We are all familiar with the stipulation in the Good Friday Agreement about calling a border poll. Northern Ireland’s constitutional future relies on the say-so of the Secretary of State who must judge if it ‘appears likely’ that a majority of people would back change.
Of course this is merely window-dressing.
Without wishing to be rude, current incumbent Hilary Benn (like any of his predecessors in the role) is a middle-ranking cabinet appointment. The idea that he could leap out of bed one morning and commit the British government to such constitutional upheaval is fanciful in the extreme.
No, the reference of the secretary of state in the text was designed to keep any judgment about whether to call a poll ‘on the long finger’ and away from potential negotiations with unionists, in the event a governing party needed their parliamentary support. It was about preventing a border poll becoming a political football.
And that’s no theoretical consideration, given unionists have supported minority British governments on three occasions over the past 45 years.
First, the Ulster Unionists helped to prolong James Callaghan’s bedraggled Labour administration in the late 1970s. Then David Trimble propped-up John Major’s equally moth-eaten government in the mid-1990s. Finally, there was the deal between Theresa May and the DUP from 2017 to 2019.
So, it’s helpful for a British PM to say the matter solely rests with his or her secretary of state, but the realpolitik is that the decision remains the purview of the PM and whole cabinet.
That said, it’s reasonable to focus on what the agreement actually says and equally reasonable, given election results in the past few years, to hear Hilary Benn say out loud that the Good Friday must be respected – in all its dimensions – not just the more consensual aspects that are convenient for British ministers to endorse.
Indeed, the agreement’s preface talks about ‘equally legitimate political aspirations’and this must include the rights of United Irelanders to a border poll. Rather than breezily batting away the possibility of it happening, as Benn has done on previous occasions, we now need to hear him talk about the reality of it. Not with any fixed timescale in mind, per se; just a clear statement that:
a) A border poll in the next few years is an entirely valid and logical outcome and a key tenet of the agreement;
b) that it is eminently plausible based on growing electoral evidence; and
c) the British government is ready to honour its political and legal obligations in calling one – and abiding by the result.
Such a statement is necessary because these next few years will pass quickly. We have elections to the assembly in 2027 and all-out council elections across the Northin 2028. Both are, in effect, referendums on calling a referendum.
If and when the pro-United Ireland voting bloc is bigger than the pro-UK one, it becomes impossible to pretend that a border poll is not warranted. Indeed, for British ministers to obfuscate would put intolerable pressure on the political process.
The concept needs to be socialised, especially for those unionists who still believe the Good Friday Agreement is a destination and not in fact a journey. There should be no ambiguity around this point.
Now, given we are likely to see a British general election in spring 2029 and an Irish election in autumn 2029, there isn’t time, realistically, to call a poll before then. However, we still need a clear statement of intent from the two governments – and recognition by both British and Irish political parties in their manifestos – that they are prepared to hold one.
Let’s imagine that a majority votes for pro-United Ireland parties in the next assembly and local elections. It then moves to the top of the in-tray of issues that need to be dealt with for the next British and Irish governments.
And if they don’t act promptly, the next cycle of elections will be on them before they know it in 2032 and 2033, with, in all probability, a larger demand for change. There will be no more road to kick the can down.
So, we need to hear from Hilary Benn before the first test – the next assembly elections in 2027. The best comparison I can make is with his Tory predecessor, Peter Brooke. Back in 1990, he famously stated that the British government (Margaret Thatcher’s as it was at the time) had ‘no selfish, strategic or economic interest’ in maintaining Northern Ireland.
This short but important phrase was interpreted by nationalists and republicans as a statement of good faith at a crucial point in the political process that eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement.
It’s brevity and starkness affirmed the principle of consent – that Northern Ireland would have conditional status as part of the UK – subject to any decision of its inhabitants in opting for Irish unity – and that a British government would not stand in the way. It was an important fillip to the peace and political process.
Well, it’s time we had something like that now. A confidence-building gesture that normalises this most important dimension of the Good Friday Agreement.
Over to you, Hilary.
