Crossroads

The statement above, made to the press by Tom Elliot MLA in the aftermath of the council elections, illustrates the dearth of understanding among some unionist politicians. His beliefs will be shared by most in the Democratic Unionist Party and Traditional Unionist Party and some in Ulster Unionism. No doubt were all unionist parties and Loyal Orders to gather to reflect on the way forward for unionism they would double down on the sentiment. An echo chamber magnifying the sentiment threatens to sideline and isolate unionism in the short-term and end the union much quicker than Republicans can ever dream of.

Thankfully there remain unionists who recognise the shear futility of that approach.  It is a betrayal of public office to side line the challenges which the general population face, it is also the complete antithesis of what being part of the United Kingdom should represent.

The idea that politicians should treat as "side issues" collapsing public services, poverty, deprivation, poor health, bad housing and all the other challenges we face now and in the future is not what holding elected office is about.

To suggest that concern about having enough food for your children, or getting through to a GP surgery, or heating your home is a "side issue" shows an amazing disconnect from the lives of the people unionism seeks to represent. That disconnect works both ways as the inability of political unionism to turn out their voters shows.

The Union will not be protected by setting aside the issues affecting our citizens, it will only survive by showing that those issues are best resolved within the Union. That requires a political change at the heart of unionism, an end to the dogma of opposition to any change, an end to the insular view held by many that ignores the world around them. Only by making Northern Ireland work within the Union can we counter the fantasy future presented by Republicans.

Thankfully there remains within Ulster Unionism a core belief in delivering a better society as the way to protect the Union. That belief must not be diluted by being drawn to short-term comfort under Paisley's umbrella, or sitting in Jeffrey's tent. The fight that needs to be fought is not simply about the flying of the flag but about the values the flag represents. In that those who don't put the needs of our people first will be on the opposing side, meeting the needs of our people is the best defence we have for the Union.

Ulster Unionism has come some way in articulating the concept of a "Union of people", in light of recent comments we should go further, what is needed is a "Union for people" deliver that and we deliver a better life and a better future for all.

The Union

 

The word union is a strange word, Google "union definition" and you get "the action of joining together or the fact of being joined together, especially in a political context". It's a noun and many people choose to interpret that as meaning it describes a defined state of existence that should be understood by everyone, no further action or interpretation is needed. Yet every union is subject to tensions and stresses especially where that union exists "in a political context".

As Brexit has shown the maintenance of a union requires continuous engagement and negotiation with all the parties to a voluntary union to ensure that the basis of the union still exists. For unionism in a UK sense this remains an important factor which ulster unionism (small "u") struggles to understand. While the determination on whether the people of Northern Ireland choose to remain within the UK is for them alone, the actions required to improve what the union has to offer its citizens is a matter for all its citizens.

A future referendum on Northern Ireland's position will offer 2 choices, to join with the rest of Ireland or maintain the Union. While it is clear that those advocating for a United Ireland will have made significant efforts to define the social, economic, cultural and political realities of that choice those advocating for a maintenance of the Union face multiple challenges.

There is a medical term called "cognitive dissonance", frequently described as "the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. (https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cognitive-dissonance-2795012). Unionism struggles with a form of political cognitive dissonance, on the one hand ulster unionism demands equal citizenship with everyone else in the nation, on the other hand, once equal citizenship is given on a particular issue ulster unionism flies into almost apoplectic rage at the thought of being treated as equals. We have spent our political lives ignoring this rather large elephant in the room, come a border poll this elephant will be paraded through every issue being debated, ignoring it is not an option.

Of course, the narrowness of ulster unionist thoughts on the union subtly ignores the fact that ulster unionism represents about 1.5% of the UK population. It takes a particular arrogance to suggest that ulster unionism should be the section of society to define the union moving forward. Whatever the vision of the union of the future, the union that is presented as the alternative to a united Ireland, it is not for ulster unionism alone to define. Neither is it a vison to be determined by unionism joining with a few right-wing national actors seeking a new cause celebre to rally people to the flag.

Whatever the union of the future looks like it must reflect the aspirations of all its citizens, including, but not exclusively, ulster unionism. A national discussion, a conversation, must transcend party politics, it must include a space to listen not just to the powerful but the powerless. The union must be more than a flag, or loyalty to the Crown, it must define the rights of citizens, the responsibilities allocated to Governments and the benefits accruing to all.

Even without the possibility of a border poll it is an exercise worth having, not just for ulster unionism, for the UK as a whole. We, the UK, have drifted along, pushed and pulled by world events and our own choices, to arrive at a point where an honest conversation about who we are and what we want to achieve for future generations would help create the foundations upon which our future society will be built. For ulster unionism, making the case for such a conversation, not only helps define our future locally but strengthens the nation as a whole.

