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

An Ciarraioch

I note that the Taoiseach addressed the Alliance conference this evening - certainly, one would imagine the two parties merging in a future all-island parliament, if social liberalism were to be the primary factor.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Lots more guesswork there. We have no idea what arrangements will or can be made, is the only conclusive thing to come from this conversation.

Guesswork?

No, I am not predicting next week's lottery numbers.

There is solid reasoning for the conclusions I made. The UK won't make the same mistake in unity as it did in Brexit. I mean, your thesis is that the unionists will soon learn that the rest of the UK don't really care about them. Well, given the way that Ireland is presented in the media and in politics in the UK, in terms of having caused the backstop problem, how can you expect that the rest of the UK to care about Ireland either? So why do you keep thinking that they will pay up?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Some of this is true to an extent, some of it is not.

British Army pensions would still be due to be paid by the British government.

Pensions due to be paid by Northern Ireland - UDR, RUC, PSNI and NI Civil Service - would fall to be a responsibility of the successor government - the Irish State. The UK are only paying EU pensions as part of a deal, they want out so they have to pay. That negotiating balance is reversed in Irish unity. We want unity so we may have to pay. Ditto with the subvention.

What is quite scary about Seamus calculations is that he does not take into account harmonisation of public service pay and social welfare, introduction of the NHS to the South, the opportunity cost of higher taxation, as well as any losses arising from loyalist violence. If anything would scare the MNCs away quicker than a repeat of Brexit, it would be bomb scares in Dublin.

I really can't see unity working without a combination of tax rises, social welfare cuts and public service pay cuts in the South. 5-7% across the board on those and we could manage.

Lots more guesswork there. We have no idea what arrangements will or can be made, is the only conclusive thing to come from this conversation.

blanch152

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

They may not. To go back to the Scottish referendum, there were a lot of significant unanswered questions, such as whether it could join the EU, what currency it would use etc., yet they still had a poll.

And it never looked like winning as a result.

blanch152

facehugger99 wrote: »

Can't imagine NI public servants voting to leave the Union without cast iron guarantees on their jobs and pensions.

And that kills the chances of any successful Border poll stone dead, even if the polls were showing 60% in favour.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A pension is a contract of sorts. I would expect these things to be negotiated upon British withdrawal. Anyone currently on a pension would be due that from the current regime IMO, same goes for portions, based on years under that regime, come retirement I would imagine. That would seem a fair way of going about it to me.

jm08 wrote: »

The UK are paying all EU pensions (like British civil servants, MEPs) in the Brexit divorce settlement.

We need to borrow Sabine for the negotiations (though I seem to recall that there are two Irish people on Sabine's negotiating team)!

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Why would ex servicemen/women or security forces personally and their pensions suddenly become an Irish govt problem?

The source of payment for the pension would remain the same one would expect?

Surely as it stands, someone in receipt of, or about to start collecting a pension from the British state can do so regardless of where in the world they are.

I would even hazard a guess there's many expats already residing in the state already on British military pensions.

Some of this is true to an extent, some of it is not.

British Army pensions would still be due to be paid by the British government.

Pensions due to be paid by Northern Ireland - UDR, RUC, PSNI and NI Civil Service - would fall to be a responsibility of the successor government - the Irish State. The UK are only paying EU pensions as part of a deal, they want out so they have to pay. That negotiating balance is reversed in Irish unity. We want unity so we may have to pay. Ditto with the subvention.

What is quite scary about Seamus calculations is that he does not take into account harmonisation of public service pay and social welfare, introduction of the NHS to the South, the opportunity cost of higher taxation, as well as any losses arising from loyalist violence. If anything would scare the MNCs away quicker than a repeat of Brexit, it would be bomb scares in Dublin.

I really can't see unity working without a combination of tax rises, social welfare cuts and public service pay cuts in the South. 5-7% across the board on those and we could manage.

McMurphy

Why would ex servicemen/women or security forces personell and their pensions suddenly become an Irish govt problem?

The source of payment for the pension would remain the same one would expect?

Surely as it stands, someone in receipt of, or about to start collecting a pension from the British state can do so regardless of where in the world they are.

I would even hazard a guess there's many expats already residing in the state already on British military pensions.

jm08

seamus wrote: »

It would seem to me that I've at least provided some basis for my costings. Flawed and simplified they may be, you can at least follow the thread and see where it came from.

