Sir, - A central aspect of the current debate within the unionist family is the relative security or otherwise of the union.
Mr Trimble assures us that the Good Friday agreement definitely strengthens the union while Mr McCartney emphatically asserts the contrary. Which analysis is correct?
Paradoxically, it might be argued that both are, given the terms and parameters by which each man and his supporters determine the status and internal complexion of the Ulster state.
Mr McCartney, Rev Paisley et al. are correct in recognising a diminution of Ulster's place within the union, in that they aspire to a state which is no longer workable in terms of the covenant of the Act of Union. They simply have failed to grasp (or more likely to accept) the contemporary demographic and political realities which have followed 30 years of civil instability. It is precisely because of this failure to reassess their place within present-day Britain, Ireland and Europe that there remains a scarcity of alternative proposals emanating from that camp. By the terms of the DUP/UK Unionists, any move away from the old certainties of the Stormont regime will undoubtedly constitute a weakening of their position.
Conversely, Trimble is right to assert that the current agreement strengthens the union. The bargaining stance from which he can negotiate his community's future is no longer an unchallenged position of strength. New realities of power-sharing, fringe parties, political prisoners and a changing perception of boundaries and collaboration calls for some pragmatic and difficult decisions and compromises.
Nevertheless, Trimble's grasp of realpolitik has ensured that the deal he has made - copper-fastened as it is by the principle of consent - is the best and only deal in town. The unionist community - in hard-headed Ulster-Scots fashion - should see this opportunity for what it is and consign the "No" lobby to the dustbin of history. - Yours, etc.,
Paul Burgess,
Department of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork.