Unionists and a United Ireland.

Chips Lovell

I doubt the folks up North would appreciate having the taps turned off overnight. In fact, given their previous form, the parties up there would probably demand more money, not less.

FrancieBrady

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I doubt the folks up North would appreciate having the taps turned off overnight. In fact, given their previous form, the parties up there would probably demand more money, not less.

Nobody is talking about 'turning taps off' either.

A UI, to be sustainable (and it is in everyone's interests that it is sustainable and successful) will be a negotiated, agreed and gradual process, supported by all the signatories and guarantors of the GFA. That work has been done.

briany

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Old unionists and old republicans are dying out fast.
Young people can see the bigger picture and will not be tied in to outdated bigoted religious beliefs........expect big changes

"Funny, how you get more right wing as you get older."

Even back in the days of the worst of the Troubles, back when the Stiff Little Fingers were writing songs about what was going on around them, there were young folk up there who professed to be anti-sectarian, or just a-sectarian. In fact, the SLF themselves were a cross-community band. They represented, in a way, what we hoped the future of Northern Ireland would look like.

But even though we've seen 400 years of roughly the same cycle in that troubled province, the belief that the old guard will die off, leaving the new guard to have a fresh, more positive perspective, has clung on. This has never really manifested itself, though, and it makes it hard to discern if the current (relative) peace the North has enjoyed for the last 20 or so years is merely an ebb rather than a confident march towards a new NI society.

And it's one of the odd things about war, which is that as the memories of horror abates, what's left is the legends and the stories, and young people seem attracted to this - it seems to be a progression almost as old as man himself. And the young people then think they'd like to get involved in this war business and make a name for themselves, to take up a cause of their people, to get a bit of glory. And that's a danger I think remains in Northern Ireland where you have these young lads identifying strongly with one side or the other and wishing to take up for their side, not knowing that it's not just a game.

So, let's not be complacent in saying the younger generation will be better. It's been said before, I think. There is work yet to be done, and let's see it continue to be done, and be ever vigilant.

BarryD2

tayto lover wrote: »

Following the recent Northern Ireland elections and the huge Conservative poll in mainland Britain would Unionists now be better off in a United Ireland if Britain leaves the European Union?

If I was a Unionist I'd say no - they'd get walked all over in a 32 county Ireland. Like it or lump it would be the attitude.

Those in favour of a UI (self included) would be far better to concentrate on demonstrating actively to Unionists that they'd be respected and welcomed etc etc.

Personally I wouldn't vote for in the Republic unless there was a good 80% of NI voters in favour. Otherwise just trouble for us.

pablo128

BarryD2 wrote: »

If I was a Unionist I'd say no - they'd get walked all over in a 32 county Ireland. Like it or lump it would be the attitude.

Those in favour of a UI (self included) would be far better to concentrate on demonstrating actively to Unionists that they'd be respected and welcomed etc etc.

Personally I wouldn't vote for in the Republic unless there was a good 80% of NI voters in favour. Otherwise just trouble for us.

Would you get to fcuk. Unionists ran riot for years over Catholics in the north. And now we have to appease them?

How about they get treated as equally as everyone else for once?

BluePlanet

BarryD2 wrote: »

If I was a Unionist I'd say no - they'd get walked all over in a 32 county Ireland. Like it or lump it would be the attitude.

Those in favour of a UI (self included) would be far better to concentrate on demonstrating actively to Unionists that they'd be respected and welcomed etc etc.

Personally I wouldn't vote for in the Republic unless there was a good 80% of NI voters in favour. Otherwise just trouble for us.

Well, they certainly have your number don't they?
Just threaten a little Loyalist trouble and Irish turn tail is it?

BarryD2

pablo128 wrote: »

Would you get to fcuk. Unionists ran riot for years over Catholics in the north. And now we have to appease them?

How about they get treated as equally as everyone else for once?

BluePlanet wrote: »

Well, they certainly have your number don't they?
Just threaten a little Loyalist trouble and Irish turn tail is it?

