How would the government work in a "United Ireland"?

VinLieger · 12-12-2018 2:22pm

troyzer wrote: »

This 50% plus 1 strategy of "**** the unionists, we'll just outbreed them" isn't a recipe for long term success and reconciliation.

I never claimed it to be I was pointing out how ridiculous an idea it would be for them to request something like the queen be given a place in a future UI's constitution.

Of course they should be looked after and given every available assitance to help integrate.... within reason

troyzer · 12-12-2018 2:23pm

loyatemu wrote: »

Problem - we need to give representation to a community living mostly in 4 out of 32 counties, all in one historical province.

Solution - create a federal system of 4 provinces where they'll be outvoted not only in the federation but within their own province as well.

sounds like a real vote winner in the north alright.

I never said the solution was to use the existing provincial boundaries, it's just an option.

I think it would be better to slice and dice Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan into Connacht. Maybe even Tyrone and Fermanagh as well.

Tell me how · 12-12-2018 2:24pm

troyzer wrote: »

Why is it a nonsense idea? I've already named a few small countries in Europe which have a federal system.

Because their system of government revolved in a way in which such federalism was always a part of it to some degree. Ours might have done way back when but since our nearest neighbours came on board and ran the show and then the introduction of Dail Eireann I don't believe that it could now so without total upheaval.

We have difficulties with cohesive implementation of services as it as. This would get worse in my view within a federal system. There would have to be interaction between groups and bodies (as within any of the countries listed above) but I fear that we would see massive losses in inefficiency, bureaucracy and finger pointing meaning a poorer system than what we have now.

The imbalance of the location of those responsible for the largest collection of taxes could mean that most areas outside of the greater Dublin region would either be impoverished or would need money to be distributed from within that area to outside. As is done now, but more difficult and more acrimonious in a federal state.

Because we have a system of local governance already which can exercise a certain degree of policy and implementation in near areas so suggesting we need to introduce an outright federal system is misunderstanding the structures which are in place.

Because we have seen with recent political events that change for changes sake is not a good thing just so that a few can feel that they have managed to exercise their will over the population unjustly.

troyzer · 12-12-2018 2:26pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I never claimed it to be I was pointing out how ridiculous an idea it would be for them to request something like the queen be given a place in a future UI's constitution.

Of course they should be looked after and given every available assitance to help integrate.... within reason

Declearing that if the border poll passes they wouldn't have a leg to stand on misses the point that a border poll shouldn't even be called until this issues have been resolved.

A queen in our constitution? Non starter. Commonwealth membership? Yes. We have no reason not to in the case of a united Ireland other than historical pettiness.

If we have our soverign, prosperous 32 county republic is there really any reason to keep ourselves out of the commonwealth? Countries which suffered much more under the British like India and South Africa are members for **** sake. We haven't a leg to stand on.

In a United Ireland we should let the past go and just try to accept the fact that this is our shared history and there is a bond that justifies out inclusion in the commonwealth.

VinLieger · 12-12-2018 2:26pm

troyzer wrote: »

I never said the solution was to use the existing provincial boundaries, it's just an option.

I think it would be better to slice and dice Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan into Connacht. Maybe even Tyrone and Fermanagh as well.

Again though they would be consistently outvoted on their issues ata anational level everytime by the rest of the country. What you are suggesting would keep them completely seperate to the rest of the country whereas the goal is for integration.

Im not saying the current system is perfect either but your idea does not solve the problem in any way.

VinLieger · 12-12-2018 2:28pm

troyzer wrote: »

Declearing that if the border poll passes they wouldn't have a leg to stand on misses the point that a border poll shouldn't even be called until this issues have been resolved.

Thats not how the GFA works though and is incredibly unlikely to happen with the DUP in government in NI

Please continue ignoring that i clarified my position they would have no leg to stand on regarding ridiculous demands like adding the queeen to the constitution though. I love going round in circles with people who can't read what they are replying to.

troyzer wrote: »

A queen in our constitution? Non starter. Commonwealth membership? Yes. We have no reason not to in the case of a united Ireland other than historical pettiness.

If we have our soverign, prosperous 32 county republic is there really any reason to keep ourselves out of the commonwealth? Countries which suffered much more under the British like India and South Africa are members for **** sake. We haven't a leg to stand on.

In a United Ireland we should let the past go and just try to accept the fact that this is our shared history and there is a bond that justifies out inclusion in the commonwealth.

Theres is zero tangible benefit to us joining the commonwealth

Tell me how · 12-12-2018 2:33pm

troyzer wrote: »

Declearing that if the border poll passes they wouldn't have a leg to stand on misses the point that a border poll shouldn't even be called until this issues have been resolved.

A queen in our constitution? Non starter. Commonwealth membership? Yes. We have no reason not to in the case of a united Ireland other than historical pettiness.

If we have our soverign, prosperous 32 county republic is there really any reason to keep ourselves out of the commonwealth? Countries which suffered much more under the British like India and South Africa are members for **** sake. We haven't a leg to stand on.

In a United Ireland we should let the past go and just try to accept the fact that this is our shared history and there is a bond that justifies out inclusion in the commonwealth.

