How long before Irish reunification?

Dytalus

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you gonna lay out what you think the DUP, a religiously fundamentalist political party's reaction to your 'initiative' would be?



*I reiterate that 'I do not favour religiously controlled education'.

To be fair, they were adamantly against SSM and Abortions in NI too and they were roundly ignored by the British Government. So long as they're not doing their jobs in the Assembly, the British Government has shown a willingness to ignore their complaints. The people of Northern Ireland may be more of a problem, an electorate that maybe Westminster would pay more attention to (not that they have shown much evidence of paying attention to them up until now, but let's be optimistic). I don't know how many of them send their kids to religiously run schools because it's the best/only/simplest option available (due to their prevalence), versus how many send their kids to those schools because they're religiously run.

If you straight up stop funding Day Zero you're going to be forcing kids into the extremely stressful situation of moving school (which can be very damaging to their development and education) even though they are absolutely not to blame - they're parents made the choice after all. And there isn't even enough integrated schools to take the student body of NI if the religious schools did all lose funding and get shut down. 42% of pupils in NI are in 'Controlled' schools (the Protestant+ ones) and 37% are in Catholic managed 'Maintained' schools. There just isn't enough space for all of them if even a third of those schools had to shut down due to loss of funding. Any removal of funding would have to be phased to allow a transition while the schools either became integrated themselves, or new integrated schools were built.

You are right though, integrated education has doubled in numbers since the GFA but 93% of students still go to Catholic or Protesant schools (I'd wager it's because, given the numbers I'm seeing, they are pretty much all that is available in huge swathes of the country). Change is happening. But it's happening really slowly, and frankly not enough is being done to accelerate it. Even without approaching "shut down all the religious schools" level of suggestion. Parents can push for their particular school to be integrated, and the Government could probably make this more obviously available. And given that the IEF isn't actually government funded, that seems like an easy step to take - start giving it money. It's already doing the work, it just needs support.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

‘Simultaneous north/south referendums’

https://twitter.com/think32_/status/1197086296612622336?s=21

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It was late and maybe I was tired but the poster seemed to be saying the refs would happen one after another. They just couldn’t. They’d have to happen on the same day as w the GF ref. To Do it any other way would be pointless and potentially very bad if there were two different outcomes as has been pointed out.

We all seem to forget the Brits are already working on this and have some serious players involved

Investigating the mechanics of unification referendums in Ireland, North and South
Posted by The Constitution Unit
https://constitution-unit.com/2019/09/06/investigating-the-mechanics-of-unification-referendums-in-ireland-north-and-south/

The poster was saying that the GFA doesn't say anywhere that the 2 referenda must be held at the same time. It doesn't even specify what the South should do in the even of a "YES TO UI" vote in the North. The assumption is that we would have a referendum given our constitution.

That was my only argument. Should there be 2 referendums? Yes.

Should they be on the same day? No.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The poster was saying that the GFA doesn't say anywhere that the 2 referenda must be held at the same time. It doesn't even specify what the South should do in the even of a "YES TO UI" vote in the North. The assumption is that we would have a referendum given our constitution.

That was my only argument. Should there be 2 referendums? Yes.

Should they be on the same day? No.

There is a potential alternative.

An indicative vote could be held in the North only. Following that vote, discussions on the form of a united Ireland could take place covering all of the issues like cost, integration of health, education, social welfare, tax etc., with a final package some time later (could be years if the issues are as difficult as I think) being put North and South on the same day.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a potential alternative.

An indicative vote could be held in the North only. Following that vote, discussions on the form of a united Ireland could take place covering all of the issues like cost, integration of health, education, social welfare, tax etc., with a final package some time later (could be years if the issues are as difficult as I think) being put North and South on the same day.

No.

There's no need for an alternative.

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

To be fair, they were adamantly against SSM and Abortions in NI too and they were roundly ignored by the British Government. So long as they're not doing their jobs in the Assembly, the British Government has shown a willingness to ignore their complaints. The people of Northern Ireland may be more of a problem, an electorate that maybe Westminster would pay more attention to (not that they have shown much evidence of paying attention to them up until now, but let's be optimistic). I don't know how many of them send their kids to religiously run schools because it's the best/only/simplest option available (due to their prevalence), versus how many send their kids to those schools because they're religiously run.

If you straight up stop funding Day Zero you're going to be forcing kids into the extremely stressful situation of moving school (which can be very damaging to their development and education) even though they are absolutely not to blame - they're parents made the choice after all. And there isn't even enough integrated schools to take the student body of NI if the religious schools did all lose funding and get shut down. 42% of pupils in NI are in 'Controlled' schools (the Protestant+ ones) and 37% are in Catholic managed 'Maintained' schools. There just isn't enough space for all of them if even a third of those schools had to shut down due to loss of funding. Any removal of funding would have to be phased to allow a transition while the schools either became integrated themselves, or new integrated schools were built.

You are right though, integrated education has doubled in numbers since the GFA but 93% of students still go to Catholic or Protesant schools (I'd wager it's because, given the numbers I'm seeing, they are pretty much all that is available in huge swathes of the country). Change is happening. But it's happening really slowly, and frankly not enough is being done to accelerate it. Even without approaching "shut down all the religious schools" level of suggestion. Parents can push for their particular school to be integrated, and the Government could probably make this more obviously available. And given that the IEF isn't actually government funded, that seems like an easy step to take - start giving it money. It's already doing the work, it just needs support.

Again, while not for a second defending Catholic or Protestant controlled education it has to be also said that 'kneejerk' insinuations/allegations that sectarianism is being promoted in them or that the 93% of children who go through the systems are 'sectarian' are dangerous simplifications and frankly, lies.
It's a ludicrous and ill-informed claim to make.

What blanch is suggesting is the usual solution of the fascistic - a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

As you say, investment is the key here. The appetite for voluntary change is there and as we seen in this jurisdiction (very very recently) change can happen very quickly when a head of steam is achieved.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a potential alternative.

An indicative vote could be held in the North only. Following that vote, discussions on the form of a united Ireland could take place covering all of the issues like cost, integration of health, education, social welfare, tax etc., with a final package some time later (could be years if the issues are as difficult as I think) being put North and South on the same day.

Like partitionists and Unionists have been doing for quite some time now, they will likely just ignore a process like that.

I wonder in fact, what the tipping point will be for partitionists and Unionists to accept that the process has begun. Knowing the history here, probably when it is too late and they are once again on the back foot fighting a rearguard damaging action.

See the Anglo irish Agreement, The GFA and Brexit for examples.

facehugger99

A preemptive vote in the ROI may be advantageous.

It would clearly spell out to the Nordies that we are not willing to assume the sugar-daddy role of the UK.

All the poll data shows only a small minority are willing to pay (unspecified) extra taxes to support unification.

I must dig out the poll that showed even SF members weren't willing to pay for unification - that was a funny read

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, while not for a second defending Catholic or Protestant controlled education it has to be also said that 'kneejerk' insinuations/allegations that sectarianism is being promoted in them or that the 93% of children who go through the systems are 'sectarian' are dangerous simplifications and frankly, lies.
It's a ludicrous and ill-informed claim to make.

What blanch is suggesting is the usual solution of the fascistic - a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

As you say, investment is the key here. The appetite for voluntary change is there and as we seen in this jurisdiction (very very recently) change can happen very quickly when a head of steam is achieved.

We could do the simple thing, religious organisations divest themselves from the schools, leaving the state to take over management.

The resistance to this is eye-opening.

FrancieBrady

You gotta love the same posters once again trying desperately to change the terms of the GFA.

First it was the size of the 'majority' now it is 'pre-emptive' votes to 'scare the Nordies'.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

We could do the simple thing, religious organisations divest themselves from the schools, leaving the state to take over management.

The resistance to this is eye-opening.

Tell us what your plan is when this meets 'resistance' blanch PLEASE from the very party you demand we 'respect' if they are to come into a UI?


In short, it would be counter productive and almost sectarian in itself given the importance of religion to these party's in particular.

The hypocrisy/doublethink knows no bounds here in this suggestion. There would be MAJOR resistance and a further retreat into a siege mentality in the Unionist community particularly, if you did this.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The poster was saying that the GFA doesn't say anywhere that the 2 referenda must be held at the same time. It doesn't even specify what the South should do in the even of a "YES TO UI" vote in the North. The assumption is that we would have a referendum given our constitution.

That was my only argument. Should there be 2 referendums? Yes.

Should they be on the same day? No.

Do you not see how having them one after the other would be pointless?
It’s a moot point as they won’t be as doing so would have all sorts of consequences. ‘This affects all of us. Why do they get to go first?’ And what if one region says yes only to the following to say no or vice versa. That would be destabilising all on its own and we can all see why. The ‘parity of esteem’ effect comes into play with this as one region having ‘more say’ than the other.
No way would they up north be happy if we went first ‘were being forced into unification l!’ and even louder outcry down here if they went first ‘they’re being forced on us and we don’t want them!’
It just won’t happen that way. They have to be simultaneous.
but I’m trying to understand why you think they should be held separately?

maccored

30-40 years

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a potential alternative.

