Unionist Consent

paky · 13-02-2011 4:06pm #1

Does a United Ireland require Unionist consent or is it enough for a party to have a dual mandate bothe north and south to seal the deal?

I would think the latter as all the trouble seems to stem from the fact that Ireland was divided in the first place.

LordSutch · 13-02-2011 4:13pm

paky wrote: »

Does a United Ireland require Unionist consent . . .

Ah,err, YES!

is the short answer . . .

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 4:18pm

No it doesn't. It requires the consent of 50+1% of the North's electorate, but it doesn't require the consent of Unionism.

Iwasfrozen · 13-02-2011 4:22pm

paky wrote: »

Does a United Ireland require Unionist consent or is it enough for a party to have a dual mandate bothe north and south to seal the deal?

I would think the latter as all the trouble seems to stem from the fact that Ireland was divided in the first place.

Have you even heard of the GFA?

paky · 13-02-2011 4:23pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Have you even heard of the GFA?

No, please enlighten me

LordSutch · 13-02-2011 4:25pm

Ah, err, Yes it does!

Based on the fact that the Unionists are currently in the majority, 'then yes' it would require their consent before leaving the United Kingdom & joining the Irish Republic.

Obviously if their majority was to decline below 51%, then . . .

The GFA is the only show in town.

Iwasfrozen · 13-02-2011 4:26pm

paky wrote: »

No, please enlighten me

I know you're being sarcastic but I'll play along. A united Ireland can only be formed after it is passed in a referendum on both sides of the border.

Voting Sinn Fein does not equal voting for a united Ireland.

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 4:27pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Ah, err, Yes it does!

Based on the fact that the Unionists are currently in the majority, then yes it would require their consent before leaving the United Kingdom & joining the Republic.

Obviously if their majority were to change, then . . .

The GFA is the only show in town.

Requiring the consent of Unionists and requiring the consent of the majority are 2 very different things.

Ironically enough, Sinn Féin have said even if the majority of the North voted Yes to a United Ireland, they'd only support it with the consent of Unionist parties, which is completely undemocratic.

paky · 13-02-2011 4:28pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know you're being sarcastic but I'll play along. A united Ireland can only be formed after it is passed in a referendum on both sides of the border.

Voting Sinn Fein does not equal voting for a united Ireland.

what happens if its passed in the south and not in the north?

Iwasfrozen · 13-02-2011 4:29pm

paky wrote: »

what happens if its passed in the south and not in the north?

If it doesn't pass in the north then it hasn't fulfilled the terms of the GFA and there won't be a united Ireland untill it has.

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 4:30pm

paky wrote: »

what happens if its passed in the south and not in the north?

Under the Good Friday Agreement, the consent of the majority in the North is required for a United Ireland.

paky · 13-02-2011 4:36pm

Jim236 wrote: »

Under the Good Friday Agreement, the consent of the majority in the North is required for a United Ireland.

51% is enough then. do the majority of the nationalist in the north of ireland have irish citizenship?

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 4:40pm

paky wrote: »

51% is enough then. do the majority of the nationalist in the north of ireland have irish citizenship?

Under the Irish constitution, anyone born on the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen.

shadowninty · 13-02-2011 4:41pm

I doubt we could even get a majority vote in the Republic as the UK can barely manage to subsidise the place, nevermind an economy less than a twelfth the size

imme · 13-02-2011 4:45pm

There was a very similar thread a few weeks back OP.

Of course consent would be a prerequisite of any change in the constitutional position of NI in terms of a united Ireland.

What difference does it matter if SF have seats in the NI Assembly and the Oireachtas. :rolleyes:
They've had a seat in the Dail since O'Caoileain was elected in '97, in a modern context, and nothing has come of it. Not that anything would automatically.

paky · 13-02-2011 4:51pm

imme wrote: »

There was a very similar thread a few weeks back OP.

Of course consent would be a prerequisite of any change in the constitutional position of NI in terms of a united Ireland.

