Every so often the Taoiseach articulates his wish for a "united Ireland" and one can expect more of this in the run-up to the anniversary of 1916, writes Éamon Delaney
This is surprising, because it's a rare example recently of any politician, let alone a representative of the State, talking up the centuries-old ambition of a united Ireland - independent and free of British rule. Once an absolute article of faith for our political culture, endlessly repeated, this core aim has surely now been almost completely abandoned.
And Bertie appears to be on his own in voicing it; for it is hard to believe that the rest of his Government are believers. His Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, once described the Irish Government as an "honest broker" in terms of negotiations on the North, an astonishing admission which suggests that we are merely tinkering with the problem, as if it was a far away conflict such as Bosnia or Israel/Palestine.
This is a pity because it means that the State has surrendered this rhetorical ground to modern Sinn Féin and, worse still, to the sort of hooligan element which recently attacked the "Love Ulster" parade and disgraced the name of Irish nationalism. Particularly regrettable is that, in this case, what the world sees is a nasty expression of anti-unionist sectarian bigotry and not the inclusive, persuasive nationalism of the Irish State and Government.
Of course, there was a reason for this lack of official utterance about a united Ireland. It was a policy of using language less threatening to the unionists, so that they would be less resistant to nationalism as a whole and so amenable to a settlement in the North. And maybe even - whisper it - eventually amenable to a united, sorry, "agreed Ireland" .
But was this really the case? The settlement in the North came about because the two sides exhausted each other and the IRA called a ceasefire. And the unionists, anxious for a return to Stormont, reluctantly engaged. The agreement which emerged has rewarded the extremes and resulted in political stalemate.
As for North and South, there is no sign of any particular rapprochement. Talk all you wish about cross-Border bodies but these show no particular growth or buoyancy - never mind the idea that they would "grow" into a "unified Ireland". In fact, partition has been copper-fastened. Worse still, it exists as a way of life, and thinking. A whole generation has grown up who have little memory of the original desire for a united Ireland. Or about how the Six Counties must be combined with the other 26 to make a magical 32. A large percentage of Irish people never even visit the North. In fact, there were probably more visits during the actual Troubles. In an EasyJet culture, the moneyed Irish are more likely to visit London, Paris or the Algarve, than go to Belfast or the north Antrim coast.
This emotional disengagement has been matched on the other side. The British have become less unionist. They too have moved back on their rhetoric and only Tory backbenchers and Daily Telegraph writers still really believe that Ulster is "as British as Finchley". But this shouldn't let us off the hook. If Northern Ireland is less British than it used to be, then surely it is more Irish. So why are successive Irish governments, and the Irish State as a whole, not prepared to say this?
They would argue that the aim of a united Ireland, and the "Irishness" of Northern Ireland, is enshrined in language in the Good Friday agreement. This is true, but it is as if by giving it linguistic form and putting it in an agreement - "parking it", if you like - that is the end of the matter. So perhaps it was always a rhetorical ambition anyway. But it was not that before; it was supposed to be constantly striven for - an active policy. It was also confidently said, after the original IRA ceasefire of 1994, that the prospect of an agreed, united Ireland might be closer. The unionists would now soften their attitude, economics were paramount and, sure, aren't we all in a Europe "without borders" anyway? But no such thing happened. And the aspiration to a united Ireland was quietly shelved.
This leaves just Sinn Féin stating it as an aim, and on this they may be on a vote-winner, whatever about their other policies. By not stating the long-term aim of constitutional nationalism, the political culture is abandoning the ground to Sinn Féin. Or, worse still, the mob which ran amok recently in Dublin. It is also a dangerous and complacent policy in terms of ignoring some of the deepest convictions of Northern nationalists. This has happened before, in the 1950s, and then notoriously in the late '60s, when the South became oblivious to the hurt pride of Northern nationalists, and allowed it to be exploited by republican militants. Occasionally re-stating the desire for a united Ireland doesn't have to involve the inflammatory rhetoric that we saw in 1966, or in 1971, but simply says the State still believes in a centuries-old aspiration. Which is why Bertie should be careful - but also why he may on the right path.
• Éamon Delaney is an author and the editor of Magill magazine