Opinion

Jarlath Kearney: Brexit isn't a passing storm - it's a whole different world

European Union chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, left, with British Brexit secretary David Davis
European Union chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, left, with British Brexit secretary David Davis European Union chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, left, with British Brexit secretary David Davis

Sometimes local attitudes on Brexit seem more like a hurricane weather warning.

Abandon the northern political ship. Hunker down in basement positions. Hold out until the storm’s over. Wait for thunderous claps of constitutional revolution crossing the land. Hope the impact is manageable. Seek international assistance. After that, pick up the pieces.

Unfortunately Brexit isn’t a passing storm. It’s a whole different world. Yet we haven’t had a sensible and sustained strategic political discussion across the north to figure out a joined-up approach.

Even today, the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt is meeting separately with local political leaders, before travelling to the border and then further meetings tomorrow with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Oireachtas committees.

Imagine, instead, if Mr Verhofstadt had been meeting on Brexit with a full joint plenary session of the North South Ministerial Council (NSMC).

The north only had a vote to remain in the EU, just as the UK only had a vote to narrowly leave. The June 2016 referendum was preceded by a debate debased by falsehoods, like the claim that £350 million would be reinvested in the NHS every week after Brexit.

But even historical votes are effectively academic exercises without an agreed action plan to implement a desired outcome. We don’t yet have any agreed approach here to influencing Brexit.

Some observers point at Sinn Féin’s electoral ambitions in Dublin or the DUP’s agreement with the Tories in London, claiming nothing can be done in that context. But that’s unfair to many committed politicians in both - and indeed in all – political parties, and to legitimate concerns about the working of the local political institutions. It’s a pessimist’s charter. Others say we don’t even need the institutions. But that’s a cynic’s slogan.

As previously flagged in this column, an unlikely consensus for a transitional Brexit has now developed across Whitehall’s key political, financial and security sectors. So anything’s possible when realities bite. (Of course, careerist ‘spoilers’ like Boris Johnson could still seek to splinter that consensus.) We’ll know more after prime minister Theresa May’s key speech on Brexit and EU negotiations in Florence on Friday.

The big risk locally arises if politics fails to fully consider the wider global context, such as generational challenges like Brexit or demographics, or the unstoppable impact of fast-paced economic, social, security and technological developments.

That’s why – alongside fixing institutional problems in our politics – it’s also imperative to urgently get a properly functioning assembly, executive and NSMC.

For all their flaws, democratic political institutions provide public debating platforms that are subject to rules of inclusion and respect. They are arenas of credible historical record and public accountability where issues can be fully considered, statements challenged, facts verified, officials scrutinised, policies planned.

Arguably the local institutions have not been used fully or effectively thus far. But 10 or 20 years is simply a blink in history’s eye. The principle still stands. And the practices can be improved.

Within the democratic arena, political institutions provide a centre of gravity in which ideas, visions, options and agendas of broad civil society can be engaged, coalesced, researched, resourced and shaped. All of that is vital in our unique, transitional society.

In their absence, systematically skewed narratives and powerfully organised messages of fake news – especially on social media – threaten to undermine democratic dialogue, standards and direction.

Democracy in its electoral form has produced three major realities here at present.

One, based on the 1998 all-island dual referenda, the people of Ireland voted for democratic political institutions, all-island development, public reforms, constitutional amendments, the consent principle, and an equality and rights-based framework for peaceful evolution.

Two, based on the 2016 Brexit referendum, a measurable majority of citizens want this society’s future to remain inside current arrangements across the island of Ireland within a seamless EU framework.

Three, based on recent party votes, a majority of citizens do not – at this point, today – support parties who want to change the constitutional position of the state of Northern Ireland away from the United Kingdom to Ireland.

Those facts means we’re all facing a challenge. Electoral democracy says that we should maximise a future one-system, all-island approach within the EU, alongside observing the current realpolitick of two states on Ireland (notwithstanding future constitutional change, such as unification and federalist debates).

Anyone who wants - in the short-to-medium term - to square those circles into an effective ‘two states, one system’ all-island framework has an important practical question to answer.

How can that outcome be achieved unless we have an effective and functioning northern assembly, executive, NSMC, and British Irish Council?