“The only path to uniting the people of this island is through the spirit of partnership, cooperation and reconciliation that the Good Friday Agreement is built on. Delivering a new Ireland demands that we all spill our sweat to forge new enduring relationships between the people of this Ireland,” said SDLP leader Colum Eastwood as the party launched its ‘New Ireland Commission’. 

The new initiative, whatever form it may take or virtues it may exhibit and possess, takes its name for the New Ireland Group established by the late John Robb in 1982. The naming is significant as it does not carry the political implications of ‘united Ireland’ or ‘Northern Ireland,’ and thus is potentially more conducive to bringing together both nationalists and unionists in the spirit of “new enduring relationships” of the sort alluded to by Eastwood. 

That, however, is far easier said than done. The main question which confronts the SDLP going forward is how they will engage unionists, and persuade unionists to engage, with its commission. The alternative is an intra-nationalist talking shop which clarifies that everyone wants pan-island unity, at some stage, but does little to define what that may be and even less how and when it might come about. 

Hearing the other side

Commentators such as Alex Kane have expressed pessimism over the possibility of a genuine dialogue over the concept of a ‘New Ireland’, and it is not difficult to agree. One key part of the Good Friday Agreement was the principle of consent, which holds that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland will only change if there is a clear indication that a majority of the population wish to see a change. There are a number of practical issues with this, chief being there is no real mechanism in place that establishes how the will of the majority should be measured, hence ongoing demands for and arguments over ‘a border poll’. 

What is significant, and deserves to be explored, is the glaring fact that many unionists appear to have taken the consent principle as a stamp of approval for Northern Ireland’s existence within the United Kingdom. As unionists are still the majority, or at the very least large plurality, they seem content to ignore minority preferences on the subject. Put bluntly, the message can be read as “you need our consent to take us south, but we don’t need yours to keep you here.”

Entertaining the possibility of constitutional change, at some stage in the future, is a fairly vital action to take for anyone who had adopted the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement to their political thought. The Agreement was not a rubber stamp on the union, but on democracy. Frequently it seems that unionism sees it as the former rather than the latter, as elements within unionism remain consistently hostile to any appreciation or recognition of the inherent Irish culture within these borders. 

Moving beyond offensive and defensive discourse

Recall the argument over the Irish language, for instance, in which Arlene Foster defended her hesitation on the issue by saying, “if you feed a crocodile, it will keep coming back for more,” echoing the words of former Prime Minister of Israel Menachim Begin on his feelings towards Palestinian people. More recently, Benjamin Netanyahu also alluded to this quote in citing the need for Israel to defend itself.

One may expect such a tone from TUV leader Jim Allister who continually referred to Irish language provisions as part of the ‘de-Britishisation’ of Northern Ireland, the implication that ‘Ulster is as British as Finchley’ and any recognition of the fact that we live in Northern Ireland is unacceptable. However, one would like to think that Arlene Foster (neé Kelly), member of the Church of Ireland, and leader of the mainstream unionist party which shares power with Sinn Féin, would not only harbour more conscientious appreciations, but would also have a more confident working relationship with her government partners that she is able to discuss such issues. 

With much talk recently around unionist corners of social media on the subject of abuse towards unionists from republican accounts, it is particularly interesting to note the timing that such conversations come alongside the SDLP’s latest venture. Rather than engaging with the main and substantial body of nationalism, in a democratic forum, many instead choose to highlight the very dregs of the nationalist movement. Apart from anything else, we should all be aware that social media and bot accounts are not representative of political discourse; were the case reversed, Jeremy Corbyn would be Prime Minister. 

At an event held at Queen’s University in 2018 to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, the late Seamus Mallon reiterated his words previously spoken at Dublin’s Pro-Cathedral, that out of ‘Northern Ireland’ or the ‘North’ he does not care what the region is called, “so long as it has one name: home.” It is most significant that in the same month DUP leader Arlene Foster stated that she “would probably move” in the event of reunification. 

Making this place work

An often reiterated charge against nationalists and republicans is that they “don’t want this place to work,” yet this does not hold up against the fact that they share this place too. That nationalists can live in Northern Ireland serves as evidence, as Mallon wanted and embodied, that this place is “home,” and their commitment to it is not based upon the flag that flies above the land but the people who walk upon it, the stories that they tell, and the very land itself. There seems little indication from unionism that such sentiments are mutual. 

Anyone can say what they like about Sinn Féin, but the signatures of the party’s most prominent leadership of the modern era were attached to the Good Friday Agreement, whereas the same cannot be said about the leading unionist party. At every stage of the Troubles, republicans negotiated with the British government, while on the unionist side the cry of “never, never, never, never, never” echoed until the very last second of last orders. 

An impartial reader of the history of the last hundred years could be forgiven for thinking that unionist political thought functions best in a setting of war, and struggles in democratic peace time. From the turn of the last century when the Ulster Volunteers were established in the face of constitutional action to establish a Home Rule parliament in Dublin, with the overwhelming support of the majority; right up to the life of Ian Paisley, with the exception of those last few years when he spoke in far more hushed and conciliatory tones. 

If unionists are not willing to engage with free and open conversations, in a democratic forum, then it is an indication that the school of thought has not adapted to the present circumstances. Five rounds of “never” followed by a muttered “maybe” does not seem the ideal operation for a consociational, or even democratic, state. If we cannot agree on a shared homeplace, a love for where we live, then talk of peace is nothing but pretension destined to fail. Unity of spirit is essential, and will bring us to a place where we can comfortably discuss unity of other areas.