Sir, – UK prime minister Andy Burnham’s recent pronouncement on the constitutional future of Ireland reveals the core deficiency and imbalance at the heart of the Belfast Agreement.
In 1998, as Irish citizens across the island, in good faith, voted for the Agreement, and the compromises and ambiguities it contained, the power to initiate constitutional change would continue to be invested in whichever British MP holds the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
While the principle of consent was accepted by the Irish government in the Anglo-Irish agreement, was enshrined in the Downing Street Declaration and underpins the Belfast Agreement, there has been no equivalent “principle of agency” to determine explicitly how and when citizens in the North can determine their constitutional future.
If the principle of consent established who will decide the future of Northern Ireland, then there is a need for a parallel principle of agency to give citizens the power of determining when.
RM Block
All the lessons of the Brexit referendum suggest the “how” in the Belfast Agreement is deficient by defining a singular, ultimate Border poll as the mechanism.
It is easy to consider a more managed, phased process triggered by a simple majority vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly followed by:
- An initial, indicative referendum in Northern Ireland,
- Preparations, including intergovernmental negotiations and a New Ireland constitutional convention, followed by
- An ultimate confirmatory all-island referendum.
Such a process could, necessarily, take years but delivers greater clarity of “what the people are actually finally voting for”.
Such a mechanism removes the power for determining the “when” from the British Secretary of State and gives it to the people of Northern Ireland.
It delivers a principle of agency to rank beside the principle of consent.
Such a proposal should be on the table. – Yours, etc,
CONOR QUINN,
Lisburn
Co Antrim
Sir, – Michael McDowell is wrong to support Andy Burnham’s ill-advised comment that “a border poll is off the table” (“Burnham is right: poll should be off the table”, Opinion, September 2nd).
The point is there is no conflict between working for reconciliation, between Northern Catholics and Northern Protestants and between North and South, and working out what sort of united Ireland has the best chance of producing a harmonious united state, with sectarian divisions confined to the past.
On the contrary reconciliation is best advanced through elaborating what a united Ireland could look like. Such a discussion can remove misconceptions and reassure those who fear a united Ireland that there is nothing to fear.
Equally important is that, while rightly seeking to reassure Northern unionists that their rights will be respected, we cannot ignore the rights of Northern nationalists to assert their aspiration for unity, to see their language and culture fully respected and their refusal to put up with the second-class status that partition visited upon them.
Refusing to discuss what agenda should be part of a Border poll, or to outline the conditions under which it will occur is effectively to give a veto on development to unionism, something not envisaged in the Belfast Agreement.
The Southern middle class may oppose unity, but the rights of the rest of us demand that we get on with the job. – Yours, etc,
EOIN Ó MURCHÚ,
Cluain Dolcáin
Baile Átha Cliath 22
Sir, – Newton Emerson quite sensibly suggests that Sinn Féin ought to concentrate on pursuing policies to improve living standards in Northern Ireland, rather than agitating for an early Border poll (Sinn Féin has backed itself into a corner on a Border poll”, Opinion, September 3rd).
The essential foundation for unity is agreement by both communities to a democratic structure that merits cross-sectional support.
It will need several generations to progress from that state to a new format. So just get on with building that foundation.
LIAM O’CEALLAIGH,
Ascal Naomh Breandain,
Baile Átha Cliath
Sir, – John Poynton (Letters, September 2nd) suggests in relation to a Border poll that it would be more correct to refer to “reunification”, rather than “unification”.
He forgets that we no longer seek merely “the reintegration of the national territory” as provided for in the original text of the 1937 Constitution, but instead “to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland”.
It seems to me that we have been a disunited people on this island for a long, long time – and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. To talk about “reunification” in these circumstances would, therefore, be somewhat disingenuous. – Yours, etc,
FELIX M LARKIN
Cabinteely
Dublin 18
Sir, – The relevant criterion to trigger a unity poll, under the Belfast Agreement, is impossibly nebulous. But we Nordies are notoriously pedantic.
I think Burnham meant that a poll is currently not on the table. To say it is “off the table”, presumes, that at some time, it has been on the table, but is now being removed. I really should take up a hobby. Yours, etc,
GP McHUGH,
Somerton Road,
Belfast
