Slugger O'Toole: SDLP launches proposal for united Ireland

Jacko

"These proposals should be carefully studied and properly debated within unionism - the ostrich approach just doesn't work."

Why should Unionists whose raison d'etre is to maintain, promote and develop the Union study and debate proposals to do the exact opposite?

Please don't use the "It's all inevitable" rubbish.

The SDLP proposals are a lot of common sense really. The idea that with Unionists being the new minority, they should be afforded the exact same protections sought by nationalists under the current constitutional arrangements. Unfortunately, the majority of the nationalist community don't seem to care about common sense, or what happens to the unionist minority if and when Northern Ireland is annexed by the Irish Repubic. I get the feeling that a lot of SF voters would be quite happy to see unionists "get a taste of their own medicine".
This won't convince me that the amalgamation of our 2 countries is the way forward. On the one hand, I welcome the SDLP's proposal because they acknowledge the existence and the needs of the unionist community - to a greater extent than that false consciousness rubbish the Sinners (used to?) espouse. On the other hand it worries me, because the SDLP proposals seem a lot more realistic than anything I've ever heard come from SF!

"If it were up to David Trimble then Mr Durkan would have his way. After all, in his unionist unity proposals he expects about 60,000 unionists across a range of constituencies to vote for the SDLP."

When did Davy propose unionists vote for the SDLP? Or is this just typical DUPer scaremongering in an attempt to prove they are the real unionist party? I thought the UUP proposals was to ensure unionists (admittedly, UU unionists) won seats currently held by nationalists... silly me!

"Why should Unionists whose raison d'etre is to maintain, promote and develop the Union study and debate proposals to do the exact opposite?"
Good old DUP mentality...

How about so we can analyse the arguments and then explain where they are flawed? Even a beginner knows you need to "know your enemy". You can't counter an argument you don't understand!

All fairly predictable so far!

I'd like to commend the SDLP for coming out with a plan. From what I've read on Breaking News, I agree entirely that a referendum would be more winnable (from its point of view) if there's a clearly detailed choice on offer, I note the serious attempt at engagement with Unionists on a number of points, and also the reality of the maintenance of NI a la East Germany post-union.

There are of course points I would take up, but for now I will refer one to Nationalists: is this really what it's all about? An Ireland of two jurisdictions? An Ireland where people can still be British, even represented in the British legislature? You might note, in answer, that I've already proposed a model that would remove the direct two-jurisdiction aspect and any direct practical institutional link with GB (i.e. Ireland independent in exactly the same way as Australia is) - is that better, or worse?

Fair_Deal

You are very wise to take the 'it's inevitable' line out of this thread from the start!

Dec

"ignoring what"?

Beano

I'm not DUP - unaffiliated and enjoying it.

Maybe I misintepreted Jacko but the implication I took from his comment was that Unionism should be having a discussion about the type of UI it would like. Why would we?

Unionism is pretty good at articulating the flaws in irish nationalism already, the proposals are the same as Mark Durkan's speech to North Down UU association (over a year if not more) so there is nothing new in them to study.

Failed ideas are failed ideas no matter how many launches you hold in a day and how glossy your document is.

"You might note, in answer, that I've already proposed a model that would remove the direct two-jurisdiction aspect and any direct practical institutional link with GB (i.e. Ireland independent in exactly the same way as Australia is) - is that better, or worse?"

This is presumably what the Sinners are aiming for? How can you justify removing the same rights nationalists have fought for, from unionists in an all-island republic?

Beano

I'm not DUP - unaffiliated and enjoying it.

My apologies, but it does seem like the sort of DUPer ostrich mentality that has plagued unionism for years, resulting in a lack of any new ideas and consistently handing the initiative to nationalists. As a result, we look like we're clinging on to the past while they're looking to the future. Rather than ignore the document, would you not agree that unionists, of whichever persuasion, would do better to think up and articulate better ways to improve our future in the United Kingdom?

Beano,
Look at the UUP proposals, how exactly could unionist parties "maximise damage to Sinn Fein" in Foyle if they were not advocating a vote for the SDLP?

Running some non-alligned unionist candidate wont beat the provos, nor is there any chance of a Deeneyesque independent candidate. What are the other options then if they are not advocating unionists voting for the SDLP.

Wake up

beano

I fully agree that Unionism does need to engage fully in a battle of ideas. This problem stems from the aim of "Maintenance of the Union". This was summed up in the steady as you drift period of James Molyneaux.

Unionism should not be committed to the mainatenance of the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland (a parochial, conservative and failed approach) but the development and deepening of the United Kingdom. The Unionism of Ulster should be an advocate of constitutional development for all of the Union and devolution here should be used for policy innovation (similar to the role the state of Wisconsin has had in the US of A). Personally I would take from both the European and American constitutional models.

This poverty of thinking directly contributed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement (based on the irish nationalist three strands analysis).

However, too often this turns into what can we give away today discussions. In my days in the UUP I remember participating in a policy week-end where the first comment out of a senior UUP adviser was "We should spend this time working out what we can afford to give away and still be British". Uuuugggghhhh.

Well done the SDLP. A well worked proposal that has been well overdue.

Hold a referendum! I can't see it being approved, but at least we'll know where we stand.

The only flaw I can see in the SDLP's proposal, which makes me suspect it's got more to do with winning elections (Ya don't say!) than trying to win a UI is that it doesn't propose greater ties between the UI as a whole and GB.

This may tempt some very soft unionists (possibly not) to hitch their wagon to a more economically workable UI than the status quo. Well, worse case scenario, a referendum will sure give us something to talk about in the coming months.

It'd be interesting to see if a referendum was agreed after the assembly being set up if SF would still be seen to hold up the assembly because of photo's and policing board issues.

Again, well done the SDLP.

IJP,

The SDLP proposal would be more preferable (to my mind) than a replica of the Ozzie model.

Beano,
Look at the UUP proposals, how exactly could unionist parties "maximise damage to Sinn Fein" in Foyle if they were not advocating a vote for the SDLP?

