The ongoing public debate about a border poll, and the case to be presented, remain prominent.
Journalists are, quite rightly, asking probing questions. These include on the conditions for the referendums and the potential content of the proposals. The legislative provisions on the role of the Secretary of State invite speculation. And the subsequent individualised framing is unfortunate.
What should be a collaborative exercise leading – hopefully – to welcome change on our shared island is reduced to squabbling about the nature and implications of opinion polls. Even more troubling is the misleading notion that a politician in London will spring this on us.
Britain’s imperial record of negligent exits is never far from our thoughts. But this is the wrong way round. Better to view their place as a background facilitator for a well-planned choice that we will make. That is how the Good Friday Agreement captures the British Government’s primary role.
It is therefore our collective responsibility to get this island ready first and then let Westminster/Whitehall know when the moment is right. That does not mean London should be distant. There is merit, for example, in early and coherent thinking in Britain. The EU should be pondering this in a bit more detail too. If Irish reunification is not on their radars, then it must find its way there.
The complacent response is to recite 40/40/20: we are all minorities today. Particularly grating for adherents to the Agreement is the disregard for parity of esteem and equal status that this reasoning carries. As if the unionist natural order must be granted the benefit of any doubt indefinitely. Parading the connected line about stalemate is not the trump card some imagine either. How notable it still is that so many would opt for a united Ireland tomorrow.
What does my suggestion mean? We must stop obsessing about a British trigger point and instead work on the operational framework and persuasive programmes, with a defined and agreed trajectory towards choice. Enough is already known. The plea for a case to be produced is understandable.
My sense is that matters may remain fairly abstract in the absence of a public time frame and the baffling procrastination by those with the power to deliver on promises. Many do not like this temporal aspect. You may well disagree too. But it is likely to be the most effective way to focus minds if vision is what you demand. Either way, positions will take shape in the coming phase.
This framing comfortably falls within the Agreement. And there is no need to overcomplicate the argument. People have a choice. Letting them exercise it in an informed way is fair. To those who fear the reaction: injecting clarity and certainty supports stability, for anyone who is serious about democracy and the principle of consent. Yes, this requires political leadership. What governments and public administration are there to do. At this stage, and as speculation grows, it would simply be recognising what is privately known and accepted.
The consequences of inaction include confusion, mistrust, evasion and unhelpful drift. Those who worry this is a radical proposition must remember: it is all there in existing legal frameworks across these islands, the institutions are in place to start the intergovernmental conversations, and it functions wonderfully well within the shared island narrative. No trojan horses, no nettles to be grasped; keeping your word.
Getting annoyed with people who ask for direct governmental engagement misses the primary point. Impressive work is complete; more is underway. Sensible civic and political actors are getting on with it, of course and as ever. Vindication will be for another day.
It would really be so much easier though if governments acknowledged reality.
Colin Harvey is a Professor in the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast