William Ennis–who is becoming a frequent–and welcome contributor to these pages, is a mature student and a Progressive Unionist Party activist.

Novosel: My Thoughts

I first heard of Professor Tony Novosel in 2011 when he was invited to grace the lectern at the PUP’s annual conference.  He cut an intriguing figure.  A thoroughly polite gentleman with a softly spoken American accent, the speech he delivered that Saturday afternoon grabbed me.  It’s always pleasant to hear a Loyalist voice in an alternative accent to the Ulster twang, his enthusiasm for deep-rooted and genuine Loyalism was as heart felt as any other in the room. 

This was my first party conference and not having been able to trade shifts with any of my work colleagues I had arrived mid proceedings and in the distinctly un-classy  garb of my warehouse work clobber (‘well we are a working class party after all’, was my excuse, and I was sticking to it!).  After what had been a bruising year for the party with a disappointing election campaign Professor Novosel’s address proved to be quite the tonic.  What unfolded into a superb conference, complete with the unveiling of a new party leader, became a refreshing turning of the page.  Our new chapter had begun and the feeling from that afternoon was so positive I can still summon it.  We had embarked upon a new chapter, and it was time to get scribbling.

When a year or so later I heard that Professor Novosel had published a book on the history of the conflict through the perspective of Loyalist’s the anticipation was gripping. I then heard its title, Northern Irelands lost opportunity, the frustrated promise of political Loyalism and realised that reading this book was barely optional.

I am, of course, a civilian Loyalist.  I was not in the trenches, as it were, with men such as Ervine and Hutchinson, and so the desire to build an understanding of what these men went through was, and remains, a fundamental one.

I read Professor Novosel’s book, and here are my thoughts…

Have you ever been in a room during a fierce argument between two or more people?  Fingers pointing, blood pressures sky high, voices screaming at a level hazardous to the eardrums?  Does conflict not often resemble this?  The reason such arguments seldom get resolved is because neither, much less both sides of the argument get heard.  I understood this book from the very first paragraph as the author deploying a megaphone and exclaiming… “Everyone else, shut up!  Let’s hear what Loyalism has to say!”  The value of this alone is immeasurable.  To understand this merely walk into your local Waterstones or WH Smith and observe wall after wall devoted to the Easter rising, Dan Breen, Mick Collins, De Valera, Wolf Tone, Napper-Tandy, Joy-McCracken, Drennan, Gerry Adams, and that unspeakable work of Satan that is virtually anything British.  Those who are Pro-Union British barely exist, and those of us who are working-class and Pro-Union British simply do not.  We are a fly never to be allowed into the ointment that is the romantic Republican narrative.  With this in mind, the very undertaking of this project by Prof’ Novosel is significant and I don’t consider this to simplistic a point to make.  Much like the working-class Loyalist Hugh Smyth becoming Lord Mayor of Belfast the significance doesn’t lie in his excellent execution of the office, but in the fact that the appointment happened at all.

The book exposed me to viewpoints I had not been aware of.  Gusty Spence’s piercing 1977 Remembrance Day speech to his incarcerated troops in which Spence compared the abuse of the Loyalist working classes of that era with the abuse of the working classes by the upper classes at the Somme.  This was, for me, breathtaking insight given the impenetrably sacred British narrative of the Great War.  Such objectivity and leadership would certainly have been lost to history but for Novosel’s determination to scratch beneath the surface.  David Ervine’s scathing criticism of main-stream Unionism’s refusal to engage with what he saw as a perfectly reasonable civil rights agenda is another such insight that both main-stream Unionists and Republicans would no doubt like to bury.

Novosel interviews many ex-prisoners at great length and invites them to lay out exactly who they were (and are) as people.  Their loves, their lives, why they believed that had fallen into such a conflict, and exposes these men for the first time as, heaven forbid, human beings, human beings who didn’t wake up killers, but were products of their country’s history.