You think we should join an organisation of which the head is the King or Queen of the British Royal Family?

No. Not for me thanks.

You do realise we are in the EU. We have a strong leg to stand on.

L1011 · 12-12-2018 2:34pm

Stormont would have to be maintained for a decent period to try reduce chances of a civil war; but we'd have to give the constituencies TDs. I'd suggest returning Stormont to 6 MLAs a constituency which would probably prevent either "side" having a majority for a long time - they don't with 5 MLAs right now either of course.

As goes TDs, 3 seats a constituency would probably have to be done; which would totally change the maths in the Dail - SF would probably be the second party to whichever of FF/FG is top at the time and the DUP would also be quite significant.

Would the DUP even take their seats, though?

troyzer · 12-12-2018 2:39pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Because their system of government revolved in a way in which such federalism was always a part of it to some degree. Ours might have done way back when but since our nearest neighbours came on board and ran the show and then the introduction of Dail Eireann I don't believe that it could now so without total upheaval.

We have difficulties with cohesive implementation of services as it as. This would get worse in my view within a federal system. There would have to be interaction between groups and bodies (as within any of the countries listed above) but I fear that we would see massive losses in inefficiency, bureaucracy and finger pointing meaning a poorer system than what we have now.

The imbalance of the location of those responsible for the largest collection of taxes could mean that most areas outside of the greater Dublin region would either be impoverished or would need money to be distributed from within that area to outside. As is done now, but more difficult and more acrimonious in a federal state.

Because we have a system of local governance already which can exercise a certain degree of policy and implementation in near areas so suggesting we need to introduce an outright federal system is misunderstanding the structures which are in place.

Because we have seen with recent political events that change for changes sake is not a good thing just so that a few can feel that they have managed to exercise their will over the population unjustly.

Austria is a centuries old nation which only became a federation after WW2. Bosnia's federation is younger than I am at 25. This idea that you can only be a federation if you're old is just bollocks. There's absolutely no reason to think it can't be done. Of course it would be total upheaval, but so would a United Ireland.

If you think a federal system is simply just wrong for Ireland, that's a seperate argument. But you seem to be making two arguments at once:

1) It's impossible.
2) It's not right for us.

The second one we could argue about until the cows come home but it's certainly not impossible. You don't need this vague notion of a federal history to become a federation. No country was a federation before they became a federation. That's just common sense.

VinLieger wrote: »

Again though they would be consistently outvoted on their issues ata anational level everytime by the rest of the country. What you are suggesting would keep them completely seperate to the rest of the country whereas the goal is for integration.

Im not saying the current system is perfect either but your idea does not solve the problem in any way.

I'm suggesting that allowing them to have a large say in a devolved government with substantial influence but within the context of a single country is better than them being completely ignored and sidelines in a unitary system.

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats not how the GFA works though and is incredibly unlikely to happen with the DUP in government in NI

Please continue ignoring that i clarified my position they would have no leg to stand on regarding ridiculous demands like adding the queeen to the constitution though. I love going round in circles with people who can;t read what they are replying to.

Theres is zero tangible benefit to us joining the commonwealth

The GFA says approximately nothing about us having the conversation and drafting plans for what could be. The border poll would require some kind of vision of a United Ireland anyway. We've seen how chaotic an open ended mandate can be on an issue of such complexity.

I can read what you're replying to, I was simply explaining why that was my reading of your initial comment. But I'll take your word for it that you don't believe in the 50% plus 1 strategy. I assume you recognise the need for years, maybe even decades of engagement with the unionist community before a border poll can be considered?

There aren't many tangible benefits to joining the commonwealth, it's largely pointless and unoffensive (which means there's no real reason not to join) but one of those benefits is that it'll get more unionist buy in and simply acknowledge that we're a former British colony and now an equal.

troyzer · 12-12-2018 2:42pm

Tell me how wrote: »

You think we should join an organisation of which the head is the King or Queen of the British Royal Family?

No. Not for me thanks.

You do realise we are in the EU. We have a strong leg to stand on.

The head of the organisation isn't necessarily the British Monarch. The head of the commonwealth is elected, not coronated.

An important distinction.

But you can't realistically try to convince Unionists to support a United Ireland and also basically use the argument that joining the commonwealth is "Yucky".

I meant we don't have a strong leg to stand on by using our negative history with the British as an objection to joining, already existing members have had experiences just as bad.

realdanbreen · 12-12-2018 2:43pm

Ian Paisley jnr would have to be minister for tourism, he's well travelled that fella!

snotboogie · 12-12-2018 2:43pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Because their system of government revolved in a way in which such federalism was always a part of it to some degree. Ours might have done way back when but since our nearest neighbours came on board and ran the show and then the introduction of Dail Eireann I don't believe that it could now so without total upheaval.

A United Ireland would be a new country, it would not be the North joining the South. Even Sinn Fein are absolutely clear on this. Federalism was always a part of Bosnia? and Austria? In fact both of these countries were subject to Austro Hungarian Monarchy together.

Tell me how wrote: »

We have difficulties with cohesive implementation of services as it as. This would get worse in my view within a federal system. There would have to be interaction between groups and bodies (as within any of the countries listed above) but I fear that we would see massive losses in inefficiency, bureaucracy and finger pointing meaning a poorer system than what we have now.