It would seem polite and reasonable that you would do the same rather than declare that some "stuff" isn't relevant and hand-wave off real costs.

It's not like there's going to be an exodus of people that will no longer need to be paid. Even if the entire public service workforce in NI were laid off upon unification, they are still people who need to be paid. The UK is not going to continue to pay public service pensions in a foreign jurisdiction. Any unification agreement would include that the Irish government at least share the cost of fulfilling public service pensions, and take over employment of the NI public service just like it did when it declared independence.

What makes you think that those PS/RUC/UDR/Prison pensions would just go away?

(The biggest issue being security and the rights of NI citizens.)

The UK are paying all EU pensions (like British civil servants, MEPs) in the Brexit divorce settlement.

We need to borrow Sabine for the negotiations (though I seem to recall that there are two Irish people on Sabine's negotiating team)!

James Brown

seamus wrote: »

It would seem to me that I've at least provided some basis for my costings. Flawed and simplified they may be, you can at least follow the thread and see where it came from.

It would seem polite and reasonable that you would do the same rather than declare that some "stuff" isn't relevant and hand-wave off real costs.

It's not like there's going to be an exodus of people that will no longer need to be paid. Even if the entire public service workforce in NI were laid off upon unification, they are still people who need to be paid. The UK is not going to continue to pay public service pensions in a foreign jurisdiction. Any unification agreement would include that the Irish government at least share the cost of fulfilling public service pensions, and take over employment of the NI public service just like it did when it declared independence.

What makes you think that those PS/RUC/UDR/Prison pensions would just go away?

Realistically, the EU will step in and help out massively with this, it wouldn't all fall on the Irish taxpayer.

But it is the second biggest issue that needs to be dealt with before unification can be voted upon. It can't be gliby waved away as "ah sure, that won't be around".

(The biggest issue being security and the rights of NI citizens.)

A pension is a contract of sorts. I would expect these things to be negotiated upon British withdrawal. Anyone currently on a pension would be due that from the current regime IMO, same goes for portions, based on years under that regime, come retirement I would imagine. That would seem a fair way of going about it to me.

McMurphy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I would envision a tapering-off of the British subvention that would be replaced by bringing the economy in the northeast in line with the rest of Ireland rather than just replicating the failed economic model currently employed.

I would also envisage some financial input from the EU, and possibly the US, especially surrounding issues such as peace and stability, at least in the infancy of the unison.

Did Britain continue to pay something towards Hong Kong after its withdrawal from same come to think of it?

facehugger99 wrote: »

Can't imagine NI public servants voting to leave the Union without cast iron guarantees on their jobs and pensions.

Not sure about their jobs being guaranteed, but don't see why their pensions would be affected.

Imreoir2

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think the initial poll, the one in Northern Ireland, would take place before any negotiation. There'd be no point in going to lengthy negotiation on how the whole thing would work if Ulster was going to say "No".

I'd say it would only go in front of the Irish electorate though after unification deal was worked out.

I can only hope that the issues involved in the border process will be delt with in good faith and in good time. There is not clear plan for unification at the moment because it has simply not been relevant. It would have been a waste for both sides to invest time and political capital in agreeing a plan when we are not in a space where a border poll passing is a credible posibility. As such an outcome becomes a more credible possibility however, the need to start making plans increases. The exact mechanics of this remain unclear, though we can safely say that we have time to figure it out yet.

I would hope that if a border poll is called at some point in the coming years, it will not be without having thought through the process. We can expect that discussions will be held between the governments before a poll is anounced. Once the poll is called, there should be a sufficiently long lead in time to the actual vote to allow for plans to be drawn up between the British and Irish governments.

This plan may well not take the form of a fully agreed high detail treaty that sets everything in stone in advance. If we take the current Brexit talks as an example, it is reasonable to suggest that a plan would take the form of a joint political declaration that indicates the direction of travel should the unification option win. It would hopefully settle some of the more fundemental questions in advance, such as the continuation of NI institutions, transitional arangements, and the settlement of what costs would transfer to the United Irish State verses commitments that would remain with the UK.

An agreed political declaration between the British and Irish governments would provide for clarity on the fundemental issues, without getting bogged down in technical details, and would allow scope for the detail to be worked out should NI vote for Unification.

Chips Lovell

facehugger99 wrote: »

Can't imagine NI public servants voting to leave the Union without cast iron guarantees on their jobs and pensions.

They may not. To go back to the Scottish referendum, there were a lot of significant unanswered questions, such as whether it could join the EU, what currency it would use etc., yet they still had a poll.

