It is early days and things will get worse before they get better, but change is coming to the UK. What it will be is speculation at this stage, but I imagine individual national sovereignty for Scotland will be inevitable.
There is talk of the Bank of England giving up control of sterling for a shared system in which Scotland will be represented in the new Bank of Britain.
In the early years, it will be best for the value to remain low but growth will come when trade agreements are made around the globe with other nations pegged to sterling.
It seems improbable to me that this won’t happen, so I am asking would Ireland as a united entity be better off in the Euro zone or with our own sovereignty and currency pegged once again to Sterling.
I believe it would be, not only as it would return us to the position we were in at the start of the Celtic Tiger period, but it would remove the argument against Irish unity from unionism which we are now informed is no more than a point of view.
It seems madness to drop the country in which the bulk of our trade is with, to join with a power-mad super-state who clearly has lost direction, has a long term declining economy, and is at risk of losing more net contributing members such as Netherlands and hopefully Ireland among others.
It would be an opportunity to reform the Irish state, resolve public sector issues in both states and to finally have a sovereign country which the whole nation can get behind and pursue what is best for all of our people.
Let’s put it up to those unionists who claim it is no more than a point of view: will they accept their Irish identity and remove partition in return for a closer relationship with Britain that will not deny total sovereignty to the Irish nation.
Never has there been a better opportunity to make such an agreement.
Perhaps Enda Kenny sees himself as the man to deliver and has decided to stick around another term to see it through.
Will Fine Gael be the party to unite Ireland?A Fine Gael / unionist parties coalition could dominate Irish politics for the immediate post-unification period.
Does Enda Kenny feel the hand of history on his shoulder like Blair did before him?
Jaysus Jessica, I find it difficult to disagree with what you’re saying,,except to point out Enda probably won’t want to upset his friend, the Chanchellor of the fourth reich and is unlikely to be in situ for much longer, if the cretin from Cork has his way.
I wholly believe it will benefit our pensions, and our children’s life chances if we leave the franco/hun elite to make, and remake their own economic and social mess without being, as we are now, ordinary taxpayers having to foot their ‘inability to control their own greed’ bill.
But where for Ireland and our desire, and Constitutional imperative to reunite our people, it used to be country but I’m afraid the 1998 referendum lost that.
Should the Scot’s be permitted another referendum so soon after the previous one? I think no, the same economic issues pertain, as they did in 2014 so, my own suspicion is it might just go the same way therefore removing any chance of the SNP winning freedom for a very long time.
Same here, having Sinn Fein and the SDLP telling us all to vote remain did not bring a huge number of Republican minded voters to do that, even North Belfast, with a large nationalist minority voted ‘remain’, so too did Upper Bann, again, large nationalist minority, one might have expected the six percent, therefore, to have been more. Those in SF and SDLP crying now for special status for occupied Ireland within the eu should remember that, if they win a forthcoming border poll by six percent (I doubt it shall be anywhere close to that but), would it be reasonable to rerun it just because it is not what they want?
The latest from the ‘remain’ side here is threatening legal action if, or when, Art. 50 is triggered, that reminds me of threatening a tiger with a mouse, now, it may work with an elephant but, the tiger will eat you, and your mouse.
The sooner these parties recognise this, the better for us all, six percent is far from enormous and, if people see a beneficial outworking of the UK voting amach, it might just be six per cent the other way if it is forced upon the people to do ‘Brexit’ 2.
I sense Enda has something brewing in his back pocket and quite possibly is beginning to relish the opportunity of facing Fianna Fail in another election sooner than Michael Martin might have expected.
Something has certainly invigorated him to come out with renewed enthusiasm for leading his party into the next general election which may well be off the back of an Eirexit.
The EU debacle that SF and the SDLP are pursuing is beyond my comprehension but then again, if it weren’t for Mary Lou McDonald I would have little interest in Sinn Fein any more.
The reaction to Endas simple comment about the possibility of a border poll was powerful. It was the first time I ever saw him as a Taoiseach.
If he could only keep it up for more than a day.
It goes to prove though, with Dublin behind unification, it would happen.
oops, ta bron orm gach duine, Belfast north and Upper Bann voted out, my mistaken wording.
No to being pegged to any other currency if out of the Euro, the lesson was learned when Wilson devalued the pound. In 1978 the Punt was introduced. Ido not know at which point you believe that the Celtic Tiger was born but I do not see it being contemporaneous with being in currency union with Britain. So I cannot see the rational for pegging with Sterling on that front.
As for appealing to unionism I doubt that your proposal for closer union with Britain would go down well in the South, we know that the concern for the southern politico is for the 26 counties and they only care for the northern 6 when it directly affects them, so why would they disturb the status quo?
Well there are a variety of options on that Croiteir, each with pros and cons.
I suppose it would come down with do we trust our own politicians and bankers more than we would the future bank of Britain?
But either way, we would be better off with a currency linked with Sterling than the Euro.
We have seen how much control Fianna Fail gave to bankers in running or ruining the economy.
I think something like 50% of the souths trade is with the other island, Britain so the northern 6 doesn’t really come into it other than give us a viable excuse for abandoning the EU project in the interests of peace while giving Dublin access to the EU market as well as the new global trade agreements already in development.
