Ian Major ✒ teases out what a united Ireland might conceivably look like.

It is understandable why no Unionist politician can take part in any discussion about what form a United Ireland might take. They would be portrayed by their Unionist opponents not as self-confident defenders of the Unionist people, reasoning with Nationalists on why a UI would be unacceptable, but as weaklings already conceding the inevitability of a UI.

But that should not hinder any non-party Unionist from doing so. Indeed, it is desirable to reason with our Nationalist fellow-citizens, and the Irish nation as a whole, in order to fully understand the concerns and aspirations of each other.

The case for remaining out of a UI has changed somewhat from that of the founding fathers of NI. Gone is the downside of a Roman Catholic, priest-ridden State. And gone too is the upside of a thriving industrial economy in the North.

What now deters Unionists from considering a union with the Irish Republic?

The prime concern for most Unionists is the Gaelic nature of the present ROI, and that being carried over into a UI. That is, the underlying assumption that being Irish is in effect being Gaelic. The ethnic British in ROI do not have a share in the myth of the nation, except as remnants of the invaders. No mutual respect of origins exists. A defeated foe, welcomed to remain if they behave themselves.

That is not a UI that any self-respecting Unionist could consider voting for. So what sort of Ireland might be acceptable to them? Something like the following might at least gain a respectful hearing.

Consider the advance we made in getting agreement on governing NI after such a bitter conflict. The Belfast Agreement sought to reassure both communities here that the government we formed could not be used to damage either community. Mutual vetoes were built in to prevent any one community majority overruling a minority. Cross-community majorities are required on contentious issues. That was a massive confidence builder. Then too, power-sharing provided rights and responsibilities to both communities.

Rather than devolving government to regions to accommodate Unionist concerns, a power-sharing central government in a future UI, with mutual vetoes for both the British and Gaelic communities, would be ideal.

That's the practicalities of governance with cross-community confidence.

But the identity of each community with the State, with the new nation that arises with a UI, is a crucial issue too. What could be done to improve the feeling of joint nationhood with the Irish in a UI? A couple of ideas: firstly, to identify the new nation as a combination of the previous two, not a submersion of one into the other. The title of the new state might be ‘The British and Gaelic Republic of Ireland', allowing for a new meaning to the term ‘Irish'. Or ‘The British and Irish Republic of Ireland', but that complicates the old sense of Irish with the new one.

A new anthem would be required, celebrating the union, rather than celebrating the old conflict.

A new flag would be appropriate, given the baggage the present Tricolour has for Unionists. Perhaps replacing the orange with blue, denoting the Ulster Scots roots of many Unionists, and fully acceptable to all Unionists as representing them.

Finally, a consideration about the large number of Evangelical Protestants in NI. They are a minority among Unionists, but an important one.

The Most important consideration for Christian Unionists will be guarantees of civil and religious liberty. That used to be important for most Unionists, but the growing number of secular Unionists seem not to be concerned about it, or even dismissive of it. The failure by them to give assurances that prayer and counsel would not be included in any ban on gay conversion therapy is indicative of that.

If a UI would have a robust guarantee of civil and religious liberty, that would remove a strong concern for the many Unionists who are Christians.

You Nationalists/Republicans can't make Unionists discuss these matters, but you could ponder on the possibilities, some of which I raise here, and respond honestly. No need to fear your objections would antagonise the Unionists – we are already antagonised and expect the worst from you in a UI. 

Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist. 

A Few Thoughts On Ulster Unionists And The Nature Of A United Ireland

Ian Major ✒ teases out what a united Ireland might conceivably look like.

It is understandable why no Unionist politician can take part in any discussion about what form a United Ireland might take. They would be portrayed by their Unionist opponents not as self-confident defenders of the Unionist people, reasoning with Nationalists on why a UI would be unacceptable, but as weaklings already conceding the inevitability of a UI.

But that should not hinder any non-party Unionist from doing so. Indeed, it is desirable to reason with our Nationalist fellow-citizens, and the Irish nation as a whole, in order to fully understand the concerns and aspirations of each other.

The case for remaining out of a UI has changed somewhat from that of the founding fathers of NI. Gone is the downside of a Roman Catholic, priest-ridden State. And gone too is the upside of a thriving industrial economy in the North.

What now deters Unionists from considering a union with the Irish Republic?

The prime concern for most Unionists is the Gaelic nature of the present ROI, and that being carried over into a UI. That is, the underlying assumption that being Irish is in effect being Gaelic. The ethnic British in ROI do not have a share in the myth of the nation, except as remnants of the invaders. No mutual respect of origins exists. A defeated foe, welcomed to remain if they behave themselves.

That is not a UI that any self-respecting Unionist could consider voting for. So what sort of Ireland might be acceptable to them? Something like the following might at least gain a respectful hearing.

Consider the advance we made in getting agreement on governing NI after such a bitter conflict. The Belfast Agreement sought to reassure both communities here that the government we formed could not be used to damage either community. Mutual vetoes were built in to prevent any one community majority overruling a minority. Cross-community majorities are required on contentious issues. That was a massive confidence builder. Then too, power-sharing provided rights and responsibilities to both communities.

Rather than devolving government to regions to accommodate Unionist concerns, a power-sharing central government in a future UI, with mutual vetoes for both the British and Gaelic communities, would be ideal.

That's the practicalities of governance with cross-community confidence.

But the identity of each community with the State, with the new nation that arises with a UI, is a crucial issue too. What could be done to improve the feeling of joint nationhood with the Irish in a UI? A couple of ideas: firstly, to identify the new nation as a combination of the previous two, not a submersion of one into the other. The title of the new state might be ‘The British and Gaelic Republic of Ireland', allowing for a new meaning to the term ‘Irish'. Or ‘The British and Irish Republic of Ireland', but that complicates the old sense of Irish with the new one.

A new anthem would be required, celebrating the union, rather than celebrating the old conflict.

A new flag would be appropriate, given the baggage the present Tricolour has for Unionists. Perhaps replacing the orange with blue, denoting the Ulster Scots roots of many Unionists, and fully acceptable to all Unionists as representing them.

Finally, a consideration about the large number of Evangelical Protestants in NI. They are a minority among Unionists, but an important one.

The Most important consideration for Christian Unionists will be guarantees of civil and religious liberty. That used to be important for most Unionists, but the growing number of secular Unionists seem not to be concerned about it, or even dismissive of it. The failure by them to give assurances that prayer and counsel would not be included in any ban on gay conversion therapy is indicative of that.

If a UI would have a robust guarantee of civil and religious liberty, that would remove a strong concern for the many Unionists who are Christians.

You Nationalists/Republicans can't make Unionists discuss these matters, but you could ponder on the possibilities, some of which I raise here, and respond honestly. No need to fear your objections would antagonise the Unionists – we are already antagonised and expect the worst from you in a UI. 

Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist. 

39 comments:

  1. Ian - there has always been an inevitability of a UI. The question was rarely if but when. Neither you nor I will see it nor anybody who fought in the ranks of the IRA to make it happen by coercion rather than consent.
    I live in the ROI and it is a stretch to think it is Gaelic. It is very much like the North without the bigotry and may in fact be less gaelicised given how Gaelic culture has formed part of the North's cultural war.
    As for Christians they would have no fewer rights down here than they do in the North. They would be free to practice their religion but not on people who do not want it practiced on them. The Baptists probably better more than other evangelicals appreciate the value of a secular state. This society has made huge strides in secularism in recent decades.
    The type of things you suggest would be part of a discussion in any event.
    Bear in mind that a UI is not increasing its profile because of anything republicans did. The IRA campaign impacted on it not in the slightest - apart perhaps from making unionists even more resolute in their opposition to it. Brexit and demographics are the twin drivers. Without any IRA campaign we would still be at the point we find ourselves at today.
    Good that you are willing to discuss these matters. Nobody would have any right to label you a Lundy or a weakling. The exploration of ideas is always progressive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "there has always been an inevitability of a UI", very true but if the north gets changes to the protocol and can truly be in the UK and the EU at the same time then any UI may be a long way off regardless of demographics. I would have more confidence in that outcome if we didn't have Boris and Poots negotiating!
    A big attraction of a UI for me would be to see increased secularisation across the island and especially in the north. Children should never be schooled in religious schools paid for by the state. If you want your child to get a religious education, pay for it yourself.
    Also, Ian never mentioned the NHS. I don't think enough RCs would vote for a UI if the NHS was got rid off in a UI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter - I think there is mush to that. Brexit even more so than demographics made the difference. Brexit also became the enabling factor for the demographics to become significant.
      I suppose we can't be sure how the buffoonery of the DUP leadership will play out.
      Out of all the republican isms, secularism would be the most important to me.

      Delete
  3. The country should and must be called Ireland — for the simple reason that it is Ireland — and the state should be called, thus, the Republic of Ireland, as that is what it will actually be. I don’t see any reason whatsoever that we would change our national flag, which evenly represents the two traditions of the Irish nation and symbolises peace between both. There is no good reason to change our anthem, likewise. Amhrán na bhFiann was sung by the men who established the Irish Republic on Easter Week 1916 — in the GPO, in Boland’s Mill, in Jacob’s. It’s our anthem for a good reason and should not be forsaken because it took some a century and more to accept that they are living in Ireland, not Britain. I understand that some of this might sting for the Ulster Protestants of our nation but that isn’t reason enough to do away with our heritage. In terms of how they will be treated under the law, the Republic guarantees equal rights and equal opportunity for all citizens, no matter their tradition or identity. That is what ultimately matters. I have no problem with Orange marching and would be more than happy to not only tolerate it but encourage it. The British identity of the Ulster Protestants is something that they are entitled to and are entitled to celebrate, more power. What they are not entitled to is to have this place made British on the strength of their identity, because at the end of the day this is Ireland — something they are going to have to tolerate. Tolerance is hardly too much to be asked for here at the end of the day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean,

      And that's exactly the thinking that will create resistance from the PUL community. Tolerating is one thing, accepting another. If you are unwilling to accept that a UI will need to make fundamental changes to allow everyone to own a part of it's future then don't call it a United Ireland because it will be anything but.

      Focus to much on the past and you will miss the bounty of the future. Flags and Anthems are written and changed all the time. Surely a new flag and anthem is a small price to play to extend an olive branch for the sake of all our kids futures?

      Delete
    2. Steve - if in the hands of the people rather than bureaucrats, I think the anthem and flag might well change. The name too might change although I would not fancy something as unwieldy as what Ian suggests. Ireland is just an English way of saying Ireland so there is no need for the country to be called Ireland - it seems more appropriate to call it Éireann.
      That said, I would not be in the slightest interested in flags and anthems. Nor would I want to be tied by what Sean calls heritage, preferring instead to be able to invest in future flexibility rather than past rigidity.
      The minute Sean made his suggestion, it struck me that it could easily become hijacked by the far right even though he is not coming at it from that perspective. That is where you might find most resistance. They are nationalist sentiments more than republican ones, I feel.

      While I could easily abide by people as a unit changing whatever, I do not think it should be a precondition or something demanded by the British or unionism before unity is considered. The condition for unity is not flags, anthems or the name of a country but 50+1 in any border poll. If 50+1 is good enough to maintain partition then it is good enough to end it. If not, then nationalists really are second class citizens whose vote counts for less than the votes of unionists.
      But as I will never get the opportunity to live in a united Ireland it will be decided by others.

      Delete
  4. The idea that our culture and heritage is in some way an obstacle to political flexibility is a nonsense, as is the notion that nationalism is a reactionary phenomenon (though of course it can be). We need only examine Chile under Allende, Panama under Torrijos, Ecuador under Roldós, Venezuela under Chavez — all progressive nationalists committed to their heritage and its elevation — to reveal that this need not be so. It’s a lazy narrative.

    I, too, could easily abide by a change of flag and anthem, no problem, provided that this was what our people actually wanted. If they don’t want these things to be changed, however, then they should not be forced into changing them — especially given that those who would want them changed are happy to fly the Union Flag and for God Save The Queen to continue for so long as Partition endures. They want their pretensions to sovereignty given expression but never ours. Basically they want us to abandon our Irishness to placate their Britishness, unable to accept where it is that they live. I understand it and don’t wish to be mean but we can’t allow such things to dictate the future.

    There will be a place for their identity under the Irish Republic — as there will be a place for that of all others. Just not at the expense of ours. There will be a place for their culture and their historical experience, from the Boyne through the Somme through Partition through reunification. The idea of the Republic is one of equal citizenship, with one set of laws and protections for all, regardless of their background. But while this is the idea of the Republic, it does not alter that this is still Ireland and that we are Irish. It is our entitlement that this be respected — we have to be considered too you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A united Ireland will constitute a new society. As such a new society will see the evolution of culture, dispensing with some of the old and introducing new elements.

      As you say, if the people decide and all our votes have the same weight in terms of decision making, then whatever will be will be.

      On another note, I don't happen to think that nationalism should be any more obligatory on a person than say Catholicism. If people do not wish to be Irish, that should be their right. Citizenship would be more important than nationality. However, there should be in the one society - on this one island - one law for all. And citizens of the society should not expect any preference over other citizens because they do not want to be Irish.

      Delete
  5. I'm glad to see all your contributions, for we need to hear what others see themselves as, and what their vision of a UI should be.

    It would be foolish to enter into a process in which the desired outcome is not addressed. 'Constructive ambiguity' will collapse when one side finds out that the other was using terms with a different sense than they.

    I have always understood Sean's vision of a UI as the standard Nationalist one. The history and identity the Irish celebrate is not that that the Ulster British celebrate.

    We are not all Irish, just as surely as we are not all British. Sean's UI is an Irish entity, that will accept the British of NI as citizens, but not share their identity. It would be different had he been saying the Irish identity and the British identity would gave equal status in the new UI, but he clearly rejects that. The UI will be Irish in identity, but tolerating non-Irish identities in their midst.

    There is no way most Unionists, the British Ulster people, will accept such a future and look to the new Ireland as their nation, the place they feel loyality to and be willing to defend.

    If it is forced on them, whether or not they resist militarily, they will see themselves as most Nationalists have seen themselves in NI - in it, but not of it.

    As I said in my article, the UI that was a truly new Ireland - where Irish meant the union of the British of NI with the Gaels of the whole island - would get a hearing from the Unionist people. The old idea never will.

    Anthony's point about 50%+1 being the validation of a referendum on a UI is one I have warned before is a recipe for a contested future, not an agreed one. The reality is that we have two peoples, two nations, in Ireland, and an agreed future would require a majority in both peoples.

    If there is to be a UI, it would be greatly preferable that it was an agreed one. But if not, it would be wise to propose various means that would avoid a contested future, with the grief and economic damage that would bring.

    Many Unionists would prefer to leave Ireland rather than stay in a non-agreed UI. But that would require compensation for the property they left behind and housing where they migrate to. It would be a vast amount of money, covering possibly a million people.

    Discussions with the British government regarding how this is to be raised would need to be concluded a fair time before a UI was implemented. Everyone in NI would need to know the economic consequences should they go or stay. Pensions of those who stay being undertaken by the Irish government, and the savings to the Exchequer then applied to compensation/housing for those who go to GB?

    With that in mind, the determining referendum on a UI should be by registration. Those who register as British would be entitled to compensation if they lost the referendum and chose to move to GB. That might make a 50%+1 vote acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That they don’t want to be Irish is fine and can be allowed for — because, as you rightly say, nationalism should not be obligatory and it won’t be. For instance there are three Polish guys doing our garden at present and no-one wants for to force them to be Irish, or their children who have been born here. They still need to respect where it is that they live, however. The problem here for the unionists would seem that they want for our Irishness to be circumscribed, as part of their not wanting to be Irish, and that is a whole other matter.

    Past all of that, I would like to see an all-Ireland charter of fundamental rights which protects not just the Ulster Protestants but all citizens, on an equal basis and without regard to their differing identities and traditions. This should surely be a sufficient means to assuage the fears of the Ulster Protestants and to guarantee that they will not be subject to recrimination (which they won’t be).

    The key thing in all of it is that Britain is fully removed from the picture come the point of Irish Unity. We will work out the future for ourselves from there, with parity of esteem as set out under the Proclamation the keystone. The idea that she must remain involved, for to guarantee the rights of the Ulster Protestants into an Irish Unity scenario, is an affront to Irish self-determination — an anathema to the notion of the Republic. She can have no further role here upon the ending of Partition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there is a difference between respecting the society in which they are and deferring to the nationalism of that society. At the same time it is easier to opt out of a religion's call to obligation than a nation's given the way the world is organised: societies are usually nations in a way that they are not usually religions.

