Many conversations are possible about the constitutional future of the island of Ireland in the years ahead, but conversation requires that people speak and listen to each other. What happens if one side does not show up?
What happens if those who want Northern Ireland to stay in the United Kingdom simply refuse to engage? If they simply say nothing?
What is a debate if one side, or, perhaps, more accurately different colours of that one side, talks only to itself?
If that happens, the case for a united Ireland will be distorted since it will be left without a counterposition against which advantages and disadvantages can be properly presented and considered by those called upon to vote in a referendum.
Without that counterargument the case for a united Ireland risks descending into romanticisation and becoming an even more dislikeable prospect for those in Northern Ireland who instinctively resist the idea of unification.
The arguments in favour of a united Ireland remain unconvincing, too, largely confined to optimistic forecasts about the economic and social possibilities
Much of the coverage of the constitutional question is filled with energetic demands for action by those who want unity, with opponents to that idea offering little more than a tired and uninspiring rejection of that possibility.
However, the arguments in favour of a united Ireland remain unconvincing, too, largely confined to optimistic forecasts about the economic and social possibilities, but which tend to ignore deep-rooted identities and attachments to place and geography.
However, as the conflict resolution expert I William Zartman put it, “borders run across land but through people”, so arguments that ignore, or minimise people’s beliefs, identities and relationships, will struggle.
There is little doubt that the best chance of a constructive debate about the future of Ireland and the union comes if all sides engage. Only then can a fully informed decision on the merits of each position be properly judged and weighed by voters.
On the advantages for Northern Ireland staying in the United Kingdom, unionism should firmly locate its argument in the advantages of British identity expression that, over time, have embraced diversity and inclusion.
Such differences offer contradictions, but they also highlight how these differences inform belonging, authority, class and tradition
Popular culture offers a lens to understand the diverse nature of British identity with two perspectives dominating: one focusing on identity as stoicism and decency, and the other depicting a tension between elitism and class.
Both can be seen in relation to how the British remember and commemorate war alongside a propensity to see it as an undertaking that can give rise to the absurd, as the comedies Blackadder and Dad’s Army both portray.
Such differences offer contradictions, but they also highlight how these differences inform belonging, authority, class and tradition. The serious and the humorous do not threaten each other but jointly express identity. They work not in contradiction, but in collaboration.
The word collaboration is used deliberately here, since it is that impulse – expressed differently, perhaps, on the island of Ireland - that best offers scope for a new respectful politics, respecting the identities of all.
What kind of Ireland has been presented over recent years by those favouring unity? What are the differences between a new Ireland, an agreed Ireland, multicultural Ireland, a shared Ireland or a united Ireland?
Each has been put forward, but what are the differences between them and what would those differences mean for those living in Northern Ireland as they one day, perhaps, weigh up constitutional options.
Collaboration helps us to make decisions, where people live interdependently. Unlike a shared Ireland which can imply a gift or an act of generosity, with one side giving and the other receiving, collaboration requires joint action, offering joint benefit.
The collaborative impulse must be developed carefully since it is as much a private as it is a public matter
It demands the efforts of all to find practical solutions, rather than judging everything against an ideological conviction. Does it matter if the best ideas on climate change, health, or education come from nationalism or republicanism, or unionism or loyalism if they benefit everyone?
Yet the collaborative impulse must be developed carefully since it is as much a private as it is a public matter. To prevent any debate being reduced to rubble by the crude rants of anti-social media campaigners it must first gain traction through quiet and respectful conversation.
It begins, in other words, in the world of informality, a place where so much important work was undertaken during the peace process. Collaboration and informality are central to developing and sustaining dialogue.
The act of listening between different groups and sides is the basis of respect and dignity for those involved and provides the impetus for progressive relations moving forward. It is also the basis of trust.
In some ways, the best question for nationalists and republicans to consider first is what is the advantage of Northern Ireland remaining in the union as is stands? For unionism, the best question is the opposite – what are the merits of a united Ireland?
Unionism could reasonably argue that change within Northern Ireland staying within the UK would enable it to function more inclusively
In each example the question encourages an opening rather than a closing of debate, inviting an exchange of analyses between different positions that offer something of value, and something new to the other.
Unionism could reasonably argue that change within Northern Ireland staying within the UK would enable it to function more inclusively, while nationalists and republicans could argue that the problems that exist require ever closer relations with the Republic.
There is a clear need now for a spirit of quiet collaboration and respect. Without imposition, such a debate would be an exploratory conversation motivated by a desire to bring people together, not to split them apart, whatever views they hold.
Dealing with the precarious tension of opposites, now and into the future, requires respectful and collaborative working, opening the way for relationships and dialogue that benefit everyone, regardless of their beliefs or identity.
Such conversations are complicated. By reducing complex issues to simple yes or no answers we are discouraged from imagining a society where we realise that we are dependent upon each other, and that we are better off for that.
The writer JM Coetzee wrote, “what would life itself be if there were only heads or tails, with nothing in between?” A debate based on such principles will fail to present the complexities of life on the island of Ireland, doing little useful for anyone.
Graham Spencer is emeritus professor of Social and Political Conflict at the University of Portsmouth.