One of the greatest revelations for me is actually quite embarrassing.  It was one of those moments when upon having something explained to you the answer was so obvious all along you slap yourself squarely across the forehead with teeth gritted in shame.  It’s only fair I divulge so here goes.  For many years I had heard of the legends of Spence University, of how men would become exposed to political ideas and look inward for answers.  These men in Spence University would come to reject sectarianism and begin plotting for peace and so on and so forth.  For the longest time I would ponder, “What was wrong with the rest of them?  How come the rest didn’t have these revelations sooner?”  Of course the book deals at length with the reality that those incarcerated men had the facility to question, debate, read, learn, strategise, where as the poor sods on the outside were trapped in a vicious conflict with no such opportunity!  My goodness, how silly was I not to have realised that?! But that is what this book became as I read- a reality check.

The book is not without flaw, and it is noteworthy that I retain only one complaint.  The damaging notion that one is a Loyalist or a Unionist is one I simply can’t abide.  I find it positively insulting for anyone to deny me my Unionism on the grounds that I am a Loyalist.  Loyalism is a cultural concept.  It means my parents afforded me the opportunity to win a goldfish on the 12^th of July field.  It means I enjoy the marching bands and meeting friends and family on the kerb as the procession passes.  It means I have immense respect for the service men and women in her Majesties Armed Services.  It means Christmas dinner gets interrupted to watch the Queen.  I enjoy and take comfort in my community’s traditions.  However, I believe in the political maintenance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I am a Unionist too. The idea that one must choose between one and the other is a ploy by middle-class unionists to distance themselves from the working-classes and is often used tactically.  It is patronising drivel.  This Loyalism Vs Unionism trend is one I detest, and is one which I believe, sadly, Professor Novosel has fed with the narrative of his book as it is a distinction he seems to use frequently, an unfortunate laziness in his writing style perhaps.

This book is by no means a loyalist propaganda piece.  Novosel makes no bones about venturing into the darker side of Loyalist history.  Through interviews with ex-combatants he explores the coup which occurred in 1974/75 within the UVF following the electoral failure of the Volunteer Political Party (VPP) which led to the organisation taking a frightening lunge to the far right of the political spectrum.  Novosel turns over many uncomfortable stones and writes frankly about the savagery often committed in Loyalism’s name.  Subject matter such as the Shankill Butchers and Loyalist flirtations with overtly racist groups such as the National Front (NF) is in no way airbrushed.

But the highlight of the entire book for me lay in the exposure of some of the most revolutionary and progressive thinking to have been committed to paper.  This thinking culminated in the Shared Responsibility document which was published and polished in many redrafts throughout the 1970’s with the final draft presented in 1985. The Shared Responsibility Document proposed shared government, an empowered assembly and essentially everything which would eventually come to pass, everything which over twenty years later Big-House Unionism, Republicans and no fewer that three Governments would claim credit for (whilst side-lining Loyalism).  The exploration into the fields of education and employment, the mechanisms of government show the most remarkable foresight and lays waste to the lazy Republican narrative of the knuckle dragging prod.

In conclusion this book is of massive significance not only to those of us who are of the Loyalist culture, but to anyone who genuinely wants to understand Northern Irelands past.  One thought which has not left my head since reading the book is this…  With propaganda having played such a supporting role in the Irish Republican movement, do they have the benefit of such frank analysis?  The Irish Republican narrative places such emphasis in the romantic story that it has evolved through propaganda coated richly with further propaganda, with a side order of propaganda with some additional propaganda thrown on for good measure.  We Loyalists look at our flaws, we have no choice! Every one else looks at them for us!  Somewhere along the way I believe we lost sight of how truly noble we are as a people.  Novosel remedies this.  Somewhere along the way we may have even started to believe what others have said of us.  Novosel counters this.  Unlike the Official IRA, the PIRA flatly refused to consider a compromise peace with the authors of Shared Responsibility.  Novosel writes frankly of a window in our history when things were at their most bleak, and when Loyalism made a courageous attempt to draw up potential answers, but failed due to want of a peace-partner.

