Sir, - As we now approach the possibility of a political settlement in Northern Ireland, it is ominous that we should still place our trust in the simple divisive "for-oragainst" referendum as the instrument for achieving that settlement.
When the unionist parties refer to the "people of Ulster", it is hard to resist concluding that they refer only to the unionist majority. The "people of Ulster" includes everyone. Any decision-making or ratifying systems should reflect the views of all, not just those of a majority.
Unfortunately, however, the "principle of consent" is interpreted to mean the consent of (only) the majority. Hence we see in the Framework Documents that Northern Ireland will stay in the UK if "a majority of its people" so wish (para 18), but may join a united Ireland if "a majority of the people ... wish" (para 17).
This is a recipe for conflict, not least because of current demographic changes. It may well mean that Northern Ireland must face the tensions of a Quebec-type situation, with repeated calls for a vote until the minority-turned-majority gets its way. Or it may be worse, as it was with the "yes-or no, no compromise" Yugoslav referendums, first in the "Krajina", then in Croatia, and finally in Bosnia. There was only one result: war!
Why must we rely on such a blunt instrument? Even in less troubled lands like Scotland, such referendums are to be used so that Labour can ask the Scots if they like this or that proposal, yes or no. Why can't Labour ask them what they want from a range of options? The Swedes can do this; the then British Newfoundlanders did it, and in Guam they even had an, admittedly majoritarian, seven-option poll. In both Wales and Scotland, there could be, say, five options: the status quo, administrative devolution (as proposed for Wales), legislative devolution and legislative devolution with tax-raising (both as proposed for Scotland), or independence in Europe, and the people could be asked to state their preferences.
Returning to Northern Ireland, let us first remember the Danish referendum experience which suggests the politicians do not always articulate what the people want to hear. It may be that Northern Ireland's politicians do not in fact speak for as many of the people as they think. Perhaps we need a multi-option vote in the North; perhaps we should allow everyone to state their second and other preferences. Indeed, without the opportunity to embrace pluralism in this way, we may never find a compromise.
In a word, can we be given the chance, not to divide into majority versus minority, but to arrive at that settlement which gains the highest average preference of all voters, i.e., to find the best possible compromise? - Yours, etc.,
J. Emerson, Director,
The De Borda Institute, Belfast 14.