Madam, - Would the proposed amendment to restrict Irish citizenship be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement? The Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, and Prof Tom Hadden of Queens University (April 14th) say no, but the plain English (or Irish) of the agreement seems to me to say yes.
Paragraph 2 of the section of the multi-party agreement that deals with constitutional issues says the Irish Government had undertaken, as part of the overall agreement, to propose changes in the Constitution. Annex B then set out the proposed new text of Article 2 of the Constitution: "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland. . .to be part of the Irish nation". And that of course is what was passed in the 1998 referendum.
The declaration of support by the participants at the beginning of the Agreement said they accepted that "all of the institutional and constitutional arrangements [including amendments to the Irish Constitution]. . .are interlocking and interdependent". And Article 4(1) of the Intergovernmental Agreement that forms part of the Good Friday Agreement said: "It shall be a requirement for entry into force of this Agreement that. . .the amendments to the Constitution of Ireland set out in Annex B to the section entitled 'Constitutional Issues' of the Multi-Party Agreement shall have been approved by Referendum."
That seems pretty clear to me. The constitutional amendments, including the one on the right to be part of the Irish nation, were an integral and "interlocking" part of the agreement and a pre-condition for its coming into force. And the Government's current proposal would change and undermine one of those amendments. The agreement did not say what should happen if one of the governments unilaterally decided to change one of the "interlocking arrangements", but it can't do much for the health of the already ailing political process in the North.
Does the birth of a couple of thousand "non-national" babies per year really pose such a threat to our society that we need to undermine an agreement that has brought relative peace and still holds out the prospect of progress for our island for the first time in 35 years? Would not those children be a welcome addition to the new, inclusive Ireland that the agreement envisaged? - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL FARRELL,
Solicitor,
Parliament Street,
Dublin 2.