Let us put aside for a moment the arguments that Ireland is actually become more pluralistic and secular and that "Christianity in all its forms" has itself never been more divided and that many (mainly younger) people have given up on it altogether. It baffles me what the muscular Christian evangelism of (say) the MAGA movement in the USA has in common with the gentle Anglicanism of my upbringing and youth. Our common European-ness was also put severely in question by Brexit and the most extreme forms of it that were championed by many in the North. Furthermore, some of our more recent immigrants share neither Christian nor European origins and roots.

So, there is always a danger that a Forum such as what Andy advocates degenerates into a partisan conservative hate fest of modernism in all its forms - secularism, pluralism, liberalism, environmentalism, and anti-Europeanism in the guise of anti-globalism. Isn't that what Trumpism and the emerging far right in Europe are all about? It is always easier to define vague concepts like "Irishness" by what they are not - not British, American, European, African, Islamic, imperialistic, or exclusively anglophone. It could become very nationalistic if not borderline racist. I always prefer the American motto of E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one, or unity in diversity) to any attempt to impose a common definition of shared values.

My other concern about the concept is more political. I get it that Andy is trying to build on values which both northern Protestants (who, despite the evidence of the ARINS surveys, he insists would almost universally feel alienated and betrayed by a United Ireland) and southern Catholics hold in common. Anyone from the north who has spent time in the south and vice versa will have been struck by how, despite all our alleged differences of national identity and religion, we all share the same everyday concerns of making ends meet, support the same teams (often including English soccer teams), watch the same television programmes, and have the same family, domestic and social concerns and challenges. There is surely much common experience to build on. We are often not as different from our neighbours as we like to let on, and our rivalry with England on the rugby pitch is no different from that of Scotland or Wales.

But then Andy rather gives the game away by expressing his astonishment that voters in the south are no more prepared to compromise on their comfortable existence than they were for the first ARINS survey in 2021 when "79% said [they] would not accept higher taxes; 79% less money for public services; 77% a new flag; 72% a new anthem; and 71% re-joining the Commonwealth" to accommodate unionists. Personally, I am not the least bit surprised that voters would take a dim view of higher taxes, poorer public services, or ditching the symbols of their proud independence from an awful history of colonial oppression, dispossession, discrimination, cultural marginalisation, starvation, and servitude.

And for what? Are northern Protestants supposed to be in favour of all of the above? I have not seen any evidence that a manifesto based on the above would attract a single additional vote from Protestants or others in a border poll for a united Ireland, and plenty of evidence that it would make such a prospect very unattractive for everyone else. And yet Andy spins this as more evidence that the people of the south "are not ready for re-unification."

My basic problem with such thinking is that it appears to rest on some sort of Faustian Bargain. Yes, you can have your United Ireland if you really want it, but only at the cost of giving up much of what you hold dear. You get nothing for nothing in this life. That is the real politik of this world view. The Irishness of Ireland must be compromised and manipulated to accommodate the Britishness of many in the north.

But that is to misunderstand the fundamental change of attitude that came about as a result of the Good Friday Agreement in the south as well as the north where Article 3.1 below was approved by 94% of the electorate.

"It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. "

Ireland (and the Irish people) gave up their right to the "fourth green field" and accepted that re-unification could only come about if the people of the north so decided, of their own free will and in accordance with their own interests as they perceive them.

There is nothing in the GFA which requires either those who feel Irish or who feel British to give up any part of their identity, any more than it requires anyone to convert to Catholicism or Protestantism. Parity of esteem cuts both ways. We are not going to become some sort of anodyne miss-mash as a result of re-unification. Unionism and unionist parties and the people they represent will not simply wither away as some nationalists might wish to fantasize. In fact, they might become more important than ever as a common badge of identity for those who feel that way.

Why should, in this modern world, anyone who feels British be required to dilute or compromise their Britishness in any way just because their government is centred in Dublin rather than London? And the same applies to anyone who feels Irish and the increasing numbers for whom national identity is no big deal either way. Yes, there were many bitter times in the past, but the last thing we want to do is institutionalise those past antagonisms.

I get it that many northern protestants feel extremely bitter about the Troubles and the way in which the IRA, and now Sinn Féin have appropriated many of the symbols of Irishness. But the Good Friday Agreement put an end to any southern claims to ownership or sovereignty over the north. It is now up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide, whatever you might think about the gerrymandered nature of the origins of the Northern Ireland state. Northern unionists will be as entitled to fly the Union Jack from their private properties in a United Ireland as they are now, and many will, no doubt, decide to do so.

One of the flaws of the Good Friday agreement is that it required Northern Ireland parties to designate as Unionist, Nationalist or other. That may have been a necessary compromise to end the violence, but it has ended up institutionalising those divisions and leading to very dysfunctional governance. We cannot afford to make the same mistake in a United Ireland which merely preserves past divisions in aspic and requires people to make constant Faustian Bargains just to make any semblance of progress on anything. There is hardly an issue in Northern Ireland which isn't politicised in sectarian terms, and this has got to stop, not be carried forward into a United Ireland, because otherwise a United Ireland will not work, and no one will want it.

