I will continue to work closely and constructively with our nearest neighbours in the Republic of Ireland and I will always uphold the democratic wishes of people here in respect of their constitutional future.
But I will never be neutral when it comes to expressing my support for the Union.
That is a pledge which we who believe in the Union in Northern Ireland needed and wanted to hear from Cameron on Saturday. But that preceeding paragraph has been conveniently forgotten by many Irish nationalists, who have instead concentrated on their belief that a British government led by Cameron would no longer be what they would define as a neutral, detached, "honest broker" in the frequent infantile squabbles that break out here. He has acknowledged Northern Ireland remains as part of the United Kingdom as long as its citizens wish it to remain to do so. Exactly what was agreed to by all signatories to the Belfast Agreement over ten years ago.
What really disturbs nationalists though is that, for the first time, we in Northern Ireland have the chance to have a direct role in the real governance of our country and for for the first time since the creation of the state, there is a very real opportunity being offered to us to be a part of a truly outward-looking, pluralist, secular and inclusive form of Unionism- a form of Unionism that looks not to the safeguarding of "Protestant Ulster" as its sole raison d’etre, but one that desires and firmly demands to take its rightful place right at the centre of our nation along with the other three constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
Bearing in mind Irish nationalism’s complete failure to date to move outside its own communal strait-jacket, to produce any kind of credible economic vision and to appeal beyond its “traditional” (read communal) voter-base, you can understand their concern at developments.
But it’s only an opportunity, not a fait accompli that has been presented here and whilst the road-map has been laid out by Cameron, Empey and Co, there is still a long and fraught journey ahead. And as is often the case in politics, the greatest threat to the project may well lie with those who theoretically would say they are fighting for the same goal, rather than those who hold Irish "Unity" as their ultimate political objective.
But still, a solid foundation’s been definitely laid...
14 comments:
I think SF and the SDLP still have somewhat of a hangover from the Blair years where they had the likes of Blair and Powell fighting their corner to an extent. Although I would not go as far to say to Labour government were a 'persuader to a UI' the nationalists viewed them as such.
It shouldn't stop them coming up with slightly more radical ideas than painting post-boxes green and removing statues of New Zealand Prime-Ministers! They're intellectually bankrupt at the minute- which is good news for us obviously!
Also quite dangerous, as if a vacuum emerges what is going to fill it? Is our society healed enough that nationalists would turn their backs on an resurgent activity by the dissidents?
SDLP are doing sweet FA at the minute. Sinn Fein are looking increasingly uncomfortable with where they have ended up.
"we in Northern Ireland have the chance to have a direct role in the real governance of our country and for for the first time since the creation of the state"
UUP MPs ran as Tories of course from 1922 till the troubles and made up part of the governing party when the Conservatives were in power. I remember reading that some UUP types had junior posts in various Tory governments. I think Churchill's PPS at one point was UUP.
(Which considering Churchill's support for Redmondite nationalism - including a rather nasty confrontation with Orangemen at the Ulster Hall circa 1912 - was a bit of a Volte Face)
Indeed if you look at the electoral stats for the General election of 1951, it was the UUP which gave the Tories their overall majority (Despite Labour getting more votes than the Conservatives - first past the post, you cannot beat it!).
Some reward for Clem Atlee who oversaw the Ireland Act 1949! Talk about biting the hand that protected them.
Ignited,
It could be dangerous, but it's not Unionism's fault surely that Irish nationalism has backed itself into a corner?
Aberdonian
UUP MPs ran as Tories of course from 1922 till the troubles and made up part of the governing party when the Conservatives were in power. I remember reading that some UUP types had junior posts in various Tory governments. I think Churchill's PPS at one point was UUP.
I think it was was PPS Chichester-Clark. back to the mainpoint, post the set up of Stormont, Ulster Unionism gradually withdrew into a form of Home-Rule that would have Salmond salivating at the mouth.
Westminster was very much "the place over there" whilst the main business was being conducted back in Belfast.
O'Neill,
It certainly is not unionism's fault that the failing nationalist parties are losing ground all the time. John Humes legacy has been the rise of Sinn Fein; and Sinn Feins legacy looks to be the consolidation of the union.
Does not make haemoraging to dissidents any more palatable.
You cannot be ther leader of a faction here and be an honest broker at the same time. This will cause problems further down the line. How that impacts on the UUP project remains to be seen.
O'Neill,
It was not the preceding paragraph that I missed, but the paragraph before that that really got my goat:
"As Prime Minister I will always honour Britain’s international obligations."
Placing relations with the Republic in the cold field of "international relations" is a slap in the face for Nationalists in the North and the good will built up between the Republic and Britain. He may as well be talking about China!
"The relationship with the Irish Republic is of the kind one would expect of two neighbours that share a land border."
Oh really? That's all?? It's a spit in the face.
---
"Bearing in mind Irish nationalism’s complete failure to date to move outside its own communal strait-jacket, to produce any kind of credible economic vision and to appeal beyond its “traditional” (read communal) voter-base, you can understand their concern at developments."
(I don’t knw why I’m relying to this but …)
The straight-jacket and failure to appeal beyond their "traditional" voter-base is a label that can be placed on both communities in Northern Ireland.
As for the credible economic vision, please rotate 90 degrees to your right. Economic growth in the 26 counties has outstripped Northern Ireland every year since 1922. Even today, with the price of Sterling driving shoppers northwards in the lorry load, Northern Ireland still cannot make a balance of trade surplus with the Republic. How much longer do you need this demonstrated to you?
Kensei
You cannot be ther leader of a faction here and be an honest broker at the same time.
