Costs of Irish unification.

Jawgap · 03-01-2018 08:47PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

BTW, that is not just partitionist with a small p, it is Partitionist as a political philosophy.

Attach labels all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the Republic is not responsible for the train-wreck that is NI's political establishment and economic policy.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 08:52PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Attach labels all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the Republic is not responsible for the train-wreck that is NI's political establishment and economic policy.

Partition is responsible for the failed northern statelet.
The question is, do we want to take responsibility for the whole island.
Some wish to continue to ignore other Irish citizens and others are willing to seek a solution to the cyclical problems caused by partition

Jawgap · 03-01-2018 09:04PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Partition is responsible for the failed northern statelet.
The question is, do we want to take responsibility for the whole island.
Some wish to continue to ignore other Irish citizens and others are willing to seek a solution to the cyclical problems caused by partition

Yes it is, but we didn't put the border there so why should we pay for its removal?

And the question is really how much do we want to pay to take on the remainder of the island? How much of our prosperity, hard won and fairly earned, do we want to squander on a part of the island that seems to be unwilling or unable to do anything to improve its lot?

Chips Lovell · 03-01-2018 09:09PM

Is there any reason to believe that Northern Ireland would be less of a failed statelet if we were the responsible adult and not the British?

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 09:10PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes it is, but we didn't put the border there so why should we pay for its removal?

And the question is really how much do we want to pay to take on the remainder of the island? How much of our prosperity, hard won and fairly earned, do we want to squander on a part of the island that seems to be unwilling or unable to do anything to improve its lot?

That is what the debate will be about. With the relevant experts and transparent access to the figures. Not randomers on the internet whose agenda is to scaremonger with selective figures and negativity.

Sam Russell · 03-01-2018 09:39PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Is there any reason to believe that Northern Ireland would be less of a failed statelet if we were the responsible adult and not the British?

Well there is plenty of economic theory to say that a removal of the border and the creation of a single state would deliver an economic benefit to the border area, particularly to Derry and Donegal. However, there is no accessible data to show how big such an effect there would be, but since the single market there has been a significant improvement of cross border trade.

A single state would have a single currency (Euro) and a single tax system. The state agencies like IDA would help bring FDI into the North and border region. All of this would,if successful, reduce the northern deficit. If so, there would be a major benefit and further entrench peace as a way of life.

CelticRambler · 03-01-2018 10:02PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Is there any reason to believe that Northern Ireland would be less of a failed statelet if we were the responsible adult and not the British?

Every reason, because it would no longer be a statelet. It would be 6 Ulster counties out of 9, all on an equal footing with the other 25 + Dublin. So instead of having a local government wasting tax-payers money on sectarian squabbles, the DUP and Sinn Féin TDs in Leinster would quickly get their act together once they realised that the Healy Raes were running rings round them.

Jawgap wrote:

Further, there is no guarantee that even if we did commit to spend billions there that it would yield any improvement. Sort the place out first, then re-unify, would be my argument.

Back to this illogical "status quo" mentality. You (and others) go on and on about the "billions" that NI as part of UKGBNI costs - a point upon which we all agree - but as soon as it's suggested that NI is "sorted out" by taking it out of its dysfunctional relationship with the UK, you argue that it's better for it to stay as it is.

That's like trying to straighten out an alcoholic while buying him a load of cans to replace the ones he drank yesterday. Then complaining that he can't hold down a job. :rolleyes:

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 10:28PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a failed state, that is why it can't and will never be fully done. It failed because partition was and will always be wrong.

The UK is not a failed state.

Northern Ireland prospered more than the Republic up until the late 1960s. Two things changed:

Firstly, the Irish government changed economic policy and looked outwards to the UK and Europe rather than inwards, rejecting an old nationalist ideology which had been propagated by FF since the early 1930s. This transformed the Irish economy and started four decades of nearly constant economic growth, barring a FF mess up in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

Secondly, the IRA campaign kicked off in the North. This campaign of terrorism ultimately destroyed what was left of the North's industrial base. They had already suffered because of the decline of the linen and shipbuilding industries after the war, but they were in a better place than the Republic in the mid-1960s. Unfortunately, because of the terrorism, no multinational with half a brain would base their industry in Northern Ireland (except De Lorean, and that was half a brain type industry). Inevitably, Northern Ireland fell behind the Republic.

Now, with the opportunity for a devolved government and the terrorism threat eliminated, the two parties in the North could get on with rebuilding the economy and as Jawgap says, starting with education. However, they just squabble over a languages act for two languages that weren't even spoken in the North when it all kicked off in 1970.

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 10:34PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Back to this illogical "status quo" mentality. You (and others) go on and on about the "billions" that NI as part of UKGBNI costs - a point upon which we all agree - but as soon as it's suggested that NI is "sorted out" by taking it out of its dysfunctional relationship with the UK, you argue that it's better for it to stay as it is.

That's like trying to straighten out an alcoholic while buying him a load of cans to replace the ones he drank yesterday. Then complaining that he can't hold down a job. :rolleyes:

You can't straighten out an alcoholic until they admit they have a problem.

Unfortunately, the parties in Northern Ireland have yet to admit to the problem.

FrancieBrady · 04-01-2018 12:04AM

blanch152 wrote: »

You can't straighten out an alcoholic until they admit they have a problem.

Unfortunately, the parties in Northern Ireland have yet to admit to the problem.

Which is partition.

Even after a conflict/war the heightened divisions that partition caused are stymieing the creation of a normal society.
And yet again you are caught promoting the one side is to blame for the condition of a failed statelet that had broken down and erupted into flames before the IRA was even involved.

CelticRambler · 04-01-2018 12:19AM

blanch152 wrote: »

You can't straighten out an alcoholic until they admit they have a problem.

Unfortunately, the parties in Northern Ireland have yet to admit to the problem.

Fair point, but the parties in NI are the drink in this analogy. They only exist in their current state because of first-past-the-post voting in Westminster elections, and them-versus-us voting for the Assembly elections. Take that toxicity out of the equation and you remove a huge part of the cost and "failure" of NI.

NI in-but-not-in the UKofGBandNI is nothing like the Six Counties would be as part of a United Ireland, neither politically, socially or economically, so one cannot extrapolate the current economic situation to a completely new environment.

If you're going to do any forecasting, you'd be better off looking at how England financially mismanages all its accessory provinces - NI, Scotland, Wales, Devon/Cornwall. Compare that to Ireland's success in developing the strengths of each region. Maybe those of you stuck on the island are too close to it all to appreciate what a great job Irish agencies have done over the last few decades - regardless of what party has had a majority - but viewed from outside, it's an amazing sight. The only shadow on the landscape is that zone in the top righthand corner over which the Republic does not have full control.

Junkyard Tom · 04-01-2018 12:20AM

Jawgap wrote: »

The economies need to be on converging trajectories, in my view, before reunification becomes a practical proposition. Halving the deficit would be a good start.

I agree with this but the DUP/UUP would have none of it. The north being a dependency of England makes unification less attractive, in the south at least, and Unionist politicians are well aware of it.

Re-engineering the north's economy could probably only happen post pro-UI vote with the two governments pulling the strings and with some EU body acting as overseer.

Jawgap · 04-01-2018 05:58AM

I'd love to see the evidence that suggests NI will become this wonderful, easy to govern, dynamic economic powerhouse once the border is removed.

It has enjoyed every advantage that the Republic has and more. There's no border between it and the rest of the UK giving it immediate access to a market 12 times or so the size of the Republic's, there's more public spending there per head of population than any other UK country (25% more than the Republic), there's access to all kinds of external funding and there's more per capita political representation than any other UK country (most MPs, MLAs by population).

And despite all that it is, according to the productivity report linked previously, the worst educated and least productive economy in the UK.

But people believe that the removal of the border will magically cure all that - that politics and institutions will spring to life and function as intended, and the power of the economy will be unleashed?

Any evidence as to the probability that will happen......if we're expected to gamble 10% of our GDP on something the least we can expect is to know the odds.

The last round of austerity was bad enough but at least we knew it would end.

FrancieBrady · 04-01-2018 10:09AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd love to see the evidence that suggests NI will become this wonderful, easy to govern, dynamic economic powerhouse once the border is removed.

It has enjoyed every advantage that the Republic has and more. There's no border between it and the rest of the UK giving it immediate access to a market 12 times or so the size of the Republic's, there's more public spending there per head of population than any other UK country (25% more than the Republic), there's access to all kinds of external funding and there's more per capita political representation than any other UK country (most MPs, MLAs by population).

And despite all that it is, according to the productivity report linked previously, the worst educated and least productive economy in the UK.

But people believe that the removal of the border will magically cure all that - that politics and institutions will spring to life and function as intended, and the power of the economy will be unleashed?

Any evidence as to the probability that will happen......if we're expected to gamble 10% of our GDP on something the least we can expect is to know the odds.

The last round of austerity was bad enough but at least we knew it would end.

We saw the north functioning quite well for a while under an international agreement, until the DUP, (weaned on political suprematist bigotry) refused to fully implement the agreement and a British government too uninterested and un-invested to fix the problem.

That is why a UI has a much much better chance of success for us all. Because we will all be invested and interested in making it work. And suprematism of any form by anyone is relegated to being a minor and pointless pursuit really.

blanch152 · 04-01-2018 10:28AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We saw the north functioning quite well for a while under an international agreement, until the DUP, (weaned on political suprematist bigotry) refused to fully implement the agreement and a British government too uninterested and un-invested to fix the problem.

That is why a UI has a much much better chance of success for us all. Because we will all be invested and interested in making it work. And suprematism of any form by anyone is relegated to being a minor and pointless pursuit really.

The most frustrating thing about the whole mess is that the North has the potential to function very well within its current political situation. However, when you have pathetic blue, white and red painted kerbs and silly Bobby Sands murals all over the place, no self-respecting multi-national is going to invest. When the people elect two sectarian parties to the Assembly, what do you expect other than squabbles over two languages that weren't even spoken when the Troubles started?

The sooner the ordinary people of Northern Ireland show some dignity and self-respect and ditch the icons and murals and elect progressive middle parties, then the place will function a whole lot better.

Ironically, in wanting a unified Ireland, you are expecting that the sectarianism of the North will be diluted in the context of one side winning out, with the taxpayers and voters in the South picking up the tab. We are not stupid enough to vote for that once it is fully explained. If the nationalists of Northern Ireland want a united Ireland, show that it is possible to have a functioning government involving unionists, show that you can elect a moderate political party without links to violence and show that you can govern and implement coherent economic policies, which includes taking responsibility for social welfare cuts.

The most laughable thing from the last few pages on this was that the two governments could implement the cuts from a distance that are required for a united Ireland. If anything showed the poverty of ideas, ambition and competence of the two main political parties in the North, that proposal did.

FrancieBrady · 04-01-2018 10:39AM

blanch152 wrote: »

The most frustrating thing about the whole mess is that the North has the potential to function very well within its current political situation. However, when you have pathetic blue, white and red painted kerbs and silly Bobby Sands murals all over the place, no self-respecting multi-national is going to invest. When the people elect two sectarian parties to the Assembly, what do you expect other than squabbles over two languages that weren't even spoken when the Troubles started?

When you set up a state and give the right of supremacy to one side (with a penchant for religious bigotry) to solve a problem you don't want to tackle and because you want control of the region for selfish strategic reasons, this is what will happen. I.E. Partition is the core problem.

The sooner the ordinary people of Northern Ireland show some dignity and self-respect and ditch the icons and murals and elect progressive middle parties, then the place will function a whole lot better.

It has shown it can function quite well if you remove suprematist powers and vetos. However if you ignore the denial of rights then sooner or later everything collapses.

Ironically, in wanting a unified Ireland, you are expecting that the sectarianism of the North will be diluted in the context of one side winning out, with the taxpayers and voters in the South picking up the tab. We are not stupid enough to vote for that once it is fully explained. If the nationalists of Northern Ireland want a united Ireland, show that it is possible to have a functioning government involving unionists, show that you can elect a moderate political party without links to violence and show that you can govern and implement coherent economic policies, which includes taking responsibility for social welfare cuts.

You forget it will be a democratic vote, which has been agreed too. We all agree I hope that we can only proceed on foot of democratic principles?

the The most laughable thing from last few pages on this was that the two governments could implement the cuts from a distance that are required for a united Ireland. If anything showed the poverty of ideas, ambition and competence of the two main political parties in the North, that proposal did.

