Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Unionists and a United Ireland.

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,026 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    When you think about it, there are a lot of parallels between a referendum on a United Ireland and the Brexit referendum.

    On the face of it, both of them are seductively simple questions and both have been touted as the cure to a whole range of ills.

    But once you start examining it in detail, a United Ireland becomes just as complex and thorny a question as Brexit and just putting that question to a vote opens a Pandora's box that may be impossible to close.

    In the same way that the UK is now asking itself, "what did we mean by Brexit?", any poll on unification will have to be accompanied by answering what we mean by a United Ireland.

    As Francie pointed out earlier in the thread: "A UI to be sustainable (and it is in everyone's interests that it is sustainable and successful) will be a negotiated, agreed and gradual process, supported by all the signatories and guarantors of the GFA".

    When does that negotiation happen? Does it happen after the initial vote? And if it does you risk recrimination through accusations that the settlement wasn't what people voted for. Does it happen before the vote? And if it does you risk recrimination that the settlement was designed to deter a vote in one way or another. You could have several votes?. One referendum to answer the question and one referendum to pass the settlement? What happens if the first one passes and the second one doesn't? There will be no doubt accusations that democracy isn't being respected.

    Whatever way you see it, there is a high risk that, no matter what the path chosen, one or more party is going to feel like they've been marginalised, hoodwinked, or sold out. And, on top of that, there is no obvious way of turning the clock back and reverting to the way we were.

    Long story short, be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.

    Why would it need to be any more complicated than what was planned if Scotland voted for independence?
    In the event of a Yes vote, the date of union with Ireland is named.

    All party committee representing Ireland sits down with All party group from Westminster and negotiate the terms/conditions and shape of the new arrangement.


  • Options
    #63
    circadian
    Registered Users Posts: 6,907 ✭✭✭circadian


    If Brexit has taught us anything, some ground work needs to be done before a border poll comes to fruition. I welcome the idea of a Committee in the Dail to begin looking into how Unification would be handled. Literally everything changes, car number plates to healthcare, education, jobs, transport, infrastructure. You name it, it all changes. Going blindly into a referendum will only lead us down a path of uncertainty and possible disaster.


  • Options
    #64
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,026 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    circadian wrote: »
    If Brexit has taught us anything, some ground work needs to be done before a border poll comes to fruition. I welcome the idea of a Committee in the Dail to begin looking into how Unification would be handled. Literally everything changes, car number plates to healthcare, education, jobs, transport, infrastructure. You name it, it all changes. Going blindly into a referendum will only lead us down a path of uncertainty and possible disaster.

    Absolutely, that goes without saying. And I suggest those who don't want it have to do the same, i.e. - make the case for not unifying. Not sure if it's been said on this thread or another, I am personally intrigued about what political representation the No side will get here. I don't see any of the political party's here being against it, so maybe it will be down to single voices, like Peter Casey, to lead the way for partitionists.


  • Options
    #65
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,473 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Have you seen Stormont? This is not how Northern Irish politics works.
    In the event of a UI Stormont will no longer be necessary


  • Options
    #66
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,026 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    circadian wrote: »
    If Brexit has taught us anything, some ground work needs to be done before a border poll comes to fruition. I welcome the idea of a Committee in the Dail to begin looking into how Unification would be handled. Literally everything changes, car number plates to healthcare, education, jobs, transport, infrastructure. You name it, it all changes. Going blindly into a referendum will only lead us down a path of uncertainty and possible disaster.

    BTW, 'Brexit' doesn't need to 'teach us' a single thing. That was the UK's own mess. We do referendum's differently. The issues are clearly laid out and debated honestly before we vote. I.E. the information is there for those who want it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    charlietheminxx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭charlietheminxx


    ELM327 wrote: »
    In the event of a UI Stormont will no longer be necessary

    That may not be true, we don't know what structural changes to governance could be decided in the event of a united Ireland. I don't see Stormont being scrapped.


  • Options
    #68
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Originally Posted by Chips Lovell
    When you think about it, there are a lot of parallels between a referendum on a United Ireland and the Brexit referendum.

    On the face of it, both of them are seductively simple questions and both have been touted as the cure to a whole range of ills.

    But once you start examining it in detail, a United Ireland becomes just as complex and thorny a question as Brexit and just putting that question to a vote opens a Pandora's box that may be impossible to close.


    As Francie pointed out earlier in the thread: "A UI to be sustainable (and it is in everyone's interests that it is sustainable and successful) will be a negotiated, agreed and gradual process, supported by all the signatories and guarantors of the GFA".
    UI is no where near the complexity of Brexit.
    UI would remain a full member of the EU.

