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

United Ireland discussion thread

Imreoir2

The first poll in recent times (if ever?) showing a majority in NI in favour of a United Ireland has been published. The Lord Ashcroft Polls asked a series of questions on unification and Brexit and a summary of the main findings can be found below.

45% said they would vote to stay in the UK, and 46% said they would choose to leave and join the Republic of Ireland – a lead of 51% to 49% for unification when we exclude don’t knows and those who say they would not vote. This is in fact a statistical tie and well within the margin of error. Such a result might also reflect the uncertainty and anxiety surrounding Brexit, the Irish border and its potential effect on life in the province, which could recede when the outcome is settled. Be that as it may, the result underlines what could be at stake in the quest for a workable Brexit solution on the island of Ireland.

The full results can be read here.

It goes without saying that the result is extremely tight and in itself this poll does not mean very much. That said, a poll showing a majority in NI, however slim, in favour of unification is significant and if this result turns our to the the first of a series of polls showing a similar swing to supporting unification then we could be about to enter a process that would ultimatly see a border poll held in NI. Clearly, the swing in support to unification is related to Brexit and as such it could disapate if a solution to Brexit is found. However, Brexit as an issue does not look likely to go away as a factor any time soon as the chaos it is causing to the British political system is only deepening.

Obviously one poll showing very narrow support for unification is not enough to trigger a border poll, but it does beg the question: what would be sufficient? The GFA is vague on this point, but if a trend of support for unification emerges then this is a question that will have to be answered in the not too distant future.

Our government has been heistant to say or do anything on the issue of unification in recent months and years for fear that it will negativly impact the Brexit process, however it would be of paramount importance for us to prepare should a trend of support for unification emerge in NI.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

blanch152

votecounts wrote: »

So, no proposals, just a unionist veto forever over a United Ireland, some things never change.

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

[Deleted User]

careless sherpa wrote: »

Not according to the GFA , which is essentially a peace treaty. Can't go rewriting it because 20 years down the road you don't like parts of it

I'm not suggesting that the GFA be rewritten.

I'm suggesting that in order to call a UI vote the British government would be wise to wait until they are sure it would pass by a reasonable majority.

briany

votecounts wrote: »

How would that work in relation to the parades issue for example assuming stormont was even in operation. Neither nationalist party would agree that parades should be held where thay are not wanted.

Parades Commission can rule on parade issues, as that's what it was set up to do.
Other issues would revert to Dublin in the event that Stormont wouldn't sit, although this would not be ideal. An idea would be for Ireland and the UK to propose alterations to the GFA (subject to a referendum) whereby more commissions were created to rule on the contentious issues in the North, or a have a way to prevent the easy collapse of power-sharing while still retaining power sharing.

votecounts

briany wrote: »

In a United Ireland, NI would be an autonomous region. If a UI had to be decided by a simple majority, then the easiest way to salve tensions would be to continue to leave them to it. Dublin would be supreme, but would make legal assurances to remain as a neutral arbiter on contentious issues, and allow Stormont to legislate on these things instead.

How would that work in relation to the parades issue for example assuming stormont was even in operation. Neither nationalist party would agree that parades should be held where thay are not wanted.

briany

In a United Ireland, NI would be an autonomous region. If a UI had to be decided by a simple majority, then the easiest way to salve tensions would be to continue to leave them to it. Dublin would be supreme, but would make legal assurances to remain as a neutral arbiter on contentious issues, and allow Stormont to legislate on these things instead.

VinLieger

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A rejection by referendum is potentially much worse as it may open up a schism in the body politic in the south. What happens to the flag, anthem, the vision of the 1916 proclamation? What happens when the inevitable claims arise that the above are being appropriated by a partitionist interlopers?

I think that's a bit of an over reaction as any potential rejection in the south would be the result of a weighty referendum campaign with obvious reasons for such a rejection.

Junkyard Tom

VinLieger wrote: »

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

A rejection by referendum is potentially much worse as it may open up a schism in the body politic in the south. What happens to the flag, anthem, the vision of the 1916 proclamation? What happens when the inevitable claims arise that the above are being appropriated by a partitionist interlopers?

briany

cameramonkey wrote: »

You need to read what I was responding to, unless you think that setting off bombs in Dublin is not a terrorist act.
I said we need to treat Unionsts fairly but that does not mean we should back down when they attempt sectarianism and bullying, unless you also think that is a legitimate position.

Of course bombs going off in Dublin would be a terrorist act, but one of the best ways to prevent this type of action is not to radicalise individuals into it in the first place. We can see the timeline of how the Troubles came about, and how the IRA grew in support. The same mistakes should not be repeated in the event of a UI.

votecounts

VinLieger wrote: »

Ugh if your going to keep straw manning then there's not much point in engaging with you.

Let me know when you learn how to discuss a topic without using fallacious reasoning.

So, no proposals, just a unionist veto forever over a United Ireland, some things never change.

VinLieger

votecounts wrote: »

In the event of a majority wanting a United Ireland you want to oppose this to appease a few Unionists. Cannot happen if you are a democrat so what do you propose happens

Ugh if your going to keep straw manning then there's not much point in engaging with you.

Let me know when you learn how to discuss a topic without using fallacious reasoning.

votecounts

VinLieger wrote: »

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

In the event of a majority wanting a United Ireland you want to oppose this to appease a few Unionists. Cannot happen if you are a democrat so what do you propose happens

VinLieger

cameramonkey wrote: »

You need to read what I was responding to, unless you think that setting off bombs in Dublin is not a terrorist act.
I said we need to treat Unionsts fairly but that does not mean we should back down when they attempt sectarianism and bullying, unless you also think that is a legitimate position.

You are the one invoking terrorism, nobody else mentioned it and your constant refrain of saying we should stand up to them instead of maybe just sit down with them is the attitude that will lead to terroroism

briany

cameramonkey wrote: »

So you would prefer to give way to terrorist than respect the democratic right of people for a UI. fair enough.

I'd prefer peace on the island of Ireland, and the kind of peace that doesn't require more violence to achieve. A united Ireland in which close to a million of its citizens are disgruntled about the arrangement doesn't really sound all that united to me, and therefore not the greatest idea. Any new state would have to meet the reasonable folks on the British Unionist side halfway. Compromises would have to be made on each side.

VinLieger

votecounts wrote: »

I was just staing that if a majority voted for a United Ireland, then they would have to live with democractic result. Surely you agree with democracy

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

cameramonkey

briany wrote: »

A UI is too high a price to pay if riots are kicking off in Belfast and bombs are going off in Dublin.

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats a pathetic strawman, nobody suggested such a thing, your the one bringing in terrorisim and saying we should be standing up to them cus they are bullies.

This exact kind of thinking will lead to the abject failure of a UI, they cant be the enemy you want them to be forever, someday you will have to accept them as your countrymen like it or not and until you can do that why should they?

Be the bigger person

You need to read what I was responding to, unless you think that setting off bombs in Dublin is not a terrorist act.
I said we need to treat Unionsts fairly but that does not mean we should back down when they attempt sectarianism and bullying, unless you also think that is a legitimate position.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Treaties are rewritten all the time.

The European Treaties have been rewritten several times, getting rid of unanimity and bringing in qualified majority voting being a similar example of changing the voting rules.

Forget it. You're not going to make a unionist vote worth more than a nationalist one. You're not going to get away with à la carte democracy now you see the writing on the wall as regards our future in Ireland.

You should be much more concerned with a rejection of a UI in the south because that will give us our very own version of Brexit chaos in the twenty six counties.

votecounts

VinLieger wrote: »

Ohh really? You literally contradicted yourself in the same post

How have the last 3 years of brexit chaos not helped you to see a 51% majority in divisive issues like this could literally lead to the ruination of a country?

It shouldn't matter what the GFA says if it could lead to a disastrous result.

This is one thing i will never understand about ardent republicans who want a UI no matter the cost, instead of maybe thinking in the longterm and seeing the benefit of having it be a guaranteed success?

I was just stating that if a majority voted for a United Ireland, then they would have to live with democractic result. Surely you agree with democracy

cameramonkey

marieholmfan wrote: »

They are Irish people in the six counties.

Most surveys indicate that the unionist consider themselves British not Irish. This is the basis for the ongoing problem, if they were Irish then the problem goes away.

VinLieger

votecounts wrote: »

Not looking for any payback,

Ohh really? You literally contradicted yourself in the same post

votecounts wrote: »

If they are so fond of democracy especially when they were the majority as they claim to be, they will have to live with it.

How have the last 3 years of brexit chaos not helped you to see a 51% majority in divisive issues like this could literally lead to the ruination of a country?

It shouldn't matter what the GFA says if it could lead to a disastrous result.

This is one thing i will never understand about ardent republicans who want a UI no matter the cost, instead of maybe thinking in the longterm and seeing the benefit of having it be a guaranteed success?

marieholmfan

cameramonkey wrote: »

We need to be fair and honest with the Unionist something they never were with Irish people in the six counties. If you continually back down to a bully they will continue to bully, until the Unionists realise that their sectarian bigotry is not acceptable they will continue. Its like the whites in South Africa until someone shouted stop they kept it up to the bitter end. Placating bad behavior means more of it.

They are Irish people in the six counties.

votecounts

Not looking for any payback, just stating that if there is a majority in favour of a United Ireland, so be it. That's whats the GFA states or are going to rewrite this 21 year international agreement voted for by both parts of this Island just to apppease some unionists. If they are so fond of democracy especially when they were the majority as they claim to be, they will have to live with it.

VinLieger

cameramonkey wrote: »

So you would prefer to give way to terrorist than respect the democratic right of people for a UI. fair enough.

Thats a pathetic strawman, nobody suggested such a thing, your the one bringing in terrorisim and saying we should be standing up to them cus they are bullies.

This exact kind of thinking will lead to the abject failure of a UI, they cant be the enemy you want them to be forever, someday you will have to accept them as your countrymen like it or not and until you can do that why should they?

Be the bigger person

blanch152

careless sherpa wrote: »

Not according to the GFA , which is essentially a peace treaty. Can't go rewriting it because 20 years down the road you don't like parts of it

Treaties are rewritten all the time.

The European Treaties have been rewritten several times, getting rid of unanimity and bringing in qualified majority voting being a similar example of changing the voting rules.

cameramonkey

briany wrote: »

This is exactly what I'd be worried about - do to the British Unionists what they did to the Irish Nationalists and rest in the knowledge that turn about is fair play. That would be the easy path, though, and would only lead to problems. In a UI, you must have peace and reconciliation between both sides, otherwise there's no point to the thing. A UI is too high a price to pay if riots are kicking off in Belfast and bombs are going off in Dublin.

So you would prefer to give way to terrorist than respect the democratic right of people for a UI. fair enough.

cameramonkey

VinLieger wrote: »

So your refusing to take the high road and would instead like to play in the mud with the DUP and use exactly the same tactics as them?

It may make you feel good for 5 minutes but the repercussions would be disastrous, think with your head not your heart.

We need to be fair and honest with the Unionist something they never were with Irish people in the six counties. If you continually back down to a bully they will continue to bully, until the Unionists realise that their sectarian bigotry is not acceptable they will continue. Its like the whites in South Africa until someone shouted stop they kept it up to the bitter end. Placating bad behavior means more of it.

briany

VinLieger wrote: »

So your refusing to take the high road and would instead like to play in the mud with the DUP and use exactly the same tactics as them?

It may make you feel good for 5 minutes but the repercussions would be disastrous, think with your head not your heart.

This is exactly what I'd be worried about - do to the British Unionists what they did to the Irish Nationalists and rest in the knowledge that turn about is fair play. That would be the easy path, though, and would only lead to problems. In a UI, you must have peace and reconciliation between both sides, otherwise there's no point to the thing. A UI is too high a price to pay if riots are kicking off in Belfast and bombs are going off in Dublin.

VinLieger

votecounts wrote: »

Have the Unionists ever reached out to the nationalists to make them feel better in the UK,no unless of course you count internment, marching in area where they are not wanted, burning the irish flags, bonfires, colluding with security forces to kill them, singing f the pope and f the IRA, won't pass the irish language act, making sure schoolchildren could not go to school, putting universities in protestant areas,burning them out of their houses, i could go on but that is a small amount of things that they have done. So if it is a majority, they can like it like it or leave.

So your refusing to take the high road and would instead like to play in the mud with the DUP and use exactly the same tactics as them?

It may make you feel good for 5 minutes but the repercussions would be disastrous, think with your head not your heart.

careless sherpa

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not picking out this poster as such, but this sort of thing really bugs me.

Many of the same people that decry the results of the Brexit referendum (52-48 or whatever) as being too narrow, not a true reflection, not a mandate etc etc are quite willing to proclaim that 50.05% would be a mandate in a United Ireland vote.

If we have learned anything from Brexit it is that close referendum are frought with danger.

If you think Brexit is bad imagine what a UI deal would be like to try and negotiate.

A UI vote will only be offered once a clear majority is ready for a UI.

Not according to the GFA , which is essentially a peace treaty. Can't go rewriting it because 20 years down the road you don't like parts of it

farmchoice

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not picking out this poster as such, but this sort of thing really bugs me.

Many of the same people that decry the results of the Brexit referendum (52-48 or whatever) as being too narrow, not a true reflection, not a mandate etc etc are quite willing to proclaim that 50.05% would be a mandate in a United Ireland vote.

If we have learned anything from Brexit it is that close referendum are frought with danger.

If you think Brexit is bad imagine what a UI deal would be like to try and negotiate.

A UI vote will only be offered once a clear majority is ready for a UI.

the problem with the brexit referendum wasn't that the outcome was 52-48 its that wat brexit was going to look like was undefined.

it would be like a vote in NI where the question was ''would you like to leave the UK.
and then those voting yes were promised by some they would go into a 32 county united Ireland tricolor and all, whilst others were promised a new federal union with the republic but mainlining the NHS and the queen, whilst others though the IRA were going to come back and take over.

before any referendum there would have to be a plan for the new state that would come into existence afterwards, a whole new constitution set out.

votecounts

BarryD2 wrote: »

It could very well be a disaster, no way I as RepIrl voter who aspires to a UI would vote for such a thing if it was clear there was not substantial support in NI for it. Who'd want 49% of the NI population if they were severely disaffected to the idea - no way. We don't want or need that hassle. Let them sort themselves out up there first, build bridges between the communities instead of trenches as they have been for the past few years. If people like you want a UI, you'll have to work for it by persuading our Unionist brethren that they'd be better off and have nothing to fear in a new state.

Have the Unionists ever reached out to the nationalists to make them feel better in the UK,no unless of course you count internment, marching in area where they are not wanted, burning the irish flags, bonfires, colluding with security forces to kill them, singing f the pope and f the IRA, won't pass the irish language act, making sure schoolchildren could not go to school, putting universities in protestant areas,burning them out of their houses, i could go on but that is a small amount of things that they have done. So if it is a majority, they can like it like it or leave.