Gerry Adams is fond of predicting that Ireland will be reunited by the year 2016, in time for the centenary celebrations of the Easter Rising. One should be cautious of his words, since he uses the alleged imminence of the end of partition as justification for abandoning so much of his ideological baggage. In any case, the Provos have a rather poor record when it comes to prediction. It was the IRA after all which claimed that Ireland would be “free in 1973” and which proclaimed 1975 to be “the year of victory”.

Nevertheless I am growing increasingly hopeful that the country can be reunified, if not by 2016, then perhaps five years later. Certainly, I would very much hope that there would be only one Ireland when I come to celebrate my fiftieth birthday (the 21st of May 2029, mark it in your diaries).

My optimism is based principally on the relative lack of violence since 1994 which has allowed people to look again at old attitudes and mindsets. One of the changes brought about since the first ceasefires is the near universal acceptance within nationalist Ireland of the consent principle, i.e. the idea that Ireland can only be reunited if the majority in the north wish so.

While this means that partition could be ended by a vote of 50%+1, it seems to me to be much more preferable if there was more than a bare majority for unity, i.e. if the concept could attract significant Protestant support.

For those who share my view that Ireland should be re-united, the key to success is to persuade Protestants that unification is no threat to them, in fact that it is in their best interests. IN a spirit of humility I offer these words of advice:


1 Stop Killing People

There is nothing more important than this. If republican paramilitaries truly want unity then they must stop killing people, put the guns away, and ultimately go away (you know). For as long as Protestants were being murdered for the grievous crime of not being Catholic, the idea of Irish unity was going to get nowhere.

A child could see this and now it seems that the IRA can see it too. For the republican recalcitrants - the Continuity and Real IRA - it bears repetition - your violence entrenches the status quo, it hardens Protestant hearts against unity, it is deeply counter-productive; please go way.

In the last decade, with the dramatic reduction in republican violence, there has been a thawing in Protestant attitudes to Irish nationalism, a reduction in hostility towards the south (even from the DUP) and some willingness to accept the label “Irish”. These trends will continue in the future as memories of the bad old days fade - provided those bad old days are really a thing of the past.


2. Forget About The Brits

David Ervine of the PUP used to have a routine I rather liked come years back were he would say to nationalists and republicans “If you want to speak to the British in Ireland, don’t go to the government, speak to me. Deal with me!”

For too long nationalist Ireland has been obsessed with the Brits, convinced that if only perfidious Albion would announce its intent to withdraw then all would be well. This was wrong on two counts. Firstly, as Ervine was trying to make clear, it ignored the unionist population.

Secondly, it failed to acknowledge that for at least the last thirty years the British have wanted to withdraw from NI. Our Wee Ulster is no strategic asset, as it is neither strategic nor is it an asset. NI is a drain on the British taxpayer and a stain on the country’s international reputation. Polls consistently show a majority of Britons in favour of Irish unity.

If London thought that it could leave Ireland without precipitating a bloodbath which would drag it back in, it would leave tomorrow. The British are in Ireland for only as long as a majority in the north wish them to be, this has been the stated policy for nearly fifteen years.

None of this should be misunderstood as an attempt to absolve the British of blame for partition, or for their many dark days before or since. But times have changed, it is not 1920 anymore, it’s 2005, and only a fool refuses to change.


3. Think About Unionism

Whatever the level of British determination to remain, the key problem for nationalists, as Ervine correctly realised, is not the Brits, it’s the Prods. Nationalists need to reassess their attitude towards unionism. It is not “stupid”, nor is it based on bigotry, rather, at bottom, unionism is about fear, fear of living in a state with a large Catholic majority.

Nationalist need to find a new way of speaking to unionists which recognises the historical legitimacy of their fears, rather than deriding their mentality. Unionism is not a creature of Britain, a plot by perfidious Albion using gullible Prods. It is a legitimate Irish political tradition. It is up to us as nationalists to persuade Protestants that their fears about Irish unity are unfounded.


4 Focus On Substance, Not Symbolism

It is an Irish curse to be so obsessed with symbols, one need only take a walk around Belfast at this time of year to see that. When the time comes to negotiate Irish unity, it is important that nationalists are firm on issues of substance, but flexible when it comes to less central questions.

For example, it is crucial that Irish representation at Westminster is ended, so that northern voters can turn their attention from London to Dublin. That is why unionists rightly so concerned about the current speculation that northern MPs could soon be speaking in the Dail. The issue of which parliament the citizen looks to for improvement in their daily life is crucial, it is a matter of substance.

But on other issues of less centrality, it is important to be generous. The national anthem will have to be changed since it, unlike the national flag, does not celebrate all the peoples of Ireland but rather one of its political traditions.

Furthermore, nationalists should not be scared of allowing unionists to retain some of the trappings of Britishness in a united Ireland, provided this doesn’t compromise Irish sovereignty. I see no reason why a post-unity Ireland should not continue to send men into the British army, as the sovereign state of Nepal has the Ghurkas. Likewise, there would be no harm in Ireland joining the Commonwealth.


5. Get Ready For The Last-Ditchers

Finally, a note of pessimism to end with. The government of a newly re-united Ireland will have to be prepared for some sort of insurrection by disaffected loyalist die-hards. There will be some Protestant who would rather die than live in a united Ireland, the only consolation is that their numbers can be whittled down over time.

If partition had ended in 1975, the new state would have been born in an ocean of blood. If Irish unity were to happen today, there would be a lake. Let us hope, that by the time 2020 comes around, there is only a puddle. Nevertheless, the new Irish state must be prepared to take on the last ditchers without alienating the community from which they sprung. A good idea would be to look at what the British did from 1969-72 and then do the exact opposite.


Conclusion

Some may think I’m crazy, that the idea of persuading Protestants to embrace Irish unity is a fool’s errand. But there’s only one way to prove me wrong: Try it.

Comments
on Aug 17, 2005
Ok, rather than phone you up and bend your ear, I'm going to try and post a response - for the second time. I f-ing hate technology.

I think your blog is well named. This article was well written, eminently rational, and full of common sense. An outsider would probably think, O G San should be in charge, he's the only one in that god-forsaken country with any wit. Not that that would be a bad thing However, we are talking about Northern Ireland here. Rationality plays a role, but you cannot discount emotion, and that's pretty much what this blog did.

All your suggestions about what Nationalists should do, I can't disagree with. They are right and proper and entirely logical. And I'm aware that you were addressing the article solely to them. But here is the thing. A) you cannot address these issues in isolation of the "other" side. You cannot convince someone, by dint of logic and sophistry and "republicans have changed their ways and you have nothing to fear" arguments, that they should discard the beliefs that make up their identity, and the reasons why they have always felt a certain way. This is not just some kind of argument about the role of government or whether or not we should pay council tax, it's about how people define themselves, and perceive themselves.

For example. Suppose a unionist was to write a blog, arguing that the IRA had surrendered; that they had failed in their quest to gain an Irish Republic through their violent means; that this happened because the people of Northern Ireland, despite 35 years of terror had refused to succumb; that this demonstrated that they wished to remain part of the United Kingdom; that nationalists, having been the main victims of republican violence, could be persuaded that there were benefits to being part of the UK (and we are all Europeans anyway, so borders shouldn't matter - didn't Hume say the same thing?); and those Irish Nationalists who had been labouring under a misconception all these years will come around if we can persuade them that THEIR rights and culture would be protected - how would you react? Would you just think, ok, fair enough, I've been wrong? I doubt it, somehow So why should unionists?

You recognise, rightly, that a lot of the Unionist ideology is grounded in the fear of being subsumed in a Catholic state, of the loss of their identity, culture, religious freedoms and rights. But you seem to think that by guaranteeing these rights, the worries will go away. No they won't. Unionists want to be British. All the sweet talking in the world about the 12th of July being a national holiday (Brendan Behan's bright idea) and minority rights being protected wouldn't change the fact that they would be living in a country whose nationality they reject. They want to be British. Telling them that it is ok to be Irish is not going to make them feel any better.

Despite the relatively peaceful 11 years since the ceasefire, despite the great leaps and bounds towards eachother that the two communities have apparently made, people are being more tribal than ever and sectarianism, in attitudes if not in actions, is on the rise. Not exactly a conducive atmosphere for people to be embracing some kind of road to Damascus conversion. You are rare in coming from one background, but supporting another; further along than me in just putting a plague on all their houses. I think you're being overly optimistic, and the mandate that the DUP got at the last election bears this out, about your idea that Protestants are persuadable to being Irish. Protestants, en mass, clearly voted for the party (9 / 10 Unionst MPs!!!) that would keep them from this perceived nightmare. The SDLP has reached out to Unionism for over 11 years, and Sinn Fein has as well, although speciously, and it has been wholeheartedly rejected. Why? Because to agree with Nationalism would be to reject Unionism - they are like Kuhn's paradigms that we were supposed to learn about during the MA.

And I have to say something about this idea of Unionism being a legitimate Irish political tradition. Since you see that community as persuadable to abandon its principles and essentially reject what it believes, and IS, you calling it legitimate seems polite, rather than something you actually believe. Legitmate, possibly, but not solid enough to withstand some logic being thrown at it. But Unionism, as a political belief, has no place in a United Ireland. It may be me being pedantic about semantics, but if Union with Britain has been broken, then that ideology is not only defunct but anachronistic and treachourous to the Irish State, the name and emotional history fuelling the inevitable Loyalist insurgency. It wouldn't be allowed. It couldn't be sustained.

Demographics could lead to unification one day, I don't doubt that; but while I can see federal assemblies in Belfast, Galway and Cork sending representatives to the Dail, I can't see Peter Robinson Junior standing up in Dublin and beginning a speech with the words, "A Chara".

Who knows where we will be on our 50th anniversaries? Hopefully celebrating decades of the end to the violence on the island of Ireland.
on Aug 18, 2005
Thank you very much for that comment, I think it's the longest I've ever seen. I will try to deal with some of the points raised.

First you say that I discount emotion, I don't . The first bullet point deals with the emotional impact of the Troubles, as in:

"it hardens Protestant hearts against unity"

I considered this the most important piece of advice, that's why it's number one. But if you mean that I discount the emotional attachment to Britian then you're dead right, I do. I've written on this before. Link

Here's what I said in that article:

"Let me be clear that many unionists actively dislike the people of "the mainland", especially the English. For many loyalists the British are summed up by a number of stereotypes, none of them positive. Godless, weak-willed, appeasers of the IRA, ignorant, arrogant and duplicitious, this is how many unionists see their Britsh "brethren". For a lot of Protestants in the north, perfidious Albion is always plotting to "sell Ulster down the river". This is the rich electoral seam which Ian Paisley ha\s mined for more than three decades."

I'm sure you recognise the picture I'm painting here.

Traditionally Britishness to unionists meant the crown, the faith and the empire. This is out of date, as I made clear here
Link

And again the relevant section:

"All this which I have outlined: the end of empire, the decline of religion and monarchy, is hardly a secret. It is obvious to anyone who takes even the most cursory look at British histoy. Yet given all this, the great majority of Irish Protestants cling determinedly to their sense of British identity, and to membership of the United Kingdom. As I outlined in Part 1, I feel this is largely due to a deep-seated fear of persecution in a united Ireland."

It's all very well saying "unionists want to be British" but, pray tell, what, aside from fear, is this desire based on in 2005?

Finally, I'm not disputing the legitimacy of unionism in the past. I just happne to think that the time for fear has passed. One more plug Link

And again the relevant section:

"If we, as Protestants, do choose one day to live in one state with the other people of our island, we will be a minority of more than 15%. There are many worse fates in life than that. Proportionally, we would constitute a larger bloc than Muslims in India, blacks in the US, or whites in South Africa. So let's not be overly pessimistic and pretend that Protestants in a united Ireland would be helpless.

It's OK to be scared, fear as Rocky said, "is what stops you getting hurt." But it's not alright to cling on to fear long after the danger has been averted. If there ever was a monster hiding under the bed, it has gone now. Unionism, in so much as it was an ideology which arose to protect Protestants, has outlived its usefulness."


Always end with an anecdote. You say:

"The SDLP has reached out to Unionism for over 11 years, and Sinn Fein has as well, although speciously, and it has been wholeheartedly rejected. Why? Because to agree with Nationalism would be to reject Unionism - they are like Kuhn's paradigms that we were supposed to learn about during the MA."

As you know, unionists in the Shankill were accused of voting tactically to keep out Gerry Adams in the elections of 1992 and 1997. However, by the time of the 2001 poll, it was obvious that there was no longer a need for unionists to vote for the SDLP because SF were obviuosly going to win by a landslide.

I tallied one of the Shankill boxes at the 2001 count. Here's the result:

DUP 50%
UUP 40%
SDLP 10%

And that's in the most hardline loyalist area.
on Aug 18, 2005
Jesus, you do write a lot about Northern Ireland, don't you

First you say that I discount emotion, I don't . The first bullet point deals with the emotional impact of the Troubles, as in:

"it hardens Protestant hearts against unity"


What I think it does is reinforce Protestants' antipathy towards unification. An absence of violence will not persuade people who traditionally have opposed the south that the Republic is suddenly a-ok. Unionists know that the IRA is not the armed wing of a Dublin government – therefore a cessation of violence from the IRA doesn’t change their hostility to the state itself.

Wasn't it Griffith who said in 1916 - Geography tried to make one island of Ireland - history has made it two? Ballymena and Ballybeg couldn't be further apart culturally.

"Let me be clear that many unionists actively dislike the people of "the mainland", especially the English. For many loyalists the British are summed up by a number of stereotypes, none of them positive. Godless, weak-willed, appeasers of the IRA, ignorant, arrogant and duplicitious, this is how many unionists see their Britsh "brethren". For a lot of Protestants in the north, perfidious Albion is always plotting to "sell Ulster down the river". This is the rich electoral seam which Ian Paisley ha\s mined for more than three decades." I'm sure you recognise the picture I'm painting here.


I wouldn't dispute that. But while this sums upsome unionists, others are Anglophiles; regardless of their feelings towards the people across the Irish Sea, they feeel even more estrangd towards the people beyond Newry and Strabane. As DT so memorably put it -

“Contrast the United Kingdom state - a vibrant multi-ethnic, multinational liberal democracy, the fourth largest economy in the world, the most reliable ally of the United States in the fight against international terrorism - with the pathetic sectarian, mono-ethnic, mono-cultural state to our south.”

Idiotic and racist, yes. I think what he was trying (and failing) to do here was reshape the traditional reasons for Unionist support for Britain – crown, faith, empire – with some kind of ‘Cool Brittania’ thing – compared with the Republic. And just offended a lot of people in the process. I think that Unionists are not alone in trying to work out what it means to be British - it is something that people all over the UK are dealing with, to the laughable attempts of the Home Office hyphenations. But people wrap themselves in a flag for a lot of reasons, validity of their belief as far as you are concerned notwithstanding. If they cannot articulate it, or justify it in a meaningful and 21st century way, but believe it in their heart, it doesn't really matter. The fact is, there is a fairly cohesive unit within Northern Ireland who say they are British, want to maintain the union, and although you believe that they have no good reasons for feeling this way, they identify with this country rather than that. Rationality doesn't come into it.

I suppose until there is a referendum, (and depending on the question) it is unlikely that we will know the true feelings of Protestants. There will also, of course, be a percentage of Nationalists who are quite happy with the status quo, or fearful of the consequences of unification.

Finally, I'm not disputing the legitimacy of unionism in the past. I just happne to think that the time for fear has passed. One more plug Link


That’s fine. But basically, although you don’t think they have any cause to be afraid anymore, and no doubt that were Protestants included in a United Ireland, their rights would be protected, they do not agree with the ideals of the state, or with belonging to that country. It’s sectarianism, based on fear, but build up by custom, and breaking with the past would be traumatic.

it's not alright to cling on to fear long after the danger has been averted. If there ever was a monster hiding under the bed, it has gone now. Unionism, in so much as it was an ideology which arose to protect Protestants, has outlived its usefulness."


The threat of unification might suggest to some that the danger hadn't been averted, that it is imminent and they should be vigilant in protecting their identity.

As you know, unionists in the Shankill were accused of voting tactically to keep out Gerry Adams in the elections of 1992 and 1997. However, by the time of the 2001 poll, it was obvious that there was no longer a need for unionists to vote for the SDLP because SF were obviuosly going to win by a landslide.


Yeah... Either Dr Joe got their damp problem sorted, or I would say that there would still be tactical voting going on - especially if SDLP propaganda was doing its job properly.
on Aug 22, 2005
Thankls once again for your comment

Wasn't it Griffith who said in 1916 - Geography tried to make one island of Ireland - history has made it two? Ballymena and Ballybeg couldn't be further apart culturally

I wouldn't deny that there are cultural differences in Ireland but let's keep a sense of proportion, Ballymena and Ballybeg are not so different in the global scale of things.

Unionists know that the IRA is not the armed wing of a Dublin government – therefore a cessation of violence from the IRA doesn’t change their hostility to the state itself.

This was going to be point six. It's wrong to equate unification with absorption, a united Ireland needs to be a new state with a new ethos and new structures, not a slightly larger version of the current Republic of Ireland. We have to avoid the mistake the Germans made in 1990 when the east effectively applied to join the west. It led to resentment later on. Hostility to the Irish state and to the idea of Irish unity do not have to go hand in hand.
on Aug 22, 2005
It's wrong to equate unification with absorption, a united Ireland needs to be a new state with a new ethos and new structures, not a slightly larger version of the current Republic of Ireland. We have to avoid the mistake the Germans made in 1990 when the east effectively applied to join the west. It led to resentment later on. Hostility to the Irish state and to the idea of Irish unity do not have to go hand in hand.


Completely agree. But you also said
The national anthem will have to be changed since it, unlike the national flag, does not celebrate all the peoples of Ireland but rather one of its political traditions.


Yes to that point, but the flag has connotations with the state and sadly with the coffins of dead Provos. Witnessing the bonfires on the 11th night, people get a lot of pleasure out of burning what is essentially a cross-community flag. Even if they know the message behind it, it is rejected. To now, unification has been presented in blanket terms of right and wrong, with the moral majority of Ireland fulfilling their rightful dream of a nation once again. Following partition, there were Protestants living in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, as well as other parts of Ireland. Their numbers dwindled - through emigration, conversion, or ethnic cleansing. It is a legacy that will be very hard to overcome.

My point overall is that the zero sum mentality within Northern Ireland would present unification as a victory of one side over the other; because one side wins, the other loses - their identity, their culture, their rights. It is hard to know if this mindset can ever be changed as it is fundamental to the cohesion of the group. But good luck trying.

Of course, you know that my solution would be some kind of cross-community paradise with 50% of elected representatives being women. I think we're both in cloud cuckoo land