Dear Peter and Reg, do we really need two unionist parties now?
An open letter to the leaders of the DUP and UUP ...
Monday, 12 January 2009
Print
Email
Here’s a question. Instead of the two parties led by your respective selves, why don’t you just have one unionist party?
I think this is an issue worth exploring, not least because both your parties will be squaring up to one another again very shortly in the European elections.
What is the difference between you? Is it really worth having two separate headquarters, websites, office bearers, conferences, candidates and heaven knows what other individual political trappings at Stormont, Westminster and Brussels?
The last time Northern Ireland had a monolithic unionist party was in the early 1960s. As you know, the really big parting of the ways came in the New Year of 1969 when the last-ever Stormont parliamentary election took place.
We are approaching the 40th anniversary of that event and one of the most significant speeches ever made by a unionist leader. “What kind of Ulster do you want?” Captain Terence O’Neill asked the electorate of Northern Ireland in February 1969.
The answer from unionist voters was not what he wanted to hear. If only O’Neill had delivered the speech as well as it was written by his then Cabinet Secretary, now Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, he might have stood a better chance against the emerging influence of Ian Paisley.
Unfortunately that was not to be. O’Neill’s heart was in the right place but his communication skills were of the nil point variety. His failure to lead effectively was the beginning of the end of a united unionism. Yet, the question posed in that speech is as relevant today as it was then. What kind of Ulster do you want? It has been largely answered by the events of the past decade. The obvious response the question begged was that we should choose compromise rather than confrontation. It was too late in 1969 to sell any such message to the mounting cauldron of Northern Ireland, just as today it is too late for this message to reach the Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East.
Fast forward 40 years. Reg Empey and Peter Robinson — you, as the current leaders of the parties of Terence O’Neill and Ian Paisley, are not only sitting |together in one Executive but you have both accepted compromise over continued confrontation.
You, Peter Robinson, took a lot longer than Reg Empey and his predecessor David Trimble to reach this point. You argue time and again that the difference between your Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionists is that you weren’t prepared to roll over as easily as they were.
You argue you were not part of the sell-out brigade. That you stood firm all through those years against the evil of the IRA, the intrusion of the Dublin government, and the cunning constitutional nationalism of the SDLP. But today what do we find? All these people now inhabit your world at Stormont, in one way or another. Martin McGuinness is in the next office to you. The Taoiseach breaks bread with you. The SDLP and Sinn Fein sit in your Executive.
The fact is the old order that divided unionism has gone and is unlikely ever to return. Terence O’Neill might be spinning in his grave if he were to know how you unionists, 40 years on, answered his question.
Peter Robinson and Reg Empey, we know what divided your parties in the past — political compromise or confrontation. However, the new political arrangements at Stormont make obsolete much of those differences. You lead two separate parties because of what you inherited, what you did and felt and believed in earlier years. This is not the reality of the present nor, many might argue, in the interests of the unionist population in the future. Why keep on battling at the polls over what appear to be petty parochial and personal differences? If you all stand for Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom, why don’t you stand together, particularly as there seems to be little more than a paper wall between the current ideals and principles of your two parties?
Those who support the union will need unity rather than disunity if they wish to preserve the |relationship with London in the long term.
The existence of your two separate unionist parties in Northern Ireland has taken on such importance among some of your followers that one wonders where their interests really lie. In preserving their separate identities and power bases? Or ensuring they remain part of the United Kingdom?
Yours Ed
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
Well said James, I for one do not see the sense of having two separate nations in these islands- the UK and the Irish Republic. What is the point in wasting so much money having this? Best follow James' logic to its ultimate conclusion and unite Ireland and Britain! I presume that's what he meant, being concerned as he was with all that money being wasted!
Posted by Equally Concerned | 14.01.09, 18:08 GMT
Ed Curran has taken a rather naive approach to unionist politics and forgot two important factors. Firstly, an attempt was made some years ago by the leader of the Orange Order, Robert Saulters, to bring the two unionist parties together. The meeting broke up in acrimony when those present could not agree on any significant point of policy. They couldn't even agree to meet again! Secondly, the unionist electorate can identify the differences clearly. When I lived in Ulster I never voted No1 for the DUP in any ballot because it was they who tried to split the unionist community, the Orange Order and the Presbyterian Church. Need I repeat Mrs Robinson's remarks on homosexuals which demonstrated her and her husband's religious fundamentalism? Ulster's majority is Protestant but not fundamentalist. Politically, the DUP are little Ulstermen (and women) but the UUP remains British and now linked once again to mainstream British politics. They need patience not immersion into the DUP.
Posted by Dr David Green | 14.01.09, 15:35 GMT
Well Ed you have your response from the DUP and UUP. What now? A united pair of nationalist parties? One wonders where your interests really lie.
Posted by Pro Tanto Quid | 14.01.09, 11:28 GMT
Tadhg O'Máirtín - how about a 'United Northern Ireland' - is that on your 'radar' also?
Posted by mickey | 14.01.09, 10:52 GMT
James Doyle, happy for this all Ireland Govt of yours to reside in Stormont and have UK laws apply?
In fact why stop there, why not have a British & Irish Isles Governement? Huh, James?
Posted by mickey | 14.01.09, 10:51 GMT
Last message sent should read:"balanced" instead of "unbalanced"
Posted by Tadhg O'Máirtín | 13.01.09, 17:48 GMT
I always wondered where the Belfast leadership really stood as regards to representing the "people" with a fair unbalanced opinion. Yea! Mr Curren you answered that nice and clear.
Consider in also changing the name of The Telegraph to perhaps-
"The United Unionist'. Hey! What about a United Ireland? Good idea what?
Posted by Tadhg O'Máirtín | 13.01.09, 17:07 GMT
My question is : Do we need a Northern Ireland and a Republic of Ireland parliament. Look at all the money that is wasted with ALL this government for a small Island with about 5 million people. A United Ireland with one parliament makes 100% sense.
Posted by James Doyle | 13.01.09, 16:46 GMT
Dear Ed,
Your excellent question prompts another: do we really need two nationalist parties now? Would you apply similar or different criteria? I'd be interested to know.
Regards,
Brian Walker
Posted by Brian Walker | 13.01.09, 10:53 GMT
There needs to be a soft Unionist party (Unionism with a small 'u') for Northern Ireland RCs to adopt, those who still prefer the retention of the Union with England, Scotland & Wales but don't see themselves as Queen-loving Union flag wavers and don't wish to be inextricably linked to the traditional perception of Unionism.
I could be wrong, but doesn't the Alliance Party come under this umbrella? What are people's general perceptions of the Alliance Party?
Posted by mickey | 13.01.09, 10:03 GMT
Events of the past decade have been heavily influenced by Sept 2001. The old politics have not gone away here in any real sense. No new personalities, same tired old policies. Northern Ireland has effectively been run by civil servants for over forty years. Without a government involving opposition and removal there is no prospect of meaningful change. In practice, those in power have no incentive to change and are riven with self promotion and praising self assessment.
Just look at the new UUP/Conservative relationship. The Conservatives have miscalculated in agreeing to the association since the cost of UU baggage will be disproportionate to the potential benefit.
Ed Curran must spell out the detailed long term consequences of his proposal. It seems that readers have identified one major flaw already. So what is Ed's undisclosed agenda?
Posted by A Value Free Voter | 13.01.09, 09:59 GMT
There is something here.
I have long felt that the new landscape requires a new, demonstrably different, set of ingredients (personalities and policies) from both sides first to make Northern Ireland work, second to make the relationship with the Republic work and thirdly to develop long-term economic security.
The DUP and SF have been relatively sucessful in their own terms but the DUP seems to be unable to cope with the challenge of dealing with Dublin fearing contagion or worse and SF are failing miserably in communicating with ordinary unionists and broadly voters in the south. We are at the limits of the old politics. I don't see a bigger plate of left-overs being any more satisfying than a small one. We need ideas and new personalities.
I would like to see the NI Government lobbying for fund-raising powers and buying strategic investments in Aer Lingus and Bombardier, an all-Ireland commission on nuclear power, a fire training centre at Aldegrove for every Irish airport etc
Posted by Better Value not Bitter Jibes | 12.01.09, 21:30 GMT
As a diehard Unionist Mr Curran wants the Unionist parties to unite to form one party. I, as a Nationalist, would welcome it too, because as sure as eggs are eggs, Sinn Fein and the SDLP would unite so we would be back to the numbers game. Can I remind Mr Curran that in the 2001 census, 40% of the population described themselves as Catholic/Nationalist and 45.7% of the people described themselves as Protestant/Unionist--(check it out on line, it is true). Can I also remind Mr Curran that in June 2007 the Independant newspaper said that in the 2011 census it is very possible that the Catholic/Nationalist people would be in the majority. So how do you feel now, Mr Curran, on your arguament, I suppose you would want to see the Nationalist parties unite also.
Posted by Leroy | 12.01.09, 20:21 GMT
If the Unionist partys merge then the SDLP and Sinn Fein will merge and we are back to the numbers game.
Posted by Trevor | 12.01.09, 19:51 GMT
One must wonder, given Ed Curran's promotion of the influence of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in matters of historical importance for Northern Ireland why Sir Kenneth has deemed it of strategic interest to have involved himself in the devisive academic selection and grammar school debacle. It has become clear that an educational apartheid has developed with different tests for different religious communities. Perhaps the "political compromise" attitude recommended in the article is just a euphamism for the controlled DUP capitulation on St Andrews or anything to avoid confrontation that would result in bringing the farce of "the new political arrangements at Stormont " to an end.
Sammy Wilson's outburst on planning to match Caitriona Ruane's on education. An equality of incompetence.
Posted by Pro Tanto Quid | 12.01.09, 11:36 GMT