A united Ireland would not be south taking over North – we would be creating a new country
GERMANY celebrated 30 years since reunification last weekend. That process – from the Berlin Wall falling to the formation of a new state – was quite rapid in the end, though few would have expected it. Geopolitical changes, driven by economics, led to the new Germany.
It could be argued that the same might occur in Ireland. The UK could quickly disintegrate, especially if Scottish pressure to leave intensifies. An all-island economy here could make more sense than two competing ones.
The big difference for us, though, is that in 1990 there was overwhelming support among Germans for unification. In effect, West Germany took over East.
If we are to look at a new shared Ireland, we would be creating a new country. It would not be a case of the South taking over the North, as some who argue for a border poll now seem to suggest.
These issues need to be properly planned. How do we create a society that respects all backgrounds and traditions with structures and symbols to which all can give allegiance?
We are an island of seven million people; a million could still identify as unionist. There are those in the North who do not identify as being of either tradition, while definitions of being Irish range from being outward-looking and inclusive to being anti-English. The Government’s Shared Island unit has to understand and recognise all identities.
Last year, the Irish Independent covered my remarks that, in creating a new
Ireland, we would need to look at inclusive symbols and consider what compromises we could make to ensure that a unionist minority would feel part of our new country. For many unionists, joining the Commonwealth and a new flag would have to be on the table.
In suggesting this, I unleashed a fury among some on Twitter, particularly from the ‘Shinnerbots’, with the usual ‘West Brit’ xenophobic references. (Ironically, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald has acknowledged that the Commonwealth issue would have to be considered.)
But for our new country, we would need to look at these questions. We would be likely to need a new national anthem, and I’m not sure it should be Ireland’s Call.
What political structures would we put in place? Bunreacht na hÉireann does provide for “the creation or recognition of subordinate legislatures”, so a devolved assembly in Belfast could work alongside a national parliament in Dublin, as originally envisioned by Éamon de Valera if unity had come to pass. But most likely we will be looking at an entirely new constitution. We would need an all-island constitutional convention to draw this up.
What measures would it put in place to ensure all voices are heard and respected? The late Albert Reynolds suggested guaranteeing unionists 30pc of cabinet places in future governments. I’m not going to argue that case, but we will need imaginative thinking of that order.
The new Ireland should be at the heart of the European Union. It was Europe that allowed Ireland to escape the almost total trade dependence on our nearest neighbour, but also for us to play a real part shaping global policy. There is an irony that, had we followed the advice of the anti-EU politicians on this island – including Sinn Féin – we would have remained shackled to Britain.
The economic challenges should not be underestimated. Northern Ireland receives a subsidy of up to £10bn from Westminster every year. That represents about £5,000 per person. In any campaign in the South against unity, that issue would feature largely. About one in seven workers in the Republic are in the public sector, and the figure is more than one in four in the North. My Seanad colleague Mark Daly has prepared a report that shows that there are long-term economic advantages to an all-island economy, but it would be wrong to ignore the short- to medium-term pain.
Two quite different healthcare and social welfare systems would face significant challenges in merging. An all-island education system would require major administrative and curricular reform. We will need new ways to talk about our shared history and identity – understanding 1690 as much as 1916.
Simplistic calls for a border poll without a detailed consideration of all of the policy issues and their impact are as foolhardy as the Brexiteers who demanded an EU poll without looking at the consequences.
Ireland’s challenge is more complicated than Germany’s three decades ago. We might learn from another “new” country at the time: South Africa. Nelson Mandela saw the importance of the “rainbow nation”. He reached out to the Afrikaner community, learned their language and saw the importance of symbolism such as supporting the Springboks. South Africa adopted a new anthem and flag and is a member of the Commonwealth.
I would love to see a united Ireland, but what happens after the island is united is more important than the vote to enable it. It has to deliver for the daughter of a nationalist family in Derry as much as for the son of unionist farmers in Tyrone as for the children of recent migrants to Cork.
We have much work to do to build that island and it will mean some difficult discussions and decisions. But as Mandela said: “It always seems impossible until it’s done.”
How do we create a society that respects all backgrounds and traditions?