Why the north outside EU changes everything for the island

Berserker

zapitastas wrote: »

You are 100% wrong in the claim that a united Ireland would need to reapply. This has already been settled

Not correct. That was settled when the UK was part of the EU. Whilst I like the concept of the EU personally, I don't trust the powers that be and it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to make Ireland re-join under a different set of conditions in the event of a UI.

lawred2 wrote: »

That's short termism.

Yes but people here live in the short term. They vote for politicians based on the state of the economy, health service etc, as of now.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ireland needs decentralisation, it is far too dublin centric as things stand.

Agree totally but we tried that before under a previous administration and it failed. Not sure why you or people think it would succeed in Belfast. Is it just some romantic vision of a UI?

Peregrinus

Berserker wrote: »

Not correct. That was settled when the UK was part of the EU.

This is not correct; the issue has been considered and decided specifically in the context of Brexit. On 29 April 2017, in a European Council meeting specifically convened to respond to the Art 50 notice served by the UK, the Council declared:

"The European Council acknowledges that the Good Friday Agreement expressly provides for an agreed mechanism whereby a united Ireland may be brought about through peaceful and democratic means; and, in this regard, the European Council acknowledges that, in accordance with international law, the entire territory of such a united Ireland would thus be part of the European Union."

It couldn't be clearer.

lawred2

Berserker wrote: »

Yes but people here live in the short term. They vote for politicians based on the state of the economy, health service etc, as of now.

Well when what's on the table is only the mundane short term stuff then yes people vote on short term issues

But on long term life changing issues people have repeatedly shown that they are capable of making decisions not based on short termism..

breatheme

Berserker wrote: »

Not correct. That was settled when the UK was part of the EU. Whilst I like the concept of the EU personally, I don't trust the powers that be and it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to make Ireland re-join under a different set of conditions in the event of a UI.

Not true. When Germany reunified it kept its EU membership. This is because The Republic of Germany was the state before and after unification. If the successor state to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland, then there's no need to reapply.

breatheme

breatheme wrote: »

Not true. When Germany reunified it kept its EU membership. This is because The Republic of Germany was the state before and after unification. If the successor state to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland, then there's no need to reapply.

Didn’t France threaten to block it though, unless Germany supported the euro?

breatheme

No. Thatcher is the one who was opposed, while I would say Mitterrand was hesitant but nowhere near the levels of mistrust that Thatcher had. However, there was nothing either of those countries could do to block it.

breatheme

breatheme wrote: »

No. Thatcher is the one who was opposed, while I would say Mitterrand was hesitant but nowhere near the levels of mistrust that Thatcher had. However, there was nothing either of those countries could do to block it.

it looks like it was both

Very interesting collection of articles actually

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-price-of-unity-was-the-deutsche-mark-sacrificed-for-reunification-a-719940.html

breatheme

Fascinating read! Although the article itself maintains that is a bit of speculation. I do maintain that there were no legal mechanisms whereby the British or French could block German reunification, however I do see the point of the Germans accepting the Euro and France's timetable in order to gain their support and not face a rocky diplomatic road.

prinzeugen

breatheme wrote: »

Not true. When Germany reunified it kept its EU membership. This is because The Republic of Germany was the state before and after unification. If the successor state to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland, then there's no need to reapply.

Its not that simple. The Government of West Germany was recognised as the legitimate "heir" to the Nazi government and they assumed all responsibility for Nazi actions.

The government of the DDR was not recognised as a legitimate government and was always regarded as a satellite state of the USSR.

On reunification, West Germany took over the East.

Ireland is different and you cannot compare the two.

NI is part of the UK. An internationally recognised country. NI, in theory, would need to declare independence from the UK, and then vote to unite with the ROI to retain EU membership.

Its not as simple as having a referendum on both sides of the border and getting a yes to reunification.

J Mysterio

prinzeugen wrote: »

Its not as simple as having a referendum on both sides of the border and getting a yes to reunification.

Yes, yes it is. It's in the GFA.

prinzeugen

J Mysterio wrote: »

Yes, yes it is. It's in the GFA.

But EU membership is not on the table.. The SNP have the same delusions.

£11 million to africa while Scotland is on its knees.

Illegal.

Peregrinus

breatheme wrote: »

Not true. When Germany reunified it kept its EU membership. This is because The Republic of Germany was the state before and after unification. If the successor state to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland, then there's no need to reapply.

Aegir wrote: »

Didn’t France threaten to block it though, unless Germany supported the euro?

breatheme wrote: »

No. Thatcher is the one who was opposed, while I would say Mitterrand was hesitant but nowhere near the levels of mistrust that Thatcher had. However, there was nothing either of those countries could do to block it.

Perhaps more relevantly, Ireland held the presidency of the Council at the time, and was strongly supportive of the German position that upon reunification East Germany would seamlessly become part of EU territory. The role played by Ireland at that time has not been forgotten in the German Foreign Office (and, in case it had been, we took care to remind them of it). At the time, the German case rested on the EU accepting the effect of certain provisions of Germany's Basic Law, which facilitated reunification. The EU (with, unsurprisingly, German encouragement) has now taken a similar view with respect to the relevant provisions of the GFA.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

But EU membership is not on the table.

Yes it is. EU membership for the whole island is an automatic consequence of reunification under the mechanisms provided by the GFA, The European Council has said exactly that. The statement is quoted in post #403 in this thread.

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes it is. EU membership for the whole island is an automatic consequence of reunification under the mechanisms provided by the GFA, The European Council has said exactly that. The statement is quoted in post #403 in this thread.

Just remind me.. Last time I looked, NI was UK government NOT EU!

The EU has feck all controls (allegedly) in domestic affairs. (Allegedly).

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

Just remind me.. Last time I looked, NI was UK government NOT EU!

The EU has feck all controls (allegedly) in domestic affairs. (Allegedly).

Whether and on what terms a reunified Ireland would be a member of the EU is absolutely not a domestic affair of the UK. Post-brexit, in fact, it would be no business of the UK's at all, on any level. Brexit means brexit, after all.

breatheme

prinzeugen wrote: »

Just remind me.. Last time I looked, NI was UK government NOT EU!

The EU has feck all controls (allegedly) in domestic affairs. (Allegedly).

Yes but after reunification, NI will be under the Irish government, and thus, the EU.

lawred2

prinzeugen wrote: »

But EU membership is not on the table.. The SNP have the same delusions.

£11 million to africa while Scotland is on its knees.

Illegal.

Scotland and NI are two different cases.

Fact of the matter is that the GFA allows for Ireland subsuming Northern Ireland if a majority votes for it in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland is in the EU.

That's pretty much it.

Scotland has no such agreement to be subsumed into another EU country. Scotland would be an independent country.

Fairly basic stuff.

breatheme

lawred2 wrote: »

Scotland and NI are two different cases.

Fact of the matter is that the GFA allows for Ireland subsuming Northern Ireland if a majority votes for it in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland is in the EU.

That's pretty much it.

Scotland has no such agreement to be subsumed into another EU country. Scotland would be an independent country.

Fairly basic stuff.

Exactly. The UK (without Scotland) being the continuing state would've retained EU membership and Scotland, as a successor state, would've had to reapply.

In the event of NI voting to unify with Ireland, the continuing state would be Ireland (and there would be no successor state).

ZeroThreat

lawred2 wrote: »

Scotland and NI are two different cases.

Fact of the matter is that the GFA allows for Ireland subsuming Northern Ireland if a majority votes for it in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland is in the EU.

That's pretty much it.

Scotland has no such agreement to be subsumed into another EU country. Scotland would be an independent country.

Fairly basic stuff.

Isn't all this assuming that reunification simply results in a slightly larger RoI?
From the opinions I read on dedicated political sites (such as Slugger O'Toole) to these issues, extreme compromises may need to be taken in future to ensure peaceful unionist acceptance on a unitary state which may involve radical change of flag, anthem, constitution, legal & parliamentary structures, not to mention possible having to abolish office of president to be replaced by British monarch as head of state.

A united Ireland may require the creation of an entirely new state in every respect.

FrancieBrady

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Isn't all this assuming that reunification simply results in a slightly larger RoI?
From the opinions I read on dedicated political sites (such as Slugger O'Toole) to these issues, extreme compromises may need to be taken in future to ensure peaceful unionist acceptance on a unitary state which may involve radical change of flag, anthem, constitution, legal & parliamentary structures, not to mention possible having to abolish office of president to be replaced by British monarch as head of state.

A united Ireland may require the creation of an entirely new state in every respect.

Stop reading or accepting as holy writ unionist centric sites like Slugger maybe?

Any one who thinks we are going to hitch ourselves to the entity at the core of the problem in this island is delusional.

