The 'unionist minority'

[Roger]

Again, Roger, seek an answer in the terms of the GFA.

Is the agreement binding for unionists who are deemed necessary to consider / negotiate? If not, then negotiating with the UK government isn't going to help your view of the what's needed for all communities in Ireland. The Belfast Agreement was way too ambiguous in a lot of issues and pretty meaningless on those issues that can be interpreted in a number of ways.

With respect, I beg to differ....
The fact that around 45% of the people of NI found themselves trapped in a state that they refused to recognise and looked to the south for guidance and protection gave the Dublin Govt. a degree of legitimacy in taking up their cause. Furthermore, many of them felt not only entrapped in the new state but found themselves victims of institutional discrimination to boot. (PS. I am referring to the recent thread on the subject of apartheid vs. discrimination that the inimitable EG started on this very board.)

With respect, 45% seems a bizarre figure for the so-called "trapped" at partition.  Nowhere near it, and yet 20-odd percent for the minority in the Republic never had the same interference from NI to whom they would have 'looked to'.  Not similar imo when discussing inter-state relations and treatment. Btw, the minority community in Northern Ireland has developed and grown consistently well despite all the oppression.

I would suggest Dev and co. would have been failing in their moral obligations if they fail to support the case of their fellow-nationalists.

As a unionist, Dev & Co had no morals never mind obligations to the people of NI.  I don't believe we'll agree on this though. 

Nor should they be expected to plan for defeat either...
I would hope they would plan for the future however, as their actions will affect all others on the island.

You are asking them to negotiate now for their inevitable defeat.  Unionists don't see it that way.

Common sense would dictate that they should take account of changing circumstances around them.

They have done, and very painfully so. 

Don't forget that unionist leaders are also parties to the ubiquitous GFA, where provision has been made for a formal ending of the union with Britain— if and when a (very) simple majority of voters so decide.

'Provision for a formal ending' sounds a lot more definite and very different from 'in the event of'.

Isn't that what the terms of the GFA require us to do?

I'm not sure of the legalities of the Belfast Agreement binding the Republic to action on anything and punitive action if it breaches the agreement.  What you highlight is a big change from the historical script and very much un-publicised change of tactic.  Do unionists trust the Republic?  Should they? 

[Roger]

I suppose that depends on what that proactivity would have involved and will involve. I feel the constitution of the Republic and the irredentist policies didn't do any favours to nationalists.

Roger,

I think Lar Naparka summed it well as:

With respect, I beg to differ....
The fact that around 45% of the people of NI found themselves trapped in a state that they refused to recognise and looked to the south for guidance and protection gave the Dublin Govt. a degree of legitimacy in taking up their cause. Furthermore, many of them felt not only entrapped in the new state but found themselves victims of institutional discrimination to boot. (PS. I am referring to the recent thread on the subject of apartheid vs. discrimination that the inimitable EG started on this very board.)
I would suggest Dev and co. would have been failing in their moral obligations if they fail to support the case of their fellow-nationalists.

Except the figure of 45% is nowhere nearthe starting point of the interference.

To this end I think that Dev (and other taoisigh) should have either during or post WW2 (The case for WW2 is another discussion) worked a lot more on the relationship between the Free State (and later Republic) and the British government.  They should have fast tracked to the position of the mid-eighties onwards and negotiated with the London government to intervene in the workings of Northern Ireland.  The Stormont government should not have been left to it's own discriminatory devices and the Irish government should have gone over the headsto London instead of rabble rousing and making claims they couldn't back up.

Should the Republic have been left to its own discrimatory devices? "Dev" had plenty of opportunnity at reconciling Irish communities but I don't feel he ever hadanything but one view on Ireland and what Ireland meant to him. That didn't include the British Irish at all.

[Rossfan]

, 45% seems a bizarre figure for the so-called "trapped" at partition.  Nowhere near it, and yet 20-odd percent for the minority in the Republic never had the same interference from NI to whom they would have 'looked to'.  

20 odd per cent ? who were these 700,000 ?

[Aoise]

According to the 1911 census, religious profession broke down as follows: (sorry about cut and paste job!)

Religious profession Number Percentage
Roman Catholic 3,238,656 73.8%
Church of Ireland 575,489 13.1%
Presbyterian 439,876 10.0%
Methodist 61,806 1.4%
Other Christian denominations 57,718 1.3%
Jewish 5,101 0.1%


http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

According to these statistics the population of the 26 counties after 1921 declined from 7%.  Sorry Roger comparing like with like on this one is incorrect.  The proportion of Nationalists in the North post-partition far outweighed the proportion of unionists in the south.

[Lar Naparka]

I am going to have to sign off here for the present as I will be away from home until Monday at the very earliest.
However, Roger has brought up some very interesting points and if there is enough interest remaining to keep the topic active, I'll be happy to come back in.
I would just mention in passing that I use JC Beckett's "The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1292" to jog my flaky memory.
I don't think you will find any historian with better unionist credentials than Beckett.
Anyone who has access to this book will find out what he had to say about Carson's concern for unionists in the south.
For those who haven't or who don't give a damn, the following is the end part of the relevant sentence. (Page 426)
"....; the Ulstermen, determined to defend their own cause, were not going to encumber themselves with responsibility for the politically powerless protestant minority in the rest of the country."
I really don't think that the case of unionists in the south viz a viz nationalists in the north measures up.
Slán, for the present.

[slow corner back]

According to the 1911 census, religious profession broke down as follows: (sorry about cut and paste job!)

Religious profession Number Percentage
Roman Catholic 3,238,656 73.8%
Church of Ireland 575,489 13.1%
Presbyterian 439,876 10.0%
Methodist 61,806 1.4%
Other Christian denominations 57,718 1.3%
Jewish 5,101 0.1%


http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

According to these statistics the population of the 26 counties after 1921 declined from 7%.  Sorry Roger comparing like with like on this one is incorrect.  The proportion of Nationalists in the North post-partition far outweighed the proportion of unionists in the south.

Of that 7% in the 1911 census a lot would have been military/RIC/civil service who left immediatly the Free State was formed leading to a large drop in the Protestant population of the 26 counties. This is a favourite urban myth of David Trimbles as far as I remember.

[deiseach]

I haven't been following this thread too closely, so apologies to anyone of the Unionist persuasion (so to speak) who feels I am misrepresenting them in this. I'd just like to observe that it has always amused me - although not in a ha-ha way - how Unionism always insists on being 'consulted' on constitutional change. Underlying all these requests to be 'consulted' is the threat that if they are not 'consulted' they reserve the right to take up arms. I remember asking Gregory Campbell at a debate in college why the UVF's mobilisation of 1912 was justified to the extent that the British Army could not be deployed to suppress it, a response that was always used whenever Irish nationalists got shirty. His response? "We were not consulted." Plus ca change

[Farrandeelin]

I suppose that depends on what that proactivity would have involved and will involve. I feel the constitution of the Republic and the irredentist policies didn't do any favours to nationalists.

Roger,

I think Lar Naparka summed it well as:

With respect, I beg to differ....
The fact that around 45% of the people of NI found themselves trapped in a state that they refused to recognise and looked to the south for guidance and protection gave the Dublin Govt. a degree of legitimacy in taking up their cause. Furthermore, many of them felt not only entrapped in the new state but found themselves victims of institutional discrimination to boot. (PS. I am referring to the recent thread on the subject of apartheid vs. discrimination that the inimitable EG started on this very board.)
I would suggest Dev and co. would have been failing in their moral obligations if they fail to support the case of their fellow-nationalists.

To this end I think that Dev (and other taoisigh) should have either during or post WW2 (The case for WW2 is another discussion) worked a lot more on the relationship between the Free State (and later Republic) and the British government.  They should have fast tracked to the position of the mid-eighties onwards and negotiated with the London government to intervene in the workings of Northern Ireland.  The Stormont government should not have been left to it's own discriminatory devices and the Irish government should have gone over the headsto London instead of rabble rousing and making claims they couldn't back up.

Apologies for my own late entry into the thread. But this post by JM74 is interesting. I do think Dev should have gone into the WW2 with the British. I know people will bang on about neutrality etc, but I'm not really a fan of Irish neutrality anymore. Churchill probably would have given Dev his United Ireland. It's true Randolph Churchill was pro-Unionism rebellion, but Winston said that he would have the British army in Belfast and blow the town to pieces in 24 hours if Ulster showed fight back in the 1880s. Henceforth, his offer would've been genuine imo.

[deiseach]

Churchill probably would have given Dev his United Ireland. It's true Randolph Churchill was pro-Unionism rebellion, but Winston said that he would have the British army in Belfast and blow the town to pieces in 24 hours if Ulster showed fight back in the 1880s. Henceforth, his offer would've been genuine imo.

You think? Apropos my reference to the UVF rebellion - for that is what it was - of 1912, the British were not willing to use that kind of force in that situation. Heck, they weren't willing to even unleash that kind of force in Dublin in 1920, hence Henry Wilson's dictum that they should either govern (i.e. brutality that would have made the Nazis blush) or get out. And that's all assuming that blowing up Belfast would cow Unionists - it didn't work in India (Amritsar), why in Ireland?

[Aoise]

One of De Valera's political aides before he died, the name escapes me now, stated that as the British entered dangerous territory in WW2, Churchill offered Dev a United Ireland in return for Ireland's neutrality to be dropped!  This happened apparently over a game of golf between "two friends", apparently they were quite amicable with each other.  Anyway, Fianna Fail was on dodgy ground numerically in the Dail and the crux of it is that if a United Ireland would have occured, the Ulster Unionists would have held the sway of political power, and given a majority coalition government between the UU and Fianna Gael.  Needless to say, the Republicanism of Dev was overun by his political pragmatism.  Personnally, I wouldn't have expected any less of him, it just surprises me that it took so long for his beatification to be questioned in Ireland!

