Slugger O'Toole

This user has not yet written a description

Latest comments from Obelisk (see all)

Obelisk has commented 193 times (0 in the last month).

1. Comment on Sinn Fein’s idea of rapprochement “is a brick-cold exercise in reinvention, re-positioning and re-writing of the past”
   on 19 April 2012 at 9:50 pm

   It’s a challenging piece, and a very difficult one to answer. It’s a question that has also been asked increasingly of Nationalists in recent months, for us to define our vision.

   I’ll get the obvious bit out of the way first. We can’t really define our vision right now because the demographics aren’t currently in our favor. It will be decades of hard work persuading people of the merits of unity, and that will be reliant on the emergence of at least a plurality of the Catholic community (who will be culturally receptive to the message in a way most Unionists aren’t) and a set of circumstances wherein Irish Unity is the more attractive option over remaining in the United Kingdom.

   Suffice to say, those are big ifs and really rely on biding time for better days. I guess we can wait for that. If circumstances ever begin to make a United Ireland increasingly likely, then Nationalism can begin to come up with concrete proposals that will have more relevance at the time. Would any proposal for Unity in the 1950s have much relevance today?

   When there is a majority out there willing to hear the case for unity I guess and to NOT reject the option of unity out of a knee-jerk reaction, then maybe we can begin to make the case Alex and his contemporaries demand that we do.

   I do object to Alex Kane’s thoughts on the role of Unionism within a post-United Ireland. He seems to be conflating the ideology with the culture. Yes, if Nationalism triumphs and achieves Unification, Unionism as a political project terminates and is defeated. There won’t be any mechanisms set up by which the six counties could detach themselves again and rejoin the UK (or the Kingdom of England, not sure what the Scots are going to do) but that doesn’t mean it’s the end of history for them.

   If he would like a personal vision though I could provide mine, unlikely as it is.

   Unification should be decades of work to overcome and reconcile the differences between the two communities within the North. Our politicians could take concrete steps towards unity now by promoting integrated education and by reforming the economy so that it is based more on private enterprise and less on the state.

   In integrated education, our children would learn through interaction not to fear or hate the other side, and to slowly collapse the walls separating them. The Two communities must become one community of two culture in other words, even if individuals within this one community draw on different heritages. That is the work of generations but steps can be taken NOW to promote it.

   On the other hand, Nationalists must maintain and deepen the links between the community and the South, reminding people that we are part of the Irish Nation as well, and that being a part of the Irish Nation does not exclude those with a British Heritage should they choose to explore this heritage. I do not believe these goals are mutually contradictory. We should seek to have our children embrace and celebrate both sides whilst not feeling they have to give up links to either Britain or Ireland. Nationalists can concrete steps here too by trying to extend the vote for Irish President to Irish citizens resident in the North and to achieve speaking rights in the Dail. These measures will irk and annoy Unionists in the short term. Participation in island wide cultural events should continue to be encouraged.

   Building the economy is the second step. The great truth is that the south simply cannot afford us, because we are so statist. The old paramilitary organisations sought to wreck the economy as a way of making the North unworkable and bringing about its collapse. The opposite is the case. We have to make the North prosperous so that we are no burden to our countrymen down South, and indeed that the South may want us. Of course in such a scenario the British would want us too but it would be up to us. Both Unionist and Nationalist therefore have to agree that it is in the interest of both ideologies for Northern Ireland to prosper and if possible become a net contributor to the British Treasury.

   Next step. Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Gerry Kelly have to ride off into the sunset. Whilst they work well as communal champions in our current electoral carve up, they will never persuade Unionists of the merits of Unity. However, my vision is a long term vision. They can fade away naturally. The next generation of Republican leaders will be equally unable to convince Unionists, as they will inevitably praise the struggle to please the base. The truth is, we are likely to make very little progress with the Unionist people until we can talk of the recent troubles in the same way people talk of the Civil War or the Easter Rising, as far distant events barely in living memory.

