A United Ireland Scenario

paky

What do you think a United Ireland scenario might look like? I've been giving this some thought and I think both Sinn Fein and dissident republicans would both play a role in it. Lets say Sinn Fein eventually become dominant in southern politics and one day they succeed in becoming the dominant party and are elected to government? What will they do? Gerry Adams has mentioned many times in the past that politicians from the six counties should have speaking rights in the Dail and one must wonder how such 'speaking rights' should be interpreted? Sounds to me like Adams would do as such but I think he would not just draw the line with the Seanad and would likely expand the Dail to include politicans north and south. Obviously this would make no sense but one must bear in mind Sinn Fein's background and Sinn Fein's members. So if we are to take it that Adams would expand the Seanad or more than likely the Dail (taking their ideology into account) to include politicians from the North, a scenario not seen since 1919 would exist. Now it is very likely that Unionist would not acceopt this and legally the institutions of north and south would remain in effect, at least in British law. Unionist would likely abstain from any invitation to speak in Dail Eireann and such expansion would remain nothing other than a claim for the time being.
However if dissident republicans were included in such a scenario the outcome would be quite different. The likelyhood of dissident republicans growing in strnegth between now and then would be quite high (obviously not knowing when 'now and then' is). If such a scenario was to occur and dissident republicans launched a successful armed campaign against the British, the only compromise or solution which would exist on the table would be for Unionists to accept the new institutions which Sinn Fein have put in place. If such a secenario existed would Britain put pressure on Unionists to accept the new institutions in place?
I believe this is the only way in which a United Ireland would take place since one of the main reasons being is that every IRA which has existed since 1916 onwards has managed to force some concessions from the British Government whether they had a mandate or not.
The whole notion of having a majority of people in the six counties voting to join the republic is, imo, so out of touch with reality its not even funny. If that day were to ever happen we are talking at least 60 years before any noticable changes in demographics occur and looking at Irish history, there have been two very successful armed campaigns by the IRA in the last century.
So hypothetically speaking, if Sinn Fein did come to power and did expand the Seanad or Dail to include members of the northern parliament, and lets say dissident republicans mounted a successful campaign against the British, would the British eventually abandon Unionists in the pursuit of peace or would they stick by them and return to a state of civil war. Afterall, the provisional IRA accepted far less then what they were fighting for but at least they got something. What would happen if dissidents return to a position in which the PIRA were in, what exactly could the British offer them to abandon the struggle?
I think all these factors are likely to occur sometime in the near future its just a question of what will actually set them in motion.
And let us not forget the rise in Scottish Nationalism. It will likely have a knock on effect on this country and shine the spotlight on the Act of Union and give Sinn Fein a formidable voice.

thecommietommy

paky wrote: »

What do you think a United Ireland scenario might look like? I've been giving this some thought and I think both Sinn Fein and dissident republicans would both play a role in it. Lets say Sinn Fein eventually become dominant in southern politics and one day they succeed in becoming the dominant party and are elected to government? What will they do? Gerry Adams has mentioned many times in the past that politicians from the six counties should have speaking rights in the Dail and one must wonder how such 'speaking rights' should be interpreted? Sounds to me like Adams would do as such but I think he would not just draw the line with the Seanad and would likely expand the Dail to include politicans north and south. Obviously this would make no sense but one must bear in mind Sinn Fein's background and Sinn Fein's members. So if we are to take it that Adams would expand the Seanad or more than likely the Dail (taking their ideology into account) to include politicians from the North, a scenario not seen since 1919 would exist. Now it is very likely that Unionist would not acceopt this and legally the institutions of north and south would remain in effect, at least in British law. Unionist would likely abstain from any invitation to speak in Dail Eireann and such expansion would remain nothing other than a claim for the time being.

Adams in his 60's, doubt very much if he will be in charge by the time SF would get a majority in the south. Maybe Pearse Doherty or Mary Lou instead.

However if dissident republicans were included in such a scenario the outcome would be quite different. The likelyhood of dissident republicans growing in strnegth between now and then would be quite high (obviously not knowing when 'now and then' is). If such a scenario was to occur and dissident republicans launched a successful armed campaign against the British, the only compromise or solution which would exist on the table would be for Unionists to accept the new institutions which Sinn Fein have put in place. If such a secenario existed would Britain put pressure on Unionists to accept the new institutions in place?
I believe this is the only way in which a United Ireland would take place since one of the main reasons being is that every IRA which has existed since 1916 onwards has managed to force some concessions from the British Government whether they had a mandate or not.

