Who's actively against a united Ireland

Cathal O wrote: »

Hi everyone, I was just looking over a few threads on the United Ireland threads on this from a while ago, along with the Scottish Independence threads. Has there ever been any serious and open United Ireland debates in the last while. While I accept it is not everyone's priority at the minute with the R word etc, but should a debate occur, what parties would actively campaign against it. I would imagine if any of the republics parties had an active anti united Ireland stance rather than a passive stance they would loose support, maybe i am wrong but I am struggling to think of any prominent people/ parties that would campaign against any possible reunification on the island, apart from the obvious unionist parties in the north and , possibly the alliance party up north aswell. what do ye think. If this debate did occur what parties and people (politician/ journalist etc) would be anti unification?

FG and FF will keep it quiet that they never want a united Ireland and will claim that they aren't happy with the circumstances of how it came about etc. etc.

Labour I can see just getting on with it as a party

Alliance Party officially support whatever the majority want. As a party they would gain a lot because they would be a normal party in a normal political system. They would be interesting to watch.

If a united Ireland came about under totally peaceful and agreeable circumstances I can see the Nationalist and Unionist parties dissolving and becoming a left/right selection of small parties.

KeithAFC wrote: »

The vast majority of Protestants for starters would campaign against it. I don't really get what this thread is supposed to be about. You must know there is plenty of opposition to a United Ireland and not just in Northern Ireland by the way.

That's less than 20% of the population. Even if it were true its a very blunt assumption to make. Many protestants are quite proud to be Irish, although I will concede that this is less true the further north you go.

golden lane wrote: »

after the good friday agreement.......to go against that agreement....would be very unwise........

The terms of the GFA mean that there will be referendums until such a time as there is a majority in favour of unity. I don't think it says parties can't campaign for a "No" vote to the referendum.

KeithAFC wrote: »

The only way a vote on a United Ireland can happen is if Owen Paterson calls for one as he is the only guy with the power to do so. He would only do so if there is any real urge for it.

So for me this is completely irrelevant at the moment.

The 1998 peace deal between the UK, Ireland and political parties in Northern Ireland said the secretary of state should call one “if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting” would want a united Ireland.

Once surveys and polls show a majority in favour of reunification he would have no choice effectively.

Let's be honest Keith, do you really consider the Northern Ireland state as a viable long term country?

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Not fully grasping the hypothetical nature of the question Keith?

In a funny way I reckon (apart from Unionists up North), that some of those against might be hardline Republicans. I can't see it being a straightforward reclaim of the 6 counties type into the Republic referendum and if it ever does occur I'd imagine there may be some serious constitutional concessions offered.

Some of the concessions may also be financial - there may well be some sort of arrangement to finance some of the more extreme loyalists (who would point blank refuse to live in a United Ireland) a move to the mainland. Given our seemingly never-ending economic woes - I can see some opposition here aswell.

It would be unfortunate if they chose to leave. Even the most bitter racists in the USA got used to living in a country where Black people have equal rights and I don't know of many who left the country in protest.
If that can happen I don't see how people from what was the loyalist community can't be accommodated. If the deal involved financial concessions to loyalists areas that can be looked at as investment in national stability.

This is all going to be quite a few years away (the old 2016 timeline is out the window). By that time working class protestants will have realised that they are not so different to their neighbours over the walls and that they shouldn't be so "loyal".

KeithAFC wrote: »

People who want it should perhaps focus more on trying to convince the many people in the Republic who don't want it. Never mind the people in Northern Ireland. I would be more concerned with the people in the Republic actually not wanting it.

You'd be surprised given a relatively long period of peace how many people will change their tune - just as with foreign investment everybody will want a piece.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

just as with foreign investment everybody will want a piece.

I don't think there would be as much foreign investment now as there would have been in the '60's. Back then there was thousands flowing in to the republican movement from the USA and there would have been millions if they had achieved a United Ireland back then.

Cathal O wrote: »

The GFA needs majority support in both the north and the south , respectfully, 2 referenda ,in the case of a referendum in the south, who would campaign against it

back to my previous post......very unwise..

It doesn't matter who is for or against this, it will never happen. The North is a different country to both Ireland and England. Compared to us here the roads are different, the land is different hell even the shops are different. Never mind the cultural differences. The cost of changing the signs up there from English to English/Irish, converting the speed signs to km would be astronomical.

It is a pipe dream and one that is not viable, not now not ever. Do any of you really think the people of Northern Ireland would ever consider leaving the NHS, The Royal Mail etc for our third world systems. As Paisley used to say Ulster Says NO. Even if there is a poll down here for a united Ireland never will it happen.

RobbingBandit wrote: »

It doesn't matter who is for or against this, it will never happen. The North is a different country to both Ireland and England. Compared to us here the roads are different, the land is different hell even the shops are different. Never mind the cultural differences. The cost of changing the signs up there from English to English/Irish, converting the speed signs to km would be astronomical.

It is a pipe dream and one that is not viable, not now not ever. Do any of you really think the people of Northern Ireland would ever consider leaving the NHS, The Royal Mail etc for our third world systems. As Paisley used to say Ulster Says NO. Even if there is a poll down here for a united Ireland never will it happen.

Speed signs will be changing over to km/h before a United Ireland happens anyway. Many signs are in Irish up here already. I have no idea how the land is different? You can cross the border several times in one day and not know it until you spot road markings/signs.

Shops in the south are the same as in the north now! Since the Celtic tiger the only difference is the price.
The NHS is falling apart and healthcare in general isn't much better north of the border in terms of quality. Royal Mail is a rip-off now!

RobbingBandit wrote: »

There probably wont be a HSE either, but I know it would be grand to see a united Ireland in 2016 but I don't see it happening by 3016 let alone 2016. Even if they did gain independence from the UK why in gods name would they want to join this mess of a place. I am going of on a tangent here so I will end this.

We beat ourselves up too much sometimes. There's no reason that we can't run a country just because of how the Brits and Free State governments were before.

LordSutch wrote: »

Less than 5% more like it in this country (sadly).

After unification.

FG/FF would never outline a stance on this issue unless it was a very real possibility. Which it's not.

There are of course valid economic reasons why a party would oppose reunification. Any reunification, despite that it would require a referendum, would inflame sectarian violence once more as Unionist paramilitary groups decided to fight against it and republicans rose up again to fight them.
So there would be a very significant security cost to bear, not to mention the economic damage that civil unrest would bring to both the North and South.

Given that we're in a more progressive world where your religious loyalties are mostly irrelevant and state-sponsored religious discrimination no longer exists (at least not in any violent way), one would hope that such violence would be a flash in the pan, but there's a risk it would persist for a number of years.

Other less obvious economic problems include the realignment of taxation and regulations with the Republic's. Applying things like our minimum wage, employer's PRSI and VAT rate overnight would devastate the economy of the North.