Opinion

Patrick Murphy: Unionism's Brexit cornered by its historical conditioning

Patrick Murphy

Patrick Murphy

Patrick Murphy is an Irish News columnist and former director of Belfast Institute for Further and Higher Education.

Theresa May isn't the only leader under pressure - Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's own minority government has become even more of a minority. Picture by AP Photo/Olivier Matthys
Theresa May isn't the only leader under pressure - Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's own minority government has become even more of a minority. Picture by AP Photo/Olivier Matthys Theresa May isn't the only leader under pressure - Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's own minority government has become even more of a minority. Picture by AP Photo/Olivier Matthys

ISN'T there a delicious irony in the fact that Britain's partition of Ireland is now causing so much political chaos in London?

Indeed, the confusion is now so great that some believe the best way to address the Brexit-based problems posed by Irish political partition is to economically partition the North from the rest of the UK.

What they have done unto others, they are now considering doing unto themselves.

The irony is compounded by the fact that unionism, which so fervently supports partition in Ireland, is now threatening to paralyse the British government to prevent the same principle being applied within the UK.

(Think of it as a re-run of the Curragh mutiny in 1914, when unionist officers in the British army threatened to rebel if military action was taken against the UVF. Unionism has a long tradition of setting its own terms and conditions.)

This suggests that while any (or no) Brexit deal will have major economic consequences, it will also have a major impact on politics in Britain and Ireland. Welcome to an entirely new level of political unpredictability.

Although most political attention has focussed on the future of Theresa May's government, she appears to be in no immediate danger of losing office. An election would be of no benefit to her divided party or to the increasingly befuddled Labour Party.

Although Labour appears to want the UK to remain in the customs union, Jeremy Corbyn's confusing announcements resemble one of those 11-plus questions about pouring water into a bath at one rate, while it is leaking water at a different rate. Mr Corbyn risks becoming the proud owner of an empty bath.

But if a change of government is unlikely soon in London, things are different in Dublin.

Last week, Leo Varadkar's minority government became even more of a minority, with a ministerial resignation over allegedly inappropriate contacts with a businessman. (Nothing much changes in Irish politics, north and south.)

That leaves Fine Gael with 49 seats against Fianna Fáil's 45 and opinion polls show that Leo's popularity may have peaked.

Allowing for support from some smaller parties and independents, he is still three seats short of a majority.

A bad Brexit deal, or a no deal, would reduce parliamentary support from outside his party, leaving him in need of an election, but unwilling to call one because he could lose.

He is further restricted by Fianna Fáil's offer to continue its confidence and supply arrangement until Brexit has settled, which leaves an early election unnecessary.

That strengthens FF's position to the extent that it could conceivably ask the new Irish president not to dissolve the Dáil for an election, but to use his/her constitutional authority to ask a party other than Fine Gael to try to form a majority coalition government.

For the first time, the Dáil could have a new (Fianna Fáil) government without holding an election.

All of which depends on who the new president is, which might add spice to an otherwise dull presidential election campaign.

Indeed it is surprising that the use of reserved presidential powers for this purpose has not been raised as an election issue.

So while the Brexit debate focuses largely on its likely economic impact, less attention has been paid to its political fall-out, even though every economic decision will have a political consequence in Britain and Ireland - but not in the north, where the economy is a no-go area for sectarian politics.

Instead we have unionism's "No surrender", even though no-one is asking it to surrender anything of a political or constitutional nature.

While it is understandable that unionists do not want what they regard as a dilution of the union, they fail to recognise that after almost a century of devolved government, there are significant legislative and policy differences between Belfast and London, including abortion, academic selection, same-sex marriage, libel laws, RHI and agricultural regulations.

But having fed their followers on a diet of flags and sentiment for two centuries, it is now difficult to shift them from the electorally-driven romanticism of royalty and empire in the back streets of Belfast.

Just as Britain is now trapped by Irish partition, Irish unionism is cornered by an historical conditioning which cannot recognise that it is much easier to police ports along the Irish Sea coast than the fields, hedgerows and country lanes of the Irish border.

So while Brexit may cause a change of government in Dublin and political stalemate in London, Belfast will remain fixated with flags and flag protests. Well, at least that leaves it the most consistent of the three cities.