From: Eamonn Gormley <E.P.Gormley@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Organization: Massey University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 06:08:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.132914.8767@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> Matthew Huntbach,
mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk writes:
>Yes, this is the point I was making. You can't have
>power-sharing if one side refuses to share power, and the
>current Unionist parties which receive the majority of votes in
>NI have their origin in those Unionists who refused to go along
>with the power-sharing agreement of 1974. Those Unionist who
>supported power-sharing remained in the rump "Unionist Party of
>Northern Ireland" which is yet another moderate political party
>in Ni which dwindled away because no-one voted for it.
>
 If you look at the history of the thing, you will
>find that the notion that it was deliberately and schemingly set
>up by the "wicked English" in order to put as many nationalists
>under Unionist domination as possible is wrong. 

>It appears to be a genuine quick compromise solution that wasn't really
>thought through and was envisaged as a temporary measure.

 With respect any initiative on NI, your last sentence must be the
understatement of the century, true as it is.  What I would be interested
to hear from you, is what the unionists forsee as the long term permanent
solution? From the republican point of view the goals have been stated
clearly and often enough. The aim is to remove the British presence by
'the ballot box and/or the armalite' come what may.  What happens after
that is not really clear to anyone, probably because the great day (!) is
still a long way off.   The more moderate nationalist opinion while
aspiring to an united Ireland, might accept a compromise solution
(whatever that may be) which would guarantee them fundamental rights,
power sharing, etc,  denied to them for so long under unionist power. 
The extreme loyalists have no obvious political agenda (if they do, then
they need to change their PR agency), and their policy of sectarian
killings  reassures (that's how they would see it) the unionsist
community that if they ever needed to be defended militarily, then the
organisation is already in place.  Of course, the main consequence of
this policy is that it drives many moderate nationalists into the
protection of the republican groups, whom they see as the only ones
prepared to defend them ( which is probably true). And so the cycle of
sectarian violence is continued.  

 All of this leaves the bulk of the population, i.e the moderate
unionists (would non-extremists be a better term to describe some of
them?). Or more to the point, the combined unionist leadership 
representing the various strands of unionism.  Rightly or wrongly, the
impression given is that their political agenda is based on their
favourite slogan 'NO'.   No surrender, No to Sunningdale, No to the
Anglo-Irish Agreement, No to unilateral decisions from London, No to
Dublin involvement in NI affairs, No to all party discussions, No to open
discussion on possible agendas, even No to the devil's brew ( Paisley's
reason to refuse an interview by a Dublin Journalist whose breath he
suspected was smelling of Guinness). Although the answer is undoubtly
complicated, the question is simple, what would make them say 'Yes' ? 
Are they relatively content with the political deadlock, now that the
Anglo-Agreement is not the 'evil' that they imagined? Would further talk
of a sell out by the British government simply allow them to play the
Orange card and guarantees their safe seats?  

The one thing that might scare them is a unilateral decision such as
Damien decsribes.  However, their non-partcipation would probably render
it unworkable.  In any event, it would leave room for the extreme
loyalists to jump to the forefront.  So, it seems that the best way for
them to keep control is just to sit tight and refuse to  address the
problems or take part in talks to solve them.  They must take heart when
they hear successive British governments talk about 'acceptable levels of
violence' As long as it remains at this level, the losers are the
nationalists and the ordinary unionists.  The winners appear to be the
unionist leadership.
  Phew.. after all that,  Matthew, if you can understand and explain the
unionists  apparent (lack of) initiative (s) and their vision of a future
NI, I would be interested to hear it, because I certainly can't.
                                Eamonn

>
>Matthew Huntbach





 *******************************************
 *Eamonn Gormley,  E-mail, E.P.Gormley@massey.ac.nz *
 *******************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic