Beginning of the End of Northern Ireland?

[Zinneke]

Unionist political entrepreuneurs shot themselves massively in the foot backing Brexit and being hardline on regulatory alignment with Great Britain, all because of some warped imperialist-era superiority complex. They cornered themselves into not only precipitating a massive constitutional crisis but also the eventual selling out of Unionism by an English nationalist movement, and the creation of an all-Ireland economy in the works, which will make Ulster far more interdependent with the EU economy.

That said, we shouldn't underestimate the 10-15% of Catholics who might be soft "Unionists" and would rather keep some form of the goodie bag they get from Westminster : the NHS, some form of stability through the GFA, education, a currency that, once the Brexit process is finished, will likely stabilise. And it could take another generation for some of the more Unionists to ever accept peacefully a transition.

Not to mention, Southern Ireland still hasn't figured out what a United Ireland would look like. You have options ranging from a unitary Dail Eireann with the Unionist community not given any alarm bell procedures or special treatment, a Dail Eireann with alarm bell procedures and minority rights for Unionists, a federal Ireland using the 4 provinces with heavy decentralisation leading to Stormont remaining as it is, or a confederacy-style arrangement with Stormont remaining as it is - but then a West Lothian-style Question occurs in the Dail. The good news is, under republican pressure, it appears Dublin has finally kicked into gear with committees examining how

 Stormont looks likely to remain no matter what : I sincerely doubt any political United Ireland agreement with the Unionists, backed by Westminster, involves scrapping Stormont and power sharing in favour of even the most stringent minority rights. Power sharing especially enables all the political entrepreneurs to use their political budgets to keep their electorates on board in Ulster.
But then BoJo has sold the Unionist cause down the road once now, and historically Westminster has seen Ulster as a boil on the arse of their affairs (there is after all, no political capital to be gained by either major party there - only the risk of being held to ransom in the event of a hung parliament)

A final solution is a situation of co-sovereignty. Ulster as a place where British and Irish (and thus EU) interests converge. Where the two economies meet, where both currencies are used, and regulation is light. A sort of miniture Hong Kong. I think given the abject poverty rates, the drug problem and the general brain drain Ulster suffers, it would benefit from the EU and UK banging their heads together to make it an attractive, prosperous place while still allowing its identities to flourish.

[Zinneke]

Unionist political entrepreuneurs shot themselves massively in the foot backing Brexit and being hardline on regulatory alignment with Great Britain, all because of some warped imperialist-era superiority complex. They cornered themselves into not only precipitating a massive constitutional crisis but also the eventual selling out of Unionism by an English nationalist movement, and the creation of an all-Ireland economy in the works, which will make Ulster far more interdependent with the EU economy.

That said, we shouldn't underestimate the 10-15% of Catholics who are soft Unionists and would rather keep some form of the goodie bag they get from Westminster : the NHS, some form of stability through the GFA, education, a currency that, once the Brexit process is finished, will likely stabilise. And it could take another generation for some of the more Unionists to ever accept peacefully a transition.

Without hyperbole, I don't think Brexit will ever 'finish'. It's slowly become a euphemistic catchall for 'relations with the EU', as well as an index for tribal cultural politics in England. Whatever impact it has on NI, it certainly won't be one that brings stability.

It's worth repeating just how screwed the Unionists are in NI right now. Returning to the status quo ante Brexit is impossible. Suppression of growing nationalist sentiment, nevermind strengthening unionist ties with the UK, is a non-starter and all but mandated to become harder as the Withdrawal Agreement comes into full effect. Any cooperation with ideological conservative allies in England is a dubious prospect - they did just sell them down the river out of convenience, after all.

It's not just a question of Unionists having no good moves. There are no moves to make whatsoever. The WA mandated plebiscite on continued economic alignment with the EU scheduled for 2024 (a near certainty to pass), will probably be interpreted as a proxy border poll regardless of what politicians on both sides of the Irish Sea (and the border) insist. As it becomes clearer how distant and diminishing Westminster's prerogatives and powers are in the day-to-day lives of those in NI, the inexorable logic of reunification will become harder to resist.

Well the DUP is Unionist in every aspect except in its willingness to let Westminster's prerogatives and powers interfere with their vision of a theocratic Ulster. They just want the money from London so that they themselves can maintain the House of Cards. RHI is a testament to the corruption at hand. As long as they 1. keep the whole symbolic mymbo jumbo about what flags fly over Stormont and the Queen's authority and 2. continue to be subsidized by London rather than the potentially more reluctant/demanding Dublin - they'll be happy. But yeah pushing for Brexit was still an extraordinary way to snooker yourself.

[Zinneke]

Worth noting that Belfast North was the only seat where SF increased its vote in 2019, and that was with a candidate deliberately chosen not to repel soft nationalists.

Was the issue salience really about the future of Northern Ireland? Or a way to punish the two big parties, both of whom left much to be desired in Stormont and in Westminster (or absent of it)?

[Zinneke]

I'd say Irish reunification is not only likely but almost inevitable at this point. Any referendum on unification with Ireland - though it'll surely be fought by the 2 sides on cultural grounds (because the politicians of either side are simply too incompetent &/or self-absorbed for it to be otherwise) - will be decided by the economic case, & with Brexit & the effect thereof on the NI economy (combined with continued growth for the ROI's economy), it's almost inevitable that there'll be a consensus for unification sooner rather than later.

So at this point, Irish reunification honestly feels a bit like same-sex marriage: you can fight it & maybe delay it for a little while, but it's eventually gonna happen, so you might as well just get on with it already.

On the contrary, timing will be crucial. Especially if UVF veterans are still alive.

[Zinneke]

More than half of people in North want referendum on a united Ireland
Half of people in Scotland also want an independence referendum, according to a new opinion poll.

JUST OVER HALF of people in Northern Ireland want a referendum on Irish unity in the next five years, according to a new opinion poll.

The Sunday Times commissioned polls in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales to gauge people’s views on the future of the United Kingdom.

In Northern Ireland, 47% of people surveyed want to remain in the UK, while 42% of people are in favour of a united Ireland and 11% are undecided.

When asked if they supported a border poll being held in the next five years, 51% said yes and 44% said no.

Among people under the age of 45, supporters of Irish reunification lead by 47% to 46%.

More people in Northern Ireland also think there will be a united Ireland within 10 years, by a margin of 48% to 44%.

If anyone has a subscription to the Sunday Times, that would be lovely.  

[Zinneke]

As someone who hasn't followed the politics of the British Isles closely, would it be possible for NI to leave the UK without Irish reunification? I.e. Northern Ireland would become an independent state. It would be a small state, but far from the smallest, and independence could allow a slow evolution over time from the status quo toward eventual reunification (or not).

Independence is associated with Loyalism.

[Zinneke]

As someone who hasn't followed the politics of the British Isles closely, would it be possible for NI to leave the UK without Irish reunification? I.e. Northern Ireland would become an independent state. It would be a small state, but far from the smallest, and independence could allow a slow evolution over time from the status quo toward eventual reunification (or not).

In theory yes, but the only thing keeping NI economy from turning into Greece are transfer payments from the rest of the UK. Historically, there was also the small matter that the only thing keeping the place from descending into a civil f****** war was the presence of British Army and London government being there to intervene (indeed, ruling NI directly) in case the Unionist majority decided to go full on fascist. That might seem irrelevant today, but sectarian resentments plus an economy in the gutter is not a good combination.

This is the point people always seem to ignore. Unionists entire identity is about not being Irish, they will never accept being part of Ireland anymore than Sinn Fein supporters ever accepted being part of Britain. Unionist paramilitaries still have an awful lot of guns even post GFA..

This is true, but the difference is that when the Republicans make a big statement Dublin takes notice. Historically when Unionists protest and commit acts of violence, Westminster at best doesn't take notice, or otherwise actively condemns then. Like something like 100k marched against the Anglo-Irish agreement...UK gov didn't give a sh**t and now they give even less of a sh**t. They'd rather these guys didn't exist. They are very tolerant to extremist Loyalist compared to dissident Republicans, but the dissident Republicans have had far more political capital (that will increase with the Sinn Fein surge south of the border) that Loyalists with Westminster.

[Zinneke]

It would mean the end of the Republic as presently constituted, which is yet another excellent reason to maintain some form of the present arrangement.

Do you include the power sharing principle as part of the present arrangement? Because while its a good stop-gap eventually it leads to decay and clientelism. You said so yourself in a similar thread : Sinn Fein and the DUP are purely in power to serve narrow clientelist interests. They know they can only be outflanked by more extreme forces if they fear their positions within the Executive. That is in no way shape or form a healthy direction for Northern Irish politics.

It will take a radical movement that actively bans the denomination of sectarian parties. This might be idealistic, it might dismissed by those such as yourself that preach status quo political reasoning but the polling of the Alliance is a glimmer of something beyond the institutional debate. I also remember Mike Nesbitt, one of the few brave and forward-thinking Unionists, saying in the Assembly election after the RHI scandal, that this was the opportunity to move beyond the sectarian cleavage, and actually have a vote based on the record of the executive, calling his own voters to put SDLP as second choice.

There is absolutely no way forward for Northern Ireland as a country (which is what it is) as long as the sectarian divide dominates its politics. The status quo and "present arrangement" is in no way sustainable.

[Zinneke]

The structure of power sharing is what maintains the more extreme elements grip on some of the power structures in the first place. DUP have engaged in a consistent strategy of pointing towards the threat of SF to win votes, never based on their own competence (god forbid).

And yes, I'm fully aware of what majority rule in Ulster entails. I also think you can still have a democracy where incumbents can lose, whilst still having alarm bell procedures for minorities in the country. The current system favours those who declare themselves as sectarian parties and the electoral system creates essentially favours an ethnic head count. In what way does this help inter-community relations?

The "end sectarianism" agenda starts with ending the segregation of schools and the role of religion in public life in the province, and eventually ends with the withering away of sectarian-denominated parties. The only way that can happen is with a grassroots political movement that is non-sectarian and able to totally dismantle the power structures - within society as much as within Stormont - that create the SF-DUP criminal duopoly.

I understand you feel close to it (nor should you assume I am not). And my remarks are no way a criticism of the peace process. Good Friday and St Andrews were not selling out anybody, they were genuine successes in peace building. But the idea that the political system as it exists in Northern Ireland is in any way sustainable over the long term has no basis in reality - it will just lead to outflanking to get better terms for your own community within the Stormont system, with the lingering threat of breaking it down, the same that we saw happen to UUP-SDLP after the GFA (which could easily happen to DUP-SF, and is in the former's case with the TUV). There is no horizon for progress in those terms.

edit : and I in no way think tack's solution is feasible either.

[Zinneke]

Not to mentioned they'll be far more listened to and influential in Dublin than in London, ironically.


(unless Sinn Fein lead the Republic's government during any transition phase).

[Zinneke]

This is going to be a hugely hot and controversial take, but in a way I think that the Good Friday Agreement was a mistake. You do not negotiate with terrorists. It would have been vastly preferrable for the IRA to have been utterly crushed than for the GFA to happen.

Except the GFA was the defeat of the IRA. It was more or less what the UK government had agreed to at Sunningdale in 1973, 25 years previously. The IRA armed campaign during the intervening 25 years was to force a united Ireland by collapsing the British state in Northern Ireland militarily; the reason Adams, McGuinness and co. abandoned the armed campaign was because they saw that was impossible to achieve. So the Provisional IRA decommissioned and went into electoral politics.

Ok, I guess I'll slightly change that to "unconditional surrender from the IRA" (as opposed to the "negotiated treaty" that was the GFA)

It was unionists, not the IRA, that caused the failure of Sunningdale
But my point is that they surrendered in exchange for an agreement that the British government had already made with nationalists and moderate unionists decades ago...

[Zinneke]

Of course Unionists absolutely didn't have a paramilitary wing and committed terrorist acts.

Not to mention the RUC.

[Zinneke]

This is going to be a hugely hot and controversial take, but in a way I think that the Good Friday Agreement was a mistake. You do not negotiate with terrorists. It would have been vastly preferrable for the IRA to have been utterly crushed than for the GFA to happen.

Except the GFA was the defeat of the IRA. It was more or less what the UK government had agreed to at Sunningdale in 1973, 25 years previously. The IRA armed campaign during the intervening 25 years was to force a united Ireland by collapsing the British state in Northern Ireland militarily; the reason Adams, McGuinness and co. abandoned the armed campaign was because they saw that was impossible to achieve. So the Provisional IRA decommissioned and went into electoral politics.

Ok, I guess I'll slightly change that to "unconditional surrender from the IRA" (as opposed to the "negotiated treaty" that was the GFA)

It was unionists, not the IRA, that caused the failure of Sunningdale
But my point is that they surrendered in exchange for an agreement that the British government had already made with nationalists and moderate unionists decades ago...

What relevance does that have to the fact that Provisional IRA acceptance of the GFA and its decommissioning was an admission of defeat?

Because this pre-supposes that Sunningdale was in any way sustainable at that moment in History.

The 25 years do make a difference, and by then the IRA was perhaps tired but not defeated, not in the slightest. They wrote the textbook on urban insurgency (not condoning this nor their horrific terrorist acts in Britain) and forced a stalemate against a pretty strong state with experience in counter-insurgency from their colonial past (although that turned out to be a burden when dealing with the initial Irish Civil Rights movement).

Conditions, especially globally, were united for "Sunningdale" to become acceptable again, to both sides.

It was also mainly to point out to tack50 that Unionists are not innocent in this whole process, no matter how much he wants to project his Spanish centralism (another counter-productive ideology that is also radicalising the Catalan and Basque movements faster) on the conflict.

[Zinneke]

Northern Ireland Catholic nationalists seek the reunification of Ireland, hence they are not "separatists" in a strict sense

Please stop comparisons with Catalonia and Basque Country. They are not Castilian colonies and I wish they remain in friendly terms with the rest of Spain, but in no way opposing separatism means that I am "unionist" like the Ulster folks.

Stop, for God's sake!

Calm down. People are entitled to look at Catalonia, the Basque Country, and the Irish Reunification movement alongside each other and do a comparative study.

But you are quite right to point out that doesn't mean you can project your political opinions from one struggle to the other and pretend they are in any way similar.

With politicians who have attitudes like this, it's honestly a miracle that Spain somehow managed to solve the ETA situation and that there isn't an Exèrcit Republicà Català (yet).

There actually used to be one!. They were finally crushed and the white flag waved in 1991. Their toll stands at 200 attacks, a couple dozen injured and 5 dead (4 of which were terrorists messing up explosives lol).

However their highest profile attack is the kidnapping of Federico Jiménez Losantos in 1981, a radio presenter who is nowadays known for his far right takes and hilarious nicknames of several politicians; though back then he was just centered on the defence of the Spanish language in Catalonia (he was even nominally left wing at the time and ran in the 1980 Catalan election as the candidate of the "Socialist Party of Andalucia"!)

However, as critical as I am of them, I will always praise Catalan secessionists for being 100% non violent and not resorting to terrorism (unlike the Basque country or NI). Indeed this is also a reason why they are so popular. Just look at the Basque Country actually. Excluding the 2009 election there, nationalist parties used to get somewhere around 55-65% of the vote on average. However the pro-terrorism HB only got about 17-18%*; meaning not just all Spanish unionists, but also a majority of Basque nationalists, rejected violence and terrorism.

Terrorism was also a very convenient excuse for unionists to reject any talks; a common line in those days was "With violence we cannot talk about anything. Once we have peace we can start talking" (which we now know was a convenient excuse but people didn't know that at the time )

I have absolutely 0 doubts that a Catalan version of ETA would be extremely divisive among separatists themselves, and only get perhaps 5-10% support at best; compared to the 45-52% that secessionists enjoy now with their peaceful methods.

^{*: It gets slightly more complicated as their support stayed constant throughout the 80s and 90s, then fell in half after an attempt at a Basque version of the GFA failed because of the terrorists. I am not going to claim that the Spanish government never negotiated; but one of the lines of the GFA (giving NI the right to a referendum to join the ROI) would have never been accepted by any Spanish government.}

It was also mainly to point out to tack50 that Unionists are not innocent in this whole process, no matter how much he wants to project his Spanish centralism (another counter-productive ideoogy that is also radicalising the Catalan and Basque movements faster) on the conflict.

Pretty sure I mentioned in a previous post I also think several unionist parties in NI should have been banned just like I think Sinn Fein should have been banned (most notably the DUP, though the clearer cases involve the paramilitary based Vanguard or PUP). Northern Ireland's politics are that terrible; to the point where you have to ban the parties of >50% of the electorate (as of now, I imagine in the 70s, 80s and 90s thankfully cooler heads were prevailing in the electorate)

Of course I do not really trust the UK to do that since the loyalist terrorists would have been helping them; but in an "ideal" world, the loyalist terrorists would have been crushed and repressed just as hard as the IRA.

PS: I am definitely on the pro-Catalonia / pro-regionalism side of the Spanish debate compared to the national median Definitely not a centralist.

"Crushing ETA and not surrendering" was a thing shared by all parties here back in the day; though all Spanish governments did attempt peace talks that failed at several points because as I mention the main aim of Basque secessionists (a referendum) is something that the UK had to concede, but that no Spanish government ever would.


Ironically after a quick read of the very few differences between Sunningdale and the GFA; it is worth noting that a progressive Spanish government could have passed something like Sunningdale; but not the GFA. Self-determination being the key red line.

Well the issue is that the banning of the parties would deligitamize the "doves" within the parties and paramilitaries supporting them. I also agree that a favoured end goal is an eridaction of the secterian cleavage in party politics* but it has to be done through grassroots movements and campaigning. And making it clear that SF and DUP are too cheeks off the same backside in terms of benefiting from the chaos and the paranoia.

*that includes a United Ireland on the table as an option