Beyond Identity Politics: Building Bridges and Uniting People, with former Ulster Farmers' Union president, Ian Marshall OBE

Ian Marshall, former Ulster Farmers’ Association President and the only unionist elected to Seanad Éireann, talks to Professor Richard Bourke about his belief that Northern Ireland’s future hinges on politicians moving past identity politics and embracing a more understanding and respectful collective identity. Have Unionist leaders historically failed their community by pursuing antagonistic rhetoric? Is a majority of 51% in a border referendum truly democratic? How have the mainstream media and social media shaped (and misled?) political debate? Is the Good Friday Agreement exacerbating notions of opposing communities rather than fostering an inclusive spirit? And we discuss whether England needs its own parliament to help ease the tension in the Union.

Scroll down to discover

• Executive summary
• About the speaker and discussant
• What was said?

Executive summary

• Marshall’s experiences in Seanad Éireann lay out to him the ‘palpable’ sense of misunderstanding between Dublin and Belfast and the need for greater efforts to build bridges between communities on the island of Ireland.
• Blame isn’t laid with either side, although Marshall acknowledges that as a former Ulster Unionist Party candidate, his party’s failures to grasp the Good Friday Agreement for what it really was and their historic sense of fear and insecurity drove the political direction. He thinks there is a real sense that time is healing division and thinks that unionism and republicanism are learning how to respect one another.
• The future of the Union, for Marshall, lies with the creation of an English parliament and making Northern Ireland a success, utilising the benefits of Brexit. This can only happen by working with Sinn Féin and other parties.
• As a supporter of the EU, Marshall believes its strength lies in its collective identity that didn’t dilute nationality but provided another way of connecting with people. This is something Northern Ireland is seeing as young people increasingly see themselves as Northern Irish first and other identities second.

About the speaker

Ian Marshall is a farmer and UUP politician from Co. Armagh. He campaigned against Brexit and was the first Unionist politician elected to Seanad Éireann in 2018. He was president of the Ulster Farmers' Union from 2014-16. He stood unsuccessfully as UUP candidate for the 2022 Assembly elections.

About the discussant

Prof. Richard Bourke is Professor of the History of Political Thought at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of King's College, and Fellow of the British Academy since 2018.

What was said?

Elected in 2018 to Seanad Éireann and the first unionist to the Oireachtas since the 1930s, Ian Marshall is used to reaching out across the political and religious divide. In 2018 he was approached by Leo Varadker, then Taoiseach and Fine Gael leader, to stand in the by-election for the Agricultural Panel. Standing as an independent, his candidacy was also backed by Sinn Féin. He described how when first approached about the by-election, he had to Google what Leinster House was, such was the absence of his understanding of the Republic’s political system. This isn’t abnormal, he argued, for people growing up in divided communities. Once elected, Ian felt “very welcome” in Dublin, but his main takeaway from his time there was the profound sense of misunderstanding between Dublin and Belfast. He recounted one colleague being shocked to hear that Ian personally was pro-choice in the abortion debate, for example, assuming all unionists were strongly against. For Ian, this sense of misunderstanding is matched with a lack of connectivity between the two parliaments. He argued that collectively the island needs to move beyond identity politics and favour instead conversations about mutual respect and understanding for all identities.

Professor Richard Bourke opened the conversation on unionism, asking whether “unionist leaders have failed their community regarding identity politics?” and if “the crisis in unionism is down to its representatives?”. Ian highlighted the historical context of Northern Irish politics in which a system was built on fear and insecurity. In the past, unionist leaders have seen their job as survival and certainly capitalised on and encouraged fear. Now, he argued, we’re seeing leadership coming through that deviates from this history and are happier to reach out across communities.

Ian and Richard also discussed the Union from a structural perspective. “Fundamental” to the future success of the Union is the establishment of an English parliament, said Ian. He thinks that the devolved powers have demonstrated that identity isn’t diluted through devolution and in fact can make the Union stronger. Richard asked if Unionists have failed to “treasure” some structures – notably those that foster relations with the Republic – and whether this has been a mistake. Ian agreed that many unionists saw these structures as a Trojan Horse to Irish unity. Part of the problem, according to him, were the people framing the Good Friday Agreement as a precursor to unification, not peace.

The future of unionism and republicanism was a running theme of the discussion. Professor Eugenio Biagini asked Ian about the growing proportion of voters who recognise themselves as Northern Irish first. Does this have anything to tell us about the future of unionism? Are they asking for something different than identity politics? Ian responded that young people are less interested in the religion and politics of their peers and judge people more on human attributes. He thinks this is a positive change for Northern Ireland.

Richard asked Ian if he thought “Sinn Féin has any interest in reaching an accommodation with unionism as opposed to ultimately defeating it?”. Ian is hopeful. He highlighted that there is an accommodation mechanism in place and working at the moment; making Northern Ireland successful is beneficial to both sides. The current 5-party coalition is working together on big issues. He argued that there was also growing respect between republicanism and unionism as well as an acceptance that time was healing communities.

On the topic of potential unification, Richard brought up the ‘50+1’ element of a vote – the idea that a simple majority would be enough. Is this democratic? For Ian, that is democracy but that we can learn a lot from Brexit regarding divisively small margins. What is important to him is that any referendum be carried out with an emphasis on correct information; people cannot vote on a binary question without all the information or with misinformation. Although a unionist himself, if 51% of Northern Ireland voted to unify, having been given all the information, then Ian would accept that.

Richard asked about the EU as a model for governance and what it has to offer. Ian was a public opponent of Brexit – he thinks that the EU delivered on its primary objectives of preventing war and that it offered Northern Ireland protection and representation. Moving forwards, however, he wants to make use of the opportunities offered by leaving the EU. The UK can move quicker, react faster, and this doesn’t have to be at the detriment to relationships between the UK and the EU; trading relationships, for example, remain important.

A member of the audience asked what the EU had done for Northern Ireland? As well as the benefits discussed earlier, Ian pointed to the support mechanisms for agriculture which have prevented youth flowing from rural areas to the cities. On the Good Friday Agreement, one audience member asked how Northern Ireland can move beyond identity politics when the Good Friday Agreement embeds the notion of two opposed identities into the functioning of government. Ian stressed that the agreement cannot be undervalued for what it achieved and how far it has brought Northern Ireland since. He also argued that it tries the recognise the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland but accepted that political unionism at the time didn’t completely buy into the peace agreement as a true mechanism for peace. He also reflected on the idea of a mandatory coalition and argued that the current coalition in the Republican is not one of choice but necessity, and that Northern Ireland is not as unique in this sense as people presume.

When asked about the indifference in Westminster, Ian responded that he’s seen ignorance and indifference everywhere, not just in London, and that the way to deal with it is to “break down barriers” through education and conversation. For him, the media aren’t interested in the stories of where progress has been made in Northern Ireland and it’s important to get those stories out. A communication channel between Dublin, Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff, and London, could achieve a lot in breaking down these barriers and misunderstandings. In the multicultural, secular societies that Ireland and the UK are, there is no need for a ‘them versus us’ arrangement that was so prevalent between the UK nations in the pandemic.

Professor Brendan Simms asked whether it would've been better for Ulster Unionists to have stuck to the pre-1920 arrangement of direct representation in parliament rather than a devolved government prompts Ian to comment on the history of the island of Ireland. He argued that it wasn’t helpful to consider hypotheticals like that and to look forward instead. For Ian, “Irish history is fascinating because of the rich tapestries of stories that it is, but its value is that it’s a complete story”. He called for people to “take it as it is… understand it better… accept that that’s what has made us who we are, and … work forward to try and make this a better place.”

A final question on the future leaders of Northern Ireland, Ian argued that he thinks they’ll need the confidence and assurance from their own parties and the electorate that brave decisions will be rewarded, or at least not punished. They’ll need to make gestures that reach out, and to see such gestures as meaningful attempts to work together.