“A border ballot on Irish unity has progressed from doable, to seemingly, to sure.”
Phrases you may anticipate to have been mentioned with some relish by a Sinn Féin politician, maybe, however their writer is definitely Alex Kane in his reward for Malachi O’Doherty’s newest work. Typical knowledge on this a part of the world would now have you ever imagine that the writing is on the wall – not simply in respect of a Border Ballot, but in addition Irish Unity as such. O’Doherty, nonetheless, isn’t solely satisfied. Actually, he’s decidedly undecided on each a Border Ballot and Irish Unity – and hopes by the top of his guide that “a number of others are equally undecided” too.
‘Can Eire Be One?’ is a largely autobiographical work wherein identification options entrance and centre. O’Doherty takes us on a visit down reminiscence lane the place we discover his household historical past, and later we’re launched to the assorted individuals he has met all through his travels round this island. All of them have one thing in widespread – they don’t seem to be these one-dimensional caricatures that we’re so typically led to imagine are our neighbours. They vary from Davy – the straight-talking Donegal Orangeman with Gaeilge at him – to Chris Hudson, the Unitarian minister with staunch Republican beginnings who was at one time a go-between between Loyalists and the Irish Authorities.
O’Doherty leaves us in little doubt that identification right here isn’t a binary affair. It’s a Pandora’s Field. A rabbit gap. Having proven us how various the contents of Pandora’s Field actually are, and the way deep the rabbit gap actually goes, he devotes a lot effort and time to exploring if these identities, and the those who embody them, might be reconciled. Ploughing a lot the identical furrow as John Hume, Seamus Mallon, and Micheál Martin – not as lonely because it was once – he notes that whereas:
“There’s a mechanism agreed within the Good Friday Settlement for uniting the separate jurisdictions on the island of Eire…there isn’t a certain path to uniting the individuals.”
Not like the aforementioned, nonetheless, Malachi doesn’t imagine that the latter ought to essentially precede the previous – although clearly he regards “uniting the individuals” as one thing good in itself. The Indian polymath, Rabindranath Tagore, is cited approvingly and at size for his perception that “bringing individuals collectively” is rather more necessary than merely “making a nation” inside “the boundaries of a single jurisdiction.” Making use of Tagore’s concepts to historic Eire, O’Doherty concludes that:
“Hoping to create an Irish state wherein [the Anglo-Irish and northern Protestants] would in the end and simply grudgingly come to phrases with was getting issues the mistaken method spherical” (Emphasis added).
And later turning to fashionable Eire, he reaches a lot the identical conclusion:
“We’re speaking about uniting Eire whereas it nonetheless stays inconceivable to unite these communities. This may be getting issues the mistaken method spherical.” (Emphasis added)
We are able to infer that Malachi would like a united Eire to get issues the ‘proper’ method spherical, and why not? This shared aspiration of Hume, Mallon, Martin, Tagore – uniting the individuals – is extensively regarded a noble one. However is it sensible? After assembly O’Doherty’s many stereotype-defying relations and interviewees, we may be forgiven for questioning if a deal with identification, and reconciling identities, is definitely biting off greater than we will chew. A street to no-where. In any case, he concedes on one event that “in actuality no individuals is homogenous” – so may division on the grounds of identification be a reality of life, whether or not we’re in a united Eire or not? What if a united Eire which some northerners can solely “grudgingly come to phrases with” is pretty much as good because it will get? Would we be higher off placing identification again into Pandora’s Field, popping out of the rabbit gap, and making an attempt to unite on different grounds?
O’Doherty is painstaking in his efforts to color an image of identification right here that bears rather more resemblance to a ‘technicolour dreamcoat’ than to our acquainted, black and white caricatures. He’s commendably even-handed in his examination of previous considerations and injustices pertaining to identification – however in comparison with the colorful image he paints, his conclusion is somewhat extra muted in its tone (although maybe comes as a aid): Identification is not a critical impediment to uniting the individuals. As soon as respectable considerations round faith, tradition, and language – that British-identifying Ulster Protests “noticed as warranting partition up to now” – are not “genuine considerations” within the occasion of a united Eire. Likewise, many earlier arguments for Irish Unity – reminiscent of “saving northern Catholics from discrimination” – not severely apply in Northern Eire. So far as the entire kaleidoscope of identification is worried, there isn’t a longer something to essentially worry – both within the Northern Eire of right now or the United Eire of tomorrow.
So the place does O’Doherty go from right here? What considerations at the moment are genuine? What arguments now apply? The financial ones, definitely. O’Doherty argues, as an example, that “the pension query shall be essential”. He’s not alone, citing Newton Emerson who argued a lot the identical. Others, reminiscent of Brendan Heading of this parish, have additionally drawn consideration this query – although disputing that pensions shall be ‘Alright on the Night time’ has a monitor document for being poorly obtained, which maybe signifies how far we should go, by no means thoughts O’Doherty. Likewise, reassuring Trever Ringland in an apart, he asserts that the constitutional query is now “certainly solely a query of administration” – a conclusion shared just lately by one Jude Collins, who is generally on the opposite facet of O’Doherty in any argument:
“[Who] is answerable for the state you reside in issues…caring about the price of dwelling doesn’t imply you shouldn’t have sturdy emotions about who’s answerable for the state wherein you reside.” (Supply)
No matter will in the end make or break a border ballot, then, it won’t be the questions of identification that bedevilled us up to now – which isn’t to say there isn’t worth in exploring them, as O’Doherty does so effectively. Neither is it to say that identification won’t ever current any points down the road – at one level he half-hypothesizes and half-predicts an “Orange enclave within the new Eire, an “Irish Gaza” comprised of Counties Antrim and Down which will effectively show to be almighty headache. However to not the extent that it makes or breaks a border ballot.
Fairly, O’Doherty believes a lot will come all the way down to how successfully (or not) the phrases and circumstances of any future association are spelled out – “I cannot vote on the structure with much less care than I might absorb signing a contract to purchase a automotive.” On this respect, in the direction of the top of the guide, there’s a normal sense that each Irish and British governments have to get a transfer on – he predicts no less than three years of negotiations shall be required earlier than any border ballot. Advocacy teams in the meantime, reminiscent of Eire’s Future, are additionally given one thing in-between a brief shrift and an ultimatum – cease with the love-ins and get actual.
O’Doherty’s newest work has a lot to commend it. He has a knack for concurrently scary and pre-empting his readers’ objections. Simply once you assume he’s being unfairly one-sided, and are getting ready your counterargument, he beats you to it. At occasions you’re feeling as if he’s debating as a lot with himself as together with his readers – he’s undecided, in any case. O’Doherty right here is maybe a satan’s advocate above all else – maybe moreso for individuals who fall beneath the umbrella of “Protestant Unionist tradition” – his rationale being that:
“I want to begin by acknowledging the actual fact of their existence and the necessity to search lodging with them, understanding that if they’re dismissed as silly and irrelevant then, inevitably, they may object to that and change into tougher to cope with.”
Although it’s a well timed and welcome problem to our obtained knowledge, I discovered myself with a number of objections that O’Doherty didn’t pre-empt. The place he’s maybe weakest is on the language query. He’s not detached or hostile to the Irish language as such, conceding that it’s “necessary to us”, however I might argue he’s at occasions unduly cynical – of its advocates, of its future. He accuses the “Irish attachment to the previous language” as having “nothing to do with communication, which is what languages are literally for”. He equally criticises the Irish authorities’s adaptation “to using Irish as a communications medium, for which it’s not wanted”.
However what does “want” imply on this context? We’d surprise if O’Doherty wish to demolish the Tower of Babel and have the entire world talking the identical language as soon as once more. If we imagine the Biblical account, which may even be a noble purpose – our myriad of various and difficult languages being God’s punishment for our hubris – although I think about there are few individuals on the planet right now who regard their native language as a curse from God, even when speaking to our fellow man typically means attending to grips with the lingua franca. Why ought to Eire be an exception to the rule, simply because we will ‘get by’ with English?
Additional, O’Doherty at occasions seems to be unduly charitable to Unionism – maybe motivated by that earlier “want to hunt lodging”. Take the UUP – who’re known as “the extra reasonable UUP” on one event. O’Doherty himself relates that former UUP chief Tom Elliot, as just lately as 2010, couldn’t convey himself to attend a mere GAA match – a bridge too far. Not a bridge too far for the DUP’s Peter Robinson in 2012, nor the DUP’s Arlene foster in 2018. Whereas it stays a bridge even for Doug Beattie, as of April this yr – a bridge too far? Has he crossed it but? Who is aware of, however who seems to be the extra reasonable right here?
Extra usually, Unionism is classed as a reasonable type of nationalism, on the grounds that it now “concedes that it may be defeated by a majority vote for Irish unity” – however we will’t assist however surprise if the DUP are included right here. Previous to the final Meeting Election, as an example, Jeffrey Donaldson seemingly let the cat out of the bag on episode of UTV’s View from Stormont, remarking that he:
“[Can’t] perceive why a Unionist get together just like the UUP, is standing facet by facet with Sinn Féin and saying there shouldn’t be a Unionist veto.” (Emphasis added)
It follows that he believes there ought to be a Unionist veto, however a veto over what? A border ballot? Every part? Coupled with the DUP’s obvious issue in relation to accepting defeat within the final Meeting Election, by no means thoughts a border ballot – as demonstrated by their ongoing Stormont boycott, ostensibly on Protocol grounds – it’s troublesome to sq. the peg that they’re reasonable nationalists. Some commentators, such because the aforementioned Jude Collins and Pat McCart, suspect it’s exactly a Unionist veto they’re fishing for in Westminster – an clearly undemocratic ‘win’ with which to try to ‘win’ the subsequent election. Who mentioned irony is useless? However it might go some technique to explaining why they aren’t boycotting Westminster – birthplace of the Protocol – versus Stormont, which had nothing to do with it.
In need of an obstinate refusal on the a part of a British authorities to entertain a border ballot, nonetheless, which in keeping with O’Doherty would “would face political outrage and authorized problem” if “prospects of success [are] apparent” – there isn’t a level pretending {that a} border ballot is a query of ‘if’ any extra. Solely ‘when’. We’re the place we’re. Removed from this being excellent news for nationalists and unhealthy information for unionists, O’Doherty impresses upon us that:
“The query of unity shall be determined in essentially the most making an attempt of occasions by those that have the least ardour for it. They are going to vote pragmatically so they might want to know that the nation shall be secure after the vote.” (Emphasis added)
Passionate, starry-eyed idealism on the a part of Irish unity fans won’t minimize it, nor will any obstinate Unionist refusal to countenance that the status-quo is nowhere close to as safe in 2022 because it was in 1922. Time is restricted for both facet to set out their constitutional stall, and refusing to set out your stall shall be as a lot of a mistake as setting it out badly. It’s this type of complacency that O’Doherty cautions in opposition to above all else. These pragmatic voters he refers to, who yearn for stability in no matter constitutional association, won’t be lending their votes to no matter facet they deem to be the most important chancer – there may be an excessive amount of at stake to take an opportunity. ‘Can Eire be One?’ urges each the British and Irish governments, and certainly all of us, to plan in haste and unite at leisure – the clock is ticking.
Blaine McCartney is a Co. Down-based author
