The timing of Leo Varadkar’s speech expressing his desire for a united Ireland was as mystifying as it was reckless. At a time of tension and uncertainty in Northern Ireland the last thing the Fine Gael leader needed to do was spout traditional nationalist rhetoric in his ardfheis address.
Of course Varadkar is entitled to his aspiration for a united Ireland but in the context of the uncertainty about the future of the powersharing Executive in Stormont, never mind the intensifying row between the EU and UK over the Northern Ireland protocol, his decision to use a tired old cliche to describe his vision of the island’s future carried obvious dangers.
It is not as if he was under any obvious political pressure from his supporters to vie with Sinn Féin in deploying nationalist rhetoric.
Maybe he is hoping to widen his party's appeal with a bit of national flag-waving in the way Johnson has done in England.
In the wake of his speech, Varadkar conceded that voters in Dublin Bay South, where a byelection will be held on July 8th, have not been raising the issue of Irish unity with Fine Gael canvassers. Their preoccupations are the more prosaic ones of public transport, cycle lanes, Covid-19 and housing.
Varadkar suggested that such local concerns should not mean that politicians cannot also talk about bigger, longer-term issues. Of course that is true but the problem is that timing is everything in politics. With the continuation of the powersharing Executive in the balance and no sign of an end to the row over the Northern Irish protocol, he couldn’t have picked a worse moment to ventilate his desire for a united Ireland.
The difficulty about the protocol – which aligns the North to EU rules on goods post Brexit – is not whether British sausages are freely available in Northern supermarkets, as there are plenty of local brands that are just as good if not better. The real problem is unionist suspicion that the protocol is the first step in a process of separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK and moving it in the direction of a united Ireland.
What Varadkar has done is to stoke those fears unnecessarily and give Boris Johnson and his government another excuse to breach the terms of the protocol on the basis that it is being operated in a way that infringes UK sovereignty and undermines the Belfast Agreement.
Ulster Unionist Party leader Doug Beattie had a point when he remarked sarcastically: “Good man, Leo, for bringing up Irish unity again when we are in a crisis. Let’s throw that into the mix, because that is really going to be helpful for people here in Northern Ireland.”
So why did Varadkar do it? Fine Gael is facing into a difficult byelection in Dublin Bay South where its main challenger is probably Sinn Féin, but adopting the united Ireland mantra of his opponents is hardly likely to enthuse his party’s traditional supporters.
Maybe he is hoping to widen his party’s appeal with a bit of national flag-waving in the way Johnson has done in England.
He would not be the first Fine Gael political leader to surprise his supporters by attempting to upstage republicans. Back in 1949 taoiseach John A Costello declared a Republic out of the blue and opened a breach with the UK government that had truly damaging consequences for Northern nationalists with no discernible benefit for his party or his country.
Defuse confrontation
The British Labour government of the day had shown signs of being willing to tackle the problem of discrimination in the North. After the unilateral declaration of the Republic, such aspirations were abandoned and the Unionist Party was allowed to govern as it liked.
Contrast that with the way another Fine Gael taoiseach Garret FitzGerald eschewed nationalist rhetoric but won a substantial concession from Margaret Thatcher, against all her natural instincts, to give the government in Dublin a say in ensuring the North was administered fairly.
What is notable about the current political situation is that Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has shown a much greater appreciation than his Fine Gael counterpart of the need to weigh his words carefully and do nothing to inflame passions. Instead he has taken political risks to try to defuse confrontation both with the British government and the unionists over the protocol.
His approach is more in keeping with that of his fellow Corkman Jack Lynch, who followed a policy of conciliation and consent, than with his early mentor Charles Haughey who never missed an opportunity to ratchet up anti-British tension.
Lynch, whose reputation was assailed once again by RTÉ in recent weeks, managed to steer the country through a crisis in 1969/70 that averted the potential for all-out violence on an unthinkable scale.
Bad and all as things were in those difficult days, they would have been far worse if Lynch had not held the line against those intent on exploiting the situation through an armed incursion of the North which would have had devastating consequences for the entire island.
Ireland now faces a very different set of problems but the potential for a return to violence at some level is not far below the surface. With a reckless and cynical prime minister installed in Downing Street, leading Irish politicians need to think very carefully before engaging in idle and dangerous rhetoric.