Pragmatic way forward for NI

sink

I myself am Irish of mixed heritage (Irish protestant, Irish catholic and Scottish) and I have never been a nationalist. I have been happy with the status quo of the past 2 decades and to let sleeping dogs lie. I have never sought a United Ireland but for the first time in my life I can see that as a true possibility.

With the UK leaving the EU the border between north and south Ireland will become an external EU border, how that will operate in practice is an open matter. In the near future Scotland will break apart the UK. The heritage of the unionist and protestant people of Northern Ireland is actually Scottish. This will leave Northern Ireland bizarrely tethered to Wales and England. Unionists will be supporting a Union which no longer exists and their brethren have already left.

Northern Ireland will be reliant upon the government of England and Wales for financial and political support, but they will not find much of either. England and Wales are going to preoccupied with their separation first from the EU and then from Scotland and will be looking after their own interests first. They will not give much thought to Northern Ireland and its southern border. The government of England and Wales is also going to be a lot more right wing with the absence of the left leaning people of Scotland. It will be far less willing to fund Northern Ireland's massive civil service. Northern Ireland is also going to be losing a lot of EU structural funding and CAP payments.

For a century Irish republicans in the cause of a united Ireland have been appealing to the Irish identity of those in Northern Ireland, some of whom were and are openly hostile to that identity and many more simply don't share that identity. The complacent people of NI were happy with the status quo as it was the most pragmatic. They certainly didn't support the violent terrorists in their nationalistic fervour.

The complacent people of Northern Ireland are no longer going to be for the status quo, because the status quo will no longer exist. Pragmatically, the best way forward for Northern Ireland may well be to spit from England and Wales, either reunifying with Ireland or joining the EU as a independent state.

Ironically pragmatism not nationalism may lead to a United Ireland. All I hope is that it does not end in violence.

Interesting times ahead.

murphaph

Yeah all bets are off now with respect to the future make up of the UK. The point about pragmatism is well made but people in the Republic can be equally as pragmatic and may not like the idea of the perfect storm of an independent Scotland in the EU (they'd be very tough competition for us and could beat us at our own game) and also having to support the six counties which have an immature private sector economy and rely extensively as you highlight on civil service jobs servicing the British mainland.

I fear NI could become the bastard child nobody wants. Independence within the EU doesn't seem like a real option for me given the immature state of the private sector in NI. Independent states need to be able to more or less cover their costs and NI doesn't by quite a long way.

Inquitus

Northern Ireland leaving the Union and becoming a stand alone country is the only way I could see that playing out, the 6 counties joining the republic isn't happening in the next 10 years anyways.

maxwell smart

Inquitus wrote: »

Northern Ireland leaving the Union and becoming a stand alone country is the only way I could see that playing out, the 6 counties joining the republic isn't happening in the next 10 years anyways.

Agreed.

While there may well be a majority of people who like the romantic idea of a 32 county state, I can't see a majority in the Republic wanting a united Ireland when they take the economic factors into consideration.

shane9689

No one has thought of this, but why not have a NI/scotland Union? with perhaps some influence from the REP. if needed? i mean NI and Scotland are in the same boat, and as you said, scotland is their "homeland". although the scots mighten like it haha

murphaph

shane9689 wrote: »

No one has thought of this, but why not have a NI/scotland Union? with perhaps some influence from the REP. if needed? i mean NI and Scotland are in the same boat, and as you said, scotland is their "homeland". although the scots mighten like it haha

This just won't happen. Scots would never go for it. There isn't even the emotional attachment element there with them a united Ireland might evoke in people in the Republic.

The most likely scenario for the next decade or two is for NI to remain in whatever remains of the UK.

Fr Tod Umptious

I think people are over stating the case for a Scottish breakaway.

They voted in 2014 to stay on the union, knowing full well that an EU referendum was coming down the line.

They ate not going to get an easy hearing from London on a 2nd independence referendum, and why should they.

So the union as we know it is safe for a good while yet.

sink

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think people are over stating the case for a Scottish breakaway.

They voted in 2014 to stay on the union, knowing full well that an EU referendum was coming down the line.

They ate not going to get an easy hearing from London on a 2nd independence referendum, and why should they.

So the union as we know it is safe for a good while yet.

The Westminster government is going to be in turmoil for years. The brexit camps promises are impossible to fulfil, they are already back pedalling. There won't be a government strong enough to resist the calls for another referendum on independence.

Nicola Sturgen the first minister of Scotland is already meeting with EU diplomats to discuss options for their continued EU membership. Unlike the last referendum, where EU governments were poring cold water on the idea of an independent Scotland joining the EU quickly, they will now hand it to them on a plate.

The worries about Scotland keeping the pound sterling are already being tested by the plummet in its value. In the last campaign it was seen as the more stable currency over the euro. We have two years of negotiation on the exit of the UK to look forward to, with an unstable government and a likely recession thrown into the mix. During this time the pound is going to be down and up like a yo-yo, eventually settling in a few years a lot lower than it is today.

A Scottish referendum is almost inevitable, and a Yes is highly likely.

macplaxton

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

They voted in 2014 to stay on the union, knowing full well that an EU referendum was coming down the line.

Quite the opposite.

The 2015 UK General Election hadn't happened and it was only the exit poll after 10pm that was pointing to a narrow Tory majority. Most people had it down as a hung parliament.

So to suggest "no" voters knew full well that a EU ref was coming down the line is pure bunkum.

mistermouse

Very few are actually considering what the EU will do next. There is the possibility that without the UK the EU will look initially at some form of reform or something dressed up as reform, but without the UK who have always been aloof to the idea, the EU may well push now for much further integration; while also looking to contain the backlash that the refugee crisis has generated.

If the EU handled this well it may end up that Northern Ireland, (and perhaps Scotland) would not actually be re-united with the Republic but all three become part of an EU superstate.

I am sure their are EU politicians that will see an advantage to having the UK leave to allow them get on with their own European vision. It may be more palatable for unionists also to be more integrated in a European superstate than a united Ireland

Regardless, Ireland will have lost an ally in Europe with the UK exiting and perhaps should have stood more with them in demanding EU reform when the UK were making their deal. We are certainly weaker in the grand scheme of things without the UK as we had much more in common with them than the continent.

I hope the EU are pragmatic on how they deal with the UK and the relationship between Ireland and the UK but I doubt it - I still think the UK will come out of this alright but different in the long term. there will be many businesses that have clout who will ensure some deal is done with the UK

shane9689

The scottish parliment has been highly entertaining these past few days...even Mikey D. dropped by yesterday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7jLeBDxxw

KingBrian2

We have to consider the gains already made. I'm exclusively talking about Scotland here although it could encompass all the regional Assembles. Westminster had many who opposed granting powers to these chambers. Britain now disconnected from Brussels might reinvigorate those that want get this a Unified British parliament. Take note the Scots always were the partners of England and like us placed great value in having their own parliament.

Sam Russell

I think the NI approach should look for Autonomous Region status within the Republic. They would retain Stormont as is, with the Republic Government providing the functions of the Westminister Government. It would need the EU to give huge regional funds to make up for the loss in UK payments.

Doable? I doubt it, but there is no way NI could survive as an independent country in the EU, and they would be a huge burden on Scotland (and us).

twinytwo

sink wrote: »

The Westminster government is going to be in turmoil for years. The brexit camps promises are impossible to fulfil, they are already back pedalling. There won't be a government strong enough to resist the calls for another referendum on independence.

Nicola Sturgen the first minister of Scotland is already meeting with EU diplomats to discuss options for their continued EU membership. Unlike the last referendum, where EU governments were poring cold water on the idea of an independent Scotland joining the EU quickly, they will now hand it to them on a plate.

The worries about Scotland keeping the pound sterling are already being tested by the plummet in its value. In the last campaign it was seen as the more stable currency over the euro. We have two years of negotiation on the exit of the UK to look forward to, with an unstable government and a likely recession thrown into the mix. During this time the pound is going to be down and up like a yo-yo, eventually settling in a few years a lot lower than it is today.

A Scottish referendum is almost inevitable, and a Yes is highly likely.

Except... and this is a big except.

The EU while cannot technically prevent Scotland from breaking from the UK, will never..ever.. allow Scotland to join the EU as an independent country.

1. Spain will block this till the end of time

2. France has already said no

3. EU cant let it happen due to future potential start ups looking for independence.

Secondly even if it was allowed, Scotland would go to the back of queue and your looking at 10+ years before they are accepted into EU (where they can join us in having no real say in anything)... that is a long time out in the cold. Sturgen for all her talk, doesn't really understand the consequences of separation from the UK... yes its bad at the moment... but there are a lot more rungs on the ladder to slip down.

twinytwo

mistermouse wrote: »

Very few are actually considering what the EU will do next. There is the possibility that without the UK the EU will look initially at some form of reform or something dressed up as reform, but without the UK who have always been aloof to the idea, the EU may well push now for much further integration; while also looking to contain the backlash that the refugee crisis has generated.

