Friday, August 24, 2007
Process of Irish unity “should have a modest beginning and no predetermined end”
The views of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, the former head of the Northern Ireland civil service, on the future of Ireland make interesting reading.
Bloomfield, who was secretary to the first but failed 1974 Sunningdale powersharing government, made his speech at the Merriman Summer School and it is reproduced in full by the Irish Times on its website.
Here is an abridged version:
On the stance of the Free State and Republic in addressing the question of the North.
When an area and a community have long been embodied in another state to which they do not want to belong, it is perhaps inevitable that the first thrust of independence is to emphasize and encourage distinctiveness. This is particularly so when the jurisdiction enjoying a new-found independence is very much smaller in scale than that jurisdiction from which it has separated itself.
It is understandable that the mere act of severance needs to be reinforced by emphatic statements of separate identity -from repainting the letter-boxes or issuing newly-designed stamps to matters of greater pith and substance. Even along as civilised a frontier as that between the United States and Canada, there is inevitably a certain wariness on the Canadian side, flowing from a perception of the overwhelming power and influence of the southern neighbour.
The trouble here in Ireland, I would argue, was a schizophrenia of aspiration. The founding fathers of the State wished to see it free, independent and united - that is to say including within its embrace all the people on the island of Ireland. The new State demonstrated and asserted its new independence by policies and gestures of what one might call “non-Britishness”, a state not always easily distinguished from “anti-Britishness”.
But if you accept that it was a sense of “Britishness” which, in part at least, characterised the “separated brethren” of the North, then it was rather as if one cried “Come and join us on the other side”, while at the same time hacking down a good many of the existing bridges”.
On his perception of Ireland:
The Republic continues to surf the tide of prosperity and development. Indeed I read in the London Times the other day that the average wealth per head of citizens of the Republic is now the second highest in the world. Ireland punches well above its weight in the European Community. The peaceful aspirations for Northern Ireland being expressed in 1997 have at last been realised, with an opportunity, if not a total assurance, of stable and enduring domestic government there.
While the North continues to rely very heavily on British Exchequer support, there is a growing sense of the need to be more self-sufficient. A confident Republic, looking with confidence to its own welfare and destiny, no longer needs or displays that excessive degree of “distancing” from the neighbour island which I identified ten years ago. Ireland versus England at Croke Park had the right result, and not just in terms of the number of points scored. On the other hand, that old bogey-man, England, now has to cope with ever more assertive regimes in Edinburgh and Cardiff as well as Belfast.
On how he see events developing in Northern Ireland from this time forward, and in what if any circumstances can he envisage a different and much closer form of association between the two jurisdictions in Ireland:
The real test is not the test of forming a government; it is the more stringent test of making it work for the benefit of everyone. And, since Northern Ireland has no armed forces or foreign policy, there are huge areas of domestic affairs where common ground is readily available. All the parties and all the people of Northern Ireland would like to ride on the back of the economic tiger; all want more inward investment, more jobs, more prosperity, more emphasis on research and development.
Envious eyes have turned across the Border towards your low rate of Corporation Tax, and our politicians and businessmen, with help and encouragement from friends here, have sought to persuade the Treasury that a lower rate in Northern Ireland is indispensable as a vital stimulus to economic growth. I wish this campaign every success. I aimed at this target years ago when I was Permanent Secretary at the Department of Economic Development, and was blocked by fears of profit manipulation by firms operating both inside and outside Northern Ireland.
On the other hand we have to recognise that the Northern Ireland Executive, bringing together the DUP, Sinn Fein, the UUP and the SDLP, is not a conventional government, and may indeed be unique in the world. In recent years people have become very familiar with patterns of coalition government, and indeed there are many countries in Europe and further afield in which coalition is a commonplace. Typically, though, the largest party will choose a partner or partners at the conclusion of a negotiating and bargaining process, designed to produce a broad programme for government , or al least a series of principles, by which all participants can stand.
In Northern Ireland, under the arrangements set in place by the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements, there is no need for such a process. Participation in government flows solely from the number of seats won, rather than from any search for common ground. In one sense one can say this is very democratic.
