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

Border Poll discussion

segarox

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

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

McMurphy

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah maybe some day but it would be decades away.

Yeah, but I was just correcting your earlier post stating that no Brexit would mean no border poll.

As previously said, the GFA is a one way street that will ultimately lead to a border poll, Brexit might well speed one up, but a border poll is hurtling down the tracks towards us regardless.

murphaph

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yeah, but I was just correcting your earlier post stating that no Brexit would mean no border poll.

As previously said, the GFA is a one way street that will ultimately lead to a border poll, Brexit might well speed one up, but a border poll is hurtling down the tracks towards us regardless.

You make it sound like it's something we should fear. I guess that wasn't your intention though, right?

McMurphy

murphaph wrote: »

You make it sound like it's something we should fear. I guess that wasn't your intention though, right?

Not something we should fear, something we should get used to because it's inevitable.

Sorry if you took me up wrong as somehow trying to instill fear into you, I was merely correcting a statement from yourself that was factually incorrect.

murphaph

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Not something we should fear, something we should get used to because it's inevitable.

Sorry if you took me up wrong as somehow trying to instill fear into you, I was merely correcting a statement from yourself that was factually incorrect.

So you've said. You can't actually say it was factually incorrect by the way because neither of us can predict the future. The only factually correct statement would be "we don't know if and when a border poll would be called in the event of no Brexit".

Anything else is pure speculation.

I believe a hard Brexit will lead to a border poll in my lifetime, which otherwise would not have occurred. But it's just a belief. I can't prove it.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

So you've said. You can't actually say it was factually incorrect by the way because neither of us can predict the future. The only factually correct statement would be "we don't know if and when a border poll would be called in the event of no Brexit".

Anything else is pure speculation.

I believe a hard Brexit will lead to a border poll in my lifetime, which otherwise would not have occurred. But it's just a belief. I can't prove it.

Even before Brexit was a gleam in anybody's eye, many people observed that demographic trends strongly suggest that the Catholic/nationalist population of NI is set to surpass the Protestant/unionist population.

Whether this would have happened in murphaph's lifetime, I can't say. (Not least because I have no idea how old murphaph is.) And obviously it's not inevitable - demographic trends could change, or the identity politics that links Catholic identification with nationalist politics, and Protestant identification with unionist politics, could weaken or break down. But, absent changes of this kind, there'll be a nationalist majority in NI within a generation, and a nationalist voting majority some years after that. So, unless trends change, a border poll probably is coming. Brexit - particularly hard brexit - may of course make it come faster, but it's most likely coming anyway.

It doesn't follow that a border poll would vote for reunification. The Sec of State is required to hold one if it seems that it's likely to vote for unification, and that likelihood might be inferred from, say, nationalist parties securing a clear majority of the votes in a general election. But not everybody who votes for a nationalist party would necessarily vote for reunification in a border poll.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even before Brexit was a gleam in anybody's eye, many people observed that demographic trends strongly suggest that the Catholic/nationalist population of NI is set to surpass the Protestant/unionist population.

Whether this would have happened in murphaph's lifetime, I can't say. (Not least because I have no idea how old murphaph is.) And obviously it's not inevitable - demographic trends could change, or the identity politics that links Catholic identification with nationalist politics, and Protestant identification with unionist politics, could weaken or break down. But, absent changes of this kind, there'll be a nationalist majority in NI within a generation, and a nationalist voting majority some years after that. So, unless trends change, a border poll probably is coming. Brexit - particularly hard brexit - may of course make it come faster, but it's most likely coming anyway.

It doesn't follow that a border poll would vote for reunification. The Sec of State is required to hold one if it seems that it's likely to vote for unification, and that likelihood might be inferred from, say, nationalist parties securing a clear majority of the votes in a general election. But not everybody who votes for a nationalist party would necessarily vote for reunification in a border poll.

