Who's actively against a united Ireland

Cathal O

Hi everyone, I was just looking over a few threads on the United Ireland threads on this from a while ago, along with the Scottish Independence threads. Has there ever been any serious and open United Ireland debates in the last while. While I accept it is not everyone's priority at the minute with the R word etc, but should a debate occur, what parties would actively campaign against it. I would imagine if any of the republics parties had an active anti united Ireland stance rather than a passive stance they would loose support, maybe i am wrong but I am struggling to think of any prominent people/ parties that would campaign against any possible reunification on the island, apart from the obvious unionist parties in the north and , possibly the alliance party up north aswell. what do ye think. If this debate did occur what parties and people (politician/ journalist etc) would be anti unification?

fasttalkerchat

Cathal O wrote: »

Hi everyone, I was just looking over a few threads on the United Ireland threads on this from a while ago, along with the Scottish Independence threads. Has there ever been any serious and open United Ireland debates in the last while. While I accept it is not everyone's priority at the minute with the R word etc, but should a debate occur, what parties would actively campaign against it. I would imagine if any of the republics parties had an active anti united Ireland stance rather than a passive stance they would loose support, maybe i am wrong but I am struggling to think of any prominent people/ parties that would campaign against any possible reunification on the island, apart from the obvious unionist parties in the north and , possibly the alliance party up north aswell. what do ye think. If this debate did occur what parties and people (politician/ journalist etc) would be anti unification?

FG and FF will keep it quiet that they never want a united Ireland and will claim that they aren't happy with the circumstances of how it came about etc. etc.

Labour I can see just getting on with it as a party

Alliance Party officially support whatever the majority want. As a party they would gain a lot because they would be a normal party in a normal political system. They would be interesting to watch.

If a united Ireland came about under totally peaceful and agreeable circumstances I can see the Nationalist and Unionist parties dissolving and becoming a left/right selection of small parties.

Cathal O

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

FG and FF will keep it quiet that they never want a united Ireland and will claim that they aren't happy with the circumstances of how it came about etc. etc.

Labour I can see just getting on with it as a party
.

I know what you mean, but i am thinking more of , if there was a referendum tomorrow, what parties/ individuals would campaign against it

KeithAFC

Cathal O wrote: »

I know what you mean, but i am thinking more of , if there was a referendum tomorrow, what parties/ individuals would campaign against it

The vast majority of Protestants for starters would campaign against it. I don't really get what this thread is supposed to be about. You must know there is plenty of opposition to a United Ireland and not just in Northern Ireland by the way.

fasttalkerchat

Cathal O wrote: »

I know what you mean, but i am thinking more of , if there was a referendum tomorrow, what parties/ individuals would campaign against it

FG and FF would be afraid to be seen to campaign against it. It would certainly be interesting to see if anyone would openly campaign against it.

Cathal O

KeithAFC wrote: »

The vast majority of Protestants for starters would campaign against it. I don't really get what this thread is supposed to be about. You must know there is plenty of opposition to a United Ireland and not just in Northern Ireland by the way.

Name one party in the republic that backs this stance, thats my question, so answer it instead of stirring please

golden lane

Cathal O wrote: »

Name one party in the republic that backs this stance, thats my question, so answer it instead of stirring please

after the good friday agreement.......to go against that agreement....would be very unwise........

fasttalkerchat

KeithAFC wrote: »

The vast majority of Protestants for starters would campaign against it. I don't really get what this thread is supposed to be about. You must know there is plenty of opposition to a United Ireland and not just in Northern Ireland by the way.

That's less than 20% of the population. Even if it were true its a very blunt assumption to make. Many protestants are quite proud to be Irish, although I will concede that this is less true the further north you go.

Cathal O

golden lane wrote: »

after the good friday agreement.......to go against that agreement....would be very unwise........

The GFA needs majority support in both the north and the south , respectfully, 2 referenda ,in the case of a referendum in the south, who would campaign against it

fasttalkerchat

golden lane wrote: »

after the good friday agreement.......to go against that agreement....would be very unwise........

The terms of the GFA mean that there will be referendums until such a time as there is a majority in favour of unity. I don't think it says parties can't campaign for a "No" vote to the referendum.

KeithAFC

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's less than 20% of the population. Even if it were true its a very blunt assumption to make. Many protestants are quite proud to be Irish, although I will concede that this is less true the further north you go.

The only way a vote on a United Ireland can happen is if Owen Paterson calls for one as he is the only guy with the power to do so. He would only do so if there is any real urge for it.

So for me this is completely irrelevant at the moment.

fasttalkerchat

KeithAFC wrote: »

The only way a vote on a United Ireland can happen is if Owen Paterson calls for one as he is the only guy with the power to do so. He would only do so if there is any real urge for it.

So for me this is completely irrelevant at the moment.

The 1998 peace deal between the UK, Ireland and political parties in Northern Ireland said the secretary of state should call one “if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting” would want a united Ireland.

Once surveys and polls show a majority in favour of reunification he would have no choice effectively.

Let's be honest Keith, do you really consider the Northern Ireland state as a viable long term country?

Jimoslimos

KeithAFC wrote: »

The only way a vote on a United Ireland can happen is if Owen Paterson calls for one as he is the only guy with the power to do so. He would only do so if there is any real urge for it.

So for me this is completely irrelevant at the moment.

Not fully grasping the hypothetical nature of the question Keith?

In a funny way I reckon (apart from Unionists up North), that some of those against might be hardline Republicans. I can't see it being a straightforward reclaim of the 6 counties type into the Republic referendum and if it ever does occur I'd imagine there may be some serious constitutional concessions offered.

Some of the concessions may also be financial - there may well be some sort of arrangement to finance some of the more extreme loyalists (who would point blank refuse to live in a United Ireland) a move to the mainland. Given our seemingly never-ending economic woes - I can see some opposition here aswell.

fasttalkerchat

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Not fully grasping the hypothetical nature of the question Keith?

In a funny way I reckon (apart from Unionists up North), that some of those against might be hardline Republicans. I can't see it being a straightforward reclaim of the 6 counties type into the Republic referendum and if it ever does occur I'd imagine there may be some serious constitutional concessions offered.

Some of the concessions may also be financial - there may well be some sort of arrangement to finance some of the more extreme loyalists (who would point blank refuse to live in a United Ireland) a move to the mainland. Given our seemingly never-ending economic woes - I can see some opposition here aswell.

It would be unfortunate if they chose to leave. Even the most bitter racists in the USA got used to living in a country where Black people have equal rights and I don't know of many who left the country in protest.
If that can happen I don't see how people from what was the loyalist community can't be accommodated. If the deal involved financial concessions to loyalists areas that can be looked at as investment in national stability.

This is all going to be quite a few years away (the old 2016 timeline is out the window). By that time working class protestants will have realised that they are not so different to their neighbours over the walls and that they shouldn't be so "loyal".

KeithAFC

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Once surveys and polls show a majority in favour of reunification he would have no choice effectively.

Let's be honest Keith, do you really consider the Northern Ireland state as a viable long term country?

There will be a poll one day but that is part of the GFA. Having a poll is one thing, having it in favour of a United Ireland is completely different. And I do actually see it as long term because it is long term at the moment. Won't be many years from now which will see its 100 anniversary.

People who want it should perhaps focus more on trying to convince the many people in the Republic who don't want it. Never mind the people in Northern Ireland. I would be more concerned with the people in the Republic actually not wanting it.

Jimoslimos

KeithAFC wrote: »

People who want it should perhaps focus more on trying to convince the many people in the Republic who don't want it. Never mind the people in Northern Ireland. I would be more concerned with the people in the Republic actually not wanting it.

You'd be surprised given a relatively long period of peace how many people will change their tune - just as with foreign investment everybody will want a piece.

fasttalkerchat

KeithAFC wrote: »

There will be a poll one day but that is part of the GFA. Having a poll is one thing, having it in favour of a United Ireland is completely different. And I do actually see it as long term because it is long term at the moment. Won't be many years from now which will see its 100 anniversary.

Partition, oppression, early resistance, civil rights movement, armed revolt, guerrilla war with brits, peace talks, deadlock, signing of an agreement with clauses for reunification conditions, speckles of conflict and political pressure.

I've summed up the past 9 decades with key phrases. Doesn't sound very stable to me!

fasttalkerchat

Jimoslimos wrote: »

just as with foreign investment everybody will want a piece.

I don't think there would be as much foreign investment now as there would have been in the '60's. Back then there was thousands flowing in to the republican movement from the USA and there would have been millions if they had achieved a United Ireland back then.

KeithAFC

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Partition, oppression, early resistance, civil rights movement, armed revolt, guerrilla war with brits, peace talks, deadlock, signing of an agreement with clauses for reunification conditions, speckles of conflict and political pressure.

I've summed up the past 9 decades with key phrases. Doesn't sound very stable to me!

Since the GFA? Power sharing, equal rights for all, better policing and so on. It is a work in progress. Ulster has had a huge conflict long before partition happened. Things are starting to get together and work. Give it time.

golden lane

Cathal O wrote: »

The GFA needs majority support in both the north and the south , respectfully, 2 referenda ,in the case of a referendum in the south, who would campaign against it

back to my previous post......very unwise..

fasttalkerchat

KeithAFC wrote: »

Since the GFA? Power sharing, equal rights for all, better policing and so on. It is a work in progress. Ulster has had a huge conflict long before partition happened. Things are starting to get together and work. Give it time.

That takes away from your 100 year anniversary comment. We are at the same stage in the cycle that we were in right before the civil rights marches. The same cycle as right after 1916. I would say that by 2022 people will have lost patience with Sinn Fein (if nothing has changed by then) and the next stage of the cycle will begin.

RobbingBandit

It doesn't matter who is for or against this, it will never happen. The North is a different country to both Ireland and England. Compared to us here the roads are different, the land is different hell even the shops are different. Never mind the cultural differences. The cost of changing the signs up there from English to English/Irish, converting the speed signs to km would be astronomical.

It is a pipe dream and one that is not viable, not now not ever. Do any of you really think the people of Northern Ireland would ever consider leaving the NHS, The Royal Mail etc for our third world systems. As Paisley used to say Ulster Says NO. Even if there is a poll down here for a united Ireland never will it happen.

Jimoslimos

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Do any of you really think the people of Northern Ireland would ever consider leaving the NHS, The Royal Mail etc for our third world systems.

The Tories are doing a damm good job of ensuring there will be no NHS to leave. As for RM, not what it used to be.

fasttalkerchat

RobbingBandit wrote: »

It doesn't matter who is for or against this, it will never happen. The North is a different country to both Ireland and England. Compared to us here the roads are different, the land is different hell even the shops are different. Never mind the cultural differences. The cost of changing the signs up there from English to English/Irish, converting the speed signs to km would be astronomical.

It is a pipe dream and one that is not viable, not now not ever. Do any of you really think the people of Northern Ireland would ever consider leaving the NHS, The Royal Mail etc for our third world systems. As Paisley used to say Ulster Says NO. Even if there is a poll down here for a united Ireland never will it happen.

Speed signs will be changing over to km/h before a United Ireland happens anyway. Many signs are in Irish up here already. I have no idea how the land is different? You can cross the border several times in one day and not know it until you spot road markings/signs.

Shops in the south are the same as in the north now! Since the Celtic tiger the only difference is the price.
The NHS is falling apart and healthcare in general isn't much better north of the border in terms of quality. Royal Mail is a rip-off now!

RobbingBandit

Jimoslimos wrote: »

The Tories are doing a damm good job of ensuring there will be no NHS to leave. As for RM, not what it used to be.

There probably wont be a HSE either, but I know it would be grand to see a united Ireland in 2016 but I don't see it happening by 3016 let alone 2016. Even if they did gain independence from the UK why in gods name would they want to join this mess of a place. I am going of on a tangent here so I will end this.

fasttalkerchat

RobbingBandit wrote: »

There probably wont be a HSE either, but I know it would be grand to see a united Ireland in 2016 but I don't see it happening by 3016 let alone 2016. Even if they did gain independence from the UK why in gods name would they want to join this mess of a place. I am going of on a tangent here so I will end this.