It would also give full control of Ireland back to Dublin, restore full fiscal control and total sovereignty to the Irish nation even if we lose some control over currency.
As for England, we know they have their own interests at heart and compare 180 billion trade with the south and 6 billion with the north and you can see why Dublin will be leading the negotiations on post brexit relations with Ireland, not the north.
If unionism truly is only interested in links with Britain then it wont mind being ruled from Dublin and if they are smart they would merge of form links with Fine Gael and rule all of Ireland for the immediate future.
That is if unionism is capable of sharing power and I am wrong about it being a bigoted ideology.
I suppose time may tell.
Your penultimate paragraph is the key in what you are suggesting Jessica.in that, Unionism, perhaps still Unionists within a super commonwealth relationship, the Republic still a Republic, though a more federal type with governance of the six counties controlled still from a jointly funded and administered Dail Dun Donaill, might have some appeal to those who can see benefit of such for us all.
The one time key economic argument, twelve and a half percent corporation tax is gone, Osborne quickly reduced Brit. rate to fifteen percent, making Britain more attractive for FDI than the twenty six counties, the six may benefit somewhat but, transport infrastructure does not meet the need of major industry, just drive from Dublin to Athlone to see that.
Why your penultimate paragraph is key is, the prospect of a constitutionally acceptable form of joint authority to Unionism with attached seats in the Brit. Dail, and effectivly control of government in Ireland through what would be sixty three Dail seats plus their existing FG seats is, or should be, an attractive prospect.
You would think, problem is, as always with Unionism, they cannot accept inevitable reality, but, if not, no surrender.
Jessica, before you start posting, I’d wish you would get your facts straight. Ireland unplugged itself from sterling because it was dragging the Irish economy down. Rates were set to suit the UK, not Ireland. Once the Punt was introduced, the economy started to take off from the early 90s onwards. Before the Celtic Tiger era, Ireland was mainly producing stuff and exporting. Rates were set to our needs.
The CT era took off on joining the Euro. Cheap interest rates was the cause of this and led to the banking crisis.
If the above tells us anything, is that Ireland is better off with its own currency not tied to another.
As for trade, where do you get this nonsense figure of 50% of Ireland’s trade is with the UK? It is in fact 16% of all our trade and it’s Belgium that is our biggest trading partner.
If you think that the people of the Rep will tie themselves in any part in any way to the UK, you live in dreamland and are more unionist than you think.
Well Ryan2, I am always happy for any facts to be corrected but perhaps you should follow your own advice.
Ireland never unplugged itself from sterling as you claim, it was pegged with sterling from conception until it joined the euro in 1999 when the Celtic tiger period ended shortly after joining the euro.
The Celtic Tiger did not survive Ireland joining the Euro, to compensate or for what ever reason, you would need to ask Charlie McCreevy or his Fianna Fail buddies but he inflicted unrecoverable damage to Irelands economy almost immediately on joining the eurozone, the biggest mistake Ireland ever made.
He almost doubled public spending while at the same time cutting taxes, he basically blew every penny with not one euro cent in reserve between 2000 and 2004, before, thanks to low interest rates an artificial tiger was resurrected overinflating the economy, pushing house prices through the roof and setting us up for the property bubble crash with no safety net.
It took a bail out and years of austerity to get Ireland back on track but all of this would most likely have been avoided by not joining the euro and following a route such as Iceland.
It is up to the people of Ireland to decide whether they want to be part of the EU or any alternative option that may offer better prospects.
As for Belgium being our biggest trade partner, that is the first I have ever heard this.
I was always under the impression that England was our biggest trade partner and that we exported more to the rest of the world than into the EU. I would love to hear from an economist or someone with more knowledge on these things but that is certainly news to me.
Jessica, Ireland unplugged itself in 1979 when Ireland joined the European Exchange Mechanism and an exchange rate was introduced by the then EEC to stabalize the EEC’s various currencies. The UK stayed out of the EEM. From then on, the Rep had a different exchange from sterling and the rest of the EEC, as rates were set by the Central Bank. The Irish currency became IR£ Punt. Also the Currency Centre at Sandyfort was established in 1978, before this all Irish notes and coinage were printed by the British Royal Mint.
I’d call that unplugging itself from sterling. For a brief period, the Punt was a stand alone currency from sterling until we joined the Euro in 1999. I’m certainly old enough to remember the Punt being devalued on few occasions by various ministers of finance.
The CT era started when we joined the Euro. The building boom took off because of cheap interest rates. Prior to that, our economic growth was manufacturing and export led. Then the building boom took over and FF could not resist all the extra taxes, over 40% of the price all new houses and new cars, pouring into the state’s coffers.
This money was misspent for sure but McCreavy did actually put some 20 billion into the pension reserve fund to take some of the heat out of the economy. This fund has since been raided and depleted by Minister Noonan. I also remember the State Savings Fund whereby for every €4 saved, the state would give €1. That cost the state over €1.5 billion.
Agreed that the CT era was very badly managed and a lot of that was due to the tax rebates to developers. If for instance, a developer came up with a plan to redevelop a run down part of a town or city, huge tax reliefs were available. Nothing wrong with that per see, as the developer was taking a big risk with his own borrowed money but unfortunately, it also applied to someone building a couple of holiday homes on the coast or a small housing estate in any town or village. This is one of the main reasons the building boom took off as it did. The Rep was building up to 60,000 houses in 2006, Britain for instance, was building 80,000 homes per year. The problem was clear for all to see but FF were addicted to these taxes and to lowering our tax base and handing out money left, right and centre. A few euros for everyone.
