Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Reunification Question
Options
Comments
-
PokeHerKing wrote: »Just like any immigrant minority in any country, either ship up or ship out.
"Imigrant minority"???
They've been there for five hundred years...0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Reunited Ireland. Nobody says reunited republic.
Ireland was never united in the first place. It was a collection of individual tribal kingdoms.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Were talking about the Irish nation here, as a distinct cultural entity from Britain. .
That's not the same as a united Ireland. We are still a different cultural entity. But we have never been a politically united country.0 -
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.
There's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.
Australia is still a dominion of the UK, the queen of England is their head of state. We are a sovereign independent country.0 -
In common with many topics on this thread, then.There's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.Australia is still a dominion of the UK, the queen of England is their head of state. We are a sovereign independent country.
Australia is also a sovereign independent country. Dominion status ended in 1953 -- you must not be getting all your memos! </RichardDeanAnderson> Australia and the UK (there is no "Queen of England" -- there's not an English government of any sort, come to that) share the same monarch, that's all.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Indeed not. It'd be something to be contemplated only once they'd exhausted every other possible alternative. For the foreseeable future, I expect them to go to pretty extreme lengths to even avoid coalition -- much less merger -- as that would very likely entail many of the same negative consequences.If they would merge into a new Conservative Party in Ireland, it might put the Claim of being Republican off the centre because every old Party, even the Labour Party, sees itself in the Irish republican tradition, the hub from which they either emerged or always have been part of it. It would lead to a more common left-centre-right scheme in parliamentarian politics. Same as in many European countries. For the time being, it doesn´t seem as if they would take up such a thought.
Never heard of them -- does that measure their impact since they were set up? If FG were ever to catch a coherent ideology, or set of policy ideas, would they even know what to do with it? Nice trippy green mandala, though (if you ignore the distracting and meaningless slogans daubed across it.http://www.collinsinstitute.ie/
Having read what this Institute is all about, it doesn´t Sound that unattractive imo. It´s a mixture of conservative and social democratic principles and suggestions how to make things better.
Of course they are. A conservative party for a deeply conservative electorate. Hence the need to a more hypobolical insult for their political opponents -- especially for those that are just as conservative, or indeed keen to deflect from their own tactics' resemblance to fascism's. Though of course that's what the nasty UK party is called, so you'd think it was good for a jibe on that score, at least.I don´t share this stupid labelling of FGers as being "fascists". I see them just as Conservatives, nothing more.
Possibly. I'm not sure their European affiliation has any more significance than where their Drunkard's Walk has taken them to for the time being.FF gets the lot of the buckets and if it wasn´t for their republican traditions, as they see themselves to be rooted in, they would be more like a Party that serves the interests of interpreneurs and the rich. More like the LibDems in GB.
These rightist groups are amazingly unstable, though. The pretty-far-right don't want to associated with the slightly-more-far-right. And if you're trading on xenophobia, there's little play to be had from palling around with foreigners... who just happen to hate other foreigners. Likely including you, to some extent. Hence these tend to bump along the minimum qualifying criteria for a while, then split apart and reform as something slightly different.This might change for the worse in case more representatives from far-right extremist parties get elected to the EP.
Very little. It's mainly a sliding scale of denial of the political facts. At one extreme you have the remnants of physical force Republicanism; then there's the non-violent Legitimatists, who have the same dogma, just a different strategy; then you have the "ship out", "greening of the north" types; then you have the people that claim to suypport the GFA, but say NI is still somehow "illegitimate" anyway -- which I can't make any sense of; then there's the people who can't quite bring themselves to refer to either jurisdiction by its official, preferred name. Eventually you get down to people in FF for whom it's just the lineage from their great-grandfather, a tagline on their party, something to write snotty letters to the British Embassy regarding, and a way to feel vaguely more "patriotic" than FG.I don´t doubt FF´s republican Tradition. The Thing is just, what does it mean to be a Republican These days apart from being in a somewhat republican Tradition that is equal to that of SF, Éirígí, RSF, 1916Societies etc..
I think it's very different for people who got rid of their monarchy centuries ago, or whose "domestic" rulers were gotten ridden in circumstances that were either relatively civilised, or just plain overshadowed by other events. Clearly in Ireland the circumstances were very different, and relatively recent, too.I wonder, isn´t it quite normal to be a republican when living in a Republic and supporting that State which is the present Republic of Ireland? Most other European People within the EU live in a Republic, yet their Republicanism isn´t comparable to that of Irish Republicanism which you find among those who label themselves as "Republicans". The link to the revolutionary period in modern Irish history makes it that different because it has some link to a kind of militarism that goes with it.
Very clearly not. As I think I mentioned earlier, the GP is organised on an all-Ireland basis in a manner designed to mirror the GFA dispensation. Not to cherrypick it.Would you think that someone who is a member of the Green Party of Ireland would see himself in the same tradition like the Shinners and other "traditional" Republicans see themselves?
And there's more of the Orange ones that are just gratuitously, stupidly obnoxious to the neighbourhoods they march through -- for whatever reason or combination of reasons that is, exactly. There's more in total, so you get more "bad outliers" just because of expected variation in idiocy? Cycles of antagonism with residents? PUL are inherently worse people than CNR? Doubtless there's a QUB master's dissertation in this at the least.There are more complaints and reports about Ulster Protestant Bands marching and the OO than there are of Republican ones. But besides the variety in the numbers of marches on each side, they both march.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Im making the totally unreasonable request for proof because no link was provided, i certainly couldnt find anything googling it, it's completely out of step with anything else Adams has said and with republican thinking and then there's the small matter of that particular poster being, how should i put this without getting another warning...unreliable at best.
It's a reasonable request as such, sure. What's a bit more striking, though, is the "OMG, you didn't call him a liar and demand cast-iron proof, totally showing your bias there!" gloss you're putting on it.
I too googled it at the time, and likewise couldn't find anything. So far, so equally skeptical, it seems. I think where we part company is that you assume this is "out of step with Republican thinking", and hence dismiss it as an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. Whereas frankly, given the "Republican thinking" in the '80s was all about the bombing and the shooting, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to throw in a mention of ferries. Not to mention the context of, lest we forget, having gotten onto this subject from someone here having made a very similar remark. And you, the contributor of the very next post, saying not a thing about it.
Precisely whose biases is this really more revealing of?0 -
-
Ireland was never united in the first place. It was a collection of individual tribal kingdoms.
There was the revolutionary state called the Irish Republic from 1919 - 1922 that claimed all of the island & was able to enforce a lot of it's decisions in most of the country & was partially recognized. Plus the Irish Free State was united for about 36 hours before the North decided to opt of that state.0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »By that criteria Ireland will never be a unified nation.
As to the point? There is none but some people get their panties in a twist over this crap.
I think katydid is wrong it would be a united nation. But if we can't be a united nation ever I'd rather join the North & be a part of the UK. I don't like the thought of my fellow countrymen being isolated in state they have no desire to be apart of.0 -
It wouldn't be a united nation if one part of it was treated differently and had its own parliament or special political conditions.DarkyHughes wrote: »I think katydid is wrong it would be a united nation. But if we can't be a united nation ever I'd rather join the North & be a part of the UK. I don't like the thought of my fellow countrymen being isolated in state they have no desire to be apart of.
You'd rather join the UK and be a subject of her majesty than be a proud citizen of a republic? Hmmm.0 -
It wouldn't be a united nation if one part of it was treated differently and had its own parliament or special political conditions.
You'd rather join the UK and be a subject of her majesty than be a proud citizen of a republic? Hmmm.
The UK is a United nation & different parts of it have their own parliaments with different political conditions.
I wouldn't rather it but I'd sacrifice myself for the oppressed minorities in places like Tyrone, Derry, West Belfast, Fermanagh & South Armagh who did so much to win their freedom & to become apart of this Republic which doesn't seem to care about those people who were so loyal to this country like the Armagh Sniper (forget American Sniper) did so much for the freedom of this whole island & this state treated them like subversives. If all my countrymen & women can't enjoy freedom then I don't want it without them.0 -
Leaving aside Northern Ireland, the UK is comprised of THREE countries. Each of those is a nation in itself, and are held together by their connection to the monarchy. It's not a united country, it's a united KINGDOM. The recent referendum in Scotland shows how precarious that union is.DarkyHughes wrote: »The UK is a United nation & different parts of it have their own parliaments with different political conditions.
