Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

Anything with ‘broad support’ is likely to work.

Getting that support given the failure of devolution is the problem.

I think Unionism is doing that and we are heading towards defacto joint authority.

The only thing that will avoid that is, to quote Newtown Emerson, for Unionism to be less Unionist but they have neither the sense nor the strategic guile to do that. Political Unionism is getting more diehard.

And yes, I would put devolution out of it’s misery tbh

There is so much literature written about the working class sectarian divide in Belfast. I cant see any written about an upper class sectarian divide. Anyone who tries to deny that sectarianism effects the working class more is quite frankly a fool.

The proof is in the pudding tho. Could a catholic from the south like me move to the working class protestant area like the Shankill rd and live there peacefully??? Absolutely not. Could I live in an upper class protestant area like the Malone rd without issue?? yes. I see the once upper class protestant Malone rd now has a 50/50 catholic protestant split. This is so obvious. what is the agenda here denying sectarianism is a working class problem.

Problem for Unionism if there is a majority in favour of a UI is that it will be a statement that nobody wants a bit of YWC. And you have not 'lived separately for 100 years', that is another Unionist delusion. The real border is back where it belongs and the British, the rest of the EU and Irish people know why - you cannot separate us.

😁 You suggested giving them a referendum - one county gets it's own wee referendum to join YWC? Did you even pause to think about that?

Francie as a supporter of direct rule is a consequence of the position he takes as against it in a UI.

You are once again 'projecting' acceptance of something nobody of substance wants. Nobody wants it, as nobody thinks it is anything but can kicking to appease Unionists and partitionists.

You are once again ignoring that a majority of nationalism have fully and 'peacefully' accepted arrangements since the GFA and are projecting a violent response if a BP fails.

One way to ensure violence or massive sestabilising division would be for Unionism and partitionists to succeed in watering down once again what a majority democatically wants, we have been there, done that:

Have you come up with any reasons why it might work in a UI when it has failed utterly in a UK?

YOu proposed giving ONE county a separate referendum. Nobody else.

1918 electoral maps, living in the past summed up.

Oh no doubt the power swappers of FG and FF tried to treat it as separate, but nobody ever stopped the people interacting. Nobody ever stopped trading.

And for more than the 25 years of the GFA, the south has been politically involved in running the place via the Anglo Irish Agreement etc and much more before it.

It is a fact that the two jurisdictions have been separate for over a century, a reality that cannot be denied. They are now two different societies, be that in education, in health, in infrastructure, in transport, in cultural norms, in everything.

No more separate than it is to Scotland England or Wales.

Culturally there isn't the width of a credit card of difference, neither you nor downcow can point to significant differences after all. Was it M&S sandwiches that got mentioned one time?

Much work has been done on joining the health systems which already inter act, and both our infratstructures already interact together, road, rail, electrictity etc.

Not to mention that both governments oversee the running of the place via an international agreement that could not be broken even by Brexit and a UK parliamentary meltdown.

I don't disagree with this in the slightest in terms of political science theory, but it is a pretty big stretch to go from, 'people will not openly support their second choice' to, 'but they definitely would be fine with this specific one'.

I've said repeatedly that I'm not tied to black and white, 'Unification by subsumption or bust' thinking. What I'm saying is that while I'm hypothetically fine with federal solutions (though not so much confederal solutions myself), you're making a huge assumption with stating that a federal solution would be, 'broadly acceptable to both', and an even bigger assumption that a federal solution that retains a devolved NI will be even remotely acceptable to either.

The latter in particular I would view as a, 'worst of both worlds'. I understand the idea of finding a compromise that no one will be happy with but everyone can live with, it's a noble goal. Making assumptions like you do so wildly risks instead landing on a solution that no one will be happy with and nobody finds acceptable. While it is undoubtedly, 'fair', it is fair for all the wrong reasons.

Those who wish to actively campaign for solutions like those you propose have the same responsibility to demonstrate that it would be broadly acceptable as a second choice to both sides as those advocating for Unification have to demonstrate support for their desired outcome. Hypotheticals and assumptions won't cut it for either camp.

I haven't put forward a specific solution, open to federal, confederal, formal joint authority, dependency, many different possibilities. Without putting them all out there and discussing them, it isn't possible to demonstrate that any of them would be broadly acceptable as a second choice. However, I do believe that 100 years of separation have created a sense that many in the middle or lukewarm on either side would welcome some Northern Ireland identity in any solution and that this group is key to finding a sustainable majority in support.

I stand by both observations. The working class are more likely to be the perpetrators and victims of sectarianism.

As i have said before,i was born and bred in dublin,i have never lived in the british isles in my life

That only confirms my point that geographical terms are in the eyes of the beholder, and not as fixed as the other poster might think.