An indicative vote could be held in the North only. Following that vote, discussions on the form of a united Ireland could take place covering all of the issues like cost, integration of health, education, social welfare, tax etc., with a final package some time later (could be years if the issues are as difficult as I think) being put North and South on the same day.

an all ireland discussion on what a UI can or might be is needed first. Might get rid of the silly idea that the south takes over the north

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Tell us what your plan is when this meets 'resistance' blanch PLEASE from the very party you demand we 'respect' if they are to come into a UI?

Resistance to change is to be expected from the likes of SF/DUP (and their non-supporter, supporters of course).

If people want to indoctrinate their kids, let them do so in their spare time in their own homes. The State should not be using public money to support sectarianism and breed suspicion.

Your resistance to such suggestions is nothing to do with freedom of choice or (even more laughably) sensitivity to the DUP's background. You fear the erosion of support to a particular political party and you oppose the normalisation of NI because it undermines your fundamentalist, pan-nationalist motives. .

FrancieBrady

maccored wrote: »

an all ireland discussion on what a UI can or might be is needed first. Might get rid of the silly idea that the south takes over the north

Yes, once a border poll is announced what I see happening is that all the stakeholders and all those (begining to mount in number) who have done modelling/research into a UI will be invited to a forum on it, probably announced and convened by the two governments under the various mechanisms of the GFA.
I think the Scottish Ref took place two years after being called so plenty of time to trash it all out with the stakeholders.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Resistance to change is to be expected from the likes of SF/DUP (and their non-supporter, supporters of course).

If people want to indoctrinate their kids, let them do so in their spare time in their own homes. The State should not be using public money to support sectarianism and breed suspicion.

Your resistance to such suggestions is nothing to do with freedom of choice or (even more laughably) sensitivity to the DUP's background. You fear the erosion of support to a particular political party and you oppose the normalisation of NI because it undermines your fundamentalist, pan-nationalist motives. .

Again...WHAT resistance to change?

Show me anybody who is proposing ending state funding to religious schools firstly (bar you and blanch) and then show me who is RESISTING this mythical proposal. Jesus christ.

Again_ Integrated education numbers have doubled since the GFA and the 63 schools in that sector are OVER SUBSCRIBED. A poll on the matter in 2013 showed that 2/3rds of parents would like more integrated schools.

What does that suggest to you should happen???? Investment in voluntary 'change' or a destructive sledgehammer that would ultimately increase siege mentalities exactly where you want to dissipate those siege mentalities?

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

maccored wrote: »

an all ireland discussion on what a UI can or might be is needed first. Might get rid of the silly idea that the south takes over the north

The irony is SF have repeatedly called for an all island forum and as soon as possible. You’ll never guess who won’t take part and don’t wanna hear it.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Michael McDowell in today's times harping on about a confederal model.

You just know that if he's yapping...

Other than that it's his usual SF bashing article.

maccored

30-40 years

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The irony is SF have repeatedly called for an all island forum and as soon as possible. You’ll never guess who won’t take part and don’t wanna hear it.

the mind boggles

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Michael McDowell in today's times harping on about a confederal model.

You just know that if he's yapping...

Other than that it's his usual SF bashing article.

McDowell reminds me of a few who conflate a UI with a SF win, and that sticks in their craw.

SF don't own a UI, don't own republicanism and will ebb and flow like any other poltical entity on the island.

McDowell and those like him will never get over certain things though and see a bigger picture.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

McDowell reminds me of a few who conflate a UI with a SF win, and that sticks in their craw.

SF don't own a UI, don't own republicanism and will ebb and flow like any other poltical entity on the island.

McDowell and those like him will never get over certain things though and see a bigger picture.

I'm sure the former Minister, Attorney General, Senator and Party Leader will be absolutely devastated by your critique.

As a grandson of Eoin MacNeill, he's probably spent a bit more time considering this issue than an anonymous shill with nothing better to do than sit on Boards all day.

Over 1,000 posts on this one thread - keep typing lad.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

maccored wrote: »

the mind boggles

The brilliant thing is, there will be citizens assemblies north and south. Presented with all the facts and costs and outcomes etc.
and it will just be regular citizens involved. I’m sure they’ll try get sleeper agents in but Iona tried that back in repeal and failed spectacularly. They’re pretty rigorous about checking for any affiliation apparently.

Yeah_Right

I think it would be a good idea for a United Ireland to join the Commonwealth. It would mean you could compete in the Commonwealth Games. It would be nice for Ireland to actually be competitive in an international sports event for a change and even win a few medals.

ðŸ˜

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Tell us what your plan is when this meets 'resistance' blanch PLEASE from the very party you demand we 'respect' if they are to come into a UI?


In short, it would be counter productive and almost sectarian in itself given the importance of religion to these party's in particular.

The hypocrisy/doublethink knows no bounds here in this suggestion. There would be MAJOR resistance and a further retreat into a siege mentality in the Unionist community particularly, if you did this.

I think describing a proposal whereby religious organisations are divested of patronage of schools as fascistic in nature is an example of the resistance.

FrancieBrady

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The brilliant thing is, there will be citizens assemblies north and south. Presented with all the facts and costs and outcomes etc.
and it will just be regular citizens involved. I’m sure they’ll try get sleeper agents in but Iona tried that back in repeal and failed spectacularly. They’re pretty rigorous about checking for any affiliation apparently.

When you see the DUP actively trying to shut down independent thought in Universities you can be sure there will be plenty of 'you're a Shinnerbot spittle' flying about when they happen.
Or maybe they will finally accept that it is happening and that they need to engage.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm sure the former Minister, Attorney General, Senator and Party Leader will be absolutely devastated by your critique.

As a grandson of Eoin MacNeill, he's probably spent a bit more time considering this issue than an anonymous shill with nothing better to do than sit on Boards all day.

Over 1,000 posts on this one thread - keep typing lad.

That's a fairly personal attack there on Francie for daring to call out McDowell's bullshít don't you think?

You're getting very agitated it seems by all this UI talk.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think describing a proposal whereby religious organisations are divested of patronage of schools as fascistic in nature is an example of the resistance.

Not when I am proposing an alternative that is actually working. You refuse to deal with the consequences of what you propose. Your answer seems to be like two other posters answers here, namely 'fcuk em', if they don't like it.

Nobody is saying that change is not required. But draconian, fascistic measures that will only enflame and exaggerate siege mentalities are wrong, irresponsible and could be described as criminal when you have no sense of a plan to deal with the fallout.

You demand that unionists be given parity of esteem and respect by those seeking a UI, yet here you are proposing to divest them of that without any consultation and forcing them to do things they are not ready to do yet.

And all based on another vague generalisation and supposition - that 93% of children coming out of these schools are 'sectarian'.

They aren't and never where.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not when I am proposing an alternative that is actually working. You refuse to deal with the consequences of what you propose. Your answer seems to be like two other posters answers here, namely 'fcuk em', if they don't like it.

Nobody is saying that change is not required. But draconian, fascistic measures that will only enflame and exaggerate siege mentalities are wrong, irresponsible and could be described as criminal when you have no sense of a plan to deal with the fallout.

You demand that unionists be given parity of esteem and respect by those seeking a UI, yet here you are proposing to divest them of that without any consultation and forcing them to do things they are not ready to do yet.

And all based on another vague generalisation and supposition - that 93% of children coming out of these schools are 'sectarian'.

They aren't and never where.

Would forcing 49% of the electorate into a constitutional change that they do not like constitute a "draconcian, fascistic measure" under your definition?

In what way am I denying unionists parity of esteem? I do not equate protestantism with unionism, only a sectarian would do that.

Dytalus

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And all based on another vague generalisation and supposition - that 93% of children coming out of these schools are 'sectarian'.

They aren't and never where.

I've done a quick scan of the thread and just want to clarify - I hope it's not my post you're drawing the 93% "coming out sectarian" from. I just posted how many people are currently in religiously run schools - I don't claim kids are coming out sectarian, merely pointing out how big of a problem religiously divided schools are in NI.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Would forcing 49% of the electorate into a constitutional change that they do not like constitute a "draconcian, fascistic measure" under your definition?

No blanch it would not, the majority in the north and south signed up to measures in the GFA. Democracy in action.

In what way am I denying unionists parity of esteem? I do not equate protestantism with unionism, only a sectarian would do that.

This ^ from the guy who called SF and the DUP 'sectarian' party's.

Now you pivot away from that. Fair enough. As I said before, impossible to debate with such dis-ingenuousness.

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

I've done a quick scan of the thread and just want to clarify - I hope it's not my post you're drawing the 93% "coming out sectarian" from. I just posted how many people are currently in religiously run schools - I don't claim kids are coming out sectarian, merely pointing out how big of a problem religiously divided schools are in NI.

No Dytalus not you.

There is no evidence that these schools are contributing to sectarianism in NI, which is coming from a fairly narrow base.
If these schools were the problem, sectarianism would be a far more widespread problem.

blanch's proposal is a kneejerk and draconian one, prevalent among those who haven't taken the time to look at the problem.