Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

The shape of a UI will be laid out before a Referendum. Those who want to continue devolution (it's failure for the people will be the very reason a UI poll was necessary) need to get that into any plan/proposal. That means engaging.

You can’t unilaterally decide the shape of a UI before a referendum and present it to voters in NI as a fait accompli. Nor is it credible to suggest that non-nationalists in NI are going to start “engaging” in discussions on a UI, prior to such a referendum being held and won by nationalists.

The latter is akin to suggesting that, even though polls show clear support for us being an EU member, people who support Ireland being in the EU are going to start engaging in negotiating our leaving the EU which, having negotiated something they fundamentally disagree with, they would then put to a referendum and do their absolute best to defeat. That just isn’t going to happen since no one, on either side of the argument, would be happy with the result of any such negotiations.

Equally non-nationalist in NI aren’t going to waste their time.

The Capital part is pretty irrelevant, but guaranteeing a majority with full veto rights for any group of people should send a shudder down the spine of any rational person.

I don't think, 'would you be so into a United Ireland if it was set up in an incredibly anti-democratic way' is quite the gotcha you think.

If you made killing the first born sons of those who voted in favour of Unification, you'd probably see an increase in objections and all!

Much like The Protocol you seem to have a view that the DUP or any party will be able to subvert the will of the people or the governments (who are bound by an international agreement) and will be in a position to stop a UI by refusing to be democratic.

There is an ingrained supremacy in your position here. Nobody going into the pilling booth will be asked their political ideology. On polling day all that will matter will be those for and those against.

If the vote is ‘for’ a UI then that is what will happen with or without Unionists at the table. You really should have learned this by now.

As I said, if your community don’t engage the British will negotiate rights and safeguards on your behalf.

They will be considered if they are expressed.

The alternative is for the British to express what they think you might want.

The opposing side in any referendum do this, state what they want and then the people decide.

The implication in what you want is - ‘if we don’t get what we want we will veto’ -

Nobody has a veto anymore downcow, you need to recognise this. This is an island of equals which is a democracy.

Who do you mean as ‘they’ in your first sentence?

you are often quite logical peregrinus.

surely there is no logic to unionists entering pre-poll discussions. What would they be trying to achieve. Let’s go to fantasy and imagine that some day the 100year solid majority against Ui will fade away and SoS will hold a referendum. Surely unionists would want to enter that referendum with Uk option being as attractive as possible and Ui option being as unattractive and scary as possible? I think I hear some on here saying that unionists should work to make a pro-Ui result as likely as possible? Where is there any logic to this? To enter any discussions on what a Ui would look like would also suggest that we would make it work and may move some middle ground to support it. I honestly can’t get my head around why unionists would do anything other than exaggerate the pitfalls and also play the same terrorist fear card that nationalism played over hard border - although this would be much more intense and would involve very public admissions of recruiting, arming and targeting - and quite possibly the commencing of an armed campaign prior to the poll.

I am not saying any of this is acceptable, but I am saying it is both logical and inevitable.

inevitably in a pro Ui result, the uk would no longer call the shots and step back awaiting instructions from our new republican masters. That is the point I believe, as the trouble notches up, that the Dail would start listening to the fears and aspirations of unionists (presumably they would already know what northern nationalists want). I don’t think the new Dail would pander to either side up here in that scenario, but rather look for the best outcome for the island as a whole. Remember they will now become the ‘Brits’ and the occupiers to an even greater number of people than was the case the other way around in the 70s. Their forces will be completely unable to enter significant areas of their new country. At a minimum, Guards vehicles will be getting petrol bombed, band parades will be escalating in size and traditional routes will be reigniting as a rights issue, interface trouble will increase, etc, etc. Is it Francie’s Guards that will police this stuff?. Then what happens when they inevitably ‘accidentally’ kill a young loyalist? I think you see where this would go.

so, will there be unionists trying to negotiate to make a pro-Ui vote as attractive as possible? NO - ITS ILLOGICAL

will the new occupiers negotiate devolution on the island after a pro-Ui vote? OF COURSE THEY WILL - ITS LOGICAL

This is scaremongering and is not how it will happen. There will be agreement on the trnasfer of power and withdrawal.

There won't be a Dunkirk style retreat. Both governments will have to uphold their sides of an already agreed process.

Indeed. The GFA explicitly requires proposals for effecting reunification agreed between the two governments. It leaves it open as to whether that agreement comes before the border poll, or after, or partly before and partly after.

Problem is that the proposals for a UI need to be fairly concrete before the border poll; people are less likely to vote for a pig in a poke, plus its in everybody's interests that the main features of a UI are democratically endorsed in the poll.

Besides, I don't think that loyalists who are minded to resort to armed struggle in the event of a UI are likely to be greatly swayed by the size of the majority in the poll. One of the most powerful components of loyalism has been the sense of themselves as a righteous minority, beleaguered by enemies. From that point of view, the larger the majority their enemies have, the more psychologically comfortable they feel.

The main damper on loyalist terrorism will, I think, be the realisation that they are fighting for nothing. If a UI follows a border poll, the UK will not take back NI or any part of it on any terms, ever. So what would the end-game of loyalist terrorism be in that scenario?

Oh read what was said please.

There are no veto's after a poll passes.

It would be greater and greater devolution. No one is going to fight to rejoin the Uk. That fight would be over. But people have always been more motivated by OWC (since 1985) than by Uk. There will definitely be a fight if superemacists like francie get their way.

Keep banging that auld dhrumm Francie.

I don't see how greater and greater devolution would help loyalists in a Northern Ireland in which they would still be a minority.

Nor can we assume that in a UI Northern Ireland would continue to exist, even as a devolved entity. If the last hundred years have shown anything, it's that NI has never worked as a political entity and, when we consider how it was constructed, that's not entirely surprising. The aim was to include the largest possible nationalist minority that would be consistent with unionist domination; that was never likely to work out well and, lo, it didn't. There's really no reason for optimism that it would work out well in a UI either.

So, if some form of devolution is the best way to recognise the identity and secure the rights of the British-in-Ireland (that's not a given, but let's assume it for the purposes of the discussion) devolution to NI is not necessarily the way to go. If a UI was to be regionalised for devolution purposes, the regions should be constructed without a desire to prioritise the interests of unionists over those of nationalists or vice versa; parity of esteem has to be a fundamental principle. The end result is likely to be a mix of regions, some unionist-majority but with a significant nationalist minority, some the other way around, and some with more or less equal numbers of unionists and nationalists.

It's just not possible to construct regions in which there are either all nationalists with very few unionists, or all unionists with very few nationalists; the communities are far too intermixed for that. But this isn't a unique situation; other countries also face it, and it would be worth studying how they have reflected it in their governance structures.

But, again, the best chance unionists have of influencing this process, and indeed of securing the retention of NI as a political entity if that's what they want, is by engaging. If they stand aloof from the process, and then seek to get the outcome changed by a campaign of murders and pub bombings, that's not really a sound strategy either morally (i.e. it's not justifiable) or pragmatically (i.e. it won't work).

So map out how you see it going downcow.

The majority vote for a UI as proposed.....what happens next?