 

Unionist Unity will end the Union

By 2030 Northern Ireland will face an existential threat to its continued position in the United Kingdom, if by that stage the threat has not already been realised.  

A border poll is coming, based on demographics alone, the fact that it will come represents a total failure, so far, on the part of unionism to understand politics or the world around us.

We could have focused, and still can if committed to the challenges, on creating a society which improved the quality of life of all our citizens to the point where a "New Ireland" could not improve on what people's experiences were. We could have provided no incentive to those whose future constitutional outlook has yet to be decided to look southwards.

Instead the response from many in unionism is to find a bigger flag, no doubt pondering that when it is finally lowered to the sound of "Abide with me" their honour will have been satisfied. Those individuals demanding unionisms loyalty and unity to their political philosophy and "strength" in Westminster and Stormont will demand the same loyalty as they take their seats in the Dail.

It doesn't have to be the only option, the union can be salvaged, but a choice has to be made, the DUP's union of bigger flags and unionist fealty to the archaic, or a unionism committed to the future, modern unionism facing the challenges ahead, not shirking responsibility. 

Save the DUP or the Union, it can't be both.

A few thoughts on #LE23

A few comments on the local government elections and the aftermath.

For unionism in general, a point on demographics, unionism only holds a majority in the oldest age group, as a way of factoring this into future trends consider that as those unionist numbers reduce over time each unionist elector is effectively replaced by 2 young people from a nationalist background. That demographic change will occur constantly and will impact every election to a greater or lesser degree, as will population shifts in local elections from changes such as significant housing developments, these should not be a surprise. A political movement that fails to understand the environment it operates in fails to understand the threats and opportunities that exist.

Sinn Fein's results indicate a turnout of their support in some areas well in excess of the average, again something that is out of the influence of unionist parties. What can be influenced is turnout of voters based on past delivery and future intentions, in a democracy everyone has an opportunity to improve that.

The results have allowed some to raise the possibility of unionism coming together into one party, a merger. Strangely only ever in the context of the UUP merging with the DUP, the TUV are never mentioned. Those who suggest such a move have taken little or no time to consider the issue, if they had they would understand how disastrous such a move would be for the future of the Union. For some, self preservation appears to be the main motivation and their voices are loudest.

The challenges facing Ulster Unionism are more structural than political though the undermining of the party through the Lundifying of Doug Beattie by other parties and an agent provocateur who appears to have an access all areas pass for local media was intense. That this was replicated by a small number inside the party, whether for personal gain or a genuine lack of understanding of the world we live in remains regrettable. I suspect the same individuals will promote a merger as their preferred future direction. 

Protection of political patronage in the face of declining numbers of voters attracted to the current offer from unionism under the DUP is a double betrayal, of past generations and future generations. A laziness which prefers to learn nothing and build nothing rather than create a society which more people will value and maintain.

The argument against the new Ireland mantra we face is not a red, white and blue citadel founded on archaic notions of society. It is the creation of a new Union which lays the foundations upon which future generations will build their society capable of facing the intense challenges to come. Only by focusing on delivering this can unionism hope to survive, anything else is collectively and individually selfish.

A closing point for unionism to consider, the Irish Government have established a Sovereign wealth fund with €13 billion surplus income this year. They intend to add €12 billion per annum, by 2030 it will have circa €100 billion. Imagine a Sinn Fein government in Dublin with a €100 billion campaign chest to form part of the New Ireland agenda presented as part of a border poll campaign. Can you imagine a UK government, Conservative or Labour, making the same offer for NI citizens to stay in the Union? Will Unionism understand the challenge- not if the DUP control all political thought.

Unionism focuses on the next election, republicanism focuses on the next generation. Unionism must do likewise and meet the needs of the next generation not the wants of the last generation.

Next Steps post Windsor

1 / 3

The last few years have proved difficult for unionism, some would have you believe the most difficult. Some would have you believe the threat to the union is existential and must be resisted in all its working to the nth degree.  

Nearly 40 years ago I heard the same rhetoric as I hear today, indeed from some of the same voices. Then I listened, I followed, I marched, rallied, plotted, planned and acted as my leaders required. In the end not one comma in the Anglo-Irish Agreement was changed. Yet, I am as British today as I was 40 years ago.

No doubt we shall hear a lot of rhetorical jingoism from some in reference to the “Stormont brake” and I am reminded of another speech made about Northern Ireland’s position in the UK. This time by the late Harold McCusker MP in the House of Commons in November 1985 after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The full speech is worthy of note but specifically I recalled this section.

“I shall not argue with the Secretary of State about sovereignty because the House can change what it means by that. That came out in the debate yesterday. Sovereignty is what the Government decide it is.” Harold McCusker MP Hansard 28th Nov 1985

Thirty-eight years ago, Harold McCusker knew the truth about the United Kingdom, Parliament is sovereign, today some unionists still don’t understand or accept that reality.

For some in unionism action means inaction, boycott. A process that ultimately leads to more death, pain, discomfort, poverty, deprivation and lost life opportunities. It would be a brutal political strategy if the intention was to influence a Government committed to caring about the citizens affected by such a strategy. This Government doesn’t. Without a political outcome to such a brutal strategy the decision to continue it is an immoral one.

That doesn’t mean that unionism should accept the Windsor Framework or believe the spin promoted by the Government. This is modern Britain under the Conservatives, we live in Orwell’s world  

“Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.” Orwell 1984

Brexit was a disaster for the UK, warnings about the impact on the union were ignored and those who raised concerns about the economic consequences were pointed to slogans on the side of a bus. The Protocol was a failed negotiation by a UK team who did not understand the complexities they were meant to address and a unionist leadership in the DUP happy to devolve the issue to the Conservatives. Their initial support for Boris and the Protocol allowed the ink to dry before they were alerted to the dangers.  

The EU had one objective in dealing with Brexit, the protection of the single market, it was a concept the UK didn’t fully understand nor make any effort to understand, especially the consequences for NI, speed was the motivation for every UK decision. The offer of dual access to markets, while offering some opportunities also brings some risks, but the starting point is that the UK has signed a binding international trade agreement, walking away is not an option. Indeed it is likely that surreptitiously the Government will move closer to the regulations prevailing within the Single Market, business is already doing so. A future Government will move even closer, not out of any politically pro-EU motivation but due to the practical necessity of providing access to the large market on the UK’s doorstep.  The Windsor Framework is simply a step along that road, little to do with addressing the concerns of unionists.

---

2 / 3

In that context I believe that Unionism should not indicate support for the Windsor Framework, as such support is a meaningless action for something we have had no input into nor decision making authority for.  It provides a fig leaf of respectability for a Government that deserves no such cover. The results of the Frameworks outworking will be complex and challenging, the interrogation of rules and regulations, deep negotiations and a level of understanding on impacts hitherto not a feature of local politics for any party. Rejection may be the choice of some, especially the DUP, but again it’s a meaningless fig leaf, unionists either acknowledge the sovereignty of Parliament or they don’t.  

So, what do I think unionism’s position should be, first, further infliction of morally questionable boycott tactics should end. This Conservative party is not swayed by increasing death rates, years of pain and suffering by our citizens, defunding of our schools, collapse of infrastructure or lost life opportunities for our citizens.  

Secondly, applying a simple principle, both in Brussels and Westminster, “nothing about us without us” the earliest engagement with Northern Ireland over proposed changes to anything which affects us under the Windsor Framework. Rather than trying to dissect the intentions of changes after the fact include representatives from NI in the initial engagement. This will be challenging for unionism as engagement won’t be on a veto basis, (Sunak hasn’t delivered a veto no matter the spin), being better politicians is the key to using the system to NI’s advantage.

Thirdly, the action of unionist leaders to challenge the Protocol through the courts highlights the challenges the UK has without a formal written constitution. Basing the challenge on Article 6 of the Act of Union highlights the significant changes already existing due to devolution, notwithstanding that in respect of trade the Act of Union predates railways and East – West trade was limited to what was carried on sailing vessels and by horse and cart.

“That all Parts of the United Kingdom, for ever, from and after the Union, shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements, and Draw-backs, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and liable to the same Customs and Duties, and Import and Export.” Article 6 Act of Union 1800

The Government apparently is offering to amend the Northern Ireland Act to reassure unionism, I could not accept any reassurance from this Government, what can be amended once can be amended again, my identity is not in the gift of Conservatives. I believe that unionism can however make a significant request for the betterment of the UK as a whole. A request for the establishment of a constitutional convention, to provide within 5 years a written constitution to be accepted or rejected by referendum. A constitution which details the rights of citizens, the responsibilities of Parliament and the limitations of Government.

Finally, what of our relationship with the Conservatives. In the run up to the 2010 election I spent a year working with the Conservatives on the UCUNF project (named before I was involved). At that time there was a belief in the development of a centre-right socially aware conservatism, that iteration of conservatism no longer exists. Instead the Conservatives, controlled by the ideology and authors of Britannia Unchained, represented by the faux working class of Gullis and Anderson, the faux aristocracy of Rees-Mogg and the buffoonery of Boris have stepped far outside the tram lines of a caring society.  

There will be those who believe that unionism should stand with them still, the DUP have many who share this view, happy to stand in the shadows behind the Tories believing they too are in the limelight. In the coming weeks there will be those who articulate the need for unionism to stand united with conservatism with banners and flags flying. This is a venture the Ulster Unionist Party has no need to

---

3 / 3

be involved with. There may still be honourable Tories, I can name a few, but too few and Conservatism today has nothing to offer society. Individuals may be enticed by baubles, a bended knee at the Palace, a rare chance of the ermine. True belief in creating a better society cannot be set aside or bought off by mere trinkets or titles. As for working closely with the DUP, the difference between us is the difference between those who passionately believe in creating a better society and those who will sacrifice lives, inflict poor health, justify poverty and limit the life chances of our citizens in the pursuit of power. Those beliefs go in different directions, at no point do they cross.

---

Fifteen Percent

1 / 5

Fifteen Percent

Unionism will likely face a border poll at a point in the next 10 years. The decision to call for such a poll will not be the start of a process but effectively the culmination of a process which has been developing for some years. Under the guise of “Irelands Future” or “New Ireland” republicans and nationalists have been preparing the groundwork for the referendum campaign for some time and with significant unrestricted financial support.

It is currently the case that neither republicans or unionists have a clear majority to guarantee success in a near future poll, but several factors must be considered, demographic changes favour republicanism and they are not in a rush, they do not want to expedite a poll they may lose instead preferring to wait until victory is assured. Neither will the UK Government or Irish Government wish to create a Brexit II scenario where a result creates uncertainty about what follows. Hence a significant investment in preparation for transition will be undertaken by both Governments.

Within the calculation of when to hold a border poll is the future voting intention of the fifteen percent. Roughly that figure represents those less inclined to be influenced by constitutional considerations and more by the idea of something better than what society currently delivers for them and their families. Their aspirations are not wrong, nor flawed, indeed that aspiration should be at the heart of every political movement. This cohort do have concerns that some political parties, primarily unionist, will support a lower standard of living, a lower quality of life in return for constitutional certainty.

The importance of this is illustrated by the nature of the campaign already being conducted. Republicans have the technical, financial and human resources to focus on the fifteen percent. The “Vote Leave” campaign of 2016 showed what could be achieved with data management and focussed message targeting, 6 years later the technology available and the understanding of how to target specific groups has moved on immeasurably.  

---

2 / 5

For that fifteen percent those seeking their support will understand their hopes, dreams and aspirations, not just for themselves but for their children. In general, where they live, where they work and socialise, where their children go to school, what programmes they watch, what social media they use, what news they watch, who in public life they follow and listen to are all part of the profiling that has been developed to underpin the “New Ireland” mantra.  

On the 1st  October 2022 Irelands Future will hold, what is billed as, Irelands biggest ever United Ireland conference. It’s not for Republicans, though they will be there and active, the target audience is the fifteen percent. Guest speakers will include Rev Karen Sethuraman, James Nesbitt, Matt Cooper, Colm Meaney, while Amanda Ferguson will chair a discussion. Names and personalities designed to assure the fifteen percent that change will be positive, they will sell a vision of a land of milk and honey, peace and prosperity, a land where all are welcome. They will be supported by former unionists such as Ben Collins promoting the transition that will lead to a border poll and based on the current trajectory its inevitable outcome.

Unionist response will inevitably be negative, denouncing any vision, any aspiration and driving the fifteen percent further into the orbit of those selling ambition.  

An attempt to counter the New Ireland narrative has been launched by Dame Arlene Foster called Together UK. It falters at the first step by adopting the name of a Mental Health charity which has been in existence for 140 years. It continues to stumble by failing to understand the challenges it faces, selling the benefits of the UK today will convince no-one who is interested in seeking something better. Having Dame Arlene front the campaign may well appeal to some committed unionists but will do nothing to appeal to the fifteen percent. While republicanism seeks to attract support for their vision by promoting those who are followed by and will influence the centre, unionism promotes a hard-right former politician, now commentator for a right-wing media outlet who doesn’t do detail.

The reality is that whereas unionists will in the future prepare and fight a campaign based on numbers others are currently fighting a campaign based on ideas. Currently unionists will wait until a border

---

3 / 5

poll is inevitable, they will form a committee, there will be flags, posters (Ulster says No), parades and rallies and not a single idea of how to convince the fifteen percent that there is a better future in the Union. Unionism has not begun to understand the nature of the challenge it faces, never mind turn to face it.  

