No concept for a United Ireland except by Sinn Féin?

Thomas_I

The idea of an New United Ireland keeps me thinking and searching about some concepts already drawn at the moment. So I´ve checked the websites of the four greater parties in the Republic of Ireland to see, whether they have either a drawn concept or even that topic on their agenda at all.

The result was as to be anticipated. Sinn Féin is the only party I´ve found that has such a concept. They call it "A Green paper on Irish unity" and can be read here:

http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/greenpaper_23feb05.pdf

Further they also have a concept on the "Unionist Charter"

http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2009/UnionistCharter.pdf

I´ve read them both and from the proposals in these documents which I regard as an similar concept of Social Democracy (according their contents), I think that this could work in reality.

Anyone on here with different views on this?

FF, FG, Labour and the Green Party have nothing comparable to the above on their own websites / agenda sections.

Chips Lovell

I don't think it's that surprising really. United Ireland is Sinn Fein's "thing" really. For the rest of them, it really isn't a priority given how unlikely it is in the next few decades.

Thomas_I

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't think it's that surprising really. United Ireland is Sinn Fein's "thing" really. For the rest of them, it really isn't a priority given how unlikely it is in the next few decades.

The other "older parties" were also bound to Irish unity - at least in the past - so it´s surely the priority of SF, but it´s also an interesting matter to think and make some draws about. Whether it is unlikely to become reality in the next few decades mustn´t deter one from thinking about it. It seems that the others rather have "given up" to bother themselves with that at all.

nesf

It's not surprising. A party having a policy to achieve a United Ireland is really not a big issue for the vast majority of the people in the country.

Thomas_I

nesf wrote: »

It's not surprising. A party having a policy to achieve a United Ireland is really not a big issue for the vast majority of the people in the country.

So that is because it is related to that party or is it because it not a big issue at all?

Chips Lovell

Thomas_I wrote: »

The other "older parties" were also bound to Irish unity - at least in the past - so it´s surely the priority of SF, but it´s also an interesting matter to think and make some draws about. Whether it is unlikely to become reality in the next few decades mustn´t deter one from thinking about it. It seems that the others rather have "given up" to bother themselves with that at all.

At this stage, I think its more lip service to a vague aspiration on the part of the mainstream parties. Now that we have situation in Northern Ireland that's acceptable to most parties, it's no longer of any great importance.

Expecting every party to have a plan for a United Ireland is kind of like asking them to have a policy on the colonisation of Mars, the likelihood of either happening is so far down the road that it isn't a priority.

Iwasfrozen

Thomas_I wrote: »

The other "older parties" were also bound to Irish unity - at least in the past - so it´s surely the priority of SF, but it´s also an interesting matter to think and make some draws about. Whether it is unlikely to become reality in the next few decades mustn´t deter one from thinking about it. It seems that the others rather have "given up" to bother themselves with that at all.

You're forgetting these papers cost money, no party is going to spend cash n a research paper only to have it invalid when a UI is realistically possible decades from now. Maybe if SF's border poll comes back in their favour we'll se some movement on the issue but I doubt it will.

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're forgetting these papers cost money, no party is going to spend cash n a research paper only to have it invalid when a UI is realistically possible decades from now. Maybe if SF's border poll comes back in their favour we'll se some movement on the issue but I doubt it will.

Have you read them both? It´s not just a drawing what to do when such an event takes place, it´s more political manifesto that goes beyond re-unification, it refers to build an new Irish State itself, with improvements of the current State. That´s how I see it. The Unionist Charter is more the offer to them to join that unification, but I regard it as not sufficient enough to convince the Unionists to abandon their loyalty towards the UK.

Chips Lovell

Making improvements to the current state isn't tied to union with Northern Ireland.

GRMA

Basically what happened is that every other political party abandoned their northern brothers and sisters and were content with their repressive, oppressive Catholic nationalist 26 county state. A million more Protestants on board would have upset the applecart as well as many many progressive republicans who of course rejected the treaty and were sidelined, or outright murdered.

That is why Fianna Fáil and the Irish state conspired to split the republican movement - with funding, training (by the defense forces) and weapons given to the provisionals on the condition they focused on the north and left behind their socialist revolutionary ideas which would have overthrown the southern state too - keep the conflict in the north was what they wanted. To protect their own necks and the gravy train they had going.

The provos of course rapidly re embraced socialism and fell out with FF.

No other major party really wants a UI - FF and others may pay the idea lip service but they really dont want it.

