Boring old Union(ists)
It seems Oxford cares little of Northern Ireland at present. Seating was hardly in short supply at the latest Union debate on the future of the UK country, with a high proportion of those who did attend last Thursday seemingly doing so primarily to hear the full report of the Bashir debacle, prior to proceedings.
Fair enough, the motion - "This house would not talk to Sinn Fein" - was perhaps a little uninspiring, unless one happens to be a lunatic, Donatist Paisleyite.
Equally, the guest speakers - though undeniably experts on the topic - were certainly not household names. But to dismiss the palpable lack of excitement at the debate on such grounds alone would be foolish. The simple truth is, whilst it remains one of the greatest unresolved problems facing this country, to most people who live on the British mainland Northern Ireland is boring.
One potential explanation for this is that, to many, the debate appears irrelevant. In particular, the process of EU integration has ensured that differences between being governed from Dublin and being governed from Westminster are becoming fewer with every treaty signed.
It is thus difficult to comprehend how such extreme passions can be inspired over what is increasingly little more than a line on a map. Were a hypothetical Irish nation governed by a tyrannical regime, bent on exacting revenge for centuries of oppression of Protestants, subsequent to any unification deal, Unionists would readily be capable of inspiring strong support for their cause on the British mainland. Clearly, however, no such government exists - and as such, much of the rhetoric seems no more than petty.
Indeed, the impression of pettiness is likely exacerbated in the minds of many given the present international climate. Major wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the threat of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, ensure that this world has more than its fair share of problems at present.
A decades-old dispute over six counties in Western Europe seems out of place and - crude though it may sound - unnecessary. People feel that when it comes to international politics, there are simply far more important issues to take an interest in.
It is deeply unfortunate that British people seem to care little about the future of Ulster. The past shows that those issues and conflicts that are ignored by the people remain unresolved the longest - a fact that is made all the more alarming given the present tension in the province. It seems there is little prospect of this apathy subsiding any time soon - particularly given the enduringly traditional and historical grounds upon which the debate tends to be fought.
Perhaps interest could be generated if the chief protagonists were to start looking to the future a little more, rather than constantly living in the past (and on this point it is worth noting that around ten minutes of Edwin Poots' Union speech were devoted to listing IRA atrocities from previous decades).
Yet the unhappy truth is that it will probably take a recommencement of armed conflict to instil us with any sense of passion with regards to the issue - by which time it will be too late.
Cultural differences also appear to play a part in the British apathy. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, Britain has tended towards a much more secular society, with little in the way of strong nationalism to speak of.
The contrast with Northern Ireland could not be starker. To pick just one recent example, Rev Dr Ian Paisley (the ultra-Unionist DUP leader) recently staged a major protest in Belfast - complaining not about British government policy, nor the Belfast Agreement, but about the fact that a rugby match was being held there on a Sunday.
When perhaps the most important political figure in the province marches under the banner 'Never on a Sunday', it is not difficult to see why many British people have difficulty comprehending the range of views present.
Indeed, one can often detect a sense of bemusement prevailing amongst those on the British mainland - embarrassment at Unionists who seem to feel more 'British' than they do. To many, passionate Unionists' insistence upon constantly asserting their Britishness merely serves to demonstrate how very un-British, culturally, they are - almost as if they are trying that little bit too hard.
Thus, paradoxically, it is the passion with which Unionists have taken up their cause that has underlined the cultural differences between Britain and Ulster, thereby undermining support for the Unionist cause (and interest in the debate in general) here in Britain.
Long-term factors such as these - though necessary for long-term apathy to hold sway - are not, however, sufficient to explain the sheer lack of interest in Northern Ireland (beyond occasional loutish renditions of 'No surrender to the IRA') present today.
After all, the peace agreement is presently weaker than at any stage since it was signed, following the recent electoral success of the DUP and current suspension of the Stormont Assembly. There is every reason why we should be taking a strong interest in proceedings.
Yet still Ulster is relegated to the status of lesser news item. The reason, it seems, is one that has been in evidence in British-Irish relations since the era of Wolfe Tone - in Britain, we only take an interest when we have to.
The last time Ulster could truly be said to have set the news agenda was at the time the Belfast Agreement was being drawn up in 1998. Then, people throughout Britain were discussing the situation, glad that finally the conflict seemed to be over.
With that in mind, they turned off their TVs and forgot all about it - it was no longer a pressing concern. People living on the British mainland took an interest in Ulster when it affected their lives, via the mainland bombing campaigns. Now that fragile peace is present, apathy prevails. Indeed, the situation can be likened to that of Afghanistan recently. The number of people who became experts on the Taliban and mujahideen factions within that country, at the time when US and British forces were in action there, was almost as startling as the speed with which the very same individuals lost all interest in Afghan issues once the Taliban had fallen.
The situation is not helped by the sheer degree of tradition and history underpinning the Ulster question. It seems no debate - and Thursday night's was certainly no exception - can pass without a large number of historical references, relating to aspects of the distant Irish past (often - at least once a year - as far back as the Battle of the Boyne in 1690) that people in Britain neither know nor care about. The debate is thus at times impenetrable to all but the most ardent scholars of this history - people few and far between in Britain. At the same time, the historical element lends yet further to the apparent pettiness of the debate. The question of "Who started it?" rarely seems to be far from the heart of the matter.
29th Jan 2004