How can we integrate Unionism into a possible United Ireland?

In the discussion about 18% (In a NICRA survey) saying they could not live in a UI. So what do you do with those among that 18% who simply cannot, like Arlene, afford the move? Force them to stay? Or create a fund to which they can apply.

Somebody who is not thinking about such things is not preparing properly in my view. Maybe there is another way?

Fionn1952 in urging me to give you the benefit of the doubt in considering your proposal naive rather than malicious.

In general, I am prepared to do that. However, the problem is, as with so much of your thinking, you keep repeating the same discredited stuff even when people on your own side go so far as to say:

"I think it is a very naive idea, entirely implausible in practical terms and absolutely would be susceptible to the, 'when does voluntary relocation become....heavily suggested relocation' factor that Blanch highlighted."

It is at best naive, at worst malicious ethnic cleansing. In that context, the more you repeat the idea, the more people will be inclined to consider it from the worst rather than the best perspective. Accept it was a dumb naive idea, drop it, move on and people will forget it. Keep raising it, and people will start to believe you mean it from the worst perspective.

Well, first of all, I wouldn't have a united Ireland now, as there are too many people in that category.

I have also outlined various proposals that would greatly minimise the number of people who would fall into the category.

As such, while the problem wouldn't disappear, it would be greatly diminished. Maintaining some autonomy for the existing Northern Ireland state in a federal united Ireland together with membership of the Commonwealth is going to go a long way towards meeting objections. As for the rest, you can't please everybody, all you can do is make as many accommodations as possible to respect them.

I certainly wouldn't be introducing any scheme that had a whiff of "we don't want you here" about it. Your scheme does that and is hugely disrespectful as a result.

My problem is with those who won't consider alternatives to a single unitary state and propose voluntary displacement schemes to get people out of the homes they grew up in.

Not at all, my answer didn't fit your limited worldview and within your view of how this discussion should be controlled, so you dismiss it.

It is a valid and comprehensive answer and it fully addresses the issue. There is no need for any kind of a naive voluntary location programme in a properly constructed federal Ireland member of the Commonwealth.

I did. I explained what type of United Ireland is most likely to happen, and what the implications would be. My answer doesn't fit within your worldview of an exclusionary nationalist united Ireland (an outdated 19th century idea) and you cannot absorb it. You are stuck, a bit like the robot roaming around in Lost in Space shouting "Does not compute".

I won't be constrained by your artificial limiting of the discourse.

Look, I am not going to engage in a Fantasy United Ireland game, based on something that I don't believe will ever happen.

Much prefer to talk about realistic objectives for a united Ireland.

Yes, well, the problem of unionists who feel left out after a united Ireland is settled are the very last problem to be addressed in any plan. It is good to hear that your plan is so advanced that you have managed to get to the very last question.

So, now that it is in place, we can return to all of the other details in your plan about health, education, social welfare, taxation, language requirements, flag, etc. that you have obviously solved before getting to the end.

As you are only leaving things you don’t know to experts, that must mean that you are an expert on voluntary relocation schemes. So, Mr. Expert, tell us about the long list of previously successful schemes you are aware of.

Or is this just one of those things that looks good on the back of an envelope after a few drinks on a Saturday night?

So you have nothing, other than a silly naive idea that could have been construed by a few lads on the beer on aSaturday night with about as much thought and analysis. Think we can all agree to bin the idea once and for all.

http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/refugeestatusdetermination-criteriaforthegrantandrefusalofasylum-en#:~:text=A%20refugee%20in%20Irish%20law,to%20avail%20himself%20or%20herself

A refugee in Irish law is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country......"

Are you seriously suggesting that in a future united Ireland, unionists will have a well-founded fear of persecution? Like, seriously?

I really hope this is another one of your late night back of a beermat ideas as the implications of your question are worse than the potential worst excesses of your "voluntary" relocation programme.

Yes, the cohort I am referring to most definitely would believe that. Have you ever stopped to listen to them? That is what they believe. It doesn't matter what you or I tell them.

No, Francie, to be a refugee, it has to be a well-founded fear of prosecution. That means a state apparatus, so what measures will your united Ireland state be taking to give unionists a well-founded fear of prosecution?

Francie, again, you don't seem to understand. There are clear legal criteria for someone to be declared a refugee. It isn't what you or I or a refugee thinks, there is law around the issue. Irrational fears of persecution don't buy it.

I am also unsure of where you think they can apply for refugee status.

"In practice, the application of the Protocol means that applicants from EU States will not be allowed to enter into the asylum process."

Now, there is an exception to this.

"These exceptions flow from failure to meet obligations relating to respect for human rights and the rule of law under the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Treaties."

So, can you tell me, which parts of the European Convention on Human Rights is your puted united Ireland going to withdraw from so that unionists can claim refugee status.

Once again, Francie, you have been caught with your pants down, spoofing away as if you know something when it is clear that you don't have a clue. You tell us you have a plan for what happens to unionists after a united Ireland and it seems it boils down to the united Ireland abusing and persecuting unionists so that they can legally be refugees. I don't think you will persuade many people to vote for your version of a united Ireland.

Christ almighty Francie, you really don't get it, do you?

You are the one who has said that they will be refugees, and when it is pointed out that you are completely spoofing about this, you call that pedantry. I have produced links to back up that you are spoofing, yet you haven't even explained what kind of united Ireland would cause them to be "refugees" as you tell us you are not expert enough to do so.

You haven't even thought through your idea thoroughly enough to realise that if a border poll goes against a united Ireland, you should be offering a resettlement programme to nationalist refugees if your idea has any merit at all. It just shows what a completely stupid idea it is.

It's been a good laugh though, working through this fantasy idea.

Yes, it is possible, that in the end, if you believe what they say, that there are a small number of people who may not want to accept a united Ireland, but it is impossible to know at this point what they might wish to do then, having been through the process of creating a united Ireland. Setting up a big plan to deal with "refugees" in advance of all of that is just silliness. Even silliness is too nice a word for it, especially as it turns out you didn't even know what a refugee is.

You are also mistaking my position. You accuse me of a fantasy that constitutional change can be achieved pleasing everyone. You seem blind to the fact that constitutional change has been achieved many times by not pleasing everyone. For example, Sinn Fein have opposed every single EU constitutional change and obviously weren't pleased but kept going, and now, according to you, they accept all that constitutional change. So maybe the same thing will happen unionists, in time they will accept it.

However, there is a bigger fantasy out there with your name on it - that a united Ireland on your exclusionary nationalist terms will ever be achieved.