You may be right but they also said that was for the parties to discuss. I guess it's up to them to decide which is more important, the sectarian headcount or keeping another provo apologists out of Westminster. At the minute I wouldn't call either way, all they said was that they should discuss it. They didn't specifically mention Foyle did they?

BTW by your logic they would advocate a vote for the SDLP in W Belfast or Mid-Ulster too, but they didn't. I realise this may have been to make the deal more palletable to the DUP but the point is nobody advocated voting for the SDLP.

I think the unionist posters here need to get off their high-horses: e.g
DavidBrew:
"Now go away Mark, and stop bothering us with this nonsense until the next election, when we'll ignore it again."
Fair-deal:
"Please don't use the "It's all inevitable" rubbish"
Keith M:
"ingulging in "pie in the sky" nonsense."

You are only in the position you're in on sufferance. You cost the British tax-payer fortunes, and contribute feck all to the British way of life. And the Irish people want their country back. Given your isolation domestically and internationally I think you should be a bit more humble and realistic about your position in today's world.
When was the last time English people celebrated their historic ties with the Union?
You need to wake up , or the carpet will be pulled from under your feet.
Take SDLP's proposals seriously, or you'll end up with an asshole of a deal and you'll regret your pride and arrogance of being so haughty.

Beano

This is presumably what the Sinners are aiming for?

It most certainly is not! Australia has the Union Flag in its national flag, the British Monarch as Head of State, and is a federal Commonwealth within NATO with a (very successful) market economy.

My proposal was that Ireland - the whole of Ireland - should use precisely the same model.

I noted with interest that no Nationalist was even prepared to countenance even discussing it. That is why Keith M is right - there won't be a United Ireland any time soon (or probably any time at all) because Nationalists are no more prepared to make the necessary compromises than Unionists.

While I commend the SDLP for coming out with something and for taking time to consider likely responses from Unionists, its proposal is nonsense. It is based on structures that have already failed to start with. To people like me, the case for a 'United Ireland' will have to be rather more than 'Tell you what, instead of devolving power from London, we'll do it from Dublin'... big deal, what difference does that make?!

To be fair, the SDLP is far from the only party engaged in all theory no practice.

Smcgiff

Thanks for your response.

I don't think too many in the south or at the extreme wing (even the moderate wing if there is such a thing?) of republicanism would accept rejoining the commonwealth and accepting the Union Flag gaining a position in the national flag, and as smcgiff pointed out the Ozzies will likely end the monarch's position as head of state in Australia soon and there are movements in both Oz and NZ to remove the Union Flag from their respective national flags. Would seem a bit against the tide.

Spirit level

Please breathe deeply and count to ten. However, it is nice to see that the 'inevitability' argument is about all nationalism can offer.

"You cost the British tax-payer fortunes" -

I haven't spotted any great revolt from my fellow british tax-payers on this issue, equality of taxation means equality of benefit. Furthermore, if this logic was applied to the United Kingdom Wales would be kicked out, Scotland kicked out and half if not two-thirds of England forbye.

"contribute feck all to the British way of life"

We contribute to its cultural wealth and diversity. Many of are best and brightest are drawn to the mainland to make their social and economic contribution to the UK. Northern Ireland produces musicians, artists, writers etc. We have innovative and award winning businesses.

"And the Irish people want their country back."

It isn't "their"s to have back. I live here too, I share Northern Ireland with a range of different communities. I exist. I subscribe to a different value system, religion, political outlook and identity. Deal with it.

"When was the last time English people celebrated their historic ties with the Union?"

The English join in a variety of celebrations and commemorations with the rest of British citizens i.e. The Jubilee, VE/VJ celebrations, War remembrance - although part of being British is not to go overboard on such things. Also considering the continued success of TV programmes exploring British history there does seem to be millions with an interest.

fair-deal
"Why should Unionists whose raison d'etre is to maintain, promote and develop the Union study and debate proposals to do the exact opposite?"

That approach is exactly the reason the unionist electorate wasn't prepared in the slightest for the GFA. The leaderships thought it was such a long shot they didn't even bother their arses generating a public debate on the compromises that would be necessary.

How good a job, so far, has any strand of unionism made of "maintaining" "promoting" or "developing" the union by adopting this let's-ignore-it-and-it-will-go-away approach?
David Trimble tried to have unionism engage and modernise and look what has happened to him and his supporters. Any problems republicans are having at the moment are of their own making and can hardly be claimed as being a result of good leadership on their part. It may have escaped your notice, but the unionist section of the electorate are, in increasing numbers, staying away from the polling booth. What percentage of that missing electorate no longer feel a deep antipathy to the idea of a unitary statein Ireland is anyone's guess. But, no matter: how long can that go on before, by default, nationalism can claim a majority of elected reps? And what would be the implications of that?

By studying and debating the merits or demerits of "the exact opposite" to your own position you at least have the opportunity to publicly outline the reasons against - and who knows, you might just discover a couple of reasons for.
The person who is incapable of changing his mind doesn't have much of one to change.

Like many I welcome the fact the SDLP have a proposal but I see a major flaw. Maintaining a ghost of partition is a bad idea. It won't do anything for unionists who will at that stage be a minority in the north by definition.

It will also give the impression to the south that unity has no implications for their set-up.

I favour abandoning the institutions of the past and building all-Ireland institutions which could themselves embrace all the principles of the existing Agreement.

Let's not be marginalised but take our rightful place at the centre of Irish political life.

I can understand why unionists might say they are not interested but if they would indulge me could they venture an opinion on what interest they would have in maintaining a six county entity in which they were not a majority.

Put simply would they raher share power with Sinn Fein in the north or Fianna Fail on the island.

Jacko

You seem to have missed a central point of my comments. I agree Unionism should have done more and needs to do more than it has or is doing and and hopefully this could attract back some of the non-voting Unionists. However, it needs to avoid knee-jerk counter-strategy. 'The SDLP have produced a document we must produce the counter-document'. The time of Unionists would be better spent developing a vision for the UK, NI and the strategy to implement it.

Trimble's handling of the peace process was simply cack-handed and is a fine example of a lack of thinking.

On the attitude of non-voters the only accurate rating we have is the likes of the Life and Times study and other polls were opposition remains almost absolute among those of a Unionist/protestant background.

fair_deal:
Spirit level's posting was rather crude and you dealt with the points there appropriately.

However the fact remains that the britishness of unionists is something of an embarassment to most of your "country" men (and women). It is true, that apart from those struggling Canute like against the ever dimming rays of the long-set empire (see the tory old guard fr example), ulster unionists are seen with distaste by the british public.

Even the name unionist brings to mind that notoriously difficult little island to the east. It isn't something distinctly british, like HP sauce and the houses of parliament, its more like an embarassing boil.

And for me that has always been a bit of a conundrum. What can the link be to a nation and a people who have absolutely no regard for your actual existence?

The cultural links have always seemed extremely contrived (at least to me, and I admit I'm viewing this from the other side of the tracks). The emphatic waving of the union jack at any given occassion, always smacked a little of the lady that doth protest too much. (of course these arguments could be turned round to a degree on nationalists - but less convincingly I think)

Circles

I accept the expressions of Britishness are more forthright and robust than other parts of the United Kingdom. This is primarily because, unlike other parts of the UK, it has not been under systematic threat or attack.

However, it is not that dissimilar to the reaction on the mainland by many to the encroachments by the European Union. The British can be very laid back about identity but when what we have is threatened we do tend to get very forthright.

On the point about 'contrived' identities, I think this shows how the two main communities here do not understand one another. Too often we seem to have too many delusions about how amny of the other community we can convince to our way of thinking. Instead of accepting they are what they say they are and sorting out how we live here together.

Spirit-level

Thank you for your kind comments.

The emphatic waving of the union jack at any given occassion, always smacked a little of the lady that doth protest too much. (of course these arguments could be turned round to a degree on nationalists - but less convincingly I think)

I'm not sure why "less convincingly". The nationalists in Northern Ireland are almost as distinct from the southern Irish as the unionists are from the England, Scotland or Wales. The difference is the United Kingdom celebrates its diversity where possible, especially in recent years, whereas the Irish republic is very much a one culture, one people, one tradition. This is part of the reason why in any all-island state, Northern Ireland should retain a degree of autonomy (I realise that at this precise moment in time, with Stormont collapsed, we have none, but you get what I mean).

It's true a great many people on the mainland think of Northern Ireland as a trouble spot they may prefer to forget about. Many don't. In the same vain, it would seem more and more that ordinary folk in the south are quite happy to forget about annexing Northern Ireland in favour of a "quiet life" as it were. As I'm sure has been pointed out many times, most Irish folk don't see us as Unionists or Nationalists... just 'Northerners'.

Had me confused there for a second Fair_deal with that mainland crack. I was thinking the mainland actually WAS Europe.

Those in Britain who would be most ready to wrap the union flag around them against the "encroaching" EU are generally those who would be sympathetic to the unionist cause - like Kilroy-Silk and the euro-sceptic conservatives. I don't think its a general trait of the british - although I admit my knowledge of them is fairly poor, and slightly biased.

But I do think you have a good point about what the communities think of each other. Although the north never really has been under attack - after all with a built in unionist majority from its inception, you would imagine that they could afford to sit back and take it easy.

I would honestly love to know what it is like to, for example, see the union jack over Belfast city hall and feel like I was included in that. Or to see the Ormeau Rd. put under daytime curfew to allow an Orange march through. Or to hear Paisley talk about the whore of Rome and somehow identify with that.
I'm not having a go here, I would just want to know how that feels.

According to Henry94, apparently not.

Maintaining a ghost of partition is a bad idea. It won't do anything for unionists who will at that stage be a minority in the north by definition.

One of the arguments, IMHO flawed arguments, used in nationalist thought is that Unionists would have a bigger say in the Dail than they do in Westminster. By that same token, we'd have a bigger say in a Northern Ireland parliament which was distinct within an all-island state.

Spirit-level

Welcome back from the changing room.

Different parts of the United Kingdom have their own cultural practices. The marching tradition is particularly strong in Northern Ireland. It is what Ulster prods do.

As a practice it should be tolerated by those who do not like it, disagree with it or don't identify with it. This is what is needed if a diverse society is to able to function. Just as I should be expected to tolerate people expressing their irish identity through its established cultural forms or any other cultural community for that matter.

Morris dancing does nothing for me. Running down a steep hill after a block of cheese, many participants breaking bones, always seemed bloody stupid to me. Watching two sets of toffs trying to avoid drowning in the Thames has never particularly floated my boat (if you excuse the pun). Just part of the diversity of the United Kingdom.

Beano:
Northerners are different - event the Ulster cycle underlines how different Ulstermen/women have always been in Ireland. But Munstermen are also different, and Connaughtmen again different, and the Leinsterfolk also have their ways. The reason the "cultural" diversity (and by this I am assuming you mean with respect to other international cultures - such as the huge indian, bangladeshi, west Indian etc populations in Britain) is not so huge is because Ireland itself never had any colonies. And thus nobody ever got the passport on independence.

However to say there is no cultural diversity within southern Ireland is plainly wrong. The north is much more a mono-culture, and most definitly not a warm house for anyone who may differ from the 2 main groups. In fact most of this intoloerance comes from within the group that identify themselves as being British - which would actually put a question mark over your suggestion that the british celebrate cultural diversity.

Fair Deal says "On the point about 'contrived' identities, I think this shows how the two main communities here do not understand one another. Too often we seem to have too many delusions about how amny of the other community we can convince to our way of thinking. Instead of accepting they are what they say they are and sorting out how we live here together."

1. While unionists have come some way in accepting that many NI people are naturally Irish, it is interesting that nationalists can still be found to state that they consider an NI British identity to be contrived. But there is no good reason under the sun why NI unionists Britishness isn't natural. I see acceptance of this as the key area for development in nationalist thinking in the years ahead.