   Finally, in a post referendum United Ireland, a new settlement must be drawn up. Firstly, the borders of the former Northern Ireland will be redrawn with majority Nationalist areas absorbed directly into the south. Stormont will be maintained, and the British (English? Scottish?) government will be invited to have a direct say in issues affecting the now Unionist dominated Northern Ireland devolved area.

   This area should be provided with the maximum amount of possible devolution, with full protection for any remaining Nationalist minority in the devolved area (though not, suffice to say power-sharing which will now be unnecessary).

   Or we could all get sucked into a United States of Europe, rendering the whole issue moot.

   Go to comment

2. Comment on For Nationalists Only: What’s great about living in the United Kingdom?
   on 17 April 2012 at 12:57 pm

   Okies, I’ll bite.

   In terms of institutions, I like the NHS and I like the BBC.

   I like the way they run their politics now and a lot of their institutions, being as transparent as possible, with the public ready and willing to pounce on any abuse of power.

   I think their system of governnment is fairly well set out, with an elected lower house and an upper house that does it’s job fairly well.

   What I am about to admit is difficult, but please bear with me. Above all, I like the idea of the United Kingdom. Whilst I admit there are plenty of distinctive hallmarks of the being Irish, our traditional music, our history, our language, in modern times there is no much separating the modern british family and the modern Irish family. They listen to the same music, eat the same brands of food, go to the same stores.

   We share so very much that I cannot but feel that partition really was a tragedy and a lost opportunity. It’s a tragedy we couldn’t work out our differences a hundred years ago.

   Now don’t take this to mean I am one of the Unicorns or closet Unionists. For me, the division of my nation is a wound that stings and I pray to see the day that wound is closed. I just regret it was opened in the first place and that another way wasn’t found.

   Go to comment

3. Comment on “the war against British rule must continue until freedom is achieved…”
   on 11 April 2012 at 11:05 am

   “Why do we need a British Secretary of States permission ? Surely that is a matter for the majority in the assembly to decide, will the British Secretary of State decide on the actual wording of the questions asked in the possible future referendum or can we decide that ourselves.”

   We need his go ahead because that’s what is in the agreement that people voted on. If the Assembly REALLY wanted a referendum, or if a majority of votes expressed a preference for Irish unity, I’m pretty sure the SoS would call one.

   Go to comment

4. Comment on “the war against British rule must continue until freedom is achieved…”
   on 11 April 2012 at 10:22 am

   “What I think he means is what right has a British MP for North Shropshire to decide when or through what hoops Irish people should jump through concerning a referendum on a United Ireland. This is a matter that should be decided by the Irish people alone without having to have the permission of a British overlord.”

   We have that right. We can vote for parties who argue in favour of a United Ireland at elections to the assembly. If those parties ever form the majority designation, they can then say that there is widespread support for a referendum and the British Secretary of State can then facilitate one.

   Don’t get me wrong, I’d like a United Ireland as well but if it doesn’t come in my lifetime I am OK with that too.
   But the dissidents are a counter-productive intellectual AND moral black hole. I have little time for wannabe provos and their mouthpieces or their nonsensical ravings about a moribund struggle in the modern era.

   Go to comment

5. Comment on “the war against British rule must continue until freedom is achieved…”
   on 11 April 2012 at 8:37 am

   “The unavoidable conclusion reached when looking at former comrades at Stormont is that there is simply no constitution path to a United Ireland,” he said”.

   Complete rubbish of course. The constitutional path was laid out in the Good Friday Agreement and involves the Secretary of State calling for a Referendum if sufficient support for unity exists.

   What Gary Donnelly really means is that there is no political path for him because he can’t win on it, and probably not in his lifetime, because the requisite democratic support does not as yet exist.

   There is a path to Irish Unity, but it requires decades of slow hard graft. The path might even led nowhere. Or it could be that along the path everyone will simply stop caring. But the thing is, you have to convince other people of your argument in order to make progress.

   Obviously it’s much easier to tear down what others build up (e.g a High street Bank) and to wallow in self pity about the wicked Crown Forces and the dastardly PSNI.

   These people are just an embarassment.

