All-New United Ireland Thread

An Ciarraioch

Between Brexit and the current Stormont stand-off, discussion concerning a united Ireland has grown in recent years, and the oncreased likelihood of the election of an SF First Minister in future Stormont elections will only intensify such a debate. So what issues need to be considered?

1. What would the cost of unification be and would the EU subside the adjustment?
2. Would a new Ireland require changes to the national flag and anthem?
3. Should parties in the Republic publish policy papers to prepare for a future referendum?
4. Would unionists be entitled to dual citizenship, and would the question of the Commonwealth re-emerge in that context?
5. Would the national government remain a unitary state, or would a federal government with regional assemblies emerge?
6. Would Southern politicians campaign in an NI referendum, and how can Alliance voters and liberal Protestants be persuaded to vote for unity?

Fr Tod Umptious

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Between Brexit and the current Stormont stand-off, discussion concerning a united Ireland has grown in recent years, and the oncreased likelihood of the election of an SF First Minister in future Stormont elections will only intensify such a debate. So what issues need to be considered?

1. What would the cost of unification be and would the EU subside the adjustment?
2. Would a new Ireland require changes to the national flag and anthem?
3. Should parties in the Republic publish policy papers to prepare for a future referendum?
4. Would unionists be entitled to dual citizenship, and would the question of the Commonwealth re-emerge in that context?
5. Would the national government remain a unitary state, or would a federal government with regional assemblies emerge?
6. Would Southern politicians campaign in an NI referendum, and how can Alliance voters and liberal Protestants be persuaded to vote for unity?

1. Costs would be the current UK government spend on NI plus a lot lot more. Not sure about EU funding, did they help fund German reunification ?

2. probably, if you want to extend a olive branch to those from NI that are against to move, to not do so would be disengenious.

3. Parties should prepare policy papers to set out how a transition to a United Ireland would be managed and how much it would cost.

4. Yes people born in NI before unification should be entitled to dual citizenship, and I'd even extend that to the grandchildren of people born in NI.

5. In the short to medium term some sort of NI assembly should exist, if just to manage the transition alone.

6. Yes southern politicians should campaign and be able to explain to "Alliance and liberal protestant" why a UI would be in thier interest.

Jim2007

You left out one:

- Would Irish people be willing to vote for United Ireland, that would see Irish soldiers being sent home in body bags from NI, because that will be a reality that will have to be addressed.

blanch152

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

1. Costs would be the current UK government spend on NI plus a lot lot more. Not sure about EU funding, did they help fund German reunification ?

2. probably, if you want to extend a olive branch to those from NI that are against to move, to not do so would be disengenious.

3. Parties should prepare policy papers to set out how a transition to a United Ireland would be managed and how much it would cost.

4. Yes people born in NI before unification should be entitled to dual citizenship, and I'd even extend that to the grandchildren of people born in NI.

5. In the short to medium term some sort of NI assembly should exist, if just to manage the transition alone.

6. Yes southern politicians should campaign and be able to explain to "Alliance and liberal protestant" why a UI would be in thier interest.

In terms of your answer to question 4, why should future people born in Northern Ireland be forced to give up their aspiration to be British and have a British passport?

An Ciarraioch

blanch152 wrote: »

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

1. Costs would be the current UK government spend on NI plus a lot lot more. Not sure about EU funding, did they help fund German reunification ?

2. probably, if you want to extend a olive branch to those from NI that are against to move, to not do so would be disengenious.

3. Parties should prepare policy papers to set out how a transition to a United Ireland would be managed and how much it would cost.

4. Yes people born in NI before unification should be entitled to dual citizenship, and I'd even extend that to the grandchildren of people born in NI.

5. In the short to medium term some sort of NI assembly should exist, if just to manage the transition alone.

6. Yes southern politicians should campaign and be able to explain to "Alliance and liberal protestant" why a UI would be in thier interest.

In terms of your answer to question 4, why should future people born in Northern Ireland be forced to give up their aspiration to be British and have a British passport?

Indeed, I'd presume that it would be permanently guaranteed under the GFA, but just wanted that clarified?

blanch152

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Indeed, I'd presume that it would be permanently guaranteed under the GFA, but just wanted that clarified?

I would also assume that it would be open to the people of Northern Ireland to change their mind at a later date and rejoin the UK.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I would also assume that it would be open to the people of Northern Ireland to change their mind at a later date and rejoin the UK.

I would say not. Parts of Munster cannot secede from the state. Once united, it would need be an all Ireland will to join the UK. Unless we are suggesting all former British ruled provinces should have that opportunity? I'd say no.

An Ciarraioch

There's a little-known article in the Constitution (15.2.2), that suggests Dev may very well have had the North in mind back in 1937:

"Provision may however be made by law for the creation or recognition of subordinate legislatures and for the powers and functions of these legislatures".

Fr Tod Umptious

blanch152 wrote: »

In terms of your answer to question 4, why should future people born in Northern Ireland be forced to give up their aspiration to be British and have a British passport?

The grandchildren of people born before reunification would be able to be British citizens.

So if a child is born the minute before reunification their grandchildren would have the automatic right to a UK passport.
That grandchild might not be born for 70 or 80 years after reunification, that's a pretty long time.

Add to that that the UK probably allows citizenship if a parent is a citizen then the children of that grandchild could also be British citizens, and their children and their children etc etc

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would say not. Parts of Munster cannot secede from the state. Once united, it would need be an all Ireland will to join the UK. Unless we are suggesting all former British ruled provinces should have that opportunity? I'd say no.

That would mean that under the GFA we keep having referenda until we get the right answer we want, but then we stop. I don't think so, that isn't bi-partisan, and a new agreement has to continue to recognise the legitimate aspirations of the unionist community to be part of the UK.

blanch152

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The grandchildren of people born before reunification would be able to be British citizens.

So if a child is born the minute before reunification their grandchildren would have the automatic right to a UK passport.
That grandchild might not be born for 70 or 80 years after reunification, that's a pretty long time.

Add to that that the UK probably allows citizenship if a parent is a citizen then the children of that grandchild could also be British citizens, and their children and their children etc etc

Do you not realise the implications of what you are saying - a united Ireland means the complete abolition of unionism as a legitimate political aspiration? Can you imagine the likely reaction?

An Ciarraioch

blanch152 wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would say not. Parts of Munster cannot secede from the state. Once united, it would need be an all Ireland will to join the UK. Unless we are suggesting all former British ruled provinces should have that opportunity? I'd say no.

That would mean that under the GFA we keep having referenda until we get the right answer we want, but then we stop. I don't think so, that isn't bi-partisan, and a new agreement has to continue to recognise the legitimate aspirations of the unionist community to be part of the UK.

In a new Dáil, however, whatever single Protestant party would emerge after unification could very well hold the balance of power after an election - they probably wouldn't want to enter a coalition, but they would have enough clout to secure their interests.

jm08

Jim2007 wrote: »

You left out one:

- Would Irish people be willing to vote for United Ireland, that would see Irish soldiers being sent home in body bags from NI, because that will be a reality that will have to be addressed.

Why would Irish soldiers be sent into Northern Ireland? If peace keeping was required, it should be a UN Peacekeeping one.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

That would mean that under the GFA we keep having referenda until we get the right answer we want, but then we stop. I don't think so, that isn't bi-partisan, and a new agreement has to continue to recognise the legitimate aspirations of the unionist community to be part of the UK.

Surely it should be the same as what happened when ROI became a Free State/Republic? Plenty of southern unionists still living in the Irish State then. I don't think there was any provision made for them.

Fr Tod Umptious

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you not realise the implications of what you are saying - a united Ireland means the complete abolition of unionism as a legitimate political aspiration? Can you imagine the likely reaction?

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with unionism as a political aspiration and would personally be against reunification.

But if it ever came to pass that we had a united Ireland at some stage the idea of automatic dual citizenship based on location of birth would have phased out. Seventy or eighty odd years after unification would be a pretty long phasing out.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Surely it should be the same as what happened when ROI became a Free State/Republic? Plenty of southern unionists still living in the Irish State then. I don't think there was any provision made for them.

Why should it be the same as then?

Unlike then, we have signed an international agreement recognising the legitimate right of people in Northern Ireland to be British.

I mean, we do honour our international agreements?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Why should it be the same as then?

Unlike then, we have signed an international agreement recognising the legitimate right of people in Northern Ireland to be British.

I mean, we do honour our international agreements?

The border was imposed, without a referendum - unlike the potential removal of the border to reunite the island of Ireland.

Its up to the British State to recognise people born in the State of NI as British/offer them continued citizenship. The Irish State can't do that.

funkey_monkey

I live in NI. I feel very aggrieved that we are leaving the EU on the basis of a 52% / 48% result. I feel that in something as important as this for all citizens that a simple majority would not be sufficient.
Therefore, following this train of thought through, the referendum for a United Ireland would also require a similar margin.

Are all referendums a simple majority or is there any precedence for a required winning margin?

Avatar MIA

blanch152 wrote: »

I mean, we do honour our international agreements?

The right to British citizenship is within the gift of the UK government, not the Irish government. Stop trying to build windmills.

Avatar MIA

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Therefore, following this train of thought through, the referendum for a United Ireland would also require a similar margin.

No, for a UI referendum it would be 50% +1 requirement. NI was a gerrymandered state and when a majority want to leave it will be so.



And not including 50% of unionists (which is an impossibility when you think about it), but a simple majority.



As for the fear of violence threat some bring up. The unionists were not terrorised out of the union. And what would loyalists be fighting for, for the UK to take NI back into the union - after a majority voted to leave? No UK government would have any truck with such a terrorist demand.

Owryan

jm08 wrote: »

Why would Irish soldiers be sent into Northern Ireland? If peace keeping was required, it should be a UN Peacekeeping one.

One would assume that as part of a united Ireland then Irish troops would be stationed there as is the norm.

Fr Tod Umptious

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I live in NI. I feel very aggrieved that we are leaving the EU on the basis of a 52% / 48% result. I feel that in something as important as this for all citizens that a simple majority would not be sufficient.
Therefore, following this train of thought through, the referendum for a United Ireland would also require a similar margin.

Are all referendums a simple majority or is there any precedence for a required winning margin?

I doubt a border poll would be called unless there was a clear majority in favour of reunification, having one if the othcome was in the balance would be very dangerous.

Brexit is a bad example, it was something Cameron threw out there to tray and keep UKIp from eating into the Tory base, no one ever expected it to happen

McMurphy

Jim2007 wrote: »

You left out one:

- Would Irish people be willing to vote for United Ireland, that would see Irish soldiers being sent home in body bags from NI, because that will be a reality that will have to be addressed.

This makes no sense, and is.something I've posted about before.

On what basis would Irish soldiers be brought home in body bags?

This thing about loyalist paramilitaries isn't something I personally give much credence to.

What would the loyalist paramilitaries aims be?

Force the Irish govt to withdraw from a part of the island of Ireland? Don't see that one working out, or making sense.

Get the British Government to re-invade? Won't happen.

Fight for a serperate independent state? There goes the unionist ethos.

One would assume any hard-core unionist who wouldn't wish to be governed by anyone other than those within the union would most likely up stick and head across the water, where my guess is they would quickly realise that the citizens on the mainland view them as Irish people anyway.

Regardless who they swear allegiance or loyalty to.

Fr Tod Umptious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This makes no sense, and is.something I've posted about before.

On what basis would Irish soldiers be brought home in body bags?

This thing about loyalist paramilitaries isn't something I personally give much credence to.

What would the loyalist paramilitaries aims be?

Force the Irish govt to withdraw from a part of the island of Ireland? Don't see that one working out, or making sense.

Get the British Government to re-invade? Won't happen.

Fight for a serperate independent state? There goes the unionist ethos.

One would assume any hard-core unionist who wouldn't wish to be governed by anyone other than those within the union would most likely up stick and head across the water, where my guess is they would quickly realise that the citizens on the mainland view them as Irish people anyway.

Regardless who they swear allegiance or loyalty to.

It's complete folly to suggest that unionists/loyalists would go meekly into a UI or just head to GB if it occured.


Look at Brexit, the DUP the biggest unionist party in NI were on the leave side even though it made no ecomonic sense for their core voters.

They supported leave just to show that they were more British than anyone else.

An Ciarraioch

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I live in NI. I feel very aggrieved that we are leaving the EU on the basis of a 52% / 48% result. I feel that in something as important as this for all citizens that a simple majority would not be sufficient.
Therefore, following this train of thought through, the referendum for a United Ireland would also require a similar margin.

Are all referendums a simple majority or is there any precedence for a required winning margin?

I doubt a border poll would be called unless there was a clear majority in favour of reunification, having one if the othcome was in the balance would be very dangerous.

Brexit is a bad example, it was something Cameron threw out there to tray and keep UKIp from eating into the Tory base, no one ever expected it to happen

An analysis of the latest Lucid Talk poll gives nationalists a 10% lead over unionists among under-44s, so while a poll wouldn't pass now, it could very well do so in 10 years time. In any case, the outline of the ultimate Brexit deal could influence how the 10% "others" would vote in such a referendum.

https://bangordub.wordpress.com/2018/03/05/managing-decline-the-lucid-talk-poll-feb-2018/

blanch152

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

An analysis of the latest Lucid Talk poll gives nationalists a 10% lead over unionists among under-44s, so while a poll wouldn't pass now, it could very well do so in 10 years time. In any case, the outline of the ultimate Brexit deal could influence how the 10% "others" would vote in such a referendum.

https://bangordub.wordpress.com/2018/03/05/managing-decline-the-lucid-talk-poll-feb-2018/

I was told the very same thing 30 years ago. I'm still waiting.

A lot of those poll projections fail to comprehend that political views change as people age - they generally become more conservative.

It is the proportion of people at various ages that matter.

McMurphy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's complete folly to suggest that unionists/loyalists would go meekly into a UI or just head to GB if it occured.


Look at Brexit, the DUP the biggest unionist party in NI were on the leave side even though it made no ecomonic sense for their core voters.

They supported leave just to show that they were more British than anyone else.

Which is why I envisage the most hard-core up and leaving for the mainland, rather than live in a united Ireland.

jm08

Owryan wrote: »

One would assume that as part of a united Ireland then Irish troops would be stationed there as is the norm.

Would the existing policing not continue with the existing PSNI? I don't think you will see Irish Defence forces patrolling loyalist areas of Belfast. That would be incredible stupid. If there is need for Peacekeeping, get the UN to supply troops.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

That would mean that under the GFA we keep having referenda until we get the right answer we want, but then we stop. I don't think so, that isn't bi-partisan, and a new agreement has to continue to recognise the legitimate aspirations of the unionist community to be part of the UK.

Upon a united Ireland, the GFA would no longer be relevant. The country united could vote to join the UK or commonwealth. It makes no sense to have every county acting alone on such matters.
The historic East Germany is no more. Therefore it won't be voting separately from West Germany on any issues or referenda.
So too will Northern Ireland in it's current form, no longer be.
You suggest after re-unification, after a united Ireland has come, some counties can vote to go off and join the Arab League if they so wish?

Like now, the people of Sligo will have as many democratic rights as the people of Derry. They can vote for whom ever, to colour the government any way they wish.

James Brown

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's complete folly to suggest that unionists/loyalists would go meekly into a UI or just head to GB if it occured.


Look at Brexit, the DUP the biggest unionist party in NI were on the leave side even though it made no ecomonic sense for their core voters.

They supported leave just to show that they were more British than anyone else.

I think they'll quite easily find their feet in a united Ireland. We have tribal politics in the south too. We've parish pump politics and cronyism. They could easily assimilate. They are self preserving if anything. It's not about being more British. If the British monarchy became Jewish, they'd switch allegiance to some other suited their goals soon enough. They are loyal to their aims and whom ever will assist them.

I could see a state of Ulster, not too dissimilar to how U.S. states or Canadian provinces operate being an option.

Charles Babbage

blanch152 wrote: »

That would mean that under the GFA we keep having referenda until we get the right answer we want, but then we stop. I don't think so, that isn't bi-partisan, and a new agreement has to continue to recognise the legitimate aspirations of the unionist community to be part of the UK.

They can persuade the rest of us of the desireability of this, if they want to join the UK. Peeling off parts of the country is not acceptable.

Seemingly some see the trend
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/gary-gibbon/blogs/forty-shades-of-green-fifty-shades-of-orange

flutered

jm08 wrote: »

Would the existing policing not continue with the existing PSNI? I don't think you will see Irish Defence forces patrolling loyalist areas of Belfast. That would be incredible stupid. If there is need for Peacekeeping, get the UN to supply troops.

eu task force would be my preference

Avatar MIA

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Seemingly some see the trend
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/gary-gibbon/blogs/forty-shades-of-green-fifty-shades-of-orange

You can just see the professional/landed class from a traditional unionist background despairing at the growing disparity between NI/Belfast and the prosperous parts of the UK and large parts of the Republic. And it's only going to become more isolated post Brexit - if the UK economy dips it will entrench on the mainland. These people must be sick of seeing their kids emigrate - what's known as a brain drain.

The poorer/less educated classes do like the reflected glory of empire and royalty.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

One would assume any hard-core unionist who wouldn't wish to be governed by anyone other than those within the union would most likely up stick and head across the water,

This makes no sense at all. If it were true, we would have seen mass migration from North to South over the years since 1922. It simply hasn't happened.

Think of the Rhodesian farmers and South African farmers, who despite their friends and families being murdered around them, stayed with their farms. Why would unionists be any different?

snowstorm445

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Between Brexit and the current Stormont stand-off, discussion concerning a united Ireland has grown in recent years, and the oncreased likelihood of the election of an SF First Minister in future Stormont elections will only intensify such a debate. So what issues need to be considered?

1. What would the cost of unification be and would the EU subside the adjustment?
2. Would a new Ireland require changes to the national flag and anthem?
3. Should parties in the Republic publish policy papers to prepare for a future referendum?
4. Would unionists be entitled to dual citizenship, and would the question of the Commonwealth re-emerge in that context?
5. Would the national government remain a unitary state, or would a federal government with regional assemblies emerge?
6. Would Southern politicians campaign in an NI referendum, and how can Alliance voters and liberal Protestants be persuaded to vote for unity?

1. The EU would almost certainly attempt to subsidise and pour regional funding into Northern Ireland post-unity, if only to prove a point to observers in Britain and to wavering nationalists in Scotland (and possibly Wales). It's cynical, but almost a given IMO.
2. I feel it would, although it would meet stiff resistance down here for sure. Flegs are very important to Unionists after all, and the tricolour would have to go in a new setup IMO.
3. Yes, although I doubt many would do until it becomes absolutely unavoidable. Outside of SF there is extreme apathy down here regarding a United Ireland and what form it would take.
4. Probably, not sure. As for the Commonwealth, it means very little nowadays (compared with when we left in the late 40s), and while the idea is well-intended I doubt it would mean anything to the Unionists.
5. There will almost certainly need to be a devolved arrangement for Northern Ireland post-unity, if only to ensure continuity with the Good Friday Agreement. I doubt any sort of overall federal system would be necessary or desirable though.
6. Unionists need to know who they will be dealing with in a United Ireland, so I feel that first is a must (although bear in mind there will almost certainly have to be a referendum down here at the same time so debate on the issue down here and the figures associated with it will no doubt filter up north to voters there). I think the self-evident disaster that a Hard Brexit might become has enough potential to swing moderate Protestants than anything else, although I must say having observed politics there over the years Unionists are far more solidly behind the union through thick and thin than Nationalists often are regarding a United Ireland. There is a large contingent that would never be convinced in the run up to a referendum, and their transition into a new state post-vote would be extremely gradual (obviously some would never accept it and probably leave).

One thing that I think must be considered in the future is that some "ex"-Unionists in a United Ireland, while acknowledging that rejoining the United Kingdom is a lost cause (if it even continues to exist in the decades to come, which is not a certainty by any means), will always retain a degree of aversion to Dublin rule. As a result, we may see a form of independence movement develop among Ulster Protestants in the decades following unity. Pure speculation obviously, but going by how utterly abhorrent many of them are of any sort of prospect of a United Ireland right now, I doubt if this current of thought would be quick to evaporate, as some seem to think, in the wake of a United Ireland.

Infini

jm08 wrote: »

Would the existing policing not continue with the existing PSNI? I don't think you will see Irish Defence forces patrolling loyalist areas of Belfast. That would be incredible stupid. If there is need for Peacekeeping, get the UN to supply troops.

I'd imagine that the PSNI would be just subsumed into the Gardai. New name, same people though. As for troops there'd be no need for them there bar being in the barracks and even then it would probably be mostly the same people in them now unless they're from the mainland UK.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

This makes no sense at all. If it were true, we would have seen mass migration from North to South over the years since 1922. It simply hasn't happened.

Why would hard-core unionists who wished to be governed by no one else except a government from the union emigrate from the north to the south?

Please clarify.

The rest of your post about South African farmers clearly belongs elsewhere as it's in no way shape or form a comparable scenario.

Unless of course people want to go down the road of comparing Adams to Mandela, and a few decades of life in the north with Apartheid life in S.A, but I don't think that will suit some people's narrative, so best not to go down that rabbit hole.

judeboy101

I personally see the tricolour as a reminder of partition, the golden harp on a field of green is way more classy.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

This makes no sense at all. If it were true, we would have seen mass migration from North to South over the years since 1922. It simply hasn't happened.

Think of the Rhodesian farmers and South African farmers, who despite their friends and families being murdered around them, stayed with their farms. Why would unionists be any different?

Farmers don't have any options. If they left their land, what would they do? Their skills are not transferable to another country unless they can afford to buy land (which is unlikely). That would not be the case for most people in NI. They have British qualifications and training. A large number of them go to University in Scotland and England as well (and I believe this is already an issue with young protestants - they don't come back to Northern Ireland when finished university in Scotland or England).

James Brown

They'll likely become like the US south. Part of the country proper, but you'll get the odd union flag waver. I don't see life changing for them much. A kick in the balls pride wise may be, but they'll have the same freedoms they enjoy now, (but they'll need respect sames sex couples and science). All our signage is already in English and Irish, so that's that sorted.

maccored

i dont think it would work unless the whole government system, north and south, was stripped down and rebuilt as one entity

VinLieger

maccored wrote: »

i dont think it would work unless the whole government system, north and south, was stripped down and rebuilt as one entity

Does anybody really think that is possible to do without mass disruption to peoples way of life north and south?

The main issue with the public service and a united ireland is how many are employed by the state in the north is objectively unsustainable after reunification

James Brown

VinLieger wrote: »

Does anybody really think that is possible to do without mass disruption to peoples way of life north and south?

The main issue with the public service and a united ireland is how many are employed by the state in the north is objectively unsustainable after reunification

But we have the same issue with the current HSE. There will be a lot of work for state employees for many years. They need look at the contracts of new hires as they come in.

The constitution would need be scrapped and re-written to include the rights and wishes of a modern all peoples country.

Sunny Disposition

It'd be fantastic if it happened, make no mistake partition is a huge historic injustice.

It makes sense too, the south is a far better place to live than the north, it's not divided, is more prosperous and isn't as reliant on massive wealth transfers.

The problem is unionism is in a very dour mood after generations of conflict. They will have to be made feel comfortable. All new emblems will be needed, some way of propping Belfast up as a centre for the public sector, extra supports in getting FDI for the north east.

I think there will be a lot of international support, from the US, Europe and from Britain for a period of time.

I'm actually surprised some unionists are discussing it now, seems like they are starting to see is as inevitable rather than possible. I suppose it is inevitable in the next 100 years or so, wind is bound to blow that way sooner or later, but they see to think it will be sooner.

An Ciarraioch

Matt Barrett wrote: »

VinLieger wrote: »

Does anybody really think that is possible to do without mass disruption to peoples way of life north and south?

The main issue with the public service and a united ireland is how many are employed by the state in the north is objectively unsustainable after reunification

But we have the same issue with the current HSE. There will be a lot of work for state employees for many years. They need look at the contracts of new hires as they come in.

The constitution would need be scrapped and re-written to include the rights and wishes of a modern all peoples country.

Speaking of the HSE, one of the topics regularly raised on panel shows in relation to a UI is access to the NHS, and what are regarded as significantly higher GP costs South of the Border. In theory, Sláintecare would best address those concerns, but that seems destined to fill the back of a filing cabinet.

murphaph

Do we really want to live in the same country as Ian Paisley Jr., Nigel Dodds and William McCrea?

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

Do we really want to live in the same country as Ian Paisley Jr., Nigel Dodds and William McCrea?

Bertie Ahern, need I go on

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why would hard-core unionists who wished to be governed by no one else except a government from the union emigrate from the north to the south?

Please clarify.

Because I wasn't talking about unionists.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The rest of your post about South African farmers clearly belongs elsewhere as it's in no way shape or form a comparable scenario.

Unless of course people want to go down the road of comparing Adams to Mandela, and a few decades of life in the north with Apartheid life in S.A, but I don't think that will suit some people's narrative, so best not to go down that rabbit hole.

It seems to me that there is a naive expectation out there that unlike Northern nationalists in 1922, Rhodesian farmers in 1979, and Afrikaaners post-Apartheird, that the vast majority of Ulster unionists will be happy to up and leave the State after unification.

Fr Tod Umptious

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

It'd be fantastic if it happened, make no mistake partition is a huge historic injustice.

It makes sense too, the south is a far better place to live than the north, it's not divided, is more prosperous and isn't as reliant on massive wealth transfers.

The problem is unionism is in a very dour mood after generations of conflict. They will have to be made feel comfortable. All new emblems will be needed, some way of propping Belfast up as a centre for the public sector, extra supports in getting FDI for the north east.

I think there will be a lot of international support, from the US, Europe and from Britain for a period of time.

I'm actually surprised some unionists are discussing it now, seems like they are starting to see is as inevitable rather than possible. I suppose it is inevitable in the next 100 years or so, wind is bound to blow that way sooner or later, but they see to think it will be sooner.

I'm sorry but I just don't get what would be fantastic about it.

We have developed fine as a 26 county entity for almost a century, what exactly is "fantastic" about the rest of the island coming under the same juristiction ?

James Brown

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm sorry but I just don't get what would be fantastic about it.

We have developed fine as a 26 county entity for almost a century, what exactly is "fantastic" about the rest of the island coming under the same juristiction ?

Answered your own question. Some people would like all of Ireland under the one roof as it were.

Fr Tod Umptious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Answered your own question. Some people would like all of Ireland under the one roof as it were.

But why ?

What's the value to them or to us ?

Some romantic BS ?

If they want to live in the 26 juristiction they can.