Progress is stagnant and you can blame whosoever you wish.
When progress stagnates the two governments are 'agreement' bound to intervene.
They haven't again grasped their individual responsibilities on this. Again.

Chips Lovell · 04-01-2018 10:41AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

A single state would have a single currency (Euro) and a single tax system. The state agencies like IDA would help bring FDI into the North and border region. All of this would,if successful, reduce the northern deficit. If so, there would be a major benefit and further entrench peace as a way of life.

All of which it has currently under the umbrella of the UK but that still hasn't stopped it becoming a basket case. Which leads me to believe that it's Northern Ireland itself and not the border that's the problem. It's gone from being an economic powerhouse to a backwater and there seems to be no sense of urgency about reversing that trend.

It needs to get its house in order. Simply swapping one sugar daddy for another isn't going to fix it.

blanch152 · 04-01-2018 10:52AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Progress is stagnant and you can blame whosoever you wish.
When progress stagnates the two governments are 'agreement' bound to intervene.
They haven't again grasped their individual responsibilities on this. Again.

Once again, the default is to revert to the parents to bring the errant children squabbling into line. When you remember that when the squabbles started in 1970, neither side were speaking either of the languages causing the current dispute, you see how silly it is.

All that we are asking is that the people of the North show some maturity and learn to live and govern together, after all whether they are under the UK or Irish rule, they will still have to do that.

CelticRambler · 04-01-2018 10:59AM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

All of which it has currently under the umbrella of the UK ...

Except that that U in UK is anything but united, and NI is governed at a distance by a parliament that has no interest in the region. :rolleyes:

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Simply swapping one sugar daddy for another isn't going to fix it.

Why is it sooooo hard for some people to understand that the very concept of a (re)United Ireland means that NI will cease to exist as a separte entity?

Chips Lovell · 04-01-2018 11:03AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Why is it sooooo hard for some people to understand that the very concept of a (re)United Ireland means that NI will cease to exist as a separte entity?

I doubt the Northern Nationalists and Unionist communities are going to vacate the premises for us if a vote for unification ever happened. They and all their baggage will still be there when the British hand the keys over.

Jawgap · 04-01-2018 11:15AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We saw the north functioning quite well for a while under an international agreement, until the DUP, (weaned on political suprematist bigotry) refused to fully implement the agreement and a British government too uninterested and un-invested to fix the problem.

That is why a UI has a much much better chance of success for us all. Because we will all be invested and interested in making it work. And suprematism of any form by anyone is relegated to being a minor and pointless pursuit really.

Eh?

Westminster devolved both power and money to the Stormont Assembly - the EU rowed in with money, as did various philanthropic organisations.

The power and the funding placed the fate of NI in the hands of the people there and what has happened as a consequence? Nothing.

The politics and the political actors remain the same so what, in the current circumstances, might lead someone to conclude that anything would change in a UI? Other than Dublin taking the place of London as the source of fiscal munificence for NI?

CelticRambler · 04-01-2018 11:24AM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I doubt the Northern Nationalists and Unionist communities are going to vacate the premises for us if a vote for unification ever happened. They and all their baggage will still be there when the British hand the keys over.

Yes, but they'll be part of the new establishment. The extremists will have to fight for their places in 3- or 5-five seat constituencies under proportional representation, and then take their demands to a parliament that's well used to sorting things out by consensus (unlike the UK)

Does anyone here who opposes unification (for economic reasons) seriously think that Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour and a clatter of independents won't be fielding candidates in the six counties in the first whole-island election? And does anyone believe that there aren't enough moderate voters in NI to see FF, FG & Labour take a decent number of seats from both SF and the DUP.

Of course SF already have a core electorate in the Republic, so they'll come out of it better than the DUP, who'll have next to no chance of getting any candidate elected in constituencies south of Newry. But all the bigotry and clannish behaviour due entirely to partition will evaporate when that partition is removed.

Chips Lovell · 04-01-2018 11:28AM

Can't see any of that happening. Any unification deal will likely involve significant constitutional change to give guarantees to both communities up North. That could mean continuation of a devolved Northern Ireland, with it's own assembly. Or a power sharing agreement guaranteeing representation to both Northern communities in any government, a kind of Stormont for the island of Ireland.

