Prime Time special on a United Ireland

Nichard Dixon · 12-11-2015 3:51am

Godge wrote: »

The Northern population is normalising already. From the election after next, I predict a rise in support for both moderate nationalist and moderate unionist parties. SF will become a minority of a minority again up there by around 2030.

Northern Ireland is not normal, there is only so much normalisation can take place in a statelet set up to advance sectarianism.

alaimacerc · 12-11-2015 5:00am

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

Northern Ireland is not normal, there is only so much normalisation can take place in a statelet set up to advance sectarianism.

Ah, "original sin" thinking. It's not even in principle possible for NI to become a fully functioning society because of the circumstances of partition? If it's yea unto the seventh generation, let's at least cherish a glimmer of hope for the eighth.

The more real danger is that this becomes self-fulfilling. We must not allow normalisation, as it would validate partition. Not entirely unlike the "mustn't let the terrorists win" thinking on the British/Unionist side.

eire4 · 12-11-2015 5:55am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Back in the 90's and early noughties Unionist politicians along the border wouldn't countenance engagement with cross border groups (they would play lip service but in terms of knuckling down and doing actual work) that is still there to an extent but is diluting all the time.
I work with some of these groups and I can now debate issues with a Unionist politician or indeed Unionist people, who heretofore wouldn't go near such a discussion. That is all to the good. My point was that the breaking down of the distrust and fears will have an effect on the debate as NI and border areas continue to normalise.

Look at the reaction to the Anglo-Irish agreement in the 1980's and how virulent the unionist and loyalist protests were against it. In fact it was the Anglo-Irish agreement that was a key factor in the fomation of The Committee and the Inner Force in the RUC. There is much work to be done in reaching across divides but we have come a long way from the post Anglo-Irish agreement horrors.

Jawgap · 12-11-2015 9:07am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah, "original sin" thinking. It's not even in principle possible for NI to become a fully functioning society because of the circumstances of partition? If it's yea unto the seventh generation, let's at least cherish a glimmer of hope for the eighth.

The more real danger is that this becomes self-fulfilling. We must not allow normalisation, as it would validate partition. Not entirely unlike the "mustn't let the terrorists win" thinking on the British/Unionist side.

The overlooked part is, perhaps, the Ryanair / Facebook effect - NI (and the Republic) isn't nearly as insular as it was 20 or 30 years ago. People travel, not just emigrate - ideas etc move more freely and quickly, and it's the generations raised in the information era that are coming to the fore over the next 10 years or so.

They're less concerned about borders because borders don't really affect them.

Happyman42 · 12-11-2015 9:48am

alaimacerc wrote: »

The answers are exactly as you expected, but all the questions were wrong. Most curious. Precisely which of the questions were "leading", and what (in your rigorously impartial opinion) would better alternatives have been? The reflexive Republican responses don't seem to have been backed up with a lot of substance. "Wrong" questions, RTE/BBC bias, climate"gate"-like overexcitement about charted results not summing to 100, standard sample size is mysteriously invalid allofasudden, etc, etc...

'The' leading question... the question about tax was wrong imo as you were always likely to get a negative result.

This last is fairly vague (nor am I entirely clear what you mean by a "dilution" of the UK), but there seems to be a tacit acknowledgement here that if there's not a game-changing event, there won't be a UI within 20 years. (Setting aside how likely it might be even if there is.)

Dilution -more regional autonomy, English parliament etc.

Not that it's the FF leadership's decision. Or that noises they make about it are likely to prove anything other than as counterproductive than SF's.

One needs to unbundle the various components of the economics aspect. There are the effects of partition, per se. There are the secondary effects of NI's "non-normalisation". There's the cross-subsidy from ("mainland") GB. It's indeed likely the latter will be reduced, given Tory ideology for one thing. Question is whether this will be roughly in line with offsetting benefits from the first two and UK cuts generally, or more or less favourable than that. Perhaps you feel the survey would have benefited from a question on the lines of "Will you want to leave the UK in high dudgeon if the UK subvention is reduced to less than €10bn? (PS, SF says it's currently a mere €3bn, that would be no trouble at all to borrow.)"

Despite the sarcasm I detect tacit acknowledgement that questions about the future need to be more nuanced and less headline.

A more pressing thing to hope for would be dilution of rampant overdiagnosis in some quarters of "irrationality", in relation to any criticism whatsoever of SF.

Funny that, I was just wondering in another post how one party could be so wrong in EVERYTHING they say and do in the eyes of some posters on here.

Godge · 12-11-2015 4:58pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

A "normalised" electorate could very plausibly end up still voting for a "normalised" SF and DUP.

I'll believe that that normalisation has meaningfully occurred when there's a sufficiently large "neither of the above" tradition that the assembly is forced to change the tradition-based petition of concern mechanism.

Possibly, you are right, but it will take a generational change in leadership and policy for either of the DUP or SF to become anything like a normal political party.

Nichard Dixon · 12-11-2015 11:46pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah, "original sin" thinking. It's not even in principle possible for NI to become a fully functioning society because of the circumstances of partition? If it's yea unto the seventh generation, let's at least cherish a glimmer of hope for the eighth.

The more real danger is that this becomes self-fulfilling. We must not allow normalisation, as it would validate partition. Not entirely unlike the "mustn't let the terrorists win" thinking on the British/Unionist side.

In a scenario where we are criticising ISIS and the like, it would be quite wrong to support a 17th century ethnic cleansing project, even if this would be more convenient for some. But then Mé Feiners are always large in number.

Godge · 13-11-2015 10:27am

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

In a scenario where we are criticising ISIS and the like, it would be quite wrong to support a 17th century ethnic cleansing project, even if this would be more convenient for some. But then Mé Feiners are always large in number.

If we are criticising ISIS, then we are supporting the West led by the US, which means we are supporting a 17th century ethnic cleansing project.

Some very confused logic you have.

alaimacerc · 14-11-2015 3:50pm

Godge wrote: »

Possibly, you are right, but it will take a generational change in leadership and policy for either of the DUP or SF to become anything like a normal political party.

But we're looking at generational change all round. We may need to get new voters -- I mean by the traditional method, not the "ship 'em out" idea -- before things change appreciably. And a generation of political leader takes less time than that. (Well, in most parties it does. SFMV.)

alaimacerc · 14-11-2015 3:57pm

Nichard Dixon wrote: »

In a scenario where we are criticising ISIS and the like, it would be quite wrong to support a 17th century ethnic cleansing project, even if this would be more convenient for some.

Your train of thought seems all over the radar here, but just backdating the "original sin" concept further isn't making it any more valid. Are you suggesting that we should set aside an agreed peace process, self-determination, etc, in favour of seeking vengeance for the misdeeds of the past?

alaimacerc · 14-11-2015 4:11pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

'The' leading question... the question about tax was wrong imo as you were always likely to get a negative result.

That's not what you'd think when listening to barstool Republicans on such matters. It's not a "leading" question at all, or in any way biased in its wording that I can see. It's not like it said "Given that a UI will cost a ton of money and lead to higher taxes...", it asked an entirely reasonable hypothetical. Perhaps you're confusing "leading" with "not leading in a way that SF would like".

Dilution -more regional autonomy, English parliament etc.

I doubt think those are "game changers". Those things would be "business as usual" in most developed democracies. A botched implementation of EVEL might accelerate actual breakup of the UK, but unless and until it gets to that point, I don't think it has any strong implications for NI.

Despite the sarcasm I detect tacit acknowledgement that questions about the future need to be more nuanced and less headline.

I'm all in favour of nuance, but it would have been somewhat wasted on a show like that. Nor is it particularly clear what nuance is actually missing in this respect. What would a better question for addressing the economic angle have been?

Funny that, I was just wondering in another post how one party could be so wrong in EVERYTHING they say and do in the eyes of some posters on here.

So "rationality" is to be measured, not in whether someone has supporting arguments for whatever arguments for or against something, on the basis of the ratio of criticism to praise? Curious. I wonder how you'd fare if judged by that standard, in relation to each political party other than SF?

Prime Time special on a United Ireland

Comments