References to a united Ireland, as can be judged in recent weeks in Belfast’s newspapers and radio stations if less so in Dublin, are increasingly difficult to avoid. It is centre stage.
So what? And who cares, some might ask.
Pause for a moment, however. The fact that the debate has reached the profile that it has is quite an achievement. What was once written off as peripheral or even divisive is close to inescapable.
This suggests that there is an appetite for information and, equally, that there is a growing awareness that proper planning is essential. That is all a long way from the forms of denial about the subject that prevailed until recently.
Describing a policy outcome as not a priority can also be deceptive. Serious players across these islands – and well beyond – realise that intensive and open governmental preparation cannot be deferred forever.
Writing cheques while hoping for the best is not a strategy. Think about how ridiculous it sounds in the post-Brexit landscape to recite the principle of consent without contemplating the promised choice.
The fact that so much work is being done indicates that sensible people grasp this. It is hard to believe that the increasing pace in the conversation is entirely accidental or mere coincidence. It is not enough to bring unity about, but it is notable, nonetheless.
A common request at public events is for a pathway to the next stage, with associated proposals. This highlights a challenge. Debating well-informed visions of the future is commendable.
Northern Ireland does not need the chaos of a reactive referendum flowing from the unintended consequences of narrow English nationalism
Guarantees are required, commitments must be made, obligations respected, and a firm idea of what will be voted on. As Ireland’s Future argues, a programme for a new Ireland must emerge. And those tasked with delivering it should really be on the pitch. That is why so many, including the Oireachtas Good Friday Agreement Committee, are urging the Irish Government to demonstrate leadership. The consistent stress on civic participation also signals that without popular ownership the project will flounder. Ignore effective grassroots and community-based activism at your peril.
If the work is starting and the conversation mainstream, then what is the problem? Governments will catch up, and making a fuss about timescales might be dismissed as an annoying distraction. The difficulty is the two overarching ambitions are interconnected. The required acceleration of focus will only happen in earnest once a negotiated time frame is secured. That is not to argue against the merits of ongoing initiatives. Quite the reverse. They are making outstanding contributions. It is simply to invite wider acceptance that the choice is on the horizon.
Enough is known from the available evidence to commence deliberations on timing. All preceded by the well-rehearsed civic and political steps that have been so comprehensively outlined already. Why insist on this? Because it is one part of moving away from a troubling unilateral framing that often creeps into accounts of the process. Northern Ireland does not need the chaos of a reactive referendum flowing from the unintended consequences of narrow English nationalism. This must be managed and that is the only way to take forward a Border poll in a post-conflict society. Clarity in advance, including on a date, therefore makes good sense.
Repetitive, necessary and welcome calls for preparation carry weighty expectations in this region. Collective energy exerted for a purpose. Those who offer temporal parameters are frequently criticised. But surely that is the responsible approach at this point? The external border of the EU resting on our shared island will not melt away on its own. Sidelining the requirement for referendums seems unwise if the objective is to face into the task ahead.
The days of pretending the constitutional conversation is not happening are over. The alert observer will spot that civic/political mobilisation is under way. It is apparent, for example, that pro-Union voices are doing the groundwork. The maturity and honesty to acknowledge personal preferences is part of the evolving dynamic.
There is a well-founded desire not to mess this up. That is why the deadening jargon of bureaucratic management is everywhere. Boredom in contested spaces can be a virtue. In the absence of explicit governmental leadership, people will do their own thing. Wonderful civic innovation. Students of the peace process know to treat official public expressions of disinterest with deep scepticism. It would be a foolish public servant, for example, who ignored the evidential signs of these times on this island.
Colin Harvey is a professor in the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast
