The real problem now for unionism, as it was in 1921, is that we (the pragmatists) are being forced to defend a structure of government which we never really wanted and which may, in the long-term, prove to be thoroughly bad for us.
Alex Kane, one of the most astute of Unionist observers, is talking specifically here about the situation in Northern Ireland; but this quote also applies equally to those Unionists in Scotland and Wales who’ve decided to work their respective devolved systems. Their "pragmatism" does not and can not, despite their protestations to the contrary, strengthen the Union.
12 comments:
The real problem now for unionism, as it was in 1921, is that we (the pragmatists) are being forced to defend a structure of government which we never really wanted and which may, in the long-term, prove to be thoroughly bad for us.
Or to put it another way,
The real problem now for unionism, as it was in 1921, is that due to our failure to realise the need for a different dispensation, to tackle the problem head on and to negotiate for the the best outcome for Unionism, as opposed to just offer resistance(Ulster Says No), we are being forced to defend a structure of government which we never really wanted and which may, in the long-term, prove to be thoroughly bad for us.
That's not putting it another way kloot. That's a diametrically opposite point to the one Kane is making. Pragmatic unionism has tackled the problem head on and it has negotiated for the best outcome it can achieve. Pragmatic unionism now defends these compromises in the awareness that they are probably not in our long term best interests, because it believes they are the best arrangements we can get.
That's not putting it another way kloot.
True enough, a better wording would have been..
"A different interpretation could be"
Pragmatic unionism has tackled the problem head on and it has negotiated for the best outcome it can achieve.
With respect, pragmatic unionism has only shown itself it the last 10 years or so. It cannot be said that Unionism negotiated for the best settlement in 1921. They barely played a role, and besides, the time for negotiation was in the period 1912 to 1915/1916, before the extremists took command of the situation. Pragmatic unionism did not exist back then, although Carson did show some understanding.
Move forward then to the 1960s/1970s. Rather then face up to the fact that there was a problem with an all unionist, orange government in Stormont and with nationalist representation to this government, and other genuine nationalist grievances , Unionism did nothing of merit and this led to the UK parliament shutting it down. Again, unionists were not ready for pragmatists. This was clearly shown.
Move on then to the Anglo Irish agreement. Well in fairness, Unionists werent even consulted on this one. Dont you think that if the Unionist had pragmatic tendencies back then that they would have been consulted.
Which brings us to the Belfast Agreement. And agreement which eventually saw pragmatic unionism, although initially still conservative, show its head. Did Unionism want this agreement ? They wanted an agreement, but one in which the irish government played such a role, most definitely not, but then pragmatism came to the fore in that it was understood that this is the way its being called and that it was time to play the game as it was being laid out, and this lead to proper engagement between Unionism and the Irish government in negotiating the BFA.
It can be argued that the cold war climate between '21 and '98 was not fertile ground for pragmatic unionism.
My point is though, that had a pragmatic unionist leadership existed in either 1914 or 1967/1968 unionism could have negotiated a much more friendly deal, possibly a deal that Unionism felt was more democratic.
“With respect, pragmatic unionism has only shown itself it the last 10 years or so.”
With respect Kloot that is not the case. Pragmatic unionism has been undermined in the past by exactly those unionists who have now assumed its mantle.
“It cannot be said that Unionism negotiated for the best settlement in 1921. They barely played a role, and besides, the time for negotiation was in the period 1912 to 1915/1916, before the extremists took command of the situation. Pragmatic unionism did not exist back then, although Carson did show some understanding.”
Unionist pragmatists decided that although they opposed Home Rule for any of the 32 counties, that they were prepared to countenance the exclusion of 6 north eastern counties which would contain a defensible unionist majority. That is what they got. The creation of Northern Ireland was directly attributable to pragmatic unionists.
“Move forward then to the 1960s/1970s. Rather then face up to the fact that there was a problem with an all unionist, orange government in Stormont and with nationalist representation to this government, and other genuine nationalist grievances , Unionism did nothing of merit and this led to the UK parliament shutting it down. Again, unionists were not ready for pragmatists. This was clearly shown.”
On the contrary there were unionists who identified that the status quo was not sustainable. Indeed movement in terms of civil rights etc. were made, but the reformists efforts were undermined by the outgoing First Minister and his fellow travellers.
“Move on then to the Anglo Irish agreement. Well in fairness, Unionists weren’t even consulted on this one. Don’t you think that if the Unionist had pragmatic tendencies back then that they would have been consulted”
I certainly think that the obstructionism of the 1980s was a low point. I also believe that the experience of previous unionist leaders had boxed more progressive unionists into a corner. Pragmatism is grounded in what is possible.
“Which brings us to the Belfast Agreement. And agreement which eventually saw pragmatic unionism, although initially still conservative, show its head. Did Unionism want this agreement ? They wanted an agreement, but one in which the irish government played such a role, most definitely not, but then pragmatism came to the fore in that it was understood that this is the way its being called and that it was time to play the game as it was being laid out, and this lead to proper engagement between Unionism and the Irish government in negotiating the BFA.”
Pragmatism isn’t about getting what you want Kloot. It is about achieving the best with what is possible. Of course the Belfast Agreement did not represent everything which unionism wanted. Therein lies the pragmatism.
“My point is though, that had a pragmatic unionist leadership existed in either 1914 or 1967/1968 unionism could have negotiated a much more friendly deal, possibly a deal that Unionism felt was more democratic.”
I also believe that negotiation at those two junctures might have been beneficial. Whether it would have been possible or not is another thing. Though it does not make it correct to say that unionism did not always contain a strain of pragmatism. I’ve blogged on the two strains over on my site.
Chekov,
Hows the form. Enjoying the weather I hope.
With respect Kloot that is not the case. Pragmatic unionism has been undermined in the past by exactly those unionists who have now assumed its mantle.
Though it does not make it correct to say that unionism did not always contain a strain of pragmatism
Im not saying that unionism has never contained a strain of pragmatism. It has of course, however, what I am saying is that pragmatic unionism has not been the dominant strain of Unionism down through the years. Extremist unionism has always been the dominant strain. Also pragmatism is required in many different ways. There is showing pragmatism in achieving your own needs, but also showing pragmatism in what others need of you
Prior to the BFA and indeed during Trimbles leadership, showing compromise and being pragmatic in accepting what the Nationalist side needed, was seen as a weakness, and it caused many a Unionist leader to fall on his sword. Maloneys book on Paisley demonstrates this.
Pragmatism is grounded in what is possible.
Yes, thats pragmatism in what you can achieve. But there is also a need to show pragmatism in what others need of you.
To get to the other points you made
Unionist pragmatists decided that although they opposed Home Rule for any of the 32 counties, that they were prepared to countenance the exclusion of 6 north eastern counties which would contain a defensible unionist majority. That is what they got. The creation of Northern Ireland was directly attributable to pragmatic unionists.
I believe they could have gotten a better deal then that were they prepared to explore the home rule issue more. To compromise on it, to negotiate it, to such an extent that a 32 county home rule could have happened with in built protections for them.
On the contrary there were unionists who identified that the status quo was not sustainable. Indeed movement in terms of civil rights etc. were made, but the reformists efforts were undermined by the outgoing First Minister and his fellow travellers
There were people holding these views. Possible quite a large amount. However, Paisley and his lot made sure that these people had to look over their backs for every inch of change and because of this too little change came to slow.
I certainly think that the obstructionism of the 1980s was a low point. I also believe that the experience of previous unionist leaders had boxed more progressive unionists into a corner. Pragmatism is grounded in what is possible.
Agreed. You see there though you appear to be saying that it wasnt pragmatic for Unionism to be progressive as they were boxed in. Yes, its pragmatism to say that they had little room for movement. However, the person looking from the outside in would say the opposite in that this would be viewed as Unionism not being pragmatic, in that the approach taken was not achieving results and wasnt accepting the game as it was unfolding.
I also believe that negotiation at those two junctures might have been beneficial. Whether it would have been possible or not is another thing.
Agreed.
Though it does not make it correct to say that unionism did not always contain a strain of pragmatism. I’ve blogged on the two strains over on my site.
I think ive covered this above. I completely accept that there have always been pragmatic Unionists. My own view on this though is that since the foundation of NI, its has been on a siege footing, and this prevent the pragmatic/moderate unionists from coming to the front and carry their people with them
“Hows the form. Enjoying the weather I hope.”
Not so bad Kloot. And I’m enjoying it great when I can get outside.
“I’m not saying that unionism has never contained a strain of pragmatism. It has of course, however, what I am saying is that pragmatic unionism has not been the dominant strain of Unionism down through the years. Extremist unionism has always been the dominant strain.”
Always? It wouldn’t appear to be the dominant strain now. The majority of unionists voted for the Belfast Agreement. The majority of unionists even backed O’Neill initially. I take your point that scare-mongering unionism has been able to exert an inordinate influence on the unionist mainstream.
“Also pragmatism is required in many different ways. There is showing pragmatism in achieving your own needs, but also showing pragmatism in what others need of you”
Pragmatism is by definition grounded in realism. Realistically politicians will prioritise the furtherance of their own political viewpoint. It would be ridiculous to do otherwise.
“Prior to the BFA and indeed during Trimble’s leadership, showing compromise and being pragmatic in accepting what the Nationalist side needed, was seen as a weakness, and it caused many a Unionist leader to fall on his sword. Maloneys book on Paisley demonstrates this.”
That is true. But Trimble’s pragmatism was that he acknowledged that concessions must be made to nationalists in order to shore up the unionist position and he was also able for a considerable time to bring just enough of unionism and of his own party along with him, otherwise this realisation would be useless.
“Yes, that’s pragmatism in what you can achieve. But there is also a need to show pragmatism in what others need of you.”
It is two sides of the same thing Kloot. The pragmatism is realising what is possible and what is necessary.
“I believe they could have gotten a better deal then that were they prepared to explore the home rule issue more. To compromise on it, to negotiate it, to such an extent that a 32 county home rule could have happened with in built protections for them.”
But unionists don’t assent to that point of view Kloot. Unionists got the maximum which they believed was available, which is surely the very definition of pragmatism. You may think that it would be better for unionists to be in some kind of federal 32 county Ireland, but that is neither here nor there when we’re considering the pragmatism of UNIONISTS in defending their ideals.
“There were people holding these views. Possible quite a large amount. However, Paisley and his lot made sure that these people had to look over their backs for every inch of change and because of this too little change came to slow.”
I wouldn’t disagree with that. I abhor Paisley’s influence and the damage he inflicted on the Union and on Northern Ireland.
“Agreed. You see there though you appear to be saying that it wasnt pragmatic for Unionism to be progressive as they were boxed in. Yes, its pragmatism to say that they had little room for movement. However, the person looking from the outside in would say the opposite in that this would be viewed as Unionism not being pragmatic, in that the approach taken was not achieving results and wasnt accepting the game as it was unfolding.”
I’m not saying that. I believe there was a lack of realism during this time. Jim Molyneaux misjudged his influence in Tory circles and allowed unionism to stagnate. The upshot was the AIA being imposed over the heads of unionists. Undoubtedly unionism should’ve been more active and more constructive during this period. David Trimble learned lesions from this time.
“My own view on this though is that since the foundation of NI, its has been on a siege footing, and this prevent the pragmatic/moderate unionists from coming to the front and carry their people with them”
I take that point.
I have to confess that my main understanding of the events running up to the crisis in 1913 comes from George Dangerfield's classic book "The Strange Death of Liberal England". That time it was the Conservative Party who inflamed the situation in pursuit of narrow short-term electoral interests.
This time it's the actions of the Labour Party.
The end result is the same.
You might like this:
http://tinyurl.com/5kbshn
That time it was the Conservative Party who inflamed the situation in pursuit of narrow short-term electoral interests.
Interesting topic that. I read a biography of Carson last year that touched heavily on that period. The conservatives, and indeed their actual party leader, were thought to be directly involved in importing weapons to be used against British troops and British policemen.
They came close to sparking civil war in the UK, and were it not for the Easter rising, there was a high likelihood of confrontation between the state forces and the UVF
Right this is my understanding:-
1- The Conservatives were against Home Rule for Ireland - that is devolution. They said it would destroy the UK of GB and I and the Empire. They do this during periods of Liberal government when the Liberals need the support of Irish nationalists.
2- Tories stoke traditional prejudices amongst Ulster Protestants against Home Rule with sectarianism and fears of the economic impact of devolution.
3 - Tories keep winning as even though the Commons passes the legislation for Irish Home rule it is struck down in the Tory-dominated House of Lords.
