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.