Alex Kane: Joe Brolly ignored all the big questions when he put boot into the DUP

Joe Brolly – who seems to enjoy making headlines on the political pages – decided to put the boot into the DUP last week, blaming the party for squandering the opportunity to build a pluralist Northern Ireland.

He said: “I detect it all the time, about the DUP, the Old Testament sort of stuff, the inhumane stuff that they espouse, it is no longer acceptable. They made fundamental errors ... because they don’t have any long-term strategy; they are more an emotional movement than they are a political party, and that emotional movement is something that we know only too well – that triumphalism, treating you as inferior, that Arlene Foster-Jim Allister style: looking down their noses at people.

“It’s not acceptable. And these losers who are recruited by the DUP, because they’re tub-thumpers and they’ll get elected. Increasingly the unionist community has got to be saying, ‘We’ve got to be doing better, we’ve got to do better’. “

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He seems to think than Irish unity is inevitable, claiming that nationalists are saying: “Well, look it’s a united Ireland now. That’s where we are and that’s where we’re moving to now. Any opportunity for a pluralist Northern Ireland has been squandered and deeper down this wouldn’t have been the case at the time of the Good Friday Agreement.”

Joe Brolly's comments portrayed a complete absence of any strategy to bring unionism and nationalism togetherJoe Brolly's comments portrayed a complete absence of any strategy to bring unionism and nationalism together
Joe Brolly's comments portrayed a complete absence of any strategy to bring unionism and nationalism together

Actually, I don’t think that unity is inevitable, let alone likely to happen anytime soon. And while I partly agree with his contention that any potential opportunities of the Good Friday Agreement have long ago been squandered, I think the blame lies with both the DUP and Sinn Fein who, in 2007 – post the St Andrews negotiations – agreed their own version of an ‘ourselves alone’ deal which saw both prioritise and promote their own agenda rather than a joint agenda. I noted at the time that a deal based on ‘self-service and self-interest’ would, inevitably, result in ‘permanent showdown and serial crises’.

What struck me most, though, about his comments, was the complete absence of a new strategy for bringing unionism and nationalism together; and the accompanying absence of any blueprint of what a united Ireland, or new Ireland (or whatever the latest buzz phrase is for unity) would look like.

His contempt for the DUP seems to me to be profound and deep-seated (inhumane, losers, tub-thumpers, Old Testament stuff), suggesting that finding a way of accommodating the party and its voting base (and it remains, by a considerable margin, the party of choice for unionist voters) in a united Ireland would be very difficult for him. Unless he just thinks that unionism and the unionist identity would simply vanish in the event of it losing a border poll?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He may have a point when he says that ‘movement towards a united Ireland is beyond doubt’, but it is a point that applies primarily to nationalism in Northern Ireland; and even then it would be a mistake to assume that it applies to all of nationalism here.

There is precious little evidence of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Irish political establishment prioritising the unity debate; indeed, most of their input consists of warning that it is much too soon to even contemplate, let alone prepare for a border poll. And while it is true that some southern polling last year indicated support for Irish unity, my own reading of the findings (and yes, I have a clear bias) was that they were more aspirational than set-in-stone convictions.

I do concede that Brexit has shifted the dynamics insofar as there are clearly elements within small-n nationalism and small-u unionism whose concerns about leaving the EU, and the possible knock-on impact for the shape and steer of the United Kingdom, have pushed the idea of Irish unity up their list of possible future options. But it’s no more than that. And when the real debate begins – which it hasn’t, yet – there will be hundreds of factors in play; all of which will cause opinions to shift.

There are many, many unionists, unhappy with how the DUP responded to Brexit – particularly in the key period between June 2017 and late summer 2019 – but that doesn’t mean they want to leave the United Kingdom. Again, some people now indicating a willingness to listen to a debate about Irish unity will not be happy with the answers and proposals they hear and will stick with the status quo. However, many times Sinn Fein say it, Irish unity is not inevitable. Which doesn’t, by the way, mean that unionists should ignore the issue altogether.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Joe Brolly is perfectly entitled to put the boot into the DUP. But he is making a serious error in his apparent assumption that the blame for the failure to build a pluralist Northern Ireland lies solely on the doorstep of unionism. It doesn’t. Indeed, the SDLP, Alliance and Sinn Fein parties have just agreed to reboot an Executive/Assembly in which long outstanding problems with reform, collective responsibility, potential collapse, the petition of concern, and silo mentality remain unresolved. All of them have trotted out the mantra that ‘much remains to be done’; but that’s precisely the same mantra they’ve been trotting out for 20 years, particularly between May 2007 and December 2016.

Whether it’s in Northern Ireland or, at some point much further down the line, in a different constitutional arrangement, nationalism and unionism need to find a way of working together. Joe has chosen to ignore that fact. Prioritising Irish unity as the obvious solution, without actually making a coherent case for it, is a waste of his time. Dumping all the blame on the DUP is also a waste of his time.

Finally. I had a lot of time for Seamus Mallon. He championed his beliefs with integrity, passion and eloquence and strongly opposed violence from whatever source. I learned from our occasional conversations that he took no nonsense, but nor did he bear personal grudges and avoid those conversations. He was a giant of constitutional nationalism. He’ll be missed.