Belfast TelegraphSinn Fein leader says any 'new Ireland' must respect and facilitate the beliefs of everyone.

By Mark Bain 

Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald has laid out her plans for a united Ireland, but warned that people must start preparing a Plan B and Plan C, as their first option of what that might look like may not be available.

Ms McDonald also had her say on the role women play in government, and hit out at those who continue to link her party to the IRA.

Speaking to the Basically with Stefanie Preissner podcast, Ms McDonald said the issue of convincing unionists that embracing a new Ireland was the way forward was "a tricky one".

"Once upon a time everybody agreed that Ireland should be free," she said.

"We have never strayed from that belief, but I hope we're all going to get back on that page again, even though there has been a lot of hurt and injury and sadness. We now have a viable, robust democratic process and I hope that now will be our moment where we fix the thing that was broken and end partition.

"I think that we can have not just an united Ireland, but an equal Ireland, an entire society of people getting the chance to turn the page.

Continue reading @ Belfast Telegraph. 

Selling Irish Unity To Unionists Will Be 'Tricky', Says Sinn Fein Chief McDonald

Belfast TelegraphSinn Fein leader says any 'new Ireland' must respect and facilitate the beliefs of everyone.

By Mark Bain 

Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald has laid out her plans for a united Ireland, but warned that people must start preparing a Plan B and Plan C, as their first option of what that might look like may not be available.

Ms McDonald also had her say on the role women play in government, and hit out at those who continue to link her party to the IRA.

Speaking to the Basically with Stefanie Preissner podcast, Ms McDonald said the issue of convincing unionists that embracing a new Ireland was the way forward was "a tricky one".

"Once upon a time everybody agreed that Ireland should be free," she said.

"We have never strayed from that belief, but I hope we're all going to get back on that page again, even though there has been a lot of hurt and injury and sadness. We now have a viable, robust democratic process and I hope that now will be our moment where we fix the thing that was broken and end partition.

"I think that we can have not just an united Ireland, but an equal Ireland, an entire society of people getting the chance to turn the page.

Continue reading @ Belfast Telegraph. 

29 comments:

  1. "Ms McDonald also had her say on the role women play in government, and hit out at those who continue to link her party to the IRA."

    Because they are one and the same Mary Lou, look around ye at the Ard Fheis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a Ruth Dudley Edwards sort of statement. They were never one and the same. Not that the party had much in the way of independence. The party was little more than a front and was looked down on. The Army always called the shots. But today things have moved on considerably to the point that I feel it will only require one more leader to finally get rid of the odour of Adams. It is simply not possible for something like the IRA to control a party of that size. Tommy McKearney, also a critic of the party, made this point somewhat more eloquently than I have.

      Delete
    2. AM,

      Having thought on this I tend to agree, it will be a generation to separate them from their baggage. But at present it seems like one.

      Delete
  2. The unspoken reality behind all of this, of course, is that unionist agreement and / or buy in is not required for Irish Unity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sean
    True, but then don't use the word 'unity'. Unity requires agreement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter - I think the issue is of the agreement of who and of how many are needed to agree. I see people like Seamus Mallon has argued to write the GFA and Eoghan Harris now wants something like 90% of unionists to be in agreement.

      Delete
  4. Peter, the agreement has already been made: when a majority of people in O6C vote for a United Ireland then one will be brought forward. Nowhere does it mention unionist consent. It will be a matter for the Irish people, there forward, to work out their future governmental arrangements — we might, say, have continuing devolution to the North. But it will be by majority agreement among their rank — by self-determination — rather than by handing out internal vetoes. When the Unionist Veto is gone, and it’s coming, then it should not be re-issued in new form. At that point we can at last build together the rights-based republic for so long envisaged but denied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean - in a technical sense, that is correct. But the GFA so hollows out the transition to a united Ireland that the difference might just be imperceptible. A united Ireland under the terms of the GFA does not end British involvement in the North. This is why I think the Richard Humphreys book is so crucial to understanding the Agreement and its implications for the type of unity likely to emerge (if ever) from it. I no longer see the veto lying with "the Unionists" but with that section of nominal nationalists who will continue to vote for London rather than Dublin. This is why I don't think a referendum in the North will produce any constitutional change - certainly not in my lifetime.

