Articles
 
 

This page will shortly be updated with articles from the BUA and links to other sociopolitical articles and websites of interest to the Ulster Loyalist community.

We will also be making our Mainlander newsletter available for download in PDF format but in the meantime, here are a few articles reproduced from past editions.

 
'United' Ireland? No thankyou!
(from November 2004)

We’re all familiar with the concept of a ‘united Ireland’; the joining together of two [technically] warring nations; the removal of an 'artificially imposed' international border; the uniting of two conflicting groups of peoples to embrace a single and independent socialist republic, in which every citizen, regardless of religion, race, gender, sexuality or political standing is treated equally, fairly and respectfully.

And, of course, we vehemently oppose it. Not because we are intolerant, bigoted or even racist, as the political left and its supporters in the media would have the nation believe, but simply because such an idea today, as in 1916, remains an unworkable fantasy. The very idea of a single republic on the island of Ireland is immediately disrespectful to Northern Ireland’s one million plus citizens who favour and support their status within the United Kingdom. Irish republicans’ insistence that Ulster’s unionists should relinquish their British birthright is at the very least intolerant, and just as bigoted as any aspect of the Unionist/Loyalist movement which republicans claim is hateful towards them.

And who says a ‘united Ireland’ has to be a socialist republic? Is anybody else allowed to offer a political alternative? How about a free-trade capitalist economy or the adoption of right-wing populism to control immigration and oppose a federal Europe? I doubt such political free-thinking would be allowed in a Sinn Fein controlled socialist republic, and there is overwhelming evidence to back up this claim. Just ask any family member of the hundreds of people murdered by the IRA for daring to oppose hard-line Irish republicanism.

As for anybody daring to be anything other than heterosexual, a future in ‘Ireland’ wouldn’t look quite so gay. Conservative catholics have always expressed intolerance towards homosexuals through the teachings of the bible. A very recent and well documented example of such sentiment involved the Italian politician and devout Roman Catholic, Rocco Buttiglione, who, after branding homosexuality a sin, was withdrawn from the post of EU Justice Commissioner. I would like to point out that far from championing gay-rights, or condemning Mr. Buttiglione for what was, after all, his right to express a personal opinion, I am merely highlighting one of the many hypocrisies of the Irish republican communist Utopia.

So why then, do we, as Loyalists, oppose the usurping of Northern Ireland and its subsequent absorption into this Irish socialist republic, because of its sheer unfeasibility, and more importantly because of the suffering inflicted on the British people by the sponsors and agents of this fantastical Irish state, yet give credence and legitimacy to this republican vision by accepting and using the term, their term, ‘united Ireland’?

Unity is a positive entity. The bringing together, or uniting, of two peoples, who for decades sought to kill each other or impose an unwanted agenda upon what they saw as their enemy, can only be a good thing. The amalgamation of two bitterly opposed nations into a single unified state, at peace with itself, is surely an ideal which any decent person would welcome? And it is exactly this notion upon which the republican movement justifies its campaign to remove the British ‘oppressor’ whom it claims is the real obstacle to peace, thereby claiming the moral high-ground through its world-wide propaganda machine. Yet it couldn’t be further away from reality.

To suggest a British [political and military] withdrawal from the island of Ireland tomorrow would bring about a lasting peace between republicans and loyalists is at best naive, and at worst, a misguided and very dangerous assumption. Such a move would only bring geographic unity, i.e., the removal of a border and the morphing of a two-state island into a single republic. It would not solve a thing and would therefore be absolutely pointless. Nor would a demographic change in the province, resulting in a catholic majority population, bring about peace. In such an event, a constitutional referendum might well favour a departure from the United Kingdom, but it wouldn’t mean civil unity.

The imposition of an enforced ‘united Ireland’, whether it be by British withdrawal or population change would only result in a ‘role-reversal’, whereby Loyalists would rebel against a state which they had no desire to part of. Garda and possibly Irish army patrols would come under attack from Loyalist paramilitaries in an attempt to show the Irish government they had no wish to abide by laws imposed upon the protestant community by what they regard as a hostile and alien governing body. And in the event of such a military policy by Loyalists failing to achieve its desired effect of removing Irish government jurisdiction from protestant areas of the north, bombs would inevitably be directed at Dublin and other towns and cities of the Irish republic.

For a country to be united, the people must be united. And anybody who is familiar with the Ulster conflict knows fine well that unity between the republican and loyalist communities is just as far away today as it was during the early days of the Troubles, although republicans would have us all believe otherwise.

One key aspect of the republican and catholic propaganda machine has always been that they simply wish to live in an independent nation, at peace with protestants. But quite how republicans expected to bring about solidarity with the protestant/unionist community by striking such blows for ‘Irish freedom’ as the Enniskillen bomb, the Shankill bomb, the Darkley massacre and the cold-blooded slaughter of protestant workers at Kingsmills and Teebane Cross is far beyond comprehension. And despite all these atrocities being carried out before the ceasefires of 1994 - the new era in Northern Ireland politics - attacks on protestant communities continue to this day in the form of physical assaults, vandalism of protestant housing and even ethnic cleansing of traditional protestant areas such as the Torrens estate in north Belfast.

A ‘united Ireland’ is just a republican pipe-dream. It is deliberately offensive, unworkable, and impossible without the agreement of Ulster’s protestant majority. So, again, why do we continue to use the term ‘united Ireland’? Surely an alternative and more appropriate term for the republican goal can be applied? How about, the ‘destruction of Northern Ireland’, or an ‘enforced Ireland’, or even ‘Annexation’?

During a debate about this issue with a fellow loyalist a few years ago, the term ‘Anschluss’ arose to describe the IRA’s terror campaign and the Irish Republic’s constitutional claim over Northern Ireland. Anschluss was the term used to describe Germany’s annexation of Austria in 1938, part of Hitler’s campaign to unite the German-speaking peoples of Europe. In the context of the IRA’s campaign of violence to overthrow British sovereignty of Northern Ireland, the term ‘annexation’ would be accurate as the word ‘annex’ can be used to mean ‘take by force’. The word ‘Anschluss’, however, means ‘unite’ - the term that least describes the republican vision for the whole of Ireland, as I have tried to outline above. Furthermore, in a plebiscite prior to Anschluss, the Austrian people voted 99.7% in favour of union with Germany. And despite claims of Nazi intimidation of voters, there was already vast support for Hitler’s regime throughout Austria.

So given that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain British, the term Anschluss, to describe any Irish claim over Northern Ireland, isn’t entirely correct. There simply isn’t an equivalent level of support for such a constitutional change. As for annexation, I doubt very much if any British government would unconditionally withdraw from Northern Ireland due to IRA violence. Despite our dislike of the Labour government, and the Labour party in general, there was at least been an effort by Toby Blair to reach a lasting peace through negotiation, and it was made quite clear that violence wouldl not be allowed to play a part in any agreement for Northern Ireland. Yes, Tony Blair seems to think it is more important to chase imaginary terrorist cells worldwide and look for non-existent weapons of mass destruction in the middle-east, than it is to combat subversion and militancy, in the form of Irish republicanism, on our own shores. But I’m sure that should the IRA resume a full-scale campaign of violence, it would be met with the same level of counter-insurgency that we saw throughout the 80’s and 90’s. Therefore, I think it unlikely that the IRA would ever achieve ‘annexation’ of Northern Ireland.

So just what is the best way of describing what republicans call a ‘united Ireland’, from the viewpoint of Loyalism? Personally, I prefer the term ‘enforced Ireland’. Enforcement suggests it is imposed without the consent or desire of Loyalists. Refusal to recognise the term ‘united Ireland’ because of its negative connotations for Loyalism will hopefully, and objectively, make clearer the sentiments of Northern Ireland’s majority population; clear that we don’t recognise any unity in such a constitutional change, and therefore clear that, as a people, we are not stubbornly rejecting the notion simply because of our intolerance, but because it does not benefit Loyalism in any way.

As Northern Ireland heads towards uncertain times with the suspension of devolved government still in place and a faltering peace-process, it is very easy to look for faults within the republican movement in order to shift the blame for the current impasse. And whilst republican intransigence on issues such as policing and weapons decommissioning has been a major contributory factor in the deadlock of the peace-process, I would much rather see Loyalism looking for ways to strengthen its own argument and position, rather than spending too much time seeking out shortcomings within the republican movement. The re-definition of the term ‘united Ireland’ may seem an insignificant part of the Loyalist movement, and certainly there are more pressing issues to deal with, but it could possibly be the starting point of a Loyalist renaissance, in which every aspect of Loyalism is scrutinised to the full, and if necessary altered, to ensure that our own people are united, that our argument is legitimate, and ultimately, that Northern Ireland, as a part of the UK, has a long and bright future.

Divided we fall
A BUA member hits out at accusations of racism
(from February 2005)
There has been much speculation in recent years about alleged links between Loyalist organisations and far-right political groups from the British mainland and across Europe. The various media outlets in particular seem to have developed quite a fascination with the so-called ‘neo-Nazis’ who openly pledge their support for Loyalist paramilitaries, none more so than Ulster-based newspapers like the North Belfast News, who, in a desperate attempt to fill their pages with something remotely interesting, have dedicated endless pages over the past few years to ‘exposing’ the racists within Loyalism.

Republicans too have jumped on the anti-racist bandwagon in an attempt to score propaganda points and attain an apparently higher moral standing in the Ulster conflict by ‘outing’ their enemy not only as religious bigots but also as racists. And in the age of political correctness and religious and racial tolerance, to be labelled as racist is about as politically or socially stigmatised as an individual or organisation can be. Thus, the word ‘racist’ has now become a potent weapon with which to attack an enemy or opponent. The pen is mightier than the sword, so goes the proverb.

So it comes as no surprise that a regular target for accusations of racism and far-right activism has been the British Ulster Alliance. Leading the assault has been the left-wing media with the aforementioned North Belfast News at the head of the charge. Many stories have appeared in editions of NBN over the past few years linking the BUA to racist organisations such as Combat 18, and right-wing political parties such as the National Front and British National Party. Amidst the usual accusations of neo-Nazism and racial hatred have been allegations of attacks by BUA members on republican areas of north Belfast (a blatant lie), insinuations that the BUA oppose peace in Ulster and wish to see a return to conflict (another lie), and even suggestions that the BUA have been told by Loyalist communities that we are not welcome in Ulster because of our ‘racist views’. The truth being we have never been told anything of the sort and have always been made very welcome indeed.

Of course we know fine well that republican mouth-pieces such as the NBN will never accept the right of the BUA to visit Northern Ireland, a part of our own country, nor will they ever give a balanced and objective view of the BUA’s activities. It is to be expected. Republicans hate the fact that Loyalism has many supporters throughout the British mainland. Furthermore, they are fearful of mainland Loyalist activity which might just expose what republicanism is all about to the wider British public. So republicans and their supporters resort to doing what they do best - telling lies. Well, as they say, never believe anything you read in the papers.

If only it was that simple, that people discarded media lies and sought to find the truth themselves. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. People tend to believe what they want to believe, and casually dismiss anything they either find offensive or of no interest. But whilst we are aware that republicans and traditional enemies of Ulster and the British state will never accept anything positive about supporters of Loyalism, we find it very disappointing that some people who regard themselves as part of the Loyalist struggle are also taken in by republican propaganda.

On many occasions the BUA have been accused of being a front for racism by individuals and members of Loyalist organisations. Our activities in support of Loyalist communities have been dismissed and ridiculed by the very people with whom we pledge to stand by and, if necessary, fight alongside. We, along with British Nationalist groups, have been called ‘hangers-on’ to Loyalism. It has even been suggested that since our membership consists of British Nationalists, as well as Loyalists and patriots, we are somehow linked, albeit by name, to the ‘nationalists’ of Northern Ireland - the republican community.

All these accusations are, of course, rubbish. The BUA has one clear aim - that Ulster shall remain part of the United Kingdom. The threat to Ulster comes not from Africans or Asians, but from the Irish - white Europeans. There is no hidden agenda based on race politics. We will certainly admit that some of our members hold what are termed ‘right-wing’ views. But we live in a democracy, where freedom of speech and expression is supposed to be the corner-stone of our society. To suggest that people are not allowed to hold certain views is exactly the kind of oppression associated with far-right politics. People cannot claim to be the moral guardians of society whilst denying others such fundamental civil liberties.

