Seanad Public Consultation Committee díospóireacht -
Friday, 14 Oct 2022

Other Voices on the Constitutional Future of the Island of Ireland: Unionist Community

Chairman

On behalf of Senators and all the members of the committee, I welcome Mr. William Graham, Professor Peter Shirlow from the University of Liverpool, Ms Alison Grundle, Mr. Andy Pollak, Mr. Brian Dougherty and Mr. Derek Moore from the North West Cultural Partnership and Mr. Ian Marshall from Queen’s University Belfast. I thank Mr. Marshall for coming back to the House; we are grateful for his presence. Joining us remotely is Ms Claire Sugden MLA, Independent Unionist, who is most welcome. I thank her for engaging with the committee on this important topic of listening to unionist voices and their views regarding Northern Ireland as it could be within the United Kingdom. In this public consultation, we are anxious to get the views of all sides. As has been noted by previous contributors, one lesson from the Brexit referendum is that nobody was listening to the other side or point of view, and Mr. Marshall made the point in his submission that the most important part of a conversation is not talking but listening.

Before we begin with our guests' submissions and contributions, I must read out the following statement. I remind everyone of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of any person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. For our guest attending remotely from outside of the Leinster House campus, there are some limitations on parliamentary privilege and, as such, she may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness who is physically present.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an officer either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Sugden to make her opening statement.

Ms Claire Sugden

I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence to the committee on a topic we are having more conversations about. It is much appreciated that we are speaking to all voices within this conversation about how it impacts on all of us, not just in Northern Ireland but in Ireland and throughout these islands. My motivation is to ensure, as both an elected representative and a citizen, that we do the best we can for everyone living here and ensure we can provide for a future that is good for everyone.

I am one of two Independent representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Being independent means I am not affiliated to a political party and does not necessarily mean I am independent of political thought, and we can discuss later what that means. As per the Good Friday Agreement, when someone becomes a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, he or she is required to designate himself or herself as a unionist, nationalist or other. When I am asked the question, I am honest about this, which the Good Friday Agreement encourages us to do. It encourages us to embrace who we are in order that we can have those conversations and understand why others are not the same and to hear what they believe.

Ultimately, my unionism comes down to the fact I think that Northern Ireland's placement within the United Kingdom is the best context in which to provide public services for the people of Northern Ireland. As an elected representative whose job it is to improve public services, it would be remiss of me not to consider the context in which that happens because there would be a very different outcome if that context were different. While some people very much look at this as an identity-based ideal, for me it is very much a practical one. Many of the debates we are having encapsulate identity politics rather than jurisdictional politics, and by “jurisdictional politics” I mean the context and how we provide public services, that is, how things are costed. It relates even to our position geographically on these islands, and there will be some policies where the all-Ireland context is entirely relevant. Equally, however, the UK and British Isles context is relevant and that is something we need to look at.

To return to identity, because it is something we tend to focus on, I am British but I am equally Irish. I am a unionist but I am perhaps left of centre. Unionism is sometimes misrepresented in that regard because of the focus on other parties that tend to more right wing. Ultimately, we misunderstand these labels, which is not conducive to moving forward or to how we understand one another and live together on these islands.

Chairman

I thank Ms Sugden.

Members of the committee would like to ask her some questions so if she can stay on, she is most welcome to participate in the next part of the session, which will be the question-and-answer part. I also welcome Professor Shirlow and Ms Grundle.

Professor Peter Shirlow

I also recognise our colleague Professor Colin Coulter from Maynooth University, who was part of this submission. He did not have to come before everybody and explain what they were talking about. We will make some general points and then broaden the discussion. What Ms Sugden said was very interesting, namely, that she considers herself to be British and Irish. I cannot speak for my co-authors but I also have a shared identity culturally but a different perspective constitutionally. That is very important.

The way the debate has been conducted at times has been highly divisive. It ignores data, reality and material circumstances. One of my greatest fears is that this debate will lead to the divisions that have characterised this island over the past century. This has to be a proper, focused and inclusive debate. I am strongly of the opinion, as are my co-authors, that we want to build the shared island initiative. We want to build relationships across this island. What we want to do is deepen and broaden reconciliation. We want to deepen and broaden encounter between both parts of the island. If that means that constitutional change is easier, that is a good thing. If it means that constitutional change is not required, that is a good thing. Unionists tell that they engage in this debate and are told that facts do not matter. They are told that this is going in one direction and when they put forward arguments that suggest it is not going in one direction, they are told that they are wrong. That is not a conversation and that is not a debate.

It is a misnomer that sections of the unionist community - my two friends here Brian Dougherty and Derek Moore - have hosted Mary Lou McDonald and other Southern politicians. We are engaging and have hosted a digital platform at the University of Liverpool with nationalists and unionists taking part. We are engaging in this conversation but we are constantly told that we are not. It is the responsibility of all of us to start redirecting this conversation irrespective of our perspectives on the constitutional outcome. It is critically important.

The other thing we must recognise is the diversity of opinion and culture across this island. It is a misnomer that it is only unionists who have concerns about unification. If you look at the Red C polls and the Sunday Independent poll that came out after the Ireland's Future event, you can see that people in the South want a united Ireland. When they are asked about the pounds, shillings and pence, namely, taxes, costs and sharing power, that support falls. We also know from the survey that among people in the North who support a united Ireland, that support declines in exactly the same way as support among people in the South when it comes to the nuts and bolts of unification and who would pay for what. It is critically important that we recognise that - that it is not simply the case that there are two communities on this island. There are different types of unionism and different types of nationalism. Increasingly among the younger generation, there are those who are very ambiguous about what this future should be. This is why we need a calm and rational debate and to do this in a very different way.

We must recognise that a debate is taking place and that this debate for our paper was based upon evidence. What does the evidence tell us? First, the census is not a game-changer. One issue about the census that is very interesting is the fact that 870,000 people in Northern Ireland identify as Catholic while 633,000 people in Northern Ireland - roughly a third lower - identify as Irish. Not every Catholic in Northern Ireland identifies as Irish or Irish and British. We must understand that when you look at the data, people who identify as nationalist or Catholic are not always supportive of a united Ireland. We must recognise another fact shown by the last election, which is the SDLP-Sinn Féin vote in the North in the last election was 39%. The Sinn Féin-SDLP vote in 1998 was 39%. We are not in a period of seismic change and we are not in a period where Brexit has been the game-changer we were told it would be.

At the heart of what we were trying to say is that we wanted to come here today and give our version of why we want this to be a non-divisive debate because we want to protect the Good Friday Agreement. Everyone in our group voted for the Good Friday Agreement and all of us have worked to support it. One quarter of the retail space in Belfast was bombed during the conflict. Belfast is now the seventh best performing economy out of 179 in the UK. If people tell me that nothing is changing in Northern Ireland and this is the reason they want a united Ireland, I cannot take that seriously. That is not what the data says. Sectarian crime has fallen by 62% over the past 15 years. Violence related to the conflict has fallen by 90% since 1998. Belfast is a world leader in fintech and cybersecurity, while Wrightbus in Ballymena is a world leader in hydrogen technology. If we are going to have a debate in which people say that Northern Ireland is a wasteland when it is not, we are not having a debate. There are lots of issues about the South that are in many ways attractive but there are many things about the South that are not attractive. These things are really important.

We came here today to make a very clear argument. The progress that has been made so far through the Good Friday Agreement must be recognised and endorsed. Building on and transforming outcomes of the Good Friday Agreement must be the basis of the conversation and the future and how it is developed.

Chairman

I thank Professor Shirlow for his analysis of the situation. As I said at the start, it is important that people hear analysis and different points of view. I call on Ms Grundle to make her opening statement.

Ms Alison Grundle

Ms Sugden and Professor Shirlow spoke about identity, so I will talk about it as well. I am the product of a Northern Protestant father and a Dublin Catholic mother. I consider myself to be as Irish as I am British. I am not a unionist. I spent an awful lot of my youth in this city. I was probably about 15 before I realised that Dublin was not actually home; my mother just called it that so we did too. I am very much a Northern and Southern citizen of this island.

I will address a very pragmatic point. Members will see from our paper that we respectfully disagree with the fact that the committee has lumped constitutional change in with building a better future. We do not agree that those two things sit together at this point. We are opposed to constitutional change but we want to build a shared island that offers prosperity to everyone on it. Tagging it with the most divisive issue on this island guarantees that there will not be the type of conversation we want to have. That is a very strong feeling among the three of us.

I will make a very practical point about how we have this conversation and how we plan it. The committee rightly acknowledges that Brexit prompted a constitutional debate. I am a remainer. My greatest fear is that we go down the same path. The reason it is a genuine fear is that I do not believe we can plan for a united Ireland at this point because the British Government will not engage. The Northern Ireland Assembly will not engage. The petition of concern would not get through the Executive if we had one. How can you plan without engaging your two largest stakeholders? It is not just about people. It is about legislation. It is about decades of disruption. I would be very interested to hear how people who favour this position think we could go about planning because I do not think we can.

We talk about identity, public assets and institutions but beyond that, there are many other issues we need to talk about. It is not about painting the post boxes green; it is about very pragmatic things like how we would ensure a digital infrastructure remained in the North. It is owned by a UK-based multinational corporation and is scaled to meet the needs of 70 million people across the UK.

On a practical level, who would own it? Would BT sell it? Who would have the funds to buy it? It is built on a regulatory regime that exists in the UK. If BT continued to operate in Northern Ireland, then it would have to operate one part of the network under a completely different regulatory regime. What happens if we have divergence in data protection technology between Britain and the EU? That is one practical example. Northern Ireland cannot face a situation where it does not have digital communications after unification while we sort this out, but BT will not engage in that conversation. I wanted to make that practical point.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Has BT said that?

Ms Alison Grundle

Has it said what?

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

That it will not engage in that conversation.

Chairman

The Senator can ask those questions in the time allotted.

Ms Alison Grundle

Professor Shirlow talked about the new economy that has developed in the North. I hope we will have mitigations related to the protocol that will enable it to work. We are in a position with the protocol where we have a unique opportunity to trade both within and outside the EU. There are enormous benefits from that for this whole island. Unification would put us straight back into the EU without having the opportunity to see what those benefits might be. I will leave it there because I am conscious that we are very much over our time. I thank the committee.

