Partition: time to draw back the veil

From time to time, you’ll hear people bemoan our dreary obsession with partition and the constitutional question. “Why can’t they address the real issues, things that matter to people? Jobs, the cost of living, housing – real politics!”

Such people are  half-right. It hardly needs reaffirming that jobs, housing etc  are matters of the utmost importance. In an independent country they’d be what is referred to as domestic policy. But all such countries have a second policy – foreign policy – and that’s what people are expressing concern about when they speak of the partition of Ireland.

It’s clear that a great number of people in the north wish to maintain the link with Britain. It’s equally clear that a great number wish to break the link with Britain and create a new Ireland consisting of thirty-two counties. There are many reasons advanced by those who believe in a re-united, new Ireland. The first argument is usually that it would make economic sense – services wouldn’t need duplication -an end to  two Departments for Education, two Departments for Health, and so on. I think that’s a valid argument but it’s also in some ways the weakest, since those arguing against duplication haven’t produced a comprehensive survey which shows the level of savings that could be made if partition were ended.

My own belief in the need for a re-united Ireland would include the economic argument: I suspect if all the sums were done, we’d see the financial desirability of an end to partition. But even if the sums were done, and even if they showed that we’d be worse off in a re-united Ireland, I’d still argue for the end to partition.

Let me give you an analogy that might clarify my argument.  The man next door  is a very nice man. Successful career,  astute financial thinker, impressive in many ways. However, if the man next door were to ring my bell and announce that he’d come to take up occupancy of the back bedroom and that from now on he would run my household affairs, you can probably guess my reaction. I’d be outraged. Even if, in running my affairs, the man next door were to do a better job than I do, I’d still be outraged. Why? Because he’s on my property, or more strictly speaking, on my family’s property. Not on. No chance. Forget it, man-next-door.

The reason for my objection would be based on the fact that I’m an adult. When you’re small, it’s reasonable that other people – adults – make decisions for you. Children aren’t sufficiently mature to make big decisions. But when they grow up, mature, then part of being an adult is to run your own affairs. Sometimes you’ll make mistakes, sometimes you’ll make effective decisions. But effective or ineffective, shrewd or bumbling, they’re your decisions and if you’re a self-respecting adult, you’ll insist that you make them.

For those who’ve missed the parallel: England/Britain is in many ways a desirable next door neighbour. Anyone who’s lived in England or even visited there will know that the English people can be charming, fair-minded, good company. But regardless of their affability, they should not be running our affairs on this island. When given the opportunity, the Irish people voted overwhelmingly for the ending of the union with Britain. I’m convinced they would do so again.

But at this point in our history, we’re talking about a referendum for those of us living in the north. Sources like Arlene Foster and the Belfast Telegraph tell us this would be pointless since we already know the outcome, it would be to stay with the union. They may be right. But we’ll never know until a referendum is held. In demographic terms, the balance between Catholics and Protestants in the north – usually code for nationalists/republicans and unionists – is shifting inexorably. There is now a majority of people under thirty-five coming from the Catholic community. The Belfast Telegraph points to the census returns which show many Catholics describing themselves as ‘Northern Irish’, and interpret this as an indication that these Catholics want to maintain the union with Britain.

I’m not so sure. Once it’s made clear that Irish unity would not – repeat, NOT – involve the northern six counties being tied to the coat-tails of a corrupt, debt-soaked twenty-six counties, the great majority of Catholics in the north are more likely to do as they’ve done in election after election:  vote for the nationalist/republican goal of a re-united Ireland.

Poppycock? Pie in the sky? Maybe. But there’s only one way to find out. If a large majority are in favour of maintaining the status quo, then nationalists/republicans will have to accept that fact and consider how their fellow-countrymen and women can be persuaded to change their minds. If a majority in the north  were to vote in favour of ending the union with Britain, then unionists would be equally bound to accept the decision and arrangements for re-unification to be put in place.

“But what about the people in the south – don’t they have to agree too?” They do indeed and the same obtains as for the north: the decision is accepted and people act in keeping with the Good Friday Agreement.

What we have at present is a question which absorbs us all, and especially our politicians. No detailed study has been conducted to show how Irish re-unification could save money. The sooner such a study is done, the better. But even if the study found a financial disadvantage in re-unification, I’d still argue that as grown-up people we should act in a grown-up way. Let’s stop trying to guess or tell each other what’s behind the curtain – let’s just draw it back.

Re-unification might cost us? It might indeed. But that didn’t deter the Germans when the Berlin Wall came down. In the new Germany, the economy of East Germany was something of a basket case. But because the German people are a totally grown-up people, they insisted on re-unification. And they haven’t done so badly. Have they?

For the sake of clarity and self-respect, we need a referendum. Now.