The geography and politics of Sinn Fein’s quest for Irish unity

By Gary Kent

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams this week addressed the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Swansea where he urged members of parliaments and assemblies in these islands “to join in the historic endeavour to bring about the reunification of the people of Ireland.”

His language was couched in accommodating terms and he even promised that “Orange marches will have their place in a new Ireland albeit on the basis of respect and cooperation.”

Adams knows that he has to persuade unionists – or at least a section of them in a 50%+1 border poll (together with one in the south) – to embrace unity. He promised to “address the genuine fears and concerns of unionists in a meaningful way. We need to look at what they mean by their sense of Britishness and be willing to explore and to be open to new concepts. We need to look at ways in which the unionist people can find their place in a new Ireland. In other words it needs to be their United Ireland.”

He eschewed revenge or humiliation:

“Sinn Féin’s vision of a new Ireland is of a shared Ireland, an integrated Ireland, an Ireland in which unionists have equal ownership; an Ireland in which there will be respect for cultural diversity, and a place in which there is political, social, economic and cultural equality. There is no desire on the part of Irish republicans to conquer or humiliate unionists. There can be no place for revenge in the thinking or vocabulary of Irish Republicanism.”

Some might say that this is a bit rich coming from the leader of a movement that was responsible for the lion’s share of murders, maiming and misery and one which remains unrepentant.

Adams made a pragmatic case for unity:

“There are also common sense economic and social and environmental and health and many other reasons why Irish reunification makes sense over partition. The reality is that the economy of the North is too small to exist in isolation. The economies of both parts of the island are interlinked and interdependent. The delivery of public services is restricted and inefficient. There are two competing industrial development bodies seeking inward investment, with no coordination in supporting local industries. We have two arts councils and two sports councils and three tourists’ bodies. This is not efficient.”

He concluded that:

“Geography does not necessarily determine politics, but neither can it be ignored in assessing what is the most effective approach to meeting the challenges of economic development and satisfying the needs of communities.”

The Adams speech is a long way from past republican rhetoric toward Protestants and unionists who were caricatured as settlers with a false consciousness. The view was that they were really Irish – if they would only realise it, with the help of a liberal dose of coercion and violence. It is a long way from his reported comment during his internment in the early 1970s, which he denies, that he would “wade up to his knees in Protestant blood” for a united Ireland.

Yet my guess is that the Adams demarche will fall on stony ground and the idea that Ireland will become united in a short timescale is far-fetched. A decade ago, I spent a weekend with Sinn Fein activists on the Garvaghy Road at the height of the Drumcree disturbances. It was in the period following the IRA’s second ceasefire and their uniform line was that republicans and nationalists were on a roll, which helped maintain their foot soldiers’ morale. Several told me that demography would result in a Catholic majority in Northern Ireland at the 2001 census, the SDLP would be beaten into second place and Irish unity would happen by the centenary of the Easter Uprising.

Some might say that one out of three is quite good. Sinn Fein has massively out-polled the moderate SDLP, but Catholics are not a majority (not all Catholics would go for unity in any case) and Irish unity seems improbable within the next seven years.

Adams says that:

“It is one thing saying that unionists should not be frogmarched into a united Ireland; it is another to adopt the position of silence in the face of whether or not a united Ireland should come into being, in whatever negotiated form that will entail. The peoples of Britain have a duty to themselves, to unionists in particular, to the Irish in general, and even to the world, to stand up and speak their opinion on the issue of the reunification of Ireland.”

It used to be that many on the British left felt that they had to make a choice, but many of us went beyond believing that unity was the beginning and the end of the question. I am neutral on the issue and have, in the words of the seminal Downing Street Declaration of 1993, “no selfish strategic or economic interest.”

It is not silence on my part to argue that it’s up to the people of Northern Ireland, should they wish, to become part of a united Ireland. The republican movement had wanted to make the UK accept a role as a persuader for unity but that wasn’t accepted by British governments and would only put backs up.

Adams is careful to say that geography isn’t determinist. We have come a long way since an old left-wing friend of mine, as was quite typical at the time, opined that Ireland should be united because “it’s an island, innit.”

However, the border can become irrelevant for most practical and commercial considerations, as it already has in many respects. The only real difference driving through Newry across the border is that the signposts become metric, and the Euro marks prices. The two jurisdictions can, however, meet the practical considerations outlined by Adams without removing the border.

The geography, and economics, of the island will lend themselves to different arrangements for Northern Ireland, even as part of the UK. For instance, there have been suggestions that the rate of tax on fuel should be varied to bring them into line with the south and so take the profit out of (republican) petrol smuggling. There have been arguments for aligning corporate tax regimes throughout the island. Sometime back, a unionist was quoted – at the then British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body – that he opposed north-south co-operation as a unionist but welcomed it as a businessman. Geography could drive an island economy but not require one nation.

However, the biggest obstacle by far to a greater and active acceptance of unification is the politics of Northern Ireland which has been so embittered and disfigured by the Troubles.

Perhaps the greatest paradox of the IRA’s bloody campaign to forcibly unite Ireland is that the prospect of unity is further away now because of the violent campaign to achieve it. Who knows what might have been if the republican movement had not been split by the violent Provisionals and if there had been a serious effort to promote working class, and indeed, middle class politics on bread and butter issues, in addition to the necessary move to equal rights which were won by the non-sectarian civil rights movement even as the “boys” began their bloody war in the early 70s.

Northern Ireland is now at peace, albeit with a model of power-sharing that is necessary but somewhat inefficient. The Belfast Agreement was a fantastic achievement by the Major and Blair governments, together with successive Irish administrations. The micro-republican groups still have the capacity to kill but probably don’t have the support needed to return the province to widespread violence. Yet it is bitterly divided with, for instance, only 6% of children attending integrated schools where pupils can learn to understand and respect the other. Very many people live in almost entirely homogenous Catholic or Protestant areas.

Adams will probably have to wait a long time before the suspicions and divisions engendered by the Troubles subside and will, with others, have to do much more to address the need for greater unity within Northern Ireland before anything else becomes likely. We are where we are, politically as well as geographically.