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
Oiliféar,
All you offer in your post is empty symbolism.Commonwealths, Queens and sporting teams. You can have the lot. They don’t mean anything at the end of the day. If we footed the bill for all of this, the cash necessay would be made in an afternoon in the IFSC. Actually we could most likely clock off at 4:15pm and hit the pub.
I’m with Dubliner. We in the south want northerners to deal with the practicality that we will make up over 70% of any future state populationwise and probably over 80% economically.
This would not be a marriage of equals. That’s not to say that equality of purpose can’t be achieved but for God’s sake wake up and smell the coffee.
Commonwealth, Monarchy and Rugby?
FFS.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 12:13 AM“I’m with Dubliner.” - I’m a Mayo man.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 12:29 AMSorry - I though it read “I’m a Dubliner.” In any case, I’m still a Mayo man :)
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 12:30 AMGet real people. For example, do you want to pay ÂŁ30 / 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 4thlanark on Aug 24, 2007 @ 11:04 PM
You conveniently ignore the fact that ROI salaries/social welfare payments are considerably higher than those in NI. Ask any Aer Lingus pilot who has to transfer to Belfast from Shannon. Also not everyone has to pay E50 for a visit to a GP (the less well off and the elderly can visit their GP every day of the year for zilch if they want to).
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 02:03 AM“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.”
John East Belfast,
Are you serious? The horror of having Irish parties...with um...Irish names. Exactly how soft are unionists? You get the impression that some want everything associated with Irish nationalism to be done away with.
And English is already the working language of the Dáil. About 1% of Dail proceedings are conducted as Gaeilge so what exactly are you talking about?
As others have said, get real. Most Irish people don’t want to become a Little Britain.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 06:51 AMLots of the comments here remind me unpleasantly of western German discourse about easterners. As Bloomfield himself points out, to ignore the lessons from that (re)unification would be extremely irresponsible. Northern Ireland has been separate (and I mean from the rest of the UK as well as the Republic) for a long time. As OilifĂ©ar says, you can’t wipe that out overnight. Ignore minorities who feel a strong identity and, as the German example shows, resentment follows and persists.
Taking away regional government from the north would extremely unwise and somewhat vindictive. Giving it to Munster and Connacht alongside a newly constituted Ulster as well would be a sensible bulwark against Dublin domination of everyone else.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 08:33 AMI always cringe when the Commonwealth issue is raised as a way for Ireland to endear itself to Unionists in Northern Ireland.
I have no problem with Ireland re-joining the Commonwealth but only if there is some benefit in it for the country - if it’s just some empty gesture towards Unionists I’d hate to see it happen.
This idea of either side cow-toeing to the other is obscene. I’d much rather see Ireland re-draw its constitution on completely secular lines; that would benefit the country itself and would likely give Unionists a real indication of its intent. I think the Unionist community would see Ireland joining the Commonwealth as a sham and would be thouroughly unimpressed by it, and rightly so. If that’s all Ireland had to offer it may as well give up now.
I can see the attraction to a federal Republic, however, although I’m not sure if there are enough people on the island to warrant it. I’m sure there are examples of small nations conducting a successful federal model, though.
I think that if there was a federal Ireland it would be a bit of a faux one, though, really just local authorities with a little bit more power than they currently have - I’d hate to see beurocracy created, again, just to enact some empty gesture.
That said I’m not opposed to the idea of federalism as long as it can be shown to be what’s best for the country (and not just a way to enhance Ireland’s existing reputation for badly-joined up thinking.)
It is almost a certain that Unionists would factor in all future Governments of a United Ireland and their size would ensure that the other big parties (namely FF/FG) would treat them with kid-gloves and that they would be able to cause considerable hassle for anyone trying to pass a law that they didn’t like.
One final point, with my tongue firmly in my cheek - I wonder if Ireland win at the RWC will we see sentiment towards a United Ireland rise dramatically in Northern Ireland? It would certainly be the first real sign of the benefits of working together!
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 11:04 AMAdam,
“This idea of either side cow-toeing to the other is obscene.”
LOL. On another thread somebody mentioned the hokey-cokey. Now you raise the image of a herd of frisians dancing in a circle :0)
I’m chary about Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth even if that were to make economic sense. I’ve always regarded the Commonwealth as old Empire slipping in by the backdoor. I find something a little distasteful (if not downright embarrassing) about nations banding together to celebrate the fact that they were once subjugated by a stronger nation, whose present monarch they embrace as their head.
That’s me speaking as a republican with a small “r”.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 12:08 PMNot one for the monarchy either but in terms of Unionist and unionism, they love all that stuff and claim it as heritage and perhaps to be fair it has shaped their identity.
That’s why I thought it would be interesting to see how far it could travel in any new Ireland prototype. Obviously not that far by the looks of things.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 12:43 PMIn the event that 50%+1 votes for a “united Ireland” in a referendum, the import of any subsequent negotiations between the two governments and the various political parties will - in terms of constitutional issues (rather than transitional details) will depend entirely on either the assertiveness of the UK government on behalf of unionists, or the goodwill of the ROI government.
Unionists themselves will be in a powerless position as they will literally have no power, no sanctions, no “bargaining chips”. Any unionist demand will be made in the knowledge that their every suggestion can easily be outvoted be a large majority of anti-unionists in any constitutional referendum. If unionists say they demand the maintenance of Stormont, or a new flag, or whatever, and the ROI government says “no” - what can they do? Absolutely nothing, other than to disengage and pursue a policy of non-engagement/protest which everyone will know will, at best, be a nuisance, with probably some violence and a few deaths but, in the long run, will eventually peter out.
Hence unionists will depend on either the UK government who - technically at least - could refuse to propose the necessary legislation to give legal effect to the constitutional change. Or else on goodwill from the ROI government, who will have to balance any “sweeteners” they think are worth offering (effectively to dampen down unionist opposition and ease the transition) against opposition within the ROI itself and among NI nationalists.
Ultimately, then, should the 50%+1 ever happen, it will effectively mean the absorption of NI into the ROI, with a few symbolic sweeteners thrown in - maybe a new national anthem or flag - purely as gestures by the ROI government.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 03:13 PMAdam, just to be helpful:
Kowtow, from the Chinese term Kòu tĂłu (Cantonese: Kau tĂ uh) (叩é traditional, 叩头 simplified), is the act of deep respect shown by kneeling and bowing so low as to touch the head to the ground.Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 04:08 PMDawkins: I find something a little distasteful (if not downright embarrassing) about nations banding together to celebrate the fact that they were once subjugated by a stronger nation, whose present monarch they embrace as their head.
Do you think all those countries are filled with people too stupid to see things the way you see them?
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 06:29 PMReader,
Not filled, no.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 06:38 PMWillowfield - so why not play a positive role in the unification process - like at this stage ?
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 06:38 PMWillowfield,
“..the absorption of NI into the ROI”
You put the case for unionists to start negotiating now rather than later very well. You do however seem to be ignoring the fact that we live in a changing world.
The UK is declining in importance and in any case there is already no significant support there for the continuation of a link with NI. They’ll be happy to leave, though they may want to keep a base here as they have in Cyprus for example.
The ROI meanwhile is modernising and extending its links with the EU and the rest of the world. As importantly it is also becoming more multicultural and less militantly Catholic as regards public religion. Protestants generally in the South seem happy enough with their lot and don’t seem to mourn the loss of their ability to invade Iraq.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 06:46 PMLib2016,
“Protestants generally in the South ... don’t seem to mourn the loss of their ability to invade Iraq.”
Ouch! :0)
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 06:56 PMDubliner, George, Dan,
It seems you are typical of most southerners in that you are happy in your cosy 26 county republic and are not prepared to make any significant concessions for a united Ireland.
I find the hypocrisy of many southerners exasperating. All great 32 county patriots until it comes to actually thinking about measures that would unite the country.
Southerners have to understand that if they want a successful united Ireland they will have to bend over backwards to make unionists feel welcome. New flag, anthem, constitution, commonwealth membership etc…
Imagine a unionist saying “This would not be a marriage of equals” when talking about the NI assembly. There would rightly be outrage.
But the truth is most southerners really don’t want a united Ireland.
So I wish they would stop the pretence and admit that they are partitionists.
Southerners should accept Ireland as it is, not as they want it to be.
The ROI is not Ireland.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 07:41 PMfourwinds,
The point of being an Irish republican is that one wants to break the link with Britain.
If unionists can modify that break by showing that there is an advantage to be gained by continued institutional links then good for them but they will need to do better than simply resisting all change.
Merely insisting on a change of flag, anthem etc. without proposing a new anthem et. al. is not good enough.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 08:05 PMlib2016,
For me the point of being an Irish republican is uniting the Irish people; Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, in a 32 county republic.
You are right that it is essential that unionists contribute to the design of any new flag, anthem, constitution etc. Not a question for today but maybe one day.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 08:25 PM“Ultimately, then, should the 50%+1 ever happen, it will effectively mean the absorption of NI into the ROI, with a few symbolic sweeteners thrown in - maybe a new national anthem or flag - purely as gestures by the ROI government.”
Actually willow, I disagree. There would certainly be negotiations between the British and Irish governments, but I think you’d also seen the Northern Administration brought into the mix.
Moreover, the eyes of the world would be on Ireland, and there would a lot of politicians looking to make their place in the history books. I wouldn’t underestimate the effect of that in giving Unionism some leverage - and people would be very keen that this would not like what happened in the founding of NI. Moreover, there remain the fact that, like it or not, Unionism could seriously wound the new state through violence, if it so choose. Unionism could not make wild demands but it certainly could negotiate itself a good deal if it was clever.
Secondly, if the North-South bodies develop as they should, it will actually remove a lot of the practical day to day barriers of removing the border if people so choose - there’ll be single markets and shared services all over the show. A lot of it simply will come down to symbolic stuff. Though if it were me in this hypothetical scenario, I’d spend less time on symbols and more on guaranteeing no drop in health care standards.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 09:39 PMDawkins: I’m chary about Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth even if that were to make economic sense. I’ve always regarded the Commonwealth as old Empire slipping in by the backdoor. I find something a little distasteful (if not downright embarrassing) about nations banding together to celebrate the fact that they were once subjugated by a stronger nation, whose present monarch they embrace as their head.
Well that’s kind of my point - I don’t see what benefit there is in Ireland being a member of the modern Commonwealth - to me it’s a glorified talking-shop cum sports organisation.
DC: Not one for the monarchy either but in terms of Unionist and unionism, they love all that stuff and claim it as heritage and perhaps to be fair it has shaped their identity.
That’s why I thought it would be interesting to see how far it could travel in any new Ireland prototype. Obviously not that far by the looks of things.
I don’t think the monarchy is nearly as important to Unionists as it may have been before - I wouldn’t imagine Unionist support changing much if Britain became a Republic tomorrow, anyway.
I think what’s important to Unionists are things like their religion, culture or understanding of what it is to be British; what it is about these things that makes them Unionist is their belief that an Irish Republic would have no time for any of these things.
JoeCanuck: Adam, just to be helpful:
Kowtow, from the Chinese term Kòu tĂłu (Cantonese: Kau tĂ uh) (叩é traditional, 叩头 simplified), is the act of deep respect shown by kneeling and bowing so low as to touch the head to the ground.Very helpful indeed - many thanks.
fourwind: It seems you are typical of most southerners in that you are happy in your cosy 26 county republic and are not prepared to make any significant concessions for a united Ireland.
I don’t think concessions are necessary - it should not be a concession to have a nation that respects the culture, religion and beliefs of its minorities.
I find the hypocrisy of many southerners exasperating. All great 32 county patriots until it comes to actually thinking about measures that would unite the country.</i?>
Yes, and so many northern patriots have done a superb job of endearing their ideals to the Unionist community, haven’t they??
<i>Southerners have to understand that if they want a successful united Ireland they will have to bend over backwards to make unionists feel welcome. New flag, anthem, constitution, commonwealth membership etc…
With the creation of a new nation, which is what a United Ireland would be, issues like a new flag, anthem and constitution are always on the agenda (indeed changes to the latter would be a must for obvious reasons).
You seem to be under some bizarre impresison that “Southerners” as a whole don’t realise this while “Northerners” do.
Although I should say that I wouldn’t see a reason to change the flag - it’s just a matter of pointing out that many “Northerners” have been misrepresenting it over the years.
Imagine a unionist saying “This would not be a marriage of equals” when talking about the NI assembly. There would rightly be outrage.
They’ve said worse, and you seem to misunderstand what the word equals means in this context. As individuals, of course a Unionists is equal to a Nationalist. In numbers, on an all-island level, they are not. That doesn’t mean they should be repressed but rather that as a minorty they’d have no right to hold a veto over the rest of the island on anything (let me qualify that by saying that they would have no such right in an all-island parliament)
But the truth is most southerners really don’t want a united Ireland.
Or maybe they just realise that it’s something that can only be gained by positive example rather than other means?
So I wish they would stop the pretence and admit that they are partitionists.
There are few on this island that are not “partitionists”. Sinn FĂ©in themselves, as much as they maintain the use of the term “North” and “South” and “6 Counties” and “26 Counties” are partitionists as good as the DUP and Fianna Fáil.