What difference does it matter if SF have seats in the NI Assembly and the Oireachtas. :rolleyes:
They've had a seat in the Dail since O'Caoileain was elected in '97, in a modern context, and nothing has come of it. Not that anything would automatically.

well what happens if they eventually get elected to government?

imme · 13-02-2011 4:53pm

paky wrote: »

well what happens if they eventually get elected to government?

a government in ROI can't change the constitutional position of NI.

paky · 13-02-2011 4:55pm

imme wrote: »

a government in ROI can't change the constitutional position of NI.

why cant they?

KeithAFC · 13-02-2011 4:56pm

People thinking a party like Sinn Fein getting more power in the republic and that will effect N.I. No it won't. N.I is a different country from the republic.

shadowninty · 13-02-2011 4:57pm

paky wrote: »

why cant they?

oh jaysus

Iwasfrozen · 13-02-2011 4:59pm

paky wrote: »

why cant they?

For the same reason we can't change France's constitution.

paky · 13-02-2011 5:01pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

People thinking a party like Sinn Fein getting more power in the republic and that will effect N.I. No it won't. N.I is a different country from the republic.

sinn fein are in power in NI

paky · 13-02-2011 5:01pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For the same reason we can't change France's constitution.

that a ridiculous comparison.

KeithAFC · 13-02-2011 5:02pm

paky wrote: »

sinn fein are in power in NI

So? DUP are in power in NI. Sinn Fein are more focused on the republic now than NI. Kind of says an awful lot about the UI position to be honest.

imme · 13-02-2011 5:04pm

paky wrote: »

sinn fein are in power in NI

yes they're in charge of everything except the money. we've heard it all before.

As I said before Paky there was a very similar thread only 2 or 3 weeks ago. It went over all the same questions. In general terms a government in one state (any government) cannot change the constitutional position of another state.

Iwasfrozen · 13-02-2011 5:05pm

paky wrote: »

that a ridiculous comparison.

No it's not. Regardless of the historical links between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is legally part of the UK and the UK is a different state. There is a framework for unification spelled out the GFA but that's it.

paky · 13-02-2011 5:06pm

imme wrote: »

yes they're in charge of everything except the money. we've heard it all before.

As I said before Paky there was a very similar thread only 2 or 3 weeks ago. It went over all the same questions. In general terms a government in one state (any government) cannot change the constitutional position of another state.

theres plenty of threads on this topic, goes to show its increase in popularity and your increase in frustration

shadowninty · 13-02-2011 5:07pm

paky wrote: »

that a ridiculous comparison.

now why would that be, pray tell?

shadowninty · 13-02-2011 5:08pm

paky wrote: »

theres plenty of threads on this topic, goes to show its increase in popularity and your increase in frustration

let me guess who you are voting for :rolleyes:

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 5:09pm

By being in government in the South, Sinn Féin would definitely have a lot more influence on policy towards the North and in particular on the issue of Irish Unity, but as others have pointed out that in itself isn't enough to bring about a United Ireland. At the end of the day, the only thing that will bring that about is a democratic referendum, and then its down to the people. So all Sinn Féin and other parties that support Irish Unity can do is try pursuade the public in the North to vote in favour of any border referendum. But the vast majority of people in the North will vote based on whether they're Nationalist or Unionist, and right now Unionists happen to be in a slight majority, so realistically it will take a significant change in the demographics for a majority to agree to a United Ireland.

J K · 13-02-2011 5:09pm

One false premise in your original question Paky is the common misconception that all or nearly all of the "catholic" population in the north wanted or ever wanted to leave the UK and have a unified Ireland. Whilst there was a unanimity on issues of civil rights there never was in terms of UI

Kinski · 13-02-2011 5:10pm

Would people in the Republic be in favour of a United Ireland if they knew the majority of the NI electorate opposed it? Hell, even if 50.1% of the North voted to join the Republic would it be advisable to proceed on that basis? What might we be letting ourselves in for?

KeithAFC · 13-02-2011 5:12pm

Jim236 wrote: »

By being in government in the South, Sinn Féin would definitely have a lot more influence on policy towards the North and in particular on the issue of Irish Unity, but as others have pointed out that in itself isn't enough to bring about a United Ireland. At the end of the day, the only thing that will bring that about is a democratic referendum, and then its down to the people. So all Sinn Féin and other parties that support Irish Unity can do is try pursuade the public in the North to vote in favour of any border referendum. But the vast majority of people in the North will vote based on whether they're Nationalist or Unionist, and right now Unionists happen to be in a slight majority, so realistically it will take a significant change in the demographics for a majority to agree to a United Ireland any time soon.

All they are doing is convincing nationalists in N.I. Thats it. And that is what they would want anyway.

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 5:16pm

Kinski wrote: »

Would people in the Republic be in favour of a United Ireland if they knew the majority of the NI electorate opposed it?

Well if a majority in the North opposed it, the referendum in the South would be void because a majority support in the North is required for a United Ireland under the GFA.

Kinski wrote: »

Hell, even if 50.1% of the North voted to join the Republic would it be advisable to proceed on that basis? What might we be letting ourselves in for?

Thats just scaremongering.

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 5:16pm

J K wrote: »

One false premise in your original question Paky is the common misconception that all or nearly all of the "catholic" population in the north wanted or ever wanted to leave the UK and have a unified Ireland. Whilst there was a unanimity on issues of civil rights there never was in terms of UI

Not all Unionists want partition, in fact some want full independence from the UK. What makes you think they'd all vote No?

KeithAFC · 13-02-2011 5:19pm

Jim236 wrote: »

Not all Unionists want partition, in fact some want full independence from the UK. What makes you think they'd all vote No?

Who told you that?

paky · 13-02-2011 5:24pm

well what if sinn fein decide to extend the seats in the dail to include those in the 6 counties? i could see them doing that if they ever came to power.

Iwasfrozen · 13-02-2011 5:32pm

paky wrote: »

well what if sinn fein decide to extend the seats in the dail to include those in the 6 counties? i could see them doing that if they ever came to power.

They couldn't do that it would be illegal. Ireland would face UN/EU led sanctions and the possibility of military retaliation from Britain.

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 5:33pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Who told you that?

The Life & Times Survey that Unionists like yourself love so much to refer to.

I don't really care what Unionists are after tbh, I'm just making the point its a bit naive to argue that not all Nationalists would be in favour of a United Ireland and then assume 100% of Unionists would vote against it, if they even cared enough to vote at all.

paky wrote: »

well what if sinn fein decide to extend the seats in the dail to include those in the 6 counties? i could see them doing that if they ever came to power.

Well under the GFA the Irish government committed to having the North represented in the Seanad, but thats out the window now that most parties have committed to abolishing it.

Personally I'd be all in favour of people in the North being able to vote in Presidential elections, but I wouldn't really see the point in extending Dáil elections to the North.

Kinski · 13-02-2011 5:33pm

Jim236 wrote: »

Thats just scaremongering.

I don't think it's scaremongering to suggest that trying to incorporate a large body of people, who have democratically expressed their opposition to being part of the state, into the state would be a very difficult, and potentially destabilizing, undertaking. My concern is that the majoritarian solution that's been agreed - in which the largest community essentially gets its way - is a crude one.

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 5:34pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They couldn't do that it would be illegal. Ireland would face UN/EU led sanctions and the possibility of military retaliation from Britain.

Don't be so dramatic.

niallers1 · 13-02-2011 5:38pm

50.1% consent is needed from the people in the north of Ireland.

There will be a census coming up soon in the north. It is unlikley to ask how people would vote but it should at least give an idea of a split between Catholic and protestants.

Although not accurate, It will give a good idea how people might vote.

We are probaly 10 years away from being an equal amount of protestants and Catholics up north so realistically we are probably about 20 years away from a vote.

I belive we will only have a vote when there is certainty of the outcome. i.e re-unification.

charlemont · 13-02-2011 5:39pm

The South wont have or need a referendum as all parties here claim* to be in favour of reunification..

*Fianna Fail talk the talk but dont walk the walk, the well well worn phrase "we cant afford it" comes from their supporters lips, Ireland is only poorer due to partition, FF know damn well and so do the Catholic Church that their power, influence and corruption will be at an end when Ireland is united..

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 5:39pm

Kinski wrote: »

I don't think it's scaremongering to suggest that trying to incorporate a large body of people, who have democratically expressed their opposition to being part of state, into the state would be a very difficult, and potentially destabilizing exercise.

What about the majority who would've expressed their democratic wish to being part of the Irish state?

Kinski wrote: »

I'd be concerned that in the case of NI the majoritarian solution that's been agreed - in which the largest community essentially gets its way - is a crude one.

What do you call whats happening atm? The only reason Unionists are in any majority today is because London decided to partition the country in order to create an artificial Protestant majority, and we know where that led to.

I think its a bit patronising actually to say that if a majority voted in favour of a United Ireland in 10 years time or whenever, that all Unionists would take up arms and not give a sh*t about democracy. We know from a recent poll that the vast majority of Unionists would disagree but respect the will of the majority if they voted in favour of a United Ireland.

And in any case, even at the height of the troubles, Loyalist paramilitaries didn't have anywhere near the capability to mount any type of armed campaign against the Republic, and that was at a time when they were colluding with British forces and had huge public support from the Unionist community. So unless they manage to be rearmed by the British Army and get help from MI5, I wouldn't consider the Loyalist paramilitaries a serious threat post-United Ireland.

paky · 13-02-2011 5:41pm

Jim236 wrote: »

Well under the GFA the Irish government committed to having the North represented in the Seanad, but thats out the window now that most parties have committed to abolishing it.

Personally I'd be all in favour of people in the North being able to vote in Presidential elections, but I wouldn't really see the point in extending Dáil elections to the North.

i'd also be in favour of it. since the state of NI came into existance against the wishes of the majority of people in Ireland, theres no reason why it shouldnt be dissolved or its significance reduced against the will of the majority in NI. fair game i think

KeithAFC · 13-02-2011 5:44pm

The Life & Times Survey that Unionists like yourself love so much to refer to.

I don't really care what Unionists are after tbh, I'm just making the point its a bit naive to argue that not all Nationalists would be in favour of a United Ireland and then assume 100% of Unionists would vote against it, if they even cared enough to vote at all.

All sorts of surverys out there. The point is those people would not be Unionists if they voted in favour of a United Ireland. So they aren't Unionists. So its a moot point.

Regarding MI5 etc, the UVF did the Dublin bombings without help from the MI5 or any British army help. The UVF was more than capable of pulling that sort of 'mission' off.

charlemont · 13-02-2011 5:45pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They couldn't do that it would be illegal. Ireland would face UN/EU led sanctions and the possibility of military retaliation from Britain.

Do you seriously think the RAF bombers will be flying low over Dublin ?? The Brits wouldnt ever again start **** with us especially for the sake of some fanatical loyalists living in the past, NI might be legally UK but the relations, culture, movement of people/goods etc are much stronger between ROI and England..

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 5:47pm

paky wrote: »

i'd also be in favour of it. since the state of NI came into existance against the wishes of the majority of people in Ireland, theres no reason why it shouldnt be dissolved or its significance reduced against the will of the majority in NI. fair game i think

I see Stormont as a stop-gap, i.e. a means to an end. If the South attempted to extend Dáil elections to the North, it would cause huge division between the 2 communities as well as damaging Anglo-Irish relations. I don't think this would do anything for a United Ireland, it'd just lead to another troubles.

Jim236 · 13-02-2011 5:50pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Regarding MI5 etc, the UVF did the Dublin bombings without help from the MI5 or any British army help. The UVF was more than capable of pulling that sort of 'mission' off.

We don't know that. But if its true what you say, why won't the British Government release the documents relating to the Dublin & Monaghan bombings?

paky · 13-02-2011 5:54pm

Jim236 wrote: »

I see Stormont as a stop-gap, i.e. a means to an end. If the South attempted to extend Dáil elections to the North, it would cause huge division between the 2 communities as well as damaging Anglo-Irish relations. I don't think this would do anything for a United Ireland, it'd just lead to another troubles.

i think there'll be trouble either way. by the time a united ireland ever comes about, a new ira campaign should be well under way. when that happens it could be used as an excuse for whoevers in government to extend the dail to the 6 counties.

KeithAFC · 13-02-2011 5:55pm

Jim236 wrote: »

We don't know that. But if its true what you say, why won't the British Government release the documents relating to the Dublin & Monaghan bombings?

Don't know. But it doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.

Unionist Consent

Comments