Reunification Vote Per County

breatheme

Yeah, I edited it to add the quote.

ArmaniJeanss

ELM327 wrote: »

Ah yes, the old "re draw the boundary lines" trick.

I'm reminded of a former leader of sinn fein, and a small orange. Gerry Mandarin.

I think the most recent re-draw to 11 areas which took place this decade was considered fair (SF didn't object fwiw). The original 1970s redraw not so much, plenty of dodgy things there I'd expect.
Regardless I reckon the fundamental point remains that because NI no longer uses the old counties then the OPs idea to have the vote done on a county by county basis makes no sense.

funkey_monkey

breatheme wrote: »

However, that is not what the GFA says. In the event that NI really does vote 50% + 1 to reunify, then the most you can do is vote against it in the resulting referendum in the Republic. Should both pass, even if it is both 50% + 1, then there will be reunification. It is what was agreed in 1998.

Yes, but if you had read my previous post you would see that I acknowledge that and my view is that the SoS would resist the calls for a poll if the analysis pointed to such a decision. In effect building in a buffer to the vote.

facehugger99

I think as soon as the words 'reunification tax' are uttered - and they will be in a potential referendum, the idea will be rejected by a huge majority of the Republic's tax -payers.

Thomas_IV

Daithi_115 wrote: »

We all know that if the majority (2/3) Northern Ireland votes in favor of unification with the south then NI will join back with the South.

Instead of the entire population of the north should it be by each county eg. if 2/3s of Fermanagh want to unify with the south they can leave the union and join the south leaving the five counties to remain in the union.

IMO i think it should be by each county, it is unfair if a few counties want to unify only too have one or two counties say no.

Please don't attack each other for having a different opinion

Your suggestion isn't in accordance with the GFA which states that a majority for re-unification has to be reached by the whole population of NI, not splitting it on counties. Your suggestion isn't that new though, this was discussed at the closing in of the Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations from which the border commitee was established but never really worked in the 1920s. It was suggested that those counties in NI with a majority of Catholic people could opt out of the state of NI which had give further three counties from NI to the then Irish Free State.

yrreg0850

ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: »

Does the South not get a say in Unification?

Do we in the south want reunification ?

ELM327

Anyone in the free state who doesn't should have their citizenship revoked tbh, they should be ashamed to call themselves "Irish".

blanch152

ELM327 wrote: »

Anyone in the free state who doesn't should have their citizenship revoked tbh, they should be ashamed to call themselves "Irish".

Why? Do we live in a dictatorship where opposing views are banned?

yrreg0850

ELM327 wrote: »

Anyone in the free state who doesn't should have their citizenship revoked tbh, they should be ashamed to call themselves "Irish".

Is this how we will be treated if a certain political party ever gets power ?

ELM327

blanch152 wrote: »

Why? Do we live in a dictatorship where opposing views are banned?

No, but you can't just jettison a part of your country where Irish citizens live because "you can't afford it"
Can we get rid of donegal too? :rolleyes:

El Tarangu

ELM327 wrote: »

Anyone in the free state who doesn't should have their citizenship revoked tbh, they should be ashamed to call themselves "Irish".

'Anyone in the free state who doesn't speak Irish should have their citizenship revoked tbh, they should be ashamed to call themselves "Irish".'


'Anyone in the free state who watches foreign games should have their citizenship revoked tbh, they should be ashamed to call themselves "Irish".'


... I could go on

ELM327

El Tarangu wrote: »

... I could go on

You could, but you will run out of straw men eventually

blanch152

ELM327 wrote: »

No, but you can't just jettison a part of your country where Irish citizens live because "you can't afford it"
Can we get rid of donegal too? :rolleyes:

But it isn't part of our country, and we have renounced the territorial claim and reduced it to an aspiration.

facehugger99

ELM327 wrote: »

No, but you can't just jettison a part of your country where Irish citizens live because "you can't afford it"

NI isn't part of our country thank goodness.

El Tarangu

ELM327 wrote: »

Anyone in the free state who doesn't should have their citizenship revoked tbh, they should be ashamed to call themselves "Irish".

Isn't it great that we kicked out the English all the same; we gained the freedom to decide things for ourselves, no longer having someone to tell what to do or what to think...

bilbot79

We presume the south will want it.

breatheme

If there is a NI reunification referendum and the south doesn't consent, things might get... quite bad.

Not that that addresses the concerns tax payers may have, but still. I'm scared at the thought because I acknowledge it is a real possibility.

bilbot79

Even though I'm nationalist by birth the logical part of me think reunification is a really bad idea. NI is a British problem and it should be left at that until reunification is not a problem.

It would be a very big problem for nasty loyalists.

ArthurDayne

Without deliberately attacking the OP for what is an interesting thought, the idea that the reunification of Ireland could be achieved on a county-by-county vote just is not realistic.  Even if it were used, I actually think it would be Unionists pushing for it in a last ditch attempt to keep Down and Antrim in the UK.  The vote will require finality and the spectre of Partition II is something that I simply can't envisage there being any appetite for. 

What's more, as others have pointed out, it is both probable and sensible that a referendum would only be held where there already exists reliable evidence to suggest that there is a reasonably strong chance of the vote passing by a considerable majority.  It is sensible because a vote by small majority -- say 51% -- would likely come with repercussions.  While I cannot see loyalist paramilitaries ever being able to replicate the ferocity of the IRA campaign (for a number of reasons), they may certainly be emboldened enough to cause quite a lot of disruption to Irish life and the economy -- and the governance of Belfast could become both a burden and a source of future strife for the government. 

Furthermore, I have always expected that a United Ireland would need to have certain safeguards built in for northern Unionists -- but with only a small majority voting in favour of a United Ireland those safeguards could quickly become burdens.  A guaranteed level of representation for Unionist / Loyalist parties in the Dail would probably be one such safeguard -- and with anything not far off 1 million unionist voters in the country, there is the potential for parties like the DUP to have significant and disruptive sway in governing the country.

bilbot79

Some good points raised and when you think about it, if Protestants were forced to concentrate in the last 2 counties for example you could never ever get a majority there

Thomas_IV

blanch152 wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

Anyone in the free state who doesn't should have their citizenship revoked tbh, they should be ashamed to call themselves "Irish".

Why? Do we live in a dictatorship where opposing views are banned?

Do you have him down as a Shinner? I have him down as an ultra radical republican and that means something. Just like the other splinter parties that claim for themselves to be republican. Anyway, there is hardly a party in the Republic of Ireland who hasn't got the need to label themselves as republican as well. Frankly, it doesn't make much sense to me when living in a Republic anyway. Maybe the Irish Green Party doesn't see the need for that, but one never knows, not having the republican sticker might cost some votes in Ireland. It is certainly much different when it comes to NI, there you have take that sticker in order to distinguish a party from the Unionist and Loyalist community.

I was bold enough to ask him what Kind of a republican he is, the rude answer coming from him was that he's of the '32 Counties Ireland etc.' ones. Well, that was enough for me to put him on the 'special guests' lists and since then, there is silence on my part. I have had more than enough exchanges of post with people of that mindset and it is always getting tedious after a short while, cos it is always the same old phrases they come up with, no progressive thinking for the lack of a progressive mindset. This I say in general about all the radical republicans, not just in particular to this poster, as there are plenty of that kind around this site.  

One thing is for certain and that is that without the mutual consent by a majority of the people on both sides of the border, there will be no formal re-unification. For those getting a fit about it, look into the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland and look it up as the border referendum on the side of the Republic of Ireland to achieve a UI is also stated there. It is the equivalent to what is stated in the GFA. But the diehard and radical Republicans like to either Forget about that passage, or cling on to the claim on the six counties like it was in the old constitution, but that passage is no longer valid because the people in the Republic of Ireland voted in a referendum to have it altered to the content as it is written there since.

seamus

The OP at least poses something of a unique approach to the question. I don't believe it's all that workable though. e.g. What would happen if Fermanagh, Tyrone and/or Armagh decided to stay in the UK and others didn't?

You'd have this odd "island" county inside of the Republic.

In terms of an overall border poll, as others point out it's not a simple matter.

A 50%+1 majority carries with it the strong possibility of inflaming sectarian violence. I don't want that. If the choice is between two partitioned, but peaceful & prosperous countries; or a unified Ireland beset with sectarian violence, then it's a no-brainer. No deaths are worth a united Ireland. Nationalist ideology or historical sentimentality are not more important than peace, and it's not something I would be willing to inflict on my children and grandchildren; nor anyone else's.

If a mostly peaceful transition is possible, great. If not, then no way. I've mentioned before that I'd probably vote against unification unless the North was 2/3rds in support of it, and been accused of moving the goalposts. But I'm not going to be forced to take on a violent economic basket case just because of some misty-eyed nonsense about patriotism. Two peaceful countries are better than a unified one that's on fire.

I think a border poll should take account of this complexity and not ask a simple yes or no question. Unlike a Brexit, the path laid out should be clear:

1. What will happen in the event of a "Yes"
1a. What will happen in the event the Republic also votes "Yes" - citizenship rights, employment rights, budgets, governance, security etc etc.
1b. What will happen in the event the Republic votes "No" - For example, maybe this should automatically trigger a second poll about UK membership?
2. What will happen in the event of a "No".

At the very least then, if there is robust discussion around the issue, and clarity around what's going to happen, then nobody will feel railroaded into any decision and nobody will fear for their future, making violence less likely.

Thomas_IV

yrreg0850 wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

Anyone in the free state who doesn't should have their citizenship revoked tbh, they should be ashamed to call themselves "Irish".

Is this how we will be treated if a certain political party ever gets power ?

There is a difference between what the SF leaders say (on official occasions) and what the average SF member or supporter / voter says. It's always been that way. Just sometimes, when the SF leaders think that they are among themselves, words slip which speak the true language and afterwards, after they have noticed that they weren't just among themselves, huge rotation in the minds of them takes place and every lever is used to make it appear as quite the opposite of the very meaning uttered by the leades to the members. Such things happen, like on that evening in Enniskillen, a couple of years ago, when Gerry Adams had a 'slip of his tongue' telling his fellow Shinners that 'we have to break the bigots by equality'. That was addressed to those still against a UI in NI and the message was received well by the recepients, the Unionists and Loyalists in NI. The short line was then described to have been taken out of context, but the meaning was that equality among the two communities would or should break the resistance of the diehard Unionists who stand against a UI no matter what. There is another example of a well known Adams speech, a bit hard to find via the internet (maybe one can try via YouTube, but I wasn't successful with that research). Back in the 1980s, when Adams was the young SF leader, he said addressed to the Unionists that 'if you don't like to live in a UI, there's always the Ferry to England'. He apparently meant rather Great Britain as Scotland is closer to reach by Ferry from NI. But the meaning of this was clear, in a UI, as a Unionist you either put up or shut up and F.O.. That was before he became the smart politician in a time when the Troubles were still raging.

James Brown

mazwell wrote: »

Even if it passed by a majority in the north there'd still have to be a referendum here afaik

There shouldn't be. In the southern part of Ireland there is nothing to debate. It's reunification. Shameful it was let go for so long.

James Brown

yrreg0850 wrote: »

Is this how we will be treated if a certain political party ever gets power ?

If it goes the wrong way tell the public they are wrong and run it again a la Lisbon?
This is bigger than any one political party. Enda 'man with two pints' Kenny wants it ffs.

facehugger99

When it comes to reunification, talk is cheap.

Many Irish people like to consider the idea, but more from the perspective of a fanciful notion than anything based in reality.

Generally, 20 years from now is the preferred time frame and has been for the last few decades - it allows people to cling to the idea of witnessing it in their lifetime without any immediate prospect of having to deal with any of the financial, political or security challenges.

And in the meantime, we're quite happy for the Brits to pick up the tab and subsidise the region.

One could say it is the ultimate Irish solution to a very Irish problem

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

When it comes to reunification, talk is cheap.

Many Irish people like to consider the idea, but more from the perspective of a fanciful notion than anything based in reality.

Generally, 20 years from now is the preferred time frame and has been for the last few decades - it allows people to cling to the idea of witnessing it in their lifetime without any immediate prospect of having to deal with any of the financial, political or security challenges.

And in the meantime, we're quite happy for the Brits to pick up the tab and subsidise the region.

One could say it is the ultimate Irish solution to a very Irish problem

That's FF/FG policy on the matter for sure. The long finger is used on many issues.

Riskymove

facehugger99 wrote: »

Many Irish people like to consider the idea, but more from the perspective of a fanciful notion than anything based in reality.

anyone I have spoken to seems to view it as simply the North becoming part of the current State and nothing else changing

I think it will be a lot more complicated than that

facehugger99

Riskymove wrote: »

anyone I have spoken to seems to view it as simply the North becoming part of the current State and nothing else changing

I think it will be a lot more complicated than that

Setting aside the likelihood of the Republic rejecting reunification, I think you would need a substantial majority of the North in favour for it to be in anyway workable - over 70% at an absolute minimum, which in reality is simply not going to happen.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Setting aside the likelihood of the Republic rejecting reunification, I think you would need a substantial majority of the North in favour for it to be in anyway workable - over 70% at an absolute minimum, which in reality is simply not going to happen.

It would be nice but not necessary. There will always be a side unhappy with any result. We'd need move on and deal with the situation what ever the result may be. Once business can function relatively as per usual, (the lights stay on, the sky doesn't fall) most will simply get on with it.