How long before Irish reunification?

cameramonkey

20-30 years

John Loader Maffey

"we can now talk to Eire on a cold, factual, horse-trading basis, knowing perfectly well that the cards are in our hands." He continued, "It must be admitted that, by ascribing Dominion status to Eire, we placed in unfriendly hands a power to weaken the conception and responsibilities of Dominion status. Eire has none of the attributes of a Dominion. She is a "Scotland " gone wrong, and we cannot afford to let her be completely divorced from the strategic and economic zone of England, Scotland and Wales." Turning to Northern Ireland, Maffey remarked, "Unhappily it is not possible for us to feel satisfied with the state of affairs in Northern Ireland. The Unionist Government are fighting an insidious enemy who is gaining upon them. Their ballot box is not safe over a period against the Catholic birth-rate. The loyalty of the local garrison is not proof against the attractions of a lower income-tax rate in Eire. They are vulnerable to world criticism. The British Government cannot afford to ignore the pronouncement made in November 1944 by the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev. Dr. Griffin, that there is religious persecution at the present day in Northern Ireland."

He covers a lot of the bases there.

cameramonkey

20-30 years

Charles Babbage wrote: »

No, the referendum will pass because unlike the fake Brexit propoganda there is part of this country actually subject to colonial rule.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Cork?

Your mind.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for. Your lack of foresight would be more in keeping with the less thoughtful Brexiteers.

You seem to think that there will be no consequences in the South if unification is rejected. The flag would no longer be appropriate, the anthem would have to be changed - a new officially partitionist state would need to be crafted as this one is built on a different idea of Ireland.

I shudder to think of the schism a no vote would cause here. We think Brexit is bad? A rejection of a UI in the 'Ireland' could be exponentially worse.

Wow, just wow. If the people of the South reject unification, are you suggesting our resident republican nuts will attack this state?

If not, what’s the problem? A democratic result is a democratic result

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for. Your lack of foresight would be more in keeping with the less thoughtful Brexiteers.

You seem to think that there will be no consequences in the South if unification is rejected. The flag would no longer be appropriate, the anthem would have to be changed - a new officially partitionist state would need to be crafted as this one is built on a different idea of Ireland.

I shudder to think of the schism a no vote would cause here. We think Brexit is bad? A rejection of a UI in the 'Ireland' could be exponentially worse.

Wow, just wow. If the people of the South reject unification, are you suggesting our resident republican nuts will attack this state?

If not, what’s the problem? A democratic result is a democratic result

You'd have to work some pretty tiring mental gymnastics to infer that from the post you quoted. It's almost as if you're looking for some excuse to paint those who favour unification and violent nuts....

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Wow, just wow. If the people of the South reject unification, are you suggesting our resident republican nuts will attack this state?

Calm down. I understand this is an appalling vista for you but nobody is speaking of civil war 2.0.

If not, what’s the problem?

I haven't developed my views too much on the subject but if you'd like to read the post again you'll see where potential problems will likely arise.

A democratic result is a democratic result

It sure is but you've got to own it when you win/lose and a no vote will almost certainly not mean returning to the status quo.

SafeSurfer

30-40 years

Was there a referendum in west Germany on German reunification? I Don’t believe so. Will a referendum be needed in the Republic of Ireland to incorporate Northern Ireland in a United ireland? Yes, possibly made more complicated by the removal of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution.
Could a majority of voters in the south reject unification. I believe that yes they could, depending on the political and economic climate of the time.
Would Northern Ireland add anything to the Republic of Ireland?
Certainly yes in terms of increased territory, population and the realization of long held political goals. In realpolitik we would be inheriting a complicated and costly security situation. A very dependent economy and a completely new political landscape which would be very challenging.

Would a rejection of a United ireland by the electorate have ramifications for the Republic of Ireland? Undoubtedly. And it would throw the north into turmoil if a majority there wanted to rejoin a United ireland only for that to be rejected by voters in the south.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Was there a referendum in west Germany on German reunification? I Don’t believe so. Will a referendum be needed in the Republic of Ireland to incorporate Northern Ireland in a United ireland? Yes, possibly made more complicated by the removal of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution.
Could a majority of voters in the south reject unification. I believe that yes they could, depending on the political and economic climate of the time.
Would Northern Ireland add anything to the Republic of Ireland?
Certainly yes in terms of increased territory, population and the realization of long held political goals. In realpolitik we would be inheriting a complicated and costly security situation. A very dependent economy and a completely new political landscape which would be very challenging.

Would a rejection of a United ireland by the electorate have ramifications for the Republic of Ireland? Undoubtedly. And it would throw the north into turmoil if a majority there wanted to rejoin a United ireland only for that to be rejected by voters in the south.