   Go to comment

6. Comment on The Siege of New Forge: Unionism’s latest pyrrhic triumph.
   on 23 March 2012 at 12:14 am

   The name change is inevitable in the long term. Chris’s more important point is that these sorts of issues expose the lie at the heart of Peter Robinson’s outreach that some like Turgon have made much comment on.

   Robinson can talk the talk, but when it comes to concrete action, like supporting the name change to reflect reality or creating an appropriate balance of symbolism, Robinson is always there defending the status quo.

   Like the Good Friday Agreement the interpretation of the name change is different on both sides. For Unionists I imagine the new name and badge are just a lick of paint and that underneath is the same old organisation. Doubtless many hardline Republicans agree with that assessment.

   As for myself (and I believe many Nationalists), in order to buy into the police service in the modern era I have CHOSEN to believe that the Patten Reforms mark an entirely new departure on policing and that the pre-Patten RUC and the post-Patten PSNI are distinct and separate eras, and that the PSNI is not so much the RUC after a spruce up, but an entirely new edifice constructed partly from the institutional debris of what went before and what has been swept away.

   On a side note, like many Nationalists I don’t like uttering the phrase ‘Northern Ireland’. There’s many historical and emotional reasons I don’t. I prefer to say ‘North of Ireland’. But on an occasion I mentioned this, the response was basically I should face up to political reality. I point this out that so that I can say, in one of the few instances I feel I can, that I understand somewhat the Unionist perspective on this issue. I mean by any standard, the organisation should be called the PSNI AA, but it ideologically easier for Unionists to maintain this last link with the vanished RUC.
   I do understand that, even if I do disagree with it.

   Just please afford us the same courtesy and don’t harp on about our creative use of terms to describe the North here, especially when as circumstances dictate you can indulge the same conceit amongst yourselves.

   Go to comment

7. Comment on If people don’t know how a united Ireland will affect them, they will vote No…
   on 15 March 2012 at 7:35 pm

   I believe partition was an attempt by the British authorities to end the Irish question by giving both nationalities on the island home rule and washing their hands of the place.

   The problem remains the same as it always has, the inability of the two nationalities to realise their aspirations in a mutual fashion. One side wants independence, the other side wants to maintain the Union.

   Where partition failed is that because there weren’t enough Unionists on enough territory to sustain a state, a great many Nationalists were included. The same situation continued only with the minority now the majority and the majority now in a minority. History really was doomed to repeat itself in this case.

   Bluntly, re-unification might at least help us towards reconciliation because it would mark the demise of one of the two political options, Unionism. It is a real fact that Nationalism, in the form of the pursuit of a United Ireland, can go through peaks and troughs in terms of political support, but in a trough those who believe in unity can always console themselves that the future they could recover. Unionism doesn’t have that luxury. Like Israel they must always win, because one defeat and it is over. There will be no option in a United Ireland to throw the border back up and reapply for membership of the UK.

   Longer term, it would also mark the termination of Nationalism in it’s current form, as with unification secured a political realignment of some description within the Nationalist community is inevitable.

   For both the former Unionists and the former Nationalists, this could take the form of traditional left-right voting patterns asserting themselves. Or regionalism could take hold, with a strong Catholic Northern Party representing the interests of the former Nationalist Community, and a strong Protestant Northern Party representing the interests of the British community.

   All of this is just speculation of course. But the short version is, partition was intended to resolve the tension between the two Irelands by giving one Dominion status outside the UK and one Home Rule status within the UK . That failed.
   Reunification, by finally ending one of the two competing political ideologies, would ultimately remove the poltical tension and go some way towards the removal of the inter-communal tensions.

   Go to comment

8. Comment on If people don’t know how a united Ireland will affect them, they will vote No…
   on 15 March 2012 at 6:22 pm

   Quislings is pretty harsh Raven. I’d guess that these people are culturally and ethnically Irish, comfortable with the status quo yet I’d presume they’d be open to the idea of unity as long as the circumstances were right and it was presented correctly.

   I guess then, they really are just people who currently have more important issues in their lives.

