Why the north outside EU changes everything for the island

Imreoir2

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Indeed. And again, as I say, its the less preferred option. But pragmatically recognised as a solution. And for The Republic, the benefits are far greater than is commonly realised. But its early stages as they roll out that idea on both side of the Irish sea. Fully understood, it is only the Irish equivalent of the UK Brexit brainless voter who would reject it on xenophobia and national jingoism motivations, rather than recognise it as a realistic way to deal with the Brexit event on this island.

Joining the UK is not a reaslitic way to deal with Brexit, it's fantisy land and it would be hugely damaging to our economy. Access to the single market is the number one reason we have attracted the level of FDI that we have over the last 30 years. Cutting ourselves off from the EU would be a disaster. We also do much more trade with the EU 27 than with the UK.

You don't damage your links with your two biggest economic partners, which are the US and EU in Ireland's case, to keep easy access with your third biggest partner. The UK are about to jump off a cliff, our only priority is to limit the collateral damage here, not to jump off with them.

I can't stress this enough, it's never going to happen. Roll out what ever you like, it's not going to attract more than a smirk of derision over here.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing jingoistic about it. The relationship never worked and is never likely to work. Look at how they view Ireland during the Brexit debacle for instance if you are too young to see how it has been viewed since independence.
Thankfuly I know of only you and probably John Bruton who would be in favour of this craziness.

I only just cottoned on we were in AH and not Politics. I'm oot.

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thankfuly I know of only you and probably John Bruton who would be in favour of this craziness.

John Bruton might like to rub shoulders with British royalty, but even he thinks Brexit is the height of folly. No way he was wants Ireland to join the UK in Brexit.

Peregrinus

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Isn't all this assuming that reunification simply results in a slightly larger RoI?
From the opinions I read on dedicated political sites (such as Slugger O'Toole) to these issues, extreme compromises may need to be taken in future to ensure peaceful unionist acceptance on a unitary state which may involve radical change of flag, anthem, constitution, legal & parliamentary structures, not to mention possible having to abolish office of president to be replaced by British monarch as head of state.

A united Ireland may require the creation of an entirely new state in every respect.

It may. But, even if so, that state, provided it is the result of reunification under the processes envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement, would be regarded as the successor state to the (present) Republic of Ireland, and therefore would be a member of the EU, and all its territory would be included in the territory of the Union. That's what the European Council has said.

J Mysterio

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Or the St Pat's Saltire.

God no.

Kermit.de.frog

Tomorrow's Times and UK's Independent newspaper have news of a poll out regarding Brexit tomorrow.


52% support for a United Ireland in the north if Brexit goes ahead. 39% would vote to remain in the UK.

It rises to 57% support for a United Ireland if there is a hard border.

FrancieBrady

I always maintained that there was a core of Unionist votes that would not be so unionist when it comes to their economic stability.

CruelCoin

I've always thought of these "lets get the 6 counties back" posts as mindless hot air.

People protested over €50 for water, and you think they'll shell 6/7 billion a year just to balance the books in the north?

NIMAN

CruelCoin wrote: »

I've always thought of these "lets get the 6 counties back" posts as mindless hot air.

People protested over €50 for water, and you think they'll shell 6/7 billion a year just to balance the books in the north?

I'd say that should a UI ever come to pass, there will be a transition period agreed where the UK will continue to fund the NI part for maybe a decade or so, gradually decreasing their commitment and letting Ireland then take over.

There wouldn't be an immediate big shock in terms of cost from Day 1 of a UI.

FrancieBrady

CruelCoin wrote: »

I've always thought of these "lets get the 6 counties back" posts as mindless hot air.

People protested over €50 for water, and you think they'll shell 6/7 billion a year just to balance the books in the north?

The majority of those protesting WC's were those who objected to how it was set up. (it was shambles from start to finish) Not because they had to pay for water. We pay for water already, always have.
And the majority of those who favour a UI know that it will make us all better off eventually, financially and socially. Because you rid the island of the root cause of the problems here.

NIMAN

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I always maintained that there was a core of Unionist votes that would not be so unionist when it comes to their economic stability.

Those farmers aren't so stupid.

CruelCoin

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The majority of those protesting WC's were those who objected to how it was set up. (it was shambles from start to finish) Not because they had to pay for water. We pay for water already, always have.
And the majority of those who favour a UI know that it will make us all better off eventually, financially and socially. Because you rid the island of the root cause of the problems here.

I'm not sure how relocating a dotted line solves our problems...

Trade across the border is free and easy as it is.

FrancieBrady

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm not sure how relocating a dotted line solves our problems...

Trade across the border is free and easy as it is.

That would be great if that was the only problem partition caused, wouldn't it.

CruelCoin

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That would be great if that was the only problem partition caused, wouldn't it.

What problems exist within the republic do you think would be solved then?
You raised the claim. Back it up.

FrancieBrady

CruelCoin wrote: »

What problems exist within the republic do you think would be solved then?
You raised the claim. Back it up.

The entire belt along the border on both sides that have been depressed and held back for years would no longer exist.

The security issues would finally be resolved, bar a small bit of unrest from Loyalist militants who will be quickly and easily contained.

The instability potential of an outside event such as Brexit or the potential breakup of the UK (i.e Scottish independence) would no longer be a threat.

That is just the main ticket items.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The entire belt along the border on both sides that have been depressed and held back for years would no longer exist

Does that mean Cavan will cease to exist?

Where do I vote?

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

CruelCoin wrote: »

What problems exist within the republic do you think would be solved then?
You raised the claim. Back it up.

The entire belt along the border on both sides that have been depressed and held back for years would no longer exist.

The security issues would finally be resolved, bar a small bit of unrest from Loyalist militants who will be quickly and easily contained.

The instability potential of an outside event such as Brexit or the potential breakup of the UK (i.e Scottish independence) would no longer be a threat.

That is just the main ticket items.

Imreoir2

Taytoland wrote: »

The likelyhood is that he is not wrong. The "bloodbath theory" asuming Loyalists would go on a rampage has always been a red herring. The Loyalist paramilatries have always been very ineffective and were only ever a threat when helped out by British security forces.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The likelyhood is that he is not wrong. The "bloodbath theory" asuming Loyalists would go on a rampage has always been a red herring. The Loyalist paramilatries have always been very ineffective and were only ever a threat when helped out by British security forces.

As I said, there will probably be some belligerence but with a majority vote including unionists (who have realised that partition has failed) looking to the future for once, any violence will be within their own areas and easily contained.

Who is going to have the stomach for a fight when there is absolutely no prospect (since the GFA was signed actually) that the British will change their minds. They would literally be fighting pointlessly. Not to mention how they are going to arm themselves with the British intent on a UI being successful as well as the Irish and Americans and the EU security forces.
It is pie in the sky territory to think they could destabilise the process once the island decides.

Taytoland

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

The likelyhood is that he is not wrong. The "bloodbath theory" asuming Loyalists would go on a rampage has always been a red herring. The Loyalist paramilatries have always been very ineffective and were only ever a threat when helped out by British security forces.

Loyalist paramilitaries murdered hundreds of people, would be no reason why they couldn't with Irish army soldiers, Irish police force etc, actual visible targets in Protestant areas and further afield.

Zebra3

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I always maintained that there was a core of Unionist votes that would not be so unionist when it comes to their economic stability.

Ditto re nationalists.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Loyalist paramilitaries murdered hundreds of people, would be no reason why they couldn't with Irish army soldiers, Irish police force etc, actual visible targets in Protestant areas and further afield.

Remember the British know these guys inside out, know their arms suppliers and routes.

Not a mission they could mount a sustainable campaign. They couldn't do it in any sustained way with British aid during the conflict/war and resorted to sectarian killing in retaliation.
With even greater odds stacked against them now and boxed into a province with adversaries on all sides, a unionist community already convinced of a UI and nothing tangible to achieve, it will be another case of 'Never Never...Ok then, Maybe', as we have seen up to the GFA and since.

Zebra3

What goal would a loyalist military campaign have?

A 4 county “Ulster”?

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Loyalist paramilitaries murdered hundreds of people, would be no reason why they couldn't with Irish army soldiers, Irish police force etc, actual visible targets in Protestant areas and further afield.

Remember the British know these guys inside out, know their arms suppliers and routes.

Not a mission they could mount a sustainable campaign. They couldn't do it in any sustained way with British aid during the conflict/war and resorted to sectarian killing in retaliation.
With even greater odds stacked against them now and boxed into a province with adversaries on all sides, a unionist community already convinced of a UI and nothing tangible to achieve, it will be another case of 'Never Never...Ok then, Maybe', as we have seen up to the GFA and since.

It's an irrelevant debate really but to just dismiss what I think is the obvious is foolish.

blinding

Zebra3 wrote: »

What goal would a loyalist military campaign have?

A 4 county “Ulster”?

That where they went wrong in 1922 . Their eyes were bigger than their brains :eek:

Had they been more sensible back then the probably could have kept a smaller sate for a lot longer .

Can they get anything right ?

FrancieBrady

blinding wrote: »

That where they went wrong in 1922 . Their eyes were bigger than their brains :eek:

Had they been more sensible back then the probably could have kept a smaller sate for a lot longer .

Can they get anything right ?

It was never meant to be anything more than a temporary arrangement. If the forebears of the present powershare FFFG had kept the pressure on that was all it would have been. But they got comfy.

J Mysterio

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Or the St Pat's Saltire.

No! Its awful (and very English looking).

Sunny Disposition

Hundreds of years after the plantation of Ulster and it’s still not a normal society, Catholics still alienated from the State. Given that they will be in a majority soon the end of Northern Ireland is probably inevitable, it’s just as well it is coming at a time when it is clear partition was an economic disaster for the North. Hopefully that will help appease the remaining unionists.

steddyeddy

Taytoland wrote: »

Loyalist paramilitaries murdered hundreds of people, would be no reason why they couldn't with Irish army soldiers, Irish police force etc, actual visible targets in Protestant areas and further afield.

Most of the loyalist victims were civilians. I don't think they'd have a chance against actual trained soldiers.

The Rape of Lucretia

Zebra3 wrote: »

What goal would a loyalist military campaign have?

A 4 county “Ulster”?

Easily avoided if the 26 rejoin the 6. Reboot to 1921, with a more mature, realist, post-catholic south without the chip on its shoulder, that can fully embrace being part of the UK, and minimise the hit from the Brexit fiasco.
A proper working together of all communities on this island can be a leading light inspiring the mainland to a successful Brexit (in the long run granted - the short term will be a rocky ride alright), and make the British Isles an economic powerhouse specialising in the areas the EU is weak, being a more nimble sea trading nation with a broader reach, and rebuilding mutually beneficial links with old allies all around the world.