The potential role of the British government as an "honest broker" is greatly diminished under the devolved system we have here anyway, but even so, I don’t believe it will create a different situation to what we now have for a couple of reasons:
1.The Conservatives’ performance in Wales with, for example, the Welsh language, proves that they are capable of moving beyond the stereotypical “Rule Britannia” box that people still put them in. They obviously remain a Unionist party, but that wouldn’t (or at least it shouldn’t) prevent them from slapping down or walking away from any sectarian nonsense which might endanger their image and thus electoral chances in the wider context.
2. Linked with that, the strongest party within Unionism will remain for the short-term the DUP, who are unlikely to want to make their rival's life any easier than it is presently. If the project is to have any chance of surviving, the Tories and the UUP should realise that the DUPes will need to be taken on in a whole range of social and cultural fields. If that happens, we move into a whole new ball-game, where I don’t think you’re going to need to worry about any risks of bias on the part of HM Government.
This will cause problems further down the line.
There’s going to be problems alright, but as per my point 2), they may not be the ones people expect.
But now that my initial burst of euphoria/over-enthusiasm has died down, the potential gains (and not just for Unionism) from this thing still greatly outweight the risks in my opinion.
Anonymous
Placing relations with the Republic in the cold field of "international relations" is a slap in the face for Nationalists in the North and the good will built up between the Republic and Britain. He may as well be talking about China!
He didn’t have to say anything about the ROI, nor the GFA and that deliberate omission probably would have gone down a stormer with some of the more “trad” members of the audience. He’s said publicly he will honour the GFA and unless the ROI’s thinking of rejoining us, the ROI is not part of the United Kingdom and the correct diplomatic terminology was therefore used. And another fact which seems to have passed below the outraged radars is that members of the Dublin administration were present and to date, it would appear went away if not exactly 100% satisfied, then not too bothered with the day’s proceedings.
"The relationship with the Irish Republic is of the kind one would expect of two neighbours that share a land border."
Oh really? That's all?? It's a spit in the face.
Unless you think he was referring specifically to the 2 Koreas, then democratic neighbours in the Western world generally have a high level of cooperation to the mutual benefit of both parties…a “spit in the face” is a touch on the hyperbolic side.
The straight-jacket and failure to appeal beyond their "traditional" voter-base is a label that can be placed on both communities in Northern Ireland.
Agreed 100%. But if this comes off the way I think it might well do (and it shocks me how many people seem really genuinely frightened by that prospect), there’s a pretty good chance that sad fact might change- worth having a go at least surely, what’s to lose?
As for the credible economic vision, please rotate 90 degrees to your right. Economic growth in the 26 counties has outstripped Northern Ireland every year since 1922.
When I spoke of an Irish nationalist credible economic vision I assumed one that applied for the whole island, not one which ended at the border; you seem to be taking the Free_Statist approach on this one. And I think you might want to check your base year there as well (;)
Even today, with the price of Sterling driving shoppers northwards in the lorry load, Northern Ireland still cannot make a balance of trade surplus with the Republic. How much longer do you need this demonstrated to you?
If you’re an Irish Nationalist, you should be demonstrating to me how Irish “Unity” would make my life economically, socially and culturally better- here’s an interesting exercise for you, try googling for any independent costs/benefits analysis of a “United” Ireland.
Anonymous
Placing relations with the Republic in the cold field of "international relations" is a slap in the face for Nationalists in the North and the good will built up between the Republic and Britain. He may as well be talking about China!
He didn’t have to say anything about the ROI, nor the GFA and that deliberate omission probably would have gone down a stormer with some of the more “trad” members of the audience. He’s said publicly he will honour the GFA and unless the ROI’s thinking of rejoining us, the ROI is not part of the United Kingdom and the correct diplomatic terminology was therefore used. And another fact which seems to have passed below the outraged radars is that members of the Dublin administration were present and to date, it would appear went away if not exactly 100% satisfied, then not too bothered with the day’s proceedings.
"The relationship with the Irish Republic is of the kind one would expect of two neighbours that share a land border."
Oh really? That's all?? It's a spit in the face.
Unless you think he was referring specifically to the 2 Koreas, then democratic neighbours in the Western world generally have a high level of cooperation to the mutual benefit of both parties…a “spit in the face” is a touch on the hyperbolic side.
The straight-jacket and failure to appeal beyond their "traditional" voter-base is a label that can be placed on both communities in Northern Ireland.
Agreed 100%. But if this comes off the way I think it might well do (and it shocks me how many people seem really genuinely frightened by that prospect), there’s a pretty good chance that sad fact might change- worth having a go at least surely, what’s to lose?
As for the credible economic vision, please rotate 90 degrees to your right. Economic growth in the 26 counties has outstripped Northern Ireland every year since 1922.
When I spoke of an Irish nationalist credible economic vision I assumed one that applied for the whole island, not one which ended at the border; you seem to be taking the Free_Statist approach on this one. And I think you might want to check your base year there as well (;)
Even today, with the price of Sterling driving shoppers northwards in the lorry load, Northern Ireland still cannot make a balance of trade surplus with the Republic. How much longer do you need this demonstrated to you?
If you’re an Irish Nationalist, you should be demonstrating to me how Irish “Unity” would make my life economically, socially and culturally better- here’s an interesting exercise for you, try googling for any independent costs/benefits analysis of a “United” Ireland.
Say what you like, but Sinn Féin has the power to pull the rug from under your feet at any moment.
How? Why do you think (unlike the SNP) they're running from calling a constitutional referendum?
Post a Comment