The chances of Irish unity by consent, ever, must be approaching nil, writes Dennis Kennedy in the wake of the latest Northern Ireland census figures.
Last week's census results could have introduced that rarest of things into the Northern Ireland situation - a stabilising factor. For as Garret FitzGerald wrote in this newspaper last Saturday, the truth now is that the prospect of a majority in the North for Irish unity is sufficiently remote for that goal to be irrelevant in the foreseeable future.
The much anticipated new demographic reality did not emerge and, far from being roughly equal in size, the two communities in the North are probably locked into a permanent unionist majority-nationalist minority relationship, albeit a close one. The slowdown in the Catholic birth rate confirmed in the results means there is no chance of a Catholic majority in the foreseeable future, and no chance at all of a majority in favour of Irish unity.
So unionists and nationalists now have to face up to the problem of living together within the present constitutional arrangement, accepting it for all practical purposes as permanent. So, too, do Dublin, London and Washington. Anyone who fondly hoped that the Belfast Agreement would patch things over until demography provided the final solution in a decade or two must now return to the drawing board.
This newly confirmed demographic stability should encourage nationalists to a clearer realisation of what their acceptance of the consent principle actually means, and should help unionists worry less about imminent incarceration in an all-Ireland state, and think more about how to get on with their fellow Northerners.
But only if the lessons are learned. The omens are not good, judging from Mark Durkan's article in Friday's Irish Times. Did the SDLP leader write his piece on the census before he had actually had time to read the published figures, basing it on the inaccurate predictions of journalists and politicians? Or was he trying to get in a pre-emptive strike to divert attention away from the reality revealed by the statistics?
A 53 per cent to 44 per cent superiority is not large. But just as Mr Durkan insists that the barest nationalist majority would be enough to trigger Irish unity, so the barest unionist majority ensures that Northern Ireland remains within the UK. In very general terms the two communities may be roughly equal in size, as Mr Durkan says, or at least approaching that position. But in the context of aspiring to Irish unity, which is what Mr Durkan's article was all about, the Protestant and Catholic communities are not at all equal in size, and will not be for the foreseeable future. Given that opinion polls constantly confirm that up to one-third of Northern Catholics would not support Irish unification, the chances of unity by consent ever must be approaching nil.
One can never say never, but no rational person could regard it as anything more than the remotest and most unlikely of prospects. Why then does Mr Durkan devote most of his article to discussing something which is not going to happen?
He goes to considerable lengths to assure unionists that they will be treated well within a united Ireland, according to the fundamental principles of "partnership, equality and mutual respect". The Northern Assembly would continue, and so would the Executive. He promises them real power in a new Irish national parliament, and in a new Irish national government.
Leaving aside that these are things which Mr Durkan has no authority to promise - how power would be distributed within an all-Ireland parliament or government would be matters for those bodies to decide - he is dwelling in the realms of fantasy. The census results on which his article is based tell him clearly there is not going to be a united Ireland, certainly not in his lifetime.
When he took over as SDLP leader Mr Durkan disappointed many observers by his endorsement of the traditional nationalist goal of Irish unity, something he has continued to stress. At the same time he claimed to be articulating a "new nationalism", a distinctive element of which, in this era of consent, was to be persuading unionists of the virtues of Irish unification. Opinion polls, and election results, show no evidence that such persuasion is working. The census returns show that demography itself will not do the trick.
SO far Mr Durkan has given little indication of how he will persuade unionists. The promise, to Northern politicians, of real power in Dublin instead of sideline seats at Westminster would have little or no appeal, even if it was in Mr Durkan's power to promise it. The suggestion that in a united Ireland unionists would enjoy an end to constitutional uncertainty might sound like a rather sick joke to most unionists, if not a threat that they would be given no such certainty under the Belfast Agreement.
Mr Durkan in an earlier article referred to the agreement as "a template for the future", implying that it was not an end in itself, not a "settlement". The suggestion then seemed to be that the real importance of the agreement to nationalists was as a template for how unionists, and indeed the North, would be government inside a united Ireland. This is very much confirmed in this latest article.
A template for something that is not going to happen is not much use. The SDLP would be far better advised to concentrate on making a go of Northern Ireland than planning how to run a united Ireland, an exercise more appropriate to the Flat Earth Society.
If they can look beyond the current popularity struggle with Sinn Féin they might see that by keeping Irish unity as their distinguishing political objective, they are condemning themselves to be, at best, perpetual runners up in Northern Ireland. They are also guaranteeing that political unionism will always be in first place, if only by a short head.
Dennis Kennedy is a political commentator and member of the Cadogan Group