That the referendums on the Belfast Agreement, North and South, will be carried tomorrow is not now in doubt. Successive polls confirm that the middle-ground of opinion in both jurisdictions supports the agreement as a compromise between the irreconcilable ambitions of nationalism and unionism. What remains to be seen is the extent of the consensus and, conversely, the scale of continuing opposition. The past six weeks have witnessed deep soul-searching by men and women of every tradition on this island. The columns of this newspaper and others have been filled, as never before in recent memory, with passionate argument. The predictable extremes came into play. But there has been much more of honesty and of seeking for reconciliation, albeit veined in a great many instances with grief and pain.
It is appropriate to acknowledge the, perhaps surprising, generosity which has emerged. The people of the Republic are willing to renounce cherished political beliefs if it brings peace to the island. Northern nationalists have acknowledged that their holy grail of a united Ireland is not in prospect. Unionists have accepted that they must provide for the Irish identity of their nationalist neighbours and that they must share Northern Ireland with them on an agreed basis. This sense of generosity has been ubiquitous. Can it be that bigotry and irredentism may not be quite as deeply rooted as was believed?
Notwithstanding, there will be a sizeable vote against the agreement in both parts of Ireland. Some nationalists will say no to the alteration of the constitutional claim. Many of the unionist tradition have difficulty with the proposals for cross-border bodies. But the greatest reservations on the agreement are not on the constitutional questions but on the painful, on-the-ground issues of prisoner releases, police reform, decommissioning of weapons and the prospect of former paramilitaries, or their associates, becoming part of a new administration.
No formulaic reassurances should be offered to those who feel that they cannot accept what the agreement implies under any of these headings. The best that can be offered - and asked of them - is that they accept the will of the majority. It is an agreement in which peace may grow. And within that peace, hopefully, it will be possible for forgiveness to grow also. Not everyone will be immediately able to muster the Christian generosity of the parents of Tim Parry, or of Stephen Restorick or of the daughter of consultant Gordon Hamilton-Fairley. There has been much discussion of the percentage majority which will be required to give decisive endorsement to the agreement - especially among the unionist population. The greater the Yes margin the better, but too much may be read into percentages at this point. The waters will close over the referendums, once passed, and the focus of contention will shift to the assembly elections in little more than a month. Even those who now urge a No vote will be seeking to achieve maximum influence in the assembly. And history records many instances of those who start out opposed to new institutions adapting to them and fashioning them to their own political ends. The prospect of power is difficult to resist. Some observers felt that the No campaign in Northern Ireland was more effective than the Yes campaign. The polls suggest the contrary. In the end, after weeks of argument and analysis, a majority in both communities recognises that whatever the flaws of the agreement, nobody can suggest a better alternative. Yes gives a chance - a good chance - for peace and stability. No leads back to despair and violence. Those on the extremes of unionism and nationalism have failed in their efforts to blind the voters to that reality. When the ballot boxes are opened on Saturday they will have the people's verdict on their endeavours to hold Ireland entrapped in the conflicts of the past.