No problem recognizing a unionist identity and culture. What modern state is going to place a 'monarch' at it's head? We might as well listen to those in the south who would have the pope as head of state. :rolleyes:

ZeroThreat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Stop reading or accepting as holy writ unionist centric sites like Slugger maybe?

Any one who thinks we are going to hitch ourselves to the entity at the core of the problem in this island is delusional.

No problem recognizing a unionist identity and culture. What modern state is going to place a 'monarch' at it's head? We might as well listen to those in the south who would have the pope as head of state. :rolleyes:

Australia, NZ & Canada are in many respects more 'modern' (or advanced) than RoI and they have Betty Windsor as head of state

bilston

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Isn't all this assuming that reunification simply results in a slightly larger RoI?
From the opinions I read on dedicated political sites (such as Slugger O'Toole) to these issues, extreme compromises may need to be taken in future to ensure peaceful unionist acceptance on a unitary state which may involve radical change of flag, anthem, constitution, legal & parliamentary structures, not to mention possible having to abolish office of president to be replaced by British monarch as head of state.

A united Ireland may require the creation of an entirely new state in every respect.

Stop reading or accepting as holy writ unionist centric sites like Slugger maybe?

Any one who thinks we are going to hitch ourselves to the entity at the core of the problem in this island is delusional.

No problem recognizing a unionist identity and culture. What modern state is going to place a 'monarch' at it's head? We might as well listen to those in the south who would have the pope as head of state. :rolleyes:

Well the anthem would have to change given that I and almost a million other Ulster Prods wouldn't be able to pronounce it properly never mind have any idea what we are signing.

The flag, while well meaning, is too connected in the eyes of Unionists to PIRA coffins so I can see that being a bone of contention.

I guess on those two issues alone people down south have to ask whether they would be prepared to budge. As a big rugby fan I can see the emotion that the Soldiers Song (I'm sorry I can't spell the Irish name and don't want to disrepsect it by trying and getting it wrong) brings out in the players and some of the fans. It would be a big ask for some to agree to a change. I suppose it depends on whether they consider a song to be more important than a country.

Taytoland

Head of state, flag, anthem and Parliament building would all need to go.

BonnieSituation

Taytoland wrote: »

Head of state, flag, anthem and Parliament building would all need to go.

What's wrong with Leinster House?

What's wrong with having a President who has as much clout as the Queen?

blinding

Taytoland wrote: »

Head of state, flag, anthem and Parliament building would all need to go.

Who are you suggesting for head of state .

Surely it must be an elected President . Ian Og Paisley could run . He like's paid for , holidays .

FrancieBrady

bilston wrote: »

Well the anthem would have to change given that I and almost a million other Ulster Prods wouldn't be able to pronounce it properly never mind have any idea what we are signing.


The flag, while well meaning, is too connected in the eyes of Unionists to PIRA coffins so I can see that being a bone of contention.

I guess on those two issues alone people down south have to ask whether they would be prepared to budge. As a big rugby fan I can see the emotion that the Soldiers Song (I'm sorry I can't spell the Irish name and don't want to disrepsect it by trying and getting it wrong) brings out in the players and some of the fans. It would be a big ask for some to agree to a change. I suppose it depends on whether they consider a song to be more important than a country.

Not that fripperies like flags and anthems matter a damn to me what is the problem with pronouncing 'The Soldiers Song'?

Have you been brought up on the cultish myth that you will be frogmarched into the republic and made to speak as Gaelige?

Might be time for Unionism to grow up a bit.

VinLieger

Taytoland wrote: »

Head of state, flag, anthem and Parliament building would all need to go.

For what reason? A new country would not be formed so i see no reason for any of the above

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Stop reading or accepting as holy writ unionist centric sites like Slugger maybe?

LOL @ calling slugger unionist centric,the old classic republican outlook of 100% with us or 100% against us ehh?

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL @ calling slugger unionist centric,the old classic republican outlook of 100% with us or 100% against us ehh?

No.
Just reading the Slugger with a functioning brain.

lawred2

Taytoland wrote: »

Head of state, flag, anthem and Parliament building would all need to go.

Very immature. The republic was prepared to use the former residence of a Duke for their Parliament... What would be your problem with it? You'd want to do what instead?

Taytoland

VinLieger wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Head of state, flag, anthem and Parliament building would all need to go.

For what reason? A new country would not be formed so i see no reason for any of the above

Not what Sinn Fein say, they talk about a New Ireland. Which is bollocks really like most things they say but that's what they say.

citytillidie

lawred2 wrote: »

Very immature. The republic was prepared to use the former residence of a Duke for their Parliament... What would be your problem with it? You'd want to do what instead?

Belfast of course is where he would want it

lawred2

citytillidie wrote: »

Belfast of course is where he would want it

Well that would be self evidently stupid

lawred2

bilston wrote: »

Well the anthem would have to change given that I and almost a million other Ulster Prods wouldn't be able to pronounce it properly never mind have any idea what we are signing.

The flag, while well meaning, is too connected in the eyes of Unionists to PIRA coffins so I can see that being a bone of contention.

I guess on those two issues alone people down south have to ask whether they would be prepared to budge. As a big rugby fan I can see the emotion that the Soldiers Song (I'm sorry I can't spell the Irish name and don't want to disrepsect it by trying and getting it wrong) brings out in the players and some of the fans. It would be a big ask for some to agree to a change. I suppose it depends on whether they consider a song to be more important than a country.

Wouldn't be a big fan of the flag either myself. Too derivative.

I'd like to see the old dark green with the gold harp personally.

VinLieger

Taytoland wrote: »

Not what Sinn Fein say, they talk about a New Ireland. Which is bollocks really like most things they say but that's what they say.

Jesus christ on a bike you and francie are as bad as each other, 2 sides of the same stupid pig headed moronic coin.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

Wouldn't be a big fan of the flag either myself. Too derivative.

I'd like to see the old dark green with the gold harp personally.

far more distinctive than the tri colour, but "McDonaghs pub Ballybunnion summer tour COYBIG" scrawled across the front would obscure the harp too much.

Taytoland

VinLieger wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Not what Sinn Fein say, they talk about a New Ireland. Which is bollocks really like most things they say but that's what they say.

Jesus christ on a bike you and francie are as bad as each other, 2 sides of the same stupid pig headed moronic coin.

I was asked a question and answered it. How can it not be a new country if it's a New Ireland? 

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Jesus christ on a bike you and francie are as bad as each other, 2 sides of the same stupid pig headed moronic coin.

The only thing on the unionist list I object to is a monarch as head of state.

All else can be negotiated, flags anthems etc.

Not a classic 'pigheaded moronic' stance really. Keep the hair on there Vin.

lawred2

The anthem could go as well - that's be little loss

Hotblack Desiato

The anthem is terrible and the convention (even though it was written in English) of singing it in Irish - or in reality mumbling it - makes it even worse.

The tricolour stands for the values of the United Irishmen and must stay.

If we abolish it as the official flag, it really will become a symbol of extreme republicanism (and they're not going to go away, unfortunately) like the Imperial Germany-era flags are the banners of choice for the knuckle draggers over there.

lawred2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The anthem is terrible and the convention (even though it was written in English) of singing it in Irish - or in reality mumbling it - makes it even worse.

The tricolour stands for the values of the United Irishmen and must stay.

If we abolish it as the official flag, it really will become a symbol of extreme republicanism (and they're not going to go away, unfortunately) like the Imperial Germany-era flags are the banners of choice for the knuckle draggers over there.

Nah dark green with a harp is the way to go. The tricolor is insipid

BonnieSituation

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The anthem is terrible and the convention (even though it was written in English) of singing it in Irish - or in reality mumbling it - makes it even worse.

The tricolour stands for the values of the United Irishmen and must stay.

If we abolish it as the official flag, it really will become a symbol of extreme republicanism (and they're not going to go away, unfortunately) like the Imperial Germany-era flags are the banners of choice for the knuckle draggers over there.

What's wrong with singing it in Irish?

I love how people consistently go on about how no one knows it too. Bizarre. I sang it with gusto last Saturday evening in Irish.

lawred2 wrote: »

Nah dark green with a harp is the way to go. The tricolor is insipid

Or the St Pat's Saltire.

lawred2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Or the St Pat's Saltire.

Nah you're alright.. a red cross on a white background and with British origins.

Would certainly keep some people happy I suppose

I'd prefer the tricolor if that was the alternative

BonnieSituation

lawred2 wrote: »

Nah you're alright.. a red cross on a white background and with British origins.

Would certainly keep some people happy I suppose

I'd prefer the tricolor if that was the alternative

I dunno. Given that Nationalists tend to be more accomodating I wouldn't mind that as an alternative if it meant unionists piped down.

