Friday, April 11, 2008
United Ireland: work not quite in process…
Deaglán de Bréadún asks if 26 will ever become 32? (subs needed). Although he goes heavy on the caveats, even the formulation of the question hints at just one of many problems facing anyone wanting to build a politically unified Ireland. It implies an enthusiasm for expanding the Republic, that doesn’t currently exist in the southern polity. And as the first leader’s debate in last year’s southern election campaign indicated, the knowledge base amongst leading Northern Irish advocates of a united Ireland is lamentably poor.
de Bréadún:
Theoretically, if a relatively small percentage of unionists broke away from the consensus within their community and made common cause with the vast majority of their nationalist neighbours, a united Ireland would follow.
In practice, the majority for unity would have to be considerably greater than that (ideally, there would be a strong majority in both communities) and it would have to be clear that the dissident unionist minority would accept the referendum result in a democratic spirit and refrain from violence, or at least be incapable of perpetrating more than a token level of violence.
Incidentally, at the time of writing, the two main unionist parties occupy only 54 or precisely half of the 108 seats in the Assembly. The remainder is made up of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance as well as two Independents from the nationalist or republican “gene pool”, one Green and one Progressive Unionist. Given the continuance of the powersharing administration in the North, who knows how the unionist mindset might gradually start to shift and reassess the constitutional position? The functioning and performance of the North-South bodies could have a major influence in this regard.
The most obvious caveat to this is that whilst unionist turn out at elections is generally lower than those of nationalists, when there is a large set piece, such as the 1998 referendum it’s probably wise to add the odd 100,000-150,000 on the usual number. The other problem lies with northern Irish nationalism. Whilst there is no doubt that it has suffered political humiliation over the years, it is also clear that through the years of the troubles this has hardened into form of cultural contempt for unionists and unionist culture.
It makes Gerry Adams statement yesterday:
“We accept that we have to persuade the unionists of the merits of that. After all it is incumbent on us who have a republican view of the future in which citizens are sovereign to ensure that those citizens who are currently unionists have a sense of shaping that future, a real involvement in it.”
Except, there is little sign that this (post peace) process has as yet taken on much substance. In the past there is little doubt that Sinn Fein’s outreach has pre-dated any significant move in the other direction. But it has had little effect other than hardening unionist attitudes. Residual nationalist attitudes in Northern Ireland’s largest nationalist city Derry, still focus unremittingly on the democratic up to and including 1969, with little reference to the massive population shifts that took place in the 1970s and 1980s.
The growing bond between north and south is economic, rather than political. Farmers in the in south and west sell increasing amounts of their milk yield in the Republic. The Fivemiletown Creamery gained access to a high level retail market in Paris of all places, partly through the good offices of the southern government.
Critically all of the positives are genuine trust building exercises. There is no politics, directly, involved. Yet, as Frank Millar notes in the last lines of unionism in the newest edition of his book on Trimble, “they need not “expect Irish Republicans and nationalists to take and sustain the cross community initiatives necessary to stabilise and secure Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom”. Northern Irish nationalism, if it is serious about eventual unification, needs to find its own ways around the polarisation of the last forty years.
To do that, it needs more than fine or pretentious words. It needs to demonstrate its intentions with positive and visible actions.
Mick Fealty @ 03:07 PM
The Troubles heightened and hardened mistrust by Unionists of Nationalists and vice versa. Although it’s ten years since Good Friday, there have been numerous setbacks in that time. The efforts by Nationalist politicians to appeal to a broader spectrum have been limited precisely because the wounds of the Troubles are still fresh. Both communities need time to let the waters settle and allow this new political era to take shape; in time people will become more open to listening to what the other side has to say as they become more embedded in the day to day running of the place. Anything rushed would be a mistake and serve no good for the furtherance of Nationalism.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 04:42 PMMick
I clicked on David Trimble’s book advertised on your site and was dumbfounded to hear Amazon describe Mr Trimble as The PRINCE of Peace. Is this a Freudian slip on the part of the author’s marketing team? Or do they know something that I should know, and put on my website.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 05:02 PMI think the best nationalists can hope for is a de facto confederal arrangement rather than any de iure transfer of sovereignty. The problem is that the reasons nationalists want re-unification is precisely the reasons why unionists do not want it.
Most nationalists wanted a united Ireland long before the Celtic Tiger and therefore to unionist ears, talk about the economic power of a 32-county state is empty noise. They suspect, and I think rightly, that nationalists want a united Ireland not for economic reasons but in effect for cultural reasons, that is that they feel a sense of otherness, or some way off from full Irishness, without a united Ireland.
If that is the reason, then unionists remain difficult to persuade. If it is for economic reasons, then unionists are entitled to ask what the reasons were before 1990. Because then, as Jimmy says in the Committments, Ireland was a third-world country.Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 05:08 PMIf you couple favourable fenian demographics with a swathe of southern facing middle class prods then that might well do the trick in Non Iron. No government in the south could be seen to be preventing the return of the prodigal province after it has finished sowing its wild oats with the ageing and increasigly less attractive Britannia.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 05:40 PMNorton,
“They suspect, and I think rightly, that nationalists want a united Ireland not for economic reasons but in effect for cultural reasons, that is that they feel a sense of otherness, or some way off from full Irishness, without a united Ireland.”
I think you’re bang on with this point, but I also think you’re missing another important and related question: why are unionists opposed to a united Ireland? If you think it’s for cultural reasons then my own take would be that northern unionists have more in common with people throughout the length and breadth of Ireland than they do with the English.
Unionism’s intransigence and unwillingness to look at the benefits of a united Ireland stems ultimately not from any actual cultural chasm but from the lingering vestiges of power that they had in fact for 50 years and in effect for a further 20/30 throughout the 20th century. As more and more unionists become accustomed to power sharing and a society of equals, and as more of the old school hardliners move on, it’s perhaps inevitable that young people who might have chosen unionism for purely selfish reasons will (at the very least) have the freedom to choose a different path.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 06:20 PMIn an ideal world, unionists would be persuaded of the merits of a united Ireland. however this a perfect world is not. So thankfully, such acceptance is merely a desirable bolt-on as opposed to a prerequisate.
‘or some way off from full Irishness, without a united Ireland.’
it is precisely because Im Irish, that i wish to see the country unified and an end to British rule/occupation in the north. It seems to be unionisms belief in their glass half empty-irishness which causes them to cling to the apron stings of their colonial mother.Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 06:22 PMRepublicanStones - If you feel fully Irish, then can you tell me what tangible benefits you feel you will gain from a united Ireland?
Chris - I’m not sure I buy that point about unionists being more culturally inclined towards the southerners than the English. For one, most unionists I know have no clue at all about Gaelic Games and moreover no desire to learn. And many, for example, do not like the idea of the Irish language appearing on road signs. Mind you, if that is their only reason for denying a united Ireland then it’s about as tenuous as republicans’ reasons for wanting it.
Maybe therefore I have hit on something new - nationalists reasons for wanting a united Ireland are as nebulous as unionists reasons for rejecting it :-)
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 06:57 PMRepublicans are prepared to sell the idea of unity to Unionists and conclude that if unionists act reasonably and listen to all the arguments then they in turn will support Unity.
A very naive view which may be logical but is probably doomed to failure.
This however leaves the door open. Some unionists may be persuaded to become United Irelanders.
Lets think of another possibility.
How many Republicans will listen to the Unionist cause and then support the continuing Union with Britain.
This possibility has never entered the thinking of Republicans because that would be a contradiction in terms.
In other words it is not possible for members of either group to change and the problems of identity we have to day will be with us in 50 years time.