Northern voters aren't going to start voting for FG, FF or Labour, since none of them are going to do what SF and the DUP are so good at, which is extracting significant subsidies from the exchequer.

If we don't like it or play hardball, they'll just threaten a return to violence.

Jawgap · 04-01-2018 11:36AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, but they'll be part of the new establishment. The extremists will have to fight for their places in 3- or 5-five seat constituencies under proportional representation, and then take their demands to a parliament that's well used to sorting things out by consensus (unlike the UK)

Does anyone here who opposes unification (for economic reasons) seriously think that Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour and a clatter of independents won't be fielding candidates in the six counties in the first whole-island election? And does anyone believe that there aren't enough moderate voters in NI to see FF, FG & Labour take a decent number of seats from both SF and the DUP.

Of course SF already have a core electorate in the Republic, so they'll come out of it better than the DUP, who'll have next to no chance of getting any candidate elected in constituencies south of Newry. But all the bigotry and clannish behaviour due entirely to partition will evaporate when that partition is removed.

Except they don't. One major party is abstentionist - and previously abstained from both the Dublin and London parliaments. What evidence is there that the Unionists won't abstain from the Dail?

Equally what evidence is there they won't demand an effective permanent presence at the cabinet table (even if they are minded to participate in the constitutional politics of the Republic) to prevent a 'tyranny of the majority' situation developing? Or look for some minimum representation in the Dail?

And given the amount the Tories have had to pay to secure Unionist acquiescence to their plans is there any evidence that future governments in a UI won't have to pay the 'going rate' of an extra billion or so per year to keep them sweet?

.....and if they don't get what they want what evidence is there that they won't stoke the worst excesses of their communities into violence, as they have previously?

I find it hard to believe that within say a few years of a vote in favour of a UI that the Unionist parties will have become so moderate in their outlook that they would be willing to contest elections and represent their communities in the Dáil in a manner consistent with the Constitution as it stands.

CelticRambler · 04-01-2018 11:45AM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Can't see any of that happening. Any unification deal will likely involve significant constitutional change to give guarantees to both communities up North. That could mean continuation of a devolved Northern Ireland, with it's own assembly. Or a power sharing agreement guaranteeing representation to both Northern communities in any government, a kind of Stormont for the island of Ireland.

Northern voters aren't going to start voting for FG, FF or Labour, since none of them are going to do what SF and the DUP are so good at, which is extracting significant subsidies from the exchequer.

If we don't like it or play hardball, they'll just threaten a return to violence.

In the context of a United Ireland, the concept of "both communities" disappears. Half the population (give or take) already hold a RoI passport, play GAA for their county, take flights from Dublin because that's where the airport is, etc, etc. They don't need any kind of guarantee because they'll have got what they wanted.

As for perpetuating the Stormont farce :pac: :pac: :pac: Why on earth would any UK or Irish government agree to a maintaining a devolved assembly that has shown itself to be unfit for purpose. Not to mention the hassle the government would have with Cork insisting that the SouthWest was entitled to its own assembly. A country of 6 million doesn't need that kind of fragmented regional government.

blanch152 · 04-01-2018 11:48AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Except they don't. One major party is abstentionist - and previously abstained from both the Dublin and London parliaments. What evidence is there that the Unionists won't abstain from the Dail?

Equally what evidence is there they won't demand an effective permanent presence at the cabinet table (even if they are minded to participate in the constitutional politics of the Republic) to prevent a 'tyranny of the majority' situation developing? Or look for some minimum representation in the Dail?

And given the amount the Tories have had to pay to secure Unionist acquiescence to their plans is there any evidence that future governments in a UI won't have to pay the 'going rate' of an extra billion or so per year to keep them sweet?

.....and if they don't get what they want what evidence is there that they won't stoke the worst excesses of their communities into violence, as they have previously?

I find it hard to believe that within say a few years of a vote in favour of a UI that the Unionist parties will have become so moderate in their outlook that they would be willing to contest elections and represent their communities in the Dáil in a manner consistent with the Constitution as it stands.

The sequence goes like this.

1. Brexit
2. Magic wand
3. Northern Ireland votes for unification.
4. ROI ignores its selfish economic interests and vote for unification.
5. Magic wand
6. Unionists accept the majority vote without violence or without constitutional demands.
7. Magic tax pool money tree is raided
8. Economic prosperity for all and a happy glow all over the island.

