The first after reading the recent pieces by Mark Hennessy and Newton Emerson, the second after reading the next day an editorial on the same topic. I don’t know if The Irish Times will publish the letters.
7 March
Mark Hennessy’s egregious misinterpretation of the position of Ireland’s Future (Common Ground, March 7th) allows him to draw a completely false comparison in which the SDLP values reconciliation while Ireland’s Future does not. Newton Emerson’s repetition of the error (Opinion, March 7th) compounds the confusion about the position of Ireland’s Future.
Ireland’s Future argues, quite correctly, that imposing reconciliation as a precondition to the holding of a border poll is a violation of the Good Friday Agreement. The SDLP actually agrees with this position, as the party reiterated in its rejection of Seamus Mallon’s attempt to use the narrative of reconciliation to insert a unionist veto over the process of constitutional change.
The SDLP’s New Ireland Commission argues, as Mr Hennessy points out, that “the only path to uniting the people of this island is through the spirit of partnership, co-operation and reconciliation”. Ireland’s Future actually agrees with this position, as anyone even remotely familiar with its numerous documents can attest. Indeed, no one in Ireland’s Future suggests the opposite—that the path to unity is built on the spirit of unilateralism, belligerence and disharmony.
9 March
On three occasions in two days, the Irish Times grossly distorted the position of Ireland’s Future on the issue of reconciliation. Your readers deserve to know what Ireland’s Future actually said about reconciliation so that they may judge the full extent of your distortion.
On page 6 of their latest report (Ireland 2030), Ireland’s Future says:
The first point to note is that this statement consists of only five sentences in a report containing some 200 sentences. There are many other reports containing thousands of additional sentences. I don’t see how the Irish Times can conjure Ireland’s Future’s definitive position on reconciliation from such meagre evidence. Then, of course, there is the question of distortion.
Newton Emerson (Opinion, 7 March) contends that Ireland’s Future is belligerent in “its downplaying of reconciliation”. Mark Hennessy (Ireland, 7 March) suggests that the approach of Ireland’s Future is not based on “the spirit of partnership, co-operation and reconciliation”. The Irish Times editorial (Opinion, 8 March) says that Ireland’s Future believes “reconciliation need only come after” Irish unity wins a border poll. None of these assertions is accurate.
The Irish Times somehow misses Ireland’s Future’s principal and entirely correct point—imposing the achievement of reconciliation as a precondition to holding a border poll violates the Good Friday Agreement. This imposition would, by the way, rule out any prospect of a united Ireland, and it is understandable that Ireland’s Future would oppose such a move.
Ireland’s Future is neither belligerently downplaying reconciliation nor rejecting the spirit of partnership and co-operation. It is not delaying reconciliation until after a referendum. Like many advocates of Irish unity, Ireland’s Future believes that a reunification campaign can facilitate reconciliation and that reconciliation can be achieved under Irish sovereignty. The Irish Times may judge that this belief is wishful thinking, but it is fully consistent with the overwhelming historical and contemporaneous evidence that reconciliation has not been achieved under British sovereignty.
If The Irish Times wishes to bolster Micheál Martin’s approach to constitutional change and the SDLP’s New Ireland Commission at the expense of Ireland’s Future, it should at least give a fair and reasonable account of what Ireland’s Future says.
7 March
Mark Hennessy’s egregious misinterpretation of the position of Ireland’s Future (Common Ground, March 7th) allows him to draw a completely false comparison in which the SDLP values reconciliation while Ireland’s Future does not. Newton Emerson’s repetition of the error (Opinion, March 7th) compounds the confusion about the position of Ireland’s Future.
Ireland’s Future argues, quite correctly, that imposing reconciliation as a precondition to the holding of a border poll is a violation of the Good Friday Agreement. The SDLP actually agrees with this position, as the party reiterated in its rejection of Seamus Mallon’s attempt to use the narrative of reconciliation to insert a unionist veto over the process of constitutional change.
The SDLP’s New Ireland Commission argues, as Mr Hennessy points out, that “the only path to uniting the people of this island is through the spirit of partnership, co-operation and reconciliation”. Ireland’s Future actually agrees with this position, as anyone even remotely familiar with its numerous documents can attest. Indeed, no one in Ireland’s Future suggests the opposite—that the path to unity is built on the spirit of unilateralism, belligerence and disharmony.
9 March
On three occasions in two days, the Irish Times grossly distorted the position of Ireland’s Future on the issue of reconciliation. Your readers deserve to know what Ireland’s Future actually said about reconciliation so that they may judge the full extent of your distortion.
On page 6 of their latest report (Ireland 2030), Ireland’s Future says:
There must be no preconditions imposed that infringe what has been negotiated and agreed on the right of self-determination. The constitutional compromise of 1998 is fundamental. The content of the Agreement already provides a significant limitation on the exercise of the right of self-determination and neglecting this basic fact is a serious mistake. There is, for example, no requirement to achieve ‘reconciliation’ (however this concept is defined) in advance of a referendum being held and our view is that any such objective will only follow the transition to new constitutional arrangements on our shared island. Reunification is a reconciliation project.
The first point to note is that this statement consists of only five sentences in a report containing some 200 sentences. There are many other reports containing thousands of additional sentences. I don’t see how the Irish Times can conjure Ireland’s Future’s definitive position on reconciliation from such meagre evidence. Then, of course, there is the question of distortion.
Newton Emerson (Opinion, 7 March) contends that Ireland’s Future is belligerent in “its downplaying of reconciliation”. Mark Hennessy (Ireland, 7 March) suggests that the approach of Ireland’s Future is not based on “the spirit of partnership, co-operation and reconciliation”. The Irish Times editorial (Opinion, 8 March) says that Ireland’s Future believes “reconciliation need only come after” Irish unity wins a border poll. None of these assertions is accurate.
The Irish Times somehow misses Ireland’s Future’s principal and entirely correct point—imposing the achievement of reconciliation as a precondition to holding a border poll violates the Good Friday Agreement. This imposition would, by the way, rule out any prospect of a united Ireland, and it is understandable that Ireland’s Future would oppose such a move.
Ireland’s Future is neither belligerently downplaying reconciliation nor rejecting the spirit of partnership and co-operation. It is not delaying reconciliation until after a referendum. Like many advocates of Irish unity, Ireland’s Future believes that a reunification campaign can facilitate reconciliation and that reconciliation can be achieved under Irish sovereignty. The Irish Times may judge that this belief is wishful thinking, but it is fully consistent with the overwhelming historical and contemporaneous evidence that reconciliation has not been achieved under British sovereignty.
If The Irish Times wishes to bolster Micheál Martin’s approach to constitutional change and the SDLP’s New Ireland Commission at the expense of Ireland’s Future, it should at least give a fair and reasonable account of what Ireland’s Future says.
⏮ Mike Burke has lectured in Politics and Public Administration in Canada for over 30 years.
No comments