Monday, March 20, 2006
Fantasy Ireland?
Owen Bowcott noted that results of the census had raised sectarian tensions (and headcounts) every year since 1971. But when the last results were finally announced in December 2002 the hope of Catholics attaining majority status by force of higher birth rates, drained away almost overnight. Yet all of Northern Ireland’s Nationalist parties hold out for a possible future re-unification. Boston based writer Ron de Pasquale reckons it relies on pitching it coherently to the Protestant middle class.
Mick Fealty @ 10:19 PM
So which is it, Mick? Is Owen right?.. I’ve had questions about his interpretations of events before now.. or is it just the fault of the Guardian sub-editors?
In any event.. does the reality of the figures simply indicate more of the same..?
Posted by on Mar 20, 2006 @ 11:56 PMSeems bizzare to suggest the solution lies in pitching a united Ireland to the middle class.
Surely the people you need to convince the most are those who might reasonably expect to become militant if pushed into a united Ireland against their wishes, and this would be the protestant working classes.
Though, in realty, a viable united Ireland scenario would be one that was pitched equally at all sections of society.
If we’ve learned anything, then surely it’s that everybody wins or nobody wins?Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 12:09 AMI think it’s important to understand after reading Ron’s article that while yes, we voted to relinquish our claim, this was not unconditional. It came with the understanding that this was part of a package i.e. the GFA. If we have known it would probably collapse I doubt we would have voted for it. I personally voted for it and still believe I did the right thing, but in the final analysis I will question if I did the right thing if the agreement eventually collapses and especially if violence returns. Note that the altered Articles 2 and 3 still contain an aspiration for a United Ireland, even if Article 3 requires a majority in “both jurisdictions”, “democratically expressed by a majority of the people”, and as such that brings in my next correction of the article. It says that a majority in the North alone would mean reunification. The reality is that a majority in both jurisdictions currently is a constitutional pre-requisite for reunification. I wonder how many Northern Unionists and Nationalists know that? Evidently Brian Feeney (based on his recent performance on Hearts and Minds) was not aware of it at the time.
I hope that a majority North and South eventually vote for reunification, and in a context where it is economically feasible. If the Northern economy was as private-sector based as the South, then the economic barrier to reunification would disappear. But the dependence on the state subsidy currently is a major problem and would probably be used by the No side in a referendum on reunification down here. Polls in the South show that while 55% want a UI, 45% don’t, and many of these cite the perceived costs of it. If you reduce the cost to a Southern government, then you will probably reduce this opposition, especially if a majority in the North have already voted for it. Personally, I intend voting for unification in any case, out of a sense of patriotism and a desire to complete the task of breaking the political link with Britain which Wolfe Tone described in the 1790’s as the “never failing source of our political ills”.
We should try to persuade at least a minority of Northern Protestants that their rights will be protected in a United Ireland. If that means drawing up a plan offering autonomy (as Redmond offered in the Irish Convention discussing Home Rule in 1917), then I could live with that.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 02:00 AMI think people should have a closer look at the results of the 2002 census. While there still is a significant Protestant majority, the Catholic population is much younger. The difference in a few years may not be that much between the two populations. I also know that a lot of families from around home including myself did not complete the census which could also bring the numbers closer. Add to the mix that a large percentage did not state what religion they were and the figures may not be that accurate.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 06:49 AMYes Niall - if you took a closer look at the census you would see that the fastest growing group is the “neither catholic nor protestant” group. That is the future & that group will vote on the merit of an arguement rather than accident of birth.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 07:14 AMThe fastest growing group are those coming into NI.
Each year since the last census the internal UK migration data show that there are more people moving to NI from GB than vice versa.
These people will have broader perspectives.
There are lots of people from outside the UK moving to NI too.
Also there is secularisation in both sides of the community.
The Census will tell us a lot, but will raise more questions too about whether we really are a binary society any more.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 07:23 AMAha, the old ‘sectarian headcount’ thread. We seem to have one of these every 6 months or so on Slugger!
A few points of correction for some of those posters who have not read this a few times already:
(1) The Protestant majority will end. Protestants are a laarge majority of the old, and a minority of the young. As we say, “trust in rust”.
(2) the famous ‘none of the aboves’ are a myth. They are skewed towards the very young, and I mean babies and children. Their parents (roughly the 30-45 year olds) are not so ‘none of the above’. Hence, it is likely that the kids will grow up to share their parents ‘tribal’ identity. Why these parents failed to declare a religion for their kids, even though they declared one for themselves, is a small mystery.
(3) Catholic birthrates are still higher than Protestant, so the day of reckoning will come. A lot of Protestants believed myths about a reversal of the birthrates, but they are wrong.
I think Mick’s intro about nationalist hopes ‘draining away’ is a bit exaggerated. There may have been some over-optimism, but the reality is not really that negative for the ‘head counters’. They simply have to wait a realistic length of time. It won’t happen in 2016, but it will happen in the 2020’s.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 07:51 AMJust to clarify Stephen,
Those hopes being touted before the census were based on bringing about a United Ireland through a higher birthrate amongst ‘Nationalist’ voters. It is not unfair to say that the colour drained from that particular argument almost immediately the census results were announced.
That Nationalists are clearly still focused on a united Ireland is evidenced by the intellectual energy being put into the idea (and in SF’s case the practice) of a united Ireland.
It is just unlikely to come from the relatively simple device of maintaining a higher Catholic birth rate.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 08:21 AMMick,
It is just unlikely to come from the relatively simple device of maintaining a higher Catholic birth rate.
Why not? It is not ‘unlikely’, if Catholics (aka ‘nationalists’) continue to increase their share of the population, and thus electorate. At present, Catholic births are more than 50% of the total (allowing for some argument over the not stated), and Catholic marriages are now more numerous (for the first time ever) than Protestant marriages. Overall, I would say that the head-count is still a viable game. As Gerry Adams said (approximately), it is also more fun than war!
I would add another small point too. The over-exaggerated claims (46-47% !) being touted before the census were actually being quietly encouraged by some elements of unionism, knowing that the result could never be so high and that the effect would be exactly what we now see - a rush of unionist triumphalism and nationalist pessimism. But both aae mis-placed.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 08:35 AMNiall,
As recall from the discussion on Slugger at the time, there is certainly a slight majority of Catholics in the school population, but even that is leveling off. Even at the most optimistic 50/50 won’t be enough to seal the deal, even if the terms are 50% + 1.
According to the Life and Times survey, Protestant resistance to a United Ireland is much harder than Catholic acquiescence to remaining within the UK.
However hard a hill it is to climb, the harsh reality is that ithe middle classes (Catholic as well as Protestant) will be crucial to any future decision as they are the ones most likely to change allegiances either way. A consistent focus on middle class voter concerns:
- requires a major shift away from the previous rather atavistic strategy;
- something more than the street politics that have pertained since October 2002;
- demonstration of real political competence in parliamentary issues;
- and ultimately a practical demonstration of the benefits of either option.
In short, if there is a shift in the constitutional status it will likely take place because enough citizens of Northern Ireland think its were their economic well being lies.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 08:40 AMMick,
I am not just talking about school population, although I don’t quite see how it is leveling off. The most striking figures to me are the pension age and over group. The Protestant population in this group are over double that of the Catholic population.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 09:20 AMRe levelling off: from memory its only in the youngest cohorts.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 09:37 AM‘...Ron de Pasquale reckons it relies on pitching it coherently to the Protestant middle class.’
And does so with an article which once again manages to alienate those people he clearly wants to see enticed into his ‘comely maidens using Blackberrys at the crossroads’ scenario.
This guy believes that as long as we adopt, ‘Irelands Call’ as the National Anthem and remind silly Prods that the flag is 33% theirs the scales will fall from their eyes.
It’s a recipie for lazy, wishful republicanism. Sorry, there is no easy prescription for Irish Unity. Terrorism failed, demographics won’t work and may even in time start increasing the pro-union majority with in-migration from the accession EU countries not exactly ennamoured with national socialism lite.
Genuine persuaders need to acknowledge how alienating some of the culture in the south - political, social, ideological - is to northern Protestants and begin a rational and radical debate on what a new Ireland would look like. One which retains the ruthless, exclusive, triumphalist ideological machine politics of Sinn Fein is a complete no starter. You might argue the same of the DUP but then they don’t want to entice Dublin back into the Union.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 09:52 AMMick is entirely right.
It remains extremely troubling that people think a ‘United Ireland’ attained by 50% + 1 is either possible or desirable.
The task is to unify our people, not just our jurisdictions.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 10:13 AM50%+1 for it and the Union remains, 50% + 1 for unification won’t seal the deal is an extremely dangerous situation.
Although in an ideal world unification would come about when an overwhelming majority want it, I fear that is wishful thinking.
My worry is what happens when 50% + 1 is for unification. You can’t ignore that democratic imperative. Or if you do, you do so at your peril.
Does the NIO refuse to allow a referendum if pro-unification parties are in the majority?
Do the ruling class south of the border refuse to hold a referendum?
That is as much a recipe for disaster as any other scenario.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 10:18 AMSo what does 50% plus one against do for the union?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 10:34 AMHi BogExile,
‘Genuine persuaders need to acknowledge how alienating some of the culture in the south - political, social, ideological - is to northern Protestants and begin a rational and radical debate on what a new Ireland would look like’
Tbf the very mention of UI makes most northern Protestants close up at this point in history but i totally agree that this is the way forward. It does mean movement from both sides, northern Protestants have to be open to this debate. It means that when those who propose a UI and talk of the present diversity of the RoI and its maturing are not made to repeatedly fend off criticism for the past failures of the state with the over-bearing influence of the catholic church etc
The RoI had dodgy politicans but so does the UK and pretty much every other nation on earth.
The Protestants of Ireland are intrinsic to the fabric of this country, they have their part to play in the development of it. Republicans can make a UI sound like a bed of roses ( and i don’t doubt that it would be a step in the right direction) but only when Protestant Ulster steps up to the plate and helps build this Republic will it be a true Irish Republic.
There are many contentious issues let alone the constitutional one but maybe trust is what is needed. A gripe for some Protestants is that republicans promise things in a UI that they feel they can’t exercise now, were we to sit down and right it out now in a constitution, you’d see that the sentiments are real and intended to be defended, but all the talk in the world matters little unless you step up to the plate.Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 10:48 AMTo my mind a Catholic Majority is a fait accompli. The current demographics are such that a sustained Catholic majority for the past several years will lead to a time in the future when NI is majority catholic. A significant change in birth rates would be required to effect a change in this outcome.
I disagree with Bogexile in that I think immigrants would be more likely to want to join up with the immigrants of the same originating nationality on the rest of the Island. There’s also the perception that immigrants are MORE (though not exclusively) likely to be targeted by loyalists, which is unlikely to endear them to NI.
However, I agree with Mick in the sense that such a majority by no means guarantees a majority vote for a NI.
If all unionists are happy to live in a NI where they are no longer in the majority, then NI will remain in the UK for a long time to come. Although such a majority might lead to a ‘flight’ of Protestants that may lead to sufficient numbers leaving to tip the balance in favour of a UI. THEN AGAIN, the then majority Catholics might think, “hang on, we’re now the masters of our patch of the UK – I think we’ll hang around”.
If a time does come where there’s a 50%+1 vote for unification, you’ll be sure to see Down & Armagh press to remain within the UK. Would the get their way? No one can say whether or not they would.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 11:31 AMShould read…
‘However, I agree with Mick in the sense that such a majority by no means guarantees a majority vote for a UNITED IRELAND.’
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 11:34 AMsmcgiff,
... you’ll be sure to see Down & Armagh press to remain within the UK.
I presume you mean Down and Antrim? Armagh is already majority Catholic. In any case, counties no longer have a voice as such, so it would probably come down to Hain’s new super-councils. Of these, only three (out of 7) would be likely to “press to remain within the UK”. The new Pale around Belfast would replace the old Pale around Dublin.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 11:54 AMYip, I meant Antrim! :-o
Yeah – The new pale.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 12:01 PMre immigrants there are many different types and it is hard to draw assumptions. One Scottish immigrant is a SF MP, but I would suspect more Scottish immigrants affiliate with Unionism
Most are from the EU, indeed most are from the rest of the UK/ Ireland, and are middle class. They are going to move to middle class areas and use the local schools which means they will tend toward soft unionism- the Unionists are also less left wing.
As for the ethnic immigrants, well a lot of them aren’t staying but the fact that they tend to end up in loyalist areas means that if they do stay around they will be incorporated into the local ethos, I don’t know that local hoods will put them off voting for the only politicians who they ever see round about. But really i suspect most of them will just not bother voting.
Which in its own way is a problem, as they are isolated from decision making and will continue to rely on middle class white people to speak on their behalf
IDM
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 12:51 PMHi IDM,
I was thinking more of the Polish Plumber. In the Republic Poles make up a stagaring amount of the new immigrants. There’s now 250k non-nationals living in the republic or approx or 6.25%. In the cities I’d imagine the percentage is even higher. By far the largest subset are Polish and other Eastern Europeans. I’d imagine these will fit seamlessly into our country.
I’ve no idea what the figures or make up is in NI, but I had thought they were significant.
If the Republic’s experience is replicated in NI it could very well make things interesting. Nie?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 01:00 PMidunnomyself,
As for the ethnic immigrants, well a lot of them aren’t staying but the fact that they tend to end up in loyalist areas means that if they do stay around they will be incorporated into the local ethos
Fascinating prospect. Catholic Polish, Portuguese and Lithuanian loyalists!
If they are ‘incorporated’ into the local ethos, including through marriage, then you are you envisaging a Catholic loyalist class emerging? One that is barred from being in the Orange Order?
I suspect the truth is more prosaic. They are moving into loyalist areas because that is where the population is declining, and therefore there is available low-cost housing. The effect will be to turn these areas into ‘neutral’ areas, and any heavy attempts by the remaining loyalists (see even yesterday in the Donegall Road) to enforce their control may end up being very counter-productive. If the immigrants start to get organised, they will organise in opposition to loyalism ... and guess who that puts them firmly into bed with?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 01:09 PMThese are the numbers you pathetic little sectarian headcounters are looking for.
<table>
<B><tr><td>Everybody<td>Fenians<td>Jaffas<td>Foreigners
<tr>All persons<td>1685267<td>737412<td>895377<td>6569<tr>0 to 4<td>115238<td>56546<td>49674<td>456
<tr>5 to 15<td>282818<td>141623<td>127586<td>885
<tr>16 to 24<td>211482<td>106672<td>97570<td>854
<tr>25 to 44<td>489195<td>218870<td>255478<td>2618
<tr>45 to pensionable age<td>325023<td>127440<td>191860<td>1248
<td>Pensionable age and over<td>261511<td>86261<td>173209<td>508
</table>Hope you enjoy reading the runes. Please don’t pretend your arguments are about anything more than bi-got-ry.
PS - anyway you can allow HTML formatting for that table?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2006 @ 01:16 PM