    Define "sustainable"?
    Is NI likely to secede and become an independent country? Not a hope.
    Would Britain want them back? Very very unlikely.

    Are there likely to be some unionist/loyalist rioting? Perhaps.
    But remember this: after a unity poll the Irish government, the British government, the majority of the people of NI, the PSNI, all the intelligence agencies and SF would now be on the same side.

    A Loyalist campaign of violence would be totally unsustainable.


  • Options
    #69
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,473 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    charlietheminxx wrote: »
    That may not be true, we don't know what structural changes to governance could be decided in the event of a united Ireland. I don't see Stormont being scrapped.


    It won't be a "united ireland" , it will just be Ireland.
    32 counties, the way it was under the last legit election here, 1918.
    Governed by one oireachtas


  • Options
    #70
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    I think the idea of a Border Poll makes everyone queasy (inc Sinn Fein). It is not necessary and will add nothing. In fact it will just polarize the community.

    Let matters settle down for a few years. Let Brexit play out and get Stormant up and running.

    I hear in the news again this morning the SNP are pushing again for an independence vote this morning. I think this is tactically a mistake- for the moment the SNP need to concentrate on delivering the bread and butter matters because it is guaranteed that the NHS crisis, homelessness, drugs, education will just be thrown back in the faces if they cannot get those matters in order.


  • Options
    #71
    charlietheminxx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭charlietheminxx


    ELM327 wrote: »
    It won't be a "united ireland" , it will just be Ireland.
    32 counties, the way it was under the last legit election here, 1918.
    Governed by one oireachtas

    That's a lovely amount of certainty you have there, have you been to the future? I think something else will be implemented to ease the transition. People in the north are used to a certain level of devolution and for unification to work properly, compromises above all else will necessary.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,026 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    charlietheminxx wrote: »
    That's a lovely amount of certainty you have there, have you been to the future? I think something else will be implemented to ease the transition. People in the north are used to a certain level of devolution and for unification to work properly, compromises above all else will necessary.

    Remains to be seen what will evolve, but my personal opinion would be that allowing the north to stay devolved or separate would be just a can kicking excercise.


  • Options
    #73
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,473 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    charlietheminxx wrote: »
    That's a lovely amount of certainty you have there, have you been to the future? I think something else will be implemented to ease the transition. People in the north are used to a certain level of devolution and for unification to work properly, compromises above all else will necessary.


    Unification, one country, one government.
    There will be no separate jurisdiction. Unionists will be elected to the all ireland parliament, like they were pre the british created state of NI. There was even a unionist MP elected in Dublin before!


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Remains to be seen what will evolve, but my personal opinion would be that allowing the north to stay devolved or separate would be just a can kicking excercise.
    +1
    This tbh


  • Options
    #74
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,725 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Reunification would have to be a multi vote process, initially a vote on whether formal negotiations on reunification should begin, then a vote on whether people want to unify based on the outcome of the negotiations. We can't make the same mistake Brexit made and just ask a simple yes/no question with no detail on what either choice actually means and allow ridiculous interpretations of the outcome be formed later.

    Reunification would be over a long transitional period with some NI institutions continuing to exist for a decade or more, not least the PSNI and Parades Commission.


  • Options
    #75
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,026 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Reunification would have to be a multi vote process, initially a vote on whether formal negotiations on reunification should begin, then a vote on whether people want to unify based on the outcome of the negotiations. We can't make the same mistake Brexit made and just ask a simple yes/no question with no detail on what either choice actually means and allow ridiculous interpretations of the outcome be formed later.

    Reunification would be over a long transitional period with some NI institutions continuing to exist for a decade or more, not least the PSNI and Parades Commission.

    All unionists would have to do in that case would be to make sure there was no 'outcome' to the negotiations.

    The only way to do it is for both sides to have campaigns on the benefits in the run up to the Poll. In the same way as we have always run referendums (unlike Brexit, there is NO comparison tbh) with all the available information transparently available.

    The people decide and then as outlined and agreed in the GFA the two governments negotiate and agreed the new arrangements.


  • Options
    #76
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Remains to be seen what will evolve, but my personal opinion would be that allowing the north to stay devolved or separate would be just a can kicking excercise.

    Enhanced joint sovereignty with greater devolved powers to Northern Ireland is the medium-term outlook.

    United Ireland remains a long-term pipe dream.


  • Options
    #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ELM327 wrote: »
    32 counties, the way it was under the last legit election here, 1918.

    What do you mean by that?


  • Options
    #78
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Enhanced joint sovereignty with greater devolved powers to Northern Ireland is the medium-term outlook.

    United Ireland remains a long-term pipe dream.
    Devolution has been a failure.
    Notice the NI Assembly has not been functioning for pretty much ever.


  • Options
    #79
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Well as I said, there are 'there are none as blind as those that cannot see'.

    Did you never hear of the Ne Temere decree for a start? http://www.tara.tcd.ie/handle/2262/68771

    Malcolm Byrne of FF is putting his neck on the block and hitting along the right lines: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/ff-td-united-ireland-could-celebrate-the-twelfth-and-rejoin-commonwealth-38795028.html

    Doubt his ideas as a FF Reoublican will go down well here :)
    There's absolutely no reason that people can't advocate for Ireland to rejoin the Commonwealth.
    I am doubtful such an endeavor would pass a referendum but there's nothing wrong with trying.


  • Options
    #80
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    I would take the 12th as a BH would be a given in a UI scenario. Can't see anyone else getting too upset at another BH (well, except employers)


  • Options
    #81
    briany
    Registered Users Posts: 13,553 ✭✭✭✭briany


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Devolution has been a failure.

    It hasn't been a smooth ride for sure, but to say it's a failure is to say there is no potential for lasting harmony on that part of the island. The alternative, direct rule, fosters no political cooperation or cross-community dialog. It allows both sides to retreat into their respective shells and lets the whole atmosphere grow colder and colder.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    An Ciarraioch
    Registered Users Posts: 5,801 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    An interesting electoral hypothesis - the Republic at present has a population of 5m and 160 seats, so given NI's is roughly 1.7m, that would entitle it to 54 - conveniently making every current constituency a three-seater. Applying the 2017 Stormont results to such an election, unionists would win 24-25, nationalists 23-24, and others 6, so unionists would comprise roughly 12% of a 214-member all-island parliament. Even in an over-generous allocation of 72 seats (18*4), unionists would still have a maximum of 32/232 (<14%), so the Byrne proposal would probably be necessary.


  • Options
    #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    By definition unionists have no place in any Ireland.


  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    By definition unionists have no place in any Ireland.

    Not even close to being true. Nothing wrong with aspirations for Ireland to rejoin the UK. Similarly agitating for Ireland to be a Marxist state is also valid. Neither have much chance of success, but valid positions none the less.


  • Options
    #85
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    briany wrote: »
    It hasn't been a smooth ride for sure, but to say it's a failure is to say there is no potential for lasting harmony on that part of the island. The alternative, direct rule, fosters no political cooperation or cross-community dialog. It allows both sides to retreat into their respective shells and lets the whole atmosphere grow colder and colder.
    It's always been a cold place, at least for one tribe.

    So there's nothing particularly new about the deep freeze there, other than the Unionists finding themselves unable to wield power; but that's only because the Tories don't need to rely on them now.

    As a political entity, NI has been a failure.


  • Options
    #86
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    It's always been a cold place, at least for one tribe.

    So there's nothing particularly new about the deep freeze there, other than the Unionists finding themselves unable to wield power; but that's only because the Tories don't need to rely on them now.

    As a political entity, NI has been a failure.


    As opposed to the Republic which has been a rip roaring success. :rolleyes:

    ****



  • Options
    #87
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    As opposed to the Republic which has been a rip roaring success. :rolleyes:
    Yes actually it has been a success.
    We don't require an army on our streets to keep the peace.
    We don't have ethnic cleansing going on.


  • Options
    #88
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    GFA and Devolved government for NI was a nice way to stymie the bloodletting in the North, but it has not fixed the problem.
    The problem is that for NI to be a successful polity, it would require the growing nationalist population there to become unionists.
    Unionists and unionism has been a total failure in that regard.
    They have not convinced anybody to become unionists.
    After 20+ years of peace, one tribe still largely wants the statelet dissolved.


  • Options
    #89
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,473 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What do you mean by that?
    It was the last election that took place in Ireland the country as opposed to to false states created by the british - an unauthorised foreign invader


  • Options
    #90
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not even close to being true. Nothing wrong with aspirations for Ireland to rejoin the UK. Similarly agitating for Ireland to be a Marxist state is also valid. Neither have much chance of success, but valid positions none the less.


    Byrne's proposal was to rejoin the Commonwealth - a very different thing! A sort of umbrella identity that could encompass both of the main traditions on the island. But completely independent of the UK otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Byrne's proposal was to rejoin the Commonwealth - a very different thing! A sort of umbrella identity that could encompass both of the main traditions on the island. But completely independent of the UK otherwise.

    We don’t need to be in the commonwealth.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement