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 @ 03:24 PM
“In my opinion the no brainer stuff would be
1.New Flag
2. New Anthem
3. “Dail” (see later) in Dublin, Senate in Belfast”Happy to change the anthem (even to an English language version)and, if it’s not deemed too odd to have a Seanad in Belfast - I’d wear it.
The flag should stay though surely? It represents peace between both traditions.
Happy also to sever any state church links but we should keep Irish. If for no other reason than the chicks dig it!
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 05:10 PM“The flag should stay though surely? It represents peace between both traditions.”
To you, maybe. Not to unionists.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 05:29 PM“(By the way, the debate with Kensei is apart sectarian carve-up - no Irish Republican should be debating such things along sectarian lines, surely?)”
I thought we were talking about Unionists and Nationalists, which of course are political and not religious groupings.
Plus, he started it.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 07:20 PMhttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QwOOX0zt_hw
Do me a favour and post a comment for this lad.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 08:18 PMWillowfield,
Well, first, it is illogical to claim that a perceived “falling around ears” of an ideology in 2007 means that Ulster Protestants were not a distinct people in 1921, 1821, 1721 or in 1621. Second, what “ideology” are you referring to? Third, and most fundamentally, on what grounds do you claim that Ulster Protestants/unionists are not, in fact, a distinct people, but are indistinguishable from Catholic/Irish/nationalists – either now or ever?You are interchanging religion with a political ideology when it suits you. Not all Ulster Protestants were always unionist. Remember 1798? Remember the Ballynahinch Fenians in Antrim, who banned Catholics because they confessed to priests.
Hell, they didn’t always remain Protestant as evidenced by the mixing that happened and the effects of Ne Temere and the like.
How can you build a region of self-determination if marriage to a Catholic or a political change of heart excludes you?
Not only, then, do I consider it acceptable to have a British minority in the Irish-nationalist state, but I actually believe it should have been a larger minority in order to facilitate more nationalists whose territories could and should have been included in the Free State!
Just as long as it wasn’t your family. You East of the Bann Protestants. With friends like these. (Apologies but I just felt like being glib for a moment.)
but the borders should be drawn to minimise those minorities, and satisfy as many people as possible.
So you favour a border that gives a 33% minority as opposed to no border and a 20% minority. Strange logic.
You could certainly argue that it was a fiefdom; but that does not mean it was not a zone of self-determination.
But as I pointed out, this zone of self-determination has a prerequisite that the majority population remain true the Protestant faith and never deviate from the pre-determined path of unionism.What you are talking about is pre-determination not self-determination.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 10:45 PMGeorge
You are interchanging religion with a political ideology when it suits you.
I’m not. You’re introducing “political ideology” into the discussion - up until now you haven’t even explained what ideology you are referring to. I do not consider Ulster unionism to be an “ideology”: it is merely a particular preference that Ireland (and then NI) should be in union with Great Britain. Nationalism is an ideology because it is a world-view that all “nations” should be self-governing; but Ulster unionism is peculiar to Ireland/Ulster and is not an ideology in the sense that it holds that peoples or states generally should be in union with one another.
Not all Ulster Protestants were always unionist. Remember 1798? Remember the Ballynahinch Fenians in Antrim, who banned Catholics because they confessed to priests.
Who said they were? Certainly not me. All I said was that Ulster Protestants were and are a distinct people. I see you have been unable to refute that.
How can you build a region of self-determination if marriage to a Catholic or a political change of heart excludes you?
You don’t. Everyone in a “region of self-determination” has an equal vote. Where on earth are you getting this nonsense from?
Just as long as it wasn’t your family. You East of the Bann Protestants. With friends like these. (Apologies but I just felt like being glib for a moment.)
You don’t know where my family is from. Embarrassingly for you, the paternal half of my family is from Donegal, was resident there in 1921, and many still are.
So you favour a border that gives a 33% minority as opposed to no border and a 20% minority. Strange logic.
You’re being disingenuous again - see my reply to Kensei above. It’s absolute numbers that count, otherwise, for example, you would deny Estonian independence because, while Russians are a 25% minority in Russia, Estonians would only be a 0.5% minority in Russia.
But as I pointed out, this zone of self-determination has a prerequisite that the majority population remain true the Protestant faith and never deviate from the pre-determined path of unionism.
Strange interpretation. No-one said anything of the sort. Certainly not me. The “prerequisite” is that the status of the territory is determined in accordance with the wishes of the people residing within it.
What you are talking about is pre-determination not self-determination.
No. I’m talking about self-determination. Check out election results in the six counties from the period 1885 to the present day.
You really don’t understand the concept of self-determination, do you?
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 11:03 PMWillowfield,
I have been trying for the last couple of days to try and put forward what I thought was a pretty straightforward argument to you but you either don’t get it or I can’t explain it.Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 11:13 PM“ I do not consider Ulster unionism to be an “ideology”: it is merely a particular preference that Ireland (and then NI) should be in union with Great Britain.”
So, to sum, a political worldview, or, er, ideology. Thanks for that.
“You’re being disingenuous again - see my reply to Kensei above. It’s absolute numbers that count, otherwise, for example, you would deny Estonian independence because, while Russians are a 25% minority in Russia, Estonians would only be a 0.5% minority in Russia.”
No, it isn’t absolute numbers that count. And comparing the 200,000 difference in the two Irish scenarios to Estonia and Russia is what is disingenuous.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 11:57 PMGeorge
I have been trying for the last couple of days to try and put forward what I thought was a pretty straightforward argument to you but you either don’t get it or I can’t explain it.
Really? I thought you were just trying to attack mine. Disappointing that you’ve given up - you definitely lost your way in that last one. Not like you.
KENSEI
So, to sum, a political worldview, or, er, ideology. Thanks for that.
Er, no - I said it isn/t an ideology - read the posts more carefully!
No, it isn’t absolute numbers that count.
Yes, it is, as both the analogies demonstrate. By your logic Ireland shouldn’t have got independence because the percentage of British in Ireland would have been greater than the percentage of Irish in the British Isles.
And comparing the 200,000 difference in the two Irish scenarios to Estonia and Russia is what is disingenuous.
Not at all: it’s a good analogy. Both NI and Estonia have minority populations which are part of much larger populations living in a different jurisdiction.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 12:04 AM“Willowfield makes some extremely important points. Particularly in response to George, the distinct identity of Ulster Unionists was forged largely by distinct economic interests.
This economic aspect is essential. If NI is now (re-)orientating towards Dublin economically, that is good news for Nationalists. Nationalists are therefore foolish to ignore the historical reason for Irish partition, which was largely economic (and they are also foolish to antagonize Protestants who may delay the natural outworking of this re-orientation if they are made to feel under cultural threat). “ - IJP
That was actually quite funny - since it doesn’t actually help Willow’s argument that Unionists are a distinct ethnic group entitled to self-determination if the claimed distinction is based on being more economically self-interested than those they claim to be ethnically...err, financially distinct from, rather than on the grounds pertaining to the applicable criteria under international law.
I think you’re closer to the mark regarding their separatism being based on self-interest. However, while politics is the north is deeply dysfunctional, I think we have to treat Unionists as being intellectually sophisticated people, rather than pandering to them as a poor parent would to children who are prone to tantrums. Ergo, I expect Unionists to objectively examine what evidence there is for their concerns regarding equal political and civil rights and whether those concerns are valid or hysterical - likewise, whether there are any Irish laws which prohibit cultural expression that might be applicable to them.
If the perceived ‘threat’ is others expressing their own culture, then the problem lies with them and not those others - and they need to grow up. Equal rights means exactly what it says on the tin.
Willow, how can you have a claim to self-determination that is independent of nationalism? That is nonsense. Another nonsense is self-designation of a group as an indigenous people entitled to a nation state. The principle of self-determination is typically asserted in demands by the indigenous people for de-colonisation. You were not the colonised people, but the colonising people; and ergo, your nation state was back where you came from. Next we’ll have the people of Cork asserting their right to self-determination in demands for the Independent Republic of Cork.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 01:20 AMThe Dubliner
Willow, how can you have a claim to self-determination that is independent of nationalism? That is nonsense.
Not sure what you mean. All peoples have the right to self-determination, whether they describe themselves as “nationalists” or not.
Another nonsense is self-designation of a group as an indigenous people entitled to a nation state.
All groups self-designate as such. Is it the term “nation” you have difficulty with? What is a “nation”? All peoples have the right to self-determination, whether or not they describe themselves as “nations”.
The principle of self-determination is typically asserted in demands by the indigenous people for de-colonisation. You were not the colonised people, but the colonising people; and ergo, your nation state was back where you came from.
Self-determination applies to all peoples, including those who were “colonisers” centuries previously, like the Americans and Australians, or the Argentinians, for example. Go back far enough and all peoples were “colonisers”. Your implication that a people that has inhabited a territory uninterrupted for 400 years does not belong there is simplistic, chauvinistic, unrealistic and wrong.
Next we’ll have the people of Cork asserting their right to self-determination in demands for the Independent Republic of Cork.
Why on earth would we have that? Do the people of Cork consider themselves to be separate and distinct from the rest of the Irish-nationalist people? First I heard of it. What a stupid comment, revealing a lack of understanding of the subject.
Do you seriously believe that Ulster Protestants/unionists were and are indistinct from Irish Catholics/nationalists? Seriously? They had and have a common identity? Common descent? Common religion? Common culture? Not even a shared language, since nationalists asserted that Gaelic was their true language! Shared national aspirations? Shared understanding of the past and present? Wise up.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 08:05 AMWillowfield,
Really? I thought you were just trying to attack mine. Disappointing that you’ve given up - you definitely lost your way in that last one. Not like you.I don’t think I lost my way, I just don’t think you wanted to discuss an area I was interested in or I didn’t make it clear enough for you.
We never got to the starting post. That was the point. You seem to think I was launching an attack and I’m not particularly bothered fighting just for the sake of it.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 02:06 PMWhat was the area you were interested in discussing?
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 10:41 PMI note with interest Willowfield’s conversion to ‘Greenflag’ism ( he seems to have mysteriously vanished BTW).Or maybe I just never happened to pick up on this before.
Unionists themselves will be in a powerless position as they will literally have no power, no sanctions, no “bargaining chips”.
On the contrary a 16% voting block and a permanent ‘balance of power’ situation is anything but powerless.
To get back to the original drift of the thread opinions in the ROI , on this issue, interestingly enough, are more varied than one would assume:
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=25911Posted by on Aug 31, 2007 @ 01:03 AM
