Enter Fianna Fáil. The party increased spending dramatically. By 1996 competitiveness had began to erode as a result of high government expenditure. Around this time houses were beginning to increase in price sharply and activity in the consturction industry was on the rise. Tax revenues from stamp duty, capital gains tax, income tax from construction workers and vat from increased consumer spending due to higher levels of disposable income swelled the exchequer's coffers. Fianna Fáil's response was to add fuel to the fire. Tax incentives were given to gready developers who were encouraged to build and develope more and more and more. Regualtion of the banks was non existent. At best FF turned a blind eye on the reckless lending of bankers. It appeared that anyone could qualify for a mortgage whether they could afford it or not.
As the property secor began to boom, inflation augmented and tax revenues rocketed. Although the general economy was continuing to perform outstandingly, the extra revenues gained from the property boom brought about huge budget surpluses. Regardless of the fact that tax revenue from construction activity is not sustainable, upcoming elections loomed and Fianna Fáil had the resources to stay in power.
Giveaway budgets threw money at everthing. Social Welfare payments increased to world record levels, public sector pay increased expotentially, the health budget increased dramatically without proportional increases in efficiency. Grants were given out like confetti. The FF led government were spending recklessly. The purpose was to buy elections and stay in power. It worked.
While all this was happening competitiveness eroded dramatically. The growth of the property sector disguised the fact that the underlying economy had began to falter.
Had Fianna Fáil governed responsibly and taken advice from independent advisors and economists, spending increases would have been kept at modest levels, the property sector would have been cooled before the bubble began to form and the Celtic Tiger would still be roaring today.
Fianna Fáil have damaged this country hugely. However the fundamentals of the Irish economy are strong. Competitiveness has largely been restored. Exports are booming again. All that is missing is strong domestic demand. This will not return until the programme of austerity is complete. This may take another three or four years. Once austerity is finished, economic stimulus will be required. A new Celtic Tiger will be reborn. The state of the world economy will dictate the strenght of the new Tiger's roar. When the conditions are right for another Celtic Tiger people should not forget the reason why first Celtic Tiger was tamed.
Fianna Fáil claim to be "The Republican Party". Have a look at their website:
On one section of the website there is a notice of the party's annual Wolfe Tone Commemoration. On another section browsers are invited to browse by constituency. This map shows a bold line meandering through the North of Ireland. There are 18 constituencies missing inside the line. A Republican party would not partition a map of Ireland. A Republican part would not organise on a partitionist basis. A Republican party would contest elections in all parts of Ireland. Fianna Fáil are not a Republican Party let alone "The Republican Party".
good post Enda,
ReplyDeleteDid you see the interview in this weeks Irish News with Micheal? He spoke about his ambitions to expand in the North
No do you have a link?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why you appended the cheap swipe about partitionism at the end of what was a solid economic criticism. One can certainly condemn FF for abandoning the republican ideals of fairness and egalitarianism, but the border is a separate issue. Unless of course you're using the peculiarly Irish definition of "republican", which means "nationalist"...
ReplyDeleteEnda, Sorry I can't link as the Irish News is paywalled
ReplyDelete@ Andrew,
ReplyDeleteVery good point, but being an Irish Republican would also be someone who would note that the partition of this island was done as part of a sectarian headcount, thus being undemocratic and against the will of the people of this island = against republican ideals.
Unless of course you feel that the partition of Ireland, and the partition of Ulster along largely religious lines was democratic?
Enda,
ReplyDeleteGood spot with the map. FF were also found badly wanting on the issue of Northern Representation in the Dáil.
It is diffiuclt to predict when the South will be back on its economic feet and finds a measue of economic independence but arguably the horrendous economic mess that the country has been plunged into means that FF are in reality an anti-republican party - at the least - significantly delaying any chance of a plausilbe conversation about moving towrds Irish unity.
...and it is against that economic backround that any (good) census results will be viewed.
fc,
ReplyDeleteThere has historically been a lazy assumption that republicanism and Irish nationalism are inseparable - they're not, although it has suited many so-called republicans to gloss over that. But in recent years "republicanism", having been shorn of any meaningful republican policies, has become increasingly synonymous with nationalism. Complaining that "republican" parties are insufficiently nationalist is missing the point.
Partition was neither democratic nor undemocratic - the question is a category error. If one wants to invoke the will of the people, one must first agree on which people should be consulted. Let me ask a counter-question - what would be an acceptably democratic method for a region to secede from Ireland?
Sorry for the double.
ReplyDeleteSammy, Northern representation in the Dail is putting the cart before the horse. When we get a United Ireland, everyone will be represented in parliament. Until then, it's just a scheme for Sinn Fein to artificially boost their numbers.
Andrew
ReplyDelete'Partition was neither democratic nor undemocratic - the question is a category error. If one wants to invoke the will of the people, one must first agree on which people should be consulted.'
That did make me laugh, so how about you expand on how it was 'undemocratic' and how it was 'democratic'. How about you answer the question Andrew instead of equivocating?
'the question is a category error' or one you don't want to answer as it mean giving an answer you don't like, that the North was created by way of a sectarian, undemocratic head count.
'Let me ask a counter-question - what would be an acceptably democratic method for a region to secede from Ireland?'
None at all in my opinion, the nation spoke and they wanted independence from Britain.
So let me ask you a question, on a different country. We have Scotland going to the polls for independence, do you think it would be 'democratic' or 'undemocratic' if it was then partitioned as say a lot of people of a certain religion or ethnic group happened to be located in a certain area of Scotland, like the Low Lands?
Let us expand your point even further, I am living in a small village in the Glens, right on the coast; can we cede from the Union if the majority vote for it here in our village? What if 20% of the village don't want to cede, can there houses stay in the Union while the rest of us cede? How about Belfast when it gets its Nat majority, can it become like West Berlin if the majority vote for it?
Of course, unionists are Irish too,aren't they? but when it came to the vote re independence, their vote seemingly counted more than everyone else's regarding being in or out of the Union. Irish indeed!
How about you answer the question Andrew instead of equivocating?
ReplyDeleteI'm not equivocating, I'm saying the question is based on a false assumption. The only moral basis for government is the consent of the governed - if the governed do not consent then the question of democracy is moot. Calling partition "undemocratic" implies that there was a "democratic" alternative, but neither solution on offer would have delivered consent, so there was no moral basis for democracy either way.
On second thoughts, that's not quite true. With partition the Free State attained that consensus, even if NI did not. Would that have been possible in a unitary state? We'll never know. Unionists often argue that partition saved them from the Free State, but one could also argue that partition saved the Free State from unionists... ;-)
'Let me ask a counter-question - what would be an acceptably democratic method for a region to secede from Ireland?'
None at all in my opinion, the nation spoke and they wanted independence from Britain.
Unionists would argue that their nation spoke and wanted independence from Ireland. The only difference between the two positions is whose definition of "nation" you accept. Surely you're not arguing that the Free State was a special case and should have been immune from the same separatism that gave birth to it?
I am living in a small village in the Glens, right on the coast; can we cede from the Union if the majority vote for it here in our village?
Good point, and I don't have an easy answer. I suspect your village is touch on the small side to be a practical state.
Maybe you should have the right, but in return you should have to first elect a functioning transitional government, sign up to the ECHR and implement the EU aquis. But whatever restrictions we wish to place on the absolute right to self-determination must be universal. They can't be based on special pleading ("The island of Ireland is a natural unit of government") or circular logic ("Ireland is the basis of the vote that Ireland is the basis of the vote that Ireland is the basis...").
Of course, unionists are Irish too,aren't they? but when it came to the vote re independence, their vote seemingly counted more than everyone else's regarding being in or out of the Union. Irish indeed!
Would you call yourself a European? Would you argue that voting to leave the EU is a rejection of Europe, or just one particular vision of Europe? Unionists did not vote to secede from Ireland (at least not all of them did), they voted to secede from the Irish Free State. It's not the same thing.
'I'm not equivocating, I'm saying the question is based on a false assumption.'
ReplyDeleteUnionists are Irish, right? It was known as the 'Irish Problem', right? I am not working on a false assumption at all. I'm working on the fact that if we are ALL Irish, as you have noted previously, then why were some Irish votes more important than others? Very democratic, right?
'The only moral basis for government is the consent of the governed - if the governed do not consent then the question of democracy is moot.'
That's malarkey Andrew and you know this. What if there were a UI, if unionists still do not consent to be governed does this mean that the state would not have the moral basis for government? If a people decide not to give consent to be governed so be it, but that does not mean a govt has no moral basis, so you best come up with a better one.
'Calling partition "undemocratic" implies that there was a "democratic" alternative, but neither solution on offer would have delivered consent, so there was no moral basis for democracy either way.'
There was a democratic alternative, it's a united Ireland. The vast majority of people in Ireland voted for it, again, the considerations of a small minority were thought to weigh more than the vast majority, not very democratic.
'Unionists would argue that their nation spoke and wanted independence from Ireland.'
What nation is this then? But they're Irish Andrew, aren't they? Then why did their vote count for more in an area that was treated by all and sundry as one?
contd...
ReplyDelete'The only difference between the two positions is whose definition of "nation" you accept.'
Nope, one decided to use a sectarian head count to define it's nation, Nats use it's traditional territory which was accepted by all parties.
'Surely you're not arguing that the Free State was a special case and should have been immune from the same separatism that gave birth to it?'
No, I am saying that the same rules should be applicable to all. The rule of democracy. Ireland had always been treated as a single entity by all who lived here. Across the road from me are the plans for the village from the mid-19th century. The architects noted that this part of the country is Ireland, but what you're saying is that when everyone in Ireland voted, we then put aside this vote and say, 'hey, you guys all of the same religion who don't like how the natives voted, you guys don't worry about that vote isn't applicable to you'. Again, how very democratic of you. No, wait, it's simple gerrymandering.
'Good point, and I don't have an easy answer. I suspect your village is touch on the small side to be a practical state.'
You don't have any answer, never mind an easy one. No, I was suggesting that my small village join up with the South, how about that? There is a considerable majority of us who would love to be in the South and have representation in the Dail, as would many west of the Bann or in south Armagh and Down, oh and West Belfast, so why not? Can we cede from the Union and join up with the South? Democracy in action and localism at its very best sure.
'Maybe you should have the right, but in return you should have to first elect a functioning transitional government, sign up to the ECHR and implement the EU aquis.'
What if we want independence and not be in the EU or subject to the ECHR, who are you to decide what terms are attached to our independence? Not very democratic but I expect some equivocating from you on that one of course.
'But whatever restrictions we wish to place on the absolute right to self-determination must be universal.'
I would love that, yet you seem fine with democracy only being applicable in certain instances and you are unwilling to elaborate in any solid way, shape or form on what they are.
'They can't be based on special pleading ("The island of Ireland is a natural unit of government") or circular logic ("Ireland is the basis of the vote that Ireland is the basis of the vote that Ireland is the basis...").'
That's not special pleading at all, but of course, it doesn't fit in with your unionism now does it. The fact that we had our own parliament before the Act of Union, that it was taken for granted that the island was treated as one unit of government, that the people on the island were/are Irish and that supposedly, by you amongst many, that unionists are Irish too (I always laugh at that one) you see the votes of unionists as being somehow more important and worth more than those of their fellow Irish men back in pre-partition Ireland.
and finally...
ReplyDelete'Would you call yourself a European? Would you argue that voting to leave the EU is a rejection of Europe, or just one particular vision of Europe? Unionists did not vote to secede from Ireland (at least not all of them did), they voted to secede from the Irish Free State. It's not the same thing.'
Nice bit of whataboutery and a piss poor answer from you, but I'll tackle it nonetheless.
Your 'example' is like comparing apples and pears but lets go sure.
Leaving the EU does not make one any less European now, does it. However, if there were a vote in the UK say to leave the EU and most of the voters were in favor, one would expect that the UK would leave. However, say the majority of voters in Scotland and Wales had actually voted to stay in, are we to expect these areas to stay in the EU then? You have an agreed and easily recognised administrative area, and now because some do not like how the vote went they decide to throw a tantrum and threaten violence unless they get there way to stay in the EU, what do we do? Do we say, they have a right to do this, or like most people, we say, there was a vote, you lost, tough, suck it up? I am minded that Carson didn't want Ireland to cede from the Union, dealing with Ireland as opposed to another unit of geography, yet you are saying that it is perfectly fine to partition a country if some people in a 'nation' (funniest thing this evening btw) decide they don't like what the outcome of the vote was.
Again, what happens if there is another border vote, can the green constituencies in the west and south of the 6 cede from the Union?
Also, I note you haven't come back to me on the Scottish independence vote, you all for partition in this instance? Or is it special pleading for someone to define a nation by its geography as well as people?
Andrew,
ReplyDeletere."If one wants to invoke the will of the people, one must first agree on which people should be consulted"
Yes, I would agree with that - politics (like economics) is not a science more a bunch of opinions which accumulate support. In this instance a majority of people on the 2 largest islangs in the British Isles expressed their opinions that Ireland should be unified as seperate(if related) entity from Britain - but a small group in Ulster with the support of a tiny wealthy group in Britian thwarted that.
I think given those circumstances with the dual threat of treason we are entitled to call partition 'undemocratic'.
begob it's me bus... I'll be back to you on the Dáill malarkey.
What if there were a UI, if unionists still do not consent to be governed does this mean that the state would not have the moral basis for government?
ReplyDeleteAny state that contains a significant minority that does not believe the state should exist at all has a serious legitimacy problem. It's not black and white, but the farther you are from consensus on the existence of the state, the less moral standing the state has.
Post GFA though, it's not as big an issue as you imply. Most unionists voted for the GFA, and therefore voted that a UI would be legitimate under certain circumstances.
Ireland had always been treated as a single entity by all who lived here.
Yes, and it has always been divided for administrative purposes. If you're trying to argue that there has always been an all-Ireland polity, that is demonstrably false - sometimes there was and sometimes there wasn't. And even if that were true, it does not bind future generations in perpetuity. Administrative boundaries change all the time; sovereign states come and go; empires rise and fall. Borders are constantly drawn and redrawn and the only question is the mechanism.
Can we cede from the Union and join up with the South?
Perhaps. I'm not sure it would be practical.
What if we want independence and not be in the EU
There is a legal mechanism for leaving the EU. Baby steps.
or subject to the ECHR
What guarantee will you give to your minorities that you're not going to shaft them at the first opportunity? Will you be able to give them one that they can trust?
you seem fine with democracy only being applicable in certain instances
As are you. It's apparently OK for Ireland to declare independence, but not Northern Ireland, the only difference being that Ireland (as an island) has always existed and Northern Ireland was novel. That's a fundamentally conservative position, and one that treats the island of Ireland as a spacial case for no reason other than it gives you the answer that you want.
it was taken for granted that the island was treated as one unit of government, that the people on the island were/are Irish and that supposedly, by you amongst many, that unionists are Irish too
ReplyDeleteYes, taking things for granted often ends badly.
you see the votes of unionists as being somehow more important
One of the tenets of modern democracy is that the rights of minorities sometimes do outweigh the wishes of the majority.
Nice bit of whataboutery and a piss poor answer from you, but I'll tackle it nonetheless.
It's not whataboutery, it's compare and contrast. And there's no need to swear.
Leaving the EU does not make one any less European now, does it.
Indeed, we are all still living on the same continent, no matter what the political arrangements are. Similarly, leaving the Free State does not make one any less Irish. The morning after the border was drawn, we all woke up on the same island we went to sleep on.
However, if there were a vote in the UK say to leave the EU and most of the voters were in favor, one would expect that the UK would leave. However, say the majority of voters in Scotland and Wales had actually voted to stay in, are we to expect these areas to stay in the EU then?
UK leaves EU, Scotland votes to leave the UK and rejoin the EU. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
I note you haven't come back to me on the Scottish independence vote, you all for partition in this instance?
If, say, Shetland wanted to leave Scotland and rejoin the UK? Sure, fill yer boots.
Or is it special pleading for someone to define a nation by its geography as well as people?
A nation is a group of people who self-identify as such. That may include a geographic element or it may not, but it is secondary to the individual will. If I believe I am Irish, then I am. If I believe I am also British, European, Human, whatever then that choice has to be respected. You keep going on about whether Unionists are Irish or not. Why can they not be both Irish and British, or Northern-Irish or whatever they want? Why must people fit into neat pigeonholes?
sammy,
ReplyDeleteIn this instance a majority of people on the 2 largest islangs in the British Isles expressed their opinions that Ireland should be unified as seperate(if related) entity from Britain
Well, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. But what do they suggest doing about it?
Andrew,
ReplyDelete"Calling partition "undemocratic" implies that there was a "democratic" alternative, but neither solution on offer would have delivered consent, so there was no moral basis for democracy either way."
As I say above the democratic wish of Britian and Ireland (a United Ireland)was thwarted by the actions of 2 minorities threatening violence - in those circumstances it is reasonable to to refer to patition as 'undemocratic'.
Dmeocarcy is not about consent of all minority groups(although that is obviously desirable) but about doing what the majority want and in this instance the people of Ireland and Britain wanted some form of a United Ireland.
There are a number of arguements against some variation of Home Rule being implemented (e.g. Protestants attacking Catholic areas) but being 'undemocratic' is not one that stands up.
'It's not black and white, but the farther you are from consensus on the existence of the state, the less moral standing the state has.'
ReplyDeleteYet, you seemingly paint it as black and white. Again, what if we have a UI and unionists do not consent to being governed from Dublin in perpetuity, does a govt not have any legitimacy then? How about you answer the question instead of equivocating.
'Yes, and it has always been divided for administrative purposes. If you're trying to argue that there has always been an all-Ireland polity, that is demonstrably false - sometimes there was and sometimes there wasn't. And even if that were true, it does not bind future generations in perpetuity. Administrative boundaries change all the time; sovereign states come and go; empires rise and fall. Borders are constantly drawn and redrawn and the only question is the mechanism.'
I would prefer democracy to be the mechanism used to decide this, you prefer special pleading from a so called 'nation'.
'What guarantee will you give to your minorities that you're not going to shaft them at the first opportunity? Will you be able to give them one that they can trust?'
What business is it of yours? Democracy in action and all that. Also, we're looking to join up with the South so the full force of European legislation would be available.
'As are you. It's apparently OK for Ireland to declare independence, but not Northern Ireland, the only difference being that Ireland (as an island) has always existed and Northern Ireland was novel. That's a fundamentally conservative position, and one that treats the island of Ireland as a spacial case for no reason other than it gives you the answer that you want.'
Conservative? You are asking for 'special pleading' as a so called 'nation' of people, who you have identified as 'Irish', you feel that their votes are worth more in a settled and defined jurisdiction. What you seemingly overlook is the fact goal posts are constantly moved. If the game as it was during the 19th and early 20th century was Home Rule for 'Ireland' and then independence for 'Ireland', to then move the goal posts (changing the administrative unit where change would applicable to) and change the rules of the game, ie democracy, is unjust, hence why you have a sizeable minority pissed off with the result.
contd...
ReplyDelete'One of the tenets of modern democracy is that the rights of minorities sometimes do outweigh the wishes of the majority.'
Yes, but it's not democratic when you decide that said minority will not even be remotely effected by the decision of a majority within an administrative unit. A line was gerrymandered in order to make sure a minority was not remotely effected by the decision of a majority. That's not putting some terms and conditions on the will of a majority, that's ignoring it all together. That's undemocratic, unjust, and indefensible, though you aren't that much of a democrat so what should I expect?
'It's not whataboutery, it's compare and contrast. And there's no need to swear.'
It's whataboutery and saying the word piss is not really a swear unless you are easily offended. Then, I am of the Sean Hollywood school of language (being a College boy myself), 'there is no such thing as swears or bad language, only language inappropriately used,' and what I said was appropriate.
'Indeed, we are all still living on the same continent, no matter what the political arrangements are. Similarly, leaving the Free State does not make one any less Irish. The morning after the border was drawn, we all woke up on the same island we went to sleep on.'
Ireland voted to leave the Union. This was an all-island decision as the island of Ireland was the recognised administrative unit. Now, if you had said Ulster wanted to stay in the Union and not be in a Free State, you know, I may have had a difficulty arguing with you, however, even Ulster was gerrymandered so as to be large enough so as not to be a rump like Calais for England in the 16th century, yet included two counties (Fermanagh and Tyrone) that didn't want to be in the Union; what about the will of the people of these two counties, are they to be ignored? Is this just and democratic? This merely shows the 'democratic' ambitions of a certain nation of 'Irish' men, who believe there vote is worth more than others. The vote was for Ireland to be in the Union or out, unionists lost that vote and decided they didn't like that, so by threat of force they usurped the stated will of the people in elections and ceded from Ireland as a political entity.
'UK leaves EU, Scotland votes to leave the UK and rejoin the EU. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.'
But what if Scotland doesn't want to leave the union and stay in the EU too, is it fair that they can say to LDN, the nation of Scotland has spoken, we shall stay in the EU?
contd...
ReplyDelete'If, say, Shetland wanted to leave Scotland and rejoin the UK? Sure, fill yer boots.'
No, how about you give me an answer with the example I gave rather than one based on another. Scottish Low Lands want to stay in the Union, everywhere else wants independence. If Scotland votes for independence is the result not applicable to them then? If they claim to have some bond amongst the majority of its inhabitants (3rd genome), and claim that they are Scottish and something else, should they be allowed to stay part of the Union or not?
Let's even run with your neat trick of the Shetlands, let's say a fifth of the island doesn't want to be part of an independent Scotland, are they free to remain part of the Union?
'A nation is a group of people who self-identify as such. That may include a geographic element or it may not, but it is secondary to the individual will. If I believe I am Irish, then I am. If I believe I am also British, European, Human, whatever then that choice has to be respected. You keep going on about whether Unionists are Irish or not. Why can they not be both Irish and British, or Northern-Irish or whatever they want? Why must people fit into neat pigeonholes?'
You can believe you are the tooth fairy on a Tuesday and a Jedi on weekends for all I care, I was merely highlighting the contradiction and hypocrisy in your posts that unionists are 'Irish' yet think that though they are Irish that there vote was worth more than others. It shows that they are Irish whenever it is convenient to them yet identify as another identity when it does not. Why? Well if unionists are 'Irish' as you and others claim they are and were pre-partition the creation of the North along sectarian lines highlights that they think that they identify with an administrative unit when it suits. 'I'm Irish, but I will not accept the will of a majority of other Irish people as they do not conform with my religious beliefs,' seems to be the cry back at the turn of the 20th century.
contd...
ReplyDeleteMy problem with your 'thesis' or line of thinking is this (apologies for maybe being a bit personal); you are intellectually inconsistent and intellectually dishonest too.
You talk of 'nations' and democracy and the 'conservative nature' of geography being used to determine results, yet we do set boundaries for results and the point being is, if our side happens to lose we accept the decision taken within such a boundary and that was the boundary used at the turn of the 20th century. If we did not then we would have a recipe for disaster, and lo and behold, we did here in the North, I wonder why?
You then say that I use 'special pleading' for the case of a UI, yet you use special pleading for the creation of a 'nation', one based solely on the religion of this 'nation'. I note your pleading for integrated education on a number of blogs so as to combat sectarianism, yet you are perfectly fine with a 'nation' withholding it's consent to a govt which said 'nation' has based on the grounds of religion (please don't even pretend that this wasn't one of the single largest reasons for the creation of the North, you will merely look even more foolish). I note further you haven't even touched my question raised on the repartition of the North by areas that wish to cede from the Union, many of which never even wanted to be in the Union, why ever not? I will hazard the guess that if you actually sat down and walked down the logical conclusion of your line of thinking you would realise it would lead to anarchy. If we take away the need for administration by geographical unit where do we draw the line then for government? Can it be street by street, house by house, person by person? Do elaborate. Of course, you will say something along the lines of 'it has to be agreed', yet at the turn of the 20th century the administrative unit on this island of the island being treated as one was agreed and had been agreed for long enough that to suggest otherwise is merely dishonest on your part.
contd...
ReplyDeleteMy problem with your 'thesis' or line of thinking is this (apologies for maybe being a bit personal); you are intellectually inconsistent and intellectually dishonest too.
You talk of 'nations' and democracy and the 'conservative nature' of geography being used to determine results, yet we do set boundaries for results and the point being is, if our side happens to lose we accept the decision taken within such a boundary and that was the boundary used at the turn of the 20th century. If we did not then we would have a recipe for disaster, and lo and behold, we did here in the North, I wonder why?
You then say that I use 'special pleading' for the case of a UI, yet you use special pleading for the creation of a 'nation', one based solely on the religion of this 'nation'. I note your pleading for integrated education on a number of blogs so as to combat sectarianism, yet you are perfectly fine with a 'nation' withholding it's consent to a govt which said 'nation' has based on the grounds of religion (please don't even pretend that this wasn't one of the single largest reasons for the creation of the North, you will merely look even more foolish). I note further you haven't even touched my question raised on the repartition of the North by areas that wish to cede from the Union, many of which never even wanted to be in the Union, why ever not? I will hazard the guess that if you actually sat down and walked down the logical conclusion of your line of thinking you would realise it would lead to anarchy. If we take away the need for administration by geographical unit where do we draw the line then for government? Can it be street by street, house by house, person by person? Do elaborate. Of course, you will say something along the lines of 'it has to be agreed', yet at the turn of the 20th century the administrative unit on this island of the island being treated as one was agreed and had been agreed for long enough that to suggest otherwise is merely dishonest on your part.
and finally...
ReplyDeleteLet's look at your 'local govt reforms' for instance where you too use the geography of established and recognised boundaries (in this instance pre-existing constituencies), an administrative unit, as part of your solution. Yet, you are seemingly unhappy with another geographical administrative unit (the island of Ireland) being used to form a nation as it isn't in keeping with the wishes of another 'nation', so you like to pick and choose the convenience of using these administrative units, why?
Andrew, you want to have your cake and eat it. You want democracy (an activity that takes place within specified boundaries, otherwise I might be able to vote for Obama in November) yet you don't like it when the result is against you and use a rather vague term of 'nation' to usurp the will of people within an agreed administrative unit. You want integration yet you cannot recognise that by deciding the boundaries of a country because (i) a 'nation' didn't like the result in a particular administrative unit, (ii) that 'nation' uses religion to define itself as different from all others, thus giving the basis for creation of the separate North, that this may, in some way, shape or form help to contribute to rampant sectarianism and the separation of this 'nation' from the majority on this island and their erstwhile neighbours who live quite close to them. A 'nation' decided for itself it was not to be held by a decision of the majority and will of the people in an agreed administrative unit. It decided to create another 'nation' where it would be in charge and the border was drawn with little thought for any one else but this 'nation', otherwise it would be a lot smaller. Of course, you will bemoan sectarianism here in the North, yet you are seemingly comfortable with a 'nation' deciding along religious grounds that it is different from everyone else.
Let's go one step further, what happens if a majority of people here in the gerrymandered North decide they want to rejoin the South and still people in Antrim and North Down say 'No, I refuse to give my consent to be ruled from Dublin', should the result stand in the geographical and administrative unit that is the Northern 6 counties stand, or am I being too conservative and not forward thinking enough to see that a democratic result in an administrative area should not be applicable to some members of a 'nation' of people who continue to withhold their consent?
Further (sorry Enda), I find it somewhat unnerving you would use a term like 'nation' to decide whether or not people of a certain religion or who were immigrants should be the basis to decide on whether or not a govt has the right to govern them.
ReplyDeleteIf that were the case, what if a large number of Orthodox Christians from Eastern Europe wanted to cede N. Armagh from the Union and it were to become another Kalingrad for Russia, (Lurgangrad or if I we're lucky, FootballClichesberg!), is that ok as a 'nation' has decided that it doesn't consent to be governed by others.
You actually accuse me of being somewhat conservative with my outlook, yet if we worked with yours we would have a situation much like central and eastern Europe between both wars, 'nations' deciding who is in charge, leading to inevitable discrimination against a minority that doesn't fit in with the alleged ethnic make up of the 'nation' (see Germans throughout eastern Europe).
Oh wait, we did have that! Imagine that.
'A nation is a group of people who self-identify as such'
ReplyDeleteActually, now that I think about that, how unbelievably conservative of you to define a nation as such. What ever next Andrew, surname, clan, ethnicity? Or of course, are you mistaking the word 'people' for 'nation'. Shame if you were.
Sounds like a recipe for racial homogeneity within an area defined by a majority, heaven help whoever is a minority within that area.
Monday, 15 October 2012
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with Enda Kenny that a united Ireland is inevitable?
Yes - I agree 45%
No - I disagree 55%
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/enda-kenny-united-ireland-poll-16224434.html#ixzz29Oj0VBFI
Interesting. Not surprising that "I disagree" has a majority given that the Belfast Telegraph is a Unionist newspaper.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the initial response to the post. I see Republicanism as an extention of Nationalism.
Sammy,
ReplyDeleteDmeocarcy is not about consent of all minority groups(although that is obviously desirable) but about doing what the majority want
When it comes to the daily running of the state, then the usual mechanism is majority rule. That is merely a convention and only applies if there is consensus on the mechanisms of state. One-party Unionist rule in NI was about the wishes of the majority. It certainly wasn't democratic. You cannot apply majority rule to the existence of the state itself.
If the three of us were to meet on a street corner and took a vote and two of us voted against you, we cannot compel you to comply if you never agreed to take the vote in the first place. Furthermore, we cannot use majority rules to forbid you from walking away. We must first consent that decisions will be made on a collective basis - without that any vote is meaningless.
fc,
You're getting repetitive, and we're wandering off topic. I'll just make a few general points to sum up my position. You can take them or leave them.
1. One man's "so-called" nation is another man's bona fide nation. As there is no objective definition of the term, it makes no difference whether you or I believe a particular group of people is a nation or not. It is up to them to define their own identity.
2. If you want to shaft your minorities it is most definitely my business, and the business of every other human being on this earth.
3. Yes, the borders of NI were fiddled. That doesn't invalidate the general principle, just its application in this case.
4. Yes, I am against sectarianism and communal divisions. No, I don't believe the denial of political rights is the solution.
5. I am not a Unionist.
Enda,
Sorry for hijacking your blog! I see Nationalism as a parochial philosophy, whereas Republicanism is a universal philosophy. One looks after the interests of a predefined, predestined group, the other looks after the interests of mankind, regardless of creed or origin. The social contract must be freely entered into or it is worthless.
Too many people who call themselves "Unionist" or "Republican" are nothing of the sort - both philosophies are supposedly about crossing divides and building bridges, while Nationalism seeks to divide one tribe from the next. The great tragedy of Ireland is that Irish Nationalists, British Nationalists and Ulster Nationalists alike think they are doing something noble when instead they are mired in the divisive policies of communalism and tribal conflict. Most of them are blissfully ignorant of how they have betrayed the lofty ideals of the people they claim to honour.
Who cares if parliament sits in Dublin or Belfast? A Republican cares not for such trifles. Republicanism is about building a better society. If you think redrawing borders is a prerequisite for social change rather than a consequence thereof, then you are not a Republican - you are a Nationalist. And you're part of the problem.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI dont think you have addressed the issue of the undemocratic nature of partition directly.
I take it you accept that the wishes of the majority of people in Ireland and Britian were thwarted by the threat of violence?
If you do accept that then partition must be reasonably viewed as an undemocratic. settlement.
Sammy,
ReplyDeleteUnionists wanted to secede from a Dublin-ruled all-Ireland state. At the time there was no legal mechanism available. What "democratic" method should they have used?
andrewG,
ReplyDeletere. "What "democratic" method should they have used?"
The same as unionists in the South had to do after partition - grin and bear it - unfortunately in democracy there may be losers - if WW1 had not come along they (probably) would have had to.
Not an ideal solution - but a democratic solution.
Sammy,
ReplyDeleteSo nobody ever has the right to secede from Ireland? But Ireland has the right to secede from the UK. That's special pleading.
Andrew,
ReplyDeletere. "But Ireland has the right to secede from the UK. That's special pleading."
I think you are missing the point here - it was the British Parliament who introduced the Home Rule Bill which was thwarted because by the threat of violence by Unionists backed up by Tories.
There is no 'special pleading' just democracy - and what the British government wanted to implement and what a majority of Irish people wanted.
Britian caved in to the threat of violence - that is why parititon is 'undemocratic'.
You're using the British government as a logical crutch? So Ireland's right to self-determination is given greater weight because it was the British government's will? What kind of self-determination is that?
ReplyDeleteandrewg,
ReplyDeletethis is a discussion about how undemocratic partition was - I'm pointing out to you that both Ireland and Britian wanted some sort of United Ireland and minorities in both countries used the threat of violence to stop it.
A United Ireland was the preferred (democratic) solution thwarted by minorities in both Ireland and Britain.
Democratic support by Britian for Ireland's right to self determination does not undermine it but points to the undemocratic behaviour of those Tories who opposed it and undermines those who would suggest (seemingly including yourself) that Ireland (as a whole) should not have the right to self-determination over and above other claims - ie those of Unionists for partition.
Sammy,
ReplyDeleteIf a majority of people in both Ireland and Britain want the Isle of Man to be part of Ireland, against the will of the people of the Isle of Man, that does not make it democratic. If you believe in the right of self-determination then it must be given to everybody on an equal basis. If you believe that right should be curtailed or limited in some way, it must be by some objective yardstick, again on an equal basis. If you claim self-determination as your right, then it must also be the right of your political opponents; otherwise it is not a "right" but special treatment.
Your argument begs the question - you are assuming that Ireland as a whole is the preferred unit of self-determination, and then using a vote in Ireland (as a whole) to justify what you have just assumed. This is a logical fallacy.
Appealing to authority (in the form of the British Government) is a fallacy. If they had said no, would this have diminished Ireland's right to self-determination?
Appealing to tradition (Ireland has always been a unit) is a fallacy. If the British had abolished Ireland as an administrative unit, would that have diminished its right to self-determination?
Nationalisms (of every flavour) are about special treatment for one group at the expense of another. This is why honest republicans shouldn't touch nationalism with a ten-foot pole.
andrewg,
ReplyDeleteThere are no aboslutes in politics or democracy - as the good people of the isle of man would probably agree - but - I think we can fairly say that on the balance of prevailing opinion at the time as reflected in the views of the people of Britain and Ireland democratically expressed that the deomcratic case for a United Ireland was a pretty strong one.
You are clearly determined to see it differently - I have argued that the hisorical facts are on my side but that is of ocurse is just a matter of opinion.
... I observe a large public service vehicle approaching and will therefore take my leave.
Sammy,
ReplyDeleteI don't see anywhere above where I have disagreed with your historical facts. It is your bias I have a problem with. ;-)
AG,
ReplyDelete'You're getting repetitive, and we're wandering off topic. I'll just make a few general points to sum up my position. You can take them or leave them.'
Repetitive? Apologies, however, if you decide not to
i) answer questions asked;
ii) ignore propositions made;
iii) answer questions not asked; and/or
iv) twist questions to suit answers you subsequently provide;
then expect me to continue to ask you questions, or do you believe I should not question your beliefs and the somewhat woolly and unsatisfactory answers you continue to provide?
Let's go through some of the points you made, shall we? I'll skip to the parts that interest me only, unless you want me to go over the rest as I think I will cover it nonetheless?
'2. If you want to shaft your minorities it is most definitely my business, and the business of every other human being on this earth.'
Who said I did want to 'shaft' my minorities, and define 'shaft'. Again, what business is it of yours what happens in another country? As noted above, though you continue to ignore the point, I propose that my village cedes from the union and joins up with the South, are you ok with that?
'3. Yes, the borders of NI were fiddled. That doesn't invalidate the general principle, just its application in this case.'
What 'principle' is that? Self-determination? What basis do you then get to decide the geographical area that this 'nation' gets to cover? After all, democratic results are normally decided within an agreed and recognised geographical and administrative area, yet you have not provided a coherent or decent explanation for why this should be ignored for a 'nation' and instead you provide special pleading. Or do you not believe it is special pleading?
Again, how about you tackle the points I raised previously regarding your inconsistency when it comes to the use of geography for democracy.
contd...
ReplyDelete'4. Yes, I am against sectarianism and communal divisions. No, I don't believe the denial of political rights is the solution.'
What political rights are being denied?
Further, if a 'country' is created with new borders thanks to the threat of violence coupled with sectarian special pleading contrary to a historically and previously agreed geographical, administrative region and the democratic will of the majority within said region then how can the polity of this newly created 'state' and those who condone it's creation then have the moral authority to then bemoan the subsequent sectarianism within and want integration when it is obvious to all that the creation of the state was based on that premise? This is the crux of the problem I have with you and your anti-sectarianism,, you have no moral authority whatsoever on the issue.
'5. I am not a Unionist.'
What are you then? (this should be fun...)
'Too many people who call themselves "Unionist" or "Republican" are nothing of the sort - both philosophies are supposedly about crossing divides and building bridges, while Nationalism seeks to divide one tribe from the next. The great tragedy of Ireland is that Irish Nationalists, British Nationalists and Ulster Nationalists alike think they are doing something noble when instead they are mired in the divisive policies of communalism and tribal conflict. Most of them are blissfully ignorant of how they have betrayed the lofty ideals of the people they claim to honour.
Who cares if parliament sits in Dublin or Belfast? A Republican cares not for such trifles. Republicanism is about building a better society. If you think redrawing borders is a prerequisite for social change rather than a consequence thereof, then you are not a Republican - you are a Nationalist. And you're part of the problem.'
Do I care where parliament is? Not really, but nice diversion by you, bravo. What I care about is the democratic will of the people, while you have already noted that you do not. While I agree that minorities need to be looked after in any society (nats in the North being on the sharp end of decades of discrimination and my living in communal areas where this was rife, I would have something of an insight on that one), what you are asking for is special pleading where you have not provided a satisfactory answer as to why the opinions of the unionists who where living within a pre-agreed, recognised, administrative region should then take precedence over everyone else.
You note a very lofty idea that if a 'people' withholds its consent to being ruled by a government then a government does not have the right to govern, yet, you continue to avoid my question regarding whether this would STILL be ok whether the people here in the wee 6 voted in a majority for a UI, if a number of unionists still withheld their consent would they still have the moral right to seek not to become a part of UI and remain within the union? Or, with a vote within an agreed administrative region take precedence over their feelings one way or the other?
I found your last little piece quite funny and somewhat hypocritical. While Irish Republicans (not of the typical variety btw) such as myself want a country where both Catholic and Protestant, Irish or British live in a country together, it would seem that your solution is one where a 'nation' gets to separate itself from the rest based solely on religion and its own version of british nationalism.
Please spare us with your 1st year political science rants or copy and paste jobs from text books, you don't actually know or believe in democracy but parochial sectarianism as is evident from your posts.
I think if we follow andrews logic it wont be long untill we all live in our own countries and kingdoms. I quite like the idea of being King allbeit of a 2 bedroom flat lol
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf you read what I said, you'll see that I did say that there should be some limit on self-determination. My point was that any such restrictions should be universal and objectively defined.
Even accepting some of his arguments about degrees of self-determination, the simple fact is that the British themselves under their own laws and their own system of government legally and constitutionally recognised the island of Ireland as a single geo-political unit.
ReplyDeleteUp to 1801 the island of Ireland formed the Kingdom of Ireland in British eyes. The vote by the Parliament of Ireland on the 1st of August 1800 joined the Kingdom of Ireland with the Kingdom of Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. But Ireland was given its own form of limited (colonial) "self-government" through the Lord Lieutenant, Chief Secretary and the Irish Executive. Ireland also retained a separate all-island judicial system, all-island body of laws, all-island maritime laws, certain all-island commercial and trading differences, certain all-island privileges in relation to the aristocracy and the House of Lords, and later a separate (and uniquely in the UK) a single all-island/all-territory police force (the RIC).
In 1918 the people on the island of Ireland voted in separate parliamentary constituencies that taken together formed a single geo-political unit (and recognised as such under the British "constitution"). And the majority voted for an avowedly separatist party, Sinn Féin, which gained some 80% plus of the all-island vote. The elected MPs, that is the vast majority of MPs on the island of Ireland, then formed themselves into a parliament representing the island of Ireland as a single geo-political unit.
Its arguable that Britain's refusal to recognise the 1918 vote and 1919 all-island parliament was a violation of their own "unwritten constitution". Furthermore the enforced partition of the island into two separate political units clearly ran contrary to established British legal precedent. The island of Ireland formed the only acceptable and known geo-political entity for the nation / country / state of Ireland under British law.
And that's simply arguing from within British jurisprudence and the British political tradition. If I was to state the Irish evidence for the island of Ireland and the nation of Ireland being synonymous I would need a lot more space than is available here ;-)
Even accepting some of his arguments about degrees of self-determination, the simple fact is that the British themselves under their own laws and their own system of government legally and constitutionally recognised the island of Ireland as a single geo-political unit.
ReplyDeleteThat's all incontrovertible, and completely irrelevant. Consider a counter-factual. If the British had instead abolished all legal recognition of Ireland, integrated it completely and seamlessly into the UK, would that have compromised Ireland's right to self-determination? Not at all - self-determination derives from the popular will. Conversely, just because Northern Ireland never existed before, does not negate its right to exist now. The past should inform and enable us, not shackle us.
If I was to state the Irish evidence for the island of Ireland and the nation of Ireland being synonymous I would need a lot more space than is available here ;-)
But that's the realm of politics and compromise, not fundamental rights. The only acceptable definition of a nation is self-identification. If a group of people no longer consent to be part of the nation then you can't compel them to remain. You have to persuade them to reconsider.
I'm not arguing the merits of partition. I'm arguing that in the absence of consensus some sort of safety valve must exist. And sometimes it produces the "wrong" result - that doesn't make the process immoral, any more than voting in the "wrong" political party is immoral.
Some interesting points, Andrew, but I’m sorry that simply cannot be.
ReplyDeleteIn most cases under international law national self-determination only applies to recognised geo-political entities. The criteria for this are based upon international, legal or constitutional evidence or precedents in relation to any would-be or existing national entity, be they historic or near-contemporaneous. It also relies on considerations of language, culture, ethnicity and geographic boundaries. In this case the island of Ireland forms the unit of self-determination and unanswerably so. Furthermore under international law territorial integrity takes precedence in defining self-determination where none of the other applicable criteria are present. “Northern Ireland” in its existence and creation violates international law, since it forms part of the geo-political entity of the island of Ireland. It fulfilled no criteria for self-determination nor does it do so now (though arguably the Belfast Agreement has either damaged or bolstered that argument).
At its crudest “Northern Ireland” is simply the British Pale moved two centuries in time and 100 miles northward. It represents a reduction of the British colony on the island of Ireland to the smallest manageable area with the largest local friendly British “colonial” population and the smallest local unfriendly “indigenous” population (note the inverted comas).
If Dublin had maintained the largest British Unionist population on the island of Ireland in 1920/21 then we would be talking about Eastern Ireland not Northern Ireland. This crude artificiality, and colonial history, cannot be used as evidence for the right to national self-determination for a British ethno-religious minority on the island of Ireland. Quite the opposite in fact.
If one was to take your argument and apply it elsewhere then the Orange Free State in South Africa would have had the right in secede from the Republic in the early 1990s if a local Afrikaner majority wished it and Eugène Terre'Blanche would have become the Carson or Craig of South Africa.
Or to give it a more contemporary application, would Bradford in the north of England have the right to seek out national self-determination based upon say a local Pakistani ethno-religious majority? The Islamic Republic of Northern England? Or union with Pakistan? No. In this case England is the recognised self-determining unit, which in turn is part of a larger unit, England and Wales, which in turn is part of a larger unit with Scotland, Great Britain, which in turn is part of a larger unit, the United Kingdom and so on.
Each of these units retain varying, balanced and interlinked degrees of self-determination stemming from legal, constitutional, ethnic, cultural, geographic and historical criteria. That is why Wales can choose to be independent of England but Bradford cannot choose to be independent of England.
All that said it is good to tease these things out. Discussions like this are worthwhile.
In most cases under international law national self-determination only applies to recognised geo-political entities.
ReplyDeleteRecognised by whom?
The criteria for this are based upon international, legal or constitutional evidence or precedents in relation to any would-be or existing national entity, be they historic or near-contemporaneous. It also relies on considerations of language, culture, ethnicity and geographic boundaries.
In other words it's a political decision.
In this case the island of Ireland forms the unit of self-determination and unanswerably so.
...in your opinion.
“Northern Ireland” in its existence and creation violates international law
Which particular article?
If one was to take your argument and apply it elsewhere then the Orange Free State in South Africa would have had the right in secede from the Republic in the early 1990s
No, according to your argument it would. The OFS was a pre-existing unit of governance with its own history of sovereign autonomy.
And IIRC it was a small corner of the Northern Cape they had in mind. In any case, they thought better of it in the end. I don't recall the army being sent in.
would Bradford in the north of England have the right to seek out national self-determination based upon say a local Pakistani ethno-religious majority?
They would have the right based upon whatever criteria they like - it isn't for others to decide their national self-identity. That doesn't mean I think it would be a good idea, of course.
That is why Wales can choose to be independent of England but Bradford cannot choose to be independent of England.
Can Cornwall be independent of England then? What about Kent? Or Wessex? What concrete, objective criteria are you using?
International law is in part invested in the opinions (or whims) of the International community but there are definite guiding principles and a core body of agreed legal standards. Yes, they are subject to abuse and misuse. One needs only look to the misadventure in Iraq to see evidence of that. Nevertheless a recognised (if much interpreted) inter-state legal code does exist and nation-states are expected, in theory at least, to act by it.
ReplyDeleteRecognition of geo-political units stems from the International community in accordance with international law and the criteria I have given above. The island of Ireland forms one such geo-political unit the artificial division of which, based upon the diktat of a British colonial / ethno-religious minority, is illegal since it violates the superior self-determining right of the population of the island of Ireland as whole.
However, one must throw in the implications that stem from the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, subsequent agreements, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Belfast Agreement, the changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Bunreacht, as well as revised British parliamentary legislation, etc. etc. These all effect the argument since they represent changes to intranational and international criteria. Whether they bolster or detract from the right of the people of the island of Ireland to national self-determination as a single geo-political unit is debatable.
In relation to South Africa you overlook the effects of decolonisation on international law since the 1950s. An Afrikaner-only state seceding from South Africa would have been a violation of the new principles stemming from the UN-driven push for decolonisation. That includes an entity like the Orange Free State. That, taken with other criteria, would have prevented the OFS (or FS now) from establishing itself a sovereign and independent nation-state. It is very unlikely that any nation would have given it recognition.
The same principles of decolonisation also apply in the case of the British ethnic minority in Ireland. They cannot form themselves into a "national unit" within on or the territory of another national unit. Likewise immigrant populations are regarded as having severely limited rights under international jurisprudence. They too cannot simply style themselves as a nation within a host nation or give allegiance (actual and physical) to their former nation (including former colonial nations). The principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty apply here.
To argue in principle that a future local Pakistani/immigrant majority in Bradford have a legal or democratic right to declare independence for their town from the UK is simply a rejection of the concept of the nation-state and international law as it presently exists. It is Ruritanian politics. It is also extraordinarily dangerous in respect of international order. It would turn much of western Europe into quagmire of ten thousand Kosovos.
I do agree with you in the principled application of democracy and self-rule to the lowest possible level. But within reason. And sanity! ;-)
The case for Cornish independence fulfils several of the criteria for national self-determination under international law, although it also falls short in several respects. However the legal position of Cornwall / Duchy of Cornwall under Britain's "unwritten constitution" is highly complex, to say the least, with a degree of extraterritorial legal autonomy from England that continues to be debated.
The same principles of decolonisation also apply in the case of the British ethnic minority in Ireland. They cannot form themselves into a "national unit" within on or the territory of another national unit
ReplyDeleteTo continue to regard an ethnic minority as colonists after hundreds of years, to hold that your ethnic group has a greater claim on land or territory than they do, is racism.
In other words if you can't attack the argument attack the person making the argument?
ReplyDeleteI used the term colonial in an earlier response in quotation marks to clearly indicate that one should see the word as a historic shorthand, albeit one filled with ambiguities. The same way I placed indigenous in quotation marks. I would have thought that the politically and historically astute would be aware of the many layers of meaning in this, given the context.
I regard the Unionist community in Ireland as a British ethnic or ethno-religious minority. Or Scots-Irish minority if one prefers that term. And one must place the origins of that minority in its proper historical context. It does not imply that all Unionists are "colonial" in origin any more than it implies that all Nationalists are "indigenous".
But to deny the colonial aspects of Irish-British relations is simply counter-historical and harms any true meeting of minds between the two historic ethnicities / communities / traditions on the island of Ireland.
With that I'll sign off. Thanks for the debate and the interesting points you made. Take care!
In other words if you can't attack the argument attack the person making the argument?
ReplyDeleteYou may not have intended to make a racist argument but that's what came out. Perhaps I am not as historically astute as you think, or perhaps you are unaware just how offensive that statement was. Read it again:
They cannot form themselves into a "national unit" within on or the territory of another national unit
You are confusing nations with states here, and that's being very generous. To say or imply that one national unit has ownership of or preferential standing in a political or geographical territory is to elevate the rights of one ethnic group above those of another.
But to deny the colonial aspects of Irish-British relations is simply counter-historical and harms any true meeting of minds
I'm not arguing that. But whoever the ancestors of unionists may have been, it is simply wrong to treat their descendants as anything other than natives. And on a purely practical level, it is politically futile to treat your largest ethnic minority as if their consent is unnecessary.