When will a unionist stand up for the Good Friday Agreement in response to what appears to be a creeping rejection of it by nationalists north and south?
The refusal of Sinn Fein, spurred on by the nationalist electorate, to form an Executive and thus allow the Assembly to function, is a rejection of the Agreement.
And the reasons given for the refusal are matters beyond the Good Friday Agreement, There is no provision in the Agreement for an Irish language act, same-sex marriage, or legacy funding and neither was a bill of rights agreed.
But what should be equally, if not more, concerning to unionists is the revival of southern irredentism?
This New Irredentism has manifested itself recently in the form of proposals for extra-territorial voting rights for the Southern president, demands for a southern passport office in Northern Ireland, and demands for Northern Ireland to become a constituency of Southern Ireland for the purposes of elections to the European Parliament.
All of those goes way beyond the north-south settlement that was agreed in 1998 to deal with the totality of north-south relationships.
These proposals are designed to encourage people in the North to reject participatory citizenship in the UK and identify more and more with the South, and should they come to pass could have long-term implications for the Union as the UK becomes less relevant to many.
Why are unionists not opposing the New Irredentism in terms of defending an assault on the Good Friday Agreement north-south settlement?
The Agreement by amending the Southern constitution was supposed to mark an end to irredentism not act as an excuse to extend it. These proposals would do more damage to the Union than would a Gaelic language act. Unionists as ever are focused on the wrong issues.
>Willow is the pseudonym of a unionist commenter who has been commenting on Slugger since not long after the site was established back in 2002.