Preaching to the Converted

The recent supplement published by Ireland’s Future could be fairly summed up by saying that, 12 people largely saying the same things, using similar platitudes and stating the bloody obvious. For example, “We live in a very different place from 25 years ago”.

Let’s start with Mary Lou. In principle what Mary Lou had to say, I could not disagree with. I also in my blogs have encouraged Unionists to engage in a conversation around this “New Ireland” and not hide behind the fear of being labelled a Lundy or it is seen as a Chamberlain-type capitulation.  For Unionists, the job is simple, it is to hold those who advocate for a New and United Ireland feet to the fire and ask one question, what’s going to be new? I am also delighted that Mary Lou did not invoke the demographic dog whistle as the route to Irish unification (more Catholics than Protestants). What is clear, is that the constitutional future of this Island will be decided by an important constituency whose only determining factors will be economic security and the delivery of Scandinavian-style public services, particularly in health and education, and not about some imaginary political utopia. Mary Lou is no Martin McGuiness, let’s hope this is her Road to Damascus moment.

Senator Frances Black believes that the identity issue is a simple equation of Irish, British or both, in that she is sadly mistaken. What I would like is a New Ireland where identity is based on shared values, built on a foundation of social cohesion and without labels, because I don’t have one.

 In respect of Minister Richmond’s uninspiring piece, surprisingly I agree with him on this, that it is essential to make “Northern Ireland work and to make it work now”. From the perspective of an Irish Nationalist that makes absolute sense, because if he wants the electorate in the 26 counties to vote for unification, clearly no one is going embrace a 6-county political basket case. Surprisingly again, I agree with the Minister that the Belfast Agreement was designed to build trust, relationships, and respect.  Where we disagree, is that this universally celebrated peace process is built on the foundation of an oxymoron political structure, called a mandatory coalition, which incorporates petitions of concern, a sectarian voting structure and inertia. Finally, his belief that the unification of this island is imminent, I would respectfully suggest that he must immediately get off whatever medication he is on.   

 Who does Mr Feeney believe could be the “external impediment”? That was a rhetorical question. Does he think that the current or any future British Government has some Machiavellian plan to thwart Irish unification? The opposite is true, they would gladly put their proverbial hand in the Treasury pocket and contribute to it, based only on broad political and community support, and that work has barely started.

Mr Eastwood’s comment that we are all grateful for peace, is incontestable. He makes a fair point about the 500,000 on hospital waiting lists and 30% of our kids leaving school without 5 GCSEs. Though he fails to mention the additional £226 million spent on our apartheid education system, maybe he has overlooked that because he does not want to offend the older church-going Catholic conservatives in his party and of course, the venerable institution itself. This is also a party that as part of a New Ireland, would not support a woman’s right to choose.  The hard truth is that the SDLP under his leadership has been part of the political cabal who have failed to use its devolved powers to run this place effectively, as exhibited by the crass cross-party populism that resulted in £150M Covid giveaway.  It is not the “limited vector” that is the problem, the real problem is the lack of intellectual capital, competence, and vision on the hill. Sorry Colm, you can’t keep blaming the Brits.

Last but not least, it’s Professor Harvey. Firstly, let me start by saying I don’t want a shared island, I want an Ireland built on shared values, not trying to create a state based on a Swiss model of cantons. Mary Lou seemed to have cottoned on, that using the demographic dog whistle is counterproductive, however, Mr Harvey, our venerable human rights professor invokes it at every opportunity. His demographic dog whistle is disguised in the following comment, “Brexit combines with political and demographic trends to focus minds” He states how wonderful it would be if we could draw out hopes, aspirations and dreams in the face of those who thrive on anger, fear and hate. Martin Luther King Jnr faced down, engaged, challenged and changed many of those who thrived on anger, fear and hate, he certainly did not ignore them. The professor’s banal comment that, “a new Ireland should fill everyone with encouragement”, has left people like me, a “persuadable” thinking WTF. He refers to the island as “torn”, my father migrated here in 1957, after India’s partition in 1947, where “torn” manifested itself in sectarian violence that resulted in the deaths of 750,000. He knew the culprits in the British establishment that were responsible, though many years later he expressed the view that you cannot keep blaming the current generations for the sins of their fathers.  The sanctimonious and superior tone invoked by the professor does not endear him to the people he needs to talk with. In addition, what is equally clear is that he has every right to express his views and those who disagree, must do it agreeably.

 Finally, what is missing in all these musings, is phrases like a secular constitution, a secular education system, shared values, social cohesion, and a government structure that ensures a voice and stake for all citizens, old and new, in this “New Ireland”. Need to try harder, grade C.

Suneil Sharma

May 2023