I also remember, and this has long been forgotten by most people, the government giving €6,000 per year to every mother who was in receipt of child benefit and who had a child under 6. This was around 2004/05 and lasted for approximately 2/3 years. This too cost the state some €1.5 billion. It was supposed to help with childcare costs but applied to stay-at-home mothers as well. Every refugee in the country got this money. Imagine having just arrived in the country and having 3 kids under 6 and the state gifting you €18,000 for the year.
It amazes me how this little stunt has been forgotten. It was simply buying votes. Equally amazing is that people who didn’t qualify for a medical card had to pay €60 for a doctor and dental visit. This money could have gone a long way to introducing cheaper access to health care.
But such is FF and it is how they have always operated. No vision, just one election to the next. Yet in its entire history it has never gotten over 50% of the vote, apart from one occasion when it received 52% of the vote. An awful lot of people don’t trust FF and never will.
The media of course would love FF back in power.
Joining the Eurozone was a mistake but FF policies only made matter worse. I believe we should extract ourselves from the Euro as soon as possible and have our own stand alone currency.
When it comes to trade with the UK, old myths die hard. Belgium is our biggest trading partner, albeit, just slightly ahead of the UK. The UK makes up 16% of out trade.
Another myth is that we bailed out the German banks, we did indeed, but it was British banks that we bailed out too as we borrowed more from then than the German banks.
Thanks for the correction and additional info Ryan.
Very interesting and informative.
Apologies Ryan2, it seems you are correct. The Irish pound broke links with sterling in 1979 when it switched to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) and not when it joined the euro as I had stated.
Let’s hope it’s the hand of the law.
“change is coming to the UK.”
It is, without a doubt.
“I imagine individual national sovereignty for Scotland will be inevitable.”
I’d say, yes, but… with the ‘but’ meaning a form of national sovereignty akin to devo-max-max – if I can put it that way, given that strong links to the rest of Britain will remain (it’s the same island after all and I hear there are arguments which suggest that islands should be politically united!).
“would Ireland as a united entity be better off in the Euro zone or with our own sovereignty and currency pegged once again to Sterling.”
Most definitely the latter – it’s as obvious as a sash in July.
“with **our own sovereignty** and currency pegged once again to Sterling.”
Given the submission to Sterling, one would have to question what, exactly, ‘sovereignty’ meant. Not trying to be offensive – just raising a genuine question.
“it would remove the argument against Irish unity from unionism”
It might remove some of the objections to Irish Unity.
“which we are now informed is no more than a point of view.”
Having read the other thread on Unionism, I had, to be perfectly honest, missed that. Although, yes, Unionism has *a* point of view… among many other points of view. Broad church and all that.
“It would be an opportunity to reform the Irish state”
That would be welcome.
“which the whole nation can get behind and pursue what is best for all of our people.”
Well, certainly one which would reflect one of the Unionist points of view, which is that many of us have a cultural, geographical, economic, historical, and familial affinity with Scotland, Wales and England would be an easier nation to “get behind”.
“will they accept their Irish identity”
No need to ‘accept’ it – it already exists. Unionism is one of many Irish identities.
“and remove partition in return for a closer relationship with Britain”
A United Ireland in a United …… (fill in the blank – Personally I like the word ‘Kingdom, but I recognise it could cause problems.)
“that will not deny total sovereignty to the Irish nation.”
See point about Sterling above.
“Never has there been a better opportunity to make such an agreement.”
This is probably correct.
“A Fine Gael / unionist parties coalition could dominate Irish politics for the immediate post-unification period.”
Interesting point of view. Especially, and, again, I’m not trying to be difficult, given what you said about Unionism in the last thread.
And finally:
“will they (Unionists) accept their Irish identity and remove partition in return for a closer relationship with Britain that will not deny total sovereignty to the Irish nation.”
This is a question which can be turned around a little.
Does this mean that Republicans are prepared to accept an Irish identity which is an integral part of the British Isles and that sovereignty is limited by wider economic needs and cultural realities?
I agree PF, it would be in all of our best interests if these islands could be politically united.
Ironically, unionism is the biggest stumbling block to that happening and it may well be overruled through Dublin.
“Given the submission to Sterling, one would have to question what, exactly, ‘sovereignty’ meant. Not trying to be offensive – just raising a genuine question.”
To me PF, sovereignty means control of your own laws, your own borders, your own wealth and fiscal policies etc…
We could define our own health system, our own education system, I would insist on the catholic church no longer owning the grounds of our schools.
The Irish punt was pegged with sterling as were all Irish currency before the move to the Euro.
The downside is should the bank of England devalue Sterling, it impacts on all nations within the sterling blok.
You can over ride this and control your own value but you lose the security from the central banks financial reserves.
As I say, pros and cons.
It does not weaken independence one bit however and England’s fiscal policies are better for us than Germanys.
However, there is talk of a new bank of Britain or whatever it might be called which will be made up of people from all parts of the new group and share not only control of the value but share the wealth beyond the south of England.
