How long before Irish reunification?

Dytalus

15-20 years

markodaly wrote: »

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

I'm certainly not. And I very much agree with you that as much as possible needs to be thrashed out before a border poll. But there is a point to which democracy demands the few must accept the will of the many, so it would be unreasonable to presume the unionist side of negotiations would (or should) get everything they want (whether it's removing stuff the Republic currently has, or demanding the Republic adopt things they like about Northern Ireland).

But one of the best things about our running of referendums is how simple and clear we keep them. And I think, for Ireland's side of it, any potential changes to the constitution should be brought forward to a vote before being included in negotiations. Fundamental changes to our nations can't be used as trading cards behind closed doors. How the Northern Irish side of things would go I've no idea, because I'm not as familiar with their running of things and the UK doesn't have a set in stone, single piece of paper it can look at. But ideally there'd be something similar.

Maybe our Citizens Assembly or something like it could be used. I dunno. It's going to be complicated as hell to decide what we, as a population, are willing to compromise on.

I do think our political system should be kept over the whole island. Reams of evidence show that STV is possibly the best way for proper representation in a house of government. A million unionists from NI should not get more say than a million people from the Republic.

But then we run into the historical problems of Northern Ireland. An immediate transfer to Dáil Eireann would be seen as a takeover by some, even if it was what NI voted for, and it's unfair to mandate that a small minority of the population is guaranteed a position on the executive - Dáil seats are good enough for the other communities, why should NI get special treatment? Why should the rest of New Ireland be given less voice because one part of it can't get along with its neighbours, and can't deal with having 'lost' the border poll?

But that won't change the fact that there will be a potentially large number of upset people in NI about unification. A minority of 1,400,000 (based on those who identify as British or Northern Irish based on this information) is still a really large minority, and if even 1% of them turned aggressive at a perceived 'takeover' that a few thousand dissidents to deal with. Is keeping Stormont for a prolonged transition period the answer? Would that be part of GFA 2.0 post a border poll, along with perhaps a mechanism to phase it out since we are a very tiny island with a very tiny population and federalisation would be a huge waste of time and money?

Or maybe federalisation would help some of the massive inequality in development between the regions in the Republic; with each province having its own body to argue its point and focus on their own issues, and the integration of NI could be used to kickstart that process?

And then you run into the whole problem of "This is going to take a long time and be kind of pricy, and is it worth doing when we don't even know if the poll is going to pass?" So do we go with an outline "Unionists are okay with this and this, but not that. Republicans absolutely refuse to accomodate Y, but can get rid of X. All parties agree to begin negotiations with this framework and these limits in mind if the border poll passes" and then get the specific legal details and writings later? It's still more than what a certain recent mess of a referendum our neighbours had going into it, but is it enough?

It won't be easy. I very much doubt unification would wind up mirroring the 'soft takeover' of the German unification, and if a border poll looked to be on the horizon I could see a solid two/three years between it being called and it actually happening.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

International embarrassment?

I take it you don't travel much.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are they then?

You are not born with an 'identity'.

Yet, you claim by being born on the island of Ireland you are Irish, until you are old enough to choose something else.

Your words Francie, not mine.

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

I'm certainly not. And I very much agree with you that as much as possible needs to be thrashed out before a border poll. But there is a point to which democracy demands the few must accept the will of the many, so it would be unreasonable to presume the unionist side of negotiations would (or should) get everything they want (whether it's removing stuff the Republic currently has, or demanding the Republic adopt things they like about Northern Ireland).

But one of the best things about our running of referendums is how simple and clear we keep them. And I think, for Ireland's side of it, any potential changes to the constitution should be brought forward to a vote before being included in negotiations. Fundamental changes to our nations can't be used as trading cards behind closed doors. How the Northern Irish side of things would go I've no idea, because I'm not as familiar with their running of things and the UK doesn't have a set in stone, single piece of paper it can look at. But ideally there'd be something similar.

Maybe our Citizens Assembly or something like it could be used. I dunno. It's going to be complicated as hell to decide what we, as a population, are willing to compromise on.

