Will there be serious problems in Northern Ireland if catholics become the majority??

DColeman

Will there be serious consequences if and when catholics become the majority in Northern Ireland?

As you know there's a lot of talk over catholic unionists in the country, and is largely true, in that the constitution could remain with the union for decades, if not forever. Recent polls have shown this.

However although the Union is likely to be safe for a while its that the people who exactly will make up Northern Ireland in the future that will worry some protestants & unionists.

Catholics will become a majority in Northern Ireland at some point, not too far off. There will be a sizeable amount of people in the PUL community who will unhappy at this prospect however, regardless if NI is forever safe in the union or not.

We've seen although large percentage catholics are happy within the union, a very large figure, almost 100% are also happy with reducing the union flag to 17 days a year instead of having at 365 days. Although they are happy perhaps economically with staying in the UK, promoting British and Orange culture, they will NOT accept. And when catholics become a majority, you can expect more symbols to removed, more orange walks to blocked etc etc.

So although the future for the union might look good, 'protestant' and 'orange' culture does not.

Since absolutely nothing is being done to integrate the two communities by the useless politicians they have up there, (mixed marriages still less than 10%), it probably sounds a bit sensationalist I guess the only outcome is a civil war?

OCorcrainn

There is already a similar thread here in the same forum.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Since according to all opinion polls large numbers of Catholics would vote to stay in the UK I doubt if there would be many problems , except those caused in this instance by the crime gangs (cira,rira,I cant believe its not pira etc).

VinLieger

The issue is with the near ghettoisation of some unionist areas. You then have filth like willy fraser preying on these peoples ignorance and anger while telling them they are entitled to everything they want as thats how its always been so in their eyes democracy means protestants in power.

gallag

I would imagine as people become more evolved and educated the majority will be atheist and unionist or republican will be the defining feature. Why should the very slightly different way prods or caths worship god have an impact on which government runs their schools and hospitals.

claypigeon777

gallag wrote: »

Why should the very slightly different way prods or caths worship god have an impact on which government runs their schools and hospitals.

Well it does.

You're basically asking for water not to be wet.

AugustusMinimus

Hi. Just wondering does anyone have any data on estimate future demographics for Northern Ireland.

I know that the number of Catholics and Protestants are supposed to be even circa 2016. However, does anyone have projected figures for say 2020, 2030 and beyond.

Any figures for estimate total population going forwards also ?

Thanks

Godge

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Hi. Just wondering does anyone have any data on estimate future demographics for Northern Ireland.

I know that the number of Catholics and Protestants are supposed to be even circa 2016. However, does anyone have projected figures for say 2020, 2030 and beyond.

Any figures for estimate total population going forwards also ?

Thanks

Why? What difference does the number of Catholics and Protestants make when the correlation between religion and politics gets less each year?

AugustusMinimus

Why ? Because I want to know of course. Why would I be asking otherwise

Crooked Jack

I thought I had a breakdown of the census figures but I cant find it anywhere, so I dont have the exact figures, but I do remember from it that there is already a catholic majority of those under the age of 35.

AugustusMinimus

Yeah. What I've read is that the number of Catholics and Protestants will be equal in 2016. Of course, this doesn't equate to a Catholic majority due to 3rd parties such as other religions and atheists.

Just wondering if there have been any projects made after this date. Having a look around I can't find any.

djpbarry

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Why ? Because I want to know of course. Why would I be asking otherwise

To kick off a political discussion?

gurramok

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Hi. Just wondering does anyone have any data on estimate future demographics for Northern Ireland.

I know that the number of Catholics and Protestants are supposed to be even circa 2016. However, does anyone have projected figures for say 2020, 2030 and beyond.

Any figures for estimate total population going forwards also ?

Thanks

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I thought I had a breakdown of the census figures but I cant find it anywhere, so I dont have the exact figures, but I do remember from it that there is already a catholic majority of those under the age of 35.

Don't have any projections but have past figures.

See attached from 2001 for the overall numbers, add 12 years to get a jist.

See attached from 2009 for all kids in nurseries and schools.

Son Of A Vidic

DColeman wrote: »

Will there be serious consequences if and when catholics become the majority in Northern Ireland?

No and after what has been endured since the founding of the NI statelet in 1921. I really can't see how things could be any worse under a catholic majority.

ardmacha

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

No and after what has been endured since the founding of the NI statelet in 1921. I really can't see how things could be any worse under a catholic majority.

Derry is a good example. The City of Culture thing made a consious effort to include everyone and in a summer of parade related issues in Belfast the Apprentice Boys passed off without note.

Karl Stein

The trouble is unlikely to come from (cultural) Nationalists. Non-Unionists (culturally unionist) will be running the show up there soon so if anything the trouble will come from disaffected loyalists by way of the woeful leadership in the wider Unionist community.

Remember that the original troubles kicked off when Nationalists were seeking equal civil and political rights not a UI even though if they had been seeking a UI it wouldn't have been an excuse for murder by the Unionists/British and their proxies.

AugustusMinimus

I have to wonder. Did the wider Unionist community and politicians back power sharing on the basis that even back in 1997, a Catholic majority was foreseen in little over 20 years in the future.

Here's another debate though. Joint Sovereignty. IMO, most unionists will not go for Joint Sovereignty for one reason. That it is a stepping stone to a united Ireland. On the other hand, if Joint Sovereignty was guaranteed for 100 years or if at a later point, a United Ireland would require a 2/3 majority of the people of Northern Ireland, would a Joint Sovereignty vote pass ? I think it would.

gurramok

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I have to wonder. Did the wider Unionist community and politicians back power sharing on the basis that even back in 1997, a Catholic majority was foreseen in little over 20 years in the future.

Here's another debate though. Joint Sovereignty. IMO, most unionists will not go for Joint Sovereignty for one reason. That it is a stepping stone to a united Ireland. On the other hand, if Joint Sovereignty was guaranteed for 100 years or if at a later point, a United Ireland would require a 2/3 majority of the people of Northern Ireland, would a Joint Sovereignty vote pass ? I think it would.

Answer to your first point, I think its a yes.

On the 2nd point, there would have to be a 2/3 majority required also to retain the status quo in the UK, to be fair.

AugustusMinimus

Sorry, meant that the UK would put a referendum to people in NI, asking people to go for Joint Sovereignty with the ROI, on the basis that any future change in Northern Ireland's Sovereignty would require a vote with a 2/3 majority.

Such a referendum in my mind would result in Joint Sovereignty. I think this would in effect please a majority of Nationalists in the North. It would also be favoured by a large proportion of Unionists on the basis that it would essentially guarantee a UK - Northern Ireland link for years to come.

guttenberg

Joint Sovereignty would never be sold to the wider Loyalist community. Look at the reaction to the Anglo Irish Agreement and that was merely an advisory role! Too many unionists are against anything that would improve NI/RoI links. While a UI vote would likely be shot down, it's hard to see what political parties can make grounds with those catholic unionists though. NI21? they have potential. UUP? no chance. Alliance? I think they may take a battering next election for the flag protests. The DUP has repeatedly made statements saying it wants to increase its cross community appeal but it's actions kills any hope they have. The difficulty is that to increase their appeal to catholics, these parties need to soften their stance on some issues(parading, RoI links, embracing more CNR culture, always attacking Sinn Fein, Loyalist violence etc.) which won't go down well with their hardcore support.

getzls

No, can't see problems.
Going by posters on this forum the South doesn't want the North anyway.
Well at the moment.

Crooked Jack

getzls wrote: »

No, can't see problems.
Going by posters on this forum the South doesn't want the North anyway.
Well at the moment.

If it's an accurate representation of wider Irish society you're after I really wouldn't be going by the posters on this forum.

Gee Bag

Given the present state of the Republic's economy I'm not surprised that a large number of nationalists/catholics in the north would oppose re-unification at the present time.

I don't think as many would be opposed if/when our economy picks up.

Why Sinn Fein want a border poll at the present time is beyond me.

Crooked Jack

Gee Bag wrote: »

Given the present state of the Republic's economy I'm not surprised that a large number of nationalists/catholics in the north would oppose re-unification at the present time.

I don't think as many would be opposed if/when our economy picks up.

Why Sinn Fein want a border poll at the present time is beyond me.

A united Ireland is not an aspiration of convenience. You cant be for it in good times and against it in bad times. Things like the economy and exchange rates will always fluctuate one way or the other, the desire for reunification is not dependent on them.

Plus it could be argued that reunification would actually be better for the economy, particularly in the long run.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/united-ireland-makes-economic-sense-sinn-fein-calls-for-border-vote-28960849.html

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2010/02/22/economic-case-united-ireland/

What people need to remember is that reunification is not something that if voted for would happen the day after. It would be a process that would be well planned and researched and take place over a period of years and far from the usual arguments of "what about the bloated public sector in the north" being a stumbling block to it, it would actually be a reason in favour of it. It would allow us to gradually reduce the public sector in the north to a more appropriate size, something that's going to be much better for the country in the long run.
The great thing about reunification now is that it is so open to interpretation. The day of driving the brits into the sea is gone. Now, more than ever given the problems on both sides of the border, is the time to sit down and have a proper discussion about what a reunified, indeed reborn, Ireland would look like.

Gee Bag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

A united Ireland is not an aspiration of convenience. You cant be for it in good times and against it in bad times. Things like the economy and exchange rates will always fluctuate one way or the other, the desire for reunification is not dependent on them.

Aspirations are all well and good, but lets have a quick look at the basic statistics.......

