I am happy to continue this discussion for as long as people want to comment for it is a learning curve and therefore a worthwhile exercise and I thank the esteemed Blogmeister for providing the platform. First of all, I would like to address the comment from Billy who is an avowed unionist and clearly not sympathetic to my point of view or to the campaign to have the anti-Brexit vote in the north respected. Nor does he think we should have been given a hearing. Billy states referring to the meeting I and others had with the Councillors of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council:
“…friendship had nothing to do with the meeting, he was there trying to garner support to overturn a democratic vote. there is a difference. i blame the council for granting such a meeting, wasting tax payers money and their time listening to some people elected by nobody.” (I note that Billy does not bother with capitals.)
This is where I have my first difficulty with unionism. It is their narrow understanding of democracy. I would take issue with Billy’s narrow understanding of democracy. Democracy for me means that the people have a say in how they are governed. Those over 18 years of age express that at the ballot box every four or five years but at other times in between in a variety of ways. The citizens do not have to be elected in order to have a say nor do they have to rely entirely on those elected to make their views known. They can contribute as individuals by writing letters, articles, blogs, by talking, by lobbying, by open discussion and by protesting. They can contribute as organised groups as Trade Unions, Human Rights etc. That is why a free press is so important and censorship so anti-democratic. Billy does not seem to approve of this kind of democracy. I and the others in BCAB went to the Council meeting in Enniskillen after we were granted a meeting which was held outside of the usual hours of Council business. All the Councillors (except the DUP) came along to the meeting arranged before the normal Council meeting and gave us their undivided attention. I thanked them afterwards for showing respect to us as concerned citizens by listening to what we had to say. The comments of some of the Unionist councillors were hostile and at times ill-mannered. One councillor voted Remain like I did but he tackled me for being political for wanting to remain united to Europe and to the rest of Ireland! I went away wondering, ‘what is Unionism about these days?’ It was that which prompted me to write the original blog.
In my last blog (Part II), I think I may have been out of order to claim that Jessica and I were at one. Jessica is clearly well informed and well able to argue the case about Unionism. Jessica, it seems, has no faith in unionism ever changing or becoming generous towards nationalists until they(Unionists) are in a minority. Jessica could be right. The blogs from Jessica are thoughtful and realistic. Many others also contribute more to our understanding of the situation in which we find ourselves today. I appreciate the different viewpoints. I am glad that Jude allows free speech.
Why we have your attention Joe, I ran this past you earlier:
“Also, with regards to your understanding of ‘unionists’, would it not behove you to use the term ‘British nationalists’ when discussing the more extreme elements of unionism?
For example, do you ‘understand’ Tina McKenzie?
Do you ‘understand’ Linda Ervine and her Protestant Gaelic speaking students?
Do you ‘understand’ the various unionist-inclined members of Alliance?
If so then you understand one facet of unionism.
Do you ‘understand’ Nelson McCausland? No, neither do I.
Do you ‘understand’ Gregory Campbell? No, neither do I.
Do you ‘understand’ JimMcAllister? No, neither do I.
Do you ‘understand’ Willie McCrea? No, neither do I.
(Do you understand why 4 men with Gaelic names are so ‘anti-Gaelic’?)
So, if this is indeed the case then should there not be a separation of sorts between the above two poles?
Would your blog not be more accurate if you nuanced it in a fashion similar to this?
Try it as an experiment and see if things fit together a bit better.”
That’s it ,Am Ghob…like everything else there are many variations on the unionist scale as there are on the nationalist spectrum.Most of the more virulent ones make the most noise…that’s all. There’s what my late mother might have called “a whole spine of crookedness ” running through those mentioned on your short list above . It’s always evident in their public emissions.Usually there is very little logic involved in their specific and particular brand of “unionism”. I would go further and note something that appears to be a hatred of “the other” which strikes me as specifically ,hypocritically “unChristian” ,even for someone of such an atheist aspect as myself.Do these people ever do joined-up thinking,? I’m inclined to ask.
“a whole spine of crookedness ”
Brilliant!
What can I say?
@ Ghobby – Wouldn’t ”I-cant-believe-its-not-British-Nationalist’ be more appropriate?
As with all things, the squeaking hinge gets the oil, and in Mad Wullie’s case, he seems to have a direct line to the Newsletter to keep us all posted on his daily mind-fart.
It would be nice to occasionally see the sensible, reasonable people of a unionist persuasion actually challenging the lunatics, but people like yourself that offer a rational argument seem to be very few-and-far-between.
More power to your elbow.
“@ Ghobby – Wouldn’t ”I-cant-believe-its-not-British-Nationalist’ be more appropriate? ”
Well Kevin, I suppose that would tie in nicely with the unionist propensity for splintering: “Utterly-British-nationalist”, “Diet-British-nationalist”…
British separatism would be more accurate AG. The division you are supporting is not within the island of britain whatsoever, it is a division within Ireland to keep us under british rule against the democratic wishes of the majority of the Irish people, and it is the Irish economy and wellbeing of the people of Ireland that has suffered most over your intransigence to accept this reality.
The protestant unionist population are brought up in an environment steeped with anti Irish sentiment, it is of no surprise or any concern to nationalists that they may have anti-Gaelic opinions. But it is not up to us to undo the issues with sectarianism and bigotry that as a result, is now a greater blight in unionist communities. These are unionist issues and perhaps you should focus more on sorting these out than trying to persuade nationalists or republicans that unionism is ok because you list on a blog individuals from unionist communities that refuse to support the mainstream unionist line.
I have no interest in persuading you to accept anything Irish. I no longer care to persuade you that a united Ireland is for the best. When the unionist majority is gone it will gone for good and I believe it will be for the best for all of us that the worst elements that blight the unionist communities here will fuck off to Britain and be encouraged to do so.
“I have no interest in persuading you to accept anything Irish.”
Just as well because you don’t NEED to; I’ve been an advocate of a Gaelic language revival (across these islands) for yonks now and I continually support Protestant involvement in Gaelic games.
My blogs (aside from lamenting British nationalism) are full of the ‘lost’ aspects of Ulster-Irish culture that have been abandoned by both British and Irish nationalism alike.
Accepting ‘Irishness’ and subscribing to Irish nationalism are two different things. Completely.
I don’t think billy is a unionist actually, so that rather undoes the basis for Joe’s argument.
I do not see any problem with his group meeting the council myself. Conversations and exchange of ideas is always worth doing.
I am just not sure what this group hope to achieve. One of the aims I think is to try and argue against a hard border, something which no-one here wants and no party will be arguing for.
Perhaps it would be better bringing the protest to Dublin, or even Brussels.
(i note that billy does not bother with capitals)wow,big deal.
maybe the cap lock is broke and i havent got a brainwashed flock to buy me a new laptop,anyway capitals or not it got your attention.
Yes indeed, yours did and mine didn’t.
And only Joe can explain why.
Waiting for Joe: by Sam Beckett (sort of)
AmG: What do we do now?
PF: We wait for Joe
AmG: Let’s go.
PF: We can’t. we are waiting for Joe.
AmG: He won’t come.
PF: He might. He said he would.
AmG: Didn’t we do this yesterday?
PF: I can’t remember.
AmG: What shall we do while waiting?
PF: Let’s argue with jessica, that will pass the time.
AmG: It would pass in any case.
PF: True.Let’s just go.
AmG: Ok.
Neither one moves.
The End.
Perhaps Joe might decide to give us his considered opinion in another blog post?
It might everyone’s understanding!
“Jessica is clearly well informed and well able to argue the case about Unionism. Jessica, it seems, has no faith in unionism ever changing or becoming generous towards nationalists until they(Unionists) are in a minority. Jessica could be right”
I like Jessica, she is well informed on the topics she comments on and I agree with most, not all, she types but that’s normal. The only issue I would have with Jessica is I find her to be very pessimistic in regard to many things, especially in regard to Unionism, the attitudes of the South, etc but that’s how she was made, I’m not saying she should change but I don’t agree with that attitude. In most matters I tend to see a glass half full rather than half empty and seek out advantages in all situations.
I already made my thoughts on Unionism clear many times. I’m not attacking Unionism, I’m simply giving my opinion on what way they behave, think, feel and will act in the future. Any Unionist can do the same in regard to Nationalism and I would be listening with all ears with interest. There are decent Unionists who do want to move our society forward, to show tolerance to the views of Nationalism and endorse mutual respect in regard to commemorations, parades, etc. I also understand and respect they want to keep the North in the UK whilst doing all that and they understand I want to take the North out of the UK and reunite it with the South. The issue is I believe these type of progressive Unionists are a definite minority and most (if not all) don’t have the heart to speak out because they know the backlash they will receive from those within their own community, a backlash that could even be physically violent. So there really is no hope of these people making a difference within Unionism itself. Any Unionist who has tried to change Unionism into something better was intimidated or kicked out, just like the Protestants in the Shipyards who opposed sectarianism, they were labelled: “Rotten Prods”.
I read in an article last year that President Clinton told Tony Blair after the Good Friday Agreement was signed that Trimble only signed the GFA because he feared Unionism in the future becoming “an irrelevant minority”. On another article it was claimed that the IRA/SF agreed to support the GFA because they could see where the demographics were going in the future. When the South got its Independence the vast majority of the Unionists who stayed in the State changed and actively took part in the state.
Its because of the above is why I believe Unionism will only change if they are a minority, they would have no other choice. I’m not giving the impression that Nationalism, being the new majority, will dominate Unionism and “force” them to change, that’s not what I mean. Nationalism will obviously not want to make the same mistakes Unionism has made and is continuing to make today.
Reaching out to Unionism is important but reaching out doesn’t mean pandering, pandering wont change Unionism, it will make them continue what they are doing.
“The issue is I believe these type of progressive Unionists are a definite minority and most (if not all) don’t have the heart to speak out because they know the backlash they will receive from those within their own community, a backlash that could even be physically violent. ”
I would consider this to be a very accurate description of unionism.
You are wise beyond your years my friend and if optimism could fix Irelands ills, you would be our chieftain.
“Nationalism will obviously not want to make the same mistakes Unionism has made and is continuing to make today.”
That may be the case Ryan, but the reality on the ground is that there is an undercurrent of frustration and distaste of the behaviour of unionism towards democracy and respect of Irish nationalism which, as you know is promoted as acceptable on the bbc and other british media and even by the southern establishment and its media.
The result is a hardening of attitudes among the catholic and nationalist community here, just as there was a hardening of attitudes in england towards leaving the EU and in the USA towards anti globalisation of which I fully support their position on.
I would be interested to know how deeply these feelings of resentment towards unionism in Ireland are being reciprocated south of the border.
Reconciliation with unionism is of no interest whatsoever for me at present, it is clearly of no interest to the majority of unionists and the result is really most probably a repeat of what happened 100 years ago in Ireland over the same problem
Unionists are still being unionists, the british are still ignoring the problem with bigger issues to deal with and Irish nationalism throughout the country is bitterly dividing over how to deal with partition, with the parties in control of the dail choosing to uphold the british position and ignore and attack Irish republicans who hold true to the ideals of the men of 1916 who gave us the flag of the Irish nation and which no brit or free state government will ever take away from us.
Interesting as we approach the anniversary of the civil war that so little fundamentally has changed.
“When the South got its Independence the vast majority of the Unionists who stayed in the State changed and actively took part in the state.”
Have you any evidence to support this assertion?
Why would they stay if they weren’t agreeable to support the state? After all those who were uncomfortable fled to that bastion of fairness and democracy up north.
didn’t they all join Fine Gael?
I suppose that as Joe is prepared to write another entry it may be worth another go.
If, however, the only responses which come are a version of Jessica’s “F*** them”, we’ll get no where.
(BTW, Joe, how “F*** them” passes for knowledge is beyond me.)
Which brings me to my first point.
I have no idea who Billy is, but whoever he is I wish him well, as I do all who choose to post here. Having said that, it is interesting that of everything which has been said, only those things which are perceived to confirm previously and already held views about ‘Unionists’ are worthy of reply.
And what that means it this: unfortunately, Joe, you’re not really listening.
You have been interested enough to tell ‘Unionists’ that you don’t understand them, but at the very same time you keep telling us who we are. (And it’s all negative.)
How do we move on? I don’t really know, but I’d be interested to read a response to a description of a Unionist from a Unionist. I’d be interested if you (or anyone here) could *hear* (or at least try to hear, and that would mean asking a question if there is a lack of understanding rather than making further assumptions – that’s what conversation is) what a Unionist says and respond to that with a straightforward and honest reply.
So here goes:
This Unionist (I speak only for myself) is not anti-Ireland. Rather I am Irish – I’ve travelled to practically every county and know the country well. I holiday here every year. And this Irishman has a political outlook (everyone has a political view): it is one which values the links which exist between the nations of these isles. I would like to see those links strengthened – strengthened for the benefit of all the people, and to the detriment of none. To use the phrase coined at the time of the Scottish Independence referendum, I really do think we are ‘Better Together’ and I think that ‘Togetherness’ is a worthy aim – both in practice and in spirit.
That is one aspect of my Unionism (only one – for everyone is more than their politics), and I recognise that there are those who disagree. I recognise that there are Republicans who seek a United Independent Ireland, those who see what I value as oppression, and I fully respect their right to hold that view, and to seek to actualise that desire.
But I don’t, for the life of me, grasp why my one reasonable and rational political outlook, must be so vigorously attacked, why it must be demonised at every turn and why people like me who hold it are deemed intolerant and told “F*** them”. And I don’t for the life of me understand why there is no nuance in the Republican/Nationalist critique.
Joe, I’d be interested in your thoughts by way of response. Without them, this is not a conversation and I’m wasting my time.
You sound very reasonable to me, PK, and it would be good to continue the conversation with a fellow Irishman like yourself. I value your input very much and please keep contributing to this blog. My nationalism is of the “Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter” kind which the United Irishmen encapsulated and is non-sectarian. I just wish the Unionist community could experience a F. W. de Klerk “moment” which involves a leader with vision who would engage positively with the nationalist community and start a process to construct a non-sectarian and success future for all in the north and rest of Ireland.
Apologies for my typo error, I meant “You sound very reasonable to me, PF”
No need to apologise.
It’s late, I’ll try to get back to your comment about ‘vision’ tomorrow. (Late on though.)
Gearoid
I said I’d try to get back with a reply. On this question of ‘vision’, do you think it possible to construct a non-sectarian and successful future for all in the north and rest of Ireland which doesn’t include a political union in Ireland?
I must admit to knowing little about the political detail of South Africa, but it does appear that although the communities were divided, there was no disagreement about national boundaries.
How do you see a non-sectarian and successful future working out?
Peter, I accept you mean well. But why do you believe that you understand unionism better than I do?
How well do you know the darker elements of unionism of which I and many others unfortunately have first hand experience off?
The truth is your own unionist preferences really don’t matter very much while the mainstream unionist parties that represent the vast majority of unionist voters remain at war with Irish nationalism.
Do you accept Ryan’s assertion that progressive unionists such as yourself are in the minority and that the mainstream political parties accurately represent mainstream unionism, otherwise how else would they garner the majority of unionist votes?
Do you accept that there is fear in the unionist community to speak out against these parties and their supporters?
Unionism is rotten to the core, more so than you even may genuinely realise. The political leadership of unionism has links with the darker elements of loyalism. The UVF, the UDA and other elements going back to Nairac and his state agents.
These people are still protected by unionists and by elements of the security forces.