2. The SDLP plan does constitute recognition that NI unionists are emotionally and by identity attached to the entity of NI. We had a discussion on Northern Irishness recently. While the proposals are obviously for nationalist consumption - they make the SDLP seem like a party with a constructive progressive plan - they do show a recognition that many unionists and others as well are attached to the NI entity. Whisper: NI has not been an unmitigated disaster for all of its people you know. Some people like it. The SDLP appear to recognise that.

3. Have the SDLP sorted out the West-Lothian question aspects? Would ROI people want NI TDs to swing internal ROI matters? This has been an issue in GB and it may get a lot bigger after May!

Euro-scepticism is much more deeply felt and widespread than old Tories and the Kilroy-silks of this world. Hence Blair's deep problems in selling the euro and a constitution.

"I would honestly love to know what it is like to, for example, see the union jack over Belfast city hall and feel like I was included in that. Or to see the Ormeau Rd. put under daytime curfew to allow an Orange march through. Or to hear Paisley talk about the whore of Rome and somehow identify with that."

On the Union flag, it does attempt to include the irish with the inclusion of the St Patrick's Cross as I am in no doubt you are well aware of that.

On the Ormeau Road, I believe the Goldstone Commission in south africa showed the way. If you want to have a public procession you must show you will be able to do so peacefully. If you wish to protest you must show you can do so peacefully. That is the standard common to western democracies. If the two main communities learn to do this we will have made real progress and there will be no need for major policing operations.

On Paisley's sermons, he does not spare many of the protestant churches either but the references to Roman Catholicism get the coverage for obvious reasons. It is also a preaching tradition immersed in the language of the bible - a book with often forthright and descriptive language.

Many of the evangeical protestant tradition are able to draw the distinction between a system they object to and an individual of that system, regrettably others cannot.

IJP,
Australia is a little bit far away to be a member of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation).

Personally, I would be loathe for Ireland to join any military alliance as a price for unification, especially one like NATO which, in its own political interests, supported by military force the ethnic cleansers of Kosovo, the Albanians.

Irish men have been cannon fodder for empires for centuries. One of the Irish Republic's greatest achievements is that it has ended this connection with the military and it has also seen the demise of the "military family" where generation after generation sign up to shoot and be shot at.

As for a union flag as part of any new flag, let the people of Ireland decide by referendum if that should be the case.

Pakman,
the only Anschluß that took place in Ireland happened in 1801 and was called the Act of Union.

"Fair-deal, I must say though that the triumphalism of the marching is so sectarian in nature and origin as against the world wide appeal of say St.Paddy's day, puts you on a sticky wicket here!"

Oh I don't know, looking at the scenes in Belfast I wouldn't say either St Paddy's or the 12th were more inclusive than the other. I think it was a Tele reporter stumbled across 2 drunken teenage girls screeching "You'll never defeat the IRA".

[OTish] I'm not a big fan of the Orangemen myself and would much prefer we celebrated Ulster Day - 27th September for all you patriots ;) - but maybe that's the Atheist "There's more to being a unionist than being a prod" in me. Either way it's an argument for another day ;)

Fair_deal:
Thanks for the factual answers, but its the feeling I was after.
How does it feel to see the union jack if you are a unionist, for example?
How does it feel to watch an Orange parade?
And how does that feeling change if its through an area where it is not welcome by the people living there?
What is it like to see the Queen as your monarch? To be willing to swear loyalty to a family who don't even know you exist?

How does it feel to be british? (suddenly I feel very much liek an extra_terrestrial)

Beano:
Perhaps one reason why unionists now tolerate people proclaiming their irishness, is because they proclaim all they want - it ain't gonna change anything. The union is apparently safe.

"I must say though that the triumphalism of the marching is so sectarian in nature and origin as against the world wide appeal of say St.Paddy's day, puts you on a sticky wicket here!"

1. It is not a display of triumphalism. It is an expression of identity in common with others.
2. The world enjoys St Paddy's day, good for them. It is an American cultural practice started by a unit of the British Army adopted and adapted by emigre Irish communities and copied in the republic of ireland and northern ireland.
3. Personally I didnt think that when engaging in a cultural practice you had to consider its potential for export.
4. If you want to see a sectarian Paddy's day come to Belfast.
5. I don't consider my community to be in some sort of cultural parades race - My parades bigger than your parade.

"Perhaps one reason why unionists now tolerate people proclaiming their irishness, is because they proclaim all they want - it ain't gonna change anything. The union is apparently safe."

I don't really think unionists feel much more secure in the union now than they have in the past. I do think there has been an effort by a small minority to "claim back" a sense of irishness (deliberate small i) from nationalists/republicans. Whether this is new, refreshed or neither is debatable.

J Kelly said:

Its good to see that the SDLP have published this document coupled with the SF proposal for a green paper on reunification maybe now we can get back to rebuilding the pan nationalist front that delivered so much in the past ten years. Mark Durkan, Gerry Adamas and Bertie Ahern need to be the key persuaders for a United Ireland.

It should be pointed out that Unionists and Protestants will not be persuaded that it's in their best interests to build a new nation on this island with the rest of us whilst under the threat of violence.

Therefore, Gerry Adams is not going to be at all successful in persuading them that it is, nor will any other Nationalist whilst we tolerate political violence from within our community.

Now that the argument about the futility and counter-productivity of armed struggle has largely been won mainstream Nationalists should focus their energies on persuading all the remaining active paramilitary groups to end their campaigns and join the rest of us in pursuing unification peacefully.

How about an EU solution to this sovereignty problem? I don't mean sending in some kind of panEuropean peace-keeping force, though that mightn't have been a bad idea back in '69.
Rather I mean how about slicing the North/6 counties/Northern Ireland/Ulster/F.P.I/ (delete in response to your own particular ingrained kneejerk reaction) into different autonomous regions, perhaps roughly along district council lines? Each zone then votes on which of the E.U. countries gets to administer it, with each one allocated to a different state.
I presume that South Armagh would vote 99% to join the Republic and the Gold Coast would insist on staying with GB.
But imagine Derry being for ever a little bit of 'La Belle France', say. Maybe it could change its name to an equally polysyllabic but perhaps less controversial Derrie-en-Irlande. North Antrim could, for example, be administered by (nominally) Lutheran Sweden. I'm sure they wouldn't mind having a few blonde Swedish girls around to brighten up their farmsteads.
And Belfast? Well, maybe it could declare U.D.I and do the rest of Europe a favour by leaving us alone...

beano

Ulster day is the 28th. Typo?

Circles

"How does it feel to see the union jack if you are a unionist, for example?"

I like to see it. It is a positive affirmation. I dislike seeing it ragged, hanging from a lamppost.

How does it feel to watch an Orange parade?

I tend to participate rather than watch. It is an opportunity to banter with friends in the lodge and to meet others who have returned for the parade. I wave and talk to friends along the way. Wander over at some stage and listen to the speeches and applaud. I'll look at the banners front and back seeing if there are any new designs. If it is a church parade hopefully the opportunity to hear a good sermon.

And how does that feeling change if its through an area where it is not welcome by the people living there?

In my experience of this it varies depending on the degree of opposition to this. Where there is no protest it is pretty much like any other parade. Where there is a protest I look straight ahead and do not respond to any taunts. It does inject a degree of fear, as on a few occassions I've almost got hit by a bottle or stone.

What is it like to see the Queen as your monarch? To be willing to swear loyalty to a family who don't even know you exist?

Each country needs a head of state and I think we have enough politicians. The fact the head of state is not a politician contributes to the integrity of the Union. The Queen is probably the best example of how a consitutional monarch should behave in British history. A head of state cannot know all of her subjects. An oath of loyaly to the Queen is simply an expression of identifiaction with the British state. I would find such an oath to a politician distasteful.

Thanks Fair_deal!
Some of it I don't quite get - like the queen - but I can really identify with the other parts (except I was once nearly hit with a peeler jeep rather than a bottle or stone - but still I get yer drift).

Don't want to go into the parades thing really as its drifting off topic, but one question that I do have and always wanted to ask is, why even parade in an area where its neither appreciated nor wanted?

Take it from me the populations of cities such as Newcastle, London, and Liverpool, the ordinary citizens of the UK overwhelmingly despise "unionists" as being basically just another brand of mad 'paddies'. If I remember rightly the most common expression in the UK about their so called "fellow Brits" was the oft-repeated suggestion that the whole island of Ireland should be towed out to the mid-atlantic and then "blow up the whole f***ing lot of them." This constructive approach I can assure you was directed with equal venom to both communities on the island of Ireland. Another funny aspect of life in Britain was watching unionists having to take the at times almost incessant "Irish" jokes that the British used to delight in telling. Workmates from unionist backgrounds would sometimes remonstrate with the "humourists" saying "we're not really Irish we are British!!- this claim was invariably greeted with howls of contemptuous derision.
This also explains why in British universities so many unionist students from Northern Ireland end up joining the "Irish Soc" a tacit admittance that once they are resident in England they feel like foreigners, because they are treated like foreigners, and because (lets face it) in British eyes despite all the claims to the contrary they are bloody foreigners...."paddies" in fact. Why fight it?

Circles

On the routes a lot of it is simply an issue of access to get from A to B i.e. Orange Hall to a Church the route takes you past or through an area. For example Dunloy the Orange Hall is on the edge of the village but the Protestant church in middle of the predominately nationalist village with pretty much one route there.

This is also particularly true in Belfast as communities live cheek by jowl, it is virtually impossible to get to the city centre without passing a nationalist area. Get a map out of North Belfast and try to work out a route and you'll see what I mean.

In some cases it is worth remembering the same routes were followed before the make-up of the communities changed - it isn't a premediated attempt to find routes were people don't like us.

I've had a number of similar experiences with police jeeps myself. Honest officer I was only out to get a pint of milk...

On the broader issue of dislike, I think it is a generally dangerous line to go down. In a diverse society you have to put up with things you don't like else it won't function.

Levitas

The ignorance of others should never define you.

George

I should clarify, in equating the 'Commonwealth of Ireland' with 'Commonwealth of Australia' I placed it in NATO, to equate with Australia's broad support for western military intervention (even on occasions when the UK doesn't).

As for a union flag as part of any new flag, let the people of Ireland decide by referendum if that should be the case.

NO! That is majority rule. Majority rule is wrong, no matter who the majority.

You CANNOT decide such things by referendum. You MUST decide them IN ADVANCE as part of an OVERALL deal at least tolerable to everyone.

If Unionists are to give up living in the 'right state' (from their point of view), Nationalists will have to give up plenty too.

What will never be acceptable is an all-Ireland State where 80% of the population make 100% of decisions which, unwittingly or otherwise, is what you are advocating.

Dualta

'Futile' is indeed a very good way to describe the 'armed struggle'.

SDLP, SF, DUP, UUP - I just don't care anymore - NI as part of the UK or the ROI. Doesn't make a lot of difference.

You are all (mostly all) stuck in the past, nit picking at each others responses, blame and counter blame, and it seems beyond your capabilties to consider anyone else point of view but your own. I read somewhere that Slugger shows that not everyone is Norn Iron is a Paisley or an Adams with entrenched views but recently and very very sadly that exactly what it does show. Hardly anyone has an original thought in their heads. Just spout the party rhetoric of choice

I mean who cares about St Patrick really - it's a day off to get drunk.

Who cares about the 12th - it's 2 days off to get drunk.

There might be people who genuinely feel an attachment to these days for most it means very little.

In fact there is little to be proud of in either community in Norn Iron which is a shame because if you look at Norn Iron as a whole it is a pretty great wee place. But then there's always people ready to spoil it for everyone else.

"I read somewhere that Slugger shows that not everyone is Norn Iron is a Paisley or an Adams with entrenched views but recently and very very sadly that exactly what it does show."

Thanks for that constructive criticism, but I find myself inclined to disagree. While about half the posts seem to be ridiculous and/or blatant "not an inch"/"ireland unfree will never be at peace" comments, there are one or two which are quite novel and the politicians would do well to take note. But it's much easier to jump on the bandwagon of bashing anyone with an interest in politics and labelling them sectarian, isn't it?

Beano.

Agreed. Northern Ireland is a sick place, no doubt, but `a plague on both your houses' is a self-serving cop out. The problem here isn't that everyone holds an unreasonable political position - it's that we have two powerful blocs that hold reasonable but incompatible political positions. The future lies in chipping away the hard edges from those blocs and leaving it to future generations to decide if the blocs are still incompatible down the line.

Maca

I know that's a joke, but...

would you please give over with your Australia model, we told you we don't want it! ;))

Nationalists would you please give over with your 'United Ireland' idea, the people of NI told you they don't want it...

I will keep repeating the Oz Model until people show they're prepared to negotiate on that basis, or come up with a better one.

Ok, I admit it. There are a few practical problems involved with the EU administered model I am proposing. For instance it will be a bit tricky that most of N.I. would now be driving on the right; especially complicated when driving into the Republic or British-as-Finchley North Down which would of course stick to left-side-of-the road driving.
Then there would be all those currencies in use, between euros, pounds, kronor of various nationalities, polish zloty etc. Banks would have a field day though-think of all money they would make in bureau de change fees.
Also there would be a few linguistic teething problems. The good denizens of Strabane, for instance, are many things, but they are not known for their linguistic prowess. It might take them a few years to get the hang of the tongue of the Magyars, if they opt for Hungary for instance. However on the bright side Hungarian is distantly related to Estonian so it might give them a headstart if they want to converse with their neighbours in Estonian-ruled Omagh, should they plump for that fine Baltic State. And of course if Dungannon was ceded to Portugal it wouldn't have it too hard as it is apparently replete with lusophones; the town is already practically bilingual, I hear.
So, I admit it, there are problems with this 'road-map', but none so great it cannot be overcome.
Northern Ireland has the opportunity to be the European Union in microcosm. I urge you to grasp that opportunity now!
Anois! Maintenant! Jetzt! Adesso! Ahora!

IJP

"Nationalists would you please give over with your 'United Ireland' idea, the people of NI told you they don't want it..."

I can't remember if i have ever actually pushed the idea of a UI here other than express my preference for it.
But I think some nationalists here have given some good proposals for a UI, YI or George for example...

My own preference would be for a federal rep., we have 4 provinces why not base it along those lines? Common policing, common defence, integrated education, common currency, NHS type health care, new flag, new anthem, new constitution, no NI assembly, no Queen head of state, no commonwealth, NATO maybe, choice of citizenship ... ... ... ;)

You CANNOT decide such things by referendum. You MUST decide them IN ADVANCE as part of an OVERALL deal at least tolerable to everyone.

I think that is right. My view is that there should be an elected constitutional conference charged with coming up with a constitution acceptable to both communities.

On flags there is no way a Union Jack in any way shape or form would be acceptable to nationalists but the other side of that coin is that we can't impose the tricolour on unionists.

Let's leave them both in the past.

My guess is that new neutral symbols will be the easiest to find agreement on and we must remember that while we have two major traditions we have a myriad of new minorities who we also want to identify with the new state.

Our relationship with Britain is best expressed through common membership of the EU. There is no prospect of having any head of state other than an elected one. Having said that an agreed Unionist canditate for President would get us off to a good start.

David Trimble would make a fine President.

On a national anthem I'd like to veto both Ireland's Call and Danny Boy. I could actuallly live with The Sash because I like the tune. But my preference would be for Bright Side of the Road by Van Morrisson.

"Jacko

"These proposals should be carefully studied and properly debated within unionism - the ostrich approach just doesn't work."

Why should Unionists whose raison d'etre is to maintain, promote and develop the Union study and debate proposals to do the exact opposite?

Please don't use the "It's all inevitable" rubbish.

Posted by: fair_deal at March 21, 2005 12:33 PM

fair-deal"

Perhaps I missed your "central point" because, unless I am blind, it isn't there.
All you are saying above is "ignore it".
I was merely pointing out why we shouldn't ignore it.

To take my tongue out of my cheek for a moment, before it gets stuck there, I do really think that the fact that Ireland and Britain are both in the E.U. could provide a common identity to people who are otherwise irreconciably rooted in their own nationalist or unionist tradition.
Is there any way NI could join the euro-zone even if it stays in the UK and the rest of the UK continues (wrongly, in my view) to opt out?
Also, could the E.U. flag not be a bit more visible in N.I? Compared with other parts of European it's not in use much, and it would/should be less controversial than either the Union Jack or the Tricolour.
Maybe my pro E.U. sentiment is wishful thinking but Unionists are also indulging in wishful thinking if they think Northern Ireland is monolithically British. I think that Nationalists too, are guilty of same if they think that people in the Republic are going to jump for joy at the idea of swapping their flag and their political system for new ones to accomodate Northern Unionists who don't want to belong to their state.
I come from a Northern nationalist background and I have previously lived in the Republic for several years. I really didn't get the impression that many people wanted to have much to do with any of us Northerners.
Sometimes I don't blame them...

Billy P,

'The future lies in chipping away the hard edges from those blocs and leaving it to future generations to decide if the blocs are still incompatible down the line.'

Very wise and reasonable thinking. Not sure if i'd be classed as hard edge republicanism but i do have strong convictions on this and the best way to acheive a more egalitarian society. The problem is, that these 2 blocs as they stand, are within the UK and so when we get to the theoretical centre we will still be in the UK,( not good for me!)unless there are lots of unionists who don't see re-unification as an anaethma. Thought it is sound reasoning it does ring a little like British politics at the minute where both parties take their support for granted and strive for the few million undecided voters and their views are picked up and used, which in Britain at the minute means Immigration controls and abortion at the forefront of politics-hardly a progressive agenda. The middle ground may say screw the Uk and Ireland and have us affiliated with Switzerland!

