Listening to Mark Durkan in the House of Commons on the 6th February on the debate on the bill triggering article 50 confirmed three things.
Firstly, Mark Durkan is the the outstanding Irish (Northern or Southern) parliamentarian and an excellent future candidate for the Irish presidency.
Secondly, the British, whilst concerned not to upset the ‘peace’ in Northern Ireland will never let that concern override their own political interests
Thirdly, Nationalist parties taking their seats in the British parliament, is on balance, a waste of time.
Durkan’s speech (plus contributions from sundry Tories and Tom Elliott) which got almost no media coverage is reproduced below.
His amendments which were both well received and understood by the British parliament were voted down.
(The bill will continue its passage in the House of Lords)
Mark Durkan
The real guarantors of the peace process were the people of Ireland when they voted by referendum in May 1998 to choose and underpin the agreement. Neither of the two main parties in this House had a vote in that referendum, and nor did the two parties in Washington, so let us be clear on who the real guarantors are. In the context of a debate in which we are told we have to go by the imperative of the referendum that took place on 23 June last year, let people recognise that there is still an imperative that goes back to the joint referendum, that articulated act of self-determination by the Irish people, who chose to underpin and agree to the Good Friday agreement.
The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) says he does not want uncertainty, but as far as the Good Friday agreement is concerned, the uncertainty is being created by Brexit. Neither he nor anyone else in this House should be surprised when they start to hear that the negotiations that take place after the Assembly elections will not just deal with the questions of scandal, the lack of accountability and transparency, and the smugness and arrogance displayed by the parties in government, but will go to the core of the implications for the agreement as a result of Brexit.
The fact is that although the Good Friday agreement has been wrongly dismissed by others, the EU is mentioned in it. It is there in strands 1 and 2—one of the most expansive references is in relation to the competence of the North South Ministerial Council; it is there in strand 3; and, of course, it is there in the key preamble of the agreement between the Government of the UK and the Government of Ireland, which refers to their common membership of the EU. As John Hume always predicted, that provided both the model and the context for our peace process.
It is no accident that when John Hume, who drove so much of the principles and method into the Good Friday agreement, was awarded the Nobel peace prize—well, just look at that speech and how many references there were to the signal role of Europe and the special contribution it had made and would make, and to the role that the experience of common membership of the EU would play. That is why he said:
“I want to see Ireland—North and South—the wounds of violence healed, play its rightful role in a Europe that will, for all Irish people, be a shared bond of patriotism and new endeavour.”
When he enunciated those words in 1998, he was not talking about a new concept. We can look across the Chamber and see the plaque commemorating Tom Kettle, a former Member of this House who gave his life in the first world war. Before that war, he said that his programme for Ireland consisted in equal parts of home rule and the 10 commandments. He said:
“My only counsel to Ireland is, that to become deeply Irish, she must become European.”
Before he gave his life in the war, he said:
“Used with the wisdom that is sewn in tears and blood, this tragedy of Europe may be and must be the prologue to the two reconciliations of which all statesmen have dreamed, the reconciliation of Protestant Ulster with Ireland, and the reconciliation of Ireland with Great Britain.”
That reconciliation was best achieved and best expressed when we had the Good Friday agreement, which was so overwhelmingly endorsed in this House and in the referendum of the Irish people, north and south of the border. We know that some people did not endorse it, and that some people have held back their endorsement and refused to recognise that referendum result. Some of them are the same people who are telling us now that we have to abide by the referendum result in respect of Brexit and that we have to ignore the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of remaining in the EU. It is the same as when they said that we had to ignore the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland in respect of the Good Friday agreement.
No one should be under any misapprehension that there are implications for the Good Friday agreement. When we hear this lip service that we get from the Government, the rest of us are meant to lip synch along with it and talk about frictionless borders and the common travel area. All those things about the border experience and the common travel area predate the agreement itself, so if we address those issues and those concerns, we must understand that the terms in which they are addressed are not reliable and that they are not relevant to protecting some of the aspects of the agreement itself, which is why the amendments in this group that we have tabled are so important.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has already referred to new clause 150, which appears on page 75 of the Order Paper. We have also tabled a key amendment, amendment 86, to which the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) referred when he addressed new clause 109. There are also amendments 88 and 92, which deal with questions around the competence of the devolved Assembly, and the need for consent in respect of any changes to the competence of that Assembly or of devolved Ministers. Those amendments are not about the question of the Assembly giving consent to the triggering of article 50, so it is not about the same question that went to the Supreme Court—but it is about issues and principles that were addressed and are expressed in the judgment of the Supreme Court that too many people have sought to ignore.
As a supposed co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement, the UK Government are meant to have a duty to protect and develop that agreement. Indeed, various Ministers have told us that they have no intention of allowing Brexit to undermine the agreement. If that is so, there should be no difficulty in having that commitment in the Bill. Politically, we all have to conclude from the Supreme Court judgment that no matter what principles have been agreed or established, none of us can have recourse to their legal adherence without their explicit inclusion in legislation and/or a treaty. We therefore have a duty to be vigilant against any legislative terms that could be used to relegate the crucial importance of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and/or the Belfast agreement more widely.
Those sponsoring and supporting this Bill do so arguing the need to respect the outcome of the referendum on 23 June. We make no apologies for highlighting the primacy that has to be accorded to the overwhelming endorsement in our referendum, when, on 22 May 1998, nearly 72% of people in Northern Ireland and 96% in the south of Ireland voted in favour of the Good Friday agreement.
Sir Hugo Swire
The hon. Gentleman is talking about some extraordinarily challenging and difficult issues, which could have some very serious implications in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that it is our duty—all of us who want to see Northern Ireland prosper and go forward—to recognise the fact that the UK is exiting the EU and that we have to make the most of it. Will he commit to the House that he will not make divisions over Brexit a part of the SDLP campaign during the Northern Ireland elections?
Mark Durkan
The right hon. Gentleman has some neck to ask the Social Democratic and Labour party not to make divisions over Brexit an issue in the election. The wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, which were clearly expressed in the referendum last year, are being ignored. Are we now also to tell the people, “Ignore your own wishes”? The right hon. Gentleman obviously expects a party like the SDLP, which honourably fought a campaign to remain, to say, “Ignore your wishes. Set them aside. You have to be slaves to the impulses of a vote in England in response to some crazy argument.”
Clause 1(2) denies any regard whatever to protecting the constitutional, institutional or rights provisions of the Good Friday agreement or their due reflection in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is why we tabled amendment 86. Clause 1(2) seeks to ensure that that Bill is not restricted by any other legislation whatever. Amendment 86 would create an exception for the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Crucially, it would uphold the collateral principles in the other part of the Good Friday agreement, which is between the Governments of the UK and Ireland, and is not fully reflected in the 1998 Act. The amendment would also exempt section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949 from the override power in the Bill or its outworkings. I admit that the amendment would act as a boundary to the powers provided to the Prime Minister by clause 1(1) and would galvanise the protection for the agreement but, given that the Prime Minister is trying to tell us that she would observe those boundaries, why should she fear that being on the face of the Bill?
New clause 150 draws on key language from the Good Friday agreement, as I made clear to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean. It is intended to ensure that any future UK-EU treaty—we are told that the Government want to negotiate a new UK-EU treaty—will make explicit reference to upholding the fundamental constitutional precept of the Good Friday agreement, which is the principle of consent that affords a democratic route to a united Ireland if that ever becomes the wish of a majority of people in Northern Ireland. In the case of any such future referendum, no uncertainty whatever must hang over Northern Ireland’s direct admission to the EU as a consequence of a vote for a united Ireland. Nor, indeed, must there be any uncertainty over Ireland’s terms of membership of the European Union.
Such uncertainty was deployed during the Scottish independence referendum, when people said, “Don’t make assumptions about Scotland having an automatic place in the EU or that it will be easy. Article 49 will make it very difficult.” The difference for Northern Ireland is that it does not have the choice of becoming a new state. Under the Good Friday agreement, its only choice is membership of the United Kingdom or membership of a united Ireland. That agreement was made at a time when both countries had common membership of the EU. Any future referendum will not take place in that situation. Lots of people can place question marks over whether Northern Ireland would have straightforward entry to the EU in that context. Under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, that could constitute an external impediment to the exercise of that choice or even to the choice of having a referendum.
The Taoiseach identified this issue at the MacGill Summer School last year. It will be an issue for the Irish Government, as one of the 27 member states, when they negotiate their side of the treaty. It would be an odd position for the Irish Government as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement to want this to be reflected in a new UK-EU treaty. This is not just an issue for the British Government as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement; it should be something that they are equally and comfortably committed to.
