The prospect of a united Ireland holds a curious and contradictory place in politics on both sides of the border. In Northern Ireland it achieves the feat of being simultaneously ever present in political discourse, without ever being truly discussed.
Due to the nature of Northern Ireland’s community divisions as an ethno-national conflict reaching back centuries, most people here will hold the same view on the ‘constitutional question’ as their fathers and forefathers. It remains very rare, even in the post-Good Friday Agreement era, for an individual to change their view on this fundamental question.
The question of whether Northern Ireland ought to remain in the United Kingdom or join a united Ireland has therefore always been largely viewed as an instinctive, inherent feeling with which people are born, rather than an issue which it is worth trying to persuade someone about.
As a result, although the issue looms large over all political discourse in Northern Ireland, it is rarely subject to serious, detailed, public policy discussion and analysis.
A new constitution?
With Brexit, however, that is changing. Now, however, polling suggests that some unionists may be swayed towards reunification, especially those who are liberal and pro-EU and fear the impact of a hard or no-deal Brexit.Earlier this week at a public talk in a Republican area of west Belfast, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar told the audience that in the event of a united Ireland, “I think it would result in some of the mistakes made 100 years ago, when partition happened, being repeated but just the other way around—a huge number of people, those from a unionist, British, Ulster background, being brought into a united Ireland against their will.”
He added that the Republic could not merely assimilate Northern Ireland in the same way that East and West Germany had rejoined, warning that rather it would become a new country, requiring “a new constitution.”
In this new country, Varadkar said, a number of measures would need to be undertaken to make northern unionists feel comfortable; potentially including revising the extent to which the Irish language, which many unionists hold hostile views towards, is used as the state’s official language.
Flags, languages and anthems
Unsurprisingly, his remarks have caused a stir across the island and sparked much debate. On both sides of the border, the media has spent the last few days discussing the specifics of what a united Ireland might look like. Perhaps most interesting has been the level of surprise within the Republic that they might have to make adaptations and accommodations to northern unionists in order to make them feel at home in a newly reunified state.Radio phone-ins and column inches have poured over questions including whether they could accept having current DUP leader Arlene Foster as the Tánaiste, or Deputy Prime Minister, in a power-sharing parliament in Dublin; whether the Republic’s flag could be altered to include a Union Jack in one corner; whether the constitution could be additionally written in Ulster Scots (a dialect of English many northern unionists feel an affinity to), or if the national anthem, or even membership of the Commonwealth, could be up for consideration.
Focus has also turned to whether Stormont would be shuttered, and its politicians shuttled to the Dáil, or if it would continue to provide some form of devolved or federal government.
The place of unionists
Varadkar’s comments come on the heels of a report published last month by Mark Daly, a Senator in the Dublin parliament for Ireland’s main opposition party Fianna Fáil. In it, Senator Daly examined the fears that northern unionists would have about a united Ireland; including fears of wide-spread discrimination, retribution against former security forces and land seizures.While the views expressed were troubling, they have also contributed to the conversation about the specifics of what a united Ireland could look like and added to the current momentum towards constitutional change. They echoed Arlene Foster’s comments in a BBC documentary last year that in the event of a united Ireland she would “probably move,” such are her fears of what the future might bring. It is clear that many unionists have very real and intensely felt fears about reunification which Irish Republicans must address.
Last month, former Ulster Unionist Party leader and MLA Mike Nesbitt, also revealed he had spoken to a senior political figure in Dublin about how northern unionist politicians would operate within the Dáil parliament under a united Ireland. Nesbitt said the politician was “shocked” when he pointed out that northern unionists could hold the balance of power in hung parliaments and that the idea hadn’t occurred to many in the Dáil before.
Not only have fears of the impact of Brexit revitalised nationalist politics; in an odd way, the process of Brexit too has shown a blueprint for managing a major constitutional shift; albeit primarily through showing Irish Republicans what not to do. It has shown that constitutional upheaval is possible and can receive public backing, but also that realistic and specific plans need to be formed long before the polling booths open.
A long overdue discussion
These discussions about the specific reality of a united Ireland are long overdue and it is right that they should centre on how northern unionists can feel included and respected in a new state. For too long, the issue has been viewed as an emotive, instinctive one and starved of serious public policy discussion and detailed analysis.For many unionists, a united Ireland has been viewed as a cartoonish bogeyman, while for many nationalists, it has been viewed as a balm to cure all ills. If or when it happens, the reality will likely lie somewhere in between. The current conversations are an important first step in looking Northern Ireland’s constitutional question square in the eye, after skirting around it for so long.
