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”I think rotating between Cork and Belfast is more likely. Actually, now I think about it, fuck Cork.
“1. Complete disjointing of the Gaelic ethos from the trappings of the State.”
2. As far as the State was concerned Year Zero would start in the year 20?? or whatever.
1916 and 1690 would not be Statutory Holidays and would be replaced.”
Could we have 2016 off instead ;)
These things effectively boil down to attempting creating a chasm breaking Ireland’s past from her future. This makes me deeply uneasy. States need things that glue them together, and shared history and culture are a part of that. I think an United Ireland possibly allows Unionist and Nationalist culture to interleave in a way it really can’t the moment, because the political division remain present. And secondly, I don’t think it works. It just creates resentments everywhere.
I think the 12th of July should be a holiday. Mainly as the context changes, I can’t think of anything more likely to bring people here together than more shared opportunities to get smashed.
“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.”
I think that is probably down to a root difference in approach on how things should be dealt with more than anything else.
“3. Any last vestage of the RC Church in the State or Education system would be severed.”
I think there should be a new extremely secular Constitution, and a firewall between all religions and the state.
Education is another matter as the State is not primary provider of services, it just funds it. Personally, I think that should entirely be down to the new Parliament.
“You did ask.”
No, interesting, though no doubt I’d get a hundred different answers off a hundred people. Ta.
Turgon
“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”
I would tend to be against holding out hope of a reverse, because I think it would damage the chances of the new State. But I would say that, wouldn’t I. I think if things tipped towards a United Ireland, even if cessionist mechanisms were in place it would be very hard to overturn, as incumbency has serious advantages. Plus I doubt either Government would be happy with in-out-in-out nonsense.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:33 PMijp,
that’s a strange one.. i mean the view from europa to me reminds me of croydon.. dull, provincial and very very 70’s… once you get to know them well there really is no comparison between belfast and dublin… and belfast really is remarkably small..
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:42 PM“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.”
It’s not a shopping list I’m looking for: precise shopping lists are for negotiations in the event of a positive vote. It’s more - what are the fears that remain, and what would be the things that absolutely have to change.
Posted by on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:46 PMLondon or Dublin what will it be...you decide
Ehm, can I call a friend?
Hello Mr Barroso we need your assistance, themums are at it again, what’s the better State the British or Irish, it’s just I can’t decide.
Pardon, what do you mean equality? You say they both have it in law, crikey that’s not what Martina Anderson states about Britain, apparently the Brits are upto stuff and seem to be diluting it by trying to solve things which they should leave well alone.
I’ll think I’ll go with 50/50; no, make that 50 plus 1.
Now can I collect my ÂŁ1.5 billion?
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:12 AMKensei,
“in-out-in-out nonsense”
A sort of hockey cokey nationality. Actually did I here somewhere that the hockey cockey was an anti catholic song?In terms of a discussion re demands I am not trying to be useless but I am too tired and am off to bed. We are going on holiday in the morning.
Good night
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:18 AMTurgon
“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 united Ireland?”
Absolutely. The political and constitutional structures we put in place on the island following the departure of NI from the UK must be agreed by unionists and nationalists.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 06:18 AMFirstly, can anyone give me a good reason why Unionists wouldn’t simply boycott a border poll?
Secondly, following on from parallaxco’s comments on rugby - it was sad to see the RTE team signing off with “See you after the World Cup.” RTE is my channel of choice for rugby and its deeply disturbing to see them not being able to broadcast.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 06:43 AM“the buildings, they’re almost falling down!”LOL maybe she mistook all the construction for falling down.the ROI now has one of the most modern housing stocks in the world.
Im from cork.by international standards I wouldnt consider it a city more of a big town but one with a lot of character.the only real cities on this island are dublin and belfast.Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 11:15 AMI have read all of Sir Anthony’s speech.
It’s well thought out and gives much food for thought should we ever approach the possibility of unification.Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 11:33 AMAh Sportsman....they havent gone away you know and there’s no prospect whatsoever that they ever will...so you are going to have to put up with them and accommodate them.