[Roger]

, 45% seems a bizarre figure for the so-called "trapped" at partition.  Nowhere near it, and yet 20-odd percent for the minority in the Republic never had the same interference from NI to whom they would have 'looked to'.  

20 odd per cent ? who were these 700,000 ?

Fair point, I had it in my head that it was 20 odd % but that was probably all-Ireland.  A quick type without checking figures, but it wasn't really relevant to the discussion.

[Roger]

According to these statistics the population of the 26 counties after 1921 declined from 7%.  Sorry Roger comparing like with like on this one is incorrect.  The proportion of Nationalists in the North post-partition far outweighed the proportion of unionists in the south.

The comparison was about the one-sided interference in affairs of the other's state.  I believe it to be relevant to the discussion and the unionists lack of will to deal with the Eire state or even consider it with any interest.  Unionists aren't interested in the place so why do people feel frustrated that they lack desire to unnecessarily (prematurely at best) "negotiate" their own demise with the place? 

[ardmhachaabu]

According to these statistics the population of the 26 counties after 1921 declined from 7%.  Sorry Roger comparing like with like on this one is incorrect.  The proportion of Nationalists in the North post-partition far outweighed the proportion of unionists in the south.

The comparison was about the one-sided interference in affairs of the other's state.  I believe it to be relevant to the discussion and the unionists lack of will to deal with the Eire state or even consider it with any interest.  Unionists aren't interested in the place so why do people feel frustrated that they lack desire to unnecessarily (prematurely at best) "negotiate" their own demise with the place? 

It's in their best interests to do so in the grand scheme of things when you look at Europe and what Europe wants.  An agreed Ireland (to borrow a phrase) would reap the benefits of EU finding as well as the increase of inward investment.  There are a lot of people worldwide who would be prepared to fund such a bold political project.  I accept it could take a generation or 2 to get to that point.  Ireland is already treated as one unit by the EU, borders are increasingly irrelevant in Europe and as the EU further expands will become even less relevant.  When I say that it's inevitable, I mean it from a pragmatic political viewpoint and not some kind of misguided patriotism.

[Roger]

According to these statistics the population of the 26 counties after 1921 declined from 7%.  Sorry Roger comparing like with like on this one is incorrect.  The proportion of Nationalists in the North post-partition far outweighed the proportion of unionists in the south.

The comparison was about the one-sided interference in affairs of the other's state.  I believe it to be relevant to the discussion and the unionists lack of will to deal with the Eire state or even consider it with any interest.  Unionists aren't interested in the place so why do people feel frustrated that they lack desire to unnecessarily (prematurely at best) "negotiate" their own demise with the place? 

It's in their best interests to do so in the grand scheme of things when you look at Europe and what Europe wants.  An agreed Ireland (to borrow a phrase) would reap the benefits of EU finding as well as the increase of inward investment.  There are a lot of people worldwide who would be prepared to fund such a bold political project.  I accept it could take a generation or 2 to get to that point.  Ireland is already treated as one unit by the EU, borders are increasingly irrelevant in Europe and as the EU further expands will become even less relevant.  When I say that it's inevitable, I mean it from a pragmatic political viewpoint and not some kind of misguided patriotism.

Europe is irrevant in terms of NI's constitutional position as an integral part of the UK.  If pragmatic politics is selling your nationality because other states will pay for it to happen then you can keep that. I personally couldn't give a toss what Europe wants for NI on this matter or is prepared to fund if it gets it. I'd be certain that there will be no change to the constitutional position of NI until NI consents to any such change, and that the EU will have nothing to do with it.

[deiseach]

One of De Valera's political aides before he died, the name escapes me now, stated that as the British entered dangerous territory in WW2, Churchill offered Dev a United Ireland in return for Ireland's neutrality to be dropped!  This happened apparently over a game of golf between "two friends", apparently they were quite amicable with each other. 

A highly dubious anecdote. The telegram that Churchill sent de Valera after Pearl Harbour offering "a nation once again" is a matter of historical record. What he meant by it is a matter of dispute and we've no way of knowing.

Anyway, Fianna Fail was on dodgy ground numerically in the Dail and the crux of it is that if a United Ireland would have occured, the Ulster Unionists would have held the sway of political power, and given a majority coalition government between the UU and Fianna Gael.  Needless to say, the Republicanism of Dev was overun by his political pragmatism.  Personnally, I wouldn't have expected any less of him, it just surprises me that it took so long for his beatification to be questioned in Ireland!

It always makes me chuckle how people see Fianna [sic] Gael and Unionism as natural bedfellows. Is this not the party of the likes of Eoin O'Duffy and Richard Mulcahy? It's much more likely that Unionism would have found itself frozen out of any coalition negotiations - the price it would have demanded would have to be, well, excessive to the Nationalist spirit.