Why a well-meaning call to find our '˜common ground' is doomed to failure

‘A strong case can be framed for our MLAs to work together to identify common ground between them and to work for the common good and not section interests.’

Now, I acknowledge that David means well and that his comments are rooted in his Christian beliefs and a desire for forgiveness and reconciliation.

That said, I also believe that his comments are, in fact, rooted in three fundamental errors.

Republicans and unionists cannot ‘leave behind the dusty soils’ of their past because they cannot and will not agree on a future for Northern Ireland.

I’m a unionist: and I will remain a unionist. A republican is a republican: and will remain a republican. I don’t want a united Ireland and he doesn’t want a United Kingdom to remain the constitutional status quo. I will not give up my beliefs: he will not give up his beliefs. Neither of us is right or wrong. Yet both of us insist that our belief should prevail.

The ‘common ground’ that David speaks of is not, of course, Northern Ireland. Republicans don’t recognise the constitutional legitimacy of Northern Ireland, describing it as a ‘failed state,’ the ‘occupied north,’ the ‘six counties,’ etc. Both Sinn Fein and, more recently the SDLP, want a border poll as soon as possible and both are now upping the demand for ‘unity sooner rather than later’.

Unionists reject those arguments and that desire for ‘a nation once again’. They want to remain in the United Kingdom.

So, put bluntly, when there is no agreement – and no agreement possible – that Northern Ireland itself can be the ‘common ground,’ then it will not be possible to agree on other common grounds. The quest here is not to build a common country – which is often a central theme in other peace processes; instead, it is about opposing sides/communities/identities securing their own outcome at the expense of the other.

Finally, when David talks about an ‘eagerness to keep on building peace,’ he is, like so many others, confusing peace with stalemate. The mistake I made in 1998 – when I backed the Good Friday Agreement – was assuming that peace could be something more substantial than the absence of terror campaigns. Don’t get me wrong, ending violence and saving lives must be a priority in every peace process; but so, too, must be the creation of an environment whereby all of the opposing forces can be brought together in common cause and purpose. That has not happened in Northern Ireland. And, for the reasons I’ve already mentioned, that will not be possible in Northern Ireland.

So yes, we have something resembling peace (although with paramilitary activity still ongoing and security threat levels higher than they’ve been for 20 years it is clearly a fragile peace); but it is not the sort of peace which can ever lead to common purpose, agenda and identity.

That’s why those who can be bothered to vote are increasingly consolidating around the DUP and SF. It’s why the so-called moderate parties of unionism and nationalism (who, in reality, are much the same as the DUP and SF) are being eased into the wings. It’s why Alliance remains at much the same level of support it had before 1998. And it’s why no new centre ground has emerged post-GFA to challenge the electoral/political status quo.

David argues that; ‘nothing great is ever achieved suddenly and that’s because progress is often uneven and success in never guaranteed. A mutually favourable outcome will only emerge for those who are willing to go the extra mile and keep asking, “is there a better way?” And that’s something the vast majority of people want our politicians to do.’

Hmm. The DUP and SF now represent almost 60% of those who vote. The SDLP and UUP have precisely the same constitutional fault lines in their relationship as do the DUP/SF: and just look at what happened when Mike Nesbitt suggested voting SDLP before other unionist parties. Not much evidence there of a ‘vast majority’ looking for the ‘better way’.

And what is the ‘extra mile’ he speaks of? No unionist or republican will do anything which diminishes their core belief (Foster and O’Neill will be well aware of the electoral carnage inflicted upon the UUP/SDLP for being perceived as ‘soft’). How do you travel the extra mile, let alone an extra inch, when neither party wants the same thing or shares the same vision?

A quarter of a century since the Downing Street Declaration triggered a process which led to ceasefires, negotiations and devolved institutions, we have ended up (assuming a deal is struck in the next few weeks) with two governments in the same Executive with competing and contradictory agendas and policies. Mandatory coalition is bad enough. Mandatory coalition between two parties who agree on little and thrive, electorally, on stand-offs and showdowns, has become intolerable.

David shouldn’t be afraid of a tough love approach to politicians here. His is an important voice – but it’s far too gentle.