There isn’t a chance in hell of Belfast getting any say but a strongly united Ireland with Dublin as a central part may not be beyond the bounds of possibility.
If we can get past unionist intransigence hence my pushing on the acknowledging the past.
If Ireland is considered a risk we are out and that is all there is to it.
“It might remove some of the objections to Irish Unity.”
So what would the others be if unionism is purely about links to Britain?
“Having read the other thread on Unionism, I had, to be perfectly honest, missed that. Although, yes, Unionism has *a* point of view… among many other points of view. Broad church and all that.”
I agree again, Unionism has many points of view which are based on the individuals who share in its ideology.
I have never said otherwise.
“Well, certainly one which would reflect one of the Unionist points of view, which is that many of us have a cultural, geographical, economic, historical, and familial affinity with Scotland, Wales and England would be an easier nation to get behind”
PF, all of Ireland has a familial affinity with Scotland, Wales and England, more so the south which has far more of our citizens living in Britain and vice versa.
In fact, the relationship between Britain and Ireland is stronger between the south than the north.
Unionism is not needed for links with Britain, it is simply a means of controlling part of Ireland. Unionist culture is not shared in Britain, there is more commonality with orange marches in the republic although there are in Scotland.
To England you are a bunch of loons.
“Unionism is one of many Irish identities.”
I agree PF, but many within the unionist family find it difficult to accept and are even encouraged to hate it hence flag burning.
I remember attending tech in portadown and in class arguing with protestants who were saying the south was a foreign country to wind us up, when the teacher came in and joined in with them against us and we had to leave the room.
This behaviour was always considered acceptable and is inherent within unionism. To what degree it is diluted in modern times I could not say, but I assure you many on this site know very well what I speak off.
“A United Ireland in a United …… (fill in the blank – Personally I like the word ‘Kingdom, but I recognise it could cause problems.)”
Will it be a kingdom PF? I doubt we could sell that to the Irish nation. It is more likely to be a federal union and Scotland may very well become a republic within it. It would most definitely be a bridge too far for me and I am certain the vast majority of Ireland.
Could there be some arrangement where the royals have a degree of freedom in Ireland which remains a republic?
Quite possibly, but compromise will be required and it is time unionism learned the nature of it.
“A Fine Gael / unionist parties coalition could dominate Irish politics for the immediate post-unification period.” “Interesting point of view. Especially, and, again, I’m not trying to be difficult, given what you said about Unionism in the last thread.”
I know you are not PF, I have plenty of respect for you.
Lets say it would be a logical step and the UUP and Fine Gael have already close ties.
I have no fear of unionism, it would not bother me in the slightest.
“Does this mean that Republicans are prepared to accept an Irish identity which is an integral part of the British Isles and that sovereignty is limited by wider economic needs and cultural realities?”
In return for own sovereignty as an independent nation for the first time in our history, I would be confident the majority on this island would jump at it.
I also believe it is what is currently being considered for and will hopefully come about.
Could Enda be the man for the job?
How else could we have our own independence day that could be celebrated by all of the people on this island i.e. no winners and losers, only winners?
” “It might remove some of the objections to Irish Unity.”
So what would the others be if unionism is purely about links to Britain? ”
Well, on the question of links with Britain, one question is the kind of links we a talking about, and I suspect that my desire would be for stronger political links than the kind you are thinking of.
Then we have the question of what it means to be Irish. Obviously I can’t speak for Unionists who lived 100/150 years ago, but I imagine they thought of themselves as Irish – but what kind of Irish?
I could be wrong about this (although I don’t think I am) but other of the objections focus on the perception/reality that Irish means any or all of the following, but *only* any or all of the following:
Catholic and Gael.
The GAA and all associated sports.
Traditional music.
Irish dance.
Support for the Rising and the associated anti-Britishness/Englishness.
A St. Patrick’s Day culture which is about all of the above.
The Gaeltacht.
Green everything!
Rebel songs and stories and heroes.
And so on. (My apologies for whatever I have left out that is important.)
Now, the thing is this – I don’t really mind any of that and can appreciate much of it – but if that is the definition of what it means to be Irish, I don’t really see where I fit.
So if there was going to be a United Ireland (and I say this as a member of nothing but my Church), it would have to be all of the above (and whatever else you would add) and:
Irish and Orange.
Irish and Ulster-Scots.
Irish and fife and drum.
Irish and Lambeg.
Irish and Protestant.
Irish and Shakespearian.
Irish and marching band.
Irish and Robin Hood.
Irish and the Proms.
Irish and William Blake.
Irish and Edward Elgar.
Irish and Rabbie Burns.
Irish and Patrick and David and Andrew and George.
Because while I don’t identity with all of those, the identity of the Unionist community, in all of it’s breadth, will include all of those, and I suspect a good deal more.
I don’t know anyone who would have a problem with any of those PF.
We really should talk about this more.
The only thing I might add.
So long as there isn’t a united Ireland, each of those lists will have a different meaning than they would in a united Ireland.
For example.
If a catholic was invited to a protestant friends wedding and there were lambeg drums and snide remarks which I have witnessed.
In a united Ireland I would not really care.
In a partitioned Ireland they feel hurtful
The key for me PF in a united Ireland would be to ensure that we don’t do to unionism what it has done to us.
“If a catholic was invited to a protestant friends wedding and there were lambeg drums and snide remarks which I have witnessed.”
And if the wedding took place in a Protestant place of worship there would be even more reason for hurt.
“The key for me PF in a united Ireland would be to ensure that we don’t do to unionism what it has done to us.”
Well, OK, I know you have a very particular perspective on that even though I and others here think your brushstrokes too broad, and while I don’t want to turn this into a ‘he said, she said’ argument (and will say nothing more on the matter), the facts are that ‘Unionism’, including the definition you give to Unionism, would also say, “The key for us, Jessica, would be that a united Ireland doesn’t do to us what the post Rising Republic did to Southern Protestants and Unionists.”
Perhaps, given the example you used, a marriage of the lists is what we’re talking about – and that might make for a rocky relationship!
“And if the wedding took place in a Protestant place of worship there would be even more reason for hurt.”
Why do you think that PF?
I had no problem with them getting wed in a protestant church, in fact I have family members who married in a protestant church and it was more relaxed and enjoyable than most I have been to – most likely for that reason – it was two women ministers and I thought they were great. On the other occasion in question it was not what took place at the church which raised eyebrows but the after party when extended friends were present and attitudes changed noticeably which was unexpected to many.
“the facts are that ‘Unionism’, including the definition you give to Unionism, would also say, “The key for us, Jessica, would be that a united Ireland doesn’t do to us what the post Rising Republic did to Southern Protestants and Unionists.”
It might be a fact that is what unionists would say, but please share the facts you have on what the “post Rising Republic did to Southern Protestants and Unionists.”
One fact I do know is that it is a proven misconception that they were mistreated in any way but please share your thoughts on this.
There are others more wiser than I on these events who will correct us and I know Harry would not tolerate untruths on such things from any quarter.
““And if the wedding took place in a Protestant place of worship there would be even more reason for hurt.”
Why do you think that PF?”
Because, if having invited people to a Church wedding and then making them feel uncomfortable at a service of Christian worship, that would add insult to injury.
BTW, I’d have thought that if someone not quite like ‘us’ – whoever ‘us’ is – was invited to a party, then the guests ought to be going out of their way to include them, not exclude them. If people can’t be Christian about it, they could at least be polite.
“but please share the facts you have on what the “post Rising Republic did to Southern Protestants and Unionists.”
I wasn’t thinking of any facts in particular, merely that it is indisputable that the Republic of Ireland was dominated by the first culture mentioned on the list above: Roman Catholic and Gael – it’s pretty difficult to argue otherwise.
To be Irish was, clearly, to be Catholic and Gael, and Protestants/Unionists therefore took their place, and as a very small minority, in the nation with that understanding.
I doubt very much if Unionists would be happy as a small isolated and forgotten people in 3/4 Northern counties – you know, a Unionist version of Donegal!
Although, if we had the Celtic Union you’re now suggesting, I suppose we could call Antrim, North Down and North Armagh, Little Scotland – it sort of is anyway!
“BTW, I’d have thought that if someone not quite like ‘us’ – whoever ‘us’ is – was invited to a party, then the guests ought to be going out of their way to include them, not exclude them. If people can’t be Christian about it, they could at least be polite.”
Oh I would agree. And normally they would be totally Christian and decent people.
Where it went wrong was the inclusion of lambeg drums.
This may have been seen as an expression of unionist culture, which it is but as I say, unionism is based on bigotry, not an insult but a fact and this as you would expect brought out the wrong emotions and resulted in some mildly offensive remarks meant as jibes which inspired some guffaws but made some of us feel uncomfortable shall we say.
As I say, it is not that these so called friends were bigots, they most certainly are not, but unionism does inspire it.
You can do whatever you want with that but it is true.
“it is indisputable that the Republic of Ireland was dominated by the first culture mentioned on the list above: Roman Catholic and Gael – it’s pretty difficult to argue otherwise.”
The catholic church treated Catholics worse than it treated protestants. Perhaps had unionism not divided Ireland the Catholic church may not have had the control which it did and many innocent Catholics would not have suffered at their hand, who knows.
If you are saying nationalists wanted to be controlled by a church then all I can say is I certainly wouldn’t tolerate it.
As for Gaels, we are Gaels and being a unionist wont change that for you. You were born in Ireland, you are a Gael.
Why would you find that offensive?
“To be Irish was, clearly, to be Catholic and Gael, and Protestants/Unionists therefore took their place, and as a very small minority, in the nation with that understanding. ”
That is a misconception you are telling yourselves
You would be as equal in Ireland as any of us and to be Irish is to be born and live in Ireland – nothing more.
You are already Irish PF – your level of Irishness would change zilch to what it is already.
“I suppose we could call Antrim, North Down and North Armagh, Little Scotland – it sort of is anyway!”
No it isn’t, there may be a similar connection with a small area on the west coast of Scotland with appalling grammar but unionism has very little in common with modern Scotland which is much more cosmopolitan and more like Dublin.
Apologises for butting in here PF and Jessica, but I have a question.
I was unaware that some in the nationalist community find the Lambeg drum offence. Perhaps you meant that the drums in conjunction with the jibes was the cause of offence, rather than the drums by themselves.
Are the Lambegs offence to the nationalist community?
Interestingly enough there is great cooperation between people who make Lambeg drums and bodhran drums.
