What kind of United Ireland?

The date keeps getting put back. There will be no border poll before 2030, declared Taoiseach Mícheál Martin. The DUP’s Gregory Campbell even claimed that it may never happen.  Yet the Belfast Agreement, which was signed nearly 30 years ago in 1998, offered a non-violent ‘constitutional way’ as an alternative to the IRA’s armed struggle.

Despite this, there is growing talk of a border poll within media and elite circles. Figures as diverse as Michael McDowell and Fintan O’Toole, columnists with the Irish Times, Sam McBride, editor of the Belfast Telegraph,  and Professor Brendan O’Leary have been discussing the possibility of Irish Unity. In a fashion that any decent fence-sitting liberal would be proud of, O’Toole and McBride have written a book to present the case both for and against a United Ireland. Among other things, they discuss the political arrangements that might be put in place for unity. Would there, for example, be a ‘devolved’ structure where Stormont would be retained or an ‘integrated’ model where there is only one parliament in Dublin? These discussions assume that the capitalist status quo will simply be modified.

There are good reasons for this discussion on Irish Unity, even on a capitalist basis. Its original architects saw partition as a temporary measure. The arch-imperialist, Winston Churchill, for example, thought that with the passage of time, Irish unity would happen. (Typically, however, he thought this might strengthen the British Empire and the ‘civilised world’).  Some of the key reasons that underpinned partition no longer exist.

In 1922, for example, Belfast was the third largest port in Britain and held the world’s largest linen mill, ropeworks, tobacco factory and shipyard. The Ulster Covenant explicitly stated that Home Rule would be ‘disastrous to our well-being’. But today, the divergent capitalist interests between small Southern businesses and Northern industrial capital have virtually disappeared. The North is no longer part of an industrial triangle that links it with Glasgow and Manchester.

The ideal of a ‘Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People’ also lies in tatters. The First Minister of the Stormont Executive is a former IRA supporter, and even the DUP accepts power-sharing. Moreover, the 2021 census showed that those from a Catholic background form 46% of the population, outnumbering Protestants who form 43%.  

Nor can there be fear generated around the slogan, ‘Home Rule equals Rome Rule’. The Catholic Church has been defeated on abortion and gay marriage by overwhelming majorities in Southern referenda. Moreover, less than 15% of the Dublin population attends a weekly mass. 

It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the House of Commons in London has little interest in what happens in the North. No British newspaper has a full-time correspondent in Belfast, and the goings on of 3% of the wider UK population barely register.

A united capitalist Ireland might, therefore, appear to make sense.  Advocates suggest that the low rate of corporate tax could be extended to the North and would attract more foreign direct investment. There could be a joint tourist authority to increase the number of visitors to the island. Ireland could be marketed as a cultural hub. And so on.

Opponents resort to fairly terrible arguments. They claim that moves to a united Ireland could unleash loyalist violence. Similar arguments were deployed against removing apartheid in South Africa. Sometimes you have to face down right-wing thuggery or give in to endless blackmail.

It is claimed that a united Ireland would bring about a loss of a ‘British identity ’. Yet one survey showed that the strongest identification people had was Northern Irish (52%), as against 48% Irish and 46% British. Moreover, what is often presented as a British identity is one that few people in Britain recognise – love of royalty (think only of Prince Andrew); Defender of the Protestant Faith, and Empire.

The crunch argument, however, is cost. Right-wing economists such as Fitzgerald and Morgenroth are often quoted to claim that unification would cost about €14 billion a year, or the equivalent of €4,00 from each taxpayer in the South. These are, however, grossly inflated figures, designed for fearmongering. They include a portion of the British national debt, payment of pensions, and the upkeep of the Royalty. They ignore how a united Ireland could lead to a major boost in productivity.

However, even if a capitalist Ireland is possible, it does not mean that it is inevitable. It may make rational sense from a capitalist point of view, but partition created a monster that cannot be so easily dismantled under the present arrangements.

For one thing, the decision to call or not call a border poll lies with the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This is undemocratic and reflects its imperial control. The much-repeated phrase of the former Northern Secretary, Peter Brooke, that ‘The British Government has no selfish or economic interest in Northern Ireland’ is simply untrue. Not in the sense that the British ruling class draws huge wealth from the province or sees it as a crucial military base. Rather, this elite sees Britain as a global imperialist power – a junior partner of the US – and will not contemplate a shrinking of its size with the loss of Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. With the resurgence of a far-right racism that infects the main body politic, via Reform, this can only get worse. The British ruling classes will therefore do everything in their power to prevent Irish unification.

The Southern Irish ruling class also fear Irish unification. For over one hundred years, FF and FG have dominated the ‘carnival of reaction’ in the South and have little intention of giving it up. They will procrastinate, delay, and use the excuse that ‘preparations must first be done to win consensus’.

Aside from these blockages, there is a wider issue. Namely, official Unionism destroyed radical voices within the Protestant population, and this must be undermined. But you will not give up on traditional beliefs if you fear that the ‘boot will be on the other foot.’ James Connolly pointed this out when he suggested that if there is a promise to sell  ‘lots of Irish labour at low wages to any foreign capitalist’, what wonder ‘ if Protestant workers come to believe that a change from Toryism to Sinn Féinism would simply be a change from the devil they know to the devil they do not know’. In other words, only the prospect of a better Ireland for working people could induce protestant workers to support Irish Unity.

A united Ireland must therefore be conceived in radical and socialist terms to tackle the ‘carnival of reaction' that both the green and Orange traditions have forged.

Take some issues:

• In any border poll, opponents of a United Ireland will claim that it would mean the end of the National Health Service. Leave aside the fact that the NHS has been seriously gutted, the aspiration for a health service that treats everyone for free is totally legitimate.  But a 32-county tax haven can never bring it about.  We need a left government that taxes the rich and nationalises private medicine to bring it about. 
• Most primary schools in the South are controlled by the Catholic Church. It also maintains control of hospitals and schools. We need a secular education system for the whole island where children from all backgrounds mix and meet. It should also be free, which means the abolition of all college fees. 
• In the North, 18% of individuals are in relative poverty and many depend on means-tested benefits. In the South, 13% of individuals are at risk of poverty and many are either homeless, crushed by high rents or fearing evictions. Only a radical social government can really address these issues by breaking from an economic model that privileges US multinationals.

Some advocates of a united Ireland attempt to sidestep these issues by claiming that compromises must be made on identity. They suggest that Ireland should either rejoin the Commonwealth or show respect for the Orange tradition. But this assumes that material realities should be ignored and that attention should be focused on flags and national anthems.

Socialists, however, argue that a united Ireland requires a constituent assembly to rewrite a new constitution for the whole island. In such an assembly, we will argue for the right to housing and free health treatment. We will push an anti-war article to prevent any involvement with NATO or an EU army.

A border poll can lead to a mass politicisation where the radical dynamic behind a call for a United Ireland comes to the fore.  In a situation where working people feel they can begin to take control, issues of flags and anthems can be sorted by a risen people.