I wouldn't rather it but I'd sacrifice myself for the oppressed minorities in places like Tyrone, Derry, West Belfast, Fermanagh & South Armagh who did so much to win their freedom & to become apart of this Republic which doesn't seem to care about those people who were so loyal to this country like the Armagh Sniper (forget American Sniper) did so much for the freedom of this whole island & this state treated them like subversives. If all my countrymen & women can't enjoy freedom then I don't want it without them.
Ireland is one country, not two. If we want a united Ireland, we can't have different conditions in one part of the country than everywhere else. As long as they need their own parliament and special political arrangements in Northern Ireland, they are not ready to join our sovereign republic. You might want to make some kind of noble sacrifice and become a subject of the British monarch, but I don't think your attitude would have much support in this republic. If people in Fermanagh or wherever want to live in a republic, they are free to move here.
The reality is they will never be ready and it will never happen, so this is just idle talk anyway.0 -
That's quite the jumble of assertions, isn't it? Do you have any particular procedure to determine "country-ness"? We're perilously close to Stephen Colbert territory here, I fancy.Leaving aside Northern Ireland, the UK is comprised of THREE countries. Each of those is a nation in itself, and are held together by their connection to the monarchy. It's not a united country, it's a united KINGDOM. The recent referendum in Scotland shows how precarious that union is.
Ireland is one country, not two.
Also, they're not "connected via the monarchy". Unlike the commonwealth realms (see my earlier reply to "Australia is a dominion"), they're all in the same single, essentially unitary, state. The monarch just has one title for the UK: to wit, being queen of it. (And separately, of Canada, Belize, etc.) A kingdom is, after all, a type of country, not some mysteriously disjoint concept.
... says who? Lots of countries have regions with "special political arrangements". Are you going to tell me that China and Belgium aren't countries, either? Bosnia "wasn't ready" to be a single country, so should have killed a few hundred thousand more people until they decided they were, with none of this namby-pamby "own parliament" stuff?If we want a united Ireland, we can't have different conditions in one part of the country than everywhere else. As long as they need their own parliament and special political arrangements in Northern Ireland, they are not ready to join our sovereign republic.
There's nothing to preclude such solutions in Ireland. Equally, they're moot at the moment, because Unionists don't want them, and Republicans are too stiff-necked to even contemplate "concessions" or "compromises". Or at least, don't want to sell the pass ahead of any actual negotiations, which could be a long, long way away.0 -
... says who? Lots of countries have regions with "special political arrangements". Are you going to tell me that China and Belgium aren't countries, either? Bosnia "wasn't ready" to be a single country, so should have killed a few hundred thousand more people until they decided they were, with none of this namby-pamby "own parliament" stuff?alaimacerc wrote: »That's quite the jumble of assertions, isn't it? Do you have any particular procedure to determine "country-ness"? We're perilously close to Stephen Colbert territory here, I fancy.
Also, they're not "connected via the monarchy". Unlike the commonwealth realms (see my earlier reply to "Australia is a dominion"), they're all in the same single, essentially unitary, state. The monarch just has one title for the UK: to wit, being queen of it. (And separately, of Canada, Belize, etc.) A kingdom is, after all, a type of country, not some mysteriously disjoint concept.
[quite]If we want a united Ireland, we can't have different conditions in one part of the country than everywhere else. As long as they need their own parliament and special political arrangements in Northern Ireland, they are not ready to join our sovereign republic.
There's nothing to preclude such solutions in Ireland. Equally, they're moot at the moment, because Unionists don't want them, and Republicans are too stiff-necked to even contemplate "concessions" or "compromises". Or at least, don't want to sell the pass ahead of any actual negotiations, which could be a long, long way away.[/QUOTE]
sensible post0 -
sensible post[/QUOTE]... says who? Lots of countries have regions with "special political arrangements". Are you going to tell me that China and Belgium aren't countries, either? Bosnia "wasn't ready" to be a single country, so should have killed a few hundred thousand more people until they decided they were, with none of this namby-pamby "own parliament" stuff?
There's nothing to preclude such solutions in Ireland. Equally, they're moot at the moment, because Unionists don't want them, and Republicans are too stiff-necked to even contemplate "concessions" or "compromises". Or at least, don't want to sell the pass ahead of any actual negotiations, which could be a long, long way away.
We're not "lots of countries". We're Ireland. We don't have special arrangements for Kerry or Donegal or Wexford. Why should we have one for what is now Northern Ireland? I have no interest in being a citizen of a republic where people in one part of the country are treated differently to everyone else; why should we change our political system to suit them?
As you said, it's all moot anyway. The Unionists have no interest in joining with us, and we have no interest in them. And the idea of us re-joining the UK in order to make them happy is absolutely ridiculous and would find no support.0 -
Leaving aside Northern Ireland, the UK is comprised of THREE countries. Each of those is a nation in itself, and are held together by their connection to the monarchy. It's not a united country, it's a united KINGDOM. The recent referendum in Scotland shows how precarious that union is.
Ireland is one country, not two. If we want a united Ireland, we can't have different conditions in one part of the country than everywhere else. As long as they need their own parliament and special political arrangements in Northern Ireland, they are not ready to join our sovereign republic. You might want to make some kind of noble sacrifice and become a subject of the British monarch, but I don't think your attitude would have much support in this republic. If people in Fermanagh or wherever want to live in a republic, they are free to move here.
The reality is they will never be ready and it will never happen, so this is just idle talk anyway.
No reason why Ireland cannot have different conditions in different parts of the country and still be a country. It happens in many parts of the world. In fact as things stand today in the Republic of Ireland we have a system where power is overly centralized within the executive branch of government. Consistently since independance local government has lost more and more power to the central government where to the point now that given the top persons in local government are not elected but appointed officials thus removing decision making from local hands to officials such as the city and county managers who are appointed civil servants and thus answerable to the central government not to the needs of the local population for whom they do though make decisions.0 -
sensible post
We're not "lots of countries". We're Ireland. We don't have special arrangements for Kerry or Donegal or Wexford. Why should we have one for what is now Northern Ireland? I have no interest in being a citizen of a republic where people in one part of the country are treated differently to everyone else; why should we change our political system to suit them?
As you said, it's all moot anyway. The Unionists have no interest in joining with us, and we have no interest in them. And the idea of us re-joining the UK in order to make them happy is absolutely ridiculous and would find no support.[/QUOTE]
No we currently don't have special arrangements for any part of our country and it is a major problem. Our overly contralized system of governmnet does not work well for local needs around the country especially outside the greater Dublin metro area. Real local government and special arrangements to develop our country as a whole are very much needed. Plus there is also the factor that having a system where power resides almost exclusively within the executive branch of government as is the case in Ireland leaves great potential for harm given the lack of checks on the power of the executive.
I would also suggest you speak for yourself instead of using the royal we. I certainly do have a lot of interest in working towards a peaceful prosperous and united Ireland that actually works for all its citizens.0 -
No we currently don't have special arrangements for any part of our country and it is a major problem. Our overly contralized system of governmnet does not work well for local needs around the country especially outside the greater Dublin metro area. Real local government and special arrangements to develop our country as a whole are very much needed. Plus there is also the factor that having a systme where power resides almost exclusively within the executive branch of government as is the case in Ireland leaves great potential for harm given the lack of checks on the power of the executive.
I would also suggest you speak for yourself instead of using the royal we. I certainly do have a lot of interest in working towards a peaceful prosperous and united Ireland that actually works for all its citizens
There is a difference between de-centralisation, which is a good idea, and having one part of the country with a special arrangement in terms of political representation. We don't need regional parliaments in a country of four million people, and we certainly don't need an arrangement where one part of the country is treated differently in regard to how people are elected, just because the two communities there can't see eye to eye.
I am speaking for myself, but I am also reflecting the reality in this country. There are very few people who would contemplate having a two-tier country, or re-entering the UK and becoming subjects of a monarch in order to keep unionists happy. If you think otherwise, you know very little about this proud republic.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is a difference between de-centralisation, which is a good idea, and having one part of the country with a special arrangement in terms of political representation. We don't need regional parliaments in a country of four million people, and we certainly don't need an arrangement where one part of the country is treated differently in regard to how people are elected, just because the two communities there can't see eye to eye.
I am speaking for myself, but I am also reflecting the reality in this country. There are very few people who would contemplate having a two-tier country, or re-entering the UK and becoming subjects of a monarch in order to keep unionists happy. If you think otherwise, you know very little about this proud republic.
Indeed decentralization is a good idea and is something Ireland as a whole needs badly and a whole lot more of.
The population of Ireland is roughly 6.6m not 4m. I would agree we should not have 2 systems of electing representatives. I would keep PR for all elections throughout Ireland.
I am certainly not interested in having a two tiered country at all either. We already have had that in the Republic of Ireland since the state was founded as has been the case in the north. We have very high levels of poverty and for decades have seen thousands forced to emigrate.0 -
Indeed decentralization is a good idea and is something Ireland as a whole needs badly and a whole lot more of.
The population of Ireland is roughly 6.6m not 4m. I would agree we should not have 2 systems of electing representatives. I would keep PR for all elections throughout Ireland.
I am certainly not interested in having a two tiered country at all either. We already have had that in the Republic of Ireland since the state was founded as has been the case in the north. We have very high levels of poverty and for decades have seen thousands forced to emigrate.
Fair enough, six million if you include the North. Smaller than the population of London. We don't need regional parliaments. The only reason it is proposed is to pander to the unique demands of the communities up there.
The proposition here was that the bizarre political arrangement in the North would continue as now.0 -
Fair enough, six million if you include the North. Smaller than the population of London. We don't need regional parliaments. The only reason it is proposed is to pander to the unique demands of the communities up there.
The proposition here was that the bizarre political arrangement in the North would continue as now.
Again the population of Ireland is roughly 6.6m. In terms of how things could be structured politcally I think the key is extensive decentralization to local bodies throughout Ireland that have real powers and real tax bases and thus are in touch with and have to be responsive to the local needs. Beyond that I still have an open mind.0 -
Again the population of Ireland is roughly 6.6m. In terms of how things could be structured politcally I think the key is extensive decentralization to local bodies throughout Ireland that have real powers and real tax bases and thus are in touch with and have to be responsive to the local needs. Beyond that I still have an open mind.
Decentralisation is not the same as having regional parliaments, which is what the poster to whom I replied was suggesting. Regional parliaments, with continuing power sharing in the northern one. We have city councils and county councils, they should have more power.
That has nothing to do with unification.0 -
Decentralisation is not the same as having regional parliaments, which is what the poster to whom I replied was suggesting. Regional parliaments, with continuing power sharing in the northern one. We have city councils and county councils, they should have more power.
That has nothing to do with unification.
It's related, or at least relatable. We have local government that's in too small units, and has too little power, democratic accountability, and responsibilities. The island has a large "region" that sees itself as very different from the other jurisdiction. It's not rocket science to see a way to try to solve both problems with a similar solution.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »It's related, or at least relatable. We have local government that's in too small units, and has too little power, democratic accountability, and responsibilities. The island has a large "region" that sees itself as very different from the other jurisdiction. It's not rocket science to see a way to try to solve both problems with a similar solution.
What we don't need is another layer of government. We need to make the system we have function properly. And we certainly don't need to make an exception for NI. If they want to join us, a normal, functioning democracy, they do it on our terms.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »That's quite the jumble of assertions, isn't it? Do you have any particular procedure to determine "country-ness"? We're perilously close to Stephen Colbert territory here, I fancy.
Also, they're not "connected via the monarchy". Unlike the commonwealth realms (see my earlier reply to "Australia is a dominion"), they're all in the same single, essentially unitary, state. The monarch just has one title for the UK: to wit, being queen of it. (And separately, of Canada, Belize, etc.) A kingdom is, after all, a type of country, not some mysteriously disjoint concept.
... says who? Lots of countries have regions with "special political arrangements". Are you going to tell me that China and Belgium aren't countries, either? Bosnia "wasn't ready" to be a single country, so should have killed a few hundred thousand more people until they decided they were, with none of this namby-pamby "own parliament" stuff?
There's nothing to preclude such solutions in Ireland. Equally, they're moot at the moment, because Unionists don't want them, and Republicans are too stiff-necked to even contemplate "concessions" or "compromises". Or at least, don't want to sell the pass ahead of any actual negotiations, which could be a long, long way away.
Just saw this post now. Sorry for not replying earlier.
Countries - yep, a very difficult thing to define. As a Scotsman if Britain
or the UK is his "country", and you'll get a very clear answer. Especially if he's at a rugby match... :-)
And yes, the countries of the UK are connected via the monarchy. It is the UNITED Kingdom; until the beginning of the 17th century, Scotland was a totally separate kingdom with a different monarch, and for another century or so remained two separate realms with the same monarch (metaphorically wearing two crowns). They have only been united under the one crown since 1707. So what unites them politically is the monarchy. They are nevertheless two very distinct countries/nations or however you describe it.
The point is that we are not. We have nothing whatsoever to do with the British monarchy or indeed any other monarchy. It would be nonsensical and politically impossible for a republic to become part of a kingdom of any kind, united or otherwise.
So no, that option is not on the table. Not even in the room.0 -
Why not? Is Switzerland some sort of over-governed statist nightmare? Having three levels of government would be perfectly normal by international standards. (Cue more scoffing on traditional Irish Exceptionalist grounds.)What we don't need is another layer of government.
Even if for some dogmatic reason one can only have one subsidiary level of government, it's not exactly obvious there's a superb case for that being based on the 30K-odd people in Leitrim and Longform as the fundamental unit.
Sure, let's be ignoring all the evidence that we actually should, and will very likely eventually indeed need to, and let's be stiff-necked about this for no good reason.And we certainly don't need to make an exception for NI.
Well, they don't. And are we? Jury may be out on that, too. And maybe speak for yourself, rather than for everyone else.If they want to join us, a normal, functioning democracy, they do it on our terms.
If there were a referendum process tomorrow, and NI were seeking to negotiate unification on terms of preserving GFA-like institutions in a UI, I think you'll find "our terms" would in fact be perfectly happy with that. (With writing the cheque for their expectations in terms of UK-type public services, maybe not so much.)0 -
You'll get a whole range of answers -- at least away from the rugger (... and football, and the shurling internationals...). There were actual attitude surveys on this in the runup to the indieref (in particular, though before that, too).Countries - yep, a very difficult thing to define. As a Scotsman if Britain
or the UK is his "country", and you'll get a very clear answer. Especially if he's at a rugby match... :-)
And you'll very clearly get a range of opinions on how many "countries" are on the island of Ireland, too.
They're "connected" by forming a single sovereign state. If the UK became a republic tomorrow it would still be a single sovereign state. (Though it might have to hurry along with thinking up a new name.) Other countries, I once again am forced to point out, share the same monarch, and are entirely separate sovereign states.And yes, the countries of the UK are connected via the monarchy.
That's not the "option" I was referring to. You may be conflating with another poster's musings.It would be nonsensical and politically impossible for a republic to become part of a kingdom of any kind, united or otherwise.0 -
Advertisement
-
alaimacerc wrote: »Why not? Is Switzerland some sort of over-governed statist nightmare? Having three levels of government would be perfectly normal by international standards. (Cue more scoffing on traditional Irish Exceptionalist grounds.)
Even if for some dogmatic reason one can only have one subsidiary level of government, it's not exactly obvious there's a superb case for that being based on the 30K-odd people in Leitrim and Longform as the fundamental unit.
Sure, let's be ignoring all the evidence that we actually should, and will very likely eventually indeed need to, and let's be stiff-necked about this for no good reason.
Well, they don't. And are we? Jury may be out on that, too. And maybe speak for yourself, rather than for everyone else.
If there were a referendum process tomorrow, and NI were seeking to negotiate unification on terms of preserving GFA-like institutions in a UI, I think you'll find "our terms" would in fact be perfectly happy with that. (With writing the cheque for their expectations in terms of UK-type public services, maybe not so much.)
The Swiss model is not followed in many other places, because it suits the particular needs of the Swiss, with its different ethnic and linguistic groupings and its particular history. Small countries with small populations and a more or less homogenous culture don't need regional parliaments. There has never been any call for such a thing before, and the only reason it's proposed now is to pander to those of the Unionist tradition, who in any case haven't the slightest intention or wish to be part of any kind of united Ireland independent of Britain.
If you think that there was a snowball's chance in hell of them accepting a united Ireland in a potential referendum, you are deluded.
So what evidence do you offer as to why we should have this extra layer of government for which there is no lobby or evident demand?0
Advertisement