It would also be an opportunity to abolish our inefficient and mostly powerless local councils in favor of a much leaner federal system.

Tell me how wrote: »

The imbalance of the location of those responsible for the largest collection of taxes could mean that most areas outside of the greater Dublin region would either be impoverished or would need money to be distributed from within that area to outside. As is done now, but more difficult and more acrimonious in a federal state.

You could argue that this is a result of our almost uniquely totally unitary state, at least among OECD countries. Even still a Southern Irish/Munster Federacy would be a net contributor.

Tell me how wrote: »

Because we have a system of local governance already which can exercise a certain degree of policy and implementation in near areas so suggesting we need to introduce an outright federal system is misunderstanding the structures which are in place.

Our local authorities are totally powerless beyond the most basic local functions

Tell me how wrote: »

Because we have seen with recent political events that change for changes sake is not a good thing just so that a few can feel that they have managed to exercise their will over the population unjustly.

It looks like the change will be foisted upon us...

Tell me how · 12-12-2018 2:45pm

troyzer wrote: »

Austria is a centuries old nation which only became a federation after WW2. Bosnia's federation is younger than I am at 25. This idea that you can only be a federation if you're old is just bollocks. There's absolutely no reason to think it can't be done. Of course it would be total upheaval, but so would a United Ireland.

If you think a federal system is simply just wrong for Ireland, that's a seperate argument. But you seem to be making two arguments at once:

1) It's impossible.
2) It's not right for us.

The second one we could argue about until the cows come home but it's certainly not impossible. You don't need this vague notion of a federal history to become a federation. No country was a federation before they became a federation. That's just common sense.

You're right. Nothing is impossible. Same as Brexit isn't impossible.

I go back to my statement that it is nonsense, you misinterpreted the point on the age of a country.

lawred2 · 12-12-2018 2:45pm

Squatter wrote: »

I suspect (and fear) that the outcome of an island-wide referendum might shock you! Especially if we (in the South) allow our emigrants to vote in future referenda, as has been discussed.

what?

L1011 · 12-12-2018 2:47pm

Squatter wrote: »

I suspect (and fear) that the outcome of an island-wide referendum might shock you! Especially if we (in the South) allow our emigrants to vote in future referenda, as has been discussed.

That has never been discussed

The proposal is to allow them to vote for President only, which will probably ensure SF presidents forevermore based on the politics of the average Irish-American.

troyzer · 12-12-2018 2:47pm

Tell me how wrote: »

You're right. Nothing is impossible. Same as Brexit isn't impossible.

I go back to my statement that it is nonsense, you misinterpreted the point on the age of a country.

You still haven't explained why it's nonsene. Just spouting on about how we haven't always been a federation and therefore can't be one.

Brexit isn't impossible. What's impossible is drawing contradictory red lines.

A United Ireland would be incredibly difficult to bring about and it would require the drafting of a brand new constitution. All options should be on the table, including a federal one.

Take the UK for example actually, all three of the devolved parliaments are younger than me. That's sort of a federal system.

So it can be introduced, even into a unitary system.

Podge_irl · 12-12-2018 2:48pm

snotboogie wrote: »

They have already been listed in this thread; Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Bosnia are fully federal. Denmark, Serbia and Finland are Federacies (some states in a unitary system and others with Federal powers). Outside of Europe, our closest peer in terms of size, culture and economy, New Zealand, is also a Federacy.

This idea that Federal governments are only for large countries is an absolute nonsense

Wikipedia wrote:

Austrian federalism is largely theoretical as the states are granted few legislative powers.

If we are talking about purely cosmetic changes, sure let's go nuts. But let's not pretend it is a real federalism we are talking about.

NI, if there was unification, would need actual devolved government to begin with. They have an entirely different legal and judicial structure to England&Wales and Scotland. We are not talking county council versus Dail.

Podge_irl · 12-12-2018 2:50pm

troyzer wrote: »

Take the UK for example actually, all three of the devolved parliaments are younger than me. That's sort of a federal system.

So it can be introduced, even into a unitary system.

Scotland, Wales and NI are countries though. And particularly the former two have a huge amount of history and shared culture and identity. Munster does not.

VinLieger · 12-12-2018 2:50pm

troyzer wrote: »

The GFA says approximately nothing about us having the conversation and drafting plans for what could be. The border poll would require some kind of vision of a United Ireland anyway. We've seen how chaotic an open ended mandate can be on an issue of such complexity.

Indeed it doesnt but the problem is you will never get the likes of the DUP to engage meaningfully prior to the success of a border poll as to them it will mean admitting defeat.

troyzer wrote: »

I can read what you're replying to, I was simply explaining why that was my reading of your initial comment. But I'll take your word for it that you don't believe in the 50% plus 1 strategy. I assume you recognise the need for years, maybe even decades of engagement with the unionist community before a border poll can be considered?

