In an interview with the Impartial Reporter, and further ratified in an interview with the BBC, First Minister in waiting Arlene Foster has ruled out attendance at events to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the Easter Rising. Don’t get me wrong, as a Unionist, Mrs Foster has a right to choose whether she attends these events or not. But in her future role as First Minster, representing all backgrounds, traditions and cultures within Northern Ireland, I feel this was an ideal opportunity for Mrs Foster to make a break from her predecessors, embrace a new era of promoting an inclusive and shared future, engaging in an act of reconciliation signalling political maturity and respect for those outside Unionism – commemorating whilst not celebrating – showing respect, not disrespect. In 2012 the Assembly urged Sinn Fein Culture Minister Caral Ni Chuilin and then Industry Minister, Arlene Foster to work together to ensure the centenary commemorations were as “inclusive as possible.” Peter Robinson at the time talked about having “an understanding and respect for people’s background and traditions.” Sounds good. But Instead, Mrs Foster has reverted to where political Unionism knows best, to cut themselves off from gestures outside their comfort zones, to fail to reach out, to fail to engage with narratives anathema to their own.
In contrast, to name but a few, Martin McGuinness, Nationalist Lord Mayors and even Queen Elizabeth have openly stepped outside their comfort zones:
- Martin McGuinness as DFM met the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, head of the Parachute regiment, who were responsible for the murders of 11 innocent people in Ballymurphy and 14 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday;
- He also met and shook hands with the Queen on numerous occasions in acts of reconciliation;
- Nationalist Lord Mayors have attended Remembrance Services to commemorate those who died in World War One and World War Two – wars that many Nationalists felt and feel no connection with;
- In 2012, Nationalists attended an event in Belfast City Hall to commemorate the signing of the Ulster Covenant, the same document that threatened violence and would sit uncomfortably within Nationalism;
- In 2011 the Queen attended the Garden of Remembrance in Dublin and bowed before those who were executed during the Easter Rising, those who fought for the freedom of Ireland and subsequently laid a wreath. This was a very progressive and welcoming gesture.
I have no doubt, the above gestures of reconciliation were uncomfortable and difficult, but no one ever said it would be easy. It takes these acts and gestures to drive forward our society. Continuing to see the past as divided, as “us” and “them”, only Foster’s the same mentality for the future. It is possible to commemorate these events with dignity and respect, whilst not supporting or endorsing their raison d’etre or their motives.
The Easter Rising, as has been so often argued, was a defining moment in Irish History. It is important to debate and reflect the legacy of the Easter Rising and the voice of political unionism is integral to this. To simply lambast the event, in line with Jim Allisters “grubby little rebellion” mindset is a failure on behalf of Unionism. A failure to move forward.
Mrs Foster’s justification for not attending is based on the assertion she “would not be going to commemorate a violent attack on the United Kingdom.” Mrs Foster’s comment is so rich with irony and hypocrisy, it fails to take into account that during the third Home Rule crisis Unionists with their Conservative allies threatened to subvert the very legislation introduced by the UK Government and the stability of that Government, threatening Civil War. A few points I would like to make here:
- The biggest threat to the United Kingdom during the period 1912-14 came from Unionism and their allies in the Conservative Party. This was before the Easter Rising took place.
- The violent rhetoric and “verbal menace” of Edward Carson and Conservative leader, Andrew Bonar Law, led to the rise of radical nationalism, who in turn were to prove a threat to the UK government – the “rekindling the Fenian flame” in turn provided the circumstances and atmosphere for the Easter Rising to take place;
- The often inflammatory and contemptuous extra parliamentary speeches of Carson and Law aimed at the UK Government, often using the word “force”, the text of the Ulster Covenant stating Unionists would oppose Home Rule “by all means necessary”, the Blenheim Demonstration where Bonar Law pre-empted the use of violence against the UK Government created a revolutionary and rancorous atmosphere of the time, against the same UK Mrs Foster alludes too;
- Threats by Carson and other leading Unionists to set up a Provisional Government to govern the province of Ulster further undermined the UK;
- Carson’s increasing militant rhetoric culminated in the formation of the UVF in 1913, embracing physical force as a political strategy aimed at destabilising the UK Government and threatening them to into submission;
- Carson, bringing the gun back into Irish politics, triggered a chain of events that, a few years earlier, could not have been foreseen – resulting in this violent attack against the UK that Mrs Foster alludes too. Would the Easter Rising have taken place if Carson did not bring the gun back into Irish politics?
- The open display of militarism through drilling, parading and marching had a direct impact across Irish Society and on the UK Government;
- The formation of the UVF as the threat to Home Rule and the UK Government resulted in the formation of the Irish Volunteers in November 1913, who were to provide a front for the reviving Irish Republican Brotherhood who heavily infiltrated same. Historians have argued that Carson provided the IRB with the opportunity they had so long waited. So Carson, therefore, is responsible for creating the conditions for this violent attack on the UK;
- The events of the Curragh Mutiny aided and abetted by the British Army’s refusal to act against Ulster Unionism, if instructed, served to leave the UK Government in a very delicate position and in essence made them look powerless in the face of increasingly Ulster Unionist militant rhetoric;
- The landing of 25,000 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition was a threat to the UK. Why did Unionism need all the weapons and ammunition? Were they to be used against the UK Government?
- As Unionism increased their resistance during this period, Radical and revolutionary Nationalism became a reaction to the militancy of Ulster Unionism thus creating the conditions for the Easter Rising.
It would be fair to say that “Unionism gave the kiss of life to Irish revolutionaries”, Carson triggered events that would have appalled him and create the conditions for the Easter Rising to take place. Maybe, Mrs Foster, should realise that this “violent attack” she alludes too is not in isolation – Unionism must bear the responsibility for their part. The very brand of Unionism Mrs Foster came from was threatening and preparing for violent attacks against the UK Government. Unionism was responsible for destabilising the UK before the Easter Rising – would Mrs Foster accept this? In a new era of political leadership within Unionism and Northern Ireland, Arlene says “No”, looks to be the way forward – nothing to see here, Unionism, carrying on as normal!
Why would any nationalist or republican wish a unionist leader to be at the 1916 commemoration doesn’t it take away from the event?
I for one if I was invited I would turn it down simply because I wasn’t interested in the event however if other people want to get involved I wouldn’t stop them or cause them any offence.
Peace doesn’t come from grand reconciliation events it comes slowly aided by a period of normality.
I think the point being made was not to take away personal choice, but that all members of a power sharing executive have the responsibility for demonstrating political leadership and should put aside any personal feelings and act with statesman like dignity to represent the entirety of the communities they are meant to represent.
Sinn Fein have demonstrated such intent and shown they can be tolerant to the British identity when opportunity arises without undermining their republican principals.
I think you understand perfectly well what is being said neill, You are reaffirming my previous assertion that there is unionism which would be capable of similar overtures and will if not agree with the rising, be prepared to show mutual respect.
As I said, Arlene’s party are separatists with 34% of their members also members of the orange order and with whom such compromise would not sit well.
Don’t British ministers attend independence day celebrations in America? It seems Arlene is very picky about who rebels against the British state.
yes neil,it will save the people of 1916 turning in their graves the likes of her turning up.
I am totally perplexed by the circling of the Unionist wagons in ever decreasing circles .They are becoming so insular they are in danger of self-implosion.Their myopic vision of their world as a tiny flat-earth Protestant hedgemony is dangerous in the extreme….to themselves ,not anyone else anymore.They always find an extremely bright searchlight to shine into Republican quarters but a dim candle when self analysis is required.Their collective amnesia and their refusal to engage with half the population will be their complete undoing ….why do they behave like this?
why do they behave like this…hate .they are brought up to hate catholics painting kill all taigs on kids faces is a good example of were it starts.
Self analysis is obviously the key , Seamus. That’s where I really have problems with the one -line responses from neill. Don’t get me wrong , I really want to hear from neill ,but I never hear anything from him which might imply that he has actually read what is being argued and has given it any thought at all. I don’t really see the point, if we can’t all learn a little more from each other, every day.
Ciaran Mc lays out a well -enough reasoned essay on how we got from one position to another from his ….and let’s face it ,….from historical perspective. As far as I’ve always been aware that is pretty much how the history of the early 20th century unfolded in Ireland , from what I learnt at school and have subsequently read and experienced over the years.
It makes perfect logical sense to me but if it didn’t I would be inclined to question it paragraph by paragraph and try and come up with the truth of it. Neill does none of that .He simply dismisses reason with a line or two and then goes away as do many other unionist politicians who appear to believe that the 1916 Rising came from nowhere…just as the Troubles of the late 1960’s simply poppedup or that the Provisional IRA had no origin story. That’a up to him , but i can’t see how he doesn’t apply himself to the argument or having read the history even come up with an opposing version of same ….if only to exercise our powers of debate.Otherwise why would we bother talking here at all?
“Peace doesn’t come from grand reconciliation events it comes slowly aided by a period of normality.”
Neill, I’m in my sixties….never knew “a period of normality” , my father and mother , in their nineties ….never knew said normality …..only Unionist dominance ,apartheid ,sectarianism ,racism,unemployment etc etc
only Unionist dominance ,apartheid ,sectarianism ,racism,unemployment etc etc
You only undermine your argument and other peoples genuine suffering by coming out with that nonsense.
Again , neill …allow Seamus to explain his various points about ..” Unionist dominance ,apartheid ,sectarianism ,racism,unemployment etc etc”…..from his perspective , in more detail, if you need it …. and then you can elaborate and explain your two line put-down of his points of view, from your perspective ……Then maybe we’ll all understand each other a little better ..As it is , there has been nothing said yet..
How many Unionists would refuse an invitation to the White House, on the grounds that it in a city named after the traitor George Washington who would have been hanged had he been captured at Yorktown?
(General Corwallis, who would not even meet Washington following Britain’s defeat was in
overall command in Ireland when Humbert’s troops and their Irish allies were defeated at
Ballinamuck and was happy that the Irish were slaughtered after the fight whilst the French
were feted on their progress by canal to Dublin before their repatriation.)
Donal, when you think that unionists queue up to get on the plane for Washington every St Patrick’s Day to celebrate the all-Ireland Patron Saint, some even including green in their outfits, but they would never think of attending the Belfast St Patrick’s Day events, it gives some indication of their convoluted ‘thinking’!
Change of heart? pressure applied froom somewhere?
” speaking to UTV, the new First Minister has said she is open to considering any invitations she gets to attend events – including from the GAA – “on their merits”.She added: “I think it’s important to make a distinction between the Easter rebellion and the whole narrative of 1916.
“I’ve very clearly said I have not just a legal but a moral imperative to represent the whole of Northern Ireland, but I will do that in terms of democratic politics, I will not be representing violent republicanism from the past.”
http://utv.ie/News/2016/01/11/Foster-will-consider-all-invitations-as-FM-51916?
Not sure about this expectation that the leader of unionism should attend commemorations of the 1916 “rising”. Did any nationalist leaders attend commemorations of the Covenant, which was actually a popular democratic expression of identity, unlike the secret, unrepresentative and unpopular “rising”?
So, Arlene should not attend because she’s a Unionist? Is this a genuine reason or an excuse? Progressive thoughts, huh? With that same sentiment, Martin McGuinness as the leader of Nationalism, should not attend Somme Commemorations because he’s a Republican? McGuinness has stated he will attend Somme commemorations, is he wrong for doing this? Is he exceeding the expectation?
Maybe that’s the problem MT, Arlene also has a role as First Minister (you may have noticed), a position that represents all the community of Northern Ireland, not just Unionism. A leaders leads, makes bold moves in the interests of the collective community. Arlene talked today of “my role as First Minister calls on me to serve the whole community … The best way to safeguard our history and culture and traditions is to make sure that we create a society in which everyone can have a say and play a part.” The hypocrisy – is she really serving the whole community? Is she playing her part in safeguarding history, culture and traditions?
Historian, Eamonn Phoenix, stated on Talkback, Friday, that Nationalists did attend a commemorative dinner in 2012 for the centenary of the Covenant – unsure who though or the detail of same.
Interesting point on the Ulster Convenant – “democratic expression of identity” – be interesting for you to elaborate on that point – Where is the evidence that the identity of Unionists would have been under threat in a Home Rule government (as expressed in Convenant)? Was, what was stated in the Covenant, an expression of paranoia, fear mongering, perhaps? Inflammatory language? Appealing to emotions of Unionists? Threatening to “use all mean necessary” to defeat the democratic wish of the majority of people on the island? If anything, the Covenant was an attack on democracy …
“So, Arlene should not attend because she’s a Unionist? Is this a genuine reason or an excuse? Progressive thoughts, huh? With that same sentiment, Martin McGuinness as the leader of Nationalism, should not attend Somme Commemorations because he’s a Republican? McGuinness has stated he will attend Somme commemorations, is he wrong for doing this? Is he exceeding the expectation?”
What’s the relevance of the Somme?
As already noted, McGuinness didn’t attend any commemoration of the Covenant.
“McGuinness didn’t attend any commemoration of the Covenant” – Was Martin McGuinness invited to the commemoration of the Covenant?
On the other hand, while it is regrettable that the modern Irish Republic still clings to honouring the 1916 violence, nonetheless I can also see benefit in unionists attending official state events in the interests of good relations.
“Maybe that’s the problem MT, Arlene also has a role as First Minister (you may have noticed), a position that represents all the community of Northern Ireland, not just Unionism. A leaders leads, makes bold moves in the interests of the collective community. Arlene talked today of “my role as First Minister calls on me to serve the whole community … The best way to safeguard our history and culture and traditions is to make sure that we create a society in which everyone can have a say and play a part.” The hypocrisy – is she really serving the whole community? Is she playing her part in safeguarding history, culture and traditions?”
I already alluded to that in my second post, but the main response here is that the deputy First Minister didn’t attend any commemoration of the Covenant.
“Historian, Eamonn Phoenix, stated on Talkback, Friday, that Nationalists did attend a commemorative dinner in 2012 for the centenary of the Covenant – unsure who though or the detail of same.”
I’m not aware of that. Must have been pretty low key and certainly wasn’t attended either by the deputy First Minister or the leader of nationalism.
InteresMcGuinness as the leader of Nationalism, should not attend Somme Commemorations because he’s a Republican? McGuinness has stated he will attend Somme commemorations, is he wrong for doing this? Is he exceeding the expectation?
Maybe that’s the problem MT, Arlene also has a role as First Minister (you may have noticed), a position that represents all the community of Northern Ireland, not just Unionism. A leaders leads, makes bold moves in the interests of the collective community. Arlene talked today of “my role as First Minister calls on me to serve the whole community … The best way to safeguard our history and culture and traditions is to make sure that we create a society in which everyone can have a say and play a part.” The hypocrisy – is she really serving the whole community? Is she playing her part in safeguarding history, culture and traditions?
Historian, Eamonn Phoenix, stated on Talkback, Friday, that Nationalists did attend a commemorative dinner in 2012 for the centenary of the Covenant – unsure who though or the detail of same.
“Interesting point on the Ulster Convenant – “democratic expression of identity” – be interesting for you to elaborate on that point – Where is the evidence that the identity of Unionists would have been under threat in a Home Rule government (as expressed in Convenant)?”
That question is irrelevant. The point is that it was democratic expression, unlike the “rising”.
“If anything, the Covenant was an attack on democracy …”
An exercise in asserting self-determination is hardly an attack on democracy. It was – in sharp contrast to the “rising” – an exercise in participative democratic expression.
I raised the point of attendance at commemoration of the signing of the Covenant with nationalists/republican politicians and at commemoration of the Easter Rising with unionist politicians, for my book ‘Whose Past Is It Anyway?’ All nationalists and republicans expressed a willingness to attend if invited, no unionists expressed any interest in attending.
Interesting, but as I already noted the two aren’t equivalent. The Covenant being an exercise in participative democracy and the “rising” quite the opposite.
It’s a pity the South didn’t choose to commemorate something less violent and controversial in relation to its foundation, such as the establishment of the republic in 1949 or of the Free State in 1922. Thus they could rid themselves of the stigma of republican violence, and remove any discomfort that unionists clearly have about accepting invitations.
I suggest you read Danny Morrison’s guest blog today, MT. The claim that the Covenant was ” an exercise in participative democracy” is truly laughable. You see an organised threat by a minority of Irish people against the government of the day an exercise in democracy? I think you live in a different universe, MT, with different notions of democracy and its exercise.
Goodness me, you can’t see how an exercise in demonstrating popular opposition to a proposal involving active participation by hundreds of thousands of people is democratic? I think it is you who doesn’t understand or appreciate democracy.
Your attitude to minority peoples also concerns me. But presumably you apply the same attitude to Irish nationalists and condemn their threat (actually carries out) as a minority in the British Isles against the government of the day in 1919? Because I don’t.
And goodness me too, MT.”an exercise in demonstrating popular opposition to a proposal “, eh? You mean a well-organised and clearly-stated threat of violence against the British government of the day, to which the vast majority – well let’s face it, all – of those who signed considered themselves loyal. Double-think in action forty-six years before George Orwell came up with the phrase. ‘Minority peoples’ – so are you conceding that unionists in the north were not only a minority in the UK but a minority in Ireland? Kind of kicks your democratic majority in the head some, wouldn’t you say? Irish nationalists have never considered themselves British. The Act of Union was forced upon them and they’ve been striving in different ways ever since to be free of it.
Where to start with this? First, on the question of “loyalty”, I’m not sure how it particularly matters, but all unionists did not consider themselves loyal to the British government of the day. Far from it, they were fiercely opposed to the government.
Your comments suggest that you don’t believe it’s possible for there to be democratic endorsement of a threat of violence. On that basis, presumably you don’t regard the nationalist threat of violence in 1914 or the threat and actual use of violence from 1919 to be democratic?
On minority peoples, you seem to be suggesting that minority peoples in a particlar geographical area should not enjoy the same rights as peoples with larger numbers? On that basis, you must cocede that Irish nationalists, a minority people in the British Isles, did not have a right to self-determination either?
Where to start indeed, MT. I was under the impression that unionists were people who identified themselves as loyal to Britain. Have I got that wrong? As to democracy, if a minority of the Irish people decide they want something – in this case a separate state – you’d consider that democratic? Wow. George Orwell, thou should be living at this hour…As to minorities, I believe minorities should be treated as equals with the majority – but that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to throw the toys out and declare themselves a very-carefully-mind-the-religion-here state. Finally, British Isles. I love that term, so dear to the heart of many a weather forecaster. The majority of Irish people have never seen themselves as British. The fact that Britain colonised somewhere doesn’t mean that rejection of colonisation is undemocratic. You wouldn’t say Kenya acted undemocratically? Or the US? Or any of the former colonies? Or maybe you would.Mmm.
“Goodness me, you can’t see how an exercise in demonstrating popular opposition to a proposal involving active participation by hundreds of thousands of people is democratic? I think it is you who doesn’t understand or appreciate democracy. ”
So if half a million Muslims in Britain signed a petition demanding part of London be partitioned from the rest of England, that would be democracy in action you think MT?
I would like Ireland to have a better and stronger relationship with the rest of the British isles, but that is being hampered and soured by people like yourself enforcing British separatist opinions over the rest of us who see Ireland as our nation and not Britain.
Jude
“I was under the impression that unionists were people who identified themselves as loyal to Britain. Have I got that wrong?”
I’m sure many did and do identify themselves as “loyal” to Britain, but that doesn’t mean they are “loyal” to the government of the day, which was your assertion.
“As to democracy, if a minority of the Irish people decide they want something – in this case a separate state – you’d consider that democratic?”
Of course, just as Irish nationalists, a minority in the British Isles, democratically decided that they wanted independence. Would you say a vote for Scottish independence would be undemocratic because the Scots are a minority of the British people?
“As to minorities, I believe minorities should be treated as equals with the majority – but that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to throw the toys out and declare themselves a very-carefully-mind-the-religion-here state.”
So Irish nationalists weren’t entitled to throw the toys out and declare themselves a state in 1919?
“Finally, British Isles. I love that term, so dear to the heart of many a weather forecaster. The majority of Irish people have never seen themselves as British.”
That’s great, but unfortunately irrelevant. The name given to the geographical unit doesn’t matter: the point remains – Irish nationalists were still a minority.
“The fact that Britain colonised somewhere doesn’t mean that rejection of colonisation is undemocratic. You wouldn’t say Kenya acted undemocratically? Or the US? Or any of the former colonies? Or maybe you would.Mmm.”
No, of course not. I’m not arguing that self-determination is undemocratic: I’m arguing in favour of it. It’s you arguing that self-determination is undemocratic (but only if exercised by a people that is a minority within a bigger unit). Therefore, for example, according to you a Basque or Catalan assertion of self-determination would be undemocratic because Basques and Catalans are a minority in Spain.
I note that you failed to address the point about democratic endorsement of a threat of violence. Are you saying it is not possible for a threat of violence to be democratic? If so, are you saying that the nationalist threat of violence in 1914 and the threat and actual use of violence from 1919 was undemocratic? If not, then your point in relation to the Covenant is irrelevant.
“I’m sure many did and do identify themselves as “loyal” to Britain, but that doesn’t mean they are “loyal” to the government of the day, which was your assertion.”
I have a feeling they are well aware if this MT.
“Of course, just as Irish nationalists, a minority in the British Isles, democratically decided that they wanted independence. Would you say a vote for Scottish independence would be undemocratic because the Scots are a minority of the British people?”
Irish nationalists have never asked for anything in Britain never mind a republic, only for their own country in which they have always had a majority.
“I’m not arguing that self-determination is undemocratic: I’m arguing in favour of it.”
Partition has never had self-determination, the majority of the people were against it, England was against it, it took the threat of civil war to bring it about.
If you truly believed in self determination, lets have it now?
Better late than never as they say.
“The Covenant being an exercise in participative democracy and the “rising” quite the opposite. ”
MT, you are doing a good job of persuading me on just how important of removal of partition is.
You said Ireland is not a nation, and the formation of the UVF which was linked to the Covenant is now an exercise in participative democracy.
“The point is that it was democratic expression … An exercise in asserting self-determination is hardly an attack on democracy” This exercise that threatened to “use all means necessary” that aimed to prevent a democratic decision. Yeah MT.
Eh? Its aim was to demonstrate the democratic legitimacy of the unionist people’s opposition to home rule.
“Eh? Its aim was to demonstrate the democratic legitimacy of the unionist people’s opposition to home rule.”
And what about the democratic legitimacy of the people of ulster who wanted home rule, who were treated abysmally due to its disregard.
There is no evidence that a majority of Ulster did not want home rule and it is a lie to say they did.
What about the overwhelming majority of Ireland as a nation which voted for Sinn Feins first Dail?
Again I refer to that line, in the Covenant … “using all means necessary” – What do you take from that, MT? Using threats, as a minority, to dictate to the majority.
It was you who stated in a previous blog posting, “The people had voted for home rule, which had been enacted in 1914, to be implemented after the war.” Is this not a demonstration of the democratic expression of the Irish people?
“Again I refer to that line, in the Covenant … “using all means necessary” – What do you take from that, MT? Using threats, as a minority, to dictate to the majority.”
The exact same as I take from the establishment of the Irish volunteers in 1914 and the SF manifesto in 1918.
“It was you who stated in a previous blog posting, “The people had voted for home rule, which had been enacted in 1914, to be implemented after the war.” Is this not a demonstration of the democratic expression of the Irish people?”
It was, except in the north they voted against home rule. Hence partition the obvious solution.
“It was, except in the north they voted against home rule. Hence partition the obvious solution.”
Is the hatred really still that strong that even now you feel partition was “the obvious solution” MT?
MT, “The exact same as I take from the establishment of the Irish volunteers in 1914 and the SF manifesto in 1918.” Going a bit off topic to divert from the focus on the Ulster Covenant – I haven’t made reference to the Irish Volunteers or Sinn Fein and fail to see how this justifies the Ulster Covenant being a democratic expression, as you refer to it. Unionism, through their threats – often contemptuous and treasonous, were responsible for militarising and radicalising Irish society – if Carson didn’t “bring the gun back into Irish politics” perhaps we would not have had the Irish Volunteers, who were a reaction to the UVF and the rise of advanced Nationalists.
In the interests of historical accuracy, the Irish Volunteers were established in November 1913, and not 1914 as you state.
“It was, except in the north they voted against home rule. Hence partition the obvious solution.” I assume by north you mean Ulster? Was there an election in Ulster (north) specifically on the question of home rule? Surely, Ulster, as part of Ireland was not treated as a separate entity? So in this context the majority of the Irish people wanted Home Rule – as stated previously, minorities do not dictate to majorities, the very foundation of democracy – Unionism was a minority on the island and the democratic wishes of the people was a home rule government.
“Partition the obvious solution” – Partition became the obvious problem – what exactly did partition solve?
You seemed to be implying that it wasn’t possible democratically to threaten to use all means necessary. By that logic you must also consider the Irish Volunteers in 1913 and the 1918 SF manifesto to be undemocratic, right?
“I assume by the north you mean Ulster?”
No, I meant the north of Ireland. I wasn’t precisely defining it. That part of Ireland in which unionists were a majority.
“as stated previously, minorities do not dictate to majorities”
But unionists were a majority in the north. I presume that you would oppose Basque and Catalan independence, even if the Basque and Catalan people votes for it? And Irish independence, since the Irish were a minority in the British Isles?
“what exactly did partition solve?”
The problem of conflicting expressions of self-determination. Sure presumably you supported the partition of the UK?
“No, I meant the north of Ireland. I wasn’t precisely defining it. That part of Ireland in which unionists were a majority.”
By that logic MT, would you accept parts of the north of Ireland with a nationalist majority be entitled to reunite with the rest of Ireland and leave unionism with only the areas it has a majority in?
If the majority of people living in districts contiguous with the South supported repartition, yes they should have that right.
They don’t, of course.
“If the majority of people living in districts contiguous with the South supported repartition, yes they should have that right.”
Do you mean you would support the City of Derry, Counties Tyrone and Fermanagh exiting Northern Ireland and re-joining with the southern state and a further redrawing of the border?
Of course not. The people living there don’t want repartition so why would I go against their wishes?
If they did, however, then yes. Though it seems unlikely that the whole of counties Tyrone and Fermanagh would support it.
“If they did, however, then yes. Though it seems unlikely that the whole of counties Tyrone and Fermanagh would support it.”
Not one of Ulsters counties unanimously supported partition in the first place, there were a sizeable minority in 4 counties against it and a majority against it in 5.
In fact that is why there was never a democratic vote on partition. It would never have passed
If county unanimity is your threshold, there was no county in Ireland that gave unanimous support to anything.
But unionists were a majority in the north. I presume that you would oppose Basque and Catalan independence, even if the Basque and Catalan people votes for it? And Irish independence, since the Irish were a minority in the British Isles?
Unionists had an electoral majority at Westminster if you counted Ulster separately yes, 22 seats to 17 in the home rule 1918 general election, population wise no and the election was not a vote on partition.
Partition is therefore not legitimate in my eyes, but I can accept the democratic decision by the people of Ireland that it will remain until a majority support unification as per the GFA.
An agreement that I refused to vote for and didn’t support as I believe the amendments to articles 2 and 3 were wrong, as is unification on a sectarian headcount rather than state led agreement and reconciliation, but Britain has too much to lose reputation wise for that while democracy isn’t perfect, I believe it is the best option we have and have since come to support the GFA and the Sinn Fein led peace strategy.
Ireland was never separate nations as are the Basque and Catalan territories which each have their own language as far as I am aware but I do see what you are saying and it is a fair point.
What I would remind you though, if there was a referendum throughout the UK for a new, independent, united and peaceful Ireland, there would be a clear majority in favour of it and against sectarian division. I would be happy for a referendum to cover both islands on this MT, would you?
MT, “the north of Ireland”, meaning what? Serious, what an absolutely pointless and vague term that has no geographical boundary at the time. It was Ireland, the whole 32 counties – your failure to comprehend that amuses me. Ireland was one electoral jurisdiction – to simply justify your point, you have chosen to redefine this. Like ,me saying Nationalists were in the majority in the South at this time, am Donegal for example in the North of Ireland and had a Nationalist majority. By this logic, we could define this Unionist majority further into four counties only – so only the four counties should have been partitioned by your rationale – if you’re working on majorities?
“But unionists were a majority in the north” – Define this further for clarity?
So partition solved, “The problem of conflicting expressions of self-determination?” So, the new Northern Ireland, established through the Government of Ireland Act, was a peaceful, democratic state where there was no conflicting expressions?
Jessica
“Ireland was never separate nations as are the Basque and Catalan territories which each have their own language as far as I am aware but I do see what you are saying and it is a fair point.”
What do you believe constitutes a nation? Is having a separate language the defining criterion?
The Hist
“MT, “the north of Ireland”, meaning what?”
Meaning that part of Ireland in which unionists were a majority. Didn’t I already say that?
“Serious, what an absolutely pointless and vague term that has no geographical boundary at the time.”
I’m not sure of the relevance of a “geographical boundary at the time”.
“It was Ireland, the whole 32 counties – your failure to comprehend that amuses me. Ireland was one electoral jurisdiction – to simply justify your point, you have chosen to redefine this.”
Are you saying that self-determination can only be exercised by “electoral jurisdictions” and that boundaries can and should never be redrawn to reflect people’s wishes?
“Like ,me saying Nationalists were in the majority in the South at this time, am Donegal for example in the North of Ireland and had a Nationalist majority. By this logic, we could define this Unionist majority further into four counties only – so only the four counties should have been partitioned by your rationale – if you’re working on majorities?”
Eh? Why should the drawing of boundaries be restricted to including or excluding whole counties?
“So partition solved, “The problem of conflicting expressions of self-determination?” So, the new Northern Ireland, established through the Government of Ireland Act, was a peaceful, democratic state where there was no conflicting expressions?”
Had the boundary been drawn more accurately and fairly, there ought to have been less conflict. Ironically from your point of view, however, had there been a “united Ireland”, then that state would not have been “a peaceful, democratic state where there was no conflicting expressions”. So if that is what you believe ought to have been the aim, you should not have been in favour of an indepedent all-Ireland.
“Are you saying that self-determination can only be exercised by “electoral jurisdictions” and that boundaries can and should never be redrawn to reflect people’s wishes? ”
You are a scream MT.
We could draw a border round your house, would that do? lol 🙂
Why didn’t you answer the question?
“Why didn’t you answer the question?”
Sorry MT, I answered the same question on the other post and thought you might have read it there.
I will give the same answer here.
“What do you believe constitutes a nation? Is having a separate language the defining criterion?”
A large group of people living together within a geographic territory, who share common traits. These can be living, working and socialising together over generations, abiding by the same laws and customs, communicating using the same languages, speaking with the same accents and displaying the same behaviour etc…
When such a group of people can be clearly identified by those from outside that geographic location, they have usually given that location a name and those people when asked where they are from, will give that agreed name.
When that happens, those people have defined and nurtured a nation into being and that nation will exist for as long as those people exist and live together within the geographic location they gave birth to.
To be part of that nation, you need to have lived within that nation long enough to have had the way of life of that nation engrained onto your person.
Usually there is a sense of national pride among the people of that nation such as the achievements of people from our nation in sporting events for example.
Ireland is such a nation, as is Scotland, England and Wales.
When such nations agree to come together to form a new nation by agreement such as great Britain which is Scotland, England and Wales, a new nation is created that is still tied to a geographic location.
Britain identifies a nation, not only by its people, but by geographic location. Anyone in the world can point to an atlas and show clearly the location of Britain and no part of Ireland is within the geographic location around that nation.
But as well as having a geographic national territory, Britain also has a united Kingdom, to which it extends citizenship throughout its colonies, associated states, protectorates etc, within the Commonwealth.
No person who was born and lived all of their lives within any part of Ireland has an inalienable right to be part of the British nation, though they are British subjects until citizenship of the United Kingdom is withdrawn.
Every person who was born and lived all of their lives within any part of Ireland has an inalienable right to be part of the Irish nation which cannot be taken from them.
Eh? The question was“Are you saying that self-determination can only be exercised by “electoral jurisdictions” and that boundaries can and should never be redrawn to reflect people’s wishes? ”
Though I see it was originally directed to the hist.
MT, “Meaning that part of Ireland in which Unionists were a majority” – Let’s get into specifics – The “Ulster Covenant”, the “Ulster Unionist Party” – please explain to me why “Ulster” features prominently in both stated? So, what part of the “north” are you referring? When you make reference to this “north of Ireland”, does this include Fermanagh and Tyrone? What about Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan? If we take them 5 counties, for example – they assumingly make up your depiction of the “north”. They all have a Nationalist majority, as far as I am aware. So, when you allude to the “north of Ireland” is that the Unionist only counties (electoral constituencies) that have a majority?
Added to the above, and based on 1918 General Election – excluded from this Unionist majority in the north, would be Armagh South (No Unionist candidate stood), Down South, Belfast Falls (No Unionist candidate stood) and Derry City.
Out of interest – what indicator are you using to assert that Unionists were in the majority in the “north of Ireland”?
“Had the boundary been drawn more accurately and fairly, there ought to have been less conflict” – What makes you certain this would have been the case? Your argument then, that partition was a solution, doesn’t really add up, when you allude to the fact it created conflict.
“So if that is what you believe ought to have been the aim, you should not have been in favour of an indepedent all-Ireland” So, can you clarify for me, what I supposedly believe in, in your opinion?
“So, what part of the north are you referring?”
As already stated (twice I think), that part of the north in which unionists were a majority. I’m not sure how the detail matters since we’re only discussing the principle. However, in order to facilitate the maximum number of people, a quick glance at a map of the 1918 election result would suggest the current NI minus south Down, south Armagh, south Fermanagh, west Tyrone and the west bank of Derry city.
“What makes you certain this would have been the case?”
We can’t be certain about anything counterfactual, but it seems reasonable that fewer disgruntled nationalists would have allowed a more secure and therefore magnanimous unionist regime.
Re your other poonts, partition didn’t create conflict it was the result of conflict. And your questioning leads me to believe that you “believe” in a “united Ireland”.
“An exercise in asserting self-determination is hardly an attack on democracy. It was – in sharp contrast to the “rising” – an exercise in participative democratic expression.”
Would self determination not require the expressed opinion of all of the people, there were just as many in ulster who wanted home rule.
There was no referendum and even based on the number of MPs returned to Westminster in 1918, unionism had a slim majority if at all. Self determination would have required a referendum which never happened, A shady deal on the threat of violence is not self determination. Self determination over partition has yet to happen.
But there was no referendum. The previous election results, however, had already made the unionist people’s opposition clear. The Covenant reinforced this and demonstrated the intensity of opposition.
“But there was no referendum. The previous election results, however, had already made the unionist people’s opposition clear. The Covenant reinforced this and demonstrated the intensity of opposition.”
How does 22 unionist to 17 nationalist Westminster MPs elected in ulster alone justify partition from the rest of Ireland where the nationalists had an overall majority.
Again, how would this be different from Muslims in a borough of London using a slim electoral majority to demand an independent Islamic state within the heart of London?
I wont even go into the fact that the election also does not include those who would refuse to vote for a Westminster MP who would have voted in a democratic referendum.
“How does 22 unionist to 17 nationalist Westminster MPs elected in ulster alone justify partition from the rest of Ireland where the nationalists had an overall majority.”
I never mentioned Ulster.
“I never mentioned Ulster.”
Are you beginning to see yet, just how wrong partition was?
“I already alluded to that point in my second post, but the main response here is that the deputy First Minister didn’t attend any commemoration of the Covenant.”
Was he invited?
I’ve no idea.
So, you have no idea. Have you thought, maybe there was a possibility, he wasn’t invited? Therefore didn’t attend?
Of course
Neill
“only Unionist dominance ,apartheid ,sectarianism ,racism,unemployment etc etc
You only undermine your argument and other peoples genuine suffering by coming out with that nonsense.
Neill , have you ever read a history book…the truth is there in black and white, by numerous independent authors ,detailing all of the above ,beginning long before 1921 but gaining an extra exuberant enthusiasm when Unionists were undemocratically gifted their own little gerrymandering statelet in 1921. If you want me to elaborate , I would be only too happy but your less than informative riposte assures me that you already know all this ….no matter how uncomfortable it may lie with you !