Northern Ireland 2125?

Well four things that are coming into the Republic of Ireland that you may not be aware of are the Compulsory Purchase Order act, Savings and Investment Union, digital Euro and …… Hate Speech. Remember those are on the way. It is not hard to predict the next step once implemented.

Parts of it will be pure economics and economic strength and parts of it will be a generational change with a different attitude towards everything on both sides.

Currently both sides are too different and it's been more than 100 years now both sides were going different ways. Nothing wrong with a couple of decades of peacefull co-existence.

2125 and it's all dealt with.

I doubt the Irish government would last long if they proposed a UI and then made those in the north homeless.

Will you have a titter of wit as my auld granny would have said.

I united Ireland will require a meeting of minds. This thread seems to suggest we have some way to go.

A lot of the speculation around how a UI might work, or how any of us might want it to work, needs to acknowledge that the decision will be taken by the population of that United Ireland. And those decisions will hopefully be taken a long way from some of the tribal rhetoric evident in this thread. However i could see a constitutional arrangement such that certain areas require cross community support. That would have to be arranged so that no group would have a veto on change.

Having said that, I cannot see any place for partition, no matter how it is arranged, I could see a role for regional, i.e. provincial, local governments as i personally consider the large number of powerless local authorities which we now have to be a waste. ( But that reform does not require a united Ireland). As I posted earlier in the thread, a future assembly at Stormont would collapse unless it had broad cross community support .

I can see no constitutional arrangement working other than a republic, That is not to deny that some citizens might feel a loyalty to the UK crown, but that is as already the case in Ireland. I don't see membership of the Commonwealth being attractive to a new United Ireland. In fact I don't see the Commonwealth as being relevant even today. But if the Commonwealth was to evolve into some important international assembly of equals( and I cannot see that happening) then it very well might be worth joining.

The parliament does not have to sit in Dublin, But Cork would surely object to being overlooked if it moved to Belfast. Perhaps we could build a parliamentary city, a la Canberra , or even Washington but that would surely be an expensive folly.

It is useful to have this thread in order to tease out what could and could not work in the future without r always replaying the recent past

I think if opinions are too split, it won't happen, and if it would have to be a compromise. This compromise won't be liked by everyone.

It's only natural that people will have concerns.

Changing pounds into Euros. - to a in general weaker currency

The prospect of leaving NATO - to something which is currently clearly inferior

Leaving the NHS for the HSE - to something which is also inferior and costs a fee for every visit.

Leaving the Commonwealth - to some "Anti-British" attitude.

Or the biggest concern that those in favor of Irish unification have no understanding that these are concerns.

The thing is also that NI would have to take the first step in this process and so far there is no indication or majority to do that.

I simply don't think the voters in NI would "gladly" accept everything, like the HSE, leaving NATO, leaving the Pound and leaving the Commonwealth. It would have to be a give and take here and there otherwise Ulster will always say No.

If it were say, a united Ireland part of NATO but with the Euro as a currency and part of the Commonwealth, but with the costly HSE visits, one might get a majority in a referendum, - otherwise I can't see any form of benefit for NI to join the ROI.

To date there is no referendum planned nor is there a majority.

What would really hurt the most is leaving NATO for a neutral country with no decent navy and an Air Corps with no fighter jets whilst constantly being told "Who would attack us?". That's a more than clear inferior choice.

I think this discussion goes down the same idiocy as Brexit. What's the point in changing things if it's for the worse, no matter if it's "democratic" or not?

Neither economically nor militarily there is a good case for Scottish independence. For the same reasons, it's not a good case for the future of what is now NI.

It would have been something inferior and small minded from the start, strangulated by lack of financial options to fund anything from infrastructure to public services to military.

It's also in both cases of Scottland and NI a political argument to have for something which hasn't even happened yet, where people disagree from right from the start and where there is currently not even a plan as well.

It's only a good choice for those who want change desperately and that change might or certainly will not even bring an advantage. Brexit was a classic case. Some want that repeated by ideological reasons no matter what, others certainly won't.

Have we been invaded? Nope. Only by the British fado fado.
How can it be inferior then?
We need to spend more on our security and defence but we do not need to be in an expensive military alliance.

Above all, any decision on joining NATO has to be by majority approval.
No referendum ever said:

Do you want x - yes or no?

*And btw the way, if a certain minority answer No then No it is. Tough.

It's exactly that what I've mentioned about "attitude towards military and defence" that I find so disgusting.

"Who's going to invade us?" or "Have we ever been invaded?"

Ah, hold on, I don't need health insurance, as I won't get sick, I don't need a fire engine, as I won't have a fire. - Oh, but that's all not the same.

It's all these things that would be bothersome even worrying, a key criteria in deciding the future, and I am not speaking for myself but many others, - believe it or not.

Currently there is still a no in polling, with a lead of somewhere between 10 and 7% depending on the institute or the newspaper.

I think there is also nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all, in a peacefull co-existence for the next 100 years if certain differences can't be solved reasonably. A peacefull co-existence is actually the way better choice for the whole island of Ireland than arguing over something with no solution.

The ROI hasn't had fighter jets ever since 1998, and the French magister planes they've had were old and out of date. The Irish navy only has 2 ships which are active, the rest, 6 or 8 are not in operation due to mechanical issues. With that attitude ( Who's going to attack us?) Ireland won't get far, it'll be a limping on in perpetuity which the ROI doesn't bother fixing, not even addressing and people like yourself are refusing to accpet.

Politicians in the ROI seem to be comfortable if they have a majority of their voters thinking about "Who's going to attack us?" and the "neutrality" is "so good". So just calling youself "democrat" won't solve this issue as well.

The current military strategy in the ROI doesn't even come anywhere near "sovereignty of our Ireland" it doesn't even have the capability to even defend a neutrality. It's just a couple of puppets, the laughing matter of any other nation and selling the ideal of neutrality of Ireland by a couple of politicians to the lowest of the low of the Irish society. Anybody who can think clearly knows the current status quo is no protection, a bad lie at best, a "putting your head into the sand".

As long as this "Who's going to attack us" attitude persists in the ROI, I'd say, it's a straight No and Never many times over for me.

I think first it's time for the ROI to join NATO and then make the case to the people in NI that a united Ireland is the best choice.

So how long does the ROI wait to get decent fighter jets for the Air Corps? Or a decent radar system? Wait until 2030?

The ROI is already cooperating in certain matters with NATO. It makes me wonder why? And is this "neutral"?

Neutrality unless Switzerland is always a very flexible debate and an excuse not to spend on military and defence by refusing to believe that somebody would attack at all. That's the lame joke about neutrality.