Mark Twain said golf was a good walk spoiled and I say listening to the Nolan show is a good drive spoiled. For the second time within days I’ve dipped in briefly and on both occasions heard a DUP politician. My ears still hurt.
The one a few days back was Ian Paisley, and he was explaining why, in a border poll, 50% +1 would not be sufficient for nationalists to win a border poll. This morning I dipped in equally briefly to hear Paul Givan explaining why 50% + 1 in a border poll would not be sufficient to effect constitutional change.
OK, Let’s be clear. Nobody – certainly no nationalist – wants a 50% + 1 win in a border poll. The chances of there being a 50% + 1 win are, in any case, extremely unlikely. But if you’re talking about a majority, 50% +1 is exactly that. So likewise is 50% + 1,000 and 50% + 100,000.
Would nationalists like a 50%+1 win? Not compared to + 1,000 or +100,000. But they would know that the Good Friday Agreement clearly states that when a majority of people vote for constitutional change, then constitutional change will be effected. Givan nattered on about consensus and stability, and for once I take my hat off to Nolan. He informed Givan, the man who grins as he lights Eleventh Night bonfires and who delights in snatching away bursaries for teenagers to learn Irish – Nolan said something like this to him:
“You talk about instability, Mr Givan. I’ll tell you what – when there’s a border poll and your lot refuse to accept a verdict of 50% +1 as sufficient for change – then you’ll really see instability.”
I couldn’t have put it better myself. When Edwin Poots beat Jeffrey Donaldson for the DUP leadership, many in the DUP were appalled. But none of them argued that a 19 -17 win was too far from consensus. (And yes, I know, they had a little coup and dethroned Edwin and shoved in Jeffrey, but that’s not the point. The point is Poots won by a very narrow majority and it was accepted by all.)
So could we have one of two things. Either DUP politicians stop rabbiting on about the need for consensus and how a large unionist vote would be necessary for constitutional change, or they come clean : “We reject democracy. All that time we were urging republicans to work for their objectives through democratic means – that was all only a cod. A joke. We had our fingers crossed behind our back. By the way, we’re changing our name to the UP. That D is a bit embarrassing.”
Unionist politicians have never been democrats. Along with the usual suspects across the water they change the rules to suit their agenda. Otherwise Ireland would have been allowed it’s freedom at least a century ago. Hopefully nationalists will behave completely differently from those unionists who belittled and ostracized the Catholic population (it was always an anti Catholic thing) and treat their neighbours as equal, no more and no less. I think we will.