Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Those paying lip service to Union don’t speak from the heart
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
We were at our very best on Friday evening; on Saturday evening we were at our worst.
It took a mere 24 hours to complete the cycle. By booking a week before Christmas, I managed to obtain two of the last tickets for Friday's civic concert by the Ulster Orchestra and the Belfast Philharmonic Chorus to celebrate the reopening — after two years — of the city’s Ulster Hall. It was an exuberant occasion, Bedford Street buzzing, the old hall resplendent, every seat taken, and two fine soloists to do justice to the Rachmaninov and to Stanford's Songs of the Fleet.
But then there was the Lord Mayor, Councillor Tom Hartley, to give the whole thing a send-off. He made a most felicitous speech, neither too short nor too long — and expertly inclusive, bearing in mind the history of the hall; and it was pleasing that he was warmly applauded for his pains. As all present knew, Mr Hartley is a member of Sinn Fein, but the platform of the hall has in the past been the favourite stamping ground of the more fiery champions of unionism. On an evening like Friday, however, this was going to be no problem. It was the Belfast Agreement working, because here was an audience gathered in from all parts — in united celebration.
Then came Saturday. The late news reminded us how fragile remains the facade of normality in this place. It reminded us that the Agreement's Achilles heel is its wobbly foundation: wobbly because it consists, not only of two fictions, but of two fictions which contradict each other.
The first fiction is that Northern Ireland is secure as a fully-accredited part of the United Kingdom. The situation in law, of course, is beyond doubt. But laws are made by man and man can change them. The fact is that our UK membership is not fully-accredited, in the sense that our near neighbours south of the border refuse to honour it in the spirit. Oh, yes, of course they pretend to! They behave correctly and in a civil manner. But one has only to inspect their utterances and their speech to appreciate that they do not in their hearts accept it. To them, the UK is Great Britain — nothing more. Note how their government agencies advertise their jobs on the ‘national council’ of this and the ‘commission’ of that in the Northern Ireland newspapers, in accordance with, shall we say, their Special Educational Needs Act, 2004, under which ‘policy advice is to be given to the Minister’.
But in this jurisdiction we know nothing of either that Act, the body in question or the identity of the Minister (unnamed). But when similar vacancies are advertised in the London newspapers, it is interesting to note that the approach is very different.
In these instances there is an introductory note referring to the public body in question and stating that it provides, say, health and social services ‘for everyone living in the Republic of Ireland’. I maintain that the foregoing indicates a state of mind which is both significant and unfortunate. It implies a carelessness about the constitutional facts which sensitive souls — of whom we have plenty — might misinterpret as something much more sinister than wishful thinking.
All of which brings us to the second fiction upon which the Agreement is based: that a united Ireland is a realistic possibility in the foreseeable future. Why else is there continuing provision for the holding of a referendum on the border, a referendum which, in the letter of the law, requires a mere majority of one to sweep that border away? Sinn Fein feels obliged to keep the faithful happy by frequent mention of unity. They plan a new drive. Unity will not happen anytime soon, though, because the circumstances are not right. But, again, trigger-happy apostles of the cause can take this ball and run with it. A united Ireland could have advantages; but, at this of all times, no citizen of the Republic is ready to have the Dail double taxes to pay for it.
As for Northern Ireland, its earthy politics are the direct result of the choice the new Free State made in the years after 1920. The unionist tradition south of the border was sacrificed, lock, stock and barrel, to the republican ideal. Many unionists left; others were chased, their houses burned by the republican mob; the few remaining soon learned it was tactful to keep quiet about any proclivities they harboured for the Old Enemy. Thus was the new state raised upon only one of its two traditions. The temper of the North is the reflex of that choice.
If a united Ireland is to happen over time, the South will have to earn it — and I am not referring to money, although, goodness knows, millions will have to be found to pay for it.
- Text Size
Comments
23 Comments
Mr P
I think you are confusing a lack of acknowledgement of your legitimate right to seek a united Ireland (peacefully) with political disagreement. Very few aspirations are politically unacceptable, with the possible exception of eugenics. Doesn't make them right.
Progressive is in the eye of the beholder. Adherence to a political philosophy of of racial purity doesn't strike me as progressive.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Posted by Observer | 17.03.09, 21:58 GMT
One good thing about living in another European country or indeed anywhere in the world is that you learn that the conflicts in Ireland are not unique. Recently, I heard a wonderful Spanish phrase " I am the owner of my thoughts and a slave to my words". I guess this phrase could be applied to all politicians and people on this island of all political persuasions, " what is said is not really felt". Nonetheless, it´s better to analyse and debate with thoughts and words than with bullets. Perhaps, the people of Ireland might find an "agreed" Ireland rather than a "united" or "partitioned" island. The concept of what "agreed" might encapsulate is open to debate. What is clear is that working together is mutually beneficial to all.
Posted by Seánóg | 13.03.09, 09:07 GMT
Observer, fair enough, now we're getting somewhere. I'm glad that you acknowledge my right to seek a United Ireland - it indicates a step in progressive thinking on your part that is sadly lacking in some parts of the Unionist/loyalist community.
PS: You forgot to mention the Vikings. Kidding!!
Posted by Mr. P | 12.03.09, 19:08 GMT
That was a population survey from 1911. How many British army people left after 1921?
Posted by LJS | 12.03.09, 10:48 GMT
For 40 years the 5th Columnists within Northern Ireland have sought to destroy the Union and make the country ungovernable. Roll on the day of Irish unity when the Republic will inherit its very own 5th Columnists - possibly a million people with no allegience to the government in Dublin. Who will police the former NI then, enforce the taxes etc etc? Will there be a welcome for the Garda on the Shankill Road? Will there be a rates boycott by the disenfranchised? ........and to what end goal - there doesn't have to be one. Who knows - but I don't think it will be pretty.
Posted by Peadar | 12.03.09, 10:19 GMT
Mr P
My point being that the settlement of Ireland is so convoluted that nobody has a prior claim or can claim that "we were here first"
Fact : Ireland was first settled after the last ice age by people from the Island of Britain;
The Celts arrived in small numbers from continental europe. Recent research at Trinity college shows that the majority of the population in southern Ireland are not genetically celtic. Whether this small number of celts gained their cultural ascendency by peaceful or military means is open to conjecture;
Ireland was planted in the context of the wider european wars of states and religion. Atrocities were committed on all sides but what is the sense in applying 21st century morality to events from hundreds of years ago.
I'm perfectly happy to accept your legitimate right to aspire to a united Ireland by peaceful means but I do not accept that your aspiration has any moral superiority.
Posted by Observer | 12.03.09, 06:43 GMT
Mickey,
Short answer is yes, but just like unionist opinion towards a United Ireland there would need to be a lot confidence building first, no going back to the status quo prior to 1921. I also think if is ever to happen it will be a federal Britain & Ireland.
Right now the GFA (all 3 strands) is the best platform to build trust, peace & prosperity. If we succeed we open up many possibilites for future generations, who hopefully by then will be able to make decisions without the ethnic politics that holds us all back today.
Posted by Gerry R | 12.03.09, 03:43 GMT
Observer,
Blah Blah Blah, to hell with the thousands of years crap.
If you go back far enough you will find an ancestor living in Africa! The Unionist population arrived well over 400 years ago and as such numerous gnererations later consider Ireland to be as much their natural home as you do. Indeed in real terms you have no more of a claim than they. That is the fact of the matter. So get of your high and mighty horse and get to know your Unionist neighbours for they have the same right as you, in the finest Belfast parlance, wise up mucker.
Posted by M Spence | 11.03.09, 21:43 GMT
I don't think anyone would deny that Ireland was 'planted' by the English. I don't think anyone would deny that the original landholders be they Gael, Firbolg, Neolith or what have you, were forcibly moved from their lands and had to learn to subsist on poorer quality landholdings. I don't think anyone would deny the existence of the Penal Codes, the outlawing of the native language and customs and the suppression of the Catholic religion.
My point, Observer, is that there is a long history of oppression against the native people of Ireland by England and that a lot of the forebearers of those native people still yearn for a country that is free of British parliamentary interference.
I hold to my right to strive for a United Ireland but I respect your right to want to maintain your British connection.
The arrogance is not on my part, but rather on yours in your dismissal of my very valid viewpoint. I may not agree with your viewpoint but I do respect your right to hold it.
Posted by Mr. P | 11.03.09, 20:00 GMT
David,
I'm afraid that the events you are denying are well documented and quite true; paricularly during the horror of the civil war and its immediate aftermath. 30% of the pre partition protestant population had emigrated by 1926, particularly from the west and other rural areas. The Ne Temere decrees
continued to devastate the protestant population until they were repealed by the church in 1971.
I know things are different now, but shrill denial of past wrongs helps no-one. I thought as a nationalist you would undersatnd that.
Posted by SteveW | 11.03.09, 19:46 GMT
''Gerry R, is it closed minded for some to ridicule the idea of the Republic joining NI in the UK?''
Nope! You always try to turn a point around mickey no matter how ridiculous it is! The fact is that a large percentage of the population of northern ireland would like to join the republic - ergo the idea is viable. But you'd be hard pressed to find even one southerner who would entertain the idea of rejoining the UK - which makes your idea laughable. Thats not close minded, just realistic.
Posted by Reality Check | 11.03.09, 16:51 GMT
Eric, there's a word for what you describe as a 'mere' majority of one. It's called 'democracy.' The same thing unionists are fond of lecturing everyone else about when they're in the majority. The Good Friday Agreement recongnises the equal legitimacy of both nationalist and unionist aspirations, and the people voted for it. Deal with it.
Posted by Watcher | 11.03.09, 16:47 GMT
"..goodness knows, millions will have to be found to pay for it."
It is obviously not a realistic or indeed fair proposition that the denizens of the northern statelet pay their own way. Someone will have to pay for the privelege of hoisting the colour over Belfast City Hall but it certainly won't be the million unionists and seven hundred and fifty thousand nationalists who cannot agree on how to share the place.
I have a suggestion for HM's gov, put the place up on ebay. Give whetever the highest bidder offers to the Executive up on the hill and bid them adieu
Posted by beezer | 11.03.09, 13:07 GMT
"As a nationalist, I'm aware of the righteousness of my belief in a United Ireland. I think most unionists/loyalists are aware that the 'country' they claim was never really theirs."
What arrogant nonsense. Who do you think lived in Ireland for the thousands of years before the Celts blew in from continental europe in small numbers. How different our politics would be if nationalists had the courage to acknowledge that the population of Ireland, North and South, is predominantly British in origin.
Posted by Observer | 11.03.09, 10:51 GMT
Gerry R, is it closed minded for some to ridicule the idea of the Republic joining NI in the UK?
Posted by mickey | 11.03.09, 09:44 GMT
I would just like to remind everyone that there are 3 equally important strands to the GFA.
1) Relations between the two comunities in Northern Ireland & the governing of Northern Ireland.
2) Relations between Northern Ireland & the Republic of Ireland.
3) Relations between Republic of Ireland & the UK
I understand Unionist position in wanting to remain part of the UK, but I would also like if Unionists could understand how Irish people of the nationalist tradition feel as one no mater what part of the Island they come from.
I feel Eric Waugh's article is very negative, it represents the worst case scenario for Unionism. Irish aspirations toward unity is a legitimate aspiration. Some form of Irish Unity may in time happen through the GFA, while maintaining a link with Britian. With a positive approach & strong leadership I believe the future holds great promise & possibility, we just have to open our minds.
Posted by Gerry R | 11.03.09, 03:17 GMT
If a united Ireland is to happen over time, the South will have to earn it — and I am not referring to money, although, goodness knows, millions will have to be found to pay for it.- Eric Waugh BT
This is a remarkable statement Eric Waugh!!
Is the cat out of the bag eh??
So a united Ireland CAN now happen over time with a huge pile of money and alot of concessions
How times have changed
I suppose you're just reiterating what your 1st Prime Minister Craig who is famously qoeted as saying that
"Partition was the saddest day in Irish history" and that
He was "first and foremost an Irishman"
Posted by Martin | 11.03.09, 01:46 GMT
'their houses burned by the republican mob'
This is more rubbish and PROPEGANDA.
Where and how many houses where Protestants burned out of their houses in the south in the years after partition like you say?
This is fiction. Old reports,news clipings of Protestant houses being burnt in south-where are they?
Next you'll be saying Protestants were denied jobs in the south when in fact the Protestants still owned the big companies in South like Guinness, Jacobs and guess what? They got along.
The protestant population in the republic has increased significantly in the last few years. Thats a FACT. Look it up.
Let me finish by saying that the hugh,overwhelming majority of the south condemn the recent evil killings. Stop using this as an oppurtunity to spread propeganda about the past to try and increase unionist/nationalist, and north/south divisions.
<
Posted by David | 11.03.09, 00:44 GMT
Mean while back in reality........................
Posted by manfield Jordan | 10.03.09, 22:17 GMT
It's enlightening to note the age difference between Protestant southerner Tom and Protestant Northerner Eric. Tom speaks of a reality in the Republic that seems anathema to Eric in the North. Tom is right - the past belongs to the history books and it is one of the problems in the North that people can remember what happened after partition in 1920 like it happened just yesterday. The only way for the North to move forward is to consign the past to history, where it belongs, and not to a warped reality of the present and future as it exists in the hearts and minds of some Northern folk. The Protestant Notherner has always been concerned about his/her Southern neighbors, aware that a United Ireland is a distinct possiblity and also aware that he/she is really regarded as Irish to the folks on the "mainland." As a nationalist, I'm aware of the righteousness of my belief in a United Ireland. I think most unionists/loyalists are aware that the 'country' they claim was never really theirs.
Posted by Mr. P | 10.03.09, 19:38 GMT
23 Comments