Northern Ireland 2125?

They've got it in writing. The Good Friday Agreement confirms the right of all the people of NI to identify as Irish, British or both, to have that identity accepted. It also confirms that both goverments accept their right to hold both Irish and British citizenship and that this right "would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland". So even in a UI, all the people of NI will have the right, accepted by both governments, to hold both Irish and British citizenship.

What, if anything, could go wrong? Well, two things occur to me.

First, the GFA is an internationally binding treaty, freely entered into by the UK. But it's not that long since a Tory government proposed that the UK would violate treaties that it has tired of, or has regretted entering. They didn't go ahead on that occasion, but I don't think it's completely impossible that, after a united Ireland, a future Tory government might tire of this aspect of the GFA and simply ignore it. But, much as I loathe the Tories, I honestly don't think that's very likely.

Secondly, the right is conferred on "the people of Northern Ireland". Who, exactly, are the people of Northern Ireland? The GFA doesn't define who is included in this group. Is it everyone born in NI? Everyone resident in NI? Everyone with historic or ancestral links to NI? Something else? And what if "Northern Ireland" ceases to exist? NI was established by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 s. 1(2) and, when that Act was repealed, was continued in existence by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 s. 1(2). It's currently defined as "the part of the United Kingdom in and comprising the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the borough of Belfast". Obviously that definition won't work when there's a united Ireland; none of the places named will be in the UK, and in any event the NI Act 1998 will almost certainly be repealed in the context of unification. So, in this scenario, there's going to have to be new legislation in the UK defining what is meant by "Northern Ireland" or, more probably, defining what is meant by "the people of Northern Ireland". They could define the people of Northern Ireland as e.g. all those people born in that part of the former UK which constituted NI, or words to that effect. The effect of that would be that nobody born in Antrim, Armagh, etc after unification would be part of "the people of Northern Ireland" so far as UK law was concerned. "The people of Northern Ireland", enjoying the rights provided by the GFA, would be a closed and declining group that would disappear entirely in a century or so.

Far-fetched? Maybe. But the UK has form here; millions of people have been deprived of UK citizenship in the context of decolonisation, including people born in territory that was part of the UK itself. (Francie, as we know, was born in territory that formerly was part of the UK, but that doesn not give him a right to British citizenship, and wouldn't even if he identified as British.) So, yeah, when a united Ireland comes, British people in Northern Ireland would do well to ensure that the rights afforded to them by the GFA are nailed down and confirmed as continuing under the new dispensation. And that's a reassurance they can only get from the UK government; there is nothing an Irish government can do to confer a continuing right to British citizenship on them.

Well, as you know, there's an equal-but-opposite view sometimes expressed that people from NI (who identify as Irish) are not really Irish.

NI is relatively unusual in having the right to national identity formally asserted at a legal/political level — I won't say that there's no other places in the world where this is done, but there aren't many (though the republic is one of them).

The interesting thing is that, under the GFA, for the people of NI the only requirement for being British is simply identifying as British (and similarly for being Irish).

As I say, in most other places the criteria for membership of the nation or a similar community are not formally stated. But sociologists and others who study and write about these things usually observe that two things are involved. To be, e.g., French you have to consider yourself French and other French people also have to consider you to be French.

This second critirion does not feature in the GFA. It's often observed the people from GB don't consider people from NI to be British, or they consider them to be British only in a qualified sense, or their actions suggest that that is what they believe. And we can obviously point to events in the political world that lend some support to this perception. Not unnaturally, that creates a certain sense of insecurity in people from NI who identify as British. You might be offended if a person from, say, Dublin thinks you aren't as British as someone born in Stranraer. But if someone born in Stranraer thinks that, you'd be more than offended — you'd be worried.

I think that insecurity helps to explain not only the performative Britishness that forms a part of unionist culture in NI, but also some of the more disastrous errors that the DUP make from time to time (like their Brexit position).

(Could we make similar points about NI people who identify as Irish experiencing a certain insecurity? Yes, we could. But I think it's a bigger issue for NI people who identify as British; the UK runs NI and the potential harm that they can suffer if their Britishness is discounted or disrespected by the UK political establishment vastly exceeds the corresponding risk for NI people who identify as Irish.)

I think one of the points of the GFA is to address that concern; it commits both governments to a position in which, in NI, Britishness or Irishness does not depend on acceptance by people in Britain or people in the Republic; self-identification is all that's required for complete Britishness or complete Irishness.

So if I read you correctly you are now claiming Northern Ireland is a nation!

You're not reading me correctly. I'm saying that "Britain" is a nation.

(I haven't said anything about whether Northern Ireland is a nation — the GFA doesn't say anything about that at all. But you can certainly argue that "Northern Irish" is a national identity, and that it's not inconsisent with "British" also being a national identity. After all, Scotland, England and Wales are nations, and "Scottish", "English" and "Welsh" are national identities, not inconstent with a British identity. So why, in principal, could the same not be true for Northern Ireland?)

“The point is that a Nation, a group of people sharing a common history, heritage, culture, language, land, etc is something different from a State, a political and legal structure of government.”

or have you a prescribed number of years that this needs to exist , to fit your narrative? If so, how many?

No, I haven't prescribed a number of years. Why would you even think that?

Mind you, since a nation is characterised by, among other things, a common history, heritage and culture, it's not something that can spring into existence overnight. The development of a nation is a process that takes time. But there's no prescribed time for the process.

Can you really not see what you are doing ?

I can. I'm just concerned that you can't.

You are saying Mourne and Cornwall are nations and I am Irish

I have said none of these things.

when it takes you essays to explain (confuse) it just emphasises that you are typing nonsense and continually contradicting yourself

I am puzzled as to how you can be confused by my posts when you don't appear to be even reading them. Instead of accusing me of saying things that I clearly haven't said, why don't you look at what I am saying and explain where and how you think it is wrong?

Yes. Ireland's commitment in the GFA in relation to citizenship is:

• to give the people of NI a right to hold Irish citizenship ; and
• to accept that the people of NI also have a right to hold British citizenship.

Obviously, Ireland can't give the people of NI British citizenship; only the UK can do that. But Ireland does have to accept that they have a right to hold British citizenship. So if, hypothetically, at some point in the future Ireland were to pass legislation disallowing dual citizenship, they'd have to carve out an exception for the people of NI.

And this would remain the position even after unification.

(And matching obligations apply to the UK, obviously.)

The right to identify as British or Irish is conferred at birth — that's literally what "birthright" means. The exercise of that right may happen later on, and on more than one occasion, but the right itself is conferred at birth and subsists indefinitely. There are no circumstances in which you can lose it.

And it's separate from citizenship — even if you renounce your British citizenship, you still have the right to identify as British and to have that identity accepted. Conversely, you have the right to identify as Irish, and to have that identity accepted, even if you never do an act which invokes your entitlement to Irish citizenship.

(One consequence of this is that, if a person from NI renounces their British citizenship, under the GFA they still have the right to identify as British and have that identity accepted. And, furthermore, they still have a right to hold British citizenship, so they can reverse their renunciation and resume British citizenship. If a person from GB renounces , they can only resume British citzenship on certain conditions — they have to be of good character, and they have to get the approval of the Home Secretary, etc. But I think enforcing those conditions against a person from NI would be a violation of the GFA.)

(As for sequencing, it's explicit in the GFA that it's the right to identify as British that gives rise to the right to British citizenship, not the other way around.)