Reunification Question

funkey_monkey

Just been watching the election chatter on the Beeb tonight and it got me thinking about something that Mary Lou McDonald was talking about.

If Northern Ireland had a referendum on reunification with the Republic, would a Yes result mean that the RoI would then have to have a referendum on accepting us or would the Gov make the decision themselves?

If so, has there been any polls done on the likely percentage outcome in the RoI? I'd assume that a Yes vote pretty much guaranteed?

I wouldn't expect that the remainder of the UK would have any input in this scenario based on what happened in Scotland. Probably be secretly glad to be rid of us!

Final question - if NI had a referendum and said No to reunification - when would be next possible date for the voters to go to the polls again for the same question?

Thanks.

Mr.Nice Guy

In the event of a Yes vote within NI for reunification then there would have to be a referendum held within the south on whether to go ahead with it.

There have been polls done that have suggested support but it is by no means guaranteed to be endorsed. I don't know if there have been recent polls on the matter (with the economic problems it would seem silly to ask now) but I remember one in the mid-2000s that showed support for the idea.

It does seem to be trendy for a lot of people in the south to say they wouldn't want reunification due to the problems it would entail, and I am sure there are a sizeable amount who feel that way, but personally I think the majority would endorse it IF it could be presented in a way that appeared workable (by which I mean economically and peacefully).

I agree that I don't think the UK would be interested in retaining NI if there was a sense that a majority were considering leaving. Nothing like the love-in that was showered upon the Scots.

As regards a no vote and the likelihood of another one, I think the situation is that the NI Secretary of State has the power to approve a referendum if there is a sense that there is a demand for it. I suspect it would be a once-in-a-generation type event so if there is a No vote I'd say it would be around another twenty years until another one was held - but it's up to the Secretary of State as far as I know.

alaimacerc

I believe the procedure is that:

a) the Secretary of State determines there's a likelihood of a vote for reunification;
b) there's a NI referendum;
c) if successful, there would then be negotiations, on primarily a north/south but also on an east/west basis;
d) the result of those negotiations would then be put to two more referenda, one North, one South.

The polls, such as they are at present, would be very positive at present, might be much softer once there's an actual concrete proposal, with actual compromises and concessions involved. As opposed to "Fourth Green Field, Brits Out!", it'd involve funding their expectations of decent public services, and guaranteeing cross-community equity of status.

The last question is a nice simple one: the GFA bars a do-over for seven years. Obviously there remains the political consideration of when it would be feasible, on top of that.

funkey_monkey

Cheers - thanks for the info

Godge

alaimacerc wrote: »

I believe the procedure is that:

a) the Secretary of State determines there's a likelihood of a vote for reunification;
b) there's a NI referendum;
c) if successful, there would then be negotiations, on primarily a north/south but also on an east/west basis;
d) the result of those negotiations would then be put to two more referenda, one North, one South.

The polls, such as they are at present, would be very positive at present, might be much softer once there's an actual concrete proposal, with actual compromises and concessions involved. As opposed to "Fourth Green Field, Brits Out!", it'd involve funding their expectations of decent public services, and guaranteeing cross-community equity of status.

The last question is a nice simple one: the GFA bars a do-over for seven years. Obviously there remains the political consideration of when it would be feasible, on top of that.

If the Secretary of State makes his decision based on the actual vote received by nationalist parties in real elections rather than what opinion polls tell him, then the likelihood of a referendum is decreasing rather than increasing as their share of the vote continues to fall.

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

If the Secretary of State makes his decision based on the actual vote received by nationalist parties in real elections rather than what opinion polls tell him, then the likelihood of a referendum is decreasing rather than increasing as their share of the vote continues to fall.

My guess is that the SoS will make "his" decision based on what the assembly is, says, and does. If they're unionist-leaning -- and the Tories are explicitly unionist -- they might well feel entitled to do nothing about it until the NIA passes a "this house believes there should be a referendum under the terms of the GLA" motion. (Of a non-binding and non-cross-community nature.)

glacial_pace71

The term "re-unification" is a vague enough one in some respects.
Even if both jurisdictions endorsed a 'Yes' vote there'd probably still be a power-sharing authority in the area covered by the former NI.
Although this wouldn't have 'North-South' bodies it'd nevertheless need some structures for how a subordinate legislature would work with the national Oireachtas.
Further, there'd still be British-Irish structures of some description to safeguard the unionist minority, much in the same way the three strands work for nationalist at present.
You could find a "United Ireland" looking suspiciously like the existing political structures.