That doesn’t mean that unionism has lost but it does mean that a radical rethinking of how we sustain the union is vital. Those who are yet undecided will be influenced by a series of push/pull factors some within the control of unionism, some not. Each factor needs to be considered not on its impact in the short-term nor to the individual benefit of political parties but on the long-term impact on the ultimate future of the union. Some examples are listed, not an exhaustive list and there will be events over the next few years that are as yet unforeseen but will have impact.

The current Conservative Government gives every indication of being an administration which can push people away from the union, their ideology across a broad range of societal issues will cause many in the centre to question their attachment to a union with such a political direction. Replacing them with a more centrist government will eventually address this and should act as a pull factor, however whether that is enough to change the minds of those in their late teens/early twenties who will be already be considering an alternative way to meet their aspirations is an unknown.  

The expected elevation of Sinn Fein to Government in the Republic may be either a push factor, they show an inability to govern and lower living standards and expectations, or alternatively a pull factor as they make things work to the extent that people are attracted to the society they begin to create.  

Northern Ireland’s current political reality is a push factor, those who aspire to a better quality of life see the current impasse as a sign that things will not improve. Whatever the short-term political advantage for some unionist parties the medium to long term result will be the erosion of support for the status quo and an aspiration for something better. Herein lies an uncomfortable reality for unionism. It has been easy to cast all of the blame for the Protocol and its outworking at the feet of the EU and the Irish Government, the alternative is difficult to contemplate. The Protocol was an

---

4 / 5

agreed position between the EU and the UK, a UK Government whose civil servants consider medium to long term implications of such agreements, specifically what steps would facilitate the transition post a border poll result leading to the end of the Union. It would be naïve to expect that only foreign civil servants plan ahead for a range of outcomes.

Those who seek a libertarian, fundamentalist Protestant Ulster facilitate the push against the Union while they are seen to lead Unionism. If theirs is the only vision of the Union on offer then it will be rejected by an increasing number of voters. While a unionism focussed on more centre ground politics would attract a wider support from the fifteen percent and hopefully soft nationalists if the loudest voice is wrapped in a flag and seen to be reducing the quality of life of our citizens then any hope of moving forward within the United Kingdom is limited.

Only a unionism capable of recognising the battle we are already in and reacting appropriately by creating a vision of a new union encompassing change which secures not just Northern Irelands place in the Union but Scotland and Wales as well can succeed. That means building new partnerships with unionist centrists across the UK setting a new vision which excites and motivates the electorate. It also means an acceptance that some in unionism are a threat to the Union as they present a view of society that a majority do not share. While some of these individuals will see themselves leading the campaign for the union, in reality the higher their profile the lower the chance of success. The desire to seek an alternative leaves many in the fifteen percent open to the “New Ireland” mantra.

Too few unionists recognise the threat or the actions needed to counter it, too many listen to the loudest voices and want to follow the band. Changing that mindset will require a level of political activism unionism has not been capable of for many generations. To win we must convince ourselves of a better union before we can hope to convince others.

---

5 / 5

---

Opportunity Lost

Many local authorities recognise that, with climate change and the loss of biodiversity, all sections of society will have a role to play in addressing the challenges ahead. Some are at the forefront of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decarbonising their vehicle fleet or switching to renewable energy sources. But unfortunately too many tentatively engage or, with a clear lack of organisational understanding, steer clear of the issues. 

For some environmental achievements are measured in the award of Green Flags or honourable mentions for short-term seasonal initiatives.

To address the challenges future generations will face a transformation in organisational understanding is required both in energy use and improving biodiversity.

Take the example of a roundabout in Antrim. A large flat grassy area with a sculpture of a tree adorned with leaves etched with children's artwork, a Peace project funded by the EU, is in the centre. Some hedging radiates out from the centre but mostly it's a flat grassy surface.

Last year a local environmentalist persuaded the council to leave the area unmowed to allow the grasses and other plants to grow. They agreed and during the summer a botanist was asked to carry out a survey of the plants growing there. What he found was quite amazing, 55 different species, some rare were growing on the site. So varied was the fauna that he was surprised that the site had not been especially seeded. The results were provided to the council as an example of what could be achieved by actually doing nothing.

This year

the council mowed the area and left it like a bowling green.

No doubt council has all sorts of policies and statements about the environment, none of them have meaning unless the organisation understands the challenges we face and the changes needed to meet them. If council and other agencies don't have the knowledge there are many environmentalists locally who do, time to listen.