Thursday, March 20, 2008
The inevitable united Ireland??
A standard thesis of some of our nationalist and republican commentators is that a United Ireland is inevitable, that everyone (practically) knows it and that unionists need to negotiate as good a settlement as they can in the new dispensation.
Rather than indulge in the standard rebuttal of this position which is what unionists normally do and rest assured I still do not accept the accuracy of the premise; I thought it would be more interesting as an academic exercise to suppose for a moment it is true and ask what then unionists should do about it? This is not an exhaustive analysis but it struck me as an interesting thing to do. In a future article I will look at what might actually happen in such a united Ireland.
In a nut shell; I would submit that the idea of agreeing a deal early in such circumstances would not necessarily help unionists and indeed refusing to do a deal might be more profitable.
So to the options:
Firstly we could go to war. Most regular slugger readers will realise and I trust most will accept that I personally discount this as utterly immoral and wicked and as such I will make no further reference to it.
Secondly is the repartition argument repeatedly and quite eloquently argued by Greenflag here on slugger. I will not cover it in any detail. It would inevitably end up with large unionist enclaves in the new RoI and vice versa and I do not know how seriously it would be considered by anyone.
The standard position outlined by most nationalists/ republicans is that unionists should do a deal with nationalist Ireland. It is suggested that this deal would involve keeping the current Stormont parliament and trying to preserve at least some of the trappings of a separate Northern Ireland. This thesis is, however, somewhat flawed by the fact that if there was a majority in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland this majority would almost certainly be because there was a nationalist majority in Northern Ireland. I know some of the romantics on slugger will suggest that unionists can be persuaded into a united Ireland. I think that boat if it ever existed left a long time ago and it is not a realistic option at the moment. As such we would have a nationalist majority. Hence, if we had a local assembly it would have a nationalist / republican majority, first minister etc. This would in the current scenario be an SF first minister and many SF ministers. This would, I submit, be more unacceptable to many unionists such as myself than a Dublin parliament from whom we would expect somewhat more fairness and respect.
One need only look at the recent spate of SF’s “equality measures” with removing utterly trivial symbols of supposed unionism to see that a SF dominated Stormont would be very likely to be more unacceptable to unionists than a Dublin government which has made little in the way of recent attempts to remove the supposed trappings of unionism from Dublin see the Royal Dublin Society, the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland and a number of others.
Having a separate Belfast assembly in such a united Ireland might well actually be a republican dominated mill stone around the unionist community’s neck rather than a bulwark against things we fear.
So instead I would suggest that if unionists did think that a united Ireland was inevitable their best option would be to be as obstructive and non violently difficult as possible. They would be wise to spurn every hand of friendship from the south, refuse to negotiate but instead offer the option of causing as much trouble as possible, in much the same way as the Irish Parliamentary Party managed to do in the nineteenth century. This would make southern politicians feel that a united Ireland would be even more bother than they no doubt already think it would be. Hence, if is was becoming more and more likely that there would be a united Ireland the Dublin government would be getting increasingly concerned about the political chaos a large group of malcontents in Northern Ireland would cause. That might well produce many more concessions than civil negotiations prior to that.
I am reminded of many years ago a number of Fine Gael youth coming to the Young Unionist conference. I made a less than liberal speech (not related to the guests) and at the end welcomed them. A rather earnest girl remonstrated with me, saying “Do you not understand we want to be your friends” to which I replied “No you do not understand, the more you hate us the less likely you are to want to take us over”. Petty and childish and I have grown a little more sensible over the last 15 years but there is a grain of truth in there.
Any comments?
Turgon @ 10:35 PM
Well, Turgon, who is your MP and what does he think on the matter?
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 10:45 PMJesus, Mary and Joseph.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 10:45 PMi would sugest then that Eire’s best course of action would be to treat you as any other citizen. you could either participate in the democracy or not, your choice really. If you don’t participateyour loss if you do then be prepared to be treated just like any other Taig.
As for the unionist symbols in government buildings there is no allowance for unionist domination. either put up some Irish symbols or take yours to the bin. thats just the way the cookie crumbles
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 10:58 PMTurgon,can I ask you to elaborate on this: “rather than a bulwark against things we fear”
What is it that you actually fear?
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:03 PMI think you’re missing the point of a United Ireland. It means no veto or special role for regionalist/identity/religious politics—to have your policies implemented, you elect TDs who support your policies, and they meet in Dublin and implement, modify or repeal legislation, like everyone else. It means that there are no officially recognized blocs of “unionists” or “nationalists”. There are just Irishmen and Irishwomen who are free and equal citizens of a democratic republic, rather than counters on a sectarian map. You have no regional assembly; you have county councils and other forms of local government like the rest of us. It means you have no mechanism with which to “negotiate” other than through coalition-forming political deals, like everyone else.
