Varadkar, Coveney and unionism

Sir, – Andy Pollak ("Varadkar and Coveney may regret wrapping themselves in green flag", Opinion & Analysis, December 24th) does unionist politicians a disservice by denying them agency and responsibility.

Apparently, Government Ministers must never mention a constitutional imperative (Irish unity by consent) because this is “guaranteed to terrify every unionist”. We are told that such outrages prevent Arlene Foster taking phone calls from the Taoiseach. Does she have no say in the matter?

The DUP boasts that it has never accepted the Belfast Agreement.

Might this more accurately explain DUP attitudes to guarantors of the Belfast Agreement?

READ MORE

Retreading a unionist trope which is traceable to 19th-century “Home Rule” politics, Andy Pollak predictably warns of “a bloody maelstrom somewhere down the road”.

Is that made more likely or less likely by delegitimising constitutional politics with regard to the Irish nation? – Yours, etc,

COLM DORE,

Belfast.

Sir, – The assertion that Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney cannot publicly maintain a nationalist position or disagree with the DUP on issues is frankly ridiculous. Why should the DUP get such preferential treatment? No one seems too concerned if Fine Gael falls out with Sinn Féin. As for damaging existing relationships, what relationships? The DUP only ever showed contentment when it got everything it wanted. That isn’t a relationship of substance.

Theresa May has no issue coming out as a unionist. She has no fear of damaging relationships with nationalists. Why unionists in general, and the DUP in particular, are considered to be beyond challenging is a mystery to me. This constant appeasing of the DUP is holding back any form of agreement. Unionists reckon, probably correctly, they just have to make enough noise to frighten away the Southern political parties and isolate Sinn Féin, thus ensuring nationalists do not get a fair deal in negotiations. – Yours, etc,

JOHN TEMPLE,

Dromiskin,

Co Louth.