When & How could there be a united Ireland?

RATM

I remember reading a few years back that in NI Catholics tend to have larger families than Protestants and that eventually would be the largest population by religion.

Now leaving aside whether or not London or Dublin would ever want Ireland to be united again my question is how would such a unification be put in motion?
By referendum ? If so would it need a simple majority or a 2/3 one ?

So to play devils advocate here- lets assume the population at the time of referendum was 51% Catholic, 49% Protestant. It would be fair to say that most, if not all, Protestants would vote to stay in the UK. But do people feel that all Catholics in the north would vote to join the south? Is there an argument that the UK has better roads/education/health than the south and therefore many Catholics would actually vote to stay as part of the UK ?

ardmacha

This has been discussed endlessly with a great of irrelevancy brought in each time. This is likely to happen, Catholic families are only slightly, if at all, larger than Protestant ones. But there will be more Catholics in the child bearing age groups for the foreseeable future. There will be quite a significant middle block that is open to discussion on the matter. But this change is not going to happen suddenly and there is plenty of time to plan for it.

Discussion of economics always uses examples suited to the person proposing them. For most if its history NI was part of a richer state than the ROI, this is no longer the case, they are about the same. This is reflected in things like roads which are not better in NI. What NI is now is a poor region which receives a lot of transfers. Present economic conditions mean that the UK government will have to redue expenditure. This will reduce transfers and may mean more private sector growth. NI will in a decade have a rough balance on current expenditure, but will not be making a full contribution to the interest on UK debt. Conseuqently, if it is transferred without debt then its financial position would be largely unchanged in a united Ireland.

Health, education etc are a matter of policy, people can have the arrangements they wish to have. NI need not change policies if these suit it better and in some cases the ROI should adopt these too.

Finally, with the slow pace of change there can be discussion of things. But the idea that there will be nationalist majority in NI which then remains in the UK indefinitely is risible. Nationalist voters may have concerns about practical matters but they would expect those they vote for to sort these things out, so that obstacles can be removed. And practical matters don't all go one way, people may anticipate better pensions for instance.

Ineviatbly, some bright spark will pop up and say that people in the 26 counties won't go for it, but this too is nonsense. A gradual peaceful evolution will be widely supported and for every shoneen 26 countyist there will be someone else who welomes this as chance to reform the politicial system.

Oh_Noes

I think something that is often overlooked in this discussion is the Scottish situation. A lot of the people in the north that want to remain part of the union see themselves as British by way of Scotland, or certainly identify Ulster as very closely tied to Scotland.

At the moment in Scotland, the Scottish nationalist cause seems to be very slowly but steadily gathering momentum, and as far as I'm aware, it isn't fuelled by the same Catholic/Protestant divide that we have here. That's not to say it isn't a contributing factor but I don't think it's key.

I often wonder if Scottish independence would make Unionists in the North of Ireland re-evaluate their position, remaining loyal to London in the event of a Sovereign Scotland would muddy the ideological water of a lot of traditional Loyalists.

I think it's inevitable that a re-united Ireland will be become a reality sometime in the next century, but I think that before that ever happens, we'll more than likely see an independent "Northern Ireland".

djpbarry

Oh_Noes wrote: »

At the moment in Scotland, the Scottish nationalist cause seems to be very slowly but steadily gathering momentum...

I'm not sure about that - the SNP has had roughly the same number of seats at Westminster (where it counts) since 1997.

mike65

It would be a pity is this discussion revolved round the idea of outbreeding the other tribe. Its a bit more complex, like any vote would need to be passed on both sides of the border (for obvious reasons!). People in the ROI have yet to be asked to think seriously about a United Ireland and the various implications for what would follow if it came about. Is Ireland ready to embrace a million Unionists can a million Unionists be convinced of the merits of a unitary state?

PeterIanStaker

This thread is gonna degenerate into name calling and whataboutery.

(Which almost never happens on threads relating to issues such as these)

Bebs

Not in my lifetime and I'm a young fella. It's not about breeding over the 50% line. It's about being at a place where both communities want to be a part of a united Ireland. If that doesn't happen then there will be no peace between the communities and we'll be back to square one and a few lines on a map aren't worth that.

gurramok

mike65 wrote: »

Is Ireland ready to embrace a million Unionists can a million Unionists be convinced of the merits of a unitary state?

There are not a million Unionists. Lets not use emotional terms like a 'million' of them when there are not a million of them at all.

mike65

How many are there?

Wolfe Tone

I firmly believe that I will see a UI in my lifetime. However simply throwing a few extra TDs into the Dail will probably not work. One option is that we adopt an American style political system with the provinces acting like states. A UI is not just an extra 6 counties, it is the chance to reform and build an inclusive society, based on the 1916 proclamation. It will be a chance for a new beginning.

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I firmly believe that I will see a UI in my lifetime. However simply throwing a few extra TDs into the Dail will probably not work. One option is that we adopt an American style political system with the provinces acting like states. A UI is not just an extra 6 counties, it is the chance to reform and build an inclusive society, based on the 1916 proclamation. It will be a chance for a new beginning.

Except we're not big enough to run that sort of a system. It's a bit of a republican wet dream that we'd all be united together in peace and harmony. A united Ireland isn't even an issue in modern politics in the south.

I'd ask the question - What do we need a united Ireland for?

mike65

Parity of low esteem.

gurramok

mike65 wrote: »

How many are there?

Why did you not provide a statistical source for that million before spouting it out?:eek:

Poor form there. Look at the census results and the election results to get a likely number.
I'll help you. 1.8m resident there now. http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-dfp/news-dfp-november-2009/news-dfp-301109-population-set-to-pass.htm

From 2001 census it was found that 900,000 were of 'Protestant community background'. As we know small numbers of a particular religion do not identify with the associated religions political viewpoint and other people in the population do not have any viewpoint whatsoever.

But we do know the election results of the adult population. Around 50% vote Unionist, do the maths.

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

Except we're not big enough to run that sort of a system. It's a bit of a republican wet dream that we'd all be united together in peace and harmony. A united Ireland isn't even an issue in modern politics in the south.

I'd ask the question - What do we need a united Ireland for?

On a purely economic front it makes no sense for Ireland to be partitioned and have two different currencies, health systems, tax systems etc etc...
And thats before we even deal with the issue of the wishes of nationalists.

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

On a purely economic front it makes no sense for Ireland to be partitioned and have two different currencies, health systems, tax systems etc etc...
And thats before we even deal with the issue of the wishes of nationalists.

The current arrangement means that the UK pours subsidies into the North which wouldn't be supplied if the North were a part of the Republic. How would losing that make more economic sense for the people in the North?

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

The current arrangement means that the UK pours subsidies into the North which wouldn't be supplied if the North were a part of the Republic. How would losing that make more economic sense for the people in the North?

They are going to lose a lot of that anyway with budget cuts. Also, having out lower corporate tax rate would encourage investment.

It makes no sense to have duplicates of essential services in the North. The 6 counties have failed both economically(its existence as a "sponge" illustrates that) and politically. The 26 country economy has suffered greatly due to partition, whether that is simply by people going up north for shopping, or the economic stagnation of the border region. Even during he best years the border regions lagged behind, and remained a beneficiary of EU grants long after other regions of Ireland were deemed developed enough to receive much lesser amounts. The South has lost huge amounts of tax revenue due to partition. The south also spends around a half a billion in the 6 counties each year, improving road links and grants etc towards schools.

"In particular there is a need to tackle the lack of economic and fiscal sovereignty, and the British Government's inadequate annual subvention, which limits the options available to the executive," he said.

The First minister said that in January 2009. The amount of money they received then was deemed insufficient and it has and will be extremely curtailed. The 6 counties would not simply be dumped in our laps, there would be a reunification process, taking months and maybe even years, and financial support can be expected from the UK and the EU also.

djpbarry

RATM wrote: »

But do people feel that all Catholics in the north would vote to join the south?

The latest NI Life and Times Survey would seem to suggest that a large minority of catholics do not consider themselves nationalist. Furthermore, those that wish to see NI unite with ROI are in the minority among Catholics.

ardmacha

The latest NI Life and Times Survey would seem to suggest that a large minority of catholics do not consider themselves nationalist.

"Lifestyle" polls are all very fine, but these people are voting for nationalist parties when the elections come around. These voters want an united Ireland but accept that it cannot be achieved immediately, they expect these nationalist parties to bring this about.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

The latest NI Life and Times Survey would seem to suggest that a large minority of catholics do not consider themselves nationalist. Furthermore, those that wish to see NI unite with ROI are in the minority among Catholics.

Knew someone who would quote that stupid poll where they cannot even get the right amount of popularity for both SF and the DUP.

This poll(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8567619.stm ) by the British Broadcasting Corporation says 55% at present wish to stay within the UK.

Funny how that figure nearly corresponds with the regular election results for the Unionist parties.

owenc

djpbarry wrote: »

The latest NI Life and Times Survey would seem to suggest that a large minority of catholics do not consider themselves nationalist. Furthermore, those that wish to see NI unite with ROI are in the minority among Catholics.

If it comes to it, i think the second option would be good for Northern Ireland.

owenc

gurramok wrote: »

Knew someone who would quote that stupid poll where they cannot even get the right amount of popularity for both SF and the DUP.

This poll(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8567619.stm ) by the British Broadcasting Corporation says 55% at present wish to stay within the UK.

Funny how that figure nearly corresponds with the regular election results for the Unionist parties.

Why won't they do a refurendum to see how many people really want to stay in the uk? That would provide answers.

Bebs

owenc wrote: »

Why won't they do a refurendum to see how many people really want to stay in the uk? That would provide answers.

Because if the answer was no then we'd all be ****ed.

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

Why won't they do a refurendum to see how many people really want to stay in the uk? That would provide answers.

That will happen eventually I am sure. The last poll was boycotted by nationalists. However that would heighten sectarian tensions.

The last thing we need is a Paisley style figure "saving" Ulster a la Sunningdale.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

That will happen eventually I am sure. The last poll was boycotted by nationalists. However that would heighten sectarian tensions.

The last thing we need is a Paisley style figure "saving" Ulster a la Sunningdale.

No i don't mean a poll because they could be biased and goto some nationalist or unionist area and get results from there, i mean a think were everyone has to vote yes or no to staying in the uk. (Just to see results not to move out of the uk!)

Wolfe Tone

Sorry, I meant a border poll, aka a referendum.

Bebs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The First minister said that in January 2009. The amount of money they received then was deemed insufficient and it has and will be extremely curtailed. The 6 counties would not simply be dumped in our laps, there would be a reunification process, taking months and maybe even years, and financial support can be expected from the UK and the EU also.

That's a false economy. Offset those savings against the cost of the massive political unrest that re-unification would cause and the benefits brought about by re-unification are completely outweighed by the costs of increased security, the loss of investment due to political instability and the costs of re-introducing the gun into Irish politics and that doesn't just apply to the North, it would apply equally to the South as well.

LookingFor

Is anyone else not worried that if there were a referendum, and the majority wanted unification with the Republic, and that went ahead...that there wouldn't be a whole new generation of violence, this time orientated around Dublin?

I really think that would be inevitable. I can't see loyalists taking something like this well.

Second, who is to say that this would be the end of the question anyway? Surely protestants and loyalists could as equally demand the opportunity for referenda in the future on the matter. What happens if a future referendum showed a majority wanting to re-join the UK due to changing demographics? Does the Republic and the UK end up playing table tennis with the North every x number of decades with ensuing phases of violence each time?

Bebs

My sentiments exactly. Can you imagine living in Dublin under the threat of Unionist bombings? Northern Ireland is not worth the hassle. If the electorate in the Republic ever feel otherwise then they'll give SF a parliamentary majority.

Wolfe Tone

I think if we had a federal system it would help to alleviate Unionist concerns. The RCC is a rapidly disappearing stumbling block also. The whole "Rome Rule" issue will be gone.


Don't forget this is a long road we are on. It will not be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.

Wolfe Tone

Bebs wrote: »

My sentiments exactly. Can you imagine living in Dublin under the threat of Unionist bombings? Northern Ireland is not worth the hassle. If the electorate in the Republic ever feel otherwise then they'll give SF a parliamentary majority.

FF have, and always have, stated a united Ireland as an aim. From Dev to Haughey to Bertie they have all said it. Sure they even aim to run in the North. They shouldn't though.


There have been numerous polls over the years and I have yet to see one were the "No" to a united Ireland is an outright winner(in the 26)

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think if we had a federal system it would help to alleviate Unionist concerns. The RCC is a rapidly disappearing stumbling block also. The whole "Rome Rule" issue will be gone.


Don't forget this is a long road we are on. It will not be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.

Yes i beleive it'll take well over 50 years to happen, if it even happens.

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

Yes i beleive it'll take well over 50 years to happen, if it even happens.

I think I will see it in my lifetime anyway.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think I will see it in my lifetime anyway.

How many years do you think?? Catholic population doesn't grow that quick ( i.e it doesn't grow from 40% to 70%) in 20 years. I really think the best option would be to wait until Northern Ireland is big enough and then make it, its own independant country, or keep it under uk rule but make it smaller, i.e keeping my county, antrim and down because i don't think its fair on the counties with unionist majorities.

owenc

Bebs wrote: »

My sentiments exactly. Can you imagine living in Dublin under the threat of Unionist bombings? Northern Ireland is not worth the hassle. If the electorate in the Republic ever feel otherwise then they'll give SF a parliamentary majority.

Well why would they vote for SF when they have a republic??

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

How many years do you think?? Catholic population doesn't grow that quick ( i.e it doesn't grow from 40% to 70%) in 20 years. I really think the best option would be to wait until Northern Ireland is big enough and then make it, its own independant country, or keep it under uk rule but make it smaller, i.e keeping my county, antrim and down because i don't think its fair on the counties with unionist majorities.

Shame people did not think of the nationalist majority in Fermanagh etc isnt it?


What about that nationalists in those counties? leave them behind?

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Shame people did not think of the nationalist majority in Fermanagh etc isnt it?


What about that nationalists in those counties? leave them behind?

No we are doing it by majorities here, so are you saying that in a county that is 70% unionist and only 20% nationalist you would put it in the united ireland because there were a small minority of nationalists... that wouldn't be fair on the 70% of the whole county.

Wolfe Tone

Now you see why partition was never a good idea.

Replace county with country and switch nationalist with unionist.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Now you see why partition was never a good idea.

Replace county with country and switch nationalist with unionist.

Well then the only solution is to leave it the way it is now, most people are happy with it and theres no fighting so why the big fuss to change it??

Wolfe Tone

Most people are not happy with it. Everyone who votes for nationalist parties is not.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Most people are not happy with it. Everyone who votes for nationalist parties is not.

No change that to SF

gurramok

Bebs wrote: »

My sentiments exactly. Can you imagine living in Dublin under the threat of Unionist bombings? Northern Ireland is not worth the hassle. If the electorate in the Republic ever feel otherwise then they'll give SF a parliamentary majority.

What an ignorant post.

Q1 - Name one political party in the Dail that do not want an United Ireland.

Q2 - Why should there be 'Unionist bombings' as you put it, after all the majority of the NI population wants an United Ireland in that scenario, hypocritical of Unionists not to accept the democratic wishes of the NI population when they do now.

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

No change that to SF

No, everyone who votes for a nationalist party wants a UI. It is a stated aim of SDLP too.

owenc

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

No, everyone who votes for a nationalist party wants a UI. It is a stated aim of SDLP too.

Well i wouldn't say alot of people here in northern ireland want a ui about 30% i'd say remember theres catholics who want to keep the union too.

Wolfe Tone

owenc wrote: »

Well i wouldn't say alot of people here in northern ireland want a ui about 30% i'd say remember theres catholics who want to keep the union too.

I refer you back to the BBC poll.

Or look at the amount of people who voted for nationalist politicians in the elections.

LookingFor

gurramok wrote: »

Q2 - Why should there be 'Unionist bombings' as you put it, after all the majority of the NI population wants an United Ireland in that scenario, hypocritical of Unionists not to accept the democratic wishes of the NI population when they do now.

It takes relatively few people to cause an awful lot of problems. This is typically the case with terrorism. There'll always be people unwilling to accept things and willing to go to extremes. It's even the case right now even, albeit to a much smaller degree than previously. But I would bet practically anything on a united Ireland reigniting loyalist/unionist violence to a much larger scale.

I think it's exceptionally naive to think otherwise tbh.

gurramok

LookingFor wrote: »

It takes relatively few people to cause an awful lot of problems. This is typically the case with terrorism. There'll always be people unwilling to accept things and willing to go to extremes. It's even the case right now even, albeit to a much smaller degree than previously. But I would bet practically anything on a united Ireland reigniting loyalist/unionist violence to a much larger scale.

I think it's exceptionally naive to think otherwise tbh.

Then thats a case of severe hypocrisy if the Unionist population support such violence in the face of a democratic mandate from the NI electorate.

LookingFor

gurramok wrote: »

Then thats a case of severe hypocrisy if the Unionist population support such violence in the face of a democratic mandate from the NI electorate.

I'm sure accusations of hypocrisy would stop such thugs right in their tracks...

edit - and I'm not saying that such violence would necessarily have majority unionist support. I'm just saying that you would have violence, pretty serious violence i think. Anyone who expect such a transition to be peaceful...that's a lovely and romantic idea, but dreadfully naive.

Wolfe Tone

I have no doubt there will be a few flair ups but not on a huge scale.

gurramok

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm sure accusations of hypocrisy would stop such thugs right in their tracks...

edit - and I'm not saying that such violence would necessarily have majority unionist support. I'm just saying that you would have violence, pretty serious violence i think. Anyone who expect such a transition to be peaceful...that's a lovely and romantic idea, but dreadfully naive.

Well, we have to expect all normal right thinking people in the Unionist population to condemn such acts and pass info onto the authorities just like the what happens to republican extremists now.

Is it naive to think the Unionists will not support the extremists?

rovert

To answer the thread when the government want to further imperil the countries finances.

What is the rational behind unification besides the increasingly irrelevant concept of nationalism?

Wolfe Tone

rovert wrote: »

To answer the thread when the government want to further imperil the countries finances.

What is the rational behind unification besides the increasingly irrelevant concept of nationalism?

There are economic ones as well, I went through a few of these a few pages back.