      Delete
  5. Sean
    You see things in black and white. Don't take your 'coming' majority for granted. As I have long argued here, the agreed Ireland (if it comes) will not be a 32 county republic. What it will be is a massive exercise in compromise that will make the GFA look positively hostile! Republicans think the border poll will be an easy win but as the SNP fund out when the hard numbers are crunched and the uncertainty of change is made evident then conservative people vote conservatively.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that the people most able to influence the outcome of a referendum are hard-line unionists, and loyalists. If the DUP keep doing their semi-corrupt, arrogant, looking-down-on-the-croppies thing, then enough nationalists will want to teach them a lesson. If an even moderately progressive unionist party, or leadership, emerges, then I simply can't see a united Ireland ever happening. A different scenario is if militant loyalism kicks off again. A few sectarian murders, or another Drumcree scenario, would harden nationalist hearts against the union.

    If I were a unionist, I would be extremely anxious. Every generation of unionist leader (with the arguable exception of Trimble) has allowed the scumbag sectarian tail to way the political dog. There is simply no unionist or loyalist tradition of supported accommodating politics. And I don't see one on the horizon.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brandon
    I don't see any reason for unionists to be anxious. I doubt there will be a UI, there certainly will not be a 32 county republic. Any agreed Ireland will be very conciliatory to unionism and we will be back in the EU. We have nothing to fear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter - I think there is reason for everybody in the North to be anxious. The times are uncertain. I don't foresee a border poll within the next five years and I doubt the first one at any rate will result in a change in the constitutional status of the North. While you don't advocate it, I think it would be a bad message for the governments to send that democracy is just an instrument in the North rather than something to be valued. This would be the effect of any tinkering with the 50%+1 clause. This coupled to the British government breaking international law would be a bad omen.

      Delete
  8. @ Peter

    I don't think unionists have anything to fear from an "agreed Ireland" (or a UI, or a 32 County Republic, for that matter), but since a very significant number of them, and their political leaders, are emotionally beholden to said union, it would make sense for them to be anxious about it being altered in some way.

    A significant enough number of unionists will always oppose any sort of "agreed Ireland", and whilst they might wreck the initiative in the short-term, in the medium and long-term, nationalist voters will swing completely behind a UI.

    That's what I think could happen, anyway. Alternatively, unionism could find a progressive, realistic leadership keen to cooperate fully with Dublin whilst being able to tame the nutters on their own side. But, like I said earlier, that's never happened before, so it stands to reason that it won't again.

    If there's Indyref2 in Scotland, Yes will win. If that happens, NI will be sure to follow. English nationalism, and Ulster loyalism, are a far greater threat to the UK than Irish republicanism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon - that is a big ask: the nationalists to swing completely behind a UI. The unionists have always been more of a monolith on the constitutional question than nationalists. I don't see anything to indicate that all the nationalists will swing behind a united Ireland. We would need to see a serious fracture of unionism on the constitutional question or a serious cementing of nationalists around it, neither of which has happened previously.

      Delete
  9. Brandon
    Unionists will not be shoe-horned into any sort of UI. The govt and people of the 26 don't want it nor a sizeable majority of northern nationalists. If we lose a border poll what will follow will be a long drawn out choreographed dance between govts and parties, compromise, compromise compromise will be the ,order of the day. What we will be offered will not be anything remotely like a 32 county republic.
    You also say Yes will win IndyRef2. You should no better than to make affirmative statements like that. They were 55% up last time and lost by a similar margin. Any ref is years away and there is much water to flow under the bridge before then. When faced with massive change most times nerve is lost.
    Yes-ers and UI fanatics are wetting their knickers thinking that polls are coming and they will definitely win them but there are many cards to be played yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's the likely scenario - if the border poll favours a UI, movement after it will be glacial.

