Letter: The pro-Union position has always and still needs to be attractive to the electorate
A letter from Trevor Ringland:


In 2003 I co-authored The Long Peace? The Future of Unionism in Northern Ireland with Mick Fealty and David Steven.
We concluded that it was not enough for the pro-Union position to have right on its side - it must also be attractive to the electorate. That argument is as relevant today as it was 21 years ago.
In many ways Northern Ireland is doing more than okay now, despite some of the recent upheaval that we have experienced. The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey last year suggested that 78% are happy enough with our current constitutional arrangements, while only some 5% are not. That is an extraordinary level of buy-in for a place whose existence has been attacked since its inception and it should be good news for unionism, if it is prepared to work with that mood.


We face many challenges, but these can largely be addressed or mitigated. Some are a longer-term project, such as the redefining of Northern Ireland’s and the rest of the UK’s relationship with the EU, but they need not undermine the goal of providing constructive government in Northern Ireland, which may mean taking responsibility for difficult but ultimately necessary decisions. The people who should be at the forefront of that drive are those who are pro-Union/NI, or at least content with the status quo.
Ironically there is a growing appreciation in more extreme nationalism and republicanism that if they wish constitutional change that would be a success, they also have to make this place work socially and economically! Many in nationalism understood that a long time ago!!
The current constitutional model on this island, which could be described as ‘separate but together’, is a compromise that works well. While underappreciated, it reflects that we are constitutionally part of the United Kingdom, while remaining physically attached to the rest of the island of Ireland, with many bodies and links that reflect that connection. In addition, we are a key part of NATO, belong to a Commonwealth that is home to some 3.6 billion people across the world and are in the process of reshaping our connections to the EU and wider Europe in a mutually constructive way.
An effective pro-Union party would work both strategically and effectively to solve our internal problems in Northern Ireland, by emphasising the importance of growing the economy and reforming public services. It would also take every opportunity to participate in the UK fully and promote the benefits that the Union provides us. Then there are the constructive links that we can enjoy and exploit with the rest of the island, as well as international opportunities offered by our links to the US, NATO, the Commonwealth and the EU.
While Gavin Robinson and many in the DUP agree with what I have set out above, their Party is caught by historic baggage. The UUP is also, but to a lesser extent, and so it is to Mike Nesbitt and the UUP to reflect about how best they can deliver on the kind of project that I have outlined. A single party needs to drive it, while working collaboratively towards these kinds of aims. A Northern Ireland Party fully committed to what I have suggested is important, not only for the people of Northern Ireland but also of this Island.
In addition, we should recognise that the out working of the provisions of the 2006 St Andrew’s Agreement was to suspend our democracy by embedding the DUP and Sinn Fein as the lead parties. A return to the original provisions of the 1998 Agreement would enable the electorate to change the lead Party in their designation, if they felt it was not delivering good government. This could be combined with a move to Joint First Ministers and a recognition that every Party, that had a sufficient mandate would be entitled to be in the Executive, but if they choose to leave it, the Executive can continue to govern, with the necessary protections built in to ensure balance is maintained.
We should also kick the expression “power sharing” for touch and replace it with what David Trimble emphasised, namely “responsibility sharing”!
Trevor Ringland, lawyer and reconciliation campaigner