Chairman

I call Mr. Dougherty.

Mr. Brian Dougherty

If the Chair does not mind, I will ask my colleague, Mr. Derek Moore, to kick off.

Mr. Derek Moore

Talk about passing the buck. I was not expecting to speak today. Mr. Dougherty asked me in the bus on the way down. I will leave the complicated stuff to Professor Shirlow and the others. I am working on a thing in the city of Derry that I was asked to do by republicans who approached me for an opinion on this discussion. They included both mainstream republicans, from Sinn Féin, and dissident republicans. I am simply a working person. I play in a band. I have been a builder all my life. It is only in the last eight or nine years that I have been in the community sector and in this illustrious company, sometimes uninvited and sometimes not. As I say, this is a bit last minute. I wrote a few notes on a presentation that I hope to do later. I will go through a bit of it. I apologise in advance because there are more arrows on it than in a John Wayne western. I might have to jump back and forward. It might be a bit disjointed and therefore probably looks like an Ireland's Future statement. These are just my own thoughts. It is a working-class vision, which I will speak about in the city shortly.

Living in Londonderry, I feel at times that I live in a united Ireland, but it is one with obvious advantages such as the support of the British economy. Derry is a microcosm of what a united Ireland could look like. We replaced a unionist council in the 1970s, which was blamed for every discrimination under the sun, with a nationalist one. I cannot tell the committee whether the unionists were discriminating or not. Much has been said about that. I was born into a working-class family. My parents lived in a house with gas, owned by some major unionist. For me, it was a class issue, not one of Protestants or Catholics.

Derry has endured the euphoria of power exercised by the natural majority in the city, who removed their neighbours completely from the city side during what we commonly call the exodus. The council and the now-blossoming community sector took over the running of the city. They focused on rectifying the wrongs that they felt had happened in the past. This was with the knowledge that the Protestants would never return because they would never have a majority again. There was no way back for them. They used the power that they had to suppress the minority. The real concern for me and people I speak to, including working-class people in bands and communities like that, is that they feel this will happen again in an Ireland that is united. It is how I feel things will evolve. I am not alone in that thinking. If I lived in an all-Ireland state tomorrow, what would change for me? I would still live with the same Catholic, nationalist politicians, neighbours and council that I have now. No one will tell me that there will be a road to Damascus moment and that their thinking and sense of prejudice will disappear. I do not think our prejudice will disappear.

When I am doing this work in the city, I am told there is a tidal wave of support for a border poll for a united Ireland from the nationalist and republican population. This message is promoted by politicians on the nationalist side. As I said to them, we have all heard the statement about turkeys voting for Christmas. What more could nationalists in Northern Ireland, or any of us for that matter, want? We have self-determination about nationality, whatever way we want. We have a massive community and voluntary sector that funds 30% of our jobs, although I will leave most of the technical details to Professor Shirlow. We have the benefits of Britain's economic power. We can have any passport we want, whether a British one to show that we are British or an Irish one, or a mix of the two to travel around the world. We have a chance to build a great future. I tell this to all my friends and everyone who argues the case against it. We can focus on the future, not the past.

We have a great symbol in Derry, which I am sure everybody knows. It is on the side of a gable wall and states, "You are now entering Free Derry". That probably sums up how Derry people and many people in Northern Ireland think. Everything is free, including health, education and all the things we want. They are free. Why would we want to change that lifestyle? Why would nationalists want to change that lifestyle? There is constant noise from political nationalists, academics and even foreign politicians that pro-union supporters need to discuss and articulate their thoughts and position on a united Ireland. A clear position has never been laid out to me about what a united Ireland looks like. I am happy with what I have, so why would I be interested in discussing something that has never been articulated to me? A clear position is necessary for any future debate. All I want to do is to look at the economic, cultural and societal facts to see if they create any doubt about the concept. Brexit delivered lies. It made false promises and showed that not having a bigger majority than 50% plus one will never work. Northern Ireland is a great place and I have no bother promoting that.

That is the kind of thing I am working on at the minute. It is not looking at economics or the big picture, but at the people I live with. I would not force the people who I live with into a Republic of Ireland that is stable because if we cannot live together in Northern Ireland, then we will never live together in a united Ireland. I will hand over to Mr. Dougherty. Those are my thoughts. I know I did not submit any papers.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Moore for his contribution and insight. We are asking people to tell us about what they are living through rather than hearing it second-hand or reading about it in the papers and getting interpretations through journalists. We want to hear from people who are living through it. Before I go to Senators, we have Mr. Dougherty from the North West Cultural Partnership.

Mr. Brian Dougherty

I think the reflections I will provide are similar to what Mr. Moore touched on with regard to the social impact and impact on civil society of the current debate. Derry people like to whinge. I do not particularly want to go down that line today, but there is important context to this discussion. We can say the same of our colleagues in the north west, in Donegal. Unionism in Derry, or Londonderry, is different from unionism in Ballymena, Belfast and everywhere else. Derry is peripheral to Belfast, Dublin and London. If people are unionists in that city, they are even more peripheral. Mr. Moore referred to the Protestant exodus, particularly after Bloody Sunday, how that divided the city and how it made unionists feel even more isolated.

Much of our thinking on the constituent base we work with reflects on how our position within Derry, as it is, may then change within a broader united Ireland. Is there is evidence there to say we would feel any more or less isolated or marginalised?

In the mid-1990s, there was a lot of very positive, progressive stuff that happened within the city and Professor Shirlow referred to it a wee bit as well. There was a negotiation around parading, which created the groundwork for much of the stuff that Mr. Moore's and my organisation has done since. However, unfortunately, that was negotiation out of necessity. It was around Protestants trying to find their place within a city and what might happen if they did not negotiate. We have to be very careful in this debate that we do not fall down that same line. The whole constitutional conversation needs to be based on the premise of generosity.

We use a dial in our work at Londonderry Bands Forum and our partnership that we kind of use as a reflection of where we sit in terms of good relations. It is called the intolerance to celebration model. It starts at one end, where we may be intolerant to parading, the Irish language, for example, or other minority cultures. It goes from intolerance, to tolerance, to acceptance, to promotion and celebration. We always refer to that dial and ask at what point we will get up to celebration. Are we at a point now where unionist culture can be genuinely celebrated? Will it be celebrated in a new Ireland?

During the parading negotiations, we always felt it never got beyond tolerant. Parading was tolerated, but know your place and do not go across that line. Thankfully, during UK City of Culture, which happened in Londonderry in 2013, the Londonderry Bands Forum did some very progressive, innovative and creative work. At the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann, five loyalist bands played on gig rigs to a point where Martin McGuinness himself talked about that need for mutual respect and generosity to be maintained. At that point, we had got to a stage where parading, for example, was both promoted and celebrated. However, somehow, in the past ten years since that, we have gone back down to that simply tolerance level.

My final point around this whole debate is that we need to be aware of that. We need to manage expectations. The impact of this debate in the current civic climate is very dangerous because young Protestants have to realign their sense of identity and sovereignty and move us back from some of the progress and peace-building we have done. As important if not more important is managing the expectations of young nationalists within Northern Ireland. What happens when they finally realise that after all of the questions we are asking and all of the practicalities of a united Ireland, it will not happen in their lifetime and how will that then impacts on civic stability in Northern Ireland? That would be my main concern.

Senator Frances Black

I thank the witnesses sincerely for coming in to talk to us and sharing their experiences and expertise. These conversations are 100% vitally important and the presence of the witnesses is vital. It is daunting often for most people to come as witnesses to any parliamentary committee, but to come into one in a different jurisdiction can be quite daunting, so I thank the witnesses for coming in.

I will not ask any specific questions individually. I would like to ask one general question and perhaps everybody could give an answer to it. What I picked up today is that this has to be an inclusive discussion and dialogue is vital – 100%. We are here to hear what the witnesses have to say.

I always have a little bit of concern. A border poll could be called at any time. The Secretary of State could call a border poll and we do not know what the criteria are for a border poll. The Secretary of State could call one at any time. That is why these discussions are vital and we need to be prepared. I think it was Ms Grundle who commented on Brexit and the horrific, awful stuff that happened around it. We have to be prepared and that is why these discussions are important. We want and need to hear what the witnesses are saying. I think it was Mr. Moore who said that a clear position has never been laid out in front of him. I remember being at an event related to it being 20 or 25 years of the Good Friday Agreement a few years ago. There was somebody sitting on the panel from a unionist background who said nobody came to them and asked them what they thought or talked to them about it. However, that is what we want to do. We want to hear the witnesses’ thoughts and how they feel. That is why it is important.

How do the witnesses see this progress? How can we bring with us those young people that somebody mentioned who are scared and frightened and will go out and react in a violent way? How can we have that dialogue with them to let us hear what they have to say? I would love to hear what they have to say.

Chairman

We will take the questions and then come back for the responses.

Senator Emer Currie

Everything the witnesses said is still percolating in my head. Today is about listening and it is very important for us to listen to them. I am struck by what Professor Shirlow said about how he is engaging with the conversation. He is here and unionists are engaging with this. At the same time, reading what he wrote, it pointed out all of the reasons it should not be happening. There are many reasons in there as to why we do not need to have the conversation. At the same time, Mr. Moore said a clear position has not been laid out. We are here because we want to hear from the witnesses and engage on their terms, whatever those terms are, just as long as they are using their voice and we can hear it. It does not mean they have to agree. The other option is just as valid, whatever way they vote. Both sides of the argument are just as important. I hope that if they feel that way, they would be developing their own position for us to ask questions about as well.

I have always agreed that the Good Friday Agreement is not all doom and gloom. We have achieved so much. I heard what the witnesses said about sectarian violence. I have made the point that it has decreased so much and things are much better than they were 25 years ago. I do not subscribe to the idea that either the North or South is a failed state. That is not what this is about. It is important to hear from the witnesses on which terms they want to engage in this. How do they want us to conduct this conversation in a respectful way?

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I thank everyone for their presentations. I have found that the good thing about this committee is that, while nobody will be surprised to know my view on this debate, we were all resolute that we wanted to get the broadest possible voices to contribute to this discussion. We are the better for it, so I thank the witnesses for that.

As I tend always to do, I will follow Ian Marshall’s advice and mostly listen. I only have a few points and observations to make. I just want to get the witnesses’ reflections on them.

I am very keen to hear more about the model Mr. Dougherty talks about that his own organisation uses. I am keen to hear about that in my own personal capacity. When he speaks about the parades and the expressions of culture on 12 July, I was struck by the fact that last week in this room, the CEO of Ireland's Future was talking about going up the top of the street and watching his friends take part in the 12 July parade. Those kind of changes are happening out there and it is important that we reflect them as well.

Professor Shirlow outlined that the Sinn Féin and SDLP vote has not changed from 39% since 1998, but the unionist vote has declined by 12% in the best part of 20 years. All of these statistics are doing the rounds. We must start to look beyond some of that and look at where we are at now. I agree with what he said about fintech and being a world leader, as well as some of the fantastic industry we have, not least the creative industries and film making. I do not think anybody is advocating that it would end. I accept there may be potential pitfalls and shocks to our economic system attached to constitutional change but that is why all of us who advocate for change agree that we must get the groundwork right and try to analyse and understand what the potential shocks are so that we can absorb them.

Last week, the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, hit us with some very stark figures in terms of differentials North and South. I do not want to do down the North because I am from there, I live there and I want to see society do better but there are very clear differentials. We must start to talk collectively about how we reimagine the whole island and not look at these two systems in isolation and making a tweak here and there. We could imagine something entirely new as a gateway to Europe and the United States in terms of fintech, the industries here in Dublin and how we ensure that the west is supported as much as the North in terms of infrastructure. The west and the north west have been neglected by this State for a hell of a long time. We must create change that benefits society right across the island. I appreciate that I have said a bit. I am not walking out; I just have to step out for a few minutes to make a call and then I will be back in.

Senator Tom Clonan

I thank the witnesses very much for coming to Dublin. It is lovely to meet them. I am very interested in hearing what they have to say. I heard a couple of recurring themes. One of them is about identity and the other was the use of the word "reunification". In terms of identity, I am from Dublin. In my family, on my mum's side we have people who ordered the execution of the 1916 leaders. On my mum's side also I have a grandmother who participated in the War of Independence. She was a schoolteacher by day and an arsonist and freedom fighter at night. If we look at the DNA of people in the Republic, Galicia is a very strong marker. There are also some markers from Norway and lots from Scotland.

When I was in the Army I went back to university and I had to do a module on culture and identity. The lecturer asked how I would describe my identity if a spaceship from outer space landed and an alien got out and asked me to describe myself in one sentence. He asked if I am a man, a parent, an Army officer or a brother? I said, "I am inedible." Culture and identity are things that shift.

Later, as a journalist, I went to one of the last British Army patrols out of Bessbrook Mill. What a celebration. The young soldiers and everyone else there were delighted to be going home. General Wayne Harber was the guy from Belfast who was in charge from Thiepval Barracks. He said: "We all want to see police cars back here. We want to see normalisation.” I was invited to the Royal Irish Regiment in Inverness the following year. That was a real revelation because in the section rooms the young soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment in the British Army had Celtic flags, Rangers flags, shamrocks, shillelaghs, shenanigans and they celebrated each other's culture, so it is possible. How unlikely a place to find such harmony. I know the British Army wants them to fight. That is the thing about culture. I hope we can get to the point of celebrating our cultures and having the parades and so on.

In terms of reunification, as part of my military experience, I was in Bosnia at the end of that conflict. I do not think we are analogous to West Germany and East Germany. I do not think this is about reunification. We are more analogous to the former Yugoslavia and to Bosnia. It is not about reuniting, it is about how we live together. I agree with what has been said. That is why I am elected here. I reject so many parts of the Republic, such as the provision of healthcare and services for people with disabilities. There is a lot to be admired about the jurisdiction that the witnesses enjoy. I agree with Ms Grundle that we cannot plan for this without all the stakeholders, but when I talked about the past and identity, I am thinking about my 18-year old daughter, my 20-year old son, my 21-year old son, and my 14-year old son because they are going to have to live the next reality, whatever it happens to be. Even if we cannot plan for it, do the witnesses think that it is a good idea that we at least talk to each other and get to know each other? Most people in the Republic know very little about the amazing traditions - intellectual and artistic - and the cultural history and struggle of the unionist community. That is the question. Should we talk? How can we talk? How can we facilitate those conversations? I am happy to come any time and visit any of the witnesses if they want to invite me and to put up with my stories. It is about getting to know each other and having the conversation.

Chairman

I thank all the Senators for their questions. I will turn now to the witnesses, perhaps Ms Sugden first, if she would like to respond to the questions that were posed and to add any other thoughts that she may have.

Ms Claire Sugden

I thank the Senators for their questions. This relates to the topic around the engagement and conversation we have on the constitutional future. Given how it is being currently presented, we are already prejudicing the outcome in that it is going to be towards a united Ireland. That is something that needs to be reflected upon, because as a unionist I am pursuing the agenda of our place being within the United Kingdom. If we are going to have a conversation it must be one that respects both traditions as they currently are, which is the bedrock of the Good Friday Agreement. It is based on self-determination and where we are now until that changes. My suggestion is that it is not about the constitutional future of this island, it is about the constitutional future of these islands, which takes into account the United Kingdom. From an Irish perspective, I recognise that the relationship with the United Kingdom has been difficult because of Brexit. Ireland needs the UK as much as the UK needs Ireland. As unionists, we must recognise that. For me, it is about interdependency rather than looking towards a predetermined outcome. Even in the subject line of this meeting today, the subject is the constitutional future of the island of Ireland. What if we never get to that point? Are we having a conversation about something that may never happen? Equally, if we have a conversation about these islands, then we are already saying that we care about everyone. That is something the committee might want to reflect on.

Again, much of the conversation has probably been stimulated more from the nationalist perspective. It is almost suggesting that a united Ireland is inevitable. That flies in the face of the Good Friday Agreement's self-determination principle. I ask people to again reflect on that. Equally, if we maintain our current status quo where we stay within the UK, Ireland as a jurisdiction has a big interest in that, not because of North-South relations but also because of how we can benefit one another. I have no doubt that we can, and I do not think we exploit that as much as we should. The conversation must be beyond the island. It must be about these islands because that is what the Good Friday Agreement was about. It was not just about North-South, it was east-west as well. That is something we ought to talk about.

The unionist vote declining comes back to those identity labels that I talked about in my opening statement. I am an independent, designated unionist. I was described at the start of the conversation as an independent unionist. Members of the SDLP are not described as SDLP-nationalist or members of Sinn Féin as Sinn Féin-nationalist. Perhaps it is assumed because we know that is what it is.

I very much get these labels have been put on me by the media and others as a way of indicating what independence means. I am very clear to set out that I am not affiliated with a political party, but that does not mean I do not have opinions. I am a feminist but I am not described as an independent feminist. I am in the middle ground. Sometimes I am left of centre and sometimes I am right of centre, but I am not described in that way. We need to look beyond the fundamental principles and recognise what that means.

Why is the unionist vote declining? I think unionism is politically represented by a far-right-wing party in Northern Ireland. There are electoral reasons for that, rather than reasons of identity or representation. People are sometimes a bit frustrated that some of the left-right politics is conflated with unionism or indeed nationalism on the other side. We have to decouple the two. I do not have a home because there is not really a middle-ground unionist party. That is why I sit as an independent. I do not think the unionist vote is declining because there are more people who do not want to be within the union. I think it is declining because people do not want vote necessarily for those parties and they may be moving towards parties that talk about other things.

Chairman

I thank Ms Sugden for that very insightful perspective on the nuances within unionism. It is important for people to understand that it is not solely about the issue of identity per se.

Professor Peter Shirlow

The reason we are here is for a conversation. It is important to recognise that. The 39%-39% vote and the point raised by Senator Ó Donnghaile have shown the decline of unionism, which is correct, but it has also shown a decline in non-constitutional politics. That is a point for conversation. What is happening to identity on this island?

The fundamental problem is that we cannot have a stereotypical depiction of who we are. There is a tendency in Irish society to have a much more stereotypical description of who we are and who nationalists feel that they are. There is an understanding in nationalist republicanism in that one has Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party. One has nationalism in many forms and nobody ever says nationalism or republicanism is divided. However, there are three unionist parties in the North and they are seen as divided. The way in which we and the community from which we come are spoken about is always as though we are something separate. We have come here today, especially in supporting the shared island initiative, as this State's neighbours.

The work that Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Moore are doing in Derry is breaking down sectarianism. The work that Ms Sugden and Ms Grundle did in Stormont, when Ms Sugden was the justice minister and Ms Grundle was a special adviser, was about bringing new and innovative ideas into our society. We keep going back to the comments about the unionist votes declining without considering that what is happening is that the centre ground is growing and something is changing.

The data from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, tell us about paying to go to the doctor and taking out £1,400 per year. The rents are much higher in the South. Sinn Féin's argument is that it wants to change this State. It wants to dramatically shift this State into a different economic model. Many of the arguments that Sinn Féin makes are ones that unionists make. There are things which are constitutionally different but we have the same perspective. Everybody here so far has explained themselves as being from working-class backgrounds and said that class is important. That is critically important.

The census is also important. The headlines were written before the data came out. The old joke goes that somebody broke into the Kremlin and stole next week's election results. There was a 0.6% growth in the Catholic population. There were the nuances I talked about a second ago. Not every Catholic is Irish. Many people who put themselves down as Irish or versions of Irish are also Protestant. The complexity of this debate is very simple: we cannot solve a 100-year-old problem with a 100-year-old type of debate. My grandmothers could not vote on partition. People from sexual minorities could not express their sexuality at the time of partition. Most people did not go to higher level education. Most of us would have parents or grandparents who left school when they were young teenagers. Why are we using the same debates and arguments when this island has changed dramatically?

I appeal to Senators Black and Currie. At the events I come along to and organise, we are trying to have this conversation in many different ways. If they want to know how we should proceed with this, they should stop telling me I am wrong and ignoring the data I put on the table and the arguments I make. I do not expect a republican to change his or her perspective. I work with republicans, as we have all done, to build a better society. One should stop telling us we are wrong and start to facilitate what we are saying. A conversation is about getting to a point where we enter a dialogue. When people say that unionists do not come into the room to take part in that dialogue, I put it to them that they do not take part because they are told there is only one outcome to this conversation, which is that we will have a united Ireland. That is the point made by Ms Sugden. It is said that the data are complex. According to surveys from universities, 30% of people in Northern Ireland want unity, but the percentage falls when the questions are asked about paying for it. If nationalists will not engage with that by saying it is a reality that nationalism understands and a challenge for them, we are not having a conversation. I do not expect anybody to walk out of the room and have a different perspective. I expect that person to go away and sharpen up his or her arguments. I expect myself to go out the door and sharpen up my arguments or I expect that one day the person might persuade me. That is always open with us. If the society of all societies is created, why would I not want my children and grandchildren to share in that future?

This is not about identity for many people. Gerry Carlile goes out on 12 July. I do not. It is not for any other reason other than it is not my cup of tea. I also live in England and it is hard to get there. The point about this is that it is important. I am told at every debate we have, at Féile an Phobail and elsewhere, that the facts do not matter. If the facts do not matter, I do not want to put that in front of future generations, when we have already suffered enough on this island, through violence, mayhem, economic collapse and a cost-of-living crisis. I do not want them to confront that. I want them to confront the reality that we might disagree and there is validity in each argument. We should debate this out to see who creates the better society. I hope this is a winner for everybody on the island.

Ms Alison Grundle

I will start with Senator Black's general question about how we engage people in this debate, especially young people. We do it by talking about the shared future for everyone on this island and how we can create prosperity for everyone. I will reiterate the point I made at the start which is that lumping constitutional change into that is divisive. This will sound extremely trite, but if we build an island on which there is prosperity for all, the constitutional situation will take care of itself. People will determine, based on fact and lived experience, where they want to be constitutionally.

Another point I wish to engage in the conversation is that people said Brexit changed everything. Brexit changed everything for me because it made me realise that £350 million on the side of a bus is purely promissory. I am sorry but everything I have heard put forward since Brexit and the constitutional change debate came back to the fore is the equivalent of £350 million on the side of a bus. We are being promised the land of milk and honey and if one read Sinn Féin's last election manifesto, one would see that this is far from the land of milk and honey.

We need to build this together. Brexit is my greatest fear and that is why I am very strong on the point of engaging the stakeholders. We can have all the conversations we want but all we will get is one vote each. The decision-makers and the implementers need to be involved in this because, without engagement, it will be a repeat of Brexit.

I will make another point to reinforce the success of the Good Friday Agreement. A great deal has changed in Northern Ireland. I will say something which may be controversial: what has happened since the Good Friday Agreement is that the economy has succeeded and the politics has failed. We have the situation with our public services because the composition of Stormont and the way it functions is preventing progress on public services.

I cannot stress enough how important the Good Friday Agreement is to me and to most people I know. I grew up during the conflict. I never want us to go back to anything like that ever again. I never want anyone to live through that again. The shared island initiative is a brilliant one with which I am proud to be engaged. That is the way we change society. Ms Sugden made the point about the potential of an all-island economy. I believe that is where we should be focusing our efforts. I am often reminded of the last words Martin McGuinness said to me just an hour before he resigned. I was Ms Sugden's special adviser at the time. Mr. McGuinness gave me a last hug and said: "Look after the peace process, Alison. Protect the Good Friday Agreement; it is the only thing we have." I think about that comment very often.

I will make a practical point regarding Senator Ó Donnghaile's question about BT. Has it said it will not engage. Has anybody asked BT? I worked there for 15 years. It is a profit-driven organisation. All it is interested in is driving stakeholder value and its stock price. What would we be asking BT to do? Would we be asking it to sell or adjust its network? What is the question? The ability to answer that question would take huge resources on BT's part. There are all kinds of issues. There is the North Atlantic interconnector that connects North America with Britain and Europe and lands on the north coast of Ireland. There are so many issues around that. BT simply would not engage in something that would cost it that amount of money and that will not in any way fulfil its business strategy or represent any value to its stakeholders. However, the committee should ask it by all means.

I really enjoyed Senator Clonan's question. As I said at the start, half of my family come from Dublin. I initiate every conversation I have with my Dublin family about the North and they indulge me politely. They do not want to know. The comment I got from my cousin last night was that they have enough problems trying to organise the 26 countries without bringing us lot in. I live on our beautiful north coast, however, and practically every other car on the road these days has a Southern registration. People are visiting. I would have had a statistic about the number of overnight stays spent in Northern Ireland now by people coming from the South. It is a huge tourism drive for us. The Senator is very welcome to come up and visit us. He is right; we need to get to know each other much better to have conversations about how we live on this island together.

Senator Tom Clonan

As BT said; it is good to talk.

Chairman

I thank Senator Clonan.

Senator Tom Clonan

I am sorry; I could not resist.

Mr. Derek Moore

I will be brief, as I usually am when I speak after Ms Grundle. It is usually on Zoom when we have very little time left.

I will try to address a couple of specific issues. I hope I get them in the right context because I wrote them down as we were going along. I apologise for calling the Senators by their first names of Niall and Emer. They both said they wanted to listen. I would say do not just listen to us; hear and take note of what we are saying. We talk to many people and they listen to what we say, but do they ever actually believe or think about it deeply? It is very important that the Senators hear what we say and take note of it. We were asked to elaborate our position clearly. I must have been speaking like a politician because I thought I did elaborate it fairly clearly. Our position is that we want to be within Northern Ireland the way it is. We want to make it much better than it is. I feel that it is far easier to run within a country of 65 million people rather than imposing it on a country that will end up with maybe 5 million or 6 million people. Professor Shirlow already spoke about people's reluctance to put their hands in their pockets to fund anything.

The other big issue would be that people are talking about some sort of settlement or whatever in the future. I am a British citizen. I would not trust a word the British Government said. That is it. I know Deputy McDonald's position. She wants a united Ireland at whatever cost. That is fair enough. I do not hear that same argument or anything coming from the powers that are there now. Do they want a united Ireland or do they not? If they do want it then they need to put the position on paper.

I might have picked Ms Sugden up wrong on a wee thing she said when she spoke about the conversation today. She wondered if it is worth talking about something that might never happen and whether we should discuss it. I hope I did pick her up wrong. When I am asked that question when I talk to people in whatever context , I say that I do not expect my home to be flooded, burn down or fall down because of turbulence, but I have insurance to cover that. I think these conversations are insurance for us.

Mr. Brian Dougherty

I do not have much to add except maybe in terms of some of the references to the practicalities of dialogue and discussion. As Professor Shirlow alluded to, Protestants do engage. We really appreciate platforms like this, but this is not the first platform like this we have had. I was in Dublin on Tuesday to appear before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. That happens all the time. We are always willing to engage when we are asked. It is not only a recent constitutional debate recent, however. We have also been having these discussions in civic society for ten or 15 years.

In terms of the practicalities of it, we have to be creative and innovative. We have to speak to all elements of civic society that are part of the discussion. A key problem to date has been that much of this debate and a lot of this narrative and discussion is going through political unionism and nationalism. Civic unionism is not getting an adequate voice. In addition, we have always found, and no disrespect to Senator Ó Donnghaile, that much of the honesty comes through the political system in the South. In any conversation we have through whatever method, and myself, the Chairman and others have talked about this on numerous occasions, we find much more energy for and transparency around the debate.

The basis of our organisation and the work we do with the Londonderry Bands Forum and the North West Cultural Partnership is about attracting that hard-to-reach grassroots voice. There are 664 marching band in Northern Ireland with 30,000 musicians. It is the biggest artistic musical movement in the whole of western Europe. Whenever people think of loyalist bands, however, what do they think of? We use the analogy all the time of two young people standing at a bus stop in Northern Ireland. A young person holding a bodhrán and wearing a Catholic school uniform - because all the schools are still very much divided in Northern Ireland - is called a musician. A young person wearing a Protestant school uniform holding a flute is called a bigot.

The problem we have in engaging in debate is changing those negative perceptions people have of the people with whom we should be debating. What we do as an organisation through debates and events like our fringe festival and the youth conference we are having next month is get that bottom tier or third tier, as they are seen within our society, engaged in our conversation. We do it through bands and elements of culture such as Highland dance. We do it through aspects of society that people do not get an opportunity to engage with.

We should ask these young people and whoever we think needs to be at the table. I am pretty certain most people will say "Yes". Of course, in reciprocating that welcome, members should come up and see the organisations. There is a hugely thriving, professional, progressive civic unionist sector in Northern Ireland. It is fed through the mainstream community sector but more importantly, it is fed through cultural organisations like bands, sports clubs and others. Members should come up and listen to them. Do not feed the narrative of political unionism.

Chairman

I thank Ms Sugden, Professor Shirlow, Ms Grundle, Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Moore for their contributions. I invite them to stay with us. Ms Sugden is joining us remotely and is most welcome to stay to hear the rest of the contributions if she wishes. I know she is busy, however, and may need to leave us at some stage. I thank her for her participation as part of this session.

We will move on to the next group of contributors. Mr. Ian Marshall is no stranger to this House having been with us and engaged on this topic regarding his viewpoint on the future of this island.

We are delighted to hear his view on how Northern Ireland could be within the UK. Alex Kane was writing in The Irish Times only this week that that conversation happened long before Brexit, given the referendum in Scotland but also ongoing discussions that we all have around society changing. I thank Ian Marshall for being here.

I also welcome Mr. William Graham and Mr. Andy Pollack who is no stranger to the pages of our newspapers here and has also been involved in various initiatives including the Centre for Cross-Border Studies in Armagh and has a deep insight into different perspectives.

I ask Ian Marshall to begin.

Mr. Ian Marshall

It is good to be back in the Seanad. I am really struggling here. You want to bounce to your feet when you want to open your mouth in this Chamber so you need a seat belt to strap me into the chair here or I will stand up and talk.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

You are on the wrong side too.

Mr. Ian Marshall

I thank the Chair and the committee for the invitation to come here and to engage in this conversation and to support the consultation submissions. I hope that the committee found the submission was informative and constructive and will assist with the committee's report and will support further conversation.

My contribution today is as a unionist in the Seanad and not as a voice for unionism in the Seanad. This is a quite timely conversation with the recent event in Dublin where those attending were invited to have a conversation about preparation for a new Ireland. I would like to begin by clarifying something. It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to have a conversation about the constitutional future of the island of Ireland and perfectly reasonable to support a political position for unification, however there is a fundamental problem with how this conversation is currently presented. If the discussion is undertaken with a predetermined outcome and predetermined destination, that being Irish unity, then quite simply you have created a conversation that unionism cannot join. The conversation holds nothing for many within unionism as it threatens everything supporting what the union stands for. It is a conversation about the end of Northern Ireland and the end of the United Kingdom; it is a conversation about complete separation from Great Britain, something not as yet supported by a majority of people in Northern Ireland. In addition, some commentators still do not want to acknowledge the difficulty for many to participate in this discussion; choosing rather to portray unionism as negative, backward and regressive and a cohort of people not willing to engage or have a conversation. That is something so far from the truth that it is shocking.

I spoke in this Chamber four years ago about the silent majority in Northern Ireland. There are only two things that we know about them and that has not changed: one, they are silent and two, they are the majority. There is a broad swathe of unionism the vast majority of which one never hears of. They are arguably the most outward looking, forward thinking, respectful, positive and pragmatic group of people one could meet but unfortunately one never hears from them.

So how can the dialogue change? Quite simply, it is about open minds and it must be about open minds. It is about an ability to respect difference and diametrically opposed opinions and an ability for all to accept that their personal perspective needs to be challenged and conversations convened based on facts, information and evidence and not clouded with ideology, aspiration, sentiment and emotion because we all bring unconscious bias and misconceptions to this conversation.

One of the biggest misconceptions is actually what unionism is. It is not, as often presented, simply a Protestant counter-narrative to republicanism, but rather a very broad, diverse group of people who merely want to maintain the union of the United Kingdom; of cohabitation on an island while building strong links between all the citizens on the island and between two islands across business, industry, culture, sport, leisure and politics. Unionism is a wide ranging mix of young and old, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist and Sikh; it is about secularism, atheism and every other belief one can imagine with one shared political position, that is, to remain connected to the union of the United Kingdom. For many in unionism the very talk of Irish unity is anathema to them and a conversation that they regard frankly as a bridge too far, and understandably so.

So how can we change this? A few weeks ago, I listened to a BBC Radio 4 documentary called “Kissinger’s Century”. In it, Henry Kissinger, now in his 100th year reflects on his time working in the US Government for under Presidents Ford and Nixon. He referred to an experience when the US was in talks with the Chinese Government. The Chinese wanted to talk about taking back Taiwan which was something the Americans did not want to discuss. In order to break the deadlock, a compromise was established. The Americans agreed to discuss Taiwan so long as the Chinese were prepared to discuss things that they might otherwise keep off the table. So here is my point. If one is asking unionism to discuss uncomfortable issues, should we not have balance? What about discussing the benefits of Northern Ireland as part of the UK? What about a discussion about the Commonwealth; about London’s say in a new Ireland or a mandatory cross-community government to name a few?

While I was in the Seanad, I had a valuable insight into the Republic of Ireland, into legislation, the economy, housing, education and the health service. I witnessed some things that were better in Northern Ireland and conversely, some things that were much better south of the Border. If one was a car salesman selling me a new car, it would need to be better than the one I had. It would need to be faster, cheaper to run, more efficient, more comfortable, more luxurious. A salesman needs to sell benefits. One hundred years after independence and 25 years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, there is little evidence of the benefits of constitutional change. To quote one particular businessman who recently gave evidence to the Committee for Infrastructure in the Assembly on the so-called benefits of Brexit and hence in relation to Irish unity, the proposition of having jam on both sides of your bread is not necessarily a benefit and could just turn into a sticky mess.

I would urge you to build the offering and compile the evidence; to present the economy with benefits and advantages; to make a health service that is better; to design education that outperforms; to deliver affordable housing for all and when that is done, then ask the citizens of Northern Ireland the question and wait to see the answer.

I urge you to assume nothing. Do not be led by your perception of what you think people think. And please listen to what people say. It is a lesson that we all need to learn. To quote Ciarán Hynes, the grandfather in the Kenneth Branagh movie “Belfast”, talking to the nine year-old Buddy about going to live in England: "If they can't understand you, then they’re not listening". Understanding unionism has proved difficult. Be careful of perceptions because perception becomes reality. The Good Friday Agreement was founded on mutual respect, parity of esteem and consent. Please listen. Please try to understand and together everyone can be heard.

Mr. William Graham

I am not a politician. I am an ordinary citizen, probably with a small “u” in unionist affiliation. I am probably one of the silent group that Ian Marshall referred to. This type of forum and subject are new to me so I thank the committee for allowing me to come along and to make my contribution. It includes some similar themes to those I have heard.

I will give a bit about my background to show where I am coming from. I was born in Northern Ireland to Protestant parents. I went to Rainey Endowed School, Magherafelt, a mixed school, boys and girls, Protestant and Catholic. I have a degree in electrical engineering from Queen's University Belfast, a degree in Business Studies from Ulster University and I completed the general management programme at Harvard Business School in Boston. I worked in Northern Ireland Electricity and retired after the company was sold to the ESB. It was completely amicable. I was chief operating officer. I have served as a non-executive director of a number of public sector boards in the North and currently serve on the board of the Northern Health and Social Care Trust. I feel I have a British heritage but also an Irish heritage. I describe myself as Northern Irish. I have both a British and an Irish passport. I have no particular political affiliation but more recently, I have voted for the Alliance Party. I am not wedded to any particular constitutional future but in any debate, would hope that any future change would be better than what we have now, that my Northern Irish identity would be recognised and my personal family circumstances and those of people in Northern Ireland would not be adversely affected. My cousin, Edgar Graham, was a modern moderate unionist politician and law lecturer in Queens. He was shot dead by the IRA in 1983. Nobody was charged with the murder but I think that we have to find a way of moving on from those tragedies. I have to say, though, some of the events of the past week and some of the glorification of the past do not help with that and do not help people like me.

On the current debate, the last thing that we need in the near future is a referendum on a united Ireland whatever the model proposed. I believe this will be incredibly divisive and whatever the result would leave a significant proportion of the population unhappy or worse.

It would also divert attention from the many important issues that face our society and impact on everyday lives. Unfortunately, many of our politicians in the North are much more comfortable with the sectarian-type issues as they have little idea as to how to address the complex societal issues facing us. Any vote in the near future would likely be along emotional and idealistic lines with those voting unlikely to understand the significance nor implications of their vote, which is a bit like Brexit was.

If a referendum were to be proposed, I have heard two options mentioned or variations around these Option 1 is have a vote and then, depending on the result, sort out afterwards how things would work. I think that option would be very problematic. Option 2 is work out things upfront how might things and the implications, and make this information available to the population who would be voting. That option seems more sensible but when the debate starts around the constitutional future for Ireland, one side of the political spectrum in the North tends not to engage as this would suggest an admission that constitutional future change was going to happen.

Is there another option? Would it be possible to start a debate sooner rather than later around what is best for the people of Northern Ireland? How can we make Northern Ireland successful and, indeed, Ireland in general? The context is that Northern Ireland is currently within the UK, is located on the island of Ireland, and there are close links with the Republic of Ireland but it retains close links with the EU. If we could somehow ignore some of the constitutional barriers or at least identify them but within the above context consider the most advantageous arrangements with regard to the most important issues that face us all on these islands, what would make Northern Ireland and, indeed, Ireland most successful for the people who live here? Things like the economy, health and welfare, education, security and policing, the environment, agriculture, energy and we already have an all-island electricity market, and housing. I am sure that we have many cross-Border bodies currently operating that I am not aware of and I understand that it would be a massive challenge but if we could make it happen. What is best for us all? The process and outputs might indicate a different constitutional future that at least would have some objective arguments attached to it.

With regard to my expectations, unfortunately, given the politicians and political system that we have in the North, I do not have any great expectations that an objective and rational approach would be taken when considering the constitutional future within Ireland. I do not know how it, even realistically, could be taken forward when one side of the spectrum will likely refuse to engage.

As I mentioned, if we could move the debate away from a top down constitutional future to a bottom-up approach to what might make us most successful, then might this be more acceptable to a wider group of people, might we get more engagement, and might we be able to arrive at a position as regards a constitutional future that would be underpinned by objective arguments? I live in hope but I will not hold my breath.

I have heard some discussion around a civic forum. I do not know how that would work with the existing governance structures nor if it could have any standing but I am interested in hearing the views of the committee. I am a glass half full person and I live in hope. I thank members for taking the time to listen to my contribution. It is much appreciated.

Mr. Andrew Pollak

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation and it is a real honour to address this Seanad committee.

I was born in Northern Ireland to a Country Antrim Presbyterian mother and a Jewish socialist father but grew up largely in London and I have been back in Ireland for more than 50 years. I believe that Irish unity in the medium term to maximise the difficult preparation that will be vital is the best outcome not least because my mother's people, the Northern Protestants, have nowhere else to go. The people of Britain do not want them. However, I have two questions for the people of this Republic. Do they want the Ulster unionists as fellow citizens in their society? What changes are they prepared to make to welcome them? I believe that the people here have barely begun to think about this. How would bringing in 900,000 antagonistic unionists affect our concepts of Irish identity, including our dislike of their passionate Britishness, our nationalist historical myths, our stable political institutions, our public spending bills and reluctance to have our taxes increased to cover them, our church controlled educational system, our creaking two-tier health service and so on? If we are sincere about the revised constitution's pledge to unite the nation "in harmony and friendship" then there is going to have to be some very uncomfortable changes.

Many nationalists probably imagine, if they think about it at all, that when demographics and the consequent rise in the nationalist vote in the North eventually brings about a narrow majority for unity in a border poll ,then unionism, as a philosophy on this island, will just disappear. I have to disabuse them of this self-serving notion. Large numbers of unionists if they are voted against their will into a united Ireland, which they have struggled fanatically against for 140 years, will continue to withhold their allegiance from that Irish State and will continue to feel, behave and declare themselves as British. They will wave the union flag, pledge their allegiance to the British monarchy and reject the Irish language and culture as nothing to do with them. They will be a sullen, alienated and, potentially, violent minority just as the nationalists were in Northern Ireland. This is not a recipe for social peace and harmony. We, therefore, have to ask a fundamental question. Could any significant element of unionism be prepared to countenance an all-Ireland accommodation if important parts of their British ethos, and culture, were to survive and flourish in the new Ireland? Guaranteeing unionists their British ties and identity in a post-unity scenario will be challenging. It may be very far from the unitary State that we in the South have traditionally been wedded to. Will it require some kind of federation or confederation? Will it involve some continuing role for the British Government to protect the interests of unionists, perhaps along the lines of the involvement of the Irish Government in the North to protect nationalists under the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement? In fact, there appears to be almost zero discussion here about the crucial issue of what will happen to the unionists. Instead, we, in the Republic, sail blithely into an unexamined future with a foolish consensus that in the end the good guys of Irish nationalism will win out over the Northern bigots and stooges of British imperialism, and then we will live happily together ever after in harmonious unity.

I do not have time in this short presentation to outline any ideas about the kind of shared institutions and symbols we will need. Maybe we could explore that in the question and answer session.

Will the people of the Republic be able to stomach the profound changes that are required? After 100 years of independence I very much doubt it. This view was borne out by an opinion poll conducted by The Irish Times last December, which showed how little the South's voters were prepared to compromise on their comfortable existence and traditional nationalism to accommodate unionists. Between 70% and 80% would not accept higher taxes, less money for public services, a new flag, a new anthem or rejoining the Commonwealth.

Last spring, I had dinner with a group of very smart politics students from Trinity College Dublin who shared the reluctance of the people polled by The Irish Times when it came to making changes to accommodate unionists in a united Ireland. A young Limerick man said, "I have a pretty strong Irish national identity. The idea of changing what our country is about to accommodate British colonisers", which is unionists coming in from the North, "does not sit right with me". Most of the others agreed with him. A young woman from Dublin said that she personally would not want "to adapt in any way to British culture even if that was the price of bringing in some significant element of unionists" into a united Ireland. She continued, "We were under the British for so long, now that we have got our own successful Irish identity we would not want to let that go".

Chairman

I thank Mr. Pollak for his insight into the challenges. He has brought a perspective and raised a lot of questions, which is what this engagement is about in terms of people's views and opinions here and in Northern Ireland. I open up the debate to Senators.

Senator Frances Black

"Wow" is all that I can say because we have had three fantastic presentations.

As I was listening to Mr. Marshall, Mr. Graham and Mr. Pollak I was getting a bit emotional. I just want to hear what they have to say as it is very powerful. It is wonderful to hear their voices. Mr. Pollak's presentation was very moving. He spoke about wondering whether Britain or Ireland wanted him. It is like being abandoned. My feedback to the questions he presented is that it is all new to me. This is what I am trying to say. What has been said is very powerful. I would like to say unionists are warmly welcome. This is from me and I am not speaking on behalf of the Government by any means. This is the conversation we want to have. This is what is very important. We want to hear what it feels like when all of the issues are presented. Mr. Graham spoke about health and housing. All of these issues are very important for the unionist community in the North but also for the nationalist community and for the whole island of Ireland. I do not have any questions. What I want to do is thank the witnesses for their presentations. They were absolutely powerful. I want them to know that I hear them. I am delighted Mr. Marshall is here today. His time in the Seanad was very short. His contribution in the Seanad is sorely missed.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Hear, hear.

Senator Frances Black

I mean this. I am so disappointed we do not have a unionist voice in the Seanad. Every time I see Mr. Marshall I am nearly crying and asking why he is not here representing the unionist voice because it is so important. There are too few northern voices in here and but especially unionist voices. It is a real missed opportunity that I hope in future can be rectified. I am blown away. I would love to continue this ongoing conversation. I feel quite emotional. It was powerful to listen to everybody. I have no questions. All I want to do is to say that I hear the witnesses and I have heard them today.

Senator Emer Currie

I thank the witnesses for their powerful contributions. I am not surprised by anything they have said and I am up for having these conversations. The witnesses spoke about assumptions they feel people make about unionism. There are also assumptions in the other direction. I imagine that I have very different views on certain issues to my colleagues, Senators Black and Ó Donnghaile, who are sitting on my left. There is a lot of talk about what unionists think about engaging in a different constitutional framework. At our first hearing I said that the question also needs to be asked about how much republicans are willing to compromise. This is as important. I hear everybody speaking about a predetermined outcome. I am interested in being open-minded and seeing what the best solutions are. I want to do this without "isms". It is the "isms" that are holding us back. If a united Ireland means we lose the perception of what a romantic unitary state looks like because we are accommodating a shared new island I am up for that conversation. This is what I want to say.

I hear what Mr. Marshall is saying about referring to the North and the South as terrible places. This is a point I have mentioned previously. This will not convince the silent majority. I do not get it. Most people want to hear about the positives of integration and not the negatives. Is everything perfect? No. Is everything terrible? No. I have just had a conversation with a friend of mine about where we are headed on this island. The silent majority, which previously voted unionist or did not see any alternative to there being separate states, is changing. I agree with what is been said about the plurality of identities. My friend is somebody who would fit into neither box. Things are shifting. We need to have this conversation. There are people who want to do this without a predetermined vision of what they want. They are open-minded and believe in accommodation rather than assimilation.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I thank the witnesses. Mr. Moore said earlier that his notes are covered in arrows. He would want to see the state of mine. They are equally as bad if not worse. I thank Mr. Pollak for his contribution. I firmly believe in Irish unification and I will advocate for it. This does not dismiss the obligation on me to listen and engage and to inform debate. I have heard nonsense about people refusing to adapt to a British culture. The question I would have asked the girl at that dinner is whether she watches Coronation Street or whether she follows an English soccer team. It is ráimeís as we say as Gaeilge. It is rubbish and I do not believe in it.

The Good Friday Agreement has to prevail. It has to continue. We have to ensure its provisions and aspirations in terms of parity of esteem, which by the way have yet to be realised, are realised beyond a constitutional change. Mr. Moore is right. At the end of the day it will come down to people's meat and drink and the roof over their heads as opposed to symbolism, as important as it is. We, as people who do advocate change, have to make the case that everything is on the table, whether it is symbolism or allegiance to the royal family. Hopefully we are seeing this change but at the minute in the North there is no official recognition for the Irish language. Under a penal law it is still illegal to speak Irish in court in the North. Our flag is not given parity of esteem. I know what the fears are because I am living them in many ways. People have lived it. I want to make sure that in any constitutional change we have discussions to tell the unionist community that their symbols, expressions of cultures and affinity will be given the space and respect they deserve.

I thank the Chair for his indulgence. There is a lot I want to say and in the spirit of dialogue I ask him not to be hitting the bell. I have a couple of points.

Chairman

Go on.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

This discussion has been very good and very useful. I want to listen to Ms Sugden a bit more. I know Friday is a constituency day so she is busy and it is great she was able to join us for as long as she did. I want to understand more about the issue of these islands and I hope I can come back to her on it. I want her to expand on this and what it means with regard to constitutional change. I do not fully understand what she means.

I have a question for Professor Shirlow. He said several times that people tell him he is wrong. I want to understand more about what and whom he means by this. Is it the media, the political class or elected representatives? Who is it?

While I have a view, I cannot say that Professor Shirlow is wrong. I cited 39% and the 12% decline in unionism because it was brought up. The middle ground is potentially comprises people who would advocate for the status quo. Equally, one could argue that they are people who would advocate for change. I want to win the referendum substantially and cleanly, but we have to engage in an information process. Professor Shirlow is correct about the complexities, idiosyncrasies and dynamics involved. Ultimately, though, we will not know people's positions until the question is asked. I want the question to be asked in as informed and agreed a way as possible.

I agree with Mr. Dougherty. Unfortunately, I know the bands from a distance. I like the ones that play the fife – I like the sound that the wee fifes make. I wish we had a similar experience in Belfast and other places where we could engage. Unfortunately, they will not speak to me or the community that I represent, and I want to change that. I want them to speak to us.

I asked Ms Grundle about BT not in a confrontational way, but to find out whether it had said something. I wanted to know. Business adapts. We heard from the German guy last week, whose name I forget-----

Chairman

Mr. Gunther Thumann. Senator, others wish to contribute.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Germany had a shock to its system, but business adapted. I do not believe that we can say that private enterprise will stand in the way of a democratic change. It will not happen, so that thought is troubling ground.

I made a point to the Northern Ireland Office when I met officials a few weeks ago. Senators Currie and Black were also present. I do not believe that people's fears and opposition to something should trump people's aspirations. Equally, though, people's aspirations should not negate anyone's fears. As such, I thank the witnesses for coming here. I have enjoyed our engagement.

The Chair is insisting on ringing the bell, so I will finally listen to him. Mr. Marshall knows my form when it comes to that bell.

Senator Tom Clonan

I thank the witnesses. I have been saying for a while that we need to talk and that it is good to talk. They have been talking and I have learned a great deal in this short interaction.

Something I admire about the unionist community is the intellectual rigour of asking to be shown the detail and told the facts. Irish people characterise ourselves as being rebellious and radical, but we are not. We are the most compliant people in Europe. We have complied with austerity and all sorts of nonsense in this Republic over the past 20 years. In that time, I have seen the dismantling of all of the things that our parents and grandparents worked for and the commodification of housing, education and health. From listening to the witnesses, their community would never have tolerated that. A little bit of "Ulster says "No"" would have played very well here in the Republic. I was struck by Mr. Graham's comments when he spoke about his background, including his degree in electronic engineering and his masters degree from Harvard. He is not going to be sold a pig in a poke. He wants to hear what it is we have to say. He repeatedly said that we should not just listen to the witnesses, but also hear them. I wish to thank him for his contribution. We are all listening, and I hope that we can continue this process.