Those who persist in defining themselves in an isolationist, divisive and hostile fashion will not do as well as those who can argue their political case well and find allies with whom to do business. But if you think that Ireland post-unification would continue to allow a communalist veto, a farcical regional assembly or “negotiations” with a self-proclaimed pressure group then you’re missing the point of democracy and sovereignty.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:05 PMFor us to accept the premise where a united Ireland was an imminent probability, we would need to fully understand the changed political landscape in order to respond.
The only likely scenario I can foresee is one in which the Union breaks up due to Scots independence.Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:08 PMTurgon,
Do yourself a favour and google Éire Nua.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:10 PM“their best option would be to be as obstructive and non violently difficult as possible”
Oh dear serious flashbacks to multiple meetings in pokey cold halls where some thought the aim was to propose the most crazed protest idea.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:24 PMPersonally I do not feel that a United Ireland is inevitable.
But a Catholic majority among the NI electorate is, I believe, inevitable, and that within not too many years. Indeed, it may already have happened.As you say, we could go to war. Then there is something you call reparation, which I believe is actually repartition. I imagine that as a Maghera resident you realise that would leave you on the wrong side of the border and have no great enthusiasm for the concept.
As for a NI dominated by SF, I do not see that that has to happen. SF and the DUP are minority parties. Both of them will stay as such. The current electoral system is nearly unworkable and should be replaced by straight majority rule, at least as a default. A Nationalist majority does not entail a SF majority: to get over 50% on their side they will need to co-operate with the SDLP (and perhaps others) and this will give the SDLP a veto. But obviously, one of the great advantages that a UI can offer is the efficiency of having a single parliament for a single island, and that is what should be aimed for.
I know some of the romantics on slugger will suggest that unionists can be persuaded into a united Ireland.
Many Unionists, of the law-abiding sort, (i.e. Middle Class) will be persuaded by a majority vote in favour of a United Ireland. Many, for all we know, may not. Could any be persuaded in advance of a majority vote for a UI? It seems some can. The number is not high, but in a vote it could be crucial. Even if a small number of Unionists can be persuaded to abstain in any vote on reunificationary measures, on the grounds that they would merely be prolonging the agony by doing otherwise, that could help swing it.
their best option would be to be as obstructive and non violently difficult as possible.
One might ask, when have they ever been anything else? Except when they have been violently difficult.
Perhaps a retreat into exclusive religion is in order. The Book “The Experience of Defeat” by Christopher Hill chronicles the way the defeated Parliamentarians after the Restoration reinvented themselves as pacifist Quakers and the like. In NI we have the Reformed Presbyterians, who are unreconstructed covenanters and will have no truck with the Satanic state, even refraining from voting. The Exclusive Brethren, who are actually an Irish Protestant creation, might suit.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:30 PMPaddyReilly,
Thank you for pointing out spelling mistake. I noticed taht yet forgot to change it. Have done nowPosted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:41 PMPaddyReilly
The current electoral system is nearly unworkable and should be replaced by straight majority rule, at least as a default
What great idea. That worked so well under the old stormont. Why has nobody come up with this idea before? How stupid were we all?
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:54 PMOnce again Turgon your views on the options appear politically vacuous. Protest as an end in itself.
Political Unionism’s biggest problem is that it reads into SF far too much and that style of republicanism brings out the worst in unionism; but this reaction is always beneficial to SF, in particular SF tends to become more electorally attractive to nationalists as a result.
For unionists I would simple say ignore SF subcultural politics and focus elsewhere for a truer more respectable interpretation. As for SF trying to remove emblems and so on, there are ways and means to protect all identities that should ensure no one’s heritage is strangled to extinction. But when unionism is driven to its worst levels of thought it always fails to see a political way out as it is consumed in its own peculiar sense of anguish.
Re the Republic being specifically socio-economic policy driven, yes, it is now, but look at the creation of its nation-state which was built on cultural distinctiveness to that of Britishness. Northern Ireland remains under strain to respond to cultural changes in order to draw in recognition across the region, whereas the republic consolidated this back in the early 20th Century.
So for Unionists in return they would seek a sense of place in Dublin just like nationalists want from Stormont in Belfast. Let’s get to work on that among many other issues.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:54 PMTurgon,
Do yourself a favour and google Éire Nua.
Posted by Mark McGregor on Mar 20, 2008 @ 10:10 PM
I have seen this document years ago. Would you not agree it is unworkable rubbish and will lead to too many politicians. Each province having an assembly would be too much. Where was the capital again? I think it was somewhere silly.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:56 PMThere is one other option for ruling a United Ireland that I think should be discussed. That is the creation of certain, hopefully small, autonomous areas, in which Unionist ideology could prevail. I have called them reservations, but some commentators have said that the term is patronising. One could call them Autonomous Oblasts, but that might be too communistic. Perhaps they might be classed as National Parks. They would be the equivalent of the already existing Gaeltachts: special cultural areas where conditions that are at variance with the county at large would prevail. A few villages round Scarvagh could be one. Unionists who are obliged to live in Fenian dominated towns for economic reasons could retire to these special enclaves in order to recuperate their ancestral preoccupations.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:00 AMTurgon,
Sometimes you seem to wear your unionism as a gay-prider does his sexuality.
Is it just a matter of identity or do you have some positive reasons for opposing all-island merger?
What are your top three reasons for maintaining two parliaments on a little english-speaking island of 6M people?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:02 AMTurgon, sometime you have a roughness of money and time take an extended trip through the Free State and talk to the man/woman in the street and boreen. There are more cults and weirdo religious sects there than you can count. This is a state where everything and anything is accepted - for better or worse. You people will feel right at home in a United Ireland.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:03 AMPaddy,
How about calling them county or borough councils?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:08 AMWhat great idea. That worked so well under the old stormont. Why has nobody come up with this idea before
Well the old Stormont had a built-in, apparently unassailable Unionist majority. That is no longer the case. If Unionists lose one seat they lose their majority, if two they are a minority. And that is counting the PUP, a party which professes to believe in power-sharing, as Unionist.
Equally, it will be some time before there is a Nationalist majority in Stormont. So conditions exist for a voluntary coalition.
Obviously the sudden Unionist conversion to the cause of minority rights was caused by their realisation that they were about to become a minority.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:09 AM“That is the creation of certain, hopefully small, autonomous areas, in which Unionist ideology could prevail”
FFS what is wrong with Ireland accepting that it would have to progress faster into become more multi-cultural within the State/public sphere, if upon any unification. That is the price to be paid. Can Ireland reflect that or can its advocates, otherwise who is it now running into the culture-protectionism-cum-republican-safety-zone.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:09 AMTurgon,
There is another option and that may be to accept the will of the electorate and what they vote for. This does not mean you have to indulge in rejectionist politics. How about some real policies in regards the economy or the health service. Use the increased mandate a Unionist party would have in an ALL-Ireland Parliament. If the greens can get ministers anybody can. Look after the communities that the parties represent. Ask for more funding for the 12th. Attack the prime role of the catholic church in state education. What i am saying is embrace politics for the good of all rather than how you can beat nationalists. Politics should look towards the economy and creating a better place not at how you can damage others.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:10 AMPaddyReilly,
My point was we could not have a goverment in the north for say 4 years which worked for a unionist agenda then maybe a swing in seats will cause the next four years to work for a purely nationalist agenda. I would love to believe that these majorities will respect the other communities as they should but i have no faith in the DUP or Sinn Fein to do this. That is why we need the current system if any.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:17 AMAs for SF trying to remove emblems and so on
This I take it is a reference to Limavady. But SF do not have a majority in Limavady. The fact is that the SDLP also wanted the emblems removed. I imagine that the reason for blaming SF for the campaign is that you can then dismiss them as terrorists, whereas you would have to come up with some other excuse for the SDLP.
FFS what is wrong with Ireland accepting that it would have to progress faster into become more multi-cultural within the State/public sphere, if upon any unification.
Maybe Unionists don’t want multiculturalism. Perhaps they want monoculturalism, in a limited area.
How about calling them county or borough councils?
Well Jaffa, there aren’t any counties in NI with an overwheming Protestant population. Curiously though, in towns where there is an enormous Protestant majority, such as your own beloved Bangor, the inhabitants often lack the fanaticism found in smaller enclaves.
The idea of having National Parks or whatever of this sort is to create a 100% Orange Protestant Unionist environment for nostalgic reasons without annoying the non Orangist majority, or creating too much of an impediment to the free movement of labour, which is one of the keystones of the European Union and economic prosperity.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:27 AM“Perhaps they want monoculturalism, in a limited area.”
Unlikely, as civic-mindedness is in the psyche of Unionism and that would need to be reflected throughout each level of any new political institutions / governmental arrangements. Not just cut out and debarred at a higher political level
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:37 AMMy point was we could not have a goverment in the north for say 4 years which worked for a unionist agenda then maybe a swing in seats will cause the next four years to work for a purely nationalist agenda
I find it hard to make sense out of this sentence. My point is that the next election, be it 4 years hence or next month, will deliver an Assembly in which both Unionists and Nationalists are a minority, the balance of power being held by others. By the time that Nationalists constitute a majority, conditions will be such that a United Ireland will be posssible, even inevitable.
So for the rest of Stormont’s life, it will not be under the thumb of either the Unionist or the Nationalist block. So a voluntary coalition should be possible.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:39 AMWe tried a couple of those in Bangor already Paddy.
We filled them up with happy souls from Belfast and called them Kilcooley and Breezemount.
I’m not sure they worked too well though.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:39 AM
