The obvious question here is if SF/IRA were willing to get rid of their terrorist arsenal a year ago, then what has stopped them from doing so in the invening period? What conditions are they now raising to once again postpone what they signed up to do in 1996 (the Mitchell Principles) and again in 1998? How long more will the demcratic parties and the people of these islands have to wait for the terrorists to "do the right thing"?

Why are we waiting, Gonzo, was, IMO, answered in the Irish Times editorial blogged here yesterday.

"There are conflicting views in Government about the likelihood of success. It depends, ultimately, on the political strategy of Sinn Féin and the DUP for the elections in Britain and Northern Ireland next year"

Brian Rowan's analysis is just a wee bit flawed and simplistic. He states that:

The plans are

• to remove the IRA and its guns from the stage;
  
• to bring about a power-sharing government involving the DUP and Sinn Fein;
  
• to scale down the Army's presence in Northern Ireland to that of a peace-time garrison;
  
• to transfer policing and justice powers into the hands of local politicians and,
  
• to win republican support for the new police service and structures in Northern Ireland.

This whole process is of course about much more than removing the IRA and its guns. Unionism might wish for this to be a 'remove the IRA process' but it is not that. It is a 'Peace Process' and this requires some wider thinking.

It is not either about scaling the British Army down to a 'peace-time' garrison. It is about recognising that a considerable section of the community do not wish any British army presence and that their communities must be demilitarised.

It is about recognising that we must have a fair and accountable Policing and Justice system that has the support of all sections of the comunity. All sections of the community deserve this. Who can deny anybody this basic right?

In response to KeithM....Who are you calling 'terrorists'? Thats an easy label. In my opinion succesive British governments have waged a terrorist campaign in this country. Tony Blair is a terrorist, so is George Bush - they have more blood on their hands than 20 IRA's or UDA's -so forget the easy labels and recognise realities.

The reality is that Republicans want a deal - the evidence is there for that. The reality is that Unionism is stalling and moving the goalposts again - the evidence is there for that also.

Liam

There was a deal. Republicans failed to honour their side of it. Hence the breakdown in the "process".

All your bluster about "equality" and policing is a red herring.

The only people who weren't happpy with what was on offer last year were unionists. Both governments were more than satisfied.
As it was ex Vanguard and Ulster Clubs member Trimble yet again lost his nerve and the deal collapsed.

Well, Pat, unionists are the largest single group in NI, so if they're the "only" people not happy, it's quite significant!

Do you support the PSF line on decommissioning, Pat?

Willowfield,

I should have highlighted that I meant Ulster Unionists, as the DUPers weren't involved. But your point still stands unionists are indeed quite significant.

All parties to the agreement should fully meet their obligations under the terms of the GFA.

There was a deal. Republicans failed to honour their side of it. Hence the breakdown in the "process".

Rewriting recent history are we? The reality is that Republicans fully honoured their commitments. Trimble 'put the process on hold' and paid the price for losing his nerve. We all know that so there really is little point re-hashing it.

All your bluster about "equality" and policing is a red herring.

The very fact that you regard these issues as bluster demonstrates how little you understand Republicanism. These are the fundamental issues and Unionism seems to have a great deal of difficulty in coping with them. After all the whole basis of Unionism has been domination so it probably should not be surprising that these issues challenge Unionism at its core.

I readily admit to failing to understand Unionism but am willing to try as we all should be. But your failure to promote your own philosophy does not help.

Pat McLarnon

I should have highlighted that I meant Ulster Unionists, as the DUPers weren't involved.

I don't think the DUP were happy with what was on offer either!

Liam

Rewriting recent history are we?

No.

The reality is that Republicans fully honoured their commitments.

That's not the reality. In fact it's fantasy. They didn't fully honour their commitments.

Trimble 'put the process on hold' and paid the price for losing his nerve. We all know that so there really is little point re-hashing it.

If you think Trimble was ousted for not being soft enough with the Provos, you're off your rocker.

The very fact that you regard these issues as bluster demonstrates how little you understand Republicanism.

On the contrary, it demonstrates how much I understand about republicanism. Republicans need to pretend that their "war" had a purpose and its purpose has been achieved. They're trying to pretend that "equality" was its purpose and that "equality" is an important part of the GFA. It's not. There was "equality" before the GFA and there is "equality" now. All the equality measures in the Agreement have been implemented and are being implemented. It's not an issue, except insofar as PSF need to be heard to be banging on about it for their own purposes.

These are the fundamental issues and Unionism seems to have a great deal of difficulty in coping with them.

"Equality" is not a fundamental issue. The fundamental issue was and is paramilitarism. The DUP have added a further issue, namely accountability. There is no issue about "equality".

After all the whole basis of Unionism has been domination so it probably should not be surprising that these issues challenge Unionism at its core.

No. The whole basis of unionism has been maintaining the Union. No unionist today is advocating "domination". The issue of "equality" does not challenge unionism at its core. No unionist parties are opposing "equality".

Willowfield

you said:
"On the contrary, it demonstrates how much I understand about republicanism. Republicans need to pretend that their "war" had a purpose and its purpose has been achieved. They're trying to pretend that "equality" was its purpose and that "equality" is an important part of the GFA. It's not. There was "equality" before the GFA and there is "equality" now"

and:
""Equality" is not a fundamental issue"

I find this confusing, because on another thread, you quite rightly acknowledge the past injustices of unionist rule. You acknowledged that this provided the base conditions for republican violence.

Cant you take the next logical step and acknowledge that the legacy of unionist supremecist rule still exists today - admittedly to a lesser extent, but considerable nonetheless. Inequality in justice and policing is just one of the areas where we see this.

And to state that equality in NI is not a fundamental issue - I would disagree fully with that - I believe that equality is THE fundamental issue - as you have said - it is inequality and injustice that creates the conditions for violent rebellion. IMHO it is these circumstances, far more than nationalist aspirations that have give weight and support to violent republicanism.

Jessop- what form of "equality" do you want ?
Equality based on the politics of Universalism or equality based on the politics of Difference ?

Willow succinctly and accurately encapsulates the Unionist case on this occasion folks

Just plain old equality will do thanks.

You have acknowlegded that inequality has existed in the past, I am asking if you believe that the inequalities have been completely eradicated - or can you acknowledge that a legacy of inequality still exists in northern ireland.

Denials of this legacy can be wrapped up in philosophical mumbo jumbo if you like, but it doesnt change the fact that the inequalities are still with us today.

Jessop, there is more than one form of equality.

FAO: davidbrew -

by muddying the waters with distinctions of "politics of universalism" and "politics of difference", Willowfield may well be encapsulating the unionist case - but its not a very strong one in my opinion.

Aye Davros, I know that, but lets not get away from the basic realities here. There are and always has been distint and clear inequalities in NI society.

As moderate unionist and an intelligent human being, surely you can acknowledge this?

sorry, my typing leaves a lot to be desired

No Problems about the typing jessop.

Would that it were as simple. The conflict between What Taylor called the politics of difference and politics of universalism lies at the heart of this. The "Two" sides here, Unionism and Nationalism are,broadly speaking, asking for and measuring 'different' equalities.

Personally speaking I would come down on the side of the politics of difference , but then I'm not a Unionist, merely a member of what is called the unionist community.

In the Politics of Universalism every individual citizen has identical rights.