      The problem here for the unionists would seem that they want for our Irishness to be circumscribed, as part of their not wanting to be Irish, and that is a whole other matter.

      I think there is a lot in that. There is a sense of entitlement in the attitude expressed by unionism. The North is not a separate nation and while it has an internationally recognised and codified right to self determination it is not a national right. And that right to self determination is bestowed on the population of the North and not on one section of it.
      Britain is not going to be removed from the equation - the GFA has rendered unity to a rolling sort of unity where the pace from Britain in to Britain out will be glacially slow.
      I doubt there will me much of a desire to change the terms of the GFA, an international agreement, to facilitate a clean and final break.

      Delete
  7. Ian - the desired outcome is being addressed - those who desire to maintain partition are able to do so if they win 50+1. Those who desire a united Ireland are able to do so if they win the same amount of votes.
    A united Ireland can allow for many identities. In fact I imagine it will be more tolerant towards your identity than your religious identity is tolerant towards gays or women who seek to access abortions. And if it was not I would oppose it. A wholly academic opposition as I will be long dead before we reach Irish unity.
    I would not worry too much about political violence from loyalism. It will happen but we are not in a situation where the inclination towards violence is anything like it was.
    We do not have two nations in Ireland. We have the Irish nation and we have people whose loyalty is to Britain. Two different identities do not two nations make.
    The 50+1 formula is what the North collectively agreed to. If all citizens in the North are equal, then your vote to retain partition can have no more weight than Sean's to end it. Is he a child of a lesser god whose vote is not on a par with your own? What sort of supremacism lurks in such a sentiment?
    It is greatly preferable that any situation is agreed. And it has been agreed through the GFA by a majority of people in the North and on the island as to how unity will come about. If agreement cannot be found or is disrupted then society has to find mechanisms for managing disagreement. It should not be obligated to acquiesce in threat.
    If people decide to leave the North because an internally democratic referendum reached a conclusion they did not like they should not receive a cent. Just as they should not receive a cent if they leave because they oppose gay marriage or abortion. If they were forced to relocate, then they should be compensated in full. No one should be compensated for exercising a preference. If citizens leave the North in opposition to say a change from 50+1 should they be compensated? And they would have a more authentic grievance. If people move and leave their property behind they should receive only what they sell it for. Their property would not be confiscated.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AM,

    Nationality is not determined by majorities. The Kurds,for example, are not Turks. Not a Turkish minority. A nation that is a minority in Turkey. Different origins and loyalties.

    I object to the 50%+1 as the determinant for a win in a UI referendum on the basis not only of the two nations concept, but also on the fact that a simple majority vote was considered unjust in matters contentious between the Nationalist and Unionist communities. Surely a referendum on a UI is more contentious than anything that has arisen in the Assembly. Nothing supremacist about either use.

    If compensation is not considered for those wishing to leave, then it will lock-in very many angry and resentful Unionists. They will have no interest in making Ireland work, and that's without considering an on-going, low-level terrorist campaign that Loyalist might wage (with a lot of sympathy if not support, just as the IRA enjoyed from many Nationalists).

    But, like you, I think all of this is merely academic for this generation. My reasons for so thinking are different, however. I expect world affairs to take crisis proportions for this generation, so the idea of a UI or not will be the least of people's concerns.

    But we have a duty to make provisions for the future, and not assume our affairs will be side-lined.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If compensation is not considered for those wishing to leave, then it will lock-in very many angry and resentful Unionists. They will have no interest in making Ireland work, and that's without considering an on-going, low-level terrorist campaign that Loyalist might wage (with a lot of sympathy if not support, just as the IRA enjoyed from many Nationalists)."

      What a load of bollocks. In reality you are saying Unionism has a price and can be bought off. If NI votes democratically for a UI then we CANNOT in good conscience wage violence against it.

      How can we enthuse the good points of our country by denying a democratic outcome? Unionism if it makes that mistake will fall into the insular fascism something that was fought against for decades.

      The democratic process is the only show in town. If a UI is called then embrace it and make it work. You don't have to like it but you can make it livable.

      Even the odious Paisley knew you couldn't be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman first.

      Delete
  9. I don't think anybody has suggested that nationality is determined by majority. But there are not two nations in Ireland. Much as there are not two nations in England, Scotland or Wales. There are lots of people who live in each of different nationalities. But that is a far cry from the two nations theory.
    You or I can object as much as we like to 50+1. It has been decided and enshrined in international law. There is nothing unjust per se about a majority vote. What made it unjust in the North was that the unionists were incapable of working majority rule and instead reduced it to majoritarianism and willfully persecuted the minority. I notice you don't argue for 50+1 to be abandoned when used to maintain partition. Majority vote seems alright there for you. What is supremacist is if you think your vote should have more weight than Sean's.
    Compensation should not be considered for those who wish to leave. Will you agree to compensation being paid to those nationalists who might wish to leave the North in the event of 50+1 not being honoured?
    They might huff and puff about not making Ireland work - if they stay they will make it work otherwise there is no point in staying.
    If they wish to resort to violence they will be dealt with by the society they use it against. Much like the UK deals with its Isis attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "They might huff and puff about not making Ireland work - if they stay they will make it work otherwise there is no point in staying."

