In the wake of what UUP leader Mike Nesbitt describes as “the shambles” of the Haass talks, which general direction are we heading now – towards a re-united Ireland or further away? There are republicans who will tell you that the present political arrangement, Sinn Féin sharing power with the DUP, is simply another case of republicanism morphing into constitutional nationalism morphing into the administration of British rule here in the north. The goal for which so men Irish men and women fought and died over the last forty years and over the centuries before that has been ditched, and acceptance of the unionist rejection of Haass shows that. The fiery republicans of the 1970s have settled for sell-out as their fire has dimmed with age.
In contrast there are republicans – the great majority – who will tell you that the present political arrangement, Sinn Féin sharing power with the DUP, means the Orange state has been dismantled. Permanently. Far from having abandoned the goal of Irish re-unification, they are pursuing national unity and independence with greater subtlety and promise of success than at any prior time in our history. Unionist rejection of Haass only makes the case for union weaker, not stronger. A Protestant parliament for a Protestant people is long gone and a central pillar of partition has been removed. Add to that the ticking of the demographic clock and you have a situation where the main concern is how best to ease unionism into a new re-united Ireland in which they will feel welcome and at home.
Either case can sound plausible. If you go with the first take on things, you can ask what return Sinn Féin got at the Haas talks for all its love-bombing of unionists? Very little, it would appear. The DUP may be a little less frosty than usual, but any notion that they have moved from their not-an-inch position is seen in the steam coming out of Peter Robinson’s ears and Jeffrey’s tight mouth.
If you go with the second you will note that we live in an age of seismic change. The border between north and south, in physical terms, doesn’t exist. There may be places that declare “You are now entering Northern Ireland” but if so they’re well hidden. Business works on an all-Ireland basis: confinement of one’s market to the north alone is as near-useless today as the traditional 20-acre farm.
Most striking of all, maybe, is the rediscovery of their Irishness by many unionists. Set-dancing, ceilidhs, Irish music, the Irish language, interest in Irish place-names and genealogy: all these are flourishing among an increasing number of Protestants. A growing awareness of what they have in common with their Catholic neighbours is showing through all sorts of joint enterprises. In a city like Derry, once an over-flowing cauldron of enmity, the UK City of Culture shakes hands with the All-Ireland Fleadh, and Orange marching bands hold a respected place in the music and spectacle on the banks of the Foyle.
But while change can develop a momentum of its own, it comes into being only when people work in practical ways for it. Calls on Enda Kenny’s government to produce a White Paper on re-unification are a waste of breath. If republicans believe that unionism and the rest of us would be in a better place as citizens of a 32-county republic, it’s past time they showed unionism and the rest of us what that 32-county republic would look like. I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: we need independent research to produces figures which show in lay person’s language how a re-united Ireland would be better financially than our present state, tied to Westminster.
That done, we could move to the cultural and social benefits of unity, of being at ease with each other, of developing self-respect as well as other respect through being maitres-chez-nous – masters in our own house. If we can’t demonstrate what all that would look like before 2016, then centenary celebrations will be a sham.
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: we need independent research to produces figures which show in lay person’s language how a re-united Ireland would be better financially than our present state, tied to Westminster.
Tell me how exactly we would be better off leaving an economy of 60 million and join one of 5 million?
Neill – I agree that we need to once and for all see the figures for a UI and those for our present state. I don’t think it’s an economy of 60 million being left and one of 5 million joined. A UI, like and independent Scotland, would almost certainly be an EU member – that’s near to 740 million.
Jude, I don’t like the argument that re-unification can/should be debated based on finances. I’m not saying they’re not important, of course they are, but I’d rather be less well off and be master of my own house than financially better off but still living under British rule. Laying claim to the 6 counties is wrong,always was and always will be. Maybe that should be a starting point.
I think the logical end point of the road Unionists are taking is to seek repartition. The Unionist reflex has always been Domination or non-Participation, and I can’t see them moving from it.
By refusing to negotiate, even while a C/N/R majority is staring them in the face, Unionists are putting down a marker that what they have they hold. What they have is fortress NE Ulster – E Derry, Antrim & N Down.
If you look at the infrastructure/capital spending that Unionist ministers have taken, it clearly favours those Unionist areas in the east. They clearly have their eye on the post C/N/R majority situation.
Paul – thanks for your thoughts. I’m not sure unionists have their eye on repartition.E Derry, Antrim and N Down would make for one very small state AND they’d still have a considerable minority of very discontented citizens. They certainly have their eye on what you call a C/N/R majority, but before that was ever thought of they were investing in unionist areas – Craigavon, the New University of Ulster spring to mind.
Paul, London-The 3 counties concept is over ninety years old. It was SF’s baby to scupper the northern state at birth via the Boundary commission and an armed campaign. That was after negotiating and signing an agreement in London which concluded with what is basically the State border we have today.
If Unionists wanted repartition they should have tried it 30 or 40 years ago, it just cant happen now because of the big problem of all those pesky nationalists living in Belfast – a big green blot in any future orange state
ASR – neither do I, and I must have expressed myself badly if I suggested that in the article. Since most people go for the economic argument (on both sides) I think it should be looked at clearly and logically and facts and figures laid out. Like you, I think the case for Ireland governing itself doesn’t rest on ‘Will I have more money?’ Money matters but that’s a sad way to live your life. Being grown-up in my view means looking after your own affairs, not having the man next door do it for you.
ASR – neither do I, and I must have expressed myself badly if I suggested that in the article. Since most people go for the economic argument (on both sides) I think it should be looked at clearly and logically and facts and figures laid out. Like you, I think the case for Ireland governing itself doesn’t rest on ‘Will I have more money?’ Money matters but that’s a sad way to live your life. Being grown-up in my view means looking after your own affairs, not having the man next door do it for you.
Sad way to life your life try telling that people who have to go out grafting everyday to make sure that they have a roof over their head and that their families are provided in the end there are people who are either rich or poor and they will remain unaffected the rest of us would be a lot poorer but still we all would be happy in a united ireland and masters of our own destiny and you seriously wonder why unionists dont take Republican arguments seriously?
The south is wealthier than the north, so how everyone would be so much poorer is rubbish. Even if they were a bit wealthier in a united Ireland most Protestant unionists still wouldn’t vote for a UI. So why not call a spade a spade and cut out the BS.
Well Neil, they’ll certainly not be happy if they keep getting a garbled version of what their political opponents say. I have never suggested that keeping a roof over one’s head/the wolf from the door is not a dominating and ferocious struggle for many people. I do say that to be in such a situation, where nothing matters but getting a meal on the table/making more money is sad. But it is a fact that most people – even those with very little in the way of material goods – for example, many of the flag demonstrators – do care about things beyond the financial. I should have thought the past year had made that clear to even the dimmest. Similarly, I never suggested “we all would be happy in a UI”. I wouldn’t blame anybody for rejecting such an idea; I would blame people who pretend others have made such a childish suggestion.
Generally its those with least to lose who riot how many middle class riots do you see?
What frustrates me about Nationalism and Republicanism is that they are very good at saying how a united ireland would benefit people but when you question them on the firm details they get a little vague.
To your credit you have articulated an approach but its hard to convince people who are used to an ecomomic system to switch to an untested one.
Sadly Unionism is lead by economic novices who dont understand what a strong argument they have and have no idea how to sell them
Better salaries, better penisons, better benefits etc etc
On the financial and economic aspect I think it was clear enough what you said in the last sentence of paragraph 6 and and in paragraph 7. And really we could argue the case that Ireland as an Island would be better off part of the UK therefore doing away with two of this and two of that. Incidentally Mary Lou McDonald speaking at a summer school in Cork made it clear that she would not be asking unionists to unite with the Southern state and in fact would not insult them by doing so until it had something to offer them by way of a new Ireland and that.being the only basis for unification.But Mary Lou McDonald aside, telling unionist how bad they are and how awful they’ve been and that unionism is something to be demonised will not encourage unionists into even considering unification.
The south is wealthier than the north, so how everyone would be so much poorer is rubbish. Even if they were a bit wealthier in a united Ireland most Protestant unionists still wouldn’t vote for a UI. So why not call a spade a spade and cut out the BS.
The South is wealthier than the north but not as rich as London however at least you get to the point.
East derry is not as unionist as portrayed.It is made up of the majority nationalist ,strongly SF Limavady council area and the Coleraine council area ,a very large part of which is actually in county Antrim.If this antrim part is discounted ,East Derry would be headed towards a nationalist majority.There is a myth often propagated about the nationalist city and the unionist county but this does not hold up.South derry which makes up the magherafelt distict council area is overwhelmingly nationalist and SF hold a clear overall majority there. Even excluding the city,Derry has a clear nationalist majority.
Its clearly ironic that with the IRA off the stage Unionists have no Bogey men in the bag to scream to the Brits about! I certainly am not happy about aspects of the GFA, in a way its the Curates egg for both nationalists and Unionists. However it is clear that Unionists have most to lose, ie their wee Pravince. What is needed is a National agenda on Irish unification this certainly isn’t going to happen until SF get into power in the south, that in itself causes all sorts of headaches (coalitions etc). What encourages me is that more and more young protestant youth are completely disillusioned with the main Unionist parties, I wonder what their thoughts are on a 32 county Ireland!?
Chris,
I think that these young Protestants are the ones who’ll usher in a United Ireland and close the book on the bigoted fear-mongering that has dominated the Northeastern corner of Ireland low these 300-odd years.
First thing is to show that the economic situation won’t change much, maybe a little worse, maybe a little better. The British(those down in |Southern England, the ones who “create” wealth and run the show) could help in this matter by gradually lessening the subvention and/or promising to aid in the transition period by paying a good riddance fee/severance package to help the UI on its way to nation-once-again-hood.
With the economic question out of the way, young Protestants(or enough of them to count) could be happy to distance themselves from their steamy-eared elders, to show that they are a newer, more mature breed of Ulster Protestant. Their attitude would be,”WTF? We had it our way for quite a while. Why not just let the Taigies have their way? It’s not gonna kill us to be part of Ireland. It’s not really likely to be any worse than it is now.”
Here’s to hoping that young people will say “whatever” rather then “NEVER!!!!”
And if you are wrong and the population of southern England grows as a result? Who will pay for the intended consequences?
Are you asking me? Not sure what you’re saying.
Yeah, the reasons for a united ireland have to be spelt out, but there are a few things that might complicate things.
One thing is the whole identity of “northern irish”. There are a few younger people who would consider themselves as that, from both sides of the political/religious divide, trust me, I know a few who think like that, so the pro’s of re – unification will have to be sold to them.
This whole “demographics show that there will be a nationalist majority is 10 – 20 years time” is kind of misleading, as it assumes that ALL catholics will vote for a united ireland, people will have to be shown benefits of this change.
Staying on this whole “northern irish” theme, there is no agreed identity between both communities, a lot of people hafe different ideas on what it means. Some people see it as being an extension of GB/UK, others as a kind of place on its own, then you have people who can’t stomach saying “northern ireland/irish”, with so many different alternative terms being bandies about, such as “the north”, “six counties” etc, etc.
If we are to look at a re – united ireland, should we not think about a federal ireland, with at least two, mabye many more states covering the whole of ireland? Different communites could have their own fiefdoms, I suppose.
The whole notion of a ‘Northern Irish’ identity is not one that I see being a problem in a United Ireland. A Corkman will usually refer to himself as a Corkman first, before addressing their Irishness, lest they find themselves associated with the dreaded Jackeens. Likewise those who consider themselves ‘Dubs’ would see themselves as a world apart from their fellow culchie countrymen. I don’t see the retention of a Northern Irish identity in a future UI being much different to this.
I suspect that Unionism is still kicking itself from having retained the word ‘Ireland’ in the wake of partition. Calling the place ‘Northwest Britain’ or something equally partitionist may have done more to erode any notions of Irishness in those pesky Catholics.
Sean Thomas Some interesting points there. Recently I read somewhere in relation to the Eire Nua policy document launched in 1972 by the Provisionals. Ruairi O Bradaigh stated he would never ask the unionists to join the 26 counties State as “we are trying to escape from it ourselves”. Daithi O Cannaill envisaged a federal State comprising four provincial governments. It was eventually kicked into touch by the Adams group
I would say it is a very hard sell to Unionists. A United Ireland will be game over for them. There will be no way back, certainly not for this generation.
Would they campaign for the new Ireland to join the UK? Or just focus on some kind of repartition of the NE corner.Either scenario seems unlikely.
Any economic or social benefits are unlikely to make much difference.
I agree both scenarios are unlikely. I don’t hear Unionists talk about repartition and it seems to be limited to this blog. I think it’s got more to do with fear mongering rather than reality. It appears some commentators are intent on dispensing with the argument of persuasion as to the merits of a UI and instead focus on a religious duty. Just can’t envisage another GB and Ireland regardless of that thriving Euro economy.
Hey pretzellogic, sorry for only getting back to this now, but the Eire Nua policy was interesting, as you say, and was one of the things used by the northern provisionals, against the southern leadership at the time, so that Adams and his supporters could effectively stand for election in the Dail.
I did read some articles around which might suggest that things have come full circle, maybe not in the sense of the 4 provinces, one central parliament in Athlone, but in recognising Northern Ireland as a separate federal state.
I think the provisionals actually negotiated with loyalists in the mid 70’s too, along these lines, so that they would reach an agreement, so they could unilaterally ask the British to leave Ireland, but someone blew the cover of these talks, and they ended.
I have been reading a lot of the coment placed on this page, but I’m still finding myself very undecided on all issues of the topic.
I personally am a 29 year old Unionist/Northern Irish/Protestant…..whatever you wanna call me. You get the idea anyway. I would personally prefer that Northern Ireland remains in the United Kingdom…….but with the correct advertising I could be persuaded to change my opinion.
I think a huge part of the problem is the generations and seeing through the stereotypes. It is not the people or the government or Southern Ireland that the young Unionists of today are afraid of, it’s the face of Nationalism. Nationalism represents IRA, weapons, Sinn Fein, and so on so forth. Not that I’m not saying there are negative influences on the Unionist side as well, but show me how a United Ireland would look without all the Eireann go bradh (I think that’s spelt right) bollocks!