32 County Ireland keeps the Northern Ireland Assembly?

johnnyskeleton

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Good point. I had been thinking that the unionists would be just told "hey you're in Ireland now" & as you say that wouldn't be acceptable to them. Nor should it be. A new country representing both sides sounds a much better idea

There is a significant unionist population that will be against a united Ireland no matter what the structure of it will be. If you look at the symbolism of the Irish flag, it is meant to represent peace between protestants and catholics. But the flag would never be acceptable to unionists as their national flag, even though it represents both communities.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There is a significant unionist population that will be against a united Ireland no matter what the structure of it will be. If you look at the symbolism of the Irish flag, it is meant to represent peace between protestants and catholics. But the flag would never be acceptable to unionists as their national flag, even though it represents both communities.

Significant numbers of people already have to live with things they don't agree with, but they democratically agree to carry on.

If unionists that you mention can come up with a better idea for a flag that is acceptable to a majority - fair enough. Otherwise they will just have to accept it.
There is no point just appeasing people for the sake of it.

Victor

troyzer wrote: »

A federal structure with four devolved provinces is the only solution.

Is this so that nationalists / republicans would have a majority in Ulster?

Province Population Area
Connacht 550,742 17,732
Munster 1,280,584 24,685
Ulster 2,107,987 21,993
Leinster 2,631,094 19,808

Why would anyone set up a new structure where one province has 5 times the population of another?

Imreoir2

Victor wrote: »

Is this so that nationalists / republicans would have a majority in Ulster?

Province Population Area
Connacht 550,742 17,732
Munster 1,280,584 24,685
Ulster 2,107,987 21,993
Leinster 2,631,094 19,808

Why would anyone set up a new structure where one province has 5 times the population of another?

I might be wrong, but as I understand it, it is intended under the GFA that NI would continue to exist after unification and that the terms of the GFA would continue to apply, as such it is possible that there could be a future partition referendum should unionists regain a majority in the 6 counties.

If NI could be disbanded and a new federal system established with a 9 county Ulster replacing NI, then this would be quite attractive. It would stack a nationalist majority, which might seem unfair, but this could be useful in ensuring stability for the new state. A slim nationalist majority with repartition as a continuing posibility could cause problems.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One thing distinctly different about referendums held here are that the issues are very well trashed out before hand.

Yet, there is not a single coherent idea out there of how a united Ireland might work, but there are politicians telling us we must have a border poll shortly.

Those politicians are pretty reckless, don't you agree?

recedite

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The poster suggested that the unification process would be determined by the wording of the referendum question, this will almost certainly not be the case. Like the first border poll, the referendum question will likely be a simple yes / no to unification. It is likely that this will be asked in the context of a detailed proposal on what the unification process will entail, but this detail will not be on the balot paper.

I suggested that the wording would define what we are all voting for. You seem to think NI would be asked to leave UK and join into the existing RoI. I agree that is possible, maybe even likely.

But I'm also saying the chances of that vote succeeding are much lower compared to one with an equally simple wording; join with RoI to form a new united Ireland as per X accession treaty. All the detail would be in the treaty, not in the referendum question. Similar to when we voted on the Lisbon and Nice treaties.
As you yourself pointed out, a poll in the 1970's posed only the former type of question, and was a dismal failure (although they were different times, I know)

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I might be wrong, but as I understand it, it is intended under the GFA that NI would continue to exist after unification and that the terms of the GFA would continue to apply, as such it is possible that there could be a future partition referendum should unionists regain a majority in the 6 counties.

No, the type of question is not specified. And anyway, unification and separation are mutually incompatible.

Its like when people thought we could have an EU border in the Irish sea after Brexit, but with NI still in the UK. These rumours are borne of wishful thinking, not from logical thought.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I might be wrong, but as I understand it, it is intended under the GFA that NI would continue to exist after unification and that the terms of the GFA would continue to apply, as such it is possible that there could be a future partition referendum should unionists regain a majority in the 6 counties.

If NI could be disbanded and a new federal system established with a 9 county Ulster replacing NI, then this would be quite attractive. It would stack a nationalist majority, which might seem unfair, but this could be useful in ensuring stability for the new state. A slim nationalist majority with repartition as a continuing posibility could cause problems.

The GFA is silent on what happens should a border poll be passed.

It is beyond amazing that someone can think that stacking a nationalist majority would ensure stability for the new state. I have heard nationalists tell me for years that stacking a unionist majority justified 30 years of terrorism by criminal thugs.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yet, there is not a single coherent idea out there of how a united Ireland might work, but there are politicians telling us we must have a border poll shortly.

Those politicians are pretty reckless, don't you agree?

Most referendums start out the same. Why do you think there would not be discussion and research done ahead of a border poll?

I bet there will be many who will claim incoherence no matter what is proposed. Par for the course.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The GFA is silent on what happens should a border poll be passed.

It is beyond amazing that someone can think that stacking a nationalist majority would ensure stability for the new state. I have heard nationalists tell me for years that stacking a unionist majority justified 30 years of terrorism by criminal thugs.

I think it was what unionists DID with their majority was what caused the violence, as even Ian Paisley admitted they did use it to subjugate.

loyatemu

Border poll in the north would have to pass first, then presumably a period of negotiations on what a United Ireland would look like then further votes on both sides of the border.

The question is would the unionists engage with the negotiations or would they just stonewall. It woukd make the Brexit talks look like a walk in the park.

FrancieBrady

loyatemu wrote: »

Border poll in the north would have to pass first, then presumably a period of negotiations on what a United Ireland would look like then further votes on both sides of the border.

The question is would the unionists engage with the negotiations or would they just stonewall. It woukd make the Brexit talks look like a walk in the park.

Simultaneous votes in both jurisdictions and then hand over negotiations between two governments if it passes, is how it will work.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most referendums start out the same. Why do you think there would not be discussion and research done ahead of a border poll?

I bet there will be many who will claim incoherence no matter what is proposed. Par for the course.

If there is proper discussion and research, then a border poll is at least three years away.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it was what unionists DID with their majority was what caused the violence, as even Ian Paisley admitted they did use it to subjugate.

And why do you think they seceded from the Free state in 1922? Because they would have been on the receiving end of the subjugation. They expected Rome Rule, and they were right. We are only recently starting to emerge from that, nearly 100 years later.


And yet here you are, still looking forward to subjugating them.

There has to be a better way.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

If there is proper discussion and research, then a border poll is at least three years away.

I'd have said 2 years from the day it is announced. Not something that should be rushed. Everyone must adequately prepare.

recedite

blanch152 wrote: »

If there is proper discussion and research, then a border poll is at least three years away.

2022. Centenary of NI secession from the newly created Free State. Nice.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

And why do you think they seceded from the Free state in 1922? Because they would have been on the receiving end of the subjugation. They expected Rome Rule, and they were right. We are only recently starting to emerge from that, nearly 100 years later.

I personally think that Rome Rule would have been avoided had partition not been foisted on us.

And yet here you are, still looking forward to subjugating them.

There has to be a better way.

I'm looking forward to 'subjugating them', really?? Where did I say that ever?

I think that unionists and the Protestant faith that predominates among them is a great potential addition to the running of this island.
I have no time for belligerent unionism nor any bigoted faiths, including Roman Catholicism that behaves that way.

igCorcaigh

recedite wrote: »

And why do you think they seceded from the Free state in 1922? Because they would have been on the receiving end of the subjugation. They expected Rome Rule, and they were right. We are only recently starting to emerge from that, nearly 100 years later.


And yet here you are, still looking forward to subjugating them.

There has to be a better way.

Right! There seems to be a mindset in nationalists that it's still about territory. Dangerous stuff.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I personally think that Rome Rule would have been avoided had partition not been foisted on us.

Let us be clear on one thing. Partition was not foisted on Ireland. Our democratically elected leaders negotiated a Treaty in London, they came back to Ireland and the Treaty was approved by the Dail.

That Treaty was democratically negotiated and democratically approved by our representatives. The rewriting of history around this is another disgrace.

Imreoir2

loyatemu wrote: »

Border poll in the north would have to pass first, then presumably a period of negotiations on what a United Ireland would look like then further votes on both sides of the border.

The question is would the unionists engage with the negotiations or would they just stonewall. It woukd make the Brexit talks look like a walk in the park.

Yes, they would stonewall, especially if they thought doing so could upset the process. The reality however is that Unionism does not have a veto over unification. If a majority vote for it, it happens, regardless of if unionist parties engage in discussions on the shape of a UI or not.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

Let us be clear on one thing. Partition was not foisted on Ireland. Our democratically elected leaders negotiated a Treaty in London, they came back to Ireland and the Treaty was approved by the Dail.

That Treaty was democratically negotiated and democratically approved by our representatives. The rewriting of history around this is another disgrace.

Under threat of immediate and terrible war, lets not airbrush that part of the story out. And you talk about rewriting history.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Let us be clear on one thing. Partition was not foisted on Ireland. Our democratically elected leaders negotiated a Treaty in London, they came back to Ireland and the Treaty was approved by the Dail.

That Treaty was democratically negotiated and democratically approved by our representatives. The rewriting of history around this is another disgrace.

The Government of Ireland Act 1920 which separated the 2 jurisdictions had little or no input from Irish nationalists and was drafted by Lloyd George and Ulster Unionists.

Junkyard Tom

recedite wrote: »

And yet here you are, still looking forward to subjugating them.

There are far too many anti-discriminatory protections built into the regulatory fabric of the north, that were required to emasculate the rotten Orange state, that will protect Protestants/Unionists/others from this ridiculous bogey-man persecution complex that seems so apparent.

Many of the measures that were brought in in the north, like the anti-discrimination laws and parades commission, can go all-Ireland and be incorporated Ireland-wide.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Many of the measures that were brought in in the north, like the anti-discrimination laws and parades commission, can go all-Ireland and be incorporated Ireland-wide.

We don't need those measures because we are not a bigoted society like the North of Ireland.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

We don't need those measures because we are not a bigoted society like the North of Ireland.

We are not, but it is no harm to have those protections in place anyway. We are also not a murderous society either, but we still have laws criminalising murder.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

We are not, but it is no harm to have those protections in place anyway. We are also not a murderous society either, but we still have laws criminalising murder.

The north is not a bigoted society (in the sense of the 'whole' of society) Plenty of bigotry everywhere. Some areas, some people and some organisations have a history of bigotry though.

demfad

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Yup, I think the only way it could potentially be made work would involve a complete reorganization of the state, with a new constitution.

Both communities in the North will want some kind of guaranteed representation, which means something like a greatly devolved Northern Ireland with a continuation of regional government or some kind of national power-sharing arrangement between the three communities, a Stormont for the island of Ireland.

NO. Protestant/Unionist fears can be addressed in other ways. There is no reason to expand power sharing to the whole country: that the new state is based on NI.
There has not nor is there any threat of zero sum sectarianism in the South. To have the country divided into 2 sectarian groups and everyone else would create problems where there are none.
Ulster may need regional representation or even seperate police. But sectarianism division of politics should become a thing of the past.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The north is not a bigoted society (in the sense of the 'whole' of society) Plenty of bigotry everywhere. Some areas, some people and some organisations have a history of bigotry though.

An unbigoted society would not need the complicated power-sharing arrangement in place for the Northern Assembly.

There are elements on each side of the divide who would love to have unbridled power to deal with the other side.

demfad

recedite wrote: »

And why do you think they seceded from the Free state in 1922? Because they would have been on the receiving end of the subjugation. They expected Rome Rule, and they were right. We are only recently starting to emerge from that, nearly 100 years later.

NE Ireland was/is divided in much the same way as the US is now. Had been for 400 years. This was deliberate division to control it.
To say that Ulster Protestants voted for this reason or that is neither here nor there. The best discussion on this was the Irish forum in 1917 where there was almost an agreement on a 32 country parliament, everybody had agreed: Southern Catholics and Protestants, 3 county Ulster Protestants. 6 county Catholics, apparently the representatives of the 6 county Protestants were close. But the leaders without ordered them to agree under no circumstances.

Interestingly the religious protections under these negotiations were not actually present in the Anglo-Irish treaty.

You must also look at what happened after: The Free State side (in the civil war) were the conservative Catholic side. (look which side the women fought on). The idea of a Catholic revolution suited them and suited the Unionists.

Also remember that in the first Home Rule Bill Churchhill left open a clause where things could change (things = All Ireland parliament) if the situation changed in Ulster. Cue the escalation in numbers of the UVF to make things 'change' in Ulster.

None of it was inevitable.

Mr.Nice Guy

We often forget that when partition occurred, it wasn't just Ireland that was divided but also Ulster. I would be curious to know in the event of a vote for reunification would unionists desire a form of devolved government for NI within an all-Ireland state (6 counties), or would they want a form of devolved government for the province of Ulster as a whole within an all-Ireland state (9 counties).

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

An unbigoted society would not need the complicated power-sharing arrangement in place for the Northern Assembly.

There are elements on each side of the divide who would love to have unbridled power to deal with the other side.

No more complicated than FG and a mixum gaterum of independents agreeing with FF to allow them to rule.

The complications in the north arise because of the unresolved effects of partition, the effects of which and the conflict after can still be seen in our own political set up.