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; } } }

How can we integrate Unionism into a possible United Ireland?

Dickie10

How could we make the Republic more appealing place to belong to for the Unionist and Loyalist community, surely the like s of the DUP would already have common ground here with some sectors of irish society ironaically the Catholic Church, on abortion and Gay Marriage, those very conservative Catholics closest ally would be hardline Presbytarian and Protestants. Fine Gael and Unionist Parties may have some common ground too like of John Bruton and the politican from Monaghon whose father was in the Orange Order, surely some of these things that are already in the Republic would make them feel less threatened. The absolute hatred among some sections of Irish media and society towards the Catholic church would surely be in common would some extreme Loyalists too. Are they afraid of just how easily they could be integrated into rest of Ireland? Theres also large sections of the electorate who despise Shinners, so the Loyalists would surely be delighted with that too.

Could there be any chance of southern catholics actually enjoying a more unioinst outlook or becoming more unionist light? people we may refer to as West Brit on east coast, those who follow english soccer teams or are into British Lions and likes of cricket. Could they find themselves actually alligned more with a form of unionism? we definitley have more culturally in common with mainland Britain than Europeans.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

AyeGer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118643028#Comment_118643028

What’s your definition of flourished? Needing 15 billion yearly injection of cash to run, stormont collapsed.. again, constant bickering between the two communities? Stuck in the middle of a dispute between the real Britain and the larger EU 100 years after its foundation thus needing a highly complex protocol just to try and keep everyone happy.

Harryd225

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118643145#Comment_118643145

None of them ever have (the main ones) that doesn't mean some supporters of those political parties don't support partition. Generally speaking partitionists feel slightly ashamed of their beliefs and don't openly admit it, instead they promote irrational fears of loyalist violence and economic disaster if a United Ireland were to ever occur. They also generally strongly emphasise on the negatives of unification while ignoring all of the positives. None of this at all matters to them and they are merely excuses used to further their partitionist agenda, of which no matter the circumstances their views on partition will not change.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118643151#Comment_118643151

Yeah. That. And the fact that the majority living there want to remain in the Uk nation rather than unite with their neighbouring country

downcow

I wonder if roi had not left the union when they did and if they were getting major financial support from membership of the Uk, would they vote to leave?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118643816#Comment_118643816

How do you know that? Nobody has presented a plan for a UI and there hasn't been a vote on it.

Polling on a UI shows the same support for Scottish independence when that poll was called and they almost won that by the end of the campaign and the presentation of a plan.

AyeGer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118643816#Comment_118643816

Its not flourished though. As regards the majority wishing to remain atm. I agree that is probably the case but there is a lot of potential upheaval coming down the tracks, especially with Scotland possibly on the way out. Its not a settled matter by any means.

AyeGer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118643833#Comment_118643833

Its hard to know the answer to that downcow, but what is clear is that a vote to rejoin the UK would be soundly rejected if it were to happen now. That's pretty telling in itself.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118643833#Comment_118643833

You don't have to wonder. In 1922 Ireland was a net beneficiary of the UK taxation system - i.e. more tax was being spent in Ireland than was being collected there. But we left anyway.

For what it's worth, I think independence movements are driven by questions of identity and belonging, not financial advantage. Proponents or opponents of independence may deploy financial or economic arguments in favour of their respective viewpoints, but in the end I don't think these carry the day, one way or the other. If NI pensioners were all to receive RoI-level pensions the day after unification, do you think that would make them all vote for unification? No, me neither.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118644485#Comment_118644485

While Downcow may not be able to be swayed by economic arguments, and instead will decide based on questions of identity and belonging (being frank, as would I from the other side if I was still an NI resident), I'm firmly of the belief that any border poll will be won or lost by precisely those financial/economic arguments.

The ever growing cohort who didn't grow up or live through the Troubles are largely less insecure in their identity and belonging than those of us from either side who did. Wrapping oneself in tricolours or union flags is less convincing to this cohort than jobs, economic security and social progress.

Seeking to convince a pension-aged person from a working class Loyalist background on the benefits of Unification isn't going to be what decides the future of this island any more than convincing a pension aged ex-Provo on the benefits of remaining part of the United Kingdom is. My generation and those before mine are reducing in number, the growing younger generations will ultimately have the deciding vote.....which is only right considering they'll have an awful lot longer to live with the consequences than said pensioners.

Peregrinus

I think we need to avoid a simplistic binary in which people either vote tribally, or on rational economic calculations. It's much more nuanced that that.

Earlier in the thread I suggested that we could see a distinction between British identity and unionist politics emerge in NI. By that I meant we could see people who think of themselves as British, but who think of unionism not only as British but also as socially and politically conservative, regressive, misogynistic, bigoted, etc, and who find it deeply unattractive. They won't find the view that, to express a British identity you have to vote unionist or adopt unionist politics, to be an appealing one. Basically, they'll be people who want to express a British identity, but adopt progressive and inclusive political positions.

(Of course, a progressive and inclusive unionism might emerge in response to cater to their needs. But that's not a given. For the purposes of the discussion, let's assume that it doesn't.)

Once you have a cohort of voters who separate Britishness and unionism in this way, it is not a given that, even in a border poll, they will vote for the union. These are people who are likely to have formed the view that, even if a border poll is lost and NI become part of the republic, they themselves can and still will be British. And once you accept that you don't have to be in the UK to be British, then it follows that you don't have to vote for the union. All other things being equal, you would be inclined to vote for the union, but "all other things" will include a whole range of considerations which are by no means confined to economic questions. In Scotland, for example, we can imagine voters who see themselves as both British and European but if forced to choose between being in the UK and being in Scotland-in-the-EU, will choose the latter. Now of course there may be economic aspects to that choice, but it won't be [i]just[/i] an economic choice. And we could imagine something similar in Ireland - British people who weight the desirability of remaining in the union against other factors, including but not limited to economic factors, and make a judgement one way or the other.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118644878#Comment_118644878

While perhaps my phrasing was clumsy, it appears we're in agreement for the most part, Peregrinus. I didn't mean to suggest that it would be a purely binary economic vs tribal decision, but rather that I expect that economic factors will be a deciding factor for a significant enough number of the, 'open to being convinced' cohort that I ultimately expect that it will be the deciding factor.

As for the cohort that identify as British, without the conservatism inherent in mainstream Unionism, a large number of these people vote for Alliance, UUP seem to be targeting this group since Doug Beattie took the leadership. There have been attempts in the past with parties like NI21, or Mike Nesbitt's leadership of the UUP but timing and/or external circumstances didn't seem to play out for them. I don't think it is fair to, 'other' these voters and suggest that they're not Unionist because they don't hold socially conservative or regressive viewpoints. I'd imagine that while a great number of them would distance themselves from the DUP or TUV, they would still describe themselves as Unionist.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118643862#Comment_118643862

And who job do you think that is? Do you want unionists or our government to do the sums for you?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118649033#Comment_118649033

So you don't know and there hasn't been a vote. Ok, thanks for that.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118645471#Comment_118645471

Possibly. But they are not unionist [i]enough[/i] to vote for a unionist party, and you can be reasonably certain that there are other unionists who take the view that they are not true unionists, precisely because they vote for non-unionist parties. There are those for whom "unionism" means a tribal identity that prevails over all other considerations; the people we are talking about here are certainly non unionist in that sense.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118650650#Comment_118650650

I'm sure there are plenty who would say they're not Unionist enough, but I don't think it's enough to say that it actually means they're not Unionists. We see the likes of Jamie Bryson ready to describe anyone who doesn't subscribe to his own particularly niche, anti-GFA flavour of Loyalism as a Lundy/not a proper Unionist....but I don't think it is particularly useful to decide someone is not a Unionist because a more harxline sect within Unionism says so. I'm a simple man, if someone tells me they're a Unionist, I'm not going to tell them otherwise.

While not precisely defined terms, for ease of discussion I prefer to use the term Loyalist for the super conservative type you're talking about and keep the term Unionism as a broad catchall for anyone who supports the continuation of the Union between NI and GB.

A term often used in the North to describe the type of person you're referring to is, 'small u unionist'. I'm not sure if it is in regular use beyond the North, but I think it is a useful term to differentiate between political unionism and cultural Unionism.

Indeed, the disfunction of NI politics is such that many small-u unionists DO actually vote for Unionist parties, not because said person supports said party, but rather as a tactical vote to prevent their opposite number from taking the seat. DUP and SF have been the major beneficiaries of this kind of tactical voting; I know that when I was living in the North myself I often voted SF despite the party not actually representing my views particularly well. If I hadn't, the alternative was much worse in my eyes. This was particularly important during FPTP elections.

Apologies for the slightly winding tone, I'm up for an early flight and haven't had my coffee yet!

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118650946#Comment_118650946

One problem I have with your post, and it is not your fault, is this attempt to paint ‘loyalist, as extreme and ‘unionist’ as more moderate. I completely disagree with this analysis, though media promote it.

they are so interchangeable and I couldn’t clearly define any difference. Some of the most progressive liberal politicians refer to themselves as loyalist and some of the most conservative and belligerent refer to themselves as unionist

downcow

Something roi could do to be more welcoming is educate their president and stop him making clumsy uninformed comments on ni. He is at it again yesterday on integrated education. Ironic from a guy who wouldnt even attend an integrated church service. You couldn’t make it up.

Peregrinus

My point really is that somebody who we might describe as a small-u unionist might think twice about claiming the label "Unionist" for themselves if that leaves them togging out with the likes of Jamie Bryson, because they are just not comfortable bracketing themselves with him. So they might come to prefer some other label - "British" or "Ulster British" or maybe something else. (If you're old enough, think bank to the '70s and '80s and recall people who might be slow to claim the label "Republican", even though their political convictions and principle were, on any view, wholly republican ones, becauss to identify as a "Republican" was to align yourself with the Provos.)

Once you have a group from this cultural background who no longer think of themselves as Unionist, how do they think of themselves? As British, certainly, but they will also claim labels that differentiate them from Bryson-type Unionism. These could be varied - democratic, progressive, inclusive, European, liberal, etc. And, once you start identifin in those terms, then you will tend to evaluate the union not just in tribal terms, and also not just in purely economic terms, but in terms of how effective it is for making NI a more democratic, progressive, inclusive, European, liberal, etc place. And, given where British politics is right now, and the direction it appears to be trending in, that gives rise to some troubling evaluations.

We are already looking at a Scottish independence movement which appeals not mainly to a sense of Scottishness that repudiates Britishness, but to the more positive idea that Scottish independence is the key to a more progressive, more communitarian, more pro-European, etc way for Scotland. Supporters of Irish reunification have an opportunity to position that as the key to a future for Northern Ireland that appeals to small-u unionist more than continuation in a union in which NI politics is paralysed by Bryson unionism, and UK politics is dominated by the Tory right.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118651070#Comment_118651070

I would agree with much of this. Although I do detect an implication that people may identify a UI as more attractive financially than remaining in Uk. That’s difficult to imagine happening.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118651096#Comment_118651096

I take your point. Two thoughts:

There's a good case to be made that, if NI had not decided to secede from the IFS and remain in the UK, it would be more prosperous today than it in fact is. Of NI, RoI and GB, NI has certainly been the worst affected by partition. And it's true even now that, for the future, if NI's long-term prosperity were to be the criterion on which you were going to cast your vote in a border poll, a vote for reunification would look like the better bet. Though no guarantees, of course!

But of course the transition would be difficult because, right now, in large part because of its dismal performance, NI benefits from very substantial transfers from GB. And most of the economic case against unification rests on the assumption that these transfers would cease - and on the unspoken assumption that, if reunification doesn't happen, they will continue. But in fact they will become more and more burdensome for the UK, and the pollitical appetite to continue making them may be strained if GB (and particularly ENG) public/establishment opinion becomes less and less enchanted with the union. And, as we've discussed before, there's already a fair bit of evidence that they are not terribly committed to the union even now.

Mr Bumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640503#Comment_118640503

You're aware, I assume, that there are many Irish people who worked in the UK and returned to Ireland claim UK pensions today? I have two in my family and my wife will be eligible eventually. Once you have the equivalent of 10 years contribs, you can claim.

Why would Irish/UK citizens currently living in NI and paying contributions be any different in a UI? Are you suggesting that because of a UI, the UK would not honour the pensions they currently pay to Irish people living in the Republic of Ireland?

This is impossibe under the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement. Under the WA, all EU citizens can claim a UK state pension once they meet the 10 year criteria. They can even use contribs made in the EEA or Switzerland to qualify for the UK pension.

Why would NI be any different? There is a clear post-Brexit commitment from the UK to honour the pension rights of EU citizens.

It is not impossibe that a UI would be based on the right of any NI person to retain their British citizenship, just as anyone on the island can claim an Irish passport.

If there is a gap between the UK pension and Irish pension, of course that would have to be made up. Why would it not be if all citizens in a UI are equal, north and south?

This issue is like all red herrings - inflated beyond the point of reasonable discussion. It is obvious that such issues will be part of a negotiated settlement but given the UK's clearly demonstrated willingness to honour the pension rights of Irish and EU citizens into the future, I think it is fair to assume that they would grant the same rights to their own citizens in NI.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118652041#Comment_118652041

Yes, I am fully aware that people who worked in the UK return to claim pensions here. However, that doesn't have any bearing on the issues I have raised.

Those who have worked in rUK will remain entitled to claim a pension from rUK. Those who have worked in NI will be able to claim a pension from a united Ireland. In respect of existing pensioners, those in the NI fund will become the responsibility of a united Ireland, those in the rUK fund will become the responsibility of rUK. All of the EU rules are honoured in that respect.

£660m is the annual funding gap, that is a fact. We will have to find it in future.

Mr Bumble

People currently working in NI are "working in the UK"

Totally relevant to this issue.

They are paying insurance contribs in the NI right now - both those with an Irish passport and those with a UK passport.

Are you suggesting that those contributions will not be honoured, that people in NI will get a worse deal than EU citizens?

I'm sorry. That's nonsense.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118652064#Comment_118652064

What?

Have you decided this on your ownsome? 😁😁

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118652259#Comment_118652259

That is the default position, unless something else is negotiated. We would be dependent on Tory goodwill for any change to that, in which I am sure you have great faith.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118652312#Comment_118652312

The expert got caught bluffing more like.

There is no 'default' position other than the one Mr Bumble outlined.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118652092#Comment_118652092

Where did I say any of that?

Those working in NI are paying into the NI fund. Those paying in the rUK are paying into the rUK fund. It currently requires a subsidy from the rUK fund to keep the NI fund going. That won't be there after unification, and someone else will have to pick up that tab. This has been explained pages ago.

The EU stuff is a nonsense red herring.

Mr Bumble

Sorry but "this EU stuff" is very relevant"

Pensions were part of the negotiation of the WA and NIP.

You seem to think that pensions will not be part of a UI negotiation.

Why?

Irish citizens are also EU citizens. EU citizens are entitled to full UK state pension under the terms of the withdrawal agreement if they live in the UK.

Irish citizens living in Ireland are also entitled to the UK pension even if they no longer live in the UK.. Irish passport holders in NI (EU citizens) would be entitled to the same terms - covered by existing arrangements between UK/IRL and their EU rights

Are you seriously suggesting that the only people who would not be entitled to a UK pension after unification are British passport holders in the North?

Mad Ted.

British people living in Ireland claim pensions from the UK and can use contribs earned in Ireland towards it.

In other words, you're raising an issue which on existing evidence, does not and cannot exist in the future, based on the WA alone.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118653079#Comment_118653079

You obviously don't understand the point I am making.

NI and rUK have different pension funds. That doesn't matter when they are in the same country, as one subsidises the other.

EU citizens will have the same rights as locals, depending on which jurisdiction they worked in (NI or rUK), so that is a red herring.

The issue is who is going to continue subsidising the NI pension fund. It won't be rUK taxpayers, so it will be United Ireland taxpayers.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118653079#Comment_118653079

He is doing what partitionists and Unionists will do and that is scaremonger...it's '350 million' on the side of a bus stuff.