How much of our thinking is wishful? Quite a bit, I suspect. We produce a model of how we would like things to be and then we gather together signs and portents that will point to that view.
For example, The Irish Voice, an American-Irish newspaper, had an editorial yesterday with the heading “A `United Ireland Now Looks Certain in the Near Future’. It notes that the various Dublin governments over the years gave lip-service only to the idea of a united Ireland. “Notice how Fianna Fail, long the party of platitudes about the North, are suddenly producing a 12 point plan for Irish unity with no empty cliches. ”
The editorial notes that for many years voices north and south tended to be quiet on the subject of a United Ireland:
“For decades there was reason not to speak of a united Ireland in case such talk spooked the unionists, or so the narrative ran. But that was then and this is now.”
The editorial writer notes that unionists are under unparalleled pressure: on the one hand the rising tide of nationalism in the north, on the other the hardships that will impact everyone in Ireland if Brexit produces a hard border.
“So, on St. Patrick’s Day in 2017, we stand on the threshold of a new era in Northern Ireland. We have seen from this latest election that a unified Ireland has moved from speculation to a demographic reality…Given the new context and the different political reality in the Irish Republic, we can say for the first time ever that a united Ireland is now more likely than not. The figures are there to prove it.”
In today’s Irish News, Alex Kane has a piece entitled ‘Brexit, border poll and independence referendum mean constitutional tidal wave on its way.’ His opening paragraph is arresting:
“THE next five years or so could be the most exciting – albeit unpredictable – ones since 1945. Maps will be redrawn. New nations could emerge. The United Kingdom could disintegrate.”
He says the UK is in chaos, with prime Minister Theresa May devoid of any kind of plan to cope with Brexit. “So I’m still expecting a second referendum further down the line, if only to get her off a hook she never expected to be on.”
Kane believes both Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Féin are “mischief-making” in calling for a border referendum both know they won’t get, but it helps drum up support for their cause. Unlike The Irish Voice, Alex ducks back from saying what this Celtic restlessness and the impact of Brexit will have. “Predictions are almost impossible to make because nobody can know which of the forces will predominate and carry the day.” But, he concludes, major change is on its way.
In yesterday’s Irish Times, Leo Varadkar, one of those Fine Gael TDs with his eye on Enda Kenny’s job, declares “Fianna Fail and Sinn Féin trying to push unification on North”. Leo makes it clear he’s always been in favour of a united Ireland (who’d a thunk it?): ““In terms of emotion and feeling, I have always believed that there would be a united Ireland in my lifetime, and I want to see it.”
But while his heart pines for it, Leo is very worried that there is a sizeable chunk of the population in the north who don’t want a united Ireland. “I don’t want to say majority support from both sides – that may never be possible – but to have reasonable cross-community support.” Anything else is going to frighten the unionist horses.
The most obvious point coming from Leo’s comments is that he doesn’t believe in the Good Friday Agreement, which states that a border referendum should be held when the British Secretary of State believes there is sufficient support for a constitutional change. (How nationalists and republicans let as vague a clause as that in, I don’t know – ach sin scéal eile). If we follow Leo’s advice, we would concede that there should be constitutional change only when unionists wanted it, whether they were a majority or a minority. So much for democracy, then. The threat of unionist violence rules, as it did over a century ago.
Alex Kane’s thinking is rather more nuanced. He’s right that Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Féin are calling for a border referendum for tactical reasons, but to call that “mischief-making” suggests that the SNP and SF are naughty school-children. Worse, it seems to suggest that the SNP and SF shouldn’t do what they can to achieve their political goals. It’s what politicians do, Alex, and what we pay them to do. As is often the case with Alex’s columns, they suggest more than they deliver. He tells us that great constitutional change is on the cards, but backs out of predicting what that might be. (Mind you, it’s also sensible of him, because most political predictions are miles off the mark. Do I have to cite Brexit, Trump, our recent Assembly election – you can make up the rest.)
Finally, The Irish Voice. When I read editorials like that, it reminds me how powerful the voices in the media can be.”For decades there was reason not to speak of a united Ireland in case such talk spooked the unionists, or so the narrative ran. But that was then and this is now.” Now there’s a bold statement and one that resonates with a lot more nationalists and republicans than northern unionists would care to believe.
Oh Rory, come quick and put an end to such talk!
The Irish Voice: file:///Users/judecollins/Desktop/A%20United%20Ireland%20now%20looks%20certain%20in%20the%20near%20future%2
Leo Varadkar: file:///Users/judecollins/Desktop/FF%20and%20SF%20trying%20to%20push%20unification%20on%20North%20-%20Varadkar.htm
What threat of Unionist violence do you refer to?
The actual threat from 1912 to 1922 and the latent threat from then on. Ever hear of the UVF, UDA etc etc or are you going to pedanticise and nit pick again?
No need to be scarcastic. What have presented on this thread is a reference to a threat of, present tense, “unionist violence” with regard to the current conversation about a United Ireland.
Now, I may have missed it, but in precise relation to the current conversation about a United Ireland, who, exactly, from the unionist community has threatened violence?
Your reply will be welcome but Dr. Collins’s more so.
PF
I think you are quite right in querying that point.
As far as I know no threat has been issued from unionists.
