One Road, Two Perspectives: Hughie Beag and Macha on Drumcree

Fellow Slugger poster Hughie Beag and I have crossed swords a few times in the comments section, particularly over my attempts to understand unionism and his challenges to how I’ve approached it. We’ve occasionally managed to get under each other’s skin, and we eventually decided we’d probably get further talking over a pint than continuing to argue in the comments.

So, back in August, we met in Maddens in Belfast, along with Brian O’Neill. We still disagreed about a fair bit, but it was a good conversation, and we ended up talking about writing something together.

When Drumcree flared up again in September, we realised we had found our subject.

We both support Irish reunification, but it became clear that Hughie and I didn’t see Drumcree in quite the same way. I thought it would be interesting to explore these differences, so I put together some questions for us both to answer.

When you watched events unfold at Drumcree in 2026, what was your immediate reaction, and did anything about that reaction surprise you?

Macha: My first reaction was real annoyance at something so provocative and potentially inflammatory being reopened after such a long time. I was frustrated that the Parades Commission had left itself so exposed by failing to do its job properly, allowing someone like Jamie Bryson to exploit the situation.

I hadn’t realised that the Orange Order had maintained a token protest every Sunday since 1998. And having grown up in a very religious home, I can understand something about deeply held convictions that don’t necessarily make sense to outsiders.

I understood why the prospect of the parade caused such distress among residents, given Drumcree’s history, and why they were so strongly opposed to it. But I was surprised by how uncomfortable I felt with aspects of the nationalist response.

Hughie Beag: My immediate reaction was one of incredulity. I literally couldn’t believe that they had come to such a decision in what was obviously a toxic attempt at opening old wounds, and I think that many, many people thought similarly. When the initial feeling of shock had worn off, I began to feel angry that the Parades Commission were prepared to subject the residents to such provocation in order to save face over being caught short in their decision-making process

Do you think the dispute in 2026 was fundamentally about rights, identity, historical grievance or political power?

Macha: I think it was fundamentally a clash of rights rooted in identity, which reopened deep historical wounds. We’d perhaps convinced ourselves that those wounds had healed, when in reality we’d only put a sticking plaster over them. It didn’t take very much for all that old bitterness and sense of grievance to come back to the surface.

But we shouldn’t overlook the fact that, unlike the Drumcree disputes of the past, this one didn’t descend into violence. That is significant, and something we shouldn’t take for granted.

Hughie Beag: I think the primary reason for revisiting Drumcree was fundamentally about identity. The OO, at its core, is a group based on religious identitarianism, but I also think that the dispute itself is a rights-based dispute, the OO’s right to assembly against the residents’ right to live free from harassment.

I also feel there’s an internal struggle for the hearts and minds of unionism. I believe that the minority party in unionism saw it as an opportunistic vehicle to upset the wider unionist status quo while Jamie Bryson almost certainly saw it as an opportunity to consolidate his influence within the wider unionist family.

Can something be legally permissible but politically irresponsible? And can a protest be morally understandable but politically damaging?

Macha: Yes, absolutely, and I think Drumcree demonstrated both.

The Orange Order had a legal right to proceed, but I think they made a serious political mistake in trying to exercise that right. They should have taken their legal victory and chosen not to march. To me, that would have demonstrated real strength and moral courage, and sent a powerful message about unionism’s ability to retain its traditions while adapting to the world around it.

Equally, I completely understand why the residents opposed the parade, given the history of Drumcree. I fully support their right to protest and to challenge the decision through the courts.

But I disagreed with physically obstructing a parade that had been legally authorised, particularly with elected politicians involved. The rule of law underpins our society, and independent institutions exist to resolve disputes because we cannot always agree. If people lose confidence that those decisions will be respected, we risk returning to a situation where disputes are settled through confrontation rather than through the proper legal processes.

We’re asking people from a unionist background to trust that their rights won’t simply depend on the wishes of a nationalist majority in a united Ireland. But what reassurance can we offer if we’re only prepared to respect independent decisions when we agree with them?

Hughie Beag: It of course completely can, we’ve seen the example before where internment without trial was completely legal yet disastrous both politically and morally. In terms of the march, the loyalist blogger made it clear that this was only a test case and had the march went ahead then next year it would have been a full march and every other contentious march route was to be contested.

My own opinion is that the march should have been legally suspended pending a full Appeal Court hearing. I don’t think that the emergency sitting of the AC less than 48 hours before the march was due to begin was sufficient time to cover all issues involved. However, I believe that the residents were essentially correct in preventing the march proceeding given the precedent this would have set and the stated aims of the march organisers.

What the marchers did was the very essence of civil disobedience, the non-violent, if illegal, protest at an unjust decision. I’d remind people of David Trimble’s ‘bad law’ criticisms and that the anti-violence colossus, John Hume was convicted of obstruction also.

Who, if anyone, demonstrated leadership during Drumcree 2026?

Macha: I think Micheál Martin showed the kind of judgment and restraint I was looking for. He made it clear that he thought the decision to allow the parade was wrong, but rather than simply piling in behind calls for the Secretary of State to intervene, he appealed for calm and encouraged dialogue. When the parade was eventually banned, he warned against triumphalism and acknowledged that unionists would see the outcome very differently. He seemed conscious of the wider consequences of his words, rather than simply expressing solidarity with one side.

I also thought Jon Burrows demonstrated some political judgment. He supported mediation, urged a more pragmatic approach within unionism, and warned that the Orange Order’s legal victory could become a strategic defeat for unionism. Given how things unfolded, I think he deserves credit for recognising that.

I understood why nationalist politicians wanted to stand with the residents, but I had hoped for a more measured response from those who have long argued for reconciliation. Drumcree was repeatedly described as a culture war deliberately stirred up by Jamie Bryson, yet some of the reactions seemed to feed into that very confrontation. Surely recognising the provocation was all the more reason to be careful about how they responded.

Hughie Beag: Nationalist politicians did what they were supposed to do, they supported and showed practical solidarity to a beleaguered electoral constituency that vote for them. I really don’t see what else those Nationalist representatives were supposed to do as the abandonment of the Garvaghy community would have been politically and morally disastrous. I for one applaud the Nationalist leadership and representatives in the stand they took.

Burrows seemed to stay on the legal aspects of the circumstances while not offering any broader analysis while Micheál Martin did what Micheál Martin does.

Did either of you find yourselves defending people or positions with which you would normally disagree?

Macha: Some folks from my unionist background contacted me in good faith to ask what I thought about the nationalist response. These were people who had respected my decision to join the SDLP and pursue reunification, and I think they were genuinely taken aback by some of what they had seen or heard.

Ordinarily, I’d have been inclined to defend people on my own side politically, but on this occasion I struggled. I found some of the absolutist language about the Orange tradition particularly difficult to defend, especially coming from politicians who have spent years arguing for an inclusive new Ireland. I was also uncomfortable with some of the public displays of solidarity, particularly when I considered how they might be received by people from my background. The residents are entitled to choose their own representatives, of course, but I think politicians also need to consider the wider implications of such public associations.

Hughie Beag: No, I don’t think I did. I was very impressed at unionists like Sarah Creighton going to Garvaghy to support the residents and Arnold Carlton unambiguously making his opposition clear, along with the open letter written by individuals within the wider Protestant and unionist community. While these people’s politics differ from mine I of course agreed with them on their stance on the issue.

I was particularly impressed with the solidarity shown by the Rev Karen Sethuraman. The Rev Sethuraman is a true humanitarian and a credit to her spiritual beliefs.

What damage, if any, have the events of Drumcree 2026 done to trust between communities, particularly among people who might be open to considering Irish unity?

Macha: I do think Drumcree has damaged confidence in the promise of an inclusive new Ireland, certainly among some of the people I spoke to, and to some extent my own confidence too.

I think nationalism sometimes underestimates how these things are received within the Protestant community. You don’t have to be an Orangeman, or even particularly sympathetic to the organisation, to have family or friends who are members. I understand why many nationalists see Orangeism through its history of sectarianism and intimidation. But for many Protestants, it is also part of ordinary family and community life.

I’ve argued for some time that the SDLP has the potential to reach people who might otherwise be reluctant to engage with the idea of a united Ireland. It’s one of the reasons I joined. I had hoped to see more of the understanding and restraint that might give people from my background confidence in the future we’re asking them to contemplate.

I still support reunification. But Drumcree left me questioning whether some of the promises of inclusion I’ve been making to others are as deeply understood as I’d hoped. It reminded me just how much difficult, uncomfortable work still needs to be done if we are serious about building a genuinely inclusive new Ireland.

Hughie Beag: I think that the reopening of an old wound has caused considerable polarisation and what’s more, I think that this was one of the aims of the organisers. I also think that this saga is going to be pretty elongated.

The Nationalist community see the insistence of the OO in imposing some of their marches, which celebrate a religious battle that signalled massive religious persecution of Catholics in Ireland, in or close to areas with a high density of Nationalist residents as jingoistic supremacism. That’s the bottom line. There are thousands of OO marches a year which pass without incident, indeed, I write this after thousands of the OO and their supporters held an unhindered rally in Portadown town centre a few miles from Garvaghy.

Why do the OO feel the need to do this? In my opinion ‘tradition’ simply isn’t a good enough argument, there was a time when things like witch trials and slavery were traditional too, No one would argue that such traditions be maintained today.

The OO are free to practice their right to assembly in the overwhelming utterly vast number of their marches. As a proclaimed Christian organisation why would they want to march where they know it offends their neighbours?

As for what these rights would look like upon unification, we’ve already seen what they would look like. We see it at Derry and Rossnowlagh every year and we saw it at Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann 2026 in Belfast City Centre.

Is there a difference between winning a dispute and winning someone’s trust? And if so, which matters more in Northern Ireland today?

Macha: I think there’s a huge difference. Winning a dispute might give you a sense of satisfaction, but it can still erode trust. I think of small acts of restraint or generosity as putting money into a trust bank. You don’t get the immediate satisfaction of winning an argument, and you might not see any benefit for years. But you’re building something that could matter enormously further down the line.

We’re asking people to place an enormous amount of trust in an uncertain future. That trust won’t suddenly appear when we need it for a border poll. It has to be built over time, through the way we treat one another now, particularly when we disagree. That’s why, for me, winning someone’s trust matters far more than winning any individual dispute.

Hughie Beag: There’s a massive difference, however, for me the priority of both weighs upon the magnitude of the dispute at hand. For example, Drumcree is infamously toxic and bitter. Indeed, I think that’s the symbolic reason that the dispute was opened up again after so long. When we have such a contrived, manipulated sum zero situation I’m not exactly sure whose trust has to be won much less how it should be won.

For me ‘winning’ a dispute isn’t important, what is important is the logic, veracity and integrity of the issue at hand. If someone is able to make me see the validity of their argument then I’ll accept that and amend my position accordingly. I’m not so sure that winning a dispute and building trust are an either/or but would suggest that if any probity is deliberately sacrificed in the cause of building trust then that trust is based on a false premise.

Does asking nationalism to consider unionist concerns place an unfair burden on those who believe their own rights have historically been disregarded? How should those competing concerns be weighed?

Macha: I understand why it might feel like an unfair burden, given the history of discrimination and intimidation experienced by nationalists. And I fully support the right of the Garvaghy Road residents to oppose the parade.

But nationalism is asking people from a unionist background to contemplate an enormous constitutional change. If we’re serious about persuading them that their rights, identities and traditions would be respected in a united Ireland, then surely we have a responsibility to demonstrate that now, particularly when it’s difficult.

I don’t think it’s my place to decide how those competing rights should be balanced. That’s why we have an independent body to make these difficult judgments. People are entitled to disagree with its decisions and challenge them through the courts, but we also have to be prepared to accept outcomes we don’t like.

Hughie Beag: I think Nationalists very much respect unionist rights and think that the only time those rights come into contention is when they’re blatantly illegal and/or sectarian bonfires, deluges of flags and a microscopic number of contentious march routes. I’m not sure what unionist concerns are.

If their concerns are the continuance of their cultural traditions in the Unified Ireland, I’ve stated more than once that I think these traditions should absolutely continue in areas where there’s a demand for them and as long as they’re done within the law. As I’ve said previously, we’ve already seen this in practice at Derry, Rossnowlagh and the Belfast Fleadh.

As for asking unionists to accept massive constitutional change, the only thing unionism is being asked to accept is democratic integrity.

If a future united Ireland faced a dispute involving a minority community’s cultural traditions and the objections of local residents, what principles should determine the outcome?

Macha: I think a new Ireland has to be prepared to accommodate the whole history of this island, not just the parts that fit comfortably into a nationalist understanding of it. The Orange Order is part of that history. I understand why many nationalists regard it as sectarian, but I also know that for many Protestants, Orangeism is a very ordinary part of family and community life. We are all products of our backgrounds and of the history that formed who we are. I don’t think we can simply write out the parts we find uncomfortable.

I would want a future united Ireland to approach these disputes with a genuine willingness to accommodate minority traditions, even when they are deeply unpopular with the majority. That doesn’t mean every parade should be permitted, or that residents should have to set aside their own rights and concerns. But neither should opposition to an organisation automatically determine the outcome.

These decisions should be made independently and fairly, taking account of the rights of everyone involved, the history of particular routes and the impact on local communities. And those independent judgments need to be respected, even when we strongly disagree with them.

Hughie Beag: I’ve said here repeatedly that in terms of unionist traditions, that their rights, culture and traditions should be respected both by the ECHR and by constitutional guarantee. In a unified Ireland the minority should absolutely have the same equal rights as any other citizen with an added layer of constitutional guarantee. The Orange Order are a quintessentially Irish organisation and the marches, bonfires etc associated with them should continue where they are wanted and within the law. Bonfires should have a defined, identifiable committee who are responsible for liability insurance, adherence to bylaws, clean-up, etc.

In the instance of a dispute such as Drumcree arising, the bottom line is that residents and property rights should always come first. The marchers don’t live there and always have an alternative of another route or place to go. The residents don’t.