Unlike the BBC or UTV, I was at the Sinn Féin conference An Agreed Future in Belfast’s Waterfront Hall yesterday. It was really about an agreed united Ireland, but the title helped people focus on how inclusive any future united Ireland could be.
Three key questions were raised:
- Why do unionists prefer union with Britain rather than union with fellow-Irishmen and women? The News Letter’s Ben Lowry gave one answer: because being part of the UK means you’re part of a ‘country’ composed of 60 million, rather than in a united Ireland which would be only 6 million Since the quality of a state does not depend on size, that’s an absurd argument. But what Ben was hinting at was the fact that a future united Ireland might be /would probably be a small, parochial island off the coast of mainland Europe. I don’t think it would, but it’s an interesting point.
- What size of majority is needed in a border poll for there to be constitutional change? That’s easy: 50% + 1. But the audience were told by several speakers that this would never be enough. You’d need a sizeable proportion of unionists to vote for a united Ireland if you wanted the project to succeed. That’s a persuasive line of argument, with just one major flaw: it takes an axe to a central tenet of the Good Friday Agreement. It also takes an axe to the idea of a democracy. There are those of us who believe that the people of Ireland should decide what form of government Ireland should have. But in the GFA, with a massive stretch, republicans accepted that only when a majority in the north opted for a united Ireland would constitutional change follow. Now we’re told that those in the north need not just a majority, but a majority of the minority (assuming that unionism becomes, as seems increasingly likely, such a minority ) – that a majority of unionists need to agree to a united Ireland. Listen, guys – put down those goalposts, OK? There’s a limit to the shifting of same that’s tolerable.
- What would loyalism do in the event of a successful poll for a united Ireland? Ben Lowry suggested that some in unionism/loyalism would be outraged. Translated, that means a section of unionism would react to such a poll with violence. Which we’d need to take into our calculations. Or to put it another way, not only a majority of people in the north must vote for a united Ireland, not only a majority of unionist people must vote for a united Ireland, but a majority – maybe even all – of loyalism, aka working-class unionism – would need to give their assent too.
Of the three points raised, No 3 seems to me the most threatening and at the same time the most absurd. A minority of a minority of a minority will decide how Ireland governs itself? Slan, Democracy. It was sure good to know ya.
An agreed future? I thought that had already been decided in the GFA.
But, then, some sections of our “community” don’t adhere to agreements!
That seems a bit of a straw man argument
Who if anyone, actually said that a majority within loyalism would have to give assent for a united Ireland ?
I’m not sure why you say it’s a straw man, gio. Were you there? Ben Lowry said a section of unionism would be outraged. That doesn’t suggest a never, never etc to you?
Jude
I do not doubt he said that and I am sure no one would disagree.
But that is a long way from where you ended up, namely that some people are saying the agreement of a majority of loyalists would be required for a united Ireland to proceed.
So did anyone actually say that?
No, nobody said ‘A majority of loyalists would be required for a UI’. But nobody said ‘We can’t allow the relatively small number of unionists who are outraged to stand in the way of democracy’. It’s a series of concentric circles, gio – first a majority in the north, then a majority of unionists, then better not have a group of outraged people agin it’. In the words of Father Jack, democracy my arse….
Jude.
That is entirely your extrapolation. Suggesting that the whole basis of the GFA would be thrown out for the appeasement of a small number of loyalists is franky just shit stirring.
I know there is not much to actually report at the minute while everything is in talks limbo but that is no excuse for far fetched speculation.
Well, gio, I would never descend to the point where I was associating you with shit, so maybe moderate your language a little. Ben Lowry said – and I think he’s right – that a section of unionism would be ‘outraged’ were nationalists/republicans to win a border poll. So there’s two possible follow-ons from that: (i) the outraged section of unionism learns to control itself, maybe attends a few anger-management classes, and goes along with the majority vote – i.e., accepts a UI; (ii) the outraged section of unionism sees itself as up against a wall, with no way out using democratic means. History, a hundred years ago, has shown us what happens next.
Jude
Sorry about that.
But neither of your two scenarios mean that loyalists should be given a veto over any referendum result.
I agree there may be some unhappy even violently unhappy loyalists to contend with, but I can’t see where Ben Lowry or anyone else is saying that the terms of the GFA should be changed.
Even Gerry Adams is saying it is a good idea to try and bring unionists long willingly, but you are not suggesting he is also looking to reframe the GFA, are you?
Gio – Dear God . I sometimes feel as if I’m dealing with an attention-seeking child. I didn’t say GA was seeking to change terms of GFA. I didn’t say BL was saying terms of GFA should be changed. But if someone says “If we follow through on our agreement, we’ll be faced with some outraged people”, that does sound to me like a hint – however well-founded – that maybe it mightn’t be a good idea to follow through with our agreement. What I’d like to hear unionism say is “Yes, we have the GFA, we intend to honour it (wasn’t that something like what came out of Downing St today?) and we will not allow anything or anybody to deflect us.” When I hear that, I’ll withdraw all suggestions of foot-dragging. Until that, I’ll just have to keep listening to people who speak of the need for the majority of unionists – OK, a sizeable portion – to be in favour of UI before it can happen.” Which I heard on Saturday. And which takes an axe to the GFA.
Jude
Pardon my childlike understanding but you are contradicting your self in the space of a few lines.
If Ben Lowry has said something which you thinks takes an axe to the GFA then he must be looking the terms of it changed.
So how might this come about? Another referendum? Legislation? Agreement from both governments?
I just don’t see it.
And once again who actually said a sizeable portion of unionists had to be in favour of a UI before it can happen? Do you have a quote?
On the other hand if he and Gerry are saying 50% + 1 is still the bottom line but we should work for better than that, and we should work to calm unionist fears, then who would argue with that.?
Many nationalists/republicans had to be persuaded to accept that a majority was needed to reunite our country. We have to ask how they would react if their legitimate right to a united Ireland was denied despite getting that majority, no matter how small that majority is
“We have to ask how they would react if their legitimate right to a united Ireland was denied despite getting that majority, no matter how small that majority is”
Expect the dissidents to be boosted by thousands of new members overnight. The Republican reaction would be worse than the Unionist, especially with a majority behind it.
The truth is there is no way a United Ireland would be stopped if a majority voted for it, not matter how small the majority is.
Ryan
Once again, when and where has anyone said anything about denying the outcome of a referendum.?
I had thanked Séanna for the notice of this meeting the other day, wholly forgetting my Daughter was moving house on Fri./Sat. so, unfortunately missed out.
Probably as well, given the reports an Uachtarán Sinn Féin was, further, reaching out to unionism, one must question, cen fa? Has Ireland not done more than enough already, I myself think yes, time to halt the drip feed to a people who are here simply as a tool of Brit. dominance and, like the europeans in Rhodesia, should be made feel as unwelcome as they are.
On point 3 supra, yes, in the event we vote, soon please God, for re-unification then, 1913, 1780 like, militant, and armed by the brit state force will re-emerge, will the new Irish Republic deal as brutally with them as they did with previous armed Protestants like George Plant? I should hope equality would prevail.
That said, there must be, Brexit like, no puff in respect of re-unification, when it is democratically brought.
Fianlly, Lowry’s argument on size, the twenty six counties did a wonderful job in providing employ to half the world between 1996-08, the six counties has a better educated workforce and, lower priced resources, the same could overtake Ireland’s second city with benefit to all, with the elephant in the room gone, i.e. EU membership, if Sinn Féin are determined to do all they can to ‘persuade’ and ‘accomodate’ unionism, they must, in government, undertake an Irexit poll.
Ben Lowry’s argument of Unionists wanting to stay part of the UK because of a bigger population size is just silly but unsurprising. People think that if a country has a big population than it must be richer. Then they conclude that if a country is richer than its quality of life for the average citizen must be greater than most countries. Totally untrue. China, USA, Russia, etc are amongst the richest countries in the World but they also rank amongst the worst for levels of poverty and inequality. The UK, for example, is the most unequal country in the EU, that’s official. In terms of GDP Per Capita the Republic is richer than the UK.
The northern state has existed for nearly 100 years, all of those years were within the UK, with its big economy. Lets ask the question: How well off are we? Well, we’re a basket case. Economist David McWilliams said the Union for the North has been a “disaster” economically. Economic growth since partition has been incredible for people in the South (even getting the nickname the Celtic Tiger) whilst in the North its been largely non-existent. That all happened whilst we have been IN the UK whilst the South has been OUTSIDE it.
