I am overwhelmed by the response to the blog, ‘My difficulty Understanding Unionism’. I have not had an opportunity to read all comments but from some I have read I would like to say that I found some of the exchanges and comments most interesting and some were informative. Clearly, Jessica shares my views but has a deeper grasp of the issues. Obviously, I understand what unionism stands for and I know something about its origins in history. I understand the slogans -What we have we hold, Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right, God save Ulster and all the rest.
I made my recent remarks in the wake of a meeting I and others had with the Fermanagh and Omagh Council about Brexit. It was attended by Official Unionists and Nationalist/republican councillors and boycotted by the DUP. Some Unionists said they voted to Remain but would accept the UK vote. When I say I have difficult understanding unionism it was partly as a result of comments made at that meeting about Brexit. I would have thought that because of the more recent developments since the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement in 1998 there would be more maturity and a greater willingness to have an open discussion about the pros and cons of Brexit for the people.
In my blog, I was making the point that I find great difficulty understanding the continuing hostility of Unionists to nationalists/ republicans and I offered as a possible explanation that it was because of the history of inequality and an underlying fear of becoming swamped in a United Ireland against their wishes. I believe that that fear has been cultivated over many years by unscrupulous unionist leaders. However, I believe that the Good Friday Agreement dealt with that fear and offered an alternative way forward for all. I do not understand why unionists continue to be so hostile to Irish nationalists and to the Irish language. Why do they treat their Nationalist/republican neighbours as enemies? Some have said that it’s because of the IRA campaign which attacked their people, some of whom were in uniform and some not in uniform. That is an obvious source of anger and fear. The IRA is gone a long time and no longer poses a threat to unionists. What happened in the past is most regrettable and cannot be undone. There was suffering on all sides-as some have pointed out. Many in uniform and in loyalist paramilitary groups inflicted great pain and suffering on the Nationalist people but we cannot live in the past. Of course, we must deal with the past and get to the truth of what happened so that it never happens again and so that some people who still grieve can have some sense that justice is being done. I agree with one comment which said that Unionists have not acknowledged their past role in discrimination and keeping nationalists in subjection. The commentator suggested that they probably will not until they are in a minority.
I am not an enemy of unionists. I am a friend and I want to be a friend. I want the best for unionists as I do want the best for nationalists and these two are not irreconcilable. I would like to see a unified Ireland for many reasons but most of all I believe it offers us the best hope for a stable future where everybody will have the opportunity to flourish and where we can work together for the good of all. I believe that an all-island economy within the EU offered us all the best way forward – economically, socially and politically. That is why I am opposed to Brexit especially when a majority in the north voted to Remain.
We are all victims of our history but we need not be prisoners of our history. We need to reach out to each other and together we can work towards some form of cooperation and an acceptance of certain realities. Could we not agree that an all island economy without barriers and borders and tariffs makes more sense than a divided island?
The common good of all those living on the island should be the motivation for all engaged in political and economic enterprise on this island. It is a dream but dreams can become realities when people talk and listen respectfully. We could even show the Americans how to do that.
showing you cant accept a democratic vote would hardly persuade people to listen to your arguments.
“showing you cant accept a democratic vote would hardly persuade people to listen to your arguments”
What democratic vote are you referring to billy? If its Brexit then Joe has a strong argument, the North and Scotland voted for the EU, not Brexit and the English vote is overruling their wishes, for now anyway.
Its the same in Ireland, the vast majority in Ireland in 1918 wanted Irish Independence, SF getting 80% of the vote proved this (that doesn’t include the IPP vote, another Nationalist party) but yet Westminster and political Unionism obstructed democracy as they have done throughout their entire history, democracy is only favoured when it goes their way.
The same still continues today, there’s no doubt if there was a vote on Irish Unity tomorrow by all of Ireland, not two separate pieces of it, that it is extremely likely to be a vote for Irish Unity. Again democracy is obstructed for 15% of the population, despite even that 15% declining in numbers as time passes. Democracy?….
“Its the same in Ireland, the vast majority in Ireland in 1918 wanted Irish Independence,”
The vast majority in the north-east didn’t.
“SF getting 80% of the vote proved this (that doesn’t include the IPP vote, another Nationalist party)”
SF didn’t get 80% of the vote.
“but yet Westminster and political Unionism obstructed democracy as they have done throughout their entire history, democracy is only favoured when it goes their way.”
They didn’t obstruct democracy. On the contrary, they facilitated it, giving nationalists their own state where they were the majority and unionists theirs where they were a majority.
That wasn’t Democracy – that was a usurpation of Democracy.
Not sure how facilitating democratic wishes could be considered usurpation of democracy. Quite the opposite.
MT, can you please explain why an island wide vote to leave the UK should consider the north east counties separately from the rest, and a UK wide vote should not consider Scotland or Ireland separately, especially considering Scotland is a recognised entity and the 6 counties were not but a gerrymandered area based on creating a unionist majority in a new geographic area.
Sounds like you put whatever suits the unionist position above anything else.
“MT, can you please explain why an island wide vote to leave the UK should consider the north east counties separately from the rest, and a UK wide vote should not consider Scotland or Ireland separately, especially considering Scotland is a recognised entity and the 6 counties were not but a gerrymandered area based on creating a unionist majority in a new geographic area.”
If Scotland wishes to remain in the EU separately from the rest of the UK it can vote for independence and negotiate its entry into the EU. It’s up to them. Similarly with NI.
“Sounds like you put whatever suits the unionist position above anything else.”
This doesn’t make sense.
“If Scotland wishes to remain in the EU separately from the rest of the UK it can vote for independence and negotiate its entry into the EU. It’s up to them. Similarly with NI.”
Ireland had more than one vote demonstrating its desire for independence but it was not allowed.
NI did not exist then, but since it does now, are you saying NI can likewise have an independence referendum to remain in the EU separately from the rest of the UK as this was ruled out as it was for London who similarly asked for one, it had the highest percentage remain and even had a petition to break away but was not allowed to do so?