I have long been interested in the Swiss federal system, where it has long been recognised that any government failing to acknowledge the main ethnic and linguistic groups would lack stability and universal legitimacy. But those now joined together in Northern Ireland have for most of their careers experienced only the politics of opposition. Within those politics, it is all too easy to accumulate a wish-list rather than face the difficult, frustrating and potentially divisive business of prioritisation....
...But I have made a deep study of systems of government, which leads me to emphasize the centrality of the concept of collective responsibility. Unless this is accepted, government will prove sooner or later to be a fragmentation bomb. In the case of Northern Ireland, the relevant constitutional Agreements impose a requirement of consensus as the Executive and Assembly face contentious issues. This requirement presents no problems where there is a high degree of mutual interest. Who will not fight for more jobs, more affordable housing, a more self-reliant economy, a better -trained and educated workforce? Yet even in these domestic areas, there continue to be matters which are, or could prove to be, divisive. Let me give an example. About half the members of the Executive favour the retention of our grammar schools and some acceptable basis of academic selection as a criterion for entry. Others regard any form of academic selection as socially-divisive and counter-productive. In such a contentious area, with strongly-held views at stake, consensus will not be easily achieved.
On Irish unity:
Here we come to the heart of the matter. What does this “Irish unity” so often spoken of and advocated mean? The mechanism for institutional unity is clear. If and when a majority of the people living in Northern Ireland vote in favour of such a step, legislation will be introduced into the parliaments of the two sovereign states to transfer the six counties from the one jurisdiction to the other. I do not, myself, believe that such a vote is likely any time soon; probably not in my lifetime, even if you invite me to a third Merriman after another ten years.
The views of people in the Republic about the desirability in principle of such an outcome are clear. If the assumption is of a peaceful, non-divisive and affordable transition, who here is likely to say “nay” to it? But I suggest that there are fundamental issues which need to be addressed by politicians and others here in the South well before any imminent prospect of unity looms large. What kind of a united Irish state would it be? Would the degree of inevitable change in the Irish polity be acceptable? Would the economic and financial consequences of unity be acceptable both in the six and the thirty six counties?
What kind of a united Irish state would it be? Might it involve federalism or devolution or other means of institutional protection for certain rights and interests? Would Belfast, a capital city for more than eight decades already, with its legislature, law courts, its pride in being “no mean city”, recede into the status of just another provincial town, or would a new and more diverse Ireland disperse and share its sovereign national institutions?
Then there is the question of inevitable change in the Irish polity itself. What a blessing it is, in our turbulent modern world, to live in a pretty homogeneous society. As Shia fights Sunni in Iraq, as Arab fights Jew in Israel or Palestine, as China oppresses Buddhist Lamaism in Tibet, I reflect upon the benefits you have enjoyed in these 26 counties from being a society with a common heritage, with religious activities, sports and games, language and culture which, to some degree at least, nearly all of you share. I contrast all of this with the Northern Ireland in which I have lived since 1931. If my old school, RBAI, founded in 1810 by William Drennan, one of the Presbyterian United Irishmen, wants to play rugby with a Catholic school, it has to look to Blackrock or Belvedere rather than its Belfast neighbour, St. Malachy’s. From our school every year boys move on to a host of universities in England or Scotland. Of course the Republic itself is today changing rapidly. Some count 200,000 Poles around Greater Dublin; but at least these immigrants have an affinity with the predominant Catholic faith.
An Ireland embracing in both senses of the word a million Protestants would be, and would have to be, a very different place. I have to say, though, that the question of religion looms much less large today than it did when I was young. There was a very real perception of the Irish Republic as a theocratic State. Those days are now over. Let us think of the prospect of ultimate unity or a changed relationship as a process, not a single dramatic step. Let us rather think of it as a possible or potential contract between distinct groups of people, with all the cards on the table. The process of which I speak should have a modest beginning and no pre-determined end. It should emphasize encounter, the development of mutual trust and movement only by general agreement. We now have in operation a range of North-South bodies which in the nature of things will involve politicians and civil servants in working together, getting to know each other, getting - I hope and believe - to trust each other. We all know that Sinn Fein’s paramount priority is to achieve Irish unity as rapidly as possible. I would say two things to them, as someone who accepts their presence in government in spite of republican efforts to kill me years ago. John Hume was quite right to say consistently over many years that the only unity worth having would be a unity of people, not of territories. What possible benefit would it be to import into a still relatively homogeneous Irish state a welter of unresolved differences? Let the Ministerial Council, let the North-South bodies address topics strictly on their merits, pursue issues unarguably for mutual benefit and avoid at all costs a backlash from those disposed to regard the whole thing as a Trojan horse. Sinn Fein remind us, and fairly remind us, that it is for them a big step to sit down as members of a devolved government within a continuing British jurisdiction. But please appreciate, too, that for the DUP it is a big step to play a constructive part in North-South institutions; to embrace Bertie both literally and metaphorically.....
...If Irish unity at some stage begins to look like the outcome of a popular vote in the North, it is essential that the parties to any hypothetical transfer of sovereignty should fully understand the financial and economic implications and costs. The standard of living and level of wealth on the northern side of the Border have fallen behind those in the Republic. With “the troubles” hopefully behind us there should be great economic potential in the North, and the possibility of very substantial investment, particularly if the North were to be embodied in a favourable corporate tax regime. Yet on the other side of the equation there is the reality that Northern Ireland enjoys even its present level of economic activity and public services only with the benefit of massive annual transfers from the British Exchequer.
He finishes with a quote by William Drennan when he spoke at the opening of the Institution in 1814.
“Of nothing”, he said, “are the Boards more desirous than that pupils of all religious denominations should communicate… in the common business of education, by which means a new turn might be given to the national character and habits, and all the children of Ireland should know and love each other”. By the means of education, he told his audience, “you cannot perform a service more useful to your children, or more honourable, and at the same time profitable, to your native land. Here they were born, here let them be bred; and in their rising years let them be early accustomed (and what is education, but early custom?) to taste the sweetness of our native soil and to associate everything instructive, amiable, and endearing, with the words - OUR COUNTRY”.
George @ 04:24 PM
I haven’t read his entire speech but the excerpts published in The Irish Times today were quite fascinating.
The idea of a United Ireland coming as the result of a thousand cuts to the NI link to Britain is something that Unionists probably fear the most. At the same time it is the one reality that Nationalists have to accept as being the only possible route (if there is one at all).
Too often you encounter this simplistic notion of what a United Ireland would take and what it would mean. Some seem to think it would be a 50% + 1 vote, then the flick of a switch, the changing of a flag and the erasing of the border.
Even if every Unionist awoke with a lust for Irish unity tomorrow it would take the best part of a decade to change the processes required to enact a real United Ireland.
I think the most vital point he makes, and one that all Nationalists should note, is the statement about a majority not being enough - I personally would hate to see Nationalists pushing through their agenda the second they get have one vote more than Unionists; it would just send us back to the 1970s but with the roles reversed.
I think his suggestion of starting small and letting things happen is a pretty reasonable one (and the modest beginnings probably already exist). If these modest ventures work there’ll be more strength in the nationalist’s “project” and things can move on from there at a natural pace. If they don’t, they don’t and no-one really notices because they were never a big deal in the first place.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 05:00 PMAdam
One vote would be enough to start the constitutional process but the shape of the outcome would need to be agreed. The concept of majority rule has been abolished in the north except for the constitutional issue.
If the majority swings on the constitutional issue it would not bring back majority rule for everything else in an all-Ireland context.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 07:29 PMInteresting speech. Although St Malachy’s has tried to get a rugby team going at least once. Lack of interest. Maybe now with the success of the rugby team that would change. A strong human rights act enforced by a supreme court is necessary not only for NI but for the republic and a future NI.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 07:40 PMInteresting stuff. Firstly there are not “a million Protestants” in NI. The 2001 census gave those of Protestant community background as 895,000. Were there to be a UI tomorrow then assuming they all stayed they would comprise 14% of Irelands population, mostly huddled around Belfast Lough. I see no reason for any special treatment whatever. Even in an all Ulster federal province they would be a minority. Worrying about a Belfast relegated to provincial status is laughable. What else has it always been? Dublin is the only real city on the island. Belfast will take its place among Irelands provincial and regional focal points and thats that.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 07:44 PM“as someone who accepts their presence in government in spite of republican efforts to kill me years ago”
Now that’s fair I must say
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 09:25 PM“An Ireland embracing in both senses of the word a million Protestants”
I think he means the whole country has a million prods. That sounds about right?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 09:28 PMsportsman if thats not a recipe for disaster then i dont know what is.given the “unusual” circumstances in the north it is obvious that certain safeguards would have to be put in place “if” there is ever a united ireland in order to ensure that there is not the much talked about “backlash”.on the other hand if a democratic election decides even by one solitary vote that there should be a united ireland-then there will be regardless of any threats or of the cost.democracy cannot be stopped by threats of violence-as maggie thatcher would say
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 09:31 PMA very interesting analysis. His comments on the unique nature of the executive we have here and the need for collective reponsibility are interesting. Collective responsibility being one of the things which is not required by the current system but surely he is correct in saying that for a stable long term system it is needed.
Again in terms of any prospect of a united Ireland I suspect he is right regarding timing and its non imminence.
In the unlikely event though I would have thought the RoI politicians would be very keen to bend over backwards to accomodate unionists.
Sportsman
Even if only some of the 895,000 stayed, having 10-14% in a concentrated area being at best lukewarm to your state would not be something RoI politicians would want. Still whilst people like you tell us that “I see no reason for any special treatment whatever” that will continue to help ensure unionist suspicion that any UI would be a cold house. I see that unionist engagement has trully died out (not that it was anything but a phantasm anyway) and not that I think there is any significant chance of unionists supporting a united Ireland in the forseeable future whatever happens. I am sure lib 2016 will pop up any minute though. Incidentally In terms of Dublin being the only real city I am no expert but I think some in Cork might take issue with that.Henry 94
“If the majority swings on the constitutional issue it would not bring back majority rule for everything else in an all-Ireland context.”I take it from that you mean that even after a hypothetical vote for unity there would have to be consensus on form of government; structures etc. in the unbited Ireland?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 09:31 PMIt’s a bit like ‘ever closer union’ with the Unionists playing the role of the Eurosceptic and the Nationalists playing the Europhiles. Or is it a case of cooking the lobster by gradually turning up the heat..
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:09 PMSportsman, there are about 5 million people in Ireland and about a quarter would prefer to be ruled by the English, according to the last poll. Or about 1 and a half or more million in Northern Ireland and 80 per cent of whom who would prefer to be ruled by the English.
Make no mistake, I hate the English as much as the next guy but your figures are fantasy.
If there was a credible alternative to rule from London I’m sure 99% of people from Northern Ireland would take it.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:23 PM“I take it from that you mean that even after a hypothetical vote for unity there would have to be consensus on form of government; structures etc. in the unbited Ireland?” - Turgon
I’d say Sportsman is closer to the mark, i.e. the tail won’t wag the dog. The south won’t make any fundamental changes to its constitution or system of government to accommodate a minority, particularly when the present system guarantees equal rights to all citizens. Unionists should not expect unequal rights from the south, i.e. parity of nationalisms or a veto over the majority. Northern Ireland nationalists have no authority to negotiate on behalf of the Irish government, nor will they be offered any such role - and not just because they’d sell their grandmothers for a united Ireland. Unless you guys strike oil up there and find a mountain made out of solid gold, the people of the south won’t give you anything except a ceid mile failte. On the plus side, if unionists voted for a party to represent their own vested interests, they’d be in with a good chance of gaining entry into coalition government under Ireland’s PR system. As much as we like you guys and want to be one happy family, it’s pretty much a case of beggars not being choosers. That’s why it’s just a numbers game.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:32 PMThe Dubliner
So you are saying that even though the Unionists have come to the position that because of our divided society etc we accept D’Hondt, power sharing, 50/50 Police recruitment,cross border bodies, all kinds of legislation on parades, symbols etc etc…
but as soon as we get the magical 50 + 1 % then all bets are off and we just go back to ROI majority rule ?
Do you honestly think any Uionist politician would be able to sell a United Ireland under those circumstances ?
The ROI’s prints are all over these ground rules so if the earth shifts we expect the spirit of them to be honoured.
You will be telling me next that in a UI you wont even be prepared to change a Flag or anthem ?
Any such UI would have to be seen as a coming together of historic enemies and not a take over and it will be in everyone’s interest to start using some imagination.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 10:51 PMGet real people. For example, do you want to pay £30 / 50 euro every time you have to visit a GP, as happens in the RoI? Do you want to pay vehicle registration tax which bumps up your new car price by 30-40%, as happens in the RoI?
What will determine the voting pattern is the amount of money left in someone’s pocket if they live in NI as compared to RoI, not some outdated political creed. I haven’t seen any comparitive fiscal studies for a typical family, with a typical income and lifestyle north & south, coming from any political party. I wonder why....??Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:04 PMJohn East Belfast,
I agree entirely. If the analysis the Dubliner suggests held good there never be a trully united Ireland. It would create a pretty disaffected minority in the north east. I suspect unionists would be offered a few things like some semi federal structure but that there would be massive resistance to things like changing the flag anthem etc. To my mind no one in Dublin seriously expects it to happen, and I doubt there is much of a plan to deal with it.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:09 PMStill whilst people like you tell us that “I see no reason for any special treatment whatever†that will continue to help ensure unionist suspicion that any UI would be a cold house. I see that unionist engagement has truly died out (not that it was anything but a phantasm anyway) and not that I think there is any significant chance of unionists supporting a united Ireland”
Not quite died out :)
I can see how “cold house” would be a fear, particularly when presented in that tone. However, my preference would be for “no special treatment”. For anyone. I believe any new state should be negotiated and setup so that everyone can owe it its allegiance. And I think there are some wider issues at play. By the time any UI comes about, Unionists could be outnumbered by Eastern Europeans, and there are going to be significant ethnic and religious minorities that Ireland has never really had deal with before. They are going to have to be part of a settlement too (and we’ll all be dealing with these issues UI or not). Moreover, with Dublin expected to grow further even further and create even bigger East-West imbalances, it might be a good time to look at wider issues around decentralisation.The Assembly, for all it’s hype, amounts to a glorified council, and a lot of its functions could be done cheaper elsewhere. If it was a deal breaker then I think it would be kept but otherwise, do you really want to pay for it?
JEB
“but as soon as we get the magical 50 + 1 % then all bets are off and we just go back to ROI majority rule ?”
I thought Unionists considered the current situation an aberration and wanted a form of majority rule here :)
I think depends what you mean by “spirit” being kept. The context in an All-Ireland situation changes. In NI it’s a 40-60 split and getting closer. In an All Ireland situation Unionism is a much smaller percentage and if they get special privileges it creates pressure for other groups to get them (some of which I’d guess Unionists in this scenario would not like). So my preference would be for all the important stuff being in the Constitution with fairly hefty legislation to enforce it, along with some normal legislation for Unionist-negotiated specific stuff but that would have to be a smaller list, from a purely practical standpoint.
Out of academic interest, what did you have in mind?
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:31 PMI suspect Turgon’s analysis is spot on - highly unlikely to be a contingency plan. If anything. a United Ireland would be predicated on the belief that it is in our mutual interests to come together constitutionally, after a long period of getting to know one another through collaboration where it is in our mutual interest.
The 50.1% scenario would therefore not come into play, and no-one of a Unionist background could be accused of Lundyism - if the siege has lifted, and relationships between north and south have changed fundamentally, then this could represent a victory for pluralist libertarian (orange/republican) principles. Interestingly, for this sort of convergence to happen it’s crucial that the assembly is seen to work. There can be no true partnership between north and south unless it is through the operation of a sovereign assembly rather than direct rule ministers.
Should the day dawn then people would respond with imaginative constitutional structures. I was intrigued by the suggestion (from Diluted Orange?) that a Northern Ireland Dominion might exist within a federal Irish Republic.
I doubt that people would have a problem with federalism, particularly as this could be extended to other provinces rather than setting Northern Ireland up for special treatment. They might find difficulties with the flag genuinely incomprehensible. Few people north or south may know what the tricolour is supposed to stand for, but in the south at least it is not used as as a sectarian territorial marker. Again, something people would have to understand before progress could be made.
Regardless of the constitutional structures, I doubt that any version of d’Hondt would survive. Hopefully it will not be needed in Northern Ireland in the longer term. Certainly in the context of a 32 county ATV system, I think unionists would be smarter to play the role of kingmaker in every coalition - I could see a UUP / Fine Gael axis being played against a FF / DUP axis very easily.
Ironically, if Dr. Paisley was 20 years younger he might stand a very good chance of winning a presidential election.....
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:00 AMkensei
ok just to indulge you as you are always asking this type of question of unionists.
Firstly I tell you what I wouldnt be interested in
Rejoining the Coomonwealth, a Federal Ireland or a regional northern Parliament.
In my opinion the no brainer stuff would be
1.New Flag
2. New Anthem
3. “Dail” (see later) in Dublin, Senate in BelfastThe difficult probably impossible stuff for nationalism would be
1. Complete disjointing of the Gaelic ethos from the trappings of the State.
English would be the working language of Government - name of Dail, President etc etc.FF and FG would have to find themselves new names.
Gaelic language & culture could be supported finacially for those who choose to pursue it but it should have no role in the trappings of the State.
2. As far as the State was concerned Year Zero would start in the year 20?? or whatever.
What I mean by that is that the current heroes and icons of the ancient British & Irish struggle would be confined to History books and Museums - indeed studied at school in greater detail than currently so that future citisens would be fully aware of the past struggles. De Valera, Collins, King Billy, Lord Carson etc etc would not be the State’s heros1916 and 1690 would not be Statutory Holidays and would be replaced.
Individuals and Institutions might continue to celebrate, mark such people etc but that would be their business. The State would not be involved.
I am sure I will be accused of airbrushing history etc or trying some kind of Pol Pot exercise but I am not - I am talking about the State and how it deals with its origins and heroes.
3. Any last vestage of the RC Church in the State or Education system would be severed.
You did ask.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:00 AMKensei,
“Not quite died out “
Yes fair enough that is all pretty reasonable and it would seem churlish for me to set out a shopping list and still say that i do not want a united Ireland.I have wondered since inuit_g brought it up though why there could not be a cessionist vote at a later date (possibly before the UI had actually happened) or is it Ian Smith’s one man, one vote, once. (though I am no fan of Smith his predictions turned out to be horribly accurate in Zimbabawe, though I think that was partly a prophesy he managed to self fufil in advance if you see what I mean, very very off thread)
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:00 AMAll reasonable points for discussion JEB.
Just absorbing N.I. into the R.O.I. without any compromises would be a recipe for a civil war I should think.Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:08 AMJohn East Belfast,
I would agree with all that and maybe add a few other things but I did say to kensei that I would not give a shopping list so I had better not unless he wants one from me as well.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:09 AMI’ve a Lithuanian friend who’s just arrived in Belfast after two weeks in Dublin.
When I asked her about Dublin, she said: “Well, it’s not what I expected. I mean, the buildings, they’re almost falling down!”
When she walked out of the Europa Bus Station her first words were: “Now *that* is a city!”
So I’d say Sir Kenneth is as right about Belfast’s status as he is about so many things in this article...!
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:10 AMMr Bloomfield,
Come back when you’re not trying to flog a book....Funny I heard you spouting exactly the same stuff on the radio a few months ago when you were at least openly plugging it.
Sales must be a bit slow....
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:15 AMDoes trying to sell a book invalidate an analysis interested?
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:20 AMJoe Canuck,
“Just absorbing N.I. into the R.O.I. without any compromises would be a recipe for a civil war I should think.”Well I am not sure about civil war per se, thankfully I suspect there are not enough heavy weapoins to do a Bosnia but some similar ghastly internicene conflict like the part 30 years would be more than possible.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:24 AMJust back from Ravenhill and the weird and wonderful spectacle of being deafened by ‘Stand up for the Irish men’ and ‘come on Ireland’ ringing in my ears. And all that with a wonderful win for ireland! Can it really be that rugby is part of the process of unity and a transcendential sport? Probably not as this Ravenhill gig is a one in 55 year abberation but maybe if the powers that be get the gate money/income evened out with TV income the powers that be will do a provincial rotation and make it more likely. LOL.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:28 AM
