Same anthem. Same flag. Reconciliation, not a priority. Is this the ‘great generational cause’?

Former Taoiseach and TD, Dr Leo Varadkar is no stranger to provocative politics when it comes to Northern Ireland.

Continuing, of late, with the agenda he platformed during an event at the SSE arena last year he reveals, yet again, limited understanding of the residual values and preferences within the party political and non-politically aligned Remain UK constituency, and beyond.

Unlike Michéal Martin, TD and current Taoiseach, he doesn’t get nuance and complexity.

Instead, he opts for the binary and communal prism through which groups like Ireland’s Future think they can define and understand those unionist, pro-union voters and referendum consent – minded non-voters who do not wish for, embrace or prioritise constitutional politics.

They really don’t.

Taking their lead, the former politician is comfortable in the camp of those who seek to find relevance and construct meaning for their campaign by interpreting predicted demographic change as delivering a favourable tribal headcount; who, whilst talking of engagement and co-design of a new Ireland, aspire to the atavism of a pre-determined ‘fourth green field.’

Same anthem. Same flag. Reconciliation, not a priority.

Is this the ‘great generational cause’?

However it is camouflaged, it presents as prejudicial conditioning allied to ‘tactical calculation, territoriality and subordination’ with a nod to emperor’s clothes posturing in the form of a largely ceremonial Irish Vice-president gifted to the ‘unionist tradition’.

It’s basically advocacy for skin-deep inclusion and land-grab without drilling down into problematic issues like erosion of devolved decision-making and inequality; playing around with political scaffolding that lacks the bandwidth in terms of detail to be considered ‘ugly.’

On BBC’s ‘The View’ presenter Mark Carruthers suggested that Leo Varadkar could be seen as a ‘poster boy’ for Irish Unity or alternatively ‘a bogey man for Unionism.’ He expressed no desire to be seen as either.

In the case of the latter, he lost credibility long ago and what he has to say now is of little interest or relevance although his belief that he will see the two jurisdictions united in his lifetime will have many hoping that they live as long as he plans to.

It will certainly be after 2030 which he rules out as a date for a referendum. The long war now framed as a peace process is then set to continue. He should be aware that time of itself does not deliver results; activity does not equal productivity. His proposal to approve in principle and then work out the details later is not something you would expect from a seasoned politician.

It is ‘echo chamber thinking.’ It replicates jumping off a 1000-foot cliff without a parachute and thinking at 500 feet everything is going alright.

In 2016, Brexit was embraced as a ‘game-changer’ for Irish republicanism. It has been a false dawn as a strong majority adjust and prioritise what they see as the more important issues of health, economy and climate change. Now, attention is shifted to Nigel Farage becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Whilst It would be welcomed by some right-wing unionists, others who find his wanton populism and persona unpalatable would adopt a different stance. Would it be enough to persuade the ‘persuadable’, provide impetus for a border poll and a majority in favour of leaving the UK as Leo Varadkar suggests?

A bigger number within unionism than is acknowledged voted against Brexit but it is questionable that further loosening of links with the EU would be enough, when set against living in a globally connected UK, family ties throughout GB, alongside educational, health and economic compatibility, to compel a significant number to opt for ‘ourselves alone, risk averse neutrality and the potential termination of arrangements like the CTA.’

Building a home for all

There is too much that is unknown and lacking in reflection. A very weak case is being championed. It cannot be satisfied by zealotry for the cause and a perceived trajectory that has yet to be realised; informed by speculation and electoral results delivered by an electorate much lower than what can be expected in a north-south referendum.

Undeniably, there are those labelled as being from unionist background either in terms of politics, family connection or identity who flirt with the idea of a re-imagined Ireland. A selection of these individuals appears with regularity on the Ireland’s Future circuit.

Years of Conservative government and the emergence of English nationalism in the UK and, amongst other things, less allegiance to identity, the influence of churches in education, business interests, poor delivery of public services and talk of diminishing Human Rights fuel a courtship with theoretical constitutional change.

Notwithstanding our problems, many of which are self-inflicted, the much stronger preference and driver for change of the growing number of non-voting civic unionism, is for making Northern Ireland a home for all. Based on plurality, collaboration, consent, equality, economic growth, well-being and social justice it is the essence of the Agreement we have never had.

This is the gap between the two communal blocs wherein the majority of the ‘persuadable’ better recognised as unaligned yet potential pro-union referendum participants, sit.

The Dublin government Shared Island initiative which can at times present as insensitive intervention, alongside the all-Ireland Bodies within the BGFA is favoured more than the musings of the former Taoiseach, Ireland’s Future and other nationalist groupings.

This is embedded in a desire to leave the politics of a conflicted past behind and nurture reconciliation and prosperity within and across the two jurisdictions.

That such forms of reconciliation are so easily dismissed by Leo Varadkar does not impress. Northern Ireland has lived too long in a conflict emergent political environment to risk it becoming a casualty of the future he envisages and the strategy he endorses.

A magic wand approach to addressing reconciliation following the political coupling with the south reveals a stark dismissal of what, thanks to the failings and flawed leadership of various governments, local political parties and their community partners, remains problematic and unresolved.

People are ahead of their political leaders

That said, large swathes of an internally diverse pro-union society are ahead of the politicians. They do not live their lives on narrow ground of the political leadership anymore.

Education, increasingly positive social relationships, critical thinking around the old shibboleths, rejection of narrow identity labelling and recognition of common interests combine to shape change and transform society beyond the process fatigue of the main political parties who never fail to disappoint in displaying incompetence; with further examples demonstrated in the decision around the A5 and the Maternity hospital in Belfast.

The attention of the political parties and movements pouring their energy into jurisdictionally conflicted discourse only addresses a fragment of the lived experiences unfolding around us as individuals within the health, education and economic sectors collaborate, in the face of many unnecessary pressures, for the common good.

Speaking through their actions rather than representative political voices they want to see Northern Ireland perform at a higher level and do not see this as dependent on constitutional change.

Looking southwards does not offer a panacea with housing, health, cost of living, growing tensions and regional inequality presenting similar problems to those experienced in Northern Ireland. Leo Varadkar should know this. His government took decisions which exacerbated them.

There is scant evidence to support the case that all the problems would be reduced or solved through constitutional change and the disruption that it would bring.

Some years ago, when a group of mainly left of centre civic unionists met with civic nationalists the strategy of making Northern Ireland work for all was tabled but was rejected as a unionist ploy to head off arguments for constitutional change.

It was not. The suggestion that making Northern Ireland work for all was a win-win went unappreciated in favour of dogma and ideas similar to those voiced by Ireland’s Future and Leo Varadkar. Nationalism and more so republicanism revealed itself to be as entrenched as political unionism has been in the past.

There was no recognition that if and when there is support for constitutional change, a more prosperous and less politically turbulent Northern Ireland would be a better proposition for Dublin.

In the event of a different result, Northern Ireland would be a better place to live where the population could maybe build the long-promised better future which has yet to arrive.

It is regrettable that Ireland’s Future and now ex-politicians like Leo Varadkar cannot energise to engage with this more consensual approach. Wedded to a pre-determined outcome (embodied in the singular title of the organisation, as though only one future was possible) it seems content to talk past a sizeable proportion of fellow citizens.