Saturday, May 17, 2008
Unionism: pragmatism versus idealism
Alex Kane has a very interesting piece on the Newsletter website this week. It is a book review of Frank Millar’s book on Trimble and David Vance’s book “Unionism Decayed.” The whole article is well worth reading but one paragraph in particular stood out for me:
“What they document is the clash between pragmatic unionism (which can be summed up as making the best of unpleasant political realities) and moral high-ground unionism (the view that almost anything is better than terrorist appeasement). The pragmatists have carried the day, so far. Yet, to be brutally honest, I acknowledge that as a matter of fact, rather than as a matter of pride.”
Although I am extremely reticent to claim the high moral ground for an anti agreement unionist position, as that ground is very likely to be found to be a high horse instead; Kane encapsulates the dilemma which many unionists may feel over the current dispensation. Many unionists who support the agreement do so with a heavy heart, there are still massive misgivings regarding the current process. Incidentally I am sure this position is mirrored within nationalism / republicanism.
Supporters of the agreement (or maybe acceptors would be a better term for many of them?) will often assent to all the criticisms made of the current agreement and then, with varying degrees of unhappiness, say that they still support it. Even here on slugger we have self proclaimed unionists from positions as disparate as Jo to Bigger Picture and many, many in between clearly not delighted by what has happened but willing to accept it for varying reasons but essentially either because it was a necessary price to end the conflict and / or because it was better than the alternatives.
Whilst I do not in any way impugn the moral rectitude of those who make this argument, I would submit that this is a very flawed approach and one which is not going to help build a civic society here. The lack of an alternative is also a very valid criticism albeit one which Jim Allister has begun trying to address.
Alex Kane’s last comment is also extremely valid and on it (as well as other issues) may depend the future of the agreement, the UUP, DUP and the TUV: “The electoral strength of the TUV… has yet to be properly gauged; but I’m increasingly of the opinion that it is much stronger than any of us think.” Then again of course I want to believe that.
Turgon @ 09:16 AM
Nevin,
... there might well have been a very different outcome had my shared sovereignty proposal been on offer
Nonsense. There is no way that the unionist parties would have accepted that. I doubt if you could trawl up any links to statements by leading uniionists at the time that supported JS.
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 10:41 AMI have heard on the grapevine that Ireland may be considering haveing serious discussions about rejoining the Commonwealth.
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/subhomepage/151236/
The Commonwealth is an association of 53 independent states consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace. The Commonwealth’s 2 billion citizens, about 30 per cent of the world’s population, are drawn from the broadest range of faiths, races, cultures and traditions.
The association does not have a written constitution, but it does have a series of agreements setting out its beliefs and objectives. These Declarations or Statements were issued at various Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. The first, fundamental statement of core beliefs is the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles which was issued at the 1971 summit in Singapore. Among other things, it stresses the need to foster international peace and security; democracy; liberty of the individual and equal rights for all; the importance of eradicating poverty, ignorance and disease; and it opposes all forms of racial discrimination.
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 10:47 AMReticent as I am to dip another toe into the Commonwealth debate....
what grapevine?
Greenflag
Andorra’s not NI?
Pandora maybe?
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 11:46 AMNevin ,
‘ I think there might well have been a very different outcome had my shared sovereignty proposal been on offer. ‘
You might think that Nevin but the historical record of Unionist political preference shows otherwise .(dates are approximates) It’s the overall trend that’s relevant.
1920 - 1972 : Unionist one party rule - no power sharing - negligible opposition - No mention of JS or anything like it.
1972-1974 : No power sharing - No Sunningdale - No Stormont - No-No -No to SDLP. again no mention of JS.
1974- 1990:
No to Anglo Irish Agreement - No to cross border contacts - Unionist leader Molyneaux spends best part of two decades trying to ‘integrate’ NI into Westminster a la Tunbridge Wells or Finchley. JS remains unheard of.
1990- 1998
No No No yes No No No No maybe No No No NO well yes if we must. Its a new day - GFA -hooray .
1998 -2007 -
Well that hooray was somewhat premature eh ? GFA falters amid several Assembly suspensions. Unionism divides as between the perhaps NO’s(UUP) and the definitive NO’s (DUP). After several elections the definitive No’s win by saying NO/YES even though they had previously shouted NO the most and loudest .
2008 - New world in the morning time -for now anyway . Ultra No’s (TUV )have now replaced definitively NO/YESES (DUP) among the Unionist baggage train .
‘ Isn’t hypocrisy a wonderful thing? ‘
It is indeed Nevin and it would appear that Unionists as per above have written not just the book of , but could justifiably claim encyclopedic rights on the subject :(
However when it comes to having to choose between the hypocrites and the zealots we humans tend to live longer by ignoring the latter and accepting the former despite their frailties!
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 11:51 AMjaffa ,
Andorra’s not NI?
Pandora maybe?
There is always ‘hope’ . Good analogy though. I would like to believe that all the ‘evils’ have been released and have fled from the NI box ( to continue the analogy) but one’s innate skepticism outweighs one’s hope as regards the longer tem political prospects for the NI State such that it is .
If I’m proved wrong I’ll be only too glad.
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 12:11 PMzoonpaul,
‘The association does not have a written constitution’
Any reason why ?
Nice words though -laudable aims -objectives etc etc . Sounds almost like the UN . If its twice as effective as the former it may even be half useful .
Heard it on the grapevine ?
Thanks for the site :)
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 12:20 PMI have no idea Greenflag as to why it has no written constitution. All i know is HM The Queen is the head of the Commmonwealth but that may change over time. Maybe not having a constitution reflects our own uncodified one. Maybe as its just a club none is needed. I am sure someone better enlightened will inform us ....
