Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

A few points:

First, it's true that the GFA doesn't prescribe the financial/economic aspects of unification. That was an inevitable decision and, I think, also the correct decision. How could the parties, in 1998, have regulating the financial and economic aspects of a unification that would only happen, if at all, decades into the future, and in an unknown and unknowable economic context and circumstances? This was always something that would have to be worked out at the time.

Secondly, it's correct to say that, with reunification, IRL would be facing ten years of massive unknowns. So would NI. But this is not the showstopper you might think. All countries are always facing ten years of massive unknowns. Before the global financial crisis of 2008, who foresaw the global financial crisis of 2008 or how it would play out? Before Brexit, who foresaw Brexit or how it would play out? Before the invasion of Ukraine, who foresaw the invasion of Ukraine or how it would play out? An economy that is only strong or stable so long as nothing unforeseen happens is not strong or stable at all.

Thirdly, and this is perhaps the key point: If and when the time comes, the financial and economic aspects will have to be worked out by agreement between UK and IRL (with no doubt some support provided/influence exerted by EU and USA).

But both countries are already committed to this; it's right there in the GFA. Downcow suggest that some in the UK would see this as an opportunity for "payback". He has a low opinion of Westminster, perhaps understandably given how he and his community have been comprehensively shafted by the people they thought were their friends at Westminster. Hence he thinks that Westminster will approach this primarily as an opportunity for revenge. But we may at least hope that the present appalling state of Westminster politics is a transient one; that when unification has to be addressed we will be in a happier time, with a Westminster establishment that recognises that, when the UK has treaty obligations, they are to be performed in good faith.

We should also think about this not in terms of Westminster's emotions and baser passions, but in terms of Westminster's interests. This situation only arises where a majority in NI wish to leave the UK and join IRL. If there is such a majority, then it is very much in Westminster's interests that that should happen, that it should happen soon, that it should happen smoothly and that it should happen successfully. And it is not a good idea for Westminster to subordinate those interests in favour of throwing a tantrum over the failure of IRL and EU to give UK the magical fairy-dust unicorn-drawn Brexit which Brexiters had promised.

Of course, Westminster can act against the UK's interests; just look at Brexit. But it's a bit defeatist to assume that it will always reliably do so. (Plus, it's a bizarre position for a unionist to adopt; it's a fairly powerful argument against unionism.)

The truth is we don't know what position a British government will adopt on this until it happens. But we do know that the British government in question will have a legal and diplomatic obligation to approach the matter in good faith, with reputational damage if it does not, and that it will have an interest in approach the question in a way that maximises the chances of successful reunification.

Almost the entire Parliament voted to have a border in the Irish Sea and to allow the two economies to become closely aligned and inter dependent.

This is looking after their own interests primarily. They are not interested in 'payback' or revenge, they are interested in Britain and mostly England if you dig into it all.

And on the same note - No irish government, british government, eu, or IRA, etc, in the past 100years, have been able to convince a majority of people in ni that their interests are better served in a small Ireland rather than a relatively large and diverse Uk. I don’t see any sign of that changing

Another challenge is that no one has a model for two countries uniting who have been separate for over 100 years. We are asking for something to be achieved that has never ever been done anywhere in the world. That’s a remarkable state of affairs and makes a nonsense of anyone who claims it is an inevitability.

sorry, I can find one instance worldwide, ie Belgium 200 years ago. To this day there are tensions and Belgium has granted autonomy (devolution I guess) to the regions.

what you are trying to do in Ireland is well nigh impossible. And if it happened we can point to 100% of reunifications have ended up in devolution.

so guys when yous are poo pooing unionists telling you it won’t happen, you need to consider who is out of step with the world.

it reenforces for me that in the extremely unlikely scenario of a Ui, there will absolutely definitely be devolution for ni, and unfortunately even then there will be ongoing tension for generations.

tell me. Why do you want a single country on this island?

I would guess the main reason why is because people see there nationality as irish. When I say or nearly everyone says they're irish they are referring to fact they're from Ireland the island. Most nations of people want to be in one jurisdiction.

The GFA tho has lowered the need for unity. There is no hard borders on Ireland and we see there has to be one in the UK before there can be one in Ireland. There is free movement in Ireland. We pretty much have equality too. The DUP are doing best to stop an irish language act in the north but they will eventually lose. So the practaical incentives since the GFA has been lowered for nationlists. They can think more on practical issues. It is probably why we have not seen a huge increase in people who would vote for a UI immediately since 98.

However i dont think we should just be looking at what is going on in Ireland. If Scotland go i think the union is gone. Look how cut off NI would be if it was just left with England and wales and i think those nations would go their own way too leaving the only viable option for a UI.

No two countries that are neighbours are ever truly separated (unless there are walls and guards). England and Ireland never truly separated. The point I was making is that people are calling something inevitable that has never happened in the history of the world. And people are expecting to do this unique unification thing even if 49% of one country are opposed to it.

this is fantasy stuff guys. This is like dreaming of world peace. I understand that it helps republicans get through their day. Everyone needs hope and I guess that is what the gfa done for republicans, is give them hope. Mind you as a OWC football supporter, when we are going through tough times and losing every game, there is an old saying ‘it’s the hope that kills you’. So it’s a 2-edged sword; generations of republicans have fed off the hope, but of course that also means they have died disappointed. Which is a pity. I think we are headed for a place (a destination) where the people of ni are content with OWC and neither side needs the hope or feels the disappointment

While they may be opposed, huge majorities in both jurisdictions have said they will accept the outcome of referendums on the matter.

Northern Ireland’s unhappy centenary (economist.com)

It's the hope that kills you. .

As usual there was a lot made of the last poll by Unionists. But what they ignore is the trend or poll of polls (as shown above). That shows the fall in support for the Union and the rise in the itch for a UI. An itch that has not been scrtached by any formal proposal for what a UI would look like yet.

One of the people interviewed in that article in the Economist - COI Archbishop John McDowell has this to say:

This was BEFORE the Windsor Framework debacle. If he is feeling that, what is really happening in moderate Unionism? Will the support for the Union continue to drop? I can't see anything else happening.

A poll of polls intention is to show the trend and the trend is a fall in support for the Union with a rise in the support for a UI.

I’m all ears if you guys can tell me the key reasons why you would like these two countries United.

The Union isn’t even giving unionists what they want anymore.

Do you really have to me Mistic Meg to extrapolate that Irish only will be the highest identity in OWC by the next census from this data.

The number of people who are ‘British only’ is down from 722,400 in 2011 to

606,300 in 2021. This fall is counterbalanced, but only partially, by increases

in the number of people who identify as ‘British and Northern Irish’, up from

111,700 in 2011 to 151,300 in 2021, and by those who identify as ‘British, Irish

and Northern Irish’, up from 18,400 in 2011 to 28,100 in 2021.

• In contrast, the number of people who are ‘Irish only’ is up from 457,500 in

2011 to 554,400 in 2021. There has also been an increase in the number of

people who identify as ‘Irish and Northern Irish’, up from 19,100 in 2011 to

33,600 in 2021, and in those who identify as ‘British, Irish and Northern Irish’

up from 18,400 in 2011 to 28,100 in 2021.

And yes I identify myself irish and would probably vote to have Ireland in one jurisdiction when/if the time comes

His is a very weak answer. Just posing the views of 40 people.

I wonder could everyone give an honest sense of why? And if you’re giving lots of reasons then it would be great if you prioritised them.