(Daniel Collins blogs at https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/ – and yes, yes, Virginia, he is related. We’re ALL smart…)
The proposed extension of voting rights for Irish presidential elections to all Irish nationals from the north of Ireland (as well as to Irish nationals based abroad) announced by the Taoiseach Enda Kenny last Sunday the 12th of March is a very welcome development.
It represents a positive step towards subverting the continued political partition of Ireland (which will only further physically divide and impoverish Irish people, especially those in the northern and border regions, in the post-Brexit economic winter) and hopefully towards undoing the sense of abandonment felt by many northerners as a result of that partition and the negligent approach of the southern establishment to their northern compatriots ever since.
Extending the vote to all citizens – be they from the north of Ireland, the south of Ireland or abroad – has great symbolic significance; it emphasises that we are all one.
The president also happens to be the Irish nation’s global representative. Thus, it is only fitting that all Irish nationals, wherever they may be, have a say in his or her appointment.
On Monday, however, right on cue, Tom Elliott of the north-eastern-based Ulster Unionist Party made his objections to the proposal clear. As reported by BBC News:
Ulster Unionist MP Tom Elliott said: “I don’t want polling stations set up here in Northern Ireland. That would be imposing on the people of Northern Ireland.”
He also said the presidential campaign should not be entitled to any special treatment from mainstream TV channels in Northern Ireland: “If they need to vote, they need to find another way.”
This, the stock-unionist response, was as depressingly uptight, defensive, resistive and disingenuous as one would expect.
First of all, nothing is to be imposed; the proposal would simply be an extension of a choice to vote for those who wish to voluntarily participate in Irish presidential elections. If Elliott and other unionists, or anyone else in the north for that matter, wish to opt out, boycott or ignore the whole enterprise, they will be fully free to do so and they can continue with living their lives unaffected and as normal.
Secondly, why does Elliott assume that unionists will or should have the power to veto the establishment of polling stations to facilitate Irish nationals north of the border? The Irish government has office-space and a residence (for its northern-focused staff and British-Irish Council officials) in Notting Hill (just off the Malone Road) in south Belfast, which, one would imagine, could potentially be converted into a regional polling station if necessary and I do not see why the permission of unionism would necessarily be required.
Nationalist-majority councils, operating on an entirely democratic basis, may also be happy to provide assistance with the provision of space for such polling stations, if needs be.
If this was not viable, the southern government could, as an alternative, surely rent private spaces in which to set up polling stations rather than having to rely on the provision of public spaces by northern governing bodies.
And thirdly, just who on earth does Tom Elliott think he is? Just because he doesn’t want something, it doesn’t mean other people must also be deprived of it. How utterly imperious and narcissistic.
Did Elliott object as loudly when the Polish government set up a polling station for Polish citizens living in the north in 2010, or in 2009 when similar provision was made for their citizens for that year’s European elections, or when the same station was used for the Poles’ parliamentary elections in 2006? Not at all; there wasn’t a whisper from him.
It is nearly as if there might be some bigoted or sectarian intent behind Elliott’s objection to the facilitation of Irish presidential-election voting rights for Irish citizens based in the north…
For Elliott, it seems that Irish nationalists in the north can have their rights, but just so long as the exercising of those rights does not offend his unionist sensibilities.
Naturally and thankfully, the Polish precedent makes any unionist objection to the present Irish proposal all the more difficult to justify.
I really am glad that Mr Elliott is a fairly young man and in good health so he will be around to enjoy the changes that are coming.
In these rapidly changing times, when the old certainties are in trouble it is refreshing to see that somethings remain the same. Despite Mike Nesbitt’s best efforts the UUP is still wholeheartedly anti Irish.
…and that is why TVMike had to abandon the leadership post…he knew he couldn’t keep them from jumping over that cliff-edge.They just simply have to do it ,as programmed.
It’s just plain DIVISIVE, as the various lions of Unionism are accusing SF and the SNP of beingAs the Newsletter are quick to declare Sturgeon’s call for a referendum.
Goodness, so DIVISIVE, these nationalists. How dare they peacefully go about achieving their various democratic agendas. Don’t they know they must also not be DIVISIVE.
I mean DIVISIVENESS is the absolute worst. Why quite clearly I recall all of these various lions of Unionism condemning the divisiveness of flegger riots, Twadde and antagonistic coat trailing marches by Orangeism.
Oh wait. I didn’t. Because they are all rank hypocrites. Watch how Unionism and their allies promote the idea that it is divisive for Nationalists to peacefully, democratically pursue their aims, how 50%+1 is not really the right margin of victory, that it needs to be much higher. The only correct response to these shills and their propaganda is “go **** yourself”. No debate because we will take 50%+1 victory in a few years and you lot can just lump it. You had your chance to negotiate from a position of strength and you decided not to. Now you get to negotiate from a position of weakness and no one on this side is doing squat to help you out of the hole you’ve dug.
So remember, when Unionism and its allies start telling us that us wanting a border poll is divisive our response is “go **** yourself”
When Unionism and its allies tell us that 50%+1 is not an acceptable border poll victory our response is “GO **** YOURSELF”.
Genginn – I haven’t yet drawn up my three rules for posters on the website, as advised by gio, but while ‘Go **** yourself’ is clearly not nearly as offensive as to talk of where the sun doesn’t shine, I think I’ll have to ask you to be a bit less forthright in future. The four asterisks are equally forceful, I think.
That’s correct Jude .Keep that “fuck” in context. What an emotive set of little letters that is , eh?……” Fkuc it!” , i! say …or should that be “fcuk it!” ….? …Aw ,what the heck! Bloody stickykeys again!!
There is a time and a place for profanity. GFY is the sole appropriate intellectual engagement with Unionism and its allies on a border poll being divisive and a 50%+1 not begin sufficient. It is the only language hypocrites and bullies understand.
When it comes to profanity I reminded of Iain Banks story about his grandmother criticising his writing because literate people do not use profanities. Generally I’d agree, but bejaysus I know how to make an exception!
Quite correct Daniel, thicko Tom, a one time loyalist UDR man is simply looking to a potential sooner brit. election, hopefully the stoops can be convinced to benefit the nationalist population they are supposed to represent and engage in pact in there and Belfast south so removing poor Tom, he’ll have his pensions, paid for from taxes.
Vote Colm get Tom!
Tom doesn’t seem to have got the message. Unionists don’t get to do that anymore.
Precisely what I thought, Brian but didn’t hear any political commentator or journalist query it. Tom needs to be reminded that the games up. He’ll be hauled blinking from the undergrowth in 30 years time still clutching his Union Jack and being spoken to soothingly, ” it’s ok Tom, it’s ok, you can put it down now. It’s over.”