Opinion

Any changes to Irish constitution would need a referendum

Leo Varadkar has made clear his opposition to a border poll in that it would reverse the historical consequence of partition and mean that there would be a significant percentage of the population of the six counties opposed to a united Ireland.


How is this stance acceptable from a Free State government that claims to adhere to the GFA which clearly states that if a majority in the six counties vote for a united Ireland then both the British and Free State governments will give effect to that?


He then goes on to say that a united Ireland would need a new constitution. Yes it would, but only insofar as it recognises the 32 counties as a sovereign state.  Any other change would need a referendum but the GFA which is an international treaty obliges the Free State to bring legislation forward to implement a united Ireland if a majority in the six counties vote or it.

Here lies the paradox. Until the GFA agreement and changes to the Free State constitution, all parties down there were bound by the constitutional imperative that the six counties was regarded as part of their sovereign territory. The GFA changed that and viewed the six counties as part of British territory, that could only be changed as a result of a majority of people living there. 


We know that many people subscribed to this simply for the sake of peace. The problem is that parties in the free state are now able to speak openly about why a united Ireland should not come about, i.e. it would impact negatively on the Free State.

All of this is a consequence of the GFA but it would never have happened without the acquiescence of Sinn Féin.


It was interesting to read the speech delivered by Martina Anderson at the Hunger Strike commemoration.  It really pointed out the refusal of the hunger strikers to accept criminalisation and British rule of law as legitimate and she seemed to approve of that. 


Yet her party has accepted British institutions at Stormont, British rule of law, policing and justice all as legitimate. Something no-one can deny all the hunger strikers would have rejected. How does she square that circle or was it, as a unionist politician suggested, just rhetoric to please the crowd?

SEAN O’FIACH


Belfast BT11

God rest Mrs Doherty’s brave and noble Irish soul

THE article on the death of  Margaret Doherty, mother of the 1981 hunger striker Kieran Doherty, brought back memories of a sad time(August 9).

I had the honour and privilege of being of a little service to the Doherty family when Kieran died.

When his body was brought back to his home, I attended his wake. I was asked by a man if I would say a prayer and lead a decade of the Rosary. I replied, of course, if that is the wish of Kieran’s parents and colleagues. I was assured it was, and I led the packed home in the Glorious Mystery of The Resurrection. I concluded with the ‘Sign of the Cross’ Kieran’s body, ending with: “God rest his brave and noble Irish soul.”

On leaving the Doherty home, I said hello to Gerry Adams for the first time and shook his hand.

I was accompanied to the wake by the late Dennis Dillon, district attorney, Nassau County, NY and Peter King, the future Congressman. Both men were in Belfast with me because the Irish National Caucus had brought them to Ireland for a conference on Plastic Bullets, organised by the late Fr. Denis Faul. (Peter King told me this was his very first visit to Ireland). The following day, all three of us attended the funeral of Kieran Doherty.

After we left the hotel in west Belfast where the three of us were staying, the hotel was blown up. The manager of the hotel would call me later when I was back in Washington, telling me that the Irish National Caucus cheque which I had used to pay for the stay had been destroyed in the explosion. And, of course, I sent him a new cheque.

God rest Mrs Doherty’s brave and noble Irish soul.

Fr SEAN  McMANUS


President, Irish National Caucus, Washington

Using political influence

Newton Emerson’s article (August 3) annoyed me. He mentioned that “Unionists have every right to use their influence…”. I remember when yes meant yes and no meant no.

Nowadays, a yes vote can simply be turned into a no vote and vice versa, if a political party decides to throw in its lot with another political party, in order to gain that ‘political influence’.

How many people, DUP voters, voted to stay in the EU? We don’t need to know an exact number. If even one of these voters ended up having his or her vote transformed into mandate for the exact opposite of what he or she voted for, it is a form of electoral fraud. It is very common nowadays to change diametric votes into the opposite of what they represent.

It is a hugely important issue and no-one has any right to ignore it and still talk about a democratic vote.

Beware of common practices, or customs and practices – long-established principles like left meaning left and right meaning right, being made a nonsense.

The general election of 2010 in England brought a coalition government into power that eventually allowed a no-deal Brexit party into power.

How do you think unrepresentative parties access power?

GABRIELLE STEWART


Omagh, Co Tyrone

Nothing to fear from embryology featuring on curriculum

As a pro-life retired doctor it was a pleasure to read of abortion featuring in the curriculum for future generations of QUB or UU healthcare students (August 8). Undergraduate study of human embryology made me question my earlier life support for abortion.


As a junior hospital doctor and GP these seeds sprouted, and I came to fully embrace the pro-life cause.


Pro-life activists have absolutely nothing to fear from embryology or abortion appearing in the curriculum; because science and the internet are our greatest allies. The ‘babychris.org’ website and ‘Baby Chris Project’ enable ordinary people to better understand the brutality of the abortion. We have an unprecedented opportunity to share material that some secular media or abortion industry interests might prefer to see hidden from public view.

DR TJ HARDY


Belfast BT5

Narrow thinking

Leo Varadkar and Mary Lou McDonald appear united in their demand for a ‘united Ireland’.

What this means is anyone’s guess, but the thrust of such a proposal is more like progress towards ‘insanity Ireland’.

It’s as if there are no other factors to be considered – just do it.

Has it not crossed their minds that opposition to such a thing would be met with fierce resistance from large sections of the Northern Ireland community?

For such narrow thinking to now forge ahead from Dublin would be like Michael Collins and his government in their time not knowing that there lies the path to terrible civil war.

ROBERT SULLIVAN


Bantry, Co Cork