The SoS can hold one if 'in his/her opinion...' which could well be an arbitrary decision at any time, in the way Cameron went for a referendum, not because he believed in democracy but because it was politically expedient for him.
One thing is very clear, the relationships has been changed by Brexit. Just like relationships between governments has been damaged, so also has any idea that the UK cares about northern Ireland. And that damage has been done not just in nationalist minds but in the minds of moderate, realistic unionists.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The SoS can hold one if 'in his/her opinion...' which could well be an arbitrary decision at any time, in the way Cameron went for a referendum, not because he believed in democracy but because it was politically expedient for him.

It's not quite the same. Cameron had no legal contraints; he could (and did) decide on a whim to hold the referendum. But a border poll is subject to legal constraints; the reasonableness of the Sec of State's opinion, or the process by which she forms it, can be reviewed in the courts. So, while the Secretary of State has a good deal of room for manouvre on this, there are constraints, and she doesn't have the freedom that Cameron had.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One thing is very clear, the relationships has been changed by Brexit. Just like relationships between governments has been damaged, so also has any idea that the UK cares about northern Ireland. And that damage has been done not just in nationalist minds but in the minds of moderate, realistic unionists.

Yup. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the UK doesn't care about NI at all, but its care for NI is plainly pretty low on its list of priorities, and most of the UK political establishment (on both sides) will happily play fast and loose with NI's fundamental political and economic welfare in pursuit of English-focussed political advantage. If I were a unionist, I'd be quite bothered about that. (As someone with a rudimentary grap of Irish history and political reality, of course, I'm not in the least surprised by it.)

FrancieBrady

Yup. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the UK doesn't care about NI at all, but its care for NI is plainly pretty low on its list of priorities, and most of the UK political establishment (on both sides) will happily play fast and loose with NI's fundamental political and economic welfare in pursuit of English-focussed political advantage. If I were a unionist, I'd be quite bothered about that. (As someone with a rudimentary grap of Irish history and political reality, of course, I'm not in the least surprised by it.)

It also has to be remembered that Brexiteers now know fairly starkly that they will never get the unicorny Brexit they insist is possible, with northern Ireland in tow...unless they crash out, that is. And even then they still need a trading deal with the EU and northern Ireland will come front and centre again...as an obstacle to getting what they want. They might pay lip service to 'caring' and the 'Union' but they will be far more duplicitous than May was when she tried to throw the DUP under the bus in December. That luvvy duvvy relationship will change too. To them now, northern Ireland is a hindrance.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It also has to be remembered that Brexiteers now know fairly starkly that they will never get the unicorny Brexit they insist is possible, with northern Ireland in tow...unless they crash out, that is. And even then they still need a trading deal with the EU and northern Ireland will come front and centre again...as an obstacle to getting what they want. They might pay lip service to 'caring' and the 'Union' but they will be far more duplicitous than May was when she tried to throw the DUP under the bus in December. That luvvy duvvy relationship will change too. To them now, northern Ireland is a hindrance.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure it's that simple. For at least some of the ultra-Brexiters, their ultra-Brexitiness is not so much rational as emotional, coming from a particular conception of a British identity which also includes not renouncing any interest in NI, because doing so would make Britain a bit less Great, or something. Ironically, while they don't care about NI as such, they do care about the union with NI; they won't lightly write it off.

munsterlegend

I see where the Finucane family lost their Supreme Court appeal. If you ever needed proof of what weight to put on a british govt promise then look no further. And people wonder why the IRA had the support of a large section of its community during troubles.

[Deleted User]

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Wishful thinking by some I'm sure, but the reality is that the GFA is a one way street regardless, with the cul de sac ending being a border poll.

There is no ending to the GFA.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even before Brexit was a gleam in anybody's eye, many people observed that demographic trends strongly suggest that the Catholic/nationalist population of NI is set to surpass the Protestant/unionist population.

Whether this would have happened in murphaph's lifetime, I can't say. (Not least because I have no idea how old murphaph is.) And obviously it's not inevitable - demographic trends could change, or the identity politics that links Catholic identification with nationalist politics, and Protestant identification with unionist politics, could weaken or break down. But, absent changes of this kind, there'll be a nationalist majority in NI within a generation, and a nationalist voting majority some years after that. So, unless trends change, a border poll probably is coming. Brexit - particularly hard brexit - may of course make it come faster, but it's most likely coming anyway.

It doesn't follow that a border poll would vote for reunification. The Sec of State is required to hold one if it seems that it's likely to vote for unification, and that likelihood might be inferred from, say, nationalist parties securing a clear majority of the votes in a general election. But not everybody who votes for a nationalist party would necessarily vote for reunification in a border poll.

Indeed. A border poll called because nationalists have 50% +1 of the votes in a general or assembly election almost certainly does not mean a vote to end partition. There are far too many (disproportionately so iirc) small n nationalists working in public sector jobs for that to happen.

I'm 40 by the way. I stand by my belief that absent a hard Brexit there will be no poll and certainly no UI in my lifetime but with a hard Brexit the exact opposite and probably in a fairly short timeframe.

McMurphy

Aegir wrote: »

There is no ending to the GFA.

That's why I specifically said "cul de sac" ending.

facehugger99

murphaph wrote: »

There are far too many (disproportionately so iirc) small n nationalists working in public sector jobs for that to happen. .

Yep, it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Dewy-eyed, wishful thinking on United Ireland will very much take a back seat to the ' I want to keep paying my mortgage' concerns.

seamus

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah maybe some day but it would be decades away.

I have shifted a little on this thinking.

While it may seem obvious that the economic damage meted out by a Brexit might push NI towards a border poll, it could conversely have the exact opposite effect - deeply dividing communities once more, making the border poll a purely Irish -v- British affair, rather than a more rounded debate on the merits of unification.

A cancellation of Brexit, may in fact be more likely to yield a border poll. After the dust settles, the people of NI come to realise just how close they were brought to the brink of economic devastation. They will see that they have a parliament that completely ignored the province's wishes to remain, while being pushed to do so by the DUP. It will be clear that Westminster knows nor cares a jot about Northern Ireland.

And without the fog of economic depression and unemployment that Brexit would cause, the people of NI will be more amenable to a rational discussion on the topic, and not one embedded in siege mentalities and point-scoring.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

I have shifted a little on this thinking.

While it may seem obvious that the economic damage meted out by a Brexit might push NI towards a border poll, it could conversely have the exact opposite effect - deeply dividing communities once more, making the border poll a purely Irish -v- British affair, rather than a more rounded debate on the merits of unification.

A cancellation of Brexit, may in fact be more likely to yield a border poll. After the dust settles, the people of NI come to realise just how close they were brought to the brink of economic devastation. They will see that they have a parliament that completely ignored the province's wishes to remain, while being pushed to do so by the DUP. It will be clear that Westminster knows nor cares a jot about Northern Ireland.

And without the fog of economic depression and unemployment that Brexit would cause, the people of NI will be more amenable to a rational discussion on the topic, and not one embedded in siege mentalities and point-scoring.

The effects of Brexit will marginalise the DUP.
Moderate Unionism will be the demographic that will change as a result.

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

So you've said. You can't actually say it was factually incorrect by the way because neither of us can predict the future. The only factually correct statement would be "we don't know if and when a border poll would be called in the event of no Brexit".

Anything else is pure speculation.

I believe a hard Brexit will lead to a border poll in my lifetime, which otherwise would not have occurred. But it's just a belief. I can't prove it.

To be fair you made a definitive statement. You didn't say 'there may not be for some time'.

murphaph wrote: »

If Brexit doesn't happen a border poll won't happen either.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yep, it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Dewy-eyed, wishful thinking on United Ireland will very much take a back seat to the ' I want to keep paying my mortgage' concerns.

Who is talking about massive layoffs? We don't know what might happen, it's more likely they'll be amalgamated I'd imagine. Talk about dewey eyed, it's getting to the stage, Brexit or no that the only reason for a portion of the Irish province of Ulster being associated with Britain is dewey eyed nationalism of a sort.

murphaph

Matt Barrett wrote: »

To be fair you made a definitive statement. You didn't say 'there may not be for some time'.

Yeah and he said it was coming soon. Neither of us can actually know when it's coming so nobody can say the other is factually incorrect as we are in the realm of prediction. I'm tired of these semantics now.

You know where I stand.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Who is talking about massive layoffs? We don't know what might happen, it's more likely they'll be amalgamated I'd imagine.

Ah, so we're going to amalgamate (and pay for) the salaries and pensions of 210,000 extra public servants.

Will we be using Money Trees for this or did you have any other proposals?

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The effects of Brexit will marginalise the DUP.
Moderate Unionism will be the demographic that will change as a result.

On the same note the tide of Irish good will nationalism, (Irish people north and south positive about a united Ireland) will put any referendum in the shade. The idea that it's a few aran sweater wearing bodhran players lamenting the cause is completely out of touch.
With the DUP making wins like abstaining from a vote opposing dumping of radioactive waste because their amendment on fuel laundering wasn't added, will make them even more tiresome for the eco minded electorate.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Ah, so we're going to amalgamate (and pay for) the salaries and pensions of 210,000 extra public servants.

Will we be using Money Trees for this or did you have any other proposals?

Codology. We can say the Children's hospital ran over. No worries about magic money trees there. TBH, I can't take people who use the term 'magic money tree' seriously.
The north will need civil servants. Should we sack some only to hire others? There will be costs, nobody said there won't be, but some have tried that strawman all right.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Who is talking about massive layoffs? We don't know what might happen, it's more likely they'll be amalgamated I'd imagine. Talk about dewey eyed, it's getting to the stage, Brexit or no that the only reason for a portion of the Irish province of Ulster being associated with Britain is dewey eyed nationalism of a sort.

So there will be no savings from these amalgamations then?

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Codology. We can say the Children's hospital ran over. No worries about magic money trees there. TBH, I can't take people who use the term 'magic money tree' seriously.
The north will need civil servants. Should we sack some only to hire others? There will be costs, nobody said there won't be, but some have tried that strawman all right.

There will, and those costs will prove wholly unpalatable to the electorate when they become known.

seamus

facehugger99 wrote: »

There will, and those costs will prove wholly unpalatable to the electorate when they become known.

This is the elephant in the room that nationalists will never face up to.

If every voter in the Republic was asked to hand over €5k more tax a year to pay for unification, even in the short-term, it will fall on its arse.

Misty-eyed sentimentality tells people they want a United Ireland. But they won't be prepared to pay what it will cost.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Codology. We can say the Children's hospital ran over. No worries about magic money trees there. TBH, I can't take people who use the term 'magic money tree' seriously.
The north will need civil servants. Should we sack some only to hire others? There will be costs, nobody said there won't be, but some have tried that strawman all right.

This is the type of lazy analysis that can give a forum like this a bad name.

There is a one-off cost overrun on the children's hospital that may cost c€1bn. Some of the cost overrun will result in a better hospital than originally designed, some of it is completely wasteful. However, it is a one-off cost of €1bn that is causing huge angst and anguish, nearly costing a Minister to lose his seat.

If the cost of unification is a 15% permanent drop in living standards and/or an annual cost of up to €15bn if you include the cost of harmonisation of social welfare and public service pay, then the children's hospital overrun is peanuts or a drop in the ocean.

If someone thinks that the hospital overrun is a big deal (and they are correct to do so), then if we are being logical and consistent, they must also think that the cost of unification is not affordable.

We are only just short of hearing that if we can pay TDs €100k each, then there is no problem funding unification. Dismissing the cost of unification, while complaining about children's hospital overruns, consultancies given to Denis O'Brien and TD's pay etc is taking inconsistency to new levels.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

There will, and those costs will prove wholly unpalatable to the electorate when they become known.

I don't think so. We took much worse for far less. You may recall the bail outs, taking one for the team and 'practically eating out of bins'.
This would likely be far less of a financial burden to bear and we'd have something tangible to show for it.

seamus wrote: »

This is the elephant in the room that nationalists will never face up to.

If every voter in the Republic was asked to hand over €5k more tax a year to pay for unification, even in the short-term, it will fall on its arse.

Misty-eyed sentimentality tells people they want a United Ireland. But they won't be prepared to pay what it will cost.

See above, also 'misty eyed, 'dewey eyed', that's the misconception. There's less of an argument for that portion of Ulster to remain under British rule, except for maybe dewey eyed, misty eyed, cock eyed loyalty to a country most of it's population don't even under stand the concept of Northern Ireland beyond it being north and in Ireland.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This is the type of lazy analysis that can give a forum like this a bad name.....

Very dramatic and ironic.
The issue was costs and where would money come from.
If your 'ifs' have any bearing in reality, they'll be addressed. Currently you're merely spouting random thoughts and using them to compare to the real costs, that don't seem to warrant talk of a 'magic money tree'. Only in regard to issues or policies you don't like while playing down others it seems. Complete hypocrisy.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Very dramatic and ironic.
The issue was costs and where would money come from.
If your 'ifs' have any bearing in reality, they'll be addressed. Currently you're merely spouting random thoughts and using them to compare to the real costs, that don't seem to warrant talk of a 'magic money tree'. Only in regard to issues or policies you don't like while playing down others it seems. Complete hypocrisy.

Not at all. There is a huge issue with the Children's Hospital overrun and there will be real consequences for other capital projects both in health and elsewhere. That is not acceptable to me. I have given my views elsewhere on who might be responsible, but it is pure hypocrisy to complain about that issue and at the same time dismiss the costs of unification as if it will be all right on the night, especially when the potential costs of unification make the Children's Hospital issue look like a drop in the ocean.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all. There is a huge issue with the Children's Hospital overrun and there will be real consequences for other capital projects both in health and elsewhere. That is not acceptable to me. I have given my views elsewhere on who might be responsible, but it is pure hypocrisy to complain about that issue and at the same time dismiss the costs of unification as if it will be all right on the night, especially when the potential costs of unification make the Children's Hospital issue look like a drop in the ocean.

This is completely false. You are repeating things nobody even inferred to make a false narrative to rail against.
This plays into the 'magic money tree' bull too. We don't know costs, but we accept there will be costs. Suggesting anyone thinks there'll be none, or 'it'll be all right on the night' is false. You are arguing against nobody and that's what's tiresome ad lazy. All I did was point out that imagined as yet not clarified costs required 'money tree' baloney talk and this tends to be wheeled out only when any costs can be associated to issues/policies certain people like yourself don't like and are trying to dismiss with falsehoods. Hypocrisy.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is completely false. You are repeating things nobody even inferred to make a false narrative to rail against.
This plays into the 'magic money tree' bull too. We don't know costs, but we accept there will be costs. Suggesting anyone thinks there'll be none, or 'it'll be all right on the night' is false. You are arguing against nobody and that's what's tiresome ad lazy. All I did was point out that imagined as yet not clarified costs required 'money tree' baloney talk and this tends to be wheeled out only when any costs can be associated to issues/policies certain people like yourself don't like and are trying to dismiss with falsehoods. Hypocrisy.

How can it be hypocritical of me to criticise the cost overruns on the Children's Hospital but also criticise the cost of unification? That is a bizarre accusation, especially when I am bemoaning the cost to other capital projects of diverting money to the hospital project. I am accepting that if one particular thing costs money or extra money, something else somewhere else in the system has to lose out. That is the complete opposite of magic money tree thinking.

Because the costs of unification are infinitely higher than the cost overrun of the Children's Hospital - even if we accept the lower estimations, it is the equivalent of one Children's Hospital overrun every year - we really need to apply a bigger critical eye on the costs of unification than on the costs of the Children's Hospital. After all, the critical failure in relation to the Children's Hospital was walking into a scenario where the full costs had not been examined and were not known. The lesson to be learned from the Children's Hospital fiasco is that the State should not take on a cost without being sure how much it actually will cost. That is more than true of something which will be at least one Children's Hospital every year, but could actually be 10 or 12 Children's hospitals every year.

My point about the magic money tree and hypocrisy in criticising the Children's Hospital (as posters have done on this and other threads) but dismissing unification costs (as the same posters have done in this thread) absolutely stands.