United Ireland discussion thread

BonnieSituation · 14-10-2019 11:18pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Brexit is a game-changer in many ways.

If the DUP are denied the ability to veto a customs union because of a requirement for a majority in both communities, that will have long-lasting implications.

So we should buy into loyalists threats to keep them from shooting up the place?

Seriously, this has been going on for over a century.

What about the long lasting implications that partition brought us, that the GFA tried to solve, and that is being undermined by Unionists right now?

I'm sorry but the implications that you talk about are simply them facing the consequences of their (idiotic) actions.

blanch152 · 14-10-2019 11:32pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So we should buy into loyalists threats to keep them from shooting up the place?

Seriously, this has been going on for over a century.

What about the long lasting implications that partition brought us, that the GFA tried to solve, and that is being undermined by Unionists right now?

I'm sorry but the implications that you talk about are simply them facing the consequences of their (idiotic) actions.

Nope, that is not what I said. I made no mention of violence or threats of it.

Doesn't matter what has being going on for over a century. What happened in the far distant past is for the far distant past.

No unionist alive today had anything to do with partition.

What is changing, and this is for the good, is the nature of consent, and how no one community can force change on the other.

jm08 · 14-10-2019 11:40pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, that is not what I said. I made no mention of violence or threats of it.

Doesn't matter what has being going on for over a century. What happened in the far distant past is for the far distant past.

No unionist alive today had anything to do with partition.

What is changing, and this is for the good, is the nature of consent, and how no one community can force change on the other.

Well, unionists think they can reverse the GFA. They protested for years against a democratic decision by Belfast City Council to fly the Union flag on 18 days a year (as is done in the rest of the UK).

Imreoir2 · 14-10-2019 11:56pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Brexit is a game-changer in many ways.

If the DUP are denied the ability to veto a customs union because of a requirement for a majority in both communities, that will have long-lasting implications.

I don't think the DUP will be denied a veto by requiring a majority in both communities, I think the DUP will be denied a veto by requiring a simple majority overall without requiring a majority in either community.

Mr.Nice Guy · 15-10-2019 12:05am

The principle of consent, as understood since '98, was that the constitutional position of NI changes only if the majority of people in NI vote for it. There was no caveat or asterisk that this needed to have a majority of both unionists and nationalists. This principle will not change or be diluted. It is the same principle that applied to Scotland in the 2014 referendum.

It is straw-clutching to suggest now that consent means there must be community majority too. If that were accepted as the new definition of consent then it would follow logically that the status quo should only remain in place with the consent of nationalists. So would unionists be content to leave the current arrangement with the UK and enter into Joint Sovereignty if a majority of nationalists make clear they do not give their consent to being in the UK? Would unionists be okay with a new official flag and anthem for NI on the basis the current ones don't satisfy nationalists? Or are we saying that an overall majority is okay in these particular instances, i.e. instances where unionists get their way?

blanch152 · 15-10-2019 12:08am

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think the DUP will be denied a veto by requiring a majority in both communities, I think the DUP will be denied a veto by requiring a simple majority overall without requiring a majority in either community.

Let us see on that. There will be a price to pay for DUP to acquiesce to a customs union.

Simple majorities may lose out.

blanch152 · 15-10-2019 12:13am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The principle of consent, as understood since '98, was that the constitutional position of NI changes only if the majority of people in NI vote for it. There was no caveat or asterisk that this needed to have a majority of both unionists and nationalists. This principle will not change or be diluted. It is the same principle that applied to Scotland in the 2014 referendum.

It is straw-clutching to suggest now that consent means there must be community majority too. If that were accepted as the new definition of consent then it would follow logically that the status quo should only remain in place with the consent of nationalists. So would unionists be content to leave the current arrangement with the UK and enter into Joint Sovereignty if a majority of nationalists make clear they do not give their consent to being in the UK? Would unionists be okay with a new official flag and anthem for NI on the basis the current ones don't satisfy nationalists? Or are we saying that an overall majority is okay in these particular instances, i.e. instances where unionists get their way?

