Saturday, March 29, 2008
“only thing the prime minister has to concern himself with..”
Mick has pointed to the actual debate to be had around Gordon Brown’s defence of the Union. But, rather than looking for complicated reasons and strategies behind Brown’s apparent playing down of Northern Ireland’s role in the United Kingdom, sometimes, as Henry McDonald suggests here, there’s a simpler reason for these things.
In his promotion of the union, not only in relation to Scotland but also Wales, the prime minister failed to mention Northern Ireland, which drew a wave of criticism from Ulster unionists and their supporters in the Tory press.
Yet neither unionist politicians or their allies in the London media ought to be surprised over Brown’s omission of Northern Ireland - because the delicate political settlement that has guaranteed the union between the north of Ireland and Britain requires periods of diplomatic silence.
As Fair Deal has already noted here.
Unlike the printed version, the full online text of Brown’s article did mention Northern Ireland, but only in passing. And it’s a sufficiently fleeting a mention, compared to Wales and Scotland, to still support the argument made by Henry McDonald.
Unlike Scotland and Wales, Gordon Brown doesn’t have to compete for votes against other parties in Northern Ireland. That is because Labour doesn’t organise across the Irish Sea.
The only thing the prime minister has to concern himself with is that the political settlement at Stormont remains in place.
To trumpet the continued existence of Northern Ireland inside the UK would be to rub nationalist noses in it.
So instead the British government maintains radio silence on the north’s constitutional status.
Pete Baker @ 12:59 PM
“That is because Labour doesn’t organise across the Irish Sea.”
What happened to Andy McGivern’s campaign? Did they ever set up a local forum in NI with the right to send delegates to the Labour conference? And what about constituency associations and fighting elections in Northern Ireland - is he continuing his campaign within the Labour party?
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 02:36 PM“To trumpet the continued existence of Northern Ireland inside the UK would be to rub nationalist noses in it.”
That may be a factor - but so also is the fact that Non Iron is constitutionally different in that it has a contitutional link with ROI. The GFA changed Non Iron’s constitutional position i.e. weakended it within the Union and then got the people of Non Iron to vote on not changing it FURTHER. British diplomacy/duplicity at it’s best except this time it was operated for the benefit of Nationalists.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 02:52 PMYawn (to McDonald’s hideously lazy hackwork) - the article *did* mention Norn Iron, as has been detailed ad naus. here on Slugger.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 03:33 PMTo trumpet the continued existence of Northern Ireland inside the UK would be to rub nationalist noses in it.
So instead the British government maintains radio silence on the north’s constitutional status.
I never knew Brown cared so much.
McDonald’s line may be simpler but he’s off-track. The notion that puff-pieces on the future of the Union by the British PM in the Daily Telegraph are carefully vetted in case Irish nationalists are upset (and who cares what unionists think), is unlikely. This was, and remains, a place apart.Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 03:38 PMGordon Brown looks like a loser. So strange how things have developed. Economy down the pan -his response a half baked appeal to a nonsensical identity project. I’m British - the rest of you can get lost.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 05:04 PM“McDonald’s line may be simpler but he’s off-track. The notion that puff-pieces on the future of the Union by the British PM in the Daily Telegraph are carefully vetted in case Irish nationalists are upset (and who cares what unionists think), is unlikely. This was, and remains, a place apart.”
Absolutely. Apart from Brown’s article, there have been a number of occasions where senior British figures have sent unionists into an uproar for apparently leaving out NI when talking about the union. These were not coordinated actions designed to prevent hurt feelings for nationalists. The north of Ireland simply doesn’t factor into the minds of many in the British government (and public) when talking about Britain. The fact that Labour (and any of the other main British parties) have no relevant presence here simply reinforces that fact. That’s why I can’t follow Mick’s and McDonalds’ theory about Brown simply chasing after labour votes.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 05:18 PMYeah, the wishful thinking is all Unionist, isn’t it? I mean, no one on the [cover your eyes children] “mainland” wants them, so the great, Agatha Christie-style mystery for nationalists becomes, why don’t ‘they’ (GB) just get rid of NI? A real three piper that for all you O’Poriots out there. And golly, I’m looking forward to Ockham’s razor being well and truly blunted on this one. Could it be, whisper it softly, that the murdering Martin of 70s & 80s vintage had it ‘right’, by the terms of reference he used then justify his bloodshed by? Mother England’s holding on, right and tight, and hasn’t exactly let go now, has she? Or remind me, does Martin draw his publicly paid British salary in Euros? Spacers, every last one of you. Argue by all means that you don’t like reality, and would seek in your ideal worlds to change it, but for pity’s sake, save *yourselves* the waste of energy in trying to convince of us that Reality Doesn’t Exist. It does: it’s what you’ve been whining about for 20/40/80/800 years [delete according to taste, and corpse count].
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 06:04 PMAhem,
well we have a choice of realities - for example Martin may take the queen’s shilling but big Ian & co take the papists punt for infrastructure.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 06:47 PMthe union between the north of Ireland and Britain requires periods of diplomatic silence.
Yes indeed; 50 years of it for a start and look where that got us.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 07:40 PMHe doesn’t mention it because he doesn’t give a shit. The Union is dependent on Scotland and Scotland only. If Scotland goes, England will insist on freedom. A united Ireland will follow. This is no Nationalist wet dream though. Following the GF agreement, the only way for Irish nationalists to acheive a UI is by winning a referendum, something certainly not imminent. But make no mistake, NI (and Wales for that matter, although in a very different way) is irrelevant to the ‘union’ debate going on in GB at the moment.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 07:54 PMThe context for this ‘Britishness’ conversation does have something to do with the Union but, as I read it at least, it is more do with concerns over what happens to the ‘nation’ or state, when it’s population diversifies from *relatively* homogeneous roots.
In that respect it is a problem more readily understood from the increasingly post modern Republic’s point of view than it is for us in Northern Ireland. It would seem we are still trapped in our own pre-modern binaries than either of our neighbours to the south and the east.
Just one last thing. I don’t want to stamp out passion completely, but can people just watch their language. Some of you have heard this line from me several times before. All I ask is that you be blunt and to the point. But at all times strive to be civil!
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 10:36 PM“It would seem we are still trapped in our own pre-modern binaries”
Will you stop being clever please. What on God’s earth does “pre-modern binaries” mean?
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 11:11 PMLook it up Dewi, I’m off to bed. Nos da!
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 11:20 PMlol means old duality instead of modern multiples
you define your entire beings based on a single question, you are either a nationalist catholic or a protestant unionist recognizing no other possible identity
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 01:44 AMAhem
“the article *did* mention Norn Iron, as has been detailed ad naus. here on Slugger”
Doesn’t take much to make you happy, does it?
A brief mention near the bottom of the last page that doesn’t directly deal with the main topic of the article.
If that satisfies you that the North is an “integral part of the UK” or “as British as Finchley”, the British govt must be hoping that all Unionists will be as easily taken in.
I would think that the changes to the flag legislation NOT applying to the North and the increasing number of instances where govt representatives talk about the Union in terms of England, Scotland and Wales but the North is omitted would be more indicative of UK govt thinking.
The E-Borders plans are also revealing.
You should try living in the real world. Westminster politicians are worried about the Union with Scotland. The vast majority of people in the UK don’t give a shit about the “Union” with the North and couldn’t care less if it ended.
The lack of interest of the UK govt in the “Union” with the North is all too apparent. Their willingness to let the RoI govt have an increasingly large input (political and financial) into the running of the North is equally so.
Talk from Unionists about strengthening the “Union” is laughable. They are trying to pull closer to GB while the GB govt is clearly (and successfully) pushing the North away and closer to the RoI.
Even if the Tories are elected (probably in 2010), I see no change to this. People in the UK are worried about immigration, the financial situation, interest rates, housing shortages, crime, climate change, islamic terror, Fabio Capello, David Beckham and a hundred other things before the North.
Within GB, there is simply extremely little interest (and even less support) for “Union” with the north.
I’m not foolish enough to predict a United Ireland by 2020 or whenever. It clearly will be a much more gradual process.
However, I can see (as can anyone with an open mind) that the attitude of the GB + UK govts in conjunction with the demographic changes in the North will ensure that it is only moving in one direction - away from GB and closer to the RoI.
The sooner that Unionists realise that GB doesn’t need or want the North and start dealing with it, the better off they’ll be.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 03:24 AMBilly, there’s no mention of Cornwall either. Why? Well, I would not have put it quite as strongly as Henry has. In fact, I disagree insofar as NI is no longer a constitutional problem for London, in the way that Cornwall isn’t a problem.
There is an agreed mechanism to take Northern Ireland out, or keep it in. Salmond and Plaid have still to raise their issues to the point that there is a similar agreement. In Scotland’s case, I suspect the First Minister is keeping his powder dry until the next Tory government, when he can really drive aggressively into Labour’s central Scotland heartland.
It ain’t all about us guys. We are yesterday’s news. That said, it is as much in the interests of unionists to get themselves involved in the UK national debate as it is for Northern Irish nationalists to begin caring about what happens nationally in the Republic.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 07:58 AMYou should try living in the real world. Westminster politicians are worried about the Union with Scotland. The vast majority of people in the UK don’t give a shit about the “Union” with the North and couldn’t care less if it ended.
Billy,
If you mean it’s not the main subject of conversation over their cornflakes, then yes, you’re right; since the provos stopped murdering their kids and blowing up their pubs, people in England and Wales (Scotland is a completely different matter) really care as much about Northern Ireland’s place in the Union as they do about the risk of Yorkshire declaring UDI-i.e.it’s simply a non-topic.But do you really reckon that apathy is bad for NI Unionism?
I’d be much disturbed if we had a Northern Irish equivalent of Alex Salmond winding up Middle England with tales of how large amounts of their hard-earned taxes are disappearing into our Soviet-era public-sector, quangos and “community projects”. But there isn’t, instead Irish Nationalism seems to be concentrating on the “Let’s see how far we can wind up the Unionists before they throw in the towel” strategy...falling back on that other perennial cunning plan you mention, “demographics”. It isn’t working because they’ve forgotten that the battle won’t be ultimately won or lost by defeating the Unionists in NI- look at the election figures, over 35% in NI also don’t give a shit about the Union, or at least, not enough to vote either way on it. They do however give a shit about their work opportunities, health-care and pensions- and that’s why they’re also not voting for the UI.The Union is in a danger not seen since the Home Rule crisis- but ironically that isn’t because of Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein-it’s time that Ulster’s Unionists realised that and stopped the shoe-gazing.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 10:25 AM‘The Union is in a danger not seen since the Home Rule crisis’
Since the home rule crisis???? you mean since the democratic will of the people of Ireland was ignored by Britains most loyal fools, who armed themselves in case the wishes of the people of Ireland were realized.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 10:42 AMDiplomatic silence? Sure, I buy that, but to go beyond that and speculate that means that Brown doesn’t need to bring up Northern Ireland because it is securely in the Union is balderdash. Gesh! Is England, Scotland and Wales not secure within the Union?
All that can be said for sure is that in a popular piece about the future of “Britishness” written by the Prime Minister of the UK, Northern Ireland only got a passing mention in the online edition. But, is this really so surprising? How many southerners out there have heard from inhabitants of the larger island that “you’re all mad over there” or some other such thing as if Northern Ireland is a part of the Republic rather than the UK?
Northern Ireland is an embarrassing appendage for most British people that, if they are even conscious of it’s existence, and one that they would rather cut loose. In the mean time, over there, the real Brits will get on with the business running their country and would rather not be disturbed by the mad aunt in the attic.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 12:40 PMIts more than apathy. Th Guardian in 2001 had this to say on an ICM poll.
“A verdict to strike a chill through Ulster unionism comes in today’s Guardian/ ICM poll, which finds more Britons think Northern Ireland should be part of a united Ireland than believe it belongs in the United Kingdom.
In a finding that hits at the very heart of unionist ideology - which regards the province as an integral part of the UK - 41% of Britons believe Northern Ireland should be joined with the Irish republic while only 26% say it should continue as part of the UK.”
“To add to unionist misery, ICM’s polling was done over the weekend - following the widely condemned withdrawal by the IRA of its breakthrough offer on disarmament and amid allegations of renewed IRA terrorist activity in Colombia and elsewhere. Anti-republican feelings could have been expected to surge
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/aug/21/northernireland.northernireland1
Does anyone know if any similar, but more up-to-date surveys are available?
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 04:05 PMThey do however give a shit about their work opportunities, health-care and pensions- and that’s why they’re also not voting for the UI.
Oneill
Whilst I believe the ‘Britain doesn’t care about you’ argument is fruitless when directed towards Unionists (I’m hardly going to drape a Union Flag on me if I was informed the south didn’t care about me), the argument above is seroiusly outdated.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 06:24 PMMick
I usually find your articles informative and thought provoking even if I don’t always agree with them. However, I must admit that I was a little disappointed at your analogy with Cornwall which is very weak.
The fact is that Gordon Brown was talking directly about the Union within the UK. Apart from one very slight passing reference at the end, he ignored the North.
I can see your point that the issue of Scots independence is a major current concern to the govt and would take precedence. However, Wales is hardly a hotbed of Nationalism and that got much more of a mention than the North.
You surely can’t be claiming that the UK govt really see the North as “an integral part of the UK” or “as British as Finchley” (or Cornwall).
If that were true, they would hardly be giving considerable and increasing influence in running it to a “foreign” govt.
Also, why are the proposed changes to the flag legislation not being applied to the North? This is hardly the only piece of “UK wide” legislation that isn’t applied to the North.
Govt sources have already said that, if and when
so-called “Britishness” legislation is passed, it would either not apply or have to be amended for the North - hardly an “integral” part.The govt is clearly trying to hand over P+J powers to the assembly. Unionists can currently block this but it’s only a matter of time. This is a 2008 version of the old “Ulsterisation” policy - i.e let the North sort out it’s own problems and leave “the mainland” alone.
The plain fact is that the North still lives (over 70%) on public sector money. It is largely still dependent on “handouts”. It is a major financial drain on the UK exchequer and, like it or not, Harold Wilson’s spongers comments are precisely how very many people in the UK view the North.
The British govt clearly isn’t going to just walk away (although some of them may like to!).
I am not trying to anger Unionists - I am simply calling it as I see it. If anyone has any evidence of large support for the “Union” with the North among the UK electorate, I’ll be glad to see it.
O’Neill says that they are not discussing the North over their conflakes because it’s currently a non-issue. That’s true but it’s more basic than that. I contend (and what little evidence there is supports me) that if the UK govt drew up a withdrawal plan from the North, the vast majority of UK people wouldn’t care and most of those who did care would be in agreement.
Equally, even as a Nationalist, I do not delude myself that the RoI govt is rushing to take on the North and it’s basket case economy.
That’s why I accept that the situation will change very gradually and not by 2016 or whatever it was.
However, my fundamental point is valid. The UK govt is doing nothing substantial to strengthen the Union. They are, however, encouraging and strengthening links with the RoI.
The demographic changes have slowed but the trend still shows an increase in the RC/Nationalist population.
As a constitutional Nationalist, I accept that the North is part of the UK and will remain so until a mjority vote otherwise.
However, I still contend that any Unionist who thinks that the North is viewed and/or treated as being “as British as Finchley” is ignoring the facts and deluding themselves.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 08:02 PMDoesn’t take much to make you happy, does it?.
No. Which is why, like most Unionists, I’m so relaxed, well-balanced and cheerful. And don’t, inter alia, feel the need, like such an embarrassingly large number of nationalists, to howl at the moon, shrieking ‘black is white, white is black’, and, ‘I tells ya, I tells ya, this here vision of the future what I have, and happens, by extravagently pleasurable coincidence, to be exactly the same as my wish-fulfillment fantasy of choice, is going to happen, and it is, so it is, and it is because I tell you it’s going to happen, and because I tell you it’s going to happen, it is. So there (so get with the picture, mad, made-up and self-indulgent as it is, or else - you wouldn’t like to see me when I tamely applauding those who plant bombs, I mean, when I’m angry and turn green)’, blah, blah.
So, yeah, in, let’s say, an article *not* about Northern Ireland, nor designed to influence anything whatsoever in relation to NI (its purpose was entirely Scottish), I’m perfectly content with a glancing allusion to NI by our wonderful Prime Minister. Thus that’s what’s keeping me happy. What about you? Oh that’s right, Billy’s happy because he’s “not foolish enough to predict a United Ireland by 2020 or whenever. It clearly will be a much more gradual process”. Of course it will, of course it will - clearly. Don’t you worry about a thing - it’s coming home, it’s coming home - Oirland’s freedom is coming home - Three fields full of hurt
Dev’s ego still gleaming
800 years of hurt
Never stopped me dreamingAnd as I said before, blah, blah, nationalist blah until the sun grows cold and falls out of the sky blah. I have now reached the point where I feel sorry for them.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 08:17 PMAhem
After reading your eloquent and logical piece in defence of the Union, I really can’t imagine why Unionists from the North have such a poor image and so little support among the UK electorate!
You really shouldn’t skip your medication.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 08:38 PMI wonder what they say in Finchley when people say that Finchley is as British as Northern Ireland?
O’Neill wrote: “If you mean it’s not the main subject of conversation over their cornflakes, then yes, you’re right; since the provos stopped murdering their kids and blowing up their pubs, people in England and Wales (Scotland is a completely different matter) really care as much about Northern Ireland’s place in the Union as they do about the risk of Yorkshire declaring UDI-i.e.it’s simply a non-topic.”
I don’t think that the topic at the breakfast table was the risk of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, I think it was the provos murdering their kids and blowing up their pubs. Since that worry passed, Northern Ireland had returned to being a non-issue but not because its place in the union is secure, because their kid and pubs are being blown up. In fact, more would prefer it out of the Union than in, and even more still couldn’t give a damn what happened to it so long so longs as they don’t have to discuss the blowing up of their kids and pubs at the breakfast table again.
“… Irish Nationalism seems to be concentrating on the ‘Let’s see how far we can wind up the Unionists before they throw in the towel’ strategy...falling back on that other perennial cunning plan you mention, ‘demographics’. ...”
That is an awful strategy and is eventually counter-productive, but the “Alex Salmond” strategy simply isn’t required. Blowing up their kids and pubs surely must have wound up Middle England more than telling them what they know already about their taxes. Convincing them that they want shot of Northern Ireland is not an issue, the problem is that they can’t get rid of it.
Of all the wait-and-see strategies, I bank on Scottish independence bringing about a UI sooner than demographics every could (and even by the magic number of 2016). If that happened then all bets are off. A United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland is just not imaginable.
Mick wrote: “There is an agreed mechanism to take Northern Ireland out, or keep it in.” - There is an agreed mechanism to take Northern Ireland out, and one to keep it out of the way until then.
“… it is as much in the interests of unionists to get themselves involved in the UK national debate as it is for Northern Irish nationalists to begin caring about what happens nationally in the Republic.” - I agree with the latter but would suspect that (Northern Ireland) unionists would be uninvited guests at any discussion on the UK national debate.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 09:08 PM
