A controversy erupted in the Republic of Ireland this summer when Patrick Costello, a member of Parliament for the Green Party, proposed that July 12 should be made a public holiday across Ireland.
The date is already a holiday in Northern Ireland, where it is celebrated as Orangemen’s Day, or “The Twelfth,” commemorating the victory of Protestant King William of Orange over Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. The reality behind that battle involved a complex of continental rivalries among European powers such that the pope sided with the Protestant pretender to the British throne against a Catholic monarch. But such nuance has been forgotten over the centuries and the day has become synonymous with sectarianism and violent unrest.
The bonfires that are held on the night of July 11 and the parades that follow on the 12th are often deeply offensive to Northern Irish Republicans, citizens of the Irish Republic and Catholics.
It is associated most closely with the Orange Order, a Protestant supremacist organization founded in 1795 to oppose the United Irishmen, a revolutionary democratic movement that sought to unite Irish Catholics, Protestants and dissenters against British rule. The Orangemen parade with their brass bands on July 12, in commemoration of William’s victory, often through Catholic neighborhoods and towns in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Costello’s proposal to make “the 12th” an all-Ireland holiday has not been not met with a warm reception. A former government minister described the popular response as “a mixture of diatribe and incredulity.”
This position is not hard to understand. The bonfires that are held on the night of July 11 and the parades that follow on the 12th are often deeply offensive to Northern Irish Republicans, citizens of the Irish Republic and Catholics.
This year, for example, one bonfire in a housing estate in County Tyrone was topped by a Republic of Ireland flag, a portrait of the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) and a boat indicating a rejection of the 1998 Belfast Agreement that brought an end to the Northern Irish Troubles. It is not uncommon for slogans targeting “Taigs” (a slur directed at Catholics) to adorn these bonfires.
Northern Irish Unionists see the extension of this holiday into the calendar of the Republic of Ireland as the low-hanging fruit of any constitutional conversation toward unity.
But Northern Irish Unionists—those who want to remain a part of the United Kingdom and do not want a unified Ireland—often see the extension of this holiday into the calendar of the Republic of Ireland as the low-hanging fruit of any constitutional conversation toward unity. This is the view of Claire Mitchell, an acclaimed writer known for her work on Northern Irish Protestant and Unionist communities. It is “unity 101 really,” she says.
Creating another public holiday is among the “very straightforward asks” that Unionists would make if there were a serious plan for reunification. But at the same time, she was surprised by Mr. Costello’s proposal now. “The timing was off, outside of the context of reunification.”
Ms. Mitchell has noticed that these conversations tend to generate two contrasting positions, both misguided. The first reaction was seen prominently in response to Mr. Costello’s proposal. By focusing only on the sectarian strands of the July festivities, that response effectively demonizes entire communities.
The other reaction seeks to overcome the contentious dialogue required for reconciliation through a sort of rebranding exercise. We must be cautious, Ms. Mitchell warns, about “the desire to sanitize July 12th.”
The reality is that the holiday is presently a chance for some organizations to indulge in vulgar and virulent bigotries that invariably spill over into heightened tensions between communities and sometimes into violence. This is well publicized, well understood and accurate.
Whatever surprises are ahead of the people on the island of Ireland as they contemplate unification, it is certain that Christians will have to play a central role if there is to be true reconciliation.
But less likely to generate headlines are the local community initiatives that perceive in July 12 festivities an opportunity to weave more inclusive narratives. In many places, the stark exclusionary culture is dissipating. Ms. Mitchell notes that it is easy to overlook “how de-escalated everything already is.” In many places, “boundaries already are very fuzzy.”
The increased seriousness with which reunification is being discussed is largely driven by the consequences of Brexit. The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union in 2016 (Northern Ireland voted to remain, but that did not change the outcome) created a series of complications for the Northern Irish peace process around borders, access to the European Common Market and residency. Invariably, questions of national identity are affected by these practical policy implications.
Daniel Mulhall was the Irish ambassador to the United Kingdom during the Brexit decision. Retired from the Irish diplomatic corps, he is now serving as a Fellow of Magdalene College at Cambridge University. His position is that “Brexit was deeply unhelpful and those promoting it had a callous disregard for the consequences in Northern Ireland.”
He understands the strong negative reaction to the July 12th proposals because “there are lots of raw feelings, in part because there are many victims still around.” From his perspective, the July 12th festivities are an “annual provocation” that make peace-building more difficult.
But he also thinks that “in a divided society you have to reach out to find some common ground.”
“In many ways Northern Ireland is a failed state. If Unionists could be guaranteed an Irish National Health Service, safe pensions and a good welfare state, most of the ‘heavy lifting’ of unification would be done.”
Reaching out to all communities, he says, has been the primary concern of the Irish state for decades. “It isn’t easy,” he says, to bridge the chasm between diametrically opposed ideologies. “If it was easy, we would have done it already!” If people in the republic are sincere in their wish for a unified Ireland, they must develop “a comprehensive understanding of Unionism” and find grounds for respect and dialogue.
Brexit has pressed this conversation upon the island in a new way, but for Mr. Mulhall, the Irish people will really know they are making progress when “everything is up for discussion.” That so many people rejected the July 12th proposal out of hand suggests Ireland is not quite there yet.
Ms. Mitchell sees a similar dynamic at play. The Brexit policy complications present a stark contrast between Northern Ireland—without a sitting parliament and dependent on a lagging United Kingdom for support—and the Republic of Ireland, a thriving, pluralist liberal democracy. “In many ways Northern Ireland is a failed state,” Mr. Mitchell says, “and the vast majority of Unionists are like everyone else. If they could be guaranteed an Irish [National Health Service], safe pensions and a good welfare state, most of the ‘heavy lifting’ of unification would be done.”
Middle-class Unionists may want to keep the region’s particular secondary school system and people in the Republic might be surprised by how opposed their northern neighbors are to military neutrality, but those discussions will only prosper when they are set within the wider context of meaningful policy shifts orientated towards unifying the island.
Mr. Mulhall reckons that one of the major challenges will be to bring the range of Unionist voices to the table. “It’s all very well for us to imagine how to unify,” but “we have to engineer some kind of dialogue to allow Unionists to set out what really matters to them.”
Ms. Mitchell strongly agrees. If she were to advise political leaders in Dublin, she would warn that “the real danger is in having conversations purely with the ‘Unionist imaginary’ when the normal stuff will win the day.”
You could make concessions on everything—“the anthem, the flag, membership [in] the Commonwealth and there would still be a contingent who would be ‘raging’” at the prospect of a unified Ireland, she says. Creating the context for constructive dialogue is the challenge facing those who wish to see a unified Ireland.
There are already all-island bodies that overlap both jurisdictions. The most obvious category is the churches. The Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the Methodist Church were each formalized long before independence and so remain cross-border institutions.
Each offers examples of how diversity and difference can be contained within a singular identity. Whatever surprises are ahead of the people on the island of Ireland as they contemplate unification, it is certain that Christians will have to play a central role if there is to be true reconciliation.
Starting difficult conversations is part of that work. Even if Mr. Costello’s idea was not warmly received, in the long view, his July 12 proposal might prove to be a prophetic signal for what comes next.
