Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Economist Article On Irish Election
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:02:36 EST
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <lisehgINN43n@news.bbn.com>, mbrennan@bbn.com (Maeve Brennan) says:
>Articles 2 and 3 have no practical merit, only symbolic.  I am in favour
>of removing them from the Irish constitution since they are understandably
>repugnant to Ulster Unionists.  I think that anything which Ireland can
>reasonably do to reduce the suspicion and fears of Ulster Unionists that
>they are being coerced into a united Ireland, is a good thing.  It is
>only natural for people to resent coercion.
>
>Furthermore, it is consistent with the Anglo-Irish agreement which
>the Irish government signed:
>
>"Status of Northern Ireland
>
>Article 1
>
>The two Governments
>
>(a) affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would
>    only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of
>    Northern Ireland;
>
>(b) recognise that the present wish of a majority of the people of
>    Northern Ireland if for no change in the status of Northern
>    Ireland;
>
>(c) declare that, if in the future a majority of the people of
>    Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the
>    establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and
>    support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect
>    to that wish."
>
How exactly to you see the points being in conflict with Articles 2 and 3?

It may be just selective memory on my part, or possibly biased reporting in
the Irish media, but Articles 2 and 3 weren't even on the Unionist agenda
when the Anglo Irish Agreement was signed.

Of course it may have been that they felt that the Union was totally secure
so that whatever form of words might be used didn't really matter to them,
or it may have been that, before the McGimpsey brothers brought the case to
the Supreme Court, the Unionists assumed that the fact that nobody had ever
paid any attention to articles 2 and 3 meant that they didn't need to them
either.

But I'm prepared to bet that when the Reverend Ian compared Articles 2 and
3 to Hitlers claim on various bits of pre-war Europe, he was not articulating
long held opinions of Northern Unionists. I'm fairly sure he was digging up
new dirt in an attempt at rabble-rousing.

And this not to say that unionists don't have a genuine fear of being
submerged in a United Ireland. That fear may be quite genuine, though
whether it's rational is open to debate. But people who suggest that
deleteing Articles 2 & 3 will do anything concrete to alleviate that
fear, are at best, misguided.

I would be interested in hearing how the "ordinary unionist" views these
articles, and also in hearing how that view has changed over the last 5 to
ten years. The week before christmas is probably the worst possible time to
post such a request, though, as many of the potential audience are likley
to be away home for a while.

The other important aspect of this issue is how the nationalist community
in Northern Ireland would be affected by any such change. I think it's
clear that the effect for unionists would be purely symbolic, as it couldn't
in any way affect their daily lives. (No, it wouldn't have any effect on
violence in the North, as the perpetrators of violence, in uniform and out,
pay little attention to the opinions of the people of the republic anyway).
But the potential effect on the nationalist community is much greater. It has
already been suggested that they could loose the right to Irish citizenship,
though I believe that could be dealt with in legislation, and the validity
of the Anglo-Irish agreement itself would be undermined.

Just for the record, here are the first 3 articles of Bunreacht na hE/ireann.

Article 1.
  The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and
sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its
relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political,
economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.

Article 2.
  The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its
  islands and the territorial seas.

Article 3.
  Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without
prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by
this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that
territory, the laws enacted by that parliament shall have the like area
and extent of application as the laws of Saorsta/t E/ireann and the like
extra-territorial effect.


Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"