Lisbon and ‘Six Nations Nationalism’

The Yes campaigners went on the various radio referendum aftermath shows to explain to us why we voted no. Apparently, we were looking for further concessions, but with tax harmonisation already conceded, neutrality guaranteed and euthanasia dead what more could we possibly ask for?

One aspect of their analysis might have been interesting had it been teased out. As with Nice One, the referendum results showed there was a South-County-Dublin -v- the-rest-of-the-country divide. Much as it made the South Dublin pundits politely squirm to point it out, the fact remained that people from their area were a more affluent bunch and this somehow automatically made them both more informed and politically sophisticated (the implication being that people in other parts of the country were, well… whatever).  

For obvious reasons, I can’t see too many politicians in the coming weeks being drawn into this tricky line of enquiry. This is a pity because, looking past the superficial haves/have-nots comparison which commentators raise before they recognise the trap they’ve set for themselves and scurry back to tax harmonisation, it’s actually a phenomenon worth looking at.

Different though they are from each other, rural Irish communities share with those in inner city areas a similar sense of national identity. This sensibility is informed by the now very feint embers of a long dormant patriotism. Rural Irelanders, even very young ones, have a passionate relationship with the land which is in some way tangled up the memory of those who fought to win over its control. And in the middle class housing estates of M50 Dublin, despite the trappings of new wealth, the Connolly/Larkin strand of Irish nationalism still has echoes in day to day social interaction. This connection with our patriotic past isn’t strong enough to prompt wholesale support for Sinn Fein come election day but it does, for example, explain the importance to the fabric of Irish society of the GAA.

The sense of identity shared by rural Ireland as well as ‘traditional’ areas of urban Ireland is an Irishness which exists ‘in itself’: it exists whether or not the EU continues to exist.

That’s not to say that the people of South Dublin lack a sense of national identity. There is a very potent sense of Irishness on the wing south of the capital which, I think, is founded on a pride in Ireland’s successes and achievements as well as its ability to punch above its weight in the arts, business and popular culture. It’s a ‘Six Nations Nationalism’, a local cosmopolitanism which transcends our historical struggles and which is, for example, blind to the North South Border. However, it is a type of national identity which can only be fully understood if Ireland is seen in the context of the existence of other countries – in other words, it’s a relative form of identity which cannot be said to fully exist ‘in itself’. Its strength lies in how competitive it is.

When your sense of national identity springs from this ‘Ireland in context’ world view, a treaty which reflects and formalises this pre-existing context is easy to accept in principal. Whether you agree with such a Treaty or not becomes a question of detail: are Irish economic and social interests sufficiently protected? and so on.

However, if your sense of Irishness is something that can exist in itself – the GAA Irishness  – the necessity to pursue such an agreement is neither obvious nor compelling.

Previous Treaties could engage ‘GAA Irishness’ by focussing on the tangible benefits of voting yes – the introduction of the Euro, the removal of trade barriers, etc. Unfortunately for Lisbon, it had nothing to distract the voter from the fact that, at its core, it dealt exclusively with Ireland’s relationship to other countries. GAA Irishness doesn’t need international ‘relationships’. Neighbourliness will do. Viewed this way, the Lisbon Treaty was incomprehensible not because the issues were complex but because, for a large percentage of the population, it simply didn’t ring true.

This analysis may be wrong, but this kind of discussion is necessary. The No voters won the referendum. The entire Government are Yes voters. If they are serious about moving this thing forward, they have to stop explaining away the No vote on Yes vote terms but rather try to understand the fundamental reasons why the No mentality prevailed against such overwhelming odds.