The Government will oppose this Bill for a range of reasons. It would do little to achieve its objective and it would recommit us to an approach that has failed repeatedly over the past 100 years. Most importantly, it would distract from urgent work that is essential before any honest and constructive debate about our constitutional future can be held. This is the work that falls to everyone here and not just the Government. It is important that all of us who aspire to the unity of all Irish people are willing to discuss and debate it. However, denouncing people because they see a different means to a specific end is the very opposite of a constructive debate. Instead of waving flags in people's faces and talking about the inevitable march of history, we need people to be open about the scale of the obstacles to overcome and the spirit of a peace agreement, which is the bedrock upon which we can build our future. For the past century we have not overcome a constitutional divide which had no foundation or precedent in our long history. Campaigns of sectarian murder and destruction not only failed, they further deepened division. It is also true that those of us who sought unification by peaceful means failed to create a vision for the future that could persuade others to agree with us. The proposal for a policy statement on unity backed by other nationalist parties is not new. In fact, it has been tried repeatedly. At its core are the assumptions of one more push, or demography is destiny, which have always failed. The model proposed in the Bill is not new. There has already been a lot of talk about Scotland, but the harsh fact is that the approach contained in this Bill is almost exactly the one that did not deliver constitutional change there in spite of a seven-year referendum campaign. The Bill requires that all work must be commissioned, completed, analysed and then incorporated within a proposal for a unitary state within 18 months. All analysis and proposals about the economy, education systems, health services, public service pay, the replacement of sterling, legal systems, policing, legacy, culture, identity and constitutional structures must be completed in a year and a half. This is obviously not credible. Due to the research programme that I put in place, and the Government through the shared island initiative, we are now for the first time developing a systematic approach to gathering information and wider data on the reality of life North and South. The cost of maintaining services and payments is one thing but the bigger issue of economic convergence would, under any scenario, involve profound changes in tax, benefits, public service pay and many other areas. The idea that we can finish building rigorous and independent data in 18 months and then answer questions on people's incomes and the structure of the economy is obviously not serious. In relation to compelling the establishment of a citizens' assembly at the end of next year, I have consistently been of the view that a citizens' assembly is not the appropriate mechanism to advance the enormous work of securing the unity of the people of this island, work which by definition requires much broader participation of the public, of political parties and of all communities on the island. Addressing the real hurt of the legacy of the years of violence and destruction would be an essential step in building trust and an honest debate. Simply ignoring it causes new hurt and reinforces divisions. Given the reality of past experience, please let us move beyond the new slogan that all we need is Government advocacy and a citizens' assembly and then we will be ready. A policy of one more push, and hoping for an unpopular government in London, will achieve nothing. In contrast, our approach is rooted in the Good Friday Agreement and in maximising the ability for breaking the cycle of failed policies from the last century. The starting point of true civic republicanism is to focus first on building understanding and shared interests between all communities. I am genuinely surprised by how dismissive some here are of the groundbreaking practical work being done under the shared island initiative. Not one speaker opposite mentioned it in any of their contributions. We have secured its legitimacy. We have shown that it is possible for people to reach across divides on the basis of shared interests. We have held forums involving many thousands of people from every walk of life. No one did this work at this scale before now. If we can share a common understanding of the facts then we can discuss our future on an informed basis rather than simply singing the old songs and expecting something new to happen. It is up to each party here to stop demanding that others do the work of describing the constitutional, economic and social future of this island. For our part, we intend to continue to work in pursuit of Irish unity in ways that are consistent with the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and my belief that we have to break the cycle of 100 years where discussion of the constitutional future has always rapidly and inevitably devolved into competing camps. As this Bill attempts to recommit us to a strategy that has failed for so long, we will oppose it and recommit ourselves to a more credible, active and ambitious approach.

Sentiment score: 0.12