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 @ 09:35 PM
Unlikely, as civic-mindedness is in the psyche of Unionism
How do you reconcile this statement with Turgon’s 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?
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:46 PMTurgon, that is frightening. Not because (assuming the hypothesis) of it genius, but because of the inevitable violence it would lead to - and, if you are honest with yourself, the violence that you are actually proposing. Do you really think that you can encourage a general strike and not have the wide-scale sectarian violence that would follow in such a circumstance? It would be a pressure cooker: an imminent united Ireland and unionist leaders shouting “Never! Never! Never!”? What it would be would be mayhem and murder - a return to rioting and bombing on an anarchic scale - and, being honest with yourself, that would be the leverage to whatever ‘negotiations’ would follow.
But what leverage would it afford? A majority in favour of a united Ireland in Northern Ireland, spiteful, vengeful and angered at the violence that you unleashed. An ideologically commitment in the Republic, and don’t fool yourself that our “hate” for you would do much to diminish that. The British government and people traditionally supportive of a united Ireland and more happy than ever to jettison you given the return to violence that you propose. And what would you expect to gain? To keep Northern Ireland? Stay in a minority on the island and in Northern Ireland, which presumably would become a satellite of Dublin? Lose-lose situation for you.
Turgon, never negotiate when at your weakest. Negotiate when at your strongest. If we accept that a united Ireland (in what ever form) is inevitable, which is what you have asked us to do, then that is now. With each proverbial second that passes, and as you move closer in time when a united Ireland is imminent, you lose your negotiating power - and the only leverage that you have is the violence that you propose. That will end in failure and total loss for you.
On the other hand, if you negotiate now. You could secure a strong and permanent Northern Ireland of equal status to the southern state. You could secure whatever cultural and political rights for Ulster protestants you like - for example privileges specifically for Northern protestants in the southern jurisdiction not reciprocated in the North. You could demand permanent cultural, citizen and political rights for Northern Ireland in relation to the UK. Heck, I’d say you could even get the Queen back across the whole of Ireland, if you liked.
But, best of all, you could remove the impetus for a “genuine” united Ireland for good. Yes, you’ll have a few lunatic fringe people harking back to some dream of an “Irish Republic” - some fantasy rebellion that never came to much early last century - but for most people the ideological impetus for a united Ireland would be so deflated that it would simply vanish. By exploiting the nationalist narrative of Irish history, and telling them that it was complete, in fact, you could arrest it.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2008 @ 11:52 PM“Unlikely, as civic-mindedness is in the psyche of Unionism...How do you reconcile this statement with Turgon’s 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?”
I think you’re maybe getting mixed up by equating civic-mindedness with pigheadedness.
Unionism, in my opinion, would not accept certain cultural zones as it has in its ideology a desire for representation at every level of political life. Democratic institutions are everything to unionism, not some cultural-cum-quasi-political redoubt.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:01 AMPaddy,
Another thought re enclaves.
Thanks to the motorway improvements and the Port tunnel it’s now easier than ever to live an entirely unchallenged west-Brit existence in an Ireland composed only of North Down, the better bits of Belfast, Georgian Dublin, Ballsbridge and Landsdowne Road - without the most cursory nod to the boggy hinterland or the scruffy Northside.
No need for enclaves. Polite ignorance could work just as well.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:09 AMi think a more realistic idea is for Britain to reclaim the Republic of Ireland back as part of the United Kingdom and in that way we have a United country.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:23 AMTruth & Justice,
“i think a more realistic idea is for Britain to reclaim the Republic of Ireland back as part of the United Kingdom and in that way we have a United country.”
Since neither the United Kingdom nor the Republic want this, I don’t see how “realistic” it is.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:39 AMProbably as realistic as annulling the Ne Temere decree.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:42 AMWhat would happen if a unionist was found guilty of an offence by the courts in a united Ireland if he/she mantained their britisness and held a british passport. Could they be deported to britain.
One bad marching season with a bit of trouble and there may be no unionists left about the place.
Sure im only messing.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:57 AM-
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:03 AM
Oh I was referencing Wiki where mentioned was made that Canon Law still seemed to be inextricably linked to that of the state with legislative repercussions:
‘The use of the decree to extract commitments in mixed marriages led to enforcement in Republic of Ireland courts such as the Tilson v. Tilson judgement where Judge Gavan Duffy said
“In my opinion, an order of the court designed to secure the fulfilment of an agreement peremptorily required before a mixed marriage by the Church, whose special position in Ireland is officially recognised as the guardian of the faith of the Catholic spouse, cannot be withheld on any ground of public policy by the very State which pays homage to that Church.” Irish Law Times Report LXXXVI 1952, pages 49-73
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:18 AM...the continued *application* of Ne Temere has been used as a justification for continuation of the provisions of the UK’s Act of Settlement 1701.
Is that stance annulled Oilifear? If it is happy fucking days!
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:25 AMDC, dunno. I had never heard of that ruling. I wonder what its status is now that the “special position” has been removed?
My understanding of Ne Temere was that it was voluntary for the non-RC partner (though we all know that the social pressures must have been great, if not unbearable, in the past). Does the ruling mean that the judiciary regarded it as a kind of ‘automatic prenuptial’? “If you get married in a Catholic church, you play by the Catholic rules”, so to speak?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:35 AMDC, RE: @ 01:25 AM - dunno again
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:38 AM“If you get married in a Catholic church, you play by the Catholic rules”, so to speak?”
Well the state service provision apparatus both in terms of Church and thus education would debar the growth of Protestantism, or at least consensual Protestantism, especially if Catholicism is the only real norm and particularly with that legislative provision still in place.
Interesting, but Ireland has come a long way and I am proud of the progress made if indeed that particular decree is now without any contemporary relevance.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:43 AMFrom Steve: “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”
As someone from the P/U/L side of the house, I have to say I have no problem with that whatsoever. It would be a great step towards the shared space some of us crave.
But (re: recent issues) I do have to ask - was commemoration of Ms Farrell the best, shining-light example of Irish symbols that they could come up with...?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:44 AMThese threads are always instructive.
I’ve just learned that as a Unionist I’ve never had any real interest in minority rights, and that as a working class Unionist I have no commitment to the rule of law.
Thanks for enlightening me, where can I sign up to be a minority in a country full of people who think like this?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 03:04 AMThe best way that Unionists can make Sein Fein and the likes of them go away (or make them insignificant), is to integrate with the Republic of Ireland.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 04:58 AMOn the other hand, if you negotiate now. You could secure a strong and permanent Northern Ireland of equal status to the southern state. You could secure whatever cultural and political rights for Ulster protestants you like
Unlikely. It has to be remembered that Ireland is comitted to democratic institutions and majority rule. So any supposed benefit for Unionists obtained while Unionists were in a majority in a particular area would have to be abolished when they were no longer so. This happened with the TCD seat in Seanad Eireann already.
One has also to ask, what cultural and political rights Unionists would get that are not already guaranteed them by Ireland’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights? And what would make Unionists happy, apart from the Union?
Furthermore, in the unlikely event of Turgon taking up your offer to negotiate on behalf of his fellow Unionists, would he not end up with more knives in his back than Julius Caesar?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 06:29 AMJaffa
I think we can distinguish between the West Brit mentality, which can flourish in Ireland or indeed France without any institutions to protect it, and something a bit more rural and less bourgeois with a heavy emphasis on Orangism.
I was not proposing enclaves, in the sense of Gibraltar or Ceuta: I was proposing something more like a Gaeltacht, but with the opposite cultural content. But this was only a proposal for discussion, not a demand.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 06:48 AMNo more Gaeltachtii, no more sectarian ghettoes.
Ireland is already uniting under the banner of free enterprise, private consumerism, and capitalism denominated in global English. The Irish catholic usurpation of the atheist liberal revolutions of 1969 has failed, big house unionism has collapsed, and Orangism is for too many bitter losers who neither respect themselves nor others.
