February 20, 2023 - 2:00pm
If readers were asked to guess whether support among mainland Britons for Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom would be higher or lower today than in 1998, which would you pick?
Following years of post-Brexit wrangling, Brussels and its sympathisers have told a very one-sided story about the Belfast Agreement and the threat to it posed variously by ‘English nationalist’ Brexiteers and truculent Ulster Unionists.
Little has been done to challenge this narrative, even as Rishi Sunak today seems to be pushing back the announcement of yet another effort to resolve the running sore that is the Irish Sea customs border. So it may be surprising to learn the following from the latest British Social Attitudes survey:
The BSA does not drill down into why they feel this way. However, one possibility is the end of the IRA’s terrorist campaign on the mainland; another is that the Belfast Agreement itself legitimised the Province’s British status in British minds, making the ‘Troops Out!’ view that the UK was an occupying power holding Ulster through force harder to maintain.
While it should be noted that support in Northern Ireland for Irish reunification has risen from 14% in 2015 to 30% now, the British figures are remarkable numbers nonetheless. This is especially so given the widespread assertion that many Brexiteers are ‘English nationalists’ who dislike the EU more than they value other parts of the Union.
It suggests to me that, for all that both the Conservatives and the Unionists have botched making their case since 2016, the very fact of Northern Ireland being a big part of the national debate over the past few years has helped to rekindle support for its position.
Given that those on the Left tend on average to be more sympathetic to the Irish nationalist position, it also seems plausible that the surge in support since 1998 would be especially pronounced among Tory-leaning voters, which is backed up by another BSA finding: “In 2011 24% of Conservative supporters in England said that Scotland should become independent […] Now only 16% of Conservatives express that view”.
So it seems that familiarity with the issue has not bred the anticipated contempt; nor has the prospect of an easier route to power by shedding around 50 reliably anti-Conservative seats from the House of Commons.
All this suggests that Unionism’s decades-long insistence on excluding itself from national politics has been counter-productive. Out of sight is not just out of mind — it’s out of heart, as well.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe Democratic Party is losing rank and file union support based on ideology and its hostility to the economic interests of working Americans. It’s really as simple as that.
Perhaps like racial minorities, labor unions are learning that the Dems no longer serve their interests, if they ever did. Today’s Democratic Party is, first of all, anti-democratic. Second, it is beholden to a few specific moneyed interests – Wall St, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood, to name a few.
It has no interest in people who work with their hands for a living and generally finds them icky. They’re not part of the credentialed class. They don’t spend their time fixating on why allowing abortion in the 7th month is a great idea.
Trump has first-hand experience working with union people. His properties were not built exclusively by non-union labor. That would be impossible in places like New York. He’s also a fan of Americans producing goods that American consumers want to purchase. And he’s not pushing open borders, which is a threat to the skilled as well as the low-skilled.
Linguistic quibble: It’s “toe the line,” not “tow the line.” That misuse is called an eggcorn. Which I didn’t know until I looked it up.
The author misses the most important point. There is a massive political realignment happening in America. The Republican Party under Trump has become the party of the working man and woman. The Democratic Party is now the party of the very wealthy who made their money from tech (not physical things made by workers) and the subsidized poor.
Trump was once a Democrat. He hasnt changed.
“politics not as a battlefield between moral values or ideological visions, but as a bargaining table on which rival material interests can be reconciled“
That is exactly what it should be but to work there has to be some power balance between the material interests. The competing forces of capital, unions, government, the law, the press and the church are no longer balanced.
In the U.K. the church has virtually disappeared and government has given away much of its capability to NGOs who are in hock to the worst instincts of activists, and impervious to democratic control. The law is rapidly becoming partisan as we’ve recently seen in two tier justice. Political parties are in hock to capital (as we’ve also just seen). Big capital is using its control to drive out small capital (through over regulation amongst other things) and has co-opted chunks of the political left with vacuous virtue signalling. Thatcher smashed the unions (necessary at the time but as always the pendulum can swing too far), and impartial journalism is a thing of the past.
The universal franchise, an impartial justice system, and the possibility of organised labour, briefly gave us a period of history where the little man had a say. We’ve let it be taken away.
The little man has plenty of ‘say’. In the UK he gets money whether he works or not, as well as all electronic devices, warmth and food. He can often work from home, so is able take the dog for a long walk as long as he carries his phone. Why should the little man care about who is in control in Westminster?
Purposely ignorant idea of “the little man”.
Why should the little man care about who is in control in Westminster?
Because Westminster cares about the little man. It cares about micromanaging his life, dictating his choices about what to eat, what energy sources to use, the size and nature of his dwelling, and a thousand other things that exist outside the extremely narrow confines of a smartphone screen.
In this scenario, the gentry would be compelled to deal with labour’s demands and perhaps give up their labour market preferences in exchange for guaranteed business investment; while unions in these parts of the country would accept the continued economic leadership and sway of the gentry in exchange for tangible concessions.
This sounds like the sort of socialism that kills; go along with labour demands in exchange for guaranteed investment from the government. If not then no investment (free money). The union would go along with the economic leadership in exchange for “tangible” concessions. What might those tangible concessions be, how would they be any different from now? As long as the unions are happy business will get the money. So we have a battle between business and unions over free money.
Where is the part about competing in a market where the customer decides the economic outcome,the success and growth of a small business. With free money who cares.
Who cares? As long as the politicians get the support they bought and paid for, no one.
That’s partly my point.
Have a look at the division in outlook from those in government and academic unions and those in private sector unions. The UAW, the United Auto Workers, have just over 25% of its workers in academia. Their views on climate, race, gender and Palestine maybe quite different than those of their union brothers and sisters assembling petrol fueled Chevrolets.
The Republican party attracts those who are in middle and working class and in private sector economy (not including Healthcare which is basically a subsidiary of the federal government). The Democrat party attracts those in government, academia and highly regulated industries such as healthcare.
Expect a close election.
Brokerage politics is indeed a viable path forward! A positive, illuminating response
Thoughtful essay.