Referendum for Irish Unity 2022

CelticDragon7

Whether you would vote Yes or No in any such referendum, would you support that there should be a referendum on the issue of Irish unity some time in 2022?

(2022 would be 100 years on from the effective ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 and so really the defining moment for permanent partition and so surely the people voting 100 years later could settle the issue for the foreseeable future one way or the other).

So basically a Yes or No answer but of course feel free to air your views and stimulate debate!

Thanks!

Cavehill Red

I'd vote yes. There is no legitimacy of British rule in Ireland. Gerrymandered statelets run for a settler minority went out with the ark. It's time the wrongs of a century past were put right. The Irish of Ulster were abandoned to a terrible fate and paid the price for the rest of the nation's freedom.
Unifying Ireland wouldn't be a simple case of erasing the border. It would require restructuring everything about politics and administration in Ireland. We'd have to move to a less centralised, more federal system, with regional assemblies taking some powers from the Dail and largely replacing the parish pump council system. We'd have to ensure and enshrine respect for all citizens, including those who will for many years to come prefer to consider themselves British.
But yes, I'd vote yes everytime.

kidneyfan

Yes if the capital is moved to Ulster no if not.

hatrickpatrick

I don't think there's any point in having one until opinion polls show that a majority in the North would vote yes. Otherwise what's the point?
And further to this, I would imagine that not very many people in the North would vote yes until Ireland is out of the bailout and no longer the troika's b!tch. Again, would YOU vote to become part of a bailout country if yours still had its economic independence?

I honestly don't think these dates should be chosen based on symbolic factors like "100 years since x or y", the timing needs to be based on national mood both sides of the border or it would simply fail.

kidneyfan

If the new republic was going to have the capital in Ulster maybe more people from the north would be interested in the idea.

If people in the south want a United Ireland that much why does no one ever mention a UI with super devolution from the UK?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think there's any point in having one until opinion polls show that a majority in the North would vote yes. Otherwise what's the point?
And further to this, I would imagine that not very many people in the North would vote yes until Ireland is out of the bailout and no longer the troika's b!tch. Again, would YOU vote to become part of a bailout country if yours still had its economic independence?

I honestly don't think these dates should be chosen based on symbolic factors like "100 years since x or y", the timing needs to be based on national mood both sides of the border or it would simply fail.

VinLieger

No there shouldnt be one until both countries are in a somewhat stable condition economically(down here and up there) and socially(up there). Simply having a vote would throw the north into chaos again, whatever about a positive or negative result. Also neither country is ready for reunification. NI cannot operate without a constant heavy pumping of cash from London and Ireland cant afford to do hold it up for the forseeable future until both countries sort out a stable economy for themselves

Cavehill Red

kidneyfan wrote: »

Yes if the capital is moved to Ulster no if not.

Where a capital is located is sort of meaningless. Canberra, Ottawa, Bonn etc didn't change the fact that Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver, Toronto, Frankfurt, Hamburg etc were all more important cities.
All it means is an admin centre. But this is the sort of thing I'd see as up for debate in any meaningful consideration of a United Ireland. A disunited Ireland hasn't served anyone well. A badly thought-out United Ireland wouldn't be much of an improvement. What's needed is a well-considered Unification that served all the people of the island. Part of that would be, I think, greater regional autonomy within the island and a decrease in the role of centralised government, no matter where the nominal capital was located.
(Personally, I'm of the view the capital should be Tara, as it was historically.)

kidneyfan

Tara was never capital of Ireland. It was capital of a sort of super Ulster that was about 2/3 of Ireland.
Where the capital is does matter. Ulster's primacy must be recognised.

A disunited Ireland has been fine for 90% of people on the island of Ireland. What I would like is to have Northern Ireland cut up like Baarle. The Bogside wants to be in the Republic and the Diamond in the United Kingdom No Problem! The Short Strand wants to be in the Republic? No Problem.

