Alex Kane: Talking about a united Ireland makes no sense for unionists

He was responding to an interview in which Naomi Long had said it was “crucial’ for unionists to join the emerging conversation about the potential for Irish unity: “Unionism needs to be part of those conversations because they will still take place whether or not they engage.”

Speaking about her own party she said it would be “letting down the people we represent” if Alliance did not take part in any discussions about a potential united Ireland.

I acknowledge that there is a ‘conversation’ taking place within elements of nationalism and republicanism about a united Ireland. I have been a guest speaker at some events, including a Sinn Fein meeting in the Mansion House in Dublin a couple of years ago, in which I argued that I couldn’t actually think of any way in which a united Ireland would accommodate my political/constitutional identity, that very personal sense of who I am and what I believe. In other words, I am probably never going to be open to persuasion.

But, as I said to that particular audience – and others since then – persuading people of the merits of a united Ireland is clearly now part and parcel of the post-Brexit agenda and I can understand why Sinn Fein, Ireland’s Future and other elements of civic nationalism are so invested in the ‘unity project’.

Personally, I don’t want to be part of that conversation. So asking me what ‘it would take’ to convince me of the merits of a united Ireland is a futile exercise. You may as well ask Michelle O’Neill and Mary Lou McDonald to come to an audience of unionists and tell us what it would take to convince them to abandon their dreams and aspirations of A Nation Once Again.

While it may be the case that there are some changes and reforms which would make Irish nationalists less uncomfortable with certain aspects of unionism and Britishness, I can’t imagine that there is anything which would make any member of Sinn Fein (or any nationalist party, for that matter) reach a point at which they would say: “That’s ok. We’ve no concerns anymore, so we’ll forget all about unity.”

The other problem with the sort of ‘conversations’ which Sinn Fein and others want to have with unionism right now is my unshakeable feeling that they are predicated on a simple premise: Irish unity is now inevitable, you can’t stop it, political dynamics and electoral demographics are against you, the UK is falling apart and English nationalists don’t care about you; so talk to us now and we’ll do our best to make you as comfortable as possible. Getting unionism into that conversation and on that premise would be regarded as a huge strategic and psychological victory for those who want a united Ireland as the only outcome.

Anyway, how do you have such a conversation in advance of a border poll? What would the conclusion of the conversation be; what influence would it have on the framing of a border poll question? As a unionist I want to remain part of the United Kingdom. I want unionism to make the case for the Union (I think regular readers will be well aware of what I think party-political unionism and broader unionism needs to do, so I won’t rehearse the arguments again just now).

To get involved in a pre-border poll debate with nationalism on the basis of what we would want a united Ireland to look like in the event of unionism being on the losing side of a border poll doesn’t make sense to me. And again, I can’t imagine that nationalism is going to set out a list of what would make it happy enough to remain in the United Kingdom.

It is possible, of course, that a border poll could be called and unionism could be on the losing side. At that point there would have to be a debate and formal negotiations in which, as per the wording of the Belfast Agreement: ‘... if the wish expressed by a majority ... is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.’

Unionism would be involved in that debate and negotiation (I think Steve Aiken and every other unionist leader would accept that), but crucially it wouldn’t just be a conversation between unionism and local nationalism. It would be a much bigger debate than that. It would probably also roll on for a few years. Also, it would not be possible for Sinn Fein or any other party or grouping involved in the sort of ‘conversation’ in which unionists are being encouraged to engage in now, to guarantee anything – not a single thing – in terms of what a united Ireland would look like. All of that lies in the hands of a future British and Irish government.

Unionism should certainly, as I’ve argued for years, work on the basis that a border poll is possible and should be prepared for. But that preparation shouldn’t include formal conversations with those who want to muster a majority vote to end the Union and who want elements of unionism to assist them in that project. That’s why no unionist party can be, or will be, part of the conversation. But it does mean that party-political unionism, like Sinn Fein and other elements of nationalism, does need to secure and galvanise its core vote, as well as identifying and reaching-out to small-u unionists and small-n nationalists who need reassured on particular issues; along with many ‘others’ who, polling evidence suggests, remain open to persuasion. Talking to them might be more beneficial than anything else.