A “new Ireland” is exactly that: a new state, with a new constitution, an enlarged and partly different population, as well as a lot of political and social change from the existing Republic.
It is not perhaps a revolution, but it is a lot more than a slight evolution.
The populations of both the South and the North need to consider not just if a united island is what we want – but also, if it is, how much of what is currently part of our lives we are willing to sacrifice or change.
Opinion polling by The Irish Times and ARINS (Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South) has revealed tensions between a majority desire for unity within the South’s population and some of the practical realities.
Three gardaí injured and 24 people arrested in second night of Citywest public disorder
Trial of Dublin firefighter charged with rape in Boston hears closing arguments
Five members of Puska family jailed for trying to cover up murder of Ashling Murphy
‘Bondi is crumbling under the weight of Irish accents, I’ve heard more than I can count’
Concerns raised – which might conceivably lead to a “no” vote in the South – included the cost of unity with the North, replacing the Republic’s flag and anthem, as well as perceived Northern preferences for Commonwealth and Nato memberships. How, too, will the two electorates feel if – as with previous difficult negotiations in the North – external arbiters are brought in to resolve difficulties?
Necessary changes to the Constitution – or the drawing-up of a completely new constitution – might be an even greater barrier.
As might the status of the Irish language in the new State: bilingual signs in Shandon Park in east Belfast were recently attacked with an angle grinder; loyalist paramilitaries are reportedly threatening to set alight Belfast City Council vans if they contain Irish language signage, while an ongoing row on proposed Irish signage at Belfast’s Grand Central Station is splitting the Northern Ireland Executive.
If these are challenges to a positive vote in the South, there are also realities to be faced by nationalists and republicans in the North.
For many, the message might be to be careful about what you wish for: a new Ireland will require concessions that are in fundamental conflict with much of traditional republican rhetoric, ideology and culture.
The Belfast Agreement featured compromises to achieve peace. For probably everyone involved these were unhappy arrangements that many hoped would shift in their direction over the following years. Demography has since helped some parties, while disadvantaging others.
As planning for Irish unity moves into a more practical and detailed phase, serious consideration needs to be given to which, if any, of those compromises laid out in the agreement need to become integral to that new united Ireland.
In particular, it specified the birthright of Northern Irish people “to hold both British and Irish citizenship”, with that right to continue beyond “any future change in the status of Northern Ireland”.
People born in the six counties will have that enduring right to be regarded as British if they so choose: should that right be extended into the 26 counties? If not, why not?
Otherwise, we could end up in the odd situation where people born on one side of the old partition would have the right to British identity while those born on the other side, would not.
It might also be regarded as a welcome concession to the more than 800,000 people in the North who stated in the last census that they identify as British (some as both British and Irish).
But when I’ve raised this in public meetings, there has been hostility from some republicans and nationalists in the North.
[ What did voters say about governing a united Ireland?Opens in new window ]
That attitude is one I’ve encountered relatively frequently, and not just from hardline republicans. For some in the North, the expectations for a new Ireland include removing all traces of hundreds of years of British presence. This, it is safe to predict, will not happen.
There is real anxiety around how loyalists – especially those who belong to or support the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force paramilitary organisations – will react to a unity referendum and a possible positive vote for unity. But very little consideration has been given to the disappointment and anger felt by those nationalists and republicans whose expectations of a united Ireland are unmet.
The scale of the challenge ahead for those of us who advocate for Irish unity can also be illustrated by the strange obsession with Heather Humphreys’s husband’s apparent past membership of the Orange Order. Although it is easy to dismiss this with a “so what”, it does raise questions about whether parts of Irish society are embarrassed about the Protestant role and the symbols of British identity within the Republic.
The irony is that there is little sign of reluctance from those living in the South with a Protestant or historical unionist heritage to identify as Irish. Those I have met have told me they see no conflict in the Ireland of today between their religion and being proud Irish citizens.
[ Support for Irish unification growing in Northern Ireland, poll findsOpens in new window ]
It is natural for any postcolonial nation to seek to overcome and repudiate its past. But there is a fundamental tension between this and winning over the population of the Northern land mass – roughly half of whose people have a strong British identity as well as nationality. Indeed, the geography across the island of Ireland bears witness to a history that cannot be simply wished away.
Concessions will have to be made if a new nation is to be constructed that moves beyond past tensions. But those concessions must be consistent with Ireland’s own sense of identity.
Paul Gosling is author of A New Ireland – A Five Year Review, published by Colmcille Press
