Discussion on a United or re-partitioned Ireland [Archive] - Page 4

NeverFeltBetter

07/08/2016, 7:45 PM

I found this an interesting piece: http://jasonomahony.ie/ill-take-a-united-ireland-seriously-when-i-hear-irish-politicians-tell-us-what-theyll-concede/

The truth is that even if there is a hair-splitting majority of voters in Northern Ireland in favour of a united Ireland, unionists will still have a blocking veto on what the new Ireland will look like. They’ll have demands, and if we are to convince a million unionists that this is their country too, we’re going to have to concede big.
Just recall the indignation that something as minor (yes, it is) as re-joining the Commonwealth attracts.

That’s at the very bottom of concessions. Wait until we need a new national anthem, flag, name, or have to recognise in a new constitution how important the British sovereign is to a section of, yes, our people. Wait until we find the DUP demanding that the Northern Assembly has a veto over the removal of the 8th amendment.

Then there is the honours system. How do we feel about having a Lord as Taoiseach-stroke-Prime Minister of Ireland? What about the compulsory teaching of Irish in the north and Ulster Scots to our children in our schools, a language which, let’s be polite, most of the south doesn’t even accept is a language as much as the soundtrack to an episode of Rab C Nesbitt.

backstothewall

08/08/2016, 11:40 PM

I found this an interesting piece: http://jasonomahony.ie/ill-take-a-united-ireland-seriously-when-i-hear-irish-politicians-tell-us-what-theyll-concede/

I read it, but it didn't strike me as credible.

There would have to be concessions to Unionism, but the ones suggested seem a bit mad, or hyped up to be a lot worse than they are. Take the idea of British honours. Nationalism has always had more of a problem with the "British" bit than the "honours" bit. I've never yet heard a republican of any shade object to "Countess" Markievicz being afforded her full title. FF and FG would only be too pleased to be able to dole out patronage like Labour & the Tories do in England, if it wasn't for the fecking constitution getting in the way. Same with the commonwealth. Nice opportunity to have the ozzies and kiwis over for a state dinner and a bit of craic, and you can be damn sure we would be holding the Commonwealth games here at the first opportunity.

And as for Ulster-Scots. If it isn't taken seriously in the north it sure as hell won't be after partition is scrapped.

The North also brings things to the party. There are certain things where we really have our **** together. We are heavily reliant on public sector spending, but as a result we have some great public sector institutions. Would any sensible government attempt to give the HSE responsibility for the North, or expand the remit of the management structure of the NHS in NI to cover the 26 counties?

backstothewall

09/08/2016, 12:24 AM

Plus. Who on earth would lead the no campaign. All politicians have an eye on history. Any fool could see that Alex Salmon will be on a shortbread tin one day and that whoever successfully led the opposition to this will be on a list with Dermot Macmurrough and Stephen Ireland.

Gather round

09/08/2016, 6:05 PM

Broadly agree with BTW. That article just lists relative trivia. No-one will be forced to learn Ulster-Klingon, you haven't managed in 80 years to persuade people to speak Irish. Eddie Coll effectively killed it off with all that dancing round the maypole stuff when he was Taoiseach. There were more regular Polish speakers in the last census I think.

If a united Ireland happens, it'll most likely be as a result of the new English Nationalism rebuffing the Ulster Unionists who will have nowhere else to go. Southern politics will then have the problem of taking on an extra 40% population that they've kept at arm's length for nearly a century.

backstothewall

09/08/2016, 9:53 PM

10 realistic concessions that could be made

1. March anywhere you like. We'll put it in the constitution. No parades commission or any of that nonsense. Just let the cops know what your at and don't act the ride by doing anything at rush hour on a Monday morning
2. New flag and anthem (Not Ireland Call but only because it's ****e)
3. We'll sign something that says they were the baddies and then never mention the Provos again.
4. Rather than folding the 6 counties into the Republic we'll keep Stormont with it's current powers and devolve the same powers to new assemblies for Munster, Leinster and Connacht.
5. The national parliament will meet in the old Senate chamber at Stormont. It's a purpose build building so why not use it
6. The BBC stay. We want them to stay anyway
7. We'll join the commonwealth
8. The Queen/King of England can be Head of State. Rather than having a President we'll elect a Lord Lieutenant to live in the Aras and exercise the current powers of the President
9. Londonderry. We won't promise to say it, but we will put it on the roadsigns. Even the ones in Donegal.
10. We'll all use northern Mr. Tayto

osarusan

09/08/2016, 10:00 PM

8. The Queen/King of England can be Head of State. Rather than having a President we'll elect a Lord Lieutenant to live in the Aras and exercise the current powers of the President

Realistic?

