I must say I have great difficult understanding Unionism even though I have lived with Unionists all my life. I had Unionist neighbours growing up in north Fermanagh. They were good neighbours. As a boy I used to work on their farms during the summer holidays. I learned to drive the tractor and to drive a horse and cart. But many years later and having lived through the Troubles and seeing the new arrangement which brought the DUP and Sinn Fein together in a powersharing experiment I still cannot understand what it is that causes Unionists to take such a hard-line attitude towards the south(26 counties) and towards their neighbours who are not unionists.
At a recent meeting with Unionist councillors I was corrected by a unionist councillor for referring to ‘the north of Ireland’. I was told it is called Northern Ireland. I was also accused of being political for calling on people to seek to remain united to Europe and to the rest of the island of Ireland for the good of all. Another member of our delegation was chided for referring to the ‘English Tories’. ‘They are Conservatives’, we were told. These childish comments reveal to me an underlying insecurity and fear within Unionism. They have not come to terms yet with the Good Friday Agreement and the notion of equality. They feel under threat. Many years ago a few of us, including human rights campaigner the late Oliver Kearney, came together to campaign for equality in the north. We identified that equality was the only basis on which we could live together with our unionist friends in a contrived state like Norn Ireland. We never had equality before or since partition. We were treated as second-class citizens. The Good Friday Agreement ensured that, from then on, there must be equality in all aspects of life. That was to be the basis for the devolved government and for future arrangements in Ireland.
I suppose Unionists would have a reason to fear equality –since the statelet they once controlled was based on inequality. Nationalists and republicans since the Good Friday Agreement reach out the hand of friendship to unionists and yet they treat them with suspicion and sometimes with hostility. I experienced it in the council chamber in Enniskillen a week ago.
While the First Minister engages with Martin McGuinness on a daily basis there is no evidence that others in her party are any more tolerant or generous in reciprocating the overtures of friendship. Nor have I any evidence that official unionists behave any better. We have come a long way in the north but we still have a long way to go.
“I must say I have great difficult understanding Unionism”
We’re shocked!
“I still cannot understand what it is that causes Unionists to take such a hard-line attitude towards the south(26 counties) and towards their neighbours who are not unionists.”
Did it ever occur to you that it was because they oppose a ‘united Ireland’ and the South and northern nationalists are trying to achieve a ‘united Ireland’? Did it ever occur to you that it might be because of the Provo terror campaign and the retrospective (or in your case contemporary) support for it by nationalists?
“At a recent meeting with Unionist councillors I was corrected by a unionist councillor for referring to ‘the north of Ireland’. I was told it is called Northern Ireland. … These childish comments reveal to me an underlying insecurity and fear within Unionism. They have not come to terms yet with the Good Friday Agreement and the notion of equality.”
So you refuse to use the correct name of the jurisdiction, yet those who corrected you are the childish ones who haven’t come to terms with the GFA? Self-awareness is clearly not your strong point.
“The Good Friday Agreement ensured that, from then on, there must be equality in all aspects of life.”
Define equality and explain how the GFA ensured there must be equality in all aspects of life.
“While the First Minister engages with Martin McGuinness on a daily basis there is no evidence that others in her party are any more tolerant or generous in reciprocating the overtures of friendship.”
Did you ever pause to consider why that might be, or are you simply unaware of the effect on people of a terrorist campaign directed against them?
“Did you ever pause to consider why that might be, or are you simply unaware of the effect on people of a terrorist campaign directed against them?!”
The exact same could be said for british rule which has committed many terrorist acts against innocent Irish civilians. Why should any Irish person ever accept british rule in Ireland MT? There are two sides to that argument so it cancels itself out.
I could just as easily say that because of britains past war crimes and residing over unionist misrule in Ireland, no right minded person on this planet should deny any Irish person the right to seek a new independent Ireland free to rule its own affairs and to stand on our own two feet.
You can cry about it all you want but there are many flaws that need to be addressed in Ireland, the benefits of unification will need to be discussed seriously at some point as partition simply weakens the economy on both parts of this small island and it will happen or not regardless what you or I feel about it.
Welcome back Jessica.
Another flaw of the Unionist position is that they regard the Act of Union of 1801 as Ireland’s natural position.
They then claim that they are opposed to all forms of criminality.
Forgetting of course that the Act of Union was a crime.
It was created by Bribery.
Which is a crime now and a crime then.
Unionists have no problems with “crimes” as long as they benefit their position.
Unionism is a false God… It is a false prophet
Only the past and continunig lies of the Media prevent the fog been lifted.
Their feet are made of clay.
It is no wonder they regard things in a hostile, suspicious way.
They know their cause is hollow. and meaningless.
The church of Scientology is based on more solid foundations than Unionism in Ireland.
The internets will kill unionism.
Of this I am sure.
The Mainstream media is dying… And with that a Security blanket of unionism goes with it.
“The exact same could be said for british rule which has committed many terrorist acts against innocent Irish civilians.”
Maybe it could, but Joe is asking why unionists aren’t more friendly to Provo nationalists.
“I could just as easily say that because of britains past war crimes and residing over unionist misrule in Ireland, no right minded person on this planet should deny any Irish person the right to seek a new independent Ireland free to rule its own affairs and to stand on our own two feet.”
That’s fantastic but I’m not aware of anyone saying such right should be denied.
“You can cry about it all you want but there are many flaws that need to be addressed in Ireland, the benefits of unification will need to be discussed seriously at some point as partition simply weakens the economy on both parts of this small island and it will happen or not regardless what you or I feel about it.”
I’m not crying about anything. I’m responding to Joe’-s confession that he doesn’t understand unionism.
“Maybe it could, but Joe is asking why unionists aren’t more friendly to Provo nationalists.”
Who do you consider to be Provo nationalists MT?
Is Joe a “Provo nationalist”?
Am I a “Provo nationalist?”
Why do you think it is ok in 2016 to label anyone as a “Provo nationalist”?
“Who do you consider to be Provo nationalists MT?”
Members of PSF, obviously.
“Is Joe a “Provo nationalist”?”
I suspect he’s a supporter.
“Am I a “Provo nationalist?”
You tell me. You certainly used to be a supporter of the Provo terror campaign.
“Why do you think it is ok in 2016 to label anyone as a “Provo nationalist”?”
Because they are Provo nationalists.
I guess so then in your eyes anyway.
The conflict is over for good MT, perhaps you need to ask yourself why it is that you find it so hard to accept this and to move on.
Then again, as I firmly believe unionism in Ireland is divisive, sectarian and incapable of moving on post conflict, there is simply no reason to expect anything better from you MT?
“The conflict is over for good MT, perhaps you need to ask yourself why it is that you find it so hard to accept this and to move on.”
Why would I ask myself why I find it hard to accept this and move on when I don’t find it hard to accept it and move on?
It was the Ulster Unionists who ‘disunited’ Ireland. They set of a credible military organisation the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force) in 1912. After signing a Covenant to oppose a very dilute form of Home Rule.
The Ulster Unionist Council prepared to become a Provisional Government, if Westminster passed said feeble enactment. The UUC – as well as all the ‘Loyal’ flummery – said it was prepared to transfer its loyalty to the emperor of Germany, or the emperor of Russia (London’s dirty deal with the latter in 1907 was a State Secret until August 1914).
The Irish Volunteers was founded (like the 1770’s organisation) to defend Ireland if / when the UUC invited-in the King’s enemies.
The non-Redmondite rump of the Irish Volunteers joined with the Citizen Army and the Hibernian Rifles in a straightforward seizure of Dublin, the seat of British government in Ireland, after years of stating publicly that an independent Republic was their aim.
As far as I know unionism started in 1801 following the 1798 rebellion. Before that Ireland had its own parliament. Modern Unionism started off as a campaign against Home Rule for Ireland in the 1870s Ireland of course was united at this time and unionists didn’t oppose it being so. What I suspect that they did oppose was a parliament dominated by Catholics hence the slogan ‘Home Rule is Rome Rule’.
I found it interesting that in your reply to Jim you mentioned unionist opposition to a united Ireland but didn’t mention the importance of ties with Great Britain. Which is more important to you?
As for the Troubles a lot of harm was done by both the IRA, loyalists paramilitaries, RUC and the British government. I don’t think it is fair to blame one side over the other.
I personally think that a lot of work has to be done in uniting our communities. Our current narrative prevents us from doing this.
“I found it interesting that in your reply to Jim you mentioned unionist opposition to a united Ireland but didn’t mention the importance of ties with Great Britain. Which is more important to you?”
Obviously the latter. A ‘united Ireland’ is the means of severing those ties. Nationalists could have a ‘united Ireland ‘ tomorrow if they were willing for Ireland to rejoin the UK, just as it was united as part of the UK previously.
“As for the Troubles a lot of harm was done by both the IRA, loyalists paramilitaries, RUC and the British government. I don’t think it is fair to blame one side over the other.”
Of course. But try explaining that to the pro-terror extreme nationalists here who literally say it was all unionists’ fault.
“I personally think that a lot of work has to be done in uniting our communities. Our current narrative prevents us from doing this.”
Indeed. This blog has revealed to me a depth of bitterness, ignorance and one-sidedness that I didn’t realise. Of course, however, it is unlikely that the contributors here are representative of people out in the real world.
“Of course. But try explaining that to the pro-terror extreme nationalists here who literally say it was all unionists’ fault.”
There are two sides to every wrong MT. I certainly don’t believe it was all unionists fault.
I do think the actions of unionism and the role it played in starting the conflict has not been scrutinised anywhere nearly enough.
No lessons have been learned for this reason and there is no desire for reconciliation from within the unionist community mainly because they are taught that the conflict was an IRA terror campaign and avoid looking too closely at their own part in the conflict.
The perception that it was all one sides fault is wrong regardless if it is someone saying the conflict was an IRA terror campaign or a deliberate attempt by unionism to maintain control in a gerrymandered sectarian state that was ill thought out and went too far.
“Indeed. This blog has revealed to me a depth of bitterness, ignorance and one-sidedness that I didn’t realise. Of course, however, it is unlikely that the contributors here are representative of people out in the real world.”
Do you feel your contributions could be considered to portray a depth of bitterness, ignorance and one-sidedness MT?
Sometimes I find that people who question certain destructive traditions in this country are labelled bitter or traitors.
This question is purely hypothetical as the south would never dream of giving up their independence but would you still accept a united Ireland within the UK if it had a devolved government?
“As for the Troubles a lot of harm was done by both the IRA, loyalists paramilitaries, RUC and the British government. I don’t think it is fair to blame one side over the other. ”
There is plenty of public information about the harm done by both the IRA, loyalists paramilitaries, RUC though perhaps less about the British government who will be delighted you don’t even mention the british security forces such as MRF and FRU or any of the dogs of war they unleashed.
I see you also do not seem to have considered there to have been any harm done by the unionist political leadership?
Many unionist political representatives proactively encouraged anti catholic discrimination, brought people onto the streets en masse and raised tensions to the point people lost their lives and thousands were made homeless. Many of the initial murders were committed by people who named Paisley as the person they listened to and were following instructions from. The UVF were linked heavily to the UUP with close ties to the UVF through Billy Spence, one of the instigators of the conflict.
The troubles would have ended in 1975 had it not been for loose canons like Robert Nairac who were allowed to do whatever they wanted unmonitored with no operational boundaries. Britain has to acknowledge the activities of him and his cohorts and accept responsibility for their actions.
Narratives alone wont cut it Colmán. The people need to know the truth of what happened here which will be very damaging for both unionism and the british forces. It is too close to home for them to want the public to know too much about how they operated here and they are fighting it all the way but it is too important to let them away with it.
Many people here seem to think unionism is simply a choice to be ruled from london. It is not. But how can we convince them when the truth is so heavily covered up?
Many non unionists could vote to be ruled from london for various reasons. The failure of dublin to give any support for making the truth known, not only allowing cover ups but actively participating in them. The anti northern feelings that has been fostered by the establishment in the south and its establishment supporting media. Many republicans I know feel like they can go screw themselves.
There has been a lot more damage done than simply two communities in the north. Reconciliation is going to need to be island wide and the process has not yet even begun.
There will be no unification until it is dealt with.
Good points Jessica.
Is this a rewriting of history, did the little local difficulty only start in 1970? I could have sworn it had its genesis much earlier than that. I seem remember pogroms against nationalists being reported in the 20s, 30s. My father in law’s family were burned out of houses on three occasions in the beginning of the 6 counties statelet. I even witnessed an attempted pogrom in 1963, when houses in the Lower Falls were attacked by Linfield supporters returning to the Shankill from Windsor Park. No, you’re right all the unpleasantness started in January 1970, when the Provos were formed.
I understand them perfectly Joe.
They want to live in a part of Ireland that is as british as finchley, the fact no part of Ireland is in britain or that a majority of the Irish people want all of Ireland to be one economy, one nation with our own interests above that of the united kingdom doesn’t matter to them one bit. In their eyes, this false and decaying union comes first.
Sure, they will get along fine with you as a neighbour or work colleague, so long as you accept these terms, rock this agenda in any way and their true colours are startlingly revealed and while they may seem to be reviled by the actions of militant unionism when they oppose such threat to their way of life, they would happily accept any level of punishment imposed on those such as civil rights marchers, political opponents, solicitors or human rights campaigners who might have the courage to speak out against them and sweep it under the carpet or keep all inconvenient evidence safely locked away under national security.
That is unionism in all its glory. There are others from all walks of life who see the queens shilling as their be all who would put their own greed above that of their people but unionism as described above is the sickness Ireland has struggled for centuries to recover from and all parts of this island are still today tainted by it, not only 6 or less counties where they huddle together.
Northern unionism (I the Presbyterian sense) has only been around for a century and a half.
My word Jessica you’re your own worst enemy on here, please try to be coherent.
Not sure what point you are making AG?
” but unionism as described above is the sickness Ireland has struggled for centuries to recover from “
Thank you for the clarification AG.
Yes, I am saying english direct involvement in Ireland over the past 800 years has been a curse on Ireland, both historically and continues in more recent times as you say.
You may feel unionism is nothing more than a valid point of view of a minority population on a small island, but it is not. Unionism has been given special status, undemocratic and discriminatory control over other people who do not share their views about being ruled from England. Military might has constantly been the tool used to put those people into line to allow the unionist population to discriminate against a coerced minority population in their own country.
Unionism has managed to drive a wedge between the people of this island and create an unhealthy sectarian divide on this island.
I am saying this has spread like cancer and we now have a southern establishment and a vocal population in the so called republic that cares nothing about Irish ways or Irish people and who’s pandering to unionism and fear of rocking their unstable mind-set has accepted partition and led to two weak economies who are now divided as people and will soon be pushed into economic competition which will result in greater animosity and division.
Yes, unionism in Ireland is separatism, it is division and by our so called people in the south accepting it, it has resulted in an even greater division of the people on this island which will become much clearer over the coming years.
I will stand over my comments.
“Thank you for the clarification AG.
Yes, I am saying english direct involvement in Ireland over the past 800 years has been a curse on Ireland, both historically and continues in more recent times as you say.”
The English didn’t invade Ireland 800 years ago as they were under the yoke of the Normans.
“You may feel unionism is nothing more than a valid point of view of a minority population on a small island, but it is not.”
It is entirely that.
It has very very flawed extremes but it is a valid point of view nonetheless, you gurning about it doesn’t change anything, if you don’t like it then write to the UN who will tell to bugger off.
“Unionism has been given special status, undemocratic and discriminatory control over other people who do not share their views about being ruled from England. ”
Not anymore, they’re considered embarrassing little paddies.
“Military might has constantly been the tool used to put those people into line to allow the unionist population to discriminate against a coerced minority population in their own country.”
This military might also saved the Catholic population of Belfast, hence why Paisley compared the British Army to the SS.
“Unionism has managed to drive a wedge between the people of this island and create an unhealthy sectarian divide on this island.”
Correct.
“I am saying this has spread like cancer and we now have a southern establishment and a vocal population in the so called republic that cares nothing about Irish ways or Irish people and who’s pandering to unionism and fear of rocking their unstable mind-set has accepted partition and led to two weak economies who are now divided as people and will soon be pushed into economic competition which will result in greater animosity and division.”
Possibly.
“Yes, unionism in Ireland is separatism”
Yes
” it is division and by our so called people in the south accepting it, it has resulted in an even greater division of the people on this island which will become much clearer over the coming years”
Which is proof of modern nationalism’s failings.
“I will stand over my comments.”
Good, I’ll need someone to roast over the failure of nationalism in the face of idiotic unionist leadership (and they are strategic idiots, so to lose to them requires unbelievable levels of stupidity).
“You may feel unionism is nothing more than a valid point of view of a minority population on a small island, but it is not.”
It is entirely that.”
A minority point of view could not have partitioned a nation against the wishes of the majority leaving a 30% minority abandoned in a sectarian gerrymandered state to suffer 50 years of blatant discrimination.
England did not want to partition Ireland, I believe it was more than a point of view that pressured them with threat of and actual violence to do so.
Sorry, but only a fool would buy that AG.
“Unionism has been given special status, undemocratic and discriminatory control over other people who do not share their views about being ruled from England. ”
Not anymore, they’re considered embarrassing little paddies.
Oh I agree.
Britain would not have agreed to the GFA if it did not envisage pulling out of Ireland entirely at some point in the future.
The days of unionist domination are long gone, the days of a unionist minority in northern ireland are just around the corner.
Whatever the future might bring, it is certainly not going to be orange.
“Military might has constantly been the tool used to put those people into line to allow the unionist population to discriminate against a coerced minority population in their own country.” This military might also saved the Catholic population of Belfast, hence why Paisley compared the British Army to the SS.”
Are you serious?
It was the british army that ignited and enflamed the conflict, they were influenced by the rhetoric and rabble rousing from Paisley who brought unionists onto the street to create the confrontation that allowed tensions to be raised and led to the british army murdering Catholics which brought the IRA into existence..
This is exactly why much more scrutiny and documentary of the actions that led to the conflict starting has to happen.
An independent truth needs to be told and not false opinion based on one liners out of context from any side.
Only unionism and the british fear the truth coming out and have always been against a truth and reconciliation forum for that reason.
“It was the british army that ignited and enflamed the conflict, they were influenced by the rhetoric and rabble rousing from Paisley who brought unionists onto the street to create the confrontation that allowed tensions to be raised and led to the british army murdering Catholics which brought the IRA into existence..”
Goodness. Who told you that?
The Provisional IRA was formed in December 1969. The first Roman Catholic killed by the Army was eight months later.
“The Provisional IRA was formed in December 1969. The first Roman Catholic killed by the Army was eight months later.”
And thank God they were.
The conflict should have ended in 1975 but was derailed by the british forces led by Nairac and his Glenanne gang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process#1960.E2.80.931969
” it is division and by our so called people in the south accepting it, it has resulted in an even greater division of the people on this island which will become much clearer over the coming years” Which is proof of modern nationalism’s failings.”
Oh absolutely. We have been failed abysmally, disgustingly and unforgivably from Dublin.
The damage has been done
“I will stand over my comments.”
Good, I’ll need someone to roast over the failure of nationalism in the face of idiotic unionist leadership (and they are strategic idiots, so to lose to them requires unbelievable levels of stupidity).
To lose what to them AG?
You talk like there is some game afoot.
Anyone who thinks this is an idiot.
I love my country, but my country is an embarrassing shithole that has lost its way and is an embarrassment to the Irish people throughout the planet.
In that context, why you still think unionism matters one iota to me I do not know.
The war with england is over, the GFA ended it.
Unionism is on a terminal unavoidable decline and is in its twilight years if that is a fair way to put it.
Should people from unionist background want to work with us to build a new, better and fairer Ireland and a better future for our children, great.
If some want to leave when the british grip start to slip, I really don’t care.
I would have no interest in persuading anyone to stay who doesn’t want to.
If we prefer to keep attacking one another over a declining british monarchy and crumbling united kingdom then so be it, I would be more interested in getting rid of the rot in Dublin and in the southern establishment which need to go for good.
But there is no pissing contest with unionism that we can lose to. In my eyes we are all losers already. It is what we decide to do about it that will decide what happens in the future.
You know perfectly well it is not down to tactics or strategy but simple demographics that will decide when britain leaves and what a future Ireland will look like.
Unionism will have very little say in it. What do you think you can possibly do to change the logical course and outcome of the expected demographic change.
“Are you serious?
It was the british army that ignited and enflamed the conflict, they were influenced by the rhetoric and rabble rousing from Paisley who brought unionists onto the street to create the confrontation that allowed tensions to be raised and led to the british army murdering Catholics which brought the IRA into existence..”
The British army made everything worse eventually but they gave republicans some much needed breathing space.
Catholic defence and republican offense are two different things but they some how seem to be peddled as the same thing.
“The British army made everything worse eventually but they gave republicans some much needed breathing space.”
Agreed, it was the continuous pressure from the various elements of unionism egged on by Paisley and co who kept up the pressure forcing them into a piggy in the middle that eventually led to them choosing a side and it was the union jack waving loons they sided with.
“Catholic defence and republican offense are two different things but they some how seem to be peddled as the same thing.”
When a conflict starts, it is all out bloody warfare, not offence defence. There is no justification for anything that happens in conflict and nothing good comes out of it, only sheer bloody misery and ruined lives.
We have unionism to thank for that.
”
jessica November 10, 2016 at 11:43 pm #
“The Provisional IRA was formed in December 1969. The first Roman Catholic killed by the Army was eight months later.”
And thank God they were.
”
So, make up your mind: Did the British army form the IRA as you said:
“It was the british army that ignited and enflamed the conflict, they were influenced by the rhetoric and rabble rousing from Paisley who brought unionists onto the street to create the confrontation that allowed tensions to be raised and led to the british army murdering Catholics which brought the IRA into existence..”
Or did the British army kill the first Catholic AFTER the IRA had been reformed?
This is what you call a contradiction Jessica, please explain it.
No dodging, no emotion or outrage, please explain what you have said as the two points are clearly irreconcilable and you have to chose one.
I never said the british army formed the IRA AG. Is that really all you have got?
I think it is a fairly well established fact when the British army came to Ireland, the UVF were planting bombs pretending to be the IRA while unionism was attacking civil rights marches and launching nightly gun attacks into catholic estates in Belfast.
It was the people who called for and even demanded that the IRA do something to defend them when no one else would (I Ran Away was written on the walls), and that is why the PIRA was formed as I referred to. If it wasn’t for the british army, I doubt very much that would have happened but that is obviously my opinion. The rest are facts that I am sure you know very well.
“I never said the british army formed the IRA AG. Is that really all you have got? I think it is a fairly well established fact when the British army came to Ireland, the UVF were planting bombs pretending to be the IRA while unionism was attacking civil rights marches and launching nightly gun attacks into catholic estates in Belfast. It was the people who called for and even demanded that the IRA do something to defend them when no one else would (I Ran Away was written on the walls), and that is why the PIRA was formed as I referred to. If it wasn’t for the british army, I doubt very much that would have happened but that is obviously my opinion. The rest are facts that I am sure you know very well.”
So why did you say the ‘IRA’ was formed because the Army murdered Catholics?
“I never said the british army formed the IRA AG. Is that really all you have got?”
You said: “….and led to the british army murdering Catholics which brought the IRA into existence”
You said the British army murdering Catholics brought the IRA into existence.
You know perfectly well what I am saying AG.
There are many groups which claim to be the IRA but there is only one I consider to be the IRA and it did not exist before 1969/70 and it does not exist any longer.
The actions of the british army filled its ranks with people who would not have been involved in conflict otherwise.
Roll on the day when unionism is no more than an irrelevance in this country and we no longer have to endure such pointless drivel arguments to try and justify the british occupational presence in Ireland.
“A minority point of view could not have partitioned a nation against the wishes of the majority leaving a 30% minority abandoned in a sectarian gerrymandered state to suffer 50 years of blatant discrimination.
England did not want to partition Ireland, I believe it was more than a point of view that pressured them with threat of and actual violence to do so.
Sorry, but only a fool would buy that AG.”
That’s the story of separatism I’m afraid Jessica, the world is full of examples of minorities breaking away from a majority.
“That’s the story of separatism I’m afraid Jessica, the world is full of examples of minorities breaking away from a majority.”
It is AG, and usually where britain is involved it is often a bloody affair.
MT, why contribute when all you do is ask a bunch of questions? Why don’t you give us your definition of equality? Why don’t you give us your take on the GFA?
The IRA campaign brought us to where we are, you might bemoan that we are indeed where we are, but here we are! The nationalist community is experiencing at least a form of equality that they were hitherto denied by out unionist loyalist neighbours.
What makes ‘Northern Ireland’ The ‘correct name’ ? Is it a surprise to you that nationalists do not and never will recognise this failed statelet? Partition was achieved using undemocratic and forceful methods against the will of the majority of the people. Sorry to drag you back to the history of all this, but drag I must.
Finally, and here I must unfortunately follow in your questioning mode, please explain in detail what would be so wrong with a United Ireland?
“The IRA campaign brought us to where we are, you might bemoan that we are indeed where we are, but here we are! The nationalist community is experiencing at least a form of equality that they were hitherto denied by out unionist loyalist neighbours.”
The IRA campaign brought us to republicans administering British rule in Ireland, having accepted the principle of consent to NI? That doesn’t say much for it, setting aside the horrific 1700 murders and countless destruction of families, property and the economy.
What “equality” does the nationalist community experience now that it didn’t before 1998?
“What makes ‘Northern Ireland’ The ‘correct name’ ?”
Are you serious? That is its name in statute and in all official usage.
“Is it a surprise to you that nationalists do not and never will recognise this failed statelet?”
They do recognise it. They even help run it.
“Partition was achieved using undemocratic and forceful methods against the will of the majority of the people.”
It wasn’t. On the contrary it facilitated democratic wishes.
“Finally, and here I must unfortunately follow in your questioning mode, please explain in detail what would be so wrong with a United Ireland?”
It’s up to the advocates of a ‘united Ireland’ to sell it, not the opponents to say what would be wrong with it.
That is rich since it was Unionism that started the conflict in the late 1960s because it couldn’t accept the right of Catholics to campaign for civil rights never mind have them or let alone a principle of consent.
Unionism and the british army brought over by the actions of unionism started the killing which led to any IRA campaign which led to a prolonged conflict to which London in 2016 is still covering up is lies and murders and trying with the aid of unionism to .write a new narrative where the troubles started with an IRA campaign which is simply not the case. The facts will never go along with any such attempted narrative MT.
If it wasn’t for the IRA, the mass attacks on nationalists to burn and drive them out in their thousands would have continued. It was an attempt to maintain control and dominance in their gerrymandered state. The IRA campaign in time will be recognised as saving the Irish nation.
The IRA campaign should have ended in the 70s but was derailed over the actions of Robert Nairac, his Glanane gang and other state agents who ensured the early ceasefires and peace talks failed and that the conflict was escalated and much more difficult to end. This was facilitated by the british who are the reason the majority of deaths occurred.
This truth will come out eventually.
As for advocates of a ‘united Ireland’ having to sell it, get stuffed.
The benefits are a no brainer, the fear is of unionism reverting to form and restarting yet another conflict over its intransigence.
Partition will simply have to cause enough pain in all parts of Ireland to override this fear.
Jessica – re: “the unionists started it”. Not only does this remind me of the playground, but have you ever read about the IRA border campaign? Or heard Ruari O’Braidaigh use 1966 to emplore the youth of Ireland to join armed resistance?
Oh we have heard lots about what republicans have done during the conflict and even a lot about working class loyalists but very very little about the actions of political unionism in motivating and directing their actions or just how involved and complicit the british state was in maintaining and prolonging a dirty war and its involvement in murder and cover up, directly directing loyalist paramilitaries especially in the early phases.
There will be no future here until it all comes out or Britain leaves.
“but very very little about the actions of political unionism in motivating and directing their actions or just how involved and complicit the british state was in maintaining and prolonging a dirty war and its involvement in murder and cover up, directly directing loyalist paramilitaries especially in the early phases.”
You’ve heard little about it?
That’s strange because I hear about it all the time, how come you’ve heard so little and I’ve been assailed?
The scrutiny and media assault on republicans over their role in the conflict has been significantly sharper and in stark contrast to the non existent coverage, reflection and almost zero scrutiny of the role of british state forces both in direct hands on murder, collusion and direction of loyalist paramilitaries and cover up of its engagement and evidence to protect its agents and their actions.
This difference has been stark and not even you can deny this AG.
But it wont go ever away, eventually it will have to be evened up and the truth will come out.
If you think you have been assailed to date, I assure you, we have not even scratched the surface.
“As for advocates of a ‘united Ireland’ having to sell it, get stuffed.
The benefits are a no brainer, the fear is of unionism reverting to form and restarting yet another conflict over its intransigence.
”
Yes, they are indeed a no brainer but for some reason Irish nationalists would rather apply impractical romanticism and unacceptable terms and conditions rather than compromising a little and obtaining their stated objective.
“Yes, they are indeed a no brainer but for some reason Irish nationalists would rather apply impractical romanticism and unacceptable terms and conditions rather than compromising a little and obtaining their stated objective”
I am not aware of any terms and conditions applied by Irish nationalists AG.
I would love to know what these are or have you just made this up?
AG, You still haven’t supplied any evidence to back up your claim that nationalist parties have proposed unacceptable terms and conditions upon unionism or refused to compromise.
I would say it is only the nationalist parties who have been willing to go into talks without preconditions and who have been willing to compromise.
Add to this your claim that unionism has changed significantly over Tina McKenzie being the chair of NI21 which didn’t even declare itself as a unionist party, questions whether you yourself even understand what unionism is.
You are ignoring completely what unionism is and trying to push all people who are willing to accept the status quo into the unionist category which is not necessarily the case.
Not everyone who is protestant and grows up in a unionist community is going to consider themselves unionist.
Someone who votes for a traditionally unionist party for a local reason and not their core manifesto, is not necessarily a unionist and may simply be indifferent to the national question and vote for an individual who has struck a chord.
In fact I hope eventually people in all of our communities will find they have more in common with one another than those across the water, especially in England and we will stop using those pathetic terms and accept we are all Irish wherever we are from on this island and whether part of it is within the UK or not.
“The scrutiny and media assault on republicans over their role in the conflict has been significantly sharper and in stark contrast to the non existent coverage, reflection and almost zero scrutiny of the role of british state forces both in direct hands on murder, collusion and direction of loyalist paramilitaries and cover up of its engagement and evidence to protect its agents and their actions.”
Jessica, I am seldom on a political blog where a nationalist doesn’t bring this topic up regardless of what the opening topic is.
I do indeed wish it was looked into but to say it’s not mentioned is rubbish.
Well, no disrespect to blogs, but if we are being remotely genuine about a peace process, then the legacy issues really need to be put in the hands of independent qualified professionals and given unrestricted access to all documented evidence and information needed to put it to bed.
There will be no way to avoid this, it will not go away until the truth is known, and perhaps then the southern establishment will understand the reason Ireland is more divided than ever over their disgusting behaviour.
“I am not aware of any terms and conditions applied by Irish nationalists AG.
I would love to know what these are or have you just made this up?
”
Any mention of ‘selling’ or ‘pitching’ the idea of a united Ireland is met by almost hysterical opposition from you.
In Scotland they came within a hair’s breadth of independence without a single bullet being fired and Brexit has galvanised that chance.
The SNP at least try to come up with a coherent plan, nationalists here do not and people like you have made it clear that there’ll be some ‘mopping up’ to do if your day ever does come e.g. army memorials.
So are there terms and conditions that need to be applied by Irish nationalists AG are were you making it up?
The truth is quite the contrary, nationalism wants only to talk about strengthening the peace process and what is economically in best interests of our children’s future whether that be inside or outside the UK, inside or outside the EU, in an independent northern Ireland or in a united Ireland if that is what the Irish people want.
It is simply rubbish that there are any terms and conditions put forward by nationalists.
Only unionism has had the intransigence to refuse to even talk about what is in our peoples best interests in case a united Ireland is even brought up.
In fact the only preconditions for any such talks that I am aware off have come from unionism, that Irish unity is off the table.
And yes, people like me will of course want the brit memorial wall torn down and every british army memorial pulled asunder. It was only a few years ago when I started on this blog I would have been abhorred by anyone suggesting such a thing, the behaviour of unionism north and south along with the british refusal to deal with legacy issues and instead hide behind national security while blaming republicans on everything about the conflict has hardened my attitude.
The more unionism and its supporters behaves in this way, the more people I hope will feel likewise and become more outspoken against it also.
So I will say again, are there any preconditions put forward by Irish nationalists AG are were you making it up?
“AG, You still haven’t supplied any evidence to back up your claim that nationalist parties have proposed unacceptable terms and conditions upon unionism or refused to compromise.”
I said ‘nationalism’, not nationalist parties per se and I quoted YOU (a nationalist) with regards to removing war memorials throughout the land.
Nationalist parties haven’t really put a plan out there yet so we have to assume that it’ll akin to the wider perspective of nationalism in general which ranges from frothing about McDonalds not offering a menu written in Irish, to poultry with wee union flags on them to not being able to accept an Ulster flag at Ireland games to represent the part of the island which isn’t represented by the tricolour.
“I would say it is only the nationalist parties who have been willing to go into talks without preconditions and who have been willing to compromise.”
And well done to them, which means they’re better than the TUV, DUP and UUP, what a great accolade that is…
“Add to this your claim that unionism has changed significantly over Tina McKenzie being the chair of NI21 which didn’t even declare itself as a unionist party, questions whether you yourself even understand what unionism is.”
They DID designate as a unionist party (and certainly for the bulk of Tina’s involvement) and THEN redesignated two days before the hole thing went to pot, so my point still stands.
“You are ignoring completely what unionism is and trying to push all people who are willing to accept the status quo into the unionist category which is not necessarily the case”
I’m providing a more nuanced view of it, you label all unionists as the same when they do bad things and then criticise me for labelling all pro-union voters as ‘unionist’, perhaps get your own idealogical house in order first before you lob mud at mine.
“Not everyone who is protestant and grows up in a unionist community is going to consider themselves unionist. ”
I get that. I never claimed otherwise.
“Someone who votes for a traditionally unionist party for a local reason and not their core manifesto, is not necessarily a unionist and may simply be indifferent to the national question and vote for an individual who has struck a chord. ”
But as soon as they do something ‘bad’ then that is bone fide proof of their unionism?
“In fact I hope eventually people in all of our communities will find they have more in common with one another than those across the water, especially in England and we will stop using those pathetic terms and accept we are all Irish wherever we are from on this island and whether part of it is within the UK or not.”
I agree.
“I said ‘nationalism’, not nationalist parties per se and I quoted YOU (a nationalist) with regards to removing war memorials throughout the land.”
But that is ignoring the positive leadership shown by mainstream nationalist parties as well as the negative leadership shown by mainstream unionist parties.
You cannot judge groups by individuals, it has to be based on the collective and that is best judged on the actions of our elected representatives.
“Nationalist parties haven’t really put a plan out there yet ”
How about sitting down and discussing reasonably what would be best for all of our people, with no preconditions, to allow every opinion to put forward and to include every key stakeholder including london and dublin and to work out the best solution based on equality.
It would be pretty pointless to have a road map without buy in for anyone to take part on the journey.
As for tearing down british war memorials. Yes, If unionism is going to keep attacking republicans for honouring our dead, then I want every british war memorial removed out of Ireland in a stepped process in line with the decline of the unionist population. I don’t want to see such a cleansing but that is where this continuous line of attack is going to end up.
“we have to assume that it’ll akin to the wider perspective of nationalism in general which ranges from frothing about McDonalds not offering a menu written in Irish, to poultry with wee union flags on them to not being able to accept an Ulster flag at Ireland games to represent the part of the island which isn’t represented by the tricolour.”
I don’t care at all about McDonalds or any irish on menus but I think two songs at the start of a rugby game is a joke and highlights division not unity and the tricolour is as much the flag of my Ireland in the north as it is to the republic. In fact if anyone should give up the claim on the tri colour it is the south for dishonouring the flag of the Irish nation and fostering division on this island.
“They DID designate as a unionist party (and certainly for the bulk of Tina’s involvement) and THEN redesignated two days before the hole thing went to pot, so my point still stands.”
No they didn’t AG, they designated as other, same as the Alliance party.
“You are ignoring completely what unionism is and trying to push all people who are willing to accept the status quo into the unionist category which is not necessarily the case”
I’m providing a more nuanced view of it, you label all unionists as the same when they do bad things and then criticise me for labelling all pro-union voters as ‘unionist’, perhaps get your own idealogical house in order first before you lob mud at mine.
I do not consider all people who support maintaining the status quo for now as unionists.
If you want to call yourself an irish unionist, you have to account for the actions of unionism and that has yet to be acknowledged.
To be clear, this is not something anyone who wants to call themselves a unionist is going to be allowed to ignore.
This will be a part in resolving legacy issues and we will be going nowhere politically until that happens.
“Not everyone who is protestant and grows up in a unionist community is going to consider themselves unionist. ” I get that. I never claimed otherwise.”
Then stop throwing out names of people and labelling them unionist without their consent.
“Someone who votes for a traditionally unionist party for a local reason and not their core manifesto, is not necessarily a unionist and may simply be indifferent to the national question and vote for an individual who has struck a chord. “But as soon as they do something ‘bad’ then that is bone fide proof of their unionism?”
I do not think everyone who does something bad is a unionist.
I am capable of doing bad things myself
“In fact I hope eventually people in all of our communities will find they have more in common with one another than those across the water, especially in England and we will stop using those pathetic terms and accept we are all Irish wherever we are from on this island and whether part of it is within the UK or not.”
I agree.”
I am sure there is a lot we can agree on if we could only get past our core differences.
“Nationalist parties haven’t really put a plan out there yet ”
The parties may not have, but here is one to get your teeth into in the mean time AG.
http://www.judecollins.com/2016/08/a-roadmap-for-irish-unification-by-jessica-mcgrann/
It is good that Joe and his group are at least having these conversations with the council but he shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness in his reaction.
He complains of childish comments by Unionists but fails to see the equally childish nature of terminology like ‘English Tories’ clearly from the context used as a disparaging term.
What would have been wrong with using Conservatives’ given his desire for respectful dialogue?
While it may be a point of principle for Joe and others to never utter the phrase ‘Northern Ireland’ (how childish), he should at least have the wit to see how that would go down with Unionists.
Could you or your fellow cut and paster make out a list of things that the Irish, abandoned in the six counties, should do to find a way into the unionist heart? I’ll start you off. Give up all notions of Irishness like GAA, Irish music, Irish culture, Irish language. Forget about the silly pipe dream of a country and people united in harmony. Change all the stories of terrible atrocities that the Britishers and their yeomen carried out. Admit that we have no problems in this temporary statelet. And finally vote unionist at all times. You can take over now. But will you promise to love us when we fulfill all your conditions?
“Give up all notions of Irishness like GAA,”
The GAA is an Irish NATIONALIST entity, if it were just an Irish sporting entitiy like the Scottish Shinty outfit then you’d have a point. But it isn’t. So you don’t.
“Irish music”
Loyalist bands play as much Irish music as yer average pub outfit.
“Irish culture”
Other than music or language?
“Irish language”
Linda Ervine spoke Irish to a group in Mid Ulster recently…
“Could you or your fellow cut and paster make out a list of things that the Irish, abandoned in the six counties, should do to find a way into the unionist heart?”
I would say don’t bother but focus instead on more important and worthwhile endeavours.
I am sarcastically making the point that no matter how much ‘outreach’ is done it will never be enough. Why can’t we just be as British as Finchley and forget all this native nonsense. You deliberately miss the point AG.what would unionists like us to be so they can trust and love us and how many generations of quarantine would it take?
Never mind unionists fiosrach, what would the southern establishment and its supporters in the south like us to be so they can trust and love us and how many generations of quarantine would it take?
And I assure you it isn’t only me who has come to the conclusion, that the whole stinking lot of them can all go fuck themselves.
“And I assure you it isn’t only me who has come to the conclusion, that the whole stinking lot of them can all go fuck themselves”
And you wonder why there isn’t a united Ireland yet….
“And you wonder why there isn’t a united Ireland yet….”
I would be content for a nationalist majority in the north and to give the unionist population a taste of their own medicine AG. We wont have that much longer to wait
The point you and other unionist minded people are missing gio, is not simply that they are Tories which have little support outside of England but that the UK is ruled by English interests and people who will not put Irish or even Scottish interests first or even highly on their agenda.
Unionists will happily put english interests above the interests of its own people in Northern Ireland or any part of Ireland as demonstrated in their continued choice to ignore the brexit result in those parts of the UK. Many people both throughout Ireland and in Scotland are right to oppose the interests of ‘English Tories’ where they go against the wishes of the Scottish or Irish people and there is nothing childish about that.
I think Brexit was right for England but the same unionists cannot claim the majority of the UK vote should be respected over the wishes of 6 counties of Ireland vote when Ireland was partitioned against the wishes of the majority simply because a section of Irish people threatened violence if their opposition to independence wasn’t put above that of the majority.
We need to put our own best interests above that of England’s.
What is more childish or foolish than putting the needs of another nation above that of your own?
jessica
It is nice to see you back, but I haven’t become a unionist in your absence.
I am only saying that Joe seems unable to see that his group’s terminology is every bit as childish as the comments made by the unionists.
I am not trying to make any wider point.
Joe McVeigh’s confusion at Unionism, and Unionists, is surely a two-way street.
Sir Edward Carson stated in 1912 that (I am paraphrasing), that not a jot of solid information had been put in front of him from the Redmondites that demonstrated why Home Rule would be a better proposition than the status quo.
His comments implied that he would give any such proposals a fair hearing, subject to critical thinking.
And that’s a fair enough offer.
Yet here we are 100 plus years later, and Nationalism still hasn’t bothered to make a coherent, well-constructed, financially viable case for a 32 County Ireland.
Given the communal traumas that we have put each other through, it is simply not good enough for Nationalism to expect Unionists to drop all suspicions, all past resentments, all anxieties, simply because Nationalists feel that a United Ireland makes political, economic, cultural, and social sense.
Nationalism needs to articulate that vision – and to articulate it coherently, calmly and with precision.
Even the much-vaunted and simple notion of ”Equality” has been tarnished by Lord Gerry of Ballymurphy with his infamous
”Trojan Horse” comments.
For Gerry, the purpose of Equality isn’t to raise up the living conditions and status of the citizens, to defend the rights of everyone without fear or favour – oh no – Gerry sees Equality as a bloody big stick to beat Unionists over the head with. Rehashing the sins of the past, long since gone, to manipulate and maintain the sectarian headcount for another generation.
Gerry compounds his stupidity by claiming that he was a founder of the NI Civil Rights Association, a claim debunked within hours, but used by the extreme fringes of unionism to smear NICRA as an IRA-front.
Gerry clearly has little notion of just how toxic he, and his Sinn Fein vision actually are to Unionists.
If anyone could turn the simple concept of Equality into a swear word for Unionists, it was Gerry Adams.
As a starting-point for any sensible United Ireland proposal, someone needs to tell Gerry Adams to shut up and leave the stage.
He has already done more than enough damage.
In the recent Scottish referendum for Independence, all the woolly old nationalisms were put to the one side to make a coherent blueprint for an independent Scotland. It was detailed to the extent of 600 plus pages, and it finally put meat on the bones of an epherial concept that had been floating around for generations. It was debated and teased apart. It was subject to scrutiny and criticism.
And, after proper scrutiny, the people of Scotland responded in big numbers, narrowly missing out on their 50% plus one.
And now they are coming back for another try, but with a starting point at a much higher level.
What has Irish Nationalism offered by contrast?
A quick ”C’mon lads, sure it will be great craic”, and a stuttering, stammering Enda Kenny who looks like he couldn’t tie green shoe-laces for fear of puking.
That simply isn’t good enough.
If someone asked me if I wanted a United Ireland tomorrow, my inevitable answer, my only sensible answer would be a resounding NO.
Cue the inevitable howls of protest.
But my refusal would be for the best of reasons.
On the current numbers, a United Ireland would have Enda as Taoisceach, and Arlene as Taniste, a government so right-wing that it would make Thatcher blush.
Their first instinct would be to sell off Grannies and privatise air, and social policy would be based around free flutes and shamrocks for everyone, whilst using the poor for ash-trays.
No, thank you.
Until, or unless, Irish Nationalism can come up with a decent blue-print
for what EXACTLY they are proposing, then the whole notion of a United Ireland is a dead parrot.
A clear and coherent plan for a 32 county republic has to start with a conversation between ALL stakeholders. Given that unionism won’t even entertain any conversation whatsoever to do with a united ireland that makes any plan very difficult…….but that’s exactly what they want.
Michael
That is exactly what they want..they are unionists.
Just as republicans would not entertain a conversation about Ireland rejoining the UK.
Just as turkeys would not sit down with the farmer to discuss moving Christmas forward a bit.
Gio, the relationship between Ireland and Britain cannot be avoided, who has ruled out any conversation about Ireland re-joining the UK?
I doubt very much there would be a majority support for this, but without any detail or conversation about that is to be expected.
Support for a new Ireland can happen without the buy in from unionism.
When they are in a minority and the north becomes a cold house for all things orange, they may want the southern support of a united Ireland and the southern sympathisers more than northern republicans would.
Then again, If the corrupt southern establishment faced a backlash from disgruntled electorate similar to what has happened in england and the USA, a new Ireland could emerge that will radically change the situation entirely and gain support from all sections of this island.
At the moment, talk of a united Ireland as pointless as talk of Ireland joining the UK.
jessica
I would be surprised if SF were to show any interest in talks about Ireland joining the UK. Their support base would be outraged.
And rightly so in my view.
gio, I have no interest whatsoever in Ireland joining the UK or any part of Ireland even being in the UK.
But if it is important to unionists and I wanted an inclusive peace agreement and future with them, then I would not ask for it to be removed from the table and that is the point I am making.
Your claims that Sinn Fein or anyone has already ruled out such an option from such talks is a false assumption and the fact you are using such duplicity to justify unionist intransigence and refusal to engage in any discussions about our future that include options they disagree with says a lot about you.
Any talks about what future is best for everyone should not have any such preconditions but allow all to put forward any suggestions that are important to any section of our people. It would still require a majority support just as any constitutional change would.
jessica
What are you on about?
I made no duplicitous claims.
I offered a hypothetical comparison to illustrate why I think unionists have no interest in discussing a United Ireland.
Why would they discuss something that is the very opposite if their raison d’etre?
It would be a very brief discussion.
There wont be any blueprint Kevin and none would be worth the paper it was written on anyway.
Ireland is a sick country, corrupt to the core, lost and disgusting, stewing in its own filth. I have no longer any pride in being Irish and it isn’t the British or unionists to blame for that.
Enda and their back door partners in government in Fianna Fail have shown no interest in the Irish citizens north of the border for 20 years and to be honest they can all go to hell along with their supporters in the south who care nothing of a united Ireland anyway so long as they were ok in the celtic tiger years especially.
Sure, they may show some signs of interest post Brexit, at least if a hard border looks as though it will hurt their pockets more than the austerity caused by the screw up Fianna Fail made of the economy.
The truth is, partition post brexit will result in a more divided Ireland that will be more economically in competition with itself and so be it.
Perhaps that is for the best.
Perhaps the only blueprint that can get the message across will be after enough time cutting one another’s throats in business and hurting one another maintaining our disparate economies, perhaps only then can we start talking about a united Ireland.
Gerry Adams is a visionary and one of the few people who genuinely have Ireland and the Irish peoples best interests at heart.
If you are saying dump him to appease unionists then I would say no chance, no way. A united Ireland can go to hell and I will support him and Sinn Fein in seeking a new Ireland and removing the sickness out of this island from all quarters no matter how long it takes.
At the moment, the biggest obstacle to uniting Ireland is in the south. Unionism will die off in its own time and is not a long term issue.
That’s a pretty weak argument as colonialism set back Ireland’s development for centuries and presupposes that the Irish wouldn’t have formed into a nation state. It did after all, reach that point in th ed 11th century.
Left to itself, Ireland would have reaced that destination centuries before European states, many of whom only reached independent status in the late 20th.
A common language, culture already existed and the Brehon Laws were the laws of the land. Nationhood would have followed.
Colonialism ensued that it couldn’t happen.
Jessica, now you’re talking through your arse.
Not worthy of a reply.
You replied to say I am nor worthy of a reply?
Then I wont bother asking what exactly you disagree with that you think is coming out of my arse.
Kevin, how dare you come on here and speak rationally?!!! Have you no shame sir!!
Can you not see that everything ever is and always will be the fault of unionism and that’s all that matters!!!
MAKE THE NORTH THE SOUTH AND ALL SHALL BE WELL.
“MAKE THE NORTH THE SOUTH AND ALL SHALL BE WELL.”
Talk for yourself AG, the south can go rattle as far as I am concerned.
If we can get rid of all britishness from the north and I would be happy without the crap from those in the south who don’t give a shit about us anyway
Unionism doesn’t matter a fig
You have taught us well how to (ab)use a majority, I look forward to the opportunity to put it into practice
this might go someway to explaining it Joe. Keep an eye on the north east corner of Ireland and see how its borders are periodically distinct from the rest of Ireland. The only sustained period of Irish unity came under British rule. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iha3OS8ShYs
That’s a pretty weak argument as colonialism set back Ireland’s development for centuries and presupposes that the Irish wouldn’t have formed into a nation state. It did after all, reach that point in th ed 11th century.
Left to itself, Ireland would have reaced that destination centuries before European states, many of whom only reached independent status in the late 20th.
A common language, culture already existed and the Brehon Laws were the laws of the land. Nationhood would have followed.
Colonialism ensued that it couldn’t happen.
Joe, I am proud to be a unionist, I wholeheartedly support the re-unification of our country, those who do not are, as they dissent from the majority, dissidents, now, dissident unionists, what a strange idea.
Separatists is what they really are Mark, there is nothing unionist about them, who in GB would want them on their doorstep?
Failte ar ais
Jessica – I haven’t seen you on here for a while: I had assumed you were blacklisted for your quite open sectarian hatred.
Joe, your difficulty in understanding unionism is probably the fact that you try to apply logic to such a conundrum!
Joe
My first response is this: do you want to understand Unionism?
I ask for this reason, while there is merit in what you say, part of it is confusing.
One example is this.
You complain about Unionists telling you (correcting you) that Northern Ireland should be referred to as ‘Northern Ireland’ and not ‘the north of Ireland’. OK, fair enough.
But, and this is crucial to any conversation which might follow – don’t you also see that in using the term ‘the north of Ireland’ (which you have every right to use), you too are making a political statement, and determining to ‘correct’ the use of the term ‘Northern Ireland’?
What then makes your use of one term for part of this island any different to a Unionist’s use of a different term for part of the island?
You would prefer a United Ireland and make that clear by using “the north of Ireland”. Unionists wish to preserve the UK union and make that clear using the term “Northern Ireland”.
Again, fair enough, but aren’t you open to the same charge you level at ‘Unionists’?
And perhaps that explains why Unionists sought to ‘correct’ you: you, in essence, were already ‘correcting’ them.
So, back to my first question?
Do you want to understand Unionism?
I’m happy to discuss this with you; but that assumes you will reply and engage.
“Do you want to understand Unionism? I’m happy to discuss this with you; but that assumes you will reply and engage.”
You make it sound like unionism is an ideology, or an entity, something that can be understood Peter.
Some have in the past posted here that it is simply a preference to be ruled as a province within the UK rather than an independent sovereign Irish nation and within that group consists of a myriad of various opinions and backgrounds.
If it is an ideology, then how is it not a bigoted and sectarian one as it is basically dividing one country over enforced loyalty and subjection to the british crown.
If it is simply a myriad of opinions and backgrounds united in the preference to remain in the UK, then what is there to understand?
We will simply remain in the UK until a majority decide otherwise.
Jessica
Don’t read too much into the word ‘Unionism’ – I merely used Joe’s word. And he, of course, went on to speak of, living “with Unionists”; of “Unionist neighbours”; of working “on their farms”; of “Unionist councillors”; of “They” (and in terms of knowing what we think, apparently); of “unionist friends”; of “Unionists” – clearly, he means people.
We’re talking about people – yes, people who have ideas, just like ‘Nationalist’ and ‘Republicans’ – people who have ideas – and who have every right those ideas whether we agree with each other or not.
We need to understand one another, and that begins with people – people who have ideas.
It’s not that difficult.
But let’s see if Joe decides to reply.
So when you asked if he understood unionism, you were simply asking if he understood people in general.
Yeah, Im sure.
I understand unionism in Ireland very well Peter, it is separatism and division inspired by a historical superiority complex over a sectarian divide created by british misrule in Ireland.
It needs to be done away with along with nationalism and republicanism.
We are all Irish regardless what part of Ireland we are from.
The truth is Ireland is screwed up and until enough good people from whatever backgrounds can come together as one to fix it, we will all just have to accept the shit hole of a country we live in be it in the north, south, east or west of the country.
“Yea, I’m sure”
Yes, I was. But if you can’t take my words at face value the conversation is pointless.
Apart from that, Joe initiated the question, not me.
I responded to him.
Most of these conversations are pointless indeed Peter.
You feel british and that britain is your country, that’s fine, many true british people do also and do so quite happily in both parts of this island.
But irish unionists are not truly british, they do not live in britain, they live in ireland and feel they have a duty to maintain all or part of Ireland under the british crown and are brought up with an engrained ethos to keep britain extended into ireland to meet their own needs.
There are those who are happy to live in any situation and focus on wellbeing. Opinion varies here.
I feel Irish, but that my country is worse off for being partitioned and divided among its peoples to accommodate your britishness at the expense of Irelands potential and to the detriment of all Irish people. I feel nothing towards the crown and am neither british or a subject to this crown and will reject any attempt to make me such or any people on any part of this island who would abandon me to be subject to a foreign crown.
Now, these are polar opinions and will never meet, there is nothing more to understand and anyone who thinks anything good is possible from trying to understand or negotiate with Irish unionism, truly doesn’t understand Irish unionism.
The truth is, it is all lip service and there will be no progress until unionism is in a minority and we see how it reacts to this eventuality which will be less than 5 years away.
Hello Jessica good to see you back, hope all is well with you.
“But irish unionists are not truly british, they do not live in britain, ”
It’s possible to be Irish and British they are not mutually exclusive positions. Just the same as it is possible to be Scottish and British. To be a British citizen you don’t have to be born on the mainland you simply have to be a citizen of the UK.
Hi Scott,
Yes, been snowed under with work so have been out of the loop for a bit.
Hope you are well
I didnt mean to post so much again, but my gobby nature cannot seem to stop once I get started. 🙂
But I do get what you are saying Scott and as an imperial nation, I also understand that people in various colonies can claim british citizenship. Not sure of the exact figure of how many.
The difference I am referring to, is being a british subject in not an inalienable right and can be removed by the stroke of a pen. Someone born and lived in Scotland on the other hand is british because they were born on the island of britain and no human being can claim otherwise or take that fact away from them. If the union breaks up, they will remain british.
No part of Ireland, whether british citizenship has been extended to it or not is or ever will be a part of Britain which is another geographical island.
I was not suggesting for a second you were not entitled to british citizenship, only that there is a difference.
As for your use of the term mainland.
While I can envisage father ted setting off from craggy island on a boat to the mainland for groceries, is it not ridiculous to refer to the island of britain as being the mainland to any part of Ireland?
Is it not time we wised up and accepted Ireland is a proper country and capable of standing on our own two feet. Britain is not the mainland of Ireland, it is our neighbouring island.
“The difference I am referring to, is being a british subject in not an inalienable right and can be removed by the stroke of a pen. Someone born and lived in Scotland on the other hand is british because they were born on the island of britain and no human being can claim otherwise or take that fact away from them. If the union breaks up, they will remain british.”
That makes no sense whatsoever. Any citizenship can be taken away by the stroke of a pen. People in NI are British citizens on exactly the same basis as people in Scotland, England and Wales. There is no distinction. Then you appear to confuse citizenship and nationality or identity. People can, do and will assert an identity independently of whatever citizenship they possess.
“No part of Ireland, whether british citizenship has been extended to it or not is or ever will be a part of Britain which is another geographical island.”
You’re confusing the island of Great Britain, the polity of the United Kingdom, and notions of identity and citizenship. Neither a person’s British identity nor his or her British citizenship is dependent on being “a part of” the island of Great Britain.
“I was not suggesting for a second you were not entitled to british citizenship, only that there is a difference.”
A difference between what?
It is not me who is confused MT and I have never denied you or anyone else’s british citizenship.
The difference is, if a Scots british citizenship was taken away at the stroke of a pen, they would still remain british through an inalienable birth right having been born and bred on the island of britain. There is no human being who can take that away. That is the difference between a british scot and a british ulster unionist. Your british identity can be taken away by the english, whereas a scots can not.
“It is not me who is confused MT and I have never denied you or anyone else’s british citizenship.”
I’m afraid you are very confused, as I explained in my previous comment.
“The difference is, if a Scots british citizenship was taken away at the stroke of a pen, they would still remain british through an inalienable birth right having been born and bred on the island of britain. There is no human being who can take that away. That is the difference between a british scot and a british ulster unionist. Your british identity can be taken away by the english, whereas a scots can not.”
Complete nonsense. There’s no difference at all between a British person in Scotland or NI in respect of either his or her British citizenship or British identity. One’s identity is one’s own, no mater where one was born or lives. Nobody can take it away.
But its not nonsense MT
You were not born or bred on the island of britain whereas a Scot was. That is undeniable fact im afraid. That is a big difference in my eyes
“But its not nonsense MT
You were not born or bred on the island of britain whereas a Scot was. That is undeniable fact im afraid. That is a big difference in my eyes”
It is nonsense.
You don’t know where I was born or bred, but wherever it was doesn’t matter. One’s identity is one’s own and can’t be taken away by your eyes or anyone else’s: doesn’t matter if one was born in Scotland, NI or anywhere else.
“It is nonsense.”
Stating an obvious fact is nonsense because you don’t like it doesn’t make it so MT
“Stating an obvious fact is nonsense because you don’t like it doesn’t make it so MT”
I’m not referring to any factual statements, obvious or otherwise, but to your nonsensical and confused assertions about British identity.
It sounds like you just don’t like the weakness that your britishness is based on being pointed out to you MT.
“It sounds like you just don’t like the weakness that your britishness is based on being pointed out to you MT.”
Your failure to address the point is noted.
No surprise.
Apologies for the cut and paste nature of my reply Jessica, but I find it the easiest way to discuss several different ideas at once.
“But I do get what you are saying Scott and as an imperial nation, I also understand that people in various colonies can claim british citizenship. Not sure of the exact figure of how many.”
While the UK was undoubtedly was an imperial nation once it isn’t today. NI isn’t a colony but a part of the UK with (from what I can see) the consent of a majority in NI. The GFA enshrined the principle of self determination and means it’s the people of NI get to choose our constitutional path. We are not a colony we are a constituent part.
“The difference I am referring to, is being a british subject in not an inalienable right and can be removed by the stroke of a pen. Someone born and lived in Scotland on the other hand is british because they were born on the island of britain and no human being can claim otherwise or take that fact away from them. If the union breaks up, they will remain british.”
I partly agree with you here, as of course citizenship can be given and removed by governments and that rings true in every country. Were I disagree with you is the need to be born on GB to “be” British. Britishness is a cultural identity and one can possess it without being born on a certain Island. Whether or not there was a UI many Unionists would feel culturally British. It is also inalienable.
“While I can envisage father ted setting off from craggy island on a boat to the mainland for groceries, is it not ridiculous to refer to the island of britain as being the mainland to any part of Ireland?”
I don’t get to hung up on names Jessica. By mainland I simply mean the larger island of the two. Although if it offends I’m happy to use the term GB for the island that England, Scotland and Wales inhabit.
My bigger point is that “Irish Unionists” as you put it are British not just by citizenship but also culturally. Of course cultural identity is an individuals personal choice.
My own personal feeling on it is that I am British, Irish and (most importantly) an Ulsterman. It’s possible to have different identities and one identity doesn’t exclude another. The example I use is it’s possible to be British, English and Cornish or British, Scottish and a highlander.
British identity is often mixed in with a regional identity all over the UK. This however is maybe the same everywhere as I’m sure many a Kerry man would say he has cultural differences from a Dubliner.
Anyway before I ramble on any further, Yes we Unionists can be British not just on our passports but in our blood.
“We are not a colony we are a constituent part.”
Well, we are not part of the island of Britain and we are overseas so it is really just a perception based on our upbringing and not one I or many others would share.
But I do get you have an emotional attachment which has been passed down for generations.
I do look forward to the day when we can all have a say as to whether or not we wish to remain a “constituent part” or focus on our own best interests though.
“Whether or not there was a UI many Unionists would feel culturally British. It is also inalienable.”
Well, if someone felt they were culturally Martian (as an exaggerated example) I guess we should just leave them to it, but I would still know in my heart they weren’t really from Mars.
I honestly wouldn’t know if I feel culturally Irish. I would be patriotic towards an Ireland that I gradually feel more and more does not even exist. I like the ideals of the men of 1916 but I feel that once again Ireland is dead below the waist. I don’t know how many would share my feelings about this but in my opinion, Ireland is not what it should be. Far from it.
“My bigger point is that “Irish Unionists” as you put it are British not just by citizenship but also culturally.”
Well, I would disagree with that completely and utterly as would the overwhelming majority of the english I imagine.
Irish unionists are their own very unique identity and have their own culture.
As people there is not a major lot of difference between us over either of these islands, but if you focus on what is important to Irish unionists, I see very little in common with those on the mainland as you call it.
If we strip the marching and fanatic aspects of unionism away, then once again, as demonstrated by many poll results over abortion and other popular topics, once again, you have little in common with opinion on mainland britain and a lot more in common with opinion on mainland Ireland.
“Well, we are not part of the island of Britain and we are overseas so it is really just a perception based on our upbringing and not one I or many others would share.
But I do get you have an emotional attachment which has been passed down for generations.”
All cultural identity is a perception based on upbringing. Cultural identity isn’t instilled into us by what geographical location we are born in.
“I do look forward to the day when we can all have a say as to whether or not we wish to remain a “constituent part” or focus on our own best interests though.”
As do I.
“Well, if someone felt they were culturally Martian (as an exaggerated example) I guess we should just leave them to it, but I would still know in my heart they weren’t really from Mars.”
Your examples a little extreme for my tastes but I see where your coming from. We can’t just pick and choose a cultural identity from wherever we like is what I think your saying. The thing is though neither you or I get to label someone and decide how they are culturally based on our own criteria (yours appearing to be based on geography) as culture is a “feeling” or a sense of identity. Many young people I know seem neither British or Irish culturally to me. They listen to rap music, take part in Brazilian Ju Jitsu and Yoga, are interested in French art etc etc. More a urban 21st century culture really that a nationalistic Irish/British culture.
“Well, I would disagree with that completely and utterly as would the overwhelming majority of the english I imagine.
Irish unionists are their own very unique identity and have their own culture.”
Well as I said neither you or even the English get to define mine or any one else’s culture. Remember it’s a personal thing.
Speaking very generally though yes I agree though that the Ulster-Scotch section of the Unionist people are very unique tribe in the UK. Scottish Islanders are also a unique people culturally different but still British if that’s what they chooses.
Just because someone in Kent thinks us a bit odd doesn’t mean we aren’t British culturally.
“As people there is not a major lot of difference between us over either of these islands, but if you focus on what is important to Irish unionists, I see very little in common with those on the mainland as you call it.
If we strip the marching and fanatic aspects of unionism away, then once again, as demonstrated by many poll results over abortion and other popular topics, once again, you have little in common with opinion on mainland britain and a lot more in common with opinion on mainland Ireland.”
Many Unionists, possibly a majority are certainly very socially conservative however so are many Nationalists in NI. NI probably falls a little further to the right on the political spectrum than either the rest of the U.K. or the ROI, but the difference isn’t so great I believe that we are completely separate culturally.
I see a lot of “Britishness” in the people in the south, which I suppose is natural enough given are close proximity, generations of intermingling and common history. Or perhaps it’s Irishness I see in the people in the UK.
Either way, yes I agree there’s certainly a lot of similarities between the whole of these islands. I would normally use the term British Isles to describe these islands but I know it may offend so I hesitate to do so but I’m sure you’ll understand if use it that it is in no meant to offend.
“We can’t just pick and choose a cultural identity from wherever we like is what I think your saying. The thing is though neither you or I get to label someone and decide how they are culturally based on our own criteria (yours appearing to be based on geography) as culture is a “feeling” or a sense of identity. Many young people I know seem neither British or Irish culturally to me. They listen to rap music, take part in Brazilian Ju Jitsu and Yoga, are interested in French art etc etc. More a urban 21st century culture really that a nationalistic Irish/British culture.”
Indeed.
But how do you explain while unionism feels culturally british which is the other island, why is it that opinions on many things such as abortion are more reflective geographically throughout this island and completely out of kilter with the mainland GB?
That is all the point I am making.
Let assume we had not been through a bloody conflict and inflicted decades of hurt to one another and are still hurting one another with our words while our differences are still raw. Perhaps we would be more prepared to put our differences aside and accept we have more in common with one another than we have with either london or dublin.
I guess the reality is it will take a few generations for us to get to that point and I can accept that.
“Speaking very generally though yes I agree though that the Ulster-Scotch section of the Unionist people are very unique tribe in the UK. Scottish Islanders are also a unique people culturally different but still British if that’s what they chooses.
Just because someone in Kent thinks us a bit odd doesn’t mean we aren’t British culturally.”
So what is to say what you consider to be your own unique british culture is not simply an Irish culture from a british point of view based on simply tribal differences and fate of birth? Had you been born a few miles up the road, you may well have replaced your bowler hat and umbrella for an irish tricolour and a Hurley?
Who would have been any the wiser?
Culturally, I don’t believe there is any difference between us. You have the passion of an Irish person which is much more acute than any british culture.
“Either way, yes I agree there’s certainly a lot of similarities between the whole of these islands. I would normally use the term British Isles to describe these islands but I know it may offend so I hesitate to do so but I’m sure you’ll understand if use it that it is in no meant to offend.”
These islands are the british isles.
I think sensible people know it does not mean britain owns them and I do feel we should have a far closer relationship between us that we currently do.
I also believe the relationship could and should be far stronger with a single Ireland economy and nation with a 21st century union between us to accommodate the connection and intertwining of our people whether they be from Scotland, England, wales or the awkward gits from the 6 counties (joking).
I find the english and mainland british much easier to get along with than Irish unionists to be honest whether they be the 6 county sort or the southern halions.
“If it is an ideology, then how is it not a bigoted and sectarian one as it is basically dividing one country over enforced loyalty and subjection to the british crown.”
Because that’s you definition of the “ideology”. There are others.
“If it is an ideology, then how is it not a bigoted and sectarian one as it is basically dividing one country over enforced loyalty and subjection to the british crown.” Because that’s you definition of the “ideology”. There are others.”
Please would you give me one definition of the “ideology” Peter, that is not divisive in Ireland?
Jessica
You would be able to do that yourself if you changed the premise of your worldview.
So in order to see how unionism in Ireland has not been and does not remain divisive, bigoted and sectarian I have to change my whole world view?
So basically what you are saying, is unionism is fine but you really have to be a unionist.
That makes about as much sense as the orange orders policy on the acceptance of Catholicism.
No, it means that I am equally entitled to say that Republicanism or much anything else is divisive in Ireland.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but there’s more than one Ireland, and the Unionist people of the island are as much part of it as anyone else, and have an equal right to self determination. There is nothing which necessitates a single political identity in Ireland just because Ireland is an island.
Really, how many Irelands are there?
It may be divided among its peoples who can have many identities, but there is and always will be only one Ireland which is and will remain the whole of the island. The people may change but the land will not.
You are as entitled as anyone to hold opinions as to what is the causes of those divisions of our people.
You may feel if we would all just subject ourselves to being ruled from London then you could of course say there was no division and it is those who want a nation of our own and to stand on our own two feet who are causing the problem.
And perhaps if the history of how that rule had been administered and abused, perhaps we would indeed be happy to live as british citizens and forego our right to run our own affairs as Irish people. But the reality is it was abusive rule and it really comes down to numbers. I simply don’t want british rule in any part of Ireland and nothing I have seen from their actions over national security cover up, consideration of irish interests over brexit or anything else has changed my mind that british rule in Ireland is wrong and should not be supported.
It appears that submitting a comment via phone means it must be moderated – huh! technology, who could be bothered!
Anyway… this will fill in a few more gaps.
“So in order to see how unionism in Ireland has not been and does not remain divisive, bigoted and sectarian I have to change my whole world view?”
No you just have to try out a thought experiment.
For example, “In order to see how unionism in Ireland has not been and does not remain divisive, all you have to do is to grant a smidgen of legitimacy to the idea that Ireland and the rest of the British Isles might benefit from a political union.
Simples.
You are entitled to be a Republican or to hold whatever political view you wish with regard to Ireland, as am I.
Perhaps Republicanism is divisive. Perhaps being pro EU is divisive. Perhaps being socially conservative is divisive. Perhaps being socially liberal is divisive. Perhaps being religious is divisive. Perhaps being secular is divisive. Perhaps being in favour of a federal Ireland is divisive.
Perhaps I don’t have to believe in an all Ireland political union to be accepted?
Peter, I would most certainly not agree with you that unionism or republicanism in Ireland is or ever has been in any way similar to being pro EU, socially conservative or liberal etc…
What we need is a new Ireland where there is no unionism and nationalism is nothing more than support of a country that its people are proud to be a part off, that will treat is people with respect, that will invest in its people first and not pander to corporate globalisation at the expense of its people.
In my opinion, no part of Ireland currently has anything to be proud about. It is a shameful disgrace to the Irish people all over the world and more of an embarrassment to be honest. What parent would seriously want to bring their children home from overseas to live in any part of Ireland as it is today?
Ireland desperately needs a Donald Trump of our own to turn the status quo on its head and bring down the establishments of failure.
“Perhaps I don’t have to believe in an all Ireland political union to be accepted?”
I would not consider any single country to be a political union. Is England a political union, is Scotland, Germany, France?
Are you so obsessed with political unions you don’t see that neither you or I even have a country of our own?
Not sure who it is you wish to be accepted by or for what. Personally I don’t care to be accepted by anyone other than my family, but I would like to one day have a country that I can feel proud to be a part off as that is something I certainly do not have at present and will never have while any form of unionism has its way.
But as I have said already, there are greater obstacles to that than unionism and they have yet to be realised.
Jessica
I’m not obsessed by this at all; neither do I feel a need to be accepted. I’d really appreciate it if you didn’t make this personal.
All I have done is respond to a blog entry, nothing more.
“Perhaps I don’t have to believe in an all Ireland political union to be accepted?”
These are your words Peter. I don’t understand what you mean, accepted by whom and for what?
And they were written in a context I’ve already explained.
i can’t understand why people object to one term or the other – if we accept different communities have different aspirations (as we all must after the GFA/Belfast Agreement) then what’s with the nit-picking?
If I call this land area the north, you call it northern ireland or ar wee pravince,Oolster, or the occupied 6.
So what?
We all know what we are talking about. It’s not like I’m calling a dining table a chair and all the Hyacynth Buckets are shocked because i talk about sitting on the dining table.
And so on about English conservatives (who have 1 MP from Scotland and none from NI) and all the other banes of conversation with themmuns!
get over it!
Terminology is of no importance whatsoever once the object in question is agreed upon-(in this case a certain land area on the island of ireland) unless someone is looking to start a quarrel
Simple question, where’d MT go?
Maybe he had others things to do. I mean, I don’t around reading this site all day and I expect he doesn’t either.
It’s even possible he had *better* things to do.
In fact, I hope he did.
Joe, Stoner was brought up across the road from the excellent kids park at Stormont, he was from Ballybeen.
If they renamed the park ” the michael stone playpark”, i would stand beside u in protest.
Yours,
Non Garden Center Unoinist.
If I lived on a farm in South Africa or in Israeli occupied Palestine I too would always be fearful of my neighbours even though they might be somewhat accepting of my illegal presence.
Who’s to say they might not bear resentment of the fact the land I now “own” was taken from their grandfathers or great grandfathers through force of arms with no reparations,.I am not responsible for the fact their ancestors were dispossessed of the land I farm and maybe some of them killed in the process,that’s the way occupying,colonial armies worked back then,anyway I am just grateful that I am now in possession of this land I now call home even though I identify with the country and culture of my British ancestors and it’s up to me to make sure the status quo,our religious beliefs and culture are maintained for my future generations if that means not integrating with the local community ever or taking part in their sports,religious or cultural events,my family might have now lived in Ireland for many generations but we are still loyal to the British Crown and that’s will never change as long as we keep the faith of our fathers…p.s it helps to have an armed militia to maintain our supremacy funded by the British government.
Well said William, at last, an honest and forthright expression of true unionist opinion.
That, Jessica, is what I mean. Clearly only one view of Unionists is acceptable.
You can’t, or won’t see it any other way.
Who else throughout the world has ‘stolen’ land?
Do you plan abolishing the USA? What about the Vikings in Dublin – is Norway to blame for the Irish problem?
I could go on, but it’s pointless.
And I see Joe has no interest in conversation either.
Enjoy your navel-gazing, people, I’m out.
PF
It is frustrating that Joe does not generally respond to comments/questions (unless he is employing a pseudonym as another J mcC!).
As Jude is also withdrawing from comments (in general) it does detract from the value of commenting.
However I always find your comments interesting and challenging so I hope you persevere.
Hi gio
And thank you for your kind and encouraging words.
But I must admit to a degree of tedium; too many, not all (the are notable exceptions like yourself), but too many comments offer a continual tone of blame aimed at people like me.
Joe, is a particularly disappointing example of this. A while back he wrote an article on ‘scapegoating’ – no exactly my understanding of the theology, but interesting and worthwhile none the less. There is always something to learn.
In that article he wrote, “It (failure to self-examine) results in the practice of scapegoating others for your own problems. That can have terrible consequences as we see all too clearly in history and in the world today.”
I certainly agreed with that, and in my own part of the Christian Church self-examination has a central role to play.
And yet here I read that Joe has a problem in understanding people like me, and not only does he refuses to engage, his article, and I’ve been trying to ignore this, also immediately turns to clear criticism and and pre-judgement of those he says he does not understand.
He writes, “These childish comments…”; “I suppose Unionists would have a reason to fear equality”; “Nationalists and republicans since the Good Friday Agreement reach out the hand of friendship to unionists and yet they treat them with suspicion and sometimes with hostility.”
In short, in the very process of telling me that he does not understand my community, he also, and as an integral part of his not-understanding, tells me who he understands us to be.
One might call it scapegoating.
I expect that Joe is intelligent enough to understand this, and I expect that he has sufficient pastoral experience to feel it; and I would have thought that if one wanted to understand, one might at least respond to those who have noticed the ‘hand’ he says has been out-reached.
Gio, I do hope you know that no ill-will is intended, but commenting here is like being in a codependent relationship. If Joe wishes to respond, I’m happy to continue the conversation, and if other articles catch my eye, I might, for what it’s worth, offer a thought; but I’m not really convinced that those (not all, remember!) who write on these pages *want* to understand Unionists.
Many people here understand unionists very well Peter.
I am a republican, and we will never ever agree on constitutional matters because we want totally opposite and non compatible things. There will never be acceptance of one another’s position, not ever. That is crystal clear and I doubt there are very many who would not understand this perfectly well.
Everyone on the planet who is interested knows that unionism makes no effort to reciprocate any efforts at reconciliation and I have zero expectance that it ever will.
I expect that once unionism is in the minority, there will be a mass exodus to GB and the decline of unionism will be steep and swift. I have heard some mention wanting relocation funding which I think is a joke and not a penny should be handed over.
Once things do settle after this, then and only then will there be serious efforts at reconciliation made throughout all parts of this island and implementation of the self determination set out in the GFA. And there will need to be reconciliation between both parts of this island.
So you see, there is absolutely no point in me trying to convince unionism of anything and just as little point in anyone trying to convince me of the merits of unionism. I want an end of unionism, if not in all of Ireland then at the very least and much more importantly in northern Ireland.
PF
To try and be fair to Joe (since he won’t come below the line himself) I think we all contradict ourselves from time to time and he no doubt has good intent even if he cannot see the mote in his own eye so to speak.
I also pointed out to him how his group’s terminology appears just as petty as the unionist behaviour he complains of, but of course no reply came.
Anyway it would be a shame to lose your thoughtful input in amongst the stream of blame and name calling.
I have never mentioned stolen land, anyone can own land anywhere in the world in the 21st century so I have no interest in such stupid comments Peter.
Irish unionism is about keeping part of Ireland loyal to the crown, period. Now whatever various opinions there are within that group of people who support this, doesn’t really matter. You want England to rule over part of Ireland, I want english rule gone. There is no lasting solution in between those polar views.
Now what I do object to, is the refusal by unionism and its supporters or sympathisers particularly in the south to acknowledge the real depth of the wrongs that have been committed in the name of this bloody crown, the deliberate attempts to use the artificial majority that was setup for them by the military might of england, the abuses that were committed to maintain this artificial majority, the attempts to control and promote sectarian superiority and division and to attempt to portray that the union is anything other than military occupation and english dominated rule imposed on Ireland, even today still holding on tightly to all evidence of the dirty british hands of collusion under the guise of national security with the full support of political unionism and an establishment supporting media.
Do you really think there is the slightest chance of english rule in even the smallest part of Ireland being remotely acceptable to even a tiny majority of Irish people?
So we can either discuss whether we can share this land and make it our own or we wait until another generation does so. That is what the GFA is, a one way street to self determination with no way back once triggered. England have agreed to leave on those terms and it is just a matter of time until they are put to the test as to whether or not they will keep to this agreement.
Yes, unionists are people with various views on lots of things, but to me irish unionism is a single ideal, to maintain british rule in ireland.
Lets put it this way, if northern Ireland left the UK and either formed a new 32 county Ireland, an independent 6 county state or joined with Scotland and formed a new nation outside of the UK.
Now, no longer part of the united kingdom with no connection with the crown, what would an Irish unionist be under those circumstances Peter?
Are you saying that the land that was sold to the Adairs, Hamiltons, Montgomery’s and inherited by the O’Neills, McNaughtens and McDonnells was ‘stolen’?
If so, please explain why.