Let us remember that the key precept of the principle of consent and the democratic choice for a united Ireland, as reflected in a referendum in 1998, was the key point that turned it for those people who had locked themselves on to the nonsense idea that they supported violence sourced from a mandate from the 1918 election. That was the key for quite a number of people to say, “Physical force has no more place in the course of Irish politics.” Physical force is now parked because the Irish people as a whole have, in this generation, by articulated self-determination, upheld this agreement, and that gives them the right, by further articulated self-determination, to achieve unity in the future. Anything that diminishes or qualifies or damages that key precept will damage the agreement. People need to know the difference between a stud wall and a supporting wall: just knocking something through because it is convenient and gives a bit more space might be grand and might do, but if at some future point, when other pressures arise, things start coming down around us, people should not complain. We have to be diligent and vigilant on these matters.
I would also point out that the German precedent, which some people have told us would apply automatically, would not apply. That was under a different treaty. We should also remember that the German precedent partly relied on the fact that the West German constitution, recognised by the then EC treaty, included a territorial claim of jurisdiction over all of Germany—that the basic law applied. That is not the case now in respect of Ireland, because articles 2 and 3 were changed, rightly and properly, in the context of the Good Friday agreement. Those things should not be confounded because of the way in which Brexit takes its course over the years to come. That is why we have to take care of these things now. It is not just the Taoiseach who raised this issue last summer; it is quite clear that the Joint Oireachtas Committee of the Doyle and the Seanad is also prioritising it, and I believe it will feature in one of the Committee’s reports.
I advise Ministers that amendment 86, and quite possibly new clause 150, will also be tabled in the House of Lords. They will be tabled by Lord Murphy—Paul Murphy who piloted the 1998 Act through this House. He also chaired the strand 1 negotiations. Everybody thinks George Mitchell chaired all the negotiations to do with the Good Friday agreement, but he did not chair strand 1, which included some of the most detailed negotiations. Paul Murphy chaired strand 1, and he represented the British Government for most of the time in the strand 2 negotiations as well. If someone of his experience and insight—both from that time and from the role he played as Secretary of State—can see the importance of this and the salient, crucial need to protect the agreement through something such as amendment 86 and new clause 150, who are people in this House to dismiss that point, that experience and that insight, as well as dismissing the clear wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?
Finally, I want to address amendments 88 and 92, which make provision for any change to the legislative competence of the Assembly or to the executive competence of the Executive to require the assent of the Assembly. They address issues that found expression in the Supreme Court judgment. There has been a false shorthand around the Supreme Court judgment that has basically said that no aspect of Sewel can ever apply in any way, and that is not what the Supreme Court actually said. At paragraph 151, it said:
“we do not underestimate the importance of constitutional conventions, some of which play a fundamental role in the operation of our constitution. The Sewel Convention has an important role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures.”
The point is a simple one: if this House does not uphold this convention at this time on such an important change in the governance of Northern Ireland, what, then, is left of that convention?
We need to remember that the Good Friday agreement is based not just on the principle of consent but on the promise and the exercise of trust and reliable adherence. We have a situation now where this Parliament is not being seen to keep its side of what was assumed to be the bargain and the understanding in the compact between all the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Ireland, and between the Governments of these islands. That is why we have tabled amendments 88 and 92.
On amendment 92, I want Members to understand that it is important that the Government indicate that they understand what new changes there will be to the competency of the Northern Ireland Assembly and when those will happen. If, as we are being told—this came up in exchanges between hon. Members from Wales—the great repeal Bill, when it comes, involves competencies over rights or environmental standards being held in some sort of holding pattern here before subsequently being devolved, that could do serious injury to rights protections and promises under the Good Friday agreement. If we have dilution of those rights or standards before devolution, the Northern Ireland Assembly will not be able to top them back up to the pre-existing EU standards without cross-community support, which will probably be denied courtesy of the DUP, just as it has abused and misused the parallel consent principles—the petition of concern—to block other rights. A mechanism that was meant to be there to protect rights has actually been used to frustrate rights. We have to make sure that in the journey of the transfer of powers and competences from Brussels to the UK, it is clearly a case of “Devolution, straight to devolution, do not pass Go, do not collect £200”, and that there is no dirty work at the crossroads in relation to diluting rights and standards. That is why these issues are being addressed.
That will be a key issue in strand 1 and it will become an issue in the negotiations that take place after the election. Those negotiations will touch on the petition of concern itself, but also the context that has been created by Brexit in terms of further powers that might be coming to the Assembly. Similarly, as the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said, the question of strand 2 will arise in the negotiations, because the Good Friday agreement made a commitment that there would be at least six implementation bodies, on a cross-border basis. The six that were created after the Good Friday agreement were, by the insistence of the Ulster Unionist party, which was the only Unionist party negotiating by that stage, all related to areas that dealt a lot with European funding or dealt with questions of common compliance with European standards. If we no longer have common European funding or the issues of common compliance, then the rationale for those existing bodies has gone and there will have to be six new bodies. That opens up a whole area of negotiation. It brings us essentially into a review of the Good Friday agreement.
Sir Hugo Swire
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that before there are any new bodies or any more reviews, the priority for the people of Northern Ireland should be to get a working Assembly and re-elect a working Executive to get on with running Northern Ireland, so that all these things can then be dealt with? Without that, there will be no more devolution of anything it seems.
Mark Durkan
Yes, and my party and I are fully pledged to doing that. Nobody worked harder to create the principles and the precepts of the agreement and to get those institutions established and up and running—and we did so, I have to tell the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), with very good assistance from the EU. As someone who was a Minister in Northern Ireland—both a Finance Minister and a Deputy First Minister—I had many negotiations with many people in the EU, including Michel Barnier, who was very constructive and helpful in relation to a number of funding issues. Yes, he had his particularisms about which one had to be careful and understand where he was coming from, and certainly his officials had to understand where he was coming from, but it was a useful and constructive contribution—one of many—from the EU.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if article 50 is triggered we will no longer have InterTradeIreland, Waterways Ireland, Tourism Ireland, and the six bodies that were set up by the Belfast agreement? I do not see any threat to them from triggering article 50.
Mark Durkan
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was his party that said, “If we are going to go ahead and agree these implementation bodies, the cover has to be that the way in which we can show that they meet our test of mutual benefit is that they deal with matters that largely transpose EU business and involve questions of common compliance.” There is the Food Standards Agency, and Waterways Ireland and the Loughs Agency have some environmental compliance issues—and of course there is also the question of EU funding. As the hon. Member for St Helens North said, the role of the Special EU Programmes Body is not going to exist if no common EU funding is to be available any more.
If the rationale and justification for the existing bodies is wounded and weakened, then those of us who negotiated and supported the agreement have the right to say, “We’ve already had nearly 20 years of this limited area of implementation co-operation. It now needs to be developed and expanded as the agreement promised it could be.” If the existing bodies are wounded and winged by the fact of Brexit, if they limp along and struggle for relevance, then clearly there must be—in the context of a review at least of strand 2, if not the wider agreement—negotiations on new bodies. Those negotiations, as we know, will not find themselves unlinked to other issues and factors as well. Some hon. Members of this House have hummed to themselves that Brexit has no implications for the Good Friday agreement, and that as long as they say that they will consult Ministers and that they do not want border posts, no other damage has been done. They do not understand the politics that went into the agreement, and they do not understand the politics that will upset the workings of that agreement because of the implications of Brexit.
That is why if people have a care for the Good Friday agreement, they should have no problem with amendment 86. If people vote against amendment 86 on Wednesday, they will be voting against the idea that we can have the Good Friday agreement at the same time as pursuing Brexit
not even an apology from mark for helping create brexit by supporting corbyn and his ilk.
Irishmen of whatever hew legitimising British interest in Ireland, by taking seats in Westminster is something I’ve never understood. They are paddies, green or orange and are of zero consequence to the English. The whole thing is ludicrous.
yea same as stormont
Would you vote to have representation in the Dail Billy
Who is this fool Hugo Swire to tell the people of N Ireland what our priorities should be, when he is happy to ignore the fact that we voted to Remain?
It is time to let England go fuck itself
Ireland buys more from Britain than we well to Britain
Time to consolidate our island economy, to buy from somewhere else and continue growing export markets beyond the UK and EU borders
The contribution of the various Tories was very poor – largely i think because they knew that what Durkan was saying was correct and couldn’t easily challenge it.
Other Tory contributions in relation to Labour and SNP amendments were considerably more worthwhile as quite a few of the amendments were a thin disguise to delay Brexit or score political points with their own constituencies.
It’s time we got our act together here and face the problems that face the people and for that we need good articulate politicians willing to go into any forum, for that in the end is all that Westminster, Stormont and Dail Eireann is, and speak for the interests of the people. What we have here is a total nonsense. Most people are so sickened by the politics here that they don’t even vote. Sinn Fein and the DUP have brought us to this place and they are unable to take us forward. Mike Nesbit made a courageous move today that if followed could transform politics here and all the punditry have been underwhelmed to say the least. Perhaps they don’t want their nice little earners to disappear because political commentary here is almost an malign virus of epidemic proportions. Some of the worst affected have become so grotesque it’s frightening to watch. If all else fails perhaps the Russians will amuse themselves and do us a favour.
Vote SDLP and you are voting UUP.
You obviously think that is a good idea then Dom?
Is this the same Mike that kicked off the fleg protests with the leaflets attacking the Alliance party and Naomi?
The same Mike that was part of the graduated response and stood shoulder to shoulder with active loyalist paramilitaries to lend a bit of muscle to his argument?
The same Mike that spent years desperately trying to out DUP the DUP?
So how does that fit with Colums continuously expressed desire for a united Ireland and an Irish language act over recent months?
When he says turn the nationalist anger into action, is voting UUP really going to cut it?
Not round our way anyway.
These are both things Mike is absolutely opposed to and if he would run to loyalist paramilitaries over a simple change to flag days, do you really expect us to believe this is anything other than a last desperate pitch by both parties to survive a while longer anyway?
It will fail and both leaders will be out on their arses in a few weeks time.
You only need to look at the low number of candidates they are standing to know there is no chance whatsoever of either being in the top 2.
We already know SDLP transfers to unionist parties, the majority of the SDLP were completely absent from the media waves during Colums republican conversion.
There is a major split in the party brewing over it I can tell you.
Delores Kelly had to make a come back because no one else wanted to stand for them and half of her party members in the area don’t even like her and are making absolutely no secret about it.
Wonder will she pay back her 65K pay off?
I doubt it
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-assembly-election/exmla-given-65k-stormont-pay-off-set-to-run-for-election-again-35379055.html
Both SDLP and UUP will have less seats, both leaders will be out and the SDLP will go through a bitter split shortly after the election that could well end the party once and for all.
It’s about offering something different Jessica, an opposition that can provide the electorate with the power to effect change rather than meekly following traditional lines. Is that not a good thing?All political parties are battle grounds, even SF.Has this opportunity ever arisen before? I found MN a disappointment at the start but he seems up for change. Column Eastwood is a hard energetic worker who has been busy building relationships over Brexit. Why these two can’t do better than Arlene and Martin is a serious question that people must ask themselves. Will the return of Michelle and Arlene really bring change or just be another bout of trench warfare. The turn in road is before us if we want to take it or wait for another generation to bring change. The politics of facing each other had to end.
Vote Colum and get Mike, vote Mike and then the parties you trust – which may or may not be Colum.
They cant even agree to vote for one another and Mike has already said no to an Irish language act just tonight.
Super change
He could be persuaded about an Irish language act depending on cost which no one seems know except the “abominals”.
He wasn’t too worried about the cost of the flag protests he kicked off.
“abominables”
Agree on Mike Nesbitt’s courage. Quite how it play with the Unionist electorate remains to be seen. Newsletter seems to be broadly supportive and has been critical of the DUP- perhaps there will be a shift towards moderation within Unionism or the UUP will be rewarded with a decent result.
One thing is for sure, he is all in.
When it fails he will be out on his ear.
He will have denounced the SDLP three times before the election, wait and see 🙂
M God, Freddie, if I had thought you were going to give me such a hard time I’d have manufactured some excuse to bar you from this hallowed ground…
Sam McBride the Newsletter editor fairly stated that given the Mike-and-Colum double act those who have complained about the same old ‘tribal politics’ now have a chance to vote for something different – and stop complaining.
The boul Mark in action.
Mark may as well have been speaking in the Chinese parliament, his voice counts for nothing. He is a representative from England`s last little piece of a colony, he and the unionists might just as well turn up wearing grass skirts.
Think Parnell and weep for what could have been. We are the sum of our choices and our choices have led us to partition. The north may as well be China for a lot of our fellow Irish men. Those who have done their worst and still failed have no right to criticize those who continue to do their best.
Whose choices led to partition?
It was England’s failure to deal with unionist threats and aggression that led to partition, no-one else.
Even Maggie thatcher acknowledged they got it wrong.
You sound like you are stuck in your own little self hating world of perpetual misery Dominic.
I was just reflecting on the strong parliamentary tradition that the Irish had and what might have been achieved. What’s wrong with that; we chose Soloheadbeg, didn’t we?
Soloheadbeg didnt come out of nothing, blood had already been spilled.
I am not ashamed of Soloheadbeg and I have nothing but respect for those involved.
I have no respect for those who would put good republicans down for fighting forces of oppression when politics fails and democracy is denied
I would do so again if democracy and the will of the people is not listened to, especially over the brexit border
There will be no peace process with the return of a hard border
There is no point looking into the past if it doesn’t guide you in the right direction going forward
Irish traditions run deep
“Irish traditions run deep” I made that point before and you called me a loon. It hasn’t worked though has it?
Points of view Dominic.
Democracy certainly didn’t work over the many decades a majority expressed the wish for home rule whereas unionist threats of civil war and introducing the paramilitary achieved partition and allowed 50 years of unhindered discrimination.
If it wasn’t for the IRA, who knows what would have happened with the british army choosing to support a unionist community who had been putting catholic families out of the state in their thousands.
It was not the Irish who is choosing conflict with britain but britain who chooses to impose its rule upon the Irish through its military might.
Who is it that still is rejecting peace and democracy?
Vetoing truth and justice is simply not acceptable, nor will we accept being treated as second class Irish from either london or dublin.
Whoever intends to man any return of a hard border in Ireland should consider seriously whether or not they have a death wish before they put a target on their backs and turn it into a shooting gallery.
I don’t need a history lesson. Militant republicanism did not, will not, and cannot free Ireland
Republicanism has been pursuing reconciliation and peaceful agreement among all Irish people to unite this country for nearly 20 years now.
What you need to ask yourself is why you are stilling refusing to accept republicanism is now leading the way forward and using past conflicts which were never one sided to detract from that fact.
You are part of the new problem Dominic.
You are a boring fart with nothing to offer and prepared to use any dirt from any decade to your political advantage.
But the fact remains, neither your or my point of view will ever and can never change human nature
You’re a mass of contradictions Jessica. One the one hand you’re threatening terrible retribution if there’s a hard border and then you’re talking about SF contribution to peace, which I accept. But you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
I never threatened anyone and you need to be careful what you accuse me off my friend.
Dominic
“Militant republicanism did not, will not, and cannot free Ireland.”
Militant republicanism did free 26 of Ireland’s 32 counties. Militant loyalism secured the partitioning of the other six.
We may wish it were otherwise, but it really is naive and ahistorical to suggest that militancy hasn’t often been successful in Irish history.
I don’t characterise what we have in in Ireland as freedom Billy. Alienation would be a better description. The north has suffered grievously and the south has also been affected. Violent traditions within the Island are still lurking in dark corners infecting the body politic. Is that you’re definition of success? Jessica, re- read you’re posts.
You still have nothing to offer Dominic
Just a vote like everyone else Jessica
Well, what is it you will be voting for then?
…why don’t you go and polish you’re pike
“I don’t characterise what we have in in Ireland as freedom Billy.”
The south is free to an extent that Irish people prior to 1921 could only dream about – and that we in the north can still only dream about. Of course it’s not a perfect place, but it’s much, much better than it would be were it not free. It’s simply not true to say that most people in the south feel “alienated” from their country, or indeed from the state. Everyone has their criticisms, but the vast, vast majority are grateful for the freedom they have inherited – a freedom that was won for them by men and women at arms. That reality may not tally with what you wish were true, but it’s true nonetheless.
“Is that you’re definition of success?”
My definition of success is a robust democracy, a strong and enduring patriotism, a rich cultural life, good schools, and a healthy, growing economy. British rule prevented almost all Irish people from enjoying any of these things. Irish freedom has allowed most Irish people to now do so. We in the north continue to be excluded from most of these things, precisely because we are not free.
It’s important to appreciate what you’ve got. It’s especially important for Irish nationalists not to be unappreciative of what a stunning success Irish independence has been, in the 26 counties over which it has been established.
With all due respect, Parnell never achieved anything remotely approaching what has been achieved in the past century by Irishmen who simply turned their back on Westminster.
Well said Billy.
I am not an EU supporter by any means but I cannot deny that the bulk of those successes came post joining the EEC in the more recent decades and were a steep curve.
Ireland is a well respected technology services provider in a global market.
I personally don’t think either of the civil war parties have adapted to the success Ireland has had and do not have the respect of confidence in our peoples abilities to invest in our nation to reach its potential.
Unionism is a ball and chain if not an anchor to growth and development, but too many parties are too focussed on what they are familiar with and are hindering changes which are happening slowly but are not being driven by good governance.
Ireland does not belong to Fine Gael and Fianna Fail and sooner or later they will need to learn this at the polls.
Ireland has 32 counties and their is alienation from that concept. Acceptance of two states through violent conflict is failure. That’s why we have the GFA which recognised that failure and set a new peaceful course to achieve unity through agreement. That is the idea as I understand it.
As far as I am concerned the conflict with britain is over and that will remain the case unless there is bad faith or breach of agreement which they are playing with fire on at present already.
Inflicting a hard border and customs points within Ireland is absolutely a breach of the peace accord and should be seen as nothing less. If Ireland is repartitioned over england leaving the EU, then it may as well be a declaration of war.