I don't think so.

backstothewall

09/08/2016, 10:28 PM

And there was me thinking Mr Tayto would be the controversial one!

BonnieShels

17/11/2016, 12:10 PM

Dur tooken oor lough!

Efforts to resolve dispute over Lough Foyle continuing
The Department of Foreign Affairs has said efforts are continuing to resolve the dispute between Ireland and Britain over ownership of Lough Foyle.

It follows a claim by Northern Ireland Secretary James Brokenshire that the whole of the lough is owned by the UK.

Since partition in 1922 ownership of Lough Foyle, which lies between Donegal in the Republic and Derry in Northern Ireland, has been claimed by both Ireland and the UK.

Currently the area is regulated by a cross-border body set up under the Good Friday Agreement.

Now though Britain's claims have been reinforced with Mr Brokenshire saying all the lough belongs to the UK.

Sinn F�in said that was arrogant and provocative and called on the Irish Government to challenge it.

In response, Minister for Foreign Affairs Charlie Flanagan said Ireland has never accepted the UK's claim to the whole of Lough Foyle.

He said talks are ongoing between both governments in an attempt to resolve the complex issues relating to both Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough.

The Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement today saying Ireland has never accepted the UK's claim to the whole of Lough Foyle.

"Uncertainty concerning the extent to which each side exercises jurisdiction within Lough Foyle has created practical difficulties for the conduct of a number of activities there.

"This has included difficulty in creating a system for licencing of aquaculture by the Lough's agency in accordance with the intentions of the two governments under the 1999 agreement establishing North/South implementation bodies."

The statement says that following discussions in 2011 between the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and the British Foreign Secretary, both governments agreed to seek to address and resolve jurisdictional issues relating to both Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough.

The Department says that since that time a series of meetings have taken place at official level between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

"The issues involved are complex and involve a range of different actors, including the Crown Estates.

"This is not something we currently envisage as forming part of the negotiations around the UK's departure from the EU", the statement says.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1117/832423-lough-foyle/

That's some serious gall on behalf of Brokenshire to come out with that in this day and age.

backstothewall

23/11/2016, 1:05 PM

Dur tooken oor lough!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1117/832423-lough-foyle/

That's some serious gall on behalf of Brokenshire to come out with that in this day and age.

There's an easy solution to that. Simply veto a trade deal after Brexit until they hand over control of the 2 loughs.

Actually make it 3. Insist they throw in Lough Erne, and the rest of Fermanagh.

BonnieShels

24/11/2016, 9:57 PM

There's an easy solution to that. Simply veto a trade deal after Brexit until they hand over control of the 2 loughs.

Actually make it 3. Insist they throw in Lough Erne, and the rest of Fermanagh.

I can live with that. The Ancestral Seat reunited at last...

BonnieShels

30/11/2016, 5:49 PM

So we're getting back to the days of the Treaty Ports... good times...

UK looking at border moving to include Republic - Foster

Northern Ireland First Minister Arlene Foster has said the UK is developing a proposal that would see the UK border moving to include the Republic.

In an upcoming interview with the BBC programme Hardtalk, talking about the possibility of such a move, the Democratic Unionist Party leader said: "They were speaking about this long before the European Union exit vote was taken. How do we protect ourselves as two islands against terrorism?

"How do we protect ourselves in other ways? And the way they were talking about was using the common travel area and having that special relationship recognised by working very closely together.

"Of course this will have to be accepted by the other member states in Europe.

"We can't enter into negotiations into any of this until Article 50 is triggered and the Republic's Government is very keen to point out that they are not in negotiation at the moment they are in discussion."

Yesterday, Ms Foster told Stormont Assembly members she would not expect or want the UK government to adopt a position until all the options - including implications for Northern Ireland - had been considered.

She said she would be "concerned" if plans for exiting the EU had been finalised.

"It should be no surprise to anyone that the UK has not yet finalised its plans for leaving the EU, indeed if they had I would be concerned, given that they are in detailed discussions with us to help shape the plan," said Ms Foster.

"They are still at the information-gathering and analysis stage which is a huge task covering many areas of government.

