A TEST: the Belfast Newsletter regularly refers to the two parts of Ireland as Eire and Ulster. How do you respond to that? Do you think the terms are inappropriate, and reflect a condescension and disdain for Irish nationalism? If so, why?
The arguments about the term Ulster have been rehearsed often enough anyway, I so we'll come back to them in a moment. What about the word! Eire? Do you find it offensive as a term to describe this State? Many people do. Hackles rise when Ulster (that word again) Unionists refer to the Republic as Eire. If an English politician refers to Eire, he - or even she - will be denounced as being anti-Irish. If British tourists were to amble into pubs in certain areas of the country and were to declare what a jolly nicer country Eire is, they might find themselves with a bruised nose - or two or a few cracked teeth.
Trigger Word
The word is a trigger word. How it became a trigger word I don't know. It is not dissimilar to using the word negro to American blacks. It is in its core, and its history almost blameless. It means no more than it was intended to mean; but in the ear of the hearer, it can offend. Why? That I do not know. Call in the experts on the psychopathology of language sensitivity.
The problem is made more complex when Eire is the trip word, because it is the word used by the State to describe itself. Constitutionally, Ireland is not a republic. The republic was never endorsed by a referendum. The name of the State in law, anterior and superior to the declaration of the republic by fiat in 1949, is stated in the constitution so artfully drawn up by Eamon de Valera and, amongst others, John Charles McQuaid.
The wording of Article A runs: The name of the State is Fire, or in the English language, Ireland. Or, in the first national language, Fire is ainm don Stat no, sa Sacs Bhearla, Ireland. In both cases, Fire is named first. We know from the history of the Constitution that Ireland was added as an afterthought following strong representations by, I think, a civil servant in Foreign Affairs.
But in both cases, Fire has priority. It is printed in Roman typescript. The name Ireland exists only in italics, a type script which is used only for the rubric of the Constitution. I have been able to find no other word within the binding part of the Constitution which is in italics. In that sense, the word "Ireland" is rubrical and outside the main intent of the primary author of the Constitution.
Partitionist Referendum
Constitutionally, then, Eire it is. Ireland does not exist as a constitutional republic. Why? Because it would require a referendum to make it so. And a referendum to make it so could only be conducted in the Republic, so such a referendum would be partitionist; which is the precise opposite of what Dev and his constitution intended, of course.
Which does not explain the extreme sensitivity aroused by the self imposed term Eire. It is not merely the name of the State in the Constitution; it is the name on our coins and stamps too. Does any other country insist on putting its legal name on its legal tender and then regard it as an insult if foreigners, or worse, people we claim to be Irish, namely northern unionists, refer to the State by that name? Do we quite know why the term irritates?
The Ulster bit is easier to explain; we have had this argument a thousand times. Ulster, we say, is nine counties, etc., etc., etc. The Northern state cannot be called Ulster because it is partitioned six three. Yet we have no problem calling the state occupying part of the island of Ireland by the name of the entire island. If we can call the larger part of the island, Ireland, as if it were entire and whole, why cannot northern unionists call their larger part of a similarly partitioned province Ulster? And do we not blandly and blithely refer to a certain European constituency as Connacht Ulster? Why is it all right for us to do it, but not Ulster unionists? And most of all, why do people get really angry about this terminology?
The anger is authentic. It is not a question of philosophers disagreeing about angels on a pin. Trigger words seem to reach into our identity much in the way that the language of heresy used to cause Rome to raise armies and conduct crusades. Was consubstantiation such a terrible word that hundreds of thousands of people in Languedoc should perish because it was whispered in connection with the communion host? It seems bizarre now might not the unease aroused by the word Eire come to be seen as similarly bizarre?
Sense Of Insecurity
Anger over words often enough exists when there is a sense of insecurity, or a sense of identity remains imperfectly realised. Deeper feelings have to be at work. The issue is not lingual. It goes to some core. We know when the Newsletter refers to something called the Ulster Eire frontier, a number of important political points are being made. One is a claim that there are two distinct states here, with distinctly different names, distinctly different histories, and equal legitimacy. They have different flags, laws, coins.
And they are divided by a frontier. Borders exist between counties. They are frivolous things. Tablecloths, quilts, have borders. Frontiers are different things. The forward edge of an army was once called a frontier. Frontiers today are armed, defended things. They mark the edge of a jurisdiction, a polity, a culture. However ridiculous many of us might find the term the Ulster Eire frontier", for many unionists those words are a reassurance and statement of identity.
And as we know, such linguistic sensitivity in connection with tribal identity is not the prerogative of unionists. A nationalist taboo surrounds the word Fire. Why? It was not the unionists or the British who subverted the Irish nationalist aspiration for unity by calling independent Ireland "Fire". Independent Ireland did that unaided. The Irish people did not vote to call the State the Republic; they did vote to call it Eire. Yet Fire is the insult word. Why?