How can we integrate Unionism into a possible United Ireland?

It is completely clear what happens to people born in what was NI after a UI.

"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland"

The cherrypicking by some of the GFA is strange.

How is a democratic vote in a referendum on foot of an agreed peace deal forcing anyone?

Know what you're getting at in essence. But it's high time for the hard-line and the knuckle draggers to come along or be left behind. It's exhausting and we've enough to be worrying about.

Where does it say 'it must be written into the constitution'?

And again you ran away muttering about semantics.

HOW does the present government and it's legislators not give parity of esteem to all identities?

Here is Article 2:

This gives parity to all people born on this island and who qualify for citizenship.

Rewrite it there with your vision

"It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose."

There you go.

What planet are you on? The language I used is taken directly from the Good Friday Agreement.

The scale of the challenge of that clause to the defensive nature of your exclusionary nationalism is acknowledged, but how could replicating the words of the GFA in a constitution for a united Ireland be a problem, if, as you claim, you support the GFA?

You clearly don't understand what parity of esteem means.

You really don't understand. The Constitution of a united Ireland has to give a special place to Britishness, over and above Polish or French or any other nationality, because that is the solemn commitment of the GFA. Britishness is now native to this island, in the same way that Irishness is.

Are you rejecting the language of the GFA? All I am doing is incorporating the agreed language into the Constitution.

And as someone from the minority community down south, I understand the reservations of ordinary unionists up North. I've met a good few over the years, ordinary decent hard working Ulstermen and women just doing their best to get by in life for themselves and their families. Bigoted sometimes for sure but so also can be those from the Roman Catholic community. Pragmatic people and also often aware of their history and culture.

They are right to be suspicious of the south in my view. In my lifetime here I've noticed growing intolerance and a nasty sort of nationalism & revisionism emerging. For example, when I was young my grandfathers would have readily worn their service medals from WW1 on the 11th Nov, bought and worn a poppy for the day, even though they had a dim view of war having experienced it. Anyone doing that now and walking around Dublin or Cork would draw all sorts of abuse. Likewise language and related matters - we all muddled along for 80 years post Independence until the Irish language movement got around to levering constitutional aspirations to engineer the 2003 Official Languages Act which has had wide impact across public services and signage here. And now they are targeting the six counties and so on.

I'd like to see an all Ireland state and economy too. So as you say, the south and nationalism in general needs to be 'bigger' and find ways to accommodate and hold out a welcoming hand to citizens of the north and unionists in particular. Points of commonality like language as in Hiberno or Ulster English need to be emphasised as other language issues toned way down. Music is also a shared tradition, there are great flute bands in the unionist tradition that play tunes not wholly different to Irish trad. Farming challenges and opportunities are common across the border and so on. It might stick in the craw of some here to do these things, but that's how progress can be made.

Exactly, it's in the gift of the British to award citizenship going forward, and something Unionists need to negociate for themselves.

I've just read a review of that book in The Newsletter and the only comment that is made is that Protestants felt discrimated against when it came to public sector jobs, but equally points out that catholics were heavily discrimated against when it came to employment in protestant owned companies like Guinness, Player Wills, Lyons etc. (and this discrimination didn't end up into the '70s). They also said that Ne Tereme was not just practiced by catholics (and I know someone who told me of her own situation where her husband (a protestant) was disowned by his family for marrying a catholic.

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/troubles/republic-of-ireland-still-in-denial-about-existence-of-its-poor-protestants-says-dr-deirdre-nuttall-in-new-book-different-and-the-same-a-folk-history-of-protestants-in-independent-ireland-3002371\

I come from an area in the midlands which would have a high proportion of protestant families - mostly small farmers - similar to their catholic counterparts. One of our neighbours with about 20/30 acres of land, a brother and sister, both worked for protestant farmers and they would have only been slightly better off than their catholic counterparts who were farm labourours in that they actually had a house and didn't require the state to house them. In the local town, all the big houses were owned by protestant doctors, accountants, solicitors, bank managers etc. I can't exactly remember which bank group they are now (think was BOI) was a protestant bank and only employed protestants and it was quite a thing when they started employing catholics for the first time (selected from their wealthiest catholic customers).

where does it say " Constitution of a united Ireland has to give a special place to Britishness, over and above Polish or French or any other nationality" again?

Ne Temere obliged that in any mixed marriage between a Roman Catholic and a spouse of a different religion, that any children resulting from this union would be raised in the Roman Catholic faith. In the south (Free State and later Republic) this had the effect of making other religions close ranks and only look for partners among their own folks. It was an extremely regressive policy that was used to discriminate against minorities and diminish their numbers. Growing up in 1970s etc., I was very aware of it and it's effects on education and choice of friends and so on. But it was rescinded and people anyway started taking less notice of church edicts. I'm married to a Roman Catholic but neither of us are particularly religious, so just not an issue anymore.

You might think I'm being pedantic or provocative when I write Roman Catholic, but it's important to note that the Apostles Creed is an important prayer in the Church of Ireland. And this states very clearly that '........... I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins etc etc...........'. So Church of Ireland people regard themselves as being of the Holy Catholic Church. The Church of Ireland is run by a Synod with archbishops in Armagh & Dublin and regards itself as an Irish church. That's why you'll often see the qualifier Roman used by Church of Ireland people, in order to distinguish it from the other Catholic church with it's HQ in Rome.

To a certain extent, you are indeed correct, we are not bound by law to follow the international agreement that we have signed up to, should circumstances change. However, that is very similar to the argument used by the British government to unilaterally change the NI Protocol. The GFA can be changed at any time, that is undeniable, the two governments can sit down and renegotiate.

But, and this is key, while certain parts of the GFA become null and void in the event of a united Ireland (e.g. those parts that set out when and how a border poll is conducted), that doesn't necessarily follow that all of the GFA is rendered null and void. That is particularly true of the parts, including the one I reference, which refer to what happens subsequent to any change in the status of Northern Ireland. Certain legal perspectives would argue that these commitments retain legal force.

Finally, I would also point out that the original request from @FrancieBrady was to rewrite Article 2 with my vision (see post 3156). So I wasn't bound by what must happen. As is normal, the goalposts were subsequently moved by that poster.

You are all over the place here.

There is no legally binding clause that binds anyone to the GFA after a UI.

There is legally binding obligations on the British to fulfill the WA and Protocol.

And your attempt to winkle out of your ill thought out rewriting of Art 2 is as usual pathetic. It's my fault you made a cod of it??? 😁

Art 2 does not affect that as it is.

You have the right already. You can have British or Irish citizenship, many many people have both passports...zero problems.

Jesus, this isn't rocket science.