I thank the witnesses. I have learned a great deal. I hope we can continue this dialogue and engagement just to get to know one another better.

Senator Shane Cassells

I welcome our guests. I loved Mr. Pollak's contribution. As a journalist, he chose his adjectives differently than politicians would. He put a bit more grizzle on them and used a bit more punch. He used the phrase, "Will the people of the Republic be able to stomach the profound changes that are required", be those in respect of flags, anthems or these Parliament Buildings. Deputy Ó Cuív is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, a long-standing Member of this Parliament and a grandson of Éamon De Valera. He has spoken openly about the fact that he is not tied to items such as anthems, the Tricolour or anything of that nature. He believes in an island that respects everyone. My Irishness is not defined by any of those things. It is defined by my sense of place – I come from the county of Meath, where the high kings of Ireland resided at Tara, a short distance from my house – my culture, my Gaelic games, my music and my language. I am confident of my place, but I often question that in these debates. I recall going to Healy Park in Omagh to see Meath play Tyrone seven years ago. The bus parked a short distance away from the grounds beside a dairy farm. There was a large ceremonial flagpole in the middle of the farm flying a union jack. I looked up and wondered whether the cows even knew they were British or whether they cared.

I welcome Mr. Marshall. I went to the launch of Northern Voices, which the Chairman organised a few weeks ago. Mr. Marshall spoke eloquently that day, as did Mr. Martin McAleese. Mr. Marshall stated that having a debate did not preordain an outcome. Rather, it was a debate on where we all were as a starting point. He spoke about how, when he was elected to the Seanad, he did not know where Leinster House was and needed to google where Kildare Street was. In 2007, I remember being on a peace and reconciliation trip to the Irish Peace Tower at Flanders as a then member of Meath County Council. It was a freezing cold day in March and we met for some soup afterwards. The group beside me was a marching band from the small village of Bready, County Tyrone. I told the band members that I knew it well because, when I was a sports journalist, I used to cover cricket matches at Bready and spent many a pleasant afternoon there. They asked me where I was from. When I said "Navan", they looked at me with glazed expressions. When I said "Meath", their expressions were still glazed. That worried me, although why should they have known those places? I explained about the Battle of the Boyne site and where we were from. This is the journey we are on – we need to have these conversations.

Mr. Moore asked why he would want to change what he had if the change had not been spelled out. I accept that, but coming to Leinster House today is a major step in us talking together, not just about the future, but about the island in the here and now. Maybe Mr. Moore is right and he does not want to change what he has. Maybe many people living in the South do not want that either, just like Ms Grundle's Dublin cousins. They might wonder why they would want the hassle of having to be the governors of co-existence. Maybe that is the type of narrow-mindedness that we have to change in the South by having this discussion. Equally, though, there are people like me, as a Fianna Fáil representative, who want a united Ireland. Mr. Moore spoke about what that would look like. There have been explorations of these issues, many in private, but also in public. I commend the Chairman-----

Senator Frances Black

Hear, hear.

Senator Shane Cassells

-----on what he has done, not only in private, but in putting together a significant body of work on what the economies would look like and framing that information in a real and tangible way. Many in this country want to start the debate from the wrong place. That will lead to a car crash along the lines of the example I gave at the outset of people flying flags in fields among cows. We do not need that. We need to have an honest debate among ourselves. Having debates in this Chamber is a major step, but as Mr. Dougherty mentioned, this debate has been happening for years. The small baby steps we are taking now are the ones that will forge a better conversation between us all.

If we have a constitutional referendum on our island and we continue on the tangent along which many are framing it, it will not be pleasant. Mr. Pollak is correct, in that we will then retreat to the bad places that I remember as a kid in the 1980s, which is not where we want to be. There are many in the South who need to show leadership in that respect. Equally, though, there are many in the North who need to understand that we are not the same place we were for the past 100 years. This needs to be respected as well.

That is perhaps why we have a growth in a section of the community in the North who do not identify with any of the polarisation because they realise that just rearing a family and taking care of each other is the most important thing on the face of this earth.

Chairman

I thank the Senator for that contribution.

One of the key parts of this debate is the issue around previous referendums and learning lessons, which we will address in the next session. As some people have said to me, we are fortunate to have had Brexit, in the sense that we see what an unprepared-for referendum can do. Many people have said to me also, with which I tend to agree, that the referendum is the full stop in the long conversation. Some have talked about different or two-stage referendums but I believe if an issue such as this is taken on, there has to be a long conversation on all of the aspects. The point made by Mr. Moore that, in essence, he feels that he is already living through that experience, is one to which we need to listen. The discussion, as Senator Cassells pointed out, is about what the best future is for generations and the children to come. That is what witnesses and participants today and other participants have spoken about. That is based on facts and having that discussion.

The issue of having referendums before people are prepared for all of the consequences of them, in whatever format that takes, is the only upside that I have seen of Brexit, that is, that we do not have to talk about the issue of having a referendum without preparing people for it. We are now living through an experience of something like that.

I want to bring in our three witnesses and then there were some questions directed towards Professor Shirlow, Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Moore, if they would like to come back in. I am conscious of time but I also want to ensure that everyone can respond to questions and make further points, if they wish. I call Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Ian Marshall

I apologise about the protocol because most of the people here are good friends so if we use first names, I apologise because I recognise that all of the committee members are all Senators.

Chairman

No, I have no problem with the informality.

Mr. Ian Marshall

Turning to what Senator Black said is interesting because I do keep going on about listening, but there is an important thing that needs to be recognised, which is that if a message is being sent out, people need to have the receivers switched on. One can keep putting messages out but unless people's receivers are switched on, they are not going to hear it.

Senator Black touched on “welcoming” unionism, which is interesting because there was a Deputy in this building one day and I was in a panel debate with him, and he said that in a new Ireland, unionists would be welcomed. I will go home this evening to my house, and my family and wife will not welcome me because it is my house. It seems a bit odd to welcome me into my own home. One needs to be very careful about this fact of welcoming unionists.

Senator Currie made the point about the silent majority. I believe there is an irony here that people sometimes forget about that silent majority. That silent majority comes from all communities. From a unionist, Protestant, loyalist background who wants to support the continuation of the union, we need Northern Ireland to be working, be successful and to be the jewel in the crown in the UK so that people on the mainland in London say that that is a good place and that we want them with us. For people who are from a Catholic, nationalist, republican background who want unity, they need Northern Ireland to be working and to be the jewel in the crown so that the people in the Twenty-six Counties will say that we want these people to be part of us. There is a shared objective here, therefore, to make Northern Ireland work for us all.

Senator Ó Donnghaile made reference to the Good Friday Agreement, which I believe is very important because that is our default setting and we keep going back to it. I believe we have also fallen into this trap of spinning this conversation about North-South versus east-west. I have always been a big supporter of the view that we have three centres, Belfast, Dublin, and London, and let us look at circularity. Let us look at the North-South and east-west as opposed to one or the other, because if one goes back to the Good Friday Agreement, there are three strands, all equal in importance, and the Senator made his point well.

Senator Clonan’s point about academic rigour is interesting because when I was in the Seanad, I brought two Oxford academics to Queen's University Belfast and to this Chamber to talk about evidence-based policymaking. The disappointing thing was that nobody was interested. That was disappointing because, as I see it, in the world of politics, if one is going to make policy decisions, one needs to have the evidence because when something goes pear-shaped, at least one can point to the evidence to say that we made a decision based upon that, which gives one cover. This conversation, therefore, needs to be based on evidence and information. I work in a university and it states that it is about evidence, information, measure, measure and measure again and getting the numbers, which are very important.

Finally, touching on what Senator Cassells said, it is interesting that he mentioned Mr. Pollak’s point about stomach, and people stomaching changes. We are on this journey but a very interesting thing came home to me during my time in the Seanad, which was that when foreign parliamentary groupings came visit the Chamber, there were always these lovely wee metal pins produced. When the Bundestag came over, these had the German and Irish flags. I see this right across Europe; when one is in Paris in respect of the French and Germans, one can get a lovely wee pin with the two flags on it. I have listened to very many conversations about a shared future and identity and one of the things I said in this House to an individual one day was to ask would it not be great if we got those wee metal pins with the union flag and the Tricolour on them. The response I received from the individual was that this would never happen and that this person could never take that. I then said that until that person could accept that flag, which was seen as anathema to everything the individual stood for, and that people from our community can accept the Irish flag, one then does not need a new flag but just respect for the symbols and identities we have. Sometimes it is said that this idea of a new flag, or something, would in some way paper over the difference, but this is not necessarily the case as it could present more problems than it would solve. I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to make those comments.

Mr. William Graham

I have only one sort of general question. What does the committee hope to achieve by this process?

Senator Emer Currie

What process is Mr. Graham talking about?

Mr. William Graham

The consultation process the committee is engaging in with the submissions, including the oral ones. What does this process hope to achieve? I am aware that the committee will produce a report, probably, but at the end of the day, what does the committee hope that will achieve?

Chairman

That is a good question, Mr. Graham, and I will hand it back to the Senators.

Senator Emer Currie

We have not spoken about this in detail and we were more concerned about getting as many people with as many different views into the room. I would like a framework in my head of how much work is involved in this, with all the issues that need to be interrogated, together with all the options of what it could look like. We have had people who talked about a unitary state, federalism, confederalism or switching sovereignty. We have looked at many different options and there is a great deal to consider. People also raise issues that we have not thought about that will need to be thought about. I said last week that if someone thinks that Brexit is complicated, this process will have nothing on Brexit. I would like to have an overview of what is involved, on how to conduct engagement, and to see what it looks like. That is where I am coming from.

Chairman

I believe Mr. Graham might end up getting a seat in Seanad Éireann with questioning like that. I call Mr. Pollak.

Before I do so, I welcome Mr. Brian Kerr, who happens to be down from Northern Ireland and on a visit to Leinster House today.