4 - In 1910-1911 the Parliamentary crisis concerning the peoples budget sees the immasculation of the Lords. Now there is no legislative barrier for a home rule bill to pass.
5 - In 1912 Carson goes to Ulster to whip things up on behalf of all unionists elsewhere. He sets up the Ulster Covenant. The UVF is set up and the "Executive Committee of the Ulster Unionist Council" stands by to act as a provisional government in Ulster if a Home Rule bill is passed.
6 - Strangely the Nationalists are a bit miffed about paramilitarism and set up the Irish Vounteer Force to force Home Rule. Irish Trade unions set up left-wing nationalist militia the Irish Citizens Army - ironically founded and organised by Ulster Protestant boer war hero Captain Jack White DSO - son of Sir George White VC of Defence of Ladysmith fame.
7 - UVF funded by Tories and Irish fellow travellers pay for and import something like over 200,000 rifles from Germany and 3 million rounds to prepare to fight UK government at Larne. Carson becomes regular luncheon guest of Kaiser who wants to ferment civil war in UK.
Strangely enough IVF decides to counter this (the dogs!!!) by smuggling weapons from Germany also. Landed at Howth by Erskine Childers
British army allows UVF to parade in streets with guns. Not so keen on IVF and Citizen's Army doing the same thing. Army and IVF have shoot out at Bachelor's Walk in Dublin the day of the Howth cache.
8 - During this period the Irish National Party get involved in the control of the IVF which is headed by Ulster Catholic Eoin MacNeil, Professor of Medieval History at UCD.
Both Carson and Irish Party leader John Redmond in effect have private armies.
9 - In the world of politics the Conservatives block a home rule bill but it is certain with the Lords' emasculation a new bill will become law in 1914.
10 - Conservative leader (Bonar Law) says in public speech that he sees no law that UVF, Carson and co can break which he will not support.
11 - Government decide to crush UVF in early 1914. Orders army at Curragh to move against UVF. Officer corps at Curragh refuse and threaten to resign their commissions.
Churchill (for it is he!) as First Sea Lord orders squadron of destroyers to prepare to sail into Belfast and shell it since the army will not move against UVF.
Asquith calls off Churchill and says that officers who do not want to move against UVF can do so and that (soto voce) may go off and fight for UVF.
12 - Meanwhile Tories in the Lords threaten to delay the annual Army Act (until the 1960's during peacetime the UK army needed an annual piece of legislation to exist). This would mean the UK would have no standing army and it is hoped that some elements of the army in hiatus might use this moment to supply weapons to UVF
Kaiser starts rubbing hands with glee!!!!!
13 - Unionists demand Province of Ulster is excluded from Home Rule legislation and remains under direct rule. Government says no but under pressure gives in on condition that the exclusion will be reviewed in six years time. Lords throw out the six-year review plan and demand permanent exclusion.
Nationalists up in arms over partition.
14 - King George calls interested parties to the table.
15 - Irish home rule passed in 1914 excluding Ulster. World War I breaks out and Carson and Redmond volunteer their private armies to be used by the government.
Agreement to suspend home rule legislation until after the war.
Several Irish nationalist MPs go to the front including Redmond's brother Willy Redmond who is later killed in action.
16 - In late 1914/early 1915 a split in IVF occurs. Sinn Fein leader and eminent journalist Arthur Griffith accuses John Redmond of being a British Toady.
Eoin MacNeil falls out with Redmond over the suspension of Home Rule legislation. Redmond and co quit the IVF and set up the Irish National Volunteers taking most IVF members with them.
MacNeil left with a fraction of the force.
17 - This rump finds itself under the control of shadowy militant nationalist organisation, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB). IRB starts plotting uprising.
18 - In 1916 the IRB contact Citizen's Army chief James Connolly as they hear he has a plan for a rising. Connolly agrees to participate in rebellion and is sworn into the IRB.
IRB Army Council (basically the seven signatories on the proclamation) prepare for all-Ireland rebellion in light of plans to close down IVF by the UK authorities.
MacNeill gets word of the event and has the manouvres cancelled everywhere apart from Dublin where the rising takes place.