      Delete
  10. @ AM, Peter

    Regarding IndyRef2, it's anecdotal, and of course conjecture, but the feeling in Scotland is that the only people that would vote to remain in a Johnsonian United Kingdom are Rangers season ticket holders, and members of the Conservative & Unionist party (and there's significant overlap...). And of course Johnson won't grant a second referendum, but Starmer might, possibly even as part of some kind of Labour/SNP deal.

    The point is that conditions were not right for a Yes vote in 2014, but by Christ is six years a long time in politics. A decent percentage of the Catholic voting bloc would always vote in favour of a UI. The remainder could be moved by DUP arrogance, or loyalist violence, into seeing the only way forward a UI.

    Peter makes some good points about the constitutional wrangling which would follow a border poll opting for a UI. Perhaps we shall see.

    @ Peter

    There is incredible upheaval at the moment. Brexit has changed everything.

    "Unionists will not be shoe-horned into any sort of UI"

    Unionists are shoe-horned whenever it suits UKG to shoe-horn them, and unionism has very few friends in Westminster. How quickly unionists forget these facts.

    One thing is damn certain, if there was a border poll, UKG would not get the big guns out to lobby for a No vote like they did with Scotland. Scotland is a net contributor to the UK: NI is an embarrassing, unstable basket case.

    The man with the Prime Minister's ear has apparently said “I don’t care if Northern Ireland falls into the fucking sea”

    Dominic Cummings is only echoing what many on the mainland think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Unionists are shoe-horned whenever it suits UKG to shoe-horn them, and unionism has very few friends in Westminster. How quickly unionists forget these facts."

      True, but who comes running when they are looking to form government in a hung Parliament? Not one of the parties in Westminster are stupid enough to disavow all contact with the Unionist bloc there.

      And again, it's not within the soul proviso of the British Government to change the status of NI, nor the vast majority of those on the mainland, and Cummings can go fish.

      Delete
    2. Steve - given Britain's willingness to flout international law, the confidence of old within unionism has to be dented. Cummings is merely expressing a view that was always there and which has since partition caused unionism to be suspicious of the British state. But unionism can no longer exercise the strategy of threat to the degree that it once did. Nor can it depend on hung parliaments. SF could neutralise that in one fell swoop.

      Delete
    3. "SF could neutralise that in one fell swoop."

      Only by taking their seats in the Commons and that would rip apart their base though?

      Delete
    4. Steve - and why would that rip apart their base when so many other things failed to? I imagine they could sell it to the base very easily.

      Delete
  11. Brandon,
    I live in Scotland and I feel you're massively over simplifying the politics here. Any referendum will come down to the economy and the city of London is a massive draw. Don't pay too much attention to polls it easy to say you support something when nothing's on the line.
    It'll be interesting to see how the SNP fare next year as the covid restrictions and the hate speech bill are nowhere near as popular as the media would let on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ David

      Brexit fanatics have trashed the City of London, and will trash the economy. The Financial Times saw Jeremy Corbyn as a safer bet than Boris Johnson.

      England's swing to the right is so extreme that Conservatism cannot in any way be viewed as a "safe bet."

      Also, Yes were always the underdogs - one poll, once, showed them in a slight lead, and Westminster got the big guns out to tour Scotland, promise Devo-max, and generally pull out all of the punches to secure a No vote.

      "Fool me once, shame on you..." as the saying goes.

      In terms of the constitution, it doesn't seem like a case of if Yes would win, it's by how comfortable a majority they'd win.

      And, again, Westminster would be delighted to get rid of Northern Ireland, and the reason they would, to a large extent, is the constant agitation and obnoxiousness of the alleged most loyal citizens in the United Kingdom.

      @ AM

      I actually think SF would *increase* their vote if they took their seats in Westminster. There is no ideological difference between taking seats in Westminster, to taking them in the Dail, or Stormont, and SF could easily sell it as "sticking it to the Brits" - which they easily could.

