Opinion

Newton Emerson: There is surprisingly little for unionists to contribute to a united Ireland conversation

Newton Emerson

Newton Emerson

Newton Emerson writes a twice-weekly column for The Irish News and is a regular commentator on current affairs on radio and television.

Beyond Brexit event at the Waterfront Hall Picture Mal McCann.
Beyond Brexit event at the Waterfront Hall Picture Mal McCann. Beyond Brexit event at the Waterfront Hall Picture Mal McCann.

There has long been a civilised convention in Ireland, north and south, where unionists are invited to nationalist discussions on unification.

Unionists then politely decline, or attend but only to say ‘no thank you’.

Such frosty civility is an under-appreciated feature of our politics.

Last Saturday’s Beyond Brexit conference in Belfast has been criticised for breaking this convention. Organisers say their intention is to have a conversation within nationalism ahead of reaching out to unionists but that conflicts with their initial actions and statements. They invited Alliance and the Greens, so were attempting to have a wider conversation that specifically excluded unionists from the stage.

Organisers initially explained this was because “political unionism” backs Brexit and has “set its face against rights”. In other words, unionists in their entirety are not worth talking to. The term ‘political unionism’ is a dubious attempt to distinguish unionists from their representatives.

The two explanations cannot simultaneously be true and the first was offered with more conviction. It is fair to say this marks a watershed for the expectation of engagement on Irish unity, given the attention the event has attracted. Nationalists want their own conversation and unionists may listen, or have a conversation of their own. Only converts are welcome.

Many speakers last Saturday called for balance, with SDLP leader Colum Eastwood denouncing the portrayal of all unionists as ‘opposed to rights’. But other speakers and the audience were having none of it.

The question is how much this matters. If the polite convention has collapsed we will lose civility and nationalism will lose a key part of its self-idea - an ironic outcome for a self-proclaimed movement of civic nationalism. But it is doubtful if any political delivery as it stake.

Instead, conversations might be more forthright, as internal debate is free to be. The truth is there is surprisingly little for unionists to contribute to a united Ireland conversation, even if they were inclined to do so.

The classic republican ideal of creating a completely new country, as opposed to just enlarging the present Republic, has been rendered redundant by Brexit - the very issue being seized upon for unity.

In 2016, former Taoiseach Enda Kenny established with Brussels that a united Ireland would be an enlarged Republic, automatically readmitting Northern Ireland to the EU. This has become the defining point and pitch for unification, including to unionist converts.

The Good Friday Agreement envisages unification as a straight transfer of sovereignty, with Northern Ireland and its devolved institutions remaining intact.

This was always a fond simplification - why would a nationalist majority persist with Northern Ireland? It is a delusional prospect since Stormont’s collapse, with the DUP and Sinn Féin separately proving its fragility.

Nationalists are keen to stress the enlarged Republic will have full equality and rights protections. It could hardly have otherwise under modern norms and Northern Ireland has the same, as Eastwood pointed out last Saturday.

There will be no new Irish national symbolism, mythos or constitutional alignment at the behest of a 13 per cent unionist minority, as is evident from any conversation with people in the Republic.

Commonwealth membership is occasionally suggested but only because it is something meaningless that the Irish still find contentious.

There will be no special protections along the Good Friday Agreement model, as I know from politely suggesting a power-sharing Dail during a recent exercise in nationalist engagement.

I was politely told this would not be necessary as nationalists are better than unionists, so cherish them equally.

Financial and all other practical arrangements for unity would be a matter between Dublin and London.

The polite convention has always contained a hint of menace: a message, occasionally made explicit, that unionists should negotiate while they are still in a position of strength. Yet there is effectively nothing to negotiate and supposedly nothing to fear from weakness. Therefore it is as valid for unionists to sit out the unity conversation as for nationalists to have it on their own. Perhaps it would be a relief if we all stopped torturing each other with expectations to the contrary. Why should unionists facilitate debate or posturing towards their opponents’ goal?

The test this presents for nationalism is whether it wants to try outreach regardless, to jump the demographic gun by a decade or so, or if is now so fed up it is openly reconciled to running down the clock and letting unionists like it or lump it.

Last weekend’s conference points to the latter.

newtonemerson@irishnews.com