Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How long before Irish reunification?

Options
13567…335

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Popeleo
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭Popeleo


    30-40 years
    The demographics might be there soon but attempting reunification too early would be a mistake imho. Better to wait a few years after a nationalist majority in Stormont and see how the loyalists take to being the minority. Could be nasty for a while.

    The upside is that the demographic change is very quick, so there is a possibility that if the nationalist vote goes around 60%, no amount of tactical voting, gerrymandering etc will be able to make a loyalist majority possible. And maybe then both sides might elect adult politicians instead of the polarised dregs of society on both sides now and help make the eventual transition to a UI easier. Maybe. We live in hope.


  • Options
    #63
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Geuze wrote: »
    Would people be happy to pay the much higher property taxes that people in the UK pay to fund the councils?

    For example, 1,200 euro pa LPT instead of the 225 that many people pay.

    Also, many people in the UK pay 500 euro pa for water charges.
    No way, we wont pay!


  • Options
    #64
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,481 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    30-40 years
    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    I'd be surprised if it happened in less than 20 years. Ireland is gradually unifying economically/socially anyway which explains why a lot of the more bitter unionists are pro-Brexit.

    I'd be surprised if there hasn't been a further shift in the constitution status of Northern Ireland by 2050, but I'm still unsure as to whether it'll be full re-unification, or more baby steps towards it.

    IMO working in baby steps to make it seem a natural, inevitable next step instead of a big bang change would be more likely to succeed, but I'm not convinced we have the political leadership (in Govt or opposition parties) to think that strategically about it.


  • Options
    #65
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    30-40 years
    The government has a clear constitutional imperative to work towards a UI but but there's an enormous amount of preparation to do including wooing the NI unionists before putting it to the people. What's not wanted is a Brexit style mess where implementing the will of the people is virtually impossible or detrimental. I'd say 20 to 30 years is realistic.
    Extract from article 3 of the constitution:

    It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony
    and friendship, to unite all the people who share
    the territory of the Island of Ireland, in all the
    diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only
    by peaceful means with the consent of a majority
    of the people, democratically expressed, in both
    jurisdictions in the island....


  • Options
    #66
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users Posts: 35,634 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    If there was a vote on it does the south of Ireland get to vote? How could the vote lose if that was the case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,861 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Vita nova wrote: »
    The government has a clear constitutional imperative to work towards a UI but but there's an enormous amount of preparation to do including wooing the NI unionists before putting it to the people. What's not wanted is a Brexit style mess where implementing the will of the people is virtually impossible or detrimental. I'd say 20 to 30 years is realistic.

    There has been work done on it. Quite a bit. More to be done though.

    https://webarchive.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/implementationofthegoodfridayagreement/jcigfa2016/brexit-and-the-future-of-ireland.pdf


  • Options
    #68
    threeball
    Registered Users Posts: 7,924 ✭✭✭threeball


    20-30 years
    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    If there was a vote on it does the south of Ireland get to vote? How could the vote lose if that was the case.

    Because right now most of the south would vote no. It would mean higher taxes, has the potential of unionist terrorism in the south plus a myriad of other issues.


  • Options
    #69
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    30-40 years
    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    If there was a vote on it does the south of Ireland get to vote? How could the vote lose if that was the case.

    Yes, there would be referendums in both jurisdictions but both would need to have a majority in favour of unity.


  • Options
    #70
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,626 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    It's too hard to judge till after Brexit. With a bad economic Brexit followed by a loss of Scotland it's doubtful the remainder of the Union will be willing to keep pumping money into NI indefinitely, a NI that will also be badly hit by Brexit. In a recent poll only 30% (iirc) of people said they cared about keeping NI in the Union, not to mention the awful backwards stance of DUP run NI. Independence or reunification will need to follow


  • Options
    #71
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    10-15 years
    The truth is Brexit is the wild card in all of this, if the UK crashes out Unification is likely within a decade if not it could be 2 and if it doesn't happen at all it'll likely be longer than that even.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    jester77
    Registered Users Posts: 11,262 ✭✭✭✭jester77


    Once people here about a solidarity surcharge, then you can be pretty sure the majority will vote against any form of a unification.


  • Options
    #73
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,517 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    20-30 years
    Gwynplaine wrote: »
    Hopefully it will never happen. The Brits don't want it, and the majority of Ireland don't want it either.

    I wouldn't say the majority don't want it to happen, but they certainly do not want it to happen with some arbitrary idea of what might or might not happen once it starts being implemented.

    Brexit has both made it more likely that it will happen and ensured that it will not for at least a generation.


  • Options
    #74
    Farawayhome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Farawayhome


    15-20 years
    jester77 wrote: »
    Once people here about a solidarity surcharge, then you can be pretty sure the majority will vote against any form of a unification.

    Again, you are just making this up!

    Once the British and EU agree to pump millions into the Irish economy, the majority will vote for reunification.


  • Options
    #75
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Maybe it's time to go back.

    The Act of Union 2020.


  • Options
    #76
    Farawayhome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Farawayhome


    15-20 years
    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    Maybe it's time to go back.

    The Act of Union 2020.

    If they beg then I'm sure we can accept the Brits into the Irish isles.


  • Options
    #77
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    15-20 years
    I pay a large amount of my income in taxes (net tax rate approx 30%). I would be happy to pay additional tax in order to fund a united ireland.

    I am a republican - and I believe we can achieve reunification through peaceful means within 10 years. Especially in case of a hard brexit.

    Part of me would prefer a return to Stormont with SF in majority beforehand.


  • Options
    #78
    uch
    Registered Users Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭uch


    I'd say it'll be by Friday week at best

    21/25



  • Options
    #79
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    Maybe it's time to go back.

    The Act of Union 2020.

    I'm sure that's tongue in cheek but there's an element of truth in it. Reading many of the comments on this thread and others like it, shows the complete lack of readiness in this Republic for a change like this. There's a sense of arrogance, assumption and inevitability that such a change will happen.

    To effect this peacefully and amicably, which would be a bottom line for the majority, really requires a considerable rethink of many green sacred cows. In some ways, we need to move back to 1914, when we had a united island with a Home Rule bill promised. We need to undo the last century, go back figuratively in our heads to that time and then move forward as one.

    We shouldn't forget the history of blood sacrifice, but it needs to be put to one side, realign and then move on together.


  • Options
    #80
    Farawayhome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Farawayhome


    15-20 years
    BarryD2 wrote: »
    I'm sure that's tongue in cheek but there's an element of truth in it. Reading many of the comments on this thread and others like it, shows the complete lack of readiness in this Republic for a change like this. There's a sense of arrogance, assumption and inevitability that such a change will happen.

    To effect this peacefully and amicably, which would be a bottom line for the majority, really requires a considerable rethink of many green sacred cows. In some ways, we need to move back to 1914, when we had a united island with a Home Rule bill promised. We need to undo the last century, go back figuratively in our heads to that time and then move forward as one.

    We shouldn't forget the history of blood sacrifice, but it needs to be put to one side, realign and then move on together.

    Was that when unionists first threatened to arm themselves to the teeth and set up a violent militia?


  • Options
    #81
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,151 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Farawayhome wrote: »
    Was that when unionists first threatened to arm themselves to the teeth and set up a violent militia?

    Not just a threat. they smuggled 10's of thousands of rifles into Ulster to arm themselves. It was only the outbreak of WW1 that stopped them kicking off.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Farawayhome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Farawayhome


    15-20 years
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Not just a threat. they smuggled 10's of thousands of rifles into Ulster to arm themselves. It was only the outbreak of WW1 that stopped them kicking off.

    It shows what violent extremists existed amongst Irish unionists. That they abused the power handed to them in their 'protestant state' came as no surprise. The only surprise was that it took 50 years for full out war to commence.


  • Options
    #83
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Farawayhome wrote: »
    Was that when unionists first threatened to arm themselves to the teeth and set up a violent militia?
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Not just a threat. they smuggled 10's of thousands of rifles into Ulster to arm themselves. It was only the outbreak of WW1 that stopped them kicking off.

    See what I mean? The standard 'Christian Brothers' view of Irish history. But sure carry on.

    The alternative view is that the unionists of NI have been here hundreds of years and are as Irish as the rest of us. It's up to us to find a way to integrate them and throwing insults don't work.


  • Options
    #84
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,151 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    See what I mean? The standard 'Christian Brothers' view of Irish history. But sure carry on.

    Can you clarify what was incorrect in what i posted? Did they not form the UVF in 1913 and smuggle 10s of thousands of rifles into Ulster? If you are going to discuss you need to do it as a slightly higher level than that retort.


  • Options
    #85
    Farawayhome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Farawayhome


    15-20 years
    BarryD2 wrote: »
    See what I mean? The standard 'Christian Brothers' view of Irish history. But sure carry on.

    What was said that was incorrect? Uncomfortable with the facts?


  • Options
    #86
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Can you clarify what was incorrect in what i posted? Did they not form the UVF in 1913 and smuggle 10s of thousands of rifles into Ulster? If you are going to discuss you need to do it as a slightly higher level than that retort.

    We've a long history of nationalist rebel forces, why are you surprised by the advent of unionist militias?


  • Options
    #87
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,151 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    We've a long history of nationalist rebel forces, why are you surprised by the advent of unionist militias?

    Where are you getting surprised from? I was simply stating facts.


  • Options
    #88
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Farawayhome wrote: »
    What was said that was incorrect? Uncomfortable with the facts?

    It's not about the 'facts' per se. The agendas are set by which facts are emphasised, accepted and used to reinforce certain viewpoints. And other facts that are ignored. It's the classic glass half full, half empty type of problem. Self justification.

    You can approach the facts in various ways and mindsets - you can choose to use selected facts to reinforce division and negativity or you can choose other ways that find points of agreement and consensus.

    As regards the OP, I just see, hear and read very little that demonstrates that citizens of our Republic are prepared to follow the latter route. Maybe in time we will?


  • Options
    #89
    Farawayhome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Farawayhome


    15-20 years
    BarryD2 wrote: »
    See what I mean? The standard 'Christian Brothers' view of Irish history. But sure carry on.

    The alternative view is that the unionists of NI have been here hundreds of years and are as Irish as the rest of us. It's up to us to find a way to integrate them and throwing insults don't work.

    Who's throwing insults? Did unionists not arm themselves in opposition to the Home Rule bill?


  • Options
    #90
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Where are you getting surprised from? I was simply stating facts.

    You are making it sound like the militia came first, as opposed to them being a response, to a known issue with nationalist rebellions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Farawayhome
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Farawayhome


    15-20 years
    BarryD2 wrote: »
    It's not about the 'facts' per se. The agendas are set by which facts are emphasised, accepted and used to reinforce certain viewpoints. And other facts that are ignored. It's the classic glass half full, half empty type of problem. Self justification.

    You can approach the facts in various ways and mindsets - you can choose to use selected facts to reinforce division and negativity or you can choose other ways that find points of agreement and consensus.

    As regards the OP, I just see, hear and read very little that demonstrates that citizens of our Republic are prepared to follow the latter route.

    How is aiming to recruit 100,000 men to violently oppose something amount to finding points of agreement and consensus?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement