On Monday, March 10, Trinity’s Historical Society, or the Hist, travelled to Belfast to debate the motion: “This house believes it is time for the Irish government to prepare for unity”.
This debate was a collaboration with Queen’s University Belfast’s, with four speakers from each university participating; two on each side of the motion. Taking place in the parliament buildings at Stormont, the debate was attended by members of both societies, and various members of the legislative assembly working in Stormont.
The motion subsequently passed, with twenty-one people voting in favour of the motion, nine voting against it, and six people abstaining.
While three of the nine votes against the motion came from the speakers from the opposition, none of the speakers were opposed to a united Ireland; with the real divide falling on the question of timing.
Before the debate began, Hist correspondence secretary Adam Rainbolt introduced the debate, saying: “cross-island solidarity is an excellent opportunity for the kinds of conversations we should be having”.
“I want to believe that a better future can be made when we talk to each other about issues that matter”, he concluded.
The main arguments in favor of preparing for unification revolved around the need to prepare, not only the government but the public as well for a potential unification referendum.
More than one speaker quoted Benjamin Franklin, saying, “by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail”.
The opening speaker for the proposition, Noah Ralphes from Queen’s, said, “if you want an example of where it goes wrong when you don’t plan for a referendum or a massive constitutional change, look to Brexit”.
The proposition addressed the complexity of unification with speaker Ritvik Kumar from the Hist saying: “unification is inherently going to be an uncomfortable discussion to have”.
Other speakers brought up the economy, and the constitutional changes; yet each speaker seemed to be of the mind that it was, indeed, time to prepare to face these complexities; with Tourish stating: “the pendulum of politics in this province is moving towards reunification”.
Further ideological reasons for reunification were also made by the proposition, with the Hist’s Molly Haslam saying that reunification is a “question of justice”.
Haslam began her speech saying “the partition of 1921 was not a democratic one”, a sentiment later echoed by James Tourish from Queen’s, who said “it was created in a way that was artificial, this country”.
In contrast, the main points presented by the opposition were not ideological, but economic.
Jonathan Massey from Queen’s highlighted the current geopolitical precarity, saying, “this is the wrong time for Ireland to look inwards”.
Beth Lynam, who attends Queen’s but is originally from Dublin, cited the cost of living crisis as one of the factors in her decision to go attend the university. She noted: “if you ask me to rank how important a united Ireland is to me, it would rank pretty low to me, and to many other young people especially behind housing and transportation”.
This sentiment was echoed by the Hist’s Eoin Connolly who said: “for unity to be a viable option for people both north and south to consider, we need to have some confidence that our own house is in order in the first place because until we can demonstrate that we can provide for people’s livelihoods as things are, we can’t claim to be capable of doing it while redesigning the entire structure of this island”.
Speaking for the Hist, Ella O’Neill highlighted the current incompatibility of identities on the island, stating: “there is a reluctance among many southern voters to make any changes to their state in order to accommodate unionists; this includes that they will not change the flags, symbols, emblems, and crucially will not make financial sacrifices in order to accommodate a united Ireland”.
In response to points made by the proposition about the compatibility of identities, she highlighted certain facets of Irish identity stating “we define ourselves in opposition to the British”.
Most concluded their speeches by emphasising that their oppositional stance was an economic one, not ideological. Lynam concluded her speech saying, “I would love a united Ireland but we can not ignore these pressing issues”. Likewise, Connolly said “when the government can finally get their act together on a few things, and I would encourage you to push them to do so, we can prepare better for a united Ireland”.
After the debate concluded, Dr. Paul Gillespie, a columnist and former foreign policy editor for the Irish Times, and a current professor in the school of politics and international relations at UCD, gave his thoughts on the debate and the topic as a whole.
“These are the issues at play … for your generation; I have been watching it for many decades and so have older people here, but your generation is going to have to face this question and its uncertainties,” he said.
Gillespie concluded his remarks by focussing his attention on the Irish government saying; “looking ahead, if you say you are learning those lessons and you don’t factor in the thought that you may, in fact, also be driven to face unification, and you fail to include that in your forward planning, you’re a fool”.
.