You miss the point. The North is currently in the EU customs union. The suggestion, and it is coming from the Irish government, is that this cannot change without consent from both sides. So the principle becomes that change cannot happen without consent from both sides.

jm08 · 15-10-2019 12:30am

blanch152 wrote: »

You miss the point. The North is currently in the EU customs union. The suggestion, and it is coming from the Irish government, is that this cannot change without consent from both sides. So the principle becomes that change cannot happen without consent from both sides.

Is it not based on a majority in NI voting to remain in the EU in the Referendum in the first place? That didn't have a majority from both communities.

blanch152 · 15-10-2019 8:01am

jm08 wrote: »

Is it not based on a majority in NI voting to remain in the EU in the Referendum in the first place? That didn't have a majority from both communities.

The question was asked of the UK, not of the Northern Ireland minority, so once again the principle that the overall majority is sacrosanct is being discarded.

Imreoir2 · 15-10-2019 12:14pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Let us see on that. There will be a price to pay for DUP to acquiesce to a customs union.

Simple majorities may lose out.

That would require agreement from the Irish government and that is not going to happen. Giving unionism a veto over the constitutional future of NI is unacceptable, would destabelise the peace process and would in effect prove that the disidents were correct in their view that the British would never live up to the GFA.

Imreoir2 · 15-10-2019 12:16pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You miss the point. The North is currently in the EU customs union. The suggestion, and it is coming from the Irish government, is that this cannot change without consent from both sides. So the principle becomes that change cannot happen without consent from both sides.

Where are you getting this from? I only saw such an option suggested in a British newspaper, I have seen no confirmed reports that this suggestion is coming from our government.

Dubh Geannain · 18-10-2019 10:55am

Regarding Scotland which has been sidelined for the most part in the Brexit debate.

Say Scotland ceded from the United Kingdom.

It may sound daft but has it been mentioned at all in recent times about the formation of a United Republic? Most of the Ulster Unionist bloodline are of Scots origin so they could be joined by their cousins.

It'd also be a way of Scotland re-entering the EU.

Imreoir2 · 18-10-2019 11:01am

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

Regarding Scotland which has been sidelined for the most part in the Brexit debate.

Say Scotland ceded from the United Kingdom.

It may sound daft but has it been mentioned at all in recent times about the formation of a United Republic? Most of the Ulster Unionist bloodline are of Scots origin so they could be joined by their cousins.

It'd also be a way of Scotland re-entering the EU.

No. I really don't think it's feasable, there is no history of political union between Scotland and Ireland. The concept only ever came up back in the late 19th century in the form of Pan-celticism which includes the other celtic nations aswell, but it never gained much traction. You would scarcely get a few percent of the population in either country to support a political union like that.

marieholmfan · 18-10-2019 1:05pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

No. I really don't think it's feasable, there is no history of political union between Scotland and Ireland. The concept only ever came up back in the late 19th century in the form of Pan-celticism which includes the other celtic nations aswell, but it never gained much traction. You would scarcely get a few percent of the population in either country to support a political union like that.

Ever heard of the act of union 1801?

18-10-2019 2:14pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Ever heard of the act of union 1801?

That's a stretch. Considering it was a few corrupt Irish politicians that brought that about, and even then it was a union dominated by English MPs.

But, the very term Scotland comes from the invading Scotti tribes from Ireland.

But, no, can't see it happening.

ancapailldorcha · 18-10-2019 2:29pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Ever heard of the act of union 1801?

No more snide comments please. Post constructively or not at all.

Imreoir2 · 18-10-2019 3:27pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

Ever heard of the act of union 1801?

Well then why dont we all become provinces of India in that case, former subjucation to the same empire is not the basis for future political unity. That union was not dremt up or supported by the people of either Scotland or Ireland.

marieholmfan · 18-10-2019 4:58pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Well then why dont we all become provinces of India in that case, former subjucation to the same empire is not the basis for future political unity. That union was not dremt up or supported by the people of either Scotland or Ireland.

At that time nobody asked the people what they thought. That's totally anachronistic.

And is it a matter of fact that a million of the people of Ireland and about three million of the people of Scotland support it to this day.

eire4 · 18-10-2019 5:18pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

At that time nobody asked the people what they thought. That's totally anachronistic.

And is it a matter of fact that a million of the people of Ireland and about three million of the people of Scotland support it to this day.

Recent polls would suggest that a majority of Scots favour independence and not the union. If brexit does finally go through I would say there is a very good chance that within a short few years one of its consequences will be Scottish independence.

Professor Moriarty · 18-10-2019 6:01pm

eire4 wrote: »

Recent polls would suggest that a majority of Scots favour independence and not the union. If brexit does finally go through I would say there is a very good chance that within a short few years one of its consequences will be Scottish independence.

No. Recent polls show that an Indy Ref would not pass. Albeit with a reduced majority

eire4 · 18-10-2019 6:12pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. Recent polls show that an Indy Ref would not pass. Albeit with a reduced majority

In fact we are both wrong strictly speaking. I should have said a recent poll rather then using the word polls. The recent Lord Ashcroft poll showed 46-43 in favour of independence. The recent Sunday Times and You Gov polls were 46-47 against and 43-44 against. IMHO if brexit goes ahead one of its consequences will be Scotland will vote for independence and look to rejoin the EU.

Professor Moriarty · 18-10-2019 6:18pm

eire4 wrote: »

In fact we are both wrong strictly speaking. I should have said a recent poll rather then using the word polls. The recent Lord Ashcroft poll showed 46-43 in favour of independence. The recent Sunday Times and You Gov polls were 46-47 against and 43-44 against. IMHO if brexit goes ahead one of its consequences will be Scotland will vote for independence and look to rejoin the EU.

Well Ashcroft is an outlier. All other polls - 10 - this year indicate that a ref would be defeated. But looking at the trend, I think you're right. Brexit will only push people closer to independence.

eire4 · 18-10-2019 6:21pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well Ashcroft is an outlier. All other polls - 10 - this year indicate that a ref would be defeated. But looking at the trend, I think you're right. Brexit will only push people closer to independence.

Yes it was the trend I was looking at and I really do think that one of the consequences of brexit if it actually happens will be Scottish independence.

Godot. · 25-10-2019 4:03pm

In the parallel world where the 7 Sinn Fein MPs took their seats at Westminister, who would be leading for them in the Commons?

briany · 26-10-2019 5:31pm

eire4 wrote: »

In fact we are both wrong strictly speaking. I should have said a recent poll rather then using the word polls. The recent Lord Ashcroft poll showed 46-43 in favour of independence. The recent Sunday Times and You Gov polls were 46-47 against and 43-44 against. IMHO if brexit goes ahead one of its consequences will be Scotland will vote for independence and look to rejoin the EU.

The last thing Scotland needs, in the wake of the division of Brexit, is to then have its own Brexit where Leave wins by a slim majority and the country becomes subject to years of infighting. You can guaran-damn-tee that Scottish Unionists will not go quietly into the night.

Imreoir2 · 26-10-2019 7:51pm

briany wrote: »

The last thing Scotland needs, in the wake of the division of Brexit, is to then have its own Brexit where Leave wins by a slim majority and the country becomes subject to years of infighting. You can guaran-damn-tee that Scottish Unionists will not go quietly into the night.

Things have really disimproved for Scotland since 2014. Neither choice offered to the people of Scotland in their first independance referendum is still on the table. They can't have their ideal independance scenario which would see both an independant Scotland and rUK as members of the EU, thus ensuring that the economic relationship between an independant Scotland and rUK remains essentially unchanged. They also don't have the other choice, the status quo of remaining part of the UK within the EU.

I don't think comparing Scottish independance to Brexit is a valid comparrision to make. Brexit is toxic because the version of Brexit we are getting will seriously alter the UKs economic relationship with the EU for the worse. Scottish independance was not aimed at altering the economic relationship between Scotland and rUK, indeed the ideal independance scenario would have seen that economic relationship remain essentally unchanged. Independance was focused on chainging the political relationship, and anyone who sees how the SNP are treated in Westmnster can sympathise with that desire. Scottish independance as proposed in 2014 would have given Scotland have the same political and economic relationship with rUK as the UK currently enjoys with the rest of the EU.

