Sir, – Andy Pollak offers the 1992-93 Opsahl Commission as an even-handed and successful model for civic dialogue on Ireland’s future (“Unity debate – parallel civic dialogues”, Letters, February 3rd). This model is neither even-handed nor successful.
The commission emphatically rejected the Anglo-Irish Agreement’s majority consent formula for constitutional change.
It recommended instead a unionist veto to reassure the unionist community “that there can be no moves towards a united Ireland without its consent (ie all such moves can be prevented by using its power of veto)”.
Political scientist Jennifer Todd soon pointed out the fundamental bias in the commission’s position: “unionist constitutional preferences are so much prioritised over nationalist ones that the unionist community’s right to refuse to enter a united Ireland is affirmed even were a nationalist numerical majority to emerge within Northern Ireland”.
House not private for drowned Leinster House fox as TDs serve up groundhog day of Dáil sniping
Charli XCX at Malahide Castle review: High flying pop star brings Brat to Dublin but never quite achieves lift-off
Look inside: Dublin docklands penthouse with views from Howth Head to Dún Laoghaire harbour for €1.25m
‘My relationship is at serious risk because of what a psychic told my partner. This is bonkers’
The Belfast Agreement’s subsequent entrenchment of majority consent was an unequivocal repudiation of the unfairness of Opsahl’s veto.
Meaningful civic dialogue in Ireland cannot occur alongside the commission’s model of unionist privilege and nationalist subordination. – Yours, etc,
MIKE BURKE,
Associate Professor
Emeritus,
Toronto Metropolitan
University,
Canada.