Funnily enough the number of 'nationalist' registered MLAs would probably plunge in the event of re-unification. At it stands there were substantial votes for anti-austerity candidates, e.g. West Belfast, and so a 'Stormont Nua' in any United Ireland could conceivably have 40% unionist-registered, 30% other-registered and 30% nationalist-registered MLA composition.

Irish Rationalist

A united Ireland is a long way off, unless the Nationalists in the north, the SDLP in particular, decide to stop being soft Unionists content with the union for the foreseeable future, and actually begin to push for reunification. A Catholic majority in NI is predicted for 2030, but this does not necessarily translate to a Nationalist majority. A Belfast Telegraph opinion poll carried out in 2014 found that 23% of NI Catholics regarded themselves as British, and 21% of Catholics wanted NI to remain part of the union. Sinn Fein must be scratching their heads in bewilderment, whilst the Unionist parties must be rubbing their hands in glee.

When a majority eventually do vote for reunification in a referendum, a united Ireland shall probably initially take the form of a federal all-Ireland republic, with power being devolved from Dublin and Belfast to the four provinces of Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Dáithí Ó Conaill developed the concept of Eire Nua back in the 70s. Sinn Fein originally adopted it, but then subsequently rejected it on the basis of it providing the Unionist's with too much power in Ulster. I predict Eire Nua, or more likely, a similar devolved federal policy shall re-emerge as a possible model for the new re-united independent Ireland.

Providing the Protestant Unionist people of NI with sufficient assurances, guarantees and safeguards must form part of any reunification document in order to provide them with confidence. Unionism is protectionism. It's about fear, and the best way to dispel their fears is to effectively communicate that there is no possibility of them experiencing persecution in a 32 county Republic. If Unionists become the next generation of discriminated against, marginalised and alienated second class citizens on this island, the next generation of civil rights protesters are going to be Unionist, and Loyalist paramilitaries, who are still going to be around, could very well become to the Irish state what the IRA were to the British state in NI. I don't think anyone wants to see history repeat itself in a 32 county context.

Iwasfrozen

Irish Rationalist wrote: »

A united Ireland is a long way off, unless the Nationalists in the north, the SDLP in particular, decide to stop being soft Unionists content with the union for the foreseeable future, and actually begin to push for reunification. A Catholic majority in NI is predicted for 2030, but this does not necessarily translate to a Nationalist majority. A Belfast Telegraph opinion poll carried out in 2014 found that 23% of NI Catholics regarded themselves as British, and 21% of Catholics wanted NI to remain part of the union. Sinn Fein must be scratching their heads in bewilderment, whilst the Unionist parties must be rubbing their hands in glee.

When a majority eventually do vote for reunification in a referendum, a united Ireland shall probably initially take the form of a federal all-Ireland republic, with power being devolved from Dublin and Belfast to the four provinces of Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Dáithí Ó Conaill developed the concept of Eire Nua back in the 70s. Sinn Fein originally adopted it, but then subsequently rejected it on the basis of it providing the Unionist's with too much power in Ulster. I predict Eire Nua, or more likely, a similar devolved federal policy shall re-emerge as a possible model for the new re-united independent Ireland.

Providing the Protestant Unionist people of NI with sufficient assurances, guarantees and safeguards must form part of any reunification document in order to provide them with confidence. Unionism is protectionism. It's about fear, and the best way to dispel their fears is to effectively communicate that there is no possibility of them experiencing persecution in a 32 county Republic. If Unionists become the next generation of discriminated against, marginalised and alienated second class citizens on this island, the next generation of civil rights protesters are going to be Unionist, and Loyalist paramilitaries, who are still going to be around, could very well become to the Irish state what the IRA were to the British state in NI. I don't think anyone wants to see history repeat itself in a 32 county context.

I can see Northern Ireland exiting with a devolved Parliament within a United Ireland but there won't be a Parliament in the other provinces. There's no appetite for regional autonomy in Ireland and adding another useless layer to government would cost tax payers money.

fiachr_a

funkey_monkey wrote: »

If Northern Ireland had a referendum on reunification with the Republic, would a Yes result mean that the RoI would then have to have a referendum on accepting us or would the Gov make the decision themselves?

There's no constitutional claim over NI so a referendum would be needed.

DarkyHughes

A United Ireland would mean a lot to me but Loyalists up there will have to change their ways before any civilized state wants them. Most British people I know would hate to have them in mainland Britain.

Thomas_.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

A United Ireland would mean a lot to me but Loyalists up there will have to change their ways before any civilized state wants them. Most British people I know would hate to have them in mainland Britain.

How many of them actually know any single Loyalist from NI at all. I´m just wondering whether this statement of them is based on personal experiences or just as it is common, on prejudice and the media.

alaimacerc

DarkyHughes wrote: »

A United Ireland would mean a lot to me but Loyalists up there will have to change their ways before any civilized state wants them.

Meaning... you want the Fourth Green Field, but you'd like it free of any Orange elements of the populace first?

Delightful.

Willfarman

Reunification implies that there was a United Republic at one time? When was this? Should it the question not state simply "unified"?

PokeHerKing

alaimacerc wrote:

Meaning... you want the Fourth Green Field, but you'd like it free of any Orange elements of the populace first?

alaimacerc wrote:

Delightful.

Just like any immigrant minority in any country, either ship up or ship out.

Crooked Jack

Willfarman wrote: »

Reunification implies that there was a United Republic at one time? When was this? Should it the question not state simply "unified"?

Reunited Ireland. Nobody says reunited republic.

alaimacerc

Irish Rationalist wrote: »

When a majority eventually do vote for reunification in a referendum, a united Ireland shall probably initially take the form of a federal all-Ireland republic, with power being devolved from Dublin and Belfast to the four provinces of Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Dáithí Ó Conaill developed the concept of Eire Nua back in the 70s. Sinn Fein originally adopted it, but then subsequently rejected it on the basis of it providing the Unionist's with too much power in Ulster. I predict Eire Nua, or more likely, a similar devolved federal policy shall re-emerge as a possible model for the new re-united independent Ireland.

When such a majority occurs, it'll be so far off it's impossible to reasonably foresee what form it will eventually take. Certainly that particular one seems in any circumstance vastly unlikely. Just because it's a notional "compromise" between two positions, each acceptable to or desired by many, doesn't mean it's desired by or acceptable to anyone of any significance.

The most interesting thing about Eire Nua is indeed that SF have rejected it. Speaks volumes as to the sincerity of their "Unionist outreach" protestations.

Crooked Jack

alaimacerc wrote: »

When such a majority occurs, it'll be so far off it's impossible to reasonably foresee what form it will eventually take. Certainly that particular one seems in any circumstance vastly unlikely. Just because it's a notional "compromise" between two positions, each acceptable to or desired by many, doesn't mean it's desired by or acceptable to anyone of any significance.

The most interesting thing about Eire Nua is indeed that SF have rejected it. Speaks volumes as to the sincerity of their "Unionist outreach" protestations.

How so? This is a tiny country. Federal parliaments sounds like a nice idea but in practical terms itd be a needless headache. Are they going to have different laws in munster and leinster? Will ulster and connacht have different tax systems? Will someone from dundalk be able to use a hospital in newry? Its nothing to do with unionist out reach, its to do with a workable plan

Willfarman

So in what year were the four provinces of ireland United apart from being United as part of the United Kingdom?

alaimacerc

Crooked Jack wrote: »

How so? This is a tiny country. Federal parliaments sounds like a nice idea but in practical terms itd be a needless headache. Are they going to have different laws in munster and leinster? Will ulster and connacht have different tax systems? Will someone from dundalk be able to use a hospital in newry?

I think that's arguable either way. Are Swiss Cantons infeasibly small? (To say nothing of municipalities there, or in most of the western world, really.) But that wasn't really my point, but rather:

Its nothing to do with unionist out reach, its to do with a workable plan

If only. Republicans clearly proposed it as a very mild sop to Unionist opinion. And then rejected it on the basis that such things weren't the sort of "fourth green field" red meat their base wanted to hear. I see no evidence that "workability" was a real consideration at either point. Who needs to worry about the feasibility of policies that are entirely hypothetical and notional?

Crooked Jack

Willfarman wrote: »

So in what year were the four provinces of ireland United apart from being United as part of the United Kingdom?

Were talking about the Irish nation here, as a distinct cultural entity from Britain. I dont know what date you could put on its beginning but since then. Partition is a relatively recent imposition and has been an abject and demonstrable failure.

Crooked Jack

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think that's arguable either way. Are Swiss Cantons infeasibly small? (To say nothing of municipalities there, or in most of the western world, really.) But that wasn't really my point, but rather:

Is there a similar demand in Irish society for provincial parliaments?

If only. Republicans clearly proposed it as a very mild sop to Unionist opinion. And then rejected it on the basis that such things weren't the sort of "fourth green field" red meat their base wanted to hear. I see no evidence that "workability" was a real consideration at either point. Who needs to worry about the feasibility of policies that are entirely hypothetical and notional?

There's no need for republicans to make "sops" to unionism. The "sop" is that they'll get to live in a truly democratic society founded on equality and justice.

alaimacerc

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Just like any immigrant minority in any country

They should have their rights protected and vindicated against possible majoritarian oppression by all reasonable measures?

either ship up or ship out.

Oh. Even more delightful.

It's absurd to try to justify future persecution of people who've been here for centuries as "immigrants" -- as if that would be justifiable in any other circumstance, which it would not. Especially in a country that's existed for less than one. (Though it'll be longer before this is any sort of politically alive issue, clearly.) It's beyond ridiculous to expound as a political position where one has to persuade (at least some of) these people to vote for unity, just for the sake of vindictive rubbing of hands in prematurely anticipated glee.

"Vote for Irish unity, to get treated like the Roma in Romania!"

alaimacerc

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Is there a similar demand in Irish society for provincial parliaments?

I think you'll find I made that point several posts ago. I'm not sure why you're shadow-boxing against things I've explicitly saying the opposite of. That's not to say it's not feasible, if there were such demand.

There's no need for republicans to make "sops" to unionism. The "sop" is that they'll get to live in a truly democratic society founded on equality and justice.

And how's that working out thus far? The number of Nationalists and Republicans who'd vote for any foreseeable unified settlement is looking modest enough, never mind the number of Unionists.

But the first test for a "concession" is that it actually addresses the desires (or fears) of the people you're supposedly conceding something to. Neither the Eire Nua policy or the current SF one actually troubles to do so. Though the EN one at least gets a small number of points for pretending to try, however cack-handedly.

Crooked Jack

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you'll find I made that point several posts ago. I'm not sure why you're shadow-boxing against things I've explicitly saying the opposite of. That's not to say it's not feasible, if there were such demand.

Feasible, probably, but recommended? Anyway, as you say, there isnt much disagreement on this aspect so not much point in dragging it out.

And how's that working out thus far?

Well, Sinn Fein are the most popular party in ireland at the moment so that's a start.

The number of Nationalists and Republicans who'd vote for any foreseeable unified settlement is looking modest enough, never mind the number of Unionists.

Yeah, those thousands of nationalists who vote Sinn Fein. Oh wait, youre referring to those little Belfast Telegraph and BBC polls with their weighted questions. Oh yeah, theyre much more representative than open elections.

But the first test for a "concession" is that it actually addresses the desires (or fears) of the people you're supposedly conceding something to. Neither the Eire Nua policy or the current SF one actually troubles to do so. Though the EN one at least gets a small number of points for pretending to try, however cack-handedly.

This is the problem with SF discussions on Boards. People make these, to use your parlance, cack handed comments, about things they clearly know little about. Firstly, I fail to see how "equality and justice" leaves anyone with fears but lets look specifically at unionist concerns. Youre obviously unaware of Sinn Fein's unionist outreach officer, or the Uncomfortable conversations initiative. http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/24916

The meetings with english royalty were obviously hugely symbolic and as parades, the most visible form of unionist culture, 99.9% of them go ahead unhindered.

Tell me, what exactly are these fears that have not been addressed? Give me a few examples.

Willfarman

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Were talking about the Irish nation here, as a distinct cultural entity from Britain. I dont know what date you could put on its beginning but since then. Partition is a relatively recent imposition and has been an abject and demonstrable failure.

Cultural and political partition has always been a part of ireland as a geographic entity?? The celts ,the Romans, the Normans,the Vikings ... How is it "reunification".. The only unified ireland that I can find any record of is unified with the United Kingdom. A unified independent republic wiould be a first in the history of the island in my considered view. Rightly or wrongly.

alaimacerc

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Feasible, probably, but recommended? Anyway, as you say, there isnt much disagreement on this aspect so not much point in dragging it out.

Well, "this aspect" was the point I was actually speaking to, but discussion fora go as they will.

The reason it's not "recommended" is precisely because there's no demand for it. If it just so happened that the Unionists in particular or the Nordies in general wanted a federal Ulster Classic(TM) entity, Connacht likewise, and so on, it'd be perfectly doable. There'd be the obvious issue for Leinster being ludicrously oversized and there'd be arguments about Dublin as a separate entity. But that's not an issue with federalism for and Ireland-sized entity as such. It's about the particular subdivision having been dreamt up on the back of a fag packet after a liquid lunch by an entirely unrepresentative handful of Republicans. Under the misapprehension they'd some brilliant wheeze that would appease Unionists and appeal to quaint traditionalism, at the same time.