You are full of shit MT
“NI did not exist then, but since it does now, are you saying NI can likewise have an independence referendum to remain in the EU separately from the rest of the UK as this was ruled out as it was for London who similarly asked for one, it had the highest percentage remain and even had a petition to break away but was not allowed to do so?”
Eh? If people in NI want to remain in the EU they need to vote to.join Southern Ireland. It’s up.to them.
That’s a very good question Jessica.
Didn’t the majority of people in Trinity College and Rathmines constituencies reject Irish independence by voting for unionist candidates ? Should these two constituencies have been considered separately, as some would say the north east counties should have been ?
What I would like MT to explain Nuacht, is why is it ok for any county to have been considered separately in the Irish independence vote, but at the same time expect the recent brexit vote to ignore the regional differences over UK independence from the EU completely.
The wealth that existed in the north east at that time would have helped build a stronger Irish economy much faster, relations between Ireland and England would not have gone through 100 years of turmoil and the union with britain possibly could have remained intact never mind remaining within the commonwealth.
There would have been no sectarian division which remains every bit as strong in 2016 as it did in 1916 if not moreso.
I have often heard people asking what would happen to the unionist population in a united ireland, as if there was any credence in that argument at all.
What do they think is going to happen to the northern nationalist and republican community whether Ireland is united or not. We aren’t going to go away you know and we will soon be in the majority with on-going demonstration from unionism on how to use that majority for your own ends.
It remains the same old argument over the legitimacy of british rule in ireland that is preventing better relations on this island and between both these islands today and that is not going to change one bit by the current attitudes of even the most reasonable unionist in ireland today whatever side of the border or argument they are on.
Likewise it makes no sense for me as to why Dublin should have chosen to publically back and encourage unionism, who are not only in an unavoidable decline, but have now created animosity between northern and southern irish on this island which will last beyond the decline of unionism.
They have quite simply taken us for granted, and felt that we have nothing else other than to beg to be taken in by the free state and that be pandering to unionism they could calm the trouble makers until the demographics play out.
I can tell you now, there is a majority of nationalists and republicans here who will not accept those terms.
The bridges today that need to be rebuilt are between the irish in the north and not the british,
Fuck unionism.
“What I would like MT to explain Nuacht, is why is it ok for any county to have been considered separately in the Irish independence vote, but at the same time expect the recent brexit vote to ignore the regional differences over UK independence from the EU completely.”
There was no vote in any region in favour of a region being given its own EU or non-EU status, even if such were possible.
scotland voted to stay in the uk a couple of yrs ago,so did anybody who voted for the gfa.
the uk voted on brexit as one unit,so joe,corbyn,and the lentil munchers want to deny democracy to the people because it doesnt suit them.one blogger on here even said the working class were to stupid to be given a vote.whats the point after fighting to get the brits out to be ruled by another outfit in europe.ireland is for the irish first if we need any extra workers we bring them in on a points system whats so wrong with that.there is no room at the inn for the bogus refugees and asylum seekers joe and his ilk would impose on us.
Great piece Joe, unionist’s it seems, may never accept peace, harmony, equality and live side by side with their Catholic neighbours, listening to Nelson McCauseland just now on radio confirms my statement.
Informative and sensitively put.
Reaching out and patience are key here.
In the mean time focusing on bread and butter issues, access to higher education, affordable and decent housing , good paying jobs and a future that gives promise for the generations to come is a realistic start.
Best of luck Mr.McVeigh.
“However, I believe that the Good Friday Agreement dealt with that fear and offered an alternative way forward for all.”
Then you would be wrong Joe and you definitely do not understand unionism.
There was never any justification for the fear in the first place, Paisley used it to stir up tensions based on what has been since accepted false perceptions to try and drive Catholics out of the north en masse.
But the fear and hysteria he created to achieve this was then realised and brought into reality through a bloody awful conflict when Catholics didn’t simply up and leave but fought back through the IRA.
The fact it was unionism that started this conflict and that the actions of political unionism in violently attacking a peaceful civil rights campaign leading to the murder of innocent civilians doesn’t matter, because they still have the perception that the IRA was coming anyway and the truth that it wasn’t and were about to disband to pursue communism in 1965 doesn’t matter.
The conflict is thankfully over but from a unionist perspective, the Good Friday Agreement means that britain has already agreed the circumstances in which it will leave Ireland for good abandoning them just the same way southern Ireland abandoned us.
It has offered to stand over the british citizenship of those that choose to remain when they do leave but basically both communities in the north are nothing more than pariahs.
But another reality is that Unionism is on the decline, it has already peaked and in each election from here on in there will be a steeper decline due to its age and demographics.
At some point the fall in numbers will satisfy the english to agree to a referendum if the people want one.
But then there is a bigger problem which will rear its head.
Why should the Northern Irish, then with unionism impotent and in a minority want a united Ireland?
Why should I want to join into the shit hole republic where the establishment and its supporting media has berated and insulted northern nationalists for years, considering us as nothing more than a pain in the back side?
At the moment I am happily taking business and money out of the republic for the first time and have no longer any interest in its wellbeing.
Why on earth after persevering with the discrimination and insults from unionism for so long, when we finally have a chance to take control of our own part of Ireland, should we want to bring in another bunch of arse wipes to continue the beratement?
Fuck em
All the posturing from unionism is nothing more than delaying the inevitable and trying to maintain ascendancy for as long as possible before they are faced with a choice to up sticks and move to GB or face that they will be living in an ever more nationalist northern Ireland.
I get what you are saying, a single all island economy would be in all of our best interests, but it wasn’t until brexit and the risk that it will impact on the souths precious economy that they took any interest in the problems posed by the border which have existed in the border counties on both sides for generations. They didn’t care then
I don’t recall much respectful conversation during the last southern elections.
Unionism is no longer the biggest obstacle to unification but the southern establishment
Reaching out will be an absolute waste of time and effort Denis
Patience and tolerance will be essential while we bide our time until their electoral majority is gone forever
When this happens they will shit themselves and there will be those in political unionism who will once again encourage working class loyalists to stir up trouble once more and hope that they can restart a conflict that will bring back the army and maintain the status quo through the british armed forces being back on to the ground.
The south will do fuck all as usual but condemn anything that will risk their middle and upper classes being adversely effected in their pockets and blame northern nationalists for upsetting these unionist areswipes into causing trouble for the Dublin establishment.
Lets face it, Ireland has become a shit country, it has pissed all over the memory of those that gave their lives for the freedoms they now take for granted.
You know, it was something I could never get my head around but I am starting to see how the civil war in Ireland came about
“Reaching out will be an absolute waste of time and effort Denis
Patience and tolerance will be essential while we bide our time until their electoral majority is gone forever”
Reaching out may be a waste of time Jessica but it also has its benefits, it shows who wants to move forwards and who wants to move backwards, and that’s a powerful thing.
Though there’s a difference between reaching out and pandering. Reaching out is saying we want a fair and shared society. Its accommodating fair measures in our councils, etc.
Pandering is turning a blind eye to anti-Catholic/Anti-Nationalist behaviour. Its tolerating sectarian Orange and Loyalist bands, etc.
“You know, it was something I could never get my head around but I am starting to see how the civil war in Ireland came about”
Civil War is a thing of the past in Ireland. The Troubles was a Semi-Civil War. Could another Troubles spark off? Yes but if it was I’d say it would be Unionist groups that do it because many are definitely of the mind that they want to murder Catholics again because of the equality agenda, its their bosses stopping them. Their bosses are only pro-cease fire because they are getting cash, a lot of cash, to buy flash cars, holiday villas, holidays 3 times a year, flash homes, etc not to mention a blind eye turned to their criminal activities.
“Reaching out may be a waste of time Jessica but it also has its benefits, it shows who wants to move forwards and who wants to move backwards, and that’s a powerful thing. ”
Really Ryan, tell me what has it done to date other than lose Sinn Fein its grass roots support, reducing their electoral mandate in the north, helping a communist party to get elected and allow the southern media a free reign to lambaste the memory of many good republicans while they continue their blatant pandering to unionism.
“Civil War is a thing of the past in Ireland.”
What I mean is, for the first time I understand how a patriotic Irish person could feel a strong enough animosity towards an Irish parliament and its supporters to go to war to remove it.
In the centenary decade which includes the civil war, I believe I will have a much different view than I would have had in previous years.
You know what……there are times that I believe “unionism” doesn’t even understand “unionism”.I mean by that specifically the quaint Norneverland , Ireland version of unionism. The very idea of “unionism” should at bottom be the advocacy to unite , just as Ireland was once a 32 county united form of “unionism”. That kind of unionism depended on Ireland also being united with the UK of Scotland , England and Wales of course. Instead of wanting to remain united with their Irish brothers and sisters they insisted on chopping out a little statelet …a private little fiefdom… which some of them still pretend to themselves is a “wee country”.We all know to our dismay and disarray that it never was such a thing ,but instead was an artificially composed little six – county construct hacked out by force of threatened violence to provide Northern Protestants with a ready-made tribal “homeland”. It was weighted artificially to provide a large -enough majority which could easily dominate. It’s the same sort of thing that has been tried across the world and usually somewhere in the background the Westminister government has a hand in the division of peoples.
Well …it dominated it’s nationalist citizens/subjects by weight of artificial numbers for many years, mismanaging the situation until Paisley really pushed the buttonwith his mad fear-mongering. Anybody who doesn’t believe that ,simply wasn’t there and knows nothing about how the violence erupted here at his bequest.Nationalists might have been in an artificial minority but they were not prepared to simply lie down while Paisley’s bully boys walked all over them and while the police watched idly by.That balance of numbers is finally changing by slow evolution….something that nobody really thought about back then.
You might draw lines across maps and demarcate population sizes but that could never hold forever.Nationalist numbers simply grew and will at some point possibly provide a voting majority . That majority might not necessarily want a United Ireland unless it suits them economically but at least they will be open to that particular conversation. As it changes , more and more the Northern Unionists continue to chase the illusion of unionism by chasing the Westminster line , even though the logic of the situation now asks that they consider a differnt kind of “unionism” or union ….possibly a union with Scotland and the rest of Ireland in the EU that they originally wanted to abandon. Is there a a logical plan , economic or otherwise to their thinking ? If there is I haven’t seen it yet. All i hear still is the echo of Paisley’s “No, No, No”. That ended well didn’t it?
I can understand completely why you want to offer the hand of friendship Joe and I support that but I think we both know its going to be rejected by the majority of Unionism or at least Unionism that is in power. But that’s not the point. The point is it shows who wants to move forwards and who wants to move backwards. Just today the DUP committed another act of discrimination against the Irish language by dropping it from the Education Department. This and many other acts from political Unionism sends a clear message: Irish is not welcome. Of course its not just the Irish Language that is not welcome by political Unionism, its also Irish people, Catholics, Homosexuals, Muslims, etc and I’m sure many others that hope to make this part of Ireland their home.
There’s a fine line between offering friendship and pandering. Pandering isn’t going to work with these people, it only encourages them, it makes them think they’re winning in their battle to dominate. Friendship is something that is genuine, fair and obviously co-operative. Unionism has offered neither to Catholics, in fact they have offered the opposite. Pandering is neither genuine, fair or co-operative.
“Some have said that it’s because of the IRA campaign which attacked their people, some of whom were in uniform and some not in uniform”
Well we know that’s utter nonsense because this behaviour towards Catholics/Nationalists by Unionism goes back centuries. Was the penal laws due to the IRA? Was the vile sectarianism in the shipyards when the Titanic was being built due to the IRA? Was the open discrimination and sectarianism by the Unionist government due to the IRA? I could go on. Even if it is due to the IRA (which is isn’t) that still doesn’t justify Unionist actions or make them right.
The reality is Unionism tries to JUSTIFY the wrongs they have committed. The truth is they committed the ill deeds that they did because of a religious fundamentalist doctrine that was brewed in the Middle Ages and preached by the likes of the Orange Order and many others even to this day. I can show you videos of Orange men at Twaddell even using Middle Age words like “Popish” to describe Catholics. I can show you videos of ex UDR preachers blaming the “wicked side of Catholicism” on the PIRA’s campaign.
When George Galloway was on the Nolan TV Show about Pastor McConnell’s anti-Islamic sermon, Galloway said “There was a time when the same crackpot pastors were calling Catholics the spew of the Devil”. You can be certain some Pastors and Unionists still do.
“The commentator suggested that they probably will not until they are in a minority”
I think that was me who typed that and I stand by that comment but I know its open to numerous misunderstandings. I said that in the sense that Unionism will only change when they are in a minority because they will have no other choice. The irony is this very state that Unionists proclaim to love and call “Our Wee Country” is failing due to them. Unionists behave as if they don’t have to convince Catholics of anything and that all the convincing is left at the door of Nationalists. That’s simply not true. The NI state wont survive unless a substantial amount of Catholics vote Unionist and next to none do and more likely never will. Compare that to a small minority of Protestants who regularly vote Nationalist. Its said 10% of the SDLP vote is Protestant.
Jude typed an article a year ago or before and we discussed what would be the reaction of Unionism if there was a United Ireland. The general trend was that most agreed that a lot of Unionists will choose to leave here instead of living in an All Ireland. The same thing happened when the South got Independence, many Unionists left for the North or England.
I’m still inclined to believe that many Unionists (not all) would rather leave than accept the hand of friendship from Nationalists/Catholics, especially if its in a United Ireland…..
Ryan, the northern Ireland state will exist while there is no alternative.
Unionism behaves like an enemy of Ireland because it is an enemy of Ireland. But what Ireland?
Southern Ireland has snubbed northern nationalists, this establishment has blamed nationalists for all of Ireland ills and its elected representatives publically claimed that nationalists deserved what we got from the british and loyalist paramilitaries, they have backed british forces position on collusion cover up and propaganda, possibly for state level favours and I will never for the rest of my life forget the establishment supporting media attacks on Sinn Fein and the interference by the north in their wee 26 county country.
I want no part of that type of Ireland. If that is the type of Ireland a majority in the south want, then leave them to it I say.
Unionists will leave in droves when they lose their majority. To be honest I would welcome this and would be happy to build a more Irish northern Ireland until such time as bridges north and south are repaired.
There will ne no united Ireland before this happens and it will only be economic competition over the border post brexit that would make the majority in the south give a shit in the first place.
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.
Harry,when things start going wrong for the British Irish their first move will be to withdraw into a smaller area that they can dominate. Then will come the terror campaign to root out any fenians left inside the pale. England will outwardly stand by and wring their hands while fomenting the whole thing behindbacks. So it will settle like a reverse Gaza Strip for god knows how many more years. Gird your loins.
The logic of that fiosrach , is that should there be a final withdrawal into some hole-in-the -wall gang situation for these alphabet armies of nutjobs, in the arse-end of Carrickfergus or the far reaches of Coleraine , that’ll be the end of it .A wee one -county “country” with no visible means of support really and a lot of crazy bandits trying to hold back the tide of time like some crazed hillbillies . They might be bloody crazy and insane but they might also want to have running water and a few facilities.
And you think England won’t tolerate this situation? Running water and full facilities will be provided and money,money,money. Think Gibraltar!
“I do not understand why unionists continue to be so hostile to Irish nationalists and to the Irish language.”
Well, if you’re referring to the DUP (as opposed to the PUP, Linda Ervine and the Red Hand Commandoes) then it’s simply a handy stick to beat with SF with.
SF try to pass Irish off as their thing, the DUP see this and then act like d*cks accordingly.
Simples.
End of.
I can’t make it any simpler.
What an absolute crock of shit.
By all means feel free to reduce the argument and explain why it is indeed wrong.
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 is a pointless argument AG
We can know enough about what a rope is without knowing what it consists off. It may be nylon or bound, and if you look closer, you may notice it is made of lots of smaller strings each individually bound. But is it still a ripe and it still has the same purpose.
Likewise with unionism. It doesn’t matter what the personal lifestyles and opinions of the individuals who hold the same purpose, i.e. to keep part of Ireland loyal to the crown and under London rule.
And while I may have no issue with the individuals, in my eyes there is no place in Ireland for unionism, certainly not based on what I have seen of its political leadership to date.
Can I be any clearer than that AG?
It’s not an argument, it’s a reasonable demarcation and would lend weight to the opening title and you haven’t explained why it’s flawed.
“And while I may have no issue with the individuals, in my eyes there is no place in Ireland for unionism, certainly not based on what I have seen of its political leadership to date.”
I’m well aware of your biased view of ‘unionism’ hence I didn’t ask you.
“it’s a reasonable demarcation and would lend weight to the opening title and you haven’t explained why it’s flawed.”
No it isn’t.
You don’t need to know every individual opinion and nuance in order to understand unionism.
In that case even unionists would not understand unionism.
The raison d’être for unionism which is simply to maintain british rule in ireland and to keep control for the crown which as you have affirmed yourself, is british separatism in Ireland.
In addition, we can understand unionism further through its modus operandi which we know even from your own blog site has been steeped in negativity, never never never, no surrender and not an inch. To your own frustration, that has not changed an inch as we can see from the total abuse of the veto through petitions of concern in particular against the Irish language but there has been no effort whatsoever at compromise and enough is enough.
“In addition, we can understand unionism further through its modus operandi which we know even from your own blog site has been steeped in negativity, never never never, no surrender and not an inch. To your own frustration, that has not changed an inch as we can see from the total abuse of the veto through petitions of concern in particular against the Irish language but there has been no effort whatsoever at compromise and enough is enough.”
There has in the past few years been an upsurge in unionists learning Irish, a Catholic unionist party leader, an electoral pact that was required to keep East Belfast ‘unionist’ and a unionist politician out taking down flags; that is a change in a country mile in unionist terms yet you say not an inch.
These four things alone would have been inconceivable decades ago.
Someone here pointed out that you just like to seize on any affirmation of YOUR view of unionism and you’re doing a grand job of validating that observation
Who was the Catholic unionist party leader?
“Who was the Catholic unionist party leader?”
More importantly, what difference does that make?
Unionism is about keeping Ireland a realm of the British crown, who in 2016 gives a damn about a persons choice of worship other than the orange order.
Then again, I suppose that is a british thing, tony blair had to wait until he stepped aside to turn catholic. A catholic leader of a unionist party I suppose would be a step away from the british ethos. It is not something to be proud off though. It is just shaking off backwardness
“Unionism is about keeping Ireland a realm of the British crown”
Ireland isn’t a ‘realm of the British crown’ therefore it’s not possible for unionism to be about keeping it so.
MT, I have no desire to understand the correct terminology or the complexities of the british constitution and its relationship with the crown.
I want Ireland to be ruled internally within Ireland by irish people and in the best interests of all irish people and not to be under the crown in any way. I apologise that I do not know the correct terminology to explain that to you but hopefully most people will get the gist of what I am saying.
Unionism wants Ireland to be ruled by England and be subject to the british crown.
These are polar views and are irreconcilable.
“Unionism wants Ireland to be ruled by England”
It doesn’t. It wants Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK.
“and be subject to the british crown.”
So if the UK became a republic, unionists would support a ‘united Ireland’?
I have to admit MT, that is new to me.
Are you saying that you feel that unionism is indifferent towards the monarchy and would be content to be a republic so long as there is a union maintained with britain?
To be honest, I would see scope for compromise in that.
Can I ask what you feel the unionist position would be on northern ireland being a fully independent self governing republic but maintaining some form of union with great britain?
Because I could live with that,
“I have to admit MT, that is new to me.”
What is new to you?
“Are you saying that you feel that unionism is indifferent towards the monarchy and would be content to be a republic so long as there is a union maintained with britain?”
I’m asking whether you think unionists would stop being unionists if the UK became a republic.
“Can I ask what you feel the unionist position would be on northern ireland being a fully independent self governing republic but maintaining some form of union with great britain?”
Opposition, given that it wouldn’t be possible to be “fully independent” while also being in union with GB.
If the UK became a republic, I imagine that would be major dilemma for Irish unionism and I doubt anyone would know just how that one would play out.
I am asking if you think unionism would accept northern Ireland being an independent republic (not a united ireland) with a new looser federal union with britain.
I want ascertain which has the most importance, is it the loyalty to the crown or being ruled by England or both.
It makes no sense to me why unionism wants to play second fiddle to another nation you have little in common with and don’t even accept their laws on abortion for example. Other than the historic benefits of being in control in this part of the UK which wont be the case for much longer anyway.
“I am asking if you think unionism would accept northern Ireland being an independent republic (not a united ireland) with a new looser federal union with britain.”
I should imagine that would depend, first, on the other options and, second, the capacity not to ‘accept’ it.
“I want ascertain which has the most importance, is it the loyalty to the crown or being ruled by England or both.”
‘Being ruled by England’ isn’t important at all. Unionists don’t want to be ‘ruled by England’.
“It makes no sense to me why unionism wants to play second fiddle to another nation you have little in common with and don’t even accept their laws on abortion for example. Other than the historic benefits of being in control in this part of the UK which wont be the case for much longer anyway.”
Unionism doesn’t want to ‘play second fiddle’ to another ‘nation’.
Sorry to break it to you MT, but the UK is ruled by England
“Sorry to break it to you MT, but the UK is ruled by England”
Clearly you don’t understand the concept of union.
Incidentally the UK until recently had a Labour Government despite Englsnd voting Conservative.
“Clearly you don’t understand the concept of union.
Incidentally the UK until recently had a Labour Government despite Englsnd voting Conservative.”
Clearly I don’t MT.
The UK will only have a Labour government if the majority of England vote Labour and as the UK is also a constitutional monarchy to which the queen of England is the head of state I don’t see how you can possibly claim otherwise, if that is what you are trying to do.
“The UK will only have a Labour government if the majority of England vote Labour”
That’s patently untrue. It’s quite possible for there to be a Labour Government without a majority of England voting for one.
“and as the UK is also a constitutional monarchy to which the queen of England is the head of state I don’t see how you can possibly claim otherwise, if that is what you are trying to do.”
The UK’s status as a constitutional monarchy has no relation to the likelihood of any particular government or the voting behaviour of people in England or anywhere else.
There is no queen of Englsnd and hasn’t been for 309 years.
“Incidentally the UK until recently had a Labour Government despite Englsnd voting Conservative.”
Incidentally, the UK Labour Party is also ruled from England, just as the UK Conservative Party is also ruled from England
In fact MT, I challenge you to name one party that could possibly win a UK election and hold the post of PM, that is not ruled from England.
“Incidentally, the UK Labour Party is also ruled from England, just as the UK Conservative Party is also ruled from England.”
The UK Labour party isn’t “ruled” by anyone. It manages its own affairs, as does the Conservative party.
“In fact MT, I challenge you to name one party that could possibly win a UK election and hold the post of PM, that is not ruled from England.”
No party is “ruled” from or by anyone.
My claim that the UK and the parties that are capable of holding the position of PM, is based on the population demographics of the UK MT.
Northern Ireland is such a small population percentage of the UK, that we will never achieve anything and will have to do what we are told and accept what terms England applies upon us until we mature enough to look after our own affairs.
“My claim that the UK and the parties that are capable of holding the position of PM, is based on the population demographics of the UK MT.”
It doesn’t matter what it’s based on: it’s empirically wrong.
“Northern Ireland is such a small population percentage of the UK, that we will never achieve anything and will have to do what we are told and accept what terms England applies upon us until we mature enough to look after our own affairs.”
That’s irrelevant to your false claim that a government couldn’t be formed unless the majority in England voted for it.
It’s also untrue, given that our representatives make loads of decisions themselves.
Our politicians are told what decisions they are allowed to take themselves through legislation already approved in england.
And whatever the mathematical possibility, if ever there was a PM of the UK that belonged to a party that was not headed up in England, there would be anarchy until it was over turned, hence the UK will always be ruled from england.
Imagine enough new parties formed in england to split the vote sufficiently (however unrealistic and improbable) and the SNP ended up the largest party and PM.
Do you really think that would be acceptable to the english?
“Our politicians are told what decisions they are allowed to take themselves through legislation already approved in england.”
What legislation is this? And England doesn’t have its own legislature.
“And whatever the mathematical possibility, if ever there was a PM of the UK that belonged to a party that was not headed up in England, there would be anarchy until it was over turned, hence the UK will always be ruled from england.”
How come there was no anarchy when Gordon Brown was PM? Or David Lloyd George? Or Ramsay Mcdonald?
“Imagine enough new parties formed in england to split the vote sufficiently (however unrealistic and improbable) and the SNP ended up the largest party and PM. Do you really think that would be acceptable to the english?”
It would never happen as the SNP would never be able.to.command a majority.
“It would never happen as the SNP would never be able.to.command a majority.”
Exactly my original point, only an english party would be able to command a majority, hence the UK will always be ruled by the English.
I am not going to respond to any more of your denials that england runs the UK MT. We will just have to agree to disagree.
“Exactly my original point, only an english party would be able to command a majority, hence the UK will always be ruled by the English.”
Untrue. In fact never in the history of the UK has it been governed by an English party, but always by a British-wide party.
“Untrue. In fact never in the history of the UK has it been governed by an English party, but always by a British-wide party.”
And always by a party with such a significant majority of english members whom you will tell me next is irrelevant because those lovely english would always treat all parts of the UK equally and not favour their own back yards. And as I said, you can believe this if you choose but I disagree and to me it makes you a buffoon and unionism a ball and chain that Ireland needs to cast aside not reconcile with.
“And always by a party with such a significant majority of english members whom you will tell me next is irrelevant because those lovely english would always treat all parts of the UK equally and not favour their own back yards. And as I said, you can believe this if you choose but I disagree and to me it makes you a buffoon and unionism a ball and chain that Ireland needs to cast aside not reconcile with.”
Do we’ve gone from being “ruled” by “England” to being governed by a British-wide party with a majority of English members.
“Do we’ve gone from being “ruled” by “England” to being governed by a British-wide party with a majority of English members.”
A huge majority of English members and while the party may well be british wide, but it will always put england first, your posturing changes nothing.
It is for this reason the UK will not endure in its current format.
There will be a lot of bitter pills for unionism to swallow over the coming decade.
“A huge majority of English members and while the party may well be british wide, but it will always put england first, your posturing changes nothing.
It is for this reason the UK will not endure in its current format. There will be a lot of bitter pills for unionism to swallow over the coming decade.”
Given that successive UK governments consistently spend more money disproportionately in Scotland, Wales and NI, it would appear that the evidence does not support your claim that UK governments ‘always put England first’.
“Given that successive UK governments consistently spend more money disproportionately in Scotland, Wales and NI, it would appear that the evidence does not support your claim that UK governments ‘always put England first’.”
What England does disproportionately MT, is focus all of the UKs wealth and jobs in the south of England. Thatcher destroyed industry in the north of England, moving that industry south and now England controls what wealth is allowed to be distributed to other parts of the UK.
This keeps everyone in check and dependant on Westminster handouts.
But you will only ever see what you want to see MT.
Unionism may be happy with this arrangement which suits its own narrative that we are better off within the UK, at least while the arrangement allows them to rule the roost and feel like they remain the superior and privileged race their ancestors were in Ireland over catholics, but those days are over for good.
Sooner or later the truth is going to be realised.
We will move on in partnership with the rest of the UK and unionism will be allowed to rant and rave to its hearts content but your control will dissipate year on year until your insanity is but a distant memory.
“What England does disproportionately MT, is focus all of the UKs wealth and jobs in the south of England. Thatcher destroyed industry in the north of England, moving that industry south and now England controls what wealth is allowed to be distributed to other parts of the UK.”
‘England’ doesn’t do anything. And the UK government doesn’t control the UK’s wealth. That part of the wealth that it does control it distributes away from the south to other parts of the UK. A bit like the Southern Irish government distributing away from Dublin or the French government away from Paris.
Oh I am not saying the south is any better MT.
The distribution of wealth has been unfairly controlled in many nations.
I want a better and fairer future and we would have a better chance of influencing our part of the world in a single island wide economy than we will ever have as a colonial relic of the UK.
Our children deserve a better future and I believe a new all island economy based on equality is the best way to achieve that – not being sucked into the poorly managed corrupt state that ROI has become but to encourage radical change and a correction of the economic mess the civil war parties have created.
The national front could well win the French presidential election for the same reason, and I hope they do.
I want to see radical reform and de-globalisation all across the world. I support the new immigration policy and actions Trump has outlined.
We have just witnessed brexit in the UK. Do you seriously expect the next election will be going back to business as normal?
Over the coming years, we could well see Sinn Fein as the largest party in both parts of Ireland, the SNP in control in Scotland and Jeremy Corbyn as PM of the UK.
He never supported remain in the brexit vote and if he can garner the support of the centre left could overturn the conservative majority in england leaving the UK with a Labour / SNP coalition.
AG, Unionism in Ireland is on an unstoppable terminal decline and as soon as the first election after it is in a minority is over, that realisation will hit home like a tonne of bricks.
The unionism that I refer to is the intransigent, unwavering, unrelenting refusal to even discuss what is best for our future if it does not conform to the core unionist ideals that I have referred to.
Many here conform that it is ok for unionists to refuse to enter talks about our future if there is a hint that it could lead to a united Ireland, even though it holds everyone else back..
As I said, when I started on this blog some years ago, I was open to co existence with unionism. But when I found that even the most tolerant and decent self declared unionists such as Scott and Peter also hold those views, then I am just as entitled to hold the view in response, that unionism is a ball and chain in Ireland holding us back both economically, socially and politically and I don’t agree with the Sinn Fein reach out policy that unionists are too stubborn to embrace as they cannot shake off their superiority complex and hold their own self importance too highly to accept their own flaws and their own role in the conflict which they still don’t want to acknowledge.
Perhaps when this happens and the worst type if unionists leave in their droves to the mainland as they like to refer to it, then perhaps my views may soften as I don’t really give a shit about unionism, but while it is actively damaging the wellbeing of Ireland, I believe it is essential that it has to be opposed and confronted.
Simples
“The unionism that I refer to is the intransigent, unwavering, unrelenting refusal to even discuss what is best for our future if it does not conform to the core unionist ideals that I have referred to.”
No, you have clearly stated on numerous occasions that you refer to ALL of unionism and refuse to acknowledge any nuances and deviances whatsoever.
“Many here conform that it is ok for unionists to refuse to enter talks about our future if there is a hint that it could lead to a united Ireland, even though it holds everyone else back..”
And some like me don’t but for some reason you place their opinion above mine.
As per previous post: “There has in the past few years been an upsurge in unionists learning Irish, a Catholic unionist party leader, an electoral pact that was required to keep East Belfast ‘unionist’ and a unionist politician out taking down flags; that is a change in a country mile in unionist terms yet you say not an inch.
These four things alone would have been inconceivable decades ago.
”
Do you or not concede that your ‘not an inch’ assertion is incorrect in the face of these four points that I laid out?
If not, then please consolidate the difference between your assertion and the four points.
“Many here conform that it is ok for unionists to refuse to enter talks about our future if there is a hint that it could lead to a united Ireland, even though it holds everyone else back..”
And some like me don’t but for some reason you place their opinion above mine.
As I said, the ethos of unionism and the impact of its decisions will not change one iota because you or any individual express a reasonable opinion on a blog even if it were genuine.
Unionism will only change when its representatives are able to make a difference as only they will know when unionist opinion has sufficiently changed.
In many ways, the definition of unionism is in the hands of unionism. If you feel unionism does not represent your views of what it should be, it is up to you to change it. I assure you that nationalism has not in its gift to do this for you. Sinn Fein are bending over backwards to make it easier, the rest is up to the unionist people as to whether to continue the attacks on the Irish language as a stick to beat them with as you suggested was the case or you want alternative representation.
“Do you or not concede that your ‘not an inch’ assertion is incorrect in the face of these four points that I laid out?”
No I don’t.
How can the actions of a handful of people who I have no evidence even consider themselves to be unionist suggest the unionist position of no to anything Irish as perpetuated in reality by its political representatives mean there has been real change?
Only when the representatives of unionism feel confident to leave the not an inch position behind can you say there has been significant change,
““Who was the Catholic unionist party leader?”
More importantly, what difference does that make?
Unionism is about keeping Ireland a realm of the British crown, who in 2016 gives a damn about a persons choice of worship other than the orange order.
Then again, I suppose that is a british thing, tony blair had to wait until he stepped aside to turn catholic. A catholic leader of a unionist party I suppose would be a step away from the british ethos. It is not something to be proud off though. It is just shaking off backwardness
”
So, you assert that unionism hasn’t moved an inch and then ‘suppose’ that this is indeed ‘a step away from the British ethos’?
In other words, some things HAVE changed.
“So, you assert that unionism hasn’t moved an inch and then ‘suppose’ that this is indeed ‘a step away from the British ethos’?
In other words, some things HAVE changed.”
Possibly AG, so who is the catholic leader of an irish unionist party?
” But when I found that even the most tolerant and decent self declared unionists such as Scott and Peter also hold those views, ”
I recall similar views being aired during the now almost defunct Religion v Atheism debates.
Apparently there were those who thought that it was the very existence of the moderates who gave encouragement to the extremists; that the ordinary church and chapel going individual, for example, encouraged religious terror.
That view was as pathetic then as the one which uses my name is now. The lack of nuance and understanding is breathtaking.
To be honest, Jessica, I’d prefer if you left the words “tolerant and decent” out – they and nothing to your professed view of people like me.
You are right Peter, I have no evidence you are a “tolerant and decent” person.
Apologies for making assumptions.
I have not read the debates on Religion v Atheism you refer to, I guess it was meant in comparison with the usual unionist extreme religious diatribe we are used to.
You did seem more willing to be moderate, but when it comes down to it, you are no different as witnessed in my blog about a new more modern union with Britain where you expressed the importance of the crown as well as the union and you also have no interest in any official talking about it.
Whether you like it or not, we have came through a conflict started over this very thing and continued unionist intransigence and intolerance of the nationalist opinion says more about your Christian values to me than anything you may have mentioned in the debates you refer to.
I agree that it is pathetic to suggest moderates give encouragement to the extremists.
But it is when so called moderates are as equally intransigent and refuse to compromise that extremists are truly encouraged.
Thank you for your interesting reply.
MT
The unionist ‘leader’ I referred to was Tina McKenzie.
She was first chair of NI21 so perhaps ‘leader’ was a push too far but she was certainly senior within the ill fated party.
Perhaps unionism is trying to change but is simply not able to at present AG.
To be honest none of the mainstream unionist party leadership are even promoting the changes you suggest.
As I said. When unionism does change, it will be evident.
I just don’t believe it is capable of change but I would be happy to be proven wrong in that.
“The unionist ‘leader’ I referred to was Tina McKenzie. She was first chair of NI21 so perhaps ‘leader’ was a push too far but she was certainly senior within the ill fated party.”
I thought that’s who you must have meant but as you say she wasn’t a leader.
But significant nonetheless.
Please explain how Tina McKenzie being the first chair of NI21 should be considered in the remotest way a significant development in the evolution of unionism.
Unionism has not changed one iota either in its willingness to acknowledge its past in starting the conflict or in its willingness to compromise with nationalism in the interests of a peaceful future and this is nothing more than desperate attempt to suggest otherwise while delivering nothing.
“Please explain how Tina McKenzie being the first chair of NI21 should be considered in the remotest way a significant development in the evolution of unionism.”
Because not many Roman Catholics have held senior positions in unionist parties.
“Unionism has not changed one iota either in its willingness to acknowledge its past in starting the conflict or in its willingness to compromise with nationalism in the interests of a peaceful future and this is nothing more than desperate attempt to suggest otherwise while delivering nothing.”
Did the Belfast Agreement escape your attention?
“Did the Belfast Agreement escape your attention?”
You mean the Belfast Agreement that mainstream unionism vehemently opposed and had to be coerced by the UK and US governments into accepting or face joint Dublin rule and which led to the downfall of the UUP.
The same agreement that acknowledges the population shift towards a complete british withdrawal from Ireland when there is a 50% + 1 in favour of this within northern Ireland?
The same agreement that recognises that irish is a national identity, language and culture but unionism refuse to treat any different from other EU nationalities and oppose at every opportunity just like the current education minister dropping irish correspondence from his department.
Basically the agreement that unionism detests and would dearly love to see scrapped and whom I believe would happily accept a return to conflict to bring the british army back over to maintain unionist rule by force.
And please don’t refer to Irish Catholics as Roman Catholics, it is considered an insult to many Irish nationalists to use roman.
“You mean the Belfast Agreement that mainstream unionism vehemently opposed and had to be coerced by the UK and US governments into accepting or face joint Dublin rule and which led to the downfall of the UUP.”
No. I mean the Belfast Agreement that was freely entered into by ‘mainstream unionism’, and eventually accepted by the DUP.
“The same agreement that acknowledges the population shift towards a complete british withdrawal from Ireland when there is a 50% + 1 in favour of this within northern Ireland?”
There’s no acknowledgement of any population shift in the Belfast Agreemen, but yes the one with the referendum commitment (thst was already the case anyway).
“The same agreement that recognises that irish is a national identity, language and culture but unionism refuse to treat any different from other EU nationalities and oppose at every opportunity just like the current education minister dropping irish correspondence from his department.”
There’s nothing in the Agreement obliging departments to use Gaelic in its letterheads.
“Basically the agreement that unionism detests and would dearly love to see scrapped and whom I believe would happily accept a return to conflict to bring the british army back over to maintain unionist rule by force.”
Unionists don’t want a “return to conflict”.
“And please don’t refer to Irish Catholics as Roman Catholics, it is considered an insult to many Irish nationalists to use roman.”
Why is it offersive? Sorry but I shall continue to use it, as I find it offensive to imply that only Roman Catholics are Catholic.
“There’s nothing in the Agreement obliging departments to use Gaelic in its letterheads.”
I never said there was, but in a divided society that has just been through a bloody conflict which unionism started over anti catholic, anti Irish attitudes, you would think that common sense would prevail.
“Unionists don’t want a “return to conflict”
You certainly don’t act like it, and as Jim Molyneux said, the end of conflict was the worst thing that could have happened to unionism.
Therefore I don’t believe you and will judge unionism on the actions of its elected representatives.
“I never said there was, but in a divided society that has just been through a bloody conflict which unionism started over anti catholic, anti Irish attitudes, you would think that common sense would prevail.”
Using Gaelic on departmental letterheads isn’t ‘common sense’.
“You certainly don’t act like it”
We’re not talking about me, but how do you know how I act and in what way do these imaginary actions show that I want to “return to conflict”?
,I never said there was, but in a divided society that has just been through a bloody conflict which unionism started over anti catholic, anti Irish attitudes, you would think that common sense would prevail.
“Unionists don’t want a “return to conflict “?
” and as Jim Molyneux said, the end of conflict was the worst thing that could have happened to unionism.”
He didn’t say that, but even if he did, why would that mean that ‘unionism’ wants a ‘return to conflict’?
“Therefore I don’t believe you and will judge unionism on the actions of its elected representatives.”
So you cite my imagined actions to support your claim and two sentences later say you’ll judge your aim on the actions of elected members?
What actions of elected members lead you to believe that ‘unionism’ wants a ‘return to conflict’?
“Please explain how Tina McKenzie being the first chair of NI21 should be considered in the remotest way a significant development in the evolution of unionism.”
Because she was a Catholic, you even said it yourself that this was a step away from the British norm i.e. ‘a change’.
“Unionism has not changed one iota either in its willingness to acknowledge its past in starting the conflict”
Dawn Purvis did when leader of the PUP, I’d search for a link but you’d just find an excuse to deny this fact.
“Dawn Purvis did when leader of the PUP, I’d search for a link but you’d just find an excuse to deny this fact.”
And Trimble famously acknowledged that NI under the old Stormont was a ‘cold house for Catholics’.
“Please explain how Tina McKenzie being the first chair of NI21 should be considered in the remotest way a significant development in the evolution of unionism.”
But NI21 were not a unionist party and I have no idea whether Tina would approve of you labelling her a unionist to show that unionism in general has changed in any significant way.
I thought the whole ethos of NI21 was to move away from the unionist / nationalist definitions which I would support. I dislike the term nationalist or republican.
But until unionism starts accepting we are all Irish here and can choose to be british or not and need to respect one another, then we will be stuck with these crappy labels.
“Unionism has not changed one iota either in its willingness to acknowledge its past in starting the conflict”
Dawn Purvis did when leader of the PUP, I’d search for a link but you’d just find an excuse to deny this fact.”
It is ok, I believe you. I would have respect for Dawn Purvis and I would have no problem believing that.
What we need is more compromise and tolerance from both sides, to be able to sit and talk about all options and nothing would be unachievable if the will was there.
As I have said, I simply don’t see unionism accepting this or engaging in any meaningful way until their majority is gone for good.
Only then will things start to progress and hopefully we can all be reasonable and respectful to one another.
When we don’t, it only hardens attitudes.
Refusing to engage in talks because it involves discussing something unionism doesn’t like is only hardening opinion against unionism in general. I accept that is not your position AG, but you are in a tiny minority within unionism in that regard.