As an Irish person living in London for the past couple of decades, I have come to see how little knowledge many people in Britain have about Ireland. The conflict has always been a blind spot in the British psyche. Regularly, it is simply dismissed as sectarianism – a kind of Celtic and Rangers match played out behind closed doors in a Stadium of Six Counties. Britain’s role at best is viewed as that of referee, a reluctant arbitrator of affairs. To many, in 1998 that referee stopped Ireland’s two warring tribes from killing each other and more importantly from attacking places such as Warrington and Canary Wharf. The media narrative that followed was one of resolution and nothing more needing to be done. The strange game across the water had ended. Transport for London could put bins on platforms once again. There may also have been a mindset that the fudges of the Agreement could last forever. Britain would never have to trade in the Northern Irish state when it hit a certain mileage.But the Agreement in reality was just a sticking plaster over deep wounds. In order for it to work effectively, it has to be a springboard to true equality on all sides.
Unfortunately though the aspiration for Irish unity has never been given equal legitimacy to the desire to maintain the status quo. Looking at the situation through the official media lens, sometimes it feels that not much has changed in terms of hegemony. Susan McKay of The Guardian has written extensively about this, as have many academics. The public profile of Northern Ireland, the one that is purveyed on the BBC, is still suggestive of a place where Irishness in terms of identity and population is secondary. Possibly until Sinn Fein’s recent rise in terms of more visible electoral success, British people could be forgiven for thinking that Irishness in the Northern Irish state is on a par with the demographics of ethnic minorities in England.
Some of that has changed in the past couple of years, especially with Sinn Fein becoming the largest party in the Assembly. Whereas Irish unification was rarely a discussion point before in the British media, it has started to feature. But there’s a huge amount of work to be done on all sides to make a Border Poll happen at some point. And that has to start with facilitating conversations. Even with so much focus on the Irish border in recent years, many British people remain quite ignorant of the root causes of the conflict. There’s also a general reluctance here to open up any can of worms around military actions. That’s most evident in the way in which legacy issues have been dealt with and the many contradictions around these. Essentially, Britain has never really deep-down faced up to the most negative aspects of what its military did across the water. Yet, ask the same people about the Russian military’s evils in Ukraine or the Serbs in Kosovo and they can rhyme off a hundred wrongs. Ireland remains a blind spot because to confront it means confronting uncomfortable truths about militarism and the fact that it’s not some shiny heroic benevolent endeavour.
Even after living here for twenty years, I remain surprised at the extent of support for the army. Across a range of surveys conducted over the past decade, a consistent eight or nine out of ten people in Britain profess a high regard for the armed forces. A great deal of this support has coincided with the increased presence of the military at public events, particularly sports. People here have been indoctrinated with the idea that the army and the wars they fight are a normal and natural thing. They have come to see high-grade weaponry as something cool, stylish and even sexy. Chinooks are the Lamborghinis of the sky and horse-drawn cannons a quaint throwback to the glories of the British Empire. Yet when Russia, China or North Korea parades the same hardware, they’re using military propaganda to brainwash their people.
Conversing with people of such a mindset is one of the greatest challenges we face in making them more aware of what happened in Ireland. Even when suggesting parallels between Ukraine and Ireland, the comparison rarely registers. This is because in the everyday British mindset, Britain is Ukraine, the small country standing alone against a dangerous enemy. Like the protection of ‘their’ land in the Blitz, Ukrainians are standing up for the freedom of a plucky little nation. So much of Britain’s sense of itself is shaped around that notion, it’s very difficult to counteract. Unravelling a single thread could make the whole thing collapse. Partly this is why there is such a reluctance on the part of people here to explore Irish history. If you pride your entire existence upon fair play and decency, how do you face up to centuries of injustice?
Perhaps the way to start this conversation then is to focus on that fair play angle. We need to strongly emphasise the ambition of a new and fairer Ireland. We need to show that in seeking social justice for past wrongs, there is no witch-hunt or search for retribution. Maybe the focus here should be on truth commissions as happened in South Africa. It is not just for Ireland’s sake that such truths are needed. It is for the benefit of both these islands. The fact that Unionists suffered too is likely to be a legitimate claim in such conversations. That’s why all sides must be listened to. To have conversations with England, Scotland and Wales, without bringing in Northern Irish Unionist voices is problematic as well. We need to find a way of getting more Unionists involved in these discussions.
Much of that though is work that needs to be done back home, not on this side of the water. That’s why the idea of Citizens’ Assemblies seems an excellent one. As someone working in education, I would suggest these should be as much about listening as talking. They should also be shaped around citizens’ needs and ideas in the first place rather than anything being pre-determined, with everything on the table for discussion. A great way of advocating these on this side of the water is to relate them to the Brexit situation. If these assemblies had existed before the EU Referendum, things might have turned out differently. People voted on the basis of emotion rather than education. If there’s to be a border poll in Northern Ireland, then clear visions of the future have to be articulated beforehand. Without such a vision, British public opinion will fall back into referee and two tribes mode.
To influence that opinion, we also need more voices supporting Irish unity in the mainstream media. If these views strike the right note, they will snowball over time. The aspiration for a unified Ireland will become as normalised in British life as Love Island, football or the military. For a long time Irish nationalists have been othered. That’s changing too. You only have to look at how embedded shows such as Derry Girls have become in popular culture here. Every English girl sees a bit of Erin, Michelle and the others in themselves. They have got to see an ordinary human side to the everyday Irish nationalist experience they hadn’t encountered before. The time is right then to extend the normalisation of conversations around a United Ireland.
Added to this and just as importantly there’s one more very significant thing that we can do to influence British public opinion. That’s to persuade political parties here to take a neutral position on Irish unity. Increasingly, the British Labour Party is shifting towards a position of defending all corners of the Union, prioritising the patriotic vote above all else. In the event of a Border Poll, that would go against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. However, as proven with the Brexit vote, beating the drum of patriotism can bring pyrrhic victories. The great danger here too is that British society is pushed to a point where it is passionately and even violently opposed to such issues as Scottish independence and Irish unification. It’s hard enough to have conversations with a society that is at best ambivalent about Ireland. The task would be nearly impossible in a time of heated debate and Brexit-type polarisation.
Thankfully though, in some circles, conversations about the future shape of Ireland have begun. The challenge then is to give them momentum and show that nobody who identifies as British on either of these two European islands has any reason to fear Irish unification. But the groundwork needs to be laid now for a Border Poll. That’s not presuming that such a ballot would necessarily be won by the pro-unity side. However, it would normalise the conversation around Irish unity and perhaps make Britain come to terms with its own history in Ireland and beyond. Just as Irish demands for independence at the turn of the 20th century helped to break up the British Empire, the unification of Ireland can help Britain move beyond its colonial entrapments.
As the renowned historian David Olusoga has said, modern Britain remains akin to the last guest at an imperial party that has passed. His exact words were as follows: “There’s one country left in the British empire that needs to liberate itself and have its independence day from its own history, and that’s Britain.” The journey to doing that starts across the water in Ireland. The sooner Britain realises it the better because then Ireland can paradoxically start preparing for a future that celebrates the first time and first state in history when Irishness and Britishness are in a partnership of equals. The aspiration for a united Ireland is not about relegating Britishness to the past. It is about redefining it in such a way that it can exist comfortably alongside Irishness, on the island that until united will forever leave Britain as a place that remains unfree.
Finally it is important to note that many on the British Left do have great sympathy for the Irish cause and are in favour of a united Ireland. However, in the UK’s present political climate, such voices are increasingly marginalised. That’s why it is important to keep this issue on the radar. The desire for Irish unity cannot be wished away, as centuries of resistance have shown.
As an Irish person living in London for the past couple of decades, I have come to see how little knowledge many people in Britain have about Ireland. The conflict has always been a blind spot in the British psyche. Regularly, it is simply dismissed as sectarianism – a kind of Celtic and Rangers match played out behind closed doors in a Stadium of Six Counties. Britain’s role at best is viewed as that of referee, a reluctant arbitrator of affairs. To many, in 1998 that referee stopped Ireland’s two warring tribes from killing each other and more importantly from attacking places such as Warrington and Canary Wharf. The media narrative that followed was one of resolution and nothing more needing to be done. The strange game across the water had ended. Transport for London could put bins on platforms once again. There may also have been a mindset that the fudges of the Agreement could last forever. Britain would never have to trade in the Northern Irish state when it hit a certain mileage.But the Agreement in reality was just a sticking plaster over deep wounds. In order for it to work effectively, it has to be a springboard to true equality on all sides.
Unfortunately though the aspiration for Irish unity has never been given equal legitimacy to the desire to maintain the status quo. Looking at the situation through the official media lens, sometimes it feels that not much has changed in terms of hegemony. Susan McKay of The Guardian has written extensively about this, as have many academics. The public profile of Northern Ireland, the one that is purveyed on the BBC, is still suggestive of a place where Irishness in terms of identity and population is secondary. Possibly until Sinn Fein’s recent rise in terms of more visible electoral success, British people could be forgiven for thinking that Irishness in the Northern Irish state is on a par with the demographics of ethnic minorities in England.
Some of that has changed in the past couple of years, especially with Sinn Fein becoming the largest party in the Assembly. Whereas Irish unification was rarely a discussion point before in the British media, it has started to feature. But there’s a huge amount of work to be done on all sides to make a Border Poll happen at some point. And that has to start with facilitating conversations. Even with so much focus on the Irish border in recent years, many British people remain quite ignorant of the root causes of the conflict. There’s also a general reluctance here to open up any can of worms around military actions. That’s most evident in the way in which legacy issues have been dealt with and the many contradictions around these. Essentially, Britain has never really deep-down faced up to the most negative aspects of what its military did across the water. Yet, ask the same people about the Russian military’s evils in Ukraine or the Serbs in Kosovo and they can rhyme off a hundred wrongs. Ireland remains a blind spot because to confront it means confronting uncomfortable truths about militarism and the fact that it’s not some shiny heroic benevolent endeavour.
Even after living here for twenty years, I remain surprised at the extent of support for the army. Across a range of surveys conducted over the past decade, a consistent eight or nine out of ten people in Britain profess a high regard for the armed forces. A great deal of this support has coincided with the increased presence of the military at public events, particularly sports. People here have been indoctrinated with the idea that the army and the wars they fight are a normal and natural thing. They have come to see high-grade weaponry as something cool, stylish and even sexy. Chinooks are the Lamborghinis of the sky and horse-drawn cannons a quaint throwback to the glories of the British Empire. Yet when Russia, China or North Korea parades the same hardware, they’re using military propaganda to brainwash their people.
Conversing with people of such a mindset is one of the greatest challenges we face in making them more aware of what happened in Ireland. Even when suggesting parallels between Ukraine and Ireland, the comparison rarely registers. This is because in the everyday British mindset, Britain is Ukraine, the small country standing alone against a dangerous enemy. Like the protection of ‘their’ land in the Blitz, Ukrainians are standing up for the freedom of a plucky little nation. So much of Britain’s sense of itself is shaped around that notion, it’s very difficult to counteract. Unravelling a single thread could make the whole thing collapse. Partly this is why there is such a reluctance on the part of people here to explore Irish history. If you pride your entire existence upon fair play and decency, how do you face up to centuries of injustice?
