Although the return of Stormont depends, to some extent, on the introduction of an Irish Language Act (ILA), few appear to have any idea what such an act might mean.
It is still just a concept, so the arguments around it rage in a vacuum from which no facts have so far escaped.
Thus our politicians disagree over a hypothetical piece of legislation and its imaginary impact on a notional view of northern society. Welcome to the world of arguing for the sake of it.
As an alternative, it might be helpful to explore the possible contents and consequences of such an act.
The demand for an ILA is based on the reasonable request that, as taxpayers, Gaeilgeoirí (Irish speakers) have the right to public services in Irish. Others go further and argue that Irish should have equal status with English. (Although granting Irish superior status to English in the south, has done little to foster the language there.)
However far you think an ILA should go, proposed legislation raises three questions: how do we define "Irish speakers"; what exactly does access to public services mean and who speaks for Irish speakers?
Gaeilgeoirí range from the fluent to those who use cúpla focal (a few words). While it is hard to argue against the fluent being entitled to have a legal case heard in Irish, for example, should that right extend to everyone, as in the 26 counties?
The answer would appear to be that public services should be available through Irish and those capable of using them would be entitled to do so. The law would grant access. Fluency would determine take-up.
While it is possible to have most public services through Irish, it would be unreasonable, for example, to expect every medical consultant to offer a diagnosis in Irish. (I'd be happy to have mine in English. I would hate to die from the misuse of an irregular verb.)
So there is no practical reason why an ILA cannot be introduced. The problem is Stormont's politicisation of Irish. During ten years in government, Sinn Féin never once tried to introduce an ILA, but the party now insists that it is a pre-requisite for Stormont's return
The DUP's opposition to an ILA shows that its scientific ignorance is matched by its cultural illiteracy. It fails to recognise the Irish place-names in its own electoral heartlands of Sean Chill (Shankill) or An Baile Meánach (Ballymena).
Sinn Féin is no better. I remember a DUP councillor asking about an Irish language school at an education and library board meeting. A SF councillor shouted at him: "Irish is our language. You have your own language." I thought of Pearse's hope that the children of Sandy Row might one day curse the Pope in Irish.
So the language issue is contaminated by sectarianism (even though the Presbyterians did significantly more to preserve Irish than the Catholic Church). The only way forward is to remove it from the local politics.
The UK government has already ratified Irish here as part of the EU's Charter for Historical Regional or Minority Languages. So the Secretary of State should appoint a language commissioner here (a post supported by language commissioners across the globe) to protect the rights of Irish speakers here in law. The name of the law is irrelevant.
The commissioner would work with the Irish language sector, which has two main organisations. Conradh na Gaeilge, (CnG) was founded in 1893. Its first president was Roscommon Protestant, Douglas Hyde, who later became the first President of Ireland.
Foras na Gaeilge is a product of the Good Friday Agreement. It is balanced (if that's the right word) by the Ulster Scots Agency, on the basis that Protestants are not Irish. (Why did no one tell Douglas Hyde?)
Of the two, CnG is the more politically neutral to shape legislation. It is an eminently sensible organisation and although that puts it at odds with sectarian politics here, it is only the eminently sensible who will bring this society forward.