We beat ourselves up too much sometimes. There's no reason that we can't run a country just because of how the Brits and Free State governments were before.

LordSutch

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's less than 20% of the population. Even if it were true its a very blunt assumption to make. Many protestants are quite proud to be Irish, although I will concede that this is less true the further north you go.

Less than 5% more like it in this country (sadly).

fasttalkerchat

LordSutch wrote: »

Less than 5% more like it in this country (sadly).

After unification.

walrusgumble

RobbingBandit wrote: »

It doesn't matter who is for or against this, it will never happen. The North is a different country to both Ireland and England. Compared to us here the roads are different, the land is different hell even the shops are different. Never mind the cultural differences. The cost of changing the signs up there from English to English/Irish, converting the speed signs to km would be astronomical.

Tesco, Next, Top Man, Iceland, TK Max........Easons... how the hell are the shops different. Have you ever actually shopped up in there? Southern Shops even have shops up North. Different currency issue, but.........

Culture? What? Cranky chips on shoulder pissing and moaning? Sure we have plenty of that down South too, ask Donegal and Monaghan.

The Roads? oh............ We can all live without the change in Road Signs, Changing signs for speed is not that different either

You really are clutching at straws here, it is pathetic. Wonder did the West Germans think like that with East Germans in 1989.

RobbingBandit wrote: »

It is a pipe dream and one that is not viable, not now not ever.

It will be awhile before it happens. Maybe 40-50 years. But it ain't a pipe dream, your just wishful thinking

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Do any of you really think the people of Northern Ireland would ever consider leaving the NHS, The Royal Mail etc for our third world systems. As Paisley used to say Ulster Says NO. Even if there is a poll down here for a united Ireland never will it happen.

Time will tell about all of that.

NHS, ok, byt Royal Mail, ha ha . How many use the post any more. DHS and co are in vogue. An Post ain't that bad either.

seamus

FG/FF would never outline a stance on this issue unless it was a very real possibility. Which it's not.

There are of course valid economic reasons why a party would oppose reunification. Any reunification, despite that it would require a referendum, would inflame sectarian violence once more as Unionist paramilitary groups decided to fight against it and republicans rose up again to fight them.
So there would be a very significant security cost to bear, not to mention the economic damage that civil unrest would bring to both the North and South.

Given that we're in a more progressive world where your religious loyalties are mostly irrelevant and state-sponsored religious discrimination no longer exists (at least not in any violent way), one would hope that such violence would be a flash in the pan, but there's a risk it would persist for a number of years.

Other less obvious economic problems include the realignment of taxation and regulations with the Republic's. Applying things like our minimum wage, employer's PRSI and VAT rate overnight would devastate the economy of the North.

Boulevardier

Perhaps there would be more support for a united Ireland if there was some compromise on its identity. A Dominion-type united Ireland within the Commonwealth would, in my view, be better than the present standoff between republicans and unionists.

bleg

I don't think we're in a position, either economically or socially, for a united Ireland to occur.

The whole thing really doesn't bother me anyway, same for most of my peers. I'm just happy there are no longer widespread murders or bombing campaigns.

deise go deo

seamus wrote: »

There are of course valid economic reasons why a party would oppose reunification. Any reunification, despite that it would require a referendum, would inflame sectarian violence once more as Unionist paramilitary groups decided to fight against it and republicans rose up again to fight them.
So there would be a very significant security cost to bear, not to mention the economic damage that civil unrest would bring to both the North and South.

Given that we're in a more progressive world where your religious loyalties are mostly irrelevant and state-sponsored religious discrimination no longer exists (at least not in any violent way), one would hope that such violence would be a flash in the pan, but there's a risk it would persist for a number of years.

Of course not holding a referendum would have a much greater security cost to bear, stiring up unrest that would most likely persist for decades.

Other less obvious economic problems include the realignment of taxation and regulations with the Republic's. Applying things like our minimum wage, employer's PRSI and VAT rate overnight would devastate the economy of the North.

