OK – your starter for 10. Who or what was Fintan O’Toole talking about when he said this in a recent article: ‘We have to be careful about this, however.”?
Was it
a) A decision about men peeling off their tops in hot weather.
b) Prince Philip’s decision to cut back on “working” 110 days per year.
c) Who is hired to write for The Irish Times.
Give up? Quite right too. It’s none of the above. In fact it’s from an article Fintan wrote for the Guardian a day or two back, under the heading ‘EU backing for Irish unity after Brexit is a big deal – but its not a solution’. Fintan pointed out that the EU including Ireland in the three top matters for consideration was indeed ground-breaking: “The EU has just done something it has never done before: it has offered an incentive to part of an existing European state to join another state.”
So what’s to be careful about? Ah yes: “Everyone – even Sinn Féin – knows that it is foolish to talk about a united Ireland without talking about a united Northern Ireland first. Forcing a million unionists into a new Irish state without their consent is in nobody’s interest.”
That’s where we must all be careful – not to upset unionism. Yes, the Good Friday Agreement said that if a majority of voters in the north of Ireland backed Irish reunification, then that should happen. Unionism signed up, nationalism signed up, the British and Irish governments signed up. So you’d think it was a done deal. But that would be to show you were careless. It seems there is a unionist veto on any such moves.
I think if I were a unionist I would be deeply offended (yes, yes, I know Virginia, it doesn’t take much ) by this clear implication that I was scornful of democracy, that I set at naught international agreements. Because that’s what Fintan is clearly suggesting, and he’s not alone among southern – and northern – commentators to make this statement.
But here’s a thought: if you keep telling people often enough that they’ll be totally resistant to something, it can sometimes affirm or even develop that resistance, which if left to itself would be minor or non-existent. I’m assuming the unionists who voted for the Good Friday Agreement did so in good faith and honestly: they accepted that a majority in the north of Ireland would decide what NI’s future should be.
Are you suggesting, Fintan, that unionists have a tendency to go back on their signed agreements? If so, I’m shocked by your cynicism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/04/eu-irish-unity-brexit-europe-northern-ireland
good difference when a links supplied.
Where are the 1million unionists he’s talking about?
Michael c
I’d imagine he’s taking the NI population figure which is around 1.9 million and dividing it in half giving you roughly 1 million and although he’s probably doing a little rounding up I’d say he’s certainly in the ball park.
England
The problem is not so much the British/Unionist tradition of constant goal post moving (remember 1994 and ceasefire for talks, then 3 months, then 6 months, then decommissioning?). The problem is what happens when a majority in the 6 counties is denied their democratic rights.
At that juncture taking up arms against the British state will be morally, ethically and legally justified. Imagine what that shot of steroids will do for the dissident movement.
gendjinn
No-one is suggesting any such thing.
It just seems like scaremongering to me.
Is there an election coming up by any chance?
“No-one is suggesting any such thing.”
Informed as always, or just another case of you gas lighting?
No one, is talking about 50%+1 not being a sufficient majority…. yeah, right.
gendjinn
Who is saying as you claim that a majority in the 6 counties will be denied their democratic rights?
To talk up the possibility of violence based on a scenario that is not going to happen is irresponsible and silly..
giordanobruno,
Wow. You ARE serious. What kind of credibility can you claim to have if you are publicly professing ignorance of Ahern’s comments on Sunday?
gendjinn
Nice try.
I am referring to you talking up the possibilty of violence when you say:
“The problem is what happens when a majority in the 6 counties is denied their democratic rights”.
The only way that could happen would be if a yes result in a referendum was ignored. That is a silly and irresponsible suggestion.
giordanobruno,
*eyerolll*
??
I read that article myself Jude and left a comment echoing what you’ve written. I think it’s up to us to present the proper facts when we can, if we come across articles like this.
M.E.
Not having the energy to read the 3000 or so comments on that article to find yours, can you tell us which bits are not proper facts?
The “fact” that this O’Toole guy is under the impression that a united Ireland can only be achieved if the majority of Unionists consent to it. Stop being so disingenuous.
M.E
I don’t know if he is under that impression, but he certainly did not say that.
Ahem – ” Forcing a million unionists into a new Irish state without their consent is in nobody’s interest.”
Jude
Absolutely that would be in nobody’s interest.
That is not the same as saying
“a united Ireland can only be achieved if the majority of Unionists consent to it”
If there is a referendum and the result is 50%+ 1 then it will have to be honoured.
Clearly he is saying a better and more united Ireland would come about if there is a bigger majority, and that persuasion needs to be done now before a referendum to increase the numbers.
If you take a sentence out of context without giving the whole article it just feeds this kind of hyperbole.
I feel you know perfectly well you are doing this Jude but I don’t understand why.
“Clearly he is saying” – um, that makes either you or me very stupid, gio.
Jude
Don’t be childish.
Did you read the whole article?
Do you think he is arguing to set aside the GFA or is he saying it would be better to persuade more people to vote yes than just 50%+1.
Jude
Yourold friend Danny Morrison seems to be on the same page as Fintan O’Toole:
This is from the Irish Times in March
“He seems content with the principle of no alteration to the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of a majority: “I don’t want to frighten unionists or alarm unionists”.
“Without the consent of a majority” ‘bruno. Not without the consent of a majority of Unionists. Besides, even if he does mean that so what? It doesn’t make him right.
M E
It was more the part about not alarming Unionists I was interested in, given that Jude was critical of Fintan O’Toole for expressing similar sentiments.
But you are right it is not a big deal.
It is really about how the focus is too often on the messenger rather than the message.
