Political thinking is a bit like measles – once one party gets it, next they all have it. A decade or two back you wouldn’t have got a party north or south – with the obvious exception of Sinn Féin – to utter the words “United Ireland”. Now they are falling over themselves to talk about it. Fianna Fail has just remembered it’s the Republican Party, Enda has returned from Brussels bearing the grandest-sounding message about the EU providing for the eventuality some day (there – is that held at arm’s length enough?) of a United Ireland. And in today’s Irish Times, there is an article headed ‘Why we need to start planning for a united Ireland ‘ by Christopher Kissane.
Christopher is fearful that if we don’t plan for a united Ireland, we’ll be caught with our trousers down even as the British government and people were caught naked and helpless by the vote to leave the EU. Dr Kissane, who’s a prof at the LSE sensibly states that we need to make provision in our new Ireland for those from the unionist community in the north. I could hardly agree more with him. Until, that is, he comes out with this one:
“Unionist attachment to Britain must be respected, and the principle of consent means there will rightly never be any incumbency on unionists to join an Irish state in which they do not feel or see a stake.” [Italics mine.]
Not so, dear Doctor. Article 1 (ii) of the Good Friday Agreement says that the participants
“recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.”
Note that last clause, Dr Kissane? It says agreement has to be reached with “the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland”. Nationalists and republicans living in the north are used to unionist chants and assumptions that ‘We are the people’ – that is, they are. But the Good Friday Agreement is more literal – it’s talking about a majority of the people of NI – not a majority of unionists in NI.
It’d be good if a majority of unionists could be enthused as to the benefits of a united Ireland, But the Agreement is clear.
Irish nationalists and republicans conceded a massive amount when they accepted that the decision on unity should be made, not the majority of the Irish people, but by the majority of the people in the north. If Dr Kissane or anyone else thinks that, as the demographics move towards a nationalist majority in the north, we’re about to bend democracy even further and pass control into the hands of a majority of unionists, he’d well to think again.
Jude
I think it is clear he is referring to unionists as in the majority vote for the union. If that majority is there then the principle of consent means that will be respected.
Not that difficult to understand in context, but I have helpfully included a link to the whole article as you cannot do links!
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-we-need-to-start-planning-for-a-united-ireland-1.3066881
Au contraire, gio – I can do links when I feel like it – and not do them when I don’t. “Not that difficult to understand in context” – really? What in the context changes the statement “Unionist attachment to Britain must be respected, and the principle of consent means there will rightly never be any incumbency on unionists to join an Irish state in which they do not feel or see a stake.” ? I completely agree with the first clause; I totally disagree – as does the GFA – with the rest of the paragraph. But I’ll wait with interest while you turn black into white ( or vice versa)…
Jude
I am disappointed that I have to spell it out.
He clearly means if there is a majority in favour of staying in the union (i.e. unionists) there will be no incumbency on them to join until that changes
That is why I provided the link (why would you not?) to provide the context which makes that quite clear.
If you are trying to suggest he does not understand that a majority in favour of unification would be binding then I can only suppose you did not read the whole thing.
He adds
“Any future unity should never be seen as a “defeat” for the unionist community”
Why would he even add that if he thought unionists would hold a veto?
You say you can do links yet you chose not to. It is hard not to conclude that you did so in order to present a line out of context and give it a meaning that was never intended.
The clear message of his article, and it is completely obvious, is that it would be better to persuade those who are presently unionists of the benefits of a united Ireland if possible.
I agree that we should be trying to persuade people not currently in favour of a United Ireland of the merits of one. But persuading Unionists not to be Unionists is a tough call. It would be incumbent on the British government to ensure that those born in the north are entitled to British citizenship on the coming to being of a UI. A lot of people have mentioned a federal Republic as an option. But until we get a clear picture of what Unity will look like it will be hard to persuade anyone. It is not just Sinn Féin’s job to do this but all political parties, as well as the population in general.
Colmán
I don’t disagree with any of that.
As I think I said to you on another thread I really don’t think it is possible for SF to be persuaders.for those who would consider themselves unionists.
Like it or not they cannot turn their backs on the legacy of the troubles and that is a sticking point for many people who might otherwise be open to their argument.
It is equally true that people who might consider voting to remain in the Union will be put off by the antics of Unionist representatives
I’d agree with Jude on this one, gio.When is a majority not a majority?We’ve been wrestling over the Brexit results and for good or bad the decision was taken on the results of a slight majority of those who voted.That’s what the Good Friday Agreement says too about a United Ireland . Mind you, certain people have had no bother reneging on past agreements so I wouldn’t hold my breath just yet.In any case our southern counterparts would need to first get up to speed after awakening from their hundred year sleep and get their heads around the possibilities of some radical changes that will eventually come .We all need to get a game -plan for that possibility too.Like Brexit, it may not necessarily be a straight -forward change-over but the UK seems intent on that plan anyway , whatever the outcome, so there is a good chance that even if it is not a straight forward change here , it will most likely eventually work to the betterment of all. Certainly, those who currently vote for current unionist parties might have other brand new possibilities in a new Ireland.They will certainly have a greater power -base than they have within their situation in the current UK set-up.That is ,if those who currently vote for them continue to do so in the same numbers.That might actually change too.
I’d agree with Jude on this one, gio.When is a majority not a majority?We’ve been wrestling over the Brexit results and for good or bad the decision was taken on the results of a slight majority of those who voted.That’s what the Good Friday Agreement says too about a United Ireland . Mind you, certain people have had no bother reneging on past agreements so I wouldn’t hold my breath just yet.In any case our southern counterparts would need to first get up to speed after awakening from their hundred year sleep and get their heads around the possibilities of some radical changes that will eventually come .We all need to get a game -plan for that possibility too.Like Brexit, it may not necessarily be a straight -forward change-over but the UK seems intent on that plan anyway , whatever the outcome, so there is a good chance that even if it is not a straight forward change here , it will most likely eventually work to the betterment of all. Certainly, those who currently vote for current unionist parties might have other brand new possibilities in a new Ireland.They will certainly have a greater power -base than they have within their situation in the current UK set-up.That is ,if those who currently vote for them continue to do so in the same numbers.That might actually change too.
Desmond Greaves wrote back in the 60’s that if nationalists ever achieved a majority in the north, the unionists would regroup and demand a tranche of land incorporating North Armagh Nort Down and Antrim plus east Belfast. They would demand secession calling the new state Argyle or such-like.
Who would they demand it of, Brian? Surely not the English government as they are signed up to the GFA? Surely not the Irish government as they are signed up too? Of the northern nationalists? I don’t think so. But they will use this veiled threat of ‘immediate and terrible war’ to try and get their way – aided by the rump of little Englanders.
Are you sure it is “Argyle” – Dál Riada would make more sense. Ironically Earra-Ghàidheal means the ‘border region of the Gaels’
‘Dál Riada would make more sense.’
Well in N Ireland that is enough to rule it out as a possibility!
The Hare is up and running.
Meanwhile Bertie ahern fired a shot across the bows of those who want a referendum on Irish unity. He’s threatened them with unionist ‘trouble’ and suggested it’s a ‘dangerous game’ if one has the audacity for believing any referendum would be a bog standard majority wins poll. Btw, the deafening silence from certain quarters concerning such threats suggests that some people are quite contented for the threat of unionist violence to used as a tool to obstruct ‘democracy’. The same snowflakes condemned the IRA with regular gusto eg violence or threat of violence is wrong and must be faced down. Alas perhaps they simply meant republican violence?…..’tyrants,hypocrites and liars!’
Bertie Ahern has been saying something similar also, the GFA is being torn up just as a hard brexit looms.
I think what we all have to accept is that:
1. The majority of unionists who voted in the Good Friday Referendum voted against it.
2. The minority of unionists who voted for the GFA did so in the belief that the circumstances upon which a United Ireland would be contemplated would never be realised ( because Northern Nationalists would stop physically agitating for a United Ireland purely by granting them an acknowledgement that a United Ireland was “theoretically possible”).
Don’t take my word for it, speak to moderate unionists! Alex Kane, very much on the moderate wing of unionism on whom Nationalists would be relying to shore up the Good Friday Agreement gives his opinion on what are “the circumstances under which a united Ireland would be ok for Irish-born Brits like your good self?”
There’s a short answer to that. None. (Alex Kane).
http://www.irishnews.com/opinion/columnists/2015/08/21/news/why-i-would-not-stay-in-a-united-ireland-235504/
So anyone who knows the minds of unionists know that should a border poll be won by Nationalists, a good number of unionists have no intention of accepting it.
The tipping point comes when Nationalist finally realise that unionist parties have no intention of honouring the GFA should it come to that constitutional question. The DUP who are the largest voice of unionism can rightly claim that they never signed up to the GFA.
As someone who supported the GFA it saddens me to have to accept the elephant in the room but all the evidence points in that direction. What Sinn Fein are in effect doing is forcing the equality issue to its logical conclusion to test the reality of unionist commitment to democracy.
I think what we will find when the fog of confusion clears is that while we have been attending the guidance councillor to attempt to patch our rocky relationship our other half has had a joiner in to price up having the locks changed!
Pointis
Where are you getting your figures for your first assumption?
Your second assumption involves some mind reading so we can safely ignore it.
They did an analysis at the time. I don’t have time to look for it again. In a snapshot . Turnout was high. 29 % against, the overwhelming majority of which were unionist bulk of which supported DUP position. Nationalists made up 43% Unionists 49% approx of voting.
Discounting the negligable no vote of Nationalists following dissident groupings which would be less than 1%.
If the 29% of the no voters constituted half of unionist voters then unionists would have made up 58% of the voting population but in reality they made up 48-49%.
‘Others’ almost exclusively voted yes.
Btw you can safely ignore whatever you like but it is difficult to ignore your rudeness.
Pointis
Sorry for being rude,it comes from hanging around this site too much.
Bad influence!
Your second point is an assumption about why people voted the way they did. I don’t see how you could know that and it looks very like you drew your conclusions first and then reasoned backwards.
Here is an analysis of the GFA which suggests that a majority of unionists voted ‘yes’.
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/polls.html#aspiration
We cannot be precise about it but given that the UUP which supported the GFA returned in the Assembly immediately afterwards with a larger vote than the DUP it is not unreasonable to think that analysis may be accurate.
I think when we use the term, “Good Friday Agreement”, we really mean “equality”. So when someone says, the majority of unionists were against the GRA, they mean that they were ( and are to this day) against equality. We can dress it up all we want, but the truth is so tragic.
I would have to agree with you Freddy. We call it equality and strive to ensure that everyone is treated equally, Loyalists call the exact same thing “eroding our Britishness”.
If eroding Britishness is the only way to achieve equality then every right thinking person should be making it their number priority.
Let me be a pedant, momentarily , and maybe be a little punctilious…these people are not exactly British , but why anyone would want to be is another matter , they are subjects of the UK and as such shall abide by her majesty’s whims …..they will do what they’re told !
Seriously , the GFA is an international treaty lodged at the UN ,..when a majority decides it’s time for re-unification , neither England nor a raggle taggle bunch of 17th century has-beens will stop that….they may prevaricate and procrastinate but the inevitable will happen , and this time there’ll be no murder machine to back them up….a few days of huffing and puffing…. a few sacrificed moronic foot soldiers and that’s that ….the ” Politicians ” will have already made their back room deals and the rest will be history.