Perhaps the way to start this conversation then is to focus on that fair play angle. We need to strongly emphasise the ambition of a new and fairer Ireland. We need to show that in seeking social justice for past wrongs, there is no witch-hunt or search for retribution. Maybe the focus here should be on truth commissions as happened in South Africa. It is not just for Ireland’s sake that such truths are needed. It is for the benefit of both these islands. The fact that Unionists suffered too is likely to be a legitimate claim in such conversations. That’s why all sides must be listened to. To have conversations with England, Scotland and Wales, without bringing in Northern Irish Unionist voices is problematic as well. We need to find a way of getting more Unionists involved in these discussions.
Much of that though is work that needs to be done back home, not on this side of the water. That’s why the idea of Citizens’ Assemblies seems an excellent one. As someone working in education, I would suggest these should be as much about listening as talking. They should also be shaped around citizens’ needs and ideas in the first place rather than anything being pre-determined, with everything on the table for discussion. A great way of advocating these on this side of the water is to relate them to the Brexit situation. If these assemblies had existed before the EU Referendum, things might have turned out differently. People voted on the basis of emotion rather than education. If there’s to be a border poll in Northern Ireland, then clear visions of the future have to be articulated beforehand. Without such a vision, British public opinion will fall back into referee and two tribes mode.
To influence that opinion, we also need more voices supporting Irish unity in the mainstream media. If these views strike the right note, they will snowball over time. The aspiration for a unified Ireland will become as normalised in British life as Love Island, football or the military. For a long time Irish nationalists have been othered. That’s changing too. You only have to look at how embedded shows such as Derry Girls have become in popular culture here. Every English girl sees a bit of Erin, Michelle and the others in themselves. They have got to see an ordinary human side to the everyday Irish nationalist experience they hadn’t encountered before. The time is right then to extend the normalisation of conversations around a United Ireland.
Added to this and just as importantly there’s one more very significant thing that we can do to influence British public opinion. That’s to persuade political parties here to take a neutral position on Irish unity. Increasingly, the British Labour Party is shifting towards a position of defending all corners of the Union, prioritising the patriotic vote above all else. In the event of a Border Poll, that would go against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. However, as proven with the Brexit vote, beating the drum of patriotism can bring pyrrhic victories. The great danger here too is that British society is pushed to a point where it is passionately and even violently opposed to such issues as Scottish independence and Irish unification. It’s hard enough to have conversations with a society that is at best ambivalent about Ireland. The task would be nearly impossible in a time of heated debate and Brexit-type polarisation.
Thankfully though, in some circles, conversations about the future shape of Ireland have begun. The challenge then is to give them momentum and show that nobody who identifies as British on either of these two European islands has any reason to fear Irish unification. But the groundwork needs to be laid now for a Border Poll. That’s not presuming that such a ballot would necessarily be won by the pro-unity side. However, it would normalise the conversation around Irish unity and perhaps make Britain come to terms with its own history in Ireland and beyond. Just as Irish demands for independence at the turn of the 20th century helped to break up the British Empire, the unification of Ireland can help Britain move beyond its colonial entrapments.
As the renowned historian David Olusoga has said, modern Britain remains akin to the last guest at an imperial party that has passed. His exact words were as follows: “There’s one country left in the British empire that needs to liberate itself and have its independence day from its own history, and that’s Britain.” The journey to doing that starts across the water in Ireland. The sooner Britain realises it the better because then Ireland can paradoxically start preparing for a future that celebrates the first time and first state in history when Irishness and Britishness are in a partnership of equals. The aspiration for a united Ireland is not about relegating Britishness to the past. It is about redefining it in such a way that it can exist comfortably alongside Irishness, on the island that until united will forever leave Britain as a place that remains unfree.
Finally it is important to note that many on the British Left do have great sympathy for the Irish cause and are in favour of a united Ireland. However, in the UK’s present political climate, such voices are increasingly marginalised. That’s why it is important to keep this issue on the radar. The desire for Irish unity cannot be wished away, as centuries of resistance have shown.