The idea that 40 years of conflict /war and now another ****storm (All as a result of a stupid partition) does not and did not 'challenge' us is completely wrong.
Removing the core problem - partition, is the only solution to that.

SafeSurfer

30-40 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Was there a referendum in west Germany on German reunification? I Don’t believe so. Will a referendum be needed in the Republic of Ireland to incorporate Northern Ireland in a United ireland? Yes, possibly made more complicated by the removal of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution.
Could a majority of voters in the south reject unification. I believe that yes they could, depending on the political and economic climate of the time.
Would Northern Ireland add anything to the Republic of Ireland?
Certainly yes in terms of increased territory, population and the realization of long held political goals. In realpolitik we would be inheriting a complicated and costly security situation. A very dependent economy and a completely new political landscape which would be very challenging.

Would a rejection of a United ireland by the electorate have ramifications for the Republic of Ireland? Undoubtedly. And it would throw the north into turmoil if a majority there wanted to rejoin a United ireland only for that to be rejected by voters in the south.

The idea that 40 years of conflict /war and now another ****storm (All as a result of a stupid partition) does not and did not 'challenge' us is completely wrong.
Removing the core problem - partition, is the only solution to that.

Removing partition would only remove the problem of partition.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Will a referendum be needed in the Republic of Ireland to incorporate Northern Ireland in a United ireland? Yes

I don't think there is a codified requirement for a referendum in the South.

SafeSurfer

30-40 years

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Will a referendum be needed in the Republic of Ireland to incorporate Northern Ireland in a United ireland? Yes

I don't think there is a codified requirement for a referendum in the South.

I read recently up to four referendums would be required.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I read recently up to four referendums would be required.

That was from a UK based think tank,who don't really know how to run referendums to begin with, in fairness.

SafeSurfer

30-40 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I read recently up to four referendums would be required.

That was from a UK based think tank,who don't really know how to run referendums to begin with, in fairness.

Article 3.1 will require a referendum in the south.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Article 3.1 will require a referendum in the south.

That's 2 refs then.

SafeSurfer

30-40 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Article 3.1 will require a referendum in the south.

That's 2 refs then.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t think it’s quite that simple.

Properly framed and planned why would it have to be any more difficult?

What would the purpose of extra referendums be, to revoke unity?

One referendum in each jurisdiction, if it passes on the basis of proposals then bring in legislation to cover any extraneous issues.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I read recently up to four referendums would be required.

I did a bit of googling there a couple of weeks ago and couldn't see where a referendum was required in the South but I stand to be corrected.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

zasdfghjkl wrote: »

The Free State would need to vote on whether to incirporate new territory into the country.

Article 3.1

a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.

The NI Act 1998 speaks to a poll in the north but not in the south and A3.1 speaks a majority democratically expressed which does not, it appears, codify a poll/referendum is required in the south.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Article 3.1

a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.

The NI Act 1998 speaks to a poll in the north but not in the south and A3.1 speaks a majority democratically expressed which does not, it appears, codify a poll/referendum is required in the south.

Technically, we have already had a ref on the issue and decided by majority that we aspire to unity. So unless somebody can prove a need or desire to change that, nothing unconstitutional would happen if we acted on that aspiration.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Properly framed and planned why would it have to be any more difficult?

What would the purpose of extra referendums be, to revoke unity?

One referendum in each jurisdiction, if it passes on the basis of proposals then bring in legislation to cover any extraneous issues.

You sound like a Brexiteer. Just vote Leave and we will sort out the details later, don’t worry, nothing will change and we will negotiate a great deal.

It is funny that most republicans now sound like the biggest British nationalists.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Technically, we have already had a ref on the issue and decided by majority that we aspire to unity. So unless somebody can prove a need or desire to change that, nothing unconstitutional would happen if we acted on that aspiration.

I would say the very nature of the nation/country/state of Ireland is one with a view to a united, all-island Ireland.

A rejection of a UI would be an effective call for a new 26 county separatist country and, oh boy, what a can of worms that would open up.

Consider this, there's a 65% pro-UI vote in the north, a slim rejection in the south but a total majority all Ireland vote that adds up to +50% in favour...

What then?

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Just vote [...] and we will sort out the details later

The nature of this country/nation/state is built on a United 32 County Ireland - if a UI is rejected in the south then it is people like you that will called upon to come up with a new vision and told to stop appropriating the trappings of the Irish nation such as the flag, the 1916 proclamation, and the very constitution.

If you get your way you will need to own it - every bit of it.

You never thought through the consequences of your partitionism and the appalling vista of not being able to return to the comfortable separatist view you had horrifies you.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You sound like a Brexiteer. Just vote Leave and we will sort out the details later, don’t worry, nothing will change and we will negotiate a great deal.