Lots of people do care about a united Ireland - the concept is not an irrelevancy. Others don't care - when they should, its a challenge republicans face to waken people up to the benefits of a UI and the harm partition does today. Similar to how the challenge for socialists is to make people class conscious.

Iwasfrozen

Thomas_I wrote: »

Have you read them both? It´s not just a drawing what to do when such an event takes place, it´s more political manifesto that goes beyond re-unification, it refers to build an new Irish State itself, with improvements of the current State. That´s how I see it. The Unionist Charter is more the offer to them to join that unification, but I regard it as not sufficient enough to convince the Unionists to abandon their loyalty towards the UK.

Yeah they're only a few pages long and mostly pictures. Look if UI ever becomes a reality I'm sure the other parties will write papers on it and the egg heads in the universities will pour over how to make it workable from countless angles but at the moment its decades away and here is little incentive for parties to waste their precious campaign funds on anything like this.

On another note I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned at the constitutional convention.

GRMA wrote:

Lots of people do care about a united Ireland - the concept is not an irrelevancy. Others don't care - when they should, its a challenge republicans face to waken people up to the benefits of a UI and the harm partition does today. Similar to how the challenge for socialists is to make people class conscious.

And it's the job of economists to prove socialism sucks.

gaffer91

OP from having a look at that green paper it seems to be from 2005. Has SF 's position changed at all in the intervening 8 years due to things like violence becoming a more distant memory, re-establishment of power-sharing in 2007 and so on? Obviously SF's goal, the re-unification of Ireland, has not changed, but the details might have.

Anyway, even though I am naturally dismissive of SF's proposal anyway, that one contained more waffle than usual. Still waiting for a good reason for people in the Republic to vote for a massive money drain, with a heap of harmful social tensions to boot, to be absorbed by us.

nesf

Thomas_I wrote: »

So that is because it is related to that party or is it because it not a big issue at all?

It's not a big issue for most people. I mean nearly everyone has some opinion on the matter but when it comes to hot button political issues the Northern Question isn't one of them for most voters. The cut to child benefit being proposed by Joan Burton will probably be much bigger in people's minds when it comes to whether to vote Labour than Labour's stance on the North.

Chips Lovell

Nobody "abandoned" anyone. Independence was offered to the island of Ireland with the proviso that Northern Ireland could opt out if it wanted to. It opted out. End of story.

Thomas_I

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Making improvements to the current state isn't tied to union with Northern Ireland.

You can say so if you like, but it´s the way they (SF) make it towards that.

GRMA

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Nobody "abandoned" anyone. Independence was offered to the island of Ireland with the proviso that Northern Ireland could opt out if it wanted to. It opted out. End of story.

Of course nationalists in the north were abandoned.

The south "stood idly by" whilst they suffered pogroms.

You might argue that there was no choice but to abandon them to the sectarian hellhole which was the north, but they were abandoned.

Chips Lovell

The Irish government's involvement in the Anglo Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement must have been in my imagination so.

GRMA

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah they're only a few pages long and mostly pictures. Look if UI ever becomes a reality I'm sure the other parties will write papers on it and the egg heads in the universities will pour over how to make it workable from countless angles but at the moment its decades away and here is little incentive for parties to waste their precious campaign funds on anything like this.

On another note I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned at the constitutional convention.


And it's the job of economists to prove socialism sucks.

That what I hate about this forum, you get stuff like that,.

How does a nonsensical comment like that further debate? It doesn't. You do know that there are many economists with socialist opinions?

You just saw "socialism" and just went off on one

GRMA

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The Irish government's involvement in the Good Friday Agreement must have been in my imagination so.

Are you genuinely arguing that the southern state did not abandon nationalists in the north because they were involved in the GFA negotiations?


Really?

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah they're only a few pages long and mostly pictures. Look if UI ever becomes a reality I'm sure the other parties will write papers on it and the egg heads in the universities will pour over how to make it workable from countless angles but at the moment its decades away and here is little incentive for parties to waste their precious campaign funds on anything like this.

On another note I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned at the constitutional convention.
...

I guess you´re right in this realistic estimate, despite that there is still one party in Ireland which holds on to this idea and they won´t give it up. Whether this is for the better or not to them, the future will show who´s on the right side. As for the "precious campaign funds", I think that such ideas are rather the result of innerparty circles than from outside companies. In these times of the internet, the party can save lots of money by just setting up PDF Files like that and leave it to the visitor whether to print it or not. The message per se has been conveyed.