The dissidents are micro groups going nowhere. They haven't a chance of widespread support as an August 1969, Bloody Sunday etc situation wouldn't arise thanks to the Good Friday Agreement.

The whole notion of having a majority of people in the six counties voting to join the republic is, imo, so out of touch with reality its not even funny. If that day were to ever happen we are talking at least 60 years before any noticable changes in demographics occur and looking at Irish history, there have been two very successful armed campaigns by the IRA in the last century.

It's out of touch with reality to think that a nationalist majority isn't on the approach in the next 2 at most 3 decades. Even Peter Robinson basically admitted so - NI in UK could 'depend on Catholic votes' admits Peter Robinson http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15803536. When the DUP are admitting such, you know the writing is on the wall for unionism.

So hypothetically speaking, if Sinn Fein did come to power and did expand the Seanad or Dail to include members of the northern parliament, and lets say dissident republicans mounted a successful campaign against the British, would the British eventually abandon Unionists in the pursuit of peace or would they stick by them and return to a state of civil war. Afterall, the provisional IRA accepted far less then what they were fighting for but at least they got something. What would happen if dissidents return to a position in which the PIRA were in, what exactly could the British offer them to abandon the struggle?
I think all these factors are likely to occur sometime in the near future its just a question of what will actually set them in motion.
And let us not forget the rise in Scottish Nationalism. It will likely have a knock on effect on this country and shine the spotlight on the Act of Union and give Sinn Fein a formidable voice.

As stated, the Disso's are going nowhere, unionist and British military thuggery are a thing of the past, they are what created and fueled the Troubles for 25 years.

woodoo

Paragraphs please to make your post more readable

Iwasfrozen

No because the only way the British will allow unification is through the GFA. Any movement by the dissidents will and should be put down.

paky

thecommietommy wrote: »

Adams in his 60's, doubt very much if he will be in charge by the time SF would get a majority in the south. Maybe Pearse Doherty or Mary Lou instead.

The dissidents are micro groups going nowhere. They haven't a chance of widespread support as an August 1969, Bloody Sunday etc situation wouldn't arise thanks to the Good Friday Agreement.

It's out of touch with reality to think that a nationalist majority isn't on the approach in the next 2 at most 3 decades. Even Peter Robinson basically admitted so - NI in UK could 'depend on Catholic votes' admits Peter Robinson http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15803536. When the DUP are admitting such, you know the writing is on the wall for unionism.

As stated, the Disso's are going nowhere, unionist and British military thuggery are a thing of the past, they are what created and fueled the Troubles for 25 years.

How much of a majority is actually needed? Isn't a two thirds majority always the case or would a 1% majority be enough?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No because the only way the British will allow unification is through the GFA. Any movement by the dissidents will and should be put down.

Dissident Republicans never signed up to the GFA so I'd imagine there terms would be different to those of Sinn Fein if they ever do become a force to be reckoned with.

Iwasfrozen

paky wrote: »

Dissident Republicans never signed up to the GFA so I'd imagine there terms would be different to those of Sinn Fein if they ever do become a force to be reckoned with.

I'd imagine the same. I'd hope the british would have more sense then to negotiate with them though. Let the british negotiate with the politicians. The PSNI, MI5 and the BA can deal with these terrorists.

Eggy Baby!

If I'm honest, the more I learn about Northern Ireland's history, the less I want a United Ireland.

Violence perpetrated by Loyalist gangs would simply dampen the initial joy of reunification. Then I'm guessing nationalist gangs would go about truimphantly committing violence too. But I'm not sure tbh what could happen.

Kingdomkerry

paky wrote: »

How much of a majority is actually needed? Isn't a two thirds majority always the case or would a 1% majority be enough?



Dissident Republicans never signed up to the GFA so I'd imagine there terms would be different to those of Sinn Fein if they ever do become a force to be reckoned with.

1 (as in 50% + 1)

whitelines

Kingdomkerry wrote: »

1 (as in 50% + 1)

Hmmm. The relevant UK Secretary of State has to feel a majority exists (in his mind and his alone) before he'll be obliged to implement any border poll. So he'll be watching for evidence of this. He's very unlikely to act unless opinion polls and other data suggest a clear majority exists. This would obviously rule out any assessment to the finest of fine degrees - e.g. 50% + 1. I suspect any Irish government would be outraged if The UK State was prepared to act on any 50% + 1 type figure.

Kingdomkerry

The secretary of state will have no choice but to call a referendum when there is a greater number of nationalist votes than unionist votes and/or when there are more nationalist MLAs than unionist MLAs.


Before this position occurs there will be a Catholic majority. This will trigger an intense economic debate which will prove that it would be better for everyone economically if Ireland was reunited.

getzls

[QUOTE=thecommietommy;.

unionist and British military thuggery are a thing of the past, they are what created and fueled the Troubles for 25 years.[/QUOTE]

To say nothing of the I.R.A Their blood lust prolonged the killings.

SeanW

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

If I'm honest, the more I learn about Northern Ireland's history, the less I want a United Ireland.

Violence perpetrated by Loyalist gangs would simply dampen the initial joy of reunification. Then I'm guessing nationalist gangs would go about truimphantly committing violence too. But I'm not sure tbh what could happen.

I have a little more faith in modern Northerners. Most of them at least.

It would be necessary for our government to make it crystal clear to the Unionist community that their rights as people and as a community to treasure and enjoy their culture and traditions would always be respected.

The rights of the Unionist community to hold on to all things British, e.g. their passports, driving licenses and whatever, would have to be enshrined in the laws of both jurisdictions.

Other things our government could do in a United Ireland scenario could help, for example we could change the Constitution and law to say that English is the common first language of all our people (which is true) and have both Irish Gaelic and Ulster Scots language promoted as 2nd languages.

poeticseraphim

SeanW wrote: »

I have a little more faith in modern Northerners. Most of them at least.

It would be necessary for our government to make it crystal clear to the Unionist community that their rights as people and as a community to treasure and enjoy their culture and traditions would always be respected.

The rights of the Unionist community to hold on to all things British, e.g. their passports, driving licenses and whatever, would have to be enshrined in the laws of both jurisdictions.

Other things our government could do in a United Ireland scenario could help, for example we could change the Constitution and law to say that English is the common first language of all our people (which is true) and have both Irish Gaelic and Ulster Scots language promoted as 2nd languages.

I think you are very niave in thinking gaelgoirs would ever let that happen nor the rest of the English speaking population in Ireland.

The things is republicans want more than a united Ireland...they want the North to unite withthe republican constitution. I don't think they would be wiling to give the Unionists the concessions you ask for the sake of one Ireland.

Infact i think we are all happier with things the way they are.

Unionists are happy ..most nationalists are happy and Rep of Irelandcitizens are happy....lets just enjoy it and leave it at that.

Kingdomkerry

poeticseraphim wrote: »

SeanW wrote: »

I have a little more faith in modern Northerners. Most of them at least.

It would be necessary for our government to make it crystal clear to the Unionist community that their rights as people and as a community to treasure and enjoy their culture and traditions would always be respected.

The rights of the Unionist community to hold on to all things British, e.g. their passports, driving licenses and whatever, would have to be enshrined in the laws of both jurisdictions.

Other things our government could do in a United Ireland scenario could help, for example we could change the Constitution and law to say that English is the common first language of all our people (which is true) and have both Irish Gaelic and Ulster Scots language promoted as 2nd languages.

I think you are very niave in thinking gaelgoirs would ever let that happen nor the rest of the English speaking population in Ireland.

The things is republicans want more than a united Ireland...they want the North to unite withthe republican constitution. I don't think they would be wiling to give the Unionists the concessions you ask for the sake of one Ireland.

Infact i think we are all happier with things the way they are.

Unionists are happy ..most nationalists are happy and Rep of Irelandcitizens are happy....lets just enjoy it and leave it at that.

Assuming everyone is happy with the status quo and wthat ould not preference an end to the partition of Ireland is a sweeping generalisation.

Just because you have a partitionist attitude does not mean everyone has

whitelines

Kingdomkerry wrote: »

The secretary of state will have no choice but to call a referendum when there is a greater number of nationalist votes than unionist votes and/or when there are more nationalist MLAs than unionist MLAs.


Before this position occurs there will be a Catholic majority. This will trigger an intense economic debate which will prove that it would be better for everyone economically if Ireland was reunited.

There is nothing in The Belfast Agreement to suggest your first comment is correct. The Secretary of State concerned can, if he wishes, take your point into consideration if he sees fit.

A Catholic majority will be of little interest to said Secretary of State as Catholicism doesn't equate to support for Irish Unity, as key opinion polls have repeatedly demonstrated.

I agree that economic arguments will effect the opinion of many of those from a Catholic background and even some from a Protestant background, although whether or not said economic arguments will favour Irish Unity is open to debate.

The reality is that whilst there remains a divided community (divided on traditional Orange/Green grounds) there is almost no chance of Irish unity. The Irish Republic would have enough problems financing any integrated state without militant Loyalists doing everything they could to wreck the new entity. It would not be in the interests of the rump UK state to see anarchy just across The Irish sea. Irish Unity could only be achieved once the terms Orange and Green (or their equivalents) no longer had any potent relevance. In this scenario other arguments could be advanced in a benign environment and a rational, non-tribal decision made.

Kingdomkerry

whitelines wrote: »

Kingdomkerry wrote: »

The secretary of state will have no choice but to call a referendum when there is a greater number of nationalist votes than unionist votes and/or when there are more nationalist MLAs than unionist MLAs.


Before this position occurs there will be a Catholic majority. This will trigger an intense economic debate which will prove that it would be better for everyone economically if Ireland was reunited.

There is nothing in The Belfast Agreement to suggest your first comment is correct. The Secretary of State concerned can, if he wishes, take your point into consideration if he sees fit.

A Catholic majority will be of little interest to said Secretary of State as Catholicism doesn't equate to support for Irish Unity, as key opinion polls have repeatedly demonstrated.

I agree that economic arguments will effect the opinion of many of those from a Catholic background and even some from a Protestant background, although whether or not said economic arguments will favour Irish Unity is open to debate.

The reality is that whilst there remains a divided community (divided on traditional Orange/Green grounds) there is almost no chance of Irish unity. The Irish Republic would have enough problems financing any integrated state without militant Loyalists doing everything they could to wreck the new entity. It would not be in the interests of the rump UK state to see anarchy just across The Irish sea. Irish Unity could only be achieved once the terms Orange and Green (or their equivalents) no longer had any potent relevance. In this scenario other arguments could be advanced in a benign environment and a rational, non-tribal decision made.

As people realise that a catholic majority is inevitable and as people begin to understand the economic benefits of Irish unity no doubt many will use the last resort to scare people off the idea. Loyalist violence. Believe what you want but look at the independent monitoring commissions reports on Loyalist paramilitaries. They do not have the resources now not to mind in 25 years time. And how much support would they get igoing against the demographic will of the people on both parts of the island. yes there would be violence but the scale is greatly exagerated.

Eggy Baby!

There would have to be a constitutional rewrite in Ireland following a hypothetical unification?

It would be necessary for our government to make it crystal clear to the Unionist community that their rights as people and as a community to treasure and enjoy their culture and traditions would always be respected.

Unfortunately nationalist radicals might start turning on us then.

whitelines

Kingdomkerry wrote: »

As people realise that a catholic majority is inevitable and as people begin to understand the economic benefits of Irish unity no doubt many will use the last resort to scare people off the idea. Loyalist violence. Believe what you want but look at the independent monitoring commissions reports on Loyalist paramilitaries. They do not have the resources now not to mind in 25 years time. And how much support would they get igoing against the demographic will of the people on both parts of the island. yes there would be violence but the scale is greatly exagerated.

I fear it is you that believes what you want from the safety of county Kerry? Any Loyalist violence will impinge most directly on those in North East Ulster and they have the direct experience of what that might entail. They will factor this in when making any decision that will directly impinge on their lives.

wicklowbiker

SeanW wrote: »

Other things our government could do in a United Ireland scenario could help, for example we could change the Constitution and law to say that English is the common first language of all our people (which is true) and have both Irish Gaelic and Ulster Scots language promoted as 2nd languages.

Ulster Scots isn't a language, it's a collection of Ballymenaism's a crowd of crackpots try to claim as a language in order to split funding which would go to Irish langauge groups in the six counties. In farness, most unionists also think it's nonsense.

wicklowbiker

whitelines wrote: »

I fear it is you that believes what you want from the safety of county Kerry? Any Loyalist violence will impinge most directly on those in North East Ulster and they have the direct experience of what that might entail. They will factor this in when making any decision that will directly impinge on their lives.

Unionism is completely dependent on Britain for its continued existence, politically, financially and militarily, without the Brits their nothing. The loyalists in the north east with a British declaration of withdrawal will do about as much without them as the unionists in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan etc as well as even Dublin where Carson was from and elected several unionists in the 1918 election, gobbing off how there would be a blood bath etc if Home Rule/Irish Independence came about. But when the Brits said - We are going, if you want to fight to the last man etc, well you can do it without us. What happened the big, bad threatened violence on a massive scale ? Nothing of course, barely a whimper. Indeed it says a lot about unionist 'loyalty' that they abounded their brethern in the border counties and the rest of the country without a thought.

junder

whitelines wrote: »

Kingdomkerry wrote: »

The secretary of state will have no choice but to call a referendum when there is a greater number of nationalist votes than unionist votes and/or when there are more nationalist MLAs than unionist MLAs.


Before this position occurs there will be a Catholic majority. This will trigger an intense economic debate which will prove that it would be better for everyone economically if Ireland was reunited.

There is nothing in The Belfast Agreement to suggest your first comment is correct. The Secretary of State concerned can, if he wishes, take your point into consideration if he sees fit.

A Catholic majority will be of little interest to said Secretary of State as Catholicism doesn't equate to support for Irish Unity, as key opinion polls have repeatedly demonstrated.

I agree that economic arguments will effect the opinion of many of those from a Catholic background and even some from a Protestant background, although whether or not said economic arguments will favour Irish Unity is open to debate.

The reality is that whilst there remains a divided community (divided on traditional Orange/Green grounds) there is almost no chance of Irish unity. The Irish Republic would have enough problems financing any integrated state without militant Loyalists doing everything they could to wreck the new entity. It would not be in the interests of the rump UK state to see anarchy just across The Irish sea. Irish Unity could only be achieved once the terms Orange and Green (or their equivalents) no longer had any potent relevance. In this scenario other arguments could be advanced in a benign environment and a rational, non-tribal decision made.

Sadly you are one of the very very few on this thread who actually gets 'northern Ireland' and understands the realitys of it. Unfortunately your fellow countrymen seem content to stick thier fingers in thier ears and shout 'la la la la la' when it comes to talking about the realitys of a united Ireland

wicklowbiker

junder wrote: »

Sadly you are one of the very very few on this thread who actually gets 'northern Ireland' and understands the realitys of it. Unfortunately your fellow countrymen seem content to stick thier fingers in thier ears and shout 'la la la la la' when it comes to talking about the realitys of a united Ireland

Whitelines is from Glasgow, don't try protraying him as an Irish nationalist or something as he likes to think he's a unionist

whitelines

wicklowbiker wrote: »

Unionism is completely dependent on Britain for its continued existence, politically, financially and militarily, without the Brits their nothing. The loyalists in the north east with a British declaration of withdrawal will do about as much without them as the unionists in Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan etc as well as even Dublin where Carson was from and elected several unionists in the 1918 election, gobbing off how there would be a blood bath etc if Home Rule/Irish Independence came about. But when the Brits said - We are going, if you want to fight to the last man etc, well you can do it without us. What happened the big, bad threatened violence on a massive scale ? Nothing of course, barely a whimper. Indeed it says a lot about unionist 'loyalty' that they abounded their brethern in the border counties and the rest of the country without a thought.

They're nothing. Is your first language Ulster Scots?

junder

wicklowbiker wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Sadly you are one of the very very few on this thread who actually gets 'northern Ireland' and understands the realitys of it. Unfortunately your fellow countrymen seem content to stick thier fingers in thier ears and shout 'la la la la la' when it comes to talking about the realitys of a united Ireland

Whitelines is from Glasgow, don't try protraying him as an Irish nationalist or something as he likes to think he's a unionist

If he is from Scotland then he is making you look even more rediculous for your lack of
Knowledge regarding northern Ireland.

ardmacha

The reality is that whilst there remains a divided community (divided on traditional Orange/Green grounds) there is almost no chance of Irish unity.

As long as the planters are sufficiently bigoted then, it doesn't matter how many of them there are.

junder

ardmacha wrote: »

The reality is that whilst there remains a divided community (divided on traditional Orange/Green grounds) there is almost no chance of Irish unity.

As long as the planters are sufficiently bigoted then, it doesn't matter how many of them there are.

Surely your not accusing Adams and mcgunniess of bigotry?

Dr Galen

We're really not going anywhere new here are we? Yet another NI thread descends into trench warfare and the usual clichéd nonsense.

Closed

Cheers

DrG