Sir, - In his opinion column (May 29th), Fintan O'Toole states that, in the new Article 2, the Irish nation "is something to which people have a right, but not a duty, to belong." This is certainly the general opinion at the moment, but on closer examination difficulties arise.
Firstly, if what O'Toole says is true, it should be possible for me to remain resident in the Republic while choosing not to belong to the nation. Where is the mechanism that would give effect to this choice? People in Northern Ireland may opt into the nation, but does not territoriality come in by the back door where the Republic is concerned?
Secondly, O'Toole states that under Article 2 the nation "is not entitled to demand the allegiance" of those born on this island. On its own terms, this statement is true, but has anyone looked at Article 9? This states that "fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the state are the political duty of every citizen." Is there any way in which this blunt statement can be reconciled with the elastic languages of Article 2?
Thirdly, Article 3 states that "it is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island . . . " If the nation has a firm will to unite the people of the island, and if fidelity to the nation is the duty of all citizens, does it not follow that all citizens have a duty to seek to unite the people of the island? What is this but a new constitutional imperative (even if it is a peaceful and harmonious one)?
It would seem that, in their eagerness not to obstruct a settlement, our negotiators focused so narrowly on Articles 2 and 3 that they have given us a logically and terminologically incoherent constitution. Is a further referendum not therefore unavoidable? - Yours etc., Barra O Seaghdha,
Castlewood Park, Dublin 6.