Friday, September 15, 2006
No future without a shared future…
In the Belfast Telegraph, Duncan Morrow, chief executive of the Community Relations Council, reminds our negotiating politicians of the cost of continuing to do politics separately:
...in a changing world, the idea that only one sort can live in any area is unsustainable. We cannot talk on the one hand about getting rid of private armies and still want to be defended against our neighbours.
Financially, we cannot provide separate public facilities like libraries, swimming pools or recreation centres for Protestants and Catholics.
We cannot build a healthy society on the idea that somebody in the wrong football jersey was ‘asking for it’ when he walked around in the wrong area. We cannot attract investment into an unstable political setting consisting of hostile ‘bantustans’.
We cannot distribute resources properly when some people cannot get houses in areas where they are available because they are ‘the wrong sort’.
Without common commitment to a shared future in which people in Northern Ireland can live, work and play safely together, the peace process has no central purpose.
Mick Fealty @ 11:34 AM
I suppose he’s stating the obvious. But if the politicians won’t agree to wisely spend tax stolen from Britain, the British should and will just pull the plug anyway. The local politicians can choose to either manage the transition in the interests of local people or they choose to evade responsibility. The people will quickly elect politicians who will take responsibility.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 12:18 PMThese two lines jumped out and told me all I need to know about the CRC:
For nationalists, a shared future means committing to full engagement in a state with which they have never felt comfortable and some have dedicated their lives to replacing.
For unionists, the hard part of sharing will be making political arrangements with previously violent enemies who have deeply traumatised friends and relations and coming to terms with the Irish dimension to the six counties.
Settlers and Savages, anyone?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 12:24 PMNice words by Mr Morrow. Some of his ‘conclusions’ are questionable .
‘We need a future based on sharing, not separation. ‘
Why ? States have separated/divided when they no longer are seen to work or command the allegiance of the population or a large section of that population . Take the former Yugoslavia for example - A few weeks ago Montenegro emerged . Croatia , Slovenia , Serbia , Bosnia are all now separate States not to mention the Czech Republic , Slovakia and Ukraine and Lithuania , Latvia , Estonia . Why should Northern Ireland be any different ?
‘The alternative to sharing a space like Northern Ireland is that one side or the other is driven out. ‘
Not necessarily . A fair and agreed Repartition could conceivably leave 96% of the people of Northern Ireland remaining where they are now .
‘It has already happened elsewhere in the world, and we have experienced it here on a miniature scale in the course of the Troubles.’
Mr Morrow’s ‘miniature ‘ scale in terms of numbers comparison with the rest of the world is correct . However within NI itself the effect of people being driven out or moving ‘voluntarily’ to safer (code for all catholic or all protestant neighbourhoods) has made separate political futures more probable .
‘There is, thankfully, now a widespread consensus that violence in Northern Ireland should stop. ‘
Indeed and not before time . However the end of World War 2 also brought an end to violence and a consensus that it should stop . So too did WW1 - the ‘war to end all wars ‘ ? However the fundamental inherent ‘contradictions ‘ within the Yugoslav State (which had lain dormant since 1919 ) came back to destroy that State once the totalitarian glue of ‘communism’ could no longer hold it together . In a less extreme way the same holds true for ‘unionism ‘ in NI . There is no glue holding NI together as a 6 county State other than the intravenous financial drip from HMG’s Exchequer .
‘There are few who would advocate a return to the mayhem and fear of the recent past, but we might secretly prefer it if we could carve up separate spaces rather than engage in permanent and open-ended partnership.’
Well that explains why after almost 40 years of conflict and near conflict the leaders of both main NI parties have yet to talk directly face to face . Mr Morrow I’m sure is aware that for most people in NI the thought of having to ‘engage in permanent and open ended partnership’ is something they’d rather do after they’ve been to the Garden Centre , paid the mortgage , got the kids to school, mowed the lawn and fed the cat or not listened/listened to Talkback .
‘Apartheid, however, is not available here without a return to antagonism and hostility.’
Seems to most people that that suits some of NI’s leading politicians . Some would even claim that without active hostility and continuous antagonism votes would be lost . Thus an already dysfunctional State will continue to feed on it’s ‘dysfunctional’ traits until it self consumes !
‘For many, the decisions we face will make us uncomfortable.’
Only because they’ve been putting them off on the long finger for 40 years or some might say 80 or more .Procastination has a cost .
‘For nationalists, a shared future means committing to full engagement in a state with which they have never felt comfortable and some have dedicated their lives to replacing.’
Engagement is a possibility -Full committment in the true meaning of the term - I can’t ever see .
‘For unionists, the hard part of sharing will be making political arrangements with previously violent enemies who have deeply traumatised friends and relations and coming to terms with the Irish dimension to the six counties. ‘
Full marks for the obvious . But DUP ears are closed .
‘But, in a changing world, the idea that only one sort can live in any area is unsustainable. ‘
Sounds reasonable . There are however places around the world where that idea was/is very sustainable for all sorts of reasons -geographical -cultural -political etc etc . Think North Korea , Nazi Germany , Mao Tse Tungs China , Pol Pot’s Cambodia . Human ‘nature ‘ is the same all over the world . It’s political expression is sometimes warped due to local /historical /political /economic /religiousconditions sometimes brought about or resulting from conflict or the the detritus of former colonialism or political ideology .
Is the NI 6 county political entity ‘warped’ or just ‘dysfunctional’ ?
‘ We cannot talk on the one hand about getting rid of private armies and still want to be defended against our neighbours.’
Catch 22 or should that be Catch 6 ?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 12:54 PM“A fair and agreed Repartition could conceivably leave 96% of the people of Northern Ireland remaining where they are now .
Posted by Greenflag on Sep 15, 2006 @ 01:54 PM”
Still pushing repartition eh?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 01:34 PMJust commenting on Duncan Morrow’s ‘nice words’ . The dreaded R word was used to refute just ONE of Mr Morrow’s ‘conclusions’
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 01:44 PMHere’s a whacky friday idea that proposes a solution.
Republic of Eire cuts off historic ties with the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of Ireland is re-established as the mainstream;
services are reconstructed so you have a mix of catholic and protestant ecumenism.
Presbyterians are invited to merge, as are former disillusioned catholics, and we have one Church for all people in Ireland.
This being the biggest fear of Protestants ( Rome ) dealt with, the return gesture is the biggest bane for Irish people, so, we resolve so the Union disbanded, and the Union Jack lowered forever, and all Prods accept the raised Tri-colour in one united ireland with its own Church of Ireland.
That way we both sides get what we want, and the prods just need reminding that its not being British that will get you “saved” and enter heaven.
Howzat??
answers on a e-card.
Fuck the Pope and Fuck the Queen.~
we’re all happy :)Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 02:07 PMBilly Ghoti,
I think Greenflag knows repartition is totally unviable - and that’s exactly why he’s talking about it.A much smaller NI would be unviable. Unionists know this and know they must make the 6 counties work. Talk of ‘repartition’ is just to encourage unionists to be more constructive about a shared future.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 02:27 PM‘we’re all happy :) ‘
Naw- Our Muslims and Jews and Atheists etc would’nt like the idea of one Church one State one Reich sorry Future . And I’d agree with them .
After several centuries of sectarian warfare between Japanese Shintoists and Japanese Buddhists the sons of Nippon did find a one Church suits all solution . Baptismal rites had to be Buddhist and funereal rites Shintoist . Thus at both ends of life the Gods were mollified . As to how they managed the in between part well I guess they just got on with life .
So by the time Christianity made it to Japan they apparently could do without it . Does not seem to have bothered them all that much from what I hear either?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 02:35 PMIt is truly wonderful how unionists are rediscovering O Neillism now that the end of the temporary little arrangement that is the Six Counties is in sight.
Too little and far too late - giving Catholics a house and a job does NOT make them into Protestants and 6 into 32 DOES go!
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 02:58 PMLib’and 6 into 32 DOES go! ‘
No it does’nt -Not evenly anyway . Theres two left over . A case of the Numbers /Mathematics justifying a Repartition solution .
OC
‘A much smaller NI would be unviable.’
Nonsense . Luxembourg is half the size of NI with one third of NI’s population and is spectacularly viable . The fact that it’s also 95% nominally Catholic is irrelevant just in case Unionists think that ‘protestanism ‘ would hold them back from a similar success.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 03:10 PMI don’t care about appeasing and uniting Catholicism and Protestantism. That would be an ecumenical matter.
If a unionist Catholic, a republican Protestant and a nationalist atheist discuss politics then it doesn’t make sense to treat it as a religiously divided debate.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 03:13 PMGreenflag,
I agree entirely. I think I was just projecting that opinion onto others (such as yourself).Basically, it appears I misrepresented not just your opinion, but my own!
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 03:15 PMOccasional Commentator,
No unionist party has been able to attract a statistically significant percentage of Catholic voters, not even when atheists from a Catholic background like myself are included.
It would be a little late in the day for them to succeed now.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 03:21 PMlib2016,
You’re probably right that Catholics rarely vote for unionist parties, but that doesn’t mean some are not unionists.Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 03:25 PMOC ,
‘Basically, it appears I misrepresented not just your opinion, but my own!
That’s OK OC . Everybody is entitled to my opinion too but not to misrepresent it :)
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 03:34 PMMy point is that the Duncan Morrow piece can be read as a simple demand that nationalists become de facto unionists. It makes no similar demand on unionists to offer parity or respect for nationalists and is therefore pointless and onesided.
It is also a fact that the people who have been most industrious in building the bantustans to which he refers are the loyalist henchmen of the two leading unionist parties which makes it even stranger that he addresses both communities equally on the subject.
Parity in condemnation but never ever parity in respect - no wonder the North is finished when even a well intentioned soul like Morrow gets it so wrong.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 03:48 PMOC
The people will quickly elect politicians who will take responsibility.
What makes you think that, out of interest?
Lib
My point is that the Duncan Morrow piece can be read as a simple demand that nationalists become de facto unionists.
On your terms, is not the alternative a demand for unionists to become de facto nationalists?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 05:43 PMIJP
On your terms, does that not make Duncan Morrow as ‘bad’ as lib2016?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 06:56 PM‘On your terms, does that not make Duncan Morrow as ‘bad’ as lib2016? ‘
Maybe they’re both as good as each other and as bad as each other ? I’m sure they both mean well .
Looking for a solution within a 6 county NI set up has failed and will continue to fail. Almost 40 years of the local politicians farting around in ever diminishing circles should have made that much obvious by now !
If you want to find a fish you don’t climb a tree. If you want to solve the NI problem you get rid of the NI State and replace it with a State or States that can work and which can get the support of 90% plus of their citizens .
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 08:01 PMThe problem with this ‘shared future’ business is that it simply ignores the border issue and hopes that it will go away - much like integrated education, the Alliance party and so on. No matter how much we are told that this philosophy is better than Unionism or Nationalism the vast majority of people just don’t buy it.
The simple truth is that you have two peoples facing in different directions - can there really be a solution to this or will it just be a question of keeping a lid on it for as long as possible.
What other options are there :
Joint Authority - two states in one?
De Facto separation - Flemish / Belgian style?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 08:20 PMI said: The people will quickly elect politicians who will take responsibility.
IJP said: What makes you think that, out of interest?
IJP, when we start having schools being closed arbitrarily by direct rule ministers, the parents in question will not care so much about the bargaining positions of the various parties and will move towards politicians who can get their school situation sorted out. Same with hospitals being closed or downgraded. Obviously not everyone can be satisfied, but people will want the transition managed in local interests. Also it will put pressure on the fix the economy too so that it can pay to keep the schools and hospitals open.
Trying to get people interested in improving a static situation is difficult, but people will take an interest to prevent cuts.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 08:22 PM‘The simple truth is that you have two peoples facing in different directions -’
JFE - Janus Faced Entity
Can there really be a solution to this ?
Yes -If it’s two faced . But people seem uncomfortable with that ? Wonder why ? Perhaps it’s just human nature .
‘will it just be a question of keeping a lid on it for as long as possible. ‘
No question unless the lid handle becomes too hot to touch and/or the lid cracks in two .
‘Joint Authority - two states in one? ‘
Has never been seen to work permanently anywhere . A temporary fix at best a fudge and a waste of time and taxpayer’s money at worst.‘De Facto separation - Flemish / Belgian style? ‘
Czech /Slovak would be more appropriate given the local historical animosities in NI .
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 08:51 PMGreenflag, where you let yourself down everytime
“NI six county state” if you are making statements about Northern Ireland my Country of birth, then please have the good manners to call Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland. Just an observation, that’s all.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:22 PM“‘De Facto separation - Flemish / Belgian style?
we are w2ll down the road already
12000 out of newry, 17000 east from londonderry massive growth in protestant areaa Coleraine/east londonderry --a line north of loughbrickland and east of limavady is what 85% prod??
Fuck the rest into the republic and stand back and smilePosted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:42 PMRepartition is completely unviable and it’s proponents simply don’t want to face up to reality.
Any UK govt could not and would not support such a policy.
As much as some Unionists like to pretend otherwise, NI is a total economic failure - > 70% of income in NI is generated directly or indirectly by the UK govt.
Any solution that does not entail financial support from the UK govt is a non starter. And no UK govt will get involved in a repartition solution.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 12:07 AM