Keith m

'There isn't going to be a "united Ireland" this century and within the next 20-30 years the growing integration within the EU renders the nation state obsolete.'

So why the attachment to the UK?

Another waste of time, when will nationalists get it into their heads that :-

1 The GFA enshrined the principle of consent for a united Ireland.

2 A united Ireland without the consent of unionists is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, 20-30 years or maybe even never.

3 Nationalists have made no attempt to sell the concept and economic benefits of a united Ireland to Unionists.

4 This can be dismissed as more competition for the Green vote and not a constructive contribution to necessary selling of the idea to unionists.

5 I am a unionist (note small u) but am open to economic persuasion, not cultural, of the benefits of a united Ireland. No one has so far been prepared to present a reasoned arguement as to why I would be better off in a united Ireland v the staus quo. I doubt there is a coherent economic arguement but if someone can present the hard facts then I will listen.

vespasian

To be honest the debate about a united Ireland in its initial stages will have very little to do with unionists so you can relax.

It will build and clarify a nationalist consensus on what we mean by a united Ireland. There appears to be at least three views

- the extention of the 26 county state to cover the 32 :-(

- the continuation of partition under Dublin rater than London :-(

- a new agreed ireland replacing the two existing states :-)

So if it's all the same we'll have to get back to you.

Vespasian
For 1 & 2, perhaps you missed the point of this thread.
3 - likewise, I think that's what the SDLP are attempting.
4 - perhaps. Though I think it's fairly constructive, at least it opens debate.
5 - the economic argument has been done here a few times, but if you mean by the nationalist parties maybe the SDLP blueprint is the first step in taking a serious look at what it will take to create a YI

Maca

The point is why are all these papers being prepared and poltical structures put forward for something that is not going to happen in the lifetime of the current polticians.

Unionists could logically put together all sorts of plans and structures as to why the RoI should rejoin the UK and then NI and the RoI could join together within the UK with a regionally autonomous parliament, but why waste time and intellectual energy on something that is not relevant in 2005 and not going to happen any time soon if ever.

We have a lot more pressing problems to solve, basic things like health, education, waste management, economic poolicy etc.

Because many nationalists actually don't believe the idea that its not going to happen Vespasian.

Republican parties (which I was surprised to see the sdlp also calls itself) have a duty to apply pressure to speed this up, and these papers are part of this pressure. Pretending its not relevant basically ignores the aspirations and goals of nationalists completely, and is hardly a basis to work on other issues (especially when many of them are of relevance to the whole island and would be most efficiently addressed when treated as such)

'We have a lot more pressing problems to solve, basic things like health, education, waste management, economic poolicy etc.'

With respect Vespasian, if you captured all the energy that NI politicians (from both sides) had previously put into the above concerns I'd expect you'd power a pretty decent 50w bulb for an hour or so.

In this climate, I don't see anything against the SDLP putting forward their plans for a UI.

And as for proposing the economic benefit for unionists in a UI - Could you put forward the economic benefits for those in the Republic if they rejoined the UK? Hint - Civil Service jobs have become quite scarce down here.

"Republican parties (which I was surprised to see the sdlp also calls itself)"

Sounds like you welcome that circles? If I'm wrong, ignore this, but isn't this just another example of the SDLP and Sinn Fein attempting to out-irish each other? To most unionists, if the SDLP to rebadge themselves as repubican, they will be moving closer to the terrorits, in the same way the division between loyalism and unionism is usually just constitutional vs physical force. If the SDLP is rebadging itself as republican isntead of nationalist I see it as a sad reflection of the polarisation of Northern Ireland, and as usual the moderates are too scared to stand up against the flag wavers in SF and the DUP.

I agree with both posts.
I think it clearly is an attempt to out-green the Shinners by the sdlp - which would be very hard going for them, but understanable to a degree considering their poll position. I'm not sure if the "isolatig moderate unionists" is actually an argument - how many moderate unionists would really have voted for a nationalist party anyway? I mean thats beyond moderate, thats lapsed!

I don't particularly welcome it - find it rather curious actually. In my opinion it wasn't necessary in the document to refer to "true republicanism" - then again, having read smcgiffs post, I can see a need to do this.
The term does indeed need some rescuing - republicanism does not mean violence, and that needs to become very clear to unionists. Republicans are not the IRA. Of course the fact the the sdlp are pushing this a little will also eventually help the Shinners too.

True, but it's no more accurate to associate it with irish nationalism - one of the PUP (I think it was Billy Hutchinson but I could be wrong) is a republican. Bet he doesn't say it too loudly near his home though ;)

Back on topic - is it not reasonable (not to mention convenient) to make the distinction between those who condone violence (ie republicans/loyalists) and the constitutional reformists (ie nationalists/unionists)? IMHO this out-irishing of SF will alienate more unionists (not myself, yet but I don't know how much more I can witness and still think of the SDLP as reasonably moderate) than any proposal on the constitution of an all-island state, since we're all familiar enough with that as an objective of the SDLP.

Two things that strike me about this thread -

1)Why are people even beginning to consider this when the GFA lies in tatters? The changes required for a UI completely eclipse those required for the implemntation of the GFA. If the GFA doesn't work (and this is an agreed settlement too) then how can a UI be expected to work?

2) The second point may indirectly be related -

It always amazes me the civility and openmindedness with which all discussion related to an UI are carried out on Slugger. Why does this issue - which is the fundamental and defining difference between the two sides in the North - consistently brings out the best in contributors, yet the debate in smaller 'sub-issues' tends to be far more knee-jerk and less informative?

We might be pretty good at building castles in the sky, but until we can actually make things work in reality it is a waste of time. Coming to an agreement regarding the parameters for a UI is
not only irrelevant - it is the easy bit. Just like the supposedly ardous negotiations for the GFA turned out to be a cake walk in comparision with the implementation.