I do think our political system should be kept over the whole island. Reams of evidence show that STV is possibly the best way for proper representation in a house of government. A million unionists from NI should not get more say than a million people from the Republic.

But then we run into the historical problems of Northern Ireland. An immediate transfer to Dáil Eireann would be seen as a takeover by some, even if it was what NI voted for, and it's unfair to mandate that a small minority of the population is guaranteed a position on the executive - Dáil seats are good enough for the other communities, why should NI get special treatment? Why should the rest of New Ireland be given less voice because one part of it can't get along with its neighbours, and can't deal with having 'lost' the border poll?

But that won't change the fact that there will be a potentially large number of upset people in NI about unification. A minority of 1,400,000 (based on those who identify as British or Northern Irish based on this information) is still a really large minority, and if even 1% of them turned aggressive at a perceived 'takeover' that a few thousand dissidents to deal with. Is keeping Stormont for a prolonged transition period the answer? Would that be part of GFA 2.0 post a border poll, along with perhaps a mechanism to phase it out since we are a very tiny island with a very tiny population and federalisation would be a huge waste of time and money?

Or maybe federalisation would help some of the massive inequality in development between the regions in the Republic; with each province having its own body to argue its point and focus on their own issues, and the integration of NI could be used to kickstart that process?

And then you run into the whole problem of "This is going to take a long time and be kind of pricy, and is it worth doing when we don't even know if the poll is going to pass?" So do we go with an outline "Unionists are okay with this and this, but not that. Republicans absolutely refuse to accomodate Y, but can get rid of X. All parties agree to begin negotiations with this framework and these limits in mind if the border poll passes" and then get the specific legal details and writings later? It's still more than what a certain recent mess of a referendum our neighbours had going into it, but is it enough?

It won't be easy. I very much doubt unification would wind up mirroring the 'soft takeover' of the German unification, and if a border poll looked to be on the horizon I could see a solid two/three years between it being called and it actually happening.

Are Unionists going to engage (Or could they be expected to engage) in agreeing to/constructing something they are going to be against though?

James Brown

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Careful now, that offends mark.

There's a few thinks we should bend over backwards for the unionist minority while giving up elements of Irish culture and heritage in the process. It'll be a united Ireland, stands to reason there'll be many changes needed but giving up Irish heritage and culture shouldn't be any part of it IMO. Accepting the culture of others shouldn't mean denigrating Irish.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

It's the nation they were born in so is in keeping with the definition of nationality. You told another poster not to be so sensitive about stuff that is factual.

Just like geography the nation you are born in does not change. Anyone born today in Belfast is born in the UK. Even if a UI happens in 10 / 20 / 50 years time they were still born in the UK.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, you claim by being born on the island of Ireland you are Irish, until you are old enough to choose something else.

Your words Francie, not mine.

What else could you be if you are born on an island called Ireland?

That is the difference between place of birth and 'identity' and why people were given the 'birthright to choose for themselves' an identity.

A newborn CANNOT choose anything for themselves.

Come on Mark, tell us, what are they?

James Brown

10-15 years

jh79 wrote: »

It's the nation they were born in so is in keeping with the definition of nationality. You told another poster not to be so sensitive about stuff that is factual.

Just like geography the nation you are born in does not change. Anyone born today in Belfast is born in the UK. Even if a UI happens in 10 / 20 / 50 years time they were still born in the UK.

The UK is not a country, (also N.I. is not in the UK).

Dytalus

15-20 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are Unionists going to engage (Or could they be expected to engage) in agreeing to/constructing something they are going to be against though?

Some will. The staunchest won't - the most stubborn or hard leaning people of any political viewpoint refuse to talk to 'other guys'. But if it looks like a border poll is going to happen, especially if it's actually been called by the NI Secretary, I like to believe some will approach the table and see "Well, we don't want to lose, but let's make sure that if we do we have some say in what happens next."

