Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

Mr.Nice Guy · 16-03-2021 11:00PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Emotionally attached to partition! Hahaha! Good one. I equally can't help but wonder how many of those armchair republicans advocating a United Ireland are blinded by nationalistic fantasy and simply refuse to contemplate economic pragmatism or the opinions of a million Unionists. Or, to put it another way, reality.

What some call reality, others might call catastrophizing.

yagan · 16-03-2021 11:00PM

Fionn1952 wrote: »

With most first world countries, the area around the economic capital would benefit from cutting off everywhere else, be that the UK's Greater London area, The Pale area of Ireland or the Industrial Triangle of Italy.

The vast majority of Ireland outside the Pale are net economic receivers.

I'd query that on a per head of population. Most of Ireland's large pharmas and medical supply companies which have cushions us during Covid are outside Dublin and considering the decades of development gone into plants like Merck near Clonmel I think it's more accurate to say that they generate wealth locally and nationally.

I think there's way too much of a naivety in Dublin about its own importance.

Fionn1952 · 16-03-2021 11:33PM

yagan wrote: »

I'd query that on a per head of population. Most of Ireland's large pharmas and medical supply companies which have cushions us during Covid are outside Dublin and considering the decades of development gone into plants like Merck near Clonmel I think it's more accurate to say that they generate wealth locally and nationally.

I think there's way too much of a naivety in Dublin about its own importance.

Specific numbers provided above, Yagan. Dublin alone contributes ~56% of the tax take (at around 28% of the population) across VAT, Income tax, Capital Gains tax and Corporation tax. Plants like Merck near Clonmel are significant on the local scale, but altogether, Tipperary only contributes around 1% of the overall tax take (while making up over 3% of the population).

10000maniacs · 17-03-2021 02:37AM

dogbert27 wrote: »

What does the 12 billion cover?

Is it:
NHS costs
Civil servant salaries
Pensions
Community projects
Roads and Infrastructure

Just wondering what it is as it is always described as a lump sum figure.

A lot of those expenses would be owed by the British Government on unification.
Pensions for example.
Hospitals would be converted and taken over by the HSE at considerable cost, but not billions. Most of the work would have been already done. Oven ready as Johnson coined it for something else.
Civil servants would be re-hired as needed and I assume be given redundancy by the British if not re-hired as Irish civil servants. Their contracts were with the British anyway.

Mr.Nice Guy · 17-03-2021 03:44AM

Good article here in the Irish Times from Seamus McGuinness, research professor in the ESRI. He says there are 4 unknowns that need to be addressed when discussing the cost to taxpayers regarding reunification: 1) the length of a transition period between a poll result and a transfer of sovereignty 2) the role of the two governments in improving NI's performance during the transition phase 3) negotiations on NI's share of debt and assets 4) the role of external players with influence, like the US and EU.

Key point in relation to the subvention discussion:

The level of subvention, which refers to the gap between government spending and tax revenue in Northern Ireland, is often focused on as a measure of this cost. Subvention in 2014 was £9.16 billion. However, when items of expenditure not directly related to the running of Northern Ireland are subtracted, for example its contribution to UK defence spending or UK government debt, potential subvention levels could fall by about 25 per cent.

The level falls further when account is taken of UK public-sector pensions and contribution-based old-age pensions, both of which would remain a UK liability following unification. Negotiations on Northern Ireland’s share of UK assets may also impact the figure in the event of unification.

Nevertheless, it is Northern Ireland’s low productivity levels that create a need for subvention payments in the first place, and the ultimate cost (or benefit) to the Irish taxpayer would depend on the success of policy reforms aimed at addressing this problem.

And he closes with this:

Any credible assessment of the cost of unification should incorporate reasonable assumptions around all of these unknown factors under various scenarios. There is little to be achieved through a static analysis of Irish unification whereby the estimated current costs of administering Northern Ireland, which are themselves highly debatable, are simply superimposed on the current tax and welfare systems of the Republic. Such a scenario would never seriously be proposed, or ratified, in any border poll.

Responsible debate on the economics of Irish unification should be based on facts that have been established through rigorous research that fully accounts for the likely dynamics associated with any unification process. What we must avoid at all costs is a repeat of the UK Brexit referendum, which is best characterised as a scenario of spurious claims and counterclaims that led, ultimately, to sustained political and economic stalemate.

Peregrinus · 17-03-2021 05:04AM

And, to add to what Mr Niceguy says, NI's need for subvention it itself partly the outcome of economic damage resulting from partition, and from NI's unstable and dysfunctional politics. NI was, by a long measure, much more prosperous than the Free State in 1922; over time the position has completely reversed and, while there are obviously other factors at work, a signficant part of this is that being the UK's remote borderland is not economically advantageous. So this provides another reason why it's simplistically wrong to assume that the subvention which partitioned NI requires will continue to be required, long term, after NI is no longer partitioned from its nearest and, now, much wealthier market.

PeadarCo · 17-03-2021 08:12AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, to add to what Mr Niceguy says, NI's need for subvention it itself partly the outcome of economic damage resulting from partition, and from NI's unstable and dysfunctional politics. NI was, by a long measure, much more prosperous than the Free State in 1922; over time the position has completely reversed and, while there are obviously other factors at work, a signficant part of this is that being the UK's remote borderland is not economically advantageous. So this provides another reason why it's simplistically wrong to assume that the subvention which partitioned NI requires will continue to be required, long term, after NI is no longer partitioned from its nearest and, now, much wealthier market.

And this is exactly the type of discussion that needs to happen. Northern Ireland will need to be subsidised by the Republic at some level. Its not necessarily a show stopper (as already mentioned Dublin supports the country anyway even to NI to a degree indirectly with Dublin port and airport) however it needs to be discussed and teased out. The question of how much subsidy(ie tax increases or spending cuts for the rest of the island) will come up in any future vote. The better the issue is debated before hand the more answers the question will have for better or worse. It reduces the chance of something unexpected coming up in the event of unification. Look at Brexit and the refusal to dicuss the impact of Brexit and all the issues that were widely predicted. As a result of the non debate of the problems leaving the customs Union for example all the paperwork has come as a massive shock to a lot of people. The economy is only one issue that needs to be discussed and its one of less emotive issues. As the assembly has shown flags and the Irish langauge for example can be even bigger Challenges.

Calling people who raise potential issues with unification of Ireland partionists/scaremongering etc actively damages any future unified island. The biggest lesson Brexit should have on Northern Ireland is the need to plan. Brexit increases the chance of the UK breaking up and a vote on unification as a result. Nobody wants a united Ireland to repeat the mistakes of Brexit.

Fionn1952 · 17-03-2021 08:17AM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Good article here in the Irish Times from Seamus McGuinness, research professor in the ESRI. He says there are 4 unknowns that need to be addressed when discussing the cost to taxpayers regarding reunification: 1) the length of a transition period between a poll result and a transfer of sovereignty 2) the role of the two governments in improving NI's performance during the transition phase 3) negotiations on NI's share of debt and assets 4) the role of external players with influence, like the US and EU.

Key point in relation to the subvention discussion:

And he closes with this:

One that one probably shouldn't hold much faith in is

"2) the role of the two governments in improving NI's performance during the transition phase "

Expecting Britain to engage in activities to improve NI's performance during transition would highlight (or at least be perceived to highlight) that fixing NI was something they could've always done. Not great optics for them on the international stage.

Peregrinus · 17-03-2021 08:59AM

Fionn1952 wrote: »

One that one probably shouldn't hold much faith in is

"2) the role of the two governments in improving NI's performance during the transition phase "

Expecting Britain to engage in activities to improve NI's performance during transition would highlight (or at least be perceived to highlight) that fixing NI was something they could've always done. Not great optics for them on the international stage.

To be fair, it's pretty clear that for the present British government "great optics for them on the international stage' is not among their primary concerns.

Fionn1952 · 17-03-2021 09:54AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be fair, it's pretty clear that for the present British government "great optics for them on the international stage' is not among their primary concerns.

But how does fixing an NI that had been run into the ground help their own interests in any way? Particularly in the light of a post-Brexit Britain, who would just be strengthening a rival for investment.

I just can't envisage a scenario where the British government say, 'Oh aye, could've fixed this mess ages ago.....never got round to it, here you go'.

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 09:57AM

PeadarCo wrote: »

And this is exactly the type of discussion that needs to happen. Northern Ireland will need to be subsidised by the Republic at some level. Its not necessarily a show stopper (as already mentioned Dublin supports the country anyway even to NI to a degree indirectly with Dublin port and airport) however it needs to be discussed and teased out. The question of how much subsidy(ie tax increases or spending cuts for the rest of the island) will come up in any future vote. The better the issue is debated before hand the more answers the question will have for better or worse. It reduces the chance of something unexpected coming up in the event of unification. Look at Brexit and the refusal to dicuss the impact of Brexit and all the issues that were widely predicted. As a result of the non debate of the problems leaving the customs Union for example all the paperwork has come as a massive shock to a lot of people. The economy is only one issue that needs to be discussed and its one of less emotive issues. As the assembly has shown flags and the Irish langauge for example can be even bigger Challenges.

Calling people who raise potential issues with unification of Ireland partionists/scaremongering etc actively damages any future unified island. The biggest lesson Brexit should have on Northern Ireland is the need to plan. Brexit increases the chance of the UK breaking up and a vote on unification as a result. Nobody wants a united Ireland to repeat the mistakes of Brexit.

Exactly. A calm and measured analysis of all socio-economic and political impacts of a UI will hasten rather than impede a UI. Flag-waving and sloganeering Republicanism is counterproductive. If there is to be a UI, ways must be found to mitigate the costs. People vote with their pockets. So, a British/Irish/EU economic plan, based on economic and financial realities that people will accept, is very necessary.

Similarly, societal and political realities have to be addressed to make a UI palatable for Unionism. If people think that there will be trouble from Unionism/Loyalism as a result of a UI, they will be inclined to vote against. Again, shallow nationalism will be counterproductive. It is for the Republic to look at itself and make this country a welcoming place where Unionism can feel at home. That will mean enormous change but it must happen.

20silkcut · 17-03-2021 11:18AM

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Specific numbers provided above, Yagan. Dublin alone contributes ~56% of the tax take (at around 28% of the population) across VAT, Income tax, Capital Gains tax and Corporation tax. Plants like Merck near Clonmel are significant on the local scale, but altogether, Tipperary only contributes around 1% of the overall tax take (while making up over 3% of the population).

That is due to deliberate government policy over decades. Such imbalances did not exist 40/50 years ago.
The country is a hell of a lot economically better off with this economic balance though.

We could sort out this economic imbalance no problem and disperse everyone back into the countryside and give them an acre of land and a plot of turf.
Or make a city state out of Dublin.
But that’s off topic.
But in my opinion a country is better off with its contiguous territory under its jurisdiction even if only for the reason it looks better and makes more sense on a map.
Non sensical borders are generally associated with volatile country’s and are a bad look.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 11:29AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. A calm and measured analysis of all socio-economic and political impacts of a UI will hasten rather than impede a UI. Flag-waving and sloganeering Republicanism is counterproductive. If there is to be a UI, ways must be found to mitigate the costs. People vote with their pockets. So, a British/Irish/EU economic plan, based on economic and financial realities that people will accept, is very necessary.

Similarly, societal and political realities have to be addressed to make a UI palatable for Unionism. If people think that there will be trouble from Unionism/Loyalism as a result of a UI, they will be inclined to vote against. Again, shallow nationalism will be counterproductive. It is for the Republic to look at itself and make this country a welcoming place where Unionism can feel at home. That will mean enormous change but it must happen.

And an economic assessment/plan will not be achieved or arrived at by random comments on an internet forum.

What happens is people select areas where they can prove their inherent positions on a UI, be that positive or negative.

The point is that if the costs are presented as an investment that will pay off in societal and economic dividends I think people will respond positively to that.

Announcing that 'people vote with their pockets' is a form of flag waving too and patronising. They consider their pockets, but it isn't the only factor.

I also don't think 'huge changes' will be required to make Unionists feel at home. A huge change in Unionist perceptions of what Ireland is now is required though.

Fionn1952 · 17-03-2021 11:40AM

20silkcut wrote: »

That is due to deliberate government policy over decades. Such imbalances did not exist 40/50 years ago.
The country is a hell of a lot economically better off with this economic balance though.

