People are not preoccupied with flags. They want to know about the practicalities of unity
Ireland’s political establishment is in a completely new place. For decades, Irish unity was seen as a legitimate aspiration, but confidently and firmly pushed to the margins: a desirable goal, on the back burner for the foreseeable future. A long way off and certainly too provocative to plan. Political and civic leaders in the North were rightly lauded for their courage and tenacity in bringing peace, but serious discussions about the possibility of constitutional change were off the table. The time was not right. Comprehensive reconciliation had to come first. When Simon Harris announced his plan for a blueprint for a unified Ireland in June , it was met with incredulity and disbelief in some quarters. Why was he dipping his toe in this water? Surely this was a subject for “hardliners” and “cranks”. So, what has changed? A united Ireland is now firmly on the agenda because of the confluence of political and economic events. The timing is right. It is almost 30 years since the Belfast Agreement was signed. Moving too quickly toward unity after 1998 would have risked destabilising a fragile peace agreement and unsettling the unionist community. But the dynamics of the North have changed dramatically. Increasing numbers of people reject the orange and green labels and want to give serious consideration to the possibility of a new and better future for this island. The media coverage of Fine Gael ’s blueprint predictably focused on the estimated costs of unity – and most chose the highest number. The process could cost the Republic’s taxpayer between €3.5 billion and €30 billion annually, depending on a wide range of economic assumptions and negotiations. It led to questions about the affordability of unity. Costs are, of course, a key consideration, which is why my report – commissioned by Simon Harris, though I am not a member of any party – recommended a dedicated sovereign wealth fund for the possible transitional costs. But it is impossible to estimate the price of unity until you decide what model of a united Ireland is envisaged. It is a waste of time arguing about unknowables when so much could be done today to achieve stated goals and to define a credible prospectus for unity. As part of the research to inform the Fine Gael blueprint, I interviewed 75 people from across political and civic society: unionists, nationalists and the non-aligned. A striking emergent theme was the extent to which respondents, not just those labelled as “others” or “unaligned”, wanted detail on a united Ireland and were willing to engage in informed and respectful debate. People wanted evidence, not slogans and rhetoric. One woman from a loyalist community suggested that the status quo had completely failed her community. “Sticking their head in the sand” while change happened had not served them well. Many felt that constitutional change would not be delivered by politicians or the media, but by discussions in communities or around kitchen tables. But the public want to be equipped and empowered to have those conversations. A number of things were striking in my interviews. Firstly, the lack of interest in flags, emblems and national anthems. These were viewed as second-order issues. Repeated demands for a Border poll and arbitrary timelines were viewed as distractions from the hard work of building a sustained persuasive case for unity. Political energy should go into planning and preparing for change, identifying processes that could help to build a future consensus. Practical questions dominated the responses of my interlocutors: they wanted to know about healthcare, education, economic prosperity, political stability, protecting minority rights and addressing inequalities. The key recommendation from my research is the establishment of a well-resourced standing constitutional forum, with legislative support from the Oireachtas. Its membership should not be confined to deputies or senators, though they will have vital roles to play, and it ought to be chaired by a small committee of experts with credible all-island and international standing. It should meet in plenary for at least two months in every year, taking hearings and issuing invitations as its sees fit and be empowered to commission independent research reports. It should be tasked with identifying the elements of cross-party consensus on Irish unity, and subjects on which there is a majority level of support among the parties in Dáil Éireann. The forum should fully address opinion in the North on the same subjects and allow people to speak, listen, judge the merits of different positions and provide the impetus for informed progressive change. Tragically, partition has meant that people North and South of the Border don’t know each other. Mistrust and fear have been allowed to fester. Listening on the basis of respect, in an atmosphere of calm deliberation, enables rapprochement and reconciliation. Twenty-eight years after the Belfast Agreement was achieved in final negotiations in Belfast, no major political party has published a comprehensive blueprint for what a united Ireland would actually look like. This fact partly reflects the political risks inherent in constitutional proposals. Any party proposing detailed institutional arrangements – whether relating to constitutional design, governance structures, symbols, or public policy changes – is immediately vulnerable to political attack by its competitors. As a result, there has been a reluctance to move beyond broad aspirations or to define objectives and plan to accomplish them. The debate about Irish unity must include political parties, but it must transcend narrow party politics. It should be framed as a national project of renewal and as an irresistible opportunity to consolidate and reshape a modern progressive democracy. Successful political leadership is not just about current opportunities and dealing with the here and now. It is also about predicting emerging trends, anticipating challenges and planning for the future. Addressing potential conflicts transparently, allaying fears and advancing mutual interests is the task to which this generation of leaders must rise. Constitutional procrastination is no longer a viable political strategy. The Brexit fiasco shows we cannot cross our fingers and hope for the best. Change is inevitable, but a unified Ireland is not a foregone conclusion, certainly not without credible public deliberation and planning. Those who aspire to constitutional change must combine vision with realism and establish the structures and processes to enable open and meaningful dialogue. Professor Deirdre Heenan is professor of social policy at Ulster University and a former dean of academic development, as well as a provost of the Magee and Coleraine campuses. She is the author of a new report, Planning and Preparing for a New Ireland