And from my point of view, it is a case of thanks, but no thanks, Mark Durkan. When the Unionists are banging the doors of Leinster House down, demanding representation then I think we should look at it again, but until then forget about the nation-building stuff.

Vespasian

Let me ask you then, why are you a unionist? If you practice what you preach then you wouldn't be a unionist. ;)
You want to remain in the UK, nationalists want a UI. You don't need to work to remain in the UK, but if nationalists want to see their dream come true them must work for it. It may not happen in their lifetimes but maybe their grandkids will be grateful for the work they are doing now. Should they give up the dream? You might think so but how easily would you give up the UK?

You are definitly right that they are more pressing issues, of course, but what are Unionist parties doing about those? ;)

Maca

If you practice what you preach then you wouldn't be a unionist .... can you explain?

I am happy to set out exactly why I think remaining within the UK is ECONOMICALLY preferable to a united Ireland. If I was persuaded that my reasoning was wrong then I would consider a united Ireland as a viable alternative.

I am not interested in cultural baggage, I could live anywhere in the world culturally and have lived in a few places outside Ireland without any need for a restorative dose of Orange or Green.

As my old friend Dicken's Gradgrind said 'facts give me facts' or something along those lines!

S McGiff

I suspect for those in employment they don't care who funds their cheque. In the case of those in Civil Service employment in NI, and that includes many many nationalists, the fact that it is a rich benevolent Uncle in Westminster is of very little concern to them.

You can make all the macro arguments about the state of the relative economies and State v. private jobs, the fact is that the overall UK economy, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part, is one of the most bouyant in the world.

Why would anyone want to leave the UK on economic grounds?

Vespasian
".... can you explain?"

It boils down to the fact that I think people are generally unionist/nationalist for cultural reasons not economic ones. If one were to focus on real economic issues in NI one would basically cease to be unionist/nationalist, by my definition. Ok, it's a little simplistic but I hope you see what I mean.

"Why would anyone want to leave the UK on economic grounds?"

To make more money?
I don't know how the economies fare but would you be financially better off in NI or ROI? What about people in other fields, doctors, lawyers, engineers etc etc?

'the fact is that the overall UK economy, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part, is one of the most bouyant in the world.'

That's a fair point Vespasian. It's even true to say that the Republic's success is of a considerably shorter duration. And is less certain than the UK's long term economic future.

However, NI is the poorest region of the UK, and is almost certainly thought of as a periphery in the UK's economic strategy. There is also evidence to suggest that the game is up and the rest of the UK now expect NI to pay its way i.e. increase in water charges etc. And about time I hear you say, but it's that very economic sweetener that has kept NI viable up until now.

I think NI coupled to the ROI would have a great economic benefit to all those (including unionists) on this island. NI would become a driving force in the economics of the new country. The new Ireland (hey, would New Zealand mind if we copy their name?) would be able to supply sufficient jobs so that the current need to import labour from other EU countries would be negated and possibly stop the haemorrhage of Protestants currently heading to the UK. The Republic could certainly do with positioning hi-tech jobs in the north. These would be real jobs to attract the current civil service employees.

I suspect that GB would prefer a UI that was a considerably closer ally than the ROI currently is, than having NI as a drain on of the UK.

However, I don’t think a significant amount of unionists view their allegiance to GB in economic terms. I think they would prefer to hitch their wagon to the UK even if the economics were to suggest they would be better off in a UI. I think this for many reasons, some of which is the fear of the unknown or worse, the fear of what they may think would happen in a UI. I’m glad, at least, you don’t share these fears.

‘I won't be a pedant and point out the inaccuracy of saying UK when I think you mean GB’

Doh!

‘I think there is little or no evidence of this 'haemorraging of Protestants' any 'haemorraging' is cross community!’

I probably should have modified that and stated Middle Class Protestants i.e. those that frequent Slugger ;-). Unfortunately it appears they do not leave temporarily, but permanently.

P.S. I wont be a pedant and point out you misspelled haemorrhaging! ;-)

Bob Wilson

"I think there is little or no evidence of this 'haemorraging of Protestants' any 'haemorraging' is cross community!"

The statistics back you up. They show that there have been slightly more people going from GB to NI than vice versa in the last 3 years. The 2001 Census showed that the people moving from GB to NI are indeed cross-community.

Currently in the UK there are quite big migrational effects going on. There is a lot of immigration from outside the UK into London. There is also a of of migration from London to other places, Scotland, Wales, and to a lesser extent NI. This is probably because the extra crowding in London is making it expensive to live there and many people are moving elsewhere as they get older.

"Anyhow believe leaving (temporarily) isnt a bad thing - indeed I think it should be compulsory!"

Absolutely. A bit of travel or even just go to Birmingham or London for a while and see what REAL multi-cultural society is like and you will see how petty sectarianism and racism really are. Also makes you realise that if anything you should be concentrating on positive aspects of your culture and heritage and not concentrating on bringing down others culture and heritage. Live and let live.

Vespasian,
"I am happy to set out exactly why I think remaining within the UK is ECONOMICALLY preferable to a united Ireland. If I was persuaded that my reasoning was wrong then I would consider a united Ireland as a viable alternative."

Interesting, I'm sure you'll agree that Northern Ireland has been doing rather well economically in the last seven years.

You'll be sad to hear though that even if it continues at this rate of growth and the rest of the UK continues as it has, it will only have the same per capita GDP as the rest of the UK by 2740.

I believe there is a policy of British economic detachment going on in Northern Ireland at the moment which means 735 years is about accurate for how long it will take NI to catch up with the UK if things continue as they are.

Or do you envisage NI's ability to make its own economic decisions changing in the next 735 years? How will this come about and why does it have to happen within a UK context?


Design: River Path Associates Comments: Big Blog Co Powered: Movable Type 3.15 Copyright © 2003 Sluggerotoole.com All rights reserved.