At Easter Gerry Adams said: "There will be a united Ireland. And our task, and that of all sensible Irish political leaders should be to prepare for reunification."
But not all Irish political leaders favour unity (assuming unionist politicians are considered Irish) and it is the preserve of those who see territorial unity as a kind of untouchable sacred ideal, to create conditions that make unity possible. Republicans have been predicting unity for decades, but unionists, a central element in the envisaged union, are far from being seduced. We must ask why they reject all forms of Irish unity?
Republicans have done little, if anything, to create circumstances making unity possible. Once many Protestants favoured breaking the link with the other island – as in 1798 – but since then most Protestants and a substantial number of Catholics and others, are not attracted by the notion of a separatist united Ireland. Republicans need to face reality and ask themselves serious questions.
Unity cannot mean an imposed or imperialist settlement based on cajoling or forcing unionists to surrender. That would be a contradiction in terms.
True unity would entail a free coming together in whatever form people feel comfortable with. It is interesting that Mr Adams uses the word 'reunification' because this could imply a return to the form of unity we had in the past and entail reviving institutional links between our islands.
However, for such a rapprochement to take place there would have to be an end to the threat, or perceived threat, of coercion.
Republicans say that asking for an end to the IRA is asking for surrender and humiliation. But this is not so. Disbanding the IRA could be a major step towards unity between our peoples in these islands. But instead the IRA engaged in 30 years of revolutionary violence leaving a damaging legacy that has proved extremely difficult to shake off. It might still be possible to envisage a true unity, as opposed to an imposed territorial union, but Republicans must state clearly that the war is over and that the IRA is being stood down.
The British establishment is not holding back Irish unity. They have stated "no selfish strategic or economic interest" and the ball is now firmly in Republican hands to convince unionists of the merits of the case. Should they succeed in persuading the rest of us the governments are duty bound to facilitate our expressed wishes.
The only possible reason for keeping the IRA intact and refusing to say the war is over is that the war is not considered to be over and that the thinking is that the army may yet be needed. Needed for what? We can only assume as a bargaining counter to ensure there will be no real peace until unionists surrender to an imposed 'unity'. But unionists and most nationalists are only asking for what is reasonable in a democratic society, an end to a private army so that politicians act on the basis of their electoral mandates alone.
Standing down the army could represent a major step towards healing and harmony, if not territorial unity. A full and free apology to all victims of IRA violence and not just to 'non-combatants' would also help.
Republicans could also begin to facilitate Orange traditions as envisaged in the Irish tricolour, instead of hyping up the parades issue in face of a weak and unimaginative Orange Order.
This situation has resulted in a disastrous message being sent to unionists, many of who have little sympathy with Orangeism, about their treatment in any supposedly united Ireland.
Another major step would be to direct attention towards the south and demand a radical revision of the Irish Constitution to make it fully consistent with modern pluralist democracy. They could also support an end to compulsory Irish, the introduction of an integrated and comprehensive system of state education, re-entry of the south into the Commonwealth, a new Irish national anthem and full recognition of the implications of the orange, white and green tricolour in all aspects of life in the Republic.
Martin McGuinness gained some credibility by calling attention to the effects of the iniquitous 11 plus on working class loyalists in the north but generally when Republicans speak about inequality, they focus entirely on the grievances of nationalists. Unionists would take their words more seriously if they dealt with the grievances of all the people.
Irish territorial unity is not inevitable but a context could be created to make unity possible. Creating that context is the preserve of those who see it as a panacea. Keeping violent organisations intact inhibits all possibilities of healing and unity and Republicans must find a wider vision that gives hope to all our people.
