Andy Burnham’s declaration that a referendum on Irish unity is “off the table” provoked
predictable outrage from pro-Agreement nationalists. Mary Lou McDonald accused the British
Prime Minister of attempting to remove a provision of the Good Friday Agreement, while
Michelle O’Neill described his comments as “anti-democratic”.
Yet Burnham’s comments were subsequently clarified by Secretary of State Chris Bryant as
meaning that a border poll is off the table for now. On that interpretation, they do not necessarily
contradict the Agreement at all.
Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to use its official title, the British Secretary of State is
required on paper to call a referendum where it “appears likely” to him that a majority would
vote for Irish unity. Even on the Agreement’s own terms, the evidence presently available hardly
establishes that threshold. A 2025 attitudes study officially titled the Northern Ireland Life and
Times Survey recorded 36% for unity and 45% against. The latest ARINS/Irish Times survey
recorded 34% for unity and 48% for maintaining the Union.
This is precisely where Ruairí Ó Brádaigh’s objection to the border-poll strategy remains highly
relevant.
Ó Brádaigh rejected the premise that Irish national self-determination should be exercised
through partitionist referendums within the Six Counties. Before the Good Friday Agreement
was even concluded, he stated in 1997 that “regardless of the results” Republicans would not
accept any settlement seeking to legitimise British rule in Ireland.
His objection was therefore deeper than the suggestion that Britain might simply refuse to hold a
referendum it feared losing. The very mechanism accepted by constitutional nationalism makes
the timing of any Six-County referendum on Ireland’s constitutional future conditional upon the
judgement of a British Secretary of State as to political opinion within a partitioned Six-County
electorate.
The irony is that constitutional nationalists now appeal to the Good Friday Agreement against
Burnham when his comments, as clarified by Bryant, may be entirely consistent with it. They
demand that Britain honour a mechanism which leaves Britain to decide when the evidential
threshold for activating that mechanism has been reached.
Burnham has not exposed a loophole in the border-poll strategy. Instead, he has exposed what
was built into it from the beginning.
On this, at least, Ó Brádaigh was right.
The solution to the problem now Peter, is not what someone might have said in 1997, but surely those poll figures you quoted above. If those in favour of a united Ireland continue to hover around the mid thirties – then there is hardly any pressure on London to honour the terms of the agreement. none of which has anything to do with the obvious requirement to prepare for the inevitable border poll thats coming. If for example the Dublin/free state position was one that worked with a vision that was preparing and planning for a future referendum, then Burnhams statement might have been very different. God knows – they had over a hundred years to begin such planning. Maybe that’s where a new front/focus should be opened up. FG V FF – they should not be allowed to ride two horses in the opposite direction at the same time!
The British wouldn’t really care about percentages, they would find a way to deny a referendum. Bottom line is the Dublin/free state/partitioning governments of whatever hue are not really interested. They detest the northern populace, particularly the Republicans. People like Clare Hannah mean well but they are being well paid to maintain British rule in Ireland so why should they ever actively work against it? SF are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They don’t take their seats in Westminster thank God but they obviously can never support a horrible military campaign. They should show a bit more backbone and tell the hypocritical unionists where to get off whenever they bleat about Republicans honouring their war dead. When was the last time Michelle or Mary Lou reminded them nobody was consulted about partition? They seem to spend more time talking about Gaza and Israel.
They don’t take their seats, but they sure take the money though. What’s the point of voting for Sinn Fèin now, when they can’t even deliver on their raison d’être of a united Ireland?
Surveyor, you are of course quite correct. They do not take their seats in the British parliament, thank God, but they take the money. I see no harm in that. I regard it as similar to robbing British banks during the conflict. Mind you they would have to go a long way to take as much money as Sammy Wilson and Jeffrey Donaldson, claiming expenses for nonsensical items. Also Jim Allister is more than happy to receive his EU pension, as was Paisley. Taking money from your foolish enemy is no crime.