"We are currently feeding our own assessment of the issues into this process through the Joint Ministerial Committee and extensive bi-lateral engagement between officials."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1130/835434-foster-northern-border/

punkrocket

01/12/2016, 12:36 PM

It isn't only the Lough that is in dispute either, the area extending out to sea beyond Magilligan Point is also contested. A few years ago there was an offshore windfarm planned for the Tunes Plateau sited on the seabed between Greencastle and Portstewart but foundered due to jurisdiction issues.

nigel-harps1954

01/12/2016, 1:08 PM

The area in dispute is a stretch of close to 100 square km. It's a massive body of water in question here.

DannyInvincible

21/01/2017, 1:17 AM

I thought Emerson's background was as a journalist?

Hi GR, long time no squabble! :) Hope you've been keeping well.

As you may have noticed, I've been on a digital detox for a few months - no forums, tweeting, blogging and so forth - so just getting a chance to respond to some of your points here now. There's certainly been plenty to keep us entertained and interested in the meantime.

Anyway, back on point, Emerson has an economics degree, according to this tweet of his: https://twitter.com/newtonemerson/status/299519814307835905

Maybe "economist" gave the wrong impression - he hasn't dedicated his career to economics, after all - but he'd have a greater and more specialised understanding of the field than your average person and he approved the soundness of Burke's study.

One step at a time. What evidence is there that a majority of your fellow citizens want a new State, for fairly crucial example?

A majority on the island and south of the border seek unity. Whether or not that majority would support the conception of a new state and constitution, I'm not sure. I've never claimed the latter more radical idea has majority support or currency just yet. In fact, it may well not have. That's why I consistently talk of it as amounting to a challenge for republicanism. I envisage it may be a challenge to convince those people who expect unionists to fall into line without any give from nationalism/republicanism in return. It's something unity proponents need to start discussing more and putting out there in order to move the conversation and concept forward towards fruition.

I don't think you've offered any real evidence of opinion in the South changing from ingrained partitionism. It's an essential first step which must precede a UI.

Polls in the south indicate clear majority-support for unity. Anyway, I still don't understand what I'm supposed to have been side-stepping. My position has always been that securing unity will be a massive challenge for republicanism; that challenge entails both convincing unionists of the basic idea and further convincing already-sympathetic or supportive southerners, nationalists and republicans of accepting compromises that will most likely be necessary to actually realise and consolidate a new agreed, stable and thriving Ireland for all. I'm open to discussing things and trying to work out possible avenues for compromise. What am I side-stepping?

Yes, four Unionist parties contested (it was five with the hapless NI21 in 2014), but Arlene clearly has support right across Unionism, from the sink estates to rural hillbillies. Though that can change, it has before.

Naturally, events of late have somewhat eroded her teflon coating. The upcoming assembly election will be very interesting. Ian Paisley Junior's glowing tribute to Martin McGuinness on 'The View' last night was quite a shock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCWAwnSAtY

I don't think I've ever seen a DUPer break rank like that before and show such grace and humility. He certainly went up in my estimation, although I suspect, like many analysts, that it was also a veiled attack on the aloof, abrasive and divisive manner of Foster's disastrous leadership. Her frosty style and intransigent attitude have certainly come back to bite the DUP. Paisley sees that the broader societal tide is also turning and that "not an inch" unionism just doesn't have the purchase it once did any longer.

I've perhaps also come to realise that what I once (a few months ago) admired or thought of as Foster's confidence, courage and tenacity in the face of adversity is really just defensive arrogance and petty disdain for her perceived social and moral inferiors; not very admirable qualities for a supposed leader.

I still can't believe that she turned her nose up at Martin McGuinness' forward-thinking and leaderly suggestion that they both attend an Ireland game and a NI game at the Euros together in an official capacity. In the end, she went to just a NI game, thus completely ignoring the team supported by nearly half of the native dwellers in the jurisdiction of which she was first minister, whilst McGuinness went ahead and did the noble thing regardless and attended a NI game and an Ireland game in an official capacity.

DannyInvincible

21/01/2017, 1:38 AM

10 realistic concessions that could be made

I sense some of these are semi-serious or in jest, but I've had a few months off and need to tuck my teeth into something, so I'll bite. :)

1. March anywhere you like. We'll put it in the constitution. No parades commission or any of that nonsense. Just let the cops know what your at and don't act the ride by doing anything at rush hour on a Monday morning

Are you from a community regularly affected by intrusive and imperious parading? You may well be, but I think the collective wishes of communities directly impacted upon should not and cannot realