Letters to the Editor: 'Common sense and a Brexit committee can solve impasse'
Throughout the Brexit and backstop debate, the tactic, now nearly ubiquitous in all debates about anything, is to label those with a different opinion as racist, sexist and/or ignorant. No true Scotsman would be for Brexit, and they are obviously ignorant says the courtier. If you can acknowledge that the other side may not be evil, and may have a valid argument, then common ground and solutions may be found. This is what I suggest.
During the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy received a conciliatory letter from Khrushchev offering a genuine prospect for peace. This letter was followed by a threatening one from Kremlin hardliners. Kennedy chose to ignore the second letter and proceeded as if only the first letter was sent. Ireland, Northern Ireland, Britain and the EU can do the same thing. The original proposal for a backstop was quite brilliant. All sides, except the DUP, agreed to it. Its objection was genuine. It was afraid of being split from the rest of the UK. Let’s accept the first letter (backstop) and work from there.
Form a Brexit committee of five appointed members. One from the Republic, one from NI, one from mainland Britain, one from the EU and one from Australia/New Zealand. That’s three Commonwealth countries. The EU and Britain both have high standards, that’s why the original Brexit proposal was so good. Give this committee veto power, through majority voting, over any EU laws that affect Northern Ireland. So if the EU does pass laws on goods and services that are significantly at odds with Britain, the committee can veto it. The EU and Ireland should not have a problem with this either, as Britain is unlikely to pass irrational cross-border laws. Is this proposal feasible?
Newbridge, Co Kildare
Will accusation of economic war be made against the EU?
In Anthony Leavy’s latest letter (Irish Independent, February 15) he repeats his assertion that the UK has declared economic war. This accusation made no sense the first time around, and still doesn’t. It will be interesting to see if he makes the same accusation against the EU if, in the event of no deal, that body forces the Republic to establish a hard Border against its will and when – not if – it makes the country abandon its low rate of corporation tax.
Address with editor
Religious orders acted in good faith on sex education
Sex education was thought unnecessary by nuns when all girls and boys were taught that sex outside marriage was a sin. Was that so bad when it was the only way they knew to prevent unwanted children?
Ireland after independence regarding healthcare and education was mostly left to the religious orders, so children were taught by celibates who had to deal with very high rates of child poverty and who did what they believed was for the best.
Ballymun, Dublin 9
Two sides to every story – and pro-life deserves to have a say
I am just wondering why the pro-life point of view gets so little coverage? Why have you and other media outlets changed how the pro-life side is addressed from “pro-life” to “anti-abortion”? Why aren’t the pro-choice side called “pro-abortion”? Language is powerful and this I think should be addressed.
Also, the issue around exclusion zones has been scrutinised extraordinarily little. From a legal perspective and also from the perspective of those who take part in them.
Peaceful protest is one of the hallmarks of democracy. There are already laws in relation to harassment and if that occurs those responsible should be reprimanded. But these protests are very peaceful and respectful. I took part in one recently and we actually do it on a Saturday when the surgery is closed.
Also, there are so many stories of similar vigils outside abortion clinics where women have changed their mind as they were informed by these groups that there are other alternatives to abortion.
Why aren’t women getting the full facts? It’s an absolute travesty.
Also at the recent State of the Union, US President Trump made comments in relation to abortion which were completely ignored or as good as by our whole mainstream media. Why was this?
There are many hundreds of thousands of us who are totally against abortion and our voice is not given a fair shake. The abortion referendum may be over but so was the referendum of 1983 once upon a time. The debate goes on. Why do you not cover something that is so important to so many of us? It’s not right or fair. There are always two sides to every story but all we hear for the most part is the pro-abortion side.
Address with editor