Is the end of the Union in sight? (It may well be but then again…)

[Eamonnca1]

On the subject of a UI, I have argued on this thread and others my belief that the Union is basically safe, since a small, but clear and consistent majority of voters in NI wants NI to remain in the UK. I have further argued that there is nothing on the horizon which is likely to change that in the foreseeable future (quite the opposite, imo).

Therefore on the basis that Unionism doesn't actually need  to do anything (i.e. it is for Nationalism to produce a "game-changer"), I could have left it there. Instead, however, out of respect for posters like Lar Naparka and MGHU etc, I continued to participate in what has been an interesting debate.

In which spirit, as I started reading the above post, I noted a lot of interesting stuff which merited a response. And then. I got to the part which stated that Unionism is "politically incorrect as a cultural idea". Note the term "politically incorrect:  not that Unionism is eg doomed to failure, or badly presented, or unacceptable to many etc.
No, according to Nationalists like you, Unionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

And at that point, I stopped mentally composing my reply to your lengthy post. For that, in essence, is the real problem which Nationalism faces - namely too many adherents simply do not accord even the most basic respect to the views and wishes of a million of their fellow Irishmen and women.

At which point, I can only conclude that not only do we (Unionists) not actually need  to do anything to change our position, but this one, at least, no longer wants  to do anything. For if the whole point of engaging with your political opposites is to try to find some sort of common ground and understanding etc, how is that possible if your opponents do not accord you even the most basic respect necessary for such engagement, from the very outset?

For if Unionism is genuinely "politically incorrect", then the only logical outcome of any dialogue would be one whereby Unionism would no longer exist. And whatever else you and your fellow Nationalists should know, it is that after 400 years, Unionists are here and they're here to stay.

Beyond that, if as Nationalists you're hoping to get anywhere with us, as a first step, you would be advised to drop the casual, even instinctive bigotry as posted eg by "Gold" in post#19 (and, I note, endorsed by you in post #62).

Then and only then, will Unionists feel it worth our while to "engage with" or "reach out to" Nationalism (or whatever the latest trendy phrase for "talking to" might be)...

Translation: "Allow me to throw the dummy out of the pram and refuse to talk to you until you promise to be nice to me."

Again, the truth hurts.  It could be that you saw a lot in my post that you agreed with and were preparing to say something magnanimous, but then you found that little line and found your excuse to get out of saying something as radical as agreeing with a nationalist on something.

I make no apology for describing unionism as a politically incorrect idea.  I class it in the same category as slavery in America, subsequent segregation and Jim Crow laws in the American south, and apartheid in South Africa. The reason is because it is fundamentally undemocratic and seeks to ascribe special status to a minority as if they have a divine right to be a superior ruling class. 

Unionism has long been a minority in Ireland. You are a garrison people who tried and failed to outnumber the natives. You had everything your own way for centuries, you were installed as a "chosen people" who were superior to the native Irish who had to be kept down and prevented from participating in civic society. When the pressure for independence became too much to bear and your minority status started to threaten your privileged position, you secured a little homeland in the north in which you could be kept in a permanent majority and hence carry on acting out your little fantasy of being a superior ruling class.

Now you could have used your time after partition to show that you had an ounce of humanity and were willing to treat catholics as equals, but what did you do instead? It wasn't enough that you were calling most of the shots, you had to have more. What few catholics there were in the north to vote were prevented from doing so in huge numbers. Single protestants were given priority over catholic families in the allocation of public housing. It was legal to post job ads including the text "catholics need not apply." 

When your powers were taken away with the abolition of Stormont they were given to a menagerie of unelected quangos since elected councils (invariably controlled by unionists) could not be trusted to exercise power without discriminating against catholics. And what limited powers you were left with (running leisure centres, emptying bins) you still could do that right. Chaining swings up and closing parks on a Sunday because you wanted all the non-protestants to be forced to act like protestants and be bored sh|tless of a Sunday - this is the work of a hate-filled people who know that they can get away with discrimination.

And to this day you still have elements in your midst that want to keep rigging the democratic system to guarantee that unionists will always be in charge even when the ballot box says otherwise.

I have lived in Britain. I have a lot of respect for the British and their achievements throughout history. They pioneered democracy in a world where absolute monarchs still ruled by divine right. They developed industry and changed the world with their innovations in engineering, agriculture, and organisation of civic society. They led the world in their scientific achievements and inventiveness. They developed a globalised economy centuries before the word 'globalisation' was even heard of. And when they lost their empire they became a diverse nation which went through the growing pains of immigration and has now developed a culture which has a tolerance and respect for diversity and other peoples' cultures that northern protestants are years away from developing.

For all your claims to be "British," you are nothing like your British masters. They are open minded, forward thinking, and respectful of the rules of the system even when doing so doesn't always suit them. You are not.

You want me to respect unionism?  Unionism is an unacceptable ideology that does not deserve any respect for as long as it is based on sectarian supremacist principles and demands that it retain the status of unionists as absolute masters. If you want me to respect unionism, make a case for the union that does not involve anti-catholic paranoia, does not assume that unionists are a special chosen people with a divine right to be in a position of power, does not involve protestant supremacism, and does not consider gaelophobia to be a virtue.

You will doubtless react by shooting the messenger and calling me a "bigot." But speaking the truth, calling a spade a spade and calling a bigot a bigot does not make me a bigot. Your people need to take a long hard look at yourselves. You need to face the unpleasant truth of what your political ideology is based upon.

[Rossfan]

, make a case for the union that does not involve anti-catholic paranoia, does not assume that unionists are a special chosen people with a divine right to be in a position of power, does not involve protestant supremacism, and does not consider gaelophobia to be a virtue.

I don't ever remeber EG in his many long ramblings ever saying that his reasons for continuing his Union with GB was for anti catholic paranoia etc etc as per your quote Eamonn.
A lot of the other stuff you mentioned  about Unionists down the years  is true about a large amount of them but is.
history.
Time to move on eh ?
If we are to have a United Ireland or some form of All Ireland entity we all have to look forward .

[Eamonnca1]

Hey, I'm more than willing to respect any unionist case that's based on something legitimate. If he can argue that it's all about making life better for the people of the north, I'll be happy to engage with him on that and I'll respectfully disagree. But if it's all about keeping catholics in their place and suppressing Gaelic culture then that's not on and there'll be no respect from me for that position.

And a lot of what I say may be history, but I see little evidence that unionism has changed all that much. We are still in the middle of a big long unionist discussion about how the system can be rigged so that Martin McGuinness can be prevented from taking the post of First Minister and that a unionist can take the post even if SF top the poll fair and square. This is evidence that they still don't get it.

[thebigfella]

Hey, I'm more than willing to respect any unionist case that's based on something legitimate. If he can argue that it's all about making life better for the people of the north, I'll be happy to engage with him on that and I'll respectfully disagree. But if it's all about keeping catholics in their place and suppressing Gaelic culture then that's not on and there'll be no respect from me for that position.

Can't see that in any of EG's posts? I think your being a bit of a tw@t tbh.

[Eamonnca1]

I'm talking about unionism in general and not his specific posts.

Your schoolyard name-calling is noted.

[armaghniac]

Unionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

[Eamonnca1]

Unionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

Preach it, brother!

What's worse than this false moral equivalence between unionism and nationalism is the idea that nationalism is the immoral doctrine and unionism is the moral one. The reverse is true.

[Gold]

Unionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

Would EG want us to all converge in an area somewhere and him and his mates can start the oul scorched earth tactics on us again?

True, if someone tries to conquer a country when do the natives give up? Is it the very hour your invaders arrive? A day later when they have murdered your family? Do you roll over a week later? A month? A year? 10 years? 100 years? Do you say "oh look at their culture, isnt it great, look at them marching remembering the time they murdered our ancestors and took our land." Do we now just give up? Accept the current situation as if it's meant to be this way (as the News Letter etc would tell you). I mean your on a different island --waving a flag from a different land, singing about a Queen from a different land--why?!!!!!! How come Scotland and Wales dont be signing God save the queen but you's want to over here??!

I say take your pink shirts, thick pin striped ugly suits, cricket stumps etc and do one

I read that Ulster Tatler last week and couldnt get over the names in it--where do those surnames come from --there's no local origin --maybe i'm ignorant but i was quite shocked

[Myles Na G.]

Unionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

The plantation of Ulster happened over 400 years ago. The Ulster British have therefore more right to be called natives of the place in which they were born than most of the people of America, Canada, Australia, etc. They are as Irish - as in, from the island of Ireland - as anyone from Cork or Galway or Dublin. The fact that they have a different political view on how Ireland should be governed may be inconvenient for the rest of us, but until we learn to accept the difference and even cherish it, there is fcuk all squared chance of there ever being a UI. Calling them imperialists, invaders, conquerors, just isn't going to convince them to like us.

[Lar Naparka]

Unionism is an ideology which no right-thinking person could properly endorse.

Unionism is the continuation of the British conquest of Ireland and the Plantation of Ulster. No moral person can support conquest followed by ethnic cleansing.

One of the most insidious ideas around is that Unionism and Nationalism are somehow morally equivalent, or even the idea put forward for so long that unionism is somehow right and people wrong to oppose it. There is no moral equivalence between wanting to conquer another country and wanting to end that state of affairs. You can have moral criticism of acts committed in pursuit of Irish nationalism, but the cause is just, which is not the case for unionism.

The plantation of Ulster happened over 400 years ago. The Ulster British have therefore more right to be called natives of the place in which they were born than most of the people of America, Canada, Australia, etc. They are as Irish - as in, from the island of Ireland - as anyone from Cork or Galway or Dublin. The fact that they have a different political view on how Ireland should be governed may be inconvenient for the rest of us, but until we learn to accept the difference and even cherish it, there is fcuk all squared chance of there ever being a UI. Calling them imperialists, invaders, conquerors, just isn't going to convince them to like us.

Myles, you might answer a question for me, if you would.

I think it's fair to say that Unionists perceive themselves to be a very straightforward class of individuals; they are slow to accept any proposal or suggestion from elsewhere without examining it in the minutest detail.
However, once they commit themselves to anything, thereafter their word is their bond. (Okay, that a bit convoluted but I hope you can follow my meaning.)

In brief, they acknowledge that they are slow to accept the word of anyone but, once accepted, they will be equally slow to break their own.
Irish government negotiators during the GFA process were driven to the point of despair at times when proposals were put to various Unionist delegations and, without fail, each grouping would then retreat into the background to parse every word of every sentence therein.
But most southerners at the talks felt it was always worthwhile to give them time to make up their minds and not rush them along. Once they committed themselves to some course of action or other, all other parties concerned were confident that there would be no rowing back by any of the Unionist interests.
Bertie Ahern was to say later that, once he had won Ian Paisley's confidence, he felt he could take his word at face value.
Still, many Nationalists feel that this no-nonsense, plain talking stereotype is a caricature of the real Unionist persona. The impression I get from many posters on here is that it is almost impossible to get Unionists as a body to discuss mutual differences openly. For them, it's a case of Unionist prevarication and delaying tactics to the point where no progress can be made.
EG makes the point repeatedly that it's in Nationalists' own best interests to reach out to engage with their Unionist neighbours.
It's fair to say that the majority who respond to him tell him to go f**k himself as those who attempt to do as he says feel their approaches are going to be rebuffed.
Now, you strike me as a man who can appreciate both points of view.

What do you think?
Are Unionists as a body willing to enter into meaningful dialogue with their Nationalist counterparts?

[Hurler on the Bitch]

Is that flag not redundant?

No.

Northern where?

Northern Ireland.

How come Robinson cant bring himself to say IRELAND and says ALLEN/ALIN instead?

No idea.

I wonder does he call Scotland, Scotlin or Iceland, Icelin

Why don't you ask him?

P.S. After winning the prize for the "Most Bigoted Post on this Thread" (#19), are you now aiming for the "Most Brainless and Irrelevant Post on this Thread"? Because if you are, I warn you, you face pretty stiff competition...

[/b]

What is so sexy about a United Ireland?

[Eamonnca1]

I think it's fair to say that Unionists perceive themselves to be a very straightforward class of individuals; they are slow to accept any proposal or suggestion from elsewhere without examining it in the minutest detail.
However, once they commit themselves to anything, thereafter their word is their bond.

I nearly choked when I saw this.

They said that they'd never get into a negotiated settlement with republicans until they had an electoral mandate. Sinn Fein started making progress in elections and the unionists refused to talk to them.

They said there'd be no talks until the IRA stopped the killing. The IRA called a ceasfire and the unionists refused to talk to them until they declared that the ceasefire was permanent.

Then the decommissioning thing was added to the unionist demand escalator. After the weapons were decommissioned they still wouldn't believe it.

Then they were dragged kicking and screaming into  negotiating a deal in the Good Friday Agreement that included a commitment to sit in government with nationalists/republicans. No sooner were they in government with SF than they got their mates in the RUC's Special Branch to concoct a "spy ring" at Stormont (remember that?) by sending two dozen land rovers up to Stormont to retrieve two computer disks from a Sinn Fein office which were later returned. That was all they needed to pull out of government and the place lay idle for years while the "spy ring" was quietly forgotten and a new agreement had to be rigged up at St Andrews to restore their delicate little confidence.

And at St Andrews wasn't there a thing about agreeing to support an Irish language act? Have they delivered on that part of the deal? Have they f***! They've blocked it at every turn and proclaimed it in their political campaigning about how they're better than the other unionist party for being so effective at blocking any attempts to have an Irish language act. It's as if they never agreed to it!

Unionists stick to their word? Don't make me laugh!

[MW]

Hey, I'm more than willing to respect any unionist case that's based on something legitimate. If he can argue that it's all about making life better for the people of the north, I'll be happy to engage with him on that and I'll respectfully disagree. But if it's all about keeping catholics in their place and suppressing Gaelic culture then that's not on and there'll be no respect from me for that position.

Except you've already decided that the latter is the case. You prefer themmus to be the evil bogeyman.

[MW]

I nearly choked when I saw this.

They said that they'd never get into a negotiated settlement with republicans until they had an electoral mandate. Sinn Fein started making progress in elections and the unionists refused to talk to them.

They said there'd be no talks until the IRA stopped the killing. The IRA called a ceasfire and the unionists refused to talk to them until they declared that the ceasefire was permanent.

Then the decommissioning thing was added to the unionist demand escalator. After the weapons were decommissioned they still wouldn't believe it.

Then they were dragged kicking and screaming into  negotiating a deal in the Good Friday Agreement that included a commitment to sit in government with nationalists/republicans. No sooner were they in government with SF than they got their mates in the RUC's Special Branch to concoct a "spy ring" at Stormont (remember that?) by sending two dozen land rovers up to Stormont to retrieve two computer disks from a Sinn Fein office which were later returned. That was all they needed to pull out of government and the place lay idle for years while the "spy ring" was quietly forgotten and a new agreement had to be rigged up at St Andrews to restore their delicate little confidence.

And at St Andrews wasn't there a thing about agreeing to support an Irish language act? Have they delivered on that part of the deal? Have they f***! They've blocked it at every turn and proclaimed it in their political campaigning about how they're better than the other unionist party for being so effective at blocking any attempts to have an Irish language act. It's as if they never agreed to it!

Unionists stick to their word? Don't make me laugh!

You really have a rather tenuous grasp on reality.

In actual fact, unionists said before the IRA ceasefire of 1994 that they wouldn't talk to an armed terrorist "movement". Actually the requirements set in place by unionist leaders weakened, and they repeatedly compromised on what had been "red lines":

- no talks with SF before the IRA had fullly decommissioned
- no talks with SF until the IRA had started to decommission
...then attendance at talks with SF prior to any decommissioning...
- but no bilateral meetings prior to decomissioning beginning
...then there were bilaterals with SF...
--No entry into government with SF before decommissioning
- No entry into government with SF before decommissioning is begun
-No entry into government with SF before a commitment to begin decommissioning...
As for an Irish language act, I suggest you read the St Andrews Agreement before you go spouting off any more ill-informed nonsense.

[Eamonnca1]

Hey, I'm more than willing to respect any unionist case that's based on something legitimate. If he can argue that it's all about making life better for the people of the north, I'll be happy to engage with him on that and I'll respectfully disagree. But if it's all about keeping catholics in their place and suppressing Gaelic culture then that's not on and there'll be no respect from me for that position.

Except you've already decided that the latter is the case. You prefer themmus to be the evil bogeyman.

Unionism has long had a progressive wing which is willing to accept that they're not a superior ruling class and has been willing to recognise catholics as equals. Unfortunately it has often been denounced as "traitors" and "lundies" and promptly ousted from power by the orange wing. Thankfully the bigoted element seems to be losing influence these days, but there's still a long way to go. The UUP had a golden opportunity a short while ago to elect a progressive leader, but instead they opted for the boy who proved his "true" unionist credentials by announcing that he'd never attend a GAA match. Lovely.