I do take the hardline view of 'if you don't take part, you don't get to complain if it happens and you weren't there for negotiations', but I will be genuinely upset if none of them were willing to at least try and prepare for it. If only because through their stubborness they'll have ensured their constituents will not have been heard in the development of a new Ireland following a successful border poll.

If we take the view of doing the negotiating after a border poll, they'll have even less of an excuse not to come to the table. In the event of a successful unification vote, they can lose nothing by negotiating. By refusing to engage, they only guarantee that a united Ireland happens entirely without their voie being heard. At least if negotiating happens before the vote, they can say "We wanted to focus on making sure the vote for unification failed", it it happens afterwards they have no such recourse.

Dytalus

15-20 years

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The UK is not a country

It very much is.

It is, admittedly, a country built of other countries but it has a sovereign government and a seat at the United Nations and is internationally recognised (I cannot think of any additional necessary criteria).

Matt Barrett wrote: »

(also N.I. is not in the UK).

It very much is.

It may not, technically, be in Britain (the landmass), but the full sovereign nation is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". NI is very much a part of the UK.

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

Some will. The staunchest won't - the most stubborn or hard leaning people of any political viewpoint refuse to talk to 'other guys'. But if it looks like a border poll is going to happen, especially if it's actually been called by the NI Secretary, I like to believe some will approach the table and see "Well, we don't want to lose, but let's make sure that if we do we have some say in what happens next."

I do take the hardline view of 'if you don't take part, you don't get to complain if it happens and you weren't there for negotiations', but I will be genuinely upset if none of them were willing to at least try and prepare for it. If only because through their stubborness they'll have ensured their constituents will not have been heard in the development of a new Ireland following a successful border poll.

If we take the view of doing the negotiating after a border poll, they'll have even less of an excuse not to come to the table. In the event of a successful unification vote, they can lose nothing by negotiating. By refusing to engage, they only guarantee that a united Ireland happens entirely without their voie being heard. At least if negotiating happens before the vote, they can say "We wanted to focus on making sure the vote for unification failed", it it happens afterwards they have no such recourse.

Mike Nesbitt and Peter Robinson seem to be willing to engage, but I am not sure how ready somebody who says she will abandon her electorate will be to, or who cannot even have the simple manners to acknowledge our 100 year old fight for independence.

markodaly

20-30 years

markodaly wrote: »

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

Ara spare us the obtuse strawmen. More Catholics = more people who are likely to vote for nationalist parties. It's really not complicated. Unless you're really contending that they're going to start voting for the DUP? Keep it real.

markodaly wrote: »

The younger generation will not be swept up by romantic weepy-eyed stories about Pearse or McGuinness.

Only in your little head, crammed as it clearly is with stereotypes, does your fantasy enter the equation. Young Irish in the North will vote for reunification because they're practical enough to know when the tide of history has changed. They know that the spent force of English colonial power/the UK in Ireland has been replaced. Now, to their south is a dynamic Irish state that is a member of one of the most progressive multinational states in world history and that this opens them to far more cultural and intellectual influences than they'll get by being stuck in a post-Brexit sectarian UK backwater with narrow, populist, rightwing English nationalists pulling the strings.

markodaly wrote: »

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'.

What a staggeringly peculiar idea to think that the economic self-interest of anybody in the North of Ireland rests in being part of the current chaotic UK state that not only is on the verge of extinction itself but which is being derided across the entire EU. You really think that tumultuous UK state, with no conclusion in sight, is attractive to any motivated, ambitious or progressive person in the North of Ireland?

markodaly wrote: »

In fact, the overall vote of SF in the north peaked a few years ago and has been dropping election after election.

Yes, of course. Because... only people who vote for SF support Irish reunification? Heaven forfend that you'd have to explain the disparity between the Sinn Féin vote, and the far larger number of people who favour reunification:

1. Irish Independent: Majority would now back a united Ireland - with support highest in the Border region, says poll (April 2019)

2. Irish Times: Polls suggest gradual shift to united Ireland (Oct. 2018)

3. Journal.ie: Almost two-thirds of voters in favour of united Ireland, exit poll results show (May 2019)

4. New Statesman: Support for a united Ireland is surging – and for the first time, it’s backed by moderates (April 2019)

etc.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Ara spare us the obtuse strawmen. More Catholics = more people who are likely to vote for nationalist parties. It's really not complicated. Unless you're really contending that they're going to start voting for the DUP? Keep it real.



Only in your little head, crammed as it clearly is with stereotypes, does your fantasy enter the equation. Young Irish in the North will vote for reunification because they're practical enough to know when the tide of history has changed. They know that the spent force of English colonial power/the UK in Ireland has been replaced. Now, to their south is a dynamic Irish state that is a member of one of the most progressive multinational states in world history and that this opens them to far more cultural and intellectual influences than they'll get by being stuck in a post-Brexit sectarian UK backwater with narrow, populist, rightwing English nationalists pulling the strings.



What a staggeringly peculiar idea to think that the economic self-interest of anybody in the North of Ireland rests in being part of the current chaotic UK state that not only is on the verge of extinction itself but which is being derided across the entire EU. You really think that tumultuous UK state, with no conclusion in sight, is attractive to any motivated, ambitious or progressive person in the North of Ireland?



Yes, of course. Because... only people who vote for SF support Irish reunification? Heaven forfend that you'd have to explain the disparity between the Sinn Féin vote, and the far larger number of people who favour reunification:

1. Irish Independent: Majority would now back a united Ireland - with support highest in the Border region, says poll (April 2019)

2. Irish Times: Polls suggest gradual shift to united Ireland (Oct. 2018)

3. Journal.ie: Almost two-thirds of voters in favour of united Ireland, exit poll results show (May 2019)

4. New Statesman: Support for a united Ireland is surging – and for the first time, it’s backed by moderates (April 2019)

etc.

Well said. There is a lot of denial going on at the moment among southern partitionists. If they are not denying they are furiously trying to raise the bar.

onrail

30-40 years

Bob Harris wrote: »

As I understand it when there are more catholics than protestants then there will be unification?
Is a critical mass of catholics the only factor because it's all that's mentioned in the opening post.

Not even close. % of catholics isn't quite meaningless, but there's wayyyy more to it. The middle class catholic vote is key really - they're driven by 90% economics and 10% ideology. For the hardliners, the opposite is the case.

So whatever side of the argument guarantees their cushy public sector salary will get their vote and ultimately decide any referendum.

onrail

30-40 years

Deleted User wrote: »

A Unless you're really contending that they're going to start voting for the DUP? Keep it real.

To be fair, I know middle class catholics in the North who have voted for the DUP. Not to say that'll continue into the future with their Kamikaze policy on Brexit, but it has happened far more than you'd realise.

Whatever puts bread on the table at the end of the day

FrancieBrady

onrail wrote: »

Not even close. % of catholics isn't quite meaningless, but there's wayyyy more to it. The middle class catholic vote is key really - they're driven by 90% economics and 10% ideology. For the hardliners, the opposite is the case.

So whatever side of the argument guarantees their cushy public sector salary will get their vote and ultimately decide any referendum.

With what is about to hit the UK if they don't pull back, that might be an easy debate to win.

onrail

30-40 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

With what is about to hit the UK if they don't pull back, that might be an easy debate to win.

Indeed. Which is why I'm absolutely shocked that the DUP are taking such a hard line towards the cliff edge.

Imreoir2

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

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.

Our constitution already anticipates this issue.

Artical 8, section 3:

Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

8.3 - Ach féadfar socrú a dhéanamh le dlí d'fhonn ceachtar den dá theanga sin a bheith ina haonteanga le haghaidh aon ghnó nó gnóthaí oifigiúla ar fud an Stáit ar fad nó in aon chuid de.

This says that the state can make provision in law to use either language alone for any oficial business across the whole state or in any part of the state. This provision has never been used, but its inclusion anticipates a UI where special provisions would be needed for the North. As such, the state could constitutionally continue the status quo in the 26 counties while adopting special provisions in the 6 counties (or perhaps just in those counties with a Unionist majority).

The most likely outcome is that language provisions will remain the same in the 26 counties, while a new Irish Language Act along the lines of the act currently being demanded in the North is aopted for the 6 counties. No change is needed to the Republics constitution to allow this to happen as it is already covered under artical 8.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann.

FrancieBrady

onrail wrote: »

Indeed. Which is why I'm absolutely shocked that the DUP are taking such a hard line towards the cliff edge.

I can only think that they want to wreck the GFA and hope to destabilise the place for another 40-50 years. It's the only thing makes sense to me.

I don't think we should have a border poll because of Brexit, but I cannot see how you can take NI out of the EU against it's will and not have one.

Granadino

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

A 50+1 majority isn't good enough. It would need to be 80+% for, an overwhelming majority in favour of a UI. It'll take generations yet despite what SF say.

James Brown

10-15 years

Dytalus wrote: »

It very much is.

It is, admittedly, a country built of other countries but it has a sovereign government and a seat at the United Nations and is internationally recognised (I cannot think of any additional necessary criteria).

It's not a country and it doesn't have it's own government. It's British jurisdiction in occupied Ulster on the Island of Ireland.

Dytalus wrote: »

It very much is.

It may not, technically, be in Britain (the landmass), but the full sovereign nation is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". NI is very much a part of the UK.

It's not a country.

jh79

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not a country and it doesn't have it's own government. It's British jurisdiction in occupied Ulster on the Island of Ireland.



It's not a country.

It is a country according to the UN and part of the GFA was the acceptance of partition as legitimate.

James Brown

10-15 years

jh79 wrote: »

It is a country according to the UN and part of the GFA was the acceptance of partition as legitimate.

It isn't. It doesn't. It's not. It's British territory on the island of Ireland. Partition is accepted. What's partitioned? Hint: Ireland.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

It is a country according to the UN and part of the GFA was the acceptance of partition as legitimate.

If it is a country in the true sense of a 'country' why is there an internationally binding agreement with another country to run it?

What other country in Europe would allow that? Would Scotland, Wales or England?

jh79

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It isn't. It doesn't. It's not. It's British territory on the island of Ireland. Partition is accepted. What's partitioned? Hint: Ireland.

But its not occupied because the majority up North want to be part of the UK and we, by voting for the GFA, have accepted that.

The the UK is officially a nation and given that nationally is defined as either your place of birth or nation of birth describing for example Michelle O'Neil as a British woman who identifies as Irish is just as valid as Francie calling the other poster as an Irish national who identifies as British.

cj maxx

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It isn't. It doesn't. It's not. It's British territory on the island of Ireland. Partition is accepted. What's partitioned? Hint: Ireland.

Does NI have ambassadors , a foreign department and does it really have seat at the UN. All news to me !!!
Sorry Matt I quoted the wrong post. I agree with you

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But its not occupied because the majority up North want to be part of the UK and we, by voting for the GFA, have accepted that.

The the UK is officially a nation and given that nationally is defined as either your place of birth or nation of birth describing for example Michelle O'Neil as a British woman who identifies as Irish is just as valid as Francie calling the other poster as an Irish national who identifies as British.

Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

She could never be 'British' unless she was born in England, Scotland or Wales or chose to be identified as British.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

She could never be 'British' unless she was born in England, Scotland or Wales or chose to be identified as British.

I'm assumimg she was born in NI, so she can be described as British. NI is part of the UK and people from the UK are British by definition.

You told the other poster not to be over sensitive about facts.

Imreoir2

10-15 years

jh79 wrote: »

I'm assumimg she was born in NI, so she can be described as British. NI is part if the UK ans people from the UK are British by definition.

You told the other poster not to be over sensitive about facts.

Unless they were born in NI in which case they are not British by defination but rather have the choice to identify as Irsh, or British, or both.

jh79

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Unless they were born in NI in which case they are not British by defination but rather have the choice to identify as Irsh, or British, or both.

They are British by definition. Look up the definition of nationality. M'ON is as Irish as Trimble is British.