Northern Irelands Lost Opportunity induced in me all the same spine-tingles the Principles of Loyalism did.  When a person is used to an environment in which his/her community is habitually blamed for every ill a clear and frank glance into the (very different) reality is a remarkable experience.  Made all the more important when one considers we are once again at a juncture where those in Government find it much easier to blame Loyalism than to Govern.

Before my final read-through and submission of this essay I visited one of the said book shops in Belfast.  Professor Novosel’s book was not on any of its shelves.

William Ennis

Twaddell- Is the end game staring us in the face?

In this Loyalists opinion the complete revamp of Unionist representation at political level is not only achievable, but necessary.  This (small r) revolution within the PUL community would also be a fitting victory to what have been long, admirable and inspiring protests at both Twaddell and Belfast city hall.

I have learned many things from this past year of PUL resistance.

I have always suspected that Loyalist women were our backbone and that the Loyalist community was a deeply matriarchal one, now I know this to be true.  The devotion and deep pride of the women of our protests have, and continue to be an overwhelming phenomenon.    From tending to the problems of the young members of their community, to making Stephen Nolan’s panellists wish they had never been born, to reminding us all of our responsibilities, to having those much needed sandwiches at the ready this most grounded of grass-roots activism can’t help but inspire those who observe it.

I have learned that there is much to be done with regard to coaxing many of our younger people from bad habits.  The bitterness which often escapes the lips of many is not surprising given what the PIRA put our community through for so long, but the effort should be made by us all to remember that the most advantageous standpoint from which to win a debate is that of the high ground.  The low level of bigotry to be found at the protests is a tonic of course, but this also serves to make those rare instances all the more noticeable.

I have learned the stereotype peddled by our opponents who would paint us a cold individualistic bunch to be complete claptrap.  On many an occasion I posted on my twitter account that “this pedestrian Loyalist requires a lift to twaddell” only to be peppered with kind offers of assistance from Loyalists of every politic and background, it was extremely heart-warming and brought home to me the degree to which the expression ‘Loyalist family’ is no accident.  This feeling extends far into the spectatorship of the protest parades, every face greeting you with the smile of a favourite old cousin; a family.

This also draws my thoughts to what might be.  We are a protest community, seasoned, experienced and mobilised.  I’m thinking of opposition to the poverty deepening water charges which are hanging over the heads of our community as well as that of the CNR (catholic-nationalist-republican) community.  Once the actual shared future is achieved with everyone’s culture(s) left inviolate and the bitterness has had a chance to die its death imagine the political force our community could become with regard to other issues.  Water charges, insultingly huge MLA wages, bankers’ bonuses, extortionate VAT rates, appalling educational facilities, poor public services, shortage of third level educational opportunities for young people from poorer backgrounds, widespread media scape-goating of the unemployed and single parents…  I could go on.

All of which draws me back to my initial thought.  Where are we headed?  Do we have an end game?  The answer is yes.  In this Loyalist scribbler’s opinion the end game comes in May.

The Unionist politicians have let us down.  They roll up their sleeves with rabid enthusiasm at the mere sniff of a pending election only to re-attach the sparkling cuff-links once their office is re-secured.

I’ve had enough.

Have you?

The end game lies in our politically mobilised Loyalist community making our voice the loudest it has ever been, in local government councils, at Stormont, at the Westminster Parliament, and in Europe.  Let no-one tell us we aren’t good enough.

I recall a BBC Question Time just before the last general election when George Galloway encouraged the audience to make a point of voting for someone other than the incumbent candidate.  He exclaimed to an appreciative audience that they (the voters) must “take a large broom, and sweep out the whole chamber!  Sweep them out I say, SWEEP THEM OUT!”

I believe the PUL community should take hold of that broom next May, and with your pencil, commence that clear out!

But replace them with whom?

Not an unfair question…

It is of course no secret that the writer has a favourite party, one of which he is a member.  I have been a member of the PUP for three years now, but this wont devalue the point I’m about to make to any non-PUP reader, I hope.

What ever a loyalists politics, there is an alternative party to vote for, arguably the first election of which this may be said.  For the reasons mentioned above I no longer consider the incumbent Unionists (DUP and UUP) worthy of the Loyalist people’s support, and NI21’s flagrant anti-Loyalism places that party also beyond consideration.  So here is my recommendation.

If you are a Loyalist whose politics lie between the centre and the centre-left (in favour of state support for the vulnerable), if you are proud of your working-class roots and place a lot of stock in the value of community then the Progressive Unionist Party seeks to represent you.  However, if you are a more right-leaning, free-market orientated Unionist then Jim Allister’s TUV, whilst they aren’t my cup of tea, should more than float your boat.  Gone are the days of being resigned to the cocky incumbent whom you haven’t seen or heard of since the last election.

A complete shake up of PUL representation will provide the victory those long-suffering and unshakable ladies at Twaddell deserve.  To come out of the other side of the upcoming elections with representation no more engaged with our grass-roots than is currently the case would truly spell defeat.

But I don’t think that will happen.

I’m now off for one of those sandwiches.

William Ennis

DEMOCRACY???

I have been meaning to get this out of my system for some time now. My reluctance has been how to do it without it being interpreted and used as justification for further actions detrimental to working class unionists.

 Every unionist reacts when Sinn Fein presume to lecture them on democracy and how the vote to only fly the union flag over the City hall on designated days was a democratic vote.

This from a party whose members were responsible for bombing and shooting their way through four decades because they did not accept the will of the democratic majority to govern us.

As for the Alliance party. It was their former leader, John Alderdice in his guise as chairman of the IMC who recommended that PUP funding be removed. This recommendation was being made because of the alleged actions of the UVF – actions that have since been attributed to UVF members that were acting as agents of the state. This can only lead to the conclusion that the state did not want the PUP to develop and in fact was instrumental in its demise. Working class unionists were denied a voice and future development as a result.

The decision to change when the flag flies over the City Hall was undoubtedly part of a message that Sinn Fein wanted to send to its constituents and detractors, that it was another step closer to its primary objective of uniting Ireland. Bear in mind that the initial proposal was the flag not be flown at all.

Elected unionists, particularly the DUP chose to try and exploit the Sinn Fein proposal to remove the union flag when the alliance indicated that they would propose the alternative to fly the flag only on designated days.

Peter Robinson saw this as an opportunity to win his Westminster seat back from the Alliance’s Naomi Long by exploiting working class unionist emotions. Instead of negotiating for a different outcome to the vote, or accepting the likely outcome and preparing his constituency for it; he chose to whip up emotions and create a monster he could not control. This is not a new scenario for us, many people found themselves in Long Kesh after emotions had been heightened by unionist politicians throughout the four decades of violence from Irish nationalists masquerading as republicans.

Unfortunately all kinds of nefarious cretins have chosen to crawl out of the woodwork to exploit working class unionists’ emotions over what is now known as the ‘flag issue’, from anti-agreement unionists to the BNP and National Front. Mysterious and anonymous loyalists materialised on social websites on the internet, organising all kinds of confrontational protests to the detriment of working class unionists; to the degree that I was convinced the source might be Connolly House or Sevastopol Street. Given the locations and some of the characters, I am more inclined to be of the view it may be the work of the state or its sinister elements which damaged the PUP.

The PUP’s demise revisited this time with the intent to discredit and demonise all of the unionist working class.

Our opinion, when the PIRA ceasefire was called, was one of having Sinn Fein appear as reasonable statesmen-like ‘pursuers of peace’ whilst loyalist paramilitaries embarked on sectarian violence, appears to be re-emerging in a different guise.

Someone somewhere is being facilitated in projecting working class unionists in the most negative light.

All the elected unionists had to do was predict the outcome of the vote. Prepare their constituents for it by turning it completely around.

I for one could never have seen the day that Sinn Fein would vote for the union flag to be flying over the City Hall, bringing us in to line with the rest of the United Kingdom. That might justify giving Sinn Fein recognition. A notice could be raised along with the flag acknowledging that it flies with their consent.