Chips Lovell

The Irish government had a hand in virtually every effort to resolve the situation in Northern Ireland, from the original treaty to Sunningdale, to the Anglo Irish Agreement and finally Good Friday. To cast Ireland as disinterested in the situation is quite inaccurate.

Iwasfrozen

GRMA wrote: »

That what I hate about this forum, you get stuff like that,.

How does a nonsensical comment like that further debate? It doesn't. You do know that there are many economists with socialist opinions?

You just saw "socialism" and just went off on one

Ah relax my comment was partially tongue in cheek. Socialism does suck, ask anyone who's lived in a socialist country, but that's a topic for another time.

GRMA

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The Irish government had a hand in virtually every effort to resolve the situation in Northern Ireland, from the original treaty to Sunningdale, to the Anglo Irish Agreement and finally Good Friday. To cast Ireland as disinterested in the situation is quite inaccurate.

Goalposts moving again, I never said they were "disinterested" did I? I said they abandoned nationalists in the north, they "stood idly by". They wanted (maybe not all at the time of partition but soon afterwards, especially in the case of FF) and continue to want partition as it serves their interests.

Its rather ludicrous watching you try to argue that nationalists were not abandoned by the southern state - of course they were, in accepting the treaty they were abandoned. As I said you may argue they had no choice but to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that they were abandoned to their fate at the hands of a hostile gerrymandered majority.

Your argument is the kind many come out with s as to let them rest easy and wash their hands of any responsibility for what went on in the north, to pretend it was nothing to do with them.

Thomas_I

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The Irish government had a hand in virtually every effort to resolve the situation in Northern Ireland, from the original treaty to Sunningdale, to the Anglo Irish Agreement and finally Good Friday. To cast Ireland as disinterested in the situation is quite inaccurate.

I´ve heard a different version on this and the source from which these statements came were not of SF. It depends on the decades to which one refers. There was a long time when both Irish States lived alongside in something like "co-existence" for decades. This was before the troubles started in NI and in the RTÉ documentary "Seven Ages - The history of the Irish State", the former Irish President Mary Robinson said in an interview that the people in the RoI wasn´t that aware about the extent of discrimination of the Catholics in NI as it really happened.

Chips Lovell

So getting involved in every initiative to bring peace and equality to Northern Ireland now amounts to standing idly by?

Thomas_I

gaffer91 wrote: »

OP from having a look at that green paper it seems to be from 2005. Has SF 's position changed at all in the intervening 8 years due to things like violence becoming a more distant memory, re-establishment of power-sharing in 2007 and so on? Obviously SF's goal, the re-unification of Ireland, has not changed, but the details might have.

Anyway, even though I am naturally dismissive of SF's proposal anyway, that one contained more waffle than usual. Still waiting for a good reason for people in the Republic to vote for a massive money drain, with a heap of harmful social tensions to boot, to be absorbed by us.

Yes they´re from the years you mentioned, some things at the present time have changed to what is written in these papers, some haven´t. Their principles didn´t.

It´s not quite so that after re-unification would had taken place the burden would be left alone to the people of the current RoI, but to all people in that then united Ireland. That means, shared problems but also shared prosperity. It´s not always the negative side that counts, it´s also the positive prospects this unification can bring with it. These social tensions have to be overcome before unification can take place. That´s the point on which they´re still working.

I´m also not a SF follower and I´ve taken these papers to debate on here because they´re the only one with a concept that can be debated at all. That´s the reason for why I´ve started this thread to have some platform to talk about Irelands unfication on concrete proposals from a political party. There have been many threads in which the unification of Ireland was either brought in or brought up by some posters in favour of that.

Personally, I don´t regard these boards as the ultimate representative display of the whole public opinion on Irelands unification, it´s just a part of the whole picture and even that is a subject to alterations in itself.

nesf

Thomas_I wrote: »

Personally, I don´t regard these boards as the ultimate representative display of the whole public opinion on Irelands unification, it´s just a part of the whole picture and even that is a subject to alterations in itself.

Indeed. This site is not a good representation of the country and this forum is substantially more skewed and biased than the site.

Hannibal

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ah relax my comment was partially tongue in cheek. Socialism does suck, ask anyone who's lived in a socialist country, but that's a topic for another time.

hence why the people of Venezuela and Ecuador have recently re-elected both Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa, Evo Morales was also returned in Bolivia a couple of years ago with a large majority of the vote.

Iwasfrozen

Dotsey wrote: »

hence why the people of Venezuela and Ecuador have recently re-elected both Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa, Evo Morales was also returned in Bolivia a couple of years ago with a large majority of the vote.

