If You Fail to Plan, You are Planning to Fail

It is no secret that the recent Presidential race represented something of a setback for Taoiseach Micheál Martin. Martin had championed Jim Gavin as the nominee of Fianna Fáil, even stamping on the ambitions of other party members, only to watch as Gavin’s candidacy imploded over a financial scandal nearly a month before polling day. Now Martin did apologise to the angry rank and file of his party but there are consequences. There are always consequences.

He built a considerable amount of political capital rebuilding his party since 2011, yet political capital is not infinite, it is a precious resource that becomes harder to accumulate as time goes by and whose buying power depreciates with every political choice, action or mistake. And forcing through Jim Gavin was most definitely a mistake. Now I am under no illusions that this represents in any way a political danger to him, this is not the end for him. But after fifteen years as leader, during his second stint as Taoiseach, and with others in his party surely wondering when their time will come, I suspect in a few years we will look back and see it as the beginning of the end, even if that end takes a few years more to play out.

One of Martin’s signature achievements has been the championing of the Shared Island Initiative which, according to its own website, ‘aims to harness the full potential of the Good Friday Agreement to enhance cooperation, connection and mutual understanding on the island and engage with all communities and traditions to build consensus around a shared future.’ They seek to find a way to improve life on the island for everyone living whilst avoid the constitutional morass. But they have also not engaged with the demands of those who proactively seek reunification to actively plan for it. Sinn Féin of course regularly call on the Irish government to ‘plan and prepare’ for a United Ireland with a motion on the topic being held in the Dáil as recently as last month. Responding on behalf of the government, Minister of State and Fine Gael TD Neale Richmond probably encapsulated the government’s point of view when he said

“There have been criticisms of this Government, from the Opposition benches and elsewhere, because we have made reconciliation a precondition to a united Ireland. I want to be clear on this. When we say we are committed to the Good Friday Agreement, we mean just that…A perfectly reconciled society or island is not a precondition to constitutional change. However, we must do better than we have done in the 27 years since 1998 in achieving this. I fear to say that communities remain further apart than we hoped when the agreement was signed. The agreement did not pluck the goal of reconciliation out of the air. In the text, all parties to the agreement firmly dedicated themselves to the achievement of reconciliation. That requires work. It requires leadership from every part of society, from politicians like us, but also from educators and civic, church and sporting leaders. It requires generosity of spirit in dealing with those from different backgrounds than ourselves.”

It was a point earnestly made and honestly held, that I don’t dispute. I also have little doubt that Neale Richmond’s expressed views are very closely aligned with those of Michéal Martin and indeed others both in the north and the south and who believe that reconciliation absolutely must come first. But whilst I don’t doubt the earnestness with which those who see reconciliation as a prerequisite for reunification hold to that ideal, I deeply disagree with how they have gone about promoting it. Richmond himself said above that things have not gone as well as they had hoped, and Martin in the linked Newsletter article said that “We didn’t really fulfil the potential of the Good Friday Agreement on reconciliation, full reconciliation between traditions and communities.” Neither I feel appreciates the awful retarding nature of the status quo.

Earlier this year I wrote an article setting out my belief that the idea of reconciliation in the north was being dangerously misunderstood and that insisting on reconciliation first before progress can be made on reunification creates a logical conundrum. That is that if you make reconciliation a prerequisite for reunification, then those who wish to prevent reunification are incentivised to resist and thwart reconciliation. I argued instead that reconciliation and reunification should be pursued as parallel paths, with progress along one aiding progress along the other but that both paths should be pursued independently of each other. I also argued that reconciliation in a partitioned context was impossible, as the constitutional question is so divisive that any tentative progress on reconciliation can be undone by any tussle over the border. We need only look back at how sentiment hardened within Unionism as a result of how the Brexit trilemma was resolved to see the truth of that. Reconciliation can be pursued under the status quo, we can make progress towards it under the status quo but it will never be completed under the status quo and it will remain a fragile, sickly thing at the mercy of events and simmering feelings.

I still stand by my beliefs on that and my belief that reunification is necessary for true reconciliation to take root, though I admit I am frustrated by the lack of something a bit more tangible in the debate on Irish unity. What truly vexes me is the biggest problem those who seek unification have.

We lack a plan.

Likely haunted by the chaotic example of Brexit, what it seems many people want first and foremost on reunification are details. In promoting their recent Borderlands series, the BBC gathered some voters from ‘the middle ground’ together to ask them their thoughts about both the Union and Reunification.

What stands out is that they want to know more. They want a plan. And as someone convinced of the merits of reunification for everyone, the lack of a plan is a problem thrown back in our faces again and again. I have argued that Unionism has no real case for the Union, and that it is now merely a nationalism but it has the twofold advantage of everyone knowing what the status quo means and their ideological opponents being unable to articulate what reunification would mean in practice.

In practice, only the Irish government can produce a plan that is worth a damn. Everything else is just political fan-fiction, capable of being dismissed as a flight of fancy. To again reference Brexit, look at how elements of the Leave campaign were capable of making promises to the British public safe in the knowledge that as they weren’t the government they didn’t have to back those promises up should they win, and when they won they almost immediately resiled from those promises. Only the Irish state can produce a credible plan because only the Irish state will have the heft and credibility to convince voters that THIS is what reunification means.

That is why, although I respect the position of the Irish government that they believe reconciliation must come first before reunification, I do believe at a minimum they should facilitate the necessary planning so that everyone on the island is fully educated and aware of what reunification would mean long before any of us ever have to vote upon it. Nor do I feel that producing a plan for reunification is at odds with the current government’s insistence that reconciliation must come first. Providing those who aspire to unity with a blueprint showing what that unity will entail will not lead to an outcome where we will achieve reunification on a mere 50%+1 basis, it will instead allow pro-unity advocates to furnish their case with the details that a clearly fact hungry electorate crave. The government stonewalling on planning on the grounds that reconciliation must take priority is a stance I cannot support.

Increasingly, others agree on the desirability for a plan. Former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has been increasingly vocal about his support for planning to be done. Former DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr has said that he would be open to discussions about what a United Ireland would be like (though I hasten to clarify I don’t believe he is reconsidering his support for the Union and the DUP have distanced themselves from his comments). And Irish Labour party leader Ivana Bacik said at her party conference this past weekend that “Friends, we don’t want a fourth green field for its own sake. We know better than to run a referendum in haste – without sufficient preparation, or groundwork. But we do need a clear timeframe to allow for preparation of a Green and White paper, for citizens’ assemblies, and for respectful and considered debate.”

Most interestingly has been the comments of Jim O’Callaghan, a man some regard as a potential successor to Michéal Martin. As John Manley writes…

“The Republic’s justice minister has called for greater engagement around the potential for constitutional change from both his own government and northern unionists…Mr O’Callaghan said there was an onus on people who believe in Irish unification to “comprehensively show what a new shared state would look like”. “Many unionist politicians in Northern Ireland will not discuss or engage with the issue of what a reunified Ireland would look like. They won’t because by engaging in such a process they put themselves in a position where they probably will be accused of undermining unionism, however, there is an obligation on leaders to engage with potentially significant political developments,” he said. “In Northern Ireland that means leaders contemplating what they would want to see, and be prepared to see, in a reunified island. Similarly, in the south it means that we need to identify what we would be prepared to agree to in order to see a reunified island – that process may be something that is easier to do in the south than in the north.”

Admittedly, I do take issue with O’Callaghan’s argument that there is an onus on Unionist leaders to engage. I fully don’t expect Unionist leaders to engage with the reunification process. It would be entirely illogical for them to do so given no offer made can compensate for the loss of what reunification passing would entail, the end of the Union. However we have to accept the outworking that stance as well. Unionist leaders, whilst they will almost certainly make the wholly rational choice of not engaging with reunification discussions prior to a successful border poll vote, cannot be allowed a veto on those discussions either. Nor can they be allowed to characterise the very act of planning and debating reunification as ‘undermining reconciliation’, which will surely be an almost axiomatic response on their part if they see actual, tangible planning taking place.

Furthermore, Unionist leaders run a risk through lack of engagement. That if a plan is produced they refuse to give input to, and that plan is subsequently the basis for a vote that produces a majority in favour of Irish reunification, then that plan will achieve democratic legitimacy and there maybe limited opportunities for Unionist leaders to seek amendments or improvements to such a blueprint after a border poll. But that would be the consequence of a political choice.

Without Unionist participation in the planning process, pro-unity advocates will have to rely upon the middle ground to be arbiters of the fairness of a plan. I don’t believe the middle would agree to a plan that was clearly not in the interests of Unionists, though I do believe they would vote for a plan that did not harm those interests (beyond, of course, the end of the Union) if they were already leaning in favour of unity and able to judge the proposal was reasonable. And even if the Unionist leadership will not engage, pro-unity advocates should take every opportunity to listen to Unionist voices that will engage, even if they are engaging as an insurance policy against an outcome they don’t believe in or agree with. I believe much can be learned that way to shape the final proposals.

It feels to me as if something is shifting below the surface of the constitutional debate.

Which is why Martin’s tenure beginning to draw to an end is something so noteworthy. I believe, on the sheer length of time he has been at the top of level of Irish politics that Martin has more days behind him than ahead of him as leader of his party and that every misstep hastens him towards his inevitable stepping down. Would anyone among us be surprised if, following the conclusion of this second stint as Taoiseach, he elects to graciously exit the scene? And even if he does remain past that point his departure at some stage is an inevitability.

Who or what follows after he is gone?

Not necessarily someone as open to being more active in the pursuit reunification as Jim O’Callaghan is, but perhaps someone less strident in their opposition to setting out what that reunited Ireland will look like? And maybe it won’t even matter who leads Fianna Fáil after Martin, other parties may come to power in the south more open to the necessity of planning for reunification. It is my belief that the articulation of a plan is the great shift required to break the moribund deadlock the constitutional question has been mired in and which has favoured the status quo as a result. And there are politicians from all walks of life on this island, from Fine Gael to Fianna Fáil to Sinn Féin (of course) to even the DUP asking to learn more.

The lack of a plan, which leaves pro-unity advocates disarmed in promoting reunification, is why I believe the pro-unity case has been stuck for so long. I believe producing one will change the dynamics of a question that, for all it dominates northern politics, has stagnated. I don’t believe setting forth a plan will do the prospects of reconciliation any great harm in the long term. I think the continued absence of one inhibits us all from achieving it though.

Increasingly though, I feel it is an inevitability we will have one.

I’m a firm believer in Irish unity and I live in the border regions of Tyrone.