The main problems with that sequence are 2, 5 and 7. Unfortunately, it seems that people seem to believe that they are not needed and that the other parts of the sequence will happen automatically.

Even if you can get 2, 5 and 7 to happen, there are significant problems to be overcome with regards to 4 and 6. As for 8, that was the dream of Pearse in 1916, but it is a dream that was of its time and no longer works in the modern world.

Jawgap · 04-01-2018 11:54AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

In the context of a United Ireland, the concept of "both communities" disappears. Half the population (give or take) already hold a RoI passport, play GAA for their county, take flights from Dublin because that's where the airport is, etc, etc. They don't need any kind of guarantee because they'll have got what they wanted.

As for perpetuating the Stormont farce :pac: :pac: :pac: Why on earth would any UK or Irish government agree to a maintaining a devolved assembly that has shown itself to be unfit for purpose. Not to mention the hassle the government would have with Cork insisting that the SouthWest was entitled to its own assembly. A country of 6 million doesn't need that kind of fragmented regional government.

What?

You'd still have two communities except one would feel under siege more than ever because they'd be a shrinking minority in a state they never wanted to be part of! If anything they'd be more likely to want to assert their identity and "apartedness" with even greater vigour - which make future Twelveths in a UI particularly "festive."

Stormont isn't inherently unfit for purpose - it's the yokes that people elect to it that make it so.

Chips Lovell · 04-01-2018 11:56AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

In the context of a United Ireland, the concept of "both communities" disappears. Half the population (give or take) already hold a RoI passport, play GAA for their county, take flights from Dublin because that's where the airport is, etc, etc. They don't need any kind of guarantee because they'll have got what they wanted.

The Northern Unionist identity and need for guarantees never disappeared despite their getting what they wanted, remaining part of the UK. I think it's naive to think the Northern Nationalist identity would disappear if the tables were turned.

CelticRambler wrote: »

As for perpetuating the Stormont farce :pac: :pac: :pac: Why on earth would any UK or Irish government agree to a maintaining a devolved assembly that has shown itself to be unfit for purpose. Not to mention the hassle the government would have with Cork insisting that the SouthWest was entitled to its own assembly. A country of 6 million doesn't need that kind of fragmented regional government.

Do you think anyone outside of Northern Ireland wanted the current Stormont arrangement? That's the price we had to pay for maintaining a modicum of stability in Northern Ireland. And that's the price we're going to have to pay if we assume responsibility for Northern Ireland.

CelticRambler · 04-01-2018 12:01PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Except they don't. One major party is abstentionist - and previously abstained from both the Dublin and London parliaments. What evidence is there that the Unionists won't abstain from the Dail?

Totally different contexts. If you can't see that for yourself, there's no point in continuing the discussion. :rolleyes:

However, if - when a majority of the local population has voted for reunification - hard-core unionists are elected and then abstain from the Dáil, moderate unionists won't be long in exploiting that. If the DUP are not at the table in Dublin, they won't be getting any subsidies and their electorate will soon realise the power of proportional representation in national elections.

blanch152 · 04-01-2018 12:12PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

In the context of a United Ireland, the concept of "both communities" disappears. Half the population (give or take) already hold a RoI passport, play GAA for their county, take flights from Dublin because that's where the airport is, etc, etc. They don't need any kind of guarantee because they'll have got what they wanted.

As for perpetuating the Stormont farce :pac: :pac: :pac: Why on earth would any UK or Irish government agree to a maintaining a devolved assembly that has shown itself to be unfit for purpose. Not to mention the hassle the government would have with Cork insisting that the SouthWest was entitled to its own assembly. A country of 6 million doesn't need that kind of fragmented regional government.

According to the GFA, the concept of both communities does not disappear. Neither does the GFA provide for the dissolution of the Northern Assembly.

This part of the GFA clearly requires the concept of both communities to continue post-unification:

"affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland."

Not only that, but I believe that joint sovereignty will continue, and that the current role and authority for the ROI in the North will have to be reflected in giving the UK similar rights for what happens in the new Ireland, to give those clauses real meaning. This will also mean concessions like rejoining the Commonwealth will be on the table.

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments