Varadkar seems intent on ensuring Ireland continues to haunt Starmer’s Britain

It is much easier to make lofty political interventions from outside office than from within. Leo Varadkar, as former taoiseach, no longer has to maintain a coalition of parties with competing ambitions and priorities; he doesn’t have to moderate his position with a disparate and at times very divided electorate; he no longer has to worry about winning. From that vantage point it makes sense that he said last week that a united Ireland should no longer be confined to the abstract realm of an “aspiration” (as Simon Harris said it was on entering office) but instead should be a hardened “objective” for all parties.
The catch-22 is that interventions made from outside government are, necessarily, taken less seriously than when made from within. And it’s in this context that Varadkar’s latest rhetorical overture has been taken. In Westminster, it made almost no noise whatsoever (even for the much more forgiving Labour Party, Varadkar remains somewhat of a thorn in the side of British government). It is reasonable, to a degree, given that the Middle East is on the brink of all-out war; that the Labour Party appears rudderless less than 100 days into its tenure; and that Harris himself declared the question “not a priority”. But the British prime minister Keir Starmer should be taking note nonetheless.
Interventions like this have become louder and more frequent: in Belfast this summer Varadkar made similar remarks; in 2023, while still taoiseach, he said Ireland was on the path to unification; in February this year Mary Lou McDonald said she expected referendums on the topic by 2030.
The question has simply shot up the roster of concerns in public conversation. And though the realisation of a unified island may still be remote – subject to the shifting tides of demography, and the broad but shallow interest south of the Border – there is a feeling that it is edging ever closer.
And this is precisely the issue for Labour: a sense of inevitability is a very powerful thing in politics. Just look at the British election this summer – from a long way out it seemed that the Conservative’s demise and Labour’s triumph were carved in stone, that no alternative course was feasible (and so it came to pass). Or perhaps look to the very distant past and the idea that the collapse of Rome’s Republic was written by the fates, something cosmically unavoidable. This sense of inevitability generates an accompanying apathy – why try redirect when the course has been predetermined?
The Middle East and Russia offer a far more immediate existential challenge to the country and shape of Europe. It’s both expedient and short-sighted to forgo any interest in the constitutional future of Ireland while there are bigger things to worry about. But by keeping their heads in the sand over the question, might the British government discover years from now that it had long been fostering the environment for a reunification campaign without even noticing it had done so? When the history books are written – there goes that sense of inevitability again! – Starmer’s role in the whole project will not be consigned to a footnote.
There is plenty for Labour to learn from its forebears’ mistakes. The Conservatives ignored the realities of Brexit and the Northern Irish border, ending Theresa May’s premiership, frustrating the entire project, seriously harming relations with the European Union and setting up the country for Boris Johnson. Then, the party – and entire machinery of Westminster – was blind to the looming rise of Sinn Féin, leaving it shocked and on the back foot when it took over from the DUP in Stormont. A succession of entirely unsuitable Northern Ireland secretaries hummed in the background – needlessly straining relations once again. And then, to cope with the catalogue of bad judgments, the English press made Varadkar and the Irish State the chief villains of Brexit.
All the while, Ireland haunted the Tories. Starmer was supposed to rewrite this. He has personal affection for Ireland, two of his closest aides are Irish, his sensibilities were forged there. The appointment of Hilary Benn to the Northern Ireland Office was a statement of intent: the British government has turned a corner and is ready to take its obligations seriously. More than anything Starmer proved that he understood something foundational – that the key to managing the North was fostering good relations between Westminster and Dublin. So far so good.
But for now – if Starmer wants to be remembered as a prime minister for the United Kingdom, not just England – this is not enough. The party has made it clear – as Fleur Anderson, a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, said at a conference last week in Liverpool – that a Border poll is far from a priority for Labour. Fair enough – but there is a huge amount of space between preparing actively for a poll and pretending the question doesn’t exist altogether. It is in this space that Starmer needs to show he has heeded the mistakes of those who came before him. Otherwise, he will become just another victim of an entirely avoidable fate.