SDLP proposals for a united Ireland

cdebru

he sdlp have released their proposals for a united Ireland

having read the document their seems to be very little i would diagree with

some sensible proposals like laying out what a united Ireland would mean and how it would be governed in advance of a referendum on a united ireland so that people know what they are voting for and are more likely to vote in favour

keeping the GFA and its institutions and protections within an united Ireland

its seems the SDLP believe they may have SF on the run and are trying to cut the ground from underneath them

http://www.sdlp.ie/
it can be downloaded from here in pdf format

Sand

They landed a few blows on Adams and SF/IRA there alright - first likening Adams position on reunification to Donaldsons and then remarking on the impossibility of being able to negotiate with unionism whilst carrying on underhanded activities that make Unionists run a mile.

It seems to be a common sense, practical approach to a non-issue as far as Im concerned. Ill be voting against any reunification until I hear a good reason why beyond the usual emotive tosh either way, but I wish them well, as they are a constitutional, law abiding and democratic political party. Theyre doing a good job presenting themselves and their policies lately and theyre not sitting back anymore.

Johnny_the_fox

Sand wrote:

They landed a few blows on Adams and SF/IRA there alright

i dont see how they will... at the last election during the final number of weeks...SDLP came up with the same proposals in 2003... and claimed their support for a 'United Ireland'. Because they knew they had lost ground on SF. Maybe people missed that. <edit>2003 proposals</edit>

the only blows SF would have - is done by themselves and their 'friends'.

monument

Anyone know if the proposed FF - SDLP merger is any closer?

cdebru

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

i dont see how they will... at the last election during the final number of weeks...SDLP came up with the same proposals in 2003... and claimed their support for a 'United Ireland'. Because they knew they had lost ground on SF. Maybe people missed that. <edit>2003 proposals</edit>

the only blows SF would have - is done by themselves and their 'friends'.

yeah johnny just rereleased the same document again

election time perhaps time to look greener

Raskolnikov

monument wrote:

Anyone know if the proposed FF - SDLP merger is any closer?

With Mark Durkan at the helm, it's unlikely.

We'll have to see what happens in the 2005 Westminster elections. If SDLP take another hammering then they'll be lucky to have a single seat. Maybe they'll be more receptive to a Fianna Fáil merger then.

monument

Of what I've read, most of the SDLP like the FF mindset more then the apparent left mindset that their own party are known for.

MT

Yes, regardless of what you think of their proposals, I think we should all applaud the SDLP for holding firmly to the path of democratic and constitutional politics. Where other parties in NI have strayed they have steadfastly eschewed support for the men of violence.

Is it any wonder many in Sinn Féin loath them so much. The SDLP's good example provides a remarkable contrast to the tyrannical, murderous criminality cult embedded at the heart of the Republican Movement. The SDLP's commitment to peace and human rights gives the lie to SF's narrative of armed struggle as the only option.

Even now they're still managing to ruffle the feathers of their rivals regime by supporting the PSNI and calling for witnesses to contact them. So much for the Shinner's claim that the police are unacceptable to nationalists.

It's this integrity possessed by the SDLP that will ensure their proposals will recieve a far fairer hearing from the moderate unionists needed to win a border poll than anything offered by the blood soaked hands of the Republican Movement.

AmenToThat

MT wrote:

Yes, regardless of what you think of their proposals, I think we should all applaud the SDLP for holding firmly to the path of democratic and constitutional politics. Where other parties in NI have strayed they have steadfastly eschewed support for the men of violence.

Is it any wonder many in Sinn Féin loath them so much. The SDLP's good example provides a remarkable contrast to the tyrannical, murderous criminality cult embedded at the heart of the Republican Movement. The SDLP's commitment to peace and human rights gives the lie to SF's narrative of armed struggle as the only option.

Even now they're still managing to ruffle the feathers of their rivals regime by supporting the PSNI and calling for witnesses to contact them. So much for the Shinner's claim that the police are unacceptable to nationalists.

It's this integrity possessed by the SDLP that will ensure their proposals will recieve a far fairer hearing from the moderate unionists needed to win a border poll than anything offered by the blood soaked hands of the Republican Movement.

Given all the above and considering recent events you would think that the SDLP would be gobbling up the SF vote.
The fact that this isnt happening tells me just how far you and indeed most people in the Irish Republic are removed from the thinking of the nationalist community in the six counties and indeed a growing number within the Irish Republic.

Badabing

After watching the politics show on sunday and Jeffrey Donaldson in particular i hope sf/sdlp get together and have a single nationlist candidate in a couple of seats, no matter how much the dup and uup disagree they still don't want any nationalists getting seats if they can help it

gurramok

A quote from news story says the following:
The threshold for a united Ireland must be a majority of the people in Northern Ireland voting for it rather than unionists consenting to unification, according to the SDLP

Surely this is more alarming and hardline than the SF position for a united Ireland in that a mere majority of numbers is needed as unionists wont need to be consented even if they are in a minority !

A Dub in Glasgo

I assume that is the inverse position to what happens today regarding the union?

MT

AmenToThat wrote:

Given all the above and considering recent events you would think that the SDLP would be gobbling up the SF vote.
The fact that this isnt happening tells me just how far you and indeed most people in the Irish Republic are removed from the thinking of the nationalist community in the six counties and indeed a growing number within the Irish Republic.

Considering that there hasn't yet been an election in which Sinn Féin and the SDLP have competed for votes I fail to see how you can make such a claim. Hows about actually waiting until the forthcoming UK general election before deciding how the electorate have percieved recent events.

Or do certain Sinn Féin apologists believe they can now simply divine the wishes of the people without the need for a ballot? No need for a vote: you'll tell us what we think instead, eh?

Careful now, or you might give us reason to suspect a totalitarian mindset.

MT

Dermot Ahern was at the release and he delivered this biting criticism in response to Sinn Féin’s calls for a similar green paper on the subject from the Irish government:

"Like the snake-oil salesmen of the American west, the proponents of a Green Paper advance it as a panacea for all our ills. It is not."

"Those advancing it are in fact impeding the drive towards unity by distracting attention from the immediate priorities of getting the institutions of the [ Belfast] Agreement back to full working order, including the concomitant North/South dimension and the justice, equality and policing reforms," he said.

"I want to stress that we already have the template [ for Irish unity] - it's called the Good Friday agreement. That agreement is backed by a popular 32-county vote. Its mandate is bigger than any one party. Only those who are working to implement the agreement have credibility on unity," Mr Ahern added.

He said that as a "republican my main personal and political goal is the unity of Ireland" but that it could not be achieved by violence. "For Fianna Fáil, the democratic political goal of a united Ireland is at the heart of our republican perspective. Our project did not end in 1923.

"Our project held, and still holds that unity by armed force would - at best - transfer nationalist isolation and alienation on to unionists. At worst it would threaten the lives of tens of thousands of fellow Irish men and women. We believe Connolly was right when he said that 'Ireland without her people means nothing to me'." He said the agreement represented the clear will of the Irish people, and "no republican can impede that will".

"Our bottom line is this - unity down the barrel of a gun, unity through intimidation, aggression, murder, cannot work. Anyone clinging to those means is impeding the path to unity. Any such group or party cannot claim to be republican," he added.

Unity could not be achieved unless nationalist Ireland started focusing on the future and not the past. He said Irish republicanism has always been "of its time" and "whatever about the past - in today's democratic world violence for political purposes is simply unacceptable".

"While the alienation and isolation of the past should never be forgotten, rather than be immobilised by a divisive past we need to focus on a shared future. We must stop describing the present with reference to the conflict and the simple dichotomies of the past - Catholic versus Protestant, Irish versus English."

From The Irish Times via the Slugger O’Toole website

MT

Another interesting comment piece on this development from John A Murphy writing in the Sunday Independent:

Who really wants and needs a united Ireland?

THE political unity of the country has always been an essential tenet of Irish nationalism, and the expressed objective of our political parties in the South. Fine Gael, for example, used to have (still has?) the subtitle, "United Ireland".

The first national aim of the Fianna Fail party at its foundation in 1926 was "to secure the unity and independence of Ireland as a republic". That has recently been rephrased - in accordance with the reconciliatory spirit of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) - to read: "To secure in peace and agreement the unity of Ireland and its people". That is also the sentiment of the new Article 3 of our Constitution.

Now, it is fair to say that for most people and politicians in the South the notion of unity has always been likely aspirational, in Conor Cruise O'Brien's phrase, and we lose little sleep over the first national aim. We would be very happy if both sides in the North would sort out their ancient conflict and get out of our hair. Indeed, that was the main reason we enthusiastically endorsed the GFA by referendum.

Not surprisingly, Northern nationalists see things differently. Their representatives have recently stepped up pressure on the South to take the unity aspiration more seriously. Sinn Fein wants the Government to issue a Green Paper or discussion document within a year, setting out proposals for "a united, free and independent Ireland". (The implication here is that our flawed partitionist State is neither free nor independent.)

Though SF are supposed to have a new understanding about the need for unionist consent to a united Ireland, their rhetoric still tends to be old style anti-partitionist. Just listen to Arthur Morgan or Martin Ferris referring to "Crown forces in the occupied six counties", or young Shinners at the recent Ard Fheis expressing "Brits out" sentiments, or Gerry Adams talking to the "Friends of SF" in the US about the Irish freedom struggle. It's as though the GFA had never happened.

Not to be outdone by SF and in an attempt to recover some of its vote in the forthcoming Westminster elections, the SDLP came out last Monday with its own unity proposals. "A referendum on unity should be held once the Agreement's institutions have bedded down and are operating stably" - whenever that will be!

We think of the SDLP as the sensible, moderate, Northern nationalist party, the sane alternative to SF, but listen to this: "There must be a united Ireland if a majority in the North votes in favour. We cannot agree with Gerry Adams that unionist, 'consent and assent' would be required." In other words, the SDLP would be prepared to push for a united Ireland in the teeth of unionist opposition! In their desperate electoral situation, have they gone mad?

Both the SF and SDLP proposals have an unbelievably bland attitude towards unionists. "Achieving a united Ireland will require the persuasion of some unionists and the reassurance of many others," says the SDLP, before going on airily and illogically to assert that, "having persuaded unionists of the merits of the GFA, the party is convinced that we can persuade in favour of unity also". With similar unrealistic nonchalance, Martin McGuinness talks about "continuing to engage unionists".

Both parties claim their proposals pose no threat to unionists. SF has long held that unionists have no need to fear for their rights and liberties in a united Ireland. This flies in the face of reality. Apart from experiencing a sustained assault on their rights and liberties during the IRA terror campaign, the unionists by definition are not interested in maintaining these rights outside the United Kingdom. Talk about persuading unionists is a pipe dream. Having resisted both blandishment and terror all along, and having accepted the compromise of the GFA only reluctantly in 1998, why should they now want to seriously consider Irish unity?

As I read it, the GFA, while allowing for all parties to cherish their different aspirations, firmly places the Agreement's provisions within the existing UK framework. It was the assurance of constitutional security that made unionist acceptance of the Agreement possible. We are always reminded that trust is of the essence in reaching and keeping accords. To regard the GFA as "work in progress" (SF) or as a basis for a united Ireland (SDLP), is to rush fences and subvert the rationale of the Agreement. Unionists were assured that there would be nothing sinister about cross-Border co-operation, but the effect of these nationalist and republican proposals would be to make Trojan horses out of North-South bodies.

The SDLP also proposes that the GFA would still operate in a united Ireland, guaranteeing unionist rights. The Assembly, for example, would continue, but under the supervision of Dublin, not London. This is unrealistic old hat. Seventy years ago, among Eamon de Valera's various solutions to partition was the idea of a regional Stormont transferring its allegiance from London to Dublin. But this never washed with unionists since it ignored the essence of the unionist position.

The SF document wants presidential elections extended to the six counties of Northern Ireland, and seats for Northern elected representatives in the Oireachtas. Similar proposals were put forward by Northern nationalists in the 1930s and later by Clann na Poblachta. Eddie Mac Ateer of Derry wanted ' "my seat in the Dail".

Fianna Fail set its face firmly against such creeping-unification in the past, and it should continue to do so. These proposals are unconstitutional, they would amount to representation without taxation for the Northern electorate, they would again subvert the GFA, and they would create - indeed, are intended to create - tensions, confusion and instability. Our deputies and senators should jealously guard their chambers against such encroachments. In any case, when the institutions of the Agreement are restored, Northern elected representatives will not be short of legitimate fora in which to express their national concerns.

WHO really wants a united Ireland at this time? Not as many as you might think. A recent ERSI survey revealed that while (not surprisingly) 88 per cent of Northern protestants wished to remain in the UK, more than a third of Northern Catholics don't want a united Ireland. Only 55 per cent of the Republic's Catholics favour unification; this figure would drop dramatically if they reflected on the costs of unity in terms of higher taxation and loyalist terrorist subversion.

Who really needs a united Ireland? The restoration of the Northern Assembly and executive and the full implementation of the Agreement are enormous tasks and should be the only goal. A working Agreement, disbandment of the IRA and loyalist gangs, and demilitarisation would bring about a situation where reconciliation might begin to take root and where the physical Border would matter even less than it does now.

It will be time enough to talk about unification by consent after all that development begins to flourish. In the meantime, a revival of irredentist rhetoric is menacing and counterproductive.

It is also potentially destabilising for us in the South. Contrary to longstanding and anti-partitionist propaganda, this Republic has achieved prosperity in spite of, or rather because of, partition. Among the factors that have made the State attractive to inward investment, and thus to remarkable economic achievement, is our political stability. That would be undermined by the attempted incorporation of hostile loyalists and ungovernable "republicans". The latter would see unity from the standpoint of "an insurrectionary community" which would want much more than the mere addition of the North to the Republic.

Neither could this State afford to keep both Northern sides in the financial comfort to which they have become accustomed by the British exchequer.

Interestingly, the media response to the new wave of unification proposals has been underwhelming. They are seen as being primarily for Northern consumption, competing electoral bids for the support of Northern nationalists. The SDLP document, published last Monday, didn't even get a mention on Tuesday's Morning Ireland. Similarly, the Government has treated Albert Reynolds's backing for the SF document with indifference, to say the least.

All our politicians should take an unambiguous stand along the lines argued in this article. (Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern gave the unfortunate impression in a Sunday Independent interview on March 6 that he saw the GFA as the best way to advance his "agenda of Irish unity"). And why, incidentally, should he have denounced the SF proposals as "a red herring" while welcoming the SDLP document as "timely and significant"?

Politicians who refuse to pay lip service to these unification proposals will be branded as partitionist. But the best framework for advancing the cause of peace and reconciliation on this island is the constitutional status quo. To be partitionist is to be patriotic.

John A Murphy is Emeritus Professor of Irish History at UCC

MT

^^comment on the above^^

One of the most interesting points he raises here is what appears to be yet another fall in support for unity amongst the southern electorate. If, as the ESRI survey states, only 55% of Catholics in the south support unification then the chances of a vote in favour in a border poll are surely much less likely than were previously thought. I must say, I find this particular figure startling. It's often said that in the abstract nature of an opinion poll - though this may not have been the method employed to collate the data - support for Irish unity would in all likely hood be over stated. In contrast, when in the voting booth factors such as the cost, increased risk of insecurity, etc. would way heavily on voters minds and consequently cause many to balk at the proposition. So, if only 55% support a united Ireland in theory, how many would vote for it in a real ballot? Looks like it could take more than just persuading the unionists in the north.

Furthermore, if this is part of a decreasing trend, are we only a decade or so away from when polls will show a majority in the Republic against unity? I'll have to do some research into this ESRI survey - will post more titbits of interest if I find any.

Finally, another area of interest he covers briefly is the disparity in sentiment between northern nationalists and the southern populace. This is something you could probably do a thesis on but one clear recurrent clash is in attitudes to the state. Setting aside NI, while southerners might see the Irish Republic as a great democratic and economic success, northerners at best probably take a more wistful view: an entity that can easily be dispensed with when the ultimate goal of a new all-Ireland state presents itself. Too easily, I'd suggest for those 'free staters' who have, in comparison to most of the rest of the globe, achieved the all too rare accomplishment of stable democracy and prosperity. When they already have it so good, the appropriate phrase might be 'careful what you wish for'.

A Dub in Glasgo

MT wrote:

Another interesting comment piece on this development from John A Murphy writing in the Sunday Independent:

What is so intesting about a revisionist historian saying a UI is no good? Good grief man, JAM is even ashamed of Easter week!

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What is so intesting about a revisionist historian saying a UI is no good?

Would it be a lot to ask that you refute the article on its merits, rather than saying, in effect: "it disagrees with my worldview - boring!" You may not agree with its conclusions, but it's well-argued and -presented. If you think he's wrong, refute him.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Good grief man, JAM is even ashamed of Easter week!

How do you go about being ashamed of a week? (I don't see any reference to this in the quoted article.)

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

Would it be a lot to ask that you refute the article on its merits, rather than saying, in effect: "it disagrees with my worldview - boring!" You may not agree with its conclusions, but it's well-argued and -presented. If you think he's wrong, refute him.

It would be a lot. I asked what is so interesting about producing a verbatim article from the newspaper. As I was posting that, MT posted his view on why it was interesting.

I am merely of the opinion that there is nothing surprising about JAM dissing a UI. No surprises there if you have ever read his previous stuff.

MT if you wish to have your posts there split off to a separate topic, then pm me-otherwise,I'd like this to stay on topic please.

ADIG if you dont want to discuss the previous posters points, then the simplest cleanest way is not to reply, rather than running in with a comment dissing the author of an article without detail.