The drum skins that are unsuitable for bodhrans make good Lambeg skins and bad Lambeg skins make good bodhran skins. This has led to a lot of swapping back and forth between the two musicians.
A microcosm of reconciliation perhaps?
I was not offended by the drums, other than my ears.
I just feel it was no coincidence that the atmosphere changed so suddenly at that point in the evening.
Jessica
“Where it went wrong was the inclusion of lambeg drums.
As I say, it is not that these so called friends were bigots, they most certainly are not, but unionism does inspire it.
You can do whatever you want with that but it is true.”
The trouble with that view is that while it might be correct, it is also true that *every* expression of nationality, or other identity, tends to exclude – it is true the world over.
Had the situation been reversed, with football tops (soccer or GAA), greetings in Irish, or French or whatever (and I do mean whatever) we can be sure that some in the gathering (any gathering) would have responded with the wrong emotions, resulting in offensive remarks, laughter and the exclusion of others.
It isn’t the music or the language or the football or anything else which is to blame, it’s people – and the nicest of people from all cultural backgrounds can do the most unnecessary and hurtful things.
Unionism may be guilty, but it doesn’t have a monopoly on it – which I suspect is why some people have reacted the way they did to some of what you have said about us.
What your advocating here seems to me Jessica like you want full unrestricted free trade plus free movement of people in the British Isles.
That’s fair enough and I’m all for free trade and free movement, not just in these isles but across Europe, the commonwealth and North American.
Your idea that Ireland would have to unite to get a even closer link with Britain doesn’t stack up though.
How exactly can Ireland be a sovereign independent country but be in a federal union with the rest of Britain. To be part of a federal union means that each state would have to sacrifice some powers to a federal level. What would these powers be? Defence, taxation, foreign policy etc etc.
The example I have given before is Texas can’t be a fully sovereign state when it is within the USA.
“Let’s put it up to those unionists who claim it is no more than a point of view: will they accept their Irish identity and remove partition in return for a closer relationship with Britain that will not deny total sovereignty to the Irish nation.”
As for “putting it up” us Unionists (up where I dare not ask) to see if we will accept your idea. Well your arrangement doesn’t even bring a closer relationship.
We currently have the closest arrangement possible in NI. We are actually IN THE UK. This is the ultimate guarantee of free trade and free movement as we are all one country and citizens of that country.
Unlike Brexit also the citizens of NI are the only ones who can change that relationship. That is enshrined in the GFA.
I very much hope that the ROI is allowed special dispensation from the EU to maintain free trade plus movement as that is very important for harmony of the British Isles.
If the EU doesn’t allow Ireland any special status however and there is no free trade and/or movement between the two states on these isles then the ROI has a tough choice.
Stick with the EU and tow the line or leave the EU to forge the relationship they want with Britain. It’s a tough choice and it’s a matter for the Republics goverment.
“What your advocating here seems to me Jessica like you want full unrestricted free trade plus free movement of people in the British Isles.”
We already have that Scott and I doubt it will be given up.
“Your idea that Ireland would have to unite to get a even closer link with Britain doesn’t stack up though.”
I suppose we will just have to wait and see.
“How exactly can Ireland be a sovereign independent country but be in a federal union with the rest of Britain.”
You can be a sovereign independent country and still be part of a federal union.
“To be part of a federal union means that each state would have to sacrifice some powers to a federal level. What would these powers be? Defence, taxation, foreign policy etc etc.”
That is not exactly accurate, a federal union would be built on agreements.
“The example I have given before is Texas can’t be a fully sovereign state when it is within the USA.”
There are many types f federal unions Scott, it is up to the USA how they run theirs.
They can also be in more than one.
“Well your arrangement doesn’t even bring a closer relationship. We currently have the closest arrangement possible in NI. We are actually IN THE UK. This is the ultimate guarantee of free trade and free movement as we are all one country and citizens of that country.”
My country is Ireland and it does not include Britain.
Once again, while my proposal attempts to compromise, the unionist response remains intolerant to the nationalist view.
What was it I said about unionism?
I hope very much to Jessica that we can keep the current arrangement with the ROI as it is mutually beneficial and most definitely the wishes of the people on both these isles. The big question is will the EU allow the ROI to make a deal? Remember the EU negotiates on behalf of its members.
I’m hopeful however that the EU will recognise the sensitivities of the situation and make an exemption.
“You can be a sovereign independent country and still be part of a federal union.”
You are right of course but beyond free trade plus movement what would the federal unions responsibilities be?
I can’t really see what the difference between your federal union and simple trade agreements that can be done between many countries?
“My country is Ireland and it does not include Britain.
Once again, while my proposal attempts to compromise, the unionist response remains intolerant to the nationalist view.”
Your view is completely valid and legitimate Jessica and far from being intolerant I would help defend you against anyone who said it wasn’t legitimate. A United Ireland is a perfectly fine aspiration to have and work towards.
My response is not intolerance of your nationalist views, it’s a scepticism of the economic benefits or political realities of your economic proposal here.
“What was it I said about unionism?”
You said that we were all bigots, every last one of us, but maybe we could park that for a while since its been throughly been aired out on the other thread.
“Your view is completely valid and legitimate Jessica and far from being intolerant I would help defend you against anyone who said it wasn’t legitimate. A United Ireland is a perfectly fine aspiration to have and work towards.”
I know it is legitimate Scott and I don’t need anyone to defend me.
I don’t know, perhaps Sinn Fein are right and it would be best to just push to break away from the UK as much as possible.
“Stick with the EU and tow the line or leave the EU to forge the relationship they want with Britain. It’s a tough choice and it’s a matter for the Republics goverment.”
It is a problem for all of Ireland and beyond Scott, not only the republic.
You do understand that Ireland is my country including the republic and that northern Ireland is only a part of my country.
A problem for the republic of Ireland will be a problem for many in the north.
How do you propose to deal with such a problem?
There are also alternative options.
Ireland and Scotland could decide to turn their backs on England and Scotland could remain in the EU by joining a new union with Ireland.
Scotland has direct energy links to the EU and that way Ireland could also have direct links to all EU services without going through a non EU state.
The new union could emerge as a powerful rival to England and if the EU were to reform and move towards the more federal union that Britain wanted to begin with, who knows.
Not having Scotland and Irelands backing and going it alone against the EU will not help boost the global trade deals they want with the commonwealth and beyond, especially if the US decides a disunited Britain is not as viable an ally as Germany and France.
Where there is a will there is a way.
“You do understand that Ireland is my country including the republic and that northern Ireland is only a part of my country.
A problem for the republic of Ireland will be a problem for many in the north.
How do you propose to deal with such a problem?”
Yes absolutely the problems of the south are ours also since we are so heavily linked economically.
The point I’m making (probably poorly) is that the EU will not see/treat Ireland as the one country that you believe it is.
There will be two sides in the negotiations. On one side will be the UK delegation headed up by the PM and the other will be the EU delegation which will negotiate the terms for Ireland as well as the rest of the EU.
I of course hope that Enda Kenny and Theresa May will work together to gain the best deal for the whole of Ireland, however my main doubt is will the ROI government, if the terms are bad break ranks from the EU.
My personal preference from the Brexit negotiations would be the following.
Free trade + movement in the British Isles
Free trade + points system with the EU, North America and the commonwealth.
Withdrawal from all EU political structures (EU court etc)
No payment into the EU.
I doubt that we will get all this but who knows. I am a pro European but following Brexit this is probably the best we can hope for.
PS
I saw something on FB you may enjoy Jessica, It was a live interview with the Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz who has written a book about how the Euro currency has been a disaster for Europe and how the German insistence of balanced budgets in Europe is stifling growth.
Although I don’t completely agree with him, it’s very interesting and informative. Thought you might enjoy it.
What is it you don’t agree with him about Scott?
I have a very basic grasp of economics but it is a view I too hold and therefore it is nice to hear that someone with a recognised understanding of the subject shares it?
In my opinion the EU is carefully crafted to suit the needs of the stronger economies within it.
Restricting borrowing to 3% of GDP does indeed stifle growth as it prevents major investment to pursue capital projects which could allow greater competition with the main players. Ireland is a great example. Once unification takes place, our economic growth potential will be enormous and I would blow this budget and borrow significantly to invest in public service reform and major construction projects to build lots of hotels and undertake many tourism growth projects, road building and giveaway incentives to encourage corporate businesses to move into strategically built industrial parks with subsidised low overheads as well as major investment in renewable energy to lower energy costs for both public and businesses.
So why would the EU want to restrict growth in this way, especially since the cost of borrowing is so low?
My opinion is that in doing so, more money instead will be filtered through financial sector into loans to the public of which it is a fact that much of this goes Germanys way especially in relation to BW cars of which you only need to look at how many were there in Greece by the time their economy crashed.
Most of the debt the EU collectively had to suck up had went Germanys way.
I probably a bit more of a deficit hawk than Mr Stiglitz.
Borrowing to invest is fine of course and while it does certainly help stimulate the economy in a downturn, I believe it cant simply be an ever growing mountain.
The U.K. for example spends £53 billion on interest on our current debt a year. That’s interest payments only, not paying down the overall debt.
To compare we spend £40 billion on defence, £97 billion on education and £137 billion on health. Imagine if there was no goverment debt and we had the extra £53 billion to spend on education.
His interview was very interesting however. I never thought that the Greek bailout was simply a German bank bailout.
“Yes absolutely the problems of the south are ours also since we are so heavily linked economically.”
It is not only this Scott, as I said, my loyalty lies with Ireland as in all of it.
Yes, at times I get upset by the actions of the establishment and lash out, but when it comes down to it, I am Irish and Ireland is Ireland.
Northern Ireland is umbilically linked to England economically but I have no emotional affinity with it whatsoever.
The difference between us is that I can acknowledge that unionism has an affinity with England and can attempt to compromise as I did by suggesting Irish reunification could go hand in hand with British isles reunification, but there is no similar reciprocation – hence I have lost interest.
“The point I’m making (probably poorly) is that the EU will not see/treat Ireland as the one country that you believe it is.”
If the people of Ireland say it is one country, I assure you the EU would do not one thing to say otherwise.
It is either ridiculous or more likely a desperate grasp for an excuse to suggest otherwise.
In fact, if Scotland joined a union with Ireland along with parts of North England and North Wales they would accept that too.
See latest article for more on this.
Jude. I’ve been following your blog for several months and enjoying most of it. This contribution from Jessica has prompted me to respond. It’s the most refreshing piece I’ve seen in a long time …. forward looking, radical and no evidence whatsoever of bile. The only contrary point I would make is that I would have preferred the title to be ‘Should Republicanism embrace Unionism?’
“The only contrary point I would make is that I would have preferred the title to be ‘Should Republicanism embrace Unionism?’”
I can see where you are coming from Harry.
Unfortunately I have a low opinion of unionism though I do hope one day to be proved wrong and be made to eat my words.
If unionism was capable of reaching out, of seeing that it is in England interests to shore up the trade relations with Celtic nations both Scotland and Ireland and that Ireland is one country divided which united along with Britain would be in all of our best interests and in seeing this is for the best, to put aside our past differences and for the sake of our children’s future, to create something special to give them the best opportunities not only on these shores but with opportunities in Australia and all over the world.
If unionism was capable and would lead the way in such a venture, I would gladly say we should embrace unionism and would be the first to sing their praises.
But what I expect to happen unfortunately will be unionism having to be dragged kicking and screaming towards unification, to be a pain in the arse for all parties involved including Mrs May and for unionist culture to prove once again to be the ball and chain against a more prosperous Ireland.
And who exactly are going to be the political leaders of this united UK of yours?
Are you sure you are not a die-in-the-wool hard-core unionist?
Scotland and Ireland, shouldn’t that be Ireland and Scotland, alphabetically speaking of course?
It would not be the first time I have been called a unionist on this site.
I was always taught it was good manners to put the other person before yourself. Someone and me, not me and someone else.
As for my united UK.
Again I don’t seem to have done a good job getting my thoughts out if that is what you think I am saying.
I have no doubt that any form of united Ireland will remain a republic.
Should the UK break up post brexit then new relationships will be negotiated between these islands, I assure you that is going to happen.
Whatever relationship leads to a united and sovereign Ireland would be the option I would prefer, whether that is with the EU, Scotland or Britain I care not but that new Ireland should be ruled from Dublin.
Reading these posts is like reading the pages of Reform Group where everything they say is 100 years out of date and a 100 years too late.
1. The only reason for the UK to exist is the British Empire. The Empire is gone, there’s no need for the UK. Less than 10 years of losing the last of its colonies, the UK had to call in the IMF for a bailout. Luckily for the UK, oil was discovered in Scottish waters.
2. There will be no political union of the Rep with the UK. Not now, not ever. No Catholic can be PM or head of state. Why would we join such a union that treats us as second class people? Such a situation is obviously acceptable to Catholics currently in the UK, but it is certainly unacceptable to Irish people who are of a Catholic background in Ireland.
3. There will be no union with Scotland should it become independent. In fact, the ROI should act in its own interests and veto Scotland joining the EU. We have never used our veto but we should now be considered for the best interest of the ROI. The ROI owes Scotland or its people nothing.
3. The Rep will not be leaving the EU now or in the foreseeable future, ie the next 30 years. Reforming the EU should now be to the forefront.
4. If NI wants to join the ROI, they can but there will be no fundamental change to our republican ideals. Ideals that are currently not been fully implemented I admit, but we are working on it. It will always be a thing to be achieved.
5. The sooner the ROI gets out from under the skirts of the UK the better. Our post colonial mind set has lasted nearly 100 years, it’s time to move on and as far away from the UK as possible and that means Scotland, if it ever becomes independent.
6. The ROI will not be joining the Commonwealth. There are no advantages, it does not even have a common travel or trade agreement. Half of the population of the Commonwealth is Muslin. Maybe that’s why there is not common travel area. Ask yourself why this is so?
7. I would like to see an end to the Common Travel Area between Ireland and the UK. It’s time to reimagine our relationship with the wider world and the UK. It’s time Ireland stood on its own two feet and for the state to take responsibility for its own people and provide the education, health and job opportunities that we deserve. That means supporting indigenous industry first and foremost and becoming far less reliant on Foreign Direct Investment. FDIs are now beginning to dictate to our politicians and are currently responsible for 50% of our exports. This is unhealthy and unsustainable and gives them a political power that’s extremely dangerous.
8. Time for the people of NI people to stop telling the ROI and its people what to do and think. We have been out of the UK almost as long as we were ever in it and by the time I die, will be out of the UK a long time. By the time my unborn grandchildren are middle aged, the union with the UK will have become just a “blip” in Irish history.
9. We don’t see or recognise a “British Isles”. We don’t see a special relationship in the same way NI does. We see trade and travel and opportunities.
9. There are almost as many British living in the ROI as there are Irish living in the UK per head of population. They are immigrants, just like all immigrants. The fact that the UK doesn’t see the Irish as “foreign” is neither here or there. That’s a matter for the UK government.
10. Time too to understand that the ROI has been independent for nearly 100 years and are not contaminated by the bile and sectarianism expressed by both NI unionists and NI republicans.
Hard to argue against a single thing you have said Ryan.
You have added a very refreshing contribution to this site.
Both unionist and republicans views are contaminated as you say. I would like things to be different but it will probably not happen in my lifetime unfortunately.
The south has had its freedom to move on and I would still support growth in the southern economy over the north for as long as Britain remain.
Hopefully one day we can be one nation and all share in the benefits of being free of British rule and the crap that goes with it.