It might have been more accurate for Jude to say the fear of unionist violence or the risk.
There is a risk I am sure you would agree from those who can only see answers in violence but it should not prevent a UI being aspired to or being delivered when the majority want it.
gio
“There is a risk I am sure you would agree from those who can only see answers in violence…”
Of course.
And any threat against the outcome of a democratic vote, or any threat against the holding of a democratic vote, ought to be condemned. Such would be condemned by me – from whatever quarter.
“And any threat against the outcome of a democratic vote, or any threat against the holding of a democratic vote, ought to be condemned. Such would be condemned by me – from whatever quarter.”
No one said otherwise Peter.
It will be up to the PSNI to deal with any loyalist violence.
“No one said otherwise Peter.”
I know.
It will be up to the PSNI to deal with any violence.
PF
I think Jude is reading more into Leo’s statement than is actually there.
His statement refers to reasonable cross community support as opposed to a simple majority.
So I think he is saying that just going for 50% plus 1 is not a great idea if we want a successful united Ireland rather than a divisive one.
The larger the section of the unionist community that remain totally opposed to the idea then the harder it will be to make the transition work.
That just seems like good sense to me.
Nowhere does he mention the threat of unionist violence.
Nowhere does he say he does not accept the GFA
“So I think he is saying that just going for 50% plus 1 is not a great idea if we want a successful united Ireland rather than a divisive one.”
Perhaps if Leo and his party did more to encourage unity and ending division, to alleviate fears and persuade people we would be better off together then a larger cross community support would be achievable.
If he is not prepared to do that then he is partitionist and any wonder a larger the section of the unionist community would remain totally opposed to the idea
jessica
Yes all parties that are serious about unification need to now be working to alleviate fears.
Not because we have to but because we should.
50% plus 1 may bring a United Ireland in name but in practice it would be deeply divided.
And I fully support that gio
Perhaps it is unionism that should be reaching out to nationalists and explain why we should support division instead of unification
gio
“I think Jude is reading more into Leo’s statement than is actually there…”
I agree with you entirely and have commented about it below.
Indeed, I remember asking a similar question a few months back, it was something like, ‘is a United Ireland about mere political unity or about a nation, united, as far as possible, by hearts and minds’?
Ireland is one country, its people are divided over loyalty to Britain.
British rule needs to go, Irish unity is inevitable.
The best solution would be to make it as an agreed Ireland as much as possible and part of that will be the future relationship with Britain.
You think the DUP has increased the chances of Irish unity already.
I am telling you now, the next step they are taking you down is to having no relationship with Britain whatsoever.
Through reconciliation and agreement , people like yourself Peter can have the type of united Ireland with a good federal relationship with GB that is important to you.
If unionism through support for the DUP push us right to the demographic cliff edge, I will not want a trace of brutishness left in Ireland once they finally go ,and go they must.
But it is up to you to persuade them, it is not in the gift of nationalists to do so and if Martin McGuinness bending over backwards for 10 years means nothing what else can we give?
jessica
Should unionists be reaching out to nationalists to get their message across?
Of course,
They are far too insular relying on the weight of the status quo.
Sooner or later demographics are likely to force them to reach out beyond their natural vote base, and by then it will be too late.
Neither side has done much real outreach beyond tokenism in my view, at least not when it comes to the big two parties, but in the end demographics will probably do the job for SF any way.
I agree that if they leave it too late it will be worse for them, but I don’t agree that Sinn Fein have not been genuine and made real effort at reconciliation
‘“So, on St. Patrick’s Day in 2017, we stand on the threshold of a new era in Northern Ireland. We have seen from this latest election that a unified Ireland has moved from speculation to a demographic reality’
In the first, last night’s ‘The View’, delivered, produced and paid for from our collective tax, the BBC licence fee, did all it could, sending Enda McClafferty to Derry to take the reading, or in BBC terms, discount the possibility of support for re-unification, all but one of c. six persons he asked were wholly against such move, I have submitted my FOI request in respect of same.
To my thinking, BBC, again, seem bent upon spending public monies on attempting to convince their taxpayer’s that they do believe the union with Britain is what they want rather than equality (for all) independence and respect (albeit as before, continued shackle to europe will lead to greater loss of independence).
On the input from a potential next Taoiseach, he has some difficulty in that he represents a part of the Capital which has large working class areas, as well as Castleknock, and his last outing he topped the poll, as Taoiseach he would be under severe pressure from a one time med student now FF Deputy as well possibly as Paul Donnelly of Sinn Féin.
On Fianna Fáil, rich I feel of them to be making such strenuous moves now on re-unification. In 2008 they undertook a nation wide consultation of their membership on whether to now (then) organise in the six Ulster counties? The results have never been made public but, the Fianna Fáil membership, as before, decent hard working individuals, responded with 82% in favour, 18% believing they should leave this ’til after the financial crisis had passed. It ill becomes them to lecture any one on the importance of re-uniting Ireland when they have made no effort to do so.
As above, and as I pointed out many times before, the political class of the Free State are scared of the unionists, they’ll spout but nothing more, alike 1981, the occupied six counties will be simply their political football.
Well, that’s my opinion.
“the political class of the Free State are scared of the unionists”
Why are they scared of unionists Mark?
