By Mitchel McLaughlin

8 December 2010, The Belfast Telegraph

Ed Curran, your former editor and opinion writer, posed the question recently — could the Republic actually afford unity — now or ever?

I believe that it is generally accepted that a new start is needed in Ireland if we are to change our politics, our economy and our whole society for the better. We can’t do that without examining a fundamental issue — the way we govern ourselves on the island of Ireland.

At present, Ireland has two states, north and south, and three governments in Dublin, Belfast and London. We have duplication in public services and two sets of currencies, tax systems, social services, laws and regulations.

There is now widespread support across the whole political and economic spectrum for integrated economic structures for the island. All the people who share this island would benefit from the creation of a vibrant, dynamic all-Ireland economy based upon:

• A single currency
• Democratic control over Irish monetary and fiscal policies
• An equitable and progressive tax regime, including a common VAT regime, a harmonised income tax and corporation tax
• A fully integrated energy, transport and ICT infrastructure to support the growth of island-wide prosperity, based on the principles of environmental sustainability, universal access and quality service
• All-Ireland regulation of public and private sector business to ensure protection of the economic interests of the people of Ireland
• All-Ireland enterprise agencies and economic planning to build a competitive and sustainable economy.

Ed Curran bases his analysis of the cost of Irish unity on a portrayal that the North is totally dependent on a hand-out of £10bn from the British government. That analysis is flawed because it ignores the flow of billions in tax paid by citizens in the North through a myriad of taxes.

An analysis of the expenditure by ‘regions’ along with a series of estimates of the revenues from the regions by Oxford Economics shines some light on the actual subvention by the British Exchequer.

The main findings demonstrate that total ‘identifiable expenditure’ for the North was £14.1bn in 2004/05. This is relevant data, as ‘non-identifiable spending’ is mainly comprised of two components — debt interest payments and defence spending, neither of which would be accrued in a united Ireland.

The ‘residence-based’ revenues from the North in the same period were £10.7bn, indicating a deficit of £3.4bn.

There are significant sources of potential wealth creation as well as huge untapped resources that would be available for development in a single island economy. A proactive job creation strategy in alternative energy, ICT and green technology aimed at full employment — which British economic mismanagement could never achieve here — would see tax revenues climb rapidly and welfare payments plummet. Bringing people back into work and paying taxes on their incomes and through their spending would eliminate any deficit.

Another inhibitor to economic growth is the fact that the North is not free to negotiate on its own behalf with the major trading blocs.

The Good Friday Agreement provides a peaceful, democratic mechanism for bringing about reunification. Unity is not an issue of the past. It is a live issue of the present and the direction in which we are all heading. How best and how soon to reach that goal is the question we need to address. The fact is that Irish unity makes sense.

Published by Ógra Sinn Féin on 22 February 2010

A large crowd of more than 400 people gathered this week at the TUC centre in London for a conference hosted by Sinn Féin on the subject of Irish Unity. The conference was aimed at initiating a new conversation in Britain around Irish Unity, and putting it on the agenda of politicians and opinion formers in Britain.

The debate was opened by Sinn Féin’s Pat Doherty, and what followed was a fascinating series of plenaries, workshops and debates that discussed the myriad of different topics that surrounds the debate around Irish Unity, including trade unionism, women’s rights, economics, unionist engagements, constitutional issues, and the role of the diaspora, among many others. A very impressive panel of speakers addresses these topics and more, and included the following influential figures.

Diane Abbott – Labour MP, was Britain’s first black Female MP when elected in 1987
Ronan Bennett – novelist and screenwriter
John Connolly – from the Council of Irish Counties
Paul Bew – Peer in the House of Lords and a professor on Irish Politics in Queens
Micheal Burke – Socialist economist and writer
Jarlath Burns – GAA
Jeremy Corbyn – Labour MP
Alf Dubs – Labour Peer, and former MP
Jayne Fisher – Sinn Féin London
Mick Halpenny – SIPTU
Mary Hickman – Professor of Irish Studies and Sociology at London Metropolitan University
Christine Kinealy – Writer and professor on Modern Irish History in Drew University
Ken Livingstone – Former Labour MP and former Mayor of London
Anni Marjoram – former political advisor to Ken Livingstone and chair of Labour Committee on Ireland
Conall McDevitt – SDLP MLA
Alex McDonnell – Community worker with London’s Irish Community
Patricia McKeown – UNISON and ICTU
Kevin McNamara – Former Labour MP and Labour spokesperson on the north
Jennie McShannon – Federation of Irish Societies
Seamus Milne – Guardian columnist
Jon Myles – Journalist, specialising in Irish/British affairs
Andy Pollak – Centre for Cross Border Studies
Dr Margaret Ward – Women’s Resource and Development Agency, Belfast
Salma Yaqoob – Birmingham City Cllr, and leader of Respect

The evening was closed by Sinn Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy MP with a considered and comprehensive analysis of where things stand at present, and what remains to be done, and all leaving the conference would have done so challenged by the debate and with their resolve strengthened.

The conference was attended by National Organiser Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, as it presented an excellent opportunity to create links and develop contacts with young republicans, and those supportive of Irish Unity abroad. Useful contacts were made with members of Respect Youth and Labour Youth, and there was a good deal of discussion on the role young people can play, both in Ireland and in Britain.

Commenting on the conference he stated – “this conference was a massive success, and is a huge credit to all those who organised it. The huge crowd got to hear a great variety of different points of view on Irish Unity, and is great encouragement to Republicans both here in Ireland, and in Britain.

It was particularly encouraging to see such a good crowd of young people at the conference, from various political parties and organisations, who all have support for Irish Unity in common, it’s a sign that the struggle will continue to be carried forward on all fronts. Following on from this Ógra, as part of the national campaign ‘Who Fears to Speak of a United Ireland’ will be examining further new ways in which we can promote Irish Unity in Britain and develop support for it among young people.”

If you are based in Britain and are interested in helping the cause of Irish Unity, email ograsf@hotmail.com

Conal McDevitt MLA, SDLP

Taken from http://oconallstreet.com/tag/london-irish-unity-conference/

The Good Friday Agreement changes the debate about unity in a fundamental way.The question goes from being whether there will be a united Ireland to when and how Ireland will be united. The referendums on the Agreement were also a full exercise in national self determination by the people of Ireland.

I believe Irish Nationalism, including provisional republicanism, has not even begun to debate the type of Ireland we wish to build.

Will this new country be built on the very thing that has made it possible — the Good Friday Agreement — or will it be cast in the image of the 1937 constitution. In other words do we want to build a Catholic and Gaelic Ireland or somewhere more representative of the true diversity on our island?