The socialist system of economics leads to a lack of incentive which leads to inefficiency, lack of growth, lack of economic and technological advancement and lower gdp growth for the country overall. Dose this mean the people who vote in socialist parties are stupid? No. Globalism like anything else has it's winners and losers and those who lose will seek an alternative. A quick google tells me Venezula is very big into manufacturing, the very sort of thing that would need protecting. You can explain an awful lot of politics just by people acting on their best interests.

Boyne Standard

Sinn Fein can get away with the "United Ireland policy" because it is just the sort of thing they are into. Parties like Fianna Fail or Fine Gael actually try to be taken seriously and although not always successful in that regard, a policy on a United Ireland would just get people in the Irish Republic laughing because the majority of people don't take a United Ireland being a realistic aspiration.

Enda Kenny is having to run a broken down country, the last thing he needs is to stand in the Dail or all over the Irish Republic trying to sell pipe dream to the Irish electorate.

An Coilean

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

On another note I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned at the constitutional convention.

Not really, the convention is to look at areas of the constitution that need to be changed and updated.
Our position on the North was updated in 98, also the states position on the North is governed by the GFA, its not just an internal thing in the North, its an interntional treaty between the Irish and UK Governments.
To allow the Constitutional convention to examine the North would be problematic as it could lead to the GFA having to be renegioated.

GRMA

I think they'll look at Irish citizens being allowed to vote in presidential elections

Thomas_I

GRMA wrote: »

I think they'll look at Irish citizens being allowed to vote in presidential elections

Also on the agenda of SF among other proposals.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't think it's that surprising really. United Ireland is Sinn Fein's "thing" really. For the rest of them, it really isn't a priority given how unlikely it is in the next few decades.

The nationalist population is already greater at school level than the unionist one. With an older dying off unionist pop. within the space of decade it will probably be at voting age also. And the way things are going Sinn Fein may well be the largest political party either side of the border, that will give the SFers some strength of argument in their calls for a UI.

Iwasfrozen

thecommietommy wrote: »

The nationalist population is already greater at school level than the unionist one. With an older dying off unionist pop. within the space of decade it will probably be at voting age also. And the way things are going Sinn Fein may well be the largest political party either side of the border, that will give the SFers some strength of argument in their calls for a UI.

No the catholic population is bigger. How in God's name can a child have political opinions?

Chips Lovell

thecommietommy wrote: »

The nationalist population is already greater at school level than the unionist one. With an older dying off unionist pop. within the space of decade it will probably be at voting age also. And the way things are going Sinn Fein may well be the largest political party either side of the border, that will give the SFers some strength of argument in their calls for a UI.

The recent BBC Spotlight poll put the number wanting a United Ireland now at 17 per cent. It's very hard to imagine getting a majority within the next decade or two from that starting point.

maccored

I read the PDF on that page and I cant find the bit that says 17% of all the people would never want a to see a united ireland. I think you mean question 4 which asked if there were a referendum tomorrow. Most people realise thats unrealistic and therefore obviously wouldnt encourage it. Great way to twist facts there.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The recent BBC Spotlight poll put the number wanting a United Ireland now at 17 per cent. It's very hard to imagine getting a majority within the next decade or two from that starting point.

Chips Lovell

Did I say this?

"the number wanting a United Ireland ever at 17 per cent."

or this?

"the number wanting a United Ireland now at 17 per cent."

maccored

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Did I say this?

"the number wanting a United Ireland ever at 17 per cent."

or this?

"the number wanting a United Ireland now at 17 per cent."

regardless of what the question was? 17% of people said they'd vote for a united ireland tomorrow. most of us realise it would take longer. thats probably why only 17% voted for it. Also, if that *is* where the 17% figure is from, then its a terribly badly phrased question in the first place. Stop being pedantic. You are peddling stats to suit your own agenda.

Chips Lovell

It illustrates that most people don't want it in the near future, which means that it won't be a live issue for some time yet. Do you really think that 17 per cent can grow to 50 per cent+ in the next ten years? Personally I think it's very unlikely.

thecommietommy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No the catholic population is bigger. How in God's name can a child have political opinions?

Catholic children will mainly vote nationalist, Protestant children will mainly vote unionist. It's been the pattern for many decades and shows no sign of changing of it ever changing as election after election has proven.

Chips Lovell

thecommietommy wrote: »

Catholic children will mainly vote nationalist, Protestant children will mainly vote unionist. It's been the pattern for many decades and shows no sign of changing of it ever changing as election after election has proven.

But as the BBC Spotlight Poll illustrated, voting for nationalist parties doesn't automatically equate to voting for a United Ireland.

