32 County Ireland keeps the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Sleeper12 · 05-10-2018 9:31am #1

Sometime in the future the people of Northern Ireland will vote to reunited with Ireland. It will be a tight vote & most definitely a divisive vote. When this happens there's a strong chance that some of the Troubles will move south of the border.

Here's what I've been thinking about for a few months now, What if we keep the Northern Ireland Assembly? At least in the short term, 10/20 years. Would it be a good idea as it might help bring some of our Loyalist brothers & sisters with it? Could there be a better chance of peace by giving the likes of the DUP a voice on Northern Ireland, at least in the short term?

Ive kept this in my head. Now as I type here I'm getting nerves that this is the plan all along I I'm the only one in Ireland that doesn't know it.

Personally I think it the right way forward but would love to hear others views on it.

Mods if this is better suited to Politics Cafe please feel free to move.

loyatemu · 05-10-2018 9:38am

you're assuming the North would just join the existing Republic, which I don't think would be acceptable to unionists. The 2 entities merging into a new country with new political structures seems more likely, but that could be unpopular in the "south". Keeping the existing political structures on either side of the border would be the worst of both worlds. I still don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Larbre34 · 05-10-2018 10:04am

If and when the 6 counties become politically reunited with the 26, I think it will be done in tandem with a reform of local and regional Government in Ireland.

The Republic currently has 31 local authorities for 4.8 million people. N.I. has 11 district authorities for about 1.6 million folk. 42 Councils and 2 national assemblies (or 3 counting Seanad Éireann) is a simply ridiculous proposition for effective democracy and devolution of regional competencies in a small country.

As it happens, I think the announcement this week of plebiscites to introduce directly elected mayors in the cities outside Dublin is the first step in a proper regionalisation of the land.

Post reunification, it wouldn't be practical to keep a 6 counties assembly when the interests of Donegal and Derry and Fermanagh and Leitrim are so closely aligned and also Newry and Dundalk, for instance, already form a de facto economic region. I see something like a single Oireachtas in Dublin and regional assemblies centred on Belfast, Derry, Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo and Athlone with their natural catchments. To my mind, they should have discretion over significant budgets, the assemblies should be elected for full-time office and should control housing, health, education, infrastructure and economic development in their regions, while the Oireachtas should focus on national finances, climate and energy, foreign affairs and headline social policy for a Republic. Personally, I would give the Seanad universal franchise and make both houses elected by list system to properly disconnect them from the parish pump.

From all this, those of a unionist background could retain effective representation in their traditional areas and while not having a situation of their being two parliaments in one nation.

maccored · 05-10-2018 10:18am

loyatemu wrote: »

you're assuming the North would just join the existing Republic, which I don't think would be acceptable to unionists. The 2 entities merging into a new country with new political structures seems more likely, but that could be unpopular in the "south". Keeping the existing political structures on either side of the border would be the worst of both worlds. I still don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

this - the idea of the south absorbing the north isnt very realistic. "The 2 entities merging into a new country with new political structures" indeed seems the most likely way of doing it, and will probably take a few decades or more - plenty of time for people to get on board

Chips Lovell · 05-10-2018 12:08pm

Yup, I think the only way it could potentially be made work would involve a complete reorganization of the state, with a new constitution.

Both communities in the North will want some kind of guaranteed representation, which means something like a greatly devolved Northern Ireland with a continuation of regional government or some kind of national power-sharing arrangement between the three communities, a Stormont for the island of Ireland.

Sleeper12 · 05-10-2018 3:27pm

loyatemu wrote: »

you're assuming the North would just join the existing Republic, which I don't think would be acceptable to unionists. The 2 entities merging into a new country with new political structures seems more likely, but that could be unpopular in the "south". Keeping the existing political structures on either side of the border would be the worst of both worlds. I still don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Good point. I had been thinking that the unionists would be just told "hey you're in Ireland now" & as you say that wouldn't be acceptable to them. Nor should it be. A new country representing both sides sounds a much better idea.

The last sentence, in bold, you may be perfectly right but I used to say that about the "troubles". Growing up in Dublin in the 70s & 80s I never thought I'd see peace in my lifetime. Having said that a slower more gradual change from divided to united country will probably have the best chance of success

breatheme · 05-10-2018 3:35pm

If it is temporary... then I could see it happening. However, not permanently... unless... similar entities are created elsewhere in Ireland. (Former provinces?) There's either devolution or no devolution, but it is too chaotic to have one devolved region. But if it's time contained while negotiations on unification terms happen, it could work in the short-medium term.

Sleeper12 · 05-10-2018 3:43pm

Patww79 wrote:

Joining the two countries to make a new one would see too many concessions from our side and would change our country too much. Hopefully we get a say on the matter in Ireland too so we can vote to leave things as they are regardless of a vote in Northern Ireland.

We will also have to have a referendum before anything happens so we will get a say. Unfortunately no one knows what the wording will be or what we will be voting on. Its all wonderful getting to vote in a referendum but it might not be the wording that we want to vote on.

lawred2 · 05-10-2018 3:46pm

loyatemu wrote: »

you're assuming the North would just join the existing Republic, which I don't think would be acceptable to unionists. The 2 entities merging into a new country with new political structures seems more likely, but that could be unpopular in the "south". Keeping the existing political structures on either side of the border would be the worst of both worlds. I still don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

to be honest the current structures in the Republic shouldn't be acceptable to any of us..

local politics in the national parliament

no real local autonomy

so many layers of bureaucracy that accountability need never be a reality

Ireland should have elected city mayors with elected councils, 4 provincial governments for local matters and a national parliament.

What we've got now empowers very few and delivers very little.

briany · 05-10-2018 3:53pm

What would happen if there was a border poll in NI, and they said yes to unification, and we also said yes, but then the NI and Irish governments couldn't agree on what the new structure of the state would look like? Basically, a bit like Brexit negotiations, the Unionist and Nationalist sides had lines they wouldn't cross, making a deal very difficult to reach. Could the DUP block Irish unification by being intractable?

Anyway, ideally, if you were going to have devolution, you'd have it for each province. No gerrymandering for what was Northern Ireland.

troyzer · 05-10-2018 3:54pm

A federal structure with four devolved provinces is the only solution.

And to be honest, a federal system in general would be good for Ireland.

James Brown · 05-10-2018 4:23pm

You can't simply have the occupied territory shoe-horned in to the rest of the country. A new flag would be a mere administrative no-brainer straight off.
The constitution would need over hauling with all peoples having a say, not just catholic conservatives, about time too.
It would be a new country essentially. There would be no need for an assembly. We can't break off chunks of the country because some don't like the will of the majority. Kerry would be a circus with the Healy-Raes for example. Not to forgot part of Ulster is already in this jurisdiction.

recedite · 05-10-2018 4:28pm

briany wrote: »

What would happen if there was a border poll in NI, and they said yes to unification, and we also said yes, but then the NI and Irish governments couldn't agree on what the new structure of the state would look like? Basically, a bit like Brexit negotiations, the Unionist and Nationalist sides had lines they wouldn't cross, making a deal very difficult to reach. Could the DUP block Irish unification by being intractable?

Interesting question. Leaving a union is different to joining one though. So I think the whole process would actually be divided into two separate parts.
Part 1 is the exit of NI from the UK. This is the "border poll" that SF are planning for. Its a referendum to leave the UK, with no plan after that. So very much like Brexit. A very hard Brexit would make this referendum more likely to succeed, so it is a possibility in the near future. The ROI and its people would have no direct involvement in it.

Part 2 is the formation of a new United Ireland. This would be between the people of NI and the ROI. It would be more like EU accession talks, where each party knows in advance what treaties and what constitution they are signing up for. We should really have a ministry already dedicated to working on this. If the proposed roadplan looked reasonably attractive to everyone, then it would pave the way for Part 1 above to proceed.

By way of comparison, when Ireland was first partitioned, technically it happened in a two part process. Part 1 was when Ireland became SI and NI in 1920. Part 2 was when SI and NI morphed into the 32 county Free State in 1922, but NI immediately seceded from the new state and rejoined the UK.

On 7 December 1922, the day after the establishment of the Irish Free State, the Parliament of Northern Ireland addressed the King requesting its secession from Irish Free State. The address was unanimous, with the abstentionist Nationalist and Sinn F members absent. The King replied shortly thereafter to say that he had caused his Ministers and the Government of the Irish Free State to be informed that Northern Ireland was to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State_Constitution_Act_1922

Of course these things need to be well choreographed in advance.

Lmklad · 06-10-2018 4:45pm

They GF Agreement states that the current legal and governance institutions will stay in situ after a successful poll vote. In other words MP’s become TD’s and Stormont stays as is, same goes for the PSNI. There is no facility in the Agreement to disband these.

Imreoir2 · 06-10-2018 5:42pm

briany wrote: »

What would happen if there was a border poll in NI, and they said yes to unification, and we also said yes, but then the NI and Irish governments couldn't agree on what the new structure of the state would look like? Basically, a bit like Brexit negotiations, the Unionist and Nationalist sides had lines they wouldn't cross, making a deal very difficult to reach. Could the DUP block Irish unification by being intractable?

Anyway, ideally, if you were going to have devolution, you'd have it for each province. No gerrymandering for what was Northern Ireland.

Reunification is not dependent on a deal with the Unionism. If a border poll is passed north and south then Ireland becomes an all island state. While this might result in a reorganization of the state, it does not have to. While some people don't like the idea that NI would simply be added onto the existing republic, that can and in large part probably will occur. There does not need to be Unionists acceptance for this to happen, by definition Unionists don't accept a United Ireland in any form.

Imreoir2 · 06-10-2018 5:49pm

The most likely outcome is a unitary state with a devolved administration for NI. The Dáil will have overall sovereignty over the national territory with some issues devolved to Stormont. The Dáil would continue to administer those issues from Dublin for the rest of Ireland. The scope of the devolved powers could be similar to the powers the UK has chosen to devolve, but they could be more limited.

Policing for example would probably be centralized with a merger of the PSNI into the Gardaí, the UK has a very decentralized police force so a separate force for NI makes sense in the context of the UK. Ireland's police is centralized and having a second force for NI would probably not be seen as beneficial in a United Ireland.

recedite · 06-10-2018 6:28pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Reunification is not dependent on a deal with the Unionism. If a border poll is passed north and south then Ireland becomes an all island state. While this might result in a reorganization of the state, it does not have to. While some people don't like the idea that NI would simply be added onto the existing republic, that can and in large part probably will occur. There does not need to be Unionists acceptance for this to happen, by definition Unionists don't accept a United Ireland in any form.

You say NI would "probably" be bolted onto the existing RoI. This would depend on the wording of any referendum. If the plan was to drag unionists kicking and screaming into an unchanged RoI, then in theory, yes, that could happen. But that referendum would be far less likely to succeed, because a lot of people both north and south would oppose it.

Imreoir2 · 06-10-2018 6:30pm

recedite wrote: »

You say NI would "probably" be bolted onto the existing RoI. This would depend on the wording of any referendum. If the plan was to drag unionists kicking and screaming into an unchanged RoI, then in theory, yes, that could happen. But that referendum would be far less likely to succeed, because a lot of people both north and south would oppose it.

The question? The question will be about the concept of unification, not the details. It would probably be the same as the last border poll.

recedite · 06-10-2018 6:34pm

Lmklad wrote: »

They GF Agreement states that the current legal and governance institutions will stay in situ after a successful poll vote.

I don't think so, but feel free to quote the text you refer to.
In one part it says...

2. Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

Which seems to imply to me that new institutions may or may not be established. Its completely open to whatever people might want to agree on.

flutered · 06-10-2018 6:43pm

Lmklad wrote: »

They GF Agreement states that the current legal and governance institutions will stay in situ after a successful poll vote. In other words MP’s become TD’s and Stormont stays as is, same goes for the PSNI. There is no facility in the Agreement to disband these.

the problem nowdays with the psni is that it has gone 80% protestant at the behest of the unionists, plus it may go higher

recedite · 06-10-2018 6:45pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The question? The question will be about the concept of unification, not the details. It would probably be the same as the last border poll.

When was the last border poll? I don't remember any.

You could have a 2-part question like the one in Crimea in 2013 "do you want to leave (x country) and rejoin the motherland?" That would imply no change to existing structures in RoI. No details required.

Or you could have a 2-part like "do you want to leave (x country) and join RoI in a united Ireland as specified in x Treaty of Unification?
That would imply a new Ireland, with some compromises and some new features.

Imreoir2 · 06-10-2018 6:52pm

recedite wrote: »

When was the last border poll? I don't remember any.

Back in the 70's, it was boycotted by Nationalists so was a non-event at the time, but it does set a precedent for the question to be asked.

It was a choice of:
"Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"
or
"Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?"

oscarBravo · 06-10-2018 8:41pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The question will be about the concept of unification, not the details.

We've seen what happens when a referendum is held about a concept without bothering with details. I hope we'll never be that stupid.

blanch152 · 06-10-2018 8:41pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The question? The question will be about the concept of unification, not the details. It would probably be the same as the last border poll.

Like the abortion referendum, the parameters of what might happen would have to be on the table.

Only a fool thinks that even the nationalists in Northern Ireland would be prepared to exchange what they have for a leap into the unknown.

FrancieBrady · 06-10-2018 11:39pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

We've seen what happens when a referendum is held about a concept without bothering with details. I hope we'll never be that stupid.

One thing distinctly different about referendums held here are that the issues are very well trashed out before hand.

bilbot79 · 06-10-2018 11:44pm

An incentive of 25k per British affiliated person who wishes to renounce Irish residency in a United Ireland should mean that there are no new troubles. They can then set up in a nice house in England courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.

FrancieBrady · 06-10-2018 11:52pm

bilbot79 wrote: »

An incentive of 25k per British affiliated person who wishes to renounce Irish residency in a United Ireland should mean that there are no new troubles. They can then set up in a nice house in England courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.

Ridiculous notion, Unionists knew the day was coming since partition, they should have been saving!

MrMusician18 · 07-10-2018 12:04am

I would have thought a Hong Kong like solution would be the template for unification. Essentially NI would keep it's assembly and perhaps mini constitution for like 50 years as it is slowly integrated into the republic.

After the referendum is won, unification will be a slow process, taking the guts of a generation to be completed.

Imreoir2 · 07-10-2018 12:23am

oscarBravo wrote: »

We've seen what happens when a referendum is held about a concept without bothering with details. I hope we'll never be that stupid.

You will find that on any referendum ballot paper here, the question does not include the details. Take the abortion referendum, the question was yes/no on the repeal of the eight, while there was a full national debate on the merits of this, and the government published the legislation it intended to introduce, none of this apeared on the ballot paper.

The poster suggested that the unification process would be determined by the wording of the referendum question, this will almost certainly not be the case. Like the first border poll, the referendum question will likely be a simple yes / no to unification. It is likely that this will be asked in the context of a detailed proposal on what the unification process will entail, but this detail will not be on the balot paper.

loyatemu · 07-10-2018 12:34am

troyzer wrote: »

A federal structure with four devolved provinces is the only solution.

that would be a totally artificial arrangement, the "provinces" have no significance in the Republic beyond sporting competitions.

Unionists would not accept being part of a federal state where the 6 counties were absorbed into a larger, 9-county, nationalist-majority Ulster that was itself only 1 of 4 federal provinces.

briany · 07-10-2018 4:41pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Reunification is not dependent on a deal with the Unionism. If a border poll is passed north and south then Ireland becomes an all island state. While this might result in a reorganization of the state, it does not have to. While some people don't like the idea that NI would simply be added onto the existing republic, that can and in large part probably will occur. There does not need to be Unionists acceptance for this to happen, by definition Unionists don't accept a United Ireland in any form.

There would need to be an agreement with Unionists at some point. If you call a border poll and give no details on what a United Ireland would actually look like, you're giving ammo to Unionist politicians to paint any picture they like to their constituents.

So to prevent that, you would have to actually get around the table and hammer out the the details of what a United Ireland would actually look like, i.e. certain guarantees made by the Irish government to Northern Ireland about identity, equality, devolution etc.

johnnyskeleton · 07-10-2018 5:40pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Good point. I had been thinking that the unionists would be just told "hey you're in Ireland now" & as you say that wouldn't be acceptable to them. Nor should it be. A new country representing both sides sounds a much better idea

There is a significant unionist population that will be against a united Ireland no matter what the structure of it will be. If you look at the symbolism of the Irish flag, it is meant to represent peace between protestants and catholics. But the flag would never be acceptable to unionists as their national flag, even though it represents both communities.

FrancieBrady · 07-10-2018 5:51pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There is a significant unionist population that will be against a united Ireland no matter what the structure of it will be. If you look at the symbolism of the Irish flag, it is meant to represent peace between protestants and catholics. But the flag would never be acceptable to unionists as their national flag, even though it represents both communities.

Significant numbers of people already have to live with things they don't agree with, but they democratically agree to carry on.

If unionists that you mention can come up with a better idea for a flag that is acceptable to a majority - fair enough. Otherwise they will just have to accept it.
There is no point just appeasing people for the sake of it.

Victor · 07-10-2018 6:08pm

troyzer wrote: »

A federal structure with four devolved provinces is the only solution.

Is this so that nationalists / republicans would have a majority in Ulster?

Province Population Area
Connacht 550,742 17,732
Munster 1,280,584 24,685
Ulster 2,107,987 21,993
Leinster 2,631,094 19,808

Why would anyone set up a new structure where one province has 5 times the population of another?

Imreoir2 · 07-10-2018 7:14pm

Victor wrote: »

Is this so that nationalists / republicans would have a majority in Ulster?

Province Population Area
Connacht 550,742 17,732
Munster 1,280,584 24,685
Ulster 2,107,987 21,993
Leinster 2,631,094 19,808

Why would anyone set up a new structure where one province has 5 times the population of another?

I might be wrong, but as I understand it, it is intended under the GFA that NI would continue to exist after unification and that the terms of the GFA would continue to apply, as such it is possible that there could be a future partition referendum should unionists regain a majority in the 6 counties.

If NI could be disbanded and a new federal system established with a 9 county Ulster replacing NI, then this would be quite attractive. It would stack a nationalist majority, which might seem unfair, but this could be useful in ensuring stability for the new state. A slim nationalist majority with repartition as a continuing posibility could cause problems.

blanch152 · 07-10-2018 9:38pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One thing distinctly different about referendums held here are that the issues are very well trashed out before hand.

Yet, there is not a single coherent idea out there of how a united Ireland might work, but there are politicians telling us we must have a border poll shortly.

Those politicians are pretty reckless, don't you agree?

recedite · 07-10-2018 9:39pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The poster suggested that the unification process would be determined by the wording of the referendum question, this will almost certainly not be the case. Like the first border poll, the referendum question will likely be a simple yes / no to unification. It is likely that this will be asked in the context of a detailed proposal on what the unification process will entail, but this detail will not be on the balot paper.

I suggested that the wording would define what we are all voting for. You seem to think NI would be asked to leave UK and join into the existing RoI. I agree that is possible, maybe even likely.

But I'm also saying the chances of that vote succeeding are much lower compared to one with an equally simple wording; join with RoI to form a new united Ireland as per X accession treaty. All the detail would be in the treaty, not in the referendum question. Similar to when we voted on the Lisbon and Nice treaties.
As you yourself pointed out, a poll in the 1970's posed only the former type of question, and was a dismal failure (although they were different times, I know)

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I might be wrong, but as I understand it, it is intended under the GFA that NI would continue to exist after unification and that the terms of the GFA would continue to apply, as such it is possible that there could be a future partition referendum should unionists regain a majority in the 6 counties.

No, the type of question is not specified. And anyway, unification and separation are mutually incompatible.

Its like when people thought we could have an EU border in the Irish sea after Brexit, but with NI still in the UK. These rumours are borne of wishful thinking, not from logical thought.

blanch152 · 07-10-2018 9:40pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I might be wrong, but as I understand it, it is intended under the GFA that NI would continue to exist after unification and that the terms of the GFA would continue to apply, as such it is possible that there could be a future partition referendum should unionists regain a majority in the 6 counties.

If NI could be disbanded and a new federal system established with a 9 county Ulster replacing NI, then this would be quite attractive. It would stack a nationalist majority, which might seem unfair, but this could be useful in ensuring stability for the new state. A slim nationalist majority with repartition as a continuing posibility could cause problems.

The GFA is silent on what happens should a border poll be passed.

It is beyond amazing that someone can think that stacking a nationalist majority would ensure stability for the new state. I have heard nationalists tell me for years that stacking a unionist majority justified 30 years of terrorism by criminal thugs.

FrancieBrady · 07-10-2018 9:44pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Yet, there is not a single coherent idea out there of how a united Ireland might work, but there are politicians telling us we must have a border poll shortly.

Those politicians are pretty reckless, don't you agree?

Most referendums start out the same. Why do you think there would not be discussion and research done ahead of a border poll?

I bet there will be many who will claim incoherence no matter what is proposed. Par for the course.

FrancieBrady · 07-10-2018 9:46pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The GFA is silent on what happens should a border poll be passed.

It is beyond amazing that someone can think that stacking a nationalist majority would ensure stability for the new state. I have heard nationalists tell me for years that stacking a unionist majority justified 30 years of terrorism by criminal thugs.

I think it was what unionists DID with their majority was what caused the violence, as even Ian Paisley admitted they did use it to subjugate.

loyatemu · 07-10-2018 9:46pm

Border poll in the north would have to pass first, then presumably a period of negotiations on what a United Ireland would look like then further votes on both sides of the border.

The question is would the unionists engage with the negotiations or would they just stonewall. It woukd make the Brexit talks look like a walk in the park.

FrancieBrady · 07-10-2018 9:48pm

loyatemu wrote: »

Border poll in the north would have to pass first, then presumably a period of negotiations on what a United Ireland would look like then further votes on both sides of the border.

The question is would the unionists engage with the negotiations or would they just stonewall. It woukd make the Brexit talks look like a walk in the park.

Simultaneous votes in both jurisdictions and then hand over negotiations between two governments if it passes, is how it will work.

blanch152 · 07-10-2018 9:54pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most referendums start out the same. Why do you think there would not be discussion and research done ahead of a border poll?

I bet there will be many who will claim incoherence no matter what is proposed. Par for the course.

If there is proper discussion and research, then a border poll is at least three years away.

recedite · 07-10-2018 10:00pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it was what unionists DID with their majority was what caused the violence, as even Ian Paisley admitted they did use it to subjugate.

And why do you think they seceded from the Free state in 1922? Because they would have been on the receiving end of the subjugation. They expected Rome Rule, and they were right. We are only recently starting to emerge from that, nearly 100 years later.

And yet here you are, still looking forward to subjugating them.

There has to be a better way.

FrancieBrady · 07-10-2018 10:01pm

blanch152 wrote: »

If there is proper discussion and research, then a border poll is at least three years away.

I'd have said 2 years from the day it is announced. Not something that should be rushed. Everyone must adequately prepare.

recedite · 07-10-2018 10:02pm

blanch152 wrote: »

If there is proper discussion and research, then a border poll is at least three years away.

2022. Centenary of NI secession from the newly created Free State. Nice.

FrancieBrady · 07-10-2018 10:06pm

recedite wrote: »

And why do you think they seceded from the Free state in 1922? Because they would have been on the receiving end of the subjugation. They expected Rome Rule, and they were right. We are only recently starting to emerge from that, nearly 100 years later.

I personally think that Rome Rule would have been avoided had partition not been foisted on us.

And yet here you are, still looking forward to subjugating them.

There has to be a better way.

I'm looking forward to 'subjugating them', really?? Where did I say that ever?

I think that unionists and the Protestant faith that predominates among them is a great potential addition to the running of this island.
I have no time for belligerent unionism nor any bigoted faiths, including Roman Catholicism that behaves that way.

igCorcaigh · 07-10-2018 10:06pm

recedite wrote: »

And why do you think they seceded from the Free state in 1922? Because they would have been on the receiving end of the subjugation. They expected Rome Rule, and they were right. We are only recently starting to emerge from that, nearly 100 years later.

And yet here you are, still looking forward to subjugating them.

There has to be a better way.

Right! There seems to be a mindset in nationalists that it's still about territory. Dangerous stuff.

blanch152 · 07-10-2018 10:25pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I personally think that Rome Rule would have been avoided had partition not been foisted on us.

Let us be clear on one thing. Partition was not foisted on Ireland. Our democratically elected leaders negotiated a Treaty in London, they came back to Ireland and the Treaty was approved by the Dail.

That Treaty was democratically negotiated and democratically approved by our representatives. The rewriting of history around this is another disgrace.

Imreoir2 · 07-10-2018 11:33pm

loyatemu wrote: »

Border poll in the north would have to pass first, then presumably a period of negotiations on what a United Ireland would look like then further votes on both sides of the border.

The question is would the unionists engage with the negotiations or would they just stonewall. It woukd make the Brexit talks look like a walk in the park.

Yes, they would stonewall, especially if they thought doing so could upset the process. The reality however is that Unionism does not have a veto over unification. If a majority vote for it, it happens, regardless of if unionist parties engage in discussions on the shape of a UI or not.

Imreoir2 · 07-10-2018 11:35pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Let us be clear on one thing. Partition was not foisted on Ireland. Our democratically elected leaders negotiated a Treaty in London, they came back to Ireland and the Treaty was approved by the Dail.

That Treaty was democratically negotiated and democratically approved by our representatives. The rewriting of history around this is another disgrace.

Under threat of immediate and terrible war, lets not airbrush that part of the story out. And you talk about rewriting history.

32 County Ireland keeps the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Comments