When & How could there be a united Ireland?

lugha

Noreen1 wrote: »

Neither can I! But, you never know what the future will bring. What will happen if, for example 51% of Unionists are willing to accept it? (I just chose that figure out of thin air - obviously, I have no idea how many Unionists would accept it.)
Noreen

Well if they are unionists you would have to put the number willing to dissolve the union at about, oh 0% :pac:.

Seriously, why do we persist with this notion that the unionist can be persuaded? Nobody thinks you could persuade any nationalists to be part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Why do you suppose unionists have less attachment to their preferred political arrangement?

No. Out-breeding them is the only show in town :cool:.

ardmacha

Quote:
Originally Posted by getz View Post
a optimistic date for a referemdum [by the so called experts] is 2016 just over 5 years away,i cannot see the 49% of the unionist population excepting fully a united ireland without a fight

Neither can I! But, you never know what the future will bring. What will happen if, for example 51% of Unionists are willing to accept it? (I just chose that figure out of thin air - obviously, I have no idea how many Unionists would accept it.)

There is no requirement for x% of the unionist population to be in favour of a United Ireland, only that a majority of the population be in favour. But of course NI was set up to give one type of persons vote greater weight than another. As circumstances come to favour a UI cue some sort of claim that a majority of both communities have to be in favour or similar, with any unionist who becomes in favour being discounted as now being a nationalist and so the remaining existence of any unionist being enough to stop progress.

There is profound hypocrisy here, as usual. People argue for the continuation of the present colonial arrangements, which cannot be morally justified, however slim the majority for their continuation. The same people then argue that there must be large majority for a UI to take place.

getz

i think there is a attempt between both the UK and ireland to build close and more friendy relations if they [the republic] could convince the loyalist population that they are not anti-brit it could go a long way to a irish unification,the first moves are already in motion,the irish offer for the queen to visit,the other one was the one banded about is rejoining the commonwealth,satisfy the loyalist population and the battle is won,but it is going to be painful for most irish people to except ,

ardmacha

Unionists have to accept that it is they who make Irish people opposed to Britain. You can be friends with your neighbour, but not if he has annexed part of your garden.

Joining the Commonwealth might be the sort of thing involved in a settlement.

bigbadbear

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Rubbish. No other word for that statement really.

I am an Irishman living in the republic. I do not want the scum that attacked the Dublin-Belfast train. Why is that surprising?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Every survey ever has always had a large majority willing to accept the north.

Yes and I would have probably been one that would say yes for UI.... until I think about it properly.

There are so many reasons why UI will never happen and so far there hasn't really been a good one for uniting it.

Are you a Northerner with foggied up eyes about the republic? because living in the republic is cráp in so many ways at the moment. (I still love it of course)

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Why bring it up? There were countries before oil ya know. More rubbish.

No need to be all smart about it. The only way it could ever happen is when all the current arguments against UI go out the window.
basically it is if the very nature and structure of society changes completely. The world running out of oil might change things a little so it's a relevant comment.

getz

ardmacha wrote: »

Unionists have to accept that it is they who make Irish people opposed to Britain. You can be friends with your neighbour, but not if he has annexed part of your garden.

Joining the Commonwealth might be the sort of thing involved in a settlement.

read your own post and you will see like them,you are still living in the passed,that is why there is still a irish problem

Mayo Exile

When: whenever a majority in NI (and probably RoI) vote for it.

How: maybe work the GFA in reverse. There's a book by Richard Humphreys called "Countdown to Unity: Debating Irish Reunification" (Irish Academic Press) which goes into the details of how it might be done.

oscarBravo

Mayo Exile wrote: »

When: whenever a majority in NI (and probably RoI) vote for it.

"Probably RoI"? I should bloody well hope I'll be consulted before a whole new chunk is grafted onto my country.

lugha

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Probably RoI"? I should bloody well hope I'll be consulted before a whole new chunk is grafted onto my country.

I think it is assumed, regrettably but probably correctly, that a majority in the South would vote for an enlarged all-Ireland state.

IPRIreland

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Probably RoI"? I should bloody well hope I'll be consulted before a whole new chunk is grafted onto my country.

Especially when it would really hit our collective wallets and purses extremely hard. Yes, Britain would surely be obliged to shoulder some of the bill but still, we'd notice it in ways we cant afford to (especially at the moment).

gurramok

IPRIreland wrote: »

Especially when it would really hit our collective wallets and purses extremely hard. Yes, Britain would surely be obliged to shoulder some of the bill but still, we'd notice it in ways we cant afford to (especially at the moment).

I'd happily pay for a hike in taxes to pay for it. Our tax burden is actually quite low at the moment so it won't be 'extremely hard' but more of a 'hard' one.

lugha

IPRIreland wrote: »

.... Britain would surely be obliged to shoulder some of the bill ....

I seriously doubt that Britain will continue to offer meaningful financial support once the're gone!

Mayo Exile

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Probably RoI"? I should bloody well hope I'll be consulted before a whole new chunk is grafted onto my country.

The word "probably" is used as I am unsure of exactly what would happen in the South in the event of this scenario.

IPRIreland

lugha wrote: »

I seriously doubt that Britain will continue to offer meaningful financial support once the're gone!

And i'm equally sure that the new, United Ireland would be seeking to sue and trying to claim some form of colonial reparations. And I could equally see Britain agreeing as overall, it would suit them much better in the long run if they could get the north off their balance books.

getz

lugha wrote: »

I seriously doubt that Britain will continue to offer meaningful financial support once the're gone!

why would the british taxpayer prop up northern ireland if its people voted to leave the union ? its your problem ,warts and all

getz

IPRIreland wrote: »

And i'm equally sure that the new, United Ireland would be seeking to sue and trying to claim some form of colonial reparations. And I could equally see Britain agreeing as overall, it would suit them much better in the long run if they could get the north off their balance books.

northern ireland is NOT a colony,a colony is under direct legislative control of the crown and does not possess its own system of representative goverment,crown colonies are administered by a crown -appointed governor ,northern ireland has its own goverment.and as with scotland,wales and england,and sends it MPs to wesminster,stop reading that republican crap ,the only country within the union who has not got its own goverment is england.

IPRIreland

getz wrote: »

northern ireland is NOT a colony,a colony is under direct legislative control of the crown and does not possess its own system of representative goverment,crown colonies are administered by a crown -appointed governor ,northern ireland has its own goverment.and as with scotland,wales and england,and sends it MPs to wesminster,stop reading that republican crap ,the only country within the union who has not got its own goverment is england.

Trust me, we at IPRI are vehemently opposed to "that republican crap". Fair enough, in the traditional sense,it is no longer classed as a colony. My point is, ultimately, we don't think it would be tolerated by many world powers if Britain we're to make a clean and absolute break without an adequate level of planning for such a transfer. Such a transfer would have to be extremely gradual over a long period.

OS119

IPRIreland wrote: »

My point is, ultimately, we don't think it would be tolerated by many world powers if Britain we're to make a clean and absolute break without an adequate level of planning for such a transfer. Such a transfer would have to be extremely gradual over a long period.

could name one of these 'world powers', just one, who has in the past given the slightest **** about the way the UK deals with NI and its relationship with the RoI?

i would remind you that the time of the worst of the troubles, the 'great hope accross the sea' - the only country that the UK gives more than a seconds notice to - was happily giving the UK unequalled access to its submarine, ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs, selling the UK its most successful fighter, and swapping every bit of signals intelligence it could hoover out of the atmosphere to GCHQ. can you really believe that after an majority in NI vote to leave the UK, and while the UK is the only customer for its Trident SSBN/SLBM replacement program, the only Tier 1 partner in its 50 year JSF program, and the closest ally in two recent wars, the US is going to put pressure on the UK give money to people who no longer wish to be UK citizens?

because that is seriously delusional...

ardmacha

northern ireland is NOT a colony,a colony is under direct legislative control of the crown and does not possess its own system of representative goverment,crown colonies are administered by a crown

You can split hairs on the legal definitions of these things. But NI is a place that was invaded by force, colonised and which remains under the control of the invading country because of the presence of people who identify themselves as colonists. That's the essence of a colony whatever the the legalities.

