It is often forgotten that unionists are not the only ones who need to be attracted to the idea of a united Ireland, writes DAVID ADAMS
FOR REASONS beyond my control, I wasn’t able to fulfil my scheduled speaking engagement at Sinn Féin’s London conference a few weeks ago. Instead, along with Martin McGuinness, Michelle Gildernew, Mitchel McLaughlin and an aircraft full of other passengers, I spent five hours stuck on a grounded Aer Lingus aircraft at Belfast International Airport. There was ice on the wings and in an engine, apparently.
A friend has since told me that he and his wife had a similar experience in January when attempting to travel on the same Aer Lingus flight – all of which hardly excites confidence in that company’s proposed cost-cutting plans.
Neither was I inspired much by what little was reported from the Sinn Féin conference. From what I could gather, all of the predictable banalities such as “creating an Ireland of equals” were trotted out, but there was little in the way of detail on how republicans imagine a unitary state might actually work.
Pat Doherty managed to make headlines by describing the Belfast Agreement as “an accommodation, not a settlement”, though why this created a fuss is beyond me. Of course republicans view the agreement as more a transitional arrangement than a settlement. They could no longer claim to be republicans if they didn’t.
Unionists hold the opposite view, but the contradiction isn’t as stark as it appears. Neither side trumpets the fact, but by endorsing the Belfast Agreement unionists signed up to the possibility of a united Ireland, and nationalists and republicans to the possibility that it may never happen. With future constitutional arrangements solely dependent upon the ballot box, theoretically things could go either way, so each constituency is free to describe the current set-up however it likes.
At the London conference, to the delight of virtually everyone else present it seems, SDLP Assembly member Conall McDevitt declared that Irish reunification is inevitable. This seeming confidence in the inevitability of reunification does raise the question of why nationalists and republicans are not busy preparing for just such an eventuality.
Presuming they would much prefer for a substantial section of the unionist people to buy into the idea of a unitary state, rather than the island-wide destabilisation that would inevitably follow from some future fait accompli-style sectarian headcount, why are they not trying to sell the idea? Or more to the point, why are they not trying to create something that is capable of being sold?
Each in their separate ways was to the forefront of changing Northern Ireland to better accommodate the diversity of its citizenship. If they truly believe that a united Ireland is on the horizon, surely they should be lobbying for similar fundamental changes in the South in order to accommodate unionists.
Nationalism, of whatever type, is by definition narrow and exclusive, so perhaps in some quarters, regardless of the fine-sounding rhetoric, there is a view that, come the day, unionists will just have to fit in as best they can.
Genuine republicans, however, cannot adopt that position. The ideology they claim allegiance to is the very opposite of narrow nationalism – it is broad and inclusive. They of all people should appreciate that more than one type of Irish person must be catered for in this supposedly dawning new dispensation.
It is an article of faith for any republican worthy of the name that there should be a clear separation between church and state. Yet, Sinn Féin, hopeful persuaders of unionists and the most avowedly republican of all of the parties, has nothing to say about the Republic still farming out large chunks of education and health to the Catholic Church.
Regardless of unity or attracting unionists, as a matter of principle they should from the foundation of the State have been screaming from the rooftops for a clear separation of church and state in the South, but have always remained mute.
Is Sinn Féin content with the situation as it is? If so, then that makes them something other than republican. If not, then why have they not railed against it, and how does their continued silence on the issue fit with trying to attract unionists to a united Ireland?
It is often forgotten that unionists are not the only ones who need to be attracted to the idea of a united Ireland. The people of the Republic must endorse a unitary state as well. It has always been taken for granted that they would jump at the chance of reunification with the North, but it would make more sense if in fact they preferred to stick with the existing arms-length relationship.
Whatever its faults, the Republic is settled, cohesive and self-contained. Why on earth would its people want to gamble all in some new dispensation with nearly two million troublesome Northerners – most particularly if it were the case that a substantial number of their erstwhile neighbours were being dragged into something against their will?
Maybe republicans aren’t rocking the boat in the South because they realise that the people there aren’t any keener on a united Ireland than unionists are.
Perhaps for the citizens of the Republic too, the Belfast Agreement is in fact a settlement.