No hope for change.Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 06:58 PMNorton you mistake me for being more materialistic than i actually am. For me a simple end to occupation by a foreign governemnt is benefit enough, the fact that it may not fatten my wallet matters not. no doubt my poor car will take a pounding as the roads deteriorate, but this is a small price to pay. Being Irish, i would prefer if my franchise was exercised so that my representation sat in the Dail, and not as a lackey in some British hand-me-down democratic deficit nonsense. Ask any people who are occupied, if the old ‘what have the romans ever done for us’ routine convinces them otherwise.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 07:12 PMI’ve by and large given up on sites like Slugger because the Northern Irish nationalists who predominate on the commenting zone here are offering zilch in the terms of lateral thinking- there’s absolutely nothing coming forward in terms of pushing the real boundaries forward, which as a Unionist is comforting, but once in a while you hope for a bit more intellectually stimulating than the old, “sure the demographics are going to sort us out soon anyway” argument.
Irish republicanism is ship-wrecked in the 1970s and whilst its nationalist compatriots in Scotland and Wales are pushing genuinely progressive ideas forward which are creating fissures in the old status quo, there they still are, shouting about being offended by Princess Di mugs and statues of NZ Prime-ministers.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 07:13 PM‘Irish republicanism is ship-wrecked in the 1970s’
so when exactly does that leave unionists AKA relics of britains colonial past?Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 07:18 PM“it is incumbent on us who have a republican view of the future in which citizens are sovereign”
I wonder if Gerry has ever considered applying this principle to the PRM ;)
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 07:32 PMAnonymous
once in a while you hope for a bit more intellectually stimulating than the old, “sure the demographics are going to sort us out soon anyway” argument.
I agree with your basic argument. As a Social Democrat I see the economy as the key to a united Ireland. When it is economically advantageous for both communities there will be a united Ireland. That is part of the reason why it hasn’t happened yet: it hasn’t been economically advantageous.
Part of the reason for republican violence is that a united Ireland couldn’t be achieved through rational means. They couldn’t win the arguments on a rational plain so that is why they chose to attempt to force the issue through violence.
So one of the reasons why unionists look down their noses at nationalists, seeing them as inferior, is due to the fact that the republicans have been defining nationalists as less than rational.
But it really comes down to [the economy, stupid as per Bill Clinton].
Personally I think a united Ireland will happen given time, but not because republicans have killed and died for it. In my opinion the Irish state will never honour Northern republican martyrs, even after a united Ireland.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 07:37 PMRepublicanStones - I do not mistake you as materialistic. It’s just that if you already feel fully Irish, and presumably have an Irish passport, I do not quite appreciate what you will gain whether idealistically or pragmatically from your representatives sitting in the Dail rather than in Belfast.
You mention that you no longer wish to be a lackey of a government with a democratic deficit. How will representation in the Dail be more representative than the Assembly? Do you have a problem with the British control over foreign policy?Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 07:47 PMAnon
“Irish republicanism is ship-wrecked in the 1970s “
Given that the Provos dont do killing anymore, have morphed into the Non Iron government, are using the framework of the GFA/STA to pursue a UI and this is supported by the vast majority of republicans that statement looks a bit silly.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 08:06 PM“If you think it’s for cultural reasons then my own take would be that northern unionists have more in common with people throughout the length and breadth of Ireland than they do with the English.”
Posted by Chris on Apr 11, 2008 @ 07:20 PM
I can remember Rhonda Paisley saying unionists had more in common with the people in the Republic than with the English.
“For one, most unionists I know have no clue at all about Gaelic Games and moreover no desire to learn.”
Posted by Norton on Apr 11, 2008 @ 07:57 PM
Same as 75% of the population of South Dublin. I’m part of the 25%!
NI as a state didn’t work and could never work as a massive 30% of the population never wanted it in the first place(40-45% now). Likewise a unitary 32 county state would have similar problems (as much as I’d like one).
The obvious fudge we need is a federal arrangement (perhaps 4 provincial Governments together with a federal Government?) with the 6 counties having the Irish President and the British Monarch as joint Heads of State. Both flags (or none) on public buildings.
Try to keep as many people as possible happy. Let people have an Irish or British passport; whichever they want etc etc.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 08:24 PMNorton,
I don’t see why a grasp of the Irish language and an interest in GAA are prerequisites for wanting a united Ireland. I went to Methody, played rugby, and never learnt Irish (at school anyway). Couldn’t tell one end of a hurley from the other. I have plenty of friends from the south but we don’t sit around speaking as Gaeilge and discussing the All Ireland, rather in English and about the Premiership. There’s as many Liverpool/Man U fans down there as there are up here. Commonality enough for you?
And if unionists don’t like Irish on their road signage I can only presume that not very many have ever taken a drive along the Antrim coast.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 08:26 PMAnd as the first leader’s debate in last year’s southern election campaign indicated, the knowledge base amongst leading Northern Irish advocates of a united Ireland is lamentably poor.
Mick
Probably not the best time to remind you that your initial assessment of that debate was that Adams had ‘shaded’ it….
The ‘cultural contempt’ you refer to is hardly a trait exclusive to nationalism in the six counties- indeed, given the as yet unreciprocated moves by nationalists introducing power-sharing on majority nationalist councils (including Derry), affording legitimacy to the Union flag and displaying considerably more respect/ tolerance for Orangeism in the form of parades in ‘nationalist’ districts than would ever be countenanced of republican parades in ‘unionist’ districts, I would contend that there is clear evidence of a willingness to embrace and find space for a unionist identity in the nationalist/ republican vision for Ireland.
Now, that on its own will hardly suffice in the short/ medium term to deliver on republican objectives.
But it is telling that no strand of unionism- beyond Hugh Montgomery in the 30s- has ever given real thought to openly convincing their community of the logical consequences flowing from accepting the legitimacy of the nationalist identity in the six counties for prolonging the union with Britain.
This is because unionism has always been about preserving ‘Protestant Ulster.’ It is why, even today, unionist political leaders and others are seriously contemplating the merits of a single all-embracing unionist political party.
Suggesting that unionism ‘need not’ rely on nationalist consent to perpetuate the union with Britain ignores the reality that nationalism can similarly proceed with plans forging political, social and economic bonds on an all-Ireland basis without needing to rely on unionism for the success of such endeavours, short of the final step of full blown political unity.
Indeed, the almost hysterical responses of some unionist political leaders to proposals such as providing northern nationalists with voting rights for Presidential elections and an increased role for MLAs/MPs in Leinster House suggests that they know they are powerless to prevent the inevitable and logical developments which are merely the outworkings of our all-Ireland identity.
It is why so many unionist- Big and small ‘U’- political leaders get so vexed over issues like Mary McAleese running for the Presidency (remember Alderdice’s call to her to withdraw from the campaign?) and northerners representing the Republic of Ireland at international football level.
The primary objective for nationalism must remain delivering on an equality agenda which provides a level platform for the political identities of Irish nationalism and unionism in the six counties and strengthens the all-Ireland dimension.
Taking the line of providing unionism with a veto over nationalist-minded initiatives in the vain hope that it will convince them of the need to become Irish nationalists instead of unionists is not only naive but insulting to all involved, unionist and nationalist.
For nationalists, the GFA has been a significant step forward towards Irish reunification. The empowerment of Irish men and women over their own affairs, with institutional links between the two administrations on the island and, crucially, in the context of the effective disbandment of the unionist state militia (existing in Ireland from the yeomanry to the Specials to the UDR/RUC) can and will only lessen the state’s bonds with a Westminster that has rarely viewed the first and last colony as anything other than an appendage to the real ‘Britain.’
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 08:27 PMThe mechanisms facilitating a mutual veto have laid the foundations for the destruction of the formidably destructive supremacist mentality that pervaded political unionist thinking- though it can still be evidenced in the Assembly speeches of Messrs. McCrea and McCausland (you’d think someone would have a quiet word informing them of the logical consequences of boasting of the protestant/ unionist veto in action…)
Within northern nationalism, the sense of being in control of our own destiny has never been as strong. The ‘bond’ you refer to between north and south may indeed be growing more quickly in an economic as opposed to political sense, but both are growing and it is important to remember that, even before this economic growth occured, the strength of the pro-Irish unity sentiment and all-Ireland bond amongst the vast majority of the Irish people was and remains a given, reflected in the organisation of our churches, sporting bodies and many other aspects of life.
And, of course, whilst Sinn Fein lost a seat in the Leinster House elections in 2007, de Breadun notes in his final chapter of the significance of the Labour-Sinn Fein deal in the Seanad and of what it could hold out for potential coalition formations in the future. And then there’s the prospect of Fianna Fail heading north, possibly followed by other parties.
I have always loathed the type of millenarian thinking long associated with Irish republicanism for the simple reason that it encourages complacency. But there is no doubt that it emanates from the inherent self-confidence in knowing your identity, sense of place and direction in which you want to travel.
That being said, the form of Irish unity is not something that vexes me greatly. In my opinion, a successful Stormont administration will likely lead to the development of a republican policy advocating a federal structure on the island.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 08:28 PM“How many Republicans will listen to the Unionist cause and then support the continuing Union with Britain.”
One problem with listening to the unionist cause is that there has never been the slightest unionist attempt to persuade people outside of their traditional base of the merits of the union. If nationalists have been guilty of assuming unionists are closet Irish patriots who will discover their true heritage as soon as the border is smashed, then unionists are guilty of simply not giving a damn what others think and not even trying to put forward their case. Sinn Fein’s unionist engagement has been criticized by many quarters, but at least it is some kind of attempt at reaching out that has not been matched by others. Realistically, unionists will need to reach out and convince others to secure the union. Relying on demographics for the moment to guarantee the union is as foolhardy as nationalists waiting for some future demographic advantage. As others have pointed out, having 40+% of the population alienated from the “nation” is not grounds for stability within that country. It applies as much to a United Ireland as it does to a north remaining in the UK.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 08:50 PMChris - a knowledge of Irish or the GAA are not pre-requisites for wanting a united Ireland. I say merely that they represent the kind of Irishness that unionists I know do not want to dominate their cultural landscape and therefore why they oppose a united Ireland of the kind that will see those influences pervade Northern Ireland.
Chris Donnelly - you imply that a federal structure would be amenable to you. Does the current situation come up to the mark, or does there have to be a formal transfer of sovereignty along with other things?
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 08:52 PM‘Do you have a problem with the British control…..’
now your gettin it Norton, you see, im Irish, not British, nor british-irish or whatever. I suppose you ask Tibetans whether or not the benefits they gain under chinese occuaption negates their longing for a free independant homeland.
Comparison, not equivalence mind you….. before some tabloid hacks get on my case.Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 09:21 PMOK - here’s a wee poser for all you lot. I work in the private sector, for one of the big banks in Ireland with operations on both sides of the border. The department I work in is concerned with business customers, on both sides of the border (thus I work in both NI and RoI). I have never heard of any plans or contingencies or risks on projects to do with any kind of political integration. Has anyone else <u>in the private sector</u> made any plans or even thought it is remotely likely that the status quo will change?
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 09:41 PMNorton,
the GAA is by far the biggest sporting organisation in the 6 counties. and irish is very visible in many parts of the north. so what are you talking about?
being able to elect td’s to the dail is light years away from being able to elect mla’s. the dail, you see, is actually a sovereign parliament, and the government can change, and there is an opposition. if people in derry, for example could do this, then the place would literally change overnight. its called western democracy. works in other countries. northern ireland has always been governed outside of these paremeters. the option of full integration into british political life is not there, so the irish option beckons. simple, really.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 09:54 PMDK - I’m also in the private sector (insurance) and, speaking only from personal experience, the kind of projects and contingency/continuity planning we have going on tends not to look further than 5-7 years at the most. Being that a change in control wouldn’t be likely in anything like that timeframe, why would they bother (yet)?
Main thing to consider from an economic viewpoint would surely be the currency changeover which would undoubtedly run as smoothly as it did for every other country that adopted the Euro.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2008 @ 10:01 PM
