Opinion

Denis Bradley: Unionists are in a family that doesn't want them, and that hurts

Denis Bradley

Denis Bradley

Denis Bradley is a columnist for The Irish News and former vice-chairman of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

First Minister and DUP leader Arlene Foster. Picture: Ronan McGrade/Pacemaker Press.
First Minister and DUP leader Arlene Foster. Picture: Ronan McGrade/Pacemaker Press. First Minister and DUP leader Arlene Foster. Picture: Ronan McGrade/Pacemaker Press.

We are talking past each other. Of course, we are. That is what happens in any debate which has not yet turned into a discussion, which hopefully then morphs into a negotiation.

Debate often deteriorates into a shouting match with sleeves rolled up, wanting to get stuck in. But debate also helps remove some of the peripheral issues, to allow the essentials to come into greater focus.

For example, there is not going to be a border poll any time soon. Bertie Ahern’s 2028 proposal is interesting but probably premature. Or political unionism’s mantra that it is never going to happen, so we are not going to speak about it; contradicting the first minister’s statement that she will leave this island if it ever happens. That assertion of identity which Arlene and other unionists are expressing most passionately might also allow them to appreciate what their nationalist neighbours have felt for a hundred years.

Couple that with the reality that there are now three minorities in the north. The balance of power is lying with the growing middle ground who don’t want to give an opinion as to which side of the debate they will come down on.

Meanwhile, the Irish government’s policy of achieving reconciliation in northern politics before any engagement with the constitutional issue, is outdated by a few years. All politics in the north is now defined or at least tainted by the constitutional issue. So, there is little sense in proposing that we will tidy up the house while the constitutional elephant is sitting in the hallway. That elephant is not going to be shifted by everyone in the house being nice to each other.

The middle ground that has swung in large numbers to the Alliance Party is being shooed into an uncomfortable dilemma. Its assertion that it does not want to be forced into making a choice is already coming under pressure. In a debate, refusing to take a position or a vote is itself a decision. Here, a non-position is an option for the status-quo. For a political party to avoid having a clear policy on an important issue is juvenile and seldom sustainable.

Peter Robinson’s intervention of the need to be cautious, now echoed by Arlene, is the show-stopper so far in the debate. I presume the caution is about violence from a section of unionism. Given our history, the threat of violence from any or all groups should not be ignored. But it certainly should be brought into the light and well scrutinised.

Of course, violence and its threat has brought about political change – it did so in the establishment of the two states on this island. It also degenerated into thuggery and criminality, weakening the union that it supposedly espoused. Loyalist violence in the present context might be the straw that breaks the union’s back.

Violence will not change the affections of the British who live on the ‘mainland’ towards the British who live in Ireland. That lack of affection has played a prominent role in bringing about the political infrastructures that the unionists on this island see as putting greater distance between themselves and their fellow countrymen. Any violence, small or great, is not going to enhance the affection or narrow the gap.

It is only unionism that can face into and come to terms with the central dilemma of being tolerated but not loved by the majority of British people. That is the central weakness of the unionist position. It outstrips border polls, demographics and violence.

Being unwanted is a deep hurt. Only unionism can grapple with the reality of being in a family that doesn’t want them. That aspect of the debate is coming more to the fore and is becoming more difficult to ignore. That depth of rejection is something that takes time to come to terms with.