Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120738047#Comment_120738047

There is a tripartite agreement between India, Nepal and the UK which allows the both the UK and India to recruit in Nepal for their Gurkha regiments.

Without a similar agreement (and an amendment to Irish law, which currently forbids recruitment activities in Ireland for foreign military forces) the UK could not conduct recruitment activities in Ireland. However there would be nothing to stop Irish people wishing to serve travelling to the UK and enlisting there (as already happens). The UK could also recruit for the regiment among the Irish community in GB (as they do for the Irish Guards).

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120738132#Comment_120738132

Their vote is the same as anyone else's. If it is of such 'significance' (I doubt it is to 'both' sides) then they vote against a UI.

I don't see any issue with them being allowed to recruit here, as that happens already without any issue.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120738132#Comment_120738132

Perhaps, but it would be an inevitable consequence of a united Ireland, even if at the same time Ireland joined NATO. The UK does not maintain regimental HQs in other NATO countries; it would not do so in Ireland-within-NATO.

The only overseas HQs are in British territories, for forces recruited explicitly for service in those territories — Gibraltar, the Falklands, a few in various Caribbean colonies. Even the Brigade of Gurkhas is headquartered in Camberley.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120738186#Comment_120738186

Remember that one of the prices of the Treaty of Independence was the maintenance of naval bases here up until 1938. It took a separate Treaty to remove them.

I also get the sense that some of the republican support for neutrality is tactical rather than principled in that they would willingly use it as a bargaining chip in the event of negotiations for a united Ireland - somewhat wishful thinking on their part but it informs their current position.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120738488#Comment_120738488

We were subordinates and consequently out negotiated in the Treaty. We paid a heavy and tragic price for that as partition shows.

That will not happen again as the relationship has changed completely.

Neutrality is a principle of the majority here. You need to convince that majority to change their stance and demeaning those who hold it as a principle while trying to appease others will not achieve much.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120738093#Comment_120738093

I suspect you have misread my post....but just in case, selling poppies and recruiting for your military are hardly comparable.

I just stated that British Citizenship is entirely within the gift of the British to give, so I'm not sure why you're offering correction on this. I asking if recruiting to the Military would require the agreement of the Irish government.

@Peregrinus has done a top notch job of explaining so a few posts after you though, it seems it is as I expected.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120739468#Comment_120739468

As for poppies, ask James McClean what happens in Britain when you refuse to wear one while playing soccer.

Irish people already join the British Army, so they have no need to ask anybody about that. They recruit in Britain and get enough takers, so no need to do any here.

downcow

This was flipped into a discussion on the royal Irish because I mentioned it as an example of the resistance to neutrality that would come from many in the north. I don’t expect you to understand the proud tradition we have. Almost every celebration in our cultural calendar is directly related to the opposite of neutrality. It would be seen as a huge loss indeed.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120740190#Comment_120740190

A UI will be about compromise, on flags anthemns symbols.

Because of the implications re: sovereignty I think will be one you will have to let go in return.

The British would not be up for a military installation on another friendly territory anyway.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120739724#Comment_120739724

I'm aware that Irish people already join the British Army. I've no idea why you're discussing poppies.

Anyway, as I said Peregrinus has answered the question I had. If, hypothetically the British wished to recruit directly in Ireland it would require the agreement of the Irish government in the same way they have an agreement with Nepal to recruit there.

From my perspective, my hypothetical question has been answered and I don't have much interest in anything deeper on the topic.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120738488#Comment_120738488

The naval bases were not headquarters. British troops are often stationed abroad — until relatively recently the UK maintained significant forces in Germany, for example, and even now the Gurkhas have an operational base in Brunei. But they are never headquartered outside British territory.

As for neutrality being a tactical republican position — yes. In fact, originally, this was explicit. When NATO was set up, Ireland's stated reasons for not considering membership despite being staunchly anti-communist included the fact that they had a territorial dispute with the UK, and the clear signal was that, if that dispute could be resolved to Ireland's satisfaction, then NATO membership could be considered.