Even more hypocritical is the bizarre sentiment of many supporters of Loyalism who talk of rejecting and opposing racism in all its forms, yet in the next breath openly advocate ‘killing fenians’ and celebrating the imminent death of the Pope. Incidentally, when the Pope does eventually die, he will simply be replaced by another Pope. The Roman Catholic church will still exist. The IRA will not have gone away. I see no cause for celebration.

These people are the real ‘hangers-on’ to Loyalism. People whose politics really do centre around hate, not in strengthening and furthering the Loyalist cause.

During the many discussions I have had with other Loyalists and supporters around the UK over the years, I have often talked about peoples’ contributions to Loyalism and how mainlanders in particular can do more to support the people of Ulster. On many occasions, when asked about their own personal contribution to Loyalism, many people have replied simply that they are a member of the Orange Order. As far as they are concerned, all they have to do is wear an Orange sash and they have suddenly become a Loyalist. As we are all aware, to secure Ulster’s position within the UK, we are going to have to do far more than simply wear a sash! But the sad fact is, many people just cannot grasp this. Worse still are the thousands of Glasgow Rangers fans who sing Orange songs and proclaim to be part of the Loyalist struggle simply by supporting a football team! Sadly, these people are simply once-a-week ‘Loyalists’ and have no intention of getting involved with groups like the British Ulster Alliance to pro-actively take to the streets and highlight the plight of Loyalist communities, as the BUA have done on many occasions.

So it is not only disappointing but extremely annoying when the BUA and British Nationalists are singled out for criticism by the people I have just described, simply because of some of the views they hold.

It is worth reminding people that on many occasions British Nationalists have taken great personal risks for the cause of Loyalism, often resulting in long prison sentences. I would like to ask the people who brand these former Loyalist prisoners as ‘hangers-on’, what have you done for Ulster? If you have done your bit then I personally salute you, but I know fine well there are many people out there who have done nothing, yet seek to criticise those who have.

Now my point here is not to suggest that everybody has to accept British Nationalism. As I mentioned earlier, we live in a free country and people should have the right to say and think what they like. I certainly go along with that. But what I would like to see is a mutual respect by the pro-British groups around the UK for each other’s positions. Right-wing groups respect the position of the Loyalist people of Ulster since they are fighting a war against an enemy of Britain, the IRA.

British Nationalist groups on the mainland see themselves fighting their own war, a war to preserve the identity of Britain. In this case, the enemy is mass immigration, political correctness and left-wing liberalism. And whilst it is now the subject of much debate whether or not immigration is good for Britain, there is a sense that the much maligned positions of groups like the BNP and NF, who oppose immigration, has recently been vindicated by the government’s and opposition’s acceptance that immigration and asylum are genuine concerns for the British electorate.

During the 2001 general election, the Commission for Racial Equality bullied the main parties contesting the election to sign a declaration that they would not use immigration and race issues as part of their election campaign. In 2005, immigration and asylum are the issues on which the election will be fought. In just 4 years, views that were once classed as evil and racist are now commonplace and totally acceptable. It should be pointed out that a major factor in the change of heart by both the government and the British people has been the electoral successes over the past few years of the BNP.

So if we want to see a future for the United Kingdom then each threat to our union has to be dealt with accordingly and appropriately. There are many ills in our society that threaten our way of life. They must be defeated if the UK is to survive. Just like if a person is ill, they need the correct medicine to make them better. You cannot fight an infection with headache tablets! Similarly, the BNP and NF cannot defeat the IRA. The correct remedy must be applied, in this case Loyalism. And likewise, Loyalist groups cannot stop uncontrolled immigration into Britain. But political groups like the BNP can.

Only when people and groups, who want to see the continuation of the United Kingdom for future generations, learn to understand and respect other’s positions within the UK, can we then begin to deal with the real problems facing our society. And believe me, we are not going to understand each other by reading what’s in the newspapers or on the TV!

United we stand, divided we fall. There is no more true and poignant phrase to sum up the threat to our great nation. Let it be a warning to us all.