Grow up and get used to the idea. The asinine ‘get the Brits out’ sologans were always hollow. The Brits have been here as long as you. They live here and arent going anywhere.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 11:34 AMJoeCanuck
It would seem you read all of the speech apart from the name of who wrote it, he’s Kenneth, not Antony - maybe that invalidates the analysis too.Maybe flogging his book doesn’t completely invalidate his theory. However, would a book of his telling us that he thought the Union was fairly safe have generated any publicity.
He’s seen as a ‘unionist’ (of sorts) therefore by throwing in a bit about some United Ireland pipe-dream he guarantees some publicity, therefore some sales, and therefore some cash.
I suppose if Sir Humphrey had written a book he’d have had to throw in something controversial too. Tales of paperclip shuffling at the ‘hard edge’ of the Civil Service don’t really make for riveting reading.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:49 PMlol interested - Sir Anthony.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 12:52 PMTo take away devolved power from Belfast would be a regressive step. Who likes their freedoms being taken away? But I don’t think any particular special powers should be given to any particular place. Instead I would prefer to see provincial devolution within the whole of the state. Let the Dail become a central parliament as part of a decentralisation of the Dublin-centric government system.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 01:05 PMLOL
My only pathetic excuse is that I have an acquaintance called Anthony Bloomfield.
He’ll no doubt be chuffed at being elevated.Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 01:19 PM“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 ?” - John East Belfast
Yes.
“Do you honestly think any Uionist politician would be able to sell a United Ireland under those circumstances ?” - John East Belfast
Not if northern nationalists raise unionists expectations to unrealistic levels by promising that which they can never deliver. Remember, the south likes its society exactly as it is. Fundamentally changing that which has been extraordinarily successful isn’t something that we will do on a whim - especially the whims of other self-interested parties who seek only to gain by the prosperous labours of others but not to contribute anything to the cost. We’re paying the piper, so it’ll be our tune. And the odds are it’ll be the same tune that’s playing now.
“The ROI’s prints are all over these ground rules so if the earth shifts we expect the spirit of them to be honoured.” - John East Belfast
The Belfast Agreement has no legal status to post-date the dissolution of NI. You will be entitled to the same rights as every other citizen - not greater or less.
“You will be telling me next that in a UI you wont even be prepared to change a Flag or anthem ?” - John East Belfast
No more than I would do for any other minority social group.
“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.” - John East Belfast
Time to move on from an unwarranted sense of entitlement, my friend. You would be another ethic social group within Ireland. You would not be proverbial co-owners of the place.
However, argue your case if or when the time arises. There is no harm in trying. I’m just asking you to take a realistic view of what the south is likely to offer.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 01:35 PMDubliner - there would be a real prospect of “Unionists” in government however. This surely could answer some of the exclusion concerns. Personally I like the flag, Green, Orange and dissenter and all that - but suspect that that if a design change would smooth the path to re-unification it might be acceptable no ?
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 01:47 PMEnjoyed reading the article
A regional parliament in Ulster at Stormont, as is at present, but with Dublin as sovereign Parliament not London would take care of everyone’s needs would it not?Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 02:58 PMWhat is the size of the voluntary and community sector in Ireland and what level of funding does the Government give out to such same bodies to undertake policy/strategy aims of its departments.
I just wonder how this compares relative to Northern Ireland and its cosy relationship with Vol&Com;sector especially local government.
For example, delegation of strategy aims to vol com sector happens for the likes of drug and alcohol, suicide prevention. And I suppose you could argue Farset and Restorative Justice initiatives too.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 03:56 PMHm. Several points to be made here. Firstly, as no Unionist will ever vote for a (hypothetical) United Ireland, Unionists will have no part in determining the shape of that United Ireland. Any change in status, flag, anthem, or cultural ethos will be decided by the majority, i.e. not by Unionists. Personally I think that the Irish language requirement for state employment is a useful way of rooting out those who are wholly opposed to the ethos of the state, and should be applied rigorously, though I would like to see Scottish Gaelic recognized as an admissible alternative.
Secondly I do not agree that majority rule has been abolished by the GFA. It is still very much in force: however, the appointment of our rulers, state employees, etc has to be done on an inclusive, representative basis. Power still resides with the majority, and is not being shared: what we have is not power-sharing, but office-sharing.
I am surprised at the reference to the “London Times”. There is a newspaper of this name, but I suspect the intended journal was “The Times.” Has an American been at this speech or is this appellation spreading into Ireland?
As for the accommodation of Protestants in a UI, it is correctly noted that these people are largely centred on Belfast Lough, where they constitute a majority. Do we perhaps need a 33rd county, of Bangor or North Down, in which this national minority but local majority can enjoy some measure of autonomy? After all, we have Gaeltachts for Irish speakers. I offer this as a suggestion for debate, though there may be reasons why it would not work.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 05:13 PMPaddyReilly,
“I am surprised at the reference to the “London Times”. There is a newspaper of this name, but I suspect the intended journal was “The Times.” Has an American been at this speech or is this appellation spreading into Ireland?
I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. The chap was speaking in County Clare and doubtless wished to avoid confusion with “The Irish Times”. I sometimes refer to “The Times of London” in a formal context, but to “The London Times” when asking for the paper in a newsagent’s north or south.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 09:22 PMIn my experience, Irish people say “The British Times” when they wish to distinguish it from the Irish. It is Americans who think that a newspaper only serves one city.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 10:16 PMOh ffs.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 10:42 PMDC
A very good question… and I share your frustration at the distinct lack of answer!
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 10:56 PMBloomfield hits the nail on the head. Northern Ireland has existed for almost a century now, and even by Republican standards the unionist community has generated a large enough myth and identity around it to suffice that it could never be simply erased at the stroke of a pen. In deserves every respect (in terms of myth, never mind reality) that nationalist attribute to the 1919 Republic, 1916, 1798, the Confederacy etc. The heros of Northern Ireland (Craig, Carson, right down to and including Paisley, and others to come) will need myths built around, but these myths are incongruent with those of the Republic.
What they are not incongruent with are the myths of this island. We are already building institutions that can incorporate these myths. A united Ireland, if it comes, will best come out of those. A new flag, a new anthem, all of those trappings.
As for the cost, there are a number of things that I believe will happen:
First, is that Northern Ireland will be increasingly made to stand on its own two feet. (the most imminent treat of this, although unlikely, is an independent Scotland - how long do posters here imagine a United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland supporting its far-flung, odd and troublesome province when “British” no longer denotes a British state?) This will have the effect of driving Northern Ireland to a more Republic-like policy for the state sector - or, conversely, make a Northern Ireland’s state sector, financially feasible for the Republic.
Second, in parallel and to the same effect, the institutions already in place, and reasonably expected to grow in number and depth, would cause a harmonizing of legislation, the state-sector, and crucially, identity, though not necessarily to anything like perfect homogeny, across the island.
Rugby has a great part to play in this - as a demonstrator of the benign nature of an all-island identity for all involved (its so unfortunate that soccer is not the same way). Also, don’t think that this will be a one-way boat - with the colour of Northern Ireland changing to match the Republic’s, the Republic will inevitably change too. To offer a rather unimportant example, rejoining the Commonwealth, to me, would be a rather fine thing, if the North agreed that we would be represented together as a whole (i.e. “Ireland” competing at the Games). Or, by way of another example, the british monarch could have a role to play in an expanded North-South institutions. By these means we may someday arrive at a logical and mutually agreed Union on this island, but by that stage it will no longer be a “united Ireland” - a century after the creation of Northern Ireland that is no-longer possible - what we will be negotiating is the union of two parter justifications.
An Act of Union, not a United Ireland. An “Irish Union” will be an entirely different thing to what we imagine a “United Ireland” will be today. A tri-colour, for example - the flag of a republic - would be entirely unsuited to represent it. It would not represent its shared myths, its coming-together - but it would, possibly, be representative of one province in it.
Posted by on Aug 25, 2007 @ 11:13 PMDC rises from the chair and applauds chanting with sincerity - hear hear!
OilifĂ©ar - you wouldn’t email your post to Martina Anderson it’s just that I think that she may well benefit studying a concept that needs to be understood.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 12:00 AM