It’s a great pleasure to be in a Labour building; a place where social justice and equality are more than just slogans. Where working men and women are given a voice and where politics is about the interests of the many not the vested interest of the few.

One of the great tragedies of 20th century Ireland is that this politics took a back seat to national struggle. Partition and the emergence of the southern state set the cause of equality and social justice back a hundred years. It did not just divide our island but smothered any debate that sought to move beyond the national question.

It gave rise to a tokenistic neutrality and protectionist economics; to armed republicanism and ultimately a dirty and futile war.

The question today is surely not whether we wish to simply reintegrate the national territory in the image of the Irish state but whether Irish men and women, Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter wish a New Ireland to emerge. An Ireland that reflects our diversity, built on good government and that places equality, prosperity and justice at the heart of everything it does. My generation has been handed the keys to that Ireland. We are the inheritors of peace not the perpetuators of conflict. We can open the door in front of us and with courage recast all about us or we can look back and repeat the mistakes of the past.

It is a tragedy that some young committed and passionate Irishmen and women are in a danger of throwing their lives away because they still cannot see the futility of armed struggle. Our generation must prove through results that violence always fails, that another generation must not repeat the mistakes of the last and that it is persuasion not conflict which will bring about change.

The great poet John Hewitt was a proud Protestant, a proud Ulsterman and proud Irishman in a letter to his friend John Montague in 1964, he observed:

“By trying to waken folk to the concept of the Region, it seemed to me the necessary step to prize Ulster loose from the British anchorage: then and only then, when free in ideology, the unity with the other part of our island could be realised and established.

“The North cannot be invaded, and taken by force in the Republic: if simply outvoted by a nationalist majority resentment would remain, but, realising themselves for what they are for the first time, not Britain’s pensioners or stranded Englishmen and Scots, being instead a group living long enough in Ireland to have the air in their blood, the landscape in their bones, and the history in their hearts, and so, a special kind of Irish themselves, they could with grace make the transition to federal unity.

“I always maintained that our loyalties had an order to Ulster, to Ireland, to the British Archipelago, to Europe; and that anyone who skipped a step or missed a link falsified the total. The Unionists missed out Ireland: the Northern Nationalists (The Green Tories) couldn’t see the Ulster under their feet; the Republicans missed out both Ulster and the Archipelago; and none gave any heed to Europe at all. Now, perhaps, willy nilly bundled in the European rump of the Common Market, clearer ideas of our regional and national allegiances and responsibilities may emerge.”

You may like his words or loathe them but after 3,594 dead, 36,293 shootings, 16,209 bombing and attempted bombings and 70 years of old unionist discrimination they have a ring of logic to them.

They are the philosophy on which the Good Friday Agreement is built. That Ireland and its people have allegiance to region, to nation, to these islands and to this great continent. When I talk to young northerners I meet people who embody Hewitt’s dream; proudly Northern and proudly Irish. Many are proudly British too and most happy to be Europeans. The truth is the people of our region are not as divided as our politics suggests.

Irish nationalism can take the old road of a one size fits all future or it can walk a new one in which unity is neither a unionist nightmare nor a nationalist pipedream. But to do that it must change and change radically.

First the very issue of unity needs to be elevated above politics. That’s why the SDLP has recommended the reconvening of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to discuss unity. We owe it to ourselves as a nation to debate and agree a model of a united Ireland and to do so before 2016. We cannot be complete as a nation without a shared vision of our future. North needs south but south will need the North if a new Ireland is to emerge and the absolute potential of our island is to be fulfilled.

Secondly we need to make the North work. Ignoring the opportunity of regional government is to ignore the common ground on which a new Ireland will be built. That means maximum devolution but also imaginative regional solutions to local problems. Its means real power sharing that is capable of building the best education system in Ireland, defending the NHS – a British institution made Irish in Northern Ireland. It also means getting serious about the economy because we will never build a strong all Ireland economy if we have a weak northern one. We need to make the North a place where sectarianism is the real enemy and government leads the fight against it.

A strong North means a strong Ireland. A weak, underperforming and politically dysfunctional one means a weaker Ireland. Our home is a region of Ireland. Our dream is for it to flourish under the flag of our nation. Others hope it will remain a region of the UK. But we all surely agree that it is our region and needs governed for the benefit of all our people. That is the as yet unfulfilled opportunity of the Good Friday Agreement. To build a great region on Irish soil, united in a common desire to see their neighbours flourish. Where culture is shared; where the GAA is honoured and celebrated, never politicised and denigrated. Where the weave of diversity is strong and common ground is worked. Where endeavour and enterprise are promoted and where prejudice is rejected.

The old Ireland aspired to a separate but equal relationship with others. It adopted an old fashioned conservative and British view of equality. It cast progressive and labour politics aside in favour of a great nationalism that could bind a nation in a common struggle but was incapable of accommodating those who did not fit with its sense of identity.

The New Ireland must honour those who believed in their cause whether we agree with it or not, but it must not repeat the mistakes of their past.

James Connolly’s assertion that “The cause of labour is the cause of Ireland, the cause of Ireland is the cause of labour” can become the words on which a new Ireland is borne and when we remember the centenary of his death in 2016 we do so having agreed as Irishmen and women what a new united and free Ireland will look like. We will honour his dream by ensuring that in the twenty first century labour need not wait. That progressive national politics is a possibility. That two centuries and ten years after Tone professed the unity of the people of this island, his dream can finally become a reality.

Jarlath Burns

Today I have been asked to talk about the prospects for Irish unity. I am interested to know why you want to know my opinion.

My life has been defined by my involvement in the Gaelic Athletic Association. It contains all the values, the principles and the ideology with which I can identify as an Irishman. So what is the GAA and why would it be relevant in a debate about Irish unity? Well, the GAA was set up in 1884 at a time when Irish culture was going down the tubes, consumed in a sea of British invasive pastimes, soccer, rugby and even pall mall. The language pastimes and sports of Ireland were drowning and they were all saved to a greater or lesser degree by the establishment of the GAA and a man named Michael Cusack.

It is not necessary, for the purposes of this event, to explain the rules of the games of hurling and football which are the main sports promoted by the GAA; suffice to day they are robust, no nonsense and amateur, yet the players are as fit as premiership footballers, as driven as rugby internationals and as focused as the top level tennis stars. You see, our games are played for the love of playing, of winning and of representing community. And this is the GAAs biggest strength and the reason why it has endured and why it is such a vital component of Irish society in the 21st century.

The GAA is in touch with Ireland in a way that politicians, civic leaders and the church in particular have ceased to be for some years now. It is the last remaining bastion of moral authority extant in Ireland today. There are no stories of sleaze, no WAGs, no lurid headlines, no porsches, no fancy lifestyles, no pictures of players emerging from nightclubs, no fat cats operating for their own career prospects because in the GAA there are no career people, no players’ wages, only volunteers. The fella playing in front of 80000 on Sunday will be serving you sausages in the shop on Monday, or teaching your child, or studying for an exam.

This is why the GAA is a critical element in the conversation about Irish unity. You see, the GAA has never accepted partition. Some of our clubs straddle the border, Ulster consists of nine counties and the desire to seek Irish unity is enshrined in the Official Guide of the GAA. There is a commitment to the use of the Irish language and the promotion of Irish culture that is discrete yet honourable, inclusive, not intrusive and at all times, full to the neck of integrity that is to be admired and learnt from.

The GAA kept Ireland together during the tragedy of the Civil War when families, divided by the treaty united in their love of the club and during the troubles, it served as a non violent and creative way of giving witness to the desire to be classed as Irish, to be proud of our identity and to seek a united Ireland. And there was always a cutting edge to its devotion to a 32 county Ireland. Rule 21 forbade members of the British security forces from playing gaelic games and the GAA skilfully and serenely deflected the many brickbats it received form this stance by calmly stating that it would remain in place until the time and climate was right to change it. And it was true to its word. We actually used to ban our members playing in or even watching foreign sports and actually suspended the first President of Ireland Douglas Hyde for attending a soccer international; we still ban foreign sports from our grounds and debate still rages about whether or not we should have temporarily opened Croke Park to rugby and soccer to allow the redevelopment of Lansdowne Road. And this March, it closes to those sports again. But along the way the GAA has suffered for having these principles. Many of our members have been killed by loyalist paramilitaries and for many years our association was seen as a legitimate target by those who saw us as a threat to what they would call the British way of life.

In many ways the GAA has tried to steer a path through the warring morass of society in the six counties. When morons on the nationalist side decide to burn an orange hall, morons on the other side respond by burning a GAA clubhouse. Apart from maddening us that our premises would be targeted in this way, to be classed as the cultural reciprocal equivalent as the orange order is just as offensive. And within clubs, it can be just as fraught with the GAA having to be equally relevant to the SDLP and Sinn Féin in the north and Fianna Fáil and all the others in the south. There is no doubt that the GAA has become embroiled into the political arena in ways which cause us serious discomfort. As an organisation which values culture, we immediately get pulled into the political squabble since culture in the north is part of the battlefield. Was it Goering who said ‘When I hear the word Culture, I reach for my revolver’. And when your language, culture and pastimes have been taken from you by a distinct and calculated act of political strategy, then it will take a political act to bring them back also. The GAA would be upfront about the fact that our desire for a united Ireland and our commitment to the promotion of Irish culture brings us into the political arena and when left to our own devices, we can manage this bit of baggage quite skilfully.

However, sometimes events just engulf us. We all now know about Bloody Sunday, the first one in 1918 when 18 people were shot dead in Croke Park by the British Auxilliaries including Michael Hogan, a Tipperary player whose name the main stand bears. The hunger strike in 1981 was another example. Should the GAA support it, or not? The GAA is political, we admit that, but not party political. Was the hunger strike a party political or a human rights issue? This matter split clubs and divided the GAA community for many years and at times we felt helpless to stop it.

Likewise, when the British army decided to steal the grounds of Crossmaglen off them for two decade, there was an irony lost on them that was quite hilarious if the subject matter wasn’t so tragic, that being that here was the British army who were ensconced in Crossmaglen a staunchly republican village with the apparent objective of keeping the peace between the two communities and promoting peace, and were actually responsible for driving many young men in Crossmaglen into the IRA, occupying the grounds of the local GAA club who would endeavour to give young people a sporting outlet to keep them out of the IRA. We always feel in Ireland that the British went out of their way to just be as stupid as it was possible to be in their occupation. How did they ever win two world wars at all because our experience of them was that they approached every situation with the giddy inquisitiveness of a child trying to find a gas leak with a lighted match.

And bringing us right up to date; this week Bryansford GAA are having their expansion plans thwarted by a particularly bigoted piece of political chicanery from the DUP minister of culture, a man who hadn’t even the guts to mention the GAA Ulster championship last summer in a statement promoting the summer of sporting activities in the six counties. And we are still in trouble because some of our grounds are named historically and emotionally after what we would term irish patriots, but who others would call terrorists. Off the field, we just can’t seem to win and this is why we are distinctly uncomfortable in the political arena and nowadays try to avoid it at all costs.

Yes, the GAA has been involved in the revolution, but more as a plaything of rather than a player in the self same revolution. What we do best is to promote our games, make the idea of the Irish nation real in the minds and hearts of Irish people and we are so far removed from the totally comodified professional sports in this country that it gives us a sense of bursting pride. You might have had your empire which has defined you as a nation, but we have the GAA which to us is a much better definition of what we are.

The GAA remains at the very heart of irish society. It is a moral compass, a mediator, an honest broker; its contribution to Ireland is immeasurable; it gives meaning and purpose to young people at a particularly vulnerable time in their development, it creates social capital that no government initiative could ever generate and it provides social outlet for its members particularly in isolated parts of rural Ireland like no other organisation can. In conclusion however, it might also be a reluctant player in any new robust consensus strategy or movement for a United Ireland. We are focused on building relationships with the Protestant people of the six counties and are succeeding albeit at a very slow pace. We are being extremely careful in how we present ourselves in case we might be seen as narrow minded, conservative or even sectarian; therefore giving ammunition to those who might seek to condemn us. The GAA promotes Irish unity simply by being there. It is a monument to how we use our flag, our anthem, our language, our games, our songs, our music, our dance in an inclusive and non divisive way. We could all learn from the GAA. For the GAA, Ireland is united. There has never been partition. For the near future at least, this might have to do us.

Pat Doherty MP, Sinn Féin, opening address to conference

I want to begin dedicating my remarks this morning to Redmond O’Neill who was a vocal advocate of Irish unity and a champion for the Irish community in Britain.

I want to thank my colleagues in Sinn Féin who have worked very hard in recent months in planning today’s event. I also want to thank all of our contributors. We have a very wide range of differing views and opinions on the issue of Irish unity and I’m sure that this will guarantee productive discussions in all of the seminars.

And finally, I want to thank all of you for coming to listen to the contributions, to participate in the debates and I hope become active in promoting Irish unity.

Today’s event is the latest in a series of such conferences which Sinn Féin is holding with the Irish diaspora and is about creating a debate around the issue of Irish reunification. Last year we held two conferences in the US, one in Canada and a smaller introductory meeting here in London. More are planned for the future, including in Ireland.

But the diaspora is very important. In the construction of the peace process the progress we achieved would not have been possible without that support, especially in the US. The international support which the diaspora helped generate was and remains very important. So, in any effort to advance a United Ireland the diaspora will play a crucial role, and none more so than here in Britain.

Here the Irish community has the potential to directly influence a British government and to persuade British political leaders of the imperative of facilitating Irish reunification.

What do Irish republicans mean by Irish unity?

Our goal is simply stated; an end to the partition of Ireland, an end to the Union with Britain, and the construction of a new national democracy, a new republic on the island of Ireland and reconciliation between Orange and Green.

Irish republicans also have a vision of a new society, a new Ireland, that is democratic, inclusive and based on equality. A society which shares its wealth more equitably, seeks the well being of the aged, the advancement of our young, the liberation of women, and the protection of children, and will deliver the highest standards of services and protections for all citizens. Republicans want to create a new relationship between the peoples of these islands which puts behind us the negative consequences of our past relationship and history, and is based on respect. At the heart, at the core, of our United Ireland will be citizens. Citizens with rights — the right to a job; to a home; to a decent standard of education and of health care. The right to live in a safe environment; to equality in the Irish language; and to participate fully in the democratic process. The right to equality and parity of esteem for all cultural traditions; of those from faith communities and none; for traveller or settled.

The Proclamation of 1916, which is the mission statement of Irish republicanism in the 21st century puts it best even now after almost 100 years:

‘The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally.’

So, these are our goals. Putting them on the political agenda here in Britain and internationally is an important part of the work of advancing the objective of Irish unity. The reality is that for more centuries than any of us care to contemplate Britain’s colonial policy in Ireland has been the source of conflict. Partition, sectarianism and division; and the great hurt between the people of these islands have their roots in Britain’s occupation of Ireland and the strategies it has pursued to sustain that occupation. Partition was not just a line on the map; it was the construction of a system of political apartheid which relied on discrimination and denied democracy and justice and created the context for conflict.

The peace process has delivered an end to war and that is to be welcomed and applauded. However, resolving the many complexities resulting from centuries of occupation and partition was never going to be easy. And for Irish republicans the underlying cause of conflict persists — the British government’s claim of jurisdiction over a part of Ireland. It is this denial of the Irish people’s right to self-determination, freedom and independence which is the core outstanding issue which must be resolved. Sinn Féin’s focus is on achieving this.

The Sinn Féin peace strategy, out of which grew the peace process, recognised this. In the opening paragraph of our strategy paper ‘Towards a Lasting Peace in Ireland’, which was first published in 1992, it states:

‘A peace process, if it is to be both meaningful and enduring, must address the root causes of the conflict. For our part we believe that a genuine and sustainable peace process must be set in the context of democracy and self-determination.’

All that we have done in the years since has been rooted in this view.

The Good Friday Agreement is a key part of this. It is an accommodation — not a settlement. The St. Andrews Agreement and the recent progress achieved in the negotiations with the DUP at Hillsborough are complementary to this. They are all part of a process of change. And all of these agreements must be seen in their all-Ireland, all-island context.

The journey we are on is one in which the lines which divide us in Ireland will be increasingly blurred until we reach a point where they become meaningless.

In the meantime Sinn Féin seeks to use the opportunity that has been created to develop a greater understanding of the interconnectedness of life on this island and of the advantages that Irish unity can bring to all of the people. In this regard the institutional elements of the Good Friday Agreement and of St. Andrews are important mechanisms to be built upon as we seek to move forward. These are already creating change and building connections and greater co-operation across almost every area of life you can think of; health, education, infrastructure, tourism, the environment, justice and policing, agriculture, and much, much more.

There have been significant all-Ireland transport developments, such as upgrading of Dublin-Belfast Enterprise rail link, Irish Government multi-million Euro investment in City of Derry airport, substantial Irish Government funding for new road infrastructure between the Port of Larne and Belfast for east-coast corridor, major ongoing all-Ireland road projects to link Dublin and the North West, and the re-opening of the Ulster Canal. In addition, measures have been introduced to promote equality of opportunity, to defend Human Rights, and to ensure effective scrutiny of policing.

The Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement put in place mechanisms and arrangements which seek to do that.

These include political matters, institutional arrangements, human rights, equality, policing, justice, language and culture issues. As well as the crucial issue of constitutional matters. And it does all of this in an all-Ireland context.

These Agreements are also significant instruments of change; real change in real ways in peoples’ daily lives.

Of course, unionists have a different perspective. They want to maintain the union. For this reason some elements of political unionism are opposed to this new dispensation. They seek to minimise, to dilute and to delay its potential or to oppose it entirely. And that is their right.

But the Good Friday Agreement has for the first time created a level playing field on which nationalists and republicans, and unionists and loyalists can play out our different positions and let the people decide. The Good Friday Agreement clearly recognises that it is for the people of the island of Ireland to determine our own future — to exercise our self-determination. In the event that a majority of people in the north prefer a sovereign United Ireland then the British government will legislate for it. The agreement also sets out the mechanism by which this will happen — by means of a ‘border poll’. So, when a majority in the north and a majority in the south opt for Irish re-unification, the constitutional process to bring that about will kick in. The Good Friday Agreement therefore provides for a constitutional route to Irish unity. That is a significant achievement.

Sinn Féin seeks to build on this by working in partnership with others of like mind in Ireland to build political support for Irish reunification. There is a responsibility for all parties in the Oireachtas and particularly for the government in Dublin to actively work for reunification. And we have to persuade unionists — or at least a section of unionism — that such a development makes political, social and economic sense — that it serves their self-interest.

For unionists, a new Ireland offers a real hope of stability and influence and prosperity. Within the current British system unionists make up less than 2 per cent of the population. They are a tiny minority presence on the margins of a British system which doesn’t really understand or care about them. They have no significant influence within the political system. In a new Ireland unionists would make up 20% of the population and be able to exercise real authority and real power and real influence. Sinn Féin is also currently engaged with unionists and especially with disadvantaged unionist working class areas, to a greater extent than ever before.

We need 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 this with them 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.

So, there are many issues for republicans and unionists to talk about.

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 humiliate unionists. Nationalists and republicans want our rights, but we do not seek to deny the rights of anybody else. What we seek is justice for all — privilege for none.

One example of this approach at work is the effort, emerging out of the recent negotiations with the DUP, to construct a new process for dealing with the issue of contentious parades. Like the agreement on transfer of powers on policing and justice, which will take power from London back to Ireland, so too this new process will see power taken from London and given to the Assembly in Belfast. This is an important development.

Irish republicans accept that the Orange Order is a part of who were are as a people. The Irish national flag is of green for nationalists — orange for unionists and white for peace between the two. I have met representatives of the Orange in the past. I would like to meet more in the future. I want a dialogue between us that can help each of us understand better the beliefs of the other. I accept absolutely that Orange marches have their place in our society but it must be on the basis of a respect for the rights of each other. Can we resolve the issue of contentious parades? I believe we can.

Can we achieve a United Ireland? Yes.

There was a time when it was argued that a United Ireland wasn’t practical because the south was an impoverished state and why would anyone want to join that? When the southern state was doing well Irish unity was dismissed by some because it would mean ‘taking on responsibility’ for an impoverished north!

Today the south is in trouble economically, while goods and services are cheaper in the north. So the cry goes up again — why? why would the north join with the south or vice versa? The answer is at once simple and complex.

The border is more than just an inconvenience. It is an obstacle to progress and while its adverse affects are most clearly felt in the communities that straddle the border, it also impacts negatively throughout the island. On an island the size of Ireland, with a population of about 6 million — it does not make economic sense to have two competing economies, with two governmental administrations and a host of duplicating services. Consequently, 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.

So, let’s co-operate and connect and harmonise. Let’s erase the lines of separation. And let’s co-ordinate and plan and strategise for a better future.

It is also important that we put the issue of Irish reunification on the political agenda here, in Britain.

I recognise that at a time of conflict in Afghanistan, controversy over the war in Iraq, economic recession and of serious problems within the British political system, that Ireland is not at the top of the political agenda. But those who understand the rights of the Irish people and the negative role successive British governments have played in Ireland, have a duty to put Irish unity and independence on that agenda and to argue for reunification.

And don’t think it’s impossible or can’t happen or it’s too high a hill to climb. Last week we celebrated 20 years of freedom for Madiba. For Nelson Mandela. There was a time when people thought apartheid wouldn’t end or Mandela would never be free or there would always be a divided Germany or that there would never be peace in Ireland. In recent weeks many thought that a deal between Sinn Féin and the DUP was impossible.

Well, apartheid has ended. Mandela was President of a free South Africa. Germany is united. The war is over in Ireland. And we reach agreement with the DUP at Hillsborough.

So, nothing is impossible. You just have to believe and strategise and work hard and the impossible can be achieved.

So, let me invite all of you, as well as people across Britain in all of the elected bodies to join with us in this historic endeavour.

By Salma Yaqoob

Published on her blog on 21 February 2010

I found yesterday’s conference very well organised and attended, with lots of stimulating discussion and interesting people. My speech is below.

“Thank you so much for your invitation to this wonderful packed conference where so much has been discussed in a passionate and sophisticated manner.

I have come down here today from Birmingham where the conflict in Northern Ireland has left a deep scar in the psyche of my city.

The impact of the pub bombings of November 21st 1974 still reverberate to this day. 21 completely innocent people lost their lives. Nearly 200 were injured. This was an awful, indefensible act, the consequences of which have been dramatic and long lasting. The suffering of the families of those killed and injured still continues. Time cannot be turned back for the Birmingham 6 who were framed and jailed for a crime they did not commit. Politically the cause of Irish unity was set back.

What also happened was that the entire Irish community was subjected to a terrible backlash and forced into a long nightmare of demonization from which it only recently has started to emerge. It is a remarkable fact that it took nearly 25 years before the St Patrick’s Day parade recommenced in the city.

For a long time in Birmingham the pain from the pub bombings was so raw that it was virtually impossible to speak about the conflict and the background that had given rise to the bombings.

And when I hear Irish people talk about their experiences at that time it resonates, to some degree, with my own experience as a Muslim today. Since the events of 9/11 and 7/7, the entire Muslim community has been demonised.

We came under huge pressure to condemn atrocities committed in our names, yes, which we rightly do, but also to silence ourselves on political stances. To cooperate with a censorship which strips away the history and memory of state sponsored terrorism. We are being blackmailed with the threat of being labelled terrorists or terrorist sympathisers, to not speak the truth.

And that truth is this.

Where you have the abuse of power, you have inequality and injustice. And if generations experience discrimination and criminalisation and are blocked from having a political voice in their own country, you create the conditions for conflict and violence.

And where you have violence, you have victims, on all sides.

And to those on the receiving end — whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, whether they are Kashmiri or Indian, whether they are British or Irish, their pain and their suffering is no less real just because their nationality or religion is different.

So, however difficult and painful it is, we must speak about these issues, because the only hope for eliminating the pain and suffering is to address the political causes that give rise to that pain and suffering.

And there are a number of things that strike me as very significant about the peace process in Northern Ireland. I will focus on just two.

First the peace process is proof that even what appear to be intractable political problems can be unknotted and huge steps can taken to resolving them. And that lesson is applicable to other apparently intractable problems in other parts of the world. One of the largest ethnic groupings in Birmingham define themselves as being of Kashmiri descent. Britain bequeathed Kashmir to India, against the wishes of the Kashmiris, when they partitioned the country in 1947. The cost of that decision has been the brutal Indian occupation to date, resistance and armed struggle to that occupation that has taken the lives of many thousands of people, and three wars between nuclear armed India and Pakistan.

The foreign policy issue that probably burns the brightest in the city, especially among young people, is that of Palestine. A conflict, once again, that has its origins in a British government decision. This time the partition of historic Palestine to create, in the words of Winston Churchill, a ‘loyal Ulster’ in the Middle East.

Without underestimating the historical specificity of the Irish peace process, or the frustrations and difficulties in that process, I do believe that it offers lessons in conflict resolution applicable to other parts of the world.

And to people who care passionately about peace and justice, in places like Kashmir or Palestine, and who often despair about their situation improving, I would say there is much hope and much to be learned from the Irish.

Secondly, I believe the Irish peace process has much to offer Europe, including Britain, in the way that lessons from history have been learnt and the recognition of the importance of equality and belonging for all. Sadly, Europe, instead of learning from its history is repeating it. We are seeing a rise in xenophobia and intolerance as evidenced with Switzerland’s decision to ban minarets despite there being only 4 in the country, and the calls in France to deny Muslim women the right to dress as they want to, which alarmingly have been echoed in this county.

In this way multiculturalism and pluralism are under attack and the ideas of citizenship and identity are discussed in narrower and narrower terms.

That is why the very important steps taken to eradicate the inequality and discrimination that so defined the Northern Ireland state from its foundation are so significant. The peace process is enacting the idea that equality for all is not a threatening one, but one that genuinely assures the benefit of all. The rights of one section of the community do not need to be upheld at the expense of another, in the way for example Catholics and Nationalists were subjugated in the past. Instead, what ensures a sense of belonging and peaceful co-existance is upholding the rights and dignity of all.

I am heartened at Sinn Féin’s commitment that Unionists can still be British in a United Ireland and that cultural identity and practice, including Orange marches, have a right to be protected as long as they do not attack the rights of others.

These issues of equality, identity, citizenship and pluralism are of direct relevance for what is happening in Britain and the rest of Europe.

Sadly the rise of the far right and intolerance indicates a strong slide in the opposite direction. Muslims are being demonised now, in a manner similar to the way Jews, Blacks and the Irish have been in the past. It is an irony that Northern Ireland, a place that has been so associated with community division is now pointing the way to what genuine pluralism based on equality could look like. Or perhaps it is because of the bitter experiences of the realities of not doing so it is able to do so. Either way, it is a lesson the rest of Europe can ill afford to ignore.

So I am here to offer my support to the peace process, and to congratulate Sinn Féin and its representatives for their role within it.

I am also here to offer my support for the cause of Irish unity./p>

The Good Friday Agreement has laid a serious and realistic prospect of a united Ireland as it has committed the British government to disengage from Ireland, should the people of Ireland desire it, in a binding international treaty.

The question that all progressives, Irish and non-Irish, should be asking is, how is the British government preparing for this possibility? Indeed the challenge for us is to build on the serious discussion here today, to articulate the case for that disengagement, and lobby for a relationship between Britain and Ireland based on real equality and justice.

We need to take this message to our workplaces, colleges, universities and voluntery organisations. Speaking for myself I am committed to raising this issue in Birmingham City Council, the largest local authority in Europe, the symbolism of which I hope would not be insignificant.

And I am optimistic that if I, as a Muslim woman, can highlight the injustice of the British presence in Afghanistan, on the BBC’s Question Time, in Wootten Bassett, on an all-male, pro-war establishment panel, and in my humble opinion win the argument, the taboos about promoting a united Ireland here in Britain can certainly be broken down.

Thank you very much.”

By Margaret Ward

First published in The Guardian on 19 February 2010

In thinking of a future united Ireland, my starting point has to be that of a feminist — what would it mean for women? Where are the strategies, policy commitments that will make a difference? Where are women now, in the 26 and six counties in terms of representation, reproductive rights and recognition?

In both north and south we remain in a minority in political and public life. The Dail has always been at least 86% male. The Northern Ireland assembly at best has been 84% male. No political party has come out in support of the urgent measures — particularly quotas — that need to be put in place before that male political dominance can be ended.

In terms of reproductive justice, the experience of abortion represents modern Ireland’s hidden Diaspora. Human Rights Watch has condemned the Irish government for contributing directly to violations of women’s human rights. Since 1980, at least 90,000 women have travelled to the UK from the Republic to terminate their pregnancies. The Family Planning Association Northern Ireland estimates that since 1968, as many as 80,000 women have travelled to England and other European countries from Northern Ireland to access safe and legal abortion services.

It is impossible to get government or political parties to take responsibility for this. We have seen this in practice recently when we had the support of Westminster MPs (and Diane Abbott in particular) for a change to abortion law. This was blocked because the DUP threatened that it would jeopardise their involvement in the peace process. Many women felt that their existence and their needs were being negotiated away.

As a representative for the women’s sector, I fought to have this issue included in the Bill of Rights Forum in 2008. My experience of the forum has not convinced me that political parties have a commitment to achieving equality for women. In fact, measures to improve women’s representation were regarded by unionist parties with even more hostility than abortion law reform.

I attended an anti-abortion meeting in the Presbyterian assembly rooms two years ago and witnessed Mark Durkan, Jeffrey Donaldson, and other politicians speaking with pride on how they were united in their opposition to reform of abortion law. And I remembered Joan Carson of the UUP, who had spoken very differently in 2000 at an assembly debate on the issue. In her view, the 1967 legislation ‘was made by men for women and any future changes need to be made in consultation with the women of Northern Ireland’. But we don’t have enough women in political life to push this issue.

Women are the majority of the population on the island of Ireland, yet we are at the mercy of a male minority. If there is ever to be a united Ireland, the foundations have to include a profound transformation of gender relations.

Is there recognition of the work that so many women’s groups have been doing for so long — much of which crosses borders and helps to bring north and south together?

I am involved in an all-Ireland women’s peace building project, called Hanna’s House. In the last year we have held seminars in the four historic provinces of Ireland — last week in Dublin, where the theme was exploring a feminist analysis of truth recovery. We looked at international perspectives, at issues relating to the conflict in the north, from unionist and nationalist perspectives, and we looked at truth recovery and institutional abuse from the experience of women in the south. It was an emotional day, but it was also inspirational, and women from north and south once again saw how much they had in common, despite what might appear as very different issues.

Can a united Ireland speak for the needs of women in the island of Ireland, or must we echo the words of Virginia Woolf — as ‘outsiders’, who say: ‘In fact, as a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world.’

By Jayne Fisher

In 1998 an overwhelming majority of the people of the island of Ireland voted for the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). In Britain, the Agreement won strong support. More than a decade later, the implementation of the Agreement is still progressing overcoming many crises.

The degree to which the peace process has transformed the situation positively cannot be underestimated. A political dispensation based on political inequality and exclusion has been replaced by one based on equality and recognition. A state based on institutional discrimination and social inequality has been undermined through the pursuit of an equality agenda. Although much work remains to be done, there have already been major advances. All of this progress in breaking down sectarianism and other forms of discrimination benefits society as a whole and undermines the sectarian basis of the state itself. Together with the economic necessity of developing real all-Ireland co-operation, it can be argued that there is a momentum at work towards Irish unity. The fundamental constitutional question of Ireland’s future as an independent, united country is posed. The argument here is that it has never been more relevant or desirable and is increasingly possible.

No-one should underestimate the significance of the arrangements whereby the Good Friday Agreement, for the first time ever in a binding international treaty, commits the British government to disengage from Ireland, should the people of Ireland desire it. It is worth revisiting what the Agreement actually says:

Under ‘Constitutional issues’ it recognises ‘that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish…’ It goes on to ‘affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right to self-determination [on the basis set in the Agreement]… to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish’.

Moreover, the agreement lays out mechanism for how this may be determined in the north of Ireland, by a border poll: ‘if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll 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…’

This is in essence an agreement which says the union is no longer set in stone — and may be changed through the expression of the popular democratic will.

The northern state was, of course, created on a gerrymandered basis, to ensure a unionist majority — with gross inequality, discrimination and distortion epitomising it through the intervening decades. The corresponding struggle in opposition to that, and the political strategy which emerged from it, could not be defeated. This fundamentally changed the balance of forces which resulted in the GFA coming into being. This political struggle is underpinned by the economic factors unleashed by independence of part of Ireland, as well as the decline of the British Empire. This is also seen in the demographic changes of the population in the north, its make-up and its voting patterns.

In short, a series of key economic, political, demographic and social trends all point towards the emergence of a nationalist majority in the north of Ireland in the foreseeable future, making Irish unity a distinct (some would say inevitable) possibility in a meaningful timescale.

One critical element of any discussion on the merits of Irish unity is to demonstrate that it is in peoples’ actual, material interests. The economic arguments for Irish unity are therefore key. The current economic crisis in the south, which the Dublin government’s policies have exacerbated and deepened, should not obscure this fact: that the independence of the 26 southern counties was the single most important positive economic event in the entire history of the island. It eventually laid the basis for an economic growth rate which saw the much poorer south surpass the north by some distance. At partition, per capita output in the north of Ireland was on a par with that of Britain. Today it is around one-quarter less, having declined 1.5 per cent in the last 10 years. Adjusting for price and currency differences, per capita GDP in the south surpassed that of Britain in 1998, and despite a more severe crisis, is still more than 16 per cent higher. The outcome is that, in a common currency and adjusting for price differences, the average weekly wage in the north is £357 and in the south it is £532.

Irish unity makes economic sense for the entire population of Ireland, north and south. For the north, it means the ability to break out of the economic straightjacket imposed by its colonial status. An increasing insertion into the global economy is a precondition for sustained growth, and one which is increasingly being achieved by former colonies, such as India.

For the south it means removing the dislocations caused by the border, and the ability to organise a rational economic development based on the organic unity of one economy on an island of just 6 million people. Every single person on the island would benefit regardless of political disagreements. Of course the political orientation and economic policy of any future government in Ireland will also be critical, as the ‘cuts not investment’ policies are currently showing. But it is impossible to determine a distribution of wealth and incomes without having national control over that income.

The development of an all-island economy, as part of any transition to unity, could be seen as being part and parcel of the all-Ireland elements set out in the GFA. Under the aegis of the North South Ministerial Council (NSMC), twelve areas were designated for structured north-south cooperation between the relevant ministers from Belfast and Dublin. These include education, health, transport, environment, agriculture and tourism. In addition six implementation bodies were set up to deal with specific issues on an all-island basis, including Intertrade Ireland, which has greatly increased the levels of north-south trading, as well as bringing companies of all sizes from across the island together in new partnerships and clusters.

Add to this the provisions for an all-Ireland Parliamentary Forum of elected representatives from north and south, and an all-Ireland Consultative civic forum, to bring together civic society, it is clear that the GFA contains an institutional framework, which, added to the economic arguments and the dynamics I shall now describe, could point towards the embryonic makings of a unitary state.

Within all of this, several important trends are developing within the ‘Northern Ireland’ state itself, which was founded on gerrymandering, perpetuated by sectarian, anti-Catholic discrimination. A combination of democratic rights, anti-discrimination legislation and the withering away of the in-built unionist majority represent a combination of factors potentially fatal to its continued existence.

First, the demographic trends are clear in relation to the census figures. In 1961, the proportion of the population describing itself as Catholic was 34.9 per cent. By 2001 that had risen to 40.3 per cent. The proportion of the population describing itself as Protestant has fallen from 62.5 per cent to 45.9 per cent. The proportions fro a Catholic and Protestant background re now 43.8 per cent and 53.1 per cent respectively. This trend is a function of two other developments. First, in common with most industrialised societies, the population is ageing. But the Protestant population is ageing faster, comprising more than 60 per cent of the population over 60 years of age. Secondly, a drop in the rate of Catholics emigrating is itself a response to a decline in job discrimination in certain sectors and increased political self-confidence. The proportion of Catholic school children at both primary and secondary levels is already a majority, rising to over 50 per cent in 2008/09.

Into this mix should be added the new, more recent development of new communities coming to Ireland, such as the 47,000 people, between mid-2002 and mid-2006 overwhelmingly from Eastern Europe.

Secondly, looking at the votes cast for political parties for the past 30 years reveals a clear rise in nationalist votes and a decline in the unionist vote. This is taking the objective criteria of Sinn Féin and the SDLP representing the nationalist vote as the only parties currently supporting Irish unity, and the remaining others, supporting the status quo, as unionist.

Westminster general elections since 1979 until the present show an increase in the nationalist vote by over 16 per cent. In 1979, when Sinn Féin did not stand, the combined nationalist vote — the SDLP and some nationalist independents — was 26 per cent. The combined unionist vote was around 72 per cent. In 1983, following the colossal struggle of the 1981 Hunger Strikes, and the election of Bobby Sands as MP for Fermanagh South Tyrone, the combined nationalist vote increased to 31 per cent, with the unionist vote at 67 per cent. The nationalist vote now included a republican vote and saw Gerry Adams gain his West Belfast seat for the first time. The shift continued through the next two decades, rising particularly sharply as a result of the peace process. By the 2005 Westminster election a combined nationalist vote rose to 41.8 per cent, with a unionist vote of around 57 per cent.

This pattern is mirrored in other elections. The 2009 European election saw a nationalist vote of 42.2 per cent to a unionist vote of 57 per cent. This had risen from 1989 Euro vote when the nationalists won 34 per cent, compared to a unionist 63 per cent. And in the Assembly elections 2007 the nationalist vote was 41.4 per cent; up from the 38 per cent at the 1996 Forum elections.

Economic, social and demographic trends could not, by themselves, produce the process of transformation we are currently witnessing. This required a political expression of the desire for equality and democracy, both with regard to voting rights and sectarian discrimination. By adopting its stance, Sinn Féin’s political strategy has drawn in new layers of people previously excluded from having any political voice, especially youth. Its equality agenda has led to a sharp growth in the employment of women from a catholic background, especially in the public sector. This is reflected in the fact that, while the nationalist vote has grown in aggregate, Sinn Féin’s rise has successively eclipsed the SDLP, becoming the largest party in the north. In the 1983 Westminster election, Sinn Féin won 13.4 per cent of the vote, compared with the SDLP’s 18 per cent. By 2005, Sinn Féin had increased this to 24.3 per cent, coming second to the DUP overall, with the SDLP on 17.5 per cent. By the 2009 Euro elections, Sinn Féin emerged as the single largest party with 26 per cent.

Sinn Féin’s political strategy has prevented any significant fragmentation within the nationalist/republican electorate, with the recent micro ‘republican’ splinter groups gaining negligible electoral support. In essence Sinn Féin has won more support both from existing SDLP voters, consolidated its base and gained new voters. In short, the electorate of the north of Ireland is becoming more nationalist, and more republican.

A nationalist party has become the largest single party for the first time since the partition of Ireland in 1921. That a republican party has achieved that has contributed to the political decline and splits within unionism.

Political unionism has been based on the denial of political and social equality. The consequent turmoil in unionism has been an incoherent combination of demands to turn back the clock, or at least continue to operate as though nothing has changed. It has led to a repeated divisions and multiplicity of unionist currents.