19 - Rebellion takes place. It is crushed to popular acclaim. However public mood in nationalist community turns in favour after executions and exposure of crimes committed by the Brtitish military and its attempt to cover them up (pace Sheehy-Skeffington case and Bowen-Colthurst).
20 - Rebels and others wrongly jailed for participating in the rebellion (Arthur Griffith jailed for life for a rebellion he neither knew of in planning or participated in).
Cathal Brugha who escapes prison due to his wounds reorganises IVF and ICA into single IVF.
Briugha instrumental in hijacking Sinn Feinn as a political party and Griffith forced to resign leadership to most senior surviving rebel Eamon De Valera who is also head of IVF.
Sinn Feinn becomes a republican sepratist party.
(Until 1917 Sinn Feinn was a unionist party - yeah that is right - Griffith has proposed in 1905 that the UK should work like Austria-Hungary with Ireland and Britain having generally seperate governments, parliaments, laws etc but would continue to have a common currency, common customs tariff, common defence and foriegn policies etc headed by the British monarch).
21 - In 1917-18 Sinn Feinn wins a few by-elections. These MPs refuse to take their seats.
In 1916 Ireland was excluded from Conscription Act. In 1917-1918 UK government puts through legislation extending conscription to Ireland. Irish Party MPs walk out of the Commons in disgust in anger at what they see as insensitivity to a dire political situation in Ireland.
22 - John Redmond dies humiliated as UK government make it clear they will not impliment Home Rule after war.
Irish Party discredited as London lapdogs and Sinn Feinn becomes party of choice amongst nationalists.
This was aggravated by the fact that whilst there were crackdowns on Irish nationalism, a number of prominent UVF types including Carson and FE Smith were now members of the UK government. Makes UK government look like it panders to unionist paramilitarism.
Smith, distastefully, in 1916 prosecutes Roger Casement for treason by getting Germany to back a rebellion against the Crown. Smith has been Carson's "galloper" during the time when the UVF were importing guns from the Germans.
23 - Sinn Feinn win most seats (but around 48% of the vote) in Ireland during the 1918 General election. They win 73 out of 105 MPs. All support for Irish Party demolished.
Sinn Feinn MPs boycott Westminster and set up the First Dail in 1919. Issues proclamation of independence . Dev sets up provisional government to oppose UK government (like Carson did all those years ago).
24 - The troubles start.
In 1919-1920 the government tries to pacify Ireland with another devolution bill. It proposes two devolved authorities - one for Southern Ireland and one for Northern Ireland.
Unionists grudgingly agree to this. However new Ulster Unionist leader James Craig asks for Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan to become part of the south so that there is a secure protestant (and therefore likely unionist) majority in the North.
Both devolved parliaments are deliberately designed to get as high a unionist representation as possible.
There will be a joint-government council to deal with common matters for the two administrations with the hope of single devolved unity.
25 - In 1921 there are elections to both Parliaments. NI Parliament returns thumping Ulster Unionist majority.
In the South Sinn Feinn and the IVF (now the IRA) "persuade" other parties not to stand against them. SF wins 121 of the 125 seats in the Southern Irish Parliament which becomes the Second Dail. The four remaining seats are won by unionists representing TCD.
(SF had taken control of most of Ireland's local government in 1919 in the elections where they failed less well than in 1918 - but hey you cannot beat good old British first-past-the-post to give you a skewed result!!)
26 - UK government negotiates independence for the south with SF which subsequently splits over the conditions of independence and leads to civil war.
A bounday commission reviewing the border after this conflict leaves the border as it is despite a recommendation to give a small part of Donegal to NI.
South allows abolition of boundary commission in return for the writing off of its share in the UK national debt.
The Aberdonian said.
My god but that was some summary. Well done..
Its an interesting time in the history of these islands and its a part of history thats often forgotten
Yes, I agree.
Superb summary.
Watch out for him tomorrow!
I'm doing a post on another one of this favourite subjects (territory of the ex-Austrian-Hungarian empire!!).All will be revealed (as they say in the worst tabloids!)
This point is sometimes forgotten:
Unionists demand Province of Ulster is excluded from Home Rule legislation and remains under direct rule.
If Unionists like Carson had stuck to their guns and demanded that we continue to be governed by Westminster instead of Stormont, I'm convinced we would all be in a much better postion today. But they didn't and the rest is history as they say.
Post a Comment