Abstract thought is anathema to Unionists, but if they troubled themselves to define their core values, they should find this self-reliant island of liberal values very congenial. They should remember that Unionism only existed to make English imperial domination of the provinces palatable. Downsized states don’t do imperial glory and allegiance, so when it comes to civic duty, it pays to pick and mix.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 07:59 AMTurgon
>>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.<<
Are you a pacifist, or just war weary?
>>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.<<
I know Paddy has beat me to the punch here, but would anyone notice the difference, perhaps if pigs could fly and the violence was not part of the protests.
>>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<<
Just remember the reputation that the Boers earned in those last days of apartheid. Are there really Unionists stupid enough to travel this path? You would have no friends, no-one would listen to you, even the most xenophobic Tory types would stop returning your calls, totally unworkable strategy.
>>That might well produce many more concessions than civil negotiations prior to that.<<
I’d have to ask, in a united Ireland just what kind of extra concessions would you look for. And really would they(whatever they are) not just cause jealousy and unrest with the rest of the population?
I am surprised at the dearth of Unionist commentators here, a childish comment or two apart there has been no addition to Turgon’s candid points.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 08:25 AMA United Ireland will never occur unless a sizable section of the Unionist population gave atleast tacit support...and at the moment or for the foreseeable future this looks unlikely..
Republicans and Nationalists sometimes get bogged down in a victim culture which tends to justify every thing that has expired in the North over the last 40yrs without trying to understand or acknowledge the depth of hurt, fear, anger and isolation Unionist communities feel..
Not only attitudes must change but society itself, barriers between different communities need to be broken down, integration not only in education but in housing has to be addressed..
As to the Republic, it needs to make a greater effort to be more inclusive and cut what remaining ties or the back channels to power the Catholic church seems to always have access to…
Whether some like it or not there is a distinctive Northern identity and its time that Nationalists accepted that they are as much a part of it as the Unionist community…
If there is to be a serious debate on Irish Unity there ought not to be any holy cows and EVERYTHING should be up for debate and change..
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 08:42 AMPrince Eoghan : I’d have to ask, in a united Ireland just what kind of extra concessions would you look for.
GFA2, obviously.
Prince Eoghan : And really would they(whatever they are) not just cause jealousy and unrest with the rest of the population?
Ah yes - our current experience tells us that, at least.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 08:58 AMReader
>>GFA2, obviously.<<
Duh! *slaps head* obviously. kindly explain to an ignoramus like me just what this would entail, detailing any extra concessions.
>>Prince Eoghan : And really would they(whatever they are) not just cause jealousy and unrest with the rest of the population?
Ah yes - our current experience tells us that, at least.<<
Double duh!
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 09:01 AM“The best way that Unionists can make Sein Fein and the likes of them go away (or make them insignificant), is to integrate with the Republic of Ireland.
Posted by McGrath on Mar 21, 2008 @ 04:58 AM”
And the best way we can make criminals go away is to give them our credit cards, cash and car keys. And your next helpful suggestion?…
Turgon has hit the nail on the head. Hypothesising that a united Ireland is inevitable is classic self-deception by nationalists, and actually means Unionists don’t have to answer potentially hard questions about the second constant theme of nationalists- namely that we aren’t supposed to be interested in equality in Northern Ireland.
The one time they talked the talk- the Civil Rights movement- they blew it, even though there was a spectacularly inept Unionist government led by a chinless git who thought he ran a dominion . And this after real progress in appealing over his head to Westminster.It is surely self-evident that Unionists never get anything of substance by being compliant. The only time our community gets treated seriously is when it makes it clear that “up with this we will not put” and people back off or throw us a sweetenr to put the genie back in the bottle. I only regret that Jim Allister missed a trick when he named TUV. Ulster Scots, as usual, has the mot juste- we should have a THRAN Unionist Voice
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 09:42 AM
