Sunday, June 04, 2006
Empey: unionism has a lot to answer for too…
On Friday, Fionnuala O’Connor picked up a subtly important theme only now emerging from the botched co-option of David Ervine into the UUP’s group at Stormont. For it’s clearest expression she bring us back to last month’s Let’s Talk (Video link, about 29 minutes in). She notes:
A telling line on the Let’s Talk programme was his “this isn’t simply an opportunistic thing” admission of the element that blighted his chance of taking the high moral ground in Stormont. On the same panel Mark Durkan swatted Gregory Campbell’s brazen profession of the DUP’s purity from paramilitary association, past and present, with a ringing: “For years unionist politicians justified the nonsense that loyalist violence was only a reaction to republicans.”
Empey acknowledged the SDLP leader, remarkable in itself: “All of us - a lot of us - have not had an absolutely pristine record in terms of dealing with paramilitarism. There’s a lot of truth in what Mark said.” He thought unionist politicians had a responsibility now to “clear up the mess”, because in the 1970s and ‘80s they had used paramilitary organisations for political purposes: “That’s a fact.” He recalled that the DUP and his own party had been in the same voting group in Belfast City Council for years with David Ervine’s party and the UDA’s representatives, “and that’s when there was no ceasefire”.
And finally:
It was a point that Ulster Unionists, like the DUP, were in the habit of dismissing angrily at the time, with much abuse of the journalists who put it to them.
Yes, he had been in Vanguard, Empey said, the umbrella group including politicians and paramilitaries which backed the 1974 loyalist strike, “and I think my attitude in 1974 was wrong”. Sir Reg broke ranks, and tore up the pretences. The oddity is that he should have flouted such a tribal rule and had the courage to question his own past so soon after meriting universal scorn. But he did it.
Mick Fealty @ 12:59 PM
“and that’s when there was no ceasefire”.
So, what’s changed?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 01:28 PMThis is a positive move by Empey, acknowledging the irresponsibility of unionist politicians in their dealings with loyalist paramilitaries. At the same time, I hope others who support the UUP and might move to the DUP on account of the Ervine deal take this into account before making a final decision.
I wonder if the riots in September scared him into this rethink though
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 01:32 PMEmpey was being honest in admiting mistakes were made in the past, after all how many unionists wouldn’t treat O’Neill differently if they could turn the clock back, it’s a simple question, with the benifit of hindsight, was Terrence O’Neill wrong in the late sixties, was Paisley right?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 03:01 PMVanguard was responsible for bringing more young men into the arms of Loyalist paramilitarism than anything that Paisley ever did.
Craig/Trimble/Empey all up to their necks it.
Reg now has a guilt complex about and tries to solve it by bringing the UVF into the UUP!!! What a complete and utter fool he is. I never had anything to do with paramilitarism of any sort--although I was around at the same time as Reg during that period--. I stayed with the UUP because I regarded it as the pro-Union party of law and order. I don’t want the UVF in my party. If Reg keeps them there then I’m off. Not to the DUP but to the ranks of the gardencentre prod.
BooBoo
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 03:01 PMBooBoo, and therein lies the danger to unionism, majority of the population, minority of the electorate
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 03:05 PMEmpey has taken a huge gamble and so far it has backfired badly. He is now linked with a group that are widely held to be responsible for most of the terrorism in Northern Ireland in the last five years. He says that he is open to being judged on his decision and consequently now be considering his position as UUP leader.
All the nonsense about Unionist politicians using the Loyalists may play well to certain commentators in the media (like O’Connor and her ilk in the increaing green IT) but comments like “marching with berets” ring hollow and without substance. If Empey has evidence that the UUP or other unionist parties (apart from the PUP) were orchestrating Loyalist activity, then he needs to go on the record with examples.
Fatuous soundbites like this won’t work in the pro-Union community and will simply make another nail for the UUP coffin.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 03:22 PMI imagine a lot of unionists don’t actually have too much of a problem with the UUP and the UVF. In a time of insecurity unionism reaches for the flags and the muscle. I doubt Empey’s move will have terrible effects long term for his party - it allows him to play the hard-man role to counter the DUP’s monopoly on that role in recent times, it has the historical resonance of the UVF - which was originally a paramilitary army of unionism and could be so again - and it allows Reg to conduct his affairs in a way which is associated with, but distinct from, armed unionism.
This is a policy for the medium term not the short term and it’s difficult to say whether this will bury the UUP or save them.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 03:47 PMGood luck to Empey.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 03:58 PMharry
In the short term ie the next few elections this will cause a drop in the UUP vote, and probably further significant losses. The medium term is therefore irrelevant because the UUP is likely to be irrelevant by then.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 04:19 PMan important point to remember is not just that empey embraced the UVF, but actually broke his word to the Party.
Sir Reg promised us then that he would not join an executive this side of an assembly election.
His dispicable move not only endorses the UVF but shows him to be incapable of keeping his word.Nothing changes, does it?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 04:26 PMHarry - I suspect you may be using the type of ‘SF think’ that doesn’t carry across to the UUP so easily. For those who can justify the PIRA campaign as having legitimacy the mirror image argument may have some relevance - if it existed in those terms - but it doesn’t.
Unionism had state forces to defend their political viewpoint, they refer to respect for law and order and didn’t need to dirty themselves with loyalist thugs. Leading unionists most certainly rubbed shoulders with loyalists and found symbiotic ways of working but it was conditional on there being a moat separating the “decent” from “degenerate”.
UUP’ers have spent years sneering at the DUP’ers for similar reasons. To find that Reg has now lowered the drawbridge and let the great unwashed in is causing consternation. The blue rinse ladies and Ulster’s Victor Meldrews are screaming, “I can’t believe it!” – and so are a good many others.
This pact of Reg’s is most certainly a huge electoral risk with likely long-term impacts that wouldn’t exist in the republican constituency – and more than running an election campaign with the slogan “decent people vote …”.
Is Reg to be congratulated for taking risks? He better hurry up and get the UVF to divvy-up SOON. For the naive UUP voter some may believe this pact has a shred of decent intent to it – but a good few others will never forgive it whether it delivers or not.
It’s a different electorate mate – and they’re hoping mad! Reg has brought them down to the same level as physical force republicans and they don’t like it.
From the outside this mindset may seem delusional but it is most certainly a political reality.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 04:41 PMI read Slugger a lot but don’t post here much - I want to say that I really hope Reg succeeds with this move of his. Seeing him on Lets Talk made me realise his sincerity and that he’s in this for the long haul.
I’ve always thought that Reg Empey is one of the good guys here, and has been for years - he was certainly a calming voice throughout the Troubles.
From my personal viewpoint, I must say that I was concerned at first by Reg’s move, but now that I see how serious he takes this, I feel I must give him my backing. We can’t just leave the loyalist communities out there hanging in the cold you know.
If this initiative by Reg can deliver the loyalist communities into the peace process then I’ve got to say lets give the guy a chance to deliver, he knows what he’s doing here and he’s not the sort of guy to place his good name on the line for nothing.
Sir Reg’s initiative could clearly now be either the breaking, or the remaking of the UUP.
As for the DUP’s almost comically hypocritical ‘condemnations’ - “Tommy Kirkham”, “Deputy Mayor”, “Newtownabbey” anybody?
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 05:32 PM“Somewhere” - I don’t question your heart being in the right place and the importance of getting loyalist paramilitaries out of business. Unfortunately, you will be dissappointed by this pact - it had nothing to do with engaging loyalism on a productive democratic road. The result you hope for won’t even be a ‘fortunate’ consequence.
It is most likely to have put the day further off.
But - your evaluation is no more valid than my own. If UUPAG intend to give the “loyalist cause” democratic voice then the one-off deal for restoration will be a crucial component.
The nominees Reg sends to the Preparation for Government Committee will be interesting. If I’m wrong Reg will need space and will want to challenge Ervine by giving him a position the UVF will not have otherwise got. I’ll back off if Reg nominates Ervine to the PfG Committee.
We’ll know tomorrow. I hope you’re right - but expect not.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 06:13 PMRubicon wrote:
“Unionism had state forces to defend their political viewpoint, they refer to respect for law and order and didn’t need to dirty themselves with loyalist thugs.”I am aware that unionism, after having armed a paramilitary army and threatened war to bring about partition against the majority of the electorate of ireland, subsequently salved its conscience vis-a-vis northern catholics by implementing all the props of a state - including laws and an armed militia - so as to freight its political decisions with all the propriety that statehood can bestow.
I am also aware that this was sufficient self-serving sophistry for the majority of unionists to consider themselves on the side of ‘law and order’ and as ‘decent’ people for now going on 83 years.
I am also aware that loyalists operating on the margins of legality took it as an occupational hazard that they may be prosecuted under the law when their political overlords saw fit to do so.
I am aware also that there seems to be a remarkable middle-class snobbery towards working class people in this whole thing and one which exposes something of the underlying structure of unionist communities in a way that sectarianism has frequently sought to obscure.However it is no longer the case that northern irish society is dominated by unionism and the political structures of the northern state are about to be changed forever and in a direction that will weaken unionism’s monopoly thus far.
Therefore unionism’s use of statehood as a means of cloaking their partisan political actions is soon about to be undone. When this previously happened the unionists decided to set up the UVF, drill a paramiliatry army, import weapons and threaten war.
Nowadays, in a time of unionist insecurity with questions over the future constitutional status of the state and no longer having any certainty that the state’s militia - the PSNI - will act in exclusively unionist interests, it is not surprising that unionism would show some of its paramilitary teeth again - after all, that’s what the state is founded on.Reg Empey seems to have cottoned on to this and it is in this light that I think many unionists won’t be too put out by associations with ‘the hard men’.
In the medium term, when questions over the constitutional state of the north and empowerment of nationalists begin to reach the ‘put up or shut up’ stage (i.e, no more talking, talks about talks and all the rest of it) it will be interesting to see how this flirtation by unionism with paramilitarism will play out. At every crucial stage of unionism’s life it has relied on paramilitarism and militias
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 06:18 PMHarry, everytime the people of Ireland (both north and south) have been asked about partition, they gave it an overwhelming “yes”. That kinda knocks the cornerstone out of the rest of your “arguement”.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 06:31 PMHarry
it is not surprising that unionism would show some of its paramilitary teeth again - after all, that’s what the state is founded on
The then and the now are two entirely different situations. I haven’t met too many Unionists who think they will be out voted on a border poll just yet. I very much doubt if Reg had the intention you suggest. In any case say 20 years on the UVF of today will be a bunch of has beens. Future trouble will come from today’s children so we all need to take care what we sow.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 06:35 PMEmpey has turned out to be an interesting charcter. As an Irish Republican, I am amused at the UVF-UUP alliance( such as it is), considering the Unionist howls regarding ‘terrorists’ in government etc etc, for the past 10 years.
However, I think it may be hypocritical of us (Republicans) to howl too loud about this, despite the implications it may/maynot have for the formation of the executive. I think we should welcome this move and publically do so. If the UVF can be brought into the fold, toward peace and reconciliation, that is to be welcomed.
I am encouraged by Empey’s comments about the role Unionists have had in the conflict. This is a beginning and it is what we Repubublicans have been looking for from Unionism- an admittance that their hands are dirty/dirtier than all the antagonists in the conflict. For me, there has been nothing more infuriating than constantly listening to Unionists lay the blame completely on the Nationalist side. Is Empey’s progressive statement a sign of better things to come- that is, sharing the burden of responsibility for what Unionism created?Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 08:56 PMHarry, everytime the people of Ireland (both north and south) have been asked about partition, they gave it an overwhelming “yes”. That kinda knocks the cornerstone out of the rest of your “arguement”.
When was that Keith? I certainly don’t recall it.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 09:02 PMAs some have pointed out - the usual wishful thinking here by Republican fellow travellers. Reg’s actions are not some retrospective validation of Republican terror because, Unionists were just as bad as them. We weren’t and aren’t. Empey certainly was a fool to involve himself in Vanguard, as were Trimble and Burnside, but the point is - up until now, the constitutionalist rationale of the UUP has been the rejction of paramilitarism and the embrace of statist legitmacy. In one move Empey has trashed that heritage. June is the UUP’s last chance to save itself from complete and final electoral destruction - but not one UUP MLA has risen to the moment.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 09:02 PM“Harry, everytime the people of Ireland (both north and south) have been asked about partition, they gave it an overwhelming “yes””
You obviously didn’t see th erlast opinion poll in the South on the matter, then.
“Reg’s actions are not some retrospective validation of Republican terror because, Unionists were just as bad as them. We weren’t and aren’t.”
No, no. You wre a hell of a lot worse, because you used the full weight of the state yop keep people in their place. Staggering hypocrisy Rove, staggering.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 09:20 PMKarl Rove: ‘Unionists were just as bad as them. We weren’t and aren’t. ‘
Unionists were and ARE much worse, from my perspective. And their utter hypocrisy about their responsibility in the conflict is simply making the solution much more difficult. Well done Empey, I say, let’s see some more of that. Trust is a two-way street.
Posted by on Jun 04, 2006 @ 09:40 PMKarl Rove writes:
“Reg’s actions are not some retrospective validation of Republican terror because, Unionists were just as bad as them. We weren’t and aren’t.”
Common unionist belief but, when you look at the numbers, Karl, cmpletely false.
When you talk about terrorism, you are talking about deliberate attacks on civilians.
So, let;s take a look at what the Sutton database shows.
The British security forces—combined—killed 363 people of which 191 or 52.6% were civilians.
The loyalist death squads killed 1,020 people of which 873 or 85.6% were civilians.
Now, given the increasing collection of hard evidence that the security forces provided arms, training, intelligence information, cover and immunity to the death squads, that means that it is hardly unreasonable to combine the figures. If we do, the combined forces killed 1,383 people of which 1,064 or 76.9% were civilians.
Let’s look at the republican picture. All told, republican paramilitaries killed 2,055 people of which 737 or 35.9% were civilians.
So, Karl, whose record is worse?
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 12:19 AMBob McG - is the question worth an answer? What would it tell you?
I’m not interested in whose record is worse. No truth would emerge. Here, body counts are not observable truths. That kind of truth doesn’t exist and it’ll be a very long time before it does.
My truth is that NOBODY should have been murdered over these 6 damp sods. I simply cannot (or - perhaps it’s more truthful to say, “I will not”) give credence to ANY murdering bastard’s justification. But - hey - that’s just me. When I hear armchair republicans/loyalists wax it’s time for me to go out for a smoke.
They can no more change my mind than I can theirs.
I will say this though - republicanism in going with the GFA has found another way. Why the hell they couldn’t have earlier is a question whose answer is only of value if they ask it of themselves.
For their victims it must be a horror that threatens to hollows them out.
Loyalism is a long way from engaging in a new environment that could put its actions to question. In part, the reason is simple - they’re tattooed drug pushers, wife beaters, murdering sectarian thugs that have as much interest in “defence” as Al Capone did. They’ve got “business interests”.
Unionism hasn’t dealt with its dark side. Reg says he’s starting the job – but I do not believe a word of it – if it walks like a duck, has feathers and quacks … it’s a duck! But – we’ll see … such high motives need patience – not gullibility.
“What’s that Reg? You know how to spell crack? Tell me!”
“quack, quack, quack, quack, quack!”
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 02:01 AMWhat is all this about Empey bringing the “UVF into the peace process” or try to “engage loyalist paramilitaries”? Empey’s move was nothing of the sort. If it had been I’m sure those of use who are republicans would have supported him and tried to give him some political cover.
This was nothing of the sort. This was a raw attempt to have one less fenian in government.
This move typifies unionist behavior over the last 30 years. The will mouth off about “law and order” and “supporting the PSNI/UVF” but when the fenians look like they are going to achieve unionists with turn to the old friends in the UVF/UDA/LVF/RUC.
Nothing has changes in the unionist psyche.
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 02:29 AMHeck - don’t fret.
Thanks to the UUP’s Lord Maginnis there’s no need for nationalism to be more than a spectator until the day d’Hondt is run. On that day nationalists can “re-group” in a way that ties unionists to positions they’ll find difficult to back off from.
Don’t be too suprised if nationaists get the first nomination. That card doesn’t need played right now though. Nationalists can sit on the sidelines, watch unionism pick itself to pieces and perhaps adopt positions they’ll not be able to back off from.
Unionism has still to credit nationalism with brains. Nationalism is meanwhile doing its best not to underestimate its opposition.
A difficult task!
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 02:58 AM