If the EU handled this well it may end up that Northern Ireland, (and perhaps Scotland) would not actually be re-united with the Republic but all three become part of an EU superstate.

I am sure their are EU politicians that will see an advantage to having the UK leave to allow them get on with their own European vision. It may be more palatable for unionists also to be more integrated in a European superstate than a united Ireland

Regardless, Ireland will have lost an ally in Europe with the UK exiting and perhaps should have stood more with them in demanding EU reform when the UK were making their deal. We are certainly weaker in the grand scheme of things without the UK as we had much more in common with them than the continent.

I hope the EU are pragmatic on how they deal with the UK and the relationship between Ireland and the UK but I doubt it - I still think the UK will come out of this alright but different in the long term. there will be many businesses that have clout who will ensure some deal is done with the UK

Personally I think the UK will never leave... the Article 50 will never be invoked or some reason will be given to over rule the vote... Everyone is running from the PM position now... because whoever takes it will be committing political suicide.

Fr Tod Umptious

twinytwo wrote: »

Except... and this is a big except.

The EU while cannot technically prevent Scotland from breaking from the UK, will never..ever.. allow Scotland to join the EU as an independent country.

1. Spain will block this till the end of time

2. France has already said no

3. EU cant let it happen due to future potential start ups looking for independence.

Secondly even if it was allowed, Scotland would go to the back of queue and your looking at 10+ years before they are accepted into EU (where they can join us in having no real say in anything)... that is a long time out in the cold. Sturgen for all her talk, doesn't really understand the consequences of separation from the UK... yes its bad at the moment... but there are a lot more rungs on the ladder to slip down.

There are a lot among the fans of Scottish independence who think that the above would not be applicable if Scotland were independent and the rest of the UK was out of the EU.

In a post Brexit world they think that the EU would be willing to do a lot more to salvage some part of the UK, i.e. an independent Scotland.

I don't think that I'd the case I think Scotland would still face the same entry problems as above.

IrishTrajan

On the topic of the "unpalatable cost" of unification;

Unification with the North is not necessarily a complete dream, it would have some feasibility depending on how we plan on funding it.

By recent estimates (I refer to a study whose name I cannot remember), unification would take 8 years to harmonise our economies (this brining the North to our level of per capita income, and a net gain of 3000[?] to us in the Republic).

Northern Ireland's current deficit is, 10- 12bn?

The Republic is currently the fourth largest foreign holder of US debt ($257.9bn, only some 600 million off being the third largest holder).

Assuming Northern Ireland requires funding of 80- 96bn, we could potentially simply sell off those US debt holdings to third parties or allow them to mature, and use this funding to plug the gap.

It would not require massive tax hikes, it would not see us necessarily implode under bond yields as we did in 2008.

It may see our credit rating go down and our net position worsen as a debtor, but I do believe that to be worthwhile.

It may not even necessarily reach 80bn in cost, as Northern Ireland would profit immediately with having a lower value currency (allowing exports to thrive), having easier trade with the rest of the country, and would allow for them to benefit from our low tax rate to attract FDI (many of whom may shift from London to Belfast or Dublin).

Overall, the "infeasibility" of unification may not be that infeasible after all.

K-9

I always assumed that US debt figure was in large part down to multinationals.

It's hard to see what long term future there is atm, the DUP aren't going to be amenable to unification any time soon and it isn't really about money to them, it's the union with the UK as an ideology, their support for Brexit an example.

Independence maybe while keeping links to the pound but still leaves the financial deficit.

Any change is probably well into the future as N.I. is only getting opposition politics now with both the SDLP and UUP on the other side. How responsibly they act will be interesting to see especially if the UUP go further to the right to compete with the DUP

eire4

IrishTrajan wrote: »

On the topic of the "unpalatable cost" of unification;

Unification with the North is not necessarily a complete dream, it would have some feasibility depending on how we plan on funding it.

By recent estimates (I refer to a study whose name I cannot remember), unification would take 8 years to harmonise our economies (this brining the North to our level of per capita income, and a net gain of 3000[?] to us in the Republic).

Northern Ireland's current deficit is, 10- 12bn?

The Republic is currently the fourth largest foreign holder of US debt ($257.9bn, only some 600 million off being the third largest holder).

Assuming Northern Ireland requires funding of 80- 96bn, we could potentially simply sell off those US debt holdings to third parties or allow them to mature, and use this funding to plug the gap.

It would not require massive tax hikes, it would not see us necessarily implode under bond yields as we did in 2008.

It may see our credit rating go down and our net position worsen as a debtor, but I do believe that to be worthwhile.

It may not even necessarily reach 80bn in cost, as Northern Ireland would profit immediately with having a lower value currency (allowing exports to thrive), having easier trade with the rest of the country, and would allow for them to benefit from our low tax rate to attract FDI (many of whom may shift from London to Belfast or Dublin).

Overall, the "infeasibility" of unification may not be that infeasible after all.

Inetresting observation regards the US debt holdings. Certainly there is no question that the Brexit vote completely changes the picture. Nothing is going to happen overnight. But I think we have seen the begining of the break up of the UK as currently madeup. Scotland will more then likely call and win a second independence referendum while looking at things in a pragmatic way then that very well may put a united Ireland firmly on the agenda next.

Snickers Man

The Break Up of the UK is not going to happen any time soon. The irony is that the best chance for Scotland to have greater independence was when all of Great Britain (and Ireland) was part of the EU. They blew that opportunity in their referendum and they ain't going to get another chance.

Not without a lot of blood.

For a start, there is a vehement strain in Scotland which is wholly opposed to independence. Check out Youtube for the various renditions of "Ye can stick yer indepayndance up yer arse!" This is the "Rangers element" motivated not by economic or strategic considerations but visceral identity politics.

The economic case for Scottish independence will fluctuate, depending on such factors as the price of oil, the strength (or weakness) of sterling v the euro, the likely ability of an independent Scotland attracting inward foreign investment etc Economic improvement is unlikely to be a clinching argument.

And then there is the strategic element. Will a British government in London, newly liberated from the constraints of the EU tolerate an independent Scottish state on its border as it forges a new place for itself in the world? It was prepared to overspend in both blood and treasure to keep Northern Ireland in the UK, partly indeed largely for strategic reasons; it is hardly likely to let Scotland go just like that.

Then there are irritating little practicalities like the fact that the UK is one of the still very few nuclear-armed powers in the world. So in the event of Scottish independence who owns the nuclear weapons warehouse at Coulport, or the submarines designed to deliver those weapons which are headquartered in Faslane, or the Rosyth dockyards? Scotland? Or Britain?

As a very recent precedent to what might be expected look at how the Russians reacted when Ukraine started tearing itself apart over whether it was closer to Berlin than Moscow. "Fine," they said. "But if you think you are getting our only warm-water naval base which just happens to be in Sevastopol in the Crimea you can bloody well think again." And so the Crimea is now safely in Russian hands while the Ukrainians can kick as many lumps out of themselves as they like.

This is not conspiracy theory; this is just power politics.

I think at a strategic level Brexit has potential to be a disaster. Whether Scotland is granted independence or not, there is a strong sentiment in the country in favour and when that is rejected there will be resentment. There will also be other outside interests (Russia, US, EU) who will take a keen interest in such a glaring internal weakness in the UK.

And then there is Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, which smooths the rough edges of national boundaries by essentially copper fastening the notion that people in Northern Ireland can be either Irish OR British was only made possible by both states being EU members. Now that is no longer the case, the whole basis has been undermined.

I fear there will be blood. Much of it British. But a lot of it Irish too. And it will be no consolation to bear in mind that it will be largely the stupid Brits' fault.

Del.Monte

Good post Snickers Man and thoughtful too. In the unlikely event of Scottish independence could the UK relocate its submarine fleet to Belfast? This could be in return for upping/maintaining the subvention from Westminster. Now, that would really be throwing the cat among the pigeons.

Snickers Man

Del.Monte wrote: »

Now, that would really be throwing the cat among the pigeons.

Cat among pigeons.
From frying pan into fire.

Choose whichever metaphor you like.

We must remain hopeful that with a bit of common sense and some proper sensitivity to people's hopes and fears we (us, the nordies, the Scots, the rest of Britain) can sort out some modus vivendi but without being unnecessarily alarmist, we are in a potentially very dangerous situation.

The Brits want to control immigration. OK, they want to reinstitute border checks. Fine. But then as neither they nor we are part of the Schengen agreement they already have those checks in place. The only difference now is that they can start turning away Poles, Rumanians, Bulgarians etc

We of course, although we too have retained passport controls with the rest of Europe while having a "mini-Schengen" situation of our own wrt the UK, cannot turn away Poles and Rumanians. We have to let them in. It's somebody ELSE's job to keep them out of the UK. How would Britain best police that? By reconstituting a "Hard Border" between ROI and NI? Or a really hard border between Ireland and what they're pleased to call "the mainland" ?

The former option, while ruinous to the improved economic and social collaboration between north and south will piss off the nationalists; the latter will horrify those who think that Northern Ireland is "as British as Finchley". But it is the more expedient way of controlling immigration into Great Britain. So "Free Britain" could go for it, but Oh the bad feelings!

So much for Eastern Europeans. As for Asians and Africans, nothing has changed. I say that but in fact you don't have to be too much of a conspiracy theorist to wonder how Brexit Britain's relations with its Commonwealth Nations will change now they are no longer constrained by Brussels.

Britain can't feed itself. That's a fact. It is a net importer of food. Much of the whinging about the CAP derives from the fact that Britain is "paying too much" for its dietary staples. It will now be free to resume food imports from New Zealand, Kenya, India, South Africa et al subject only to its own restrictions not Europe's. Perhaps all that nanny state food labelling and traceability stuff will go or at least be greatly diminished.

Just two implications of this (there are many more)
1) Invocation of the "we're all part of the one great Commonwealth family together so let's be nice to one another" might entail improved access rights to Britain of Commonwealth people as well as their products. It almost goes without saying. So bye bye Wladislaw and Igor, allow Mohammed and Sanjay. Is that what UKIP wanted? I only ask.

2) The implications for Ireland's agri business are huge. Faced with potentially cheaper, and almost certainly less tightly regulated food competition from such sources we will either have to work much harder to retain "premium brand" identity at the top end of the British food market, which we only do in some sectors at the moment, or we will be involved in a "race to the bottom". Smuggling across the border, whether it is a hard or a soft one, will become endemic.

"Get your loverly Irish steaks hand sourced from Irish farms" (Translation: some heifer reared on a fly-blown savannah somewhere in Africa, pumped full of God knows what, riddled with everything from bovine TB to CJD, slaughtered with a blunt knife, transported in a truck with barely functioning refrigeration to a ship bound for Britain, sneaked over the border and stamped with only the finest "Bord Bia approved" labels in an ethically managed --you're a Good Man Charlie Brown -- meat plant somewhere in Monaghan. )

Arguments between the agri authorites in all parts of these islands will ensue as to who is not regulating their side of the border properly. There will be a sound expedient self-interested economic case for having as strict regulations on foodstuffs coming into the island of Ireland as a whole as there are currently. This would be a force acting towards greater separation between Ireland (the island) and Britain. Of course this will run directly contrary to the emotions and identity of our Loyal Brethern up north. Leading to increased fear and tension.

And we thought we were putting all that crap behind us!

Jawgap

IrishTrajan wrote: »

......

The Republic is currently the fourth largest foreign holder of US debt ($257.9bn, only some 600 million off being the third largest holder).

.....

I think, to be technically correct, the debt is held here rather than held by the Irish state - in summary, I don't think the Yanks owe is a quarter of a trillion bucks!!!

I also think the pragmatic forward with NI is for there to be a period of economic convergence, which, I concede, is made more difficult and less likely with 'Brexit.'

Snickers Man

James Brokenshire becomes N Ireland secretary

I know the Mods don't like smart-alecky comments on trivial matters so I'll refrain but damn it's hard :D

On the plus side, he was a Remain voter so he might have a more sympathetic outlook on what is needed for his area of responsibility.

Don't know much about him but he couldn't be any worse than his predecessor.

Could he?

Del.Monte

The manufacturers of barbed wire, concrete, landmines etc. must be licking their lips - in prospect a hard border between NI and the Republic, a hard border between England and Scotland and Trump's border wall with Mexico.

Sam Russell

I think if Scotland were given another shot at independence and actually voted for it, NI would then be in a difficult position - caught between two EU states. It would be better for them to join the republic, but could get good terms from the Rest of UK and the EU (I would hope). If they were left keep Stormont and their current powers, with the EU kicking in a good dollop of regional aid, some extra agriculture fund and environmental funding, with the Westminster crowd phasing out current funding over, say, twenty years, it could work out well for them.

Of course, there are some up thee who could not see the good in that, even if they got a lot more than they ever had.

KingBrian2

Del.Monte wrote: »

The manufacturers of barbed wire, concrete, landmines etc. must be licking their lips - in prospect a hard border between NI and the Republic, a hard border between England and Scotland and Trump's border wall with Mexico.

I doubt a hard border will resolve the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland and resistance to authority.

IrishTrajan

IrishTrajan wrote: »

On the topic of the "unpalatable cost" of unification;

Unification with the North is not necessarily a complete dream, it would have some feasibility depending on how we plan on funding it.

By recent estimates (I refer to a study whose name I cannot remember), unification would take 8 years to harmonise our economies (this brining the North to our level of per capita income, and a net gain of 3000[?] to us in the Republic).

Northern Ireland's current deficit is, 10- 12bn?

The Republic is currently the fourth largest foreign holder of US debt ($257.9bn, only some 600 million off being the third largest holder).

Assuming Northern Ireland requires funding of 80- 96bn, we could potentially simply sell off those US debt holdings to third parties or allow them to mature, and use this funding to plug the gap.

It would not require massive tax hikes, it would not see us necessarily implode under bond yields as we did in 2008.

It may see our credit rating go down and our net position worsen as a debtor, but I do believe that to be worthwhile.

It may not even necessarily reach 80bn in cost, as Northern Ireland would profit immediately with having a lower value currency (allowing exports to thrive), having easier trade with the rest of the country, and would allow for them to benefit from our low tax rate to attract FDI (many of whom may shift from London to Belfast or Dublin).

Overall, the "infeasibility" of unification may not be that infeasible after all.

ah come on. Think about this for a second.

If the Irish Government had that asset, why would it have such an enormous National Debt of its own which it has to service annually?

Why would it not just cancel one out with the other?

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think if Scotland were given another shot at independence and actually voted for it, NI would then be in a difficult position - caught between two EU states. It would be better for them to join the republic, but could get good terms from the Rest of UK and the EU (I would hope). If they were left keep Stormont and their current powers, with the EU kicking in a good dollop of regional aid, some extra agriculture fund and environmental funding, with the Westminster crowd phasing out current funding over, say, twenty years, it could work out well for them.

Of course, there are some up thee who could not see the good in that, even if they got a lot more than they ever had.

There is no doubt about it if Scotland do vote for independence that will put major pressure on Stormont. Clearly Nicloa Sturgeon is making sure she has her EU ducks in a row first judging by her recent visits to Brussels. But assuming she gets the assurances she wants from Brussels the opinion polls are currently favouring Scottish independence which is not a major surprise really given the SNP's performances in the 2 elections held since the 2014 independence referendum.

murphaph

eire4 wrote: »

There is no doubt about it if Scotland do vote for independence that will put major pressure on Stormont. Clearly Nicloa Sturgeon is making sure she has her EU ducks in a row first judging by her recent visits to Brussels. But assuming she gets the assurances she wants from Brussels the opinion polls are currently favouring Scottish independence which is not a major surprise really given the SNP's performances in the 2 elections held since the 2014 independence referendum.

I don't think she'll get any assurances from Spain or France. Italy also has a separatist movement it might not like to encourage. Even Bavaria might like to cede from Germany if they see everyone else getting in on the act.

eire4

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think she'll get any assurances from Spain or France. Italy also has a separatist movement it might not like to encourage. Even Bavaria might like to cede from Germany if they see everyone else getting in on the act.

Time will tell. I think she will and that if it comes down to it Scotland will be accepted into the EU as an independent country.

Jawgap

eire4 wrote: »

Time will tell. I think she will and that if it comes down to it Scotland will be accepted into the EU as an independent country.

I think Scotland could attain membership of the EU very quickly after independence. They already have the corpus of laws in place and Sturgeon is clearly working hard to make sure that option is available and the path to it is kept politically smooth.

The only wrinkles are Sterling (they would likely be forced to give it up in favour of the Euro or at least would have to commit to same within a finite period) and trade (the vast bulk of their exports go south (any kind of mildly punitive or retributive EU/UK trade deal would have an adverse impact on an independent Scotland).

The interesting thing would be what then for NI given their connection to the Union is predicated on their historic link with Scotland?

Calina

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think she'll get any assurances from Spain or France. Italy also has a separatist movement it might not like to encourage. Even Bavaria might like to cede from Germany if they see everyone else getting in on the act.

The difference, in this case, and now, is that rUK wishes to exit the EU. This is not true for Italy, Spain, France (despite Marine Le Pen) or Germany. For all that, it's worth noting that the German Lander have significantly more autonomy than tends to be understood in the UK and Ireland (although I assume you know that).

The prize which they don't want to release is independence while mothership remains within the EU. The fact that rUK has voted out of the EU changes that dynamic a lot and I suspect, it changes the discussion that Sturgeon needs to have. Spain can point to England not acting in Scotland's interests by exiting while pointing out that Spain will not do this to Catalunya.

Not only that, despite a likely need for some wealth transfers at the outset for Scotland, the point is likely that rUK becomes immensely weakened if the top is lopped off it, and if also they lose financial passporting. It has the benefit of making EU exit even less palatable in the long term to would be exit campaigns elsewhere. You can already see this in Finland where the poll figures have changed a lot and the True Finns are having to regroup in terms of trying to campaign for an exit ballot in Finland.

There are a lot of people claiming the question was settled in 2014 and it was, in 2014. But things have changed considerably in 2016 and the answers to that question are likely to be different. You've to remember that one of the selling points of continued unity in 2014 was retention of EU membership and that is now completely out unless Theresa May accomplishes the political Houdini act of a generation.

mitchconnor16

eire4 wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think she'll get any assurances from Spain or France. Italy also has a separatist movement it might not like to encourage. Even Bavaria might like to cede from Germany if they see everyone else getting in on the act.

Time will tell. I think she will and that if it comes down to it Scotland will be accepted into the EU as an independent country.

I idea of Scotland leaving the UK is probably more unattractive than ever. They'll have an even smaller say in Europe than they currently have in the UK. Now tell me how that is 'independence'?

eire4

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

I idea of Scotland leaving the UK is probably more unattractive than ever. They'll have an even smaller say in Europe than they currently have in the UK. Now tell me how that is 'independence'?

Because they would have a government that they actually elect and represents their leanings rather then one from London which is pretty much the opposite of how most Scots vote.

getzls

Inquitus wrote: »

Northern Ireland leaving the Union and becoming a stand alone country is the only way I could see that playing out, the 6 counties joining the republic isn't happening in the next 10 years anyways.

That's not going to happen.
And do you know why?
The IRA.
They would return to violence.
Don't believe they have gone away, you know

FrancieBrady

getzls wrote: »

That's not going to happen.
And do you know why?
The IRA.
They would return to violence.
Don't believe they have gone away, you know

There are no guarantees that violence is gone from NI.
One of the biggests posited rejections of even a debate on a UI is that it will prod the sleeping Loyalists into violence so terrifying it will halt progress.

We know from history that if you allow one side to visit oppressive violence on the other then the lid comes off the whole thing.

Any change in the status of NI has to be accompanied by those responsible for law and order (both governments) administering even handed justice. (something that plainly didn't happen before)

Eamondomc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are no guarantees that violence is gone from NI.
One of the biggests posited rejections of even a debate on a UI is that it will prod the sleeping Loyalists into violence so terrifying it will halt progress.

We know from history that if you allow one side to visit oppressive violence on the other then the lid comes off the whole thing.

Any change in the status of NI has to be accompanied by those responsible for law and order (both governments) administering even handed justice. (something that plainly didn't happen before)

Was "prod" the sleeping loyalists intentional?

As for the "violence so terrifying", what makes it more terrifying than what was there before, was the violence before not terrifying?

FrancieBrady

Eamondomc wrote: »

Was "prod" the sleeping loyalists intentional?

As for the "violence so terrifying", what makes it more terrifying than what was there before, was the violence before not terrifying?

I was talking about those on here who claim there would be progess halting violence from Loyalism/Unionism.

All violence is terrifying, except it seems (to those I am referring to) the ongoing stuff (bombs under cars in Antrim this week etc) that needs 'progress' to stamp out completely. They seem quite happy with a certain level of violence.

*and no, is the answer to your first question.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was talking about those on here who claim there would be progess halting violence from Loyalism/Unionism.
.

Link?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All violence is terrifying, except it seems (to those I am referring to) the ongoing stuff (bombs under cars in Antrim this week etc) that needs 'progress' to stamp out completely. They seem quite happy with a certain level of violence.

*and no, is the answer to your first question.

There is a certain level of violence in every society.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0804/806897-dublin-shooting/

Shootings in Dublin.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0804/806826-kerry-robbery/

Armed robbery in Kerry.

Northern Ireland is as safe a place to live as anywhere else and certainly safer than at any time in the last 50 years.

What's even better is that progress is being made on some of the Northern Ireland-linked crimes of the last half-century.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0804/807013-denis-donaldson/

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0805/807192-kingsmill/

Claims of an imminent return to violence are generally hyperbole as we have been hearing them for a few years now.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Link?

A link for what? Somebody suggesting that an upsurge in violence is a reason for not debating a possible UI?
It's been said many many times.

There is a certain level of violence in every society.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0804/806897-dublin-shooting/

Shootings in Dublin.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0804/806826-kerry-robbery/

Armed robbery in Kerry.

Northern Ireland is as safe a place to live as anywhere else and certainly safer than at any time in the last 50 years.

What's even better is that progress is being made on some of the Northern Ireland-linked crimes of the last half-century.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0804/807013-denis-donaldson/

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0805/807192-kingsmill/

Claims of an imminent return to violence are generally hyperbole as we have been hearing them for a few years now.

There is still (and always will be) political violence in NI and it has a root cause.
A pragmatic way forward is to recognise that that violence is happening (and can escalate at any time as it has in the past)and the goal of peace has not been reached, and to continue to work at removing the cause of the violence.
That is what I as a republican committed to doing when I voted for the GFA. Which legitimised my aspirations btw.
Anyone, lasily, accepting the status quo as a job done, is part of a continuing and cyclical problem.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is still (and always will be) political violence in NI and it has a root cause.
A pragmatic way forward is to recognise that that violence is happening (and can escalate at any time as it has in the past)and the goal of peace has not been reached, and to continue to work at removing the cause of the violence.
That is what I as a republican committed to doing when I voted for the GFA. Which legitimised my aspirations btw.
Anyone, lasily, accepting the status quo as a job done, is part of a continuing and cyclical problem.

Your post is self-contradictory.

On the one hand you state very clearly that there will always be political violence in Northern Ireland. On the other, you are suggesting that we should continue to work at removing the cause of the violence.

You give as a reason for the violence a root cause, which can only be blamed (insofar as it can be blamed, which I don't agree with) for political violence from one community only. The politicial violence from the other community has a different root cause.

What people outside the limited worldview within Northern Ireland realise is that both root causes cannot be eliminiated and that the root cause on one side is the raison d'etre of the other. Eliminating one root cause only escalates the situation on the other side. Therefore all that can be done is normalise the society and the community within the current mutually agreed constitutional limitations. In the longer run (several generations), when the society is normalised, more fundamental change may well be possible. The fear factor for republicans is that the process of normalisation, which is happening now, will reduce the appetite for fundamental change, which is something we are also seeing.

FrancieBrady

Y

Godge wrote: »

Your post is self-contradictory.

On the one hand you state very clearly that there will always be political violence in Northern Ireland. On the other, you are suggesting that we should continue to work at removing the cause of the violence.

You give as a reason for the violence a root cause, which can only be blamed (insofar as it can be blamed, which I don't agree with) for political violence from one community only. The politicial violence from the other community has a different root cause.

What people outside the limited worldview within Northern Ireland realise is that both root causes cannot be eliminiated and that the root cause on one side is the raison d'etre of the other. Eliminating one root cause only escalates the situation on the other side. Therefore all that can be done is normalise the society and the community within the current mutually agreed constitutional limitations. In the longer run (several generations), when the society is normalised, more fundamental change may well be possible. The fear factor for republicans is that the process of normalisation, which is happening now, will reduce the appetite for fundamental change, which is something we are also seeing.

Which, to be frank, is just another way of saying, the situation is acceptable, the level of violence is acceptable and the fact that the statelet has failed is also acceptable to some.
We are discussing pragmatic ways forward and accepting how it is now because you are not affected is wrong and far from pragmatic for present and future generations who have to live there

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Y

Which, to be frank, is just another way of saying, the situation is acceptable, the level of violence is acceptable and the fact that the statelet has failed is also acceptable to some.
We are discussing pragmatic ways forward and accepting how it is now because you are not affected is wrong and far from pragmatic for present and future generations who have to live there

No, I am pointing out that the problems of Northern Ireland are approaching the norm.

Arguably, Belgium and France have demonstrated greater problems with political violence in the last year than Northern Ireland, yet nobody is suggesting the people of France need a "process".

There will always be a level of violence in every society, that is human nature, or animal nature if you prefer. The issue is whether Northern Ireland is out of step. The increasing evidence suggests that now it is normal.

FrancieBrady

Who in France and Belgium is saying a level of violence signifies the norm or even advocates doing nothing about it?

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who in France and Belgium is saying a level of violence signifies the norm or even advocates doing nothing about it?

Where did I say it was the norm?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

Where did I say it was the norm?

If you wish to be pedantic...who is saying it is approaching the norm.

eire4

getzls wrote: »

That's not going to happen.
And do you know why?
The IRA.
They would return to violence.
Don't believe they have gone away, you know

It is not going to happen because after decades of mis management and mis rule there simply is not a viable 6 county economy.