How long before Irish reunification?

Dytalus

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

The GFA won’t be nullified by a United Ireland, it would need to be amended as part of the process.

Not guaranteed (I'm unaware of a requirement for it in the current GFA, I may be wrong), and if one of the legal entities in the document ceases to exist then yeah...it does kind of nullify the document itself.

That's not to say we wash our hands of it and say "job done". We merely need to be aware that the current GFA can't be used as a guarantee of anything post-Border Poll. Would it probably be redone afterwards? I personally hope so. A New Ireland doesn't magically erase the history of Northern Ireland and leave everything shiny and everyone friends. But I'm not sure how much could be a simple 'amending' versus a total rewrite with the 'end' of Northern Ireland - I'm not an international law expert.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The GFA wasn't so silly.

Its both silly and creepy that you want to claim kids and babies as Irish by default.

Take a look in the mirror Francie.

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

Not guaranteed (I'm unaware of a requirement for it in the current GFA, I may be wrong), and if one of the legal entities in the document ceases to exist then yeah...it does kind of nullify the document itself.

That's not to say we wash our hands of it and say "job done". We merely need to be aware that the current GFA can't be used as a guarantee of anything post-Border Poll. Would it probably be redone afterwards? I personally hope so. A New Ireland doesn't magically erase the history of Northern Ireland and leave everything shiny and everyone friends. But I'm not sure how much could be a simple 'amending' versus a total rewrite with the 'end' of Northern Ireland - I'm not an international law expert.

It is incumbent on both governments to pass legislation in the two parliaments to bring a UI into force. I would imagine that legislation will supercede the GFA.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Its both silly and creepy that you want to claim kids and babies as Irish by default.

Take a look in the mirror Francie.

I'm NOT laying claiming to anything. Cop on here.

As I said way back, confident Unionism has no problem accepting that they are Irish who identify as British.

You are doing the usual thing here and getting offended on behalf of others, those who have strokes of apoplexy if they see the Irish language in their 'wee country'.

markodaly

blanch152 wrote: »

In the theoretical context of a united Ireland, one of the inevitable changes that would have to happen would be a diminished role for the Irish language in affairs of State.

The primacy of the Irish language in affairs of law would have to go, with English acquiring equal status, but also with English becoming the working language of the State.

The State would still be in a position to support minority languages such as Irish to the extent it wished, but it would no longer have a primary position in constitutional law.

This will be one of the hardest concessions that would have to be made, but without it, a united Ireland could never work.

Have to agree with this in fairness. The constitutional status of the Irish language would have to be looked at and to be honest, like religion I am uncomfortable putting primacy to any language.

There are more Polish and Mandarin speakers in Ireland at the moment than Irish speakers and soon if trends continue there will be more Hindu speakers.
Why should we have a constitutional position in any language?

We need to be more inclusive.

Imreoir2

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

In the theoretical context of a united Ireland, one of the inevitable changes that would have to happen would be a diminished role for the Irish language in affairs of State.

The primacy of the Irish language in affairs of law would have to go, with English acquiring equal status, but also with English becoming the working language of the State.

The State would still be in a position to support minority languages such as Irish to the extent it wished, but it would no longer have a primary position in constitutional law.

This will be one of the hardest concessions that would have to be made, but without it, a united Ireland could never work.

English is already the working language of the state. Why exactly would a United Ireland not work if Unionism did not get it's way on which language is the first official language? I firmly believe that the constitution should reflect the wishes of the whole nation and not be held hostage by one small segment of it. If the people of the whole island want to remove or reduce the status of the language then so be it, but it is not for one segment of society to overrule the rest. There are plenty of nationalists who strongly dislike that the head of the UK state is a monarch, but they just have to put up with it. Why would the same not apply to Unionists in a United Ireland when it comes to the Irish language?

Unionists might not like Irish being the first official language of the state, but so what exactly? If the status of the language has the support of the majority of the island as a whole, then it must remain. There are plenty of people who don't like that the 8th was taken out of the Constitution, but they lost that vote. I can't see many people insisting that it should be put back after unification, not becasue the majority wants it, but merely to placate the DUP.

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

Have to agree with this in fairness. The constitutional status of the Irish language would have to be looked at and to be honest, like religion I am uncomfortable putting primacy to any language.

There are more Polish and Mandarin speakers in Ireland at the moment than Irish speakers and soon if trends continue there will be more Hindu speakers.
Why should we have a constitutional position in any language?

We need to be more inclusive.

This isn't Poland.
I've barely a word of Irish and I don't feel excluded in any way. I've yet to meet an official that won't engage in English.
In many countries you can avail of government services in several languages, none of which are official. This is just some lads with a hate on for the Irish language and they need get over it. Another topic where this being Ireland escapes some people.

Dytalus

15-20 years

markodaly wrote: »

You kinda downplay it in fairness. Irish is compulsory right up to 2nd level, so in that respect, it would have to change in a UI for sure.

The big one is the Police Force, where there is a de-facto level of Irish required unless you speak French or some other language instead of English.

A UI will need to look at the way we do the Irish language in this state, which is no means a bad thing.

I generally think a 2nd language should be mandatory right through education - even the simple act of learning a second language at an early age makes it much easier to learn others going forward (I don't profess to know enough about child psychology to know why, but I've read some of the summaries of studies and my housemate is a psychologist who confirms it, so it seems the case even if I don't understand why). With that in regard, I don't really see why it shouldn't be the one culturally tied to our nation. A lot of other countries have it the same with "their" language + English (pretty much every German person I've spoken to has had better English than me, rather embarrassingly), although granted they don't have quite the same uh...cultural history we do when it comes to languages.

I do agree on changing how it's done. Despite the curriculum treating it as a foreign language, I learned way less of how to actually speak the language in 8 years of Irish than I did with 2 years of German or 3 years of Spanish. Heck, at one point I could order a meal in arabic better than I could in irish. They're supposed to be taught the same way, but they're very much not.

I'd also approve of exemptions for kids with different backgrounds/wishes. If a kid already knows (or would like to know) Spanish, they should be allowed show "I am studying Spanish, either in this school or outside of it with a certified tutor" and have that count as their second language (I mean...it's kind of cheating if you're already fluent in it because your mother is Spanish/German/Whatever but it is still a second language). I know that there is at least one German school in the Dublin area (my cousin went to it), and a French one which shares its campus. I'm unsure of similar schools for other languages, but I'd be okay with situations like that altering what the 'second language' is.

As much as I don't want Irish to die out, I think it better to try and incentivise learning it rather than forcing it on people in addition to English and another language. That's a rather sizable workload. Things like Seachtain na Gaeilge and so on. And the way it is taught needs huge improvement too.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

English is already the working language of the state. Why exactly would a United Ireland not work if Unionism did not get it's way on which language is the first official language? I firmly believe that the constitution should reflect the wishes of the whole nation and not be held hostage by one small segment of it. If the people of the whole island want to remove or reduce the status of the language then so be it, but it is not for one segment of society to overrule the rest. There are plenty of nationalists who strongly dislike that the head of the UK state is a monarch, but they just have to put up with it. Why would the same not apply to Unionists in a United Ireland when it comes to the Irish language?

Unionists might not like Irish being the first official language of the state, but so what exactly? If the status of the language has the support of the majority of the island as a whole, then it must remain. There are plenty of people who don't like that the 8th was taken out of the Constitution, but they lost that vote. I can't see many people insisting that it should be put back after unification, not becasue the majority wants it, but merely to placate the DUP.

I tend to agree here.
And it is why unionists need to engage in this discussion.

Being against something just because it offends you isn't good enough to be honest, and as yet, I have not heard a credible argument as to why the Irish language should be diminished in status or even why it offends. Other than it 'just does'.

I agree that it's use and education policies have to be overhauled, but that needs doing anyhow.

markodaly

Dytalus wrote: »

A change to the constitution would require a referendum and rightly so. It shouldn't simply happen because the unionists want it gone. They would have a right, as citizens, to make their voices heard and campaign for change same as any other minority. One voice, one vote as democracy demands. And if they make their voice heard enough to win the resulting referendum I won't like it (I believe Irish should be kept alive because it was forcibly eradicated rather than naturally dying out, and I think cultural heritage is an important thing to keep alive within nations), but I'll learn to deal with it. There's a lot that's been decided democratically that I amn't very happy about - that's the nature of democracy.

I think you are mistaken on a few issues.

Firstly, to take for example the Irish language this would have to be sorted out before the border poll, unless we are going to take the border poll as a purely advisory vote and then vote on 'the deal' after which would be a huge mistake I feel.

The framework and details of a new UI and all it entails will and should be trashed out beforehand, including for example the Irish language. Unionists may demand as part of the negotiations that the primacy of the Irish language be diminished and not be compulsory in primary and secondary education. With this in mind (as well as other things) we then get to vote on a UI...

The whole one voice one vote thing is all well and good, but we are dealing with the North here. We do not have this arrangement in Stormont, hence powersharing. In a UI, Unionists will want to have some guarantee of representation somewhere, as they if NI is becomes part of a UI then they will be locked out of power for well, ever really. This is dangerous and breeds resentment and will fuel loyalist fears. I do not have an answer to this question but if you think we can just have a normal Dail and a carbon copy of the Republics political system in a UI, then you are sadly dreaming. Some people mention a Federal system, but we might be too small a country to get that to work. Perhaps regional assemblies of some sort?

A UI will change everything. People are really underestimating the changes needed here to make this work.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no escaping the demographic change here, although clearly some of our most vociferous posters here are very keen to deny its significance.

Demographics are changing but if you really think that more Catholics = a UI then you are sadly mistaken.

The younger generation will not be swept up by romantic weepy-eyed stories about Pearse or McGuinness. They are the most non-sectarian segment the North has ever had and will not blindly vote against their economic self-interest because they are 'catholic'. Republicans always thought that this was the demographic inevitability but the truth is more nuanced than that.

The rise of parties like PBP and Alliance shows this. In fact, the overall vote of SF in the north peaked a few years ago and has been dropping election after election.

Dare I say it but when the Westminister elections are to be held this year (more than likely) SF will be in for a bit of a rude awakening due to this underlying fact and also, that they have been useless in Westminister when a northern non-DUP voice is needed more than ever. But hey that is a topic for another day.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm NOT laying claiming to anything. Cop on here.

You are laying claim to 'Irish' kids and babies due to them being born in the North.

From the outset, it's a bit weird.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You are laying claim to 'Irish' kids and babies due to them being born in the North.

From the outset, it's a bit weird.

No I am not. the ISLAND were they are born lays claim to them, always has and always will.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This isn't Poland.
I've barely a word of Irish and I don't feel excluded in any way. I've yet to meet an official that won't engage in English.
In many countries you can avail of government services in several languages, none of which are official. This is just some lads with a hate on for the Irish language and they need get over it. Another topic where this being Ireland escapes some people.

The irony is that I'm more fluent in the language than you, yet I can see that there is no use flogging a dead horse year after year.

The issue is the compulsory nature of the Irish language in the education system and in some government jobs and departments. This will need to be amended and relaxed come a UI.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I am not. the ISLAND were they are born lays claim to them, always has and always will.

Being born in a place does not infer identity unless you are of a weird supremacist view.
The GFA does not go down this silly ridiculous path because it's ridiculous and silly.

Be my guest to be ridiculous and silly by flogging it.

markodaly

20-30 years

markodaly wrote: »

The big one is the Police Force, where there is a de-facto level of Irish required unless you speak French or some other language instead of English.

"de facto"? Pathetic that you can distort the actual reality especially given all the people who allegedly study German/French/Spanish in school and "know more of it than Irish". In reality, for your "Police Force" - I note your pettiness cannot even allow you to write An Garda Síochána or even AGS - candidates "must have proven proficiency in two languages one of which must be English or Irish". Or. Do you understand the significance of that little word?

Until about 10 years ago, it used to be English and Irish. But even that change cannot assuage your relentlessly petty and atavistic attitude to Irish culture.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

.

Being against something just because it offends you isn't good enough to be honest,

Irony explosion.

You are the person who stated that you wanted the poppy banned in Ireland because it offended you. :D:D

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Being born in a place does not infer identity unless you are of a weird supremacist view.

I never for one minute suggested it did.

The GFA does not go down this silly ridiculous path because it's ridiculous and silly.

Be my guest to be ridiculous and silly by flogging it.

The island and the people born on it came long long before the GFA, which was a serious document about identity and didn't deal with insecure people taking offence at a word and place.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Irony explosion.

You are the person who stated that you wanted the poppy banned in Ireland because it offended you. :D:D

And I gave reasons why.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

"de facto"? Pathetic that you can distort the actual reality especially given all the people who allegedly study German/French/Spanish in school and "know more of it than Irish". In reality, for your "Police Force" - I note your pettiness cannot even allow you to write An Garda Síochána or even AGS - candidates "must have proven proficiency in two languages one of which must be English or Irish". Or. Do you understand the significance of that little word?

Until about 10 years ago, it used to be English and Irish. But even that change cannot assuage your relentlessly petty and atavistic attitude to Irish culture.

Yes I said defacto because most people in the North can only speak one language. So unless they are fluent in say French or German or Spanish, they will not be able to be a Garda/Police Officer in the new UI police force. This locks out a large section of the community.

How many members of the PSNI have 'proficiency' in another language? I doubt its more than 10%
Do we let these people go, therefore?

Tell me, is that a good recipe to establish good transparent community policing?
Nationalists of all people who know this, yet they want to ignore the lessons of the past for purity nationalistic purposes.

Its all besides the point really, but yes, the place of Irish language in 'officialdom' will have to be changed.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm NOT laying claiming to anything. Cop on here.

As I said way back, confident Unionism has no problem accepting that they are Irish who identify as British.

You are doing the usual thing here and getting offended on behalf of others, those who have strokes of apoplexy if they see the Irish language in their 'wee country'.

So would confident republicans say they were British who identify as Irish?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I gave reasons why.

So because the Poppy offends YOU, you want it banned but everyone else who is offended by other things needs to suck it up.

You are the best advertisement for a NO vote in the event of a UI border poll anyone can hope for Francie.

Do keep it up. Sometimes I wonder are you are lodge member in real life and this account of yours is satire. :D

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So would confident republicans say they were British who identify as Irish?

What?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never for one minute suggested it did.

You did, countless times, inferring that people were Irish because they were born here by default.

James Brown

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

The irony is that I'm more fluent in the language than you, yet I can see that there is no use flogging a dead horse year after year.

The issue is the compulsory nature of the Irish language in the education system and in some government jobs and departments. This will need to be amended and relaxed come a UI.

I agree. It maintaining or losing official status could have absolutely no bearing on that is my point. It's seeming like some folk want Irish to lose official status for no good reason IMO. This is Ireland. In the least it would be an international embarrassment not to have Irish recognised as an official language of Ireland.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

So because the Poppy offends YOU, you want it banned but everyone else who is offended by other things needs to suck it up.

You are the best advertisement for a NO vote in the event of a UI border poll anyone can hope for Francie.

Do keep it up. Sometimes I wonder are you are lodge member in real life and this account of yours is satire. :D

I gave very specific reasons why I 'object' to the wearing of the poppy in certain instances.

You can either take on board the reasons for those objections or not.

I never once said that I object to it, just because it offends me.

Don't lie about previous conversations here please.

James Brown

10-15 years

jh79 wrote: »

So would confident republicans say they were British who identify as Irish?

Britain isn't a country.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is Ireland. .

Careful now, that offends mark.

markodaly

Dytalus wrote: »

I generally think a 2nd language should be mandatory right through education - even the simple act of learning a second language at an early age makes it much easier to learn others going forward

This many people including Unionists would support, so long as you can choose the 2nd language. If people want to learn Irish, let them, if they don't, let them choose Spanish or German or something else.

I do agree on changing how it's done. Despite the curriculum treating it as a foreign language, I learned way less of how to actually speak the language in 8 years of Irish than I did with 2 years of German or 3 years of Spanish. Heck, at one point I could order a meal in arabic better than I could in irish. They're supposed to be taught the same way, but they're very much not.

Making Irish compulsory in education was meant to be a short term thing. I was never meant to be permanent, but vested interests took hold and a certain purist Nationalist type took the issue at heart, with anyone questioning the policy labeled a West Brit or Tory.

The teaching of the Irish language in this country has been an abject failure.

As much as I don't want Irish to die out, I think it better to try and incentivise learning it rather than forcing it on people in addition to English and another language. That's a rather sizable workload. Things like Seachtain na Gaeilge and so on. And the way it is taught needs huge improvement too.

It would be ironic alright that in the event of a UI, we let people choose to learn Irish if they so wish, which resulted in an actual renaissance of the language itself.
The Irish language revival brought about by Unionists.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You did, countless times, inferring that people were Irish because they were born here by default.

What are they then?

You are not born with an 'identity'.