Sir, – Andy Pollak offers the 1992-93 Opsahl Commission as an even-handed and successful model for civic dialogue on Ireland’s future (“Unity debate – parallel civic dialogues”, Letters, February 3rd). This model is neither even-handed nor successful.
The commission emphatically rejected the Anglo-Irish Agreement’s majority consent formula for constitutional change.
It recommended instead a unionist veto to reassure the unionist community “that there can be no moves towards a united Ireland without its consent (ie all such moves can be prevented by using its power of veto)”.
Political scientist Jennifer Todd soon pointed out the fundamental bias in the commission’s position: “unionist constitutional preferences are so much prioritised over nationalist ones that the unionist community’s right to refuse to enter a united Ireland is affirmed even were a nationalist numerical majority to emerge within Northern Ireland”.
A helping hand with the cost of caring: what supports are available?
Matt Williams: Take a deep breath and see how Sam Prendergast copes with big Fiji test
New Irish citizens: ‘I hear the racist and xenophobic slurs on the streets. Everything is blamed on immigrants’
Crucial weekend in election campaign as bland as an Uncle Colm monologue on Derry Girls
The Belfast Agreement’s subsequent entrenchment of majority consent was an unequivocal repudiation of the unfairness of Opsahl’s veto.
Meaningful civic dialogue in Ireland cannot occur alongside the commission’s model of unionist privilege and nationalist subordination. – Yours, etc,
MIKE BURKE,
Associate Professor
Emeritus,
Toronto Metropolitan
University,
Canada.