Mr. Mark Durkan:

Senator Ó Donnghaile raised a number of questions about Article 2 and how to give it full meaning. The Irish Government has tried to honour Article 2 in a significant way, including by ensuring it appears on passports. While I agree with Senator Ó Donnghaile that identity is not only expressed in the right to carry a passport, it is good it is in the artwork of the current passport and I hope that will not be lost in the move to commission new artwork for the passport.

As regards moving North-South discussions forward, we need to respect the fact that some of the architecture was set out in 1998. We want to develop that as far as we can. In so far as that is stymied, we can use alternative ways to assist in some of the issues, for example, as the Senator mentioned, the shared island unit. If some issues are being stilted and stunted in the context of the North-South Ministerial Council arrangements that does not rule out other airspace being opened up in a creative, positive, pragmatic and non-threatening way, but that is not a substitute for being able to hold a mature, adult conversation about the prospect and possibility of constitutional change.

In respect of constitutional change, democratic, pro-agreement Ireland needs to have a discussion to clarify what the criteria might be for calling a poll, or the question to be asked, rather than waiting for a British secretary of state to set his or her criteria. In the same way as democratic Ireland thought ahead, through the New Ireland Forum and the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, even when unionists were refusing to engage and participate. Democratic Ireland thought about the type of political arrangements which might be agreed in negotiations and proposals that could be borne by both unionists and nationalists. We had to be realistic about what was likely to be agreed in negotiations and could be passed in a referendum North and South, as Mr. John Hume always recommended.

If we were able to have that sort of constructive dialogue in the past there is no reason not to do the same around constitutional change. It meant we were ready in negotiations with unionists with suggestions they could agree to and unionist voters were able to vote for. It can be done in a constructive way, especially if it is done in terms of curating Article 3. That means a renewed or revived forum for peace and reconciliation that considers how we can develop the thinking and share new thinking around Article 3 and that is equally open to those who support Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom as it is to those who support a united Ireland. It would not only consider a united Ireland. Those who want to talk about and plan for a united Ireland could do so. Those who have a different view could express theirs also. Those are terms in which Article 3 is written.

We need to examine this in a manner that is seen to be without prejudice or presumption and of course without the predicament of calling a referendum or a referendum being called upon us with no plan. Other people may have their reasons for moving towards a referendum. Mr. David Trimble did in 2002, hoping it would be held in 2003. We know why he did it, but a unionist leader or leaders could calculate that they want to hold a poll.

I do not use the term "Border poll", but rather constitutional change. I know I will not win a battle of political correctness on that issue, but the reason I do not use the term "Border poll" is that those of us who want a united Ireland need to remember we need to address many more issues than just antipathy to the Border. We must also respect the views of people who will vote to remain part of the United Kingdom and who will not per sebe voting for the Border. I have unionist friends who say they would be quite happy to have a borderless Ireland and want it to be even more borderless than it is at present. Their vote for the union is not a vote for a Border in any shape or form. Therefore it is helpful to alter the language.

We should also be clear that the referendum should not be a vote for or against a united Ireland. The vote should be a choice between the two equally legitimate aspirations, United Kingdom or united Ireland, because then it is up to both sides to come up with a positive prospectus and give positive assurances about what the outcome will mean if their side of the debate wins. If the question is unity - yes or no - in addition to typecasting unionists into a no-vote again, there is also the danger of making it easy to build up confusion and fears on a "if you do not know, vote no" basis. That could apply in the South as well as the North.