As a colony NI can never be normal society, which is why the normality of democratic Ireland must come.

My point is, ultimately, we don't think it would be tolerated by many world powers if Britain we're to make a clean and absolute break without an adequate level of planning for such a transfer.

It is alsolutely critical that Britain is not allowed leave in irresponsible way. They have an obligation to the Irish people to leave the country in a proper condition and an obligation to the Unionist community who have been working on behalf of the British for 400 years.

IPRIreland

OS119 wrote: »

could name one of these 'world powers', just one, who has in the past given the slightest **** about the way the UK deals with NI and its relationship with the RoI?

i would remind you that the time of the worst of the troubles, the 'great hope accross the sea' - the only country that the UK gives more than a seconds notice to - was happily giving the UK unequalled access to its submarine, ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs, selling the UK its most successful fighter, and swapping every bit of signals intelligence it could hoover out of the atmosphere to GCHQ. can you really believe that after an majority in NI vote to leave the UK, and while the UK is the only customer for its Trident SSBN/SLBM replacement program, the only Tier 1 partner in its 50 year JSF program, and the closest ally in two recent wars, the US is going to put pressure on the UK give money to people who no longer wish to be UK citizens?

because that is seriously delusional...

Nobody mentioned the US. All i'm saying is, entities such as the EU would be happy if Britain was to simply evacuate politically without ensuring a smooth transfer (both in terms of security and economically). Chances are, the NI assembly would be requesting some sort of guarantee with Britain before they even thought about going ahead with such a vote.

Lets be blunt though - a united Ireland is an extremely unlikely scenario for a very long time.

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

But NI is a place that was invaded by force...

Can you name a part of the world that hasn't been invaded by force?

...colonised...

You could make a case that Ireland was colonised, but it wasn't a colony in any useful sense of the word after the Act of Union.

...and which remains under the control of the invading country because of the presence of people who identify themselves as colonists.

Wait, what? Who identifies themselves as colonists in Northern Ireland?

Mayo Exile

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could make a case that Ireland was colonised, but it wasn't a colony in any useful sense of the word after the Act of Union.

???????

Because an "Irish Parliament" which was utterly unrepresentative of the Irish population at the time "votes" for an "Act of Union", does this suddenly turn Ireland from being a colony to not being one? I dont think so. In reality the social & economic condition of the average Irish person improved little after 1801, and in 1845 would get alot worse........

oscarBravo

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Because an "Irish Parliament" which was utterly unrepresentative of the Irish population at the time "votes" for an "Act of Union", does this suddenly turn Ireland from being a colony to not being one?

Pretty much, yes. Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Is Scotland a colony?

Mayo Exile

oscarBravo wrote: »

Pretty much, yes. Ireland became an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Is Scotland a colony?

So you would accept and consider it valid then that a parliament which didn’t represent the majority of the Irish population somehow had the right to pass an act making Ireland an “integral” part of the UK? Why should this be so? Is it still valid if you attempt to apply more modern political concepts such as a parliament mirroring the majority view of a population it claims to represent?

Now of course parliaments of the time (early 1800s) were pretty unrepresentative of their populations, but in Irelands case the Irish parliament was a pretty extreme example of this. Before 1707 (Scottish Act of Union) Scotland may be been quite similar with it’s own parliament.

So if you accept and recognise (many don’t) the legitimacy of both the Scottish and Irish parliaments at that time to pass acts to join the UK then in a (very) narrow political context both Ireland and Scotland ceased to become colonies.

oscarBravo

Mayo Exile wrote: »

So you would accept and consider it valid then that a parliament which didn’t represent the majority of the Irish population somehow had the right to pass an act making Ireland an “integral” part of the UK? Why should this be so? Is it still valid if you attempt to apply political concepts such as majority rule?

Now of course parliaments of the time (early 1800s) were pretty unrepresentative of their populations, but in Irelands case the Irish parliament was a pretty extreme example of this. Before 1707 (Scottish Act of Union) Scotland may be been quite similar with it’s own parliament.

So if you accept and recognise (many don’t) the legitimacy of both the Scottish and Irish parliaments at that time to pass acts to join the UK then in a (very) narrow political context both Ireland and Scotland ceased to become colonies.

First, whether or not you accept the authority of a parliament two or three hundred years ago is moot - the acts of union are historic fact.

Second, you've tacitly agreed that any definition by which NI is a colony necessarily means Scotland is one too. I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative.

Mayo Exile

oscarBravo wrote: »

First, whether or not you accept the authority of a parliament two or three hundred years ago is moot - the acts of union are historic fact.

So you don't want answer the question I put to you then?

Second, you've tacitly agreed that any definition by which NI is a colony necessarily means Scotland is one too. I don't think you'll find too many Scots who buy into that narrative

With respect, no I have not. I was referring to the whole of Ireland being a colony pre 1801 and then not being one after that date, in response to your earlier post. Whether Scots think Scotland is a colony or not wasn't or isn't my main concern in replying to you. It's whether unrepresentative parliaments can be considered to legitimately represent their countries/kingdoms etc. Also my post is unrelated to whether or not NI is considered a colony.

IPRIreland

Hi,

It was my colleague, Denis, who mentioned above that NI could be considered a colony. However, considering that for a brief time, the Irish Free state included Northern Ireland, and those in charge of the territory of NI at the time willingly repatriated with the UK, it is generally known that Northern Ireland is technically NOT a colony. Yes, for 'stirring it up' purposes, it could arguably be looked at as occupied territory but certainly not a colony.

Gareth,
IPRI Admin.

ardmacha

Can you name a part of the world that hasn't been invaded by force?

The past is the past, the question is the continuation of the past into current relations. The Vikings invaded Ireland but there is neither a pro nor anti Viking faction in modern politics. Likewise the Roman invasion of Britain is not a major election issue.

You could make a case that Ireland was colonised, but it wasn't a colony in any useful sense of the word after the Act of Union.

Quite apart from the nature of the franchise, the Act of Union was never a genuine union. The fact that you have the British government, the British army and British citizens makes quite clear the nature of the Union. The Union of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland is a Union of Great Britain and British people living in Ireland, not the Irish.

Wait, what? Who identifies themselves as colonists in Northern Ireland?

Persons who describe themselves as British, while living in Ireland. They generally prefer the word synonym planter rather than colonist.

OS119

IPRIreland wrote: »

Nobody mentioned the US. All i'm saying is, entities such as the EU would be happy if Britain was to simply evacuate politically without ensuring a smooth transfer (both in terms of security and economically). Chances are, the NI assembly would be requesting some sort of guarantee with Britain before they even thought about going ahead with such a vote.

the US is the only other state who's opinions the UK has the faintest concern for - the only 'internationalisation' process that matters is one that involves the US. without the US these other 'world powers' may as well be yelling at the moon. if the EU wishes to get involved they would be most welcome - though personally i can't see France looking to set a precedent for allowing EU interference in the way it deals with 'former territories' or Germany wishing to dip its hand in its pocket. again.

the UK would attempt to arrange a smooth transfer of power because its in its security interests to do so - that however does not require a multi-billion pound dowery, it could, at its most basic, look something like the Military Technical Agreement between NATO and the Former Yugoslavia over the transfer of power in Kosovo: that took 3 days to negotiate and 3 days to implement.

the Stormont parliament, were it looking to lay the groundwork for a referendum, would, after asking 'so, if we decide we don't want to be British anymore, could we have some money?' be told to go and fcuk itself.

Shea O'Meara

To answer the op;
If and when the North votes for devolution from the U.K. followed by repatriation.
They are in a unique position because they can devolve as they are seen as a seperate state in so much as Wales/Scotland and they can also repatriate as nobody can argue they are not part of Ireland.
If they democratically wish to do so, I can't see how any Irish person in good conscience can refuse. I would welcome it. In fact it shouldn't even be debated should they choose to do so.

Religion is often a handy divider, but there are people with vested interests fearful they may lose land/money should Irish rule be instilled.