IRISH MY ERSE!

From the IRISH DEMOCRAT JUNE 1987

CRACK SHOTS

On hearing that a cetain fellow had blown out his brain with a pistol, the late Noel Coward observed that he must have been a frightfully good shot.If some Editorial pundits wish to repeat the exercise they'd be best advised to use shotguns.Two prize examples of the type can be found at the supposedly  intellectual ends of  London and Dublin journalism.

London's Observer celebrated the cession of Dr FitzGerald's leadership  with the Editorial "Garret's Legacy."  We are asked to believe that this includes Mr Haughey's adoption of the principle that there can be no change in Northern Ireland's status "until a majority of Unionists  there want it." So much for Democracy and equality under the law! Not a majority of voters in that gerrymandered enclave.We can't even be sure whether that "principle" hinges on today's Unionist ratio being halved, for so long as there is one Unionist in the statelet, by definition he/she will be "a majority of Unionists" and against separation from Great Britain.

I'm not being facetious or over-pedantic here. Unionist criteria of "democracy" are notoriously fickle. Once they demanded an English referendum on Home Rule and shied away from an Ulster one. Then English voters were believed to be pro-Union, whereas Ulster voters had (in two elections in 1910) returned 17 Nationalists to 16 Unionists and, turn, turn about, 17 Unionists to 16 Nationalists. The Nationalists even polled more votes in Ulster in one of those elections, and the then Liberal, Winston Churchill, taunted Carson with being "leader of half -Ulster." There's no call from Unionists for an English referendum today, and when they use the term "Ulster" they are short-changing you. I suspect that when The Observer speaks of "principle" it is not through malice, but from long-ingrained stupidity. But it has its match in Dublin.

Taking issue with a recent Sinn Fein document "Scenario for Peace" on May 3, Dublin's Sunday Tribune dismissed part of it as "kind of rhetorical junk which bedevils so much of political discussion in this country." "This country" in Tribune-speakmay mean Ireland. Then again it may not, for Ireland is later described as "the island" and is inhabited by Nationalists and Unionists. The latter may, or may not, be emraced by the term "Irish people" who may, or may not include Unionists, snd have rights. Three of these rights are spelled out by The Sunday Tribune:- "If a majority of the Irish people decide to abandon sovereignty entirely and forget about unity and forsake independence, then they are absolutely free to do so."

There's no arguing with that, for who would wish to stop them? The Sunday Tribune does not claim that they are "absolutely free" to do the opposite.When Henry Ford offered any colour you like so long as it's black, he gave the public more freedom than yer man claims for the Irish, as Ford had competitors in the car business. For eight bloody centuries Irishmen and women have been absolutely free in the sense that the Sunday Tribune understands the term, for the power of the English State has stood between them and any other kind of freedom.

The Sunday Tribune finds fault too with Sinn Fein's recognition of most Britons' wish to be shut of Ireland. They tell us Britain is only discharging her duty to the Unionist majority in the statelet she heself created.(Not long back the alibi was that the Brits were protecting the Nationalists.) If the British Parliament were that sensitive to local opinion,  London would still have the GLC. Like many political illiterates, the Sunday Tribune ignores the fact that sovereignty in the UK is not vested in the people, but in Parliament, where all but the two SDLP members are in Unionist parties. Nor is the fact that British politicians hold the Six Counties for their own strategic ends given a mention.The Six Counties are part of their scenario for global war.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this