nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

All-New United Ireland Thread

An Ciarraioch

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

They're not really comparable situations though. Here the choice is between additional expenditure of around €10 billion a year and the status quo. In the financial crisis, whatever we did, bank bailout or no bank bailout, would have had immense consequences for tax payers. If there had been an option to just keep things the same, it would have been a no brainier.

Besides, the cost of unification would be vastly higher than the bank bailout. The net cost of the banking bailout amounts to about four years of keeping Northern Ireland afloat.

My point is people become desensitised to constantly being gouged for one reason or another. Putting it on something like a united Ireland will put it to the side IMO.

Chips Lovell

I don't think people were desensitised to it. They were up in arms about it and there's still a lot of anger.

Snickers Man

It's not going to happen guys and girls. And popular votes south and/or north of the border will make no difference.

We are living in dangerous times and on the cusp of a dramatic strategic realignment in world politics. America is turning its back on Europe, sees no future in it, doesn't want to commit troops or money to its defence and frankly doesn't really care what happens to it. It wants out of NATO. (America First/MAGA)

The main economic and military powerhouses of Europe (less Britain) do not want to be tied to a transAtlantic alliance. They want a more eurocentric defence policy. Just google Guy Verhofstadt and European defence to see the Brussels-centric view of this.

These differing agendas are working as complements to each other, each bringing about an orderly demise of NATO.

Only Britain was enthusiastic about a transAtlantic military alliance because since WWII she has seen herself as America's Special Friend and would only get into bed militarily with Europe if America joined in as a threesome. But now, with Brexit, that last enthusiastic supporter of NATO as was is leaving the scene. So NATO in its current form is on deathwatch.

Instead there's a new strategic alignment taking place. Much of Western Europe is now slipping out of the American embrace and going its own way. That's fine by the Yanks, especially in the era of Trump. They get to scale down their European military presence significantly, they are less worried about Russia than all this smoke and mirrors about "collusion" in the presidential campaign and the apparent poisoning attempt of a Russian double agent and his daughter would suggest.

(Anybody watch the last series of Homeland? Remember when Carrie and her CIA chums poison (non fatally) the FBI traitor and convince him it was the Russians who did it to him? Interesting, huh?)

Inasmuch as America needs to keep tabs on Europe it has two very willing, indeed utterly dependant, allies to do that job for them: Britain and Israel. Both will do anything the Americans ask, the British because they will convince themselves it's all their own idea and the Israelis because they know their very existence depends on the US having their back when things get rough.

As for Russia: well, the Americans could do business with them in WWII despite being diametrically opposed to their politics. They can do the same thing now--arms length co-operation in mutual self interest.

What all this means for us is that the power bloc containing Britain is moving more and more into opposition with the power bloc that is the rest of Europe. And when that happens, our geographical position as Britain's vulnerable western back door assumes importance once again. We're back to Tudor times with a Britain that had dissociated itself from central European Christendom (Henry VIII's break with Rome) was becoming a deadly economic, religious and political rival to the Great Power in Europe at the time, namely Spain.

While Ireland has strong ties with Britain's rivals (Spain in the 16th and early 17th centuries; France from mid 17th to early 19th centuries) we are of vital strategic importance and have to be subdued and rendered impotent.

When Britain was at war with Germany (who didn't have a navy worthy of the name) and in a Cold War with Russia (who had little or no support in this country) Irish independence could be tolerated. Nevertheless, Britain kept a foothold in Northern Ireland just in case. It was only with the end of the Cold War that Britain could make statements saying it had "no selfish, economic or strategic interest in remaining in Northern Ireland".

Now it does again. There is no way Britain is going to allow a unified Ireland to emerge as part of a European super bloc which is rapidly becoming a non-co-operative rival to Britain and her bestie the US.

The Brexiteers would love it, just love it, if we did the decent thing and left the EU. Probably even rejoined the UK. But that's not going to happen. So their commitment to Norn Iron will be redoubled.

There will be blood over this.

****in HATE Brexiteers:mad::mad:

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't think people were desensitised to it. They were up in arms about it and there's still a lot of anger.

Yet it all happened anyway and those responsible, back in power and back making profits like nothing happened. Explaining all that away was a lot more difficult and unpalatable, than a united Ireland.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That they got away with it is obvious, people are still voting for them after they abandoned the struggle and took jobs running the colonial statelet for their imperial masters.

Which bit of standing for election was a part of this 'conspiracy' to decieve the electorate?

BonnieSituation

And this lucid talk poll eh...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44398502

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yet it all happened anyway and those responsible, back in power and back making profits like nothing happened. Explaining all that away was a lot more difficult and unpalatable, than a united Ireland.

It is strange how there are people still complaining ten years later about the cost of the bailout which rescued this country from poverty and saved our economy yet they have absolutely no care in the world about paying the same again every four years into perpetuity for the people of Northern Ireland, many of whom don't want us to spend it on them.

Bizarre.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

It is strange how there are people still complaining ten years later about the cost of the bailout which rescued this country from poverty and saved our economy yet they have absolutely no care in the world about paying the same again every four years into perpetuity for the people of Northern Ireland, many of whom don't want us to spend it on them.

Bizarre.

But what about the near half of the population who probably want to have it spent on them.

Also, the North isn't a black hole. Tax is raised there too. It seems like that's always missed.
People do work in the private sector.

Imagine what their private sector would be as part of an all Ireland economy with real liberalisation that being joined to this Southern oasis would bring. I think the naysayers assume that it will be in a vacuum and the North will just weigh on us and contribute nothing.

In any event, reunification will be not a decision made on economics. It will be made on emotion.

And, it should be said there is an almost certainty that the EU and the UK will financially back us and it.

McGiver

blanch152 wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

You sure? Even if that meant higher taxes and/or cuts to subsidise NI?

I think this is a key point. Social welfare in the South is far more generous, will it be equalised down or equalised up? If it is equalised down, why would a person on social welfare in the South vote for unity? If it is equalised up, why would a person already paying high personal taxes in the South vote for unity? If the question isn't answered, why would either of them vote for unity?

If you have uncertainty about what happens, people will be reluctant to vote for unity. If you have certainty you firm up opposition from some area of society. All of that will become apparent in a campaign.

Very good points. Can't see a scenario where the Southern people wouldn't have to take a hit. Therefore a yes vote on UI is not guaranteed even in the South what to speak of the North.

McGiver

Thomas_IV wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

Look, I'm not Irish but if I was, I think I wouldn't want to pay for this. I think vast majority in the South are lukewarm nationalists - up to the point when it concerns their wallet. Which is exactly the same case here. You seriously think that people squeezed by neoliberal agenda in ROI with poor public services, housing crisis, Dublin centralisation, unregulated ripoff insurance companies etc would want to pay out of their pocket to subsidise a backward province where half of the population stuck to sectarianism, religious bigotry, anti-science ideology and cling to a foreign country instead of their own? And all that to fulfil some old romantic dream of UI? Hardly. I think people in ROI know this and are pragmatic enough just to forget about NI.

Think UI is not feasible at this stage. The matter was lost in 1920s. I fir, NI is a failed statelet - UK doesn't want it really, it's them who desperately want to be part of the UK. ROI doesn't want them either given the costs and given that ROI would have to deal with say 750 thousand troublemaking sectarian people completely opposed to the Republic.

I know that this re-unification article was removed from the constitution of the Republic of Ireland due to the GFA, but nonetheless I believe that when it comes to a chance for it there might be a certain majority on both sides of the border who would vote in favour of a UI, even if that would be on second thoughts.

It is certainly for the people to decide whether they want it or not, but to drop the whole idea always because of the Unionist/Loyalist/OO nutters isn't really fair. They have hold this country in ransom for long enough, actually for far too long and their regressiveness will one day bring them to the fall which they deserve because they have outlived themselves in our modern times. Once the UK breaks up on Brexit (the chances for that are rather increasing than declining), the moderate, progressive and pragmatic Unionists in NI will be left with no other option than to consider their chances in a UI because NI cannot sustain itself economically and financially. But it should be clear that a UI won't come without financial burdens and I think that many know that but those in favour of a UI would raise no objections to it. In the whole process of such an Event, I would hope that the EU will help Ireland in this as much as it helped Germany in 1990.

I absolutely agree. I am not saying UI is a closed business, the GFA says otherwise. What I am saying is that if you approach this in a pragmatic way it is waste of time and effort to strive for UI at the moment unless situation changes drastically (due to hard Brexit for example). It may happen in the future but I don't think it's immediate. The EU should assist for sure, unifications are complex and don't happen often.

Unification of Germany is a completely different case though - no sectarianism/religion involved, both parts were fully ethnically German, geopolitics involved, the carved out part wanted to unify - none of that applies in the NI case. It had to happen to push the rest of the Eastern block free itself of the Communists and the SU.

irish_goat

Is there genuine evidence to back up that the south would(or even can) reject a UI? If there was a yes vote in the North today what current politician would stick their head above the parapet and campaign against it? Which would even ask for a referendum to be held in the first place? As far as I can see, acceptance is a done deal in terms of FF and FG.

Avatar MIA

irish_goat wrote: »

Which would even ask for a referendum to be held in the first place? As far as I can see, acceptance is a done deal in terms of FF and FG.

A referendum would have to be held.

McGiver

Avatar MIA wrote: »

irish_goat wrote: »

Which would even ask for a referendum to be held in the first place? As far as I can see, acceptance is a done deal in terms of FF and FG.

A referendum would have to be held.

Does the GFA specify that?

Avatar MIA

McGiver wrote: »

Does the GFA specify that?

From Wiki. But also my understanding of what was agreed.

The Irish Constitution was also amended to implicitly recognise Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom's sovereign territory,[3] conditional upon the consent for a united Ireland from majorities of the people in both jurisdictions on the island.

An Ciarraioch

And like the GFA referenda, I presume both would have to be held simultaneously, rather than sequentially.

BonnieSituation

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

And like the GFA referenda, I presume both would have to be held simultaneously, rather than sequentially.

I don't know where that presumption comes from nor why we would do so.

What's the point of holding them simultaneously?

Imagine we did that and the south votes yes and the north votes no, then what was the point of holding the south's referendum. I mean all this talk about money surely that's a waste of resources.

In 1998 we had the European elections on the same day iirc so it made sense to hold them when they did.

BonnieSituation

McGiver wrote: »

I absolutely agree. I am not saying UI is a closed business, the GFA says otherwise. What I am saying is that if you approach this in a pragmatic way it is waste of time and effort to strive for UI at the moment unless situation changes drastically (due to hard Brexit for example). It may happen in the future but I don't think it's immediate. The EU should assist for sure, unifications are complex and don't happen often.

Unification of Germany is a completely different case though - no sectarianism/religion involved, both parts were fully ethnically German, geopolitics involved, the carved out part wanted to unify - none of that applies in the NI case. It had to happen to push the rest of the Eastern block free itself of the Communists and the SU.

We've been striving for it in a lot of quarters for nearly a hundred years and if you thinking about independence, even longer than that.

Brexit presents a unique opportunity for nationalists to sell reunification as a benefit and it is incumbent not to let those opportunities slip.

BonnieSituation

Avatar MIA wrote: »

A referendum would have to be held.

Yes it would.

And it would be some vista for any political party to come out against it.

It's so unlikely that it's not worth discussing.

And partitionists political or economic are thankfully very few and far between.

McGiver

BonnieSituation wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

I absolutely agree. I am not saying UI is a closed business, the GFA says otherwise. What I am saying is that if you approach this in a pragmatic way it is waste of time and effort to strive for UI at the moment unless situation changes drastically (due to hard Brexit for example). It may happen in the future but I don't think it's immediate. The EU should assist for sure, unifications are complex and don't happen often.

Unification of Germany is a completely different case though - no sectarianism/religion involved, both parts were fully ethnically German, geopolitics involved, the carved out part wanted to unify - none of that applies in the NI case. It had to happen to push the rest of the Eastern block free itself of the Communists and the SU.

We've been striving for it in a lot of quarters for nearly a hundred years and if you thinking about independence, even longer than that.

Brexit presents a unique opportunity for nationalists to sell reunification as a benefit and it is incumbent not to let those opportunities slip.

What if there's only half-Brexit or not-so-hard Brexit?

BonnieSituation

McGiver wrote: »

What if there's only half-Brexit or not-so-hard Brexit?

You tell me?

What the hell is a half-Brexit?

Surely the chaos of the last 2 years shows how awful the UKgov are to all and sundry?

Why would you hitch your wagon to it?

If you want to as DUPers do then so be it. But our job is to sell a UI as a positive thing.

An Ciarraioch

The Bangordub blog has further statistical analysis of the LucidTalk poll:

https://bangordub.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/on-a-knife-edge-brexit-lucid-talk-and-the-border-poll/#comments

An Ciarraioch

BonnieSituation wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

What if there's only half-Brexit or not-so-hard Brexit?

You tell me?

What the hell is a half-Brexit?

Surely the chaos of the last 2 years shows how awful the UKgov are to all and sundry?

Why would you hitch your wagon to it?

If you want to as DUPers do then so be it. But our job is to sell a UI as a positive thing.

In fairness to McGiver, if (as seems more probable now) the Brexit negotiations conclude with the whole UK remaining in the SM and CU, the impetus for a Border poll becomes rather less immediate.

BonnieSituation

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

In fairness to McGiver, if (as seems more probable now) the Brexit negotiations conclude with the whole UK remaining in the SM and CU, the impetus for a Border poll becomes rather less immediate.

Absolutely. But until that's clear...

It's nonsense to subscribe to the idea that we shouldn't keep it to the fore though at the moment.

In all my life this is the most I've ever seen it being front and centre of commentary. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't want to see that slip.

When you see the likes of Peter Robinson coming out saying that "50%+1 isn't enough", you know that this genie isn't going back in the bottle.

McGiver

BonnieSituation wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

What if there's only half-Brexit or not-so-hard Brexit?

You tell me?

What the hell is a half-Brexit?

Surely the chaos of the last 2 years shows how awful the UKgov are to all and sundry?

Why would you hitch your wagon to it?

If you want to as DUPers do then so be it. But our job is to sell a UI as a positive thing.

By half-Brexit I meant staying in the CU as well as the SM or some kind of an EFTA arrangement.

McGiver

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

BonnieSituation wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

What if there's only half-Brexit or not-so-hard Brexit?

You tell me?

What the hell is a half-Brexit?

Surely the chaos of the last 2 years shows how awful the UKgov are to all and sundry?

Why would you hitch your wagon to it?

If you want to as DUPers do then so be it. But our job is to sell a UI as a positive thing.

In fairness to McGiver, if (as seems more probable now) the Brexit negotiations conclude with the whole UK remaining in the SM and CU, the impetus for a Border poll becomes rather less immediate.

Exactly. But it's 50:50 at this stage. We may well roll the dice. It's possible the Brexiteers really jump off the cliff. There's a plenty of evidence.

Thomas_IV

McGiver wrote: »

Exactly. But it's 50:50 at this stage. We may well roll the dice. It's possible the Brexiteers really jump off the cliff. There's a plenty of evidence.

They have the DUP behind their back who will give them the last push. Of that I am certain (despite that the diehard Brexiters really don't have a need for that themselves).

Thomas_IV

McGiver wrote: »

What if there's only half-Brexit or not-so-hard Brexit?

There won't be such thing like 'half- or not-so-hard Brexit'. Either the UK reverses the whole idiotic Brexit thing in time, or it will be worse off afterwards by probably exiting the EU with no deal at all.

There's plenty of evidence out there which proves the point that the UK govt never really listened to what the EU replied to their demands and wishes. That compromise which was reached in December 2017 was only due to the EU which was about to 'rescue' May from being overthrown by her inner Party rivals, BoJo & chums plotting for that for long enough. It is always them (and of course the DUP as their backers) who insist on a hard Brexit. May herself being too weak (or for whatever reasons) to sack him in her failed reshuffle of January 2018. I presume that the plotters had second thoughts and keep her for being the scapegoat when a hard Brexit gets through and the UK goes from one disaster to another afterwards.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

It is strange how there are people still complaining ten years later about the cost of the bailout which rescued this country from poverty and saved our economy yet they have absolutely no care in the world about paying the same again every four years into perpetuity for the people of Northern Ireland, many of whom don't want us to spend it on them.

Bizarre.

What I find bizarre is short and selective memory.
The bailout was kind of a big deal.
The poverty experienced was after the bailout. In fact the growing homeless/housing/health crises would suggest there still is a lot of issues growing steadily since the 'bailout rescued the country from poverty'. I suppose if folks never felt any poverty and are doing okay now, it's understandable why they might think we avoided poverty rather than suffered through it, as many did and a growing number are.
The trouble with dismissing it, to albeit recent history, as a catastrophe dodged, is we are doomed to repeat it.

And I never said I'd no care in the world. I suggested after the bail outs and generational debt we took for a mix of private loss, and bad regulation all in the pursuit of greed, and a society use to being shafted by such people, with their own lot, in some cases, remaining the same as ever or exponentially worse, I can see how more of the same for a more tangible reason, such as a united Ireland, would be far more palatable to the average working tax payer.

Personally I find it bizarre that we needed the bailout to pretty much put us back on the road to were we were and the gamblers are back at the table thanks to the tax payer taking the brunt. Compare that to a likely massive spend, that results in a united Ireland. Basically, if you feel like you're going to be shafted anyway, a united Ireland is head and shoulders above austerity to ensure a return to the same way we do business, IMO.

Zubeneschamali

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The poverty experienced was after the bailout. In fact the growing homeless/housing/health crises would suggest there still is a lot of issues growing steadily since the 'bailout rescued the country from poverty'.

The bailout didn't rescue the country from poverty, it rescued the country from bankruptcy.

If the country was bankrupt, that would have caused poverty when salary and welfare cheques bounced, but it never came to that.

Ireland actually negotiated the crash without widening the gap between rich and poor - our Gini co-efficient hovered between 30 and 35 all the way from 2004-2014.

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The bailout didn't rescue the country from poverty, it rescued the country from bankruptcy.

If the country was bankrupt, that would have caused poverty when salary and welfare cheques bounced, but it never came to that.

Ireland actually negotiated the crash without widening the gap between rich and poor - our Gini co-efficient hovered between 30 and 35 all the way from 2004-2014.

Agreed, I never said 'the bailout rescued the country from poverty'. That's a nonsense.
As regards the gap between rich and poor, in Dublin for example, 'at risk of poverty' and 'consistent poverty' rates were higher in 2016 than they were in 2011. I certainly wouldn't suggest poverty had been avoided, when it actually grew.

2011
At Risk of Poverty Rate (%) 9.5
Deprivation Rate (%) 22.4
Consistent Poverty Rate (%) 4.0

2016
At Risk of Poverty Rate (%) 12.1
Deprivation Rate (%) 20.7
Consistent Poverty Rate (%) 7.8

https://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp

Again, the point is if people have/are suffering through paying for a bailout and the ongoing pursuit of policy which doesn't seem to be working for everybody, paying for a United Ireland won't be any harder a sell. I would suggest many will feel it's worth the price, whatever that may work out to be.