Opinion

Patrick Murphy: Instead of propelling unionism towards its violent extreme, nationalism should nudge it towards its sensible side

Patrick Murphy

Patrick Murphy

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

The new Ulster Unionist leader, Doug Beattie, comes across as down to earth. Photo: Mal McCann
The new Ulster Unionist leader, Doug Beattie, comes across as down to earth. Photo: Mal McCann The new Ulster Unionist leader, Doug Beattie, comes across as down to earth. Photo: Mal McCann

The solid rock of unionism on which the northern state was founded has now been splintered into three main pieces.

We might label them as the sensible (UUP), the somewhat less sensible (DUP) and the downright dangerous (loyalist paramilitaries).

Whether you agree with them or not, the UUP are currently the most reasonable unionist grouping. Their health minister, Robin Swann, effectively saved us from the worst ravages of Covid-19 and their new leader, Doug Beattie, comes across as someone equally down to earth.

It might reasonably be argued that no British soldier has the right to travel beyond Dover in one direction and Carlisle in the other. However, those with military experience agree that Beattie deserves respect for winning the British Military Cross, for “exemplary gallantry”, in Afghanistan.

His problem is that whereas an army uses rational decision-making, discipline and team-work, the UUP appears to need more of all three. He will require more than bravery in his new job.

You already know about the DUP, so we can take them as read. (Their only military experience was Peter Robinson’s 1986 cross-border crusade to Clontibret. )

That leaves the loyalist paramilitaries. Although their capability is restricted by British intelligence and drug dealing, they still command significant Protestant working class support, especially among the young.

While nationalism’s reaction to unionism’s difficulties has tended more towards triumphalism than tolerance, nationalists (that’s the Dublin government, Sinn Féin and the SDLP) must now decide what to do next. Their instinct will be to vigorously defend the Northern Ireland Protocol as a perceived stepping stone to a united Ireland.

It is a high risk strategy, because the vacuum left by the failure of political unionism to remove the protocol will almost certainly be filled by loyalist paramilitaries.

Instead of propelling unionism towards its violent extreme, it would appear more reasonable to nudge it towards its sensible side. Of course it is not nationalism’s job to rescue unionism, but nationalists must recognise the likely outcome of their actions.

So nationalism should aim to promote UUP growth, render the DUP irrelevant and isolate the paramilitaries. But can the UUP grow? A key factor will the Northern Ireland Protocol. If Beattie can gain credit for its removal or its significant dilution (while depriving the DUP of any glory) he may get the boost he needs.

But nationalism will have little sympathy for that theory, because of its loyalty to Brussels. The EU is like the old Stormont: anyone opposing it must be punished. Unionists are to be politically humiliated for challenging the EU, with the lead coming from Dublin.

As the EU strengthens centralised control through its Conference on the Future of Europe, Micheál Martin has pledged additional Irish funds for its budget, even though he cannot house his people or protect their health service from computer hackers. In defending the protocol, he shows more loyalty to Brussels than Belfast. His health minister will not even meet Robin Swann.

(The Russian government failed to stop the criminal computer hackers, because US military planes use Shannon and Ireland is no longer seen as a neutral country. Irish health service patients may be the first casualties in post-neutral Ireland’s participation in the new cold war.)

In what might be seen as a challenge to loyalist paramilitaries, the EU president said this week that the protocol must be fully implemented “as the only solution to ensure peace and stability” here. No nationalist disagreed.

We could have avoided the protocol (and a hard land border) but both Britain and unionism on one side, and the EU and nationalism on the other, wanted victory rather than a solution. We can still avoid its worst consequences, but the EU and nationalism are not keen on that either.

That’s bad news for Doug Beattie and sensible unionism. The worse news is that it may allow unionism’s pieces to be put together again before the next election. Will nationalism’s attitude act as a much needed glue? We can only wait and see.