Sir, – In a recent tweet, Sinn Féin president Mary Lou McDonald has criticised Jeffrey Donaldson’s decision to resign from his MLA seat and remain at Westminster as a complete abdication of his responsibility. She claims that his decision was taken without a thought for Northern Ireland workers, families, and everyone struggling to get by.
While I would support any other leading Northern Ireland politician’s right to criticise Jeffrey Donaldson in this way, I never fail to be amazed at the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin.
The major economic decisions that will be made to protect Northern Ireland workers, their families, and everyone who is struggling to get by will be made at Westminster.
Why, therefore, don’t the seven Sinn Féin MPs, instead of simply taking their expenses, end their policy of abstentionism, take their seats at Westminster, and defend the rights of those families who are struggling to get by.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
They could also challenge Jeffrey Donaldson directly for his irresponsibility in the Westminster parliament itself. – Yours, etc,
JOHN CUSHNAHAN,
(Former Leader
of Alliance Party and
former Fine Gael MEP),
Lisnagry,
Co Limerick.
Sir, – It seems the DUP leader is still undecided about whether to relinquish his Assembly seat or his seat at Westminster. His final decision will tell a lot about where his priorities lie in the years ahead! – Yours, etc,
TADHG McCARTHY,
Bray,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – It would appear that, in refusing to take their place in the Stormont Executive, the DUP is following the lead of Sinn Féin, which does not take its seats in Westminster.
Where someone declines the position to which they are elected, it would make sense for that seat to be transferred instead to the runner-up in the election. – Yours, etc,
CLAIRE WHEELER,
Ballsbridge,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – I refer to Fintan O'Toole's article "The old Northern Ireland is dead, but the new cannot be born" (Opinion & Analysis, May 10th).
Most people born on this island can to some varying degree be described as either nationalist or unionist.
In the last analysis, nationalism and unionism are mutually exclusive ideals because they require different constitutional structures. No matter how much someone from a nationalist background sugarcoats their view of the future, it inevitably comes down to Irish unification and this is not acceptable to someone from a unionist background.
In this I include such soft terms as “shared island” or “citizen assemblies”, both of which are intended to obscure the real ambition of unification.
It is simply unrealistic to believe that Irish nationalism can reinvent itself to be anything other than what it is, Irish nationalism, the tribal opposite of unionism. Also the idea that a new state can be blueprinted and created, when history shows that states evolve, and when we know that this State itself has difficulties in even addressing basic reforms in housing and health, is frankly fanciful.
Post-Brexit we are told that the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is weaker, but it does not follow from this, either logically or empirically, that Irish unification is therefore more acceptable to people in Northern Ireland.
Those who choose to push unification are not really interested in the common good, or in exploring the growing middle ground, for whom the objectives today remain as they were in 1998: peace, harmony, prosperity, equality and good public services.
No one constitutional arrangement alone secures these goals because ultimately they depend on the people of Northern Ireland working together, which is possible under a range of options.
Instead of forcing a partisan agenda, we need a process founded on respect for both unionist and nationalist traditions, and on the assumption that they are lasting, which will explore how sovereignty can be shared in Northern Ireland over a timeframe that suits that society as a whole. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL GANNON,
Dublin 14.
A chara, – The major points arising from the Assembly election results in the North are the emergence of Sinn Féin as the largest party (and therefore entitled to occupy the office of First Minister) and the consolidation of the middle ground vote in the Alliance Party, largely at the expense of the SDLP, the UUP and the Green Party.
Another major feature is the 56 per cent vote for pro-protocol parties as against 29 per cent for the explicitly anti-protocol DUP and TUV.
But perhaps the most striking feature of all from this election is the gender profile of the new Assembly – 32 of the 90 members of the new Assembly are women; at 35 per cent this compares favourably with the less than 25 per cent of women in the current Dáil.
Remarkably, 15 of the 27 new representatives for Sinn Féin are women, while eight of the 17 people elected for the Alliance party are. Of the SDLP’s eight new members, two are women. The female representation on the unionist side lags a long way behind, the DUP having six women out of 25 people elected, while the Ulster Unionist Party has no woman in their nine-strong team.
While I don’t have an age breakdown for the new members, surveying their photos in The Irish Times it looks like the Sinn Féin and Alliance parties also enjoy a youth advantage on their unionist colleagues.
I think this emerging gender, and (if I’m correct) age differential between the nationalist and centrist parties on the one side and the unionist parties on the other is just as significant as the other features of these election results which have been remarked on. – Is mise,
JOHN GLENNON,
Hollywood,
Co Wicklow.