic communalism. Every grand political scheme in the last 300 years has foundered on that rock. Why do people keep forgetting that grand political schemes are fragile things compared to it?
It’s a vote and if you don’t like the result, well, dry your eyes.
Not even a hint of concern for unionist fears? Not even a modicum of compassion or understanding?
Not even, correct. How much concern do Unionists display that Nationalists are forced to live in the UK? None, they’re just happy about it, and regularly come along to gloat about that fact. People’s fears are totally irrelevant in the instance of 50% + 1 in favour of a UI.
Unless you’re suggesting we now, contrary to what we understood to be in the GFA, have to first win a vote on the matter, then do nothing until our Unionist masters decide they’re comfortable with the outworkings of democracy? ROFL etc.
I understand Unionist fears though think they’re unfounded completely. I know that on this island there is one community with a history of discrimination, gerrymandering and so on. They are the ones that I’m supposed to worry about? Ya know, the ones the beloved British had to pull the plug on their government because of their outrageous sectarian behaviour. Funny.
No wonder unionists are terrified of the day you’re in charge. Thankfully not all nationalists are so bitter.
I’ll never be in charge Andrew. I’m just a voter. All I’ve said is that 50% + 1 keeps us in the UK, 50% + 1 can remove us from the UK. We don’t need to worry about anyone’s fears or feelings in that regard, as a democratic vote will make the change regardless of who’s scared.
I’m rubbishing the idea that this idea of ‘converting’ the other side to Unionism or Nationalism is a waste of time, especially given the mooted 4 year time frame. Incidentally the idea of ‘converting’ the other side is rubbished by Unionist commentors prior to my own comment.
Sorry, meant to add:
Yes, that’s EXACTLY what you have to do. Have you learned nothing from history?
One things that’s mightily CLEAR from history is that 50% + 1 maintains the status of the Union. We now have an agreement that 50% + 1 in favour of a UI will change the consitutional status of NI. And that’s regardless of whether someone converts every Unionist in Ireland within four years, or if literally every Unionist in Ireland is crying their eyes out. That’s the agreement we’ve made.
Andrew
‘In practice, what masquerades as “republicanism” in Ireland is as close to enlightenment liberalism as “unionism” is to the ideal of multinational, multicultural tolerance’
I think that’s absolutely correct, but it’s also no reason to allow the corrupted version of ‘republicanism’ (or indeed ‘unionism’) to stand unchallenged.
In the early modern period, a small but growing number of people began to insist on their intellectual independence, beginning with the recognition that the ‘Christian’ church was in fact very far removed from their interpretation of Christianity. From these beginnings grew Protestantism, which in turn was a vital component of the Enlightenment.
Protestants did not refuse to call themselves Christians, or reject Christianity itself, on the basis that the ‘Christian’ church fell so far short of its professed ideals. Rather, they stood their ground and fought for those ideals, against its corruptors; because the idea was worth standing up for. I happen to believe that the idea of a true Irish republic is also an idea worth standing up for.
Your point about communalism in Ireland is well made, but it assumes that this is an innate, unchanging and unchangeable fact of life, when in fact it cannot even be understood outside of the connection with Britain. (Even today, we tend to use ‘Protestant’ and ‘unionist’ with a rather telling interchangeability.)
I’m sure you are familiar with Tone’s description of ‘the connection with England’ (sic) as ‘the never failing source of all our political evils.’
In the absence of such a connection, the nature of communalism here changes immediately. I know this scares Ulster Protestants, who are almost exclusively unionists (indeed, that’s perhaps the main reason WHY they’re almost exclusively unionists) and both republicans and ‘republicans’ are poorly placed to offer reassurance. So we live with a miserable stalemate.
Personally, I think this stalemate is, and has been, incredibly harmful to the Ulster Protestant people. (To the rest of the island, too.) It is precisely for this reason that I believe it would be a healthy thing for Ulster Protestants to find renewal in their radical roots, and perhaps, one day, even reacquaint themselves with their unique creation, Irish republicanism.
I believe this would be a great thing for all of Ireland, and for Britain too. And not in some happy-clappy, letsgetalongerist way. I believe many of the failures of the Irish Republic that does exist (the 26 county version) derive directly from the absence of Ulster Protestants from its jurisdiction.
‘Why do people keep forgetting that grand political schemes are fragile things compared to it?’
I’m not sure that people do forget this important fact. Indeed I’d suggest that central to the moral case for Irish republicanism in the 21st century is the idea that it is precisely through political unity and independence that we can at last break the shackles of communalism. One may not believe that to be true, but one cannot deny that, if it is, it’s a powerful moral argument. In fact, it’s only a slight variation on Tone’s best-known remark, one that has yet to be bettered: ‘to substitute the common name of Irishman, in the place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic, and Dissenter.’
BP: ”If you are right about this – that it’s pointless to even try to persuade anyone of the virtues of unification – then why shouldn’t those who want unity just take up the gun?”
It’s pretty obvious — the recent provo campaign was by any standards an abject and costly failure. If PIRA, with considerable numbers, weaponry, finance and a modicum of support achieved nothing, what hope for a bunch of die-hards with none of the above?
SF settled for a pretty horrendous deal as far as Republicanism is concerned — acceptance of the border until a majority in NI vote to remove it, scrapping of Articles 2 & 3, unilateral decommissioning, serving as Brit lackeys in Stormont and endorsing the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If that’s the best the provos could manage, what hope for the Real/Continuity/Whatever IRA?
As regards trying to persaude Unionists into a UI, SF know as well as anyone that it’s a futile exercise. Hence the appt of Martina Anderson to ‘Unionist Outreach’. A UI will not come through persausion of Unionists, any more than it could have been created by bombing cenotaphs or shooting widows.
SF signed up for indefinite partition and have spent every waking moment since gurning about it. They still can’t accept that a sizeable majority in NI aren’t interested in a UI, and if they don’t believe it, then we should have a border poll as soon as possible.
I’ve no problem with a referendum. By all means lets have one tomorrow.
My opinion is that all forms of republicanism has failed the Irish people. Continuing to follow hoary old ghosts such as Wolf Tone and Connolly cannot but continue to do so. Time for somethng entirely new.
“Ireland’s tragedy is that every idealist since has similarly underestimated the scale of Ireland’s endemic communalism. Every grand political scheme in the last 300 years has foundered on that rock. Why do people keep forgetting that grand political schemes are fragile things compared to it?”
Because people are not ideal. Only ideals are. They are constructions that founder in reality because they portray things as certain people would like them to be, not how they are, or could ever be, without mass slaughter.
That’s why republican idealists from Wolfe Tone to de Valera to Adams have always failed. Tone failed utterly, and the latter two had to severely curtail their ideals to gain real political power. Following the same old path is only going forward by going backwards. Again.
Like Fianna Fail, the party in its present form will cherish its dogma and make all the right noises, but its all window dressing. Just like FF’s aspirations for a United Ireland after it came to power. An utter waste of some great Sinn Fein talent, but all must bend before the will of the leader(ship). And the leadership has a good twenty years in it yet before retirement.
The prize ideal of so many Irish people for so long, a United Ireland, has caused more harm than good. Fact.
Neil – “Can you provide a link to a poll supporting this nonsense? Of course, we’ve all seen the most recent (to my knowledge) poll on southern support for a UI, taken in 2006 and stating support to be at 80%. Perhaps you have a more recent poll of Southern opinion?”
Then lets have a referendum. I’m all for it.
But once the reality of who’s going to pay for it begins to sink in, the numbers will sink. Nothing like the spectacle of northern riots – which after unification will be against their police – to cool southern warmth for a UI.
Most people in the south would like to see a united Ireland, but preferably one without the two communites in the north. They look up here and see too much trouble and strife, while for all its problems their society is much more homogneous, stable, and democratic. Why would they want to take on all these problems when they have enough of their own? They have a united country already for generations, and for most of them that’s enough.
A UI is part and parcel of the cultural dogma of the south, and one held by all the major political partys. Its a reflex, just like a knock on the knee. Ask if they support it, most will affirm, based on conditioning. Just like northern Irish who think it is the answer to all their problems. Very few of us ever seem to consider its merits, especially given that there is no sign that our neighbours would view their incorporation into a UI any less warmly than they did pre-GFA.
The north must solve its own problems first, and on its own, before any notion of a UI is credible.
