Changes to Articles 2 and 3

A chairde,

There is a great deal of justifiable concern about the proposed changes to Articles 2 and 3. The concerns have centered around two key areas.

1. Territorial definition of the extent of Irish Sovereignty.

2. The inclusion of the unionist veto in the Southern Constitution.

In relation to territoriality the new proposed Article 2 defines citizenship as being the entitlement of those born on the island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas. These then constitute the Irish nation. That I think is sufficient to define the extent of territorial jurisdiction since the Constitution is a legal definition of the powers of structures that express the will of this Irish nation.

Obviously there is a need for more discussion but I think this point is reasonable. In addition in Article 3 there is an explicit reference to ``the territory of the island of Ireland'', which follows on from the wording on nationality and citizenship in Article 2.

Article 3 seems to contain an expression of the unionist veto in the section on consent-or does it?

The proposed Article 3 says:

``It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means, with the consent of the majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island''.

The key words here are ``both'' and the reference to ``the majority of the people''. If it said the consent of the majority in ``each'' jurisdiction, it would be explicit that each jurisdictions votes must be counted separately. If it also said the majority of the ``peoples'' (plural) that would also make separate counting of votes explicit, but it does not. With the terms as written it is arguable that a 26 county parliament could assert, and an Irish Supreme Court might agree, that the aggregate vote of the whole 32 counties is the valid vote for assessing the will of the Irish nation. This point might seem tenuous, but it has been made by constitutional lawyers ans is worthy of consideration.

Another ambiguity concerns the legal definition of a ``United Ireland'' as it is used in the proposed constitutional changes. A ``united Ireland shall be brought only by peaceful means'' it says. OK, but you could have a united state in the whole 32 counties in what might be termed by some a divided Ireland. This is not explicitly excluded, as far as I can see. There is plenty of scope for argument here as well. Maybe the two McGimpsey brothers will need to get on their bikes again and cycle down to the Supreme Court. I fear that, yet again, they might find that the constitutional imperative remains undimmed in a newly worded southern constitution.

Alongside these amendments to Articles 2 and 3 there are proposed changes giving extra territorial jurisdiction today in relation to the all-Ireland bodies emerging from the new structures in the north. Messrs Trimble, Maginnis and Taylor's contention that the new wording recognises partition is disingenuous since the only mention of another jurisdiction on the island in the new wording is with the view or ``firm will'' to get rid of it! In addition the nationalist aspiration in the preamble to the constitution (which could have done with some severe pruning of the religious bits) remains intact.

I think there is a lot here that David Trimble and Ken Maginnis ought to be concerned about.

One final point. This is all academic if we do not have an analysis of the proposed Irish text. That is primary since Irish remains the first official language in the constitution. If there is a difference between the meaning of the Irish and English texts, the Irish text is the one having legal force. The Irish (all of them) possibly need clarification on that point also.

John O Leary.
Baile Atha Cliath 7.

If divides a nation

A chairde,

If we were in another time, if we were in another country, if we could believe that all our politicians would sit down and say ``We are going to make this work''. If. ``If divides a nation''.

No matter what Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, The Child of Prague, The Pope and JFK think, the unionists will spend all their time and energy making it unworkable, while Dublin and the SDLP will spend all their time and energy backpedalling on the little that was given, and Sinn Féin and the rest will be back to square one.

All the work, all the aspirations, Articles 2 and 3 etc will be for nothing. Too much depends on whether the Brit/Unionists will show good faith, or whether Dublin/SDLP can be trusted.

History says no in both cases.

Brendan Agar
Dublin.

Praise for parade

A chairde,

Cork's Easter Sunday March from Grand Parade to St. Finbarr's Cemetery was bigger and better than that of many years past. The participation of the American visitors was a most welcome sight. Optimism in the hopeful view of the national struggle was visible. Congratulations and ``hats off'' to the organising committee for a job very well done.

Hilda Higgins
Mbaile Feitheán
Corcaigh.

The euro and the Agreement

A chairde,

David Trimble has been quoted as saying that the Republic's signing up for the Eurocurrency without the UK and Northern Ireland, is incompatible with closer North-South and East-west coming together, The government now has a good excuse for changing its policy on EMU viz-a-vis its EU partners. It should pull back from commiting itself to abolishing the púnt on 2 May and wait until Northern Ireland and Britain decide to abolish the pound sterling also.

How can there be closer North-South relations, meaningful All-Ireland bodies, the meaningful East-West dimension which David Trimble and John Taylor make so much of, if Irish Government Ministers sign up to join the eurozone on 2 May, as is their current intention, while Northern Ireland remains outside with the rest of the UK?

The continental eurozone countries intend to press ahead with tax harmonisation and further measures of economic integration among themselves, which would bind the republic if we join the European single-currency without Northern Ireland. How is that compatible with the closer North-South relations envisaged in the Good Friday agreement? There is no guarantee that Britain and Northern Ireland will ever join EMU. It is certain they will not join it for another five years. In the light of the Stormont Agreement, it would be the height of irresponsibility for our politicians not to consider the views Northern Unionists have expressed on this matter, and particularly the views of David Trimble, John Taylor and their colleagues.

The Agreement gives the Government the ideal excuse to say to its EU partners that the Agreement has created quite a new political situation on the island of Ireland, requiring a rethink on our immediate membership of the eurozone, so that we need now to reconsider our position, and wait on our new Northern partner before joining.

In the post-Agreement situation, it is perfectly proper that Dublin Government Ministers should take into account Northern Unionist views on this key issue - and the real requirements for North-South and British/Irish co-operation - before pressing ahead, unilaterally, to abolishing the national currency on 2 May, irreversibly and in principle for ever. For Dublin to pull back from signing up for the eurozone, until Britain and Northern Ireland can do that too, would show David Trimble's unionist supporters that they have gained influence viz-a-vis the Republic, even if they believe they have lost it in some other areas, as a result of the Agreement.

Anthony Coughlan
Dublin

Step in the right direction

A chairde,

The broad nationalist family on the island of Ireland would share Gerry Adams's view that ``while the Agreement is not a settlement, it is a basis for advancement''. It's another step in the right direction.

Issues like safeguards and power-sharing in the Assembly, the North/South Council, reform of the RUC, release of prisoners, the equality agenda and demilitarisation are all vital in the struggle for independence.

Of course many people have doubts. However, let's all move forward together and use the opportunity to build a democratic peace settlement.

Finian McGrath
Dublin.

SF should take seats

A chairde,

An assessment of ``The Agreement'' suggests that, while some of the problems have been postponed for a battle later on, the way now to progress republican objectives of justice and unification is through the structures in the Agreement. This includes standing candidates for Assembly elections and taking seats and positions in an Assembly which is not free-standing but which is umbilically linked to a North/South Ministerial Council, so as to use it as a conduit to channel the Assembly's powers to the North/South Council.

A return to arms by the IRA or a completely rejectionist position by Sinn Fein would result in the isolation and marginalisation of the republican movement and the loss of the position that has been achieved in the last several years. This would be all the more likely since the UUP Council has given Trimble the go-ahead to continue his strategy of fighting a rearguard action against the continuing dismemberment of the union. They clearly hope that the republican movement will be the first to leave the field. It must not.

Sinn Fein should therefore remove any obstacle in its constitution that is not up to date with the present situation and would prevent it entering these transitional structures in order to progress republican objectives.

Congratulations on what has been achieved and good luck,

Joe Murphy
Birmingham.

Prisoners and decommissioning

A chairde,

I am rather surprised by the negative comments of some Good Friday Deal media commentators on the related issues of policing, decommissioning and prisoners. These suggest that the RUC should not be disbanded, the IRA should surrender all its weapons and (some) prisoners should not be released.

In so doing they are ignoring the origin of the past 30 years of conflict. There were virtually no IRA weapons in 1969 when the RUC killed the first victims of the troubles and (at best ) stood by while Unionist mobs burned thousands of nationalist out of their homes. Recent revelations into the killings of Pat Finucane and Robert Hamill show that not much has changed. Not one RUC member ever served a day in jail for any of these killings or the killing of many other innocents like Nora McCabe and Julie Livingstone, who were shot dead by RUC plastic bullets. Two of only four British soldiers who were convicted of murder were released and promoted back into the British Army after only two years, and a campaign to similarly release the other two is being backed by senior figures in the British establishment. Surely Irish republican (and loyalist) prisoners, most of whom have served much longer for lesser offences should be treated equally.

The fact that the then IRA leadership had decommissioned its weapons allowed the killing and burning in 1969 and sowed the seeds of bitter conflict. Unfortunately, the potential for a repeat of that pogrom existed (and still exists) around the highly volatile time of Drumcree.

If that happens, will the Irish Army come to the aid of the victims this time? If not, we cannot seriously expect the IRA to leave the nationalist community defenceless once again.

Sean Marlow,
Dublin 11

Forgotten Ten

A chairde,

I watched with interest the deal unfold on Good Friday when the parties agreed that in exchange for our relinquishment of any claim to six of our Ulster counties, all political prisoners would be released withen two years provided they did not re-offend.

The prisoners I am interested in would come into this category ie. ``The Forgotten Ten'' who still lie in the yard of Mountjoy Jail after 77 years. This was part of their sentence and that of Volunteer Tom Williams whose remains are in Crumlin Road Jail despite the fact that High Court action to have him released was obtained several years ago. Action was taken by the National Graves Association.

It will be interesting to see the sincerity of the Dublin Government and indeed the new Stormont Government where these prisoners are concerned. The other prisoners have political parties to speak on their behalf.

Matt Doyle,
National Graves Association,
Dublin

Transition or partition?

A chairde,

Gerry Adams (12 March) set out the minimum requirements for any agreement to be transitional towards unity and independence. Does the Good Friday document deliver these requirements?

All-Ireland Bodies

Requirements: executive and harmonising powers, independent, immune from unionist veto, no limit on remit , dynamic to grow.

Document: consultation, co-operation and action, accountable to six county assembly, decisions by agreement (unionist veto), suggested remit is minimal, further development by endorsement of assembly (unionist veto), legislative authority to be transferred to assembly.

Constitutional

Requirements: remove British claim to sovereignty, no dilution of definition of national territory, constitutional imperative to unity to remain.

Document: unionist veto entrenched, new British legislation confirming sovereignty, change in status of six counties subject to veto in British parliament, definition of national territory removed, consent/unionist veto in 26 county constitution.

Equality

Requirements: policing, human rights, legal system under N/S institutions, economic development, fair employment, equailty for Irish language, all-Ireland human rights commission, all-Ireland constitutional court.

Document: policing, human rights, legal system not under N/S institutions, no all-Ireland human rights commission or constitutional court, economic development, fair employment, Irish language proposals are aspirational, lacking targets and timetables.

Demilitarisation

Requirements: repeal of emergency legislation, disbandment of RUC, British army withdrawn to barracks, disbandment of RIR, political prisoners released.

Document: emergency legislation and British army subject to ``level of threat'', RUC not disbanded - implementation of commission recommendations to be ``discussed'', RIR not disbanded, release of prisoners - no amnesty.

Gerry Adams (Irish News 30 March) wrote that Sinn Féin would not acquiesce in any arrangement which did not meet the minimum requirements. If this stands, Sinn Féin will neither endorse the document, nor participate in implementing its contents. Participation in such arrangments leads to co-option, not transition.

``No Other Law''
Dublin.

Paddy Clugston

A chairde,

It was with great sadness I learned about the death of my friend Paddy Clugston.

On my visits to Newry, Paddy was one I looked forward to meeting. His social attitude and never failing humour was good company for a foreigner over a few pints.

Paddy did a great job for the prisoners. I had the pleasure of accompanying him from pub to pub raising money for those who suffered because of the conflict.

``I never let them down,'' was his often quoted remark as long as he did the fundraising. I think many people think with gratitude about the work Paddy did. I am on my way to Newry now. It will be strange not to meet Paddy in the Maple Leaf, Flynn's or the Hibs anymore. It is like a landmark in Newry has dissappeared.

I offer my condolences to Bridie and family and friends of Paddy.

Magnar Johansen
Norway.