See what I mean.......................... a UI is a long, long, long way off with people of your view. And there's plenty out there.

pablo128

BarryD2 wrote: »

See what I mean.......................... a UI is a long, long, long way off with people of your view. And there's plenty out there.

Why? Because I don't see why anyone has to bend over backwards for unionists? Why would you treat them any differently to Catholics, Muslims, Sikhs, lgbts, or any other group you can think of? You are the one who mentioned unionists. Did you not consider the implications of a UI for any other citizens of NI other than unionists?

briany

BarryD2 wrote: »

See what I mean.......................... a UI is a long, long, long way off with people of your view. And there's plenty out there.

Yeah, the problem would be the potential for latent bigotry against the British Unionists, and a new Ireland could be rife with it. Largely unspoken, but self-justified in the belief that it's payback time.

FrancieBrady

briany wrote: »

Yeah, the problem would be the potential for latent bigotry against the British Unionists, and a new Ireland could be rife with it. Largely unspoken, but self-justified in the belief that it's payback time.

The point is there would be no veto for anybody in a UI. A nation of equals. And a government overseeing a constitution that would have a veto over bigoted treatment of any one based on their religion or identity. The very thing that caused NI to fail.

dvdman1

Unionists sitting in the dail may provide a good alternative right wing party to the left wing monopoly we currently have going on.

Chips Lovell

That's all very well, but I can't see anyone in the North voting for wholesale absorption. I think both the Unionists and Nationalists will insist on some sort of powersharing arrangement, where they have guaranteed representation.

ELM327

They will have guaranteed representation the same as any other party.. win a seat in the election.

partyguinness

BarryD2 wrote: »

If I was a Unionist I'd say no - they'd get walked all over in a 32 county Ireland. Like it or lump it would be the attitude.

Those in favour of a UI (self included) would be far better to concentrate on demonstrating actively to Unionists that they'd be respected and welcomed etc etc.

Personally I wouldn't vote for in the Republic unless there was a good 80% of NI voters in favour. Otherwise just trouble for us.

I would say it would be quite the opposite. The rest of the country bending over backward to demonstrate no hard feelings- it would be overkill and OTT with all the kindness and goodwill.

A common goal should be to get London out of all Ireland for good and let us all get on with it. London sure as hell does not give a flying fcuk about NI- that has been obvious for decades. Unrequited love if ever.

Anyway, who exactly would walk all over them?

Chips Lovell

ELM327 wrote: »

They will have guaranteed representation the same as any other party.. win a seat in the election.

Have you seen Stormont? This is not how Northern Irish politics works.

James Brown

briany wrote: »

Yeah, the problem would be the potential for latent bigotry against the British Unionists, and a new Ireland could be rife with it. Largely unspoken, but self-justified in the belief that it's payback time.

How? Do you think they'll be denied equal rights or a vote?
Likely they'll do alright. They'll still hold sway over their own districts and have a say nationally. I picture a Healy-Rae set up of some sort.

BarryD2

pablo128 wrote: »

Why? Because I don't see why anyone has to bend over backwards for unionists? Why would you treat them any differently to Catholics, Muslims, Sikhs, lgbts, or any other group you can think of? You are the one who mentioned unionists. Did you not consider the implications of a UI for any other citizens of NI other than unionists?

You know the old saying 'there are none as blind as those that cannot see' - well that applies here. There are many aspects of the Irish Republic as it stands that are vested in the concept of a 'holy Roman Catholic Ireland'. That's the legacy of the decades following independence. The Unionists had a slogan 'Home Rule is Rome Rule' and they were right although in a partly self fulfilling way as they opted out and left the Republic to Rome.

If we aspire to treat Unionists, Catholics, Muslims, Sikhs, lgbts, or any other group you can think of in an equal and fair way, well that's going to need a whole lot of work down south here.

I'd love to vote for a UI tomorrow but I see no justification at all for it at present. Big changes needed. Start by divesting our entire educational and health system of religious influence, then our legal and political systems, readdress symbols and culture - things like a new anthem & flag & constitution etec etc

pablo128

BarryD2 wrote: »

You know the old saying 'there are none as blind as those that cannot see' - well that applies here. There are many aspects of the Irish Republic as it stands that are vested in the concept of a 'holy Roman Catholic Ireland'. That's the legacy of the decades following independence. The Unionists had a slogan 'Home Rule is Rome Rule' and they were right although in a partly self fulfilling way as they opted out and left the Republic to Rome.

If we aspire to treat Unionists, Catholics, Muslims, Sikhs, lgbts, or any other group you can think of in an equal and fair way, well that's going to need a whole lot of work down south here.

I'd love to vote for a UI tomorrow but I see no justification at all for it at present. Big changes needed. Start by divesting our entire educational and health system of religious influence, then our legal and political systems, readdress symbols and culture - things like a new anthem & flag & constitution etec etc

I want to school in Clondalkin and had a Protestant classmate back in the 80s. Not one single person ever mentioned it to him. The only difference was he didn't have to do any of the religious classes which he was happy enough with.

Why on earth would we have to change our flag when it already contains the colour orange?

Do you see Muslims losing their sh1t over a holy Cross in a hospital they are attending? Why would Unionists/loyalists/Protestants be any different?

BluePlanet

We need our Protestant brethren to achieve a totally secular republic; fully integrated into the European Union.
UI and the likely expected constitutional changes makes this possible.

circadian

If Boris gets his deal and NI remains in the CU and SM then there is a solid platform to grow the economy in NI. For me, as a northerner this allows NI the best of both worlds and acts as a springboard to a border poll.

An economically stable Northern Ireland would be much less of a financial burden and a much more appealing inheritance for the rest of Ireland.

It's up to the electorate in the North to ensure they start to return leaders that are focused and capable of making use of this strategic position as opposed to focusing on the Union/United Ireland, as counter intuitive as that sounds when discussing Unionists in a United Ireland.

briany

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point is there would be no veto for anybody in a UI. A nation of equals. And a government overseeing a constitution that would have a veto over bigoted treatment of any one based on their religion or identity. The very thing that caused NI to fail.

This is a nice idea, but the Irish government has shown discrimination towards minorities before, and a constitution is only as good as the general will to enact it.

If we look at the history of Travellers on this island, we can see that the Irish state is perfectly capable of discriminating against and marginalising a native group of people. And if challenged on the point, it's not discrimination because we're bad people, but that those damn Travellers are just a load of bad apples who can't get with the program and assimilate fully into wider Irish society.

Now, take that attitude and apply it to British Unionists in a 32 county state. They don't particularly want to be a part of wider Irish society and some of them are quite vocal about it. This can only lead to a tacit distaste toward their whole existence on the island. There's only so far you can lean back to accommodate their wishes, and only so far the other 80-90 percent of the people are willing to bend anyway. This can only lead to ill feeling, in my opinion, and not the two communities marching arm in arm toward a new day.

James Brown

briany wrote: »

This is a nice idea, but the Irish government has shown discrimination towards minorities before, and a constitution is only as good as the general will to enact it.

If we look at the history of Travellers on this island, we can see that the Irish state is perfectly capable of discriminating against and marginalising a native group of people. And if challenged on the point, it's not discrimination because we're bad people, but that those damn Travellers are just a load of bad apples who can't get with the program and assimilate fully into wider Irish society.

Now, take that attitude and apply it to British Unionists in a 32 county state. They don't particularly want to be a part of wider Irish society and some of them are quite vocal about it. This can only lead to a tacit distaste toward their whole existence on the island. There's only so far you can lean back to accommodate their wishes, and only so far the other 80-90 percent of the people are willing to bend anyway. This can only lead to ill feeling, in my opinion, and not the two communities marching arm in arm toward a new day.

I can't see the Unionists or EU sitting by if they were treated in any unfair manner. I can't see the average Irish person or politician standing idly by either.

I think we need look at if differently. We've had a Chinese and broader Asian community for many decades now. They have their culture and religion. They even try bring us in on their cultural celebrations. There is no issue with government cramping their rights or lifestyle.
The 12th is all about sticking it to Nationalist, however I'd have no issues with them celebrating it, (as redundant as it would be).

FrancieBrady

briany wrote: »

This is a nice idea, but the Irish government has shown discrimination towards minorities before, and a constitution is only as good as the general will to enact it.

If we look at the history of Travellers on this island, we can see that the Irish state is perfectly capable of discriminating against and marginalising a native group of people. And if challenged on the point, it's not discrimination because we're bad people, but that those damn Travellers are just a load of bad apples who can't get with the program and assimilate fully into wider Irish society.

Now, take that attitude and apply it to British Unionists in a 32 county state. They don't particularly want to be a part of wider Irish society and some of them are quite vocal about it. This can only lead to a tacit distaste toward their whole existence on the island. There's only so far you can lean back to accommodate their wishes, and only so far the other 80-90 percent of the people are willing to bend anyway. This can only lead to ill feeling, in my opinion, and not the two communities marching arm in arm toward a new day.

I get what you are saying but nationalists have had to live with that for almost a century.
Unionists need to accept that a majority wish to change. And also that they need to get involved in the shape of that change or get left behind like they were at independence.
You cannot deny the majority by saying they cannot have what they want because somebody might feel hurt.

Partition never worked for all and as we see, is really not working for anyone now.

An Ciarraioch

briany wrote: »

This is a nice idea, but the Irish government has shown discrimination towards minorities before, and a constitution is only as good as the general will to enact it.

If we look at the history of Travellers on this island, we can see that the Irish state is perfectly capable of discriminating against and marginalising a native group of people. And if challenged on the point, it's not discrimination because we're bad people, but that those damn Travellers are just a load of bad apples who can't get with the program and assimilate fully into wider Irish society.

Now, take that attitude and apply it to British Unionists in a 32 county state. They don't particularly want to be a part of wider Irish society and some of them are quite vocal about it. This can only lead to a tacit distaste toward their whole existence on the island. There's only so far you can lean back to accommodate their wishes, and only so far the other 80-90 percent of the people are willing to bend anyway. This can only lead to ill feeling, in my opinion, and not the two communities marching arm in arm toward a new day.

Immediately after independence, the Free State Senate allocated a sizeable proportion of its seats to minorities (in practice, Protestants), and even the Dáil of that era had a significant number of Protestant TDs. Making July 12th a holiday would have no practical impact on the 26 counties, at least outside of Ulster, and while giving unionists 3-4 ministeries would be a radical concept, the necessity would only last as long as such parties have significant support (would Ulster Protestants switch en masse to Alliance over time after unity?).

briany

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Immediately after independence, the Free State Senate allocated a sizeable proportion of its seats to minorities (in practice, Protestants), and even the Dáil of that era had a significant number of Protestant TDs. Making July 12th a holiday would have no practical impact on the 26 counties, at least outside of Ulster, and while giving unionists 3-4 ministeries would be a radical concept, the necessity would only last as long as such parties have significant support (would Ulster Protestants switch en masse to Alliance over time after unity?).

To be fair, it seems that the Protestants of the first Irish Senate were largely Anglo-Irish gentry types, and they come across as a good deal more mellow in their outlook than the DUP and those nice folk who burn Irish flags atop bonfires every 11th of July. These people want no part of a United Ireland and never will. But the problem remains that in a United Ireland their views will have to be accommodated, being that there are still a significant amount of them. But there will never be a compromise good enough for them, and from there I can only foresee problems.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can't see the Unionists or EU sitting by if they were treated in any unfair manner. I can't see the average Irish person or politician standing idly by either.

I think we need look at if differently. We've had a Chinese and broader Asian community for many decades now. They have their culture and religion. They even try bring us in on their cultural celebrations. There is no issue with government cramping their rights or lifestyle.
The 12th is all about sticking it to Nationalist, however I'd have no issues with them celebrating it, (as redundant as it would be).

I'd have no particular issues with British Unionists carrying out July 12th celebrations. They could even march up and down the Boyne for all I care. But we can't say there's no hostility towards their cultural expressions when we look at the Dublin riots of 2006.

FrancieBrady

briany wrote: »

To be fair, it seems that the Protestants of the first Irish Senate were largely Anglo-Irish gentry types, and they come across as a good deal more mellow in their outlook than the DUP and those nice folk who burn Irish flags atop bonfires every 11th of July. These people want no part of a United Ireland and never will. But the problem remains that in a United Ireland their views will have to be accommodated, being that there are still a significant amount of them. But there will never be a compromise good enough for them, and from there I can only foresee problems.

You don't accommodate bigotry just like you wouldn't racism. Unionists themsleves tell us these people/types are a tiny minority.

I'd have no particular issues with British Unionists carrying out July 12th celebrations. They could even march up and down the Boyne for all I care. But we can't say there's no hostility towards their cultural expressions when we look at the Dublin riots of 2006.

Willie Frazer stoked that march to the point there was always going to be trouble.

Charles Babbage

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I get what you are saying but nationalists have had to live with that for almost a century.
Unionists need to accept that a majority wish to change. And also that they need to get involved in the shape of that change or get left behind like they were at independence.
You cannot deny the majority by saying they cannot have what they want because somebody might feel hurt.

Yes, but some people think it is fine for nationalists to have to put up with this, even if they become the majority in NI. They are only Irish people after all.

Stoner

BarryD2 wrote:

You know the old saying 'there are none as blind as those that cannot see' - well that applies here. There are many aspects of the Irish Republic as it stands that are vested in the concept of a 'holy Roman Catholic Ireland'. That's the legacy of the decades following independence. The Unionists had a slogan 'Home Rule is Rome Rule' and they were right although in a partly self fulfilling way as they opted out and left the Republic to Rome.

To be honest Barry I think this applies to you as much as the posters you are taking on.

Anyone who to thinks home rule is rome rule is still significantly applicable should be easily countered, abortion, gay marriage, divorce referendums etc as well as a massive drop off in attendance in RC churches can easily demonstrate that the support for the Catholic Church in Ireland is significantly different to when it was when home rule is rome rule popped up.

Imo most people in Ireland know this. Talking about people being blind to a political position taken over 100 years ago while ignoring the measured significant shift in opinion since is not realistic.

One could just as easily throw in the United Irish movement before that as evidence that both sides can work together.

The answers and barriers to this can't be found in the past.

We have many non NI related sets of data that give a more up-to-date and accurate reflection of where the majority of people in the ROI stand on issues without the need to go back to a movement that was in play before WW1.

Chips Lovell

When you think about it, there are a lot of parallels between a referendum on a United Ireland and the Brexit referendum.

On the face of it, both of them are seductively simple questions and both have been touted as the cure to a whole range of ills.

But once you start examining it in detail, a United Ireland becomes just as complex and thorny a question as Brexit and just putting that question to a vote opens a Pandora's box that may be impossible to close.

In the same way that the UK is now asking itself, "what did we mean by Brexit?", any poll on unification will have to be accompanied by answering what we mean by a United Ireland.

As Francie pointed out earlier in the thread: "A UI to be sustainable (and it is in everyone's interests that it is sustainable and successful) will be a negotiated, agreed and gradual process, supported by all the signatories and guarantors of the GFA".

When does that negotiation happen? Does it happen after the initial vote? And if it does you risk recrimination through accusations that the settlement wasn't what people voted for. Does it happen before the vote? And if it does you risk recrimination that the settlement was designed to deter a vote in one way or another. You could have several votes?. One referendum to answer the question and one referendum to pass the settlement? What happens if the first one passes and the second one doesn't? There will be no doubt accusations that democracy isn't being respected.

Whatever way you see it, there is a high risk that, no matter what the path chosen, one or more party is going to feel like they've been marginalised, hoodwinked, or sold out. And, on top of that, there is no obvious way of turning the clock back and reverting to the way we were.

Long story short, be careful what you wish for. You may just get it.

partyguinness

I think the elections last week may prove to be a watershed in that NI and the Scots have reached the conclusion that membership of the EU far outweighs membership of the UK and being at London's mercy.