Costs of Irish unification.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Up to 1801, the arrangement was similar to what the Free State until it became a Republic. In that time, Ireland fought an economic war with Britain and stayed neutral in WWII. In other words, the Dail did what it liked.

Eh. no it didn't because of the Privy Council of England.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Eh. no it didn't because of the Privy Council of England.

So, what was the function of the Privy Council of Ireland?

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

We were all British, whether you like it or not, and for the most part, we were happy to be British, another uncomfortable truth.

Utter, revisionist, rubbish. We've a long tradition of rebellion against British misrule as conscious members of the Irish nation.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is there a yearning to be part of the UK in that answer? I really don't see how you can give that answer otherwise. There is a strong whiff of triumphalism about it.
There was no difference between somebody in Tyrone and somebody in Clare in identity terms before partition. And no difference now - except among those the statelet of NI was created for.

Ignores reality.

As usual, pointing out hard facts leads to being called a west Brit. For the record I do not seek Ireland's rejoining of the union either. The British seem to have gone crazy of late anyway.

I can honestly say I don't know what the average person was like in either Clare or Tyrone 100 years ago. I'm impressed that you seem to have intimate knowledge of both.

Let's take another example...the border between Catholic Bavaria and Catholic Austria. Across this border they speak the same dialect, equally unintelligible to a Berliner. They have the same customs (Lederhosen and all that typically southern German stuff). They "naturally" belong together but history has seen to it that Bavaria joined the German federation and became part of Germany.

Borders are by their nature artificial constructs. It's silly to single out the Irish border and claim it to be somehow the root of all evil. It's there. It has been there for far longer than many other world borders.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Ignores reality.

As usual, pointing out hard facts leads to being called a west Brit. For the record I do not seek Ireland's rejoining of the union either. The British seem to have gone crazy of late anyway.

I can honestly say I don't know what the average person was like in either Clare or Tyrone 100 years ago. I'm impressed that you seem to have intimate knowledge of both.

Well can you find anyone contemporary to the period who is distinguishing the different regions of Ireland?
That my friend is called research and knowledge of what you are talking about.

Let's take another example...the border between Catholic Bavaria and Catholic Austria. Across this border they speak the same dialect, equally unintelligible to a Berliner. They have the same customs (Lederhosen and all that typically southern German stuff). They "naturally" belong together but history has seen to it that Bavaria joined the German federation and became part of Germany.

Borders are by their nature artificial constructs. It's silly to single out the Irish border and claim it to be somehow the root of all evil. It's there. It has been there for far longer than many other world borders.

Yet when the border is reduced to almost invisibility, conflict becomes almost, but not quite invisible.
When somebody threatens to re-impose it, there is panic at governmental level and European level to stop it?

But you maintain that it has no impact or effect?

Again I think your researches should include a look at the difference between 'divided' and 'partitioned'
India was 'partitioned' as was Palestine as was Rwanda (other peaceful spots where partition had no effect either, eh?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well can you find anyone contemporary to the period who is distinguishing the different regions of Ireland?
That my friend is called research and knowledge of what you are talking about.



Yet when the border is reduced to almost invisibility, conflict becomes almost, but not quite invisible.
When somebody threatens to re-impose it, there is panic at governmental level and European level to stop it?

But you maintain that it has no impact or effect?

Again I think your researches should include a look at the difference between 'divided' and 'partitioned'
India was 'partitioned' as was Palestine as was Rwanda (other peaceful spots where partition had no effect either, eh?

Division and partition are the same. At some point in history the people living in what is now Bavaria and Austria were living alongside each other until some Dukes decided a line should be drawn along a given stream and whoosh...they were divided/partitioned from each other.

The border may well yet remain invisible. I suspect it will, through the UK essentially staying in the single market and customs union.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Division and partition are the same. At some point in history the people living in what is now Bavaria and Austria were living alongside each other until some Dukes decided a line should be drawn along a given stream and whoosh...they were divided/partitioned from each other.

The border between Bavaria and Austria (Tyrol) follows the River Inn, which is a bit more than a stream. In fact, Marktl, better known as the birth place of Pope Benedict, didn't get its first concrete bridge across the river until the 1920s. The rest of the border between Germany and Austria is through a mountainerous area which would be sparsely populated anyway if at all.

By the way, there is no love lost between the Tyrol and Bavaria. Briefly, the Tyrol was ceded to Bavaria in 1805 (after the Napoleon wars) and occupied by the Bavarians & French until the Congress of Vienna in 1814 when it was reintegrated into the Austrian Empire. If the Tyroleans have a beef with anyone over their territory, its with Italy.

edit: while looking up the situation nowadays about the South Tyrol border problem, I came across this article in the Guardian. Worth noting the final paragraph in the article:

"Bolzano's just one of the many cases in Italy of language and identity clashes in border cities,"Brunazzo says. "Europe's state-building has been continuous over the last centuries but if borders can easily be changed identity cannot".

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/30/south-tyrol-live-in-italy-feel-austrian

oscarBravo

jm08 wrote: »

The border between Bavaria and Austria (Tyrol) follows the River Inn, which is a bit more than a stream.

There's something truly bizarre about this obsession with "natural" borders.

Yes, the border between Germany and Austria follows a number of rivers, except where it doesn't. In the same way, the border between Scotland and England follows rivers, except where it doesn't. There are also a great many rivers that don't form borders at all.

Artificial borders between nation-states often take advantage of convenient natural features. That doesn't make those borders natural. The absence of one continuous river conveniently bordering Northern Ireland doesn't make Ireland "naturally" a single country; it's just another example of people arguing from their conclusion. The absence of a "natural" border between Scotland and England doesn't seem to inhibit many of the same people arguing for Irish unity equally arguing for Scottish independence.

I wish people wouldn't be so transparently intellectually dishonest in their arguments. If the best rationale you can come up with for Irish unity is that it's "natural", that betrays a pretty weak case for it.

Schumi7

It has been a weekly habit of mine for some time now to peruse some of the topics on Boards.ie, but I haven't felt compelled to post until now. Rather than responding to an individual post I thought it better to posit my general thoughts.

I’ve followed with interest a number of recent threads concerning 'Northern Ireland' that have appeared since the Brexit vote; from an inquiry into a ‘Northern Irish’ identity, to the latest Lucid Talk opinion poll result concerning a United Ireland and finally this one regarding the potential cost of said endeavour. And...as nearly every discussion concerning the politics of Northern Ireland, on any forum I have ever visited, eventually ends up like this one currently has I felt this was as good a time as any for my debut post.

So, by way of introduction, I’m entering my late 30's and have lived in the North, or Northern Ireland for those of you who think the North betrays a particular political sympathy, for the majority of my life bar 5 years as a kid in Dublin in the late '80s and early ‘90s. I come from what would be regarded as a middle class family, although each parent came from modest homes, and have voted for the SDLP in every election to date since I became eligible to vote, with SF receiving a 2nd preference in most Assembly elections and Greens and Alliance, if standing, coming after. If however, I still lived in my old constituency of Fermanagh & South Tyrone I would give SF my vote in Westminster elections given the particular dynamic that exists there.

With that out of the way, my main purpose in posting this is to perhaps reset the thread and then address some of the ignorance on Northern matters that has been on display. Or perhaps it would be better to say an ignorance of Northern matters concerning nationalists. Terming it ignorance is probably being kind. That said I will steer clear of indulging the forays others have made into a kind of counterfactual history and revisionism, together with the sophistry and straw men that arise from it. One poster engaged in ‘othering’ the Irish in the North/NI which went a long way in explaining his/her offerings. I don’t want to digress too much at this stage but all I will say is that I’m glad said poster lives in Germany.

In an effort to reset the thread - it aimed to discuss the potential cost of reunification. Let’s take as the starting point the assumption that the majority of voters in the North have voted for ‘unity’ thus triggering the constitutional obligation for the South to have it’s own referendum; the result of which will either validate or reject the Northern result. Before contemplating the monetary cost and benefits of unification, I would ask and even implore the Southern voter to first contemplate the human cost that a No result would have on the likes of myself - your fellow countryman in the North.

Before I continue I have to be honest and say that I have never considered such a thing, the reason being that it has never entered my mind as even a remote possibility. In keeping with that honesty I must admit that the prospect of it…even seeing it discussed in this thread…gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I mentioned it to family and friends (nationalist friends) over the past week and the reaction was both unsurprising and universal. The initial response was the same as mine - dismissive of the prospect. Further inquiry into how they would feel was…yet again…the same as mine - a feeling of utter devastation. It’s hard to convey the horror of this for those of us in the North, and I don’t use the word horror lightly or for dramatic effect, but as a suitable descriptor because to put it bluntly a No result would effectively make nationalists (i.e Irish people in the North) refugees in their own country. Perhaps it’s best to just let that sink in…

Without getting into the current political impasse in NI I’ll go back to the Agreement itself, as a lot of people misunderstand its nature. The source of the Assembly and the Executive, the Good Friday Agreement was designed not to engineer prosperity and efficient governance, but to facilitate an armed truce between two factions that had fought themselves (and much of Northern Ireland) to a standstill.

Effective governance requires the consent of the governed, tacit or explicit. In Northern Ireland, that consent has obviously been complicated by the fact that the governed have been divided into two ethno-nationalist groups with different political identities and aspirations, and with a fear of being oppressed by the other. The solution to this problem was the establishment of institutions with a series of significant safeguards built in to allow the majorities of both groups to feel secure and to “buy in” to the settlement.

These safeguards in the Agreement of 1998 were central to it as the Assembly and Executive operate through a consociational model which secures participation in government (or at least guarantees the option of participation) from all significant sections of the population. It has to be understood however that these ‘constitutional’ arrangements run counter to normative expectations of what good government looks like since there is a propensity to measure the effectiveness of the Stormont institutions through the lens of the efficient constitutional arrangements in Westminster or the Dail. So people must be careful of the metric they’re using as measurement of its fitness.

As a rule a system with so many checks and balances and with so many actors having a role in shaping legislation and the performance of executive functions cannot be assessed in the same way as so-called normal style politics. It cannot be measured by the clarity or coherence of a singular vision for the future. Perhaps that can be used as a frame of reference from now on.

Junkyard Tom

Schumi7 wrote: »

I would ask and even implore the Southern voter to first contemplate the human cost that a No result would have on the likes of myself - your fellow countryman in the North.

If I may, I would ask you to consider that the small hardcore of reflexively anti-UI posters on boards most definitely do not represent the wider population.

In the 1980's, during the troubles, the number of those polled against a UI was 16% and that had fallen to only 8% after the GFA. Pro-UI support is on the rise in the younger population.

A recent poll has 60% in favour of a UI even with an large economic burden, a burden that will not fall on Dublin alone despite the scaremongering of those reflexively against a UI.

PeadarCo

Junkyard Tom wrote:

A recent poll has 60% in favour of a UI even with an large economic burden, a burden that will not fall on Dublin alone despite the scaremongering of those reflexively against a UI.

The thing is support for a united Ireland is very soft. No party in the Dail actively using the idea on the campaign trail. Even Sinn Fein beef up there socialist and not FG/FF credentials before a united Ireland is mentioned. SF, FG, and FF always will say they want a united Ireland but in the republic anyway don't campaign on that ideal(there would be backlash if they came out against). Most people in the republic would like a united Ireland but consider there to be more important things to worry about. Even on this thread no one has come out against a united Ireland its largely been around the timing.

A good comparison in polls is to look at support for the Irish language. Most people say they would like to keep it alive. But only a small minority actually follow through on that and speak it on a daily basis. People will support it as long as it doesn't cost them anything personally. The united Ireland position isn't that different from my point of view given the only vague mention of it in elections is in relation to the IRA which is used to bash SF. At the moment FF and FG won't go into coalition with SF never mind unionists.

murphaph

This poster may live in Germany but if, when the time comes, voting in referendums is still disallowed to Irish citizens abroad then he will just return home to cast his ballot. Either for or against a UI depending on the circumstances at the time.

Peadar sums up my feelings well on the rest of the post so I won't repeat his words.

FrancieBrady

Before I continue I have to be honest and say that I have never considered such a thing, the reason being that it has never entered my mind as even a remote possibility. In keeping with that honesty I must admit that the prospect of it…even seeing it discussed in this thread…gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I mentioned it to family and friends (nationalist friends) over the past week and the reaction was both unsurprising and universal. The initial response was the same as mine - dismissive of the prospect. Further inquiry into how they would feel was…yet again…the same as mine - a feeling of utter devastation. It’s hard to convey the horror of this for those of us in the North, and I don’t use the word horror lightly or for dramatic effect, but as a suitable descriptor because to put it bluntly a No result would effectively make nationalists (i.e Irish people in the North) refugees in their own country. Perhaps it’s best to just let that sink in…

The danger with Boards scaremongering is that people like you will get the wrong impression as it is designed to do that and to attempt to stop the discussion/debate from getting to the above stage.
There is nothing in reality to suggest that the majority in southern Ireland will be selfish come a vote.
It will be about more than economics because life is about more than economics.
You will always hear the cry 'it's about the economy stupid' when arguments like the above cannot be countered.

There are very few people in the south who see the people of northern Ireland as 'other' and that includes those of a moderate Unionist background.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing is support for a united Ireland is very soft. No party in the Dail actively using the idea on the campaign trail. Even Sinn Fein beef up there socialist and not FG/FF credentials before a united Ireland is mentioned. SF, FG, and FF always will say they want a united Ireland but in the republic anyway don't campaign on that ideal(there would be backlash if they came out against). Most people in the republic would like a united Ireland but consider there to be more important things to worry about. Even on this thread no one has come out against a united Ireland its largely been around the timing.

A good comparison in polls is to look at support for the Irish language. Most people say they would like to keep it alive. But only a small minority actually follow through on that and speak it on a daily basis. People will support it as long as it doesn't cost them anything personally. The united Ireland position isn't that different from my point of view given the only vague mention of it in elections is in relation to the IRA which is used to bash SF. At the moment FF and FG won't go into coalition with SF never mind unionists.

It is not used on the campaign trail because it isn't as yet on the agenda. If Brexit does anything like the damage predicted you can expect to see it on the agenda though, with Leo recently it seems that it has risen way up there already and Brexit hasn't even happened yet and northern Ireland/hard soft border tranche of it is not settled yet either.

And the 'Irish language' does cost the taxpayer money just as health, water, roads and social welfare does. Where do complaints about the money spent on it come on the above list?

Schumi7

murphaph wrote: »

This poster may live in Germany but if, when the time comes, voting in referendums is still disallowed to Irish citizens abroad then he will just return home to cast his ballot. Either for or against a UI depending on the circumstances at the time.

Peadar sums up my feelings well on the rest of the post so I won't repeat his words.

Taking this at face value - if your vote depends entirely on the circumstances at the time, all I will say is that I hope you would perhaps take some cognisance of the very real affect that a rejection of the Northern result would have on Irish people in the North.

Schumi7

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If I may, I would ask you to consider that the small hardcore of reflexively anti-UI posters on boards most definitely do not represent the wider population.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The danger with Boards scaremongering is that people like you will get the wrong impression as it is designed to do that and to attempt to stop the discussion/debate from getting to the above stage.
There is nothing in reality to suggest that the majority in southern Ireland will be selfish come a vote.

Hello Tom and Francie & thanks for replying.

There's no need to worry either, I'm well aware that those views I referenced are not reflective of the wider population. It's a general rule that one must apply to forums anyway. I was just putting forward my view in a general sense to anyone reading the thread, or who may read it in future and manages to make it to page 47, rather than to specific posters. Thanks again.

murphaph

Schumi7 wrote: »

Taking this at face value - if your vote depends entirely on the circumstances at the time, all I will say is that I hope you would perhaps take some cognisance of the very real affect that a rejection of the Northern result would have on Irish people in the North.

Nationalists have the biggest role to play. If they can't convince at least half the traditional unionists and the nominally nationalist public servants who would be unemployed in a UI that a UI could actually work for them too then I'd reject it myself.

Simply waiting for demographics to change enough is a bad strategy.

I'll be basing my vote on cold hard reality. If I think a UI is going to damage the country I grew up in I'll reject it.

At the moment I would definitely reject it. The bickering alone between orange and green would be enough to put me off the idea completely.

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

And the 'Irish language' does cost the taxpayer money just as health, water, roads and social welfare does. Where do complaints about the money spent on it come on the above list?

If ever listen to debates on education particularly in relation to the need to improve Irish people's foreign language skills the time spent on Irish does crop up.

In relation to stuff like healthcare, social welfare etc Irish people give out constantly. Its bread and butter politics. Its what elections in the republic are fought over.


Just to point out I would ideally like to see a united Ireland and would want it to be a success. As has been mentioned already 40% would oppose a united Ireland if it cost 9 billion( other polls have an even higher rejection rate). I would consider that surprisingly high. It would be interesting to see a poll that asked what amount of disposable income people would sacrifice and what the results be(genuine question has one been done before?). If a united Ireland is on the agenda all the arguments you see here in relation to costs, potential increase in terrorism etc are going to come out of the woodwork. They won't be waved away. Better prepare for those arguments now. If a united Ireland referendum is rejected(remember everyone thought the UK wouldn't vote for Brexit) it would be a massive setback for that ideal.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Nationalists have the biggest role to play. If they can't convince at least half the traditional unionists and the nominally nationalist public servants who would be unemployed in a UI that a UI could actually work for them too then I'd reject it myself.

Simply waiting for demographics to change enough is a bad strategy.

I'll be basing my vote on cold hard reality. If I think a UI is going to damage the country I grew up in I'll reject it.

At the moment I would definitely reject it. The bickering alone between orange and green would be enough to put me off the idea completely.

Changing the goalposts is not going to work one iota here.

Unionists as well as nationalists agreed to implement the GFA (bar some DUP who whinged a bit but who implemented it in reality.)

If there is majority support for a UI then it has to be legislated for and supported by Irish and British interests.

You cannot raise the ante just because you are getting sweaty about it happening.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

If ever listen to debates on education particularly in relation to the need to improve Irish people's foreign language skills the time spent on Irish does crop up.

In relation to stuff like healthcare, social welfare etc Irish people give out constantly. Its bread and butter politics. Its what elections in the republic are fought over.


Just to point out I would ideally like to see a united Ireland and would want it to be a success. As has been mentioned already 40% would oppose a united Ireland if it cost 9 billion( other polls have an even higher rejection rate). I would consider that surprisingly high. It would be interesting to see a poll that asked what amount of disposable income people would sacrifice and what the results be(genuine question has one been done before?). If a united Ireland is on the agenda all the arguments you see here in relation to costs, potential increase in terrorism etc are going to come out of the woodwork. They won't be waved away. Better prepare for those arguments now. If a united Ireland referendum is rejected(remember everyone thought the UK wouldn't vote for Brexit) it would be a massive setback for that ideal.

To be honest, I think wise counsel would be to treat any poll before a full, transparent debate with the experts (not random agenda laden interneters) with a great degree of care.

And there will always be debate in education about how money is allocated to different spheres. It was 'computer studies' neglect in my time at college.

oscarBravo

Schumi7 wrote: »

Taking this at face value - if your vote depends entirely on the circumstances at the time, all I will say is that I hope you would perhaps take some cognisance of the very real affect that a rejection of the Northern result would have on Irish people in the North.

Isn't it also fair to take cognisance of the very real effect that a vote for unification would have on British people in Northern Ireland?

For that matter, when the time comes for a vote in Northern Ireland, will you be taking cognisance of the very real effect that a vote for unification would have on the Republic?


I don't yet know which way I'd vote when the time comes, but my vote will be informed by many factors, including the ramifications of importing "an armed truce between two factions that had fought themselves (and much of Northern Ireland) to a standstill" into my country.

If you want my vote, it would help to demonstrate an ability to move beyond that state of affairs. And if, like so many of your fellow-travellers on this thread, all you can do is blame it on "themmuns", you won't be helping.

CelticRambler

murphaph wrote: »

Let's take another example...the border between Catholic Bavaria and Catholic Austria. Across this border they speak the same dialect, equally unintelligible to a Berliner. They have the same customs (Lederhosen and all that typically southern German stuff). They "naturally" belong together but history has seen to it that Bavaria joined the German federation and became part of Germany.

Interesting choice of example, given that the Catholicism of that part of Europe, and the Allemanic (not Germanic) traditions arising therefrom, was established by Irish monks from Ulster. The glory days of the Irish Empire!

Just sayin' ...

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Isn't it also fair to take cognisance of the very real effect that a vote for unification would have on British people in Northern Ireland?

For that matter, when the time comes for a vote in Northern Ireland, will you be taking cognisance of the very real effect that a vote for unification would have on the Republic?


I don't yet know which way I'd vote when the time comes, but my vote will be informed by many factors, including the ramifications of importing "an armed truce between two factions that had fought themselves (and much of Northern Ireland) to a standstill" into my country.

If you want my vote, it would help to demonstrate an ability to move beyond that state of affairs. And if, like so many of your fellow-travellers on this thread, all you can do is blame it on "themmuns", you won't be helping.

Objects to people apportioning blame - then apportions some blame him/herself.


The GFA rendered identities in northern Ireland as equal (that was the very real victory for nationalists)

If there is a border poll the majority vote decides.
If it is just 51% in favour of staying in the UK would nationalists be allowed to say 'ah well, that isn't enough'.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Objects to people apportioning blame - then apportions some blame him/herself.


The GFA rendered identities in northern Ireland as equal (that was the very real victory for nationalists)

If there is a border poll the majority vote decides.
If it is just 51% in favour of staying in the UK would nationalists be allowed to say 'ah well, that isn't enough'.

I can't see how a single word of that is in any way a reply to what it quotes.

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

To be honest, I think wise counsel would be to treat any poll before a full, transparent debate with the experts (not random agenda laden interneters) with a great degree of care.

To be honest I think if there ever is a referendum I think pretty much every argument thats on this thread and more will be put forward. There are no random agendas on this thread so I don't know what you are referring to. Just because a person has a different opinion does not mean they have an "agenda" anymore than you do.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't see how a single word of that is in any way a reply to what it quotes.

The first sentence of it relates to your post.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be honest I think if there ever is a referendum I think pretty much every argument thats on this thread and more will be put forward. There are no random agendas on this thread so I don't know what you are referring to. Just because a person has a different opinion does not mean they have an "agenda" anymore than you do.

Beware the 'I would love a UI but...' style arguments. You will find with some of those posters there will be always be a 'but'. Until the cows come home to the four green fields they'll be 'but'ting, so to speak.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The first sentence of it relates to your post.

It refers to it, but it seems to be based on something you've decided I meant as opposed to anything I wrote.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Beware the 'I would love a UI but...' style arguments.

Yes, beware of them. They are immune to the dogma that states that desire for a UI must be unconditional and unquestioning.

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

Beware the 'I would love a UI but...' style arguments. You will find with some of those posters there will be always be a 'but'. Until the cows come home to the four green fields they'll be 'but'ting, so to speak.

And what's wrong with that? People are allowed to have different opinions. Some people are for a united Ireland others opposed and there's a whole pile of opinion in between.