From: mbrennan@bbn.com (Maeve Brennan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Economist Article On Irish Election
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:32:59 GMT
Reply-To: mbrennan@spcink.bbn.com (Maeve Brennan)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <92353.170236RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>In article <lisehgINN43n@news.bbn.com>, mbrennan@bbn.com (Maeve Brennan) says:
>>Articles 2 and 3 have no practical merit, only symbolic.  I am in favour
>>of removing them from the Irish constitution since they are understandably
>>
>>Furthermore, it is consistent with the Anglo-Irish agreement which
>>the Irish government signed:
>>
>>
>How exactly to you see the points being in conflict with Articles 2 and 3?
>

Articles 2 and 3 asserts an undeniable right over the 32 counties,
whereas the points in the Anglo-Irish agreement are much softer 
in tone, recognising and respecting the wishes of the majority
of the inhabitants of NI to remain in the UK.

Since my original posting, I've read some PD election material,
which advocates revising (rather than deleting) Articles 2 and 3 to 
expressing an *aspiration* to an united Ireland.  Perhaps this idea
would work best?

>It may be just selective memory on my part, or possibly biased reporting in
>the Irish media, but Articles 2 and 3 weren't even on the Unionist agenda
>when the Anglo Irish Agreement was signed.
>

I don't know about this.  You'd have to look it up.  I only took steps 
to deal my ignorance on NI in 1988.  As somebody else posted in an 
earlier article, a great many southern Irish people don't really think 
about NI, which results in a great deal of ignorance.

In 1988, I watched the Orange day celebrations in Belfast, and one of the
traditional bonfires in Sandy Row the night before.  The Irish flag
was at the top of the bonfire, and I was taken aback with the mighty
cheer its burning aroused, even if much of it was in good fun.  
 
(As a Southerner, I was surprised to find out that the 12 July is quite
a family day out, though I was sufficiently intimidated by the 
proceedings to keep my southern accent to myself.)

I wondered why these people wished ill on the South.  IRA violence aside.
Perhaps it's because they feel the South is pressing on its borders?
They can listen and watch RTE radio and television, and occasionally
hear ordinary southerners express a desire for Irish unity.  In 1980
(about) I remember an RTE programme which visited a Fianna Fail cumann, 
where the cumann members expressed their desires for a united Ireland.
When asked what their reaction was to Northern unionists who didn't
wish to be part of a united Ireland, they responded by saying "too bad,
they'll have to get used to it" (or words to that affect).

Reading the Irish newspapers recently after the election, I read that
the DUP didn't think much of Dick Spring because he didn't discipline
one of his TDs who said that Northern protestants should return to 
Britain if a united Ireland was achieved.  The DUP also indicated their
desire for the removal of Articles 2 and 3, and suggested that it
be raised at the next Anglo-Irish talks.

So is it unreasonable that Unionists perceive the Irish Republic
pressing on its borders?  Do Articles 2 & 3 contribute to this
perception?


>
>But I'm prepared to bet that when the Reverend Ian compared Articles 2 and
>3 to Hitlers claim on various bits of pre-war Europe, he was not articulating
>long held opinions of Northern Unionists. I'm fairly sure he was digging up
>new dirt in an attempt at rabble-rousing.
>

Speaking of Ian Paisley.  I saw him preach in the center of Belfast,
and was surprised so few people stopped to listen to him.  Only visiting
tourists.  Admittedly he was preaching the gospel rather than politics.  

I suggest amending Articles 2 & 3 not necessarily to appease Ian
Paisley.  Rather those people who vote for him.

>And this not to say that unionists don't have a genuine fear of being
>submerged in a United Ireland. That fear may be quite genuine, though
>whether it's rational is open to debate. But people who suggest that
>deleteing Articles 2 & 3 will do anything concrete to alleviate that
>fear, are at best, misguided.
>

I should think that the fear of being forced into a united Ireland is 
genuine, but is it well grounded?  The IRA is pursuing the goal of
a united Ireland through violence.  That is one reason for fear.  The
British government is talking with the Irish government, when originally
(in the seventies) the British government maintained NI 
was an internal matter.

Somebody responding to my earlier post, asked why it was that ordinary
unionists voted for extraordinary unionist politicians (DUP types, such
as Ian Paisley).  Well I don't know why this is.  Perhaps it reflects
the genuine fear held by ordinary Unionists?  I have read that one of 
the ways the DUP gained electoral support is by preying on the fears 
of unionists.  The DUP hardly existed before 1969.

I do believe that deleting/re-writing Articles 2 & 3 would contribute
to reducing Unionist fears, though I may be misguided along with the
PDs and Fine Gael.  Reduction in fear or suspicion is a difficult
thing to measure or quantify.  But as I said in my earlier posting, 
anything Southerners can do to reduce Northern suspicion and fear 
is a good thing.

>I would be interested in hearing how the "ordinary unionist" views these
>articles, and also in hearing how that view has changed over the last 5 to
>ten years. The week before christmas is probably the worst possible time to
>post such a request, though, as many of the potential audience are likley
>to be away home for a while.
>

I've seen very few postings (if any) on the Net from anybody from an
NI unionist background.  I'd also be interested to see unionist
opinion presented here.

> The other important aspect of this issue is how the nationalist community
> in Northern Ireland would be affected by any such change. I think it's

I agree that this is important.  So perhaps the PD idea of changing the
tone of articles 2 & 3 to an aspiration would be agreeable to both
communities?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic