At a party on Thursday night last in a posh Dublin restaurant to introduce advertisers to the new RTÉ Director General, Cathal Goan, I met a few Belfast unionists and got into an argument with them.
It was over the peace process, how republicans made all the gains, how despicable was the prospect of recent mass-killers being in government, how the writing was on the wall for the union whatever the majority in Northern Ireland wanted.
The argument started over the words used by Gerry Adams on Tuesday of last week, announcing opposition to the use or threat of force for any political purpose, words later endorsed by the IRA. I argued these words and endorsement were hugely significant for they heralded the end of the "war" as far as the IRA was concerned, a major concession to unionist demands.
The visitors thought there was a weasel in the qualification "for any political purpose" - this would permit the IRA to engage in punishment beatings, for instance, it would permit the murder of "informers", it would allow intimidation.
I conceded this was true, the words did allow for these get-outs. But even allowing for that, was the statement of opposition to the use or threat of force for any political purpose, not tantamount to saying the IRA was out of business? After all, the whole point of the IRA was to use force for a political purpose (i.e. a united, independent Ireland) and if it was no longer to use force for that purpose, did it not mean the organisation was over and done with? They didn't agree, it would remain around to intimidate, to punish and to murder, if necessary.
Yes, there might well be some residual violence, I acknowledged, but the co-option of republicans to the police force would deal with that in a few years. It was obvious, I argued, that Sinn Féin was going to join the police board, once the British formally had committed to the devolution of responsibility for policing to the Northern Ireland Executive.
This engagement would require republicans to give full support to the police as the sole law-enforcement agency and to invite full co-operation with that force from their own supporters. This, I argued, would deal with the issues around "informal" policing, such as punishment beatings and intimidation.
It didn't matter, they were appalled at the prospect of Martin McGuinness being in government again and "some IRA murderer" having responsibility for policing. Would any normal political society tolerate terrorists at the heart of the State? Even Bertie Ahern has said he would not be in government with Sinn Féin.
Perhaps no normal political society would tolerate that, but Northern Ireland was not a "normal" political society. It was one deeply divided and one that was in essence violent.
To resolve the problems arising from that it was necessary to resort to abnormal means and one of those was bringing terrorists within the fold and bind them to a settlement.
This strategy, however repulsive it may be to the victims of terrorist violence, had worked. Violence was now a fraction of what it had been. Not entirely ended, but the security situation had been transformed. And as for Bertie Ahern not having Sinn Féin in government, just you wait, I said, until Bertie finds he needs it.
They laughed but insisted violence was just as bad. I said this was nonsense. They persisted. The year before the IRA ceasefire in 1994, about 100 people were killed (the precise figure was 90 in 1993). The year after the ceasefire (1995) the figure was about 10 (the precise figure was seven). There are probably 700 people alive today in Northern Ireland who would have lost their lives had it not been for the peace process. Isn't that a gain?
Why should we be grateful to the IRA for not murdering us, one of them inquired? It is not a question of gratitude, I said, it was a question of acknowledgement, that the peace process had resulted in very substantial gains for both communities.
Very substantial gains for republicans, they persisted. They got their members out of jail, they got an effective amnesty for appalling crimes, they got into government, they have run the political agenda and they see their ultimate goal - a united Ireland - in sight and that will come about irrespective of the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland.
Yes, I acknowledged, they got an amnesty and the release of prisoners and they got into government, but look at the gains for unionism aside from the transformed security situation. Nationalists have capitulated. We are all unionists now. We all agree the constitutional position of Northern Ireland can be changed only with the consent of the majority there and we, in the South, changed our Constitution to reflect that.
Who really won from the peace agreement, wasn't it the unionists?
Get real, they said.