Or a construct to bring us closer together to our neighbours...
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Obviously those that live in close proximity to each other will feel a sense of purpose within themselves. And this gets repeated over different regions and lands which ultimately leads to division of our species.
There was a thread about these in the 'Support' section a while back: http://foot.ie/threads/221211-Certain-NSFW-adsOriginally Posted by Gather round
Supposedly, they're based on your browsing history.
A very compelling fact-based article (with plenty of statistics) by Gerry Carlile here on the socio-economic drawbacks of partition and the Union and the potential benefits and opportunities presented by the prospect of Irish unity: http://eamonnmallie.com/2017/08/new-...gerry-carlile/
Had meant to reply to your post #454 before now Fly, but haven't been on the forum much over the past month and a half or so. Just getting a proper opportunity now.
That's a fair point. Generally-speaking, people probably are less inclined to take perceived risks and will tend to stick with the perceived immediate security of the status quo. As you say, that's something that unity proponents have to work with.
It's also why I think the threshold that must be met for the mere calling of a referendum is rather high. For a referendum to be called, it must already be the case that 50 per cent of the northern electorate will back unity (in the opinion of the secretary of state). The relevant GFA clause effectively necessitates that pro-unity parties invest their time, energy and resources in focused and concerted campaigning on the matter in the hope of simply triggering a referendum before then potentially and immediately having to run a second campaign for the actual referendum itself in direct competition with an organised counter-campaign opposing unity. Devoting such single-tracked focus to convince a majority of the benefits of unity simply in order to trigger the calling of a referendum in the first place, with no guarantee that it will even be called, is obviously high-risk, so the whole set-up is very much weighted in favour of maintaining the status quo.
In hindsight, the clause seems a rather unfortunate inclusion in the GFA and represents an instance of either poor foresight or poor negotiation. As a comparison, Scottish independence was supported by a mere 30 per cent or so of Scots when they were granted their referendum.
Just to clarify myself, it's not as if I think the vast majority of unionists would be easily swayed either. I noted above that it would be a hard sell and, to quantify somewhat, I also mentioned above that a "portion" may be open to persuasion. To be clearer and being realistic, I would see no more than a fifth or a quarter (maybe a third at an extreme push) as persuadable, if even. But I do think there is a bit of leg-room there and enough to be genuinely optimistic anyway.Just to correct any mistaken perception you may have - I'm not saying that nationalists as a whole should stop mentioning outreach to unionists. It's just that it's very naive to think that the vast majority of unionists (at this present time) are open to persuasion. Furthermore, I don't actually believe that there's anything wrong with the message. My main gripe lies with SF as the main messengers of it, which does more damage to said outreach than anything imo.
There are plenty of people in the north who identify as nationalists but who have been content to maintain the Union because they don't find it unpalatable and may even see it (misguidedly, in my view) as benefiting them financially. They seem content even though their personal, cultural or national identity isn't necessarily reflected or channelled through the state in which they live. There's no reason why a significant number of unionists wouldn't mirror the same sort of attitude in a united Ireland. Why would they be any different?
On your Sinn Féin point, Sinn Féin are the dominant nationalist party in the north at present, so they are representative of the will of the majority of the nationalist population right now, whether one likes it or not. They are the main messengers because people vote for them and they channel people's politics and aspirations. If unity is to be achieved, unionism will still have to be reconciled with republicanism and the significant swathe of the Irish population who regard themselves as republicans. If Sinn Féin were to somehow cease to exist overnight, it's not as if the quarter of a million people who vote for them in the north would simply disappear too. Another entity would inevitably emerge to fill such a democratic vacuum or those voters would simply vote for another entity who would best represent and channel their republicanism, which unionists would probably still take issue with anyway, until the two conflicting perspectives can be somehow reconciled.
There are plenty of southern-born Ulster Protestants from around the border region who still identify as British and/or unionist despite the state in which they were born no longer having any formal political connection to Britain. Willie Hay, Maurice Devenney, Basil McCrea and Charley McAdam are just some individual examples who have public profiles. I'd like to think a new Ireland could cater for their identity on an equal pedestal alongside the Irish nationalist identity.I think you underestimate the extent to which identity lies at the core of the debate. The British identity of unionists is bound to their unionism and Irish unity kills unionism off. The two are incompatible. In order for unionists to meaningfully engage with unity they would have to sacrifice their unionism.
Irish unity doesn't have to "rob [unionists] of role, purpose and the ability to reverse the result of a border poll" either (as Alex Kane claimed it would in a recent article in the Newsletter). Kane appears to be seeking a sort of parity of esteem in what he writes, but doesn't seem convinced that such an ideal is realisable in a united Ireland. Parity of esteem is a noble concept and I believe in it myself. I was actually speaking to CTP about this on WhatsApp recently and he suggested we could duly include then a clause in a new unity settlement whereby unionists can take the whole island back into a union with Britain if they can peacefully and politically achieve it via the winning of a democratic majority within the new democratic unit. I thought such a proposal to be reasonable and acceptable. Isn't that the hoop through which nationalists and republicans are being asked to jump by Alex and other unionists in order to achieve our aspiration? This clause would politically validate unionism's ambition and would give unionists a platform on or towards which to work, so why not? Wouldn't that be a form of parity of treatment?
I think the most fundamental thing for nationalists and republicans to acknowledge and accept is the following; what we expect in the north in terms of parity and equal treatment, we have to be prepared to extend the very same to unionists in a new united Ireland. Otherwise, we leave ourselves open to charges of hypocrisy and bad faith. If that entails official recognition of unionist and Ulster Protestant traditions/symbolism by the new state, so be it. In fact, the Irish government already includes some Ulster-Scots poetry by Ulster Presbyterian James Orr on the current Irish passport. I feel this is a step in the right direction.
Down the line, it may make the difference between unionists accepting/tolerating unity, albeit reluctantly, and unionists instigating armed revolt against the prospect.Most nationalist and and even republican politicians, writers and commentators have been saying this for a long time though. Has it moved the debate on much? No. Brexit has done it for them.
Interestingly, I've heard numerous commentators warn unionists that it's not Irish nationalism of which they should be fearful and that it's really an increasingly-isolationist English nationalism that should scare them. I'd be inclined to agree with such an analysis. As the cost to the English taxpayer of keeping the northern unionist project on life-support becomes more and more apparent to people in Britain, they'll simply ask themselves why on earth they're clinging on to a part of Ireland that's evidently costing them and with which they don't remotely identify, culturally or politically. They'll become much more ready to cut it adrift. The recent storm over the Tory-DUP deal may have been an enlightening precursor to this shift in mood.
You probably saw them at the time as you posted immediately after me, but, in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, I'd provided links to quite a few examples of "default" unionists or people who had identified as cultural unionists their whole lives but who, overnight, had become open to the idea of Irish unity. It is an evolving situation though and, as you say, it will indeed be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years.I tend to agree but I'm hesitant to put a time frame on it. In regards to unionists, of particular interest are the post-troubles generation, who have lived in a much different environment than their forebears and one in which the European Union membership was taken for granted. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the coming years.
Something I came across recently that I thought was interesting here: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politi...10305unity.pdf
It's the SDLP's published position on Irish unity. I'm not sure when it was published (looks like it would have been whilst Mark Durkan was party leader, so between 2001–2010) or if it has been amended or updated since, but I thought this section was particularly interesting:
Why I thought it was particularly interesting is because it has been Gerry Adams who has been criticised of late (by Fintan O'Toole, for example) for expressing the view that the idea of 50 per cent plus one when it comes to a unity referendum is "what democracy is about". O'Toole wrote the following in a recent article:
In the context of Ireland’s future, 50 per cent + 1 is not, as Adams claims, “what democracy is about”. That kind of crude, tribal majoritarianism is precisely what the Belfast Agreement is meant to finish off.
Isn't "50 per cent + 1" essentially another term for the principle of consent though?
Article 1 (ii) of the Good Friday Agreement states that the participants "recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
Far from "finishing it off", it is the text of the Good Friday Agreement makes "crude, tribal majoritarianism" (to use O'Toole's description) a stipulation; not Sinn Féin or Gerry Adams. The term "majority" is specifically used in the text (as one can read above).
The inclusion of the principle of consent was a unionist demand and a republican compromise in light of the fact that the northern statelet was created and weighted specifically in unionism's favour and had questionable democratic legitimacy in the first place. I have always understood the consent principle to be a fundamental element of the Agreement, so it's odd to hear O'Toole - along with other purported supporters of the GFA (such as Leo Varadkar and Bertie Ahern) recently - attempt to dismiss this component. To start insinuating that the pro-unity side meeting this threshold in a future unity referendum (in tandem with a pro-unity result in a southern referendum) may not be enough to achieve unity appears to me to be a move towards shifting the goalposts.
Societal unity, rather than mere territorial unity, is the obviously ideal for unity proponents, but unionists and opponents can hardly complain when the consent mechanism that they demanded be included delivers a verdict they don't like.
Societal unity can hopefully be brought about by reconciliation, outreach and explicit acknowledgement of the parity of and equal place for the British/Protestant/unionist/loyalist tradition on this island in a new united Ireland. This can all be done in tandem with working towards winning the consent of a pro-unity majority in the north and south. Even though many unionists may not vote for unity, the new arrangement will have to be as tolerable for them as we can make it. I believe this to be the right, respectful and civil thing to do, but it is also within the practical interests of republicanism to agree and help create a unionist-friendly united Ireland; the more intolerable and objectionable the new state is for unionists, the greater the likelihood of widespread discontent, violence and/or the project failing.
An interesting article/review in the Irish Times relating to a book which documents when, in 1930s Belfast, a cross-community class politics existed and Catholics and Protestants rioted together: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/b...ther-1.3200941
Every almost annual election in NI for decades has been effectively a border poll. Almost everyone votes for the two blocs that contest that issue and little else. The Nationalist bloc hasn't reached 50% in any of those elections, but if/ when that changes the one-question referendum quickly following the election will presumably mirror the result.
Generally, I prefer that if we have to have referenda (which I dislike as often simplistic) there should be a higher threshold to force change- say 55%.
Indeed. My local UKIP MP stood again for Westminster this year and saw his vote share collapse from 25% to 5%. His ex-voters likely still think as they did on the EU, immigration etc., even if they've gone back to ticking Labour or Tory.If Sinn Féin were to somehow cease to exist overnight, it's not as if the quarter of a million people who vote for them in the north would simply disappear too
Heh. If that comment is even semi-serious you're ignoring what some commentators have called the 'equity' problem. Nationalists only need 50%+1 of NI to force a change; Unionists need the same proportion of a much larger all-island electorate to reverse it. Although admittedly it's probably moot because of this:Irish unity doesn't have to "rob [unionists] of role, purpose and the ability to reverse the result of a border poll"
Up to a point. A while back I'd have agreed more strongly, when it looked like English nationalism was ready to jettison the Scots as wellit's really an increasingly-isolationist English nationalism that should scare them...the recent storm over the Tory-DUP deal may have been an enlightening precursor to this shift in moodEnglish public opinion has long been both dismissive and uninterested in NI. We've never been an issue in their elections, even during the Troubles. Don't rely on the English electorate being sophisticated enough to shift their mood as you'd prefer- as we saw in June and I mentioned here, we had a succession of journalists and active and semi-retired politicians queueing about to spout ill-informed sh*te about the DUP deal. Wider opinion doesn't know and doesn't care, alas
Or decades?it will indeed be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years
Why the bias in favour of the status quo? Coincidentally, I read a piece on Slugger O'Toole yesterday actually arguing for a shifting of the goal-posts in any future unity referendum via the introduction of a requirement for a supermajority of 65 per cent. I thought the following response dealt with the proposal very well:
"The severe flaw in your proposal, which you fail to address, is the bias toward the status quo.
There is no democratic justification for keeping the status quo when as much as 64.9%, under your proposal, could favour change.
As democrats, ultimately we want circumstances that are as fair as possible for all. Your proposal assumes the status quo is fair and justifiable. It does not put the possibility of change on an equal footing with the status quo.
If 50% +1 is not fair on the 49%, why then would it be fair to keep the 50%+1 inside the United Kingdom against their will?
Where do you even draw the line? What if Unionist community numbers fall drastically, do we change the supermajority needed to 70%, 75%?
What you're talking about is a Unionist veto. If reunification is to be realised then it can only happen with fairness and compassion that must include protection of British people's rights within a new Ireland. There would need to be a whole host of new imaginative solutions to assuage fears of the British people on the Island. But the actual decision to pursue change itself won't be held back if there is a majority in favour."
So, manipulating the parameters with regard to what constitutes the democratic unit is acceptable when it favours unionism long-term (i.e. partition), despite the wishes to the contrary of the democratic majority in the original democratic unit, but it wouldn't be considered a serious or acceptable proposition if democratically-agreed change to the parameters of the democratic unit - or a return to the original state of play - was to favour nationalism long-term, despite advance cross-community agreement on and acceptance of the prospective legitimacy of the new political unit? Hmm, I see...Heh. If that comment is even semi-serious you're ignoring what some commentators have called the 'equity' problem. Nationalists only need 50%+1 of NI to force a change; Unionists need the same proportion of a much larger all-island electorate to reverse it.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 04/09/2017 at 10:29 PM.
It's actually a safeguard against unnecessary instability. Which would likely follow a 50%+1 result (there'd be pressure for a re-run which could be reversed if Mrs Kelly gets out of bed on the other side), or even a 52-48 (possibly largely influenced by force majeure, freak weather etc.). My example isn't comparable to the 65% you suggest. I don't really have a bias, in other words.
Yes- although I'd call it 'self-determination'. Unionists (or whatever name they and everyone else use after a UI) deserve that like anyone else. They've as little chance of persuading the English to take them back as the South to join in, as I said.So, manipulating the parameters with regard to what constitutes the democratic unit is acceptable
There's obviously no chance of the 'unionist' vote in a UI rising much above 15%. But that figure is large (and localised) enough for influence (balance of power, say), maybe autonomy as you and others have suggested on here, then who knows?
In fairness, your proposal is slightly less unacceptable.
How do you envisage your preferred arrangement working exactly in the event of a united Ireland? Would the six north-eastern counties be distinguished as a region for the purpose of a potential plebiscite to return those six counties to British rule? Why should nationalist constituencies in the north-eastern six counties be lumped into this against their will after having just won a referendum - the conditions of which were agreed and accepted on a cross-community basis - to free themselves of British rule? Who would call the vote and how might they know if and when the time was appropriate? Would the region's distinguished status be a permanent fixture within the new united Ireland or would a threshold of a certain number of years be set once re-unification took effect, after which the region would then lose its unique status?Yes- although I'd call it 'self-determination'. Unionists (or whatever name they and everyone else use after a UI) deserve that like anyone else. They've as little chance of persuading the English to take them back as the South to join in, as I said.
1 I don't think I have an exact or even preferred arrangement at this stage, as so much is unclear.
2 Can't see the old NI borders being used in the way you describe. If post-UI Unionists want any effective autonomy, they're unlikely to ask for large number of Nationalists to be polled
3 See (2). They wouldn't be lumped in as you call it
4 Unionists, if anyone, would call for self-determination if and when they thought there was some advantage in doing so. That would almost certainly be rather less than rejoining the UK, or an independent NI. But there are other possibilities and examples in other countries
5 The uniqueness you mention could last as long as there's a demand for it from Unionists
What would happen there then? Re-partition with maybe one or two counties - minus some internal nationalist districts - withdrawing from the new united Irish state? If not independent or part of the UK again, what would the status of the newly-separate region be? What are the other possibilities and examples in other countries? Do you mean a significant degree of internal autonomy (or devolution/federalism or whatever one wishes to call it) within the borders of the new united state?
Autonomy more likely than repartition/ independent NI.
Although the latter isn't entirely impossible. I was in a 30,000 population sovereign state only last weekend.
Anomalies other than SMR/ Andorra etc. include Gibraltar, or say Aland/ Ahvenmaa (island in the Baltic where the entirely Swedish-speaking population is part of Finland).
In fairness, the nationalists would have to accept some sort of compromise. This would actually seem pretty reasonable. Scotland was ruled directly from Westminster for hundreds of years, but the referenda on devolution and independence were still voted on by only the population of Scotland. Apart from a bit of grumbling from more extreme Brit-nats, nobody really felt that the unionist population of Scotland had been lumped into a special region against their will. A northern Ireland ruled from Dublin with some devolved powers to reflect its special status with a large unionist/protestant population would be fully acceptable to me.In fairness, your proposal is slightly less unacceptable.
How do you envisage your preferred arrangement working exactly in the event of a united Ireland? Would the six north-eastern counties be distinguished as a region for the purpose of a potential plebiscite to return those six counties to British rule? Why should nationalist constituencies in the north-eastern six counties be lumped into this against their will after having just won a referendum - the conditions of which were agreed and accepted on a cross-community basis - to free themselves of British rule? Who would call the vote and how might they know if and when the time was appropriate? Would the region's distinguished status be a permanent fixture within the new united Ireland or would a threshold of a certain number of years be set once re-unification took effect, after which the region would then lose its unique status?
I acknowledge that nationalists/republicans will have to accept some form of compromise - no issue with that - and a continuation of some form of devolution or special autonomy for the northern region (or perhaps for volunteering/self-selecting unionist constituencies) with a regional legislative chamber in Belfast to govern the devolved/local/internal affairs of the semi-autonomous region within the overall framework of a united Ireland is something to which I don't think I'd necessarily object in theory.
However, I fear the prospect of re-partition could become a reality in practice then as I'd envisage the devolved assembly making continual demands for a reverse plebiscite (to opt out of a united Ireland and possibly rejoin the UK) if it was to be dominated by unionists. To counter that prospect, what about a devolved assembly to govern the province of Ulster (rather than six or fewer north-eastern counties) or a prior agreement that there would be no re-partitioning along new lines (whatever about the constitutional status of the north-eastern six counties remaining up for discussion after unity)?
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 07/09/2017 at 1:25 PM.
No way I'd ever support Donegal being thrown in with the loonies across the border. Just another reason for us to go for our independence. Frankly we're too cool for the rest of you anyway.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
Guy Verhofstadt discusses the surrealism of the Irish border on his visit to Ireland: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...rity-1.3228978
He re-emphasised that the EU would not be imposing any hard border in Ireland after Brexit and stated that it was the UK's responsibility entirely to come up with a practicable solution towards preserving openness.
It's either us or Connacht. It's up to you.
I guess what is being discussed is some kind of Hong Kong type arrangement. It's about timing for me. I'm not adverse to that now, or in the near future if there could be some sort of cross community movement built towards it. But if it requires the sectarian headcount to tick to 50%+1 I wouldn't be open to any consideration to the feelings of unionism at all. At that stage I'd be looking for UN or EU soldiers to maintain stability for a few years while the 6 county state is dismantled and elections to the Dail could be held.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
'Fintan O’Toole: The Tories have already betrayed the DUP': https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/f...-dup-1.3233355
Fintan O'Toole has been writing incisive stuff on the incoherence of Brexit, the folly of the DUP and the difficulty posed by the border question of late.
Meanwhile, Newton Emerson was in the commentators' corner at the end of The View last Thursday night and seemed to be suggesting that the word from Europe was that the north would remain within the Customs Union and Single Market with the effective UK-EU border being shifted to the Irish Sea. He acknowledged that the DUP wouldn't like it, but that it would suit everybody else, so the DUP will pretty much just have to suck it up.
Emerson stated the following whilst making reference to reports from last week:
"[T]he consensus is emerging among customs officials across Europe that the solution to our border will be a sea border, effectively. We'll stay in the Customs Union and the Single Market and there'll be a light enforcement of the European border at our ports. It won't be a re-drawing of the border. It will just be checks at the ports by the EU for goods only. That won't please the DUP, but it will please everyone else and I think that's the kind of solution you're looking at."
Sounds promising. Effectively, Ireland - north and south - will form an economic unit of sorts (albeit whilst still operating two different currencies) within the Customs Union and Single Market that will be distinct from Britain outside of the Customs Union and Single Market.
What effect might this have upon potential political unity down the line, I wonder? Economics and material concerns are such powerful drivers of politics that I would be optimistic. Of course, they're not the only drivers - national identity plays a huge role here too - but I think effective economic unity can only benefit the push for full Irish unity in the long-run as the two jurisdictions in Ireland grow ever closer whilst Britain treads in the other direction down its own precarious path of isolation.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 27/09/2017 at 6:07 AM.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks