Sir, - Robert Ballagh ("Fatal flaw that blocks the way to progress in peace talks", Opinion, February 4th) laments that the "talks" participants have retained "entrenched positions" and have failed to "examine new and imaginative proposals". But Mr Ballagh's vacuous rhetoric about "choice, equality and democracy" is rooted in nothing more new and imaginative than an interpretation of Article 2 of the 1937 Constitution as the definition of the "historic Irish nation".
Article 2 clearly defines what it refers to as "the national territory". The obvious logic of Mr Ballagh's position is that the boundary of a "national territory" can be delineated independently of the determination of the identity of the relevant nation and then used to determine the identity of that nation. Mr Ballagh's position requires an account of how the national territory is itself determined otherwise the definition of the "Irish nation" would be entirely arbitrary. But this is a question that no Irish nationalist has come remotely near to answering - not even Arthur Griffith with his claim that the "frontiers" of the national territory were "traced by the Almighty" and it is an issue of which Mr Ballagh does not even seem to be aware.
Contrary to Mr Ballagh, the determination of "national territory" presupposes a logically prior identification of the relevant nation. But it is at this point that Irish nationalists really get into trouble. The core problem for Irish nationalists is the "one nation" claim which is foundational for Irish nationalism cannot be sustained by appeal to standard "objective" criteria of national identity such as race, language and religion. There is, in addition, no "subjective" basis for the "one nation" claim since unionist do not politically identify themselves (and there is, of course, no reason why they should) in terms of membership of an Irish nation nor indeed is there any significant distinct Irish culture or a shared evaluation of the past which could provide the basis for such identification.
Mr Ballagh is in fact entrenched within the incoherence of Irish nationalism. The empty rhetoric of "new and imaginative proposals" does little to obscure the intellectually impoverished ideology of a single Irish nation which lurks in the background of his thought. The poverty of Irish nationalism has been well described by Professor John A. Murphy as "tired old 1918 nationalist prattle . . . there is no such political entity as the Irish people" (Sunday Independ- ent, October 31st, 1993).
Perhaps Mr Ballagh should just concentrate on art and design and leave political argument and recommendation to those possessed of the requiste intellectual competence. - Yours, etc., Tom Sheridan, Secretary,
UK Unionist Party,
Hamilton Road,
Bangor,
Co Down.