David Mitchell is an Associate Professor at Trinity College Dublin at Belfast
For some people, it is hard to think about Irish unification without thinking about bloodshed. As Fintan O'Toole and Sam McBride acknowledge in the introduction of For and Against a United Ireland, 'The traumas of the Troubles, and the still unreconciled bitterness they generated, continue to shape attitudes and give all of these questions a sharp emotional edge.'
But, they argue, 'emotion is not enough'. If a referendum on unity is coming, it must be 'as rational as any political contest ever can be'. The constitutional future of the island is too important for its contemplation to be otherwise. Unlike the results of an election, a referendum decision for Irish unity would affect generations yet to be born.
While Brexit, overnight, revived the Irish unity debate, little if any concrete progress has since been made towards that goal. But the potential and discussion of unification have become normalised, and this book is a major and unique contribution.
Commissioned by the ARINS (Analysing and Researching Ireland, North and South) academic research project of the Royal Irish Academy and University of Notre Dame, the book is a quick read -154 pages, written in quotable and fact-dense prose, interspersed with acerbic cartoons. The authors, two of Ireland's best-known journalists and from different political traditions, had the idea that they would each argue both sides of the debate, setting out 'the best cases to be made for and against a united Ireland.' Over four chapters, O'Toole and McBride take turns to set out their contradictory arguments.
The effect of this structure is intriguing. The reader's attention is drawn back and forth between worries and aspirations, difficulty and promise. The authors argue both cases with commitment and with no shortage of compelling evidence, including an array of economic and social attitude statistics. The juxtaposition of clashing but reasonable arguments is both invigorating and strangely soothing. It proves that this topic can be detached from nationalist (British and Irish) emotional instinct. The debate need not be feared.
For a book ostensibly about the future, there is plenty of history, covering explanations of why the island was divided, why partition has lasted so long, and why it may (or may not) now be out of date. We are shown how the religious, political, and economic arguments for partition no longer apply. The South has secularised, urbanised, and grown rich; the North has declined economically and holds little affection in Britain.
But the expiration of the old arguments does not mean that the Union has no advantages for people in the North. Could a united Ireland really replicate the countless cultural, business, and educational opportunities afforded by being part of a large and advanced polity like the UK? The South may well be 'one of the greatest places there has ever been to live in the history of the world,' as McBride describes it in his argument for unity. But if that's so, how can partition be said to have failed?
A major theme is public services - the headaches and opportunities of harmonising such diverging systems of health, benefits, policing, and education. The 'pro' is that working to combine these could iron out the faults in these systems currently, and build something that, united, performs more effectively overall. The 'con' is that doing so could be unmanageably complicated and the ultimate benefit uncertain. Partition can be ended only if we are willing to bear immense cost, compromise, and risk. Is this what we want for ourselves and for our children? At the same time, it remains unarguable common sense that on a small island, in an uncertain world, society should be organised as a single political unit.
While the Troubles are mostly absent, the possibility of loyalist violence during or after a border poll is tackled. For this, McBride says that the Irish defence forces are 'farcically ill-equipped'. That said, 'only the most deluded unionist could imagine that setting off bombs or shooting Catholics would somehow retrieve what had been lost'.
A contentious current in the Irish unity debate has been the question of whether greater reconciliation between unionists and nationalists, and North and South, is needed before unity is attempted. This is a key plank of O'Toole's argument against removing the border: 'There cannot be an Irish 'us' when society is still so divided between 'us' and 'them''.
But For and Against a United Ireland shows that, done right, discussing Irish unity can itself be an exercise in mutual understanding, perhaps even reconciliation. The book illuminates the mindsets of the nationalist and unionist traditions more effectively than many passionate representatives of those traditions have ever achieved. It also spotlights the real existing problems in both jurisdictions, which must, in any case, be addressed. Remarkably and fittingly, unionists and nationalists, northerners and southerners, will find themselves united in recommending this book.
The book is available from all good bookshops and direct from the publisher...