Paisley openly claimed he and his party would provide political cover for loyalist paramilitaries which he lived up to his word on.
These links still exist and has resulted in the unionist community lagging behind the nationalist community in removing paramilitarism from our communities.
While there are dissidents still in my community whom I detest and have no respect for, working class loyalist areas are still much more deeply under the control of these groups who rule through fear and who through an iron fist maintain a hard line unionist support in their areas.
The progressive unionism that you aspire to will be stifled in these areas.
People such as Dawn Purvis and David Ervine realised they were being used by mainstream unionism and the security forces, others do also but very few have the courage to speak out though gradually thanks to the immense courage of people like Raymond McCord the truth is starting to gradually slip out.
When it does, the south and people like yourself can tell me then I am wrong in my assessment of unionism, but while britain hides the existing documented evidence of what truly went on here, don’t tell me I don’t know what I am talking about. As I have said, I have witnessed it first hand, including billy right ordering RUC officers out of an estate while they burned Catholics out of an estate in enniskeen before I was pushed out the back door of a house before he entered into it. It was a mixed marriage but they escaped that time as the protestant partner had to behave as a loyalist.
I had plenty of protestant friends in my youth, at least until so called friends setup me up for the UDA. They were told to do it or else but brought me to a pub where I was later put our and brought out the back to be shot but the gun did not fire and they beat me around the head with it instead before I was put on a bus and told to get out the place and not to come back. I had been going to this pub for a while which was frequented by loyalists and they did not want us there any more.
You may well believe these are made up stories to attack unionism, but I assure you, the majority of republican communities know very well it is the truth, which is why I have no respect for the attitude of the southern establishment for its position, as it also knows very well it is true also which makes it all the worse.
If you want to truly understand unionism Peter, try persuading other unionists of your values or talk to those that do. Otherwise it is like saying hitlers fascist party was ok because not everyone in it aspired to the mainstream position. It just doesn’t cut any ice.
Jessica
I have no wish to describe any of your stories as made up, indeed I believe what you say.
Where I take issue, or to put it another softer way, where I think you are mistaken, is that you apply your experiences (and they sound horrific) to all of what we are calling Unionism.
As I have said on a number of occasions, and Fiosrach is picking up on this, all of our communities are more complex than that – yours, mine and others.
Others will have other horrific stories of the ‘other side’, but we must try to restrain ourselves from assuming the same ill of everyone. ‘Nationalism’ must not do it to ‘Unionism’, and ‘Unionism’ must not do it to ‘Nationalism’.
My Unionism, as I have outlined above, has not prevented my greater love of the island we all live on, it has not prevented my friendships with ‘the other side’, nor has it prevented my recognising Catholics as Christians. And all of those things were part of my growing up through the Troubles. And I should say too, lest there be any confusion, mine was no ‘ivory towered up-bringing’ – it was as normal as anyone’s.
Unionists are, just like Nationalists, people. That is where we all must begin. But I’m not even sure we are there yet.
What would help that, would be greater reticence on all our parts to ‘tar all with the one brush’. I do not judge all CNR (terrible term, but it will have to do) by the actions of, for instance, La Mon, and my wider community cannot be judged by the actions of the UDA.
And to answer your question,
“But why do you believe that you understand unionism better than I do?”
Because I am one.
In the same way, I will learn more about your community from you than I will from my own much more limited experience of it.
PF, I think that most of us will admit that the desire to maintain the union or the status quo is heavily nuanced in the PUL community. They seem to run the gamut of viciously anti everything Irish to sophisticated metro types interested only in their personal wellbeing. Where you are on this scale, we don’t know. You may have this view of Irish nationalism too. We may go round the houses as often as you like but if a threatening stranger fences off the bottom of your garden and parks his trailer, it is theft. It will always be theft no matter how long the interlopers remain. Theft is theft. Theft is wrong. This happened a long time in the past,you may say, but long memories seem to be a strong point of your community. You may be afraid of what would happen to you if you became a minority. Who knows?
Tranona duit Joe, I have two issues with your blog, the first, no one picked up on the curved ball I threw yesterday, sorry to you and Donal.
The second issue is my approach to ‘democracy’! Yes, occupied Ireland voted as instructed by nationalist and unionist parties ‘sheeple’ my son calls them, but, if the six Ulster counties had their regional decision respected, and somehow, perhaps in a federal joint authority method, was used to remain and leave the UK, which wholly voted ‘leave’, ought we not go further and micro federalise the region? This would mean Belfast and Ard’s in the east being part of a queer EU, with Derry, Omagh, Enniskillen, Armagh while Pprtadown, Lurgan, Moira, Antrim, Ballymoney, Ballymena and Coleraine would all be separated from Ireland, within the UK but the votes would be respected, it would I think be akin to the west and east coasts of the US ceeding the union but seeking their continued federal funding, impracticable I’m afraid.
“Where I take issue, or to put it another softer way, where I think you are mistaken, is that you apply your experiences (and they sound horrific) to all of what we are calling Unionism.”
Then let me correct you, I am not applying the negatives I describe to all of unionism, certainly not to ‘your unionism’ but I will to unionism in general until ‘your unionism’ could even remotely be considered the mainstream. Let me try to explain.
Yes, I have seen first hand the collusion between state forces and the worst of loyalism, I have seen first hand the control unionism and the orange order had over the protestant community and still has perhaps (hopefully) to a lesser degree. Lets say I was pretty wild in my youth and it is surprising that I survived it.
I had protestant friends who turned on me to my face over their fear within their own community, one so called friend told me later, I should have been a protestant. Words I will never forget, not least since it was over 30 years ago and is still in my mind.
I visited a friends home in corcrain in portadown, and was surprised to find they had a loyalist flag fixed to the wall outside of their bedroom window. I was told it was expected from them, basically putting this flag on the wall gave them reassurance they would not come under the attention of loyalists such was their grip over the community.
This grip of fear did not come out of nowhere, it was deliberately forged by the elected representatives of unionism since the 1960s.
They created these tensions, encouraged paramilitarism, brought conflict onto our streets and then when it got out of control brought the british army into the mix and even then forced them to take sides by continuing attacks until conflict started.
So let me ask you, what it unionism?
Is it the individual opinions of people, such as my past friends who had no problem inviting a catholic into their home or is it the british ideology that controls those individuals who would fly the flags of loyalism but who feel pressured into doing so?
Loyalism did not work alone in controlling these communities, look at the hatred displayed by events organised by the DUP and the leadership of political unionism in their support for the orange order.
Perhaps when the truth of what really went on here is acknowledged by unionism, britain releases all evidence it is currently hiding on grounds of national security and we have an honest peace and reconciliation process, then we can discuss honestly what unionism really is and we will then find common ground and be acceptable to one another. But while unionism tried to demonise the IRA and blame republicans for a conflict it started, this is not a foundation to build on and there will be no reconciliation between us or throughout this island on this basis.
Please describe what you feel is “subscribing to Irish nationalism”?
“do you think it possible to construct a non-sectarian and successful future for all in the north and rest of Ireland which doesn’t include a political union in Ireland?”
Sorry for chirping in, but I would say no.
The only reason there would not be a political union in Ireland would be if the north south relationship among nationalists turned bad which it already has.
But I would be very surprised if the south allowed the establishment there to continue fostering such division especially as unionism hold such vitriolic views of the republic and Irish culture in general. In this the decade of centenaries when they will be looking at their roots, to abandon Irish people to the same hatred they fought to be free off would be simply unfathomable and I would strongly suspect that the sectarian division would simply spill over into the republic if they did.
“How do you see a non-sectarian and successful future working out?”
Unionism becoming an ever declining minority beginning in 2021 and a very successful rugby world cup in Ireland in 2023 showing what we can achieve by coming together.
“didn’t they all join Fine Gael?”
No.