Southerners should accept Ireland as it is, not as they want it to be.
Most probably do but that doesn’t disqualify you from wanting something else, does it?
The ROI is not Ireland.
According to my constitution it is.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 10:04 PMFourwinds,
It seems you are typical of most southerners in that you are happy in your cosy 26 county republic and are not prepared to make any significant concessions for a united Ireland.I am not prepared to make concessions that are meaningless just to continue the economic, cultural, social and political madness that partition has managed to cultivate.
I would agree with 1% of GDP going to a unification fund. I would agree with a National Development Plan to make the North East the industrial heartland it used to be. I don’t agree with giving unionists a comfort blanket because they are afraid of the real world.
I find the hypocrisy of many southerners exasperating. All great 32 county patriots until it comes to actually thinking about measures that would unite the country.
But the type of stuff being talked about wouldn’t unite the country, that’s the point. The Commonwealth won’t do anything, neither will a new flag or pretending that our past never happened. Everyone living in the real world and by the same rules is the best way forward.
Southerners have to understand that if they want a successful united Ireland they will have to bend over backwards to make unionists feel welcome. New flag, anthem, constitution, commonwealth membership etc…
In the real world, just as we would have to accept a new country is being built so would unionists.
As unionists will be less than 15% of the island population by 2016, the reality is that they will be doing more of the bending over backwards.
You can’t build a new state that is alien to 85% of its population.
Imagine a unionist saying “This would not be a marriage of equals” when talking about the NI assembly. There would rightly be outrage.
Anybody who thinks the unification of 5.1 million Irish “nationalists” with 900,000 (at most) British “unionists” is a marriage of equals is living in a dream world.
But the truth is most southerners really don’t want a united Ireland.
Southerners don’t want to be dictated to by people who seem to have a wish list that has no basis in reality - be they northern nationalists, southern “socialist” republicans or unionists.
So I wish they would stop the pretence and admit that they are partitionists.
Southerners will work towards a unification that makes sense. Hence what is happening now.
The ROI is not Ireland.
Any future unified Irish state will be a Republic. That much is certain.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 10:36 PM“It seems you are typical of most southerners in that you are happy in your cosy 26 county republic and are not prepared to make any significant concessions for a united Ireland.” - fourwinds
As opposed to ‘non-partitionists’ who seemed to think that 35 years of sectarian murder of unionists and bombing the north into economic ruin was the way to deliver a united Ireland, before negotiating and signing on the dotted line for a partitionist settlement. Gee, we humble southerners are delighted you ‘patriots’ around to our non-violent way of thinking, but not before you bunch of braying jackasses set back unity back by several generations, perhaps permanently, while all we did was take Ireland from a post-colonial economic backwater and turn it into a society that unionists might actually consider joining. With ‘patriots’ of your ilk…
“Southerners have to understand that if they want a successful united Ireland they will have to bend over backwards to make unionists feel welcome. New flag, anthem, constitution, commonwealth membership etc…” - fourwinds
Child, we’re not talking about a spot of wallpapering and painting to make the new tenants “feel at home.” Countries are a tad more sophisticated than letting agency business. The issue is equal rights for all citizens and whether the existing constitution provides them; and whether the existing system of government can manage a population that is 16% protestant. Save you homespun gibberish for west Belfast barrooms. Our society isn’t the problem: yours is. We will change nothing, but you folks will need to do a lot of growing up and changing before the south would even entertian the idea of touching you with a proverbial bargepole. For example, learn to focus on the issues at hand, such as weening yourselves off the British tit of subvention - and not simply by the dismal expedient of trying to swap the British tit for an Irish one. ;)
“So I wish they would stop the pretence and admit that they are partitionists.” - fourwinds
I hope you’re a PSF member. The unwitting irony is just perfect.
By the way, wouldn’t it be just typical of PSF “republicans” to try to act as a Trojan horse for the British paymasters and bring the Commonwealth and British monarchy into Ireland by the back door, trying to compromise its sovereignty in a typical Shinner act of treason.
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 10:42 PMDubliner - but you want unity yes ? Some changes on flags etc. no big Wow ?
Posted by on Aug 26, 2007 @ 10:48 PMDewi, if you feel that the constitution or the system of government needs to be changed, then the onus is on you to argue your case by explaining what is wrong, why it is wrong, and how you propose to rectify it. Simply saying ‘we need change but damned if I know why’ isn’t a valid argument, sorry.
Posted by on Aug 27, 2007 @ 01:04 AM