But on the other side of the religious divide, a substantial 38% of Catholics also favoured remaining within the UK - three percentage points more than the number who backed a united Ireland.

...

As avowed believers in a united Ireland and the party running a border poll campaign, Sinn Fein might be surprised to learn that nearly a quarter of those who identified themselves as Sinn Fein voters - 23% - told the pollsters they would back the status quo in a border poll.

More than half of SDLP supporters - 56% - also said they would opt to stay in the UK if a poll was held tomorrow.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The recent BBC Spotlight poll put the number wanting a United Ireland now at 17 per cent. It's very hard to imagine getting a majority within the next decade or two from that starting point.

British institution finds greatly in favor of British wishes - yeah right :rolleyes:. We used to have the same nonsense wiith the NILT surveys. Election results for decades are the only real indicator, check out the Cain website, I think when you total up the main parties in the 2011 Assembly elections there was only a 4/5% difference. FFS we have polls saying FF are the most popular party down here after bankrupting the country 18 months ago, then their waas Sean Gallagher hot favorite to win the Presidential election etc If the British and unionists were so sure that only 17% wanted a UI they'd be the very ones demanding a border poll.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/2011nia/ra2011.htm

hyperborean

Politics and nationalism with geographical undertones is always problematic, history shows it. The United Ireland concept is highly unlikely to see fruition as there is no appetite for it on either side of the border,
its the extremist panderings to a minority of ignorant malcontents that continue the SFantasy of as United Ireland and it certainly highlights SF for what they are, one trick ponies. Not fit for office and genuinly dangerous.

Chips Lovell

Errm, it was conducted by Ipsos MRBI on behalf of the BBC. And the figures were largely in line with other polls carried out in the past few years.

But there's little point in arguing with someone who just declares an opinion poll is rigged because the results don't suit them.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

But as the BBC Spotlight Poll illustrated, voting for nationalist parties doesn't automatically equate to voting for a United Ireland.

So the BBC survey, like the NILT one before, is now sacrosanct over election results for decades !!!! The poll was rubbish, didn't it say a quarter of SF voters would vote pro union in a border poll !!!!

Like I said, if the British and unionists really believed that only 17% would vote pro a UI they'd be demanding a border poll ASAP.

Chips Lovell

Elections are not referendums on the border, as the poll well illustrates.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Errm, it was conducted by Ipsos MRBI on behalf of the BBC. And the figures were largely in line with other polls carried out in the past few years.

But there's little point in arguing with someone who just declares an opinion poll is rigged because the results don't suit them.

Funny enough regarding the other polls carried out in the past few years i.e. the NILT ones, which were completely out of line with election results eg they used to find the SDLP more popular than SF even though SF then received double the vote of the SDLP at the subsequent election !!!!

But there's little point in arguing with someone who just declares opinion polls are sacrosanct over election results for decades because the election results don't suit them.

thecommietommy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Elections are not referendums on the border, as the poll well illustrates.

BBC or NILT polls are not referendums on the border, as the elections for decades well illustrates. They are merely polls which allege how people might vote. If say, the GAA commissioned a poll on a UI and it's results were unsurprisingly very pro a UI, I doubt very much if you'd be endorsing them.

Now tell me, if the British and unionists really believed that only 17% would vote pro a UI then why aren't they demanding a border poll ASAP .....

maccored

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It illustrates that most people don't want it in the near future, which means that it won't be a live issue for some time yet. Do you really think that 17 per cent can grow to 50 per cent+ in the next ten years? Personally I think it's very unlikely.

No it doesnt. it illustrates they asked a pretty stupid question - "if there was a referendum for a UI tomorrow would you vote for it" - without any reference to the many important factors that would have to be weighed up before deciding. Obviously people would say they wouldnt. stupid questions only give us stupid answers.

thecommietommy

maccored wrote: »

No it doesnt. it illustrates they asked a pretty stupid question - "if there was a referendum for a UI tomorrow would you vote for it" - without any reference to the many important factors that would have to be weighed up before deciding. Obviously people would say they wouldnt. stupid questions only give us stupid answers.

Also the answer a person can give verbally may be quite different as to how they will vote in the privacy of a voting booth. The only real way to gauge opinion on a UI is a border poll as in the Godd Friday Agreement, something the British and unionists are obviously very afraid of despite claiming that only 17% would vote for a UI. I actually think the pro union side would win, but by about 5/6%, but as per the GFA a border poll would then have to be called every 7 years, something the British and unionists are seemingly afraid of.