In late 2017 civic nationalism penned a letter to the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, expressing valid concerns around the withholding of rights and equalities of nationalists in the North. Subsequently, earlier this year, a letter from civic unionism responded with the message that could be summed up as ‘don’t tar us all with the same brush’. Both letters (albeit positive manoeuvres) have ultimately – at this stage – proved to be nothing more than paper exercises.

It is understood that the letter from civic nationalism was circulated from Sinn Féin ranks in the South. Though undoubtedly grounded in good intentions, it presented the party with an opportune optics exercise to prove that they are now in a position to garner support from beyond their traditional base.

Of course, good intentions are just that.

Unfortunately, the palpability of ‘joint stewardship’ enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement (1998) has yet to prove itself in the absence of an Assembly at Stormont. Without Dublin playing a more crucial role during the North’s political vacuum, it is close to impossible for the Taoiseach to do little more than air the concerns of nationalism in the north- as laid out in the letters.

The response to these letters from civic unionism was a welcome acknowledgement that segments within the unionist community understand and share the concerns of northern nationalism, and that they too want to embark on a conversation around rights and equality for the community entire.

What seems to go unrecognised by nationalism is the pressing need to include unionism – civic, soft, or whatever synonym you prefer – in the conversation around rights and inequalities. The DUP, professional sceptics of the notion that there lies an imbalance of rights (to a certain extent) not just for nationalists, but other minority groups too. Unfortunately, as the biggest political party in the North, they are the last (and most important) group to be convinced otherwise. Nationalists- with all due respect- will find this an insurmountable task to conquer alone. Civic unionism, by their very virtue, are the best placed group to bridge this gap. This is why it is absolutely crucial that signatories of civic nationalism and civic unionism sit down together.

Though the softer segments within both traditions have a lot of unchartered territory to uncover between them, the impressive list of signatories, should there be a meeting of minds, have the capacity, respectability and reputation between them to set an incredible trajectory at this point in history.

The meeting of two groups, both with distinct cultures and backgrounds, but with an over-arching desire to see these six counties return to some form of normality, both sustainably and with cross-community consent, wouldn’t just symbolically send out a message to the electorate; it would have a genuine chance to change the mood music for the first time in this island’s history.

As it stands – cynically speaking – the letters from both civic nationalism and civic unionism, though welcome, were just that, letters, pieces of paper that told us what we already knew.

But where the rubber meets the road is the manifestation of something more; whether it takes the shape of a civic forum or a simple series of quiet conversations, there is an imperative on both groups to understand that a petition of sorts will no longer cut it. However, a united voice – though not united, nor should they expect to be, on all segments of the debate – presents an unprecedented juncture for lasting change.