Michael Gove

Michael is a writer and a journalist with The Times, and has written widely on the subject of Northern Ireland. What does the Union mean to you?

My views are inevitably influenced by the fact that I was born and brought up in Scotland, educated in England and now work in London. But going beyond personal history, I attach a practical value to it because as a political unit, the UK is a very attractive model. It�s in everything from the rule of law and how that is applied through to its strong history of representative institutions through to its multi-national and increasingly multi-cultural make-up. It�s a very attractive model of how a modern nation state can reflect diversity and cross its constituent parts, maintain the level of solidarity needed for a sense of common practice, while at the same time respecting the individualism and traditions of all those who make up that nation. In that respect I think the UK, as a nation state, has had a durability and attractiveness to it which some other nations lack.

What are the most important practical ways in which the Union is able to do all these things?

Unlike the German citizenship, for instance, British citizenship has always been based on an acceptance of certain minimal principles rather than on ethnicity or an attitude towards the state that bases a significant confessional, or other obligations on its citizens. British civic society overall reflects that diversity. This would include the BBC certainly, and notions we have broadly about social solidarity, which underpin the National Health Service. There is also the way in which, across the UK, we are prepared to accept taxation, interest rates and other economic policies that may have been of specific interest to one of its constituent parts, because we believe that we are all in it together. I also think that the nature of the way in which the law operates in Britain guarantees all individuals a certain level of freedom and which we accept as our birthright without having to view it in abstract terms.

How does any of this differ practically with how the law is applied in other countries?

There�s a key division, for example, in the way in which justice systems operate in what are broadly Anglospheric countries and in continental countries. It�s partly to do with the prevalence of the common law tradition, but there are certain things like the assumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury, which protect the innocence of individuals against arbitrary state power. Though originally the state was confessional, these practical rights have helped develop and deepen conception of the advantages of a shared UK identity. Even though we have an established church, overall we have seen the success of different groups over time, whether it�s the Jewish community, the Hindu community, or for that matter in the last 150 years, the Catholic community in Britain. You have different ways of ensuring that people can cleave to their own respective traditions without there being any confessional requirement except in one or two relic areas.

What about the problems that have arisen in Northern Ireland?

One of the areas where I think there was a historic problem in the Union was the establishment of unilateral devolution for Northern Ireland. Whether or not you believe the future of Britain is federal, whether or not you support the existing devolutionary settlement for the four constituent parts, or whether or not you hanker after a unitary state, the existence of unilateral devolution in Northern Ireland. I would have preferred it if either we�d had home rule all round in the past or if we had moved more effectively to treat NI the same as every other constituent part of the UK during the period from �22 to �72. While historians will argue about the degree of institutionalised discrimination that existed at Stormont, it is undeniably the case in David Trimble�s own words, Northern Ireland was a cold house for Roman Catholics during that period. A suitable, updated conception of the Union would take into account the prevailing temper of moods across the UK and would ensure that there were the same safeguards for minorities in Northern Ireland that there are in the rest of the UK. One of the points that�s striking in Northern Ireland is that most minority groups who aren�t Roman Catholic find themselves more naturally allying to the small u unionist position, that�s striking when you look at the voting patterns, other evidence of attachment. The admittedly small number of ethnic minority groups in Northern Ireland which are non-Catholic do tend to support the maintenance of the Union, partly because they see practical benefits and also because the history of the UK is more congenial that the conception of the nation state in which they can take their place. It�s also particularly the case that expressions of nationalist feeling in Northern Ireland have often been couched in exclusively confessional and nationalist terms. The Republic of Ireland has modernised in the last 30 years. But it�s also the case that the advocates of the nationalist cause and of unity in the North have lagged behind in that respect and of course the most aggressive advocates of it are people who have made an explicitly ethnic and confessional link with their cause.

Is Unionism simply an espousal of political mechanism or does it imply a more profound underlying political philosophy?

Unionism overall has a variety of interpretations and a variety of advocates. There are some people who still see the Union in traditional, Protestant terms. The institutions which mean most to them are the institutions which for whatever reason have a strong Protestant element, so there are either the law institutions, the churches, Presbyterian Church in Ireland or the individual Protestant churches, the monarchy for historic reasons, or even at the level of civic society as well, to Rangers Football Club. There is also a practical attachment to the Union on the part of a variety of workers, whether it�s bureaucrats, people in the security forces or people in the commercial world. They see certain key economic lifestyle benefits being part of the UK. Everything from welfare payments, subvention from the Exchequer, a career advancement in the institutions which they join or a sense of adhesion and identity in those institutions which has lent greater authority enforced by the membership of the broader UK family. The most aggressive advocates of a Nationalist solution have been people who�ve used anti-democratic means to advance their case. So you have people who would say that they were democrats first and therefore Unionists second. Democrats first because they resisted the terrorist campaign, the claims made in its name and the mangling of due process, and the rule of law in order to deal with that threat.

In what ways does it contrast with Irish Nationalism/Republicanism?

I think the key thing is going back to 1798 when Catholic and Presbyterians were united in the position. There is a strain in Irish Republicanism, which seeks to transcend confessional and sectarian divides. That strain, that philosophical strain, has been almost completely driven out by the reality of conflict on the ground in Northern Ireland if you look at the way in which armed Republicanism has operated. It has been sectarian in its political attitude, recruitment and effects, everything from marketing crown symbols through to the ethnic cleansing taking place in places like East Tyrone and South Armargh, the targeting of Protestant farmers in order to drive them off their land and so on. There�s been a sectarian element to the way that Republicanism has operated which will inevitably drive people away.

Of course there�s an honourable constitutional Nationalist tradition which has always existed. But the curious thing about that constitutional Natio
nalist tradition is that there are very few constitutional Nationalists in the North who have made the same effort to empathise with the Unionist position, compared with some of those in the South who tried to do the same thing. Obviously if you are going to build a successful political community in which there are sectarian divides, then you need to practice a form of imaginative sympathy, put yourself in the other person�s shoes. One of the things that Hume has done, is that he has been able to put himself in the shoes of Adams and Hume and has been able to think ‘how does he think, what can I do to establish a dialogue with him?’ Hume has been far less successful in putting himself in the shoes of Unionists and attempting to analyse why they think as they do. For that reason the Nationalist project has had difficulties in Northern Ireland because their efforts to extend the hand of friendship to Unionists have been undermined somewhat by their inability to understand why Unionists think the way they do, and why they value what they do. So it�s often the case where you get Republican and Nationalist ideas that Unionists have a state of false consciousness which clearly impedes the degree of progress that can be made. On a practical level there are successful politicians like Mallon and others who have made a success of working with Unionists, but there�s still that broader problem there. The other historic residue is that even as the Irish state itself has modernised, its attitude towards the North overall, and the Unionists in particular, can at times be patronising, because they regard Unionists concerns and grievances as irrational rather than seeking to work with them.

Are the terms �British� and �Irish� complimentary or mutually exclusive?

They are not mutually exclusive. They can be complimentary. It is the case that the recession Unionists, the McGimpsy brothers and I think Ken McGuinness has as well, have said that they are both Irish and British. I think of myself as both Scottish and British. It�s clearly the case that before the establishment of the Irish state there were significant sections of the population of what was to become a free state and then a republic, who thought of themselves as Irish and British. There is no reason why the two shouldn�t be complimentary. It�s also concieveable that people who consider themselves British first jib at the depiction of themselves as Irish because the development of Irish national identity since 1916 has often been predicated on the rejection of Britishness. A lot of Irish institutions, Irish discourse and Irish policy-making, has been predicated on the basis that people have to choose. You can see that in the decline in the number of Protestants in the free state and then the Republic and in the way in which the Irish constitution changed. There was an effort to suggest that you had to be one thing or the other and that inevitably of course led to a negative reaction among Unionists, and particularly among Unionists in Northern Ireland.

How important is religion to the Ulster Unionist identity?

It is obviously hugely important because there�s a significant section of Catholic opinion, but with support and maintenance of the Union for a variety of reasons they will vote for Nationalist parties. They will refrain from voting for Unionist parties and will seek refuge in the Alliance, or whatever. We also see a small number of Protestants who support the SDLP, but broadly, voting patterns in Northern Ireland are almost entirely driven by a sectarian set of assumptions and that from my point of view is an outgrowth of history, regrettably. My ideal would be for the organisation of UK parties in Northern Ireland to have a more sensible, to my mind, division of political support on traditional left/right enterprise versus public service basis, and it�s regrettable that doesn�t take place. One of the things I think has been encouraging about Trimble�s leadership of the Ulster Unionists is that he�s made a number of moves to encourage Catholics to feel that they can support his party and therefore vote for the Union, but of course there are certain impediments, most obviously the link between the loyal institutions and the Ulster Unionist party which get in the way.

In the longer term, in what areas is Unionism well placed to lead a political agenda?

The institutions set up under the Belfast Agreement do two things. One is the institutionalised sectarianism on the basis of the minimum agreement principle. The parties have to denominate themselves, Unionists, Nationalists, and then in order to get things through, you ask for a minimum agreement within the community. Sectarianism is institutionalised. And linked to that are all the objections about accountability. And the fact that you cannot throw the buggers out if they fail in terms of delivery. The second criticism I have of the Belfast Agreement is that it predicates the one eventual outcome which can be delayed, managed, accommodated, hedged, or whatever, but the Belfast Agreement is essentially an agreement to facilitate the eventual unification or absorption of Northern Ireland into the Republic; whether it�s a generation or more hence, that is what they are there to bring about. There are two challenges for Unionism. The higher level challenge is to make the broader case for the UK which the Unionist party cannot do on its own. You need, across the UK, individuals who believe in the UK as a concept and a historic artefact to make it that case and for their arguments to mesh with what Ulster Unionists are saying. The second challenge is dealing with the institutions set up by the Belfast Agreement in such a way as to show (a) that the Union is delivering and (b) that there is another alternative outcome for people in Northern Ireland which is to stay happily within the UK.

What changes are need to make that alternative outcome more explicitly part of the Agreement?

There are a variety of things. Unionists should argue that you don�t need to make institutions neutral in order to make them inclusive so that you do not need to remove crown symbols from institutions like the police force, court system or government institutions in order to make them acceptable to Roman Catholics. The important thing to do is to ensure due process and equity and non-discrimination are practiced within those institutions. For me, if you say the crown symbols are a priory unacceptable to Roman Catholics, then you are yielding a key position which is that you cannot have Catholics in the UK and that�s not true everywhere from Aberdeen to Liverpool. The second thing is to work to transcend the sectarian basis on which political parties are organised. Therefore one would want to see the Ulster Unionist party developing a Christian democrat identity, makes European alliances with other Christian democrat parties and begin to stress what the majority of its grass roots would want, which is a moderate centre right position on questions like economy, healthcare and so on. So that it makes a transition from a party which is concerned primarily with the border security and tradition and that it becomes a party which could co-exist alongside a future independent Scottish Conservative party and the remaining English Conservative party as three sister parties which sit and work together in the UK. That will require, provisionally, leadership, but that�s the more hopeful direction. The Ulster Unionist party should ultimately welcome the SDLP becoming broadly a centre left party. How it can do so, I don�t know.

In what ways should Unionism seek to engage wider relationships in a changing world?

There are several things. Unionists have a record of having to deal with terrorism and the strains that a civil society undergoes in an attempt to fight terrorism. It would be helpful if politicians were to articulate some of these principles to help the rest of the UK deal with particu
lar strains that it faces as a result of Islamic and others. The second thing is that Ulster Unionist politicians should involve themselves in the broader debate about British identity and about the defence of their values. That means taking an interest in the future of the NHS as a whole and how you can combine social solidarity and choice across the whole nation. They should view themselves as people who take these issues seriously. There are certain disadvantages to them being a small separate party in Parliament, but they should make use of the advantages by making a case from the particular positions that they hold.

How, if at all, do you think the various independent strands of unionism might be reconciled?

I don�t believe that you can have a unified Unionist voice until Ian Paisley relinquishes the reins of the DUP. The other thing is you�ve got an element of ambition as well amongst the younger generation in the DUP because people like Robinson and Dodds believe that perhaps with one or two more heaves the DUP could be in poll position within Unionism and therefore they become the leaders of Unionism. It�s always the case that as long as there is constitutional insecurity, there will always be a market for a party that says that it will be even harder in resisting this movement, than the mainstream or establishment voice of Unionism. In that respect the DUP is not a creation of British policy, it�s a consequence of Anglo-Irish policy towards Northern Ireland over the last 20 to 25 years because it exists as a harder foot on the brake.

In 20 years time how do you imagine the Union will change?

It�s very difficult to know. On a crude level because of the latest poll in the latest demographics, it will still be functionally the case that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. My fear is that inside that cell which is formally marked UK, the mollusc as it were, inside, will be either neutral, it will be a source of limbo state with no national symbols and in a state of transition, or it will be increasingly Nationalist in that the expressions of identity which are encouraged, funded, tolerated, supported, and all the rest of it, are overwhelmingly or growingly Nationalist.

My hope is that, again because of the demographics and because of those people from Nationalist and Roman Catholic backgrounds who can see benefits from the Union, who can see the way the British state is evolving, grow more supportive of it. My hope would be that the British state overall, that Northern Ireland can take its place within the British state and that we develop patterns of government across the British state but are more reflective of its diversity and ultimately I would like to see, having been a sceptic of devolution, greater powers for the Scottish Parliament and in the Welsh Assembly and I�d like to see it change to the way England is governed as well and any specific anomalies that exist in Northern Ireland and the constitutional basis would evolve so that it would fit within that developing union.

Michael then finishes:

One of the depressing things is the way in which a victim culture, and I don�t mean victims of terror, but I mean the Nationalist case in hundreds of years of oppression and in the Unionist case, while being self-confident, and the Loyalist political parties are particularly bad at this, has been a case of trying to construct a narrative of oppression and whinging which is I think unfortunate in all sorts of ways because it means that the cause of small progressive Unionism as articulated by some Loyalist political parties and their followers has been a disavowal of anything good about the UK per se and a transformation of the Unionist narrative so that they simply become another set of victims without control over their own destiny, without any sense of belief in values bigger than themselves.