To what lengths will Britain’s Labor Party go to advance its leftist agenda? It might be inappropriate to question the patriotism of political parties, goes the conventional wisdom. Simple good manners, after all, dictate that, regardless of the ideological persuasion, rivals be granted the benefit of the doubt. Yet a recent statement by the former shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, calls this logic into question.

“The Labor Party is not unionist,” said Ms. Abbott a week ago this Saturday. “We take our lead from our sister party,” she continued, referencing the Social Democratic and Labor Party of Northern Ireland, “who are republican and pro-Irish unification.” Is Ms. Abbott, ally of Jeremy Corbyn, hinting that Labor is anti-monarchy, too? Should Elizabeth II be concerned that her “loyal” Opposition is anything but?

Her Majesty, your Brexit Diarist would guess, can enjoy her summer. The focus of Ms. Abbott’s ire seems to be less the crown than Ireland and the leader of Britain’s Labor leader, Sir Keir Starmer, who, now that Britain is out of Europe, has been attempting to steer Labor back from Corbynism.

Labor’s list, encouraging the secession of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, betrays its bias for globalism against nationalism. So runs the attempt “to substitute cosmopolitan for national principles,” Benjamin Disraeli wrote of his own time; “and to make war on the customs of the people of this country under the pretext of Progress.”

The ease with which Labor identifies ideologically with the EU, in contention with its native UK roots, is a feature of contemporary leftist British politics. Witness the vitriol visited upon their own leader’s efforts at mainstream electoral politics. “We need to make the persuasive argument about why Britain would be better under Labor,” Sir Keir admitted in an interview last month, and “we need to be patriot and proud about it.”

Enlisting the help of the Union Jack at Labor events, was one idea touted in discussions to demonstrate the party’s solidarity with Middle England. Almost immediately, Sir Keir was taken to task by his own membership. The idea of flag waving was criticized as “chilling” and a “move from the Fascist playbook.” To wit: “It’s not patriotism; it’s Fatherland-ism.” Signaling no sympathy with the symbols of Union, leftists are bereft of compunction at the idea of expelling Northern Ireland.

To justify their support for Irish reunification, these Laborites may point to Northern Ireland’s vote at the 2016 Brexit referendum, when a shocking 58% of the province voted to remain within the European Union. Yet it turns out that this EU support does not necessarily correspond to a willingness to separate from the union with Great Britain.

According to the Institute for Government, a survey commissioned in March 2019 by the Irish Times/IpsosMRBI showed that only 38% of those polled wanted a reunification referendum, 45% dissenting. Were such an Irish referendum indeed to be held, the poll found that 45% would be in favor of remaining within the UK, while only 32% would be voting for unification (23% were undecided).

Nor can Northern Ireland be understood without reference to religion. As for the 2016 Referendum, Catholics voted 85% to remain in the EU, while 40% of Protestants voted to leave. The province’s religious composition breaks down roughly 48% Protestant and 46% Catholic. The New York Sun’s Paul Atkinson, who writes a column on the 20th century, reckons “it’s unlikely a majority vote for unification would include a majority of Protestants.”

Yet can it be taken for granted that Catholics are pro-unification, when even in the Irish Republic the Church exerts a shrinking influence? And what of Great Britain? On the question of UK-EU disputes about the Irish border issues, a reunited Ireland would make them a moot point. Were polling to suggest that a majority in Northern Ireland were in favor of a united Ireland, would Westminster even bother making a defense on behalf of the union of the four kingdoms — counting the remaining realms of England, Wales, and Scotland?

Ah, Scotland. Perhaps the most problematic factor of all. For were the UK Government to acquiesce without a fuss to the popular will in Northern Ireland, then why oppose Scottish succession? The situations are historically dissimilar, with a divided Ireland becoming “whole” once more. Still, on the question of sovereign rights, such nuances will be simply overlooked. The fate of Scotland’s place within the UK could well compel a campaign for Northern Ireland, too.

Hence the newsworthiness of Ms. Abbott and Labor’s animus against Sir Keir’s stewardship of the party. Labor’s slim win in the Batley and Spen riding earlier this month has muted — momentarily — discontent with his leadership. Understandably, he will want to stamp out any talk about Northern Ireland’s place in the UK: Not only to demonstrate his dominance over Labor discontent, but to ensure the party’s electability among middle-class voters, who have not entirely abandoned their patriotism.

“I believe in the United Kingdom strongly,” Sir Keir told the Irish Times this week, and am “very much on the side of Unionists, arguing for Northern Ireland to remain in the UK.” Sir Keir supports Scotland remaining within the Union, too.

So, as in much of its history, Northern Ireland finds itself a pawn in English politics. Only the churlish would complain were its citizens, Protestants and Catholics, to decide independently that their future happiness and prosperity lay in union with the Irish Republic. Were such a fateful choice made in reaction to internecine Labor infighting, though, the loss — and shame — would lie entirely with the United Kingdom.

________

BrexitDiarist@gmail.com