A can of worms? Leave it to Leo

Leo Varadkar , the south’s Transport Minister, is generally regarded as seriously right-wing. So I’m not sure what he was thinking of when he told journalists that he was in favour of votes for the Irish diaspora. “I like the idea of the President being the President of the Irish people and the Irish nation. We would like to extend voting rights to all Irish citizens”. 

He then added two highly significant points.  “I would favour it for people who are only out of the country for a short period of time - maybe say they’re gone a year or two, But I don’t think people who are gone a long time should vote for our parliament.”

What nice Leo is saying is that the diaspora vote would have to have boundaries - you couldn’t have some paddy who’d arrived in New York circa 1957 lining up to vote in an Irish election in a couple of years' time. The second and more significant point here is that he’s talking not just about the presidential election but elections to the Dail.

“So what?” you may say. “I’m not part of the diaspora - I live in the north”. Yes indeed. And can you see a circumstance where emigrants are allowed to vote for the President while people from the north are not? Unsustainable - totally unsustainable. Not even a Sindo columnist could twist that one into something credible. And supposing those of us in the north had a vote in the last Presidential election: you don’t think that would have affected the outcome? For a start, all those people in the north who vote Sinn Féin would almost certainly have thrown their weight behind Martin McGuinness. That’s a lot of votes and a lot of weights.

Then there’s the unionist factor (which Leo diplomatically doesn’t mention either). Had people in the north been allowed to vote for who should be President of Ireland, would they have abstained with disdain? Or would they have voted to make sure that McGuinness didn’t get the job? Alternatively, would they have voted so he did get the job, since it’s generally acknowledged that McGuinness is one of the most popular politicians in the north, and not just among republicans. 

And finally, supposing Leo’s dream became reality and “all Irish citizens” had a vote for Dail Eireann. Would that swell or diminish the ranks of Sinn Féin in the Dail? I think you know the answer to that one. But even more intriguing is, what would unionists do? At first glance, you might think they’d declare they didn’t vote in foreign elections and ignore the whole thing. Maybe better take a second glance. The kind of government south of the border has always been important for the north, whether it’s tourism or ‘terrorism’ that’s at issue. There’d be several good reasons why unionists should cast a vote that would make the complexion of the Dail closer to their taste. On the other hand, that would mean unionists when they voted for the Dail were part of an all-Ireland electorate. Which would leave one big question:  whither Stormont?

I wonder if Leo knows how big is the an of worms he’s just unzipped? You know, the odd thing is I think he does. 

That Border poll: who's right?

When I was interviewing Gregory Campbell for my book he made an interesting point regarding unionism. He said that when the south of Ireland was riding high ten years ago, unionists weren’t interested in a re-united Ireland; now that they are a bankrupt state  unionists still aren’t interested. In short, he said, economics had nothing to do with the matter. 

That’s a parallel but different track from the line that Peter Robinson has been taking of late. His argument that many Catholics are now happy to remain within the UK - that is, have become unionist - is because they have no wish to associate with the bankrupt republic to the south. In other words, they know which side their bread is buttered on. They want to stay in the union with Britain for economic reasons.

To sum up: unionists/Protestants simply can’t be bought - their commitment to Britain is total and unchanging. Nationalists/Catholics, however, can be bought - their commitment to a re-united Ireland is partial and dependent on material prosperity. 

Do you believe that? I don’t.  Certainly the past 400 years seem to give a different answer. But who knows? Times change.

Interestingly, today’s Irish Times  reports that Sinn Féin over the coming weeks will launch a campaign for a Border poll on a re-united Ireland. And the man who says that many Catholics/nationalists are now happy to be part of the UK, that less than 10% of people here want a re-united country,  says there’s no justification for such a poll and that it would only deepen division. 

Odd, that. The man who calls for a poll - Gerry Adams - is doing so in the teeth of polls suggesting it would be lost by nationalists/republicans. Why is that? Does he just want to put a re-united Ireland on the agenda? The man who’s opposed to a poll - Peter Robinson -  is convinced it would be won with a spanking majority by Protestant + Catholic unionists. Why is that? Does he want to avoid eye-balling the gorilla in the room? 

One teensy footnote: The Irish Times  today also reports Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore as predicting that a ‘post-recession’  south will emerge by the end of this year. “I believe there is going to be a commitment and understanding in Europe that the EU needs a winner to come out of a bail-out programme. Ireland is the best placed to do that”.

So supposing he’s right and the south starts to recover. What implications for a border poll would that have, especially among the finances-fixated Catholics/nationalists?  We live in interesting times.

Nervous look over shoulder at 2012

OK, January 1. Time to look back at what was lost and what was won. 

On second thoughts, the hell with that. Read back issues of the papers if you want that. I’ll give you what I see as the most significant event in the year: the census figures.

Last time -  2001 - we had a census up here, there was much breath-holding. It was figured the Catholic population would make a seismic leap ( and you know the size of leap a seism can make). I consulted a number of experts in advance of the figures coming out. Oh yes, definitely, this will be a game-changer. If memory serves (and it’s getting lazier all the time), my old chum Brian Feeney from the VO bet a bottle of champagne (they’re a classy lot at the VO - always were) that the figures would be, um, seismic or something. He lost. When the figures were announced, Catholics had increased in number but nowhere near what the experts had confidently predicted. 

This year, the figures were down-played in advance, probably because no one likes looking like an arse twice in a row.  And this time they were seismic. Protestant population down by 5%, Catholic population up by 1%.  Which leaves Protestants a minority in the state founded as a Protestant state for a Protestant people. If this last census’s figures were replicated in seven years time,  Catholics would have a 3% majority. 

“So what?” you say. “It’s clear that old-fashioned ideas like Catholics voting for nationalist candidates and Protestants voting for unionist candidates is completely out-of-date. Things are more complex, fluid now. Get with the programme”. 

Funny, I never heard much about this many-Catholics-love-being-in-the-UK until a short while before figures were released, and the claims for same were led by Peter Robinson, not until now known as a reader of nationalist sentiment or intentions. Of course Peter had previous - a few months earlier, he had appealed for a single education system. This of course had nothing to do with the firm majority of Catholics now attending schools in the north.

“Northern Irish” -  that’s the flag around which somewhat nervous unionists have rallied. It’s all change now, because 21% of people described themselves as ‘Northern Irish’ and only a quarter described themselves as ‘Irish’. Oh, and an awful lot of Catholics/nationalists carry a British passport. Sorry, guys. You can skip the passport one. The British model is much cheaper and more easily available here in the north; and ticking the ‘Northern Irish’ box means just that - it doesn’t mean “I’m really glad I live in the UK”. And it certainly doesn’t mean I’ll vote NO in a referendum for a re-united Ireland.

So that’s my significant event over the past year. Sectarian head-counting? Attempting to out-breed rather than out-bomb? Call it what you will: it could well be that the 100th anniversary of the creation of this state will also mark the date of its funeral. 

Happy New Year, all.

You murder, he kills, I clear the area

Either a number of commentators - notably from the Indo - are strangers to some of the grimmer facts of life,  or they are pretending to be shocked and horrified when they’re not. What am I talking about? I’m talking about Dessie Ellis.

Mr Ellis is a Sinn Féin TD who has never, as far as I know, made any secret of his former membership of the IRA. For several decades the IRA was engaged in a conflict/war/terrorist campaign (take your pick) against the RUC, the UDR and other British armed forces in the north. What happens in conflicts/wars/terrorist campaigns is that people try to kill each other. Put like that it sounds brutal and it is brutal. You might even say barbaric. But that’s what happens in conflicts/wars/terrorist campaigns. The winners are the ones who do the most killing or threaten to do the most killing ( cf Lloyd George’s threat of ‘terrible and immediate war’ in 1921). 

Now British documents hitherto under wraps allege that Mr Ellis was involved  in over fifty “murders” during the conflict/war/terrorist campaign in the north.  I’m not sure what Mr Ellis’s role in the IRA was, but it’s generally accepted that he played a prominent part. And since conflicts/wars/terrorist campaigns involve by their nature killings or attempted killings, the allegation could be true. Except, of course,  that conflicts/wars/terrorist campaigns don’t usually term the object of the exercise as “murder”.  We don’t say “President Truman ordered the murder of 255,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima”  or “Winston Churchill arranged for the murder of 25,000 Germans in Dresden” or “Between them, George Bush and Barack Obama used drone bombs to murder 2680 people, including 173 children” or “Opposition forces in Syria today murdered 18 state soldiers”. 

That’s because we don’t always disapprove of killing. We use “murder” when we want to say we disapprove, but we say ‘take out’  as in ‘Americans took out Osama bin Laden’, when we don’t think the killing was too bad an idea. When we think that the killing was a very good idea, of course, we pin ribbons and medals on the chests of the men who did the killing. Sometimes we erect statues to them.

My point? That when Indo writers such as Fiach Kelly  talk about Dessie Ellis and alleged  murder, they  mean that they disapprove of the IRA campaign in the 1970s and 1980s. Which most of us already knew. Had they been talking about the IRA campaign of Michael Collins in the second decade of the last century or the Arab Spring last year or countless other conflicts,  it’s a safe bet they would have used another word and shown considerably less moral outrage.  

I say, there's a duke outside...

The release of historical papers at this time is always interesting. Sometimes we find that politicians were swearing themselves blind that X was the case while privately confiding in others that the case was definitely Y.  There’s an ethical term for it: lying. 

The release of papers relating to the 1981 hunger strike are  particularly interesting for a number of details that emerge. That John Hume wasn’t too keen on Charlie Haughey and preferred Dessie O’Malley (although you could probably have worked that one out for yourself).  That Thatcher was flexible on the Falklands, while presenting her best Iron Maiden side to the public. And that Irish civil servants were warning the Fine Gael-Labour government to avoid having their views on the Hunger Strike match with those of republicans. This, Garret Fitzgerald was warned, could pose “real and urgent dangers” because prisoners in the south might join the hunger strike. “What if Portlaoise erupts?” his civil servants asked him.

But the two I like best are those involving the Catholic Church. The Pope apparently sent a personal message telling Sands it was his duty as a Catholic to come off the Hunger Strike. Sands responded by saying he’d suspend it for five days if the British engaged in negotiations. The British reported this by telling the Irish government that Sands “had not responded” to the Pope’s demand.  Only when questioned further did they  concede that  when they said Sands had “not responded” they meant that he had not agreed to the Pope’s demand. See what I mean about public face and private reality? And what we ethicists  call ‘lying’?

The other  (I don’t know whether to laugh or weep here) was the visit to Long Kesh of the Duke of Norfolk, apparently the top Catholic in the British nobility. He spoke to several hunger-strikers, trying to use his Catholicism as a lever to end the fast. Fr Tom Toner, a chaplain to Long Kesh prisoners at the time, to his eternal credit, wrote to the Duke:  "Your attitude and views caused unnecessary hardship for a family already bewildered and distressed by the imminent death of their son”.  When the Duke received this message, it caused, we're told, "his hackles to rise". Hello, I’m British but I’m a Catholic Duke, you chaps really should stop all this and let's have no backchat from the padres either, please. 

You couldn’t make it up. 

On lop-sidedness and neutrality

Don't shoot the messenger but do have a look at his/her track-record. I'm fresh and panting from the Nolan Show look back at the year that was in it, and he has (or had - it's taped) four commentators on. They were Alex Kane, Finola Meredith, Andrea McVeigh and  Denis Murray.  Now the theory is that all commentators here come at events from a detached viewpoint which allows them to see the Truth, unlike other people who are mired in prejudice and one-sidedness. To which I would reply with a rude word only I'm working up to going off swearing for the New Year. Let's not say we had four unionist commentators  but let's say we had no sign of a commentator with a nationalist perspective. It's a bit like the British-identity thing - what we've been taught to accept is that a civilized unionist perspective is the decent, unbiased view to take and all else has the whiff of cordite to it. By the way I'm arguing this on purely political stance - I've met and talked with all of the above and I've found them pleasant, friendly people of considerable intelligence. So I promise you there are no old personal grudges involved here or sour grapes.

On the other hand, I may be doing them an injustice. I listened to only the first twenty minutes or so. The topic under discussion was  unionist working-class alienation. We heard several views - that the press and commentators treated them unfairly, that the flag was the last straw, that their educational under-achievement is holding them back, that Catholics (read that as nationalist, please) have a sense of coherence, discipline because of their religious background, whereas unionist tend to be much more fragmented because of their religious background. There could be some truth in that, although I really get good and growly when I hear people talking about Protestants and Catholics when in a great number of cases they aren't Protestants or Catholics. But the one thing I didn't hear discussed - maybe they got to it later - was that the flag-protest people were called onto the streets by the two unionist leaders, Robinson and Nesbit, Robinson with the clear intention of doing some political damage to Naomi Long. Odd, that. You'd think people talking about the Big Picture would have included that. Or maybe you had the stamina to keep listening and they did?

Anyway, my main point is simple: whereas you'll get commentators galore who are either frankly unionist or implicitly unionist, you'll search fairly hard before you'll get a committed republican or even nationalist commentator on the air. It's true, y'know. It's not just the Yuletide booze talking.

It's a question of respect

Well, that's breakfast done. Verging on abstemious to leave room for what is to follow. Here in Beckenham the rain has been PISSING down during the night - eased off a bit at the moment but dark and threatening. No matter: I have That Speech to look forward to. Needless to say there are  people lacking the respect that is required for proper reception of The Speech (see http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/22587). How sad, that  seditious elements should fail to adopt a properly respectful posture for  The Woman that Ireland-  North, South, East and West - was so filled with delight to receive not so long ago. What a pity the Eire president could not find himself capable of delivering a similar speech to his subjects ...sorry, citizens.  Or maybe it's better not - he wouldn't suit a tiara.

That said, enough already. The day beckons. There is a light in the east. Enjoy.