It is funny that most republicans now sound like the biggest British nationalists.

No, blanch, just no.

You know that planning has begun and issues are being teased out. Unionists are even inputting into that.

Have a bit of pride man, we do referenda much much better than the chaotic UK.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I would say the very nature of the nation/country/state of Ireland is one with a view to a united, all-island Ireland.

A rejection of a UI would be an effective call for a new 26 county separatist country and, oh boy, what a can of worms that would open up.

Consider this, there's a 65% pro-UI vote in the north, a slim rejection in the south but a total majority all Ireland vote that adds up to +50% in favour...

What then?

It would be equivalent to the British rejecting unionism.

We have been told many times on here that it would be no big deal if the British people let the North go as the people of the North would just have to accept it.

Yet, somehow, if it was the other way, if the South rejected the North, there are mutterings and dark hints.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The nature of this country/nation/state is built on a United 32 County Ireland - if a UI is rejected in the south then it is people like you that will called upon to come up with a new vision and told to stop appropriating the trappings of the Irish nation such as the flag, the 1916 proclamation, and the very constitution.

If you get your way you will need to own it - every bit of it.

You never thought through the consequences of your partitionism and the appalling vista of not being able to return to the comfortable separatist view you had horrifies you.

I have no problem with a 26-county republic. As I have explained many times, nationality, ethnicity and citizenship are three different things and are unrelated to territory.

Until the old school good republicans wake up and smell that coffee, we are stuck with their one-dimensional thought process.

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Yet, somehow, if it was the other way, if the South rejected the North, there are mutterings and dark hints.

You think everything would return to how it is? You really are naive. The consequences of a rejection of a UI could cause a severe schism in the irish nation.

That's a potential problem for all of us that can't be abrogated by claims that 'everything will be okay' in either direction of travel.

I've never shirked away from understanding that Unionist resistance is considerable risk in a UI yet you seem to be unable to grasp that rejection of a UI in the south poses its own considerable risks.

SafeSurfer

30-40 years

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Yet, somehow, if it was the other way, if the South rejected the North, there are mutterings and dark hints.

You think everything would return to how it is? You really are naive. The consequences of a rejection of a UI could cause a severe schism in the irish nation.

That's a potential problem for all of us that can't be abrogated by claims that 'everything will be okay' in either direction of travel.

I've never shirked away from understanding that Unionist resistance is considerable risk in a UI yet you seem to be unable to grasp that rejection of a UI in the south poses its own considerable risks.

I think it’s naive to think that a United Ireland would simply mean colouring the 6 counties green on the map, swapping the union jacks for tricolours and painting the post boxes.
I imagine that a United Ireland, will in reality, require major constitutional change, perhaps even a new constitution for an all island republic.

For example, is it realistic to think the 6 counties will be incorporated into the republic simply by sending 60 new northern TDs to Dublin with an unchanged upper house with its currently panel based restricted electorate?

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I think it’s naive to think that a United Ireland would simply mean colouring the 6 counties green on the map, swapping the union jacks for tricolours and painting the post boxes.
I imagine that a United Ireland, will in reality, require major constitutional change, perhaps even a new constitution for an all island republic.

For example, is it realistic to think the 6 counties will be incorporated into the republic simply by sending 60 new northern TDs to Dublin with an unchanged upper house with its currently panel based restricted electorate?

I agree with all of that. One thing that a lot of Republicans seem to find hard to swallow is that the south of Ireland becomes a bit more British in the event of a UI. I mean we'll have a million-or-so people who consider themselves at least politically British.

In my view we should have as painless a transition to a UI as possible. Keep Stormont as a devolved parliament for the northeast for the time being, incorporate the GFA into a new constitution inasmuch as it can be. Just swap sovereignty from London to Dublin and then incrementally hybridise the new state.

FrankPoll.

The DUP are toxic

We'd be mad to ever consider an all Ireland

At least at the moment we can deal with them at some remove

Haveing an all Ireland parliament with them in it would be like getting married to the woman everybody warns you not to.

There would never be an end to disputes and disagreements

Junkyard Tom

30-40 years

FrankPoll. wrote: »

Haveing an all Ireland parliament with them in it would be like getting married to the woman everybody warns you not to.

There would never be an end to disputes and disagreements

The DUP would become politically irrelevant in a UI. Their whole existence is predicated by being in the UK and rejecting a United Ireland so that shtick would be no longer useful.

Infini

10-15 years

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The DUP would become politically irrelevant in a UI. Their whole existence is predicated by being in the UK and rejecting a United Ireland so that shtick would be no longer useful.

Our voting setup would also render them far less of an issue as they need to be part of a coalition or have real policies to get anywhere. Acting the way they do now would render them impotent and basically a numpty party with no power beyond rabble rabble rabble.