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

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.

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

Comments