Second paragraph of third chapter (O’Toole’s turn to write in favour), with embedded quotation:
What is striking about this argument from the heart of unionism is that neither [Lord] Brookeborough nor [Brian] Maginess contested the idea that it was logical to think of the island of Ireland as a single country. Brookeborough quoted with approval the words of a fellow unionist, his minister for home affairs, Walter Topping:
In circumstances other than those that exist in Ireland it would be natural to assume that an island the size of this one should be economically and politically a single entity. Much can be said for the practical advantages to be gained by the elimination of the Border; and there is also the sentimental appeal of being Irish throughout (a sentiment which the Scotsman and the Welshman proudly maintain) had the situation been different — had being Irish not been made incompatible with being at the same time British.
This, of course, raises a question that is now much more salient: what if being Irish can be made compatible with being British? What if the divide between competing mentalities and identities has become bridgeable?
This is a very interesting intellectual experiment. Two of the best known journalistic commentators each put the case for and against a United Ireland, taking turns to write from each side. What makes this really attractive is that most writing on the subject is heavily polarised to one side or the other, so to read not just a debate between two thinkers, but a debate where each writer engages with himself as well as with the other, is a refreshing change of format. I don’t know that this will change any minds, but I do know that it has already deepened the discussion.
To repeat myself from last year, my own views have not shifted much from my article written for the Irish Times in July 2019. I believe for a unification vote to succeed, three conditions need to be met:
- Brexit works out badly;
- Unionists continue to talk only to their own core voters and not to the centre ground;
- Nationalists come up with a better offer than the union, especially on health services.
I stand by that analysis; in particular, I think that the Brexit situation has been contained for now, which renders the other two points moot for the time being. I agree that the direction of travel is towards a majority vote for a united Ireland in a referendum, but I think we are further away from it than Nationalists hope and Unionists fear, and I can foresee a nervous equilibrium holding for some time – as Gerry Lynch once put it, “Welcome to the Northern Ireland that won’t vote itself out of the Union but won’t give Unionism majority support.”
Two points particularly linger with me. One, which is addressed by both writers and which I have also written about before, is that a United Ireland needs to find a solution to the massive share of the public sector in the Northern economy. Will southern voters continue to effectively subsidise Northern government employee lifestyles? Nationalists need to start coming up with an honest answer to that, and we haven’t seen it yet other than hand-waving.
The other is that advocates of a United Ireland need to be honest about the real threat of Loyalist violence in opposition to it, when the time comes (again we tend to get hand-waving on this). Sam McBride makes this point in the closing pages of the book, to my surprise quoting my father on the subject: “for civil war to break out, it is not necessary for a majority of inhabitants to desire it.” He also points to the normalisation of political violence in Trump’s America as a source of infection. I don’t see this as a fatal flaw ion the Nationalist case, but I do wish I had the sense that Nationalism has thought about it seriously. Generosity on cultural issues would be helpful here.
Anyway, this is an excellent overview of the situation and of the cases for and against each option. You can get For and Against a United Ireland here.
