So then, no border poll for the foreseeable future – perhaps not even in fifty years! That’s the upshot of a recent interview with Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, speaking to the Belfast Telegraph/Irish Independent’s Sam McBride. The key excerpts are worth quoting in full:
‘When asked about a 2030 plebiscite, Martin is curt: “We’re not planning for a border poll in 2030 and I believe the work we’re doing now — making the Good Friday Agreement work, in parallel with that the Shared Island [initiative] which is very practical incremental investment, continually engaging with people… it’s less attractive politically.”’
McBride then asked Martin how he envisaged Ireland looking in fifty years’ time:
‘Even here, he doesn’t say “a united Ireland” but responds: “My vision is very much the Wolfe Tone vision that the people are much more comfortable in each other’s skins… the political configuration I’m open about.
‘“What I mean by that is: It will evolve. I think politics has to work in Northern Ireland and there has to be a sustained manifestation of politics working in Northern Ireland so that even the politicians of Northern Ireland are comfortable working with each other.”’
So, what should we take away from Martin’s latest intervention? Three things, I think.
1) At least Martin is consistent
So, how do we solve a problem like Micheál Martin? We don’t. Its as clear as day that he simply isn’t a United Irelander. He’s made that clear time and again and there is nothing new in this interview that he has not said many times before. He uses his€1.5bn Shared Ireland initiative and talk about the importance of reconciliation in the North (‘people-to-people connections’) as a proxy for any deeper thinking on the question of national unity. Whether his view is a case of inertia on his part – the task being too big for him – or whether there’s some personal issue that clouds his judgment, I will leave to psychologists to speculate.
In fairness, as Taoiseach, any remarks hinting at a border poll in the next few years would have turned the story on its head and set all sorts of hares racing, so perhaps he can be allowed his circumspections. However, by not at least acknowledging the reality that A) Irish unity is a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement and that B) On any measure, it is becoming a medium-term likelihood, it is a dereliction of his duty as the head of the Irish government.
2) ‘Reconciliation’ is a unionist veto
As I’ve found myself arguing many times, an ‘agreed, ’ or ‘shared’ Ireland can never be a precondition for a united one. It’s a clever debating trick. Only a fool would not want as much cordiality between the various players in Northern Ireland’s broken politics ahead of any border poll. But to rule one out until there is – moving at the pace of the most recalcitrant elements in Belfast – is tantamount to a permanent unionist veto on constitutional change.
Perhaps the serious point, though, is that Martin’s injudicious remarks serve to undermine the Good Friday Agreement. To reemphasise the above point: Irish unity is not some bolt-on; it is integral to the entire deal. In which sense, reducing it to some wispy, far away prospect belittles its significance and is music to the ears of dissident republicans who will simply say, ‘told you so.’
3) The issue is still in rude health
Although I find myself writing about the issue of Irish unification rather a lot, it’s still less than pretty much every journalist and media outlet on the island of Ireland. The fact that McBride’s piece majors on Martin’s coolness towards the issue makes thatpoint. Even when figures like Martin tell us unification is not happening, its simply more chatter on the subject, serving to normalise the issue and increase the likelihood of it actually occurring.
Indeed, Irish unity is far and away the most interesting and widely-discussed political issue – north and south. And it isn’t going to go away because one politician or another would like it to. In which respect, Martin’s are the prophesies of a transient figure at the tail-end of an unremarkable career. He is a man increasingly out of time and place. Rather, the debate is intensifying. Witness Leo Varadkar’s intervention last week, speaking to an audience of Irish-Americans at an Ireland’s Future event in Philadelphia. In contrast to Martin’s pessimism, he posited that building a new and united Ireland was a ‘great cause’ and ‘the next step in our island’s journey.’
Varadkar puts it well.
This ‘great cause’ is too strong, too vibrant and too optimistic to be tethered by the fraying bonds of the insular, backward-looking Free Statism that Micheál Martinrepresents.
So then, no border poll for the foreseeable future – perhaps not even in fifty years! That’s the upshot of a recent interview with Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, speaking to the Belfast Telegraph/Irish Independent’s Sam McBride. The key excerpts are worth quoting in full:
McBride then asked Martin how he envisaged Ireland looking in fifty years’ time:
So, what should we take away from Martin’s latest intervention? Three things, I think.
1) At least Martin is consistent
So, how do we solve a problem like Micheál Martin? We don’t. Its as clear as day that he simply isn’t a United Irelander. He’s made that clear time and again and there is nothing new in this interview that he has not said many times before. He uses his€1.5bn Shared Ireland initiative and talk about the importance of reconciliation in the North (‘people-to-people connections’) as a proxy for any deeper thinking on the question of national unity. Whether his view is a case of inertia on his part – the task being too big for him – or whether there’s some personal issue that clouds his judgment, I will leave to psychologists to speculate.
In fairness, as Taoiseach, any remarks hinting at a border poll in the next few years would have turned the story on its head and set all sorts of hares racing, so perhaps he can be allowed his circumspections. However, by not at least acknowledging the reality that A) Irish unity is a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement and that B) On any measure, it is becoming a medium-term likelihood, it is a dereliction of his duty as the head of the Irish government.
2) ‘Reconciliation’ is a unionist veto
As I’ve found myself arguing many times, an ‘agreed, ’ or ‘shared’ Ireland can never be a precondition for a united one. It’s a clever debating trick. Only a fool would not want as much cordiality between the various players in Northern Ireland’s broken politics ahead of any border poll. But to rule one out until there is – moving at the pace of the most recalcitrant elements in Belfast – is tantamount to a permanent unionist veto on constitutional change.
Perhaps the serious point, though, is that Martin’s injudicious remarks serve to undermine the Good Friday Agreement. To reemphasise the above point: Irish unity is not some bolt-on; it is integral to the entire deal. In which sense, reducing it to some wispy, far away prospect belittles its significance and is music to the ears of dissident republicans who will simply say, ‘told you so.’
3) The issue is still in rude health
Although I find myself writing about the issue of Irish unification rather a lot, it’s still less than pretty much every journalist and media outlet on the island of Ireland. The fact that McBride’s piece majors on Martin’s coolness towards the issue makes thatpoint. Even when figures like Martin tell us unification is not happening, its simply more chatter on the subject, serving to normalise the issue and increase the likelihood of it actually occurring.
Indeed, Irish unity is far and away the most interesting and widely-discussed political issue – north and south. And it isn’t going to go away because one politician or another would like it to. In which respect, Martin’s are the prophesies of a transient figure at the tail-end of an unremarkable career. He is a man increasingly out of time and place. Rather, the debate is intensifying. Witness Leo Varadkar’s intervention last week, speaking to an audience of Irish-Americans at an Ireland’s Future event in Philadelphia. In contrast to Martin’s pessimism, he posited that building a new and united Ireland was a ‘great cause’ and ‘the next step in our island’s journey.’
Varadkar puts it well.
This ‘great cause’ is too strong, too vibrant and too optimistic to be tethered by the fraying bonds of the insular, backward-looking Free Statism that Micheál Martinrepresents.