Northern Ireland receives about 50% of its total funding via a block grant from London of about £9.6bn (€11.2bn). The Republic is looking to cut €3.1bn from it's budget this year and €2bn the year after. The Republic's national debt at the end of 2012 was €192bn. Our debt to GDP ratio is currently 125% (as of June 2013), this is among the highest in the world.

Even if 100% of the population in the North was in favour of re-unifacation the Republic could not afford it. This does not even take into account the vast increase in security expenditure that would be required to deal with pissed off Loyalists who would presumably be opposed to the whole thing, nor does it take into account the probable fall in Foreign Direct Investment, Tourism, etc which would result from a renewal of the Troubles.

Plus it could be argued that reunification would actually be better for the economy, particularly in the long run.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/united-ireland-makes-economic-sense-sinn-fein-calls-for-border-vote-28960849.html

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2010/02/22/economic-case-united-ireland/

No facts or figures here, saying a sure it'll be grand just doesn't cut it for me. In the link to the Indo article Gerry Adams is saying Imagine far to much for my liking, the second piece is just gibberish

What people need to remember is that reunification is not something that if voted for would happen the day after. It would be a process that would be well planned and researched and take place over a period of years

I don't know about that. German re-unification happened pretty quickly and their economy (Euorpe's strongest) was hammered for the following ten years due to the financial cost. The social implications in East Germany were enormous.

In the case of Ireland it is arguable that re-unification would need to happen relativley quickly as a long lead in time would allow Loyalists to get tooled up. I don't know if you've ever heard of the UDA's Doomsday plan in 1994 which basically called for the repartition of the North-East (Antrim North Down and North Armagh) and the ethnic cleansing of all Catholics from this area.

and far from the usual arguments of "what about the bloated public sector in the north" being a stumbling block to it, it would actually be a reason in favour of it. It would allow us to gradually reduce the public sector in the north to a more appropriate size, something that's going to be much better for the country in the long run.

The reason the north has such a huge public sector is because people who have steady jobs are far less likely to be out on the streets throwing rocks at the neighbours. If you start shedding jobs your going to have a lot of p1ssed off people with time on their hands.

The great thing about reunification now is that it is so open to interpretation. The day of driving the brits into the sea is gone. Now, more than ever given the problems on both sides of the border, is the time to sit down and have a proper discussion about what a reunified, indeed reborn, Ireland would look like.

The Unionists are never going to sit down and chat about their hopes and aspirations for a United Ireland. their interpretaion will be something along the lines of No surrender, NO, Never

I'm all for a United Ireland, but there is no way a majority north and south are going to vote for it any time soon.

green_bow

unionists are by nature a reactionary and confrontational bunch , their will be trouble

Crooked Jack

Gee Bag wrote: »

Aspirations are all well and good, but lets have a quick look at the basic statistics.......

Northern Ireland receives about 50% of its total funding via a block grant from London of about £9.6bn (€11.2bn). The Republic is looking to cut €3.1bn from it's budget this year and €2bn the year after. The Republic's national debt at the end of 2012 was €192bn. Our debt to GDP ratio is currently 125% (as of June 2013), this is among the highest in the world.

Those figures are worthless because the fact is that the British government refuses to layout exactly how much it spends here, what it is spent on and what it raises in return from the north. There is more to this than just the block grant. On top of that you arent taking into account revenue that could be generated or saved in a unified Ireland through streamlining and amalgamating services. In fact there is a whole world of figures that needs to be examined to get an accurate estimation of what the economic effect of reunification would be. All I'm saying is, why not do that and then we can have a proper discussion on the future of the country without people throwing out the unverified figures that suit their argument.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Even if 100% of the population in the North was in favour of re-unifacation the Republic could not afford it. This does not even take into account the vast increase in security expenditure that would be required to deal with pissed off Loyalists who would presumably be opposed to the whole thing, nor does it take into account the probable fall in Foreign Direct Investment, Tourism, etc which would result from a renewal of the Troubles.

You seem to be assuming that this is going to be announced on Tuesday and happen on wednesday. Reunification will happen when the majority in the north and south want it. A majority in the north will therefore include a majority (or given changing demographics, a huge section) of the unionist community.
It wont be a takeover, it will be a process, so bearing this in mind, with a huge number of their own people in favour of it, who are loyalists going to fight. Honestly, I think some people just use the loyalist boogeyman thing as an excuse.
Regarding FDI, tourism, etc, I would imagine these would all improve hugely in a reunified Ireland. But again, until some actual investigation is done, my comments, just like yours, are pure conjecture

Gee Bag wrote: »

No facts or figures here, saying a sure it'll be grand just doesn't cut it for me. In the link to the Indo article Gerry Adams is saying Imagine far to much for my liking, the second piece is just gibberish

Im trying to find the letter Adams sent to the Irish News and Belfast Telegraph outlining the estimated cost of unity (but as I said, they're largely pointless unti we have the whole story) and I'll post it as soon as I do, it has plenty of facts and figures. I posted this one because in it he is giving a brief outline of some of the huge advantages of reunification. Im absolutely baffled by someone who is uncomfortable with a politician imagining a better future. Sure lets just stick with what we've always done, that worked out well.

Gee Bag wrote: »

I don't know about that. German re-unification happened pretty quickly and their economy (Euorpe's strongest) was hammered for the following ten years due to the financial cost. The social implications in East Germany were enormous.

Yes but the point is that reunification is a long term strategy. Surely that's what we need. Planning for decades ahead, not limping from one budget to the next

Gee Bag wrote: »

In the case of Ireland it is arguable that re-unification would need to happen relativley quickly as a long lead in time would allow Loyalists to get tooled up. I don't know if you've ever heard of the UDA's Doomsday plan in 1994 which basically called for the repartition of the North-East (Antrim North Down and North Armagh) and the ethnic cleansing of all Catholics from this area.

Yes, I've heard of their doomsday plan and it's a preposterous load of shite. Even at the peak of their strength, with the full support of the British state behind them, loyalist paramilitaries succeeded in doing little other than killing random catholics.
A sharp jump into reunification would allow any violent vestiges to react in a knee jerk way. A process, outlining the advantages to unionism/loyalism and the guarantees that their culture will be protected is a far safer bet. But as I said, it will only come about when the majority vote in favour of it so the fact is there will be significant PUL support for it.

Gee Bag wrote: »

The reason the north has such a huge public sector is because people who have steady jobs are far less likely to be out on the streets throwing rocks at the neighbours. If you start shedding jobs your going to have a lot of p1ssed off people with time on their hands.

That time is passing, for most people it has passed. And again, the language you're using is deliberately hysterical. Nobody is taking about "shedding" jobs, a process of retirements, voluntary redundancies and recruitment freezes over a period of years (or something along those line devised by people much smarter than me) could bring the sector down to sustainable levels. Perhaps painful in the short term but frankly necessary. These are the types of changes the north needs to make if it's ever going to be anything other than a brit begging bowl.

Gee Bag wrote: »

The Unionists are never going to sit down and chat about their hopes and aspirations for a United Ireland. their interpretaion will be something along the lines of No surrender, NO, Never

Well as demographics change and society becomes more normalised people are eventually going to stop and really ask what is best for them and theirs. If catholic numbers continue to rise and reunification looks like a distinct possibility I have no doubt that unionists would get involved in a discussion to ensure that in the event of unity their interests were protected. Getting involved in the discussion doesnt mean supporting unity. In fact Im pretty sure that's what (then UUP, now NI21 MLA) John McAllister said in Newry when he addressed a conference on Irish unity and what that would mean for unionism.
Other unionists have made similar statements. There are smart level headed people within unionism, they aren't all fleg waving, guldering Frazer/McCausland/Campbell types.

Gee Bag wrote: »

I'm all for a United Ireland, but there is no way a majority north and south are going to vote for it any time soon.

Well according to the latest polls there is already a majority in the south in favour of it. In the north the vast majority of catholics vote for pro-unity parties.
I'm not saying it's going to happen soon, nor am I suggesting that I or SF have all the answers. All I'm saying is that now is the time to start a discussion on the real pros and cons of unity.
Reunification does not belong to Sinn Fein, it is incumbent on every pro-independence party in Ireland to get involved in the debate and it would be the smart thing to do for pro-union parties to join it as well.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The great thing about reunification now is that it is so open to interpretation. The day of driving the brits into the sea is gone. Now, more than ever given the problems on both sides of the border, is the time to sit down and have a proper discussion about what a reunified, indeed reborn, Ireland would look like.

Why would we waste money on sitting down and having a discussion about a reunified reborn Ireland?

There isn't a snowballs chance in hell of it happening in the next twenty years so any discussion like that is purely a dream.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

Why would we waste money on sitting down and having a discussion about a reunified reborn Ireland?

There isn't a snowballs chance in hell of it happening in the next twenty years so any discussion like that is purely a dream.

Yes, forward planning, research and preparation for a scenario the majority of people in Ireland are in favour of is idiotic. if it ever comes to it we'll toss a coin and just see what happens.

Rubeter

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yes, forward planning, research and preparation for a scenario the majority of people in Ireland are in favour of is idiotic. if it ever comes to it we'll toss a coin and just see what happens.

In fairness that kind of attitude is very much part of being human, we tend to disregard very negative things that could happen in the future, that is why people living in the likes of Naples or San Francisco, though well knowing their whole world could fall apart any day, live normal lives without the resulting stress.
Still it's a rather good idea to be prepared, so you're not totally screwed if it happens on your watch.