Mr. Andrew Pollak

The thing I had to leave out for space reasons earlier was the list and it is a rather long one. If we are going to have a successful united Ireland, there will have to be shared institutions and symbols. I have an indicative list and I will quickly go through a few of them: the power-sharing regional government and Parliament in the North, with all of the safeguards enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement must continue; Irish membership of the Commonwealth; the reactivation of the British-Irish Council which has been largely unused up to now, so that Britain and Ireland can work together on issues such as climate change; an agreement with London that a number of northern politicians will continue to sit as British legislators, perhaps in the House of Lords, for which there is a precedent after the setting up of the Irish Free State; a reversal of the Anglo Irish Agreement so that there is a clause to protect unionists interests, as I mentioned earlier; an overhaul of the Irish Constitution to tone down or remove any remaining elements influenced by 1930's-style Catholicism; a new flag, and I suggest the symbols of the four Irish provinces; a new non-military national anthem, perhaps the all-island rugby anthem: "Ireland's Call; a new system of non-sectarian State education; and a new free single tier health service.

I could go on and on but these are things we need to talk about. What is the new Ireland going to look like? Let us talk concretely. I was at the Ireland's Future rally in the 3Arena recently but it was all generalities. It was all demagogic. Nobody asked what this new Ireland will look like. We have just spoken to our unionist friends here. I am not a unionist, by the way, but we have just heard from our unionist friends that they want to see what it is going to consist of and I ask nationalists and republicans to tell us concretely. As Senator Clonan said, Northern unionists are rational people. They do not want to read between the lines. They want to read the lines. They want to be told what a united Ireland is going to look like, in detail.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I will just respond-----

Chairman

No-----

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Mr. Graham asked me a question. Do not be afraid.

Chairman

There were a number of questions directed at people who contributed earlier and I want to let them respond.

Professor Peter Shirlow

Following on from what Mr. Pollak just said, I remind the committee of what we have said today. It is not just unionists who have concerns about unification. If we are to move forward, there needs to be a public recognition of that. I am not saying to committee members that they have to agree with my interpretation of the future but there must be parity of esteem and mutual respect. It is peculiar that the committee has started this process without thinking about the outcome. I hope that one of the outcomes of us being here is that the committee endorses what we have said as being a legitimate perspective because it is evidenced. It is not rhetoric or diatribe. It is evidenced, whether one agrees or disagrees with it. It is serious thinking about the future of this island. It is also important that committee members understand from what they have heard today that nobody here is against building better relationships and broadening and deepening reconciliation on this island. The committee has also heard today that we are open to dialogue, negotiation and to building a shared society. If we walk out this door and that is not endorsed publicly and politically in this part of our island, then this project has failed. It is as serious as that. We have to get beyond the rhetorical stakes that Senator Cassells referred to earlier.

It is wrong that the Irish language does not have an equality and a status within the North or Northern Ireland. In the institute that I run, one of the first things I did was to give thousands of pounds in funding to teach over 200 people Irish in London. That is as much my heritage and my culture as Ska music, Motown music and everything else. We have to stop counting sectarian heads. Just because someone is a Catholic does not mean he or she wants a united Ireland and just because someone is a Protestant does not mean he or she does not want a united Ireland. That goes to the very heart of the question Senator Ó Donnghaile asked earlier. The rhetorical stakes I encounter are sectarian headcounts and I want nothing to do with them. I want a pluralist, hybrid society. I want nothing to do with counting heads. I do not like, as I said earlier, that the headlines were written about the census before the census data were published. People who were saying things like "The train is leaving the station" and so on, know fine well that not everyone who is a Catholic wants a united Ireland or that not everyone who is a Catholic does not have concerns about a united Ireland. I am hoping the process in which we are now engaging and what this committee hears today will prove that we have an emotional intelligence and a generosity of spirit that has not been recognised. It is as serious as that. To echo what Senators Clonan and Cassells said, if we do not get into that generosity, we will end up in a very bad place.

The other point I would make about the Irish language is that not far from where Senator Ó Donnghaile lives in east Belfast, Irish is being taught in a Protestant church. Is anybody teaching Ulster Scots in a Catholic church? I do not know but that is a sign of the political generosity that comes from the unionist community. The unionist community has led on rights for sexual minorities with nationalists, republicans and others. A quarter of the city that I come from was flattened during the conflict. The rebuilding of that city has involved nationalists, unionists and others. Where is that going to feature in the discourse and debate about this society? Civic society is actually bonding and binding the very embedding of reconciliation which we came here to talk about.

The last point I would make - this is the problem when you bring down Nordies-----

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

That is something we have in common - you cannot shut us up.

Professor Peter Shirlow

Exactly, we have a lot in common.

When this committee produces its final report, I am going to look at the way the data we presented here today are treated. I am not saying that in a threatening or menacing way. I engaged with this process hoping that what I say is treated as legitimately as what is said by a nationalist in Derry or a person in Cork or Kerry. I hope that I am going to see an endorsement of that, even if people do not support it and that this is going to prove the point that Mr. Pollak made, namely, that this State and society are going to get into the business of parity of esteem and mutual respect just like Ms Linda Ervine and others in the unionist community who have championed equality and rights. That is really important because as Senator Ó Donnghaile just said, there is a lot more in common between us than there is that divides us.

Ms Alison Grundle

I would just make one tiny point. I am not trying to point-score with Senator Ó Donnghaile when I say that businesses will adapt. This is critical infrastructure and it has to be planned for. It cannot be left to vicissitudes. We are not Germany. This is more akin to Hong Kong.

Mr. Derek Moore

I was struck by something Andy Pollak said. Like everyone else, I was very impressed by his presentation but there was one thing that he did not say. He said that unionism could cause a major problem within a reunified Ireland but one of the biggest problems for me is that the extremist nationalism that has tried to destroy Northern Ireland for the last 100 years would not sit comfortably in this country either without the changing of symbolism and so on. It might not just be a problem within unionism. Some of the people who have tried really hard to destroy Northern Ireland would not sit comfortably and would cause major disruption to the people in this country who are living peacefully now.

Mr. Brian Dougherty

As someone who is a member of the board of Cricket Ireland, an all-island body, sport is very important to me. One of the questions to add to those asked by Mr. Pollak is what will happen to the Northern Ireland football team in the context of all-Ireland support for the cricket team and the rugby team.

I agree with Senator Cassells that timing is everything. There is growing civic unrest in Northern Ireland based on a growing disconnect between civic and political unionism, for example, and within our community, the question is how we bridge that internal, fractious gap that is growing. The time is not right for this conversation and the pushing of this constitutional debate. As Senator Cassells has said, people are more interested in rearing their wains and paying their heating bills and we need to bear that in mind.

As I said at the start, none of this should be a negotiation around necessity. It should be about generosity, listening and understanding. The type of conversation we are having today is another step along the way.

Chairman

I will allow Senator Ó Donnghaile to respond but I am going to give the last word to Mr. Ian Marshall.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

In response to Mr. Graham, I would point out that Seanad Éireann established a special committee on Brexit in 2020. It was retrospective and some asked, understandably, what was the point of it, given that the horse had bolted. We met delegations from around the world and from the EU, as referenced by Mr. Marshall. They wanted to meet the Brexit committee and were amazed to hear that we did not have such a committee to look at the impacts, potential risks and so on. While we do not necessarily have uniform agreement here on the outcome of this process, we are all agreed that we want to try to assist the dialogue, create a space and open it up to people.

We want it to try and create a space and open it up to people, hopefully, send a message, take everyone in good faith and reflecting what everyone has said to us in good faith and, hopefully, show that there is a space first of all and that people will engage. Many people have said one will not hear from this particular voice or section of society. The past couple of weeks have shown that one will. If we do anything, it will hopefully assist in necessarily informing some of that dialogue that here are different perspectives on different issues and then, when it comes to the bit, hopefully, down the line, that people can lift the work. Perhaps the Chair will reform this committee at a later stage, as we had to do with the Brexit committee. One never knows. We are all coming to it in good faith, with open ears and with a hope that we can assist the dialogue going forward.

Chairman

The point former Senator Marshall made around people listening is the big point on this. Professor Shirlow made that point as well about the data and listening to it, what happened in the Brexit referendum where nobody was listening to the other point of view and the data, and also the structures that are being put around in unionism in relation to the case for the union, which many here are working on, and listening to that point of view as well. As members and participants have said, nobody has articulated what the future would look like from a nationalist point of view. That is the point that has been made. In the same case, members of the unionist community are talking about how Northern Ireland could be within the United Kingdom. That is a perspective that we need to listen to as well. That is being worked on into the future.

Perhaps I would give the last word to former Senator Marshall.

Mr. Ian Marshall

I will keep it brief. I thank the Chairman for convening this meeting. I was told when I came here in 2018 that this was a cold House for unionism. It is not a cold House for unionism. That does not mean to say there are not issues because, despite our political difference, Senator Ó Donnghaile and myself are still Nordies from the black North. I do know how we change that, but that is the reality.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Sometimes I do not get the welcome former Senator Marshall gets.

Mr. Ian Marshall

And sometimes Senator Ó Donnghaile does.

I will leave the committee with what is not a political point. When Her Majesty the Queen came to Dublin in 2011, she commented that we need "to bow to the past, but not be bound by it". We all agree that is not political. She said that change is constant and the way we embrace it will define our future.

I will leave the committee with the following comment. It was someone I was listening to at the weekend. It was my Sunday morning fix of politics on BBC television, as we all in the room would be aware of. The actor, Douglas Henshall, was on. He has just finished filming the Mary, Queen of Scots movie. He gave a quote, and I think it is appropriate here. It is that the wheel keeps turning, and that a canny man gets on the wheel on the half that's rising while others are on the half that's falling. We need to be canny and get on this wheel on the upside, on the rise and altogether have a perspective conversation.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Well said.

Senator Tom Clonan

Hear, hear.

Senator Frances Black

Hear, hear.

Chairman

I thank all the participants in the Seanad Public Consultation Committee. It has been very informative. People will have learnt a lot. A full account of this discussion, including the minutes, will be included in the report and a copy of the report will be given to all the contributors.

The select committee adjourned at 4.13 p.m. until 4.45 p.m. on Thursday, 27 October 2022.