This is a moot point now. Neither the status quo nor the ideal independance scenario as presented in 2014 are available as options to the Scottish people, so the question is now what option comes in third place? Independance and membership of the EU but without rUK in the EU, or remaining part of the UK as it goes through a hard Brexit? Neither will be easy, both will damage Scotland economicly. Personally, I would go for for independance in their case. We in Ireland have that same choice. We could leave the EU with the UK, avoiding any problem with the border in the process, and link our future to hard Brexit UK. For largely the same reasons that we would never take that option, the people of Scotland should get out of the UK as soon as they possibly can.

eire4 · 27-10-2019 12:40am

briany wrote: »

The last thing Scotland needs, in the wake of the division of Brexit, is to then have its own Brexit where Leave wins by a slim majority and the country becomes subject to years of infighting. You can guaran-damn-tee that Scottish Unionists will not go quietly into the night.

I disagree. The last thing Scotland needs is to be further isolated and exposed to a London government which does not govern or rule in a manner that most Scots agree with hence why the Tory party has been a complete after thought in Scotland for so long.

The irony is during the last independence referendum when it looked like there was chance the Scots might vote yes London pulled the you will be out of the EU and not get back in card late on and here we are now and it is the English who have turned around and voted the Scots out of the EU against the wishes of most Scots.

Sure there will be some Scots not happy if Scotland votes to leave but I do not see the kind of division happening in Scotland as you are in England. In the end we will likely all find out as a second independence referendum seems very much to be where Scotland is heading if and when brexit actually happens.

BonnieSituation · 14-11-2019 2:48pm

The FT getting on the "not right now" bandwagon:

The Financial Times wrote:

I’ve come back from three recent trips to Ireland marvelling: this is what a grown-up country looks like. A giant, potentially divisive issue comes along — the sudden prospect of a united Ireland, a republican dream since long before Irish partition in 1921 — and instead of treating it as a winner-take-all, biff-bang argument as in certain countries one could mention, almost all Irish seem determined to move slowly, seriously and fairly. How to reassure mostly Protestant Unionists in Northern Ireland, who for generations have identified as British? I’ve seen a hall full of Irish people applaud a woman urging them “to be open and inclusive to Unionists”. The 4.8 million Irish in the Republic and 1.9 million in Northern Ireland still face a scary decade. Irish unification could revive the north’s violent Troubles. But blessedly, most Irish people realise that...

https://www.ft.com/content/86cc29f6-05a5-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca

---

Thankfully us Irish can see the potential problems eh? Mon dieu!

Imreoir2 · 14-11-2019 4:16pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The FT getting on the "not right now" bandwagon:

https://www.ft.com/content/86cc29f6-05a5-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca

---

Thankfully us Irish can see the potential problems eh? Mon dieu!

Brexit in itself is a bad idea. There are those who view unification in the same light, they think it is a bad idea which when looked at objectivly is something that should not be done. I disagree with that, but those that hold that viewpoint are entitled to their opinion.

Those who compare unification to Brexit tend to do so in the sence that x is a bad idea and therefore it should not be done. Thats a fair point, but the bigger issue for me when it comes to a comparrision with Brexit is not if but how. Brexit is a bad idea, but it could have been delt with so much better. The UK could have gone for a careful, soft Brexit which would have caused only limited damage and prevented the whole issue turning into the crisis it has become. That is where we should be learning a lesson. We must to admit, whichever side you are on, that unification is a big deal, it is complicated, it will be difficult and we have to be careful with it. We must plan, we must have an open and honest disussion about it and if after doing this we decide to go ahead with it, we must do so carefully.

Democracy must be respected and even if a unification referendum is won by a narrow margin, the verdict must be implemented. How it is implemented is key, we cannot have a slim majority being used to rush through a hardline approch. It has to be slow, thoughtful and there will have to be compromise on all sides. The threat of violence from one quarter cannot be allowed to derail the process, but the legitimate concerns of all parties must be taken into acount, we can't have peoples lives or livelihoods destroyed because of it. We can't have real problems ignored creating a crisis where none need exist.

trashcan · 14-11-2019 6:22pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The FT getting on the "not right now" bandwagon:

https://www.ft.com/content/86cc29f6-05a5-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca

---

Thankfully us Irish can see the potential problems eh? Mon dieu!

How could a United Ireland have been a Republican dream since long before Partition ?

United Ireland discussion thread

Comments