I know nothing about stolen land im afraid AG.
I am a capitalist though, so have no issue with who owns any land anywhere.
The vast majority of people who own land in N.I., whether they are Protestant, Catholic or Dissenter, acquired this land through the provisions of various land Acts in the late 19th and early 20th Century and had to pay for it, prior to that they were all tenants, in the case of my family on land owned by the anglicized descendants of a branch of the Clandeboye O’Neills.
I wouldn’t like to think that the result of any constitutional chance could result in anyone losing their home or land. That would be very wrong. We may have our issues with one another but I would like to think no one on this land would sink so low.
“If I lived on a farm in South Africa or in Israeli occupied Palestine I too would always be fearful of my neighbours even though they might be somewhat accepting of my illegal presence.
Who’s to say they might not bear resentment of the fact the land I now “own” was taken from their grandfathers or great grandfathers through force of arms with no reparations,.I am not responsible for the fact their ancestors were dispossessed of the land I farm and maybe some of them killed in the process,that’s the way occupying,colonial armies worked back then,anyway I am just grateful that I am now in possession of this land I now call home even though I identify with the country and culture of my British ancestors and it’s up to me to make sure the status quo,our religious beliefs and culture are maintained for my future generations if that means not integrating with the local community ever or taking part in their sports,religious or cultural events,my family might have now lived in Ireland for many generations but we are still loyal to the British Crown and that’s will never change as long as we keep the faith of our fathers…p.s it helps to have an armed militia to maintain our supremacy funded by the British government.”
A very bitter, mean-spirited commented that inadvertently reveals a simplistic, ill-informed and inaccurate understanding of Ulster history.
Well I find it very easy to understand Unionism. Its really very simple, they wanted to carve off a piece of our country and make it their (and theirs alone) new country. A Protestant Homeland, hence why they often compare themselves to the Israeli’s who did very similar in Palestine.
But unfortunately for them a lot of Catholics (usually referred to as ROMAN Catholics, the Roman part added in to give the impression of foreigners) remained here in this part of Ireland and their population year on year increased. Something had to be done about that. Step in Inequality and Discrimination. That will drive them out. Make life extremely uncomfortable so they will pack up and leave. The Orange Order also played its part in order to try to humiliate Catholics with their deliberately provocative marches going by or even through Catholic areas. They even call it a “culture” now. All this didn’t make as much difference as was hoped, so the history inspired pogrom against Catholics started, such as in 1969 where thousands of Catholic families had to flee their homes due to Unionist mobs. That was obviously a form of ethnic cleansing. The RUC/B Specials even joined in with the Unionist mobs.
Even today the majority of sectarian/racist attacks come from the UDA/UVF/Unionist areas, the Unionist political parties turn a blind eye to it all, as Anna Lo from Alliance said. Peter Robinson, then DUP Leader, even defended Unionist protests outside the house of a black man and said they weren’t racist (the protestors didn’t like the fact a black man moved into the area)…..he then defended a pastor for his anti-Muslim sermon…..political Unionism is full to the brim with politicians who have repeatedly made racist/sectarian comments. These same politicians usually get re-elected….
Is it fair to say all Unionists are like this? No, many are decent people who want to genuinely move on but unfortunately these people very rarely speak out due to fear of a backlash. Unfortunately other Unionists ARE like this, their voting patterns alone proves it. The DUP/UUP have a “super prod” competition before elections in order to grab votes, who can be the bigger super prod gets the most votes.
Even on this blog we have certain Unionists who are apologists for the unjustifiable, who are just as much against equality as any DUP politician. They try to hide their support for the likes of Unionist paramilitaries and the murderous activities of Westminster (or openly supporting Westministers actions) but I’ve been alive long enough to know a bullshiter when I come across one, even over the Internet. The truth is many of these people (not all) have just been surrounded and swamped by sectarianism since they were knee high and that’s not an exaggeration. Their attitude and tone are almost Nazi like.
So no, Unionism isn’t hard to understand. The issue is certain Nationalists (like Joe) think Unionists are just like other people. The truth is a lot aren’t. Pandering to them wont change them, in fact that encourages their behaviour. The British Government learnt this during the Anglo Irish Agreement, that’s why they deliberately made a point by not giving into Unionism then, to show them they weren’t getting their way. Nationalism must do the same with political Unionism. So if I was Joe I would’ve kept saying the North of Ireland or whatever else annoyed the DUP politician. He has to learn. We’re not dealing with rational, fair minded people here, they break every agreement they can possibly get away with.
At the end of the day Narnia wont last forever, all failures don’t. Only when Unionism, as a whole, is a minority politically will it change, and that day isn’t a million miles away….
An honest and accurate definition I would say.
I also agree that there are many decent people in unionist communities, many of whom are more going with the flow and driven by the leaders of political unionism than actually agree with its roots and sectarian ideology.
The problem is that to date, unionism has not acknowledged its past and has not had anywhere near the same scrutiny applied that has been already applied heavily on republicans, especially in the southern media and political arena, the one sidedness of which has done more damage to north south relations on this island that I believe has been realised as yet.. There is no possibility of a united Ireland until this has been addressed, they can go to hell.
Some may think I am taking out of my arse, but we will see. There is very real and genuine hurt and the damage runs deep among many Irish citizens in the north,
We have been blamed for all of Irelands ills, while Britain has actual physical evidence which would both convict state agents of cold blooded murder, clear the names and remove stigma from innocent people who have been tarnished by British propaganda cover ups while unionism still works on its new narrative of the conflict it started to put as much blame on republicans as it can.
When the truth eventually comes out, and it will, it will not be easy to put right the damage and divisions that pandering to unionism has caused.
Not only the level of scrutiny, but failures to help put pressure on Britain to release evidence that would help innocent Irish civilians seeking nothing more than the truth and to clear the tarnished memory of their loved ones. In this centenary year, it should not be lost that the greatest divisions of Irish people have not been fostered by an alien government, but by a Dublin government.
I personally believe once the reality on the ground of how much damage has been caused, there will be effort to properly scrutinise unionism, but it will not happen before unionism is in a minority in the north and the fear of any threat or risk of attacks by loyalism on the republic and more importantly its economy than its people has gone.
It is ok for Irish citizens in the north to be snubbed by our president or to be left to deal with sectarian hatred and British state collusion and cover up, so long as it doesn’t impact on the southern economy.
The glimmerings of interest post brexit are not genuine efforts to work together as Irish people, but simply trying to get the best deal for the southern economy in the post brexit negotiations. If it suits or Britain can offer some sort of deal, they will lose interest once again.
Unfortunately there is zero chance of irish unity if it means being immersed into the shithole republic.
Mark my words, there is a mountain to climb to repair the damage and division the southern establishment and its media have caused in the north. It is not inly unionism in the north which needs to go, but a complete rebuilding of a new nation after serious effort towards reconciliation on all sides.
I don’t believe the true level of feeling has been realised let alone this process started.
“especially in the southern media and political arena, the one sidedness of which has done more damage to north south relations on this island that I believe has been realised as yet.. There is no possibility of a united Ireland until this has been addressed, they can go to hell”
Scrutiny and hatred of the established media is probably greater now in the Republic than ever before. The pompous, laughably condescending Irish Times is struggling financially and the INM group are probably the most hated organisation here. D O’ Bribe is genuinely detested by many people. RTE is a joke and no credible analyst takes their coverage seriously. Abolition of the license fee would kill it off.
Post Brexit, NI Unionism is in greater danger than ever. Dwindling voter base, no police force/ militia to bash the heads, SNP clambering for another Indy referendum, the Republic now being the only English speaking country in the EU for FDI, Theresa May brushing off any interest in the place, etc.
Interesting few years ahead.
I have zero sympathy for the southern establishment and its supporting media Boomage, but the damage done to relations on this island are very real and will be lasting.
The animosity from the republic during the last election, not only the southern establishment parties and media but also people generally on the radio, people on social media, and people I have met in person during the pathetic centenary commemorations have displayed such animosity towards northerners, from accusations of deserving what we got from loyalist or british paramilitaries and security forces to public mockery because we want to be part of supposedly what was our own nation and had the audacity to fight for it etc…
I for one remain deeply hurt and offended by it.
Unionism has yet to realise the impact of its changing demographic, the decline in nationalists voting over having nothing to vote for as the south have made it clear they have no interest in us, has masked it somewhat. But they are over the peak and the decline over the next decade will indeed be steep.
If the north does indeed reject unification over the deteriorated north south relationship, it will not save their asses.
If we are on our own so be it, we have in many ways always been on our own.
Ireland remaining divided will change nothing for those who think Catholics rejecting a united Ireland will somehow be a benefit to them.
It changes nothing.
Welcome back,Jessica, with your Single Transferable Speech.
The Truth is till the Truth Fiosrach, unlike the Irish weather, it does not change just to suit yuor mindset or anyone else’s. If you feel it is not the truth, then say so. Don’t simply welcome Jessica back with some lame backhanded insult, it is not becoming of your evident credentials as a contributor on this blog.
I for one couldn’t agree more with Jessica’s take on the entire subject, I tip my hat to her obvious superior knowledge on the subject and her deft hand at putting it all in to words. But she’s right about the hurt felt among Northern Irish Republicans at the southern Government’s/media’s/ peoples thrashing of this years centenary celebrations. A hurt that will be long in the healing.
Indeed Gearoid,
Many republicans i know, unfortunately not only no longer have any confidence in Sinn Fein, but no longer have any interest in a united Ireland.
Don’t get me wrong, we all want Britain out of Ireland and will always desire the single Irish nation proclaimed in 1916. But no one I know wants to unite with what the republic has become or feels that doing so would ever deliver such an Irish nation.
In fact most people nationalist or otherwise that I talk to believe the south has no interest in Irish unity or the north in general, and any wonder after the last general election which was simply disgusting.
And even if that changes post brexit, it would be too little too late. I consider Fine Gael and Fianna Fail enemies of the Irish nation proclaimed in 1916 every bit as much as Irish unionism has been if not moreso. The british state has however been clever and removed itself as an obstacle to unity through the GFA. Britain will monitor the ports post brexit and leave the southern state forces to man the hard border that the EU will demand solo. We will see if they are brave enough or stupid enough to do so.
Many people claimed it was the conflict that prevented unification from happening naturally. Well, I think that concept has now been proven wrong.
Here we are almost 2 decades on from the end of the conflict and the south has not only shown no interest in the north, it has insulted the northern Irish victims of british terror as getting what we deserved, claimed we have no place getting involved in their affairs and who will forget the public snub by our so called president to refuse to attend a dinner in the north without the approval of our apparent still unionist masters.
In fact I have to admit to finding a republican controlled northern Ireland more appealing than a united Ireland with a unionist coalition made up of ulster unionism and either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail.
No thanks
I’m a singer of songs Jessica, Irish folk and ballad if you will. While portraying the messages of old and tales of long past heroic deeds I sometimes despair at today’s so called ‘Republic’. One song in particular springs to mind…… “Take It down From The Mast Irish Traitors”
Those songs are beautiful, uplifting and are core to Irelands soul Gearoid.
The men of 1916 understood the importance of maintaining that soul, they gave their lives to ensure it lived on and the true Irish spirit of freedom is not dead to us all, not least in the north.
Let the people sing.
“While portraying the messages of old and tales of long past heroic deeds I sometimes despair at today’s so called ‘Republic’. ”
Why?
MT, you’re just not worth it!
Poor answer.