| Re: .2/.3
While I accept the truth of what Toby says, I believe that it could be
misleading. As always with opinion polls, much depends on the manner
in which the question was framed.
I believe that a majority of catholics in Northern Ireland would
support union with the Republic with the consent of the Protestant
population. Analysis demonstrates that only about 10% of catholics
actually vote for the Unionist Parties. I would imagine the vast
majority of these vote for the more moderate Official Unionists rather
than Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionists (As indeed that vast majority
of non-catholics also vote for the Official Unionists).
While the SDLP is in favour of Union with the Republic, it also
believes in achieving this through gaining the consent of the
protestants, and thus reflects the view of the majority of Irish
Catholics. There is nothing incompatible between supporting Irish
unity and condemning the IRA. However, it is, in my opinion,
incompatible to support Irish unity and condone the IRA and Sinn Fein.
Through their politics and actions, they are endeavouring to coerce
the protestants into a united Ireland. this can only, in both the
short and long term, work against the achievement of union through consent.
To provide balance, the overwhelming desire of the vast majority of the
Unionists is to cement the Union with Britain through winning over the
catholic vote to the Unionist cause. I believe that supporting this
desire while condoning the politics and actions of the UDA and 'loyalist'
paras is equally incompatible. Their politics and actions are equally an
effort to coerce the catholics into remaining within the Union. This
again can only, in both the short and long term, work against the
achievement of cementing the union with Britain through consent.
The problem of Northern Ireland is two-fold. There is a border problem
and a civil rights problem. It is allowing these two entirely
separate problems to become enmeshed and entangled with each other that
lies at the root of the current impasse.
The Civil Rights problem arose from two basic causes. First was the
perceived threat, reinforced by Irish Constitution, of enforced union
with the Republic. I believe that, without this threat, the Civil Rights
movement would have succeeded. However, by allowing themselves to become
entangled in the border issue, they failed.
Second was under-investment in Northern Ireland by successive British
Governments. For example, NI was a nett contributor to the British
exchequer until well into the fifties, while Wales, Scotland and many
other more prosperous regions of Britain were nett beneficiaries. It
was this under-investment, more than anything else, which starved the NI
government of the funds necessary to provide adequate housing and jobs.
It was the catholic population that bore the brunt of this and raised the
spectre of discrimination. Britain did not start to fund NI to the extent
of other deprived regions of Britain until the late seventies, by which
time it was too late.
I firmly believed that, if the politicians put aside the border
question, leaving it to be resolved through consent, and both
governments concentrated on investment and reconciliation, then the
problem could be resolved. The Republic is slowly becoming less and
less 'Rome Rule' in its ethic. The protestants less fanatical in their
protestant ethos. I mean, Church attendance among protestants runs at
about the same level as the rest of the UK, and Ian Paisley's Free
Presbyterians represent less than 2% of the non-catholic congregation.
Events, like the Gaelic Games, are becoming more popular in the North.
Culturally, the two parts of Ireland are moving closer, although there
is still a long way to go. More and more, the only thing dividing
Ireland can clearly be seen to be mutual suspicion nurtured by violence.
I mean. as long people are assured of their rights and freedom under
the law, does it really matter whether the government sits in Dublin or
London? Let the people decide, and let the politicians stick to
politics.
Joe
|
|
Re: .5
Joe,
Broadly I agree with your analysis, I differ with some points in
particular in blaming the Civil Rights problem on Articles 2 and
3 of the Irish constitution. This is incorrect and unfair, the
deprivation of Civil Rights for the Catholic/ Nationalist
minority in the North must be laid directly at the door of the
Loyalist community and its leaders since 1921, probably since
1821!!
Northern Ireland was specifically set up to give Loyalists their
own state (just as the Irish Free State was set up to give
Nationalists theirs). The Unionists with the help of the British
government basically grabbed as much territory as they could
safely rule as a majority without. Personally, I think Southern
Nationalists were happy to let the North go, they had their own
Civil War to fight at the time. But a great injustice was done
to the Nationalist population of the North.
Unfortunately, partition encouraged entrenched positions. The
South (as Nationalist politicians always had) behaved as if
Unionism did not exist. Northern Nationalists did not fully
participate in the state. Unionists ruled without any
generosity for the Nationalists, and persisted with this
long after it became a major scandal. The British government
was content to buy peace by letting the Unionists have their
way.
Things might have worked out if O'Neill's reforms had gone
through. But he was outflanked by firebrands like Paisley
with their slogan "Not an Inch!". The brutal batonning of
the first Civil Rights marches in turn gave the wild men
of the IRA the chance to re-start their failed campaigns
of violence. And so here we are today ......
However, in essence you are right (and backed up by John
Hume). The major issue in Northern Ireland today is not
the border, but Civil and Human Rights for ALL the people.
The way to address that is NOT by the IRA's futile
campaign, but a peaceful effort by the people of both sides
and their leaders, sustained by international support.
Toby
|
|
The UDA has been directly involved in murder and conspiracy to commit
same since the day it was formed. UDA members have been apprehended,
tried and convicted of carrying out assassinations.
The same is NOT true of Sinn Fein which, while supporting the IRA and
its strategy, has remained simply a political forum dedicated merely
to a RHETORICAL effort to oust the British from Ireland and expound
the views of many in the Nationalist community of the north.
The decision by HMG is correct, for a change.
|