Monday, May 12, 2008
Breaking down the border
In the aftermath of last week’s Investment Conference, Tom McGurk’s been examining just what the North has to offer potential investors and taking a longer look at how the new political and economic realities are likely to impact on traditional unionist attitudes to the border.
Chris Donnelly @ 08:34 PM
Billy, I used the term ‘self-imposed apartheid’. It fits fairly well with the notion of a ‘society within a society’ used by some and ‘a state within a state’ used by others.
The ‘reaction’ you refer to had occurred at the time of the formation of the two states. IIRC over twenty Nationalist councils affiliated to the Dáil and one third of Catholic schools received their teachers salaries from the Dáil. Cardinal Brady doesn’t mention this but I’d be surprised if it didn’t have a bearing on future events. [ref Bardon’s ‘History of Ulster’]
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:22 PMKensei, why do you mention Cardinal Hume?
Cos I had it in my head from last time and didn’t read back.
How am I misrepresenting Brady when the intertwining predated the formation of both states?
Great, now you’re trying to go fucking willow on my ass.
First of all you are saying that he said something he didn’t. He quoted it. Second, you suggest earlier that this was “self-imposed apartheid”. We’ll ignore the pejorative language for now. It was not, and that is not his argument. The argument as Billy points out, is that it was a reaction to a hostile state.
There is a huge gap between what you are saying and what is laid out in the speech. So much so that this:
Qubol, Cardinal Brady seems a fairly reasonable man and he seems to have no qualms about identifying himself with that definition of self-imposed apartheid.
Is downtright dishonest.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:27 PM“Sometimes people don’t want what’s good for them.”
I know, Billy, that’s why I’m not surprised that no-one shouted “Cheers” when I wrote the script for my version of shared sovereignty et al ;)
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:30 PMNevin
The ‘reaction’ you refer to had occurred at the time of the formation of the two states. IIRC over twenty Nationalist councils affiliated to the Dáil and one third of Catholic schools received their teachers salaries from the Dáil. Cardinal Brady doesn’t mention this but I’d be surprised if it didn’t have a bearing on future events. [ref Bardon’s ‘History of Ulster’]
At the formation of the state it was by no means clear that Northern Ireland would be around very long: certainly a lot of areas expected to be moved into the Republic by the Boundary Commission. I could also point out that the formation of the state there were pogroms against Catholics and a lot of people forced out.
But this would be to miss the point. Are you seriously suggesting that Stormont was powerless due to a few years of early turbulence and that it is vastly more significant than instutionalised discrimination?
Aye, right.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:34 PMKensei, I pointed out that Brady identified himself with the statement so there should be no need to throw in ‘quote’ as some sort of smokescreen. I also claimed that the statement was a definition of self-imposed apartheid.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:39 PMNevin
It’d be much easier to take your point seriously if you didn’t use the word “apartheid”.
You have accused me of using terms that are “jaundiced” and “poisonous” and of “spewing bile”.
Time to take that beam out of your eye there.....
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:42 PMNevin
“Brady identified himself with the statement so there should be no need to throw in ‘quote’ as some sort of smokescreen.”
But you completely divorced the statement from the context in which Brady quoted it. Indeed you are pretending it had a quite different context altogether - you are still being dishonest.
“I also claimed that the statement was a definition of self-imposed apartheid.”
Then you’re wildly wrong. What Brady described (or more accurately, what Hume described) was neither “self-imposed” nor “apartheid”. It was a reaction to, and retreat from, a hostile state.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:46 PMSRR
I tried emailing you but your email address doesn’t work. You can email me your address and and I can get back to you, if you’re interested in a reply to your last post?
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:47 PMNevin
Kensei, I pointed out that Brady identified himself with the statement so there should be no need to throw in ‘quote’ as some sort of smokescreen. I also claimed that the statement was a definition of self-imposed apartheid.
He did not “identify himself” with the statement. He quoted it. What was mentioned was a defensive measure in reaction to a hostile state, not as “self imposed apartheid”.
Even more, it is still wrong. There was an intertwining of those things form at least the time of O’Connell. Nationalist Ireland in the North simply went on as before. The new state made no effort to change matters.
Sorry, Nevin, you can’t blame us for Unionist misrule.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:48 PMKensei, I contrasted the southern Presbyterian ‘fair wind’ approach to the very different Catholic one here.
If you look at the island’s history you’ll probably note an interaction between the attacks in say Belfast and Cork; the minorities in each case were the major victims.It seems that Unionist and Nationalist councillors ‘enjoyed’ the privileges associated with discrimination; I understand there was some sort of ‘gentleman’s agreement’ on this issue in Newry - though you may not find it in the NICRA documentation.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:50 PM“It was a reaction to, and retreat from, a hostile state”
But, Billy, this self-imposed apartheid began at the moment of conception. Presumably the planning predated that historic moment.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 12:57 PMSRR
Incidentally:
“McGurk uses his column to spew out insults against Ulster Prods week after week.”
This statement is both factually incorrect and substantially untruthful.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:02 PM“He did not “identify himself” with the statement. He quoted it.”
Your getting yourself in a bit of a tangle there, Kensei ...
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:03 PM“Sorry, Nevin, you can’t blame us for Unionist misrule.”
Well you don’t appear to be a Unionist, Kensei - so I’ll have to blame youse for something else - whatever youse are ;)
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:06 PMNevin
“But, Billy, this self-imposed apartheid began at the moment of conception. Presumably the planning predated that historic moment.”
So your point is that divergent political views and religious/cultural sectarianism existed in the six counties before a border was drawn around them? Get outta here!
(Jesus wept. It’s frustrating to see someone as conspicuously intelligent as yourself wilfully affecting such denseness. It’s always the last intellectual refuge of those emotionally unready to let go of a dead-end political credo. Are you sure you aren’t Willow in disguise?)
Of course Catholics in the new NI weren’t the happiest campers around. But the point is that, though the Catholic/nationalist population represented a challenge, the sheer advantage of a shiny new state, and its economic advantage over the Free State/Republic gave unionism a huge opportunity to make happy citizens out of a significant proportion of Catholics/nationalists - an opportunity that unionism never even thought about trying to take.
That is a reality completely unrelated to the array of smokescreens you keep throwing up.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:14 PM“The reason why the northern state did fail in this way, is because those in charge of that northern state tended to hate Catholics and tended to rather enjoy acting cruelly towards them.
Now, some southern governments have been inept, some corrupt, but that accusation could never be levelled at them. And Catholics in the north have tended”
What an armpit
As the descendent on both “sides”, of protestants forced out of the ROI via boycott threats and in one case murder I for one have no intention of supporting any coalition with the ROI and its murder gang fellow travellers in N Ireland
Try “The IRA and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923: Peter Hart: “
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:50 PMBilly, my point is that I agree with the definition of self-imposed apartheid that Brady identified with when he used that quote. I also pointed out an important point or two Brady overlooked.
I don’t think that labelling either of our two major aspirations as ‘dead-end credos’ is at all helpful. Hence my proposal to accommodate both as far as that is possible so that we could work the common ground together. The merger of strands 2 and 3 puts our relationships with the rest of these two islands more or less on a par.
PS Perhaps you’re being ‘blinded’ by your own smoke ;)
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:51 PMKensei, I contrasted the southern Presbyterian ‘fair wind’ approach to the very different Catholic one here.
Really, because I keep being told by Unionists on here that Southern Prods got the hell out, or were forced out of the new state, or were killed. You are also dealing with entirely different animals. The goal of Irish Nationalism was at least nominally a state that included Catholic and Protestant. The goal of Unionism was a Protestant state for a Protestant people.
And again: the Catholic Church was, funny enough, central to the lives of many Catholics. Catholic schools predate this state by quite a distance, as do many Catholic community organisations and events. It was also entwined with Nationalism long before partition: partly because the Irish Church drew from, er, Nationalist stock. For Catholics to have a life independent of the state and covers many different areas requires no grand plan or preparation for anything. It just requires things to go on as before.
The lack of interaction with the state was not the result of some incredible feat of groupthink. It was a reaction to the state being quite clear on who was welcome to contribute to civic society, and who should be prevented as best possible fro doing so.
It seems that Unionist and Nationalist councillors ‘enjoyed’ the privileges associated with discrimination; I understand there was some sort of ‘gentleman’s agreement’ on this issue in Newry - though you may not find it in the NICRA documentation.
This has nothing to do with the point at hand.
Your getting yourself in a bit of a tangle there, Kensei ...
I have quoted you throughout this thread. Does it mean I share your opinion? Have I “identified myself” with it?
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 01:53 PMBilly
To srip down your reply to me you seem to be defining “economic unit” not as “market” but as “unit for economic policy”. This is a worthwhile point but our economic architecture suggests many overlapping “units” depending on the policy question in hand.
The economic policy questions at hand are multiple. Ireland no longer sets interest rates, for example, having been convinced that the relevant unit for monetary policy formation is much higher than Ireland-level. And in terms of industrial subsidies there are tight EU rules which limit nation states competing against each other unfairly. Environmental policy needs a global frame (particularly relating to global warming and the implementation of higher petol pump prices). And in competition policy - e.g. whether two firms should merge - an EU-wide competition policy operates for firms selling in more than one state (subject to certain criteria). Further, all EU countries come under the common agriculture policy.
One major economic policy instrument in national hands is tax and spend policy. There are many in Brussels who believe that harmonization is needed here and I think that “beggar thy neighbour” tax policies can be damaging if they are not controlled. That said, I believe that a greater level of fiscal devolution would be worth thinking about, and there is currently a UK-wide debate about this. The Calman Commission which is currently deliberating in Scotland will be interesting, because it is likely to establish more powers to be transferred to the Scottish Government which could be replicated - if local parties agree - for the NI case. My sympathies are for more power to be devolved in the first instance and for NI many of the issues are similar to those in Scotland.
The spirit of much of what you say might be “local policies for local needs” and as a localist I think there is much in that.
Where I think that Nortern Ireland needs the greatest development is in education and training policy. I believe that excellent research-driven universities and schools are important tools in tackling the low-skill nature of our workforce. To me this is by far NI’s biggest economic challenge and here I agree in local solutions to local challenges. Our ministers are only now getting to work.
There are some areas in which the ROI is part of an “economic unit” in the sense that I use the term, namely a market. Energy is a good example. Here there are potential efficiency savings from North-South cooperation to create a more competitive market and to benefit from economies of scale. The biggest problem facing our globally competitive manufacturing businesses such as Wrightbus, Michelin, Shorts, Gallaher, etc, are the high energy costs (that is what the firms say). The benefits of the single electricity market have so far been modest but its to be hoped that more progress can be made.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:06 PMKensei, I disagree with the different animals bit; the beasts had quite a bit in common. I suspect many Unionists were happy, maybe even relieved, that the northern Nationalists had taken the self-imposed apartheid route. IIRC the proposal for ‘integrated’ education was opposed by all of the main churches.
You referred to institutionalised discrimination so I gave you the Newry example.
The ‘tangle’ that I referred to was one of your own quotes, not one of mine.
The sentiments about giving the new southern state a fair wind were IIRC made at the time of its inception by Dublin Presbyterians. I suppose that would have rendered them pro-treaty and could have led to some of those attacks that are recorded in subsequent minutes of the Presbyterian General Assembly.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:29 PMBarnshee
“As the descendent on both “sides”, of protestants forced out of the ROI via boycott threats and in one case murder I for one have no intention of supporting any coalition with the ROI and its murder gang fellow travellers in N Ireland.”
Any mistreatment of Protestants in the Free State/Republic might explain Protestant alienation from the Republic, but it does not explain Catholic alienation from the northern state - which is the point at hand. Incidents like the Dunmanway killings, are a black stain on our history, but they do not explain why nationalists in the six counties still hated the state of Northern Ireland decades after partition.
The remarkable thing is that unionists generally still seem unable to admit that the state itself, and the way it conducted itself, might have had something to do with that. Instead we get nonsense about Cork in the 1920s - as if that was the reason, say, the Civil Rights Association gained traction.
“my point is that I agree with the definition of self-imposed apartheid that Brady identified with when he used that quote.”
But Brady never said anything about “self-imposed apartheid” - a point I’ve made about three times now. That you keep refusing to address that point - and moderate your highly offensive language - demonstrates that your interest here is in mitigating the naked bigotry of the Orange junta.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:39 PMSorry, that last point was in response to Nevin.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:40 PM“Here there are potential efficiency savings from North-South cooperation to create a more competitive market and to benefit from economies of scale.”
Slug, perhaps you should have a look at this Allister press release.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:41 PMSlug
“you seem to be defining “economic unit” not as “market” but as “unit for economic policy”.”
That’s exactly what I was trying to say, but wasn’t able to say it so well, and so succinctly.
Excellent post. I think we would agree on an awful lot. You want Northern Ireland to succeed. I want Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh, Down, Derry and Tyrone to succeed. Seems like we’re pulling in the same direction.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:45 PMNevin
Kensei, I disagree with the different animals bit; the beasts had quite a bit in common. I suspect many Unionists were happy, maybe even relieved, that the northern Nationalists had taken the self-imposed apartheid route. IIRC the proposal for ‘integrated’ education was opposed by all of the main churches.
There was no self-imposed apartheid route. There was discrimination. You have made this up and the only support you’ve offered is misquoting someone.
You referred to institutionalised discrimination so I gave you the Newry example.
It remains irrelevant. If Newry was a little island of Nationalist bigotry in a sea of Unionist bigotry, it is independent of the institutionalised discrimination of Stormont and localised in its effect.
The sentiments about giving the new southern state a fair wind were IIRC made at the time of its inception by Dublin Presbyterians. I suppose that would have rendered them pro-treaty and could have led to some of those attacks that are recorded in subsequent minutes of the Presbyterian General Assembly.
With respect, the Southern Presbyterians did not really have the option of ignoring the state: they were a tiny minority, and Presbyterianism is not really centralised as Catholicism is. Had they ran between 30-40% of the new state, you may have found their attitude quite different.
Posted by on May 14, 2008 @ 02:48 PM