The rise and fall of the fortunes of the main unionist parties is inextricably linked to their dealing with — or resisting — the process of change. The 1987 Westminster general election saw the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) gain 37 per cent of the vote, to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)’s 11 per cent, with nine UUP seats to the DUP’s four. In 2005, following the first period of the GFA, the DUP had reversed this, with 33.7 per cent and nine MPs, to the UUP’s 17.7 per cent, reduced to just one MP. Having signed up to the Agreement, the decline of the UUP reflects its resistance to implementing it, running scared as it was of the opposition to its right. This merely strengthened the DUP, and weakened support and confidence among the unionists electorate for the Agreement.

By 2007, following the Assembly elections, the DUP, as the largest party, were faced with the same issues; they too could not turn back the clock. In the event, they accepted power-sharing and went into government with Sinn Féin, precipitating the split of the ultra-rejectionist Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV), who split unionism broadly three ways in the 2009 Euro elections winning 13 per cent of the vote. Faced with the same scenario as Trimble, the current DUP leadership are again facing the same potential drop in their own fortunes. After attempts to block and stall the Agreement — most recently on the critical policing and justice issue — the Agreement at Hillsborough has eventually seen progress made, with the added significance that it was achieved through direct negotiations between Sinn Féin and the DUP. Even as Cameron’s Conservatives rediscover their unionist roots, and threaten to tamper with the democratic core of the GFA, it is clear that there can be no return to the old way of ruling, with unionist dominance and veto.

The key point is that, in reality, the progressive political change taking place does not pose a single threat to the unionist population, nor any section of the community. Sinn Féin has set itself the decisive task of a dialogue with unionism, based on the key argument that they have nothing to fear but everything to gain from a united Ireland. The objective is not simply about winning 50 per cent plus one in any future border poll, nor subjugating any section of the community in the way that nationalists and Catholics were in the past. It is about truly creating an Ireland of equals. Gerry Adams has made clear; Sinn Féin’s view is that unionists can still be British in a united Ireland. Cultural identity and practices, including Orange marches have a right to exist, as long as they do not attack the rights of any other section of society.

There is, in fact, some shift in unionist attitudes. Recent polls show a change, albeit small, in unionist perceptions. Even before the latest crises, Martin McGuinness was voted the most popular politician in the North, with a 47 per cent approval rating. His 11 per cent approval among Unionists was not greatly lower than the 17 per cent for Peter Robinson. It is worth noting too that many from unionist backgrounds who come to live in Britain identify more with being Irish than being British — often in response to their treatment in Britain.

A united Ireland is therefore a serious and realistic prospect in the foreseeable future. A British government at some point have to come to terms with how it will leave Ireland finally. In Britain it is sensible to start discussing and preparing for this possibility now. We should ask, how are the government preparing for this possibility? The huge number of Irish people here, in all sections of society, along with other progressive people, can begin a serious discussion. The impact of the peace process has immeasurably transformed the position of Irish people in Britain.

After generations experienced discrimination and criminalisation, in an attempt to stop them from having a political voice on the question of their own country, and whilst many difficulties still remain to be addressed, the overall situation is transformed. The concerns of Irish people going back over many decades have to be central to the new discussion: what kind of future Ireland takes shape, how the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process can be built on and developed and how the relationship between the two islands can in future represent a hugely positive new chapter based on equality and justice.

By Mary Hickman

First published in The Guardian on 19 February 2010

If Irish unity is to be put back on the agenda then it requires a debate that does not rely on old shibboleths but one that focuses on what a united Ireland would look like and offer different people. It requires a revised vision of Ireland for the 21st century. Obviously that vision will have to include a plan for the political arrangements that could bring people together and an economic strategy that might best suit an all-island economy, but it should also include a convincing concept of belonging that is inclusive and allows for multiple and contingent identities.

In these fluid times characterised by global migrations, many of them circular, new ways of perceiving “who belongs” are required. These new perceptions of belonging should encompass both recent emigrants and the wider diaspora and new residents as having a stake in Ireland and its well-being.

Currently about 3.1 million Irish passport holders live outside Ireland. Of these about 800,000 were born in Ireland, with well over half of them living in the UK. Article 2 of the Irish constitution was amended after a referendum in 1998 following the Good Friday agreement. It provided that every person born in the island of Ireland is part of the Irish nation and that the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage. A person who is born outside Ireland is automatically an Irish citizen by descent if one of that person’s parents is an Irish citizen who was born in Ireland. A decade later, however, there remains deep ambiguity about relations with the Irish diaspora.

On the one hand, there have been a variety of attempts in the past decade to assist and engage with the diaspora. In 2001 the Irish government set up a task force on policy regarding emigrants and its recommendations led to the establishment of a the Irish Abroad Unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs and to a significant increase in funds available to assist vulnerable Irish people abroad. With the rapid onset of recession a Global Irish Economic Forum took place last September, funded by the Irish government, to bring members of the diaspora to Dublin for consultation on ways forward for Ireland and a Global Irish Network has subsequently been established.

On the other hand, the possibility of more fully integrating the diaspora into the life of the nation has become taboo. There has been a full-scale retreat from the offer of representation for the diaspora in Irish legislative bodies. The issue of votes for emigrants was the subject of much debate from the late 1980s, and lobbying groups were established in Britain, the US and Australia. These efforts culminated at the general election of 1997, when Fianna Fáil’s policy document promised to introduce emigrant voting rights by the year 2000, on gaining power this did not happen.

The reluctance of Irish politicians to enact such moves largely relies on the belief that the Irish diaspora is so large that the impact of its vote would be disproportionate and uncontrollable. Ireland is not only out of step with the rest of Europe in this matter but also with much of the rest of the world. Currently 115 countries allow citizens abroad voting rights. In Ireland, in contrast, the national territory and its governance remains ringfenced from the influence of the Irish emigrants.

The identification of Ireland with its territory remains predominant but it is reinforced by an insistence on blood lineage as the final guarantor of the right to be an Irish citizen. This allows many in the Irish diaspora access to (a qualified) citizenship but excludes many new residents in Ireland. Ireland’s historical imagination about itself since independence assumed that various “others” (Jews, Protestants, Travellers) did not offer a serious threat to the form of “26-county nationalism” that developed and became deeply entrenched.

A united Ireland would be as multi-ethnic, multi-faith and as class-stratified an entity as any other European state. In the recent past Northern Ireland, the Irish diaspora and multinational immigration have all posed challenges to definitions of the Irish nation and of who is accepted as belonging in Ireland. Contemporary politics and practices of governance in Ireland suggest that many traditional ideas remain in play. This is a challenge for debates about the reunification of Ireland but an opportunity for good political leadership.