Leo Varadkar has done nobody any favours with his latest pronouncements on a united Ireland.
Responding to Sinn Féin and Labour questions in the Dáil last Tuesday, the Taoiseach said he would not rule out a citizens' assembly on unification "at the right point in time" but he questioned if it would be a valid exercise without unionists, who would be unlikely to attend.
The involvement of unionists in a unity debate, while desirable, cannot be a precondition. That would be creating a new form of constitutional veto, highly provocative to nationalists yet also a poisoned chalice for unionists, who would be drawn into the dead-end of maintaining the union by sullen silence.
A broader issue with Varadkar's comments is the sense that the Government makes the Belfast Agreement up as it goes along
The concern Varadkar expressed in the Dáil of a citizens' assembly becoming a "pan-nationalist assembly" would be better addressed by considering the New Ireland Forum of 1983-84, also boycotted by unionists, where all options other than a unitary state were sidelined at the insistence of then taoiseach Charles Haughey. This turned the forum into an invalid exercise.
Varadkar could pledge not to repeat that mistake by putting a full range of options before any citizens’ assembly, allowing unionists to make their case. If they still failed to show up, the only cause they would be boycotting would be their own.
A broader issue with Varadkar’s comments is the sense that the Government makes the Belfast Agreement up as it goes along, be that to soften Brexit or to kick unification into the long grass.
The Taoiseach told the Dáil the agreement’s institutions, while not functioning at present, remain “the best model for our generation, rather than dividing people and forcing them to choose between territorial unity or reincorporation into the UK”.
This view of the agreement as a generational settlement prior to risking a border poll is probably an accurate reflection of the fears of the British and Irish officials who helped negotiate it. However, none of that is in the text and Varadkar seemed to be adding conditions to holding a border poll.
He has form for this, of course. In 2017, he said a simple majority for unification would not be enough and a “70 per cent vote” – in practice, a weighted majority for a unionist veto – would be a better threshold for “changing the constitutional position”.
Understandable aggravation
It is important to note this suggestion has only ever been made by nationalists, to the understandable aggravation of republicans. Last year, former DUP leader Peter Robinson did propose "generational settlements" between border polls but he was clear a simple majority would have to be respected.
There is a potential synthesis here with Varadkar’s generational delay. However, Robinson wanted settlements reached within Northern Ireland rather than at an all-Ireland citizens’ assembly and it is Robinson’s idea that is most consistent with the Belfast Agreement.
The Taoiseach’s somewhat different conception of what was agreed in 1998 was revealed by another comment in the Dáil debate.
“We should not forget what the [Belfast] Agreement settlement is all about,” he said. “It is about acknowledging that Northern Ireland has a unique history and geography and, therefore, has special arrangements”.
Geography presumably meant human geography. Even unionists do not claim Ireland’s fault lines are geological.
Is reconciliation another unionist veto? It should not be – it is not in unionism's interests for the North to be a permanently dysfunctional society
The agreement could certainly be seen as recognising Northern Ireland’s distinctness but what it is all about is partnership and reconciliation. Its special arrangements are about bringing people together, not keeping them contained for another generation. The focus of this is within Northern Ireland, although not restricted to it. Both governments and all parties are pledged “to strive in every practical way towards reconciliation”, with specific commitments to integrated education and mixed housing.
This is where a consistent answer could be found to the citizens’ assembly question.
Ongoing process
Reconciliation is not a precondition for unification but it is intended to be a constantly ongoing process, so it is plainly envisaged as preceding unity or at least occurring in parallel with it.
In short, the Belfast Agreement’s road to a united Ireland is a united Northern Ireland. Varadkar could legitimately say he sees no point in planning step two while step one has barely begun.
Some northern nationalists now believe they can force the matter by winning a border poll. The questions the Taoiseach faced on Tuesday arose from the latest letter he received from the “civic nationalist” campaign, which has effectively given up on Northern Ireland and wants to jump straight to unification. This is a rejection of the agreement and should be criticised as such.
Is reconciliation another unionist veto? It should not be – it is not in unionism’s interests for the North to be a permanently dysfunctional society. The basis of the agreement is that it is in nobody’s interests.
The least that should be considered for a citizens’ assembly should be an option to this effect: that defined goals for reconciliation should precede unification, perhaps beginning with the integrated schools and housing promised 21 years ago.