Sir, – I read Matt O'Toole's thoughtful article with great interest and related to some of his comments about identity and citizenship ("Ireland an afterthought during Brexit campaign when I was Cameron adviser", Opinion & Analysis, October 4th).
I was also struck by his comment that the traditional concept of the United Kingdom is “fundamentally in tension with the idea that underpins the 1998 Belfast Agreement, and the broader devolution settlement within the UK”.
Although I do not accept the view that the Brexit vote can be attributed to English nationalism, I can see why the arguments about Northern Ireland and Scotland did not cut through during the referendum campaign, since the English people never had the benefits of this new constitutional settlement explained to them.
While the Irish people endorsed the Belfast Agreement in a referendum, and Scotland and Wales had endorsed devolution through the same method, the English people had always been denied a direct say in the post-1998 constitutional changes. Indeed, this democratic deficit may have partly accounted for the demand for a referendum on EU membership.
A further problem arose from the way that the Irish interest in the EU referendum was presented. The idea that Brexit ran counter to Irish interests was tirelessly and tactfully explained to anyone who would listen by the Irish Ambassador in London during the campaign. This intervention was always going to be unwelcome to unionists, who saw their interests differently and were naturally inclined towards the arguments associated with the Brexiteers. The fact that the unionist cause has been revived in Scotland since 2016 gives some credibility to the view that Brexit will strengthen the union.
This is not to say that Brexit will not cause problems for unionists in Northern Ireland, but if the Irish Government wishes to work with them it should acknowledge their concerns and respect the integrity of the UK. – Yours, etc,
Dr DAVID SHIELS,
Cambridge, UK.