So, do I support a United Ireland or not? Not at the price of anyone having to give up their soul or compromise what they believe in. A United Ireland will happen if and when the people of Northern Ireland decide it is in their own best interests to join up with the rest of Ireland and not because of some Faustian Bargain north and south. There is no price I am prepared to pay for something other people, of their own free will, may decide they would like to do. This is not a takeover for which I must be prepared to pay some price beyond the natural generosity of wanting your neighbours to have the same opportunities in life you have been blessed with. There is no deal.

The Good Friday Agreement places no legal, political, or moral obligation on Ireland to change anything in the way Ireland is governed in the event of Northern Ireland deciding to join. Obviously, political good sense will be to be as welcoming, open, and generous as possible, but who can say how this will evolve in the future when northern Unionist parties will be a large part of the polity and perhaps hold the balance of power in government formation. It will be interesting to see how northern parties perform when they have a chance of wielding real sovereign powers untrammelled by forced cohabitation or stove pipe ministries pursuing policies in isolation from each other.

We will know we are in a mature and settled polity when inspirational leadership, good example, and administrative competence replace intensity of sectarian identification in people's voting habits. But that may not be for a very long time, and who is to say that people from a unionist background cannot make just as good or better leaders than any from any other background. I personally look forward to a better and more competitive political environment forcing everyone to up their game if they are to obtain the votes and confidence of more people.

I also look forward to much closer and friendlier east west relations between our neighbouring British and Irish islands, perhaps formalised in a new British Irish Treaty covering huge areas of common interest and existing cooperation not directly within the competence of the EU: Common Travel, Erasmus style work experience and training opportunities, exchange of civil servants, agreement on civil servant pension obligations, mutual provision and recognition of educational qualifications, cooperative health care provision and support, infrastructural development, environmental protection, sustainable energy sharing in a multinational supergrid, justice, policing security and defence cooperation etc.

The EU currently doesn't have a Single Market for services or investment capital or exclusive competences in many of the areas above. There is nothing stopping more intensive and formalised cooperation in all these areas, and indeed, we could be a model for greater European cooperation or integration in the future. None of this need compromise our essential Britishness or Irishness either within or between these islands. It is indeed a very old fashioned concept to imagine that one's sense of identity can only be sustained within the context of the state we happen to be living in or than any state must consist of only one identity. E Pluribus Unum.

So, am I opposed to Andy's proposed All Ireland Forum on Shared Values? Not really, with the caveats expressed above. Another talk shop where people discuss past grievances and discuss future prospects could be a therapeutic process for many. The bitterness of the Troubles years is still with us for many, and anything which can help dissipate or heal that must be a good thing. It could be the sort of harmless feelgood process attended by mostly middle class people already interested in all Ireland issues which Micheál Martin's shared island unit might like promote.

But I fear it will be mostly the same old voices rehearsing past antagonisms rather than reflective of the new Ireland in a changed world emerging all around us. What is important is not that we share many old values but that we come to appreciate the many new values and diversity emerging all around us. But most importantly it should not be let become a forum where people of one identity try to wring political advantage from another in return for some kind of illusory "loser's consent." Loser's consent is not optional in a democracy, whatever Trump might say, and we should not encourage the notion that it could be a negotiable item.

Even on the ARINS survey figures 150,000 northern Protestants would find a United Ireland "almost impossible to accept". The fact that that figure is down from 240,000 in just three years is a very hopeful sign, especially as that reduction is in the context of no official proposals as to what a united Ireland would look like or any of the compromises Andy suggests might be necessary. We simply don't know what has persuaded 90,000 people to become more accepting of the idea in three years, or what might persuade more of the remaining 150,000 to come to be able to come to live with it. If many of those are hard-line loyalists from loyalist estates, it would be important to prioritise them as invitees to any such Forum and not just the usual professional conference attendees.

But are hard-line loyalists really going to be swayed by Commonwealth membership, new flags and anthems, and promises of increased social expenditure? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, let us do them the honour of respecting the integrity of their British identity and not assume they can be bought off by trinkets and treasure. But we need to reassure them of is that they can continue to be British in a United Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement has no sunset clause and parity of esteem will apply every bit as much as before. Indeed, the new British Irish Treaty I propose would incorporate those aspects of the GFA and give concrete expression to all identities on these islands just as membership of the EU and even EU citizenship does not require you to give up your national identity.

There is no need for anyone to compromise their Irishness or Britishness. People will not respect you if your identity is for sale in any case. Let us not pedal the notion that some Faustian Pact is on offer whereby people are required to negotiate and compromise their souls in return for some illusory sameness. Unity is in diversity, not in assimilation.