Friday, June 30, 2006
Just how unionist are they?
Something that Andrew McCann said yesterday interested me.
Failure to include the leaders of Provo terror in government will, in essence, mark a return of the AIA with some window-dressing North/Southery. Even I could live with that, so I’m sure the DUP and the pro-Union people will be able to in preference to Martin McGuinness 007 holding sway over children’s education.
Lets look at this ideologically. The very first of the Ulster Unionist Party’s aims and objectives in its constitution is to:
Promote, strengthen and maintain the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Crown, and uphold all democratic institutions in Northern Ireland.
Thus the primary reason for the existence of the UUP is the Union, and it should always act to preserve that Union. Andrew’s comments struck me as interesting as, if we take the Prime Ministers at their word ("Joint Stewardship"), then if the DUP do refuse to go into government with the provos, then they could be said to be an anti-provo party and not a pro union party - isn’t that what the SDLP are for? Is the threat of the dissolution of the Union a reasonable price to pay to avoid dealing with Sinn Fein?
Maybe the DUP are right and it’s all a big game of political bribery that is a bluff anyway - but they’d better be sure!
Michael Shilliday @ 11:06 AM
Promoting an arch bigot like McCann, and a site that bans anyone whose opinion they consistantly disagree with. Hmmmm
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 12:12 PMJust has a look at the site “a tangled web” all I can say is at least on Slugger there are decent logical arguments.
Which leads to the question what did these people do before they were able to spill their bile and general ignorance on the internet !!
Maybe I should start a web blog after all if someone with a limited IQ such as “a tangled mind opps sorry web” can do it then any one can
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 12:18 PMI believe it is shock-jock type of tactics. Only the few brave souls who dare to pop their heads above the parapet get all manner of ignorant bile poured over them.
What does a shock-jock do to those he doesn’t want to be heard? He pulls the plug. I believe banning people is the norm over at a vile web.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 12:41 PMAndrew McCann isn’t the issue, what he said is.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 12:49 PMAndrew’s politics has as much right to be heard here as anyone else, regardless of what people think about him. The point of the ball not man rule is that people discuss his politics, and not him.
BTW, I’ve found trying to engage people on the Comment is Free site a lot more problematical that it is here on Slugger. I’ve a notion that’s because, by and large, people do try to meet the demands of that rule. It’s something that has been widely (if privately) noted in other parts of the blogosphere.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 12:50 PMNot only has McCann a right to be heard but his views represent a surprisingly large minority in my experience.
Britain has survived 200 years of war, including two world wars and the loss of empire within the last 80 years. That didn’t happen without doing a lot of damage to a body politic which has frequently been in the lead in resisting mass democracy during those same 200 years.
If perhaps he seems confused at times trying to reconcile the irreconcilable does that to people.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 01:36 PMOk, so here’s a theory for you to rip up and throw out: Surely unionists shouldn’t mind Sinn Fein being in the govt of Northern Ireland (beyond the obvious policy differences). What are unionsits aiming for? What is their goal? As far as I understand it, they want to secure the future of Northern Ireland as a seperate country and a part of the UK. If they achieve this, surely they should not have any major probelms (again, beyond everyday issues) with a govt at Stormont being made up of Sinn Fein ministers? As long as NI remains a seperate country and a part of the UK, they should be happy to let the electorate democratically pick its govt.
To me,willing to risk all to avoid sharing power with Sinn Fein suggests an aversion to sharing power with Catholics. I am NOT attempting to troll here. I am seriously interested in why they would risk NI’s future to avoid sharing power with this party.
For those responding, lets keep this hypothetical - lets assume that the guns organised violence issues have been resolved to DUP satisfaction, and that NI’s future in the UK is forever secure.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 01:47 PMI personally, (and probably incorrectly) thinik that the DUP have no problem dealing with SF, the RA or any Loyalist terrorists, (let’s face it, they’ve done it before). I believe that they’re doing their best to milk as much in the way of concessions as they can, from everyone, before signing up.
First rule of negotiation, give nothing away. Keep griping and complaining until you’ve got everything you can, then sign up.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 01:52 PMGum: To me,willing to risk all to avoid sharing power with Sinn Fein suggests an aversion to sharing power with Catholics.
I have never understood that conclusion - since they would much more willingly share power with the SDLP. It surely isn’t that unionists regard the SDLP as less Catholic than SF, is it?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 01:58 PMMichael’s got a real point here - just how far will the DUP go towards endangering the Union, purely for the sake of keeping Sinn Fein out of government?
There’s clearly a major element to the DUP who can’t stand a Shinner about the place and who would place even the Union on the line to keep them out.
Now that Sinn Féin have gotten rid of their weaponry and are rapidly winding down their criminality there is no logical reason, other than sheer bitterness, to exclude the leading representatives of the minority community from govt.
