Over the course of nearly half a decade, scholars Jennifer Todd and Joanne McEvoy embarked on a journey across the expanse of the island, most notably, across the Border, assessing public sentiment towards the possibility of changing the constitution.
Upon visiting a farm in 2019 in a dominantly catholic region to the west of the Bann, owned by a protestant, they were warmly greeted by the farmer who ushered them into his kitchen as he went off to change from his work attire.
The farmer greeted them with a slightly humourously tinged question whether their visit was at the behest of Leo Varadkar, inquiring about Irish unity. It fast became apparent, however, that the farmer was acquainted with the political arena in the south and had a high regard for the then tánaiste and foreign affairs minister, Simon Coveney.
The farmer was of the firm belief that unification was inevitable and stated, “Change is imminent, of that I have no doubt. There will be those who will resist until the end but I shall not be one of them”. He expressed his hope for the transition to occur seamlessly without the necessity for violence, acknowledging the inevitability by saying, “We will all eventually have to accept it, whether it happens today or tomorrow, that’s my perspective.”
The meticulous and in-depth research conducted over the years – maintained even during the Covid years through online medium- has revealed a mounting frustration regarding the nature of the discussions whenever constitutional amendment has been broached.
These experiences offer valuable insights into how future debates on constitutional matters must be handled across the island. They need to be enlightened, balanced, rational and should offer viable solutions to issues rather than being glued to ideological principles.
The scholars observed the necessity of engaging with a variety of individuals, both in the North and South, who had hitherto remained detached from conversations about Irish unity and who held a slew of undiscovered perspectives.
Todd, associated with University College Dublin, and McEvoy, who is the head of the politics and international relations at the University of Aberdeen, possess a vast experience in untangling and understanding the deeply ingrained opinions of individuals in focus groups.
During the outbreak of Covid, they set up virtual calls with a series of women’s groups. This led them to realize that the participants did not respond favourably to heavy constitutional language.
During a gathering, a predominantly female group from the Border region expressed their disapproval towards discussions regarding unity and constitutional amendments. Anne, one of the women present, felt these chest-thumping debates were disconnected from the actual trials of day-to-day living in these regions. She emphasised the necessity for practical, above solely ideological, dialogues.
Anne argued that political proclamations about the status quo or constitutional alterations bear heavily on the everyday lives of residents in Northern Ireland and the Border areas. The lack of practical considerations in these debates failed to resonate with them. One of the academics present noted the escalation of the unification dialogue to a popular debate, a sentiment that another woman, Leah, questioned.
The women present voiced a desire to see proposals aimed at enhancing the symbiosis of Stormont and Dublin, seeking measures that would tangibly improve their lives and not merely promote lofty debates about constitutional amendments. Libby, another woman present, proposed discussing the type of constitutional amendments necessary to foster mutual cooperation whilst hinting at her lack of extensive understanding on constitutional matters.
The discussions centred largely on the practical implications, with Barbara, a resident of rural Northern Ireland, asking for detailed explanations on how potential alterations would affect her lifestyle. Later, the digital meetings expanded to include women from locations like Limerick, Kerry, Dublin, Monaghan, and Donegal, revealing a surprising lack of knowledge about Northern Ireland.
Evelyn, a resident near the border, recounted her experiences of going to meetings in Dublin where she met individuals who had no comprehension of where the border was actually located. For those living north of Drogheda, there is a strong sense of being perceived as from the North, according to Evelyn.
Despite this, women from Limerick and Kerry didn’t want to reduce the amount of discussion but placed emphasis on making it pan-island, given that it’s not exclusively a border counties issue. One contribution referred to an inclusive approach requiring broader considerations beyond simply the aspiration for Irish unity.
A noteworthy feature of the Dublin women on the Zoom call was their firm focus on social divisions, whether related to paramilitaries or criminal gangs, identified by the scholarly participants.
Women manifestly tend to step forward 99% of the time, driving developments due to their desire for education, improved quality of life, and a better future for their children, one woman pointed out.
However, the shared sentiment conveyed by the academics based on the discussions amongst women from the North and the South, of different religious affiliations and political orientations was their preference for a dialogue as opposed to a contentious debate.
Todd and McEvoy further elaborated on the need to ditch the winner-loser perspective and emphasise on overall progress. The possibility of sparking these discussions from the grassroots was also highlighted by a participant, Paula, who suggested starting with common social groups, for instance knitting circles, as a solid foundation.
The initial stages of this dialogue are paramount. Introduction needs careful handling to ensure the aim of conversation is understood and it doesn’t degenerate into dispute. Evelyn aired the sentiment that trust appears to be lacking, chiefly towards the authorities and politicians, due to previous actions undertaken without adequate public discussions.
Therefore, it’s crucial not to overlook any aspect of the discussion. It’s crucial to spend some time starting the conversation rather than letting things happen haphazardly, as they have done in the past. A successful engagement hinges on this point.
By the time the pandemic was receding in 2002, scholars shifted their focus to Monaghan. Here, they encountered numerous women who were part of the previous remote discussions during the lockdown. The central topic rapidly turned to health. The women, who arrived from Fermanagh and Louth, were eager to discuss healthcare, appearing cheerful and relieved after Covid had imposed a long period of isolation.
The women unanimously declared that the health authorities in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland – the Health Service Executive and the National Health Service, respectively – were not operating effectively, with the situation worsening instead of improving.
In terms of the potential influences of constitutional reform on this situation, the women were uncertain. However, it was exceedingly evident that any proposed changes to the constitution must address and enhance cross-border healthcare. This was the consensus put forth by Todd and McEvoy.
Subsequently, the scholars explored how individuals reacted to questions of unity and identity on both sides of the border. It soon became obvious that for many within the Republic, these were topics they hadn’t given considerable thought to.
Their discussions generated a wide range of responses: some staunchly argued their stance, others were straightforward. Among these exchanges, one participant, Paul, questioned the definition of “the Northern Irish identity, the unionist identity.” He provoked a response from Avril, a Belfast resident, who reacted with slight impatience.
Avril encouraged Paul to explore the issue further, pointing out that unionists have things they consider significant as well — such as the war and poppies.
While the conversation eventually calmed down, the question of flags and anthems stirred up strong opinions once again, with the participants wondering why they should be expected to change these symbols.
The notion of a unified Ireland being part of the Commonwealth drew significant revulsion, one man describing it as a disrespect to their forebears and their struggle. Despite the initial resistance, over time, attitudes mellowed. Some individuals started to consider compromises, which they would not have even thought feasible at the conversation’s outset.
One participant stated, “I must admit, my thinking has been quite unidirectional in the past…But it’s unfeasible. We need to embrace democracy more,” reflecting this shift. Another participant from the south acknowledged the inadequacy of their initial belief that “their joining us would suffice.”
This was the crucial takeaway for McEvoy and Todd.
They observed their participants engaging in productive dialogues, reverting to prior points instead of merely trying to dominate the conversation.
“Even amidst disagreements, they also took the time to listen and learn,” the scholars remark.
– Joanne McEvoy is the head of politics and international relations department and a senior lecturer at the University of Aberdeen.
– Jennifer Todd is a professor (emeritus) at the School of Politics and International Relations UCD, and also holds a fellowship at the Geary Institute for Public Policy UCD.
– Their investigation received financial support from the DFAT Reconciliation Fund and the Irish Research Council, in association with the Shared Island Unit. Some quotes here were sourced from focus groups run in collaboration with the Irish Times/ARINS North and South surveys.