Sir, - Articles 2 and 3 are being discussed, even in The Irish Times, as if amending them would not be problematic. The danger is that unless the correct wording is used we shall end up in an even bigger mess than that created by the 1983 anti-abortion amendment. If we simply delimit this State, de facto, de jure and exclusively, to the 26 Counties, then must we not also amend Article 4, which states that the name of the State is "Ireland"? Perhaps Articles Two and Three can be amended in such a fashion as to draw a clear distinction between "nation" and "state", recognising the legitimacy of one Irish nation but of two Irish states. Even so Article Four would still seem to pose a problem. Would amending it to call the State the "Irish Republic" be a solution?
The logical outcome of amending Articles 2 and 3 without simultaneously amending Article Four would be the tacit acceptance of the "two nations" theory. Most people associate this theory with Conor Cruise O'Brien. However, its origin is actually Edward Saunderson's 1884 pamphlet Two Ireland, or Loyalty versus Treason. The "two nations" theory was then taken up by Joseph Chamberlain, most famously in his 1886 speech explaining his resignation from Gladstone's Cabinet in opposition to Irish Home Rule. O'Brien probably rediscovered this theory while researching the Irish Parliamentary Party.
It is important to remember where this theory originates. It comes not from opposition to the Provisionals, but from much earlier opposition to constitutional nationalism. What would be the response of Northern nationalists to a definition of "Ireland" from which they are excluded? Would it not alarm even the mildest constitutional nationalist? One suspects this cannot be simply sold as a "confidence building measure." Nor should a form of words that differentiates the state from the nation alarm unionists. The nation is only cultural, it is the state that is political, and it is political interference to which they are opposed.
The current peace talks are shrouded in secrecy, as your paper has pointed out. It is to be hoped that newspapers realise that in such circumstances the onus falls to you publicly to examine and debate proposed solutions. If you don't, things may pass unnoticed which will return to haunt us at a later date. - Yours, etc.,
Wexford.