      Delete
    2. Brandon - if you set aside the traditionalist arguments against not taking the seats (which sounds cultish anyway) and accept SF as a reformist party it makes a lot of sense for it to go in. I agree - they could sell it easily.

      Delete
  12. Brandon
    Again you are getting ahead of yourself. Yes looked nailed on to win IndyRef1 until the current circumstances were looked at, then it was rejected. When will the next ref be? Years away? Will Boris be in number 10? What will be the political imperatives then? Experience tells us not to predict referenda until they happen.
    The same with here, you and Sean seem to be making the same mistake. Sean always goes on about demographics as if a C on the census will always vote N. As Mackers pointed out nationalism is never a bloc. There are 10 of thousands of middle class catholics and many are small u unionists. If Brexit ruins the UK then maybe they will and I will probably vote for a UI with them! If Brexit isn't a disaster and neither govt guarantees a free healthcare NHS in a UI then you will not win a border poll.

    I always hear from nationalists that the English don't want us unionists. Yet quite clearly nationalists in the 26 don't want youse and never have. Every time some shinner starts talking up a border poll FF and FG roll out the hoses to douse the flames. The southerners can't afford a UI and so will need unionist acceptance to avoid security bills and British money to keep coming in to help fund the union, which is why I am confident there will be no UI and if there is it will be very accommodating for us.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Peter

    Much of what you have written I agree with. Most nationalists are content with the Union - as long as unionists/loyalists don't ramp up their overtly bigoted, triumphalist, sectarian nonsense. Like I have said before, history shows us that the leadership necessary for that *not* to happen won't appear.

    "The southerners can't afford a UI and so will need unionist acceptance to avoid security bills"

    This has always puzzled me. Exactly what would militant loyalism do if the UK ceded NI, particularly as the result of a referendum? Loyalist muscle would be redundant, and the unionist negotiating position weak.

    As Lord Gowry said in 1982:

    "Northern Ireland is extremely expensive on the British taxpayer ... if the people of Northern Ireland wished to join with the South of Ireland, no British government would resist it for twenty minutes."

    "I am confident there will be no UI and if there is it will be very accommodating for us."

    The latter part of this statement is telling. Never, never, never and "not an inch" is being replaced by the dawning realisation that, at best, the constitutional position of NI is precarious.

    Regarding Scotland, the Yes campaign had one poll show it in the lead, and a tiny lead it was too, and that's it. No were always predicted to win.

    I can envisage the next Yes campaign now: images of Dominic Cummings trolling the nation etc. Yes won't have to do much to win. The Tories have absolutely fucked the union.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon - I would not go as far as to say most nationalists are content with the union. There is a pragmatic acquiescence in it. I think the majority of them would vote for unity. I feel they are less strong as a body in their opposition to London rule than the unionists are as a body to Dublin rule.

      Since Gowry, some leading British politicians including Blair said they valued the union. That might have been a selling strategy but it helped feed into a mindset that the British were not as neutral on the matter as was sometimes claimed.

      Delete
  14. Brandon,
    As long as the city of London is a tax dodge it will never be wrecked. I went out with mates over here campaigning for yes the first time round and the number one concern was the economy, the currency ramifications, so on.
    The fool me once saying is for kids, people get fooled at every single election and I would bet my life on it, brexit or not, if the the no side go with the same scaremongering tactic, they'll win again.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brandon
    "Exactly what would militant loyalism do if the UK ceded NI, particularly as the result of a referendum?"
    Weird question. I am not a loyalist so I don't know but at a push I would imagine that they would ramp up the marching season and force the Garda into a confrontation. Imagine Garda having to police marchers demanding 'traditional rights' on the Shankhill or Portadown. Imagine bomb hoaxes on the Dublin ring road at rush hour. If unionism is pushed into something not palatable I reckon the awkward squad would relish fucking the Garda and the Dublin knobs about. Which is why I don't think anything other than a good agreed Ireland will ever happen, if at all. The fact that the South need British money and unionist acceptance for any agreed Ireland to work means that I am calm about the situation.

    ReplyDelete