Border Poll discussion

segarox

i hope some people from northern ireland are reading this because it concerns them.

i've been watching a few videos on what might happen to the north following brexit and one of the options is to reunify with ireland, which i believe, is not everyone cup of tea. me personally as an irishman, i have no strong feelings about this but i think it'd be nice to see a complete ireland on a map. however, i think i may have seen an option that hasn't been considered.

what if the north was to vote to rejoin ireland but in name only; establish yourselves as a separate state with your own government, your own police force (technically you have that already; Stormont and the PSNI) and your own currency.

could have the benefits of staying in the EU and not have the unpleasant taste of irish in your mouths. or am i talking rubbish? please, i'd to hear what you have to say.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: I have renamed the thread to be a bit more specific.

breatheme

I have to ask before I give this anymore thought... what currency would they use?

I find that in this scenario, NI would be isolated from both Ireland and the UK.

seamus

I'm not sure whether an independent state can exist within another. I can see the proposal - rather than being under the jurisdiction of Westminster, it would be under the Dáil, but with the same executive and legal separations it currently enjoys.

But that's basically the sticking point; it would still be part of the Republic of Ireland, and not part of the United Kingdom. I don't think Unionists really care about the frameworks under which NI is governed, provided that it remains in the Union.

How relevant "the Union" is versus how important money in your pocket is, is a question we'll see answered at the next elections in NI after Brexit throws the NI economy under the bus.

If NI were to establish as a completely sovereign state, unbeholden to the UK or ROI, then it won't be in the EU and will be subject to default WTO rules. They could fast-track themselves EFTA membership and then inclusion in the EEA, before looking at full EU membership. But I would suspect that an independent NI would have severe difficulty overcoming sectarian politics as people fight for complete control over the country. It would probably drift somewhat rudderless for a few years while its economy stagnates.

segarox

breatheme wrote: »

what currency would they use?

Okay, that’d be a bit hard to imagine. I suppose they’d still use pounds but it’d have their own individuality on it

seamus

Countries don't have to have their own currency. No reason they couldn't use euros as their official currency.

FrancieBrady

It would just be a continuation of the huge pretence (partition) that our economic prosperity and social interaction is separate. They are not and never were as we can see from Brexit.

blanch152

Am I right in thinking that this thread is designed as an exploration of what an independent Northern Ireland might mean for the UK, the EU and Ireland as well as for the people of Northern Ireland?

If so, it could be an interesting discussion.

segarox

well, i'm just pitching a consideration here and i'm thinking of vatican city, which is within rome yet a separate state from it, and i'm also thinking that some people in ni wouldn't be happy about joining roi which could possibly see a revival of the violence that happened so long ago

Junkyard Tom

segarox wrote: »

not have the unpleasant taste of irish in your mouths.

The vast majority of those that would vote for a UI in the northeast are Irish.

Bizarre.

Nitrogan

I think a lot of the problems which still exist in Northern Ireland can only be solved internally by local representatives having no option but to engage and work with each other.

The best way forward I see is to give them a budget and no daddy in Westminster or Dublin to go running to. Let them figure it out themselves.

jm08

Nitrogan wrote: »

I think a lot of the problems which still exist in Northern Ireland can only be solved internally by local representatives having no option but to engage and work with each other.

The best way forward I see is to give them a budget and no daddy in Westminster or Dublin to go running to. Let them figure it out themselves.

Back to the good old days of the 1922-72 Stormont Government?



That went well!

blanch152

segarox wrote: »

well, i'm just pitching a consideration here and i'm thinking of vatican city, which is within rome yet a separate state from it, and i'm also thinking that some people in ni wouldn't be happy about joining roi which could possibly see a revival of the violence that happened so long ago

I do think the idea has merit. The proposition that there is just a binary choice - remaining in the UK or a united Ireland - is more than a little outdated in the current situation. There are many different options:

1. Remaining in the UK and a full part of Brexit
2. Remaining in the UK but having some special status within the EU
3. Independent but outside the EU
4. Independent but inside the EU
5. Joint sovereignty with London and Dublin and devolved powers but outside the EU
6. Joint sovereignty with London and Dublin and devolved powers inside the EU
7. Part of a United Ireland but a federal state within the EU
8. Part of a United Ireland single state within the EU
9. Part of a United Ireland that is in the EEA and the Commonwealth

There are more variations, including a greater devolution of power and changing the rules of Stormont.

maccored

6 counties - 2 or 3 of them small enough - as a single entitiy? How could it generate enough cash to run itself? Otherwise its a united ireland or remain in the UK, since the UK cant be both in and out of europe

Peregrinus

maccored wrote: »

6 counties - 2 or 3 of them small enough - as a single entitiy? How could it generate enough cash to run itself? Otherwise its a united ireland or remain in the UK, since the UK cant be both in and out of europe

It can, though. In Denmark, Denmark proper and the Faroes are in the EU, while Greenland is not. So you can have a country which is partly in, and partly not in, the EU.

breatheme

Yeah, but Denmark is the central, sovereign government. It's a bit like the UK being in the EU but leaving out the Isle of Man. The other way around would be unthinkable.

Regardless, as of now NI has been extended the opportunity to remain in the EU, via vote in the EP, due to the historical ties to Ireland and the GFA. So far, NI has rejected it, as well as the UK.

Peregrinus

breatheme wrote: »

Yeah, but Denmark is the central, sovereign government. It's a bit like the UK being in the EU but leaving out the Isle of Man. The other way around would be unthinkable.

Everything's unthinkable until we think it!

breatheme wrote: »

Regardless, as of now NI has been extended the opportunity to remain in the EU, via vote in the EP, due to the historical ties to Ireland and the GFA. So far, NI has rejected it, as well as the UK.

Actually, NI hasn't rejected it. They haven't been asked. We know that NI wishes to remain in the EU, because that's how the voted, and all the indications since that suggest that this preference has become stronger, not weaker. We don't know whether NI would wish to leave the UK in order to remain in the EU, because that question has never been put to them.

(I think they probably would reject it, if asked. But that's not the same thing as actually having been asked.)

Be that as it may, the attitude the Westminster Government is taking is that NI can't remain in the EU, except by leaving the UK. But note that it's the Westminster government that is insisting that these two choices must be joined at the hip; the EU has indicated a much greater flexibility and is openly willing for NI to have an association with the EU that GB does not have, while still remaining part of the UK. But Westminister regards (or pretends to regard) this as an attempt to annex NI and/or an attempt to frustrate Brexit.

breatheme

Peregrinus wrote: »

Everything's unthinkable until we think it!

True.

Actually, NI hasn't rejected it. They haven't been asked. We know that NI wishes to remain in the EU, because that's how the voted, and all the indications since that suggest that this preference has become stronger, not weaker. We don't know whether NI would wish to leave the UK in order to remain in the EU, because that question has never been put to them.

(I think they probably would reject it, if asked. But that's not the same thing as actually having been asked.)

Be that as it may, the attitude the Westminster Government is taking is that NI can't remain in the EU, except by leaving the UK. But note that it's the Westminster government that is insisting that these two choices must be joined at the hip; the EU has indicated a much greater flexibility and is openly willing for NI to have an association with the EU that GB does not have, while still remaining part of the UK. But Westminister regards (or pretends to regard) this as an attempt to annex NI and/or an attempt to frustrate Brexit.

Well, I guess what I meant to say was that Arlene Foster either rightly or wrongly, speaking on behalf of NI, has rejected it. I'd love for NI to remain in the CU/SM. I actually think it should at least be put to referendum in the North.

And I reckon that if the DUP were not propping up May's government, the UK would also be quite flexible as well.

FrancieBrady

The primary concern has to be to avoid can kicking solutions here.
Partition has failed and failed spectacularly.

Anything that kicks the can down the road further than the GFA (which is a process not an end point in itself) is doing a huge disservice to the people of the north once again.
And all the other solutions to this I have seen are doing just that- avoiding the day when the people have to decide what it is they want.

Britain has decided it wants to go in a certain direction, we in the south owe it to those in the north that they get a choice in deciding were they wish to go.

The only vote we have has shown that both nationalists and a high percentage of unionists dont wish to follow Britain at stage.

We owe that to those who have worked so hard for a hard win peace on both sides.

blanch152

maccored wrote: »

6 counties - 2 or 3 of them small enough - as a single entitiy? How could it generate enough cash to run itself? Otherwise its a united ireland or remain in the UK, since the UK cant be both in and out of europe

How do Monaco or Andorra generate enough cash to run themselves?

Northern Ireland has a population of 1.811m

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland

There are 80 countries with a population bigger than Northern Ireland, including four full members of the EU - Luxembourg, Estonia,Malta and Cyprus. It has eight times the population of Iceland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)


The area of Northern Ireland is 14,130 km2

This makes it bigger than three members of the EU - Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus and around 70 other countries.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_area


It is pure nonsense to suggest that Northern Ireland could not survive as an independent country, given those facts.

Hurrache

Pop the champagne corks, Northern Ireland has now equalled Belgium for the longest peacetime period in which a country hasn't had a government, and will no doubt go on to smash that record.

breatheme

blanch152 wrote: »

How do Monaco or Andorra generate enough cash to run themselves?

Northern Ireland has a population of 1.811m

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland

There are 80 countries with a population bigger than Northern Ireland, including four full members of the EU - Luxembourg, Estonia,Malta and Cyprus. It has eight times the population of Iceland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)

The area of Northern Ireland is 14,130 km2

This makes it bigger than three members of the EU - Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus and around 70 other countries.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_area


It is pure nonsense to suggest that Northern Ireland could not survive as an independent country, given those facts.

So you want to turn NI into a tax haven?

blanch152

breatheme wrote: »

So you want to turn NI into a tax haven?

Didn't say that. There is a false argument that Northern Ireland couldn't survive as an indepdendent country. The facts don't support the argument.

Iceland has one-sixth the population of Northern Ireland and isn't a tax haven. Neither is Estonia, smaller than Northern Ireland and a member of the EU.

breatheme

blanch152 wrote: »

Didn't say that. There is a false argument that Northern Ireland couldn't survive as an indepdendent country. The facts don't support the argument.

Iceland has one-sixth the population of Northern Ireland and isn't a tax haven. Neither is Estonia, smaller than Northern Ireland and a member of the EU.

It's not just "this country is bigger" or "this country is smaller". You have to look at how they actually operate regarding taxation, benefits and social services, attracting foreign investment and managing its debt.

I was replying directly to your very first question, which was: "How do Monaco or Andorra generate enough cash to run themselves?" Hence my reply. Those are tax havens.

How do you expect NI to function like Iceland, or like Estonia?*

*genuine question. No sarcasm here. I'm all ears.

setanta1000

breatheme wrote: »

So you want to turn NI into a tax haven?

Why not?

I think it's a really good question to be asking; what are the possible options for Northern Ireland that both traditions there could agree to, while avoiding murdering their economy?

Something like Northern Ireland gets special status in the EU but remains in the CTA and UK Commonwealth?

I know the DUP and Ms May have made it a Red Line that there is no border down the Irish Sea but maybe this is because the DUP see any other option as the first step to Irish re-unification? Maybe we need to be talking about options?

At this stage anything Ireland can do to minimize the extent or severity of the impact on our economy from Brexit is worthwhile.

breatheme

setanta1000 wrote: »

Why not?

I think it's a really good question to be asking; what are the possible options for Northern Ireland that both traditions there could agree to, while avoiding murdering their economy?

The possible options we have now are, in lieu of a border poll:

1. Border at the Irish Sea
2. Border in the Island of Ireland.

Both options are very nuanced and have different ways of being implemented.

Something like Northern Ireland gets special status in the EU but remains in the CTA and UK Commonwealth?

Does this special status mean SM+CU? That's what it takes to completely eliminate the island border.

SM: Eliminates the need to check goods.
CU: Eliminates the need to apply tariffs and tax.

Any option that excludes one or the other means a border within Ireland.

I know the DUP and Ms May have made it a Red Line that there is no border down the Irish Sea but maybe this is because the DUP see any other option as the first step to Irish re-unification? Maybe we need to be talking about options?

Those options being? Independence.........? I don't see independence happening for the following reasons:

1. It is not in the framework of the GFA.
2. All of NI would have to agree via referendum.
3. After independence the GFA is basically void (being an agreement between Ireland and the UK and not between Ireland and an independent NI) which triggers all other sorts of questions. For example: What happens if Derry wants to run away from an independent NI and join the Republic?

At this stage anything Ireland can do to minimize the extent or severity of the impact on our economy from Brexit is worthwhile.

Britain is shooting itself in the head. Ireland can try its best to avoid it, but just today we had Theresa May stating: "No deal Brexit wouldn't be the end of the world." There is only so much Ireland can do.

blanch152

breatheme wrote: »

It's not just "this country is bigger" or "this country is smaller". You have to look at how they actually operate regarding taxation, benefits and social services, attracting foreign investment and managing its debt.

I was replying directly to your very first question, which was: "How do Monaco or Andorra generate enough cash to run themselves?" Hence my reply. Those are tax havens.

How do you expect NI to function like Iceland, or like Estonia?*

*genuine question. No sarcasm here. I'm all ears.

An independent Northern Ireland, member of the EU, getting access to the Single Market and the Customs Union, adopting the Euro, but remaining part of the Commonwealth, and a monarchy, with the Queen remaining as Head of State.

The UK promising to maintain subsidy for ten years. The EU giving aid as it would be an underdeveloped region of the EU and to support the peace process.

That would allow an All-Ireland tourist market, the North could market itself better for FDI etc.

I would guess that an option like that would be as viable as a unitary State - little different from the limited explanation given by SF as to how a united Ireland would work, but would retain for the majority in the North, the crucial political and cultural links with Britain. For the nationalists, they would be free from British control and future economic development would inevitably bring closer ties with the South.

It strikes me as a possible compromise rather than the win/lose scenario currently being presented.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

An independent Northern Ireland, member of the EU, getting access to the Single Market and the Customs Union, adopting the Euro, but remaining part of the Commonwealth, and a monarchy, with the Queen remaining as Head of State.




The UK promising to maintain subsidy for ten years. The EU giving aid as it would be an underdeveloped region of the EU and to support the peace process.

What you would have at the end of all that is the exact same problem, a partitioned statelet incapable of governing itself.

What needs to be addressed, and people like you will run from this as long as you can, is 'partition' itself, which concentrated the issues we had here in the South into 6 counties in such a way that could not be sustainable, economically or socially. (even the partitioners - Britain, knew it was only a temporary solution)
The solution remains a 32 county one, anything else is a sop or kicking the can down the road.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What you would have at the end of all that is the exact same problem, a partitioned statelet incapable of governing itself.

What needs to be addressed, and people like you will run from this as long as you can, is 'partition' itself, which concentrated the issues we had here in the South into 6 counties in such a way that could not be sustainable, economically or socially. (even the partitioners - Britain, knew it was only a temporary solution)
The solution remains a 32 county one, anything else is a sop or kicking the can down the road.

Partition doesn't need to be addressed, and the problem is, if you do address it in the way you want, the problem of the British identity then needs to be addressed, there has to be a third solution, that is not the current set-up and not a unitary State.

Quasi-Home Rule, as I have suggested, is one possible option. It is ridiculous to suggest that the 6 counties couldn't survive independently when there are 80 other smaller countries who do, including several members of the EU.

setanta1000

breatheme wrote: »

Britain is shooting itself in the head. Ireland can try its best to avoid it, but just today we had Theresa May stating: "No deal Brexit wouldn't be the end of the world." There is only so much Ireland can do.

I agree with ALL of your points when you look at the issue from the legally correct and proper EU position - 100% agree.

My ever increasing concern is the impact on us in Ireland, North and South. We are in line to be the worst affected EU nation as a result of Brexit and I think it is worthwhile having a discussion on what other options there are that could end up reducing the impact on us.

At the moment I think the UK feels it has no option but to have a hard Brexit because there is no other face saving option available - what if we could come up with a solution that at least helps NI?

The way this is going I can see the UK and Irish economies sinking into depression while both of us shouting "It's all your fault" across the Irish Sea at each other!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Partition doesn't need to be addressed, and the problem is, if you do address it in the way you want, the problem of the British identity then needs to be addressed, there has to be a third solution, that is not the current set-up and not a unitary State.

Quasi-Home Rule, as I have suggested, is one possible option. It is ridiculous to suggest that the 6 counties couldn't survive independently when there are 80 other smaller countries who do, including several members of the EU.

