Sir, – The Irish Times opinion poll (December 11th) prompts the question: what is it we want from uniting Ireland? Ireland is already united geographically. The people are united in insisting that any new constitutional changes must be made by agreement.
The New Ireland Forum set out three possible models for a united Ireland: a unitary state, federation/confederation, and joint authority. The first two models would involve a merger of the Republic with Northern Ireland, not a takeover. Merger would likely mean the British identity having equal status with the Irish identity on the whole island. Leaving aside the annual cost of circa £12 billion, the flags and symbols of Britishness would need to be respected throughout the island. Membership of the Commonwealth and Nato would also be a likely outcome.
With all that has happened since the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and the Belfast Agreement, is it time to search out additional possible models of agreed governance? Would a form of bifurcation work? For example, Northern Ireland to remain as an entity, continue to elect MPs to the House of Commons and continue to have a devolved local Executive. At the same time, Northern Ireland could join the European Union, reclaim its three seats in the European Parliament and work with the government of Ireland on EU issues of mutual interest at ministerial level. Both sterling and the euro could circulate throughout Northern Ireland, as has been de facto the case in many parts of NI. Residents in Northern Ireland could continue to hold either British or Irish passports, or both.
This sort of arrangement is possible.
For example, the Kingdom of Denmark is made up of Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. The latter two are not in the EU, and Denmark itself, which is, does not have the euro as its currency.
Perhaps the Republic is ready to rejoin the British Isles, but I cannot envisage it.
I seriously doubt that those answering the questions of pollsters have a common view of what a united Ireland could entail. – Yours, etc,
GAY MITCHELL,
Former TD and MEP,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – In his piece on the constitutional changes which might be necessary to bring about a united Ireland, Pat Leahy says that the original Constitution was “overwhelmingly endorsed” by voters in the 1937 plebiscite (“Yes, we want to see a united Ireland eventually – but what’s your hurry?”, December 11th).
The Constitution was passed by a relatively narrow margin of 57 per cent in favour and 43 per cent against. Just 38 per cent of the overall electorate turned out to support the Constitution and 10 per cent spoiled their votes, which hardly suggests overwhelming support.
Of the 41 constitutional referenda which have been held since then, 33 were carried or defeated by a greater margin than the 1937 plebiscite.
This relatively small margin is somewhat surprising given the political dominance of Fianna Fáil at that time, with opposition concentrated among Protestants and supporters of Fine Gael who feared that it was an attempt by de Valera to bestow quasi-dictatorial powers on himself.
In fact, the Constitution proved to be his greatest political legacy, since it enshrined democratic structures and human rights guarantees which were ahead of their time, and which even its staunchest opponents grew to accept and defend.
For all its many flaws voters are still protective of the Constitution, which may go some way toward explaining their truly overwhelming reluctance to consider even the most obvious and necessary amendments in order to bring about unity.
Sadly, for as long as such opposition exists, a united Ireland is a pipe dream.
Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.