The problems might be less obvious, but the solutions to them are not. When has a peacefull reunification process ever been carried out over night? It would be a negioated process carried out over time.

deise go deo

Boulevardier wrote: »

Perhaps there would be more support for a united Ireland if there was some compromise on its identity. A Dominion-type united Ireland within the Commonwealth would, in my view, be better than the present standoff between republicans and unionists.

Why should a United Ireland be in the commonwealth if the majority of its population don't want to be?

I have no problem with allowing PUL communities to continue to hold and celebrate their culture, they should even be supported in it, but forcing everyone else into things like the commonwealth is unnecessary.

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

Why should a United Ireland be in the commonwealth if the majority of its population don't want to be?

I have no problem with allowing PUL communities to continue to hold and celebrate their culture, they should even be supported in it, but forcing everyone else into things like the commonwealth is unnecessary.

Forcing unionists into a united Ireland is unecessary. This is just the nature of compromise. Besides I want to see Ireland compete in the commonwealth games.

Happyman42

KeithAFC wrote: »

The vast majority of Protestants for starters would campaign against it. I don't really get what this thread is supposed to be about. You must know there is plenty of opposition to a United Ireland and not just in Northern Ireland by the way.

Don't forget the British role in speeding up the reunification. When the circumstances are right they will use all of their many wiles to drop it like the hot expensive potato that it is. Secret machinations to save face will be how it is done. The Unionists/Loyalists behaviour has seen to that over the years. Paisley had a Paulian moment when he realised the above, nothing else explains his behaviour over the past few years.

Chazz Michael Michaels

I am.

LordSutch

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't forget the British role in speeding up the reunification. When the circumstances are right they will use all of their many wiles to drop it like the hot expensive potato that it is. Secret machinations to save face will be how it is done.

The British being in the majority up North.

seamus

deise go deo wrote: »

Of course not holding a referendum would have a much greater security cost to bear, stiring up unrest that would most likely persist for decades.

My point is that regardless of how much popular support one appears to have by making a democratically sound reunification, you will always have fringe elements who will resist democratic decisions with violence.

This is an unavoidable outcome of any reunification process.

The problems might be less obvious, but the solutions to them are not. When has a peacefull reunification process ever been carried out over night? It would be a negioated process carried out over time.

Actually I dispute that the solutions are obvious.
As Boulevardier says, I doubt any reunification process will be the victorious reclaim of land that many believe it to be.
Likely it would require a large amount of concessions on the part of the Republic; things like aligning corporation tax policy with the UK, providing long-standing cross citizenship agreements with the UK, and border control agreements to tighten up our immigration control so as to allow for true free movement between the two states.

In a lot of ways the most trouble-free way to implement reunification would in effect require Ireland and the UK to form a sort of "Union" of our own, acting in many ways as a single entity comprised of two sovereign states.

Happyman42

LordSutch wrote: »

The British being in the majority up North.

The Irebrits as they will correctly be known.

Cavehill Red

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Irebrits as they will correctly be known.

I prefer the simple phrase 'those who suck at geography.'

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

Other less obvious economic problems include the realignment of taxation and regulations with the Republic's. Applying things like our minimum wage, employer's PRSI and VAT rate overnight would devastate the economy of the North.

The economy of the North is already largely reliant on the public sector and the billions of pounds of subsidy from Westminster. Reduce those back to what we can afford, mix in centuries of sectarian hatred and we've another Bosnia on our hands. We would be crazy to vote for reunification. Perhaps in a few decades things will be different, but I wouldn't be optimistic.

Iwasfrozen

seamus wrote: »

This is an unavoidable outcome of any reunification process.
Actually I dispute that the solutions are obvious.
As Boulevardier says, I doubt any reunification process will be the victorious reclaim of land that many believe it to be.
Likely it would require a large amount of concessions on the part of the Republic; things like aligning corporation tax policy with the UK, providing long-standing cross citizenship agreements with the UK, and border control agreements to tighten up our immigration control so as to allow for true free movement between the two states.

In a lot of ways the most trouble-free way to implement reunification would in effect require Ireland and the UK to form a sort of "Union" of our own, acting in many ways as a single entity comprised of two sovereign states.

The Eu already makes all of this redundent. There is free travel between the countries and people in the north are already free to take British citizenship. If we extened that to all of Ireland following unification then problem solved.

Cavehill Red wrote:

I prefer the simple phrase 'those who suck at geography.'

Ireland's in the British Isles. Who sucks at geography now. ;p

Cathal O

Why do people assume that there will be concessions awarded to the north to secure reunification. On the face of it, it is reasonable, but this would be ridiculous, it is as if people assume that it will merely a jigsaw excercise , reattaching the 6 counties to the 26 at the minute. The current Ireland (Republic) + 6 counties. Should reunification occur it will be a blank canvis. No set tax rate, no set currency, no set electoral areas until after the first general election after a sucessful referendum, then upon discussions and conventions, a new constitution , new flag, new anthem, who knows, maybe even a new name. It will start afresh, who know, maybe every single thing that people think here (tax rates, etc) might end up being correct, but only after a GE after the referendum will any such policies be set in place

im invisible

Anything to be said for 'The Peoples Federated State of the Republic of Ireland and of Northern Ireland' or something

Iwasfrozen

im invisible wrote: »

Anything to be said for 'The Peoples Federated State of the Republic of Ireland and of Northern Ireland' or something

Only if it's 'The Peoples Federated State of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Cork.'

golfball37

I would imagine all of the political establishment and their media pawns in the south would be against a Utd Ireland in any way shape or form.

Monty Burnz

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Not fully grasping the hypothetical nature of the question Keith?

In a funny way I reckon (apart from Unionists up North), that some of those against might be hardline Republicans. I can't see it being a straightforward reclaim of the 6 counties type into the Republic referendum and if it ever does occur I'd imagine there may be some serious constitutional concessions offered.

Some of the concessions may also be financial - there may well be some sort of arrangement to finance some of the more extreme loyalists (who would point blank refuse to live in a United Ireland) a move to the mainland. Given our seemingly never-ending economic woes - I can see some opposition here aswell.

There would be a lot of economic questions to answer too - who would pay for all those public sector workers in NI who aren't actually needed in a UI? There would be mass unemployment or else huge tax rises in the ROI to fund unnecessary staff.

Monty Burnz

golfball37 wrote: »

I would imagine all of the political establishment and their media pawns in the south would be against a Utd Ireland in any way shape or form.

...because...

murphaph

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The NHS is falling apart and healthcare in general isn't much better north of the border in terms of quality.

How much do you pay to see a GP? How much does a prescription cost?

I get the feeling you haven't ever had to use medical services in the south tbh.

FYI: A GP costs minimum €50 for a consultation and there is no cap on the cost of prescriptions (there is a refund scheme but you would be taking lots and lots of medication before you'd get any money back). NHS doesn't sound so bad now, eh?

The naked truth is that without the umbilical cord to GB, NI would implode and that cord costs about half our current deficit each year, the deficit that is crippling us financially. You want to add another 50% to that deficit?

If not, then living standards in NI (and across the island) would have to fall considerably more to accomodate the cost of taking over the running of NI.

It'll not happen in my lifetime for sure. Indeed, I'd say it's as likely that the RoI would rejoin the UK as it is that NI would leave it.

battle_hardend

Cathal O wrote: »

Hi everyone, I was just looking over a few threads on the United Ireland threads on this from a while ago, along with the Scottish Independence threads. Has there ever been any serious and open United Ireland debates in the last while. While I accept it is not everyone's priority at the minute with the R word etc, but should a debate occur, what parties would actively campaign against it. I would imagine if any of the republics parties had an active anti united Ireland stance rather than a passive stance they would loose support, maybe i am wrong but I am struggling to think of any prominent people/ parties that would campaign against any possible reunification on the island, apart from the obvious unionist parties in the north and , possibly the alliance party up north aswell. what do ye think. If this debate did occur what parties and people (politician/ journalist etc) would be anti unification?

only a unionist ( thier perogitive ) would be activley opposed to a united ireland , many however believe conditions are not right for unity and wont be for a considerable time yet