GLC
So the only reason not to pursue political violence is that it’s not strategic. That it won’t work.
Therefore, if one were to believe it MIGHT work, there’s no moral objection with with to concern oneself.
Presumably there are people in the Real IRA who believe (however much we may scoff) that their violence might lead to a UI. By your lights, this is fair enough.
While you disagree with their strategic analysis, you have no moral objection to their violence?
Neil,
I’m not questioning the legal basis of the GFA. I am questioning your apparent belief that “every Unionist in Ireland crying their eyes out” is a desirable foundation for a modern society.
How much concern do Unionists display that Nationalists are forced to live in the UK? None, they’re just happy about it
So two wrongs make a right? How enlightened.
BP,
Your point about communalism in Ireland is well made, but it assumes that this is an innate, unchanging and unchangeable fact of life, when in fact it cannot even be understood outside of the connection with Britain.
Of course communalism didn’t appear out of nowhere, but it is in a feedback loop, continually reinforcing itself. It is not a lost cause, but neither is it an illusion that will melt away with the raising of a flag on a pole.
Even today, we tend to use ‘Protestant’ and ‘unionist’ with a rather telling interchangeability.
Because one is a religious label, and the other a political one, and neither adequately describes what we really mean, which is the overlapping ethnic/cultural identity that has no name of its own. Or at least none that isn’t offensive.
In the absence of such a connection, the nature of communalism here changes immediately.
It will take on a new form, certainly. But it won’t just magically disappear, and could possibly get worse. Can you give me an example of an ethnically-divided country whose internal conflict resolved itself upon gaining independence? I can give you a litany of counterexamples.
the idea that it is precisely through political unity and independence that we can at last break the shackles of communalism
That is not republicanism, it is nationalism. The root of Irish Republicanism’s corruption is its insistence on putting the nationalist cart before the republican horse. It is only through a shared belief in the common good that we can sustain a stable polity. Democracy cannot work without good faith, and we have none. There is no single Irish nation to form the basis of a nation-state, and the best idea Irish Republicanism can come up with is that a single nation will somehow come about “naturally” once the border is erased. It’s about as convincing as the business plan of the Underpants Gnomes.
Breaking the shackles of communalism must come first, and that can only be done from the bottom up. Top-down “solutions” do not work. At best, they paper over the cracks for a while. At worst, they can be incendiary.
Andrew Gallagher – “There is no single Irish nation to form the basis of a nation-state, and the best idea Irish Republicanism can come up with is that a single nation will somehow come about “naturally” once the border is erased. It’s about as convincing as the business plan of the Underpants Gnomes.”
So good, I reposted it.
This has been an interesting discussion. Can we take away from the PUL contributors (which, ultimately, is my starting point) that there is some interest in at least thinking about what a possible new agreed Ireland might look like, and from the RNC contributors, a willingness to acknowledge that the actually existing independent Irish state falls some way short of their own ideals? And if that is the consensus, is there not room there in the space between those ideas to start, very, very slowly, and very, very carefully, so as not to re-awaken the sleeping monsters, to flesh out on the one hand the changes that are sought and on the other those that may be feasible? The GFA creates a stable default position to which everyone may retreat if they start getting nervous. We have space and time, dearly bought, to ponder what we actually want, rather than what we fear. Maybe what we need at this stage is a think tank, something like the Cadogan Group, for very early thinking.
There is no single Irish nation to form the basis of a nation-state, and the best idea Irish Republicanism can come up with is that a single nation will somehow come about “naturally” once the border is erased.
A religious faction, the Protestants, have promoted themselves to a ‘nation’ in order to preserve their brand of Unionist politics. In order to keep this state of affairs going they have instituted a brand of Apartheid in order to keep the ‘nation’ separate. The rules of this system are:-
1) You may not marry a Catholic
2) If you do, you must take your Papist spouse and emigrate.
In the event of 50% + 1, and Irish Unification, this rule will be redundant. A lot of the ‘mixed’ population may return. A lot of the ‘pure’ Protestants will move to other parts of Ireland in the course of their work.
In Donegal, at present, ‘mixed’ marriages, i.e. those between Catholics and Protestants, run at 50% of the total. There is absolutely no reason to maintain religious separation when there is no Unionist gravy-train to reward this practice. I should also mention that in the South of England, I have the distinct impression that marriages between two English people are in the minority, most Southern Englishmen and women marrying a foreigner.
The only hope for maintaining a separate identity lies with such sects as the Reformed Presbyterians and the Select Brethren. Otherwise, the Unionist and Nationalist factions will be absorbed into the general population in the way that, say Parnellites and anti-Parnellites have.
Unionists will move heaven and earth, break up families and institute a régime of hate in order to keep winning elections. But they’re not going to do that in order to keep losing elections, are they?
Andrew Gallagher – “There is no single Irish nation to form the basis of a nation-state, and the best idea Irish Republicanism can come up with is that a single nation will somehow come about “naturally” once the border is erased. It’s about as convincing as the business plan of the Underpants Gnomes.”
Yes but what landmass does this nation have rights to, Andrew? Antrim and Down? Because the other four counties already have, or shortly will have, an Irish nationalist majority in the very near future and thus the keys to secede to the Republic if and when they choose.
All this fanciful talk of “persuading” Unionists (and their mocking attitude towards it) ignores the obvious reality of the growth of the Catholic community in the north and the situation in Scotland which may bring the UK to an end anyway. The “Unionists” will be lucky if Ireland will take them or they’ll be stuck in some repartitoned two county asylum.
I’m not questioning the legal basis of the GFA. I am questioning your apparent belief that “every Unionist in Ireland crying their eyes out” is a desirable foundation for a modern society.
Well let me help you out Andrew, it’s not a desirable foundation for a modern society, and I never said it was. If you want some idea of my ‘apparant beliefs’ perhaps you could start be reading the words I typed. It might give you a better indication than your imagination.
I was simply saying that it won’t make a lick of difference whether they convert en masse to Republicanism sometime prior to 2016, or if they were all crying their eyes out (context’s everything isn’t it Andrew). Same way Nationalists crying their eyes out won’t suddenly change the constitutional status of NI as things stand. Seems simple enough to me.
How much concern do Unionists display that Nationalists are forced to live in the UK? None, they’re just happy about it
So two wrongs make a right? How enlightened.
You can interpret it as ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ you can interpret it as righting and existing wrong (my interpretation), or you can interpret it as democracy and equality: the same rules apply for Unionists and Nationalists: winner takes all. It would appear though, surprisingly, that you want the deck loaded in Unionist’s favour: Nationalists must win, and talk Unionists round; Unionists need only win,
My only point is and has been: should there be a yes for a UI, there will then be a UI. Regardless of whether our Unionist neighbours have a ‘fear’ or not. We didn’t sign up to 50% + 1 then we’ll talk Unionists around, and if they eventually decide to go along with the wishes of the majority we’ll go ahead and do what we voted to do.
PR,
1. So you deny the right of people to self-identify?
2. I didn’t think there were that many Protestants in Donegal.
3. Do you honestly believe that communalism only works one way? Seriously?
RoC,
Nations do not have property rights. But note that I never claimed Ulster Protestants formed a nation. I claimed that Ireland did not. The two are not equivalent statements. There is no rule that says every individual must belong to exactly one nation.
Have any of the grumpy brigade above taken seriously the possibility that Protestants/Unionists won’t just cease to exist? Because several of the above comments seem to be relishing in the thought that a UI will make themmuns disappear, and good riddance to them so. BP’s ideology is a bit dodgy, but at least he treats themmuns with due respect. The rest of you just seem to want to beat them at their own game.
Which is exactly the point of my Wolfe Tone quote above.
Neil,
Straw man. I never claimed that 50%+1 was not the correct legal method. Legality and morality are not the same thing.
Not even a hint of concern for unionist fears? Not even a modicum of compassion or understanding?
Not even, correct.
This is what I was taking issue with. If you cannot show compassion or understanding for your fellow countrymen, then there is no hope. A true republic cherishes all its children equally. The wrong perpetrated against Nationalists was to trap them in a state that had no compassion or understanding for them. Simply turning the tables does not right anything, it just spreads the injustice around.
The wrong perpetrated against Nationalists was to trap them in a state that had no compassion or understanding for them. Simply turning the tables does not right anything, it just spreads the injustice around.
You make the assumption that a UI would be similair to pre ’72 NI. I would suggest that that won’t happen, and any fear that Unionists have of being in a UI would prove unfounded, like a cheating husband who always suspects his wife has strayed because of his own guilt, some NI Unionists anticipate their ‘enemies’ in the south would behave like, well, NI Unionists.
I suspect that FG and FF in the face of a UI would scramble to secure Unionist support to help ward off the common enemy – SF.
So you deny the right of people to self-identify?
Partition is about reserving political power for a particular clique, not about identity. I may self-identify as an Assyrian if I wish, but it is unlikely that I would be able to persuade my children to keep up this pretence.
Protestants were once about 20% of the population of Donegal. Certainly there were calls to include this county in Northern Ireland. “We should never have let them have Donegal” was a frequent complaint among the more innumerate section of the Unionist population.
PR,
A ridiculous comparison. You do not doubt that Protestants exist and form an identifiable group. They are not claiming to be Assyrians, they are just claiming to be Protestants, a term that you yourself use to identify them. You’re arguing that their religious identity is not sufficient to make them an ethnic group. I agree with you – it is not sufficient. But that does not mean that an identifiable ethnic/cultural group does not exist, it just means that there is more to it than just religion.
Again I fail to see how a 20% population could form one half of 50% of marriages, unless Catholics were particulary attached to celibacy. There aren’t that many priests, even in Ireland. Of course, you may have meant “50% of marriages involving Protestants were mixed” or some such. You could put this to bed now by providing a source.
I am tempted to agree that Donegal should not have been left out of NI – not because it deserved Unionist domination, but because it suffered badly from its geographical isolation and a more equal religious balance in NI from the outset might have forced the resolution of the communal issue sooner. Of course, this could easily have gone badly, badly wrong. Counterfactual history is an amusing distraction at best.
BP: ”Presumably there are people in the Real IRA who believe (however much we may scoff) that their violence might lead to a UI. By your lights, this is fair enough.
While you disagree with their strategic analysis, you have no moral objection to their violence?”
If such a grouping insist on a terrorist campaign, inevitably resulting in longterm imprisonment, widespread condemnation and likely premature death, I rather doubt my moral objection is likely to influence their entirely illogical decision.
One question which Republicans need to answer is why anyone in NI would wish to exit the UK to live in a state effectively governed for the forseeable future by the IMF? What possible benefits could there be?
And how exactly is Irishness not being expressed in NI? There would appear to be a thriving and well funded Irish language community, ample provision for Gaelic games and plenty of opportunity for both sides to express their respective cultures.
Republicanism appears to regard a UI as some sort of miracle cure for Ireland’s age old problems. The ROI’s adventures with the Vatican, gombeen politicians and the EU would tend to suggest otherwise.
“Have any of the grumpy brigade above taken seriously the possibility that Protestants/Unionists won’t just cease to exist? Because several of the above comments seem to be relishing in the thought that a UI will make themmuns disappear, and good riddance to them so. BP’s ideology is a bit dodgy, but at least he treats themmuns with due respect. The rest of you just seem to want to beat them at their own game.”
Andrew, I happen to genuinely think the Ulster Protestants could have a hugely positive effect on the country if they took up that challenge to reform Ireland from the bottom up and helped build a new country where all colours and creeds feel proud to be from the country.
But Unionists can’t be forced into taking up the challenge. And sane Nationalists have no reason to go begging, because events will force Unionists into big decisions in the coming years. And if Unionists want to be belligerent and ignorant towards the idea of a unified Irish state then inevitably there wll be re-partition and the Unionists’ children and grandchildren will be the great victims of the whole madness by being stuck in a much smaller re-partitioned state.
PaddyReilly: In Donegal, at present, ‘mixed’ marriages, i.e. those between Catholics and Protestants, run at 50% of the total.
That’s exactly as high as it would be for random pairings in two equally sized communities. Random pairings would give a lower figure if the communities were not equally sized. If there were 3 times more Catholics than protestants in Donegal, then those figures would mean that every Protestant was marrying a Catholic. If Protestants were less than 25% of the population of Donegal, then your figure of 50% would mean that Catholics were going unmarried, or that Donegal was importing Prods.
In short – do you have a reference for your figure of 50%, because it looks like a load of rubbish.