We need a Dublin government more able to stand up for the people of Ireland, declare that no border will be acceptable and not leave it once again to a civilian population to stand up alone against british oppression in Ireland. Like it or not, taking us out of the EU against our democratically expressed wishes and imposing tariffs within a land border only in Ireland that we call ill afford, is a non starter.
It is all well and good talking about peace and how violence is wrong, but in the absence of strong political leadership, that equates to cowardice and we Irish are not cowards.
It is time we took the cowardice out of the Dail.
I am assuming you are not saying that we should accept higher prices for all foods and goods, accept job losses and further economic crisis upon crisis to accommodate our english overlords and simply accept second rate citizenship?
We do not know if Britain will be the problem or the EU itself. Colum Eastwood has been going round Europe trying to build up relationships like John Hume before him and the Toaiseach will have an important role to play. The British may talk the talk about all parts leaving but I would be surprised if they really pushed for a hard border given the opposition of border communities.
“We do not know if Britain will be the problem or the EU itself.”
We should not allow either to be a problem. I want Ireland to be represented by people who have the confidence to stand up for what is best for the Irish people, not what is best for London or Brussels.
Ireland can stand on our own two feet. Only the people of Ireland should decide what borders Ireland will have.
Unionism is not “alienation” from the concept of Irish sovereignty. It is opposition to it. Unionists OPPOSE Irish independence, they are not “alienated” from it.
This is where the SDLP has lost its way. They devote far more time and energy into placating the (implacable) opposition than attempting to defeat that opposition. Unionists OPPOSE Irish freedom. They are passionately against it.
The SDLP needs to stop dwelling on how to make unionism feel and behave better, and think more about how to defeat it. Criticising the 26 counties in which Irish independence has been established, and been a remarkable success, is not the way to do this.
“Criticising the 26 counties in which Irish independence has been established, and been a remarkable success, is not the way to do this.”
There is logic in what you are saying here billy and it is great to hear new thinking but the 26 do deserve criticism in my opinion.
Businesses are at a loss on both sides of the border as to what is happening over brexit, small businesses in particular don’t know if they have a future or not, uncertainty is rife, jobs are already at risk and more will follow.
I get that the EU and UK have their own beef to iron out but Ireland is a separate issue and we will not be playing second fiddle to either.
Kenny has been sitting in the back seat and waiting to be told what Ireland is allowed to do next.
That cannot be allowed to continue.
Not to mention the behaviour of the southern establishment and their media who have been disproportionately biased in favour of unionism and british needs for far too long. President Higgins commented that the scrutiny has been one sided to date and he was right but this still has not been addressed..
Britain made the mistake of partitioning Ireland once, they would be foolish to try it again.
We are all heading towards a crossroads where we will all have to choose sides.
Will the 26 stand firm with their fellow citizens in the north and unite this island or will they side with unionist britain and maintain partition where it will be left to the 26 to enforce the EU land border, while britain will man the ports.
I have little confidence in the twerps currently in the Dail we will find out shortly whether Fianna Fail have courage to step up themselves or will allow this duck to twaddle on.
You need to make a difference between political Unionism and civic Unionism which will have to be accommodated in any new settlement. You just can’t ignore people. Also, opposition to a UI could come from people who have developed a 26 county mindset and are quite happy with it. They do exist. Our experiences have been different throughout most of the last century and that has to be a factor too. These are the conversations we are going to have if we are to achieve a UI
“That’s why we have the GFA which recognised that failure and set a new peaceful course to achieve unity through agreement. That is the idea as I understand it.”
This is untrue. The peaceful course to achieve ‘unity’ was always available. The GFA didn’t introduce it.
It’s only theoretically – indeed almost theologically – true that a “peaceful course to achieve unity” was available in 1969.
In reality, northern nationalism was asking for a hell of a lot less than reunification in 1969, and was met with brutal violence.
The IRA campaign from 1970 onwards was not justified by this, but we should not let the wickedness of that campaign blind us to the context that gave rise to it.
(BTW, it’s an error to place inverted commas around ‘unity’. Just unity, or reunification, will do.)
You need to elaborate on that MT
“You need to elaborate on that MT”
Why? Isn’t it obvious?
What did the GFA change in relation to a peaceful course to achieve ‘unity’?
The GFA was the first time all parties to Irelands conflicts and differences got together to thrash things out. Articles 2&3 of the Irish constitution was changed to reflect a new era of respect and understanding. The agreement was enshrined in international law. It heralded a new era were violence was left on the past.
“The GFA was the first time all parties to Irelands conflicts and differences got together to thrash things out. Articles 2&3 of the Irish constitution was changed to reflect a new era of respect and understanding. The agreement was enshrined in international law. It heralded a new era were violence was left on the past.”
Largely irrelevant. The GFA simply restated the position that had existed explicitly since 1949 and implicitly since 1921, ie that ‘unity’ could be achieved by a majority voting for it. That was the case before the GFA and was unchanged by the GFA.
“It’s only theoretically – indeed almost theologically – true that a “peaceful course to achieve unity” was available in 1969.”
No. It’s true in reality. A majority vote for nationalism would have resulted in a majority in Stormont, which in turn could have voted to join the South.
“BTW, it’s an error to place inverted commas around ‘unity’. Just unity, or reunification, will do.”
It’s not an error. I do so deliberately to highlight that it is not my word. The use of ‘unity’ in this context implies something more virtuous than disunity. Yet the status quo is currently unity between NI and GB and a ‘united Ireland’ would result in disunity.
“Yet the status quo is currently unity between NI and GB and a ‘united Ireland’ would result in disunity.”
I don’t think the people of GB would mind, in fact the vast majority would be wondering why the hell part of Ireland is part of any union separately from the rest.
The disparity in your thinking is in your belief that this union between GB and 6 counties of Ireland matters to anyone in GB to any degree whatsoever.
It doesnt
The relinquishing of articles 2&3 can hardly be described as irrelevant. It was a major shift for nationalism.
“The relinquishing of articles 2&3 can hardly be described as irrelevant. It was a major shift for nationalism.”
Entirely irrelevant to the point under discussion, namely the availability of a peaceful avenue to ‘unity’. That avenue existed before and continues to exist after the amendment of those articles.
Did Unionists think that or did they see these articles as justifying violence towards them?
“Did Unionists think that or did they see these articles as justifying violence towards them?”
Did unionists think what?
Unionists subscribed to the express principle of consent in 1949 if not implicitly before, and argued it consistenly during the Troubles. The GFA merely restated it.
“No. It’s true in reality. A majority vote for nationalism would have resulted in a majority in Stormont, which in turn could have voted to join the South.”
As I say – theoretically true, but in practice impossible.
Your argument suggests that you think that unionism in 1969 was nothing more than the temporarily more popular of two political parties within a fairly settled democratic system. Rather unionism was the rallying cry of an artificially-engineered local majority within a laager. To suggest that the nationalist minority trapped within that laager just needed to win an election is wilfully obtuse. They were living in a state specifically designed to make that impossible.
‘It’s not an error. I do so deliberately to highlight that it is not my word.’
Whether or not it’s your word, it’s the correct word.
“The use of ‘unity’ in this context implies something more virtuous than disunity.”
Indeed.
“Yet the status quo is currently unity between NI and GB and a ‘united Ireland’ would result in disunity.”
No, it’s the Irish Sea that create disunity between Ireland and Britain.
More than 65 million people live in these islands, and less than a million of them in one corner of the smaller island think that the natural divisions are where you think they are.
“Your argument suggests that you think that unionism in 1969 was nothing more than the temporarily more popular of two political parties within a fairly settled democratic system. Rather unionism was the rallying cry of an artificially-engineered local majority within a laager. To suggest that the nationalist minority trapped within that laager just needed to win an election is wilfully obtuse. They were living in a state specifically designed to make that impossible.”
First, there was no artificially engineered local majority. The majority was real and not engineered.
Second, the same formula exists now as existed then for achieving ‘unity’. It is no different.
Third, even if one argues that the system.of government in 1969 made a vote for ‘unity’ impossible, that system was abolished in 1972.
“Whether or not it’s your word, it’s the correct word.”
That depends on one’s perspective.
“No, it’s the Irish Sea that create disunity between Ireland and Britain.”
Wrong. Disunity was created by Irish nationalism, which wanted to, and partially succeeded in disuniting GB and Ireland. The Irish Sea is inanimate and existed before this disunity. People not bodies of water create disunity.
“More than 65 million people live in these islands, and less than a million of them in one corner of the smaller island think that the natural divisions are where you think they are.”
How do you know?
But even if true, it is a fallacy to argue that one is right because one holds the majority view.
“First, there was no artificially engineered local majority. The majority was real and not engineered.”
Of course it was artificially engineered. That was (and remains) the entire purpose of the border. You draw a line around a local minority, and hey presto, they become the “majority” inside that line.
“Second, the same formula exists now as existed then for achieving ‘unity’. It is no different.”
The formula might be the same, but the circumstances and context are radically different. Some things are (perhaps) possible now that were in practice impossible then.
“People not bodies of water create disunity.”
Physical reality can, and does, cause people and their interests to diverge. Step back from your conditioned ideological position for a moment, and look at what lunacy it is to deny such an obvious reality.
The Irish Sea is absolutely no reason for Irish and British people not to get on, but it absolutely does make our interests quite distinct. The existence of a British redoubt in Ireland, cut off from the rest of Ireland, was never anyone’s idea of a sensible situation.
“Of course it was artificially engineered. That was (and remains) the entire purpose of the border. You draw a line around a local minority, and hey presto, they become the “majority” inside that line.”
By that argument, every state or jurisdiction created as a result of naionalism and/or self-determination is ‘artificially engineered’.
“The formula might be the same, but the circumstances and context are radically different. Some things are (perhaps) possible now that were in practice impossible then.”
What is possible now that was in practice impossible then?
“The Irish Sea is absolutely no reason for Irish and British people not to get on, but it absolutely does make our interests quite distinct.”
How?
“The existence of a British redoubt in Ireland, cut off from the rest of Ireland, was never anyone’s idea of a sensible situation.”
It was unionists’ and Parliament’s idea of a sensible situation, and obvious solution, when the strength of feeling of those opposed to being included in a nationalist state became clear.
Your belief that physical geography should trump people’s wishes is.disturbingly anti-democratic.
“By that argument, every state or jurisdiction created as a result of nationalism and/or self-determination is ‘artificially engineered’.”
Yawn. I wrote a detailed post to you on another post yesterday in answer to your plaintive question “Are all borders not artificial?” The answer: most are not. I wish you wouldn’t pretend we hadn’t debated this so recently – and you left most of my points unchallenged.
“What is possible now that was in practice impossible then?”
In 1969 unionism had a large demographic majority. They had a state they wholly controlled to defend. They had a one-party government and gerrymandered local authorities in their control. They had an armed police force and large-scale militias they controlled. They had a 100,000-strong Orange Order rooted in every community. They had a judiciary almost entirely appointed via Orange patronage. They had harshly repressive legislation on the books with which to keep nationalists down. They still had an apparent (though chimerical) advantage over the south in terms of standards of living. They still had a huge and formidable loyalist proletariat. The south was still strongly Catholic, making the whipping up of sectarianism against it very easy. They had a UK government that knew little about NI but could be relied upon to instinctively back unionism. They had a hard border with the south, and the benefit of 50 years worth of drift that had resulted. They had a high level of political unity, and were opposed by a nationalism that was not politically organised in any serious way, that had few links or experience with southern politics and even fewer with Westminster. And they had a history of getting their own way, going back 50 years.
None of this is true today. In most cases, for unionism the advantages of 1969 are completely flipped and are disadvantages in 2016. Unionism has largely been defanged.
“How (does the Irish Sea make the interests of the Irish and British people distinct)?”
It makes the smaller island subordinate to the needs of the larger one. This has had historically-damaging, sometimes catastrophic effects. (The Great Famine being the most extreme example, where millions of Irish people were sacrificed on the altar of the political fashion in England.) Today, as the (free) south of Ireland boasts one of the most advanced standards of living in the world, UK policy is for NI to be a low-skilled, low-wage, high-outward-migration, peripheral region. Because this is what it suits the southeast of England for us to be.
This is the history of the relationship in microcosm. I’m sorry that your understanding of your own history is so limited that you would ask, apparently in all innocence, such a question, but I encourage you to step out of your ideological trench, and read more widely.
“(Partition) was unionists’ and Parliament’s idea of a sensible situation, and obvious solution when the strength of feeling of those opposed to being included in a nationalist state became clear.”
No, in all cases it was seen as a temporary stopgap to prevent major bloodshed. Even in that respect, it failed.
The strength of unionist feeling has never been in doubt. It’s the wisdom of the unionist position that has been exposed as lacking. Their position wasn’t an irrational one, by any means; but their vision has had its day, and it has failed. What you call the “nationalist state” has been a great success. The experiment is over, and the results are in.
“Your belief that physical geography should trump people’s wishes is.disturbingly anti-democratic.”
My argument is that people’s wishes are informed by their interests, and those interests are profoundly shaped by physical reality. The denial of physical reality by unionism, is one of the reasons their state has been a failure, they have become an international pariah community, and they suffer from a much-discussed “identity crisis”. It’s not healthy to be a geography-denier.
“Yawn. I wrote a detailed post to you on another post yesterday in answer to your plaintive question “Are all borders not artificial?” The answer: most are not. I wish you wouldn’t pretend we hadn’t debated this so recently – and you left most of my points unchallenged.”
And I responded to that post by pointing out that by your argument the Irish border isn’t artificial either.
You’ve since argued that jurisdictions formed in order to reflect the wishes of a local minority are artificially engineered. This argument merely serves to categorise all jurisdictions created as a result of self-determination as artificially.engineered.
“In 1969 unionism had a large demographic majority. They had a state they wholly controlled to defend. They had a one-party government and gerrymandered local authorities in their control. They had an armed police force and large-scale militias they controlled. They had a 100,000-strong Orange Order rooted in every community. They had a judiciary almost entirely appointed via Orange patronage. They had harshly repressive legislation on the books with which to keep nationalists down. They still had an apparent (though chimerical) advantage over the south in terms of standards of living. They still had a huge and formidable loyalist proletariat. The south was still strongly Catholic, making the whipping up of sectarianism against it very easy. They had a UK government that knew little about NI but could be relied upon to instinctively back unionism. They had a hard border with the south, and the benefit of 50 years worth of drift that had resulted. They had a high level of political unity, and were opposed by a nationalism that was not politically organised in any serious way, that had few links or experience with southern politics and even fewer with Westminster. And they had a history of getting their own way, going back 50 years.
“None of this is true today. In most cases, for unionism the advantages of 1969 are completely flipped and are disadvantages in 2016. Unionism has largely been defanged.”
And these changes only occurred in 1998? Nonsense. What you describe ended in 1972.
“It makes the smaller island subordinate to the needs of the larger one. This has had historically-damaging, sometimes catastrophic effects. (The Great Famine being the most extreme example, where millions of Irish people were sacrificed on the altar of the political fashion in England.) Today, as the (free) south of Ireland boasts one of the most advanced standards of living in the world, UK policy is for NI to be a low-skilled, low-wage, high-outward-migration, peripheral region. Because this is what it suits the southeast of England for us to be. This is the history of the relationship in microcosm. I’m sorry that your understanding of your own history is so limited that you would ask, apparently in all innocence, such a question, but I encourage you to step out of your ideological trench, and read more widely.”
That’s not caused by the Irish Sea. Indeed inadvertently you’ve disproved your point by referring to the interests of the southeast of England. The southeast of England is not separated from the rest of the British Isles by the Irish Sea.
Of course there was also terrible famine at the same.time in the Highlands of Scotland, with similar effects and similarly managed. Was this caused by a sea?
And if your own understanding of history was as good as you like to think you’d realise that the economic and social interests of Ireland north and south diverged in the nineteenth century.
“No, in all cases it was seen as a temporary stopgap to prevent major bloodshed. Even in that respect, it failed.”
It wasn’t seen as temporary by unionists.
“The strength of unionist feeling has never been in doubt. It’s the wisdom of the unionist position that has been exposed as lacking. Their position wasn’t an irrational one, by any means; but their vision has had its day, and it has failed. What you call the “nationalist state” has been a great success. The experiment is over, and the results are in.”
If you concede that unionists’ desire to remain separate from a nationalist state and continue to be united with the rest of the British Isles was rational, then by the same token you must concede that it wasn’t ‘artificial’.
“Your belief that physical geography should trump people’s wishes is.disturbingly anti-democratic.”
“My argument is that people’s wishes are informed by their interests, and those interests are profoundly shaped by physical reality. The denial of physical reality by unionism, is one of the reasons their state has been a failure, they have become an international pariah community, and they suffer from a much-discussed “identity crisis”. It’s not healthy to be a geography-denier.”
I’m unaware of any denial of physical reality any more so than has existed between other jurisdictions with land borders between them. One could argue that Irish nationalists deny the physical reality of being part of the British Isles, even going sos far as to reject the name of the geographical entity to emphasise the separateness rather than the closeness of the two islands.
But your argument goes way beyond merely observing that interests are shaped by physical reality. You argue that, in the case of the British Isles at least, ‘physical reality’ *should* lead to political division and where it doesn’t any other kind of political division or unity is ‘artificial’. You also choose to emphasise the ‘physical reality’ of separateness rather than closeness.
The relationship between both islands would be improved through britain accepting the island of Ireland is a separate and distinct entity that is totally independent of GB and instead focussing on building a mutually cooperative relationship based on respect and not jurisdictional control.
Unionism is souring this relationship and risks driving a wedge not only through Ireland, but between these islands also.
I would have supported a united Ireland within a reformed UK, but no more.
Comments by brokenshire on the anniversary of bloody Sunday and the untrustability of britain have ruled this out for me permanently.
I don’t trust britain, I don’t trust the union and I don’t trust unionists.
Unionism must be removed from Ireland in its entirety and we must replace trade with GB to look elsewhere for trade partners less toxic to Irish needs.
The point which you are pretending not to see is that borders exist as an expression of the needs of those who live within them. The problem with the Irish border is that it’s destructive to our needs. This is probably most true of unionists – for nationalists, the border does great material harm, but for unionists the destruction is intellectual, psychological and moral, as well as material. You perhaps are too mired in that reality to actually see it clearly, but the rest of the world sees it clearly enough.
“And these changes only occurred in 1998?”
Some of these things had changed BY 1998. Some of them changed as a result of 1998. Others have changed in the interim. Together they add up to a context that is radically altered, in which things that were once practically impossible have become practically possible.
“…inadvertently you’ve disproved your point by referring to the interests of the southeast of England. The southeast of England is not separated from the rest of the British Isles by the Irish Sea.”
Hardly. I am not concerned here with whether the island of Great Britain is a natural political unit. There’s a strong argument that it’s not, though I have no fixed opinion on the matter. What I am stressing is that Britain and Ireland are not a natural political unit. It has been tried, in a huge range of different forms, and it has failed. It is an idea that has been tested to destruction. Your observation that Britain itself is creaking as a political unit is hardly an argument that Ireland might as well be added to the collapsing house of cards. (Hey, Ireland – you too can be treated like crap by London!)
“If you concede that unionists’ desire to remain separate from a nationalist state and continue to be united with the rest of the British Isles was rational, then by the same token you must concede that it wasn’t ‘artificial’.”
No. Because these are different words that mean different things. This is what’s called a non-sequitur. As well as reading history, you might also acquaint yourself with some basic formal logic. (I notice a lot of people educated in the unionist system appear to have this failing. I wonder if this is intentional.)
I said the position of early unionists was ‘not irrational’. They had a good thing, and they wanted to keep it going. I can see why they took the position they did. But they were wrong, fundamentally wrong, because what they were trying to do was prevent change. And change is a constant, whether you like it or not. They liked the world as it was, and wanted it to stay as it was, and having made their stand, got stuck with it. The result has been a hundred years of political, economic, intellectual and moral stagnation. They should have accepted that change was inevitable, and thrown themselves into the business of shaping that change. Had they done so, Belfast today would have a thriving population of 2 million, and be the Munich of the north.
“I’m unaware of any denial of physical reality any more so than has existed between other jurisdictions with land borders between them.”
You really think our material interests in this corner of Ireland are better served by being an effective colony of England than being an integral part of a sovereign Irish democracy?
“You argue that, in the case of the British Isles at least, ‘physical reality’ *should* lead to political division…”
No, I don’t. There’s no reason in principle why multiple islands cannot make up a single nation. I’m not making an abstract point, I’m making a specific one. The reason I insist on political separation between Ireland and Britain is that we have tried political union, and it has been disastrous for Ireland. The idea has been tested to destruction. It not only negatively affects Ireland, it also poisons the well of relationships between the two islands. It has been proven, over centuries, to be a terrible idea.
I happen to think that the fact of our being separate islands has a lot to do with the separateness of our interests. And the Irish Sea makes the division literal, and the contrasting interests more pronounced and inescapable – than the border between, say, England and Scotland does. But these are observations, not dogmatisms.
“The point which you are pretending not to see is that borders exist as an expression of the needs of those who live within them. The problem with the Irish border is that it’s destructive to our needs.”
First, nobody lives within borders. People live either side of them. That’s the whole point of them.
Second, the border is no more destructive of our needs than any other land border.
“This is probably most true of unionists – for nationalists, the border does great material harm, but for unionists the destruction is intellectual, psychological and moral, as well as material. You perhaps are too mired in that reality to actually see it clearly, but the rest of the world sees it clearly enough.”
By the same argument any boirder does great material, intellectual, psychological and moral harm. Perhaps you are too mired in reality to see the harm done to nationalists in the south by the border they’ve erected with the rest of the British Isles.
“Some of these things had changed BY 1998. Some of them changed as a result of 1998.”
Which of them changed as a result of 1998?
“Others have changed in the interim. Together they add up to a context that is radically altered, in which things that were once practically impossible have become practically possible.”
That which is practically possible now (ie a democratic vote to join the South) was also practically possible before the GFA.
“Hardly. I am not concerned here with whether the island of Great Britain is a natural political unit. There’s a strong argument that it’s not, though I have no fixed opinion on the matter. What I am stressing is that Britain and Ireland are not a natural political unit.”
There are no ‘natural political units’. Political.units are man made.
“I said the position of early unionists was ‘not irrational’. They had a good thing, and they wanted to keep it going. I can see why they took the position they did. But they were wrong, fundamentally wrong, because what they were trying to do was prevent change.”
Now who’s using non sequiturs it is not logical to argue that opposing change is necesaarily wrong.
I presume you believe that those who oppose Brexit are also ‘wrong’.
“And change is a constant, whether you like it or not. They liked the world as it was, and wanted it to stay as it was, and having made their stand, got stuck with it. The result has been a hundred years of political, economic, intellectual and moral stagnation. They should have accepted that change was inevitable, and thrown themselves into the business of shaping that change. Had they done so, Belfast today would have a thriving population of 2 million, and be the Munich of the north.”
A patronising counter-factual argument that boils down to mere opinion.
“I’m unaware of any denial of physical reality any more so than has existed between other jurisdictions with land borders between them.”
“You really think our material interests in this corner of Ireland are better served by being an effective colony of England than being an integral part of a sovereign Irish democracy?”
We’re not a colony of England, but yes materially we are better off. However that wasnt the point, which was your claim.that we are denying physical reality: a claim that you’ve chosen not to support.
“You argue that, in the case of the British Isles at least, ‘physical reality’ *should* lead to political division…”
“No, I don’t. There’s no reason in principle why multiple islands cannot make up a single nation. I’m not making an abstract point, I’m making a specific one.”
Which is why I said ‘in the case of the British Isles at least’.
But you do use the absence of a physical feature, such as a sea, as part of your argument why the unionist majority is ‘artificial’.
“The reason I insist on political separation between Ireland and Britain is that we have tried political union, and it has been disastrous for Ireland. The idea has been tested to destruction. It not only negatively affects Ireland, it also poisons the well of relationships between the two islands. It has been proven, over centuries, to be a terrible idea.”
In your opinion. But just because you believe this doesn’t mean the majority that prefers to remain in.union with Britain is artificial.
“I happen to think that the fact of our being separate islands has a lot to do with the separateness of our interests. And the Irish Sea makes the division literal, and the contrasting interests more pronounced and inescapable – than the border between, say, England and Scotland does. But these are observations, not dogmatisms.”
That’s fantastic but I happen to think that the fact of our being part of the same archipelago a lot to do with the closeness of our interests. But I’m not so arrogant as to dismiss the Irish nationalists who disagree as ‘artificially engineered.”
“Nobody lives within borders.”
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Everyone does.
“…the border is no more destructive of our needs than any other land border.”
This is what’s called a fallacy of defective induction. Every border has its own features. and is to be discussed in its own terms. You wish to discuss borders in the abstract, because you cannot defend the specific one we’re talking about.
“By the same argument any border does great material, intellectual, psychological and moral harm.”
You are arguing that all borders are the same, simply by virtue of being borders. You are arguing that a cat has four legs, and a table has four legs, therefore a cat is a table. Again, the fallacy of defective induction. Most borders afford protection to those within them. Those that fail to do so tend not to be stable or enduring.
“There are no ‘natural political units’. Political units are man made.”
You seem to think that “man-made” is a synonym for arbitrary. It is not. Man-made political structures are constructed in line with natural realities. The ones that fail, or are dependent on external forces, tend to be the ones that nature abhors. Of course a sovereign Ireland would be a man-made state. But it would likely succeed and prosper, as the 26 county version has, because it is natural.
“it is not logical to argue that opposing change is necessarily wrong.”
Attempting to stop the clock is necessarily wrong. This was the mistake that your great-grandfather made. It’s the reason for a century in which his descendents have atrophied.
“We’re not a colony of England, but yes materially we are better off.”
Better off than the part of Ireland that became independent a century ago? The part of Ireland that we were so much richer and more developed than, in 1921? On the contrary, we are miles behind, and drifting ever further into the rearview mirror of the free counties of Ireland. This is simply the factual reality.
Unionism was rational, if mistaken, in 1917. Unionism in 2017 is totally irrational, and inexcusable. Those who cling to it are clinging to a discredited dogma. I implore you to think of your children and grandchildren, and turn away from this failed ideology.
“This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Everyone does.”
I think perhaps the word you should have used was ‘between’ borders rather than ‘within’ them. Your meaning would have been clearer.
“…the border is no more destructive of our needs than any other land border.”
“This is what’s called a fallacy of defective induction. Every border has its own features. and is to be discussed in its own terms. You wish to discuss borders in the abstract, because you cannot defend the specific one we’re talking about.”
I don’t think you’re as clever as you think you are. I don’t wish to discuss borders only in the abstract and nor is it the case that I cannot ‘defend’ the specific one we’re talking about. On the contrary I have ‘defended’ that border specifically.
However, your argument depends on reference beyond the specific border, because you contend that it is ‘artificial’: an argument that can’t be made without considering the subject of borders more generally. So it is not a fallacy to make general arguments as part of an argument about the specific.
Further, you failed to make any specific claims about the ‘destructive’ nature of this specific border. It is perfectly valid to suggest that this specific land border is no more destructive than other land borders and thus, in reference to your claim, no more ‘artificial’ (for your claim about destructiveness is presumably designed to support your claim of artificiality) than other land borders.
“By the same argument any border does great material, intellectual, psychological and moral harm.”
“You are arguing that all borders are the same, simply by virtue of being borders. You are arguing that a cat has four legs, and a table has four legs, therefore a cat is a table. Again, the fallacy of defective induction. Most borders afford protection to those within them. Those that fail to do so tend not to be stable or enduring.”
Again, you’re not as clever as you think you are. I’m not arguing that all borders are the same. But you are arguing that this one is (if not uniquely, almost uniquely) ‘artificial’. Therefore it is valid to point out that your argument (actually it is merely an assertion) that the Irish border does material, intellectual, psychological and moral harm can also be made in relation to most, if not all, other land borders. If this is the case, then there is nothing uniquely or peculiarly ‘harmful’ (and by presumed extension ‘artificial’) about the Irish border.
“There are no ‘natural political units’. Political units are man made.”
“You seem to think that “man-made” is a synonym for arbitrary.”
I don’t think that nor can I see why it ‘seems’ to you that I do.
“Man-made political structures are constructed in line with natural realities. The ones that fail, or are dependent on external forces, tend to be the ones that nature abhors. Of course a sovereign Ireland would be a man-made state. But it would likely succeed and prosper, as the 26 county version has, because it is natural.”
So the 26-county state has succeeded and prospered. Yet you claim its border with the UK is ‘artificial’. That’s not a great example for the apparent subtext that artificial borders lead to failure.
“it is not logical to argue that opposing change is necessarily wrong.”
“Attempting to stop the clock is necessarily wrong.”
That is not what you said.
“This was the mistake that your great-grandfather made. It’s the reason for a century in which his descendents have atrophied.”
Mere speculation and opinion. You rely on a teleological ‘Whig’ understanding of history (combined with your own prejudices). Yet historians will tell you that there is no preordained or natural course of events that is inevitable. Characterising one people’s self-determination rather than another’s as seeking to ‘stop the clock’ is merely chauvinism and prejudice. The reason for the political problems in Northern Ireland stem from gown it was governed.
“We’re not a colony of England, but yes materially we are better off.”
“Better off than the part of Ireland that became independent a century ago?”
For the majority of its history, certainly. Now? There is little if any material difference between the two. Both jurisdictions are wealthy and privileged western societies.
“The part of Ireland that we were so much richer and more developed than, in 1921? On the contrary, we are miles behind, and drifting ever further into the rearview mirror of the free counties of Ireland. This is simply the factual reality.”
We’re not miles behind. Our standards of living are virtually indistinguishable.
“Unionism was rational, if mistaken, in 1917. Unionism in 2017 is totally irrational, and inexcusable. Those who cling to it are clinging to a discredited dogma. I implore you to think of your children and grandchildren, and turn away from this failed ideology”
Nationalism was rational, if mistaken, in 1917. Nationalism in 2017 is totally irrational, and inexcusable. Those who cling to it are clinging to a discredited dogma. I implore you to think of your children and grandchildren, and turn away from this failed ideology.
The southern economy was stifled deliberately by england especially after it left the commonwealth.
Partition only weakens the economy on both sides for the border. It was the EEC that turned this around. Ireland may have had no choice but to follow the UK into the EU, but the single market and independence has allowed Ireland to grow into a decent economy.
It can and will grow much further and in unity the northern half of the country on both sides of the border could benefit also.
It is time the south grew a backbone and stood up to england, use the GFA to achieve unity and break all ties with england and eradicate every trace of their scum stinking filthy nation from our shores.
Put an end the common travel area post brexit, pursue energy independence through investment in renewable energy and force a split between Scotland and sassenach with the Celtic nations uniting to side with the EU over england.
The sooner their empire goes down the tubes the better.
“The southern economy was stifled deliberately by england especially after it left the commonwealth.”
How?
There was a trade war which Ireland struggled through and came out the other side off.
Ireland has achieved independence and respect and should never again bow to England.
Until every part of Ireland is free, there remains unfinished business which involves every Irish person and is the responsibility of all of the Irish people.
“There was a trade war which Ireland struggled through and came out the other side off.”
Eh? The trade war was in the 1930s.
And there wouldn’t have been a trade war if Ireland had remained in the UK.
Ireland doesn’t want to be in the UK
The UK will simply have to accept that
“Ireland doesn’t want to be in the UK”
That’s fantastic, but how is this relevant?
By refusing to accept it, it is pushing Ireland into a corner which will threaten the good relationship the two nations have developed.
There is a growing anti england resentment which is permeating throughout every part of this island which brexit has initiated tapping into past memories and which has been aggravated by unionist intransigence, animosity and insensitivity shown in particular by the actions of the DUP and also by the words of Mr Brokenshire on the anniversary of bloody Sunday.
Nations should not try to rule other nations, especially when they are incapable of understanding the sensitivities of the people over which they seek to rule.
“By refusing to accept it, it is pushing Ireland into a corner which will threaten the good relationship the two nations have developed.”
Why didn’t you answer the question. What is the relevance of this?
“there”
I agree with much of what you say here Jessica.
Of course it’s true that there is plenty one can criticise about the Republic that encompasses 26 of our counties – its government, its institutions etc. But there isn’t, and never has been, any shortage of critics, coming from every conceivable angle. This is a normal and natural feature of any healthy democracy.
But from the perspective of northern nationalism, where is the sense in those of us who want 32-county independence focusing on the failings of the 26 counties that have already achieved it? Honestly, sometimes to listen to Irish nationalists from both sides of the border, you’d think the southern state had been an embarrassing failure, rather than a spectacular (though not unblemished) success story.
If it is such a success Billy, why do they claim they cannot afford to support unity even though it would benefit all parts of the island?
Why is there so much homelessness?
Why is the hospital waiting lists higher than at any point in history?
Why has there been no investment in water treatment and many public services?
Why were the roads and infrastructure sold off to Germany?
I don’t want to take away from the huge leaps in economic growth Ireland has delivered over the last few decades but we should not be resting on laurels or playing dangerous games with the peace process.
I also doubt the economy is as good as you think it is.
The pension funds will have a 280 million shortfall this year, EU costs are going up over GDP which was artificially increased in 2015.
An economic report is due in June covering this period and hopefully will report on the knock on what impact that US repatriation of capital will bring.
Just to clarify, the state was able to borrow more over 24 billion extra revenue which erroneously appears within the GDP but which was untaxed capital allowed to rest in Irish banks. Once this money leaves to go back to the US which Trump will ensure happens, as would Hillary have though more ruthlessly, then Ireland will be the first country in the history of the planet to have a 20 billion + drop in GDP within a single year.
We have even coined a new phrase for this phenomenon referred to as leprechaun economics. Though if we follow the Iceland model we could actually turn this foo pah into a revenue stream especially post brexit with EU states potentially seeking to leave the EU and needing to learn about such tax affairs.
I still believe both parts of this island need each other. We are one country and one people as far as I am concerned and that is the way it should be.
“If it is such a success Billy, why do they claim they cannot afford to support unity even though it would benefit all parts of the island?”
They don’t claim that. They could afford reunification, and when the time comes, the cost will be managed. (The scare stories around this issue are just that – scare stories.)
“Why is there so much homelessness? Why is the hospital waiting lists higher than at any point in history? Why has there been no investment in water treatment and many public services?”
In a nutshell, because successive Irish governments have pursued a neoliberal economic policy, probably going back as far as the Lemass / Whitaker era, when ‘neoliberalism’ wasn’t even a thing. The negative effects you describe are real, and are typical by-products of such neoliberal economic policies.
I don’t like these things either. I am no neoliberal. They are failings, no doubt. But what they are not is evidence that the great experiment in Irish independence has failed. On the contrary, they are the predictable consequences of policies deliberately pursued by democratically-elected Irish governments. These policies have also seen living standards in general rise dramatically across the Republic.
“Why were the roads and infrastructure sold off to Germany?”
What does this mean? The roads and infrastructure were still there, the last time I checked.
“I also doubt the economy is as good as you think it is.”
I don’t wish to suggest a land of milk and honey, by any means. The storm clouds on the horizon that you correctly identify are real. But the way the Republic has recovered from the devastating blow it suffered in 2008/09 is seriously impressive, and evidence of a mature, advanced economy, and a workforce that completely shames its northern counterpart.
It’s also suggestive (and I know we’re supposed to hate politicians, especially the establishment ones) of some pretty decent governance. Now, I enjoy kicking FF and FG as much as the next man, but the ship has managed to steady itself over the past six years, from some serious turbulence. That hasn’t happened without a steadying hand on the tiller.
I enjoy reading your responses billy, thank you for your contributions.
Very refreshing reading and difficult to disagree with you.
But I am not sure that we can simply blame these failures on neoliberal policies.
I would say a lot of it is down to simply bad management driven by greed.
Inflation was allowed to grow at crazy rates, not over neoliberal policy, but because quite simply, many of the bankers, the economic and financial consultants. advisers and even TDs themselves were landlords and were cashing in so allowed it to continue when they should have and probably did know better.
In Ireland, home ownership is more important than elsewhere in Europe down to our history of having land taken from us. From generation to generation it has been engrained into us to get on the housing ladder, the importance of home ownership so it cannot be taken from you.
In my view TDs and members of governments should not be allowed to rent property.
Even now in the midst of a housing crisis, rent is going to increase by 12% over the next three years. It isn’t hard to see why when you look at how many TDs making these decisions are landlords.
Ireland has been borrowing too much to fill gaps in budgets rather than borrowing to invest in our economy.
The steadying hand on the tiller over the past 6 years was the ECB and was found to have been more austere than was necessary.
Of course there has been considerable economic growth in Ireland as part of the globalisation which we have embraced.
The reason more was not pumped into construction of social housing and spreading the wealth beyond Dublin is down to the fact we are still trying to deal with the over inflation caused by Fianna Fail. Wages, pensions and the cost of living is too high and needs rectified.
Public sector worked are now demanding recompense for the losses in pay over the austerity years, pay increases which will not be reflected in the private sector which pays their wages and will lead to pay discrepancy.
Again, this is not down to neo liberalism, but symptoms of past failures that current governments are still failing to address and are simply kicking further down the road.
It wont be long before water charges are back on the agenda as we are about to be fined for poor water treatment and management and the money will need to be found somewhere.
I see unification as an opportunity to grow an all island economy, too many still see it as a problem that comes with a price tag.
I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Unification has not been given the fair hearing it deserves or the consideration that warrants its legitimacy within the GFA.
This is deepening division and resentment throughout this island.
We cant just keep kicking the can down further the road.
As Mark Durkan has pointed out the GFA referendum on both sides of the border should be respected by the British in their implementation of Brexit. In order to achieve this some sort of special status for NornIron needs to be found,
The only course of action open to the Irish government if this special status is not achieved is to seek redress through the European courts – otherwise the Irish Nats North and South will just have to grin and bear it.
If by some twist of political fate SF find themselves in government in Dublin they will discover that the concept of being a ‘Republican’ whilst being in the Southern government largely means making a lot of grand noises whilst being unable to alter the policies of perfidious albion whilst the new generation of republicans who will see SF as the new Free State Traitors and as FF V2.0 – decide how to respond (violently) to the new(old) border brought to us by London.
“As Mark Durkan has pointed out the GFA referendum on both sides of the border should be respected by the British in their implementation of Brexit. In order to achieve this some sort of special status for NornIron needs to be found,”
The referendum provisions in the GFA aren’t affected by Brexit.
“The only course of action open to the Irish government if this special status is not achieved is to seek redress through the European courts – otherwise the Irish Nats North and South will just have to grin and bear it.”
Redress for what? Through which court?
MT,
(posted previously with links but it seems to have disappeared).
Whether Mark Durkan is correct or not in asserting that Brexit affects the GFA can be referred to the European courts if the Irish court deems it outside it competency. This route has already been flagged. See quote below from Irish Times.
“The lawyers hope the court in Dublin will ask the European Court of Justice to determine if Britain can unilaterally revoke its invocation of article 50 and if leaving the EU means that Britain must automatically leave the European Economic Area.”
“Whether Mark Durkan is correct or not in asserting that Brexit affects the GFA can be referred to the European courts if the Irish court deems it outside it competency. This route has already been flagged. See quote below from Irish Times.
“The lawyers hope the court in Dublin will ask the European Court of Justice to determine if Britain can unilaterally revoke its invocation of article 50 and if leaving the EU means that Britain must automatically leave the European Economic Area.”
The quotation doesn’t appear to relate to the GFA.
The GFA states constitutional change must be approved by referendum.
Apparently except when it suits England.
The last remaining dregs of trust are out the window. Time for Ireland to take control of our own borders and exit the UK.
Jessica, without a large army and navy and the will to go to war with Britain I’m afraid that legal action (without a great deal of hope of success) is the only course of action open to Ireland.
If there was another civil war in Ireland, I won’t be backing the official army and navy Sammy.
Jessica, yes there is a risk of a slide back to ‘war’ – as Mark Durkan did his best to explain to the British parliament.
“The GFA states constitutional change must be approved by referendum”
It doesn’t.
MT,
You asked me ” Through which court?”
This quote is answering that. No action has been taken by the Irish government yet.
I’m suggesting the ONLY thing they can actually do is take court action. Whether they will or it would be a success is a matter of debate and legality.
“You asked me ” Through which court?” This quote is answering that. No action has been taken by the Irish government yet.”
My question related specifically to the claim about the GFA. It wasn’t just a general question about European courts.
“I’m suggesting the ONLY thing they can actually do is take court action. Whether they will or it would be a success is a matter of debate and legality.”
‘Court action’ on what grounds and seeking what remedy?
MT,
There are a number of potential grounds from protecting the rights of the people in Northern Ireland as Europeans and Irish citizens, the integral role of the European Union (see Durkan’s speech) in establishing elements of the GFA not being recognised and the lack of protection in the proposed British exit terms for bodies which have European and Irish elements. There are but some of the potential examples. .
It is a legal matter as to whether such grounds would be upheld. In general Unionists (like yourself) will argue there are no grounds, Nats (like myself) will argue there is
If NornIron does not receive ‘special status’ I think it will be before the European courts. Although I wouldn’t be that hopeful of a successful outcome.
Does the north leave the UK on good terms and build a good relationship between Ireland and GB based on good will and mutual respect.
Or do we allow it to get messy and leave on bad terms with all remaining good faith exasperated and the relationship in the gutter?
jessica,
it will boil down to whether the North gets ‘special status’ to avoid a hard or hardish border.
In my view special status (though not called that) will be the result and the current largely good relationships will continue.
“it will boil down to whether the North gets ‘special status’ to avoid a hard or hardish border.
In my view special status (though not called that) will be the result and the current largely good relationships will continue.”
The idea of ‘special status’ is nonsense. An impossibility that won’t happen. Even those arguing for it don’t know what it means.
I agree MT
It is simply going through the motions that will inevitably lead to a hard choice
Unity within the UK and leaving Europe which I no longer would accept or unity within the EU and to he’ll with the UK which is my preference
The alternative is for the South to enforce partition which would lead to civil war in Ireland not 6 counties
“There are a number of potential grounds from protecting the rights of the people in Northern Ireland as Europeans and Irish citizens,”
Unless Southern Ireland decides, contrary to the GFA, to remove its citizenship from NI people, Brexit won’t affect their rights as Southern Irish and European citizens.
“the integral role of the European Union (see Durkan’s speech) in establishing elements of the GFA not being recognised”
What integral role in establishing what elements?
“and the lack of protection in the proposed British exit terms for bodies which have European and Irish elements.”
What does this mean? What bodies? What do you mean by European and Irish elements? .Why do these need protection?
“There are but some of the potential examples.”
Very poor and unclear examples. Clutching at straws.
MT,
I am not inclined to argue regarding the strength of any court case – I’m simply pointing out that there is a legal procedure (that you seemed to be unaware of) that the Irish government can follow if a ‘hard border’ comes about and there are multiple potential grounds for taking such a case given the international (South of Ireland and European) elements which are integral to the GFA.
“I’m simply pointing out that there is a legal procedure (that you seemed to be unaware of) that the Irish government can follow if a ‘hard border’ comes about and there are multiple potential grounds for taking such a case given the international (South of Ireland and European) elements which are integral to the GFA.”
You’re talking nonsense. There is no international court that has any jurisdiction in relation to the GFA. By reference to ‘European courts’ I assume you mean the European Court of Justice, which will have no jurisdiction over the UK after Brexit.
re “You’re talking nonsense. There is no international court that has any jurisdiction in relation to the GFA. By reference to ‘European courts’ I assume you mean the European Court of Justice, which will have no jurisdiction over the UK after Brexit.”
You do know dont you that Brexit will take 2 years (at least)? A breakdown in relations between UK and Ireland (or unlikely event of SF getting into office) in the interim could see recourse to the courts.
In relation to special status for NI, this will be on balance probable as Britain faces up to the security nightmare that may well be the alternative. Unionists and dissident republicans will both be praying it wont happen of course.