A respectful dignified rally could be organised to witness each raising and removal of the flag and commemorate the event it is being raised for.  Perhaps Sinn Fein could be persuaded to extend this vote to all councils including Newry.

Most of these would make life difficult for Sinn Fein with their own constituents and dissidents but rather than pursue those who pose a threat, the DUP opted for what they saw as the easy target, the Alliance party.

If any of them were genuine about the Good Friday agreement then instead of the DUP and Sinn Fein carving the place along their respective power lines they would seek to help ease each other’s constituents into the shared future envisaged in the Agreement that was voted for. Perhaps we need a reminder that the DUP don’t acknowledge the GFA – they refer to the Hillsborough Agreement. An agreement at which, they, the UUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP opted to breach the GFA by ending the Civic Forum and introducing bodies like the HET and IMC etc.

Until the referendums North and South to support the GFA, Sinn Fein never recognised Northern Ireland as a democratic state or the republic for that matter. Post referendums they appear to give the impression that they now do or at least are prepared to work within them to achieve their ultimate objective.

Unionists need to remind themselves that Sinn Fein have always considered Northern Ireland as a failed state. Whilst Sinn Fein want the rest of the world to see them as peaceful statesmen trying to accommodate their fellow deluded Irish Unionists. They are happy and content to see those Unionists pilloried internationally as sectarian intransigent dinosaurs.

Sinn Fein would be quite happy to see the collapse of the Stormont Assembly especially at the hands of Unionists. It re-enforces their position of a failed state where they come out of it with the credibility that they appear to have tried to make it work, but for those intransigent Unionists.

Unionist need to get wise to this and to Sinn Fein’s antagonisms. Instead of carving everything up between Sinn Fein and the DUP re-enforcing division, they need to resist the temptation to appease their own supporters. It is their opponents supporters that they actually need to appease. Unfortunately in the current scenario, the DUP decided that their opponents were Alliance and put party and votes ahead of country.

The Civic Forum was intended to act as an advisory body to the Assembly particularly on divisive issues. It was never allowed to function as envisaged and there appears to be recognition and acknowledgement that it was a mistake to dismantle it. Both Sinn Fein and the SDLP have made noises about re-establishing it. Unionists have made sounds of opposition to its return and there is a good chance that it will re-emerge as a result of the Richard Haas talks. Will it re-emerge as it was initially constituted and intended or will it be re-established as an object of abuse to be used as an excuse for not finding agreement on those issues that the DUP and Sinn Fein have already established they cannot carve up between themselves?

As it stands in this country, if democracy exists, it exists within selective parameters and interpretations that vary with time and interpretation.

I first remember questioning democracy here when Peter Robinson first won his seat to become MP for east Belfast. Peter, Bill Craig and Oliver Napier all obtained around 15000 votes each. From what I can remember Robinson had something like 10 votes more than either Craig or Napier. By my calculations though Peter Robinson may have had 10 votes more than Craig or Napier but there were at least 30000 voters in East Belfast who didn’t want Peter Robinson representing them, almost double those who had voted for him.

That for me told me that the first past the post system is inherently undemocratic.

I often heard Gusty and Davy refer to micro and macro politics but I  was too wrapped up in the local micro politics of conflict transformation that was taking place here to appreciate what they were talking about.

Unfortunately whilst we bicker and fight over flags and culture, the cultural things of real value are being eroded and dismantled in the arena of macro politics.

The most disadvantaged are being pursued vigorously to reduce benefits, whilst the most advantaged receive tax cuts even though they have avoided and evaded paying taxes. Just how much of the UK is owned by the British people, likewise, how much of the republic is Irish?

The G8 and G20 may consist of elected heads of state but the interest they represent at these meetings is the interest of the rich and wealthy.

The multi-nationals who have big franchises sucking the wealth out of the country whilst avoiding paying taxes.

And why would they not, when those who govern that very country do exactly the same?

DOGS