I have made my feelings towards unionism quite clear.
I have put forward my opinion that it is nothing more than a sectarian division in Ireland that can be measured on a sliding scale of bigotry.
However, while I detest such division in my country which I blame totally on unionism, to simply say I detest unionism can be and was construed as assertion that I detest all unionists, which in turn could be construed that I detest all of the people who live in what are referred to as unionist areas. The latter I know is not true and I do not even believe a majority of the people from those areas would fall under the definition I would have of unionism, which would be more accurately described as British separatist.
This anomaly is being used by said separatists to hide behind Irish decency and moderate realism, mutual respect and genuine willingness to do what is best for in particular our children and their future.
There is a steady decline in the Orange Order and a gradual realisation that England when faced with a nationalist majority here, will struggle to break an international agreement, to replicate its past breaches of civil and human rights. Eventually the majority of people in unionist areas will have to decide how they choose to live among their fellow Irish neighbours, in spite of our constitutional preferences and differences in narratives of history.
Partitionist unionism to me is British separatism. That is what I mean when I say unionism. I do not believe a majority of the people from unionist backgrounds would describe themselves as such. Most would prefer Irish unionist meaning they are Irish, but feel they would be economically better off with London paying the bills and possibly more secure after decades of conflict here. This is totally understandable and equally mirrored in the nationalist community but towards the Irish state, who we look to for leadership and support such as it is at present.
So how about political leadership? I think the SDLP, Alliance and NI21 could be accurately described as unionist parties. The UUP, DUP and TUV could be described as British separatists who are fooling the people they represent into believing they can deliver a return to Protestant ascendency in the north.
Not only has the GFA made that impossible, but it also has made unification inevitable.
When confronted with the allegations of the past, the British separatist supporters here have more or less denied all wrong-doing and in my view have proven themselves to be nothing more than unrepentant bigots.
All we hear is British mentality about authorisation for conflict, which I assume means it is OK to kill for a monarch but not for your family, friends and communities. For me, conflict is never justified and is usually a result of military aggression followed by military retaliation. Is this the type of mentality we even want in Ireland – it is OK to kill when authorised by a British monarch or state?
The centenary year commemorating the Rising, a sacrifice which led to the first taste of Irish freedom in 800 years, has been referred to as an “unrepresentative clique killing people in 1916”. This could be put down to ignorance and ignored if those articulating it weren’t also defending unionist militarism around the same time, militarism which led to the partition of Ireland in the first place.
As for the pogroms of the 1960s in which hundreds of Catholic homes were burned, thousands of people displaced, in which the Irish army had to set up field hospitals: apparently it was all a myth and was no more than rioting started by nationalists. I suppose at least people with this view are consistent. They’d argue that the IRA started the Troubles, Ireland was a democratic and fair franchise towards Catholics in 1916, and of course we oppressed ourselves historically.
Apparently Mike Nesbitt has decided this is also a good line to pursue and now claims that we partitioned the country ourselves, the new culprits being the rebels of the 1916 Rising. Odd – I thought the rebels declared the 32-county republic and sacrificed their lives against any such partition, which was on the table prior to the Rising.
My feelings towards unionism have not changed, but perhaps it is no longer the correct term to use in the post-GFA era and new definitions are required.
In relation to the constitutional issue here, there are two main groupings, Irish or British Separatist.
It may be possible to agree an Irish solution that will be acceptable to a majority from a unionist background and the majority of the country as a whole; in contrast, I don’t believe there is the remotest chance in hell of a British Separatist solution being acceptable to a majority of the people of Ireland.
You know what I am sick of your weasel words you were caught out being openly stupid and sectarian now you are trying to backtrack unsuccessfully you are the republican version of gregory Campbell now do us a favour post no more bilge
Once again, that is a point of view neill.
One of the reasons I like about this blog, it is a positive collective experience of various viewpoints, shares the knowledge of those with a better grasp of history certainly than I have. I have learned a lot from this site which has such forward thinking and intelligent commenters.
But what I do know, is of you, gio or anyone make a point that causes me to doubt my stance, I am prepared to take it on the chin and change my opinion accordingly.
You have not convinced me that partition was either legitimate, democratic or justifiable and therefore post GFA we have to learn to put our differences behind us and work out what direction our future lies in.
Partitionism is unjust and divisive and if you do not agree, convince me and the readers here otherwise.
Neill I enjoy reading your posts and I respect the fact that you are willing to share your views in a forum where most peoples’ views are different. If you are offended by someone’s comments you should really just state what you find offensive. If Jessica is a genuine republican (I’m sure she is) I don’t think she would intentionally try to offend you.
“You know what I am sick of your weasel words you were caught out being openly stupid and sectarian ”
Nice way to respond to a debate Neill. Now please point out where Jessica is being “sectarian”? And point out where she is wrong? Are you trying to say Unionism didn’t run a state where Protestants were favoured above Catholics? Or in the distant past there wasn’t penal laws against Catholics in an era known as the “Protestant Ascendancy”? Now please answer the questions Neill and not go on another mindless rant.
“now you are trying to backtrack unsuccessfully you are the republican version of gregory Campbell now do us a favour post no more bilge”
Gregory Campbell is a liar and a hypocrite Neill, Jessica is not, if you disagree then point out where she is being a hypocrite and a liar because I cant see it….
Isn’t it just the reality Neill that Jessica is stating the facts about Unionism and you know they are the truth? And because you cant dispute those facts you resort to mindless rants and completely unfounded accusations of “sectarianism”?….
Rather than name calling why not try to rebut argument put forward . The response above is more like a response from the ‘Hole in the Wall gang’s Linfield supporter.
Excellent article, full of forward thinking, deep analysis,and objective observation, always a pleasure, to read your articles
‘So how about political leadership? I think the SDLP, Alliance and NI21 could be accurately described as unionist parties. ‘
Excellent point Jessica, although, stoops, or stoop membership, tend to be old, anti-violence and pro re-unification, their leadership though have many who are economically unionist, having learned nothing from celtic tiger.
Alliance are absolutly unionist, of the worse sort, they hide behind a mask of ‘cross community’ but, why do so when their party constitution states categorically they are in favour of the maintenance of the union, nI21, well, just spoiled official unionists who threw their toy’s out of the pram.
As to your last paragraph Jessica, when available, have a look at my last post re:the history lesson for Mike, re-partition anyone?
I would say your right about most Alliance members being Unionist Mark, the likes of Naomi Long (whom I respect and I genuinely believe wants a shared future for all) and others are what we now call “small u unionists”.
But there are Alliance members, elected representatives, whom I know personally and I know they are Pro-Irish Unity. They aren’t the types that would’ve raced to the GPO in 1916 to take up arms but they are supportive and believe Irish Unity is the best thing for all us in the long term.
Sorry to hear that Ryan, genuinely. If though you’re a ‘member’ of a political party, anywhere, you really do agree to be bound by their rules and objectives, in this case, the constitution of this party states, and last time I read it was 1987 but, as I recall.
Alliance Party NI support the maintenance of the Union between Great Britain and northern Ireland so long as the majority there support the Union’.
My point is, if you say you are, and are a cross community party, why should such party require anything in it’s governing document which supports or denies the union?
Therefore, if you subscribe to Alliance party politics you must subscribe to the notion of a prescribed maintenance of an imposed union, if one is in favour of something in the alternative, I think one should transfer allegiance to a party in tune with one’s political belief.
Sorry but, it just makes sense.
Good article Jessica. People, including people from other countries who have studied the conflict and political situation here, think that its simple: Unionists want to stay in the UK and Irish Republicans want a United Ireland. When it comes to Irish Republicans it is pretty straight forward and simple, our ultimate objective is a United Ireland and stated aim that everyone in the country is equal and deserves to prosper, regardless of religion or race.
But when it comes to Unionism, as reflected in the multiple Unionist political parties and splits, it isn’t that simple. I would say Basil McCrea’s version of a new Northern Ireland would be very, VERY different to that of Jim Allisters or the DUP’s (and the UUP’s, since MikeTV has come to be leader). Basil says he wants a Northern Ireland that is non-sectarian, where just as many Catholics vote Unionist regularly as Protestants and vice versa for Nationalism. The DUP/UUP’s “new” Northern Ireland is reflected on the councils here where they hold a majority: they are run like 1960’s Stormont’s. Lisburn is one example. The sensitivities and concerns of the minority catholic community in Unionist councils is non-existent. And when it comes to Irish cultural emblems/symbols there is literally none on Council premises, everything is 100% British.
Belfast City Hall of the 1980’s and before is a prime example of a Unionist controlled council where in its entire history not one, NOT ONE, nationalist mayor was elected. The DUP’s Sammy Wilson was twice elected Mayor and made clear that Belfast was a Unionist city multiple times and that Catholics weren’t welcome, he even infamously said that Catholics from the Old Park area were “animals” and “Taigs don’t pay rates”.
Political Unionism doesn’t just want to stay in the UK, they want to have their own state, like in the “Good Old Days”, much like white supremacists in the southern states of the USA dream and yarn for the days of segregation. The Loyalist flag protests and the Orange protests at Twaddell isn’t just about the flag or parades, as the protestors repeatedly pointed out, it was about the loss of Unionist dominance. It was about the loss of the Unionist state and the fact that it will never return. The UDA seen what was coming from the early 1990’s and drew up a plan of ethnic cleansing, repartition and genocide of Catholics, so keen were they to keep the dream of the Unionist state alive.
It was in the papers a few days ago where Bill Clinton, then US President, suggested to Tony Blair, then UK Prime Minister, that Unionists only agreed to make a deal at Good Friday Agreement talks because they could see the Catholic birth rate raising and could see who would have a majority in years to come. Clinton also suggested Unionists were afraid their position would be weakened as time went on due to population changes, so they made a deal as early as they could. I agree with Clinton’s opinion.
Unionism has long been its own worst enemy and I honestly cant see that changing. Will the Unionist state ever return? Not a chance. Its gone forever. I agree with Jessica’s opinion that Irish Unity is inevitable because the state of Northern Ireland is a failure, basic democracy cant even work here because Unionism cant be trusted to not engage in its life blood of sectarianism and “Us vs Them’uns” mentality. Many politicians and political commentators agree the Good Friday Agreement wont last forever and is a sticking plaster, so what will a new agreement involve when its public that Catholics are the majority and Sinn Fein are on the verge of being First Minister? (not to mention being very strong in the south). In my opinion, I think Joint Rule between Dublin and London will be on the cards at first.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Jessica
Sorry Jessica when you call the SDLP a unionist party you lose all credibility immediately.
I suspect you are just taking the piss out of Republicanism and Judes blog afterall nobody could seriously belive the twaddle you write unless you are unhinged.
“Sorry Jessica when you call the SDLP a unionist party you lose all credibility immediately.
I suspect you are just taking the piss out of Republicanism and Judes blog afterall nobody could seriously belive the twaddle you write unless you are unhinged.”
If the SDLP are not unionist, then why would unionists be sticking up for them?
If I am writing twaddle then what are you upset about?
If the SDLP are not unionist, then why would unionists be sticking up for them?
Not sticking up for them out of love I am sticking up for the truth the SDLP have never been unionist and never will be.
“Not sticking up for them out of love I am sticking up for the truth the SDLP have never been unionist and never will be.”
Once again, that is point of view
Your interpretation of what is unionist may not be the same as mine.
I agree that they are not british separatists such as the UUP, DUP and TUV are
Ryan ,there certainly is a delusional element within Unionism that hankers for a bygone era ,blinkers firmly affixed , they yearn for the daydreamy world of Unionist supremacy . Another misguided section believe that if you call 2/3 of Ulster a country ,if someone else foots all the bills indefinitely , it will all somehow magically work!…. and a final component believes this place is as British as Finchley as long as they can turn democracy on it’s head ,add a little bit of sectarian apartheid and make up their own rules as they go along. This Mittyesque gathering of savants haven’t featured 50% of the population into their ludicrous equations…..none of the three options above are remotely feasible or acceptable….Is Éireannach mé , I am an Irishman and I will have my country re-united. In this new Ireland there will be an equal place for everyone ,Catholic,Protestant and Dissenter , the new Immigrants and the old Planters….everyone.
I am an Irishman and I will have my country re-united. In this new Ireland there will be an equal place for everyone ,Catholic,Protestant and Dissenter , the new Immigrants and the old Planters….everyone
Sadly for you face people like me who are not easy to push around I suspect you will be disappointed.
“Sadly for you face people like me who are not easy to push around I suspect you will be disappointed.”
Really, so what are you going to do neill, you and your brother Sylvest?
Surprisingly witty Jessica and out of character as well.
“Surprisingly witty Jessica and out of character as well.”
You should see me when I’ve had a few drinks 🙂
The question is Neill….and could you give me a fluid answer…not a meaningless retort…What will happen WHEN the people democratically vote for the re-unification of our country ? When everyone is invited to express their opinions on the type of Irish society that they want and that is agreed by the majority….What then ?
What a load of guff! Does this women seriously believe that anyone other than a few on the lunatic fringe of the T.U.V. want, or think it is possible to achieve, a return to Protestant supremacy in the North. Could you not get a few writers on this site capable of constructing positive, detailed, well-argued cases for a United Ireland, instead of continually putting forward these tedious, “Unionists are the most despicable people in the world” diatribes, which reek of the very bigotry and hatred, which she seems to believe unionists have a monopoly of?
Why not have a shot at it yourself then, Willie? Either in the comment section or the guest blog section?
Well, it’s not up to me to make the argument. I personally don’t care if N.I. remains in the U.K. forever, but on the other hand have no theological objection to a U.I. . I live in a liberal democracy, within the E.U., though thankfully outside the euro, the Republic is another liberal democracy within the same E.U., it’s up to others, with a devotion to Nationalist dogma, to convince me and others that the small differences between the two would make the upheaval and probable difficulties involved in the change worthwhile
“I personally don’t care if N.I. remains in the U.K. forever,”
The partition of Ireland was wrong, illegal, undemocratic and there is a growing movement of people through all of this island determined to have that partition lifted that will not be unswayed from that goal.
Theology has no bearing on the matter and you are entitled to your opinion.
Lets hope you still support that liberal democracy when reunification is put to the vote just as the decision to not fly the flag 365 was.
As with the flag issue, we do not need to convince you of anything other than to respect democracy.
“What a load of guff!”
First of all Willie, this article was to make it clear that I did not see unionists in the light my previous article suggested.
I have accepted it was wrong and have since clarified my position to make it clear there is nothing whatsoever wrong with looking towards London for both economic and civic security and have aimed my frustrations instead at those who are unwilling to accept the opinions of the half of the population in the 6 counties who see the border as illegitimate and want it removed.
Unionism is clearly multifaceted and it is unfair to group everyone under one umbrella. I consider myself republican but have no time for dissidents so the same can be said for republicans. We have moved on from the old tribal divisions and now there is only Irish and British Separatism with ranges of opinions within each group.
I agree there should be public debate around not only constructing positive, detailed, well-argued cases for a United Ireland but looking at all options so we can all be confident that the direction we choose is in the best interests of everyone on this island.
Tá mo chroí isigh i do chuid tuairimí a Jessica, a stóir 🙂