I’m going to return this month to the theme of my last blog on Northern Ireland’s continued existence in a new or united Ireland, as outlined by SDLP leader Clare Hanna in her essay in the recent publication What Northern Ireland Means to Me. She said then: “Fundamentally – and I think this is really important to say – Northern Ireland’s always going to exist. I think there’s a perception that in a new Ireland – whatever that looks like – that this group of people in this shared identity just dissolves.”

Given that unionist politicians refuse to engage in discussion about what they would demand if there was ever a Border Poll majority for unity – on the understandable basis that turkeys don’t discuss Christmas – nationalists and republicans often ask ‘What do unionists actually want in order to agree to become part of a united Ireland?’

What they want is actually quite straightforward: they want their British and Protestant identity and culture to be respected and protected in a future united state.This is particularly so for those urban working class and rural unionists for whom the Orange Order, parades, bands and bonfires are important (most middle class unionists care much less about these). A young loyalist acquaintance of mine said recently that nationalists’ fear of loyalist violence – or maybe everyone’s fear of such violence – in the event of a narrow vote for unity in a Border poll could be largely assuaged by making legal and constitutional provision for such respect and protection. “That’s a real incentive for nationalists,” he said. “If they can do this properly, they’re not going to have to worry about loyalist violence.”

He cited a 1974 statement by the leadership of the Ulster Volunteer Force: “Our basic objective is to preserve our Protestant liberties and traditions and our British way of life. By that we don’t mean the preservation of the link with Britain (my italics), but of those traditions of religious and civil freedoms which have characterised British democracy. When we talk of the preservation of our Protestant traditions and liberties, we simply mean that we want to ensure that we are able to worship God in the manner of our choice and not according to the ordinance or dictate of any outside organisations such as the Catholic Church.”

Obviously, with the dramatic decline of the all-powerful 20th century Irish Catholic Church and the secularisation of contemporary Irish society, Irish Protestants now have complete freedom to worship, express themselves and live full and equal lives with their Catholic fellow-citizens. Therefore the challenge now is not religious but political. In political terms how can the present Republic, many of whose citizens share an instinctive anti-Britishness, assure the passionately pro-British Northern unionist citizens of a future all-Ireland republic that they will be treated with equality and respect?

There are many ways of doing this, but three possibles immediately come to mind. Change the flag; change the anthem; change the Constitution. The Irish tricolour, with its laudable message of peace between the green and orange traditions on this island, has been irredeemably sullied in the eyes of most Northern Protestants and unionists by its use on the coffins of and in parades to honour dead IRA men, regarded by them as murderers and terrorists.

‘Amhrán na bFiann’ is a militaristic and ultra-nationalistic 19th century dirge that should not be the national song of a renewed nation based on “harmony and friendship” (in the words of the post-1998 Article 3 of the Irish Constitution) between the opposing and formerly warring ‘tribes’ in Ireland. It is a little known fact that two competitions were held in 1924 and 1925 to try to find a new national anthem, but the standard of entries was so abysmal that the judges (including the poet W.B.Yeats) decided to stick with ‘The Soldier’s Song.’

The Constitution is an altogether more difficult matter. I suggest that one possible change might be to insert a clause recognising and pledging legally to protect the loyalty of a significant minority of the Irish people to the British monarch. Unfortunately, this would have to be put to the Southern electorate in a referendum. Would they pass it? Certainly not. Successive Irish Times/ARINS opinion polls have shown that over 70% of voters in the Republic would not support changing the flag or anthem. A clause recognising the passionate royalism of Northern unionists would be an impossible further step too far for the instinctive republicanism of the Southern electorate. It would be a brave and foolish Southern politician who would even suggest it.

Rejoining the Commonwealth is another suggestion that opinion polls show would be overwhelmingly rejected by the Southern electorate. My young loyalist acquaintance thinks such an action would represent a “massive gesture” of welcome for unionists. To say “No, absolutely not” would be an equally huge gesture of rejection.

Then there are the complex governmental structures that would be required to recognise both the togetherness and (in some respects) the continuing separateness of the two parts of Ireland in a united state. The eminent US-based political scientist Brendan O’Leary, in his 2022 book Making Sense of a United Ireland (required reading for anyone interest in this existential issue), is dismissive of the different types of federalism that might address the concerns of unionists.

There was the Sinn Féin Eire Nua proposal in the early 1970s to reconstitute the four historic provinces: Leinster, Munster, Connacht and Ulster. He points out that neither elected republicans nor elected unionists in any party in Ireland are pushing to recreate the historic nine-county province of Ulster.

A new Ireland based on city-regions – in which Northern Ireland could remain a large city-region – is utterly impractical, says O’Leary. “Decomposing the North will be difficult enough without having to re-engineer the South at the same time.” He is similarly dismissive of the future cantonisation of Ireland along Swiss lines – the Helvetic Confederation is largely governed through 26 cantons and some 2,300 communes!

Despite the superficial attraction of a two-unit federation, with the North and the present Republic as the constituent units, O’Leary points to the extraordinarily poor record of two-unit federations internationally. “Think only of Pakistan and Czechoslovakia, and the failure to reunify Cyprus.”

He argues that international evidence suggests that “federations can only cope with genuinely deep communal divisions where there are many units in the federation, preventing domination by one unit, and where a party system develops which provides political linkages across internal regional boundaries.”

O’Leary is kinder to the proposal that Northern Ireland would have ‘home rule’ within a united Ireland, with the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive continuing with its present powers, although these would be granted by Ireland’s parliament rather than Westminster. This model would enable the North to persist with different educational, health and welfare state policies, and to keep its own police service and its own courts. “The continuing existence of Northern Ireland, albeit within a united Ireland, would recognise unionists’ local patriotism towards Northern Ireland, and facilitate numerous ways of enabling Northern Ireland to remain, or become, different from the rest of Ireland, all while being part of a sovereign, united Ireland.”¹

O’Leary then lists the difficulties of this model: particularly whether Northern deputies in the Irish parliament could vote on Southern matters and – more importantly – the efficiency losses caused by having two separate health, education, social security, policing systems, and so on. However he concludes that such difficulties would not be impossible to manage. “Such difficulties exist in all polities with what is called ‘asymmetric devolution’, such as the kingdoms of Spain and Denmark [with Greenland], and the United Kingdom.”

Why are these issues not discussed more in the Republic, outside the rarefied (if admirable) conference rooms of ARINS (Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South) and the Royal Irish Academy? I have one modest suggestion. Why don’t the SDLP and Fianna Fail resurrect their short-lived alliance in order to come up with some serious proposal for an Irish unity which would go out of its way to respect and protect unionist culture and identity? I further suggest that they might involve Micheál Martin’s rather brilliant former adviser, Peter MacDonagh (a grand-nephew of the 1916 leader Thomas MacDonagh), who went off to live in Prague over 20 years ago after he married a Czech woman. I understand that he is still available to do work for Fianna Fail.

Part of me (the County Antrim Protestant part?) agrees with Public Expenditure Minister, Jack Chambers, when he said in Tralee last month that the government’s Shared Island initiative should not be used to push the cause of unity. He said more than six years of efforts by Irish governments had gone into slowly building support for it and securing “broad and collective engagement,” but that would be put at risk if unionists suspected its motives. He said that “if everything was to be done in the context of a constitutional conversation, we lose people in the room at the very start.”

But the other part of me (the proud, if sometimes critical, Irish citizen part?) says that this conversation will have to start sooner or later and a really imaginative and generous proposal coming from Fianna Fail and the SDLP might go some way to kick-start it by persuading more unionists to engage.

PS Regular readers of this blog know that I have my favourite journalists, north and south, whom I quote regularly: people like Sam McBride, Alex Kane, Allison Morris, Pat Leahy and Fintan O’Toole. I would like to add Mark Hennessy, Ireland and Britain editor of the Irish Times, to that list. That paper’s coverage of Northern and Irish-British affairs has improved enormously thanks to his superb and prolific reports and analysis, including on recent topics as different as the abortive civil case by British IRA victims against Gerry Adams, fading trust between the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive, the views of UCD students on unity and whether the Irish Constitution is a barrier to that unity.

¹ Making Sense of a United Ireland, p. 135

² https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2026/03/24/shared-ireland-programme-cannot-be-used-to-push-cause-of-irish-unity-jack-chambers-says/?