   Go to comment

9. Comment on If people don’t know how a united Ireland will affect them, they will vote No…
   on 15 March 2012 at 2:04 pm

   “I agree with your dialogue point, but it’s also easy to fall into the assumption that unionists themselves somehow have the perfect answer to nationalist ambitions. Someone on the nationalist side has to build it in such a way that it can overcome some of the current blocks.”

   I have to admit I hadn’t fully considered that. I guess we Nationalists have to first accept that ANY talk of a United Ireland is going to get shot down by Unionists but that we have to talk amongst ourselves so that we know what we want and how we are going to achieve it. We have to be sure of our own position and argue consistently in favour of it.

   At the moment, I believe Sinn Fein is intellectually paralysed on this issue. They are a good community champion but their past prevents them from making any further progress up here. Not many people on the other side of the divide are willing to listen to what the current generation of leaders has to say because of their past. In pursuit of unity they’ve brought us as far as they can.

   So I guess it is up to the wider Nationalist community to begin having this debate, even if it is only in forums like this, so that we can educate and inform our politicians and an (hopefully)untainted future generation of Nationalist leaders and politicians so that when they come to have the debate, they can articulate what we believe in.

   I’d also like to point out that we have two groups to win over.

   A proportion of the Unionist community, certainly.

   But more importantly the apathetic Catholic Unicorn. We know they exist, and two surveys now seem to confirm that a large proportion of Nationalists simply don’t care anymore. Why should they care about unity? What will unity offer them that the current situation doesn’t?
   How can we reconnect them to the aspiration of Unity in a positive way?

   Go to comment

10. Comment on If people don’t know how a united Ireland will affect them, they will vote No…
    on 15 March 2012 at 1:06 pm

    In regards to the lack of a plan, it is impossible to develop one without a dialogue with Unionism. Otherwise you’ll just have Irish Nationalists talking amongst themselves which will lead to the following.

    a.) They will be attacked as kite-flying fantasists by Unionist politicians, wasting time indulging their pet project instead of concentrating on reality. The Life and Times survey and the recent survey done by Queen’s will be brought up.

    b.) Any plan Irish Nationalists come up with themselves will be instantly rejected because it has had no Unionist input and will therefore stand no chance of becoming reality anyways.

    In such circumstances, the stating of the aspiration itself has to be sufficient. The only way I believe we will ever get a concrete plan is if politicians from the Unionists side say ‘Ok, there may be a United Ireland in the future and we’d like to sit down and discuss what would happen IF it came about’.

    My own personal preference would be that Stormont would remain as a devolved body sub-ordinate to Dublin, as today it is sub-ordinate to Westminster. However, the area under its jurisdiction would be reduced, with Nationalist majority areas being subsumed into the Unitary state governed from Dublin (Belfast would be a stickler).

    Some Nationalist communities would inevitably remain in the devolved region, and with it’s reduced size the community designation system at Stormont would be ended. However there really shouldn’t be any issues of discrimination if this comes to pass. The main issue would be whether normal left-right politics developed at Stormont, or whether Stormont would come under the continuous control of a single British ethnic party.

    Northern TDs from devolved region should be prevented from voting on matters that are devolved to Stormont, our own version of the West Lothian Question should be nipped in the bud.

    The north in such a scenario would therefore reflect a devolved region such as Catalonia in Spain, reflecting a distinct ethnic grouping. Safeguards would be put in for ethnic and sexual minorities (still don’t quite trust the fundamentalist strain in the DUP, see Edwin Poots), maybe as part of a bill of rights for the whole island.

    In terms of symbols I’d agree with a new anthem, but I’d prefer to keep our flag as is. In return, the ‘reduced’ North would be allowed a wide latitude in determining their own symbols and the flag of the devolved region.

    Ulster-Scots should be raised to the level of official language status.

    The North should be able to maintain strong economic and cultural links with the United Kingdom (or the Kingdoms of England and Scotland should Scotland declare independence).

    Well, that’s my vision on the matter anyway.

    Go to comment