The whole Ulster referendum idea is very old fashioned.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Where a capital is located is sort of meaningless. Canberra, Ottawa, Bonn etc didn't change the fact that Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver, Toronto, Frankfurt, Hamburg etc were all more important cities.
All it means is an admin centre. But this is the sort of thing I'd see as up for debate in any meaningful consideration of a United Ireland. A disunited Ireland hasn't served anyone well. A badly thought-out United Ireland wouldn't be much of an improvement. What's needed is a well-considered Unification that served all the people of the island. Part of that would be, I think, greater regional autonomy within the island and a decrease in the role of centralised government, no matter where the nominal capital was located.
(Personally, I'm of the view the capital should be Tara, as it was historically.)

Cavehill Red

kidneyfan wrote: »

Tara was never capital of Ireland. It was capital of a sort of super Ulster that was about 2/3 of Ireland.
Where the capital is does matter. Ulster's primacy must be recognised.

Ok, this reads like trolling. I'll leave you to it.

seamus

I've no problem with the question being asked, but I would avoid picking any year of significance such as a 100 year anniversary. So 2016 and 2022 are out.

I would also avoid asking the question "just because" and instead pick a time when both countries are stable and peaceful. If the timing is wrong, simply asking the question could incite sectarian violence, particularly up North.

kidneyfan

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Ok, this reads like trolling. I'll leave you to it.

Ulster won't come into a United Ireland on the same basis as the other provinces. The idea that Ulster and Munster are in some way equal is absurd. If anything Ulster is a separate national identity.

moon_man

2022 seems a little soon

id vote yes but id be willing to compromise with unionists on a few issues as their are bound to be several

only speculating but i think the following might be one , we rejoin the commonwealth , a relativley small price to pay IMO
, as far as i know you do not have to have the queen as head of state to be a member , i dont think the queen is head of state in pakistan for instance or south africa

hyperborean

Unity under who? Whats the point of such a thing?

What I find really funny is that a lot of people, mainly republicans are going to spend the best years of their lives lobbying for this and whether it happens or not they will eventually die knowing they wasted their lives, , ,

There is no afterlife, its your one shot. Dont waste it on Geography

Cavehill Red

kidneyfan wrote: »

Ulster won't come into a United Ireland on the same basis as the other provinces. The idea that Ulster and Munster are in some way equal is absurd. If anything Ulster is a separate national identity.

As the Cliftonville fans so love to sing, "We're not Brazil, we're not a country!"
Don't confuse provincial identity for nationhood. I've already outlined that unification requires new thinking on all the power relationships within Ireland. I'd certainly foresee a regional assembly, not dissimilar to the existing Stormont, in Belfast as part of that.
But another important part is the restructuring of power across the island. Regional assemblies for Dublin, Cork, Galway and possibly Waterford and Athlone too ought to be considered within a framework of reducing centralised Dublin power AND the parish pump council system currently in operation on both sides of the border.
Again, I have to say relocating a centralised parliament to the North would be nothing more than tokenistic. It hasn't exactly changed the lives of those in Eastern France to have the EU parliament in Strasbourg, has it?

Cavehill Red

kidneyfan wrote: »

A disunited Ireland has been fine for 90% of people on the island of Ireland.

I think that current and historical conditions in both parts of the island render that opinion nonsensical.

kidneyfan wrote: »

What I would like is to have Northern Ireland cut up like Baarle. The Bogside wants to be in the Republic and the Diamond in the United Kingdom No Problem! The Short Strand wants to be in the Republic? No Problem.

Institutionalised kerb painting is no solution.

Manach

I'd be interested in vote that brings a measure of closer union between Ireland and our closest neighbour and ally, the UK : within a community of nations such as Scotland, England and Wales with their own parliaments.

Cavehill Red

Manach wrote: »

I'd be interested in vote that brings a measure of closer union between Ireland and our closest neighbour and ally, the UK : within a community of nations such as Scotland, England and Wales with their own parliaments.

I'd be supportive of a currency union, and closer economic links. Britain itself is in a long process of renegotiating its own internal relationships, with parliaments in Scotland and Wales, and more mooted for England. We already and always will have close cultural links with the other island. I believe leaving the ailing euro and re-entering the sterling zone would be in the island of Ireland's interests.

kidneyfan

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I think that current and historical conditions in both parts of the island render that opinion nonsensical.

Then you must never have travelled outside Europe.

Cavehill Red

kidneyfan wrote: »

Then you must never have travelled outside Europe.

Your conclusion is spectacularly incorrect.

gallag

The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is the future. A United ireland back within the UK, Ireland would have its own parliament just like wales and Scotland.

Cavehill Red

gallag wrote: »

The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is the future past.

Fixed your typo.

COYW

gallag wrote: »

The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is the future. A United ireland back within the UK, Ireland would have its own parliament just like wales and Scotland.

I agree Gallag. It is the only genuine compromise I can see. Whatever way things progress, even if a UI never happens, our links (trade and cultural) are going to get stronger and stronger with the United Kingdom. Given the way things are going in the world, I find it very comforting to know that our bond with the UK is stronger than ever. This country is a safer place with the British army so close to our shores. I firmly believe that.

kidneyfan

gallag wrote: »

The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is the future. A United ireland back within the UK, Ireland would have its own parliament just like wales and Scotland.

Ireland would have to have a rather higher status than Wales or Scotland. For example it might be appropriate for Dublin to become the diplomatic capital of the re United Kingdom and for the Supreme Court to be based in "Londonderry".

Only problem with this is that the only people who want it are a minority of northern Prods.

Nodin

COYW wrote: »

I agree Gallag. It is the only genuine compromise I can see. Whatever way things progress, even if a UI never happens, our links (trade and cultural) are going to get stronger and stronger with the United Kingdom. Given the way things are going in the world, I find it very comforting to know that our bond with the UK is stronger than ever. This country is a safer place with the British army so close to our shores. I firmly believe that.

...considering the hostility towards same across large parts of the globe, I'd suggest your belief needs review. Besides, the future of the country is far more linked with Europe - a step backwards into some bizarre union is not on any realistic horizon.

Godge

gallag wrote: »

The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland is the future. A United ireland back within the UK, Ireland would have its own parliament just like wales and Scotland.

If there was a preferendum across the two major islands, this would be the winning outcome.

I know that is hard for the die-hard nationalists to accept but the dream of a united Ireland is only a dream, a far-fetched dream.

the great purveyor of mediocrity

A United Ireland ?
A Referendum in order to make it so?
I would be voting "YES".
Cue the party of the century.
I'd say I would shed many tears. First time since I saw Michael Carruth collecting his Gold medal.......that I'll admit to anyway!
The English should have ended their occupation of the six counties a long time ago and make things right here. Personally I would forgive all immediately and feel that we could commence a real and genuine relationship with England.

Cavehill Red

We will never be able to commence a truly genuine relationship with Britain UNTIL they cease occupying a quarter of our national territory. That's the truth of it. Of course, they know that and would be happy to implement it. The sticking point remains the settler population's intransigence.

Cavehill Red

Godge wrote: »

If there was a preferendum across the two major islands, this would be the winning outcome.

On the contrary, every opinion poll taken in living memory indicates Britain wants OUT of Ireland, not further in.

Aughrim1691.

I would vote No. Ulster will stay within the Union for the foreseeable. Federalism is a big no also. I'd be voting to preserve a way of life for my people and that is as important as any line on a map. Voting for the land and the sacred place it has for all Ulster Protestants.

If people have aspirations for a centralized government, big government, fine. Not everyone agrees with that point of view.

The best introduction to astronomy is to think of the nightly heavens as a little lot of stars belonging to one's own homestead. - George Eliot

gallag

kidneyfan wrote: »

Ireland would have to have a rather higher status than Wales or Scotland. For example it might be appropriate for Dublin to become the diplomatic capital of the re United Kingdom and for the Supreme Court to be based in "Londonderry".

Only problem with this is that the only people who want it are a minority of northern Prods.

No one would have a higher status, four nation's all equal. Why do you believe ireland should have higher status?

gallag

the great purveyor of mediocrity wrote: »

A United Ireland ?
A Referendum in order to make it so?
I would be voting "YES".
Cue the party of the century.
I'd say I would shed many tears. First time since I saw Michael Carruth collecting his Gold medal.......that I'll admit to anyway!
The English should have ended their occupation of the six counties a long time ago and make things right here. Personally I would forgive all immediately and feel that we could commence a real and genuine relationship with England.

How can it be called an "English occupation" when the majority of people in N.Ireland are from the irish/Catholic/nationlist/Republican community but would still vote in favour of remaining part of the UK? Time to move on buddy. I say lets have a vote the same time as Scotland and have a stronger union at the end of it.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

How can it be called an "English occupation" when the majority of people in N.Ireland are from the irish/Catholic/nationlist/Republican community but would still vote in favour of remaining part of the UK? Time to move on buddy. I say lets have a vote the same time as Scotland and have a stronger union at the end of it.

Not one single nationalist or republican would vote to retain the union.
Plenty of catholics might, but not a single nationalist or republican.
I also love how you just "know" how people would vote. No need for a referendum, Gallag "knows."
British democracy in action.

Godge

Cavehill Red wrote: »

We will never be able to commence a truly genuine relationship with Britain UNTIL they cease occupying a quarter of our national territory. That's the truth of it. Of course, they know that and would be happy to implement it. The sticking point remains the settler population's intransigence.

And someone from England might say that they will never be able to commence a truly genuine relationship with the people of the South of Ireland until they renounce their independence and rejoin the United Kingdom.

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Not one single nationalist or republican would vote to retain the union.
Plenty of catholics might, but not a single nationalist or republican.
I also love how you just "know" how people would vote. No need for a referendum, Gallag "knows."
British democracy in action.

What about the 30% of sf voters that wish to retain the union? Why are sf dismissive of having a vote now?

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

And someone from England might say that they will never be able to commence a truly genuine relationship with the people of the South of Ireland until they renounce their independence and rejoin the United Kingdom.

I think it's time for Britain to get over its "bow down to us or we'll crush you" attitude. They're not the biggest bully in the play park any more.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

What about the 30% of sf voters that wish to retain the union? Why are sf dismissive of having a vote now?

Well hold on a second. I'm an SF voter, how come I was never asked.
Oh wait, you're referring to a small BBC poll with a loaded question.
Pffft. Seriously, your version of democracy is warped.

T runner

kidneyfan wrote: »

Ireland would have to have a rather higher status than Wales or Scotland. For example it might be appropriate for Dublin to become the diplomatic capital of the re United Kingdom and for the Supreme Court to be based in "Londonderry".

Only problem with this is that the only people who want it are a minority of northern Prods.

Northern Prods Do NOT want this. They were prepared to go to war with the British army over Irish Home Rule 100 years ago. If their particular area in NI loses Protestant control they vacate. Thats the whole problem of Ulster History since the plantation: A state promoted sectarian zero sum game. NI exists as a result of centuries Anti-Catholicism in Ulster on Fundamentalist and Social levels. They will not be a minority to a Catholic majority.
Remove that and the only barrier to a UI is the economic difficulties of switching sovereignty.

T runner

Aughrim1691. wrote: »

I would vote No. Ulster will stay within the Union for the foreseeable. Federalism is a big no also. I'd be voting to preserve a way of life for my people and that is as important as any line on a map. Voting for the land and the sacred place it has for all Ulster Protestants.

If people have aspirations for a centralized government, big government, fine. Not everyone agrees with that point of view.

The best introduction to astronomy is to think of the nightly heavens as a little lot of stars belonging to one's own homestead. - George Eliot

Do you not imagine this way of life would be very easily negotiated into any new state?

I agree though a way of life is more important than any country. I just think Protestants underestimate the amount of power and influence they would have in a UI. The business oppurtunities by being part of a larger local market alone must be mouthwatering.

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I think it's time for Britain to get over its "bow down to us or we'll crush you" attitude. They're not the biggest bully in the play park any more.

Lol this is sad, do you actually think like this?

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well hold on a second. I'm an SF voter, how come I was never asked.
Oh wait, you're referring to a small BBC poll with a loaded question.
Pffft. Seriously, your version of democracy is warped.

Thats how polls work, they cant ask everyone so they ask about 1000 people, I thought you would know this? Also, how was the question loaded? And would you agree sf seem to want the vote issue put on the back burner, why is that?

Fr Tod Umptious

Godge wrote: »

If there was a preferendum across the two major islands, this would be the winning outcome.

I know that is hard for the die-hard nationalists to accept but the dream of a united Ireland is only a dream, a far-fetched dream.

I am not a die hard nationalist and I do not believe in a United Ireland.

But I do be believe in the Republic of Ireland in it's current form and that is the way I would like to keep it.

So no thank you to a re-union with the UK

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

How can it be called an "English occupation" when the majority of people in N.Ireland are from the irish/Catholic/nationlist/Republican community but would still vote in favour of remaining part of the UK? Time to move on buddy. I say lets have a vote the same time as Scotland and have a stronger union at the end of it.

This is such funny spin on a poll by a historically biased branch of the BBC.
You are forgetting the question asked.
'Would you opt to stay in the UK if a poll was held tomorrow'

Spin is just that, spin.

We know what happened in the real election in Mid Ulster, what the BBC told us again and again was the current abiding concern of Unionism...the flag issue,(you know the one they where going to bring the North to a standstill over) didn't figure at all in the minds of the 'actual' electorate.

You need large supplies of salt to be consumed in pinches.

P_1

I would vote no.

Our country is too conservative to make the Northerners want to join us. Until we become a more liberal society there is little point to the exercise.

Aughrim1691.

T runner wrote: »

Do you not imagine this way of life would be very easily negotiated into any new state?

I agree though a way of life is more important than any country. I just think Protestants underestimate the amount of power and influence they would have in a UI. The business oppurtunities by being part of a larger local market alone must be mouthwatering.

I would never vote for it and the vast majority of Ulster Protestants would be the same because it goes against everything we are. It tries to set up a one identity/nationality. It sets up big government from Dublin over us, and it could harm our institutions.

Then you have the symbolism problem which is the Tri colour would be representing the whole Island. So any time the President or Taoiseach goes abroad, he would be represented under the Tri colour. Completely neglecting a very proud people in Ulster who do not associate themselves with that flag at all.

Also radicalism politics would finish. The likes of Sinn Fein and the DUP would be over. They would serve no other common purpose. You would have the elite politicians in the south telling us up here what to do because the majority down south would always win in a vote.

Bad government comes from too much government. You are looking to completely change the fabric of society in a position on the Island which is just different from the rest and I think that should be accepted.

The ironic thing is Republicans talk about radical politics but a United Ireland is not radical in the sense that it would be elitist more than ever. The idea that you could form a Socialist Irish Republic with the center of it being controlled from Dublin is not realistic and would not happen.

And then you have the police. Do you disband the Garda? Are you going to merge the Garda with the PSNI? Would Garda be policing Protestant areas given the potential hostility?

National flag: The national flag is defined as "the tricolour of green, white and orange" (Article 7).

How would you go about changing that?

Happyman42

Aughrim1691. wrote: »

I would never vote for it and the vast majority of Ulster Protestants would be the same because it goes against everything we are. It tries to set up a one identity/nationality. It sets up big government from Dublin over us, and it could harm our institutions.

Then you have the symbolism problem which is the Tri colour would be representing the whole Island. So any time the President or Taoiseach goes abroad, he would be represented under the Tri colour. Completely neglecting a very proud people in Ulster who do not associate themselves with that flag at all.

Also radicalism politics would finish. The likes of Sinn Fein and the DUP would be over. They would serve no other common purpose. You would have the elite politicians in the south telling us up here what to do because the majority down south would always win in a vote.

Bad government comes from too much government. You are looking to completely change the fabric of society in a position on the Island which is just different from the rest and I think that should be accepted.

The ironic thing is Republicans talk about radical politics but a United Ireland is not radical in the sense that it would be elitist more than ever. The idea that you could form a Socialist Irish Republic with the center of it being controlled from Dublin is not realistic and would not happen.

And then you have the police. Do you disband the Garda? Are you going to merge the Garda with the PSNI? Would Garda be policing Protestant areas given the potential hostility?

National flag: The national flag is defined as "the tricolour of green, white and orange" (Article 7).

How would you go about changing that?

Could anything be worse than the last 50 odd years of 'government' in N.I.?

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could anything be worse than the last 50 odd years of 'government' in N.I.?

Yes, the last five years of government in the Republic of ireland.

Aughrim1691.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could anything be worse than the last 50 odd years of 'government' in N.I.?

Absolutely. I didn't even bring up the economy. What currency would this United Ireland use? You want to use another countries currency? That isn't independence, true independence.

A big reason why the Scottish referendum is a joke and will get close to a yes vote.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

Yes, the last five years of government in the Republic of ireland.

What's the casulty figures for those 5 years again?
Seems to me the North only got to be a better place to live since the Irish government got involved.

T runner

Aughrim1691. wrote: »

I would never vote for it and the vast majority of Ulster Protestants would be the same because it goes against everything we are. It tries to set up a one identity/nationality. It sets up big government from Dublin over us, and it could harm our institutions.

Then you have the symbolism problem which is the Tri colour would be representing the whole Island. So any time the President or Taoiseach goes abroad, he would be represented under the Tri colour. Completely neglecting a very proud people in Ulster who do not associate themselves with that flag at all.

Also radicalism politics would finish. The likes of Sinn Fein and the DUP would be over. They would serve no other common purpose. You would have the elite politicians in the south telling us up here what to do because the majority down south would always win in a vote.

Bad government comes from too much government. You are looking to completely change the fabric of society in a position on the Island which is just different from the rest and I think that should be accepted.

The ironic thing is Republicans talk about radical politics but a United Ireland is not radical in the sense that it would be elitist more than ever. The idea that you could form a Socialist Irish Republic with the center of it being controlled from Dublin is not realistic and would not happen.

And then you have the police. Do you disband the Garda? Are you going to merge the Garda with the PSNI? Would Garda be policing Protestant areas given the potential hostility?

National flag: The national flag is defined as "the tricolour of green, white and orange" (Article 7).

How would you go about changing that?

The flag issue isn't that big for most people. And as much as southerners can have difficulty understanding Northern Protestant identity the opposite is also true: we identity with being Islanders, that's who we are. It doesn't matter what flag flies over public buildings or none. Our identity does not change.

Your identity is more complex: i saw some guy interviewed at the flag protests in Belfast who said that it was another erosion of identity. And he was telling the truth. He then said "imagine how it would feel if someone restricted the tricolour...etc.". Its easy to imagine, and in all honesty we wouldn't give a fiddlers.... He assumed our identity is a mirror image of his..its not. Our identity is primarily a geographical one, not necessarily a political one.

An all Island state would be a completely different and new state to either existing state and crucially would be agreed.

I'm not going to guess what any agreement might entail but id imagine:
Keeping assembly and PSNI. So no complete change to Institutions and to the fabric of current society in NI. No change except that you have a lot more say in the National Parliament.
Sectarian politics is long gone down south. But a temporary agreement could be accommodated where 1 of the 2 main Unionist parties must be part of any ruling coalition.
New state=new flag.
Dual citizenship for people in NI if they choose.
A mega referendum or new constitution required.

These are off the top of my head, but they would be agreed and that is key. I think Ulster Protestant culture should be protected. The fact is that Protestants south of the border have been treated very well since partition (as it was in our interest to do). They have maintained their elite position pre-partition almost fully intact. Dont believe me, just ask them.

T runner

P_1 wrote: »

I would vote no.

Our country is too conservative to make the Northerners want to join us. Until we become a more liberal society there is little point to the exercise.

The liberals up there are kept down too. Maybe a new country would have to have such a broad base of agreement that liberalism and radicalism might flourish.

kidneyfan

Why not an independent 7 county Ulster (we'll take Donegal off your hands). Nice Defend-able border. Or why not just cut Northern Ireland into a patchwork that is mixed between the UK and the Republic. Seriously there are towns in holland and belgium that are cut up like mad between the two countries.

Have the Diamond in the UK and the Short Strand in the republic.

What is the problem. OK in one way it intensifies sectarian division. But in another we can all just forget about it.

What does it matter to someone in Cork if most of Coleraine is in the UK?