During a sunny afternoon in Belfast’s Titanic Quarter, when most were soaking up the infrequently seen summer glow, a potentially pivotal event was taking place. Within the vicinity, the SSE Arena was hosting between 2,500 to 3,000 attendees for the Ireland’s Future conference, though the organisers’ ambitions had hoped to sell over 4,500 tickets at £6.75 each, but over 10,000 people were reportedly viewing online.
Without hesitating over its goal, the campaign group persuasively argues for Irish unity, demanding instant action and plans for a referendum in 2030, despite a handful of impatient supporters who desire immediate implementation. Many of the group’s passionate assertions, from various members and followers, were anticipated by many, but remarks voiced by the invited southern politicians may lay down future influential trajectories.
The Irish government has been receiving consistent prompting over recent years to actively advocate for Irish unity, particularly from Ireland’s Future and more noticeably Sinn Féin, instead of merely acting as a passive supporter for reconciliation. Under the guidance of Micheál Martin, Tánaiste and Fianna Fáil leader, the government has chosen to invest in a Shared Island programme, funding cross-border infrastructure, advancing education, training, and reconciliation steps.
Shared Island, which initially began at a sluggish pace, has become noteworthy in monetary terms, backed by a 1 billion euro budget and overcoming initial opposition from the Unionists regarding their participation. Leo Varadkar was perceived as a heavily nationalistic leader during his tenure in the Taoiseach’s Office. Northern nationalists often commended him, whereas Ulster Unionists, particularly the pro-Brexit ones, frequently exhibited disdain towards him.
Freed from the strains of public office, Varadkar has gone a step further with his ideas, proposing during the Ireland’s Future conference that the initiative for unionisation should be led directly by the Irish Government.
“What I’m hoping for, regardless of the parties forming the next government, is to see the long-standing aspiration of unionisation turn into an actual political objective,” he said to the conference during his conversation with journalist Jim Fitzpatrick.
“Actively striving for it, laying foundations for it,” he continued, suggesting that Dublin establish a state fund now to save surpluses from the current budget which will be needed to finance a united Ireland in the future, if it transpires.
With the demands of office now behind him, a relaxed Varadkar joked that his successor, Simon Harris, and the Minister of Finance, Michael McGrath, hadn’t yet heard his idea of a fund.
If such a scenario occurred, it would alter the landscape of the island’s politics. Even though it seems Varadkar’s political zenith might be behind him, his comments do bring attention to Fine Gael’s election manifesto preparations.
To date, Varadkar’s successor, Simon Harris, hasn’t shown much interest, commenting when entering office that while the aspiration for unity is fully legitimate, it would not be a priority for his administration. The future might be different, but Harris lacks some of Varadkar’s instincts.
In contrast, comments from others invited to speak at the SSE Arena could become significant over time. This includes Fianna Fáil’s Jim O’Callaghan, who asserted that the “primary aim” of his party was to achieve island unification.
Similarly, Labour leader Ivana Bacik made some particularly assertive remarks, surprising a few attendees by insisting that the succeeding Irish Government should establish a department dedicated to unity. Debates over Labour’s part in the next Dublin government will continue, but there’s no denying that Bacik has set a new standard for competing parties if this promise becomes central to her party’s future platform.
Without question, multiple individuals in Fianna Fáil, including O’Callaghan and Senator Mark Daly from Kerry, feel restrained by the caution exercised by Micheál Martin on the matter previously, but could now capitalise on the Labour party’s move. Should Varadkar be correct and the upcoming Dublin government actively seeks unity over merely advocating reconciliation, the impact could be significant both on island politics and relations between Dublin and London. While this may involve several suppositions, it is noteworthy nonetheless.
The individuals and supporters linked to Ireland’s Future, many of whom are associated with Sinn Féin, are of the opinion that unity will materialise “in our lifetimes”, a phrase used by a promintent late-40s individual. Even though this group frequently emphasises its intent to achieve reconciliation – stating that a unified Ireland needs to be truly united, their policy document from March is perceived negatively due to the stipulations it contained.
The document argued that the Belfast Agreement does not necessitate prior reconciliation, and that the same agreement already considerably restricts self-determination rights. In their perspective, the journey towards new constitutional settings on the shared island must be accomplished before any such aspiration can be realised. The group insists they do not object to reconciliation, but oppose the idea of it becoming a veto.
Fairly speaking, the notion of reconciliation granting a veto to unionists and loyalists who refuse to participate in anything leading to reconciliation, thereby obstructing a referendum, is a theory that both Varadkar and Ireland’s Future disagree with. As the ex-taoiseach clarified at the Belfast conference, he believes that unification and reconciliation should occur simultaneously.
Regardless, there are instances when the gut instincts of Ireland’s Future provide its rivals with counterpoints, sensing that progress is on the horizon due to changing demographics and religious ratios, rather than overcoming division in Northern Irish society. A recent post on their official Twitter, three days prior to Saturday’s conference, exclaimed that locals are becoming frustrated with Northern Ireland’s continued existence, a statement which predictably sparked the opposition’s debates.
The generously backed campaign group is consciously incorporating dissenting viewpoints into its discussions. This includes representatives like Wallace Thompson, a founding member of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), and David Adams, ex-leader of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA).
Adams did not shy away from sharing his opinions, voicing his thoughts candidly to a respectful crowd. He asserts that Ireland’s Future, and particularly its advocates, must do significantly more to stress the importance of reconciliation.
However, Adams is most critical of those prominent figures who have been inherently against it from the start. They apparently hold the attitude that the votes of unionists/Protestants won’t be necessary in any Border poll, as Adams stated.
In a recent example, a prominent member of their organization insinuated in his weekly newspaper column that Taoiseach Simon Harris was mainly controlled by roughly 10% of the populace of Greystones, his birth town in Co Wicklow.
What was Harris’s alleged offence according to this author? The columnist claimed Harris lacked enough passion towards a unified Ireland. The influential 10% being referred to were in fact the Church of Ireland residents of Greystones.
Adams wants people to ponder on this, particularly as it comes more than a century post-Irish independence. Adams participated actively in the early 1990s negotiations, which resulted in the loyalist paramilitaries’ deeply apologetic cease-fire in 1994.
Given these factors, Adams feels many Protestants believe that Ireland’s Future is embarking on a revenge path, intending to forcefully integrate the Six with the 26. Protestants are left to either comply or retreat to England or Scotland.
Adams, interestingly, does not blindly support the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He emphasized that if he was to consider Irish unification, he would vote for his grandchildren’s welfare, devoid of any bias towards past alliances.
Varadkar concurred that apologies from the Republicans, though issued in a generic language of regret over the collective suffering caused, wouldn’t suffice. To alter the perceptions of staunch individuals, a powerful and explicit apology for their actions is required, he asserted to the SSE crowd. While both Varadkar and Adams’ discussions were received respectfully in the hall, there were scarce signs of agreement from the attendees.
The assembly was largely attended by figures from Sinn Féin, the most prominent politicians present. Gerry Adams was amongst the crowd, though not as an audience member. First Minister Michelle O’Neill proudly held a prime position on stage, accompanied by Mary Lou McDonald on one of several panels. The deliberations in the hall majorly revolved around Sinn Féin’s disappointing show during the past week’s local and European Parliament elections. Despite this, campaigners uphold that such electoral setbacks shall not obstruct historical progression.
On another note, the impending elections are anticipated to put the British Labour Party in power in the United Kingdom early next month, absent any exceptional results. This shift could redefine the potential dynamics linked to future demands for a referendum.
Academic Philip McGuinness’ research indicates Northern Ireland’s support for a unified Ireland referendum, which spiked during the post-Brexit disputes, subsequently dwindled following the implementation of the Windsor Framework. The prospect of stronger connections between London and Brussels during Sir Keir Starmer’s tenure at No 10 Downing Street might further diminish the Brexit-fueled longing among Northern Irish people for a referendum. This is provided that resolutions to eliminate annoying trade barriers, bothering unionists on both ideological and practical levels, are discovered.
Still, Ireland’s Future isn’t the sole entity advocating for a reevaluation of the Belfast Agreement, which empowers the Northern Ireland Secretary of State with discretionary authority to decide on a referendum. Varadkar echoed this sentiment, highlighting the necessity for adherence to the Belfast Agreement’s stipulations by Dublin, especially while demanding others to do the same. However, he added a dissatisfaction with the absence of specific criteria determining what conditions would necessitate a referendum.
The ex-Taoiseach has proposed for a discussion to be held in London, emphasising that the parameters determining a secretary of state’s judgement need to be defined in comprehensible terms — the prevailing ambiguity is not acceptable.
The advocacy for a referendum garnered encouragement from Leo Varadkar’s remarks on the cost of unification, as well as from the statements of Prof Séamus McGuinness from the Economic and Social Research Institute and the American economist, Prof Adam Posen. Earlier this year, however, a report estimating the cost of unity to range between €8 billion and €20 billion annually for two decades had incensed the campaigners. This report had been submitted by Dublin City University’s Prof Edgar Morgenroth and the ESRI’s own John Fitzgerald.
Varadkar dismissed the notion of the annual expenses reaching €20 billion, confirming there would be some costs. This view was corroborated by economists in a subsequent panel discussion, who posited that short-term expenses would be offset by long-term benefits.
Despite clear advances in the past seven years, Ireland’s Future persists as an organisation dominated by the North. Nevertheless, it is steadily gaining traction among the middle classes — a demographic previously uninvolved.
Jarlath Burns, the Gaelic Athletic Association President born in South Armagh, encapsulated the sentiment of the congregation when he advocated for Northern Ireland residents to be given the right to vote in the forthcoming presidential election. If this proposition is pursued to its logical conclusion, it could provide an early indication of the standpoint of Republic voters. Polls indicate that 70% are in favour of eventual unity, though there’s no demand for an immediate transition. It’s easy to talk, but actions carry weight.