Letter: Graham Gudgin suggests that the Good Friday Agreement threw the ball of sovereignty into the air but that ball was in the air before Dr Gudgin was born

I have read and re-read Dr Graham Gudgin’s article (‘Why as a Trimble advisor I opposed the Good Friday Agreement and still think it a mistake,’ May 2, see link below) because I was so surprised by the arguments put forward. The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) was not perfect and like most unionists my family was unhappy with the speed with which early prisoner release was implemented compared to the foot dragging over decommissioning of weapons. I share Dr Gudgin’s concern at how we have allowed the republican movement to pretend there was no alternative to violence and at the instability of Stormont under the rules where one party can withhold government so easily, amending the rules to limit this should be considered.

Dr Gudgin is correct when he points out that the GFA was designed to get paramilitaries into government, but he portrays this as a bad thing. When I was at QUB (1978-81) I talked with students who supported the IRA and argued that the democratic route was a clear alternative to politically motivated violence. Eighteen years and many unnecessary deaths later we had paramilitaries swapping the gun for the ballot box. I see that as a success, republicans hold executive positions because they abandoned violence and this allowed nationalists to vote for them.

Dr Gudgin suggests that the GFA threw the ball of sovereignty into the air in a way that would forever poison NI politics. Arguments over our sovereignty cannot be blamed on the GFA; I was in primary school when Paisley started warning about the risk of republicans taking us into a united Ireland, that ball was in the air before Dr Gudgin or I were born.

Dr Gudgin’s response to the fact that we might sometime have a majority of 50%+1 deciding to take us out of the UK is disturbing. The suggestion that the turnout on a border poll might be low is surely not to be taken seriously, nor is his suggestion that instead we consider repartition of NI to complete the work of the border commission of 1925. He must know that such a move would provide a frightening incentive for ethnic or political cleansing of our towns.

None of us has the power to set in stone the future of this country; once we are dead that will be our children and grandchildren’s decision. We do have the responsibility to leave behind a place that is stable and well governed. Stability will involve unionists like us making NI a place where nationalists feel safe, where their sense of Irishness is recognised (I have suggested before that unionists should support the display of every town name in both English and Irish as a gesture of recognition). We need to educate our own people that making our nationalist neighbours feel happy and safe is a means of reducing the impetus to vote for a disruptive Irish unity.

Arnold Carton, Belfast 6

Graham Gudgin: Why as an advisor to Trimble I opposed the Belfast Agreement