We could sort out this economic imbalance no problem and disperse everyone back into the countryside and give them an acre of land and a plot of turf.
Or make a city state out of Dublin.
But that’s off topic.
But in my opinion a country is better off with its contiguous territory under its jurisdiction even if only for the reason it looks better and makes more sense on a map.
Non sensical borders are generally associated with volatile country’s and are a bad look.

Throwing everyone an acre of land in in countryside would certainly sort out the economic balance...we'd all be dirt poor.

I don't disagree with you in general though, my point was a counter to those stating that Ireland would be economically better off without unification as the GDP in NI is lower. I pointed out that going purely by this logic, The Pale area would be, 'better off' by jettisoning off everywhere else in the country. It was not meant as a suggestion that had my support.

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 11:46AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And an economic assessment/plan will not be achieved or arrived at by random comments on an internet forum.

Really? Gosh. Thanks for the heads up.

What happens is people select areas where they can prove their inherent positions on a UI, be that positive or negative.

The point is that if the costs are presented as an investment that will pay off in societal and economic dividends I think people will respond positively to that.

And those decisions should be made based on clear and unambiguous economic realities. Then those realities can be placed against any positive or negative societal, political and cultural changes.

Announcing that 'people vote with their pockets' is a form of flag waving too and patronising. They consider their pockets, but it isn't the only factor.

Rather childish portrayal of my opinion. I didn't "announce" anything. Nor is it "flag-waving" or "patronising". And I didn't I say it was the "only factor". Deliberate misrepresentation because of an inability to engage with fact. I said that people vote with their pockets. That is a fact. You may choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your narrative. But it's a fact.

I also don't think 'huge changes' will be required to make Unionists feel at home. A huge change in Unionist perceptions of what Ireland is now is required though

A myopic perspective. British Unionism's "perceptions" must undergo "huge change" so that it stops wanting to be British and wants to become Irish. There we have it. That's the thinking that will ensure a UI is decades away.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 11:51AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Really? Gosh. Thanks for the heads up.

And those decisions should be made based on clear and unambiguous economic realities. Then those realities can be placed against any positive or negative societal, political and cultural changes.

Rather childish portrayal of my opinion. I didn't "announce" anything. Nor is it "flag-waving" or "patronising". And I didn't I say it was the "only factor". Deliberate misrepresentation because of an inability to engage with fact. I said that people vote with their pockets. That is a fact. You may choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your narrative. But it's a fact.

A myopic perspective. British Unionism's "perceptions" must undergo "huge change" so that it stops wanting to be British and wants to become Irish. There we have it. That's the thinking that will ensure a UI is decades away.

What facts am I 'not' engaging in?
And you did said 'people vote with their pockets'...fact.

And I did not say 'British Unionism's "perceptions" must undergo "huge change" so that it stops wanting to be British and wants to become Irish'.
I quite clearly said, 'their perception (it is just a perception) of what Ireland is now needs to change'.
There is no issue with me if they want to maintain their British identity.

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 11:59AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What facts am I 'not' engaging in?
And you did said 'people vote with their pockets'...fact.

And I did not say 'British Unionism's "perceptions" must undergo "huge change" so that it stops wanting to be British and wants to become Irish'.
I quite clearly said, 'their perception (it is just a perception) of what Ireland is now needs to change'.
There is no issue with me if they want to maintain their British identity.

I'd be very interested to hear how Unionism can maintain its British identity in an Irish republic.

Sam Russell · 17-03-2021 12:00PM

20silkcut wrote: »

That is due to deliberate government policy over decades. Such imbalances did not exist 40/50 years ago.
The country is a hell of a lot economically better off with this economic balance though.

We could sort out this economic imbalance no problem and disperse everyone back into the countryside and give them an acre of land and a plot of turf.
Or make a city state out of Dublin.
But that’s off topic.
But in my opinion a country is better off with its contiguous territory under its jurisdiction even if only for the reason it looks better and makes more sense on a map.

There is a distortion to the numbers due to the fact that Dublin is the centre for much of Gov. and commerce.

Most of Gov is centred in Dublin, and many public servants are based in Dublin. The legal system is over-represented in Dublin. Major hospitals are in Dublin as is the HSE headquarters. Companies have a presence for their HQ in Dublin and pay the taxes as if in Dublin. Dublin Port is in Dublin and so the vast majority of imports and exports pass through Dublin. Even Guinness is brewed in Dublin.

When Charlie McCreevy decentralised, he did not do it properly. It was 'One for every constituency' rather than a planned decentralisation.

Why send the Legal Aid to Quay Street, Cahirciveen, Co. Kerry. V23 RD36? Because it was the then Minister for Justice's constituency, instead of Dublin 1, next to the Four Courts and the Bridewell.

If decentralisation was to be done properly, it would have been done with some knowledge as to what functions were being decentralised, together with which other Gov functions they interacted with - simples.

A contrast between, say [Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo], and [Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh] might show the direction a post UI had to travel to get a just and progressive Ireland. I would think there is not a huge difference economically between those two areas.

The North has too many on the public purse, but is this because it was simply a hidden subsidy to prop up a failed state, or because there were too few genuine economically based jobs. The manufacturing base has long gone - H&W long closed, De Lorean long closed, Fruit of the Loom gone, and no FDI based jobs created. Only agriculture and some tourism is left.

Could a UI create jobs in NI? Could a UI allow current public purse jobs to move to NI? Could some Gov departments move to NI? Could the Irish Gov get significant FDI to go north? This is what is needed to revive the NI economy, and remove the need for an undue subvention.

It is 23 years since the GFA.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 12:03PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd be very interested to hear how Unionism can maintain its British identity in an Irish republic.

By being British, just as the Polish here are Polish or the Chinese are Chinese etc.
Or as the Irish have maintained their Irishness anywhere they have gone and in the north.

Fionn1952 · 17-03-2021 12:05PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd be very interested to hear how Unionism can maintain its British identity in an Irish republic.

I'd imagine the same way the significant number of people from countless other cultures who live in Ireland manage it.

Have you ever lived outside Ireland? Did you lose your Irish identity when you hopped on the plane?

That isn't to say we don't have a responsibility to make those from a Unionist background feel welcome and do what we can to support their culture, but the suggestion that we'll have a vote and all of a sudden their identity is gone is quite strange.

dogbert27 · 17-03-2021 12:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By being British, just as the Polish here are Polish or the Chinese are Chinese etc.
Or as the Irish have maintained their Irishness anywhere they have gone and in the north.

I'm taking the meaning is that how will it work?

In a United Ireland do the people of Northern Ireland automatically become "Irish citizens"?

If the Unionists want to remain "British citizens" in a United Ireland and Britain is outside of the EU do these people now require visas or will there be an exemption?

This couldn't work on an ongoing basis though as it will unsettle the political peace required for a United Ireland to work.

Are they given the opportunity to re-locate to Britain?

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 12:11PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By being British, just as the Polish here are Polish or the Chinese are Chinese etc.
Or as the Irish have maintained their Irishness anywhere they have gone and in the north.

Just like that? You don't see any subtle differences between Polish-Irish or Chinese-Irish history and British Unionism-Irish history? The idea that Irish emigration is a template for incorporating British Unionism into an Irish republic? Or how Nationalists have existed in NI? You think they are the ways forward for British Unionism in an Irish republic?

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 12:12PM

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'd imagine the same way the significant number of people from countless other cultures who live in Ireland manage it.

Have you ever lived outside Ireland? Did you lose your Irish identity when you hopped on the plane?

That isn't to say we don't have a responsibility to make those from a Unionist background feel welcome and do what we can to support their culture, but the suggestion that we'll have a vote and all of a sudden their identity is gone is quite strange.

Agreed. Which is why I didn't suggest that.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 12:14PM

dogbert27 wrote: »

I'm taking the meaning is that how will it work?

In a United Ireland do the people of Northern Ireland automatically become "Irish citizens"?

If the Unionists want to remain "British citizens" in a United Ireland and Britain is outside of the EU do these people now require visas or will there be an exemption?

This couldn't work on an ongoing basis though as it will unsettle the political peace required for a United Ireland to work.

Are they given the opportunity to re-locate to Britain?

This has all been agreed in the GFA.
The British and Irish governments have agreed in a binding agreement to make the majority will of the people work.

If a UI is voted for, it is up to Unionists to make the case for what they want. It isn't for me or the Irish end of the deal to do that.

BonnieSituation · 17-03-2021 12:17PM

dogbert27 wrote: »

I'm taking the meaning is that how will it work?

In a United Ireland do the people of Northern Ireland automatically become "Irish citizens"?

If the Unionists want to remain "British citizens" in a United Ireland and Britain is outside of the EU do these people now require visas or will there be an exemption?

This couldn't work on an ongoing basis though as it will unsettle the political peace required for a United Ireland to work.

Are they given the opportunity to re-locate to Britain?

For starters they're already Irish citizens. So that wouldn't be an issue.

Entitlement to British citizenship after reunification is a matter for the UK. Though I would imagine it would be a similar situation to here after the Republic of Ireland Act was enacted.

Relocation would be an issue for the UK. No one would have to leave their homes as a result of a democratic vote on favour of a UI. But if those that are too belligerent to accept such a vote, well I guess they could clamour for some sort of relocation. Up to them.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 12:24PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just like that? You don't see any subtle differences between Polish-Irish or Chinese-Irish history and British Unionism-Irish history? The idea that Irish emigration is a template for incorporating British Unionism into an Irish republic? Or how Nationalists have existed in NI? You think they are the ways forward for British Unionism in an Irish republic?

Why would there have to be ways forward for 'British Unionism' in a new unified Irish republic that a majority want? They are quite entitled to remain a political force and attempt to convince a majority to unify with Britain if they see that as a possibility.

A few minutes ago we were talking about maintaining a 'British identity'.

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 12:30PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would there have to be ways forward for 'British Unionism' in a new unified Irish republic that a majority want? They are quite entitled to remain a political force and attempt to convince a majority to unify with Britain if they see that as a possibility.

A few minutes ago we were talking about maintaining a 'British identity'.

Because if Unionism doesn't feel welcome in an Irish republic then a UI may not happen. I'll repeat myself. A UI is much more likely if all societal, cultural, economic and political realities are made clear and unambiguous and are addressed prior to any referendums. Handwaving away Unionist concerns and economic impacts on Ireland is counterproductive.

BonnieSituation · 17-03-2021 12:32PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because if Unionism doesn't feel welcome in an Irish republic then a UI may not happen. I'll repeat myself. A UI is much more likely if all societal, cultural, economic and political realities are made clear and unambiguous and are addressed prior to any referendums. Handwaving away Unionist concerns and economic impacts on Ireland is counterproductive.

But there will ALWAYS be unionist concerns. Even when they agree to things they are concerned about them 5 minutes later.

There's a certain point you just have to give up on and move on.

The narrative being formed by many is that unionists will be "railroaded" or "forced" into a UI against their wishes despite a UI only happening as a result of the democratic choices of the people of Ireland.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 12:34PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because if Unionism doesn't feel welcome in an Irish republic then a UI may not happen. I'll repeat myself. A UI is much more likely if all societal, cultural, economic and political realities are made clear and unambiguous and are addressed prior to any referendums. Handwaving away Unionist concerns and economic impacts on Ireland is counterproductive.

I'm not handwaving anything away.

I am adamant that Unionism be allowed to propose what they want and that it is considered.

A UI is likely if a majority vote for it...full stop. That has already been agreed by a majority on this island.
That will involve compromise by all, but not capitulation.
And an acceptance that you won't get everything you want.

Snickers Man · 17-03-2021 12:50PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Or as the Irish have maintained their Irishness anywhere they have gone and in the north.

Woah!!! Do you want to claim ALL the Irish "wherever they have gone"?

It's all very well saying "We gave the world Spencer Tracey, JFK, John McEnroe, Andy Townsend, etc etc"
Good chaps all!

But "we" also gave them:
Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity
Jacob Rees Mogg
Daniel Hannon
Brendan O'Neil
Liam Halligan
Mike Pence
Wayne Rooney
Colin Moynihan

........and quite a lot of others in the basket of deplorables.

I kinda hope the Unionists DO retain their identity in the event of a United Ireland. If they mutate into native Irish counterparts to some of the above.......YEEESH!!!

Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

Comments