How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

And yes, it must be left to the SOS to decide, and it is only when he decides that the reasonableness of his decision can be tested. That court case is correctly saying that his decision cannot be second-guessed in advance. That is all, nothing more.

That makes no sense.

The statutory framework does not specify the matters which must be taken into account or left out of account in deciding whether a border poll is or is not appropriate. In essence it must be for the Secretary of State to decide what matters should be taken into account on the political question of the appropriateness of a poll.

The statutory framework does not specify the matters which must be taken into account
i.e. The SOS can decide what affects his/her decision.


In essence it must be for the Secretary of State to decide what matters should be taken into account on the political question of the appropriateness of a poll

i.e. it is at his/her sole discretion if a poll is appropriate = reasonable.

Clear as day what the judge is saying here.

Take a case inferring unreasonableness and you will get told the same.

But by all means encourage somebody to do it, it would be worth any votes for a UI.

_blaaz

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

Historically inaccurate, false and counterfactual. Quite a trifecta.
Meanwhile in reality.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Ireland#Powers

The fact is, that Ireland has never been united under Irish rule. To state otherwise is engaging in Trump level 'facts'

Like i said....you just intend on ignoring the gratren parlimemt

1782-1800: Grattan’s short-lived parliament gives legislative independence within the Crown to an Irish Parliament,

Fionn1952

15-20 years

markodaly wrote: »

Historically inaccurate, false and counterfactual. Quite a trifecta.
Meanwhile in reality.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Ireland#Powers

The fact is, that Ireland has never been united under Irish rule. To state otherwise is engaging in Trump level 'facts'

I hear hardline Loyalists come out with this all the time. Simple question- so what?

Undoubtedly the historic system of government in pre-Norman invasion Ireland was different. More like a federation with varying levels of rulership on a country-wide level, depending on the Ard-Rí at the time. It could probably be argued that Brian Boru was as close to, 'unity' as ever achieved in this sense.

I presume your idea is to suggest that the individual (and often varying) 'kingdoms' of the time were more akin to separate countries, and so there is no historic, 'Ireland' or 'Irish people' to unite? What was certainly true is that culturally, legally,and politically, the people were connected in a way that your gross simplification totally ignores

Ultimately it's totally irrelevant, as no one is suggesting reinstating the ancient Irish system of government, and how this was carried out back then will have no bearing on the legal standing of the process towards Irish unity.

To avoid a United Ireland, Unionism must focus on convincing the significant middle ground (many of whom identify as Irish) of the benefits of remaining part of your precious union.

Sneering at those peoples' history and culture isn't likely to help much in this. This adaptation from Protestant Ascendancy to Shared Future has always been tough for some parts of the Unionist community. I tend to blame this on a lack of progressive leadership intent on focusing on the past rather than the future.

Of course, one could make similar arguments on how Republicanism must focus on the benefits of a United Ireland rather than sneering at the history and culture of Unionist people.

Phoebas

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

_blaaz wrote: »

Like i said....you just intend on ignoring the gratren parlimemt

'Grattan's' Parliament was just the old Irish Parliament that had run for hundreds of years previously with some additional devolved powers.

If you think that this was a period of Irish unification then fair enough, but it was a period of Irish unification under British rule. I don't think anyone would want that - at least not south of the border.

markodaly

_blaaz wrote: »

Like i said....you just intend on ignoring the gratren parlimemt

Even your own quote proves you wrong.

1782-1800: Grattan’s short-lived parliament gives legislative independence within the Crown to an Irish Parliament,

The Crown (i.e. Britain) which claimed the Kingdom of Ireland as their own, kept executive rule via the appointment of a Lieutenant of Ireland (who resided in Dublin Castle) and of course, the judiciary was a British dominated affair as well.

So as your own quote shows, Ireland was never united under Irish rule.

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I hear hardline Loyalists come out with this all the time. Simple question- so what?

Perhaps to be factually accurate of our history? Or is myth making and seepy nationalism more important than historical facts?

There is a myth that Ireland and its people were somehow one 'tribe' or 'clan' before the Norman arrival. In fact we were many tribes and clans. Remember, we invited the Fench speaking Normans over here, they did not 'invade' us per say. They just stayed a little longer than we thought.

Undoubtedly the historic system of government in pre-Norman invasion Ireland was different. More like a federation with varying levels of rulership on a country-wide level, depending on the Ard-Rí at the time. It could probably be argued that Brian Boru was as close to, 'unity' as ever achieved in this sense.

Federation would indicate various areas/states/provinces/counties ruling themselves in a way, under the overarching unifying rule of 'one' person or system.
There was no such unifying ruler or system in Ireland, ever.. until the Norman/Tudors/British cemented their rule.

I presume your idea is to suggest that the individual (and often varying) 'kingdoms' of the time were more akin to separate countries, and so there is no historic, 'Ireland' or 'Irish people' to unite? What was certainly true is that culturally, legally,and politically, the people were connected in a way that your gross simplification totally ignores

Not at all, but perhaps we should set the terms of reference here as to what constitutes unification?

Is it purely cultural? Then Ireland is united at the moment, both sides of the border wear western clothing, speak English watch the same premier league teams down the pub and eat the same type of fast food after a rake of pints.

Religiously? Well again, Ireland is united on that front as well. Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church sees the Island as one.

Sports? Rugby, GAA, Boxing, Olympics the list goes on, again untied.

Legally? Well we are all members of the European Union and subject to rulings of the ECJ (Brexit may say this will change somewhat I conceed)

The only real difference is politically and even then, is there that much of a difference? Both Westminster systems of parliament after all.

Sure, the flag is different. One has an old queen, the other has an old president. Subtle differences about 'dem folks in Westminister' and 'dem folks in the Dail' The people who seek differences are looking at small details that seek more to divide than unite, ironically.

So again, we are really only politically divided and at that, the difference isn't that much. In much of everything else, we are really already united.
The key, of course, is the money in peoples back pocket and how we are going to pay for this Unification.

Ultimately it's totally irrelevant, as no one is suggesting reinstating the ancient Irish system of government, and how this was carried out back then will have no bearing on the legal standing of the process towards Irish unity.

It is just a word after all, but one would have thought that its best to be accurate in the use of words and language. Or is the bar set higher for some?

To avoid a United Ireland, Unionism must focus on convincing the significant middle ground (many of whom identify as Irish) of the benefits of remaining part of your precious union.

My precious Union? Can you care to elaborate?

Sneering at those peoples' history and culture isn't likely to help much in this. This adaptation from Protestant Ascendancy to Shared Future has always been tough for some parts of the Unionist community. I tend to blame this on a lack of progressive leadership intent on focusing on the past rather than the future.

Of course, one could make similar arguments on how Republicanism must focus on the benefits of a United Ireland rather than sneering at the history and culture of Unionist people.

I'm sneering now? I am just pointing out a simple fact about the use of the word 're-unification' which is inaccurate use in this context. I would advise you not to take it or the topic at hand too seriously.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

I'm sneering now? I am just pointing out a simple fact about the use of the word 're-unification' which is inaccurate use in this context. I would advise you not to take it or the topic at hand too seriously.

Its odd how they all turn personal very quickly, isn't it?

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Its odd how they all turn personal very quickly, isn't it?

The term shinnerbot was being thrown around by the same poster to be fair.
That’s both personal and disrespectful and doesn’t help the conversation

Fionn1952

15-20 years

markodaly wrote: »

Perhaps to be factually accurate of our history? Or is myth making and seepy nationalism more important than historical facts?

There is a myth that Ireland and its people were somehow one 'tribe' or 'clan' before the Norman arrival. In fact we were many tribes and clans. Remember, we invited the Fench speaking Normans over here, they did not 'invade' us per say. They just stayed a little longer than we thought.

There were many highly connected, interlaced clans. Similar to how many societies at the time were formed. Was Scotland one country before British rule?

Federation would indicate various areas/states/provinces/counties ruling themselves in a way, under the overarching unifying rule of 'one' person or system.
There was no such unifying ruler or system in Ireland, ever.. until the Norman/Tudors/British cemented their rule.

Some federations are tighter, some are looser than others. The historical existence of an Ard Rí demonstrates that they were certainly closer to some sort of federation than the completely disconnected independent groups you seem to suggest. As I mentioned, this grouping was looser and tighter at varying times, depending on who the Ard-Rí at the time was, and how much power he held, much like many kingdoms in history.

Not at all, but perhaps we should set the terms of reference here as to what constitutes unification?

Is it purely cultural? Then Ireland is united at the moment, both sides of the border wear western clothing, speak English watch the same premier league teams down the pub and eat the same type of fast food after a rake of pints.

Religiously? Well again, Ireland is united on that front as well. Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church sees the Island as one.

Sports? Rugby, GAA, Boxing, Olympics the list goes on, again untied.

Legally? Well we are all members of the European Union and subject to rulings of the ECJ (Brexit may say this will change somewhat I conceed)

The only real difference is politically and even then, is there that much of a difference? Both Westminster systems of parliament after all.

Sure, the flag is different. One has an old queen, the other has an old president. Subtle differences about 'dem folks in Westminister' and 'dem folks in the Dail' The people who seek differences are looking at small details that seek more to divide than unite, ironically.

So again, we are really only politically divided and at that, the difference isn't that much. In much of everything else, we are really already united.
The key, of course, is the money in peoples back pocket and how we are going to pay for this Unification.

It isn't really a point for debate, we know what constitutes unification - all of the above. Pointing to the increasing similarities of British and Irish culture is irrelevant, as will be demonstrated tonight, in the North, significant differences remain.

Regarding your last point, I've already mentioned on this thread that the decision of a significant swathe of the middle ground will be made on what's in their personal best interests - it's down to those who wish for either outcome to convince that middle ground that it is. I certainly accept that currently, it remains financially beneficial for the north to remain part of the union, and as such I dont believe a unification vote would pass right now. For how long this might be the case, I dont know.

It is just a word after all, but one would have thought that its best to be accurate in the use of words and language. Or is the bar set higher for some?

Can you point out where exactly I've suggested, encouraged or praised dual standards? In fact my previous post in this thread was critical of the inaccuracies of both sides of this discussion.

My precious Union? Can you care to elaborate?

Aren't you a Unionist, who identifies as British? Didnt realise there was much complexity to describing the union as belonging to the people of the United Kingdom. It is a term regularly used by British politicians to describe their continuing support for Scotland and the North remaining part of the United Kingdom, so I'm perplexed as to how you find this controversial. If I'm mistaken about the first part, I will of course withdraw that statement.

I'm sneering now? I am just pointing out a simple fact about the use of the word 're-unification' which is inaccurate use in this context. I would advise you not to take it or the topic at hand too seriously.

To what ends? What great impact will it have on the overarching topic if the title specified unification rather than reunification? I dont buy the, 'pointing out a simple fact' nonsense.

The only time I have ever encountered the points you're making offline have been solely to undermine the Republican aspirations towards a United Ireland. From what I've seen of your posting history, this seems more likely to me than a new found love of pedantically correcting thread titles.

Perhaps the phrase, 'you'll catch more flies with honey' would be worth keeping in mind, as questions on the future of this island become more prominent.

ohnonotgmail

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The term shinnerbot was being thrown around by the same poster to be fair.
That’s both personal and disrespectful and doesn’t help the conversation

Well i've had personal attacks on this thread and i've never used the term shinnerbot here. so you cant just put it down to that.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

To try get us somewhat back on track this is an interesting read. He says they won’t be bribed into a United ireland but

https://twitter.com/freyamcc/status/1148994125112532992?s=21

Ush1

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I hear hardline Loyalists come out with this all the time. Simple question- so what?

Undoubtedly the historic system of government in pre-Norman invasion Ireland was different. More like a federation with varying levels of rulership on a country-wide level, depending on the Ard-Rí at the time. It could probably be argued that Brian Boru was as close to, 'unity' as ever achieved in this sense.

I presume your idea is to suggest that the individual (and often varying) 'kingdoms' of the time were more akin to separate countries, and so there is no historic, 'Ireland' or 'Irish people' to unite? What was certainly true is that culturally, legally,and politically, the people were connected in a way that your gross simplification totally ignores

Ultimately it's totally irrelevant, as no one is suggesting reinstating the ancient Irish system of government, and how this was carried out back then will have no bearing on the legal standing of the process towards Irish unity.

To avoid a United Ireland, Unionism must focus on convincing the significant middle ground (many of whom identify as Irish) of the benefits of remaining part of your precious union.

Sneering at those peoples' history and culture isn't likely to help much in this. This adaptation from Protestant Ascendancy to Shared Future has always been tough for some parts of the Unionist community. I tend to blame this on a lack of progressive leadership intent on focusing on the past rather than the future.

Of course, one could make similar arguments on how Republicanism must focus on the benefits of a United Ireland rather than sneering at the history and culture of Unionist people.

Many countries now share those similar attributes but aren't trying to form unions. I presume part of the point is that a lot of the thrust of this United Ireland rhetoric is that "the Brits broke us up", which is not historically accurate.

So it seems to boil down to we share a landmass so should be one country?

I think the more pragmatic will be thinking of the costs rather than romantic notions of unionists and republicans holding hands and singing together in a United Ireland.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

Ush1 wrote: »

Many countries now share those similar attributes but aren't trying to form unions. I presume part of the point is that a lot of the thrust of this United Ireland rhetoric is that "the Brits broke us up", which is not historically accurate.

So it seems to boil down to we share a landmass so should be one country?

I think the more pragmatic will be thinking of the costs rather than romantic notions of unionists and republicans holding hands and singing together in a United Ireland.

Much more of the thrust is relating to much more recent history from the North, unfortunately.

I do, as I have already stated, agree entirely with your latter point entirely.

The Mervyn Gibsons of the world will never be convinced that a United Ireland is the correct choice, nor will his equals on the other side ever be convinced of the benefits of the union. It's the people in between those two extremes who will decide though. Cultural or perceived historical reasoning will certainly be a factor, but how your wallet looks at the end of the month, how long it takes you to see a doctor, how many jobs there are for you and your children etc will all make a much larger difference.

FrancieBrady

Ush1 wrote: »

Many countries now share those similar attributes but aren't trying to form unions. I presume part of the point is that a lot of the thrust of this United Ireland rhetoric is that "the Brits broke us up", which is not historically accurate.

So it seems to boil down to we share a landmass so should be one country?

I think the more pragmatic will be thinking of the costs rather than romantic notions of unionists and republicans holding hands and singing together in a United Ireland.

I think it is funny how many have convinced themselves that the only thing that will affect the vote will be 'economic cost'.
Many generations in this country have engaged with the issue of partition on the basis of much more than how much it costs.
There will be huge historical, cultural and emotional issues at play, not to mention duty and a sense of correcting a wrong.

facehugger99

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

To try get us somewhat back on track this is an interesting read. He says they won’t be bribed into a United ireland but

What's interesting about it? It's quite clear that he believes there'll never be a majority in NI that favours unification with the ROI - he's correct.

Charles Babbage

facehugger99 wrote: »

What's interesting about it? It's quite clear that he believes there'll never be a majority in NI that favours unification with the ROI - he's correct.

It is only a question of time. Anyone who suggests that the present unnatural division will continue forever has been ignoring reality. There is no economic, social, political or demographic trend supporting this division.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

What's interesting about it? It's quite clear that he believes there'll never be a majority in NI that favours unification with the ROI - he's correct.

Did you read it all?
Interesting that he’s even acknowledging this is in the conversation now and a likelihood as an outcome of brexit. Also interesting he said he’d respect the democratic vote. Serious gear shift from their ‘no! Never!’ Myopia

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

What's interesting about it? It's quite clear that he believes there'll never be a majority in NI that favours unification with the ROI - he's correct.

Maybe he also thinks 37% is a massive majority.

The truth would be the gap is closing and along the way is coming an event that will close that gap even faster.
Easy to bluster about it but not so easy to see what northern Ireland is going to look like in a few years.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it is funny how many have convinced themselves that the only thing that will affect the vote will be 'economic cost'.
Many generations in this country have engaged with the issue of partition on the basis of much more than how much it costs.
There will be huge historical, cultural and emotional issues at play, not to mention duty and a sense of correcting a wrong.

You keep telling yourself that Fancie lad if it helps you sleep at night.

Outside of the pan-nationalist echo-chambers, the voters of this country will prioritise their taxes, pensions, social services and children's future prosperity over any "emotional issues".

All you have to offer is platitudes and populist soundbites on any potential benefits - the only people that will convenience are those already of an ilk to vote for a UI regardless. The rest of us won't be so easily swayed.

Ush1

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it is funny how many have convinced themselves that the only thing that will affect the vote will be 'economic cost'.
Many generations in this country have engaged with the issue of partition on the basis of much more than how much it costs.
There will be huge historical, cultural and emotional issues at play, not to mention duty and a sense of correcting a wrong.

Most people in the Republic have a complete disconnect from the North to be honest and when they see sectarian violence on the news from either side they feel further disconnected from it.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe he also thinks 37% is a massive majority.

The truth would be the gap is closing and along the way is coming an event that will close that gap even faster.
Easy to bluster about it but not so easy to see what northern Ireland is going to look like in a few years.

That's the Catch-22 for the pan-nationalists.

The better NI does economically, the less likely they are to want to break away from the Union, the worse they do the less likely the ROI electorate will be willing to take them on.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

The imaginary ‘unification tax’ thing again?
You really think the EU wouldn’t be floating the whole thing to a huge degree? NI is already guaranteed automatic entry when the poll passed.
All the infrastructure funding and schemes like funds for farming would resume. *something like €6 billion of EU money a year NI is about to lose after brexit
So you’re correct in one sense that people will look to their wallets.
They’re about to lose vast amounts of EU funds up there.

But of course that won’t see people wanting a UI. Cos unionist principles are so edible and nutritious

**that was sarcasm

facehugger99

Ush1 wrote: »

Most people in the Republic have a complete disconnect from the North to be honest and when they see sectarian violence on the news from either side they feel further disconnected from it.

I always feel the celebrations around the 12th are a wonderful reminder of how lucky we are not to have to be dealing with all that ****e.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

Funny thing about that. Post brexit there’s gonna be a shortage of pallets as the uk uses a different kind than the EU.

They might just start cutting down trees to burn I guess.

Good luck with that

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

You keep telling yourself that Fancie lad if it helps you sleep at night.

Outside of the pan-nationalist echo-chambers, the voters of this country will prioritise their taxes, pensions, social services and children's future prosperity over any "emotional issues".

All you have to offer is platitudes and populist soundbites on any potential benefits - the only people that will convenience are those already of an ilk to vote for a UI regardless. The rest of us won't be so easily swayed.

A UI fixes many things that are currently paralysing Britain, causing incredible disruption and no small cost for us, and is also taking a lot of valuable time and energy for the rest of the EU.

That is going to get a hell of a lot worse even if the chaotic UK manages to secure a deal. There is a least a further 6 or 7 years of instability to come as they thrash out a trade deal, god help us.
If you saw the Ulster Bank figures on the northern Ireland economy you would have seen that it has even before Brexit has happened has fallen off a cliff, that will cause massive contagion socially and economically for us too. As it alsways has.

There are no platitudes involved in suggesting a UI as a solution to the above, which is why it is now front and centre and part of the debate. Also fatcor in that the inevitable is soon going to happen, Westminster throwing the DUP under a bus successfully...they have already attempted it 3 times.

The only people a UI is not a solution for is a few partitionists and belligerent Unionists. And that is because they are hidebound and mostly self deluded.

_blaaz

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

So as your own quote shows, Ireland was never united under Irish rule.

You think havibg irish parliment based in ireland and near entirely irish members with legistaure powers to pass laws affecting ireland only is not irish rule...thats your own fish to fry mate...you just seem irrational now

blanch152

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It is only a question of time. Anyone who suggests that the present unnatural division will continue forever has been ignoring reality. There is no economic, social, political or demographic trend supporting this division.

People can keep saying this but the falling vote for nationalist parties in the North is a fact that begs to differ.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

Ah here. We’re back to alternative facts now? Seriously lads

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That makes no sense.



The statutory framework does not specify the matters which must be taken into account
i.e. The SOS can decide what affects his/her decision.


In essence it must be for the Secretary of State to decide what matters should be taken into account on the political question of the appropriateness of a poll

i.e. it is at his/her sole discretion if a poll is appropriate = reasonable.

Clear as day what the judge is saying here.

Take a case inferring unreasonableness and you will get told the same.

But by all means encourage somebody to do it, it would be worth any votes for a UI.

It makes perfect sense. The rules for the SOS cannot be set in advance says the court. Absolutely correct, absolutely fine and I have no issue with that.

It is a completely different thing to subject the decision once taken to judicial review for reasonableness. You are then into common law issues which have no relevance to the statutory framework. I have explained this clearly already, but UI fantasists will not be able to discern the difference as it goes against their thinking.

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. The rules for the SOS cannot be set in advance says the court. Absolutely correct, absolutely fine and I have no issue with that.

It is a completely different thing to subject the decision once taken to judicial review for reasonableness. You are then into common law issues which have no relevance to the statutory framework. I have explained this clearly already, but UI fantasists will not be able to discern the difference as it goes against their thinking.

i think you are wasting your time trying to argue that with francie.