Prior to Brexit i did not believe Ireland was anywhere near ready for reunification or even a border poll. I still don't however brexit, if it happens either with or without a deal, is looking like it will unfortunately force the issue far sooner than it would have naturally occurred so I don't believe we will have the luxury of decades of engagement. Polling from this week has revealed 60% would vote for reunification in the case of no deal.

troyzer wrote: »

There aren't many tangible benefits to joining the commonwealth, it's largely pointless and unoffensive (which means there's no real reason not to join) but one of those benefits is that it'll get more unionist buy in and simply acknowledge that we're a former British colony and now an equal.

Joining the commonwealth, which is ruled over by the queen and prime minister of England at the time, is exactly the opposite of acknowledging we are an equal and to many would be incredibly offensive.

Tell me how · 12-12-2018 2:52pm

troyzer wrote: »

You still haven't explained why it's nonsene. Just spouting on about how we haven't always been a federation and therefore can't be one.

Brexit isn't impossible. What's impossible is drawing contradictory red lines.

A United Ireland would be incredibly difficult to bring about and it would require the drafting of a brand new constitution. All options should be on the table, including a federal one.

Take the UK for example actually, all three of the devolved parliaments are younger than me. That's sort of a federal system.

So it can be introduced, even into a unitary system.

Read my original point on why I think it is nonsense and stop misinterpreting that I said because it has never been one, it now can't. I didn't say that.

I suspect that you are going to stick to idealistic views that anything is possible. Yes, in theory. But, if you want to go that route, why not lets just go for communism. Everyone equal. Everything shared equally.

snotboogie · 12-12-2018 2:56pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

If we are talking about purely cosmetic changes, sure let's go nuts. But let's not pretend it is a real federalism we are talking about.

NI, if there was unification, would need actual devolved government to begin with. They have an entirely different legal and judicial structure to England&Wales and Scotland. We are not talking county council versus Dail.

However, the state governor (Landeshauptmann) is in charge of the administration of much of federal administrative law within the respective state, which makes this post an important political position. Furthermore, state competences include zoning laws, planning issues and public procurement on the regional level, which adds considerable weight to state politics. As a practical matter, there have been cases where states have been able to block projects endorsed by the federal government, as in the case of a railway tunnel that was to be built below the Semmering.

It is not purely cosmetic in Austria and there are many, many other countries mentioned which are a similar size with Federal powers.

troyzer · 12-12-2018 2:58pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

Scotland, Wales and NI are countries though. And particularly the former two have a huge amount of history and shared culture and identity. Munster does not.

Not to get sidetracked, but they're not countries. If Wales is a country, so is Texas. And Bavaria.

Fair enough on identity though, not that I think it's important to identify with your particular federal subdivision.

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed it doesnt but the problem is you will never get the likes of the DUP to engage meaningfully prior to the success of a border poll as to them it will mean admitting defeat.

Prior to Brexit i did not believe Ireland was anywhere near ready for reunification or even a border poll. I still don't however brexit, if it happens either with or without a deal, is looking like it will unfortunately force the issue far sooner than it would have naturally occurred so I don't believe we will have the luxury of decades of engagement

Joining the commonwealth, which is ruled over by the queen and prime minister of England at the time, is exactly the opposite of acknowledging we are an equal.

You don't have to win the DUP, you do have to win the UUP and their supporters though. At the very least.

I agree that Brexit may force a border poll, I just hope it doesn't. We're not ready.

Your last comment is bollocks. The Head of the Commonwealth is currently the Queen, but this position is elected. Rolf Harris could be the head of the Commonwealth if enough people wanted it.

Ditto on Theresa May, she's the chair of the commonwealth by virtue of the fact that she's the previous host of the commonwealth heads of government meeting. An elected position which before Theresa May was held by British Prime Ministers such as Joseph Muscat, Maithripala Sirisena and Olusegun Obasanjo. Except none of these are British PMs.

In fact, May is the first British PM to hold the office.

snotboogie · 12-12-2018 3:00pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

Scotland, Wales and NI are countries though. And particularly the former two have a huge amount of history and shared culture and identity. Munster does not.

You need to read Irish history. Munster was an independant Kingdom for over 1000 years...

maccored · 12-12-2018 3:02pm

there needs to be a nationwide discussion on a UI. It cant be the Republic swallowing the north - thats an incredibly stupid and naive idea. The whole idea of government will have to rebuilt from scratch and would probably take decades

troyzer · 12-12-2018 3:05pm

maccored wrote: »

there needs to be a nationwide discussion on a UI. It cant be the Republic swallowing the north - thats an incredibly stupid and naive idea. The whole idea of government will have to rebuilt from scratch and would probably take decades

This^

We need to have the conversation and be willing to get creative and throw out all of our preconcieved notions if we want to get this done.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 3:09pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I know it would never get to a referendum because the guns would be out long before that.

Japers, just trying to discuss a hypothetical over here...

I don't like the way any talk of a United Ireland revolves around Sinn Fein and the 'won't somebody think of the children' brigade. You can want reunification and not support any particular party.
If we were to have a United Ireland I believe SF would get a bump but likely remain in and around third spot. We may see a new party emerge when all the southern me fein parties such as FG and FF have to compete with the DUP they might have manners put on them for once. Hopefully that's the case. A new party without too much baggage and inappropriate behaviour.
I could see the DUP relegated to Labour/Healy-Rae status, low in the polls but still with vested interests supporting them despite their gombeenism.
I don't think we'd need move the seat of government from Dublin, but some kind of provincial/federal style like Canada might suit.

troyzer · 12-12-2018 3:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Japers, just trying to discuss a hypothetical over here...

I don't like the way any talk of a United Ireland revolves around Sinn Fein and the 'won't somebody think of the children' brigade. You can want reunification and not support any particular party.
If we were to have a United Ireland I believe SF would get a bump but likely remain in and around third spot. We may see a new party emerge when all the southern me fein parties such as FG and FF have to compete with the DUP. Hopefully that's the case. A new party without too much baggage and inappropriate behaviour.
I could see the DUP relegated to Labour/Healy-Rae status, low in the polls but still with vested interests supporting them despite their gombeenism.
I don't think we'd need move the seat of government from Dublin, but some kind of provincial/federal style like Canada might suit.

Canada would be a bit far. Their provinces are less integrated than the EU, they can even levy tariffs against each other.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 3:12pm

troyzer wrote: »

Canada would be a bit far. Their provinces are less integrated than the EU, they can even levy tariffs against each other.

I disagree. They are certainly as much if not more integrated than the EU. There's degrees. The Feds oversee a lot of key things.

troyzer · 12-12-2018 3:14pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I disagree. They are certainly as much if not more integrated than the EU. There's degrees. The Feds oversee a lot of key things.

They're not. They even have to sign trade agreements with each other. Something that Ireland and Romania for example not only don't have to do but can't do legally.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 3:15pm

troyzer wrote: »

They're not. They even have to sign trade agreements with each other. Something that Ireland and Romania for example not only don't have to do but can't do legally.

They are different juristictions within one country. You don't need a passport or customs document to go from one province to the other. regardless, it's the model I'm referring to, not a carbon copy.
Oil and the pipelines is a very contentious issue.

troyzer · 12-12-2018 3:18pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They are different juristictions within one country. You don't need a passport or customs document to go from one province to the other. regardless, it's the model I'm referring to, not a carbon copy.

Actually, you do. You're not allowed to emigrate to Ontario and live in Québec for example.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia only recently signed agreements over freedom of movement.

I can personally vouch for how ball numbingly frustrating the lack of alignment in the provinces is. I have chartered status in my profession in BC but it isn't recognised in Ontario. In order for me to work in Ontario, I'd have to sit my license exam and pay for all of the paperwork again.

I don't work in a profession which changes due to the borders, it's not like law or real estate where there's a valid argument to be made that you have to demonstrate your abilities locally.

Read the link I just sent you, it's pretty good and explains it better than I can.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 3:28pm

troyzer wrote: »

Actually, you do. You're not allowed to emigrate to Ontario and live in Québec for example.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia only recently signed agreements over freedom of movement.

I can personally vouch for how ball numbingly frustrating the lack of alignment in the provinces is. I have chartered status in my profession in BC but it isn't recognised in Ontario. In order for me to work in Ontario, I'd have to sit my license exam and pay for all of the paperwork again.

I don't work in a profession which changes due to the borders, it's not like law or real estate where there's a valid argument to be made that you have to demonstrate your abilities locally.

Read the link I just sent you, it's pretty good and explains it better than I can.

Actually you don't need a passport. Now you are going on to discuss the differences and relocation. Once you're a citizen you can move where you like, I assume you know this but left it out. If a Permanent Resident on a skills kick, you need stay in the Province you applied to, but otherwise you can also go where you like.

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

from the Canadian Charter of Rights

They have differing tax laws and regulations, yes. Isn't that the point? Again, a system like Canada has.

Podge_irl · 12-12-2018 3:29pm

snotboogie wrote: »

It is not purely cosmetic in Austria and there are many, many other countries mentioned which are a similar size with Federal powers.

I'm sorry, but "state competences include zoning laws, planning issues and public procurement on the regional level" basically describes the county councils. It is not real federalised power. If we simply mean to replace county councils with provincial ones I would frankly be all for that. But it is not the kind of federalised system that the north would require under reunification.

snotboogie wrote: »

You need to read Irish history. Munster was an independant Kingdom for over 1000 years...

Until almost 1,000 years ago sure. It is not comparable to Scotland in the UK (by a long shot) or even the likes of Geneva in Switzerland. "Munster" is not an identity associated with people from the region outside of sports. The association with the county is much stronger.

troyzer · 12-12-2018 3:36pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Actually you don't need a passport. Now you are going on to discuss the differences and relocation. Once you're a citizen you can move where you like, I assume you know this but left it out. If a Permanent Resident on a skills kick, you need stay in the Province you applied to, but otherwise you can also go where you like. They have differing tax laws and regulations, yes. Isn't that the point? Again, a system like Canada has.

Can you think of a single country that says you can immigrate in live in city X but not city Y?

Not even Europe does this. It's a huge barrier. Yes, it's gone once you're a citizen. But it's still bizarre to tell an immigrant you're not allowed to live in certain places and it's indicative of a fractured economy.

It's not just about the taxes levied internally. You should read the articles. Saskatchewan for example has its own state owned companies which the other provinces have said are not allowed to operate in their provinces and have cited protectionist arguments. As the article points out, it's often cheaper and easier to import goods from the US than from your next door neighbour because of idiotic bureacratic rules designed to restrict "imports".

They also frequentely tariff each other's goods.

If you can name a single other country that does this, let me know.

None of these things are permissible in Europe, I stand by what I said. Europe is more integrated than Canada.

snotboogie · 12-12-2018 3:40pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'm sorry, but "state competences include zoning laws, planning issues and public procurement on the regional level" basically describes the county councils. It is not real federalised power. If we simply mean to replace county councils with provincial ones I would frankly be all for that. But it is not the kind of federalised system that the north would require under reunification.
.

You don't see how you are nitpicking? A state governor who is responsible for the administration of law makes the federal system in Austria far more powerful than county councils. Federal states exist in small countries, there is precedent, that's the point. Just because Switzerland has more power in the cantons than Austria has in the states invalidates nothing, the precedent exists.

I don't think Munster makes sense as a federal state by the way, Limerick should go with Galway in the West imo

James Brown · 12-12-2018 3:41pm

troyzer wrote: »

Can you think of a single country that says you can immigrate in live in city X but not city Y?

Not even Europe does this. It's a huge barrier. Yes, it's gone once you're a citizen. But it's still bizarre to tell an immigrant you're not allowed to live in certain places and it's indicative of a fractured economy.

It's not just about the taxes levied internally. You should read the articles. Saskactchewan for example has it's own state owned companies which the other provinces have said are not allowed to operate in their provinces and have cited protectionist arguments. As the article points out, it's often cheaper and easier to import goods from the US than from your next door neighbour because of idiotic bureacratic rules designed to restrict "imports".

They also frequentely tariff each other's goods.

If you can name a single other country that does this, let me know.

None of these things are permissible in Europe, I stand by what I said. Europe is more integrated than Canada.

No. I can't. Maybe there are such countries, but I don't know of any.
Again, If a citizen or permanent resident you can live, move to, set up shop in any part of Canada you like. The only exception is for Skilled Worker permanent residents taken into a province based on the skills they offered on application to that province. Even then they can apply for citizenship and move on from there.
Once again, having a level of self governance provincially is the point.

I stand by my suggestion a model like Canada.

EDIT: Apologies, you may have missed my inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights in my last post.

VinLieger · 12-12-2018 3:49pm

troyzer wrote: »

You don't have to win the DUP, you do have to win the UUP and their supporters though. At the very least.

The UUP with their 10 seats vs the DUP's 27?

So your saying a minority of unionists views would only need to be considered?

Podge_irl · 12-12-2018 3:50pm

snotboogie wrote: »

You don't see how you are nitpicking?

Yes. But legislative and constitutional issues require nitpicking.

"A state governor who is responsible for the administration of law makes the federal system in Austria far more powerful than county councils. "

I don't really know what this means. The judiciary in Austria is not controlled by the states. They have no real power - they are a glorified county council.

troyzer · 12-12-2018 3:51pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. I can't. Maybe there are such countries, but I don't know of any.
Again, If a citizen or permanent resident you can live, move to, set up shop in any part of Canada you like. The only exception is for Skilled Worker permanent residents taken into a province based on the skills they offered on application to that province. Even then they can apply for citizenship and move on from there.
Once again, having a level of self governance provincially is the point.

I stand by my suggestion a model like Canada.

EDIT: Apologies, you may have missed my inclusion of the Canadian Charter of Rights in my last post.

It's true that permanent residents and citizens can live wherever they want. But you can't ignore the fact that the law recognises that Québec has the power to limit immigrants from other provinces, even if it has limited application.

The Charter of Rights and the constitution in general are aspirational. The Canadian model is in general just aspirational and delegates its implementation to politicians rather than the courts. In federal law, there is a single market. In actuality, there's not. Because the courts are silent and the politicians are supreme.

The article cites one of the provinces saying that butter can't be the same colour as margarine knowing it only affects the dairy produce of other provinces and not its own. This is a barrier to trade and would be struck down immediately in Europe by a court.

Which, again, is why Canada is less integrated than Europe. This is not a model to aspire to, even simply to be like them.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 4:00pm

troyzer wrote: »

It's true that permanent residents and citizens can live wherever they want. But you can't ignore the fact that the law recognises that Québec has the power to limit immigrants from other provinces, even if it has limited application.

The Charter of Rights and the constitution in general are aspirational. The Canadian model is in general just aspirational and delegates its implementation to politicians rather than the courts. In federal law, there is a single market. In actuality, there's not. Because the courts are silent and the politicians are supreme.

The article cites one of the provinces saying that butter can't be the same colour as margarine knowing it only affects the dairy produce of other provinces and not its own. This is a barrier to trade and would be struck down immediately in Europe by a court.

Which, again, is why Canada is less integrated than Europe. This is not a model to aspire to, even simply to be like them.

You are moving the goal posts. You were wrong about not being able to move from one city or province to another. You were wrong about the need for a passport to do so.

Aspirational?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Canada often simply the Charter, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights

Yes, the Provinces differ on a number of issues, that's the model. Pointing out that they differ is showing what exactly?
Back to your 'less integrated than the EU' point. In what way? You can travel from one province to another without any need for customs documents or a passport. You can open up your business in any part of the country you like without applying for a visa or whatever. So apart from some differing legislation and taxes in some provinces, how on earth is Canada less integrated than the EU?
If you don't like the model, fair enough, but I'd read up on it some more before I wrote it off. You've put forward some right clangers here.

cgcsb · 12-12-2018 4:12pm

I'd imagine there'd be some constitutional change around representation, and/or there'd be a period where there'd be an autonomous assembly in Belfast to look after local issues for a transition period.

I would only vote for it if it was a case of NI becoming apart of the ROI rather than a merger of equals, the ROI is a far superior set up politically and we don't need to go finding any middle ground to appease knuckle draggers.

SF would probably stop existing, urban Catholics and Protestants from the middle class will just vote FG. Arlene has promised to leave so I'll hold her to that. Best case scenario for SF is that the heads in Clondalkin, Limerick, Derry and West Belfast vote for them because they offer free stuff and drape themselves in the flag.

James Brown · 12-12-2018 4:52pm

cgcsb wrote: »

I'd imagine there'd be some constitutional change around representation, and/or there'd be a period where there'd be an autonomous assembly in Belfast to look after local issues for a transition period.

I would only vote for it if it was a case of NI becoming apart of the ROI rather than a merger of equals, the ROI is a far superior set up politically and we don't need to go finding any middle ground to appease knuckle draggers.

SF would probably stop existing, urban Catholics and Protestants from the middle class will just vote FG. Arlene has promised to leave so I'll hold her to that. Best case scenario for SF is that the heads in Clondalkin, Limerick, Derry and West Belfast vote for them because they offer free stuff and drape themselves in the flag.

We'd need revisit the constitution for certain. As I've said before despite all the cries to the contrary, I'd imagine the right interests, (councilors/contractors etc.) will make a fortune off the administrative handover, regardless of how the taxpayer may fare.
As with everything, the public vote will decide how much weight the ignorance of the likes of the DUP may carry.

cgcsb · 12-12-2018 5:28pm

There should be solid agreement on what will happen after the vote, the transition period, what happens in the transition period etc.

I'd suggest it operate something like:

The ROI effectively already owns and operates the NI electricity grid so that's a good start
1) changeover to the Euro over 6 months
2) Tax harmonization, this will attract some FDI to the north to take advantage of lower rents and labour costs.
3) handover of transport services and change of road numbering, signage etc. (bilingual signage may remain controversial in certain areas so either take a consultative approach or as I'd prefer simply make it the rules now)
4) great big redundancies in the civil service north and south for the oldies
5) roll on from there

James Brown · 12-12-2018 6:17pm

Well we already have the Irish, it's just a matter of broadening it. They can probably have Ulster Scots on a Council by Council area. Doesn't make sense to have it outside the currently UK affiliated portion of Ulster.

CelticRambler · 12-12-2018 11:05pm

PauloMN wrote: »

Just like the compromises (rightly) made to nationalists living under UK rule, we'd have to go through a huge and painful programme of making compromises to unionists living under Irish rule.

Why?

What compromises would need to be made? Why should someone identifying as British and living in Belfast be treated as someone identifying as British and living in Dublin, Cork or Galway? What differences would have to be considered in respect of Presbyterians in Antrim compared to Presbyterians in Wicklow?

I haven't yet seen or heard of any reason why a fully functional state with all the necessary political, economic and societal structures in place (many of which are already de facto established on a 32-county basis) should have to suddenly and completely re-invent itself to cater to a minority pseudo-ethnic group in a dysfunctional part-province where the majority has voted to rejoin the people they were separated from 100 (ish) years beforehand.

troyzer · 13-12-2018 8:30am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are moving the goal posts. You were wrong about not being able to move from one city or province to another. You were wrong about the need for a passport to do so.

Aspirational?

Yes, the Provinces differ on a number of issues, that's the model. Pointing out that they differ is showing what exactly?
Back to your 'less integrated than the EU' point. In what way? You can travel from one province to another without any need for customs documents or a passport. You can open up your business in any part of the country you like without applying for a visa or whatever. So apart from some differing legislation and taxes in some provinces, how on earth is Canada less integrated than the EU?
If you don't like the model, fair enough, but I'd read up on it some more before I wrote it off. You've put forward some right clangers here.

I'm not moving the goalposts. You keep ignoring what I'm saying.

Most federal countries grant enumerated powers in the constitution to the federal government whilst leaving the rest to the states. They will also have federal courts to enforce federal law and the constitution where a state/land/province has overstepped.

Canada is unique in that the enumerated powers delegated to the Ottawa government are largely ignored by the provinces. The federal government has a reserved competency for inter provincial trade for instance but it has no effective power because as I said already, the provinces can and frequentely do start trade wars with each other.

This is not something any other country or even the EU does and it's not something we should want to be like. This is not simply the provinces doing things differentely, it's the provinces ignoring federal law in a country where the federal courts have been reluctant to enforce said law. They simply leave it up to politicians who often are fighting too many other battles to care about a trade war over lumber between British Columbia and Alberta.

It's true that once you have a Canadian passport, you can move between provinces. But I've already explained to you that they don't recognise each other's qualifications and professional accredidation. They also block immigrants.

As far as customs checks go? Yes. They do frequentely need customs documents. I've already given you the butter example. It was used by I think Ontario to target Alberta dairy farmers who are known to use canola oil as a blender meaning it's a darker colour, the same as margarine. If an Alberta dairy farmer wants to export butter to Ontario, they have to comply with Ontario rules. That's what customs is all about, ensuring that goods coming into the country comply with standards and pay their tariffs. The provinces also can and do levy tariffs on each other. Less than in the past, but they still do through quite clever mechanisms.

All of these reasons are why Canada is less integrated than the EU. The standards for butter, lumber, professional accredidations and degrees are the same all over the EU.

So are the driving licence standards. Which is another thing, you can't necessarily easily exchange your BC licence for a Manitoba licence for instance. Whereas in Europe, everyone has a category B driving licence.

And please don't insult my intelligence by telling me I need to read up on this. I think it's obvious to the passive observer that I know what I'm talking about on this. It's something that affects me personally as I've already said.

I doubt you even read that article.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Why? What compromises would need to be made? Why should someone identifying as British and living in Belfast be treated as someone identifying as British and living in Dublin, Cork or Galway? What differences would have to be considered in respect of Presbyterians in Antrim compared to Presbyterians in Wicklow?

I haven't yet seen or heard of any reason why a fully functional state with all the necessary political, economic and societal structures in place (many of which are already de facto established on a 32-county basis) should have to suddenly and completely re-invent itself to cater to a minority pseudo-ethnic group in a dysfunctional part-province where the majority has voted to rejoin the people they were separated from 100 (ish) years beforehand.

So I see you're a 50% + 1 person. This strategy simply won't work. The UVF will reform and bomb Dublin for decades if a United Ireland doesn't bring a majority of unionists along for the ride and to do that, we need compromises.

You don't need to win over the core DUP fanbase. But you do need to win over the moderate unionists. The DUP are an extreme party but many of their supporters aren't. This is what the polarisation of the North does. Sinn Féin are nominally a left wing party and capture nearly all of the nationalist vote. Are all nationalists left wing? No but they vote Sinn Féin because of the polarisation.

It's the same with the DUP, not all of them are right wing, Queen loving bible thumpers. Many of them are ordinary people who read the Daily Telegraph, watch BBC News and have never been given a reason to consider a United Ireland. They're simply afraid of Sinn Féin and their caustic rhetoric and stained history.

My landlord when I lived up there was in this box. People like him can be won over with compromise.

maccored · 13-12-2018 10:41am

troyzer wrote: »

The UVF will reform and bomb Dublin for decades if a United Ireland doesn't bring a majority of unionists along for the ride and to do that, we need compromises..

the UVF couldnt bomb anything without the british army doing it for them

CelticRambler · 13-12-2018 11:04am

troyzer wrote: »

So I see you're a 50% + 1 person. This strategy simply won't work. The UVF will reform and bomb Dublin for decades if a United Ireland doesn't bring a majority of unionists along for the ride and to do that, we need compromises.

Again, what compromises?

I doubt very much that reunification would come about on the back of a "+1" majority (ratified by the RoI electorate), but for the sake of argument let's go with that for the moment. If the UVF decided to embark on a bombing campaign, what would they be hoping to achieve?

Re-unification with Britain would obviously be a complete non-starter - the English would certainly tell them so within minutes of the first bomb going off. Representation in the Dáil as TDs, elected under PR, would give them a say in national politics and as much power and influence as the Healy-Raes (probably more). An extension of the remits of Bord Fáilte, Enterprise Ireland and other government agencies would guarantee financial investment and promotion of Ulster (all nine counties) as A Good Place to live/visit/do business.

So what demands would "Unionist" terrorists make that would outweigh whatever reasons moderate unionists had for choosing to join the RoI?

FreudianSlippers · 13-12-2018 11:05am

If we're lucky we will never see SF in any power

troyzer · 13-12-2018 11:13am

CelticRambler wrote: »

Again, what compromises?

I doubt very much that reunification would come about on the back of a "+1" majority (ratified by the RoI electorate), but for the sake of argument let's go with that for the moment. If the UVF decided to embark on a bombing campaign, what would the be hoping to achieve?

Re-unification with Britain would obviously be a complete non-starter - the English would certainly tell them so within minutes of the first bomb going off. Representation in the Dáil as TDs, elected under PR, would give them a say in national politics and as much power and influence as the Healy-Raes (probably more). An extension of the remits of Bord Fáilte, Enterprise Ireland and other government agencies would guarantee financial investment and promotion of Ulster (all nine counties) as A Good Place to live/visit/do business.

So what demands would "Unionist" terrorists make that would outweigh whatever reasons moderate unionists had for choosing to join the RoI?

Reunification with Ireland in the 1960s was also a complete non starter for the IRA, they still murdered loads of people.

How would the government work in a "United Ireland"?

Comments