When it comes to quality of life, despite having the larger GDP (which means very little to the individual citizen) the UK doesn’t compete against the likes of Austria, the Republic of Ireland, Switzerland, etc. The Republic consistently ranks higher than the UK (even during the bailout years) in rankings for Quality of Life. Now that DOES mean something to the individual citizen.
What will happen if/when the North votes for Irish Unity? you will have trouble from some Unionists/Loyalists. That’s to be expected and it should be planned for. There can be no talk of wanting a “super majority” in order to achieve Irish Unity or granting Unionism a veto. If that happens, that’s when the REAL trouble will occur. The Republican reaction, especially with a majority behind it (not to mention a majority in the South backing Irish Unity too) will be nothing less than what we seen during the troubles. What else do you expect when they see their wishes being overturned by Unionists threatening violence?
We once debated a long while ago what would be the reaction of Unionism if Irish Unity happened? I still hold the same opinion as I did then, I believe most Unionists would accept it, some will return to violence (and end up behind bars for good) and some will leave the North. But we cant tiptoe around Unionists anymore, yes they need to be accommodated to a reasonable extent but we shouldn’t treat them the same way the PSNI is currently treating the UVF/UDA: with kiddy gloves.
But one thing is for sure, and the likes of Bertie Ahern need to get it out of their tiny brains,: there can be no talk of rewriting the Good Friday Agreement. The Principle of Consent stands: a majority of the population, not a majority of Unionists, must vote for Irish Unity for it to happen.
Ryan
What talk has there been of rewriting the GFA?
“Ryan
What talk has there been of rewriting the GFA?”
From the likes of Bertie Ahern Gio. He even stated very recently that he didn’t want a United Ireland on a “sectarian headcount”, that is 51% of the population of the North voting for a United Ireland. He didn’t mean this in the sense that he wished most Unionists would agree to Irish Unity, he meant it in the sense they should be given a veto over Irish Unity or at least until a large percentage of Unionists agreed to it. That’s completely against the agreement he himself brokered and signed.
Yes, I know he’s no longer Taoiseach and the Good Friday Agreement is very clear on Irish Unity/Keeping the Union (a majority vote) but we keep hearing these “hints” and “mutterings” when it comes to Irish Unity because everyone can see where the demographics are going and how political Unionism hasn’t moved at all really on the question of reconciliation. One example of this is thinking that Republicans must abandon their basic views, especially when it comes to the past. That’s like Sinn Fein demanding the DUP/UUP to stop attending UDR/RUC memorials. Even today we have another “outrage” article in the Belfast Telegraph because, wait for it….a Sinn Fein MP attended a memorial for IRA volunteers. Shock! Horror! BREAKING NEWS: A Republican attends a memorial service for…err….Republicans….
Ryan
So even though he did not say anything about rewriting the GFA you are assuming that is what he wants?
And what of Gerry Adams statement that a successful vote could only come about if unionist opposition was unlocked?
Does this mean Gerry is also wanting to shift the goalposts from 50%+1?
The hints and mutterings are starting to appear because unification is starting to look like a real possibility.
How would 50% + 1 be abandoned?
It would require another referendum at the very least and I could see no possibility of such a change being agreed.
On the question of memorial services, it is up to individuals whether they want to attend memorials for IRA members, but it will hardly entice any new voters to them I would think.
It has to be stated, unequivocally, to Unionism/ Loyalism that a majority means 50%+1 and that’s the end of the argument! ….. no more prevarication….. I’m sick sore and tired of the perpetual appeasement of these people….if they don’t want to be part of a new beginning, a new chance for us all …… if once again they try to turn democracy ( a word they know but fail to comprehend) on its head they can either live in a 17th century type ghetto…. or feck off ….. that choice is theirs alone to make. They’ve held up the progress of this nation for too long …..they are ( and always have been ) a minority , an obstreperous and cantankerous minority , unwilling to live peacefully with their neighbours…..this is their last chance, it’s a situation entirely of their making …propitiation is long past its sell-by date.
Surely the elephant in the room is how on earth does SF intend to cajole or convince Unionism into a United Ireland after spending 30 years supporting those who tried to bomb them into it.
I was under the impression that the IRA was trying to bomb the British imperialists out of Ireland. Their quarrel was not with the local colonists.
Try telling that to the local colonists.