Sir, – Noel Dorr's timely intervention in the border poll debate states a number of fundamental facts ("Talk of a border poll is premature", Opinion & Analysis, August 16th).
The status of Northern Ireland, one hundred years after its establishment, continues to provide the region’s two predominant political sects with their respective allegiances. It has and will continue to be seriously contentious.
Anything that reduces contention in a region notorious for such feeling is a positive thing – repeated calls for the convening of a border poll have the contrary effect.
The achievement of a settled Northern Ireland should be a welcome development for anyone with a genuine interest in Ireland’s current and future affairs. It has been oft-stated, yet worthy of reiteration, that those in authority should faithfully work the structures at their disposal. Without that effort any eventual constitutional change will run the stark risk of being a “united Ireland” in name alone.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
PETER DONNELLY,
Comber,
Co Down.
Sir, – The Rev Martin O'Connor's reason for discounting a united Ireland (Letters, August 17th), the persistence of so-called peace-walls in Belfast, is the reason why it is necessary. The Northern Ireland territory is one where the political majority is not allowed to rule in the ordinary sense, where special rules apply to forming a governing administration and to many aspects of civil society. That is because the territory was set up to sustain sectarian differences and discrimination. The differences are essential for those who wish to preserve the territory. The special rules and walls are there to make life semi-tolerable for those who would otherwise suffer renewed discrimination.
If dismantling peace walls are a prerequisite for discussing a united Ireland, unionists will ensure that they are preserved. Far better to insist that artificial barriers to discussing a united Ireland are an unacceptable prohibition on democratic rights. Far better to discuss a socially progressive united Ireland in which at least one aspect of the Northern territory should be preserved and enhanced, a health service free at the point of delivery. – Yours, etc,
NIALL MEEHAN,
Cabra,
Dublin 7.
Sir. – The debate on the potential for an united Ireland has always been limited to two options. The first is that unionists can be persuaded to throw in their lot with a Republic that they don’t trust to form a new Ireland. The second is that nationalists will abandon their ambitions for unity and throw their weight behind a United Kingdom outside the EU. In my view, neither option will be realised even in the longer term. The more realistic third option is an independent Northern Ireland. With full membership of the EU and a favourable trade arrangement with the UK, such a sovereign state would have a bright future. Crucially, both communities would feel free to support a common future. – Yours, etc,
BARRY BOLAND,
Ballsbridge,
Dublin 4.