If Fintan O’toole says something why it is simply absurd,but if Danny Morrison says the same thing well isn’t it just common sense.
C’est la vie.
I hate playing the ‘them’uns’ card giord, but how come there’s more concern about a majority of Unionists consenting to Irish rule, but nothing said about a majority of Nationalists consenting to British rule?
M.E.
British rule is the status quo and has been for some time.
I am not sure what you mean by a lack of concern? The GFA came about in order to give recognition to those concerns.
It is still comes down to 50% +1 and I don’t think anyone is suggesting it should not be.
If people are saying it will be better if there is a bigger majority well that is just stating the obvious surely.
That cuts both ways. If there was a 50%+1 vote to remain with the UK it would be quite a difficult situation too.
Fintan O’Toole is subtly bringing the idea that a united Ireland can only be achieved by the consent of a majority of Unionists, into the subconsciousness of people. This is how fake news starts, and where once the facts were incorrect, they’ll now be taken as gospel truth.
M.E
I don’t really think he is but even if he was it will not change the nature of the GFA.
How would the nationalist population react if a yes vote was reneged on?
How would the wider international community react to the British and/or Irish government should they try to do so?
Brexit and the recent assembly result has started people talking about a united Ireland with more urgency.It is only natural that the conversation will include looking at the detail of how it might be formed.
This unionist veto nonsense is simply scaremongering in the mouth of an election.
Thing is this 1 million unionist thing was repeated ad nauseum when the Norths ppoulation was barely 1.5 million.Will we soon hear o’tool and his ilk reference 1 million nationalists?
O’Toole and the political classes in the south for decades criticised the provos for their refusal to recognise the ‘consent’ principle. We now know they meant unionist consent as opposed to the consent of the majority.
It’s something of an animal farm approach to democracy and needs to be tackled from the very outset.
On a bit of a side note I’ve just finished Fintan O’tooles book called a ship of fools about the Irish property crash.
An insightful and very enjoyable read.
He is a fine writer, Scott. Just that his thinking is often a bit skewed. As in the article which, I repeat, clearly hands a veto to unionists and GFA be damned.
Jude that’s not how I read the article that he’s advocating a veto. From what I can see he’s not advocating any policies in his piece, just simply making an observation that a “hurried” UI could be detrimental.
I’m not sure though why he’s surprised by the EU decision on NI in a UI rejoining the EU. It seemed the obvious thing the precedence being of course East Germany Joining the EU when reuniting with West Germany.
His example though of Spain being worried by the situation though is a little skewed. If Catalonia broke away from Spain it would need to apply as a new member as it is a new country. Same would apply to Scotland.
Scott
I agree with your interpretation and nowhere does he advocate a veto.
My (limited)understanding of the EU situation is that when a new state is created and becomes a new legal entity then it would have to apply anew for membership.
That was not the case for Germany as the GDR was absorbed into the FRG under its constitution.
On the other hand we often hear that a united Ireland will not simply be the North absorbed by the South, but will be a new state presumably with a new constitution.
That is why the EU announcement has significance since it clarifies the future situation by removing any concern about a New Ireland having to reapply for membership.
I think!
Gio
I highly doubt a UI will lead to a “new” Ireland. It’ll be a absorption job in my opinion.
Scott
No one really knows at this point.
I am sure I have seen a lot of talk on this site about a new constitution and a completely new entity rather than just an enlarged version of the current Republic.
If that were the case I would have thought it might complicate EU membership.
So the EU seem to be assuming it will be an absorption based on their recent statement at least.
I think there is genuine concern that events will gather pace and we stumble into a referendum without a plan, a bit like the Brexit vote.
But any such talk is dismissed as trying to rewrite the GFA or whatever.
Jude , what is the basis of your paranoia ?what 1918 election ? Oh yeah that one where the shinners got 73 of 105 seats. Mmm
Scott , you don’t give your reasoning for an ” absorption job ” but I would very much disagree . I am a Republican and there’s no way I would assent to that. Although the 26 are moving towards secularization there is still too much religious influence and interference , religion has to be completely separate from politics ! An Garda Síochána and the PSNI just cant amalgamate …. new policing structures would have to be established. Dáil Éireann would need restructured or changed completely to handle the new influx of politicians etc etc maybe a new flag , a new constitution , a new anthem ……but I’m jumping the gun……beforehand everyone would have to decide what sort of Ireland they want , maybe it would be ” federal “, based on the Provinces ( perhaps more tempting to those now of a Unionist persuasion ) , maybe a new parliament centrally based in or around Athlone….everything will be up in the air but it certainly won’t be an absorption…..Two million extra voices will drastically change everything….but one thing is for certain , those that now designate themselves as Unionist will have a big say in the structuring and functioning of this re-united country ….We will have a chance at a new beginning for all and it’s imperative that we get it right
Now your talking, federal Irealnd based on provinces , we somehow have to show the unionists what a major impact they would have , for the first time ireland would not be dublin centric ,
Secular government , like the US , Canad ,and Australia the capital would be outside the , major cities, somewhere around Tara?
what major impact could they have.all the laws would be against their kulture,they will be to busy fighting these laws (no bonfires.marching.ect to have any input.
Try to think outside the box , Billy…a completely new construct , good laws would be kept ,bad ones scrapped ….new ones for new situations .People from other lands who have made their homes here ,catholic protestant and dissenter…all Irish ! …..Who’s to say we won’t have an annual festival at Brú na Bóinne in July….it’s all part of Ireland’s history…..nobody can dictate what our future will be ,but we have to make it together , you can’t exclude anything until all is decided.