    I think this will be far more accurate than anything else. People by and large will just want to go peacefully about their daily grind. Pay the bills, have a pint and watch the football. If there is a UI then it won't be with a bang it will be with a bureaucratic burp while the minutiae of State realigns.

    But glacial speed? More like tectonic!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve, when they come in, bringing that British value they have about a strong National Health Service for all, just watch how quickly they will be made welcome. If they bring the arrogance of demanding compensation for choices they voluntarily make they will be told where to go. Same for us all. I haven't seen Ian demand compensation for the gay folk who left the North because of its laws against Gay marriage or its anti-gay discrimination down the years. Will all the women who had to travel to Liverpool for abortions be compensated as well?

      Delete
    2. Steve - with the slowness of glacial or tectonic, the one thing that seems certain is that it will not be fast. And I will not even see the start of it

      Delete
    3. AM,

      Where he got that brain fart of compensation is beyond me. That's the first I've heard of that and it's insulting.

      First cab off the rank in a UI should be an enshrined separation of church and state. Can think of few things worse than a bunch of free p's making life miserable for everyone else.

      Delete
    4. It is one of these ideas that is put out there but does not survive the ridicule test. Nevertheless, I am glad he is putting his ideas out there. I don't think it is easy for a unionist to even discuss some of the things he is without somebody shouting Lundy.

      Delete
  11. Steve R said:
    ‘What a load of bollocks. In reality you are saying Unionism has a price and can be bought off.’

    No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying in the circumstances where Unionism has been defeated, one way to keep from having many angry and resentful aliens living in the UI would be to honourably offer them compensation for their property and expenses in relocating to GB or wherever else will accept them.

    ‘If NI votes democratically for a UI then we CANNOT in good conscience wage violence against it. How can we enthuse the good points of our country by denying a democratic outcome? Unionism if it makes that mistake will fall into the insular fascism something that was fought against for decades.’

    That ignores the founding principle of Unionism – the right of our people to self-determination. If majority votes overrule minority nations within a larger, we should have accepted a SF government in 1918. It applies to every nation, though most larger ones assert their own self-determination but deny it to the minority nations within their state.

    ‘The democratic process is the only show in town. If a UI is called then embrace it and make it work. You don't have to like it but you can make it livable.’

    Any Unionist who wants to do so can do it. But I reckon there will be many who will not be happy and will play the same role as Nationalists did in NI since Partition. Others will simply opt out of citizenship and just focus on living quiet lives. I think many Evangelicals would take that line. No participation in the affairs of State.

    ‘Even the odious Paisley knew you couldn't be an Ulsterman without being an Irishman first’

    Paisley was a self-centred politician who would say anything that suited. It was a stupid comment from anyone claiming to be a Unionist. If we are Irish, then Partition was a crime.

    But maybe he genuinely thought he was Irish. He did try to persuade the DUP to back him in negotiating a Federal Ireland in 1971.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The North does have the right to self determination. It is enshrined in international law although not as national self determination. Unionism does not have any right to self determination any more than Nationalism in the North has. The people of the North not one section of it has the right to self determination.
      Evangelicals will do what is good for business and family so long as they are allowed to believe in whatever it is they believe. People will laugh at the notion of a 6000 year old earth but they will not ban the belief any more than they will ban a belief in a flat earth or Dr Who. What evangelicals will not be allowed to do is practice their religion on those who want noting to do with it but you holds that position already

      Delete
    2. Wolfie,

      "Steve R said:
      ‘What a load of bollocks. In reality you are saying Unionism has a price and can be bought off.’

      No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying in the circumstances where Unionism has been defeated, one way to keep from having many angry and resentful aliens living in the UI would be to honourably offer them compensation for their property and expenses in relocating to GB or wherever else will accept them."

      That's exactly what you are implying only you can't seem to see it.

      "
      ‘If NI votes democratically for a UI then we CANNOT in good conscience wage violence against it. How can we enthuse the good points of our country by denying a democratic outcome? Unionism if it makes that mistake will fall into the insular fascism something that was fought against for decades.’

      That ignores the founding principle of Unionism – the right of our people to self-determination. If majority votes overrule minority nations within a larger, we should have accepted a SF government in 1918. It applies to every nation, though most larger ones assert their own self-determination but deny it to the minority nations within their state."

      This is word gymnastics. Unionism can't have it both ways, either NI is a country or it's not. If it's a country we need to abide by the democratic system within it and accept the subsequent election results. Otherwise what you are saying is that NI is a quasi outpost with sham democracy...which is it Wolfie?

      "Paisley was a self-centred politician who would say anything that suited."

      That's putting it mildly.

      " It was a stupid comment from anyone claiming to be a Unionist. If we are Irish, then Partition was a crime."

      Well that's a daft comment. Partition was drawn up to prevent a civil war on religious grounds, politics was the paint it arrived in.

      I'm Irish and an Ulster loyalist, I've absolutely no confusion about who I am and where I stand. I've lived far from home for many a year and I'm happy to be referred to as Irish. The only lot I've a deep fear and concern about are Northern Shinners, but that's politics, innit?





      Delete
  12. AM said:

    ‘I don't think anybody has suggested that nationality is determined by majority. But there are not two nations in Ireland. Much as there are not two nations in England, Scotland or Wales. There are lots of people who live in each of different nationalities. But that is a far cry from the two nations theory.’

    There are two nations in the island of Ireland, just as surely as there are three nations on the island of Great Britain.

    ‘You or I can object as much as we like to 50+1. It has been decided and enshrined in international law.’

    International law can be an international ass.

    ‘There is nothing unjust per se about a majority vote. What made it unjust in the North was that the unionists were incapable of working majority rule and instead reduced it to majoritarianism and willfully persecuted the minority. I notice you don't argue for 50+1 to be abandoned when used to maintain partition. Majority vote seems alright there for you.’

    Majority votes that overrule minority nations are unjust. And the old Stormont regime should have reflected on that, as it was the basis of their separation from the rest of the island. Something like the cross-community consent principle should have been tried, even though it would likely have failed in the face of Nationalist determination to get a UI. Alternatively, a voluntary and compensated relocation of Nationalists to Eire should have been tried, along with a greatly reduced territory for NI.

    ‘What is supremacist is if you think your vote should have more weight than Sean's.’

    I don't. If Sean's nationality is threatened, he should have the same right of veto as I would have.


    ‘Compensation should not be considered for those who wish to leave. Will you agree to compensation being paid to those nationalists who might wish to leave the North in the event of 50+1 not being honoured?’

    Yes.

    ‘They might huff and puff about not making Ireland work - if they stay they will make it work otherwise there is no point in staying.’

    If they have no compensation, it may suit them better to stay. At least for a while, to get a fair price for their house, for example. Or to just opt out of the affairs of State. They have the example set by the Nationalists in NI since Partition.

    ‘If they wish to resort to violence they will be dealt with by the society they use it against. Much like the UK deals with its Isis attacks.’

    Yes, that of course counter-terrorism response would be expected. The outcome would depend on what level of sympathy or support the rebels had. It takes very little to cause great disruption, especially if the object is not to win, just to make the opposition lose as well as the disruptors.

    Much better to try for an agreed solution.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There are three nations on the island of GB - England, Scotland and Wales. In Ireland we have the Irish nation - what is the other? It would need to have more than the status of a creationist myth Ian for anybody to take it seriously.
    International law can be an ass but not a talking one!!! It is what we have and it is not going to be subverted by a tiny crowd in the North who might try to crash the internal democratic arrangement in the North.
    There is no minority nation to be overruled. You haven't told us what it is yet.
    At least your willingness to pay compensation to those nationalists who leave the North because they don't like the outcome makes you consistent. It does not however make you persuasive. If a unionist was intimidated out then they would have every right to compensation. Not a cent if they leave because they do not like the democratic outcome. And gays - should they be compensated for having moved to the UK due to discrimination?
    We have an agreed solution - 50+1. It is not as if it was something ushered in by the GFA. It has been there since 73. Prior to that it was a majority of MPs at Stormont.
    Sean has a nationality - Irish. He feels it has been overruled and that people such as yourself are continuing to try and overrule it? What is your nationality? We should use your passport as a start - what does it say on it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here, has Leo been reading this thread? A bi-national state!

    He said: 'We know the crude vision espoused by Sinn Fein, it's not an inclusive one – a cold form of republicanism, socialist, narrow nationalism, protectionist, anti-British, euro-critical, ourselves alone, 50 per cent plus one and nobody else is needed. That is not a 21st-century vision.

    'Our vision should be different. It should be one that has the best chance of carrying the greatest number of people with us, North and South.

    'It should appeal in particular to that middle ground I spoke about earlier, to gain the support of people who identify as both British and Irish. So, unification must not be the annexation of Northern Ireland.

    'It means something more, a new state designed together, a new constitution and one that reflects the diversity of a bi-national or multi-national state in which almost a million people are British.'


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9691763/Irish-deputy-PM-Leo-Varadkar-risks-inflaming-bitter-Brexit-row.html?ito=email_share_article-top

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he could do worse than read it. Given the nonsense he spouts in the first sentence you cite. SF's position is not socialist, protectionist, euro critical, ourselves alone. It is 50+1 but that is what Leo's party signed up to in the GFA. I keep going back to the same point because I have heard noting yet that can defeat its core democratic and egalitarian logic: if 50+1 is enough to maintain partition then it is also enough to end it. Any society should want to carry the greatest number of people with it and the greatest number of people have been carried by the 50+1 argument and endorsed it in the GFA.
      He talks more gunk about a multi national state. A multi cultural state is not the same thing as a multi national state.
      But Leo's party has a long history of abandoning nationalists in the North. Had the Southern establishment taken more interest in representing nationalists in the North without pushing for a united Ireland, I think the IRA campaign might have been avoided.
      I think Leo is more concerned with the rise of SF thanks is with being generous to unionists.
      Oddly enough Ian, I think SF is likely to give ground on the 50+1. If it thinks for a second it might lose some power by pushing 50+1 it will ditch it.
      In any event the collective bluff of the lot of them will be exposed on this very matter.

      Delete
  15. Dickie Dinosaur has resigned as DUP leader. The next leader might be more progressive and believe the earth is 7000 years old!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. AM said:
    ‘There are three nations on the island of GB - England, Scotland and Wales. In Ireland we have the Irish nation - what is the other?’

    The Ulster Scots/Ulster British, whatever term for the same ethnic people. Nationalists often called them the Planters, which is fair enough. Just as distinct from the Gael/Irish as the Kurds are from the Turks, or the English from the Gael/Irish.

    ‘International law can be an ass but not a talking one!!! It is what we have and it is not going to be subverted by a tiny crowd in the North who might try to crash the internal democratic arrangement in the North.’

    That argument has bee used by Nationalists/Republicans about Partition when it happened. But it was bogus then and still is. Two nations, one land – always requires an accommodation, not an annexation.

    ‘There is no minority nation to be overruled. You haven't told us what it is yet.'

    As above.


    ‘And gays - should they be compensated for having moved to the UK due to discrimination?’

    If they are a nation who had to relocate, Yes.

    ‘We have an agreed solution - 50+1. It is not as if it was something ushered in by the GFA. It has been there since 73. Prior to that it was a majority of MPs at Stormont.’

    It was never right. The failure to respect national rights has dogged every attempt to get a lasting agreement on our future. The majoritarian idea was bogus, whether agreed to by the UUP or DUP.

    ‘Sean has a nationality - Irish. He feels it has been overruled and that people such as yourself are continuing to try and overrule it?’

    Yes, but I am willing to accommodate his Irishness as much as he will accommodate my Britishness, my Ulster Scots/British Ulsterness. Neither of us should want to overrule the other.

    ‘What is your nationality? We should use your passport as a start - what does it say on it?’

    It says I'm British, a British subject, a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It doesn't specify what particular nation among the British nations of the UK. But like the English, Scots and Welsh, I'm British. Call me an Ulster Scot or a British Ulster or a Planter, I don't mind. And I don't mind sharing an identity with my Irish fellow-citizen, and using Northern Irish or Ulster as my identity.

    ‘Any society should want to carry the greatest number of people with it and the greatest number of people have been carried by the 50+1 argument and endorsed it in the GFA.’

    When it comes to national identity, specifically a change to a national identity, each nation in that society has an equal say. A majority of both nations should be required for any change to be made.

    Do you believe that if 10 million English migrated to Ireland, north or south, they would have the right to decide on a re-unification with the UK, even if the Irish nation disagrees? Is it majorities in a society that get the final say, even if it is a matter one of the nations objects to?

    ‘He talks more gunk about a multi national state. A multi cultural state is not the same thing as a multi national state.’

    He, hopefully, has come to recognise the reality. Not a matter of cultures – a matter of nations.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AM said:
    ‘But Leo's party has a long history of abandoning nationalists in the North. Had the Southern establishment taken more interest in representing nationalists in the North without pushing for a united Ireland, I think the IRA campaign might have been avoided.’

    Yes, missed opportunities all around. Lemass and O'Neill could have begun a real process of mutual respect and recognition. Even further back, had the Unionist leaders supported the Irish right to self-determination rather that seeking to stop it, maybe the Irish leaders could have come to support a separate state for the British in the North, without either feeling deprived or antagonistic.

    ‘I think Leo is more concerned with the rise of SF thanks is with being generous to unionists.
    Oddly enough Ian, I think SF is likely to give ground on the 50+1. If it thinks for a second it might lose some power by pushing 50+1 it will ditch it.’

    Hmm. That would remove the threat aspect of Nationalism/Republicanism, and gain a respect among Unionists. But I think it unlikely, so the Unionist leaders can breath a sigh of relief!

    ‘In any event the collective bluff of the lot of them will be exposed on this very matter.’

    I hope not. It would be very expensive for all of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. remember that only a week ago Leo was pandering to the rise in support for SF by talking up a united Ireland in his lifetime. The reaction from Brandon Lewis and others has him in reverse gear.
      I suppose now with the rise and fall of Dickie Dinosaur, unionism is in a more confused and disorganised state than heretofore. But he was totally out of touch with reality so it is no surprise really.

      Delete
  18. The Ulster Scots / Ulster British are not a nation (the slippage between the terms implies whoever uses the either-or doesn't know that they are either) but a figment of imagination. Where are they recognised as a nation in International law? What provisions exists for them that applies to say the Irish nation? Claiming to be the old nation of Lurganoia doesn't make a nation of Lurganonia. Some might aspire to be that just as some aspire to being the lost tribe of Israel. In real terms it amounts to zilch.
    There is a recognition that we have two traditions on the island but no recognition that we have two nations. And if you are to make any headway in advancing the cause of the unionist tradition, you would need to give up on what very few take seriously. But like Young Earth Creationism, you are perfectly entitled to believe in it. The big obstacle is that practically so few others do.
    Why would gays have to be a nation before they could be compensated? A gay person whose sexuality is legally recognised in a way that your proclaimed nationality is not would have a stronger claim to compensation than you would. It seems you are want to use the cloak of a nationality that you do not have for the purposes of disadvantaging gays.
    I just call you Ian - the rest doesn't much matter. If you believe you are British, I am fine with that but you are no more an Ulster Scots national than you are a French national.
    As the only body in the North that has a right to self determination is the six county unit there is only a need for the consent of that body. A majority of nationalists was never considered essential for partition to prevail so it is a bit late in the day to shift the goalposts.
    So instead of making up imaginary nations why not do something positive like trying to persuade nationalists of the benefit of remaining in the UK? You might as well tell people the world is 6000 years old as tell them about the Ulster Scots nation. It is an article of faith that is not going to make you much progress.
    I am not much of a nationalist so if a majority of people in Ireland decided that they wanted to move away from the concept of nationhood and onto something more regional I would be fine with it. Ultimately I have a preference in principle for globalism and a world government. I have a Free Presbyterian pastor friend who when he visits me pulls a face on being told that - and tells me he thinks that is on a par with my atheism! He thinks my atheism and globalism are even worse than my republicanism!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. do you reckon there is as much evidence for the existence of a Ulster Scots nation as there is for a 6000 year old earth or would one have more evidence in its favour than another?

      Delete
  19. AM said:
    ‘The Ulster Scots / Ulster British are not a nation (the slippage between the terms implies whoever uses the either-or doesn't know that they are either) but a figment of imagination.’

    No, it means different terms can be used to denote the same entity. Like Gael/Irish.

    ‘Where are they recognised as a nation in International law?’

    Nations do not need international law to recognise them. Are there nations not recognised in international law? I don't know. Tibetans, Kurds, Sri Lankan Tamils, Basques, Quebecois, etc?

    ‘What provisions exists for them that applies to say the Irish nation? Claiming to be the old nation of Lurganoia doesn't make a nation of Lurganonia. Some might aspire to be that just as some aspire to being the lost tribe of Israel. In real terms it amounts to zilch.’

    The British Ulster/Ulster Scots/Planters have a clear history and identity. Even the past Nationalist denotation of them as Planters shows their separate identity. They are as distinct from the Irish as the Qubecois are from the Anglo Canadians.

    ‘There is a recognition that we have two traditions on the island but no recognition that we have two nations. And if you are to make any headway in advancing the cause of the unionist tradition, you would need to give up on what very few take seriously.’

    There will be no point in a Unionist tradition if it is a tiny subset of Irishness, an alien leftover to be tolerated until it vanishes. Better to drop the whole thing and live as a resident alien, not identifying with the host nation but not interfering with its national identity either. It may come to that, but it will be unlikely to escape the disgruntled separatist stage first, an expensive and dangerous stage.

    ‘But like Young Earth Creationism, you are perfectly entitled to believe in it. The big obstacle is that practically so few others do.’

    Do others, Republicans among them, support the separate identities of the groups I listed above? Are they a majority, or really very few? Either way, that has nothing to do with the reality of their national identity.

    ‘Why would gays have to be a nation before they could be compensated? A gay person whose sexuality is legally recognised in a way that your proclaimed nationality is not would have a stronger claim to compensation than you would. It seems you are want to use the cloak of a nationality that you do not have for the purposes of disadvantaging gays.’

    If governments want to compensate individuals for past civil disabilities, that is OK with me. But it must be for all who were disadvantaged. Non-smokers who had to tolerate passive smoking before smoking in work places and public areas was banned. Many of us endured great discomfort, and quite a few got lung conditions, including cancer, from it. Many young people had no vote before the voting age was dropped.

    ‘I just call you Ian - the rest doesn't much matter. If you believe you are British, I am fine with that but you are no more an Ulster Scots national than you are a French national.’

    So says the Chinese, Turks, Sinhalese, Spanish, etc. Doesn‘t make it so.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AM said:
    ‘As the only body in the North that has a right to self determination is the six county unit there is only a need for the consent of that body. A majority of nationalists was never considered essential for partition to prevail so it is a bit late in the day to shift the goalposts.’

    Partition was conceived as a divying-up of the land for the two nations. But it did not fully separate those nations. It had a great weakness in its inclusion of a large minority in NI. It should have been much fairer on the Irish, relocating the British from the 2 western counties to the other 4. And of course offering that to the Irish who remained in the 4 counties.

    So self-determination does not belong to NI, but to the nations in it.

    ‘So instead of making up imaginary nations why not do something positive like trying to persuade nationalists of the benefit of remaining in the UK?’

    That IS my first preference. But I want to respect their decision if they choose not to.

    ‘You might as well tell people the world is 6000 years old as tell them about the Ulster Scots nation. It is an article of faith that is not going to make you much progress.’

    Sounds like a Republican mental blindness there. Are the other examples of nations without a nation-state not nations in your sight?

    ‘I am not much of a nationalist so if a majority of people in Ireland decided that they wanted to move away from the concept of nationhood and onto something more regional I would be fine with it. Ultimately I have a preference in principle for globalism and a world government.’

    O dear! Your idealism is likely to get you governed by a global dictatorship, not a global happy family. National sovereignty is a happier place to work for freedom.

    ‘I have a Free Presbyterian pastor friend who when he visits me pulls a face on being told that - and tells me he thinks that is on a par with my atheism! He thinks my atheism and globalism are even worse than my republicanism!’

    He's dead-right!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there was never any divvying up of the land between two nations because there were never two nations there. That exists in your head but in few other places.
      It is so well established where self determination lies in the North that it is a waste of time to labour the point. But feel free to hold onto that belief. That very few will pay it the slightest attention does not mean you are prohibited from holding it. Much like you are free to hold a flat earth or young earth view and not be persecuted for it. In terms of making anything happen, forget about it.
      Nations without a nation state can very much be nations. Palestine, Catalonia - but they have wide recognition of their claims to nationhood. Throughout the world people will talk of Palestinian or Catalan nationalism - who ever mentions Ulster Scots nationalism?
      I know the problems with a world government but it is what I prefer. We did not always exists as nations and we will move onto something else although long after I am dead.
      My Free P pastor friend is sound up until he tells me he believes in the inerrancy of the bible and that just gets him eyes roll over look. At that point he has lost touch with reality but I think he is too clever to believe it and just says it because he is supposed to.

      Delete
  21. I'm amazed you think Two Nations in Ireland is my eccentricity. It was foundational from long before Partition.

    And the same principle has applied elsewhere:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-nation_theory

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is your eccentricity - it might be the eccentricity of a few others as well. It has absolutely no relevance to anything. Trawl the papers and political discourse and you will not find it mentioned. It is like the lost tribe of Israel. An wholly marginalised and fringe opinion that is not going to get you listened to, much like young earth or Elvis is still alive. Nobody else but you today seems to think you belong to that nation. That is why I asked you the question if there is more evidence for the Ulster Scots nation than there is for the Young Earth. The answer to that will give some indication of how serious or not your view on this is to be treated.

      Delete
  22. And our own situation:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_nations_theory_(Ireland)

    ReplyDelete