What do people mean when they talk about an ‘agreed’ Ireland?

Simply put, it is sensible and desirable to obtain as much convergence as possible between Catholic-Nationalism and Protestant-Unionism before any changes are made to the constitutional firmament in Northern Ireland.

Fair enough – and sensible too.

For Leo Varadkar it means adopting the John Hume approach – elevating agreement over unity in a bid to foster “a set of relationships that we can all be happy with,” as he put it recently.

Dialogue, rapport, trust and, yes, agreement are all welcome; only a fool would eschew any of them. But let’s be clear about something fundamental: A so-called ‘agreed’ Ireland is not a precondition for a united one.

We’re all familiar with the circumlocution: Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, there cannot be any constitutional change without a majority of people living in Northern Ireland wishing it. This principle of consent, governs the entire equation and it was something that republicans were enjoined to accept two decades ago.

Then it gave a constitutional guarantee to unionists, encouraging them to engage with the wider political project. The text of the Agreement meant republicans could fulfil their political objectives via a border poll, if “at any time” it appears likely to the Secretary of State “that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.”

This is all familiar stuff, but the wider constitutional context is often overlooked. Nowhere else is Britain so sanguine about its sovereignty. The GFA left Northern Ireland in an ante-chamber. There is one door out and it leads onto a united Ireland. When it opens, however, is moot. This requires a determination by the British Government. (Indeed, a recent high court challenge by victims’ rights campaigner, Raymond McCord failed to set more objective criteria about when a referendum can be called).

It seems highly implausible that if Sinn Féin tops the poll in the next Assembly elections and if parties either with a commitment to Irish unity, or, indeed, just a promise to hold a border poll end up in the majority, that the Secretary of State could avoid calling one.

Given the above scenario is increasingly likely, both Westminster and Dublin need to help with the process of acclimatising unionists to the reality of a border poll being held in the near future, and, crucially, explain how the two governments will respond.

They need to be much more overt in setting out what the next few years could look like, or risk this issue piling up in the in-tray of government ministers in five years’ time. First off, they must make clear they will honour the result and publish a joint White Paper to this effect, explaining the process that follows any decision to leave the UK.

One thing is clear though: There is no provision in the Good Friday Agreement for a super-majority. The idea that, say, two-thirds of the entire Northern Ireland population or at least 51% of unionists must consent to unity has never been part of the deal. Former Tanaiste, Michael McDowell, misunderstood this basic point in the Sunday Business Post:

I wonder…whether the “Big Bang” idea of Irish unity, whereby at some future time a majority in the North opts to leave the UK and to join in a united Irish republic as currently constituted is more likely than some half-way house in constitutional terms.

It seems to me that any agreed Ireland would more probably involve a compromise well short of a unitary state. Such a compromise would have to be preceded by dialogue and talks.

No-one wants to bounce unionists into anything. However, repotting the goalposts to frustrate the entirely legitimate emergence of a united Ireland undermines the basic integrity of the Good Friday Agreement.

Let’s be clear: It’s entirely reasonable to expect Protestant-Unionists to accept the democratic result of a border poll and adjust accordingly (a point made by Peter Robinson the other day). After all, they will only ever find themselves in a new, unified Irish state if a majority of people in Northern Ireland have voted for it. And, of course, a British Government will have called the poll in the first place.

Moreover, Unionists cannot plausibly have a veto on what constitutes a democratic majority, while the idea of retro-fitting the process simply to create a blocking measure, will be seen by republicans as the act of bad faith it is.

Everyone wants to see the maximum amount of dialogue in coming years, building cross-community trust before there is ever a vote on the border. No-one is striving for a 50% +1 result. But if 52% is enough to eject the UK from the EU, or 50.5% is enough to see the creation of the Welsh assembly, then a numerical majority of votes in a border poll must be enough to secure constitutional change in Northern Ireland.