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
Unionism is blessed........ahem........... with many such political thinkers as yourself Darth.
Isn’t it time another approach was even thought of?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 09:52 AMRaven
I think the commemoration of Farrel was a good idea it brought republican traditions to Storomont.Twinbrook 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..
Heres my whataboutery, what about republican hurt, fear, anger and isolation
Why is it that unionists think that only republicans have to change to suit them. both comunities have to move to the middle but it seems only republicans are willing to travel down this road.
When you join the republic they will do you a favour that your forefathers never extended to their catholic neighbours....... they will let you be just another ordinary citizen. nothing more, nothing less
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 09:53 AMWhat I see are Northern parties Unionist and Nationalist that would fit naturally in the likes of FF and FG...when it comes to social and economic concerns…
but who suffers and who gets screwed?
Working people.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 10:42 AMPrince Eoghan: Duh! *slaps head* obviously. kindly explain to an ignoramus like me just what this would entail, detailing any extra concessions.
Scarcely any changes required, other than than the revised baseline. The features that seem important to you will likewise be important to us. A devolved administration with power sharing, parity of esteem (I assume you are fully up to speed on the SF policy of ‘neutrality or equality’ within the 6 counties, for instance).
Nothing that need bother you in the slightest.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 10:50 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.”
Unionists oppose a united Ireland a wee bit more than they oppose Sinn Féin.
Do many Southerners hold this ridiculous belief.
As a nationalist I for one do not believe that there is anything inevitable about a united Ireland. For starters the threat of war would put a hell of alot of people off.
Secondly, many northerners like myself may oppose a united Ireland if it would damage Irelands political and cultural independence in the long term, ie Unionists would demand the extinction of Irish culture in any united Ireland, the free state establishment may well be happy to oblige.
I would rather live as an Irish man in the UK than as a West Brit in West Britland in the .... UK?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 11:31 AMPaddy,
“Unlikely. It has to be remembered that Ireland is comitted to democratic institutions and majority rule.”
The Republic is constitutionally committed to “democracy” (whatever that chamaeleon beast may be), not majority rule. Northern Ireland, 1922-72, was committed to democratic institutions and majority rule, I have no will for a united Ireland to operate in along similar lines.
“This happened with the TCD seat in Seanad Eireann already.”
Despite a positive referendum result in the mid-70s, the TCD (and the NUI) seats still remain in the Séanad. As a lowly non-TCD/NUI graduate myself, I have no upper-house franchise. (See “democracy” vs. “majority rule”.)
“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?”
Exactly the same questions could be posed to nationalists.
“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?”
That’s the way politics goes. Someone has to negotiate and someone has to take the fall. I can recall the story of one such man who said, in reply to his opposite number saying at the conclusion of comparable negotiation that he had signed his political death warrant, that he had signed his actual death warrant. Why would you think that it would be any different for Turgon?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 11:39 AMIf anyone wants to know whats happens Unionists in that Nirvana a republic of Ireland-- Simple Take the Old coach road From Derry down via Sligo,Galway Adair etc to say Killarney. Count the abandoned desecrated churchs (mostly COI) and graveyards (including tombstone removal)
No thanks-- stick your UI wher the sun dont shinePosted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 11:39 AMbarnshee:
“If anyone wants to know whats happens Unionists ... (mostly COI)”
CoI “unionists” like Seán O’Casey, Ivan Yates, Trevor Sargen, Howard Robinson, David Norris, Sam Maguire, Douglas Hyde, Chris de Burgh, Roger Casement, William Butler Yeats, etc. ... oh dear, it looks like someone is reading the south in terms of the north’s sectarianism.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 11:53 AM...and it was all going so well until you brought Yeats into it Oilifear.
What did he say about the institutions of the Free State and their welcome to the state’s protestants again? And he wasn’t a Unionist!
So… if your big point is that it was “only” the Protestant community which suffered decline- as distinct from the Unionist- how is that exactly meant to entice barnshee into a United Ireland?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:32 PMReader
Turgon - >>>>That might well produce many more concessions than civil negotiations prior to that.<<
PE - 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?<<
Reader - Scarcely any changes required, other than than the revised baseline.<<
So it would be fair to say no concessions will be required really in your opinion?, good! Can Turgon or any other Unionist enlighten me as to the kind of concessions that may be sought by themselves?
Mark
>>Secondly, many northerners like myself may oppose a united Ireland if it would damage Irelands political and cultural independence in the long term, ie Unionists would demand the extinction of Irish culture in any united Ireland, the free state establishment may well be happy to oblige.<<
Well if the Paddy’s day fiasco’s are anything to go by, this may not be a complete exaggeration.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:37 PMThat’s the way politics goes. Someone has to negotiate and someone has to take the fall.
Well, Oilifear, I imagine that if you attempt to force H.M. Frau Glucksburg down the throats of the entire population of Ireland you might find you have something in common with Michael Collins. I don’t see this is necessary: the Unionists have negotiated British citizenship for themselves, come what may, so they can commune with their monarch through this channel.
If ‘democracy’ is in conflict with majority rule, then it is majority rule that will win. It is possible to make just provision for minorities, but not to allow them to impose their ideology on the majority.
Here we must ask Turgon what he expects 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.
What is an Irish Government meant to do? Say to the nationalist parties, sorry, you are numerically superior but as the unionists are making more trouble we’re going to go with them? Might the nationalist camp not try the same game?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:40 PM<i>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.</b>
And when Allister appears to soft for some other group of crazies, what will we have, WTUV? Wile Thran Unionist Voice?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:40 PM>>Count the abandoned desecrated churchs (mostly COI) and graveyards (including tombstone removal)<<
Could be England or Australia you are on about, or remove COI and insert Presbyterian and it’s Scotland you are talking about.
>>how is that exactly meant to entice barnshee into a United Ireland?<<
I reckon it would be moderate Unionists who would be presented with the arguments for a UI. Those decidedly against it are hardly going to budge. I do not know where barnshee would stand.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 12:44 PM“What did he say about the institutions of the Free State and their welcome to the state’s protestants again?”
He said “we are not a petty people”!
Speak for yourself William.
Not sure if poor old Douglas Hyde’s such a good example either. One might say he was a non-contentious trophy prod who only gained the presidency by appointment - the hierarchy was clear that no-one should actually vote for him.
In fact Time Magazine said this on May 16 1938
“Into Dublin’s Department of Agriculture Building last week strode a 78-year-old, tall, erect, walrus-mustached Gaelic scholar. There, flanked by Eire Ministers, high court justices and Parliament leaders, this poet, playwright and author, Dr. Douglas Hyde by name, received from Civil Servant Wilfrid Brown formal notification in Gaelic that he had been elected first President of Eire. No vote-counting was necessary for Civil Servant Brown to reach this conclusion, for Dr. Hyde had been chosen by both Eamon de Valera’s Fianna Fail Party and William T. Cosgrave’s Opposition Party. He had been unopposed for the Presidential nomination.
After a pledge to do his best in office, a ride down Merrion Street to Government buildings, a lunch with Prime Minister de Valera, the President-elect, nicknamed by Gaelic enthusiasts as An Craoibhin Aoibhinn ("the delightful little branch") after a line in one of his poems, went to inspect what will be his official home after he takes office on June 1. The granite viceregal lodge, seat of hated British power in old Ireland, resembling Washington’s White House, situated in wooded, spacious Phoenix Park, will now be known as Arus an Uachtarian ("President’s Residence").
Chief among Dr. Hyde’s Presidential qualifications are: 1) He is old and normally would not serve more than his first term, thereby leaving room for some younger man—like Prime Minister de Valera—to take his place seven years hence; 2) he is a Protestant and as a Protestant President of an overwhelmingly Catholic country may help to persuade the 1,290,000 inhabitants of stubbornly independent, strongly Protestant Northern Ireland that in a political union with Eire (strongly urged by de Valera) no Protestant would have anything to fear; 3) although an Irish nationalist, he is a “nonpolitical figure” and just the kind of non-controversial head of state that a country intermittently rocked by violent political quarrels needs. Son of a rector of County Roscommon, Dr. Hyde’s academic fame rests on his work for the revival of the Irish language as president of the Gaelic League, on his collections of Celtic folklore and on his authorship of Twisting of the Rope, first Gaelic play produced at Dublin’s famed Abbey Theater.
Long-standing differences between England and Eire seemed settled last week when Britain’s House of Commons endorsed without a vote Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s recent negotiations with Eire. Only opposition to Negotiator Chamberlain came from chubby, die-hard Tory Winston Churchill, who objected to withdrawal of British forces from the three Irish treaty ports of Cobh (Queenstown), Lough S willy and Bere Haven, who loudly wondered if Prime Minister de Valera was really a friend of England. But Negotiator Chamberlain called his Anglo-Irish bill an “act of faith,” admitted he had granted generous terms to Eire to gain her friendship. In Eire it was announced that Neville Chamberlain will spend a fishing holiday this summer in Galway—the first visit of a British Prime Minister to Ireland since 1916.”
Chubby diehard Winston Churchill!
Right about those ports though.
PS. If the abandonment of Anglican churches is down to repressive state/popular practices who’s picking on the Anglicans of England?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4187127.stm
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:22 PM“Well, Oilifear, I imagine that if you attempt to force H.M. Frau Glucksburg down the throats of the entire population of Ireland you might find you have something in common with Michael Collins.”
Yes, I was only batting out ideas - although do you really think H.M. Frau Glucksburg (or probably Herr. Glucksburg by then) is too ugly for Irish nationalism, even in exchange for a united Ireland?
Imagine this: a two statelet UI, effectively as is today, with a common executive and senate of some kind. Head of ‘state’ for each is at present, with courtesy extended to each so that, for example, the monarch can act of head of ‘state’ in the south in absence of the president and is always extended the same respect and privileges - and vice versa in the north. The overall head of state is jointly the president and the monarch with assent to common law, international agreements, etc. requiring the assent of both. Ignoring all the other flaws in this idea, is it the British monarch so offensive to the nationalist psyche that we would rather turn down a united Ireland than accept him/her?
“If ‘democracy’ is in conflict with majority rule, then it is majority rule that will win.”
Good will always win out, eh? Hmmm ... I wonder how that fits into the tendency for victors to tell history.
“What is an Irish Government meant to do?”
Or a British one? Or the international community? Turgon’s entire premise is bunk and a recipe for disaster IMHO.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:24 PM“Well, Oilifear, I imagine that if you attempt to force H.M. Frau Glucksburg down the throats of the entire population of Ireland you might find you have something in common with Michael Collins.”
Yes, I was only batting out ideas - although do you really think H.M. Frau Glucksburg (or probably Herr. Glucksburg by then) is too ugly for Irish nationalism, even in exchange for a united Ireland?
Imagine this: a two statelet UI, effectively as is today, with a common executive and senate of some kind. Head of ‘state’ for each is at present, with courtesy extended to each so that, for example, the monarch can act of head of ‘state’ in the south in absence of the president and is always extended the same respect and privileges - and vice versa in the north. The overall head of state is jointly the president and the monarch with assent to common law, international agreements, etc. requiring the assent of both. Ignoring all the other flaws in this idea, is it the British monarch so offensive to the nationalist psyche that we would rather turn down a united Ireland than accept him/her? (And think hard about it, e.g. imagine the Queen - with a capital Q as she would expect - inspecting the line-out at the all-Ireland football and hurling finals, handing out medals and presumably speaking the cúpla focail, which I doubt she would have any trouble in bringing herself to utter.)
“If ‘democracy’ is in conflict with majority rule, then it is majority rule that will win.”
Good will always win out, eh? Hmmm ... I wonder how that fits into the tendency for victors to tell history.
“What is an Irish Government meant to do?”
Or a British one? Or the international community? Turgon’s entire premise is bunk and a recipe for disaster IMHO.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:26 PM“… the hierarchy was clear that no-one should actually vote for him.”
Really? The Time article (thanks for that) doesn’t mention it, only that he was a “unopposed” (so too were Seán T. O’Kelly, Patrick Hillery and Mary McAleese, albeit in their second terms).
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:43 PMTurgon,
Your plan has already worked! I don’t hate you but I do find you unpleasant enough not to want to share a country with you!
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:52 PMIs the British monarch so offensive to the nationalist psyche that we would rather turn down a united Ireland than accept him/her?
Well the Unionist people, led by Turgon, are not going to be demanding entry to a United Ireland on condition of it being turned into a monarchy so the question does not arise. But I ask you, a considerable portion of the population of the Dordogne are now English, should the French not be considering HM as a head of state as well?
I think we have to establish from the outset that the tail does not wag the dog. The Ulster Protestants are one seventh of Ireland’s population. They may reasonably demand that the other six parts do not force their ideology on them, but they cannot expect that they are going to dictate what the 6/7ths do. It would be like the Welsh demanding that the English be forced to learn Welsh as a condition of a United Britain.
We might also be getting into the Bloody Sunday syndrome. It turns out Martin McG never wanted an enquiry in the first place. What if the Protestant population of the new United Ireland finds that it couldn’t give a flying whatever about the British monarchy?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 01:58 PM““… the hierarchy was clear that no-one should actually vote for him.”
Really? The Time article (thanks for that) doesn’t mention it, only that he was a “unopposed” (so too were Seán T. O’Kelly, Patrick Hillery and Mary McAleese, albeit in their second terms).”
From old faithful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hyde
“Hyde had no association with Sinn Féin and the Independence movement. He did, however, accept appointment to Seanad Éireann, the upper house of the Irish Free State’s Oireachtas (parliament) from his friend, the President of the Executive Council W. T. Cosgrave, after the creation of the new state.
However, his tenure was shortlived. In November 1925, the house moved from being an appointed to an elected body. Hyde contested the election, which was based on one state-wide constituency, but a smear by a far right-wing organisation, the Catholic Truth Society of Ireland, based on his supposed support for divorce (in fact he was anti-divorce) and his Protestantism, and promoted by the CTS secretary in the letters column of the Irish Independent, fatally damaged his chances and he lost his seat.
He returned to academia, as Professor of Irish at University College Dublin, where one of his students was future Attorney-General and President of Ireland, Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh.”
Which begs the question - how much did the CTS ("publisher to the Holy See") position reflect the standing of the hierarchy?
From the “Catholic Encyclopedia”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15077a.htm
“The society has the cordial approval and support of the highest ecclesiastical authorities, and is indulgenced by the Holy See. The movement has spread to Ireland, Scotland, the United States, and Australia. In addition to its literary work, for seventeen years the society held an annual Catholic conference, which formed an important event in English Catholic life. These gatherings, always largely attended by representative clergy and laity, were the occasion of important pronouncements by the archbishop or by other bishops, and afforded an opportunity for the elucidation and discussion of matters affecting the work and welfare of the Church...”
Quite a bit maybe?
Bothersome control-freak, producer-interest-conflicted, closed-shopping clerics.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 02:04 PMTurgon,
‘Firstly we could go to war. Most regular slugger readers will realise --- I will make no further reference to it.’
Just because I agree with you that in the case of NI- war would be wrong this does not mean it cannot happen . The fact that war or whatever you want to call it, has been endemic in NI for half that States existence means that it cannot be written off as a possibility. New adverse circumstances in a situation of increasing uncertainty could spark another ‘conflict’. What’s needed to prevent such happening within Ireland is a strong democracy . I don’t see the present NI Assembly as a ‘strong’democracy .
‘Secondly is the repartition argument’
I won’t go into any detail either here but I disagree with your ‘inevitably’. My figures showed the the new Unionist minority in an enlarged Republic would make up about 3% of the total ROI population, and Nationalists in a smaller Northern Ireland about 10% of the total. Neither percentage would be large enough to threaten majority rule . Each would be large enough to perhaps influence the make up of voluntary coalition governments .HMG and the Irish Government have drawn up contingency plans for the possibility of repartition.
On some other points:
‘’Having a separate Belfast assembly ‘
More important from the point of view of most nationally minded people in the Republic would be the view that Ireland is too small a country for more than one Parliament. Unionist cultural /religious /ethnic sensitivies etc could be accommodated in the Senate .
‘Hence, if is was becoming more and more likely that there would be a united Ireland the Dublin government -chaos etc. ‘
In theory yes . In practice it would make repartition look a better and more affordabl ‘permanent’ solution . If you project say 20 years ahead and ‘assume’ a continuing growing economic differential between the Republic and NI (given the present limited economic powers of the NI Assembly ) chances are that by then NI will rate even lower down on the Southern voter’s priority list than it does now . Despite all the Paisley /Ahern hype it is ‘low ‘ down now with voters hoping it will be even lower down in the future .
‘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 strategy omits one major consideration . We are no longer in the 19th century but in the early 21st. Even if human nature has not changed much since then -communications and technolgy and information etc have changed enormously. You can’t fight the wars of the 21st century with 19th century weapons :) Well you can but don’t expect to win.
‘“No you do not understand, the more you hate us the less likely you are to want to take us over”.—but there is a grain of truth in there.’
A grain of truth yes but a whole wheatfield of youthful naivety . A good strategy if Northern Ireland had been 100% Unionist. However in an NI with a Nationalist demographic of 40% and even higher today this ‘hate’ game is like playing russian roulette with 3 bullets in the chamber instead of 1 . To put it at it’s crudest people from the Republic had/have no real problem with Unionists hating Nationalists a little . After all the same applies/applied in reverse . But there is an ill defined line in ‘hatred’ not all of it violence related, which unfortunately some unionists did cross and this provoked the response which led to the downward spiral which NI is now trying to reverse .
Overall I tend to agree with your assessment re unionist thinking . IMO there will only be a UI if and when there is an NI nationalist majority . But I do agree with one commentator that Unionists willingly voting themselves into a UI would give the Unionist community a lot more leverage than Unionists being dragooned into a UI in a referendum which they lose by 51% to 49%.
That kind of result would imprint all Northern ‘Unionists’ ironically with the tag of being ‘disloyal’. Similar no doubt to the traditional Unionist view of regarding all Northern Nationalists as ‘disloyal’.
In such circumstances i.e 51% to 49% vote the probability is that a large number of Northern Unionists would leave NI thus reducing their numbers even further . If the result were 70/75% for a UI and 25/30% against then in those circumstances it would be seen that a large section of the Unionist community were ‘positive’ about their political future on this island and fewer would leave .
None of us can however predict the future and a UI is not inevitable. And never underestimate the power of inertia or economics.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 02:55 PMPrince Eoghan: So it would be fair to say no concessions will be required really in your opinion?, good!
No further concessions from you, if you will explicitly confirm your implication that you will stand by power sharing in a devolved assembly, and parity of esteem based on ‘neutrality or equality’ - even *after* you get a United Ireland.
Or did you misread me?
If we will get what nationalists eventually got, we will not have to try what nationalists tried, to get that level of parity (You know: abstentionism, passive resistance, rent strikes, protest, negotiation)
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 03:08 PM“And when Allister appears to soft for some other group of crazies, what will we have, WTUV? Wile Thran Unionist Voice?”
RG Cuan you are linguistically illiterate
surely you know the term is BATUV- Brave and Thran Unionist Voice
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 03:54 PM“many northerners like myself may oppose a united Ireland if it would damage Irelands political and cultural independence in the long term, ie Unionists would demand the extinction of Irish culture in any united Ireland, the free state establishment may well be happy to oblige.”
Setting aside the issue of Unionists’ voting strength, it looks like someone wants to put limits on the onward march of the nation, or perhaps to have a UI with some wee preconditions. e.g. Have Unionists learn Irish first perhaps?
Is Irish culture only safe when split by a British border?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 03:57 PM“No you do not understand, the more you hate us the less likely you are to want to take us over”
I think this sums up unionism’s attitude to Catholics perfectly, except I would substitue “the less likely you are to want to take us over” for “the less likely we will be expected to treat you as equals”.
It’s the siege mentality that just keeps on giving. Aggravate the Taigs and then block any concessions towards equality by saying “look, they hate us. Why should we accomodate them?” And on it goes.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 04:23 PM
