Sir, – Newton Emerson (Opinion & Analysis, August 8th) has joined the growing debate on the prospects for Irish unity. That is welcome.
However, as anyone who has read or listened to my arguments on our constitutional future will know, I am supportive of a new and shared island framed by the Belfast Agreement and founded on equality, human rights, social justice, mutual respect and parity of esteem.
There is a productive ongoing dialogue about constitutional continuity and transformation. It is great to see.
But in my view, selective quotation from a co-authored piece has been used to imply that I am opposed to an open, imaginative and generous debate about a shared future for this island, and to suggest that civic movements for unity are the conservatives in the room.
I am pleased to be part of a large and vibrant constitutional conversation. Along with many others, I have contributed to this discussion. I look forward to it advancing further. I will remain with those who bring human rights, equality, social justice and mutual respect to the table. There will be constitutional change wherever you reside on the continuity and transformation spectrum. Its scale and extent will be matters for discussion and debate.
That is why it is so vital that the Irish Government launches a comprehensive process of planning and preparation soon.
Failure to do so increasingly looks like constitutional irresponsibility. – Yours, etc,
Prof COLIN HARVEY,
School of Law,
Queen’s University Belfast.
Sir, – Will Leo Varadkar’s New Ireland have a HSE or an NHS? – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair,
Co Dhún na nGall.
A chara, – In criticising Bunreacht na hÉireann as being "woefully out of date and no longer fit for purpose", it would seem that Evan Byrne of London (Letters, August 8th) has missed major political upheavals on both sides of the Irish Sea to inform that view.
In Ireland, both same-sex marriage and abortion were overwhelming introduced in this country by an engaged and insightful population, informed by the Citizens’ Assembly, in the context of our Catholic and conservative past.
Whereas the absence of a British constitution, and the absence of a British plugged-in citizenry who would choose Brexit over their union, in the context of jingoism, have caused irrevocable damage to British democracy, let alone their economy.
A constitution is a “living” document that confers continuing rights and responsibilities on each and every citizen, and can always be amended by the citizenry of a country. By definition, it can never be “out of date”, woefully or otherwise. – Is mise,
GARETH T CLIFFORD,
Stillorgan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, –The Taoiseach has expressed the view that a successful border poll would require a new constitution and a new state. Is he in fact correct in this opinion?
According to the Belfast Agreement (by which his Government is bound), the options in a border poll are for the people of Northern Ireland “to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland”.
As the state currently known as Ireland is already sovereign, surely all that is required is for its jurisdiction to be extended to cover the whole island also known as Ireland. There is a more interesting point implied in the wording quoted above, and agreed by the two governments; namely that the country currently known as Ireland is recognised by both governments to be in some manner incomplete. I draw this conclusion from the indisputable fact that it is impossible to unite something that is already whole. – Yours, etc,
PHILIP CUMMINGS,
Toome,
Co Antrim.