When & How could there be a united Ireland?

Bottle_of_Smoke

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But then again, it was said that partition would be temporary to nationalists, and unionists were told the opposite. Built on a foundation of lies all around.

Lol now why does that sound disturbingly familiar.

I agree with federal system. Or even give the 6 counties a large degree of autonomy within a united ireland (Like hong kong or an Irish version of the good friday agreement)

Fr Tod Umptious

Well now that ESB are to buy NI Electricity then a united Ireland cannot be far away can it

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0707/esb.html

Notorious97

Took me two days to read through this thread in work lol, nice waste of working time J......

I like the idea of Eire Nua, have for some time, i don’t agree with Athlone being the seat of government etc, i think it should remain in Dublin, it is established here already. Definitely throwing in the TDs from the north if a UI happened into the Dáil is no the way forward, whole system needs an overhaul fast.

I think in a UI unionists would have a greater say in the running of a country than they currently do in the UK, i remember hearing before somebody said at the moment that have like 2% say, in a UI they could have as much as 20% (im not exactly sure if these are accurate but i do agree in a UI they would have a greater say in the running of a country).

Id love to see this in my life time, would be great for all people on this island to come together for the good of a country and its people. I full support the proclamation of 1916 as a basis for going forward with equality etc being the main issues for a future Ireland. Im not so sure the unionists would agree, but in the end if you simply read the text, it is a good document, with great principles in it regardless of how it was created, and i don’t think any sensible person from either side of the ‘divide’ could disagree with what it wanted. Sure it couldn’t be much worse than what we have now!

Wolfe Tone

Well the above post is pretty much how I feel, there is no set formula but Éire Nua is a good base for a new country, and the proclamation is an excellent foundation for any state.


I think most will agree that a few extra TDs is not the way to go. I imagine Athlone was picket for its central position, hence no east/west/north/south bias.

I feel that the western provinces would greatly benefit also, as will more wealthy ones like Leinster, were policies can be tailored to suit that regions needs.

Japer

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well now that ESB are to buy NI Electricity then a united Ireland cannot be far away can it

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0707/esb.html

Maybe a united set of islands / re-integration back in to the UK. Makes as much economic sense for these islands to be economically as one, like the islands of Japan, or the islands of New Zealand, or any other group of islands.

Maybe the richer countries in the EC could just give us free food and electricity, rather than continue to lend our government over 20 billion a year ? Maybe that day will come when they realise we cannot pay back the tens of billions ? At the moment our budgets have to be passed by Brussels anyway. They call the shots.

lugha

Japer wrote: »

Maybe a united set of islands / re-integration back in to the UK. Makes as much economic sense for these islands to be economically as one, like the islands of Japan, or the islands of New Zealand, or any other group of islands.

Capital idea! And we even already have an excellent 1916 proclamation document on which is might be based. All we need do is insert "and Britain" in a couple of places. :P

Wolfe Tone

It doesn't make democratic sense though. Ireland would become "lost in the shuffle" so to speak.

Mike 1972

If they made Athlone a capital imagine what RTE news would be like

Our lead story tonight- Council votes for new set of traffic lights in Main street (ten minutes of reports and analysis)......And finally an Earthquake took place today in Dublin killing several thousand -nobody from Athlone was hurt

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well now that ESB are to buy NI Electricity then a united Ireland cannot be far away can it]

Many of the UK mainland water, electric and railway companies are now owned by the French. Theyre up to something I tell ye !!!!!

briany wrote: »

IWhat about an agreement whereby heavily nationalist areas could have some sort of Dail representation? .

So people living just up the road from me would be able to elect TD's to Dail Eireann but people just down the road from me wouldnt. ?

Would the former have to pay taxes to Dail Eireann and live by its laws ?

When Im driving to work would I have to remember that at certain points along the road I would have to drive according to the "Rules of the road" rather than the "Highway code" and remember to bring some Euros with me In case I stop off at the shop (not to buy a magazine though what with the VAT and all)

If there are any places remaining in the Republic with a significant cluster of Unionists (Ive heard some people rabbiting on about someplace called "Dublin Four") would they get to elect MP's to Westminster ?

The mentality of ghettoisation prevalent in Northern Ireland is a cancer which we need to be tackling rather than institutionalising

gurramok

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If there are any places remaining in the Republic with a significant cluster of Unionists (Ive heard some people rabbiting on about someplace called "Dublin Four") would they get to elect MP's to Westminster ?

Hey, no need to generalise about the locals where i am

Ren2k7

Wow. Have finnaly managed to read through the entire thread in only four hours. There is certainly a lot of passionate debate on this issue and I doubt my 'two cents' will unite opinion but here is my thought and it's a radical one.

The two juristictions, Northern Ireland and the Republic to be unified under a single government with authority over the entire island but as part of a dual monarchy with Great Britain with the queen as Irelands head of state. Two new states would emerge throughout the British Isles. The Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. The new Irish state would not be some commonwealth state but would be in personal union with Great Britain with a shared crown.

Moreover, the Queen (or King) would assume the title of Queen (or King again) of Ireland as well as title of Queen of Great Britain and live permanentley at one of the dozens of lovely castles dotted all over this island every two years, the other year spent in Great Britain. Think of all those tourists visiting the UK to take pictures of Buckingham Palace when they could be taking their holiday snaps of the new Irish monarchy in Dublin Castle or the Aras.:rolleyes:

Additionally, the new state (or should I call it Kingdom) would have a strong federalised structure with the regions retaining their own regional government with devolved powers. This is something I mentioned about here in another thread with regards to regional government in the Republic.

The benefits to both communities would be obvious. The Nationalists would get a unified nation and the Unionists would retain a strong link to the crown. For folks in the republic we would be simply replacing one queen (Mary McAleese) with another. The only difference is that we elect our monarch every 7 years mostly .

This to me would seem like a win-win situation but unfortunately I can see this sort of scenario like so many visionary concepts being relegated to an obscure wikipedia article at best.:(

I wonder how many will support/reject this idea on this thread.

briany

This thread just got good.....:cool:

Dionysus

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Two new states would emerge throughout the British Isles.

Wolfe Tone

Well I would reject that. We had something like that until 1937, so I don't think that is the solution. I Agree with the federal proposal somewhat though.

Ren2k7

Dionysus wrote: »

Sorry, I should have said "Islands Of the North Atlantic" instead

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well I would reject that. We had something like that until 1937, so I don't think that is the solution. I Agree with the federal proposal somewhat though.

Not neccessarily. After partition there was strong anti-British sentiment throughout the Free State. Governments led first by CnaG and then Fianna Fail did everything possible to weaken the remaining links to the British state as there was no incentive to include unionists in the affairs of the new state, expecially as most unionists fled north of the border in the subsequent years. While Northern Ireland was a "Protestant state for a Protestant people" the south was also a "Catholic state for a Catholic people" and unionists living in Northern Ireland came to see the south as an alien and distant land.

The restoration of the link with the crown would be an accommodation to unionists and provide a way of showing that they would have a shared future in a united Ireland.

Iwasfrozen

Dionysus wrote: »

A term used for the major islands of Britain and Ireland, as well as the minor islands Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles

briany

The BNP of all people had a similar notion in their manifesto. Now please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying anyone who approves of Ireland becoming a member of an Anglo-Irish federation with the queen of England as head of both states is a supporter of the BNP, I'm just saying that I saw something similar when browsing their manifesto during the UK general election.

I fail to see the advantage in the proposal because we would have QEII as our head of state, a situation which I cannot help but feel most people in the republic would (tacitly) reject because it is kind of hard to accept the idea when anyone born in the last eighty years has learned about this history between Ireland and Britain and whether or not the history is skewed unfairly you cannot go back on generations of conditioning just like that. Plus we would be saddled with a portion of land that we don't particularly want, a political hot potato and at no small cost to us in tax payers' money.

More staunch nationalists would be irked, to say the least, because we were effectively rejoining the commonwealth and accepting what they saw as a foreign head of state to lead an illegitimate Irish state. Their unionist counterparts would be annoyed because they were to become part of a state (and province if it included all nine counties) in which they were a minority. It wouldn't matter to them if the island is federalized because they will be outvoted in running Ulster with Dublin to back it up. I don't think a link to the crown would matter to the unionist community if they were marginalized in this New Ireland.It would end in a new wave of violence.

Ren2k7

briany wrote: »

The BNP of all people had a similar notion in their manifesto. Now please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying anyone who approves of Ireland becoming a member of an Anglo-Irish federation with the queen of England as head of both states is a supporter of the BNP, I'm just saying that I saw something similar when browsing their manifesto during the UK general election.

I believe what the BNP were proposing is Ireland basically rejoining the UK altogether with Ireland having a sort of Scottish parliament type body in Dublin to run local affairs. Of course that idea is a complete non-starter and anyone who seriously considered such a concept is delusional.

What I was proposing wasn't a federation or even a loose alliance between the two states. Britain and Ireland would still both be independent sovereign nations. They would each have their own foreign policy, but they would share a common crown. They would continue to co-operate in much the same way as the they do now through the British-Irish Council so I don't think it would be an impossible scenario if it meant a united Ireland.

Basically I would be proposing the same arrangement that England and Scotland had before the 1707 Act of Union where they had separate parliaments but shared the same King. Also it wouldn't be Ireland simply rejoining the commonwealth but as a shared personal union of the two states monarch. Equal and separate so to speak.

briany

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I believe what the BNP were proposing is Ireland basically rejoining the UK altogether with Ireland having a sort of Scottish parliament type body in Dublin to run local affairs. Of course that idea is a complete non-starter and anyone who seriously considered such a concept is delusional.

What I was proposing wasn't a federation or even a loose alliance between the two states. Britain and Ireland would still both be independent sovereign nations. They would each have their own foreign policy, but they would share a common crown. They would continue to co-operate in much the same way as the they do now through the British-Irish Council so I don't think it would be an impossible scenario if it meant a united Ireland.

Basically I would be proposing the same arrangement that England and Scotland had before the 1707 Act of Union where they had separate parliaments but shared the same King. Also it wouldn't be Ireland simply rejoining the commonwealth but as a shared personal union of the two states monarch. Equal and separate so to speak.

Equal and separate yes but unionists in Northern Ireland want a union and the union they appear to want is with the UK not with the rest of Ireland regardless of whether we had QEII as head of this united Ireland and that should be respected. If they didn't want to be a part of the Irish Free State with a British monarch as our head of state way back when, then why would they want to be part of the same thing now?

Iwasfrozen

briany wrote: »

Equal and separate yes but unionists in Northern Ireland want a union and the union they appear to want is with the UK not with the rest of Ireland regardless of whether we had QEII as head of this united Ireland and that should be respected. If they didn't want to be a part of the Irish Free State with a British monarch as our head of state way back when, then why would they want to be part of the same thing now?

Because they are a minority. That's how democracy works.

briany

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because they are a minority. That's how democracy works.

Not being smart here but are you referring to Northern Ireland when you say that? Just because the debate on whether unionists in N.I. are a minority/majority social/political bloc could take up a whole other thread.....

Ren2k7

I always find it funny that unionists say they want to remain as part of the UK but then consistently call for special treatment when it suits them, e.g. Abortion illegal in NI, legal in UK; Grand Commitee on Northern Ireland, none for England, etc.

They got themselves a home rule parliament in 1920 even though they were against the very same thing prior to world war 1 for the entire island and it's clear they don't really care much for the union they just don't want to be part of a catholic majority state. It's a siege mentality thats got to stop.

The demographics are quite clear. Nationalists WILL in years down the line make up the majority of the population of NI so it is in unionists best interest now to come to a negotiated arrangement with the republic on a system of unification where they can benefit. Because you can be sure that when there is a nationalist majority up north there wont be any of the sort of compromises that I mentioned above.

Sending a few extra TD's to the Dail and extending the constitution to cover the six counties is what will end up happening and that wont be good for anyone on this island.

Iwasfrozen

briany wrote: »

Not being smart here but are you referring to Northern Ireland when you say that? Just because the debate on whether unionists in N.I. are a minority/majority social/political bloc could take up a whole other thread.....

No, I referring to the case of a United Ireland. Or at least an Ulster federaton.

briany

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, I referring to the case of a United Ireland. Or at least an Ulster federaton.

Oh OK. But in order for a United Ireland as part of dual kingdom that consists of two sovereign states model suggested there would have to be a referendum in Northern Ireland at the very least as the Good Friday agreement states that :

"Any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland could only follow a majority vote of its citizens"

So while it's true that the unionist community is a minority in the context of the whole of Ireland, they still make up the majority in N.I. and in all probability would likely nix any possibility of uniting democratically. That's just the opinion I get from history. They may be more open, who knows? I doubt this option will ever make it to the table somehow.

Noreen1

Whereas I'm broadly in favour of a UI, I don't think it can happen in the near future without a return to violence.

The sad truth is that too much hurt has been inflicted by both sides - and elements on both sides consistently refuse to recognise the hurt caused by their community.

As long as some people are unwilling to recognise that there were Nationalist and Unionist victims - then there can be no real progress towards peace.
Realistically, I can't see that happening in my lifetime, sad though that may be.

There seems to be an entrenched sense of "victimhood" on the part of some posters, which, if it is indicative of the sentiments of the general population of Northern Ireland, does not bode well for integration of the type that is very much taken for granted in the South.

Until that acceptance of one another can take place, I, for one, would not want a United Ireland - partly because I don't want to see a return to violence, but also because I find the idea of having entrenched, extreme Unionists venting their hatred at people who have done them no wrong quite repugnant - especially if it was as part of a nine county province.

Frankly, anyone who is capable of being offensive to someone based on their Nationality or Religion, (despite the fact that those same people have lived peacefully, and had good neighbourly relations with people of opposing beliefs for many years) - would probably do the Country a favour by staying out of it!!!.

On the other hand, those who wish to live in peace, and establish normal neighbourly relationships, are more than welcome.

Unfortunate though it may be, it seems that may take quite some time.:(


Noreen

Iwasfrozen

Noreen1 wrote: »

Whereas I'm broadly in favour of a UI, I don't think it can happen in the near future without a return to violence.

The sad truth is that too much hurt has been inflicted by both sides - and elements on both sides consistently refuse to recognise the hurt caused by their community.

As long as some people are unwilling to recognise that there were Nationalist and Unionist victims - then there can be no real progress towards peace.
Realistically, I can't see that happening in my lifetime, sad though that may be.

There seems to be an entrenched sense of "victimhood" on the part of some posters, which, if it is indicative of the sentiments of the general population of Northern Ireland, does not bode well for integration of the type that is very much taken for granted in the South.

Until that acceptance of one another can take place, I, for one, would not want a United Ireland - partly because I don't want to see a return to violence, but also because I find the idea of having entrenched, extreme Unionists venting their hatred at people who have done them no wrong quite repugnant - especially if it was as part of a nine county province.

Frankly, anyone who is capable of being offensive to someone based on their Nationality or Religion, (despite the fact that those same people have lived peacefully, and had good neighbourly relations with people of opposing beliefs for many years) - would probably do the Country a favour by staying out of it!!!.

On the other hand, those who wish to live in peace, and establish normal neighbourly relationships, are more than welcome.

Unfortunate though it may be, it seems that may take quite some time.:(


Noreen

Agreed, I would love to see a united Ireland. But without a political shake-up, however that may come, it simply will not be feasible in the long run and will simply herald a return to violence.

maccored

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Wow. Have finnaly managed to read through the entire thread in only four hours. There is certainly a lot of passionate debate on this issue and I doubt my 'two cents' will unite opinion but here is my thought and it's a radical one.

The two juristictions, Northern Ireland and the Republic to be unified under a single government with authority over the entire island but as part of a dual monarchy with Great Britain with the queen as Irelands head of state. Two new states would emerge throughout the British Isles. The Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. The new Irish state would not be some commonwealth state but would be in personal union with Great Britain with a shared crown.

Moreover, the Queen (or King) would assume the title of Queen (or King again) of Ireland as well as title of Queen of Great Britain and live permanentley at one of the dozens of lovely castles dotted all over this island every two years, the other year spent in Great Britain. Think of all those tourists visiting the UK to take pictures of Buckingham Palace when they could be taking their holiday snaps of the new Irish monarchy in Dublin Castle or the Aras.:rolleyes:

Additionally, the new state (or should I call it Kingdom) would have a strong federalised structure with the regions retaining their own regional government with devolved powers. This is something I mentioned about here in another thread with regards to regional government in the Republic.

The benefits to both communities would be obvious. The Nationalists would get a unified nation and the Unionists would retain a strong link to the crown. For folks in the republic we would be simply replacing one queen (Mary McAleese) with another. The only difference is that we elect our monarch every 7 years mostly .

This to me would seem like a win-win situation but unfortunately I can see this sort of scenario like so many visionary concepts being relegated to an obscure wikipedia article at best.:(

I wonder how many will support/reject this idea on this thread.

Does it work the other way, like the taoiseach gets to be queen and live in some english castle every two years? That'd be a great deal - england gets a share of ireland and Ireland gets a share of england, scotland and wales. win win.

lugha

Noreen1 wrote: »

As long as some people are unwilling to recognise that there were Nationalist and Unionist victims - then there can be no real progress towards peace.
Realistically, I can't see that happening in my lifetime, sad though that may be.

I am not sure what you are hoping for Noreen? I would say we do have a peace of sorts, if an imperfect one?

Notorious97

Not quite sure why people would want to be connected to them again, thoughts of swearing allegiance to any single person who is simply there because of bloodlines is disgusting, and goes against everything republicans stand for, as in goes against the very idea of a republic.

The federal system Eire Nua is a good idea i think, if there was to be a UI alot of healing and time will need to pass i think, and the unionists would need to feel involved in the running of the country, they should also realise they would not be as much of a minority in a UI as they are currently in the UK.

As Collins said.....’ A prosperous Ireland will mean a united Ireland. With equitable taxation and flourishing trade our North-East countrymen will need no persuasion to come in and share in the healthy economic life of the country’ – I definitely believe if Michael Collins had lived, this country would be alot better for it. Just reading his notes and letters shows how much he had planned for the country, robbed of (IMHO) the greatest leader we have had

Noreen1

lugha wrote: »

I am not sure what you are hoping for Noreen? I would say we do have a peace of sorts, if an imperfect one?

We have had peace in the South for generations, now - a peace where your religion (or lack of one) - does not dictate where you live, or who you are friends with - in fact, it rarely enters the equation. We do have peace of sorts, in the North.Unfortunately, there seems to be an entrenched bitterness left as a legacy of the "troubles".

I don't spend a huge amount of time in the North, though I do tend to go there quite frequently for medical treatment for one of my children. As it happens, I go to a "loyalist" area, and genuinely never experienced (or offered) anything other than acceptance, until the week the Saville report was published. Same hospital, same nurses, same patient - but the tension was palpable - and it wasn't coming from me!!!
One (English) staff member jokingly passed a remark that we had come in from another Country - and the poor staff nurse nearly had a heart attack. She looked genuinely terrified, and I'm still not sure whether she thought I was going to shoot her, or go off on a "Nationalist" rant, and complain!

It's no big deal, but it did demonstrate that tensions are not that far below the surface in the North, even yet.

Again, compare 12th July parades in Rossnowlagh to those on the North - completely different ballgame. One is a tradition, and a celebration of heritage, and tends to be accepted as such - the other, all too often, is an exercise in "triumphalism", and an excuse for bigotry.

My point is that, until wounds heal, and people in Northern Ireland can accept that being of a Nationalist or Unionist mindset/affiliation does not necessarily mean that there is a threat of violence, or, at best, suspicion - then a United Ireland is not possible, and would only return us to the violence that the people of Southern Ireland overwhelmingly rejected.

I don't believe that time is now. I do believe that time will eventually come - but not until the bitterness, and the "They did X" mindset (while ignoring historical facts) fades away.

Noreen

getz

Notorious97 wrote: »

Not quite sure why people would want to be connected to them again, thoughts of swearing allegiance to any single person who is simply there because of bloodlines is disgusting, and goes against everything republicans stand for, as in goes against the very idea of a republic.

The federal system Eire Nua is a good idea i think, if there was to be a UI alot of healing and time will need to pass i think, and the unionists would need to feel involved in the running of the country, they should also realise they would not be as much of a minority in a UI as they are currently in the UK.

As Collins said.....’ A prosperous Ireland will mean a united Ireland. With equitable taxation and flourishing trade our North-East countrymen will need no persuasion to come in and share in the healthy economic life of the country’ – I definitely believe if Michael Collins had lived, this country would be alot better for it. Just reading his notes and letters shows how much he had planned for the country, robbed of (IMHO) the greatest leader we have had

you have not reconized the real problems why at this moment you cannot have a united ireland,1 the union, 2 unemployment, 3 no NHS, 4 catholic control of schools hospitals ect, 5 the republic would be bankrupt overnight, and 100,000s would have to leave ireland for work [like the last time,] anyway thats how i see it