The Rape of Lucretia

NI is a problem for the UK. Always has been. Its clear that part of the Tory Brexit stategy is to delay as long as possible, in the hope/expectation that eventually (partly what the lengthy transition period is all about) that either
- NI jumps ship and joins the Eire (the optimum outcome : getting rid of a problem, and solving the unsolvable cake and eat it Brexit headache par excellence)
- Eire joins the UK (less optimum but still a workable solution : the pain in the ass of the UK, NI, remains, but Dublin will dilute its issues and take over dealing with much of it, and, the Irish border deadlock is, crucially, resolved by this option also.

They know what they are at to a greater degree than many realise.

Imreoir2

bilston wrote: »

Well the anthem would have to change given that I and almost a million other Ulster Prods wouldn't be able to pronounce it properly never mind have any idea what we are signing.

You'll learn!

Imreoir2

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

NI is a problem for the UK. Always has been. Its clear that part of the Tory Brexit stategy is to delay as long as possible, in the hope/expectation that eventually (partly what the lengthy transition period is all about) that either
- NI jumps ship and joins the Eire (the optimum outcome : getting rid of a problem, and solving the unsolvable cake and eat it Brexit headache par excellence)
- Eire joins the UK (less optimum but still a workable solution : the pain in the ass of the UK, NI, remains, but Dublin will dilute its issues and take over dealing with much of it, and, the Irish border deadlock is, crucially, resolved by this option also.

They know what they are at to a greater degree than many realise.

If they are hoping/expecting Ireland to join the UK as a result of Brexit, they haven't a notion of what they are at.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

NI is a problem for the UK. Always has been. Its clear that part of the Tory Brexit stategy is to delay as long as possible, in the hope/expectation that eventually (partly what the lengthy transition period is all about) that either
- NI jumps ship and joins the Eire (the optimum outcome : getting rid of a problem, and solving the unsolvable cake and eat it Brexit headache par excellence)
- Eire joins the UK (less optimum but still a workable solution : the pain in the ass of the UK, NI, remains, but Dublin will dilute its issues and take over dealing with much of it, and, the Irish border deadlock is, crucially, resolved by this option also.

They know what they are at to a greater degree than many realise.

Personally I think the ideal solution for a Great Britain - tired of northern Ireland and fed up to the back teeth with belligerent unionism - is to create a circumstance were it votes to leave the UK itself.

That is why it signed the GFA, the roadmap to a UI and announced it was no longer interested. The 'watershed' Unionism dare not speak out loud about.

It is happening quicker than they thought though.
Britain is no more interested in revisiting/re-invigourating the problem Ireland was for them by joining with them. In fact, mentioning that 'Eire' was joining the UK even as an idea would get them an earful.

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Personally I think the ideal solution for a Great Britain - tired of northern Ireland and fed up to the back teeth with belligerent unionism - is to create a circumstance were it votes to leave the UK itself.

Exactly, as I say. Celebrations on the mainland by anyone who cared or knew it was part of the UK in the first place would be joyous.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Britain is no more interested in revisiting/re-invigourating the problem Ireland was for them by joining with them. In fact, mentioning that 'Eire' was joining the UK even as an idea would get them an earful.

Indeed. And again, as I say, its the less preferred option. But pragmatically recognised as a solution. And for The Republic, the benefits are far greater than is commonly realised. But its early stages as they roll out that idea on both side of the Irish sea. Fully understood, it is only the Irish equivalent of the UK Brexit brainless voter who would reject it on xenophobia and national jingoism motivations, rather than recognise it as a realistic way to deal with the Brexit event on this island.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Exactly, as I say. Celebrations on the mainland by anyone who cared or knew it was part of the UK in the first place would be joyous.


Indeed. And again, as I say, its the less preferred option. But pragmatically recognised as a solution. And for The Republic, the benefits are far greater than is commonly realised. But its early stages as they roll out that idea on both side of the Irish sea. Fully understood, it is only the Irish equivalent of the UK Brexit brainless voter who would reject it on xenophobia and national jingoism motivations, rather than recognise it as a realistic way to deal with the Brexit event on this island.

Nothing jingoistic about it. The relationship never worked and is never likely to work. Look at how they view Ireland during the Brexit debacle for instance if you are too young to see how it has been viewed since independence.
Thankfuly I know of only you and probably John Bruton who would be in favour of this craziness.