Well, Sinn Fein are the most popular party in ireland at the moment so that's a start.

Or a crystallisation of the polarised nature of the problem, perhaps. Or indeed, in political reality in every objectively measurable way.

Yeah, those thousands of nationalists who vote Sinn Fein. Oh wait, youre referring to those little Belfast Telegraph and BBC polls with their weighted questions. Oh yeah, theyre much more representative than open elections.

You protest a great deal, without going so far as to claim any actual majority for unification. Or prospects for one. Which indeed there is not. The idea that the polls are "weighted" because they're not asking "would you like to join SF's "real" (i.e., fantasy) Republic, rather than the present or any actually foreseeable one" is pretty silly. Do you really think an actual "border poll" would produce a result wildly out of line with these opinion surveys? And if so what, and on what basis do you think this?

This is the problem with SF discussions on Boards. People make these, to use your parlance, cack handed comments, about things they clearly know little about.

Yes, indeed they do. Especially the people opining about which other people "clearly know little", frankly..

Firstly, I fail to see how "equality and justice" leaves anyone with fears but lets look specifically at unionist concerns.

Because it's an entirely empty phrase. If not an actively hostile one, when it betokens imposition of standards of "equals" and "just" that seem to be code for "we're the masters now".

You can't get there in the abstract just by saying it several times fast. You need structures and processes to deliver these things. And you do that by making concrete finite improvements that build the one on the other, not just by build the support base, extrapolate the demographics, and then vote the straight '70s Utopia Ticket.

Youre obviously unaware of Sinn Fein's unionist outreach officer, or the Uncomfortable conversations initiative. http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/24916

I think the concept you're looking for is "am unimpressed by". Though the latter is hardly likely to run out of material any time soon, given the large swathe of things that Republicans are "uncomfortable" with, that would pass as unremarkable in other quarters.

Tell me, what exactly are these fears that have not been addressed? Give me a few examples.

Don't ask me, ask the people you're supposedly "reaching out to". Your "they'll all be deported, come the new order" colleague is, sadly, a lot more representative of the mood music of Republicanism at large. That there's even a token smattering of "outreach" on top is in and of itself better than nothing, but would be unduly credulous to accept its protestations at face value.

Amprodude

If Northern Ireland reunited would the name of the state change to something like " United Ireland" ? To reunify the Republic and the North under one? Flag would have to change as well and the national anthem. I don't understand why Northern Ireland doesn't have it own unique flag at present I.e representing both nationalist and unionist communities instead of using the union jack in areas.

alaimacerc

Amprodude wrote: »

If Northern Ireland reunited would the name of the state change to something like " United Ireland" ? To reunify the Republic and the North under one? Flag would have to change as well and the national anthem.

It's possible they would, but not inevitable. Perhaps it depends on whether your mental model is "South Africa" or "West Germany". There's also the issue that the RoI's "name" differs from its "official description". Reunification could also opt to consistently go with one, or the other. ("Ireland", or "Republic of Ireland".)

The politics of this are pretty opaque, however. Such measures would be deemed "unnecessary" by most Nationalists, and "insufficient" by Unionists. So in practice they won't even be seriously discussed until "outreach" actually does somewhere, or a UI becomes at least vaguely within hailing distance.

I don't understand why Northern Ireland doesn't have it own unique flag at present I.e representing both nationalist and unionist communities instead of using the union jack in areas.

There's about three flags at present that are variously used in different contexts, but they're all largely rejected by Nationalists, either because of problematic symbology, the "scoping" issue (use of a 9-county Ulster symbol for 6-county NI), or because of rejection of the "partitionist entity" entirely, much less of agreeing iconography for it.

Crooked Jack

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's about three flags at present that are variously used in different contexts, but they're all largely rejected by Nationalists, either because of problematic symbology, the "scoping" issue (use of a 9-county Ulster symbol for 6-county NI), or because of rejection of the "partitionist entity" entirely, much less of agreeing iconography for it.

Exactly! I hate this notion that you could have a new flag for the north and that would somehow be inclusive of republicans/nationalists.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Exactly! I hate this notion that you could have a new flag for the north and that would somehow be inclusive of republicans/nationalists.

And others hate the notion that you could have a new flag for Ireland and that would somehow be inclusive of unionists/loyalists.

We could adopt a variation of the Australian flag with the Union Jack superimposed on a portion of the Irish flag.