We are all familiar with the stipulation in the Good Friday Agreement about calling a border poll. Northern Ireland’s constitutional future relies on the say-so of the Secretary of State who must judge if it ‘appears likely’ that a majority of people would back change.
Of course this is merely window-dressing.
Without wishing to be rude, current incumbent Hilary Benn (like any of his predecessors in the role) is a middle-ranking cabinet appointment. The idea that he could leap out of bed one morning and commit the British government to such constitutional upheaval is fanciful in the extreme.
No, the reference of the secretary of state in the text was designed to keep any judgment about whether to call a poll ‘on the long finger’ and away from potential negotiations with unionists, in the event a governing party needed their parliamentary support. It was about preventing a border poll becoming a political football.
And that’s no theoretical consideration, given unionists have supported minority British governments on three occasions over the past 45 years.
First, the Ulster Unionists helped to prolong James Callaghan’s bedraggled Labour administration in the late 1970s. Then David Trimble propped-up John Major’s equally moth-eaten government in the mid-1990s. Finally, there was the deal between Theresa May and the DUP from 2017 to 2019.
So, it’s helpful for a British PM to say the matter solely rests with his or her secretary of state, but the realpolitik is that the decision remains the purview of the PM and whole cabinet.
That said, it’s reasonable to focus on what the agreement actually says and equally reasonable, given election results in the past few years, to hear Hilary Benn say out loud that the Good Friday must be respected – in all its dimensions – not just the more consensual aspects that are convenient for British ministers to endorse.
Indeed, the agreement’s preface talks about ‘equally legitimate political aspirations’and this must include the rights of United Irelanders to a border poll. Rather than breezily batting away the possibility of it happening, as Benn has done on previous occasions, we now need to hear him talk about the reality of it. Not with any fixed timescale in mind, per se; just a clear statement that:
a) A border poll in the next few years is an entirely valid and logical outcome and a key tenet of the agreement;
b) that it is eminently plausible based on growing electoral evidence; and
c) the British government is ready to honour its political and legal obligations in calling one – and abiding by the result.
Such a statement is necessary because these next few years will pass quickly. We have elections to the assembly in 2027 and all-out council elections across the Northin 2028. Both are, in effect, referendums on calling a referendum.
If and when the pro-United Ireland voting bloc is bigger than the pro-UK one, it becomes impossible to pretend that a border poll is not warranted. Indeed, for British ministers to obfuscate would put intolerable pressure on the political process.
The concept needs to be socialised, especially for those unionists who still believe the Good Friday Agreement is a destination and not in fact a journey. There should be no ambiguity around this point.
Now, given we are likely to see a British general election in spring 2029 and an Irish election in autumn 2029, there isn’t time, realistically, to call a poll before then. However, we still need a clear statement of intent from the two governments – and recognition by both British and Irish political parties in their manifestos – that they are prepared to hold one.
Let’s imagine that a majority votes for pro-United Ireland parties in the next assembly and local elections. It then moves to the top of the in-tray of issues that need to be dealt with for the next British and Irish governments.
And if they don’t act promptly, the next cycle of elections will be on them before they know it in 2032 and 2033, with, in all probability, a larger demand for change. There will be no more road to kick the can down.
So, we need to hear from Hilary Benn before the first test – the next assembly elections in 2027. The best comparison I can make is with his Tory predecessor, Peter Brooke. Back in 1990, he famously stated that the British government (Margaret Thatcher’s as it was at the time) had ‘no selfish, strategic or economic interest’ in maintaining Northern Ireland.
This short but important phrase was interpreted by nationalists and republicans as a statement of good faith at a crucial point in the political process that eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement.
It’s brevity and starkness affirmed the principle of consent – that Northern Ireland would have conditional status as part of the UK – subject to any decision of its inhabitants in opting for Irish unity – and that a British government would not stand in the way. It was an important fillip to the peace and political process.
Well, it’s time we had something like that now. A confidence-building gesture that normalises this most important dimension of the Good Friday Agreement.
Over to you, Hilary.