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 01:26 PMZoonpaul ,
The London Declaration of 1949 stated that the British monarch would be a symbol of the free association of independent countries, and as such the Head of the Commonwealth. These words meant that republics could be members - they could accept the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth without being their own Head of State. Thus when Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 she became Head of the Commonwealth.
Today the Queen is head of state in 16 of the 53 Commonwealth member countries, all of them fully independent in which – apart from the UK – she is represented by a governor-general.
When the Queen dies or if she abdicates, her heir will not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth. It will be up to the Commonwealth heads of government to decide what they want to do about this symbolic role.
Tradition dies hard eh . Perhaps when the Commonwealth elects a Republican as Head the Republic might feel better about joining up. Personnally I have no strong feelings either way and would rather the Republic joined NATO.
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 03:55 PMMaybe John O’Connor is the savior
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 04:02 PMI am in agreement with you Greenflag on the Commonwealth issue; however, I would suggest it is more likely Ireland would want to join the Commonwealth over NATO, as some may see it as biasing their neutrality if they joined the latter: turning peacekeepers vis-à-vis UN, into peace-enforcers vis-à-vis NATO. As you rightly pointed out the membership of the “club” is voluntary and as I now have time to read http://www.thecommonwealth.org/FAQs/20706/faqs/ it seems to me that Ireland has the right qualities to guide such an organisation: after all its changed from the 1940s!
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 05:09 PMHorseman and Greenflag, I said there would be pain for both traditional Unionists and Nationalists re. my ‘devolution under shared sovereignty plus merger of Strands 2 and 3’ proposals yet you seem oblivious to the pain to be endured by the latter. If you’re (still) a PD supporter, Greenflag, then I presume you’re a Nationalist?
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 06:43 PM“Nonsense. There is no way that the unionist parties would have accepted that.” - Horseman
Acceptance or rejection of a plan by political representatives of either community is only relevant if they are granted the discretionary option by the sovereign government. JA, by default, devolves power to two sovereign governments and not to the political representatives of either community. Ergo, it does not require the approval of either or both.
However, since the dynamic of the peace process was to offer a political alternative to the use of violence by murder gangs, that dynamic required a token parliament wherein the political representatives of the murder gangs could play politics instead of playing with guns, so that effectively ruled out the option of JA.
If that dynamic wasn’t in play then JA would be the optimum form of devolved administration.
Posted by on May 21, 2008 @ 09:05 PMUnder the terms of the EU Treaty (1992):
CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNION
Article 8
1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established.
Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.
Therefore be you Irish or me British we are all EU citizens and as such we all share the same ECHR & EC laws.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 10:03 AMNevin,
‘yet you seem oblivious to the pain to be endured by the latter. ‘
Eh ? Not oblivious it’s just that historically Irish nationalists have become somewhat inured against pain . No pain no gain as they say. We remember the etc etc etc . You know the drill and litany . There’s a similar if historically shorter one in the Unionist camp.
‘If you’re (still) a PD supporter, Greenflag, then I presume you’re a Nationalist?’
Guilty as charged re being a ‘nationalist’ although not overly so and always with a small n and a sense of humour about ‘national differences ‘ in general . I remain uncommitted to a 32 county Republic and would prefer as you know a 30 county Republic after a fair repartition of NI following the eventual collapse of the present NI Assembly. I don’t believe ‘unionism’ as a political ideology has anything to offer modern Ireland quite the contrary . I distinguish between ‘unionism’ as a political ideology and ‘unionists’ as individuals in this regard .
While I can and do respect the separate aspirations of the major parties within the Assembly to their ‘ideals’ of opposite constitutional objectives - I cannot see the present ‘arrangement’ working longer term but I accept that for now there is no possible alternative which would not risk a descent to further unnecessary chaos.
The Assembly is like a donkey with a head at one end and another head where there should be an arse . Each head will tend to move forward in the opposite direction thus progress in any direction will be minimal and can only be made by each head being allowed to go forward a step or two by the other head and then vice versa and so on ad infinitum. . Mr Robinson has I believe called this the ‘battle a day’. WWI and the trenches minus the body count .
My political party preference has moved away somewhat from the PDs and back to it’s FF roots but Mary Harney will always get a ‘vote’:)
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 12:35 PMDave ,
‘If that dynamic wasn’t in play then JA would be the optimum form of devolved administration.’
So you agree that Westminster would rather diminish it’s direct involvement in NI affairs and would prefer to shunt the province into an Irish republic ?
Token parliament is about right . But it’s better than nowt and there is of course the relative peace and a modicum of hope for a more tolerant future.
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 12:46 PM“Eh ? Not oblivious..”
Seemingly oblivious, Greenflag, since I referred to the pain for traditional Unionists and Nationalists ...
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 04:08 PMNevin
‘yet you seem oblivious to the pain to be endured by the latter.’
Latter I took as being a reference to ‘nationalists’. As for ‘unionist’ pain I would think ‘unionists’ would be far better able to comment on that than I.
A fair and agreed repartition is probably as close as it’s possible to get to a ‘democratic’ solution. In the absence of the best we can all hope for for NI is the kind of agreement which has been cobbled through and on which Mr Bush will pronounce his blessing a a couple of weeks or so .
Posted by on May 22, 2008 @ 07:59 PMTurgon “stable government is not achieved by a sectarian carve up creating a perpetually unstable statelet where unrepentant criminals have power”
Thats no way to describe the DUPPosted by on May 27, 2008 @ 02:07 AM