Your ridiculous third option happens to include one of the prime reasons partition spectacularly and violently failed. Namely:

but remaining part of the Commonwealth, and a monarchy, with the Queen remaining as Head of State.

As to 'partition doesn't need to be addressed'. We know you and decades of Irish governments don't want to address it, but they had to in the GFA. And now that that process has stalled it is only a matter of time before it will need to be addressed again.
It will never go away until it is addressed, because it has failed and any solution that does not address the problem on a 32 county basis will also fail or hold the north in the economically dependent and socially impossible bubble, it is in now.

breatheme

blanch152 wrote: »

An independent Northern Ireland, member of the EU, getting access to the Single Market and the Customs Union, adopting the Euro, but remaining part of the Commonwealth, and a monarchy, with the Queen remaining as Head of State.

The UK promising to maintain subsidy for ten years. The EU giving aid as it would be an underdeveloped region of the EU and to support the peace process.

That would allow an All-Ireland tourist market, the North could market itself better for FDI etc.

I would guess that an option like that would be as viable as a unitary State - little different from the limited explanation given by SF as to how a united Ireland would work, but would retain for the majority in the North, the crucial political and cultural links with Britain. For the nationalists, they would be free from British control and future economic development would inevitably bring closer ties with the South.

It strikes me as a possible compromise rather than the win/lose scenario currently being presented.

That could work, but support for independence in NI is lower than either staying in the UK or reunifying with Ireland, source:



So while practical and theoretically feasible (you'd need to address the issues of nationality, I reckon, plus all that other stuff I mentioned). You may just be giving a majority a solution they all hate.

blanch152

breatheme wrote: »

That could work, but support for independence in NI is lower than either staying in the UK or reunifying with Ireland, source:



So while practical and theoretically feasible (you'd need to address the issues of nationality, I reckon, plus all that other stuff I mentioned). You may just be giving a majority a solution they all hate.

You would allow dual nationality - Irish and Northern Irish or British and Northern Irish - to the existing population, and probably the next generation. After that, it would probably die out.

I agree that it is low on any first choice poll, but it might well be most people's second choice, if they can't get either of their first. They hate the other side's first choice, but they might live with the second choice.

breatheme

blanch152 wrote: »

You would allow dual nationality - Irish and Northern Irish or British and Northern Irish - to the existing population, and probably the next generation. After that, it would probably die out.

I agree that it is low on any first choice poll, but it might well be most people's second choice, if they can't get either of their first. They hate the other side's first choice, but they might live with the second choice.

Key word is might. But we again fall back on the GFA. There's no provision for an independent NI so to bring about your idea you would have to first renegotiate the GFA, put the updated version to referendum (in RoI and NI), and then probably hold an independence referendum or whatever is agreed.

I think your idea would be dead in the water just trying to renegotiate the GFA.

FrancieBrady

breatheme wrote: »

Key word is might. But we again fall back on the GFA. There's no provision for an independent NI so to bring about your idea you would have to first renegotiate the GFA, put the updated version to referendum (in RoI and NI), and then probably hold an independence referendum or whatever is agreed.

I think your idea would be dead in the water just trying to renegotiate the GFA.

It is dead in the water if you even begin to think about how it would govern itself.

Why can't it govern itself? Because the problems created by an unnatural partition of an island still exist.
Therefore, you need to deal with partition and it's far reaching and probably permanent problems first.

blanch152

breatheme wrote: »

Key word is might. But we again fall back on the GFA. There's no provision for an independent NI so to bring about your idea you would have to first renegotiate the GFA, put the updated version to referendum (in RoI and NI), and then probably hold an independence referendum or whatever is agreed.

I think your idea would be dead in the water just trying to renegotiate the GFA.

Any change to the current constitutional arrangement will require changes to the GFA. The current roles for Dublin in Northern Ireland will have to become future roles for the UK, or something similar, so the East/West relationship both North and South would have to be renegotiated.

breatheme

I actually don't see that happening, nor is it required under the GFA.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Any change to the current constitutional arrangement will require changes to the GFA. The current roles for Dublin in Northern Ireland will have to become future roles for the UK, or something similar, so the East/West relationship both North and South would have to be renegotiated.

That will be a new agreement between the sovereign nation of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain (without northern Ireland obviously)

The GFA will have processed to an end at that stage.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That will be a new agreement between the sovereign nation of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain (without northern Ireland obviously)

The GFA will have processed to an end at that stage.

no difference then to what would happen if Northern Ireland opted for independence.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

no difference then to what would happen if Northern Ireland opted for independence.

Absolutely.

But there isn't a provision in the GFA to decide on 'independence', there are all the provisions required for a poll on unification though.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely.

But there isn't a provision in the GFA to decide on 'independence', there are all the provisions required for a poll on unification though.

I agree that it wasn't envisaged at the time the GFA was signed, however, neither was Brexit.

breatheme

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree that it wasn't envisaged at the time the GFA was signed, however, neither was Brexit.

Brexit is not inherently incompatible with the GFA, NI independence is.

blanch152

breatheme wrote: »

Brexit is not inherently incompatible with the GFA, NI independence is.

I agree - even a hard border is not incompatible with the GFA.

However, generally it is the same people who are telling me that Brexit changes everything are the ones telling me that independence cannot be on the table. Either Brexit is a game-changer, or it is not.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree that it wasn't envisaged at the time the GFA was signed, however, neither was Brexit.

Seems to me that up to now, the GFA is dealing very well with Brexit. Certainly from the point of view of those who don't want to Brexit anyhow.

breatheme

Brexit is a game changer in the sense that it may actually sway voters towards a NI. It is the one event that could get all nationalists* behind voting for a NI, very softcore unionists as well as the moderate people who don't actually form part of either community.

*I say this because a lot of nationalists may vote to stay in the union in order to keep the NHS and other benefits.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree - even a hard border is not incompatible with the GFA.

However, generally it is the same people who are telling me that Brexit changes everything are the ones telling me that independence cannot be on the table. Either Brexit is a game-changer, or it is not.

There is no way NI nationalists would go it alone with unionists in an Indep. NI, so its pointless putting it on the table.

breatheme

It would be messy. With no framework you'd see counties trying to secede, maybe even rejoining the UK/Ireland.

FrancieBrady

breatheme wrote: »

It would be messy. With no framework you'd see counties trying to secede, maybe even rejoining the UK/Ireland.

It is completely ill-concieved and normally only mentioned by those who will not countenance a UI for their own particular and personal reasons.
There is no denying that partition has failed and needs an international agreement reached after 40 years of bloody conflict/war just to limp along as an economic and social basket case. That cannot be sorted by two communities set at odds by partition itself.
So the options are simple: keep kicking the can down the road or confront partition and it's economic (to us in the south as well as the UK and northern Ireland) and humanly costly failures.

weemcd

There are too many Unionist voters at present to allow any kind of moves towards a United Ireland. That won't be viable for me for another ~20 years until a few of them die out or retire.

That may but cutting ones nose off to spite ones face, but there are plenty of Pro-Union politicians and voters who would be happy to rule over ash and rubble in a barren wasteland than support a United Ireland.

I do believe a United Ireland is inevitable. I do think this DUP/Tory pact is making all manoeuvring around Brexit very difficult. Theresa May's government is a farce and I'm surprised they've made it this long. After that I'm not sure what happens and Corbyn hasn't done a good job of showing any kind of strong stance on Brexit and has failed to gain any more momentum after fairly good gains in Theresa May's last ill thought out election.

It's a strange time and I can see an election in the not too distant future and probably a recession. The only viable option I can see is a Brext in name only soft exit. I hope and pray this is the case but I genuinely don't know.

Infini

We don't know completely what will happen but it's safe to assume a Hard Brexit resulting in depression level conditions in the North could be enough to trigger a seismic shift in opinion's there towards a United Ireland. The likelyhood of NI being an independent state isn't going to happen. It would more likely end up with the like's of Fermanagh, Tyrone and Armagh ending up part of the Republic anyways leaving only an unviable rump.

Realistically if people up there are offered a ticket off the Brexit Bus that was driven over the cliff edge by Ideologues and idiot's who cared little for the well-being of people they'll most likely go for a UI and they'll vote in far greater numbers than any of the Headbanger's.

blanch152

breatheme wrote: »

It would be messy. With no framework you'd see counties trying to secede, maybe even rejoining the UK/Ireland.

Other than in the GAA, counties aren't even recognised in the North anymore.