Opinion

Unionism’s protocol objection is simply on constitutional question

When as an amateur I delved a little into UK constitutional law I discovered that it is an unwritten constitution based on a number of principles and conventions.  One of these was that parliament, at any given time, was sovereign and that, therefore, no British parliament could bind its successor.  In other words, if one parliament passed an act and a following one passed something that conflicted with it, that whatever the most recent parliament passed also repealed what the previous one had enacted insofar as the new act conflicted with what the previous parliament passed.

The essence of the appeal by unionists against the protocol is to ask a court essentially to rule that  this constitutional norm should be set aside and that the court should decide that parliament is no longer sovereign but instead the courts are when it comes to constitutional norms. Indeed they are asking the court to abolish the separation of powers upon which the UK constitution is based.

Now a schoolboy law student can see that this case is going nowhere.

It is evident, following the public pilloring of John Kyle, that unionism’s objection to the protocol is simply on the constitutional question. While unionist politicians have said much about the disruption the protocol has brought to trade, this is really an irrelevant consideration for them because no matter what was done to iron these problems out, they would still find the protocol objectionable because it impinges on their citizenship. However, unionism should get used to this as it might soften its transition to a united Ireland as unionism is now in a minority. Unionism’s best policy might be towards reconciliation as nationalism is unlikely to forget the injustice that unionism inflicted on it and seemingly would still do if the opportunity was there.

SEAN O’FIACH


Belfast BT11

Facts have nothing to fear from argumentation

BBC television recently featured a programme entitled With God on Our Side. This production, which was written as well as presented by Mary McAleese, was designed to explore the role played by religion in “creating and resolving Northern Ireland’s conflict”.

Mrs McAleese’s seductive treatment of this topic (which included emotive interviews with victims of, and participants in, the Troubles) espoused the uncompromising belief that religion had contributed a great deal to the resolution of the Northern Ireland conflict, but nothing to bring it about.

It is not difficult to see how Mrs McAleese arrived at this verdict, given that ‘religion’ was defined, in the context of her chosen thesis, by reference to Christian moral teaching as portrayed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

The plain fact is, however, that religion, as manifested historically in Northern Ireland – before, during and after the Troubles – has rarely had much in common with the ethereal values of the Sermon on the Mount.  And it has contributed in large measure to the onset of ‘the conflict’ but not to its resolution.

There is a lot to be said for Blaise Pascal’s contention that evil is done most zealously when it arises from religious conviction; and there is everything to be said for the Latin maxim contra factum non valet dialectica, which tells us when rendered in English language translation, that facts have nothing to fear from argumentation.

JOSEPH McBRIDE


Belfast BT15

DUP has deep-rooted values

Brian Feeney – ‘DUP bent on halting progress’ (November 17) – flags up many of the occasions that the DUP obstructed proposed changes in legislation and he proposes some possible reasons for obstructiveness.

My own view is this record of blocking is neither malevolent nor mischevious. It is rather the actions of a reactionary party. The party is committed to a set of values to which all matters must be measured. These values are deep rooted and importantly irrevocable.

In modern parlance they can be described as totemic.

Now make no mistake, we all carry value systems. They help to evaluate change and at times accommodate change. With the DUP though it is clear that their value system is static and not to be questioned. Any change proposals are to be dealt in the shadows of these ‘totems’. How this is negotiated by others operating in a change environment is a worthwhile question. Rational argument is futile. Side stepping them is described as ‘undemocratic’, quite a condundrum.

Maybe it will be the case where those who describe themselves as unionist will see the necessity for open and equal debate. Whether they are or will be motivated to do so is an open question.

MANUS McDAID


Derry City

Opportunity to build a new Ireland

The conversation on Irish unity appears to be growing. As this discussion takes place, we need to ensure that all voices in Irish society are heard and included. A united Ireland should not be about merely grafting the north onto the south. Rather, it provides an opportunity to build a new Ireland.

This discussion presents us with an opportunity to tackle those aspects of our politics and society that are crying out for change.

Let’s use this time to create a new, national health service, a sustainable housing policy, universal childcare provision, and to ensure the transition to a carbon neutral economy.

This should be about creating new political structures built on diversity – an equal society, not just between orange and green, but between urban and rural, old and young, men and women, LGBT and straight, old and new Irish, black and white.

Consideration of the shape and nature of new constitutional arrangements for an agreed, united Ireland requires an inclusive forum so that all these voices can be heard.

Recognising this, it is clear that the Irish government needs, in the immediate period ahead, to convene a Citizens’ Assembly to create a democratic foundation to prepare for any border poll.

BRIAN DOYLE


Corlismore, Co Cavan