However things have moved on since then. This has not been the foundation for Ireland's policy of neutrality for many years. Indeed, the territorial dispute with the UK was resolved in 1998, and nobody at the time or since suggested that Irish NATO membership would or should be a consequence.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120740190#Comment_120740190

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120740676#Comment_120740676

Well, there's always another way to skin the cat. Rather than disbanding regiments as the empire contracts, the UK has from time to time transferred them to the defence forces of successor governments. So the alternative to disbanding the Royal Irish Rangers or relocating them to Great Britain would be to integrate them into Óglaigh na hÉireann, and then they could stay in Ballymena. That would surely keep the sentimentalists happy?

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120742599#Comment_120742599

That was just a symptom of neutrality. So no, that would keep everyone happy.

I think what some are suggesting here (not you) is that a Ui is simple, just get a majority to vote for it and harmony would follow.

a Ui would force together two countries who have grown significantly culturally different. You have lived in a country that has been ‘neutral’ for 100 years while I have been living in a country that (I think) has never ever been neutral. This changes our outlook. Most people I know would use very different words for Irish neutrality, but they are derogatory so I will not repeat them.

this is just one more example of how republicans talk out of the side of their mouths. They tell us again and again that a Ui is not simply absorbing OWC into roi, but on almost every issue they have already their minds made up that it’s the roi way.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120742712#Comment_120742712

They may think everything in a UI would be "the ROI way". For that matter, Unionists might think so too. But they'd both be wrong.

Take neutrality as a example. There's already a discussion under way in the Republic on the policy of neutrality — what it means, why we have it, whether and how we should develop or alter it. It's fairly clear even at this early stage that there's a significant constituency which takes the view that we should be more open to participating in transnational defence initiatives such as (but not necessarily) NATO.

In a UI the unionist community would have a very significant voice in that discussion — much more significant, if you don't mind me saying so, than the voice they would have in any discussion in the UK of that country's stance on such matters.

That may not seem like a big deal to a Unionist community that is broadly happy with the UK's current stance on NATO. But in a discussion that started with Unionists' sentimental attachment to the Royal Irish Rangers, it is worth recalling that Unionists' sentimental attachment to the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers did not save that regiment. In fact the RIR is the only surviving regiment headquartered in Northern Ireland of, I think, six. Unionists, no doubt, were attached to them all.

The truth is that for every British government position with which Unionists are broadly happy we can point to another — and, if we're honest, probably several others — with which they are not. If it comes to getting government decisions made the way they want them, Unionists would actually be significantly better off in a United Ireland, both because of their relatively larger size in a smaller country and because Irish the Irish political system is much friendlier to, and accords much greater power and influence to, minorities.

And this consideration leads us to another truth; the unionism of unionists is not really primarily about exercising control over their own destiny, or trusting the British government to make decisions in their interest. (The process of Brexit will have pretty much put the kibosh on any lingering belief in that.) It's about identity. They feel British. For better or worse — and it's often for worse — they'd rather throw in their lot with their fellow Britons across the water than they would with those with whom they share this island.

Which, well, OK; that's how national identity works. But it's a mistake to try and defend it with appeals to UK government positions that unionists like. Those appeals are fairly easily refuted. And unionism does in fact have firmer foundations than appealing to decisions that they like but over which they have in reality no agency.

martinedwards

"The truth is that for every British government position with which Unionists are broadly happy we can point to another — and, if we're honest, probably several others — with which they are not. If it comes to getting government decisions made the way they want them"

Speaking as a nominal Unionist.... (Wife is a teacher with no Irish, I work for a UK bank..Dad is from Ramelton in Donegal)

frankly the DUP are a bunch of selfish "our way or the highway" bigots.

If the UK government of the day says anything that goes even slightly against their dogma, they loose the plot entirely, as we can see from their current position on Stormont.

Sadly, there are enough militant extremists that if there was a vote that went to unity, I hate to say it, but there would be riots, mass vandalism and quite possibly bombs in Dublin.

I Know that a United Ireland is an aspiration deep in the hearts and psyche of a huge number of people on this Island, but having lived through the troubles, I REALLY don't want to go back down that road.

True, the funding for a militant North would not be anything like the funding for the IRA from America during the troubles, but expecting the Garda and Irish Army to mobilise in the same way as the British Army and RUC did in the 60s and 70s is (IMHO) expecting a but much.

Honestly, I think the folk who build world record bonfires, march all summer and have Union flags tattooed on their faces, are more hassle and expense than the grown up, sensible, peaceful, and diverse country of Ireland really want to have to deal with.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120742755#Comment_120742755

Not an unreasonable post.

not that I believe a Ui will ever come, but it it did it would be an interesting challenge to unionism referring to ourselves as either unionist or British, and we certainly wouldn’t be referring to ourselves as Irish. I would think we would be referred to as that growing identity, Norther Irish. We may be the ‘separatists’ who are striving for greater autonomy. I don’t think the push would be for independence (I think that’s as unlikely as Ui is now), but rather more and more autonomy. Having our own sports teams, allowing NI. To remain in the commonwealth (a bit like the current eu arrangement), stormont creating NI passports, utv joins rte and becomes a regional broadcaster more in tune with northern Irish eg no call to prayer at 6pm , etc, etc. maybe unionis areas continue to accept the £ & €

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120742712#Comment_120742712

What other issues are minds made up on?

I wouldn't describe Peregrinus as a 'republican' in the sense you mean it.

The British would not be up for this either downcow...a regiment based in another country were an element (dissidents0 would be even more hostile to them? Not a hope that would happen in my opinion. Recipe for disaster.

Peregrinus

As for the name of the community concerned, my guess is that "Northern Irish" will fade somewhat as an identity when there is no longer a Northern Ireland. Also, outside Ireland, it doesn't look like something distinct from "Irish"; rather, its a category of Irishness. That's probably not the vibe you're going for.

As for your own sports teams, no problem. As for a representative sports team, even now you only have that in certain sports, notably soccer. Could there continue to be an NI representative soccer team after a United Ireland? That's not a decision for the Irish or British governments; it's a decision for FIFA. No doubt if you can do a whip-round for a large enough bung the thing can be managed.

As for NI passports, anyone will be able to print up an "NI passport". The question is whether any foreign government will accept them as travel documents. And the answer is, no, unless they are issued by the Irish government. There's no fundamental objection in international law to an Irish government issuing passports which identify the holder as associated with this or that particular part of the state. The Soviet government used to do this, as I recall — passports identified the bearer's citizenship, always Soviet and nationality, which would be Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh or whatever. But the passport's primary signification has to be that it identifies the bearer as an Irish citizen; that's the whole point of passports. Besides, even if the Irish government were willing to issue NI-specific passports, I think most unionists would prefer to be entitled to, and to use, British passports.

UTV is a commercial broadcaster; there is no point in it joining RTE, which is state-owned. How do you feel about it joining Virgin Media One?

And, as for accepting sterling, merchants in Ireland are free to accept any currency they wish, and I assume this is also the case in NI, and would continue to be the case after unification.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120742972#Comment_120742972

The UTV one is nonsense, what you really want is a Unionist centric TV station. Any commercial operator is free to do that now if there is demand.

And where exactly would enough sterling come from to remain a viable currency? Do you think the Bank of England are going to be interested?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120743086#Comment_120743086

The "Northern Irish" identity is 100 years in the making. Hardly likely to fade as much as you think.

However, the key point about the "Northern Irish" identity is that the group of people who believe themselves to be Northern Irish now hold the balance between unionists and nationalists. They are the ones who will decide the future of Northern Ireland as they are the only growing minority of the three. The real politik is that any united Ireland in whatever form is going to have to win their support. Hence my belief that a federal Ireland with two constituent parts is the only one with a chance of success.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120743405#Comment_120743405

Except for the small problem that none of these people or their political reps are looking for a federal solution in any substantial way. Probably because they have realised that those 100 years show plainly that any attempt to make the place work for them and everybody else has failed because of it's fundamental flawed design.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120743405#Comment_120743405

You keep trying to push this third identity as indicative of one's opinion on the constitutional question.

Northern Irish isn't an alternative to Nationalist/Unionist. It is an identity, not a political position. On polls, people answer, British, Irish, Northern Irish or combinations of the three.

You're regularly speaking on these threads to two people who both identify as Northern Irish; I'm Northern Irish and firmly in the Nationalist camp, Downcow is Northern Irish and firmly in the Unionist camp.

As usual, you're totally misrepresenting stats to imply support for your own desired outcome. In this particular instance, it isn't actually a solution I would be horrendously opposed to, and indeed one I think is inevitable as a short to mid term solution anyway.....but drop the BS misrepresentation.

It is particularly irritating having you so regularly and confidently tell us what Northern Irish people allegedly want when you've demonstrated time and time again that you don't actually have any lived experience with us......and I'm actually one myself, so may have a better idea on the topic.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120743468#Comment_120743468

Read my posts carefully. I am not telling anyone what Northern Irish people want. What I am saying is that any change will require their support and the two extremes - full integration into a UK or full integration into a united Ireland - are unlikely to appeal to that middle minority ground. What particular variety which will appeal is uncertain at this point in time as the thoughts of that minority have been generally ignored by the main political parties in the North.

You have seen me suggest numerous different solutions on the basis that they need exploration. That you say you wouldn't be horrendously opposed to a federal solution supports some of my thinking.

The pressure from the exclusionary nationalists on this site is that we should start thinking about the form of a united Ireland and a border poll. I am stepping back from that and saying that the thinking should be about the various shapes and forms that this island could take, not just the two traditional views. Many nationalists are too scared to take on that thinking as they fear a united Ireland could lose out in a broader approach.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120743850#Comment_120743850

My issue is that you constantly present Northern Irish as an alternative political opinion to Nationalism/Unionism to falsely portray a larger constitutionally unaligned group than actually exist. I've pointed out to you repeatedly that as a Northern Irish person, I am certainly not neutral on the constitutional question, I'd also say it is quite clear that Downcow as a Northern Irish person is certainly not neutral on the constitutional question.

You've certainly presented numerous solutions, Blanch. The issue is that you're presenting them on behalf of those who are Northern Irish and missing that there are a whole spectrum of views from staunch Nationalism to staunch Unionism among those who call themselves Northern Irish.

You'd be the first to call out when others misrepresent identity versus politics (how many times have you complained about people using increasing Catholic numbers as representative of an increased support for Unification?) Don't undermine your points with hypocrisy.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120742987#Comment_120742987

Oh I wouldn’t expect the rir to be based in ni if there was a Ui that was neutral. That’s the issue

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120744021#Comment_120744021

No more than those who want to take us into NATO or end neutrality, it will be up to those who want that to convince the majority.

You'll have some allies here, so by all means try to convince us of the benefits for a country that has only been invaded once and has a proud record as a neutral peacekeeper after conflict/war.

downcow

I have never yet had the pleasure of meeting a ‘staunch nationalist’ who would describe themselves as ‘northern Irish’.

blanch makes a good point that republicans are petrified of discussing what a ‘United iteland’ might look like and what levels of devolution would be acceptable. I believe if strong devolution was floated following a poll for a ui, it would get huge support across all communities, Barr staunch nationalists’.

what do you guys think southerners would say. If there is the inevitable serious concerns of loyalist violence and if loyalists said they would remain peaceful if there was strong devolution?

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120744062#Comment_120744062

Not even one, Downcow? I know loads, myself included.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120744072#Comment_120744072

Any staunch nationalists I have met cannot even bring themselves to utter the words Northern Ireland, let alone call themselves northern Irish. But I am genuinely pleased to hear some are now using that identity 👍

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120744088#Comment_120744088

I still routinely say, 'the North' or NI rather than Northern Ireland, mostly out of laziness, partially out of habit.

I suspect a lot of your, 'any _____ I speak to' assumptions come from the particular demographics you tend to speak with. There's a whole heap of young folk who aren't caught up in the bitterness that still holds many of us who lived through the Troubles. Try speaking to a few of them, not all who would like to see Unification are 60+ years old Shinners.