It’s odd seeing a man who has pretensions to be some sort of green progressive king of the world recoil from being actual king of part of his realm. The truth is the British establishment is not just deeply uncomfortable with being associated with Northern Ireland, it’s deeply uncomfortable with large sections of the English too. The new British elite is staunchly globalist.
At face value, Sinn Fein shouldn’t fit well into this new world order. After all, they’re Irish nationalists, right? Yet O’Neill’s republicanism is now just electoral theatre. Sinn Fein’s planned programme for government in Ireland adopts the full globalist policy set from net zero to open borders. A Sinn Fein government will follow the exact same path as the UK and wider EU. It might be a coincidence, but O’Neill repeatedly refers to our “common purpose”.
And that’s why O’Neill attended the crowning of the globalist king. They’re of a kind with a shared agenda almost completely at odds with the purpose of the institutions they lead. Welcome to our modern topsy turvy world where men are women and nationalists are globalists.
Some might contend you lack confidence NC. One can be patriotic and inter-nationalist. One can be a Man or a Woman and remain confident current student politics twaddle on gender will settle and a bedrock of common-sense with kindness win out.
As regards NI – DUP/TVA are plagued by nostalgia for a return to the one party state of Craig, Brooke and a previous O’Neill. That’s gone for ever and thank goodness too. A Coronation will trigger such melancholic pangs.
This statement is too glib; it depends what you mean by ‘internationalist’ and whose position ultimately prevails in any conflict between national and international interests, as conflict there will inevitably be. The question never answered by pro EU people: do you ultimately want Ireland, France or whatever to be reduced to the subordinate status of Alabama? The only way the EU can become democratic is for a federal super state to be finally created. The problem is only a small minority actually recognise that as their country, so there is no polity in which democracy can meaningfully function -Germans and Poles live in very different societies with different priorities. So we have the situation where the ‘internationalists’ frequently say that the electorates views must be trumped by the interests of the EU as a whole.
Somewhat narrow view there of internationalism AF. But nonetheless just to point out their are 27 countries still in the EU. Since 2016’s Brexit vote zero have left and those applying to join have continued those applications, the latest being Ukraine as everyone aware. Your argument is reductive, whereas the converse is enhancing. And that I think is the key difference in how it’s seen.
In an essay entitled “French and English”, G.K.Chesterton made an important distinction.
“It is obvious that there is a great deal of difference between being international and being cosmopolitan. All good men are international. Nearly all bad men are cosmopolitan. If we are to be international we must be national. And it is largely because those who call themselves the friends of peace have not dwelt sufficiently on this distinction that they do not impress the bulk of any of the nations to which they belong. International peace means a peace between nations, not a peace after the destruction of nations, like the Buddhist peace after the destruction of personality. The golden age of the good European is like the heaven of the Christian: it is a place where people will love each other; not like the heaven of the Hindu, a place where they will be each other. And in the case of national character this can be seen in a curious way. It will generally be found, I think, that the more a man really appreciates and admires the soul of another people the less he will attempt to imitate it; he will be conscious that there is something in it too deep and too unmanageable to imitate. The Englishman who has a fancy for France will try to be French; the Englishman who admires France will remain obstinately English. This is to be particularly noticed in the case of our relations with the French, because it is one of the outstanding peculiarities of the French that their vices are all on the surface, and their extraordinary virtues concealed. One might almost say that their vices are the flower of their virtues.”
Somewhat narrow view there of internationalism AF. But nonetheless just to point out their are 27 countries still in the EU. Since 2016’s Brexit vote zero have left and those applying to join have continued those applications, the latest being Ukraine as everyone aware. Your argument is reductive, whereas the converse is enhancing. And that I think is the key difference in how it’s seen.
In an essay entitled “French and English”, G.K.Chesterton made an important distinction.
“It is obvious that there is a great deal of difference between being international and being cosmopolitan. All good men are international. Nearly all bad men are cosmopolitan. If we are to be international we must be national. And it is largely because those who call themselves the friends of peace have not dwelt sufficiently on this distinction that they do not impress the bulk of any of the nations to which they belong. International peace means a peace between nations, not a peace after the destruction of nations, like the Buddhist peace after the destruction of personality. The golden age of the good European is like the heaven of the Christian: it is a place where people will love each other; not like the heaven of the Hindu, a place where they will be each other. And in the case of national character this can be seen in a curious way. It will generally be found, I think, that the more a man really appreciates and admires the soul of another people the less he will attempt to imitate it; he will be conscious that there is something in it too deep and too unmanageable to imitate. The Englishman who has a fancy for France will try to be French; the Englishman who admires France will remain obstinately English. This is to be particularly noticed in the case of our relations with the French, because it is one of the outstanding peculiarities of the French that their vices are all on the surface, and their extraordinary virtues concealed. One might almost say that their vices are the flower of their virtues.”
Presumably you’re not a native English speaker and may not realise that internationalism isn’t the same as globalism. Internationalism literally means a practice among nations, which definitionally relies on there being nations. Whilst you can be patriotic and internationalist, you certainly cannot be patriotic and globalist.
Similarly, perhaps you’re not living in the EU, UK or USA. Twaddle on gender long ago left student politics and is now law. From prisons to schools, the state demands total conformance to quite revolutionary ideas that run counter to immutable biology.
I didn’t mention the DUP or TVA. Perhaps you are muddled and confused my comment with another.
‘Globalism’ is now just one of those meaningless soundbites that people on this site love to trot out. What does it actually mean and who are the ‘New British Elite’?
As a country we are not remotely self sufficient, as, to be fair, few countries are. We don’t make enough of the the goods we need or produce enough of the food we want to consume so we need to get them from elsewhere. We are also not self-sufficient in energy, so we need to buy this from elsewhere as well.
To enable this a network of different trade deals were set up to make the process cheaper and more efficient. In addition, following the two cataclysmic World Wars in the 20th Century international bodies were set up, with the best of motives, by people who had experienced those wars, to try to prevent this in future.
I don’t know whether you class this as ‘internationalism’ or ‘globalism’ or you’ve got another handy soundbite but unless you have an alternative to this which is realistic, it’s where we are.
RW in mentioning the DUP/TVA was actually referring to the article you were allegedly commenting on and making the salient point that the end of the ‘Protestant State for Protestant People’, which Northern Ireland was designed to be, and was for the first 70 odd years, has left Loyalists feeling fairly lost and trying to find their place in the changed circumstances where their old enemy, Sinn Fein, is the largest party.
As English is my first language I hope it’s understandable but I can use shorter words if that helps.
‘Globalism’ is now just one of those meaningless soundbites that people on this site love to trot out. What does it actually mean and who are the ‘New British Elite’?
As a country we are not remotely self sufficient, as, to be fair, few countries are. We don’t make enough of the the goods we need or produce enough of the food we want to consume so we need to get them from elsewhere. We are also not self-sufficient in energy, so we need to buy this from elsewhere as well.
To enable this a network of different trade deals were set up to make the process cheaper and more efficient. In addition, following the two cataclysmic World Wars in the 20th Century international bodies were set up, with the best of motives, by people who had experienced those wars, to try to prevent this in future.
I don’t know whether you class this as ‘internationalism’ or ‘globalism’ or you’ve got another handy soundbite but unless you have an alternative to this which is realistic, it’s where we are.
RW in mentioning the DUP/TVA was actually referring to the article you were allegedly commenting on and making the salient point that the end of the ‘Protestant State for Protestant People’, which Northern Ireland was designed to be, and was for the first 70 odd years, has left Loyalists feeling fairly lost and trying to find their place in the changed circumstances where their old enemy, Sinn Fein, is the largest party.
As English is my first language I hope it’s understandable but I can use shorter words if that helps.
This statement is too glib; it depends what you mean by ‘internationalist’ and whose position ultimately prevails in any conflict between national and international interests, as conflict there will inevitably be. The question never answered by pro EU people: do you ultimately want Ireland, France or whatever to be reduced to the subordinate status of Alabama? The only way the EU can become democratic is for a federal super state to be finally created. The problem is only a small minority actually recognise that as their country, so there is no polity in which democracy can meaningfully function -Germans and Poles live in very different societies with different priorities. So we have the situation where the ‘internationalists’ frequently say that the electorates views must be trumped by the interests of the EU as a whole.
Presumably you’re not a native English speaker and may not realise that internationalism isn’t the same as globalism. Internationalism literally means a practice among nations, which definitionally relies on there being nations. Whilst you can be patriotic and internationalist, you certainly cannot be patriotic and globalist.
Similarly, perhaps you’re not living in the EU, UK or USA. Twaddle on gender long ago left student politics and is now law. From prisons to schools, the state demands total conformance to quite revolutionary ideas that run counter to immutable biology.
I didn’t mention the DUP or TVA. Perhaps you are muddled and confused my comment with another.
Some might contend you lack confidence NC. One can be patriotic and inter-nationalist. One can be a Man or a Woman and remain confident current student politics twaddle on gender will settle and a bedrock of common-sense with kindness win out.
As regards NI – DUP/TVA are plagued by nostalgia for a return to the one party state of Craig, Brooke and a previous O’Neill. That’s gone for ever and thank goodness too. A Coronation will trigger such melancholic pangs.
In plainer English, what it is you are wishing for or see as “the correct way of things”?
Nell Clover
11 months ago
It’s odd seeing a man who has pretensions to be some sort of green progressive king of the world recoil from being actual king of part of his realm. The truth is the British establishment is not just deeply uncomfortable with being associated with Northern Ireland, it’s deeply uncomfortable with large sections of the English too. The new British elite is staunchly globalist.
At face value, Sinn Fein shouldn’t fit well into this new world order. After all, they’re Irish nationalists, right? Yet O’Neill’s republicanism is now just electoral theatre. Sinn Fein’s planned programme for government in Ireland adopts the full globalist policy set from net zero to open borders. A Sinn Fein government will follow the exact same path as the UK and wider EU. It might be a coincidence, but O’Neill repeatedly refers to our “common purpose”.
And that’s why O’Neill attended the crowning of the globalist king. They’re of a kind with a shared agenda almost completely at odds with the purpose of the institutions they lead. Welcome to our modern topsy turvy world where men are women and nationalists are globalists.
Last edited 11 months ago by Nell Clover
Frank McCusker
11 months ago
I’m a Nationalist from NI. Royal family generally quite liked among our community. TBH, anyone getting too agitated about a monarchy is a crank – it’s just a pretend / performative indignation, like veganism.
Indeed, David Starkey recently published a video where he makes the interesting claim that the UK has long been a republic with a consitutional monarch. Which does seem to be borne out by the fact that his accession had to be endorsed by Parliament.
Back to the article, a couple of points.
NI unionists may indeed be “loyal”. But loyal to what exactly ? They seem to be loyal to a time and place that is in the past and if allowed to have things entirely their own way will anchor the rest of the UK in the past when we may wish to move onwards (well, we did anyway). They seem to be pursuing a model of “rights without responsibilities” – in some ways little different from any other minority group (BLM/extreme trans rights/whatever).
On the other hand, we read this about Sinn Fein: “Somebody who classes themselves as a democrat should not be endorsing and entertaining the most reactionary elements in British politics”.
But hold on a moment. Somebody who “classes themselves as a democrat” should be attending the Westminster Parliament to represent their constituents. That is their job – to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for. That’s democracy. As opposed to gesture politics.
Let’s not forget that after the 1801 Act Of Union, Ireland was properly represented at Westminster. The nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party at one point had 105 MPs. Whenever people try to justify violence in Northern Ireland, let’s just remember that there was always a democratic path open, however imperfect that may have been. Much as female emancipation was achieved without violence in some countries.
But there wasn’t. Look at Scotland. Overwhelmingly elects MPs in favour of (a referendum on) independence but is denied that because it is outnumbered in Westminster. The Irish faced the same reality a 100 years or so ago.
Simply not true. The Irish Nationalists frequently held the balance of power in the House of Commons in the late 1800s. You might recall that the Home Rule Bill actually passed in the House of Commons in 1914.
And Scotland is not “denied a referendum on independence”. Both Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon voluntarily accepted a “once in a generation” (that’s at least 25 years) referendum on independence. They got exactly what they asked for. They lost. They’ve now demonstrated their utter incompetence (and quite possibly inability to legally manage finances) beyond any possible doubt. So it really is game over for a generation.
On your first para PB, you’ll be aware the Bill was suspended by the threat of violent insurrection by Carson and his Loyalist paramilitaries backed by the Curragh Mutiny. Representation and democratic decision at Westminster appeared then to make no difference.
On your first para PB, you’ll be aware the Bill was suspended by the threat of violent insurrection by Carson and his Loyalist paramilitaries backed by the Curragh Mutiny. Representation and democratic decision at Westminster appeared then to make no difference.
Simply not true. The Irish Nationalists frequently held the balance of power in the House of Commons in the late 1800s. You might recall that the Home Rule Bill actually passed in the House of Commons in 1914.
And Scotland is not “denied a referendum on independence”. Both Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon voluntarily accepted a “once in a generation” (that’s at least 25 years) referendum on independence. They got exactly what they asked for. They lost. They’ve now demonstrated their utter incompetence (and quite possibly inability to legally manage finances) beyond any possible doubt. So it really is game over for a generation.
Properly represented in 1801? Catholics (i.e. the vast majority of the population) didn’t have a vote, were legally disbarred from being elected to parliament, and still endured several other legal impediments. This was addressed with Catholic emancipation in 1829 but was a rather severe and significant issue post-1801.
It is difficult to believe that the Westminster parliament would have permitted to stand idly by as they did in the 1840s, if the tragedy of the Great Hunger visited on Ireland had instead fallen on England.
Further, despite the vast majority of the public in the island of Ireland, and the majority of her elected representatives, supporting Home Rule in the latter half of the 1800s, the Westminster Parliament stubbornly refused to grant it, and only did so in 1914, before suspending that decision.
Think how the history of these islands might have played out if the rest of the UK had treated Ireland in justice.
A very partial view of history.
No part of the UK was “properly represented” by modern one-person one-vote standards in 1801.My point is that there was effective representation and Irish interests were considered alongside others. 105 Irish Nationalist MPs in a total of 600 isn’t representation ?
If Ireland was not represented, how did we ever get to the point where Home Rule bills were widely supported in the House of Commons and repeatedly passed.
Nor does this explain things that the UK parliament actually did to relieve the Irish famine. Amongst those the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws by a Conservative government which almost destroyed that party, yet to the benefit of the country – and Ireland – as a whole.
Yes, Home Rule was arguably a missed opportunity. But likely still a step on the road to full Irish independence.
The Tories generally seemed to understand the magnitude of the Great Famine. Disraeli essentially predicted disaster in 1844, a year before it began, when he defined the Irish Question: “That dense population in extreme distress inhabited an island where there was an established church which was not their church; and a territorial aristocracy, the richest of whom lived in distant capitals. Thus they had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and, in addition, the weakest executive in the world. That was the Irish question.”
“Orange” Peel doesn’t get enough credit for the steps he took in the early stages of the famine. It is ironic that they were undone by the woke progressives of the day under the Liberal Lord John Russell (grandfather of Bertrand), citing Divine Providence and laissez faire economics. Nearly three times as much was spent compensating slaveholders in the 1830s than would ultimately be spent by HMG on famine relief in the 1840s. The Irish population is not expected to fully recover until the 2050s.
There was certainly a powerful Irish nationalist movement from the 1870s onwards, but all attempts at peaceful democratic progress were thwarted by the unelected House of Lords, which vetoed three attempts to pass Home Rule legislation over many decades, until their power was finally broken by Asquith after the People’s Budget of 1909. A missed opportunity indeed.
‘Shelling the Shankill in July 1914…would have saved a lot of trouble’.
What, killing your own cannon fodder for the Somme?
Not declaring war on Germany in August 1914 would have saved a lot more trouble. It would also have saved European Civilisation.
I really think, Charles, you should stick to fattening the Empress of Blandings (if your nurse allows you out).
‘Shelling the Shankill in July 1914…would have saved a lot of trouble’.
What, killing your own cannon fodder for the Somme?
Not declaring war on Germany in August 1914 would have saved a lot more trouble. It would also have saved European Civilisation.
I really think, Charles, you should stick to fattening the Empress of Blandings (if your nurse allows you out).
The Tories generally seemed to understand the magnitude of the Great Famine. Disraeli essentially predicted disaster in 1844, a year before it began, when he defined the Irish Question: “That dense population in extreme distress inhabited an island where there was an established church which was not their church; and a territorial aristocracy, the richest of whom lived in distant capitals. Thus they had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and, in addition, the weakest executive in the world. That was the Irish question.”
“Orange” Peel doesn’t get enough credit for the steps he took in the early stages of the famine. It is ironic that they were undone by the woke progressives of the day under the Liberal Lord John Russell (grandfather of Bertrand), citing Divine Providence and laissez faire economics. Nearly three times as much was spent compensating slaveholders in the 1830s than would ultimately be spent by HMG on famine relief in the 1840s. The Irish population is not expected to fully recover until the 2050s.
There was certainly a powerful Irish nationalist movement from the 1870s onwards, but all attempts at peaceful democratic progress were thwarted by the unelected House of Lords, which vetoed three attempts to pass Home Rule legislation over many decades, until their power was finally broken by Asquith after the People’s Budget of 1909. A missed opportunity indeed.
A very partial view of history.
No part of the UK was “properly represented” by modern one-person one-vote standards in 1801.My point is that there was effective representation and Irish interests were considered alongside others. 105 Irish Nationalist MPs in a total of 600 isn’t representation ?
If Ireland was not represented, how did we ever get to the point where Home Rule bills were widely supported in the House of Commons and repeatedly passed.
Nor does this explain things that the UK parliament actually did to relieve the Irish famine. Amongst those the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws by a Conservative government which almost destroyed that party, yet to the benefit of the country – and Ireland – as a whole.
Yes, Home Rule was arguably a missed opportunity. But likely still a step on the road to full Irish independence.
But there wasn’t. Look at Scotland. Overwhelmingly elects MPs in favour of (a referendum on) independence but is denied that because it is outnumbered in Westminster. The Irish faced the same reality a 100 years or so ago.
Properly represented in 1801? Catholics (i.e. the vast majority of the population) didn’t have a vote, were legally disbarred from being elected to parliament, and still endured several other legal impediments. This was addressed with Catholic emancipation in 1829 but was a rather severe and significant issue post-1801.
It is difficult to believe that the Westminster parliament would have permitted to stand idly by as they did in the 1840s, if the tragedy of the Great Hunger visited on Ireland had instead fallen on England.
Further, despite the vast majority of the public in the island of Ireland, and the majority of her elected representatives, supporting Home Rule in the latter half of the 1800s, the Westminster Parliament stubbornly refused to grant it, and only did so in 1914, before suspending that decision.
Think how the history of these islands might have played out if the rest of the UK had treated Ireland in justice.
Indeed, David Starkey recently published a video where he makes the interesting claim that the UK has long been a republic with a consitutional monarch. Which does seem to be borne out by the fact that his accession had to be endorsed by Parliament.
Back to the article, a couple of points.
NI unionists may indeed be “loyal”. But loyal to what exactly ? They seem to be loyal to a time and place that is in the past and if allowed to have things entirely their own way will anchor the rest of the UK in the past when we may wish to move onwards (well, we did anyway). They seem to be pursuing a model of “rights without responsibilities” – in some ways little different from any other minority group (BLM/extreme trans rights/whatever).
On the other hand, we read this about Sinn Fein: “Somebody who classes themselves as a democrat should not be endorsing and entertaining the most reactionary elements in British politics”.
But hold on a moment. Somebody who “classes themselves as a democrat” should be attending the Westminster Parliament to represent their constituents. That is their job – to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for. That’s democracy. As opposed to gesture politics.
Let’s not forget that after the 1801 Act Of Union, Ireland was properly represented at Westminster. The nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party at one point had 105 MPs. Whenever people try to justify violence in Northern Ireland, let’s just remember that there was always a democratic path open, however imperfect that may have been. Much as female emancipation was achieved without violence in some countries.
Frank McCusker
11 months ago
I’m a Nationalist from NI. Royal family generally quite liked among our community. TBH, anyone getting too agitated about a monarchy is a crank – it’s just a pretend / performative indignation, like veganism.
Niall Cusack
11 months ago
Kudos to Aris Roussinos for an excellent, very perceptive article!
In particular, his transcription of Belfast speech is EXTREMELY accurate, and a joy to read!
How ironic that UnHerd had to send its Foreign Affairs Editor over here to report on what is actually happening. Aris seems to have kept his eyes and ears open and reported accordingly. That’s called good journalism.
By contrast, UnHerd’s Political Editor has consistently displayed an almost infantile inability to grasp the basic facts of political life in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps Aris’ experience as a former War Correspondent might have something to do with his realistic reportage?
Niall Cusack
11 months ago
Kudos to Aris Roussinos for an excellent, very perceptive article!
In particular, his transcription of Belfast speech is EXTREMELY accurate, and a joy to read!
How ironic that UnHerd had to send its Foreign Affairs Editor over here to report on what is actually happening. Aris seems to have kept his eyes and ears open and reported accordingly. That’s called good journalism.
By contrast, UnHerd’s Political Editor has consistently displayed an almost infantile inability to grasp the basic facts of political life in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps Aris’ experience as a former War Correspondent might have something to do with his realistic reportage?
Nicky Samengo-Turner
11 months ago
What a frighteningly insular, archaic, childish, obsessive, and stone age community?
The obvious question is, given that Catholic and Protestant live side by side in every other part of the British isles, including Ireland, why cant the Orange Presbyterians in Ulster?
It usually needs two sides for a fight, so I doubt it’s 100% their fault – perhaps more like 80-20. But it’s an excellent question that needs asking. It might also be interesting to check if the most loyal NI unionists are happy living in Catholic countries like Spain or Italy. There’s almost certainly an element of tribalism in this that we don’t really understand in England any more.
Yes, and the man in the £3 Dunn and co bowler and terylene suit seems not to have ( excuse the deliberate pun) ” cottoned” that it is neither the 17th Century nor the 1950s. As I have said before, the RUC and UDR attitude in the 1970s and 1980s to Catholic Officers , notably Household Division, was eyewateringly ignorant and bigoted.
Yes, and the man in the £3 Dunn and co bowler and terylene suit seems not to have ( excuse the deliberate pun) ” cottoned” that it is neither the 17th Century nor the 1950s. As I have said before, the RUC and UDR attitude in the 1970s and 1980s to Catholic Officers , notably Household Division, was eyewateringly ignorant and bigoted.
It usually needs two sides for a fight, so I doubt it’s 100% their fault – perhaps more like 80-20. But it’s an excellent question that needs asking. It might also be interesting to check if the most loyal NI unionists are happy living in Catholic countries like Spain or Italy. There’s almost certainly an element of tribalism in this that we don’t really understand in England any more.
What a frighteningly insular, archaic, childish, obsessive, and stone age community?
The obvious question is, given that Catholic and Protestant live side by side in every other part of the British isles, including Ireland, why cant the Orange Presbyterians in Ulster?
It’s odd seeing a man who has pretensions to be some sort of green progressive king of the world recoil from being actual king of part of his realm. The truth is the British establishment is not just deeply uncomfortable with being associated with Northern Ireland, it’s deeply uncomfortable with large sections of the English too. The new British elite is staunchly globalist.
At face value, Sinn Fein shouldn’t fit well into this new world order. After all, they’re Irish nationalists, right? Yet O’Neill’s republicanism is now just electoral theatre. Sinn Fein’s planned programme for government in Ireland adopts the full globalist policy set from net zero to open borders. A Sinn Fein government will follow the exact same path as the UK and wider EU. It might be a coincidence, but O’Neill repeatedly refers to our “common purpose”.
And that’s why O’Neill attended the crowning of the globalist king. They’re of a kind with a shared agenda almost completely at odds with the purpose of the institutions they lead. Welcome to our modern topsy turvy world where men are women and nationalists are globalists.
Some might contend you lack confidence NC. One can be patriotic and inter-nationalist. One can be a Man or a Woman and remain confident current student politics twaddle on gender will settle and a bedrock of common-sense with kindness win out.
As regards NI – DUP/TVA are plagued by nostalgia for a return to the one party state of Craig, Brooke and a previous O’Neill. That’s gone for ever and thank goodness too. A Coronation will trigger such melancholic pangs.
This statement is too glib; it depends what you mean by ‘internationalist’ and whose position ultimately prevails in any conflict between national and international interests, as conflict there will inevitably be. The question never answered by pro EU people: do you ultimately want Ireland, France or whatever to be reduced to the subordinate status of Alabama? The only way the EU can become democratic is for a federal super state to be finally created. The problem is only a small minority actually recognise that as their country, so there is no polity in which democracy can meaningfully function -Germans and Poles live in very different societies with different priorities. So we have the situation where the ‘internationalists’ frequently say that the electorates views must be trumped by the interests of the EU as a whole.
Somewhat narrow view there of internationalism AF. But nonetheless just to point out their are 27 countries still in the EU. Since 2016’s Brexit vote zero have left and those applying to join have continued those applications, the latest being Ukraine as everyone aware. Your argument is reductive, whereas the converse is enhancing. And that I think is the key difference in how it’s seen.
In an essay entitled “French and English”, G.K.Chesterton made an important distinction.
“It is obvious that there is a great deal of difference between being international and being cosmopolitan. All good men are international. Nearly all bad men are cosmopolitan. If we are to be international we must be national. And it is largely because those who call themselves the friends of peace have not dwelt sufficiently on this distinction that they do not impress the bulk of any of the nations to which they belong. International peace means a peace between nations, not a peace after the destruction of nations, like the Buddhist peace after the destruction of personality. The golden age of the good European is like the heaven of the Christian: it is a place where people will love each other; not like the heaven of the Hindu, a place where they will be each other. And in the case of national character this can be seen in a curious way. It will generally be found, I think, that the more a man really appreciates and admires the soul of another people the less he will attempt to imitate it; he will be conscious that there is something in it too deep and too unmanageable to imitate. The Englishman who has a fancy for France will try to be French; the Englishman who admires France will remain obstinately English. This is to be particularly noticed in the case of our relations with the French, because it is one of the outstanding peculiarities of the French that their vices are all on the surface, and their extraordinary virtues concealed. One might almost say that their vices are the flower of their virtues.”
Lovely and apt quotation.
Lovely and apt quotation.
Somewhat narrow view there of internationalism AF. But nonetheless just to point out their are 27 countries still in the EU. Since 2016’s Brexit vote zero have left and those applying to join have continued those applications, the latest being Ukraine as everyone aware. Your argument is reductive, whereas the converse is enhancing. And that I think is the key difference in how it’s seen.
In an essay entitled “French and English”, G.K.Chesterton made an important distinction.
“It is obvious that there is a great deal of difference between being international and being cosmopolitan. All good men are international. Nearly all bad men are cosmopolitan. If we are to be international we must be national. And it is largely because those who call themselves the friends of peace have not dwelt sufficiently on this distinction that they do not impress the bulk of any of the nations to which they belong. International peace means a peace between nations, not a peace after the destruction of nations, like the Buddhist peace after the destruction of personality. The golden age of the good European is like the heaven of the Christian: it is a place where people will love each other; not like the heaven of the Hindu, a place where they will be each other. And in the case of national character this can be seen in a curious way. It will generally be found, I think, that the more a man really appreciates and admires the soul of another people the less he will attempt to imitate it; he will be conscious that there is something in it too deep and too unmanageable to imitate. The Englishman who has a fancy for France will try to be French; the Englishman who admires France will remain obstinately English. This is to be particularly noticed in the case of our relations with the French, because it is one of the outstanding peculiarities of the French that their vices are all on the surface, and their extraordinary virtues concealed. One might almost say that their vices are the flower of their virtues.”
Presumably you’re not a native English speaker and may not realise that internationalism isn’t the same as globalism. Internationalism literally means a practice among nations, which definitionally relies on there being nations. Whilst you can be patriotic and internationalist, you certainly cannot be patriotic and globalist.
Similarly, perhaps you’re not living in the EU, UK or USA. Twaddle on gender long ago left student politics and is now law. From prisons to schools, the state demands total conformance to quite revolutionary ideas that run counter to immutable biology.
I didn’t mention the DUP or TVA. Perhaps you are muddled and confused my comment with another.
‘Globalism’ is now just one of those meaningless soundbites that people on this site love to trot out. What does it actually mean and who are the ‘New British Elite’?
As a country we are not remotely self sufficient, as, to be fair, few countries are. We don’t make enough of the the goods we need or produce enough of the food we want to consume so we need to get them from elsewhere. We are also not self-sufficient in energy, so we need to buy this from elsewhere as well.
To enable this a network of different trade deals were set up to make the process cheaper and more efficient. In addition, following the two cataclysmic World Wars in the 20th Century international bodies were set up, with the best of motives, by people who had experienced those wars, to try to prevent this in future.
I don’t know whether you class this as ‘internationalism’ or ‘globalism’ or you’ve got another handy soundbite but unless you have an alternative to this which is realistic, it’s where we are.
RW in mentioning the DUP/TVA was actually referring to the article you were allegedly commenting on and making the salient point that the end of the ‘Protestant State for Protestant People’, which Northern Ireland was designed to be, and was for the first 70 odd years, has left Loyalists feeling fairly lost and trying to find their place in the changed circumstances where their old enemy, Sinn Fein, is the largest party.
As English is my first language I hope it’s understandable but I can use shorter words if that helps.
‘Globalism’ is now just one of those meaningless soundbites that people on this site love to trot out. What does it actually mean and who are the ‘New British Elite’?
As a country we are not remotely self sufficient, as, to be fair, few countries are. We don’t make enough of the the goods we need or produce enough of the food we want to consume so we need to get them from elsewhere. We are also not self-sufficient in energy, so we need to buy this from elsewhere as well.
To enable this a network of different trade deals were set up to make the process cheaper and more efficient. In addition, following the two cataclysmic World Wars in the 20th Century international bodies were set up, with the best of motives, by people who had experienced those wars, to try to prevent this in future.
I don’t know whether you class this as ‘internationalism’ or ‘globalism’ or you’ve got another handy soundbite but unless you have an alternative to this which is realistic, it’s where we are.
RW in mentioning the DUP/TVA was actually referring to the article you were allegedly commenting on and making the salient point that the end of the ‘Protestant State for Protestant People’, which Northern Ireland was designed to be, and was for the first 70 odd years, has left Loyalists feeling fairly lost and trying to find their place in the changed circumstances where their old enemy, Sinn Fein, is the largest party.
As English is my first language I hope it’s understandable but I can use shorter words if that helps.
This statement is too glib; it depends what you mean by ‘internationalist’ and whose position ultimately prevails in any conflict between national and international interests, as conflict there will inevitably be. The question never answered by pro EU people: do you ultimately want Ireland, France or whatever to be reduced to the subordinate status of Alabama? The only way the EU can become democratic is for a federal super state to be finally created. The problem is only a small minority actually recognise that as their country, so there is no polity in which democracy can meaningfully function -Germans and Poles live in very different societies with different priorities. So we have the situation where the ‘internationalists’ frequently say that the electorates views must be trumped by the interests of the EU as a whole.
Presumably you’re not a native English speaker and may not realise that internationalism isn’t the same as globalism. Internationalism literally means a practice among nations, which definitionally relies on there being nations. Whilst you can be patriotic and internationalist, you certainly cannot be patriotic and globalist.
Similarly, perhaps you’re not living in the EU, UK or USA. Twaddle on gender long ago left student politics and is now law. From prisons to schools, the state demands total conformance to quite revolutionary ideas that run counter to immutable biology.
I didn’t mention the DUP or TVA. Perhaps you are muddled and confused my comment with another.
In plainer English, what it is you are wishing for or see as “the correct way of things”?
Some might contend you lack confidence NC. One can be patriotic and inter-nationalist. One can be a Man or a Woman and remain confident current student politics twaddle on gender will settle and a bedrock of common-sense with kindness win out.
As regards NI – DUP/TVA are plagued by nostalgia for a return to the one party state of Craig, Brooke and a previous O’Neill. That’s gone for ever and thank goodness too. A Coronation will trigger such melancholic pangs.
In plainer English, what it is you are wishing for or see as “the correct way of things”?
It’s odd seeing a man who has pretensions to be some sort of green progressive king of the world recoil from being actual king of part of his realm. The truth is the British establishment is not just deeply uncomfortable with being associated with Northern Ireland, it’s deeply uncomfortable with large sections of the English too. The new British elite is staunchly globalist.
At face value, Sinn Fein shouldn’t fit well into this new world order. After all, they’re Irish nationalists, right? Yet O’Neill’s republicanism is now just electoral theatre. Sinn Fein’s planned programme for government in Ireland adopts the full globalist policy set from net zero to open borders. A Sinn Fein government will follow the exact same path as the UK and wider EU. It might be a coincidence, but O’Neill repeatedly refers to our “common purpose”.
And that’s why O’Neill attended the crowning of the globalist king. They’re of a kind with a shared agenda almost completely at odds with the purpose of the institutions they lead. Welcome to our modern topsy turvy world where men are women and nationalists are globalists.
I’m a Nationalist from NI. Royal family generally quite liked among our community. TBH, anyone getting too agitated about a monarchy is a crank – it’s just a pretend / performative indignation, like veganism.
Indeed, David Starkey recently published a video where he makes the interesting claim that the UK has long been a republic with a consitutional monarch. Which does seem to be borne out by the fact that his accession had to be endorsed by Parliament.
Back to the article, a couple of points.
NI unionists may indeed be “loyal”. But loyal to what exactly ? They seem to be loyal to a time and place that is in the past and if allowed to have things entirely their own way will anchor the rest of the UK in the past when we may wish to move onwards (well, we did anyway). They seem to be pursuing a model of “rights without responsibilities” – in some ways little different from any other minority group (BLM/extreme trans rights/whatever).
On the other hand, we read this about Sinn Fein: “Somebody who classes themselves as a democrat should not be endorsing and entertaining the most reactionary elements in British politics”.
But hold on a moment. Somebody who “classes themselves as a democrat” should be attending the Westminster Parliament to represent their constituents. That is their job – to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for. That’s democracy. As opposed to gesture politics.
Let’s not forget that after the 1801 Act Of Union, Ireland was properly represented at Westminster. The nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party at one point had 105 MPs. Whenever people try to justify violence in Northern Ireland, let’s just remember that there was always a democratic path open, however imperfect that may have been. Much as female emancipation was achieved without violence in some countries.
But there wasn’t. Look at Scotland. Overwhelmingly elects MPs in favour of (a referendum on) independence but is denied that because it is outnumbered in Westminster. The Irish faced the same reality a 100 years or so ago.
Simply not true. The Irish Nationalists frequently held the balance of power in the House of Commons in the late 1800s. You might recall that the Home Rule Bill actually passed in the House of Commons in 1914.
And Scotland is not “denied a referendum on independence”. Both Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon voluntarily accepted a “once in a generation” (that’s at least 25 years) referendum on independence. They got exactly what they asked for. They lost. They’ve now demonstrated their utter incompetence (and quite possibly inability to legally manage finances) beyond any possible doubt. So it really is game over for a generation.
On your first para PB, you’ll be aware the Bill was suspended by the threat of violent insurrection by Carson and his Loyalist paramilitaries backed by the Curragh Mutiny. Representation and democratic decision at Westminster appeared then to make no difference.
On your first para PB, you’ll be aware the Bill was suspended by the threat of violent insurrection by Carson and his Loyalist paramilitaries backed by the Curragh Mutiny. Representation and democratic decision at Westminster appeared then to make no difference.
Simply not true. The Irish Nationalists frequently held the balance of power in the House of Commons in the late 1800s. You might recall that the Home Rule Bill actually passed in the House of Commons in 1914.
And Scotland is not “denied a referendum on independence”. Both Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon voluntarily accepted a “once in a generation” (that’s at least 25 years) referendum on independence. They got exactly what they asked for. They lost. They’ve now demonstrated their utter incompetence (and quite possibly inability to legally manage finances) beyond any possible doubt. So it really is game over for a generation.
Properly represented in 1801? Catholics (i.e. the vast majority of the population) didn’t have a vote, were legally disbarred from being elected to parliament, and still endured several other legal impediments. This was addressed with Catholic emancipation in 1829 but was a rather severe and significant issue post-1801.
It is difficult to believe that the Westminster parliament would have permitted to stand idly by as they did in the 1840s, if the tragedy of the Great Hunger visited on Ireland had instead fallen on England.
Further, despite the vast majority of the public in the island of Ireland, and the majority of her elected representatives, supporting Home Rule in the latter half of the 1800s, the Westminster Parliament stubbornly refused to grant it, and only did so in 1914, before suspending that decision.
Think how the history of these islands might have played out if the rest of the UK had treated Ireland in justice.
A very partial view of history.
No part of the UK was “properly represented” by modern one-person one-vote standards in 1801.My point is that there was effective representation and Irish interests were considered alongside others. 105 Irish Nationalist MPs in a total of 600 isn’t representation ?
If Ireland was not represented, how did we ever get to the point where Home Rule bills were widely supported in the House of Commons and repeatedly passed.
Nor does this explain things that the UK parliament actually did to relieve the Irish famine. Amongst those the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws by a Conservative government which almost destroyed that party, yet to the benefit of the country – and Ireland – as a whole.
Yes, Home Rule was arguably a missed opportunity. But likely still a step on the road to full Irish independence.
The Tories generally seemed to understand the magnitude of the Great Famine. Disraeli essentially predicted disaster in 1844, a year before it began, when he defined the Irish Question: “That dense population in extreme distress inhabited an island where there was an established church which was not their church; and a territorial aristocracy, the richest of whom lived in distant capitals. Thus they had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and, in addition, the weakest executive in the world. That was the Irish question.”
“Orange” Peel doesn’t get enough credit for the steps he took in the early stages of the famine. It is ironic that they were undone by the woke progressives of the day under the Liberal Lord John Russell (grandfather of Bertrand), citing Divine Providence and laissez faire economics. Nearly three times as much was spent compensating slaveholders in the 1830s than would ultimately be spent by HMG on famine relief in the 1840s. The Irish population is not expected to fully recover until the 2050s.
There was certainly a powerful Irish nationalist movement from the 1870s onwards, but all attempts at peaceful democratic progress were thwarted by the unelected House of Lords, which vetoed three attempts to pass Home Rule legislation over many decades, until their power was finally broken by Asquith after the People’s Budget of 1909. A missed opportunity indeed.
After a nervous start, Churchill was all for shelling the Shankill in July 1914.
In retrospect It would have saved a lot of trouble.
‘Shelling the Shankill in July 1914…would have saved a lot of trouble’.
What, killing your own cannon fodder for the Somme?
Not declaring war on Germany in August 1914 would have saved a lot more trouble. It would also have saved European Civilisation.
I really think, Charles, you should stick to fattening the Empress of Blandings (if your nurse allows you out).
‘Shelling the Shankill in July 1914…would have saved a lot of trouble’.
What, killing your own cannon fodder for the Somme?
Not declaring war on Germany in August 1914 would have saved a lot more trouble. It would also have saved European Civilisation.
I really think, Charles, you should stick to fattening the Empress of Blandings (if your nurse allows you out).
After a nervous start, Churchill was all for shelling the Shankill in July 1914.
In retrospect It would have saved a lot of trouble.
The Tories generally seemed to understand the magnitude of the Great Famine. Disraeli essentially predicted disaster in 1844, a year before it began, when he defined the Irish Question: “That dense population in extreme distress inhabited an island where there was an established church which was not their church; and a territorial aristocracy, the richest of whom lived in distant capitals. Thus they had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and, in addition, the weakest executive in the world. That was the Irish question.”
“Orange” Peel doesn’t get enough credit for the steps he took in the early stages of the famine. It is ironic that they were undone by the woke progressives of the day under the Liberal Lord John Russell (grandfather of Bertrand), citing Divine Providence and laissez faire economics. Nearly three times as much was spent compensating slaveholders in the 1830s than would ultimately be spent by HMG on famine relief in the 1840s. The Irish population is not expected to fully recover until the 2050s.
There was certainly a powerful Irish nationalist movement from the 1870s onwards, but all attempts at peaceful democratic progress were thwarted by the unelected House of Lords, which vetoed three attempts to pass Home Rule legislation over many decades, until their power was finally broken by Asquith after the People’s Budget of 1909. A missed opportunity indeed.
A very partial view of history.
No part of the UK was “properly represented” by modern one-person one-vote standards in 1801.My point is that there was effective representation and Irish interests were considered alongside others. 105 Irish Nationalist MPs in a total of 600 isn’t representation ?
If Ireland was not represented, how did we ever get to the point where Home Rule bills were widely supported in the House of Commons and repeatedly passed.
Nor does this explain things that the UK parliament actually did to relieve the Irish famine. Amongst those the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws by a Conservative government which almost destroyed that party, yet to the benefit of the country – and Ireland – as a whole.
Yes, Home Rule was arguably a missed opportunity. But likely still a step on the road to full Irish independence.
But there wasn’t. Look at Scotland. Overwhelmingly elects MPs in favour of (a referendum on) independence but is denied that because it is outnumbered in Westminster. The Irish faced the same reality a 100 years or so ago.
Properly represented in 1801? Catholics (i.e. the vast majority of the population) didn’t have a vote, were legally disbarred from being elected to parliament, and still endured several other legal impediments. This was addressed with Catholic emancipation in 1829 but was a rather severe and significant issue post-1801.
It is difficult to believe that the Westminster parliament would have permitted to stand idly by as they did in the 1840s, if the tragedy of the Great Hunger visited on Ireland had instead fallen on England.
Further, despite the vast majority of the public in the island of Ireland, and the majority of her elected representatives, supporting Home Rule in the latter half of the 1800s, the Westminster Parliament stubbornly refused to grant it, and only did so in 1914, before suspending that decision.
Think how the history of these islands might have played out if the rest of the UK had treated Ireland in justice.
Indeed, David Starkey recently published a video where he makes the interesting claim that the UK has long been a republic with a consitutional monarch. Which does seem to be borne out by the fact that his accession had to be endorsed by Parliament.
Back to the article, a couple of points.
NI unionists may indeed be “loyal”. But loyal to what exactly ? They seem to be loyal to a time and place that is in the past and if allowed to have things entirely their own way will anchor the rest of the UK in the past when we may wish to move onwards (well, we did anyway). They seem to be pursuing a model of “rights without responsibilities” – in some ways little different from any other minority group (BLM/extreme trans rights/whatever).
On the other hand, we read this about Sinn Fein: “Somebody who classes themselves as a democrat should not be endorsing and entertaining the most reactionary elements in British politics”.
But hold on a moment. Somebody who “classes themselves as a democrat” should be attending the Westminster Parliament to represent their constituents. That is their job – to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for. That’s democracy. As opposed to gesture politics.
Let’s not forget that after the 1801 Act Of Union, Ireland was properly represented at Westminster. The nationalist Irish Parliamentary Party at one point had 105 MPs. Whenever people try to justify violence in Northern Ireland, let’s just remember that there was always a democratic path open, however imperfect that may have been. Much as female emancipation was achieved without violence in some countries.
I’m a Nationalist from NI. Royal family generally quite liked among our community. TBH, anyone getting too agitated about a monarchy is a crank – it’s just a pretend / performative indignation, like veganism.
Kudos to Aris Roussinos for an excellent, very perceptive article!
In particular, his transcription of Belfast speech is EXTREMELY accurate, and a joy to read!
How ironic that UnHerd had to send its Foreign Affairs Editor over here to report on what is actually happening. Aris seems to have kept his eyes and ears open and reported accordingly. That’s called good journalism.
By contrast, UnHerd’s Political Editor has consistently displayed an almost infantile inability to grasp the basic facts of political life in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps Aris’ experience as a former War Correspondent might have something to do with his realistic reportage?
Kudos to Aris Roussinos for an excellent, very perceptive article!
In particular, his transcription of Belfast speech is EXTREMELY accurate, and a joy to read!
How ironic that UnHerd had to send its Foreign Affairs Editor over here to report on what is actually happening. Aris seems to have kept his eyes and ears open and reported accordingly. That’s called good journalism.
By contrast, UnHerd’s Political Editor has consistently displayed an almost infantile inability to grasp the basic facts of political life in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps Aris’ experience as a former War Correspondent might have something to do with his realistic reportage?
What a frighteningly insular, archaic, childish, obsessive, and stone age community?
The obvious question is, given that Catholic and Protestant live side by side in every other part of the British isles, including Ireland, why cant the Orange Presbyterians in Ulster?
It usually needs two sides for a fight, so I doubt it’s 100% their fault – perhaps more like 80-20. But it’s an excellent question that needs asking. It might also be interesting to check if the most loyal NI unionists are happy living in Catholic countries like Spain or Italy. There’s almost certainly an element of tribalism in this that we don’t really understand in England any more.
.. but alive and well in parts of Scotland, whose people colonised Ireland, of course!
.. but alive and well in parts of Scotland, whose people colonised Ireland, of course!
The 17th century Plantation policy.
Yes, and the man in the £3 Dunn and co bowler and terylene suit seems not to have ( excuse the deliberate pun) ” cottoned” that it is neither the 17th Century nor the 1950s. As I have said before, the RUC and UDR attitude in the 1970s and 1980s to Catholic Officers , notably Household Division, was eyewateringly ignorant and bigoted.
Yes, and the man in the £3 Dunn and co bowler and terylene suit seems not to have ( excuse the deliberate pun) ” cottoned” that it is neither the 17th Century nor the 1950s. As I have said before, the RUC and UDR attitude in the 1970s and 1980s to Catholic Officers , notably Household Division, was eyewateringly ignorant and bigoted.
It usually needs two sides for a fight, so I doubt it’s 100% their fault – perhaps more like 80-20. But it’s an excellent question that needs asking. It might also be interesting to check if the most loyal NI unionists are happy living in Catholic countries like Spain or Italy. There’s almost certainly an element of tribalism in this that we don’t really understand in England any more.
The 17th century Plantation policy.
What a frighteningly insular, archaic, childish, obsessive, and stone age community?
The obvious question is, given that Catholic and Protestant live side by side in every other part of the British isles, including Ireland, why cant the Orange Presbyterians in Ulster?