In the politics of difference focuses on the distinctiveness of every individual and focuses on positive discriminatory practices to ensure equality ( Nic Craith)

Universalism seeks non-discrimination, level playing field and should be culture-blind

However in the politics of difference , because minorities are different, it is argued that even with identical rights because they are disadvantaged by being minority - disadvantaged as in a social sense in that they will always struggle against being assimilated - then to reach a Level playing field they will need EXTRA beyond what the Politics of Universalism allows with it's provision of identical rights.

So , We have a situation where quite properly by THEIR way of looking at it , Unionists can rightly claim that there Already IS equality.

However in nationalist eyes, quite rightly by their way of looking at it , they are still disadvantaged.

So, there is , and there isn't equality.

Davros, I agree with most of what you say - I am not trying to over-simplify the issue - I know there must be compromise on each side to see the other's viewpoint.

The reality is that NI is a polarised society and therefore the politics of difference must be acknowledged and must come into play.

It is not appropriate to look at the situation solely through the prism of the politics of universalism, as many unionists do.

Just to finalise on that point, being in the majority, it is very easy and in fact advantagous for unionists to apply the logic of universalism. By that logic, the majority always wins.

jessop, I repeat, I personally would come down on the politics of difference.

But unless equality was specifically defined and decided upon, there is no resolution possible.

The same mess occurs with "parity of esteem".
undefined. In our polarised society, it will mean whatever best serves the interests of whichever side is discussing whether or not it has been achieved.

Cheers

OK Davros

It looks like we are actually in agreement here at least to some degree.

But its not nearly enough to say that there is no inequality because the definition of equality is unclear.

There are hard facts and figures which will show that the nationalist community has been distinctly disadvantaged in numerous areas such as housing, employment levels, bias within the police force and the justice system etc, the list goes on and on and although there have been significant improvements, many basic and measurable inequalities are still there.

Going forward, yes, the definition of equality needs to be clearly defined so as not to exclude the viewpoint of either community, but lets try to achieve a level playing field first, no?

Davros

I don't see the two forms of equality as necessarily incompatible. The ideal we should aspire to is that of universalism where every citizen has the same rights under the law irrespective of race creed or gender.

Clearly we are a long way from that. Equality demands that we redress some of the imbalances that grew up under the system of discrimination of the past. But these should be short term measures to redress imbalances rather than the division of people into groups for all time.

For example we have nationalist and unionist blocks in the assembly and would probably have them in a united Ireland parliament too. But a time will come when people don't see themselves in such terms.

So if you had a Parliament with 5 unionists 5 nationalists and 90 European type Social and Christian Democrats then the dual consent principle wouldn't make too much sense.

jessop

I find this confusing, because on another thread, you quite rightly acknowledge the past injustices of unionist rule. You acknowledged that this provided the base conditions for republican violence.

You should learn to distinguish between the past and present tenses.

Cant you take the next logical step and acknowledge that the legacy of unionist supremecist rule still exists today - admittedly to a lesser extent, but considerable nonetheless.

What legacy? You mean the culture of victimhood? And how does this make "equality" an issue in respect of the GFA, when there is no dispute about it, and the equality provisions are being implemented?

Inequality in justice and policing is just one of the areas where we see this.

What is this "inequality in justice and policing" and what is the issue about it in respect of the GFA?

And to state that equality in NI is not a fundamental issue - I would disagree fully with that - I believe that equality is THE fundamental issue - as you have said - it is inequality and injustice that creates the conditions for violent rebellion. IMHO it is these circumstances, far more than nationalist aspirations that have give weight and support to violent republicanism.

Sorry. Equality is not an issue at all in respect of the GFA. The issues are paramilitarism and accountability.

Inequality and injustice may have helped create the conditions for the Troubles, but that was 35 years ago. Inequality and injustice are no longer issues.

by muddying the waters with distinctions of "politics of universalism" and "politics of difference", Willowfield may well be encapsulating the unionist case - but its not a very strong one in my opinion.

Er, I mentioned neither the "politics of universalism" nor the "politics of difference".

Henry94

I don't see the two forms of equality as necessarily incompatible. The ideal we should aspire to is that of universalism where every citizen has the same rights under the law irrespective of race creed or gender.

We've already got that.

Clearly we are a long way from that.

How?

willowfield

First of all we are in a monarchy which confers the right to be head of state on a partuicular family of a particular religion.

We are ruled by a British Parliamment where the members of one chamber are appointees not electees. You can argue for that but you can't claim it's equality. You can't even sit in the parliament unless you swear an oath to the unelected protestant monarch.

Nor do we, being ruled by the British, have any rights at all under the law that can't be simply overturned by the British government at any time. The right to silence, freedom from arrest without charge, freedom of speech can and have all been overturned in my lifetime.

It is facile to claim that as equlity because everybody can have their right taken away. In reality it is applied to particular groups.

In the six counties in particular we don't even have the basic political rights that we voted for in the Agreement. All suspended by the member for Sedgefield to help the member for Upper Bann.

Henry - we touch on another difference
(generalisation to which there are exceptions)
between Unionism and Nationalism.

Unionism is focused more on individual rights than on group rights.

Nationalism is more focused on Group rights and responsibilities.

My interpretation is that we are at a situation where

Unionists feel that there IS already equality for the individual as we all have the same defined rights- and that any discrimination - which will always occur - is an abberation and injustice for which there are corrective and punitive meassure in force.

Nationalists feel that what is in place STILL leaves them at a collective disadvantage.

To address that collective advantage there needs to be positive discrimination - something for which I personally feel some sympathy.

However Unionists would view that NOT as positive discrimination for the "Other" BUT as negative discrimination against the individuals who make up the majority, and as such is unacceptable to them.

Now when you say

But these should be short term measures to redress imbalances rather than the division of people into groups for all time.

we run into big problems. If we are talking about a multicultural society , we ARE hoping to maintain a pluralist society Long term. That is after all the point of the positive discrimination. So that minority groups survive against the natural assimilationist pressures that they will face both externally and internally.

eg - assuming that there are no longer plans to make Ireland a monolingual community speaking Gaelic and assuming that the language of International business etc continues to be English
then Irish will always be at a disadvantage and will always need some form of assistance to avoid being swamped by English. That will be a long-term need. This is not a finite "compensation" for what went before, but a mechanism for alleviating the natural pressures faced by minority groups faced by a majority. I'm not talking about an active process of besiegement by majority against minority, but the unavoidable day to day pressures
of inconvenience.

Henry94

First of all we are in a monarchy which confers the right to be head of state on a partuicular family of a particular religion.

LOL! Well if that's all you have to worry about, we're doing pretty well! Wise up.

We are ruled by a British Parliamment where the members of one chamber are appointees not electees.

They can be overruled by the Commons. The Southern Senate also contains appointees. You're clutching at straws.

You can argue for that but you can't claim it's equality. You can't even sit in the parliament unless you swear an oath to the unelected protestant monarch.

Such oppression!!

Nor do we, being ruled by the British, have any rights at all under the law that can't be simply overturned by the British government at any time. The right to silence, freedom from arrest without charge, freedom of speech can and have all been overturned in my lifetime.

Well, if they are "overturned", the law will apply to everyone equally.

It is facile to claim that as equlity because everybody can have their right taken away. In reality it is applied to particular groups.

Like criminals.

In the six counties in particular we don't even have the basic political rights that we voted for in the Agreement. All suspended by the member for Sedgefield to help the member for Upper Bann.

We all suffer equally from that.

In total, that was a very weak argument that we don't have "equality".

Henry94's claims of "inequality" amount to the monarchy and House of Lords, and the fact that Parliament can introduce emergency measures (only within the context of the European Convention on Human Rights).

Poor, oppressed Henry. Suffering because he can't become king.

And they wonder why they're called the MOPEs!

willowfield

Givin the choice I think it will be more interesting to have a serious conversation with davros than be drawn into a conversation about equality with someone who neither understands it nor believes in it.

b davros

Unionism is focused more on individual rights than on group rights.

We have this state because Unionism was focused not on rights at all but on privileges and group privileges at that!.

But for the sake of argument lets accept that goodwill exists on both sides and that Unionists see rights as belonging to individuals not groups. What then are we to make of the de facto policy of regarding certain areas as Protestant for housing purposes.

I would welcome signs of a genuine commitment to individual rights from Unionists but it was only a few months since the talks had to be interrupted so the DUP could rush to London to vote against Civil Partnerships for gay couples. The Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign lives on as does the No Sport on Sunday campaign.

In fairness the old man is mellowing. We don't hear too much about the evils of line-dancing these days. A pity, because he was right about that one.

What evidence is there that any Unionist leader has ever made a stand for any rights other than the rights of Unionists. How can we take such claims seriously or come to any conclusion other than that this new-found interest in individual rights is just "what we have we hold" as expressed by a spin doctor.

Nationalism is more focused on Group rights and responsibilities.

I don't know about that either. I think nationalisms gioal is an al-Ireland republic based on individual rights but if we are forced to live in a state founded on groups then we will settle for group rights until we can have the republic we want.

To address that collective advantage there needs to be positive discrimination - something for which I personally feel some sympathy.

However Unionists would view that NOT as positive discrimination for the "Other" BUT as negative discrimination against the individuals who make up the majority, and as such is unacceptable to them.

For nationalists that is just "unionism as usual" trying to maintain the privlieges they took for themselves when they were running the Orange state. The very reason we are even talking about redressing the balance is because the imbalance existed in the first place.

we run into big problems. If we are talking about a multicultural society , we ARE hoping to maintain a pluralist society Long term. That is after all the point of the positive discrimination. So that minority groups survive against the natural assimilationist pressures that they will face both externally and internally.

I think there is a false dichotomy between assimilation and multiculturalism. We'll have some of both. But it is a mistake to confuse that issue with the problem of addressing the legacy of partition and the Orange State. That is a unique situation and requires a unique sloution.

When the primary political division is between two conflicting constitutional positions, largely similar to the religious division, both armed, after a 30 year conflict then we need to be very clear that we are talking about a situation which needs to be addressed in terms of its own reality.

eg - assuming that there are no longer plans to make Ireland a monolingual community speaking Gaelic and assuming that the language of International business etc continues to be English
then Irish will always be at a disadvantage and will always need some form of assistance to avoid being swamped by English.

Thats like saying that important buildings need planning laws to avoid being flattened and replaced by shopping centres. Are you not yourself lapsing into group think now. If government has cultural responsibilities and I think we agree that it does then the preservation of the Irish language is one of them. Just as the Irish government had a cultural and historical responsibility to preserve the Battle of the Boyne site.

But I would certainly agree, if this is your point, that there should not be any question of compulsion about irish north or south. Government money or none Irish will survive and thrive if people see a value in it and want it to survive.

But the real problem is that we have not come up with agreed mechanisms for deciding questions of rights. That's why the Parades Commission was imposed on us and why we talk more about flags than the rest of the EU put together.

l

Dammit Henry, I'm going to have to go to Word to sort this one out!

D: Unionism is focused more on individual rights than on group rights.

H: We have this state because Unionism was focused not on rights at all but on privileges and group privileges at that!.

That’s why I used the present tense Henry. Can we stick with trying to sort the now out between ourselves – not being difficult, just trying to limit the discussion to something manageable. Otherwise we will wander off at all sorts of tangents.

H: But for the sake of argument lets accept that goodwill exists on both sides and that Unionists see rights as belonging to individuals not groups. What then are we to make of the de facto policy of regarding certain areas as Protestant for housing purposes.

Pragmatism Henry. Both sides indulge in it for varous reasons – as it can affect electoral results in wards etc. Nationalists claim some areas as Catholic – eg Garvaghey Road is deemed “Catholic Housing” and as such off limits to Orange feet.

H: I would welcome signs of a genuine commitment to individual rights from Unionists but it was only a few months since the talks had to be interrupted so the DUP could rush to London to vote against Civil Partnerships for gay couples. The Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign lives on as does the No Sport on Sunday campaign.
In fairness the old man is mellowing. We don't hear too much about the evils of line-dancing these days. A pity, because he was right about that one.

What evidence is there that any Unionist leader has ever made a stand for any rights other than the rights of Unionists. How can we take such claims seriously or come to any conclusion other than that this new-found interest in individual rights is just "what we have we hold" as expressed by a spin doctor.

I’m not trying to argue specifics or that one side or the other is perfect Henry. I’m looking at the principles involved. I can at times try and play ‘devil’s advocate’ – an interesting exercise as I learn quite a lot, especially when I have to try and represent or defend aspects of the republican case. So here we go-

1) the gay thing was rights being complicated by issues of morality. Same sort of problem exists over reproductive rights for Sinn Féin.

2) Unionist theorists would argue that within the civic model, when they argue for Unionist rights any gains in rights by Unionists AUTOMATICALLY are conferred on non-Unionists as all citizens have the same rights.

3) Re any Unionist making stand for Non-Unionists. Terence O’Neill. That Paisley didn’t get his own way all the time when he was at his most monstrous. That you and I are having this dialogue. At some point we have to trust each other – I could as easily ask how do I know that you aren’t a ‘republican wolf in sheep’s clothing’ ?

D: Nationalism is more focused on Group rights and responsibilities.

H: I don't know about that either. I think nationalisms gioal is an al-Ireland republic based on individual rights but if we are forced to live in a state founded on groups then we will settle for group rights until we can have the republic we want.

Nationalism relies on the “other” in order to define itself Henry. If you focus on the rights of the individual you lose sight of the group identity. Here’s another crunch point for nationalism and republicanism – unless you intend to stamp out diversity and remove pluralism, even when you got a 32 county irish republic it would have cultural and ethnic diversity. Not even the French managed to solve that one, though they engineered substantial changes in the 19th century linguistically.

D:To address that collective advantage there needs to be positive discrimination - something for which I personally feel some sympathy.

However Unionists would view that NOT as positive discrimination for the "Other" BUT as negative discrimination against the individuals who make up the majority, and as such is unacceptable to them.

H: For nationalists that is just "unionism as usual" trying to maintain the privlieges they took for themselves when they were running the Orange state. The very reason we are even talking about redressing the balance is because the imbalance existed in the first place.

Difference of perception Henry. By Unionist thinking one can do no better than accord identical rights to every citizen.

D: we run into big problems. If we are talking about a multicultural society , we ARE hoping to maintain a pluralist society Long term. That is after all the point of the positive discrimination. So that minority groups survive against the natural assimilationist pressures that they will face both externally and internally.

H: I think there is a false dichotomy between assimilation and multiculturalism. We'll have some of both. But it is a mistake to confuse that issue with the problem of addressing the legacy of partition and the Orange State. That is a unique situation and requires a unique sloution.

When the primary political division is between two conflicting constitutional positions, largely similar to the religious division, both armed, after a 30 year conflict then we need to be very clear that we are talking about a situation which needs to be addressed in terms of its own reality.

I’m not convinced that we are “unique” Henry. There are plenty of places round the world that are coping with cultural and religious stews as difficult as ours.But to keep this simple and to principles, I’ld like to leave that for another time ?

In respect of the legacy of partition and Orange state, I would respectfully suggest that we are in danger of going down a cul de sac.

Rather than pursue the oppositional dialogue- this is me speaking as someone outside the Unionist and Nationalist political camps – One side wanting changes that have a punitive and compensatory functional component and the other side taking a negative, damage limitation stance trying to incur as few ‘losses’ in a zero sum game – I would want a process of starting from scratch and trying to agree on new systems that step outside of the past and build structures and mechanisms that satisfy all the conflicting and different group needs.

D: eg - assuming that there are no longer plans to make Ireland a monolingual community speaking Gaelic and assuming that the language of International business etc continues to be English then Irish will always be at a disadvantage and will always need some form of assistance to avoid being swamped by English.

H: Thats like saying that important buildings need planning laws to avoid being flattened and replaced by shopping centres. Are you not yourself lapsing into group think now. If government has cultural responsibilities and I think we agree that it does then the preservation of the Irish language is one of them. Just as the Irish government had a cultural and historical responsibility to preserve the Battle of the Boyne site.

As I said, I favour the politics of difference Henry, so it’s not, for once, that I’m being inconsistent by lapsing into group think from an individualist position, I don’t think society and our problems can be sorted out by only dealing with individual rights in the assumption that this will automatically address group issues .

H: But I would certainly agree, if this is your point, that there should not be any question of compulsion about irish north or south. Government money or none Irish will survive and thrive if people see a value in it and want it to survive.

But the real problem is that we have not come up with agreed mechanisms for deciding questions of rights. That's why the Parades Commission was imposed on us and why we talk more about flags than the rest of the EU put together.

I would go further than that Henry. The mechanisms themselves to decide the questions of rights can only be decided after the fundamentals of rights have been agreed upon.

The basics have to be addressed. Identity. Cultural/ Ethnic Unionism/Nationalism.Until a common goal is decided there will be tension and conflict that guarantees future problems.

That’s it. I have tried to step outside of the limitations of my own prejudices, conditioning and upbringing, but I know there will be places where you will be able to point and say “unionist thinking”.

Davros

I know there will be places where you will be able to point and say “unionist thinking

I won’t bother. Slugger is at its most interesting when people try to think outside the usual tracks and I welcome the fact you are doing so here. I’ll try to respond in kind.

I would go further than that Henry. The mechanisms themselves to decide the questions of rights can only be decided after the fundamentals of rights have been agreed upon.

I don’t know. Take Parades. It is hard for us to agree on the rights around parades because we don’t agree on what the parades are. A unionist sees them as tradition/cultural/social while a nationalist sees them as sectarian/intrusive/intimidation.

What I would propose is an agreement in principle about what level of opposition it should take to block a parade going through an area. 50%? 75%? There should be an opportunity for parade organisers to appeal, meet or write to the residents if they wanted.

The point would be an agreed device for resolving the issue.

Likewise with cultural/symbolic issues at local level. Agree the majority or cross-community basis for deciding and then apply it across the board. Thus we can avoid people on both sides demanding one basis for decisions in Derry and another in Belfast depending on the balance of numbers.

For example if we agreed a cross-community basis for decisions the name of Derry would require unionist agreement and the flying of the Union Flag on Belfast City Hall would require nationalist agreement.

The basics have to be addressed. Identity. Cultural/ Ethnic Unionism/Nationalism. Until a common goal is decided there will be tension and conflict that guarantees future problems.

Our common goal I hope is a society where we can learn to live together in peace irrespective of the outcome of the constitutional question.

I don’t think society and our problems can be sorted out by only dealing with individual rights in the assumption that this will automatically address group issues

I agree but I also agree that individual rights are far more important and are the basis of a democratic society. That’s why I oppose but compulsion in the Irish language and forced integration in schools. Again it is applying the principle to the situation rather than dreaming up principles to suit a view of a situation.

I would want a process of starting from scratch and trying to agree on new systems that step outside of the past and build structures and mechanisms that satisfy all the conflicting and different group needs.

That sounds like the all-Ireland elected constitutional conference I advocate following a vote for Irish unity. I don’t think you and I would find much to disagree about at such a conference.

I’m not convinced that we are “unique” Henry. There are plenty of places round the world that are coping with cultural and religious stews as difficult as ours.

Sure but it is a different level of complexity than the normal assimilation/multicultural questions in states where there is no constitutional issue.

even when you got a 32 county irish republic it would have cultural and ethnic diversity.

Great.

That is a very welcome and positive thing. My nationalism is simply the belief that the people living on the island should govern ourselves. That means that the person who has moved here from Nigeria or Poland or China should have an equal say with you and I.

Nationalism relies on the “other” in order to define itself Henry.

That’s why republican is the more accurate term for what I believe

1) the gay thing was rights being complicated by issues of morality. Same sort of problem exists over reproductive rights for Sinn Féin.

That is true but no much good in defending the theory that unionists have a stronger belief in the rights of individuals. I don’t see any evidence to support that proposition.

Re any Unionist making stand for Non-Unionists. Terence O’Neill

That’s why I used the present tense Henry.

Which is it? O'Neill was an anti-Catholic bigot anyway but he could see the writing on the wall for the Orange State. But where are the defenders of individual rights within unionism today. I can't think of anyone you could even make a case for.

D: I would go further than that Henry. The mechanisms themselves to decide the questions of rights can only be decided after the fundamentals of rights have been agreed upon.

H: I don’t know. Take Parades. It is hard for us to agree on the rights around parades because we don’t agree on what the parades are. A unionist sees them as tradition/cultural/social while a nationalist sees them as sectarian/intrusive/intimidation.
What I would propose is an agreement in principle about what level of opposition it should take to block a parade going through an area. 50%? 75%? There should be an opportunity for parade organisers to appeal, meet or write to the residents if they wanted.
The point would be an agreed device for resolving the issue.
Likewise with cultural/symbolic issues at local level. Agree the majority or cross-community basis for deciding and then apply it across the board. Thus we can avoid people on both sides demanding one basis for decisions in Derry and another in Belfast depending on the balance of numbers.
For example if we agreed a cross-community basis for decisions the name of Derry would require unionist agreement and the flying of the Union Flag on Belfast City Hall would require nationalist agreement.

Fair proposals for dealing with the problems now. Underlying issues would have to be sorted out. My own take on the Parades thing – if and when we get a fair settlement of the bigger issues then a lot of the contributary factors that have caused people to take such intractable positions will not be relevent and progress will come. I know you won’t necessarily agree but the parades issue has been used by party strategists for short term-gain and while very successful, has left a huge problem. Party politicians should not be involved.A first step is that the OO needs to sever it’s links to the UUP. The RM needs to pull back as well and let local residents sort out issues. Local residents need to be more sensitive in their choice of negotiators.

D: The basics have to be addressed. Identity. Cultural/ Ethnic Unionism/Nationalism. Until a common goal is decided there will be tension and conflict that guarantees future problems.

H: Our common goal I hope is a society where we can learn to live together in peace irrespective of the outcome of the constitutional question.

Agreed. For that to occur there has to be a sense of security – not security as in security forces etc. That security will only come if and when we get to know each other and start to respect each others traditions. The level of ignorance is atonishing – and is both manipulated and used by Politicians.

D: I don’t think society and our problems can be sorted out by only dealing with individual rights in the assumption that this will automatically address group issues

H: I agree but I also agree that individual rights are far more important and are the basis of a democratic society. That’s why I oppose but compulsion in the Irish language and forced integration in schools. Again it is applying the principle to the situation rather than dreaming up principles to suit a view of a situation.

D: I would want a process of starting from scratch and trying to agree on new systems that step outside of the past and build structures and mechanisms that satisfy all the conflicting and different group needs.

H: That sounds like the all-Ireland elected constitutional conference I advocate following a vote for Irish unity. I don’t think you and I would find much to disagree about at such a conference.

We would agree on a lot of fundamental issues. I suspect that is because we are able to step outside of the immediate conflicts and tensions.
If we set aside my preferred mechanism via the EU, I would suggest that realistically with the mindset of our politicians and people especially those in contested areas, that we first of all need a period of calm in NI before any all-Ireland component can be started. (Not talking about N-S bodies which are to do with facilitating co-operation between the 6 and 26 here, but in terms of looking at the bigger picture ).

Let me run this past you-

Unionists want to see NI running as a fair society ( to be agreed for NI before we can consider your proposals for a Fair [also to be agreed] 32 county Ireland) in it’s own right. They are deeply suspicious that what is on offer is only a half-way house to weaken ties with GB in a process of breaking the Union in Grandmothers footsteps. Setting aside the Zealots – no matter what is on offer zealots on both sides will never be happy – unionists would be happy with a working fair NI in which they had the choice looking at options and of listening to what was on offer from a concrete and secure base, a NI that could exist long-term. I don’t think it will be possible for unionists to give any fair consideration to the possibility of a 32 Irish State IF they are still in a siege mind-set. Republicans and Nationalists say –in good faith and with considerable and justified frustration – at least CONSIDER what we are saying. Being realistic for that to happen there would have to be a degree of self-confidence within the unionist community that is constantly undermined by the assertion that the only long-term aim and workable solution is a 32 county Ireland.

I’m not saying- which would be foolish and even insulting – that nationalists and republicans shouldn’t continue to aspire to that 32 county state. What I am saying is that you should consider going back, in some ways, to the Stages Theory. Concentrate on a working NI and once that has been up and running for some time – 5 years, 10 years , 20 years ? – THEN will be the time to approach the all Ireland option. Only then will unionists be secure enough, relaxed and have enough self-confidence to look at what you are saying with an open mind. Because by giving equal prominence to NI and to 32 county, you are constantly reinforcing their fears and their paranoia which is in the long term counter productive to your goal.

I accept that it shouldn’t be this way. We shouldn’t be starting from this point but we have to be realistic, acknowledge where we are rather than where we should have been , and we shouldn’t let past injustices or mistakes cloud our judgement.

Last point – some may feel that by strengthening NI ( by building a decent NI first before making any substantive attempt to move to a 32 Ireland) they will be weakening the case for or danmaging the prospects of a 32 county Ireland. I would argue to the contrary. The problem in the past was that there was a weak Free State/ROI and a relatively strong NI. Now there is a strong ROI and NI is more of a mess than ever. The ONLY way to peacefully achieve a succcessful 32 county Irish state that has long-term viability is through the unification , by Choice, of two equally strong states. And for those who are suspicious that by founding a strong NI they are strengthening Unionism I would say that if we have a FAIR NI then you will be able to make your case and if you have confidence in your cause it will win through on it’s merits. What is to be lost by a few more years delay ? Trying to run before we walk, trying to force the issue is actually counter-productive.The Unfair NI of the past was intolerable for you. However a Fair NI is a different kettle of fish.

Summary: you are suspicious of us, we are suspicious of you. Show us that this isn’t a trojan horse. We are at the stage now, both sides, where keeping the zealots on board is poisoning the relationship between those of us in both communities to do want to move forward.

D: Nationalism relies on the “other” in order to define itself Henry.
H: That’s why republican is the more accurate term for what I believe

When you establish a republic there are still “others” Henry.The others outside of your borders upon whom you have no control. Still leaves the issue of the “others within”. Do you try to assimilate them ? Do you encourage or discourage diversity ? Do you follow the French Model ? In 1790, according to census, only 12.5% of the population of France spoke French as first language. Today they are still dealing with the problems and tensions caused by the policies they followed to try and harmonise language and build a homogenous French Identity.

D: 1) the gay thing was rights being complicated by issues of morality. Same sort of problem exists over reproductive rights for Sinn Féin.

H : That is true but no much good in defending the theory that unionists have a stronger belief in the rights of individuals. I don’t see any evidence to support that proposition.

It wasn’t meant to denigrate or imply that there is more respect for the right of individuals.But the FOCUS is different. There are complicated religious and cultural factors at play.

D:Re any Unionist making stand for Non-Unionists. Terence O’Neill
D: That’s why I used the present tense Henry.

H: Which is it? O'Neill was an anti-Catholic bigot anyway but he could see the writing on the wall for the Orange State. But where are the defenders of individual rights within unionism today. I can't think of anyone you could even make a case for.

In the context of the different times Henry. Then O’Neill , whatever his motives, DID stand against those whose ‘answer’ was to increase oppression rather than listen to fair requests. That’s what I meant.

When I talk of Individual vs Group rights today, I’m looking at approaches to how we deal with the rights issues rather than specifics of defining individual rights Henry, talking of generalisations rather than specifics.

God this stuff is hard to put into words and it’s difficult to phrase things in such a way as to try and avoid misunderstandings or end up giving offence . I had to go back and rewrite bits because I realised that they could be misread as being from an arrogant Unionist talking down to … and I have probably still missed some that make sense from my side of the fence but could be misconstrued – so make allowances. I’m not used to debating this sort of theory.

God Bless.

Henry says: the ideal we should aspire to is that of universalism where every citizen has the same rights under the law irrespective of race creed or gender.

He claims we don't have this. Why? Because not everyone can become king; because the House of Lords is appointed; and because Parliament has the theoretical power to make emergency legislation (which would apply to everyone equally anyway).

Is he serious?

davros

I know you won’t necessarily agree but the parades issue has been used by party strategists for short term-gain and while very successful, has left a huge problem. Party politicians should not be involved. A first step is that the OO needs to sever it’s links to the UUP. The RM needs to pull back as well and let local residents sort out issues. Local residents need to be more sensitive in their choice of negotiators.

I don’t see any way of responding to that without getting into the parades issue. On the basis that we are not short of parades discussions I propose to park it if that’s OK with you and concentrate on some of the broader and more interesting issue you raise.

Unionists want to see NI running as a fair society (to be agreed for NI before we can consider your proposals for a Fair [also to be agreed] 32 county Ireland) in it’s own right.

Fair is fair. A fair society in the north can’t depend on us pretending that our political aspirations don’t exist. Unionists can of course decline to consider our proposals and we would be foolish to put forward detailed proposals in an atmosphere where they would not be considered. Sinn Fein are not calling for a referendum today but are happy to fight one if called. The people who have advocated an immediate referendum are the UUP and the SDLP

They are deeply suspicious that what is on offer is only a half-way house to weaken ties with GB in a process of breaking the Union in Grandmothers footsteps.

I think they are right. It is my view that the British intend to divest themselves of the six counties and the process is their way of doing it. What would keep them here?

Unionists would be happy with a working fair NI in which they had the choice looking at options and of listening to what was on offer from a concrete and secure base, a NI that could exist long-term.

If life was all carrot and no stick all we would all be happy donkeys. But the unionists have a political option which is to embrace change and work the institutions. Rather than us coming to you with plans for a united Ireland you should be asking us to look around and see the north working. You can’t do that today. We have no institutions despite the end of the IRA being on the table.

I don’t think it will be possible for unionists to give any fair consideration to the possibility of a 32 Irish State IF they are still in a siege mind-set. Republicans and Nationalists say –in good faith and with considerable and justified frustration – at least CONSIDER what we are saying. Being realistic for that to happen there would have to be a degree of self-confidence within the unionist community that is constantly undermined by the assertion that the only long-term aim and workable solution is a 32 county Ireland.

If we weren’t upfront and honest about wanting a united Ireland wouldn’t unionists become even more paranoid. The consent principle means that we can talk all we like about unity but what we need is the votes to make it happen. How can we win the votes if we can’t discuss the issue?

I’m not saying- which would be foolish and even insulting – that nationalists and republicans shouldn’t continue to aspire to that 32 county state. What I am saying is that you should consider going back, in some ways, to the Stages Theory. Concentrate on a working NI and once that has been up and running for some time – 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? – THEN will be the time to approach the all Ireland option. Only then will unionists be secure enough, relaxed and have enough self-confidence to look at what you are saying with an open mind. Because by giving equal prominence to NI and to 32 county, you are constantly reinforcing their fears and their paranoia which is in the long term counter productive to your goal.

I doubt we will see a referendum for at least 10 years. So if I were a unionist I would use that time to make the north an attractive proposition for nationalists.

The ONLY way to peacefully achieve a successful 32 county Irish state that has long-term viability is through the unification, by Choice, of two equally strong states.

Nationalists and republicans want to share power in the north with unionists in order to improve the lot of all the people here. But the British still set the tax rate and the interest rate. We are still tied to Sterling so we can’t on our own become a strong state in an economic sense. Add in a declining population and the difficulties in competing with the new EU member states we have some serious problems. The reality is we will be a largely services based economy and real growth will be hard to come by. I think we should attach ourselves to the Celtic Tiger as fast as we can.

The Unfair NI of the past was intolerable for you. However a Fair NI is a different kettle of fish.

We seem to be in a logical loop. Unionists won’t agree to a fair NI unless a united Ireland is only discussed by consenting adults in private while we see a united Ireland as the only way to ensure fairness. It is for those who believe in this state to show that in can work. But we can’t even get you into the executive.

Summary: you are suspicious of us, we are suspicious of you. Show us that this isn’t a Trojan horse.

We can go on together with suspicious minds. I expect nothing from unionism therefore I am never disappointed but occasionally pleasantly surprised.

We are at the stage now, both sides, where keeping the zealots on board is poisoning the relationship between those of us in both communities to do want to move forward.

The zealots on our side are overboard but they have lost the argument and have no support. Our fear is that the zealots on your side have seized the bridge.

When you establish a republic there are still “others” Henry. The others outside of your borders upon whom you have no control

We will participate in the world through trade, the EU and the UN.

Still leaves the issue of the “others within”. Do you try to assimilate them? Do you encourage or discourage diversity?

The law of the land applies to everybody. Outside that people should be left to their own desires and choices. The law will be what we agree on through our democracy and constitution.

davros

God this stuff is hard to put into words and it’s difficult to phrase things in such a way as to try and avoid misunderstandings or end up giving offence . I had to go back and rewrite bits because I realised that they could be misread as being from an arrogant Unionist talking down to … and I have probably still missed some that make sense from my side of the fence but could be misconstrued – so make allowances. I’m not used to debating this sort of theory.

The effort is much appreciated. We can phone in the tribal stuff but it's neither interesting nor original.

It is interesting that we would both suggest different strategies for each others sides. I honestly believe unionism has only one chance of keeping this state intact which is to take ownership of the change process and become advocates of pluralism and power sharing at all levels.

Going back for a second to parades you suggested that nationalists should choose their representatives so as not to give offence. But many unionists believe they were choosen to give offence and to make the Orange refuse to talk thus looking unreasonable.

Assume that is true for arguments sake. Why walk into the trap? Why undermine yourself by not being too fussy about loyalist murderers at the same time. It makes no sense.

Why not go the other way and be the reasonable ones; be prepared to ask for permission to march and if refused go another route? It would win the moral high ground and the political middle ground.

It seems so obvious. But there is a flaw in my reasoning if marching with permission spoils the march.

If that is the case then the Orange can never win. Unionism is in a similar situation. If you were serious about pluralism power sharing and civil rights then you would take the ground from under the united Ireland strategy.

Sinn Fein are betting that you are not serious and will never change. It's up to unionism to prove them wrong. Don't be waiting for us to give you confidence. We owe you nothing.

In your favour is that we expect so little from you. We even appreciated David Trimble's "cold house" speech but that should have been the start not the end.

D: I know you won’t necessarily agree but the parades issue has been used by party strategists for short term-gain and while very successful, has left a huge problem. Party politicians should not be involved. A first step is that the OO needs to sever it’s links to the UUP. The RM needs to pull back as well and let local residents sort out issues. Local residents need to be more sensitive in their choice of negotiators.

H I don’t see any way of responding to that without getting into the parades issue. On the basis that we are not short of parades discussions I propose to park it if that’s OK with you and concentrate on some of the broader and more interesting issue you raise

Agreed :)

H:Assume that is true for arguments sake. Why walk into the trap? Why undermine yourself by not being too fussy about loyalist murderers at the same time. It makes no sense.

Why not go the other way and be the reasonable ones; be prepared to ask for permission to march and if refused go another route? It would win the moral high ground and the political middle ground.

Those are questions I cannot answer Henry as I'm not a member. Both sides painted themselves into corners.

D:Unionists want to see NI running as a fair society (to be agreed for NI before we can consider your proposals for a Fair [also to be agreed] 32 county Ireland) in it’s own right.

H: Fair is fair. A fair society in the north can’t depend on us pretending that our political aspirations don’t exist. Unionists can of course decline to consider our proposals and we would be foolish to put forward detailed proposals in an atmosphere where they would not be considered. Sinn Fein are not calling for a referendum today but are happy to fight one if called. The people who have advocated an immediate referendum are the UUP and the SDLP

That’s not what was asked Henry. I’m not suggesting that republicans deny their aspirations which are perfectly proper. I am asking them to focus on setting up a fair NI as a foundation on which to build.

H: If life was all carrot and no stick all we would all be happy donkeys. But the unionists have a political option which is to embrace change and work the institutions. Rather than us coming to you with plans for a united Ireland you should be asking us to look around and see the north working. You can’t do that today. We have no institutions despite the end of the IRA being on the table.

Regarding the comment about happy donkeys ( VBG ) I do think we need to move away from ALL sticks. An agreement made under any degree of coercion is unlikely, IMO, to prove successful in the long term. Resentments will fester and undermine the foundations. As for the rest of the paragraph

1) contentious as with Parades – best we stick with abstracts.

2) ” But the unionists “ Here I am running against the grain. Change that to ‘Unionists’ from ‘unionists’ and you will be on my frequency. I’m reaching AROUND politicians here as I believe that the answer to our problems will come from the bottom of the democratic Process UP rather from the top of the democratic Process DOWN. People like you and me finding common ground and working forwards rather than Politicians whose battle is more based on point scoring for their electorate and whose methods tend to be negative and competitive- based on attacking the opposition rather than on offering new beginnings, based on gains and losses from the status quo.

D: I don’t think it will be possible for unionists to give any fair consideration to the possibility of a 32 Irish State IF they are still in a siege mind-set. Republicans and Nationalists say –in good faith and with considerable and justified frustration – at least CONSIDER what we are saying. Being realistic for that to happen there would have to be a degree of self-confidence within the unionist community that is constantly undermined by the assertion that the only long-term aim and workable solution is a 32 county Ireland. I’m not saying- which would be foolish and even insulting – that nationalists and republicans shouldn’t continue to aspire to that 32 county state. What I am saying is that you should consider going back, in some ways, to the Stages Theory. Concentrate on a working NI and once that has been up and running for some time – 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? – THEN will be the time to approach the all Ireland option. Only then will unionists be secure enough, relaxed and have enough self-confidence to look at what you are saying with an open mind. Because by giving equal prominence to NI and to 32 county, you are constantly reinforcing their fears and their paranoia which is in the long term counter productive to your goal.

H: If we weren’t upfront and honest about wanting a united Ireland wouldn’t unionists become even more paranoid. The consent principle means that we can talk all we like about unity but what we need is the votes to make it happen. How can we win the votes if we can’t discuss the issue? I doubt we will see a referendum for at least 10 years. So if I were a unionist I would use that time to make the north an attractive proposition for nationalists.

( I merged some comments there )

I don’t think even the dimmest Loyalist would think you were trying to pull the wool over our eyes Henry ;) Setting aside all the bluster from my side, it’s accepted that the ideal of a 32 county Ireland is proper and it’s big progress that the vast majority no longer think of republicans as having cloven feet :)

D: The ONLY way to peacefully achieve a successful 32 county Irish state that has long-term viability is through the unification, by Choice, of two equally strong states.

H: Nationalists and republicans want to share power in the north with unionists in order to improve the lot of all the people here. But the British still set the tax rate and the interest rate. We are still tied to Sterling so we can’t on our own become a strong state in an economic sense. Add in a declining population and the difficulties in competing with the new EU member states we have some serious problems. The reality is we will be a largely services based economy and real growth will be hard to come by. I think we should attach ourselves to the Celtic Tiger as fast as we can.

Nitty gritty politics- can we move on ?

D: The Unfair NI of the past was intolerable for you. However a Fair NI is a different kettle of fish.

H: We seem to be in a logical loop. Unionists won’t agree to a fair NI unless a united Ireland is only discussed by consenting adults in private while we see a united Ireland as the only way to ensure fairness. It is for those who believe in this state to show that in can work. But we can’t even get you into the executive.

That’s a fair assessment of our politicians – both sides of fence. That’s why I believe in working around them.

D: Summary: you are suspicious of us, we are suspicious of you. Show us that this isn’t a Trojan horse.

H : We can go on together with suspicious minds. I expect nothing from unionism therefore I am never disappointed but occasionally pleasantly surprised.

“Unionism” is a political entity – as is “Republicanism” – we need to engage more at the level of “unionists”- members of the unionist community – and “nationalists” and “republicans” – members of the nationalist and republican communities. That automatically removes barriers and constrictions. We can be more flexible. Changing positions and learning from each other no longer becomes “losing” or a media-trumpeted “embarrassment” that alters balance of power within party and community political structures.

This discussion has been a great example of how to make progress. It wouldn’t and couldn’t have happened if I was Peter R (God Forbid) watching his back over the succession or a politician in a tight seat and you were an equivalent from the other side of the fence here . I would hope that others reading this from both sides of the fence have realised that it doesn’t have to be combative and that people on both sides can be flexible.I would hope that this discussion with me has increased the plus side of the column under my community for you to the same degree as it has increased the plus column for your community in MY book Henry.

D: We are at the stage now, both sides, where keeping the zealots on board is poisoning the relationship between those of us in both communities to do want to move forward.

H: The zealots on our side are overboard but they have lost the argument and have no support. Our fear is that the zealots on your side have seized the bridge.

In Party terms, I suspect you have a point Henry. but what I was meaning was more the gesture comments to keep votes that seem to contradict what is being said to t’other side. That’s doing a lot of damage, reinforces stereotypes.

D: When you establish a republic there are still “others” Henry. The others outside of your borders upon whom you have no control

H: We will participate in the world through trade, the EU and the UN.

Exactly. But are you (not personally) prepared to tolerate ‘Otherness’ within and will we be treated in a 32 County ROI with the politics of Universalism or with the Politics of Difference ? Will we be “tolerated” until we are assimilated or will our survival be ensured in a pluralist state by the sort of positive discrimination which I think should be in action for those at a disadvantage by their difference in NI ? (Happily admit I am swimming against the Unionist tide here in terms of party politics, but I would like to think that stepping outside of the strait-jacket of party politics, most members of the unionist community would or will eventually be with me on this )

D: Still leaves the issue of the “others within”. Do you try to assimilate them? Do you encourage or discourage diversity?

H: The law of the land applies to everybody. Outside that people should be left to their own desires and choices. The law will be what we agree on through our democracy and constitution.

You sound like a closet Unionist there Henry :) That’s exactly what is on offer from “civic unionism”.

This is so much more enjoyable than writing a poxy essay from 4 mind-numbingly awful choices. But deadlines approach so tobacco and chocolate consumption will rocket!

God Bless.

Davros

I have to say that was the most thought provoking and interesting contribution you've made to date on this site- ceratinly beats the newt emerson-like jibes I normally associate with yourself. Fair play to you.

davros

Exactly. But are you (not personally) prepared to tolerate ‘Otherness’ within and will we be treated in a 32 County ROI with the politics of Universalism or with the Politics of Difference ? Will we be “tolerated” until we are assimilated or will our survival be ensured in a pluralist state by the sort of positive discrimination which I think should be in action for those at a disadvantage by their difference in NI ?

My own view, and it is shared by any republicans I have discussed it with, is that unionists can pretty much write their own terms for a united Ireland.

I can give you a list of the provisions I would support and I would like to hear any others I could add to it.

-reserved places in government and in all senior civil and public service positions. Albert Reynolds once suggested 5 out of 15 ministers would be unionist. That's a good deal and it would be on the table.

-new flag and anthem for the new state

-12 July a public holiday

-Belfast as the seat of government for a united Ireland

- support from nationalists for a unionist canditate to serve as our first President

-The creation of a special economic growth zone in the nine counties of Ulster with special tax incentives to provide a boost to job creation.

-All rights under the agreement to remain. That means you can retain your British citizenship and the British government can represent you if required like the Irish government do for us now.

Those sound interesting Henry. Too tired to give them proper consideration. Will get back to you with thoughts tomorrow.

Irishman - we stepped outside of party politics and the sound-bite and point-scoring mentality it encourages. It's down to Henry's good grace.

Bottom up is the answer.

davros

Too tired to give them proper consideration. Will get back to you with thoughts tomorrow.

I don't even want you to give them consideration as proposals for a united Ireland. The question I would like you to consider is this. Do you believe that this is the kind of thing republicans have inn mind when we talk about a united Ireland.

Because I don't see any of the above as concessions that we would have to make to unionists. it is the kind of united Ireland that would be my first preference

And I think the vast majority of nationalists on the island would agree with that.

A united Ireland as the coming together of two states on an agreed basis would represent a serious defeat for purist (ie extreme) republicanism. Because it would imply that both states were legitimate in the first place and the mythical republic of the second Dail is not and was not.

A united Ireland as the coming together of two states on an agreed basis would represent a serious defeat for purist (ie extreme) republicanism.

Don't agree Henry, I would go so far as to describe those that "consider such an outcome as a serious defeat" as "impure" Republicans, certainly not purists.

A pure Republican puts Republic principles before the question of a United Ireland.

The question I would like you to consider is this. Do you believe that this is the kind of thing republicans have inn mind when we talk about a united Ireland.

Certainly what you suggest reflects a strand of republican thinking with which I feel comfortable Henry. How widespread it is among the broad church of the "republican movement" is as difficult for me to gauge as it is for republicans to determine how widely held among the unionist community are such opinions and (if I can use this expression) generosity of spirit and flexibility as I have voiced - and coming back to trust - equally important how sincere people are in claiming they hold these opinions. This is the disadvantage of party politics and 'negotiation' by sound-bite, point-scoring and brinksmanship.

ShayPaul

I take your point on terminology. I intended to mean purist in the "pure shite" sense.

davros

Interesting. The kind of united Ireland I am interested in as a mainstream republican would have to be of the kind I outlined above.

Is it possible that when unionists hear the phrase United Ireland they really do think of a monocultural, Irish speaking, white, priest-ridden, riverdancing nightmare.

Nationalists in the north would certainly not vote for that and neither would nationalists in the south.

Davros

The opinions expressed by Henry, would in my opinion, be representative of the sincerely held opinions of the "vast majority" of Republicans.

H: Is it possible that when unionists hear the phrase United Ireland they really do think of a monocultural, Irish speaking, white, priest-ridden, riverdancing nightmare.

To some extent that is fair comment Henry.

For many reasons.

Media
Antics of 'your' Politicians
Antics of 'my' Politicians
Exaggerated Prominence given to unrepresentative and extremist viewpoints.
Irish-America
Some spectacular Own Goals by the Church - eg the Candidate Kerry 'blackmail', the current EU rows.

One last point - our politicians are not good at writing policy documents. They don't seem to bear in mind that others than the party faithful will read them. I read quite a few SF documents. Usually within a few minutes I have come across phrasings that will have most Unionists hackles up, or ambiguities as with
this document

Page 5: ( italics my comments )
The progressive elimination of poverty is, therefore, central to the Republican vision of a new Ireland, one in which equality has real meaning. Equal rights cannot be given, they must be taken. ( aggressive ) In the Proclamation of Independence in 1916, Republicans committed themselves to the establishment of a nation which cherished ‘all the children equally.’ In the Democratic Programme of the first Dáil (1919), this was significantly developed; Republicans reaffirmed ‘that all right to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare.’ Furthermore, the Government guaranteed that in return for willing service it would recognise the ‘right of every
citizen to an adequate share of the nation’s labour.’ Such a programme taken in tandem with an effective industrialisation policy would have been adequate to eliminate poverty in Ireland.
The Democratic Programme also makes a specific commitment in terms of addressing child poverty: “it shall be the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual ( open to interpretation as abandoning secularity ) well-being of the children, to secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food, clothing, or shelter, but that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite for their proper education and training as Citizens of a Free and Gaelic Ireland”.

Sinn Féin reaffirms this commitment and this document is an attempt to provide a Republican approach to delivering the goal of eliminating poverty in our society - a society which must set itself the objective of guaranteeing these rights to all our citizens.

I can accept assurances that that is a Nod to history and doesn't mean what it can be interpreted as meaning - but it could and should have been worded better.

I don't think I have ever read a UUP or DUP policy document in detail, but I'll bet that any republican would be able to find an equivalent to the above.

Shay- I accept that Henry is genuine and I'll accept that you are sincere as well. Part of the problem is that because we have polarisation here there are not enough opportunities for "ordinary" people to exchange opinions. The "unknown other" is always more sinister than the "other" who is a neighbour and friend.

davros

As a believer in the seperation of church and State it is my view that it is entirely the business of the Catholic Church who they give or refuse communion to in America or anywhere else. All I would say is it makes them look a bit cheap introducing the question into the US election when they don't have the same rule for supporters of the death penalty.

In the case of the EU Commissioner I do believe his position is untenable and he should not be ratified. He is entitled to his private views and the rest of us are entitled to decide that such views make him unsuitable for the job. He would find it impossible to get elected to the Dail having expressed such views. But I suspect many in the DUP would agree with him.

The Sinn Fein discussion document is just that. Sinn Fein won't control a united Ireland. They will have to look for votes like everybody else and the views you quoted would be rejected by the vast majority of voters.

Henry - it was indeed a discussion document. However contained in it was a definite Policy Statement.

Sorry - I should have written :

Henry - it was indeed a discussion document. However contained in it was a definite Policy Statement.
Remember, because of circumstances the unionist community view of "republicanism" is largely based on the view we have of Sinn Féin through their policies and what we access through the media.
So That was the relevence of quoting that document in the context of :

Is it possible that when unionists hear the phrase United Ireland they really do think of a monocultural, Irish speaking, white, priest-ridden, riverdancing nightmare.

Especially bearing in mind that we have a situation on both sides where Party politicians base their appeal to quite an extent to the electorate on "Vote for us or SF/DUP will get you."

Would just like to throw my lot in with Henry. He represents what I and each and every Republican I know envisiages a United Ireland lokking like. It is this message we must get across to the unionist community, not to fear our proposals, but actively help us in shaping them.

Davros

The idea of a Free and Gaelic Ireland is quite clearly a contradiction. We can't be free if we are forced to be Gaelic.

A more accurate reflection of the Sinn Fein I know is to be found in the Local Election manifesto from June's elections in the south

"A Multicultural Dublin in a Multicultural Ireland

In a dramatically short space of time, Ireland has gone from an almost monocultural nation, to one where people of various colours, creeds and cultures are radically changing Irish society.
The response of the Government, and elements of the media, to these changes has left a lot to be desired. Immigrants and asylum seekers have been dehumanised or portrayed as spongers, criminals and welfare cheats. For many of Dublin's newest arrivals, the Ireland of the Welcomes has been anything but.
As Ireland becomes a more multi-cultural country, the challenge is to embrace our growing diversity as a source of strength, opportunity and economic dynamism. To do this we must begin by opposing racism, discrimination and intolerance of any kind wherever it occurs. We must challenge the stigmatisation of non-nationals and of Irish citizens with non-national parents. The discriminatory policies of this Government must also come to an end.
All Sinn Féin candidates in Dublin have been through anti-racist training facilitated by the National Consultative Council on Racism and Interculturalism and have individually signed an anti-racist pledge. We are committed to a multicultural Dublin as the capital city of a multicultural Ireland. "

Would you have a link for that Henry so i can add it to my files ? Thanks.

Yes, that is a document with which I am comfortable.
I have made the comment before that SF in the 26 and SF in the 6 have very different approach to life.
Understandably as in the 26 they don't face the same degree of hostility.

Caoimhán- can I have your thoughts upon this- SF in the North seems to me to have two polar extremes. Those whose approach is read as conciliatory and constructive and those whose approach is read as combative. And that the efforts at bridge building by the former are damaged by the latter.

I would also say that Unionist politicians seem to focus on combat.

An interesting discussion but the posts got rather long and tried to address too many points.

The original question (I think) "Has Paisley done enough to prepare the DUP grassroots? " is central to strategic political analysis by all parties. The answer to this question will decide the shape of the political landscape for the next five years and would have been worth discussing.

Davros

For your files

Those whose approach is read as conciliatory and constructive and those whose approach is read as combative.

Think of it as micropolitics and macropolitics. On the day to day issues and the day to day negotiations politics is always going to be a hard game because the next election is always around the corner. But the DUP and Sinn Fein are moving towards a deal all the same.

Moderate Unionist

By setting the end of the IRA as the main condition the DUP put themselves in a good position. It was something most nationalists believed was going to happen anyway but most unionists did not.

Of course there are going to be people who don't want to share power with catholics just like there are people who want the IRA to fight on forever.

But Paisley has the political capital to sell a deal. Who could outflank him on the right?