The Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool has launched a Civic Space – led by Professor Peter Shirlow – which provides a platform for discussions around the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.
It provides a multitude of resources, from articles to vox pops to podcasts giving voice to the positions of citizens, activists, and political representatives alike. The landing page includes both pro-unity and pro-union categories, which lead to resources and data pertaining to each respective position. In its current form, the website’s pro-unity section includes contributions from the SDLP, Sinn Féin, and two independent campaign groups (Ireland’s Future, and Shared Ireland Podcast) while the pro-union section contains numerous contributions from leadership within the Ulster Unionist Party and other unionist contributors; roundly debunking once again the idea that unionists won’t engage in conversations around the future of this island.
The initiative is a recognition that Northern Ireland is changing, in part due to shifting demographics and rapidly transforming cultural and political attitudes. The right to self-determination is an integral part of the 1998 Belfast Agreement. It is a matter of when – not if – this question hits the ballot box.
It is an inevitability which has undoubtedly been hastened by Brexit, compounded by years of negotiations from which the people of Northern Ireland were all but shut out. Providing an outlet for people to share their views on their own future could act as a kind of pressure release valve for those who felt abandoned during the Brexit negotiations.
The University of Liverpool’s effort to provide a universal central hub for the community has received significant cross-party support and has been welcomed as a valuable resource and platform for change. There is nothing divisive about encouraging dialogue; rather, it is a fundamental element of a functioning democracy and the central pillar of peace and reconciliation.
The Irish Government also provides a means for dialogue through the newly formed Shared Island unit but the unit has sidestepped the conversation on constitutional change leaving it to a British university to fill this space. True dialogue and meaningful reconciliation aren’t achieved through limiting what can and can’t be discussed.
Why we need either forum is another question. Within the text of the Belfast Agreement there exists a structure for engagement with civic society, intended to foster better understanding between communities and to act as a much-needed link between Northern Ireland’s combative politics and its citizens. The Civic Forum was a consultative mechanism on social, economic and cultural issues first proposed amid the multi-party talks. The formation of the Civic Forum was the central demand brought forward by the Women’s Coalition during negotiations.
Stormont collapse
However, despite its central premise as a mechanism for civic engagement, the forum lasted only two years before falling victim to the 2002 Stormont collapse. Its dismantling was precipitated by DUP-led criticism that there weren’t enough anti-Belfast Agreement voices present in the forum, while other members of Stormont questioned what the forum really achieved in its fledgling two years. Whatever the reason, Stormont eventually returned half-a-decade later, while the Civic Forum did not.
Civic engagement in the form of assemblies or forums can be found the world over, and are essential resources to bridging the gaps between citizens and their political representatives. In the Republic, the Citizens’ Assembly has made the case for constitutional change on topics once deemed too controversial or toxic by the region’s conservative political parties, helping to usher in long-overdue progressive change for its citizens, and making the case that the attitudes held by the Irish people were far more liberal than the parties once believed.
Attempts to provide a haphazard reimagining of the Civic Forum have come and gone over the years via different agreements. The Civic Advisory Panel was born out of the St Andrews Agreement but is extremely limited in its membership, and therefore restrictive in terms of its ability to be representative. The 2020 New Decade New Approach deal included a commitment to holding civic engagement with one-to-two issues commissioned by Stormont every year – one year on and this commitment hasn’t been fulfilled.
With no real strategy being proposed to deal with the complex realities in Northern Ireland, both governments, and all the parties, should be looking to all available structures and means to build reconciliation – the restoration of the Civic Forum could be one mechanism.
The reformation of the Civic Forum could provide a space to discuss not just the constitutional question but the many social, economic and cultural issues affecting the region. With the political instability arising from Brexit we need meaningful engagement and a public consultation.
The Irish Government has made clear that it does not want to engage in conversations on constitutional change, while parties across Northern Ireland and Britain are already discussing what both the campaign and outcome might look like.
The British government is already laying the groundwork for keeping Northern Ireland in the Union. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the speaker of the House of Commons, said in a recent podcast that Britain does have “selfish and economic interests” in Northern Ireland, despite the rigorous impartiality required by the Belfast Agreement.
Boris Johnson’s relentlessly farcical ideas to better-connect Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK – be it by bridge, or an astoundingly impractical underwater tunnel – are, at their core, campaign tactics. While we wait for the Irish Government to catch up, the institutions and structures of the Belfast Agreement could and should be fully restored.
More than 20 years ago, the Belfast Agreement provided a structure for civic dialogue – maybe it’s time we used it.
Emma de Souza is a commentator and citizens’ rights activist