Do you mean afraid of them upsetting the apple cart and having to debate with what are all too often unreasonable arseholes, or is it something more sinister?
I feel the reason for such fear is based upon a number of factors, above PF has taken offence at reference to a ‘threat to unionist violence’ which he appears to think, post two bombs last night and a dead loyalist commander last week, does not exist but, clearly does.
Another is fear of, as you ask, upsetting the apple cart.
If unionism voted in just the Presidential election, almost certainly, Fine Gael candidates would be elected/re-elected, every seven years, if we were re-united, then I suspect the cosy political elite would be under strain from a new, unknown, force, both Sinn Féin voting Fenian’s and, probably Fine Gael voting protestants.
Fianna Fáil would have feck all chance of being back in their old role as ‘natural party of government’ and the Drimnagh folk who spend their time making millions from supplying folk with illicit chemicals, would have significant competition from the loyalist paramilitaries.
In such event, ‘unionist’ violence would soon re-erupt, though one drug dealer killing another drug dealer can only be welcomed, problem is, innocent people get caught up.
So, a bit of both.
No, I haven’t taken offence; I have asked a question. Neither have I missed the news of which you speak.
And what I have asked is perfectly clear.
Who has made a threat; when was the threat made; to whom was the threat made against?
If “the threat of unionist violence rules” (present tense), those should be easy questions to asnswer.
And let’s be clear, I for one unionist would accept a democratic vote for a United Ireland and oppose any violence should it occur.
Anyway, I very much doubt that ” unionist violence” was the reason for the comments made about the size of the vote.
And yes, Mark, I note that you referred to unionist violence with quote marks: ‘unionist’; that, at least, leaves room for discussion.
PF, thanks for clearing that up.
The QM are in reference, when we vote for re-unification, the sub-set which had voted for continuance of the brit created status quo which, for the reasons outlined above, will create violence.
In the ongoing drug’s war in Dublin/Costa del Sol, two innocent persons have died, so far, I’ve been shot by UDA myself, several Protestant colleagues were with me at the time, my point being, the six county drug’s lord’s will use the economic opportun ity to sell in the capital, Limrick, Cork, Galway and elsewhere, more will die as a result.
In essence therefore, no room for discussion, why did that require explanation?
Mark
I may be misreading you.
To whom are you referring when you mention ” ‘unionist violence’ “?
“why did that require explanation?”
Because of the way the word “unionist” is used on this website.
welcoming publicans and off licence owners killing each other/eh,whatever next.
YUNEY TUNES
AK says it’s not ok the way
SF / SN badmouth the UK
Something not nice
Upon the Irish Voice
Leo says ‘B.O.’ from the USA.
PF, you seem to have all your faculties. How far in the background is political violence? That’s the way we settle arguments here if you haven’t noticed. On both sides! And when push comes to shove, when we have a reliable 50/50, the guns will come out. As usual the colonial power will step aside and mayhem will be the order. The loyalist working class, slyly abetted by their social betters, will huff and puff. The republicans when they sense victory will huff and puff. Let’s hope it stays at huff and puff.
Fiosrach
You are quite correct, I haven’t forgotten our relatively recent trouble, or that which smoulders and erupts from time to time on both sides.
But that is not my contention with regard to the above statement about “unionist violence”, which rules. The statement was clear enough, and I’m wondering when a declaration of unionist violence by way of threat was made with regard to the present United Ireland debate, or the outcome of any poll which may take place.
I have entirely missed any such threat being made, and if anyone here can direct me to it I will be happy to read it and oppose it.
Peter, when has there ever been an advance notice declaration of violence here?
Jessica
What has that got to do with Dr. Collins’s statement?
I repeat it again:
“So much for democracy, then. The threat of unionist violence rules, as it did over a century ago.”
How does he know of a present threat? What is that present threat and to whom is it directed?
Never mind “the threat of unionist violence”, though – presently, silence rules.
Beyond that, see below.
The PSNI not that long ago confirmed that the UDA and UVF remained active did they not?
While there are armed and active paramilitaries the threat of violence remains.
Unionism has done next to nothing over the past 20 years to persuade them to go away. Both the UUP and DUP used these active paramilitaries to lend weight to the flag protests just as the UUP did 100 years ago.
Both of these parties make up the vast majority of unionism and therefore the statement that the “threat of unionist violence rules, as it did over a century ago” seems perfectly valid to me.
If you objecting because you are a unionist and are no threat then I would accept that but unfortunately you are going to have to live with this and should put it down to the behaviour of the majority of unionists and their elected representatives.
We cannot and should not turn a blind eye to this behaviour and indeed you should not be expecting us to but working together with those who want to end all such threats of violence and to normalise our society.
Jessica
It would appear that a number of concerning groups remain active.
But I still have not heard of any threat regarding the outcome of any border poll.
The statement was: “The threat of unionist violence rules…”
Which unionist has made a threat?
When unionism makes the same stand and position as that taken by Sinn Fein to confront paramilitaries and oppose their continued existence than I will accept there is no threat.
Until then, your assertion that because no communication was made public, that no threat exists are insulting.
Jessica
“If you objecting because you are a unionist and are no threat then I would accept that but unfortunately you are going to have to live with this and should put it down to the behaviour of the majority of unionists and their elected representatives.”
I’m not really sure I have to live with a unsubstantiated statement about a present threat of unionist violence related to the possibility of a United Ireland.
There either is a threat or there isn’t – and whatever has or hasn’t happened in the past, no such threat has been made now – I don’t even recall anyone suggesting that anyone else sticks a United Ireland up their solar eclipse!
“We cannot and should not turn a blind eye to this behaviour and indeed you should not be expecting us to but working together with those who want to end all such threats of violence and to normalise our society.”
Yep, see below.
“your assertion that because no communication was made public, that no threat exists are insulting.”
I haven’t made any assertions – I have asked a question in a variety of ways.
There were three sets of weapons brought into NI from S. Africa, two sets were found and the third belonging to the “third force” were never found. Where are those weapons, who has them and what do they want them for? Allegedly.
no need to worry about any violence,the newruc will be on the barricades defending you all.
What you are saying,basically,is that there will be no violence. I think you are living in a dream land. When the Supreme Loyalist Command or whatever they will call themselves issue their ultimatum I will bring it to your notice.
fiosrach
“What you are saying,basically,is that there will be no violence.”
Why do you think that? I have no idea if there will be violence or not; neither do I know of any threat. What I do know, however, is that I oppose any such threats of violence, or actions of violence against a democratic vote in a democratic nation.
But it appears that Dr. Collins knows of a threat: “The threat of unionist violence”, which, apparently rules (now) as it did before.
But I know of no such threat and you don’t seem to know of any threat either, so unless he tells us what he knows I guess we’ll never know what he’s on about.
Whether he chooses to tell us or not, though, it certainly seems clear that there is no threat of unionist violence, so he must have got the wrong end of some stick or other.
Peter, if there is no threat of violence then why is there a veto on releasing information on past state activity in the conflict on grounds of national security?
What does that have to do with anything?
I ask again: what threat, who made it, and against whom?
If there is no threat then there is no security risk and hence why keep secrets?
I don’t see how any of that follows in any way, or relates to the question I have asked.
I’ve only ever seen talk of the threat of unionist violence from the odd Slugger poster and the occasional Twitter loon (you know the ones – either a Union flag or Rangers crest as their profile pic and called something like @loyal1690) but outside of online huff and puff I’m not sure that such threats really exist.
The notion that loyalist ‘paramilitaries’ could launch any sort of terror campaign across Ireland seems unlikely – I suspect many would struggle to find Dublin on a map, let alone carry out any concerted attacks there. Drug dealing, prostitution and loan sharking seem to be more their bag. Horrible for the communities in which they operate, but to expect this to extend beyond the loyalist heartlands seems like scaremongering.
I hope you are not correct, fiosrach but I believe the flag protests represented a sort of final hurrah for orchestrayed unionist violence. Without the British Army and RUC to back them up they appear to be largely impotent.
In terms of the comments by Mr. Varadkar, a fuller quote is included below – link also provided:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ff-and-sf-trying-to-push-unification-on-north-varadkar-1.3013067
Others can decide for themselves if they think that amounts to a unionist threat which rules.
For myself, however, there is another, most plausible explanation.
Presbyterians, such as I, and Naomi Long, have an approach to democracy based on consensus. For example, in the course of making important decisions, a two-thirds majority is often applied. And it is applied as a form of protection, and for the benefit of as many as possible in a way that a simple majority vote cannot provide.
Sure, a simple majority can provide a winner and a loser, but can it provide consensus? Not always; the results of the recent Brexit vote demonstrate how simple majorities can often fail to take account of as many as possible and increase frustration, even division.
So, in that context, here is some of the rest of what Mr. Varadkar said.
“In terms of emotion and feeling, I have always believed that there would be a united Ireland in my lifetime, and I want to see it,” he said.
But, he continued, “I am sure the approach being taken by Sinn Féin, in many ways being followed by Fianna Fáil, is actually the wrong approach… What that does is it alienates and causes enormous fear among unionists who are still half the population in the North.”
“Mr Varadkar said it was impossible to achieve Irish unity “by just putting the shoe on the other foot, by saying, ‘We’re the majority now, or we’re about to be the majority, soon, so tough.”
He said there was a need for “reasonable cross-community support” comparable to that achieved in the referendum in the North on the Belfast Agreement, which won by 71.1 per cent “and thereabouts a majority in both communities…I don’t want to say majority support from both sides – that may never be possible – but to have reasonable cross-community support.”
Mr Varadkar said it was important to “talk more about what can be practically achieved.”
He quoted Naomi Long of the Alliance Party, at an all island civil dialogue meeting. “She said the best way to achieve some form of special arrangement for Northern Ireland with the EU is not to talk about it as a stepping stone or in the context of a united Ireland, but to actually talk about what the practical benefits would be for moderate unionists… That’s the right approach.”
Maybe his comments don’t reflect a supposed and non-existent threat at all, perhaps he thinks that consensus and encouragement is a better way – and one which may lead to a greater hope of success.
“Maybe his comments don’t reflect a supposed and non-existent threat at all, perhaps he thinks that consensus and encouragement is a better way – and one which may lead to a greater hope of success.”
The stance to date from unionism is to refuse to even talk about it which doesn’t really leave any other option than the approach taken by Sinn Fein and FF which I fully support.
It will also greatly reduce the chances of a united Ireland being within any reformed UK.
“The stance to date from unionism is to refuse to even talk about it which doesn’t really leave any other option than the approach taken by Sinn Fein and FF which I fully support.”
But whatever your view on that, it doesn’t affect my interpretation of Mr. Varadkar’s comments.
It is possible that that is what he meant, isn’t it?
“What that does is it alienates and causes enormous fear among unionists who are still half the population in the North.””
So why is it ok to alienate nationalists but not unionists?
By taking this attitude, in rejecting the Irish citizens in the 6 counties, he should be under no illusion that it is seen as rejection and just as much an alienation.
But Fine Gael wont see out the summer and their party will be severely damaged by Enda Kenny’s refusal to step aside
“So why is it ok to alienate nationalists but not unionists?”
I didn’t say it was. But maybe he wants more than political unity? If there ever is a United Ireland, we should all want that.
“By taking this attitude, in rejecting the Irish citizens in the 6 counties, he should be under no illusion that it is seen as rejection and just as much an alienation.”
I still don’t think that is what he was saying.
“But Fine Gael wont see out the summer and their party will be severely damaged by Enda Kenny’s refusal to step aside”
No idea. You’d still want a unity of hearts and minds in your new Ireland, though?
“You’d still want a unity of hearts and minds in your new Ireland, though?”
Ideally, yes.
But if refusal to engage was seen to being a tool to prevent said unity of hearts and minds, then we need to consider which should come first, hearts and minds of both communities or the majority wishes of the country overall.
I have said many times, I would prefer to reach an agreement while unionism was at its strongest which is already past tense and is on the other wide of that downhill slope to insignificance. The more unionism pushes us to the wire, the worse it will be for unionists as a result when unity comes, and it will. There is no question about that now. The momentum has begun over the whole of this island and it will only grow.
If I walk up the Shankill at midnight with a GAA top on there’s a good chance that I would get my head kicked in. The threat of violence – which nobody has stated – advises me not to do this. This is known as a latent threat. Somebody during the week from the PUP said that some people were itching to get guns out. Maybe that was a threat or just an observation. And Jessica, if you’re depending on the continuity RUC to be your saviour, the best of luck.
And?
It’s also worth bearing in mind that the threat of violence is about more than getting your head kicked in for looking a bit taigy in the wrong area. The threatening bonfires, enforced flags and kerb painted separatism of loyal unionism exist all over the place and represent a palpable threat, whether people care to admit it or not. There’s a reason half the population clear out of here in July.
And any violence associated with the 12th is unacceptable and should be dealt with by the PSNI.
But it has nothing to do with a statement about an anti-democratic-threat-of-unionist-violence-related-to-a-border-poll.
What is this threat? Who made it? When was it made? How does Dr. Collins know about it?
“What is this threat? Who made it? When was it made? How does Dr. Collins know about it?”
That loyalists will once again kill Catholics
No official threat has been made.
No one can know for certain, but people do feel threatened by the existence of active loyalist paramilitaries, their unhealthy relationship with the leading unionist parties and the negative attitude of the DUP in particular
Jessica
Thank you for your thoughts; it would also be good to hear from Dr. Collins.
“That loyalists will once again kill Catholics”
Which is a concern; one which could concern me too, but not a threat.
“No official threat has been made.”
So, that would be no threat.
“No one can know for certain, but people do feel threatened…”
Feeling threatened doesn’t mean there is a threat.
“their unhealthy relationship with the leading unionist parties”
Unionist parties should have nothing to do with any paramilitary organisations of any kind, except, perhaps, to ensure they leave violence behind – even then, I’m not convinced that that is their job. But, again, this does not constitute a violent threat against the outcome of a border poll.
“he negative attitude of the DUP in particular”
A negative attitude is not a threat.
In short, then, no *actual* threat.
Peter, a threat can be a statement of intent, but it can also be a likelihood based on previous experience and therefore a perceived threat.
In the 1960s, unionism considered the IRA a threat. It was misplaced and unfounded and in the event of reunification nationalists might well find the perceived threat was also unfounded. I certainly hope so.
Unfortunately, it will take more than one person saying there is no threat to make my community believe it.
“Unionist parties should have nothing to do with any paramilitary organisations of any kind, except, perhaps, to ensure they leave violence behind – even then, I’m not convinced that that is their job. But, again, this does not constitute a violent threat against the outcome of a border poll.”
But they do.
We are almost 20 years on and loyalist paramilitaries are still armed and active.
I don’t believe this is incompetence, but deliberate.
The PSNI will be responsible for dealing with them and they have constantly said they need political support so they certainly feel the unionist parties should do more.
In fact, it would be in their power to remove this perceived threat or at least significantly mitigate it.
Jessica
If we were all to proceed on the basis of, ‘this perceived threat’ or ‘that perceived threat’ then everyone would be pointing fingers at everyone else; and if we’ve going down that road of thought then suspicion will rule.
I see no benefit in this. We’ve had 20 odd years of relative peace and while it isn’t perfect it’s a lot better than what many of us grew up with.
The point, therefore, is that to speak of an ongoing unionist threat of violence, when none exists, and in such an imprecise way, lends *absolutely nothing* to the cause of reconciliation.
No Peter. republicans have bent over backwards to alleviate the threat perceived or otherwise.
Unionism has yet to acknowledge its role in starting the conflict and still supports the state cover up of murder.
There will be no reconciliation until unionism makes more of an effort.
Do you think the nationalist community believe Arlene has had a sudden change of heart?
“Jessica, if you’re depending on the continuity RUC to be your saviour, the best of luck.”
That is the way it has to be fiosrach.
The PSNI will eventually merge with the Gardaí into a new police force
There is no other way it can happen
“The PSNI will eventually merge with the Gardaí into a new police force”
Probably.
Police *service*, Jessica, *service* – do keep up with the times!!
Service does indeed sound better, not sure where that came from
The other thing that is interesting is the change in Mr. Kane’s views.
Not so long ago he was telling us (and he had been doing this for quite some thing) that the UK Union was safe. Now?
“All we can say – albeit with nothing more than confident uncertainty – is that a tidal wave of political, constitutional change is on the way. ”
That doesn’t sound like ‘safe’ to me.
And, oh my gosh, this doesn’t sound ‘safe’ either:
“Maps will be redrawn. New nations could emerge. The United Kingdom could disintegrate.”
I’m sure I read fable once about a shepherd who cried, “Safe!”
Peter, why is the UK more important than our relationships on this island?
I didn’t say it was.
You already know my views on the subject of relations in and between Ireland and the UK.
You know, I’ve got it now – it must be the BB he’s afraid of.
There are a few GB kids around our way I wouldn’t like to meet in a dark alley at night 😉
PF, I do not know which part of the North you come from so have no idea of your experience of Loyalist violence or how Nationalists perceive the threat of Loyalist violence.
I am only guessing here but I would estimate a modest 90% of Nationalists would perceive a threat of Loyalist violence if the constitutional position of the North were threatened similarly I would suspect the same numbers of Nationalist would understand Jude’s language.
I think you are being pedantic with the terminology “Spurs are threatening to overtake Liverpool in the league” and they would not have made a threat in verbal or written form (fictitious league placements).
I would suggest if you lived as a Catholic / Nationalist in a Catholic/ Nationalist enclave of a predominantly Unionist / Loyalist town such as Ballymena, Lisburn, Carrickfergus, Antrim, Larn, Newtownards, Portadown, Coleraine, Kilkeel, you might know all about Loyalist threats without any formal notification.
Take this story reported in the Belfast Newsletter.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/tricolours-erected-to-stir-up-tensions-ahead-of-parade-1-7869715
Tricolour flags have been erected in Coleraine in a bid to stoke up tensions ahead of a loyalist parade in the town, it has been claimed.
PUP Councillor Russell Watton claimed the PSNI “stood back and watched” as the perpetrators put the flags on lampposts in the Waterside area of the town last night around 8.30pm. Republican flags have also appeared in the Killowen and Heights areas of the town. Around 35 bands are expected to march in the town tomorrow at a parade organised by the Ulster Protestant Boys. Cllr Watton told the News Letter: “This is a deliberately provocative act designed to stir up tensions ahead of this parade. This gang of drug dealers, some of them wearing scarfs round their faces, put these up last night in full view of police. “People are fed up with this. One minute this gang is putting up flags, the next they are peddling drugs. “The flags in the estate don’t bother me as much, but they have now expanded into the Waterside. “One way or another, those flags will be removed before that parade. There is no way they would be marching past those, there would be a riot.”
What we have here is people putting up tricolours in the run up to St. Patrick’s day being labelled as criminals and drug dealers probably to dehumanise them should some brain dead thug (or more likely gang of them) decide to act for Queen and Country by helping one ore two of these “perpetrators” shuffle of their mortal coils. I believe a gang of paramilitary thugs invaded one of these areas a few years back and physically beat a man to death on the street for the crime of wearing a Celtic jersey in a Nationalist enclave and because Nationalists in the area had the temerity to fly tricolours.
Are you telling us that large numbers of people who will beat a man to death for wearing a Celtic top and will invade an area because tricolours fly there are going to accept Irish authority?
Pointis
At no time have I said that there is no tension in our society – of course there is.
But that is not what we are talking about.
Specifically, and with regard to your Spurs/Liverpool analogy, of course the word “threatening’ is different, moreso because it lacks the word “violence”.
I have been told in this article that there is a present threat of unionist violence related to the outcome of a border poll, and in spite of the fuller content of the Irish Times story which I commented on above, I am also told that this threat of violence is the real motivation for some suggesting that a poll now is a bad idea.
That is patently false.
Beyond that, I’m quite sure that each of us can think of places we rather not go for fear of attack – that in itself tells us how much work still has to be done.
“Beyond that, I’m quite sure that each of us can think of places we rather not go for fear of attack – that in itself tells us how much work still has to be done.”
And when is political unionism going to take the first steps in reaching out?
PF,
I agree that there is much work to be completed to break down barriers and dispell fears but I still believe you are hanging too much emphasis on the word “threat”. News reports commonly state that police believe there could be a threat of violence if two opposing groups were allowed to congragate in the same area without any explicit threat being received.
I think there are occasions where a degree of common sense is needed to appreciate that “risk” and “threat” are used interchangeably to express the same thing.
Pointis
I suspect very much that Dr. Collins knows how words work.
He didn’t say, ‘possibility of a threat of violence’; he didn’t say, ‘could be a threat of violence’; he didn’t merely say ‘threat’.
There was no ‘possibly’, ‘might be’, ‘could be’, ‘potentially’, ‘if’, ‘but’ or otherwise; rather he speaks of a present threat of violence which governs the current debate with regard to any border poll or United Ireland.
And he blames unionists for it.
PF, perhaps just maybe perchance Dr Collins read too much into the headlines from some local rags last week? Headlines such as, after the recent assembly results ‘loyalists are itching to hit back’? Maybe it was fake news peddled by the rags/journalists but nevertheless it was reported. Again perhaps the newspapers were mischief making in order to scatter the horses that may have been talking up United ireland stuff I.e unionists are thinking about shooting taigs again due to a surge in support of nationalist parties in the north, huh imagine what they would do if a real meaningful referendum was on the table? We better tone it down and all that.
Fear motivates people in different ways you do know? Btw, the deafening silence that met these unionist terror threat headlines was, well, inevitable. Just saying.
WT
I am opposed to all such violence, that should be clear enough by now.
Yes, perhaps Dr. Collins did read too much into “last week’s headlines”, but he didn’t mention them, so we don’t know.
What he did mention were the comments in the Irish Times by a Fine Gael TD, and a present tense threat of unionist violence.
But who knows what he thinks, certainly not me, because no one here is able to point me or anyone else to such a threat.
Perhaps Dr. Collins was just throwing a few straws to the wind and perhaps it was the chaff which was blown into my eye?
We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the article reads fine. I can understand your perspective but I think most Nationalists living here with an understanding of history wouldn’t agree with you.
I think people have too much sense to get involved in a new conflict. The north is a much better place than it was when I was a young man. I will always be a Republican and SF will always get my vote. I pray that England will get out some day. Personally the Scots will help weaken the link. One day all Irish people will rule themselves, the Protestants, Catholics and dissenters ( who exactly are/were they anyway?) will work together for the common good. But bullets, bombs, internment, CS gas, collusion, informers, diplock courts and riots should never be allowed to destroy thousands of lives again.
There will be no new conflict.
Any loyalist attempts will be dealt with by the PSNI.
Failure to do so would lead to them risking their lives by putting themselves back in the middle of two militant factions.
There is no way they would do that.
England is about to go through its most difficult period in its history seeking new trade deals that will conflict with the EU which will result in either the UK paying into the EU and being much weaker as a result or entering into a trade war with the EU which will hurt its pocket heavily
Either way, they will soon not be able to afford another conflict here in time, effort or money.
Jessica
“There will be no new conflict.”
So, no threat, then?
It’s interesting how many Nationalist/Republicans here seem to agree with me that there is no threat.
No I don’t believe there will be another conflict, but I do believe there is a real threat from loyalists and continuity republicans though,.
A short sharp blood bath is not a conflict but it is something to be feared
Two threats, then?
Dr. Collins didn’t mention the other one.
May be he doesn’t know anything thing about it.
To be fair, I haven’t heard of a second threat either.
No, one peace process, one threat, many sources including british security agencies don’t forget
They havent gone away you know either
OK
One threat of violence from a number of sources?
I still haven’t heard of any threats from any sources in relation to a UI vote.
Peter, unionists don’t even accept that the state did anything wrong, even things british prime ministers have publically apologised for,
How many loyalist paramilitaries have you had a drink with?
How many have you worked with?
How many have you ever talked to?
No idea.
In the normal course of events, I assume that people are not and have not been members of a paramilitary organisation, from whichever side. Why would I do other?
Any contribution I make to this society, which I recognise must be small, is concerned with pointing my family in the right direction, doing a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, creating opportunity for others as I can, sharing what I have and keeping the peace with my neighbour, whoever they are.
Most of us can’t do much more.
When England does leave there will be no economic hardship for Ireland. England will have to pay billions in reparation for the centuries of oppression and misery it inflicted on the Irish. There can be no question of them just slipping away like a thief in the night. Twenty billion sounds about right.
When the unity referendum is won, britain would be more likely to give us a bill for outstanding debts the same way the EU will do to the UK when they eventually leave.
That is the reality AJ.
I believe Jude is simply extrapolating when he says something like the “threat of unionist violence”.Based on past experience through the recent century and until the very recent past ,what we have experienced and what usually happens, is that all branches and sects of the unionist diaspora throughout Ireland , North and South, begin to homogenise when their northern “unionism” is seen to be under threat .This usually takes the form of some unwieldly alliance of general unionist disparity, which tends to manifest itself in huge public gatherings at which much blood and thunder is spouted and fear is expounded loudly.
This is the usual seedbed that is planted to kick up the emotional and violent response required.That’s the way it’s happened before and it usually starts with talk of unionism , no matter how diverse, , desiring to become one huge bloc.This bloc will contain all the still-armed gangsters and drug dealers that rule their areas and which are kept in abeyance by many current unionist politicians who cosy up with them just enough to keep them onside, but just a little at arm’s length. This would be the UDA , the UVF , the UFF and all the rest. …they haven’t gone away , y’know…and have always been easily manipulated ! This huge bloc is usually, and continues to be ,beyond any control of the police or authorities, which is why eventually outside troops from England are usually brought in to quell the situation, which usually bubbles into violence gradually ….usually during the Marching Season. This keeps the status quo intact for Britain too and is a close training -ground for the troops and also a raison d’etre. These troops usually begin with the vague, ambiguous notion that they are honest brokers keeping te paddies apart , but their presence alone soon stokes up reciprocal fears from nationalism ,if they have not already been manipulated by unionism to make sure that they are onside with them, already. Before you know it , whether a united Ireland is voted for at all by a majority , mayhem ensues all over again and people stand back wringing their hands for another generation while those victims who suffered in the previous generation simple die of old age as has happened in the past.
So when Jude talks of “unionist violence”…what he probably means is that if there is too much talk of an “United Ireland” there will be much tongue -wagging throughout the land in halls, homes , workplaces and the internet …and soon the great eruption will become very apparent either in a show of strength on the streets of Belfast or at the “Field” on the “12th” …. much as daffodils pop up their heads in Spring.That’s the way it has always been .when unionism starts talking about coalitions , that’s what is usually meant .
Not to mention that the DUP strategy now will be to stoke up fears and tensions to get the unionist electorate to show up at the polls in the next election.
It doesn’t matter what damage that does to reconciliation, it is the tactic they have chosen to maintain their vote.
It is this attitude and behaviour than provides the likelihood that violence might be reverted to and therefore it is this which creates the threat.
PK
“So when Jude talks of “unionist violence”…what he probably means is…”
Probably.
Well, we can all probably talk about some fear of violence from some quarter or other – I did hear once that it was more than one side who were involved.
But none of this is helpful, PK, is it?
PF, before you commence another of your pedantic, nit picking rants, take down your well thumbed dictionary and read. Threat: a person or thing that is regarded as dangerous or likely to inflict pain or misery. Sure isn’t that the reason that England has multi billion nuclear defences. To counter the threat from the ‘rogue nations’. Could you provide a recent link to any of these ‘actual’ threats? The next time Jude says it’s a nice day, let it go.
good example
I see, I’m nitpicking.
Trouble is fiosrach, that the statement was present tense threat of unionist violence against the outcome of a border poll.
As for nuclear deterrents they’re usually held due to other nations holding vast amounts of them, and testing them, and conducting ,military operations.
There’s nothing close to that here – it was all decommissioned.
But why don’t we all just let Dr. Collins tell us what he meant.
“There’s nothing close to that here – it was all decommissioned.”
No it wasn’t, only one side fully decommissioned hearts and weapons.
Unionism has decommissioned neither
One word – Trident. And regardless of the tense used, the threat is ever present. We have long memories.
Trident. Yes, I know.
So now it’s present continuous threat?
How is this helpful in any way?
Who said it was helpful? All we can hope is,that in the event of 50+1,that democrats like yourself are in the majority.
Or 50 – 1, I suppose.
Yes . It will very quickly have been forgotten a few months down the line that what actually finished the power-sharing experiment was not that Sinn Fein wanted to crash the thing per se , but that the DUP didn’t actually want to do it at all from the very start , but rather wanted unionism to rule the roost to the point that no matter how many scandals they carried ,they would still be inviolate and would be allowed to carry on like that for the sake of the overall unionist project …even to the point of separating Arlene Foster from the natural law of the land and keeping her in position whether or not she made stupid political or financial moves while in office .She was going to be allowed to do that to the nth degree , simply because she was a unionist…the leader of unionism … and therefore somehow above the law. That was the real position we all had to deal with.
now the latest mantra from unionism is about what “equality” means. They still do not undrstand the concept at all because they have never been faced with the very idea of it.They barely seem to actually understand what “democracy” means either . When the “Democratic ” Unionist Party loses ahandfull of seats , they start talking about somehow bringing other unionists into the same fold as themselves .That shows a great insecurity in how far their beliefs can take them without additional outside support. None of these other unionists have anything in common with their politics at all, other than a blind unargued belief that they would be better in a union with a splintering UK than in a union with their fellow Irishmen.
Through all of this the likes of Theresa May and her puppet Mr Brokenshire , much like his recent predecessor,who also seemed not to have one original thought in his head,want to believe that it is the fault of nationalism that the DUP are like this. In face of all the recent evidence they also want to believe that things are the same as they were before Christmas last. The simple fact is that the DUP brought the experiment to an end all on their own, unwittingly and the RHI scandal was simply the straw that broke the thing completely, just as Brexit, which May did not want at all , in the first instant is very much the thing that will break up the union itself, as England reclaims its own tight sense of itself and English nationalism, as the boss .Nobody produced that situation other than the Conservatives and the DUP themselves and specifically Arlene Foster. Now she wants to demonise Irish nationalism for attempting to show her how best it would be not to violate the office of FMDFM and step aside for a few weeks, as the entire union is creaking at the seams . Are these people blind? How can they expect anyone to respect them in office if they don’t believe in the office themselves?
It’s interesting how many times tv Mike has quoted the youngest DUP member of the assembly as saying: how do you think we feel? We didn’t even want to be in government with them this past ten years. From the mouths of (relative) babes and ducklings.
Or even sucklings
You’re a real beacon of hope fiosrach.