On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Danielle Ni/ Dhighe wrote:
> At 05:18 PM 4/24/98 -0300, Neil Alasdair McEwan wrote:
> >It is not a serious issue at all, but only a symbolic gesture.
> >Having the articles in the Constitution all these years hasn't brought a
> >united Ireland one whit closer, and removing them won't make a united
> >Ireland one whit more remote.
> If they're so unimportant, why do they need to be amended?
Because it's insulting for one nation to lay claim to the territory
of another. I'm certain Americans wouldn't like it if the Mexican
constitution claimed Texas and New Mexico as part of their constitution
"pending the re-integration of the national territory". It would damage
relations between the U.S. and Mexico and it would be in Mexico's
interest to remove it, since the loss of goodwill would be greater than
any possible gain from it.
It's worth noting that it is the same kind of "unimportant" or
symbolic gesture that sees Orange Order marches re-routed.
> Why go through
> all the trouble to amend phrases that Dublin politicians ignore anyway?
> Besides the constitutional issue, there a host of other issues that deserve
> a more serious debate than five weeks will allow for. As long as the
> ceasefire is largely holding, why is there a need to rush into this?
Because people are still dying. What are these other important
> >workable settlement possible, under the circumstances. And when you
> >consider that the only alternative is the hardline position of no
> >compromise, a vote "No" is indeed a vote for continued hostilities.
> I disagree. I might have a different opinion if people could vote on the
> different elements of the agreement separately instead of on the whole
> agreement. It makes it almost necessary to agree to the bad parts in order
> to get the good parts.
What do you consider to be the bad parts? The part where a United
Ireland doesn't happen is, I'm afraid, central to the whole deal.