We unionists may not like that nationalists elect Sinn Fein, but we certainly have to lump it, now that SF are rapidly completing the transition to being a normal political party. For 30 years unionists condemned republican violence on the basis that there was a democratic alternative for republicans to pursue their aims. Now that they’ve chosen that alternative, some unionists still want them excluded and would even sacrifice to Union to that end!
Glad to see Reg isn’t standing for that kind of nonsense:
“However, if parties are saying today that they will not participate by the 24th November, irrespective of whether the conditions apply or not, then they will have to explain to the people why they have allowed a series of disastrous direct rule policies to be introduced and put the well being of their party ahead of the wellbeing of the people.” (Reg Empey, 29th June 2006)
At least some Unionists are still willing to put the future of the Union ahead of their little bigoted exclusionary fantasies.
By November the choice for us will be clear - we either accept a democratic SF as partners in our devolved British administration or we will be faced with a Joint Authority that will make the 1985 sellout look like a garden tea party.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 02:12 PMFair point Reader, my thinking here is just that it will be Sinn Fein they will have to share power with now. The SDLP dont have a big enough mandate (SF whether we like it or not represent the majority of the republican/nationalist communtiy). I know they say they are willing to share power with the SDLP but they know they will never have to. I know this doenst mean they are lying, but I think it does remove at least partilly this obsticle to what I said earlier.
Any thoughts?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 02:15 PMHas the DUP’s position on power-sharing with the SDLP been consistent? What was it during Sunningdale?
Gum’s suggestion appears to hit on THE consistent component of DUP policy.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 02:29 PM“Is the threat of the dissolution of the Union a reasonable price to pay to avoid dealing with Sinn Fein?”.
Isn’t it time magic mushrooms were made illegal in Northern Ireland as well. There is absolutly no threat to the union from AIA mk2.
The question the DUP have to ask themselves is this; is allowing a group of active criminals (who have worked for decades to destroy the union, killing thousands on the way) into positions or power less dangerous than allowing the Irish government a more concrete role in the administration of the province?
The UUP thought that they could trust or even house train SF/IRA. They were proved wrong and have years in political oblivion in front of them. Are the DUP likely to make the same mistake?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 02:44 PMBut their threat to the Union hasn’t been mentioned by the DUP, only their criminality which is apparently lessening, which leads me to ask if they allow “joint stewardship” to trundle along with all the risks that poses to the union - are they a Unionist party or just an anti shinner party?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 02:49 PMMichael, having a bunch of criminals running schools, hospitals etc., is far more of a threat to the union than anything that the Irish government is likely to request.
“Joint stewardship” may be a blessing in disguise for unionism. Since the original AIA there has been an intrinsic imbalance in the way both communities are treated. The Irish government is unapologetically biased in favour of nationalists. The U.K. government wants to be even handed.
Under “joint stewardship” both governments would have to be balanced or else be clearly supporting one community’s interests. This wouyld be a significant improvement for unionists, and a damn sight better off than waiting for the morning papers every day to see how many bank robbiers, bar brawls, protection rackets etc were linked to you partners in government.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 02:56 PMThey face serious splits whichever way they go, which will in the medium term allow Sinn Fein in as First Minister.
Paisley has no interest in modernday Britain nor in the Crown after Elizabeth’s reign. Whether it’s Charles or not it will inevitably be ‘Defender of all the Faiths’ rather than merely head of the Church of England. He’s said publicly time and again that his only loyalty is to the ‘Protestant Crown’.
Paisley (and the UDA) want a sectarian ghetto along the East coast and have been working towards that for years. Mad and doomed I know, but all the strategy they have. They’ll sacrifice everything for that exclusivity, then find that the next generation of unionists have become ex-unionists.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 03:03 PMKeith you sound like you’re living in another era. Don’t you at least recognise that the IRA have now fully decommissioned and are clearly abandoning any non-democratic activity.
For us unionists to refuse to engage with them now that they are (soon) to be a normal party is just sheer escapist delusion.
And if the DUP think Middle Ulster will be content with Joint Authority and the end of the Union as the price needed to supplicate the DUP’s b*g*t*d go-nowhere wing they’ll have another think coming.
Good to see that the UUP looks like they’ll make their own mind up on this.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 03:06 PMI’m a solid Unionist and I supported Sinn Fein being out of government while the IRA still had arms.
But the guns are clearly gone now and the criminality is nearly gone.
It’s all right for Dublin Unionists like Keith to come on here and tell us to go for Joint Authority but I’ve got to live here and I don’t want the Dublin Government having a say over my affairs here in Northern Ireland, thank you very much.
I’d much rather sit around a table with a democratised, gun-free Sinn Fein and thrash out our differences - quite safe for both of us, each of us have a veto and its far better than some jumped up fianna fail bureaucrat down south deciding things for us.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 06:21 PMWee Ulsterman, that’s one of the most sensible posts I’ve yet seen on Slugger. A few more like you and our problems are all over.
Keith consistently avoids dealing with the links between unionism and criminality. When he talks about a bunch of criminals running the country, you can be sure he doesn’t mean the DUP and UUP. Apparently, you see, it’s OK to have paramilitary mates that you carefully avoid condemning, provided you don’t have a formal link with them.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 06:54 PMStalin, you are obviously in pocession of of information that shows the DUP and UUP and involed in criminal acts or with criminals
please take that to the PSNI at the earliest opportunity
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 07:09 PMWell I completely supported Reg Empey’s move to reach out to the pup/uvf - and I really hope it meets with results, especially given the brickbats Reg has taken.
I’m glad Sir Reg has reached out to the loyalists and I hope it bears fruit - i’m just certain that this DUP approach of rejecting government with sf forever - it’s nuts. Here we have republicans who have ended their campaign and decommissioned 99% of their armoury and yet the DUP still refuse to deal with them realistically.
It’s sad because republicans are our neighbours. Now that they have recognised our right to remain within the United Kingdom we Unionists must recognise our obligation to share the administration of this wee place with them.
If the DUP keep going on like this they’ll end up delivering us all into the nightmare of Joint Authority just because of their own pride and egos.
When will Unionism wake up and see the DUP for what they are?
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 07:33 PM“Michael’s got a real point here - just how far will the DUP go towards endangering the Union, purely for the sake of keeping Sinn Fein out of government?
There’s clearly a major element to the DUP who can’t stand a Shinner about the place and who would place even the Union on the line to keep them out. “
Good to see that there are those who put anti-terrorist principles above national identity.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 08:32 PM“I’m glad Sir Reg has reached out to the loyalists and I hope it bears fruit - i’m just certain that this DUP approach of rejecting government with sf forever - it’s nuts. Here we have republicans who have ended their campaign and decommissioned 99% of their armoury and yet the DUP still refuse to deal with them realistically. “
I wonder what he had in mind when he tried to reach out to those he targeted before the terrorist oops I mean forward thinking progressive unionist.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 08:35 PMinuit “Don’t you at least recognise that the IRA have now fully decommissioned..” No I don’t, how can I recognise something that was done in such a reluctant and non-transparent fashion?
“For us unionists to refuse to engage with them now that they are (soon) to be a normal party is just sheer escapist delusion.”. If you want to see who’s really deluded read on......
Wee Ulsterman “But the guns are clearly gone now and the criminality is nearly gone.” This takes the biscuit for delusion. The decommissioning body cleared state that IRA members continued to have illegal guns and IMC has linked SF/IRA with criminality in every single report. Just this week a member of SF was convinced of extorsion.
I see that both of you have mentioned “Joint Authority”. You seen to have swallowed the SF/IRA line, hook, line and sinker. There won’t be “Joint Authority”. There can’t be J.A., even if the Irish constitution allowed it, it’s very unlikely that any Irish government would go for it. J.A. has never worked anywhere and it’s not on the table now or in November.
The heavy hints from the governments suggest A.I.A mark 2. Would that really be worse than being governed by a bunch of criminals?
“I’d much rather sit around a table with a democratised, gun-free Sinn Fein and thrash out our differences.” So would I, but I’m a realist. We’re talking about a party that is not gun-free, far from democratic and unsupportive of the police. That’s a long way to go by November.
Wee Ulsterman “Well I completely supported Reg Empey’s move to reach out to the pup/uvf..” Then you are in a minority within the Unionist community. Such ambivilence to active terrorists does nothing but damage to the unionist cause.
Comrade Stalin “Keith consistently avoids dealing with the links between unionism and criminality. “ No, Keith keeps asking for examples of these links and all he gets is is some nonsense about beret wearing in the 1970s. If a lack of fashion sense was a criminal act, then Bertie “The Anarak” Ahern would be in locked up in Mountjoy.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 08:36 PMBe warned. Paisley’s church is Called Martyrs Memorial. Does he trust any one of his soundalike pastors and political apprentices to keep the one true faith? I doubt it. I hope he does not end up in the political and public order version of Waco flames.
And what better surer route to political martyrdom than to allow a creeping union with ROI via AIA2,3,4,5. The Brits don’t care enough to pay close attention, 50 years of orange political monopoly and balanced books tells us that.
DUP Unionism was always provisional, conditional on having things their own way, just like the old orange toffs they supplanted. And if things don’t quite turn out, again, is this uniting island there is always the self regarding and almost sinful pleasure of knowing they are better than those -deluded papists.
Martyrdom how sweet. Why right wrongs when you can feel wronged and right at the same time, without risking anything except a union with people who don’t like you anyway.
Posted by on Jun 30, 2006 @ 08:46 PM