Dytalus

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think the initial poll, the one in Northern Ireland, would take place before any negotiation. There'd be no point in going to lengthy negotiation on how the whole thing would work if Ulster was going to say "No".

I'd say it would only go in front of the Irish electorate though after unification deal was worked out.

That's probably the ideal way to work it out to avoid wasting both Westminster and Dublin's time, but then you run into the issue of the NI electorate not being informed how it would work out. Some Unionists might be alright with it if Stormont stuck around, but want to vote against it if it was removed or phased out (as a probably quite inaccurate example, but it illustrates the point). If there's no concrete "here's what unification should look like" prior to their vote, then it's no better than Brexit.

Some people (myself and some others in this thread) would be willing to bear an economic hit up to a certain point, but I'd want to know what prior to a vote to make my informed decision. This is fair enough. The same should be afforded the NI voters. We don't need a Brexit-like vote, where there was no obvious 'leave' plan outside of vague promises and outright lies.

If people want to potentially suffer in one manner for a boost in another that's their right, and I won't fault them. But we can't let either ROI or NI go into a border poll without knowing what they're voting for. A vague "Unity or Partition" vote without saying what Unity entails is as bad as the "Leave vs Remain" without saying what Leave entails.

facehugger99

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think the initial poll, the one in Northern Ireland, would take place before any negotiation. There'd be no point in going to lengthy negotiation on how the whole thing would work if Ulster was going to say "No".

Can't imagine NI public servants voting to leave the Union without cast iron guarantees on their jobs and pensions.

Chips Lovell

I think the initial poll, the one in Northern Ireland, would take place before any negotiation. There'd be no point in going to lengthy negotiation on how the whole thing would work if Ulster was going to say "No".

I'd say it would only go in front of the Irish electorate though after unification deal was worked out.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can just imagine the tantrums from the belligerent wing of Unionism if the British ever discussed that in advance of a poll.

The GFA shows that the 2 governments would work this out if there was a successful poll.
There is no reason to presume the British would walk away from their share of making it a success. In fact, it would be in their interest that it would be a success, last thing they want is a firestorm after they leave.

That's hilarious - you think there would be a poll before the cost was known?:D

Chips Lovell

After bankrolling Northern Ireland for this long, it remains to be seen if there'd be an appetite to continue to do so after it ceases to be its responsibility.

If they indicated a willingness to keep funding it for some time, it may sway some votes alright.

I suppose there's some precedent with the Scottish Independence referendum. Did Westminster signal it was willing to maintain a subvention in the event of a Yes vote?

Junkyard Tom

seamus wrote: »

The UK is not going to continue to pay public service pensions in a foreign jurisdiction.

Those pensions are payable to individuals who served the British state. They absolutely will not be the responsibility of Ireland. Imagine the furore if our Government agreed to pay the pensions of RUC/UDR men who colluded in the murder of hundreds of innocent people? No way.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The very fact that such fundamental questions haven't ever been discussed, tells you everything you need to know about the likelihood of a border poll in the short to medium term.

I can just imagine the tantrums from the belligerent wing of Unionism if the British ever discussed that in advance of a poll.

The GFA shows that the 2 governments would work this out if there was a successful poll.
There is no reason to presume the British would walk away from their share of making it a success. In fact, it would be in their interest that it would be a success, last thing they want is a firestorm after they leave.

facehugger99

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Is the assumption that should this island ever be reunited, and Britain withdraws, the financial cost would be borne by the Republic, and only the Republic?

Surely Britain would have to take some financial responsibility for a number of years.

The very fact that such fundamental questions haven't ever been discussed, tells you everything you need to know about the likelihood of a border poll in the short to medium term.

seamus

It would seem to me that I've at least provided some basis for my costings. Flawed and simplified they may be, you can at least follow the thread and see where it came from.

It would seem polite and reasonable that you would do the same rather than declare that some "stuff" isn't relevant and hand-wave off real costs.

It's not like there's going to be an exodus of people that will no longer need to be paid. Even if the entire public service workforce in NI were laid off upon unification, they are still people who need to be paid. The UK is not going to continue to pay public service pensions in a foreign jurisdiction. Any unification agreement would include that the Irish government at least share the cost of fulfilling public service pensions, and take over employment of the NI public service just like it did when it declared independence.

What makes you think that those PS/RUC/UDR/Prison pensions would just go away?

Realistically, the EU will step in and help out massively with this, it wouldn't all fall on the Irish taxpayer.

But it is the second biggest issue that needs to be dealt with before unification can be voted upon. It can't be gliby waved away as "ah sure, that won't be around".

(The biggest issue being security and the rights of NI citizens.)

Junkyard Tom

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Britain would have to take some financial responsibility for a number of years.

I would envision a tapering-off of the British subvention that would be replaced by bringing the economy in the northeast in line with the rest of Ireland rather than just replicating the failed economic model currently employed.

McMurphy

Is the assumption that should this island ever be reunited, and Britain withdraws, the financial cost would be borne by the Republic, and only the Republic?

Surely Britain would have to take some financial responsibility for a number of years.

Junkyard Tom

seamus wrote: »

we already know that the yearly cost of keeping the lights on in NI is £10bn.

That number is not meaningful as it would include costs like decades of expensive PS/RUC/UDR/Prison Officers pensions, military stuff, Royal family stuff, British national debt etc that would not be inherited by a United Ireland.

There'd also have to be a reduction in the size of the public/civil service, corporation tax harmonisation, the IDA going all Ireland etc so the whole idea that the northeast would remain a dependency in perpetuity is a total red herring.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There's few who'd disagree that Northern Ireland is unstable.

One of the important questions for voters would be though whether it would be any more stable under Irish rule compared to British rule.

Even current present day, look at Stormont. That's not stable. Look at the DUP trying to rattle sabers over two fishing boats getting done. There are people who don't want stability as long as they feel threatened, on both sides.

It's about the unification of Ireland. Part of Ireland coming under Irish rule. No Unionist will need resort to violence to be afforded fair play and respect from the mechanics of Irish government. There will be no foreign government making allowances for sub par governance to ensure seats, we do that well enough ourselves.
Be tough for loyalists to justify any violent cause when the UK leaves them, isn't taken away.

jm08

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's not to mention a sizeable catholic minority who want to remain in the union for the foreseeable future. And of course the south would have to subsidize the north for a couple of decades.

I think that has all changed now. Very little interest in remaining in the UK now if you look at how they returned only absentee Sinn Fein MPs to Westminister in the last election.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) No cost to me as a taxpayer
(2) No risk of loyalist violence

To meet those pre-conditions, Northern Ireland needs to become a normalised secular society with buy-in from across all sections of society and also needs to develop an advanced economy.

What is amazing to me is that those who want a united Ireland most - Sinn Fein - are abdicating themselves from making it an attractive proposition by boycotting both Westminister and Stormont, and are therefore conceding ground to those who oppose unity. You could call it cowardice if you were being honest.

In other words, I would be delighted if we could have a united Ireland, so long as there is no hassle or disturbance to our society and economy down here.

I wouldn't look to SF as representing people looking forward to a united Ireland, rather they are a party who also supports a united Ireland. Looking for flaws or making criticism of their ideology is fine but it only relates to those who support that party and not a united Ireland.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Partition is not always unstable. There have been long periods of stability in Northern Ireland.

I suppose it was pretty stable when the Taigs knew their place.

ToBeFrank123

firemansam4 wrote: »

If this is true then reunification would never get the backing in a border poll anyway.
In order for a border poll to succeed for unification I would have thought that the mast majority of catholics would have to vote for it, I doubt many protestants would ever vote for it, even if one day it made economic sense.

I don't have the exact stats or polls to hand.
I'd imagine maybe 10-20% of Protestants would vote for unification, probably the younger generation who are more open minded and progressive and also those who are not dependent on a civil service job
. Among Catholics, I think as its something like 30% wouldn't vote for unity, probably because life is good for them as it stands. This may have changed lately.

You'd want to be talking a minimum 30% protestants and maybe 80% catholics before it had a chance of success. The catholics would be easier to convince than protestants.

Unless and until we find a pot of gold to pay for all this and make a transition that allows the protestants and unionists keep their power and also cushy jobs in the civil service, its hard to see it passing.

firemansam4

ToBeFrank123 wrote:

That's not to mention a sizeable catholic minority who want to remain in the union for the foreseeable future. And of course the south would have to subsidize the north for a couple of decades.

If this is true then reunification would never get the backing in a border poll anyway.
In order for a border poll to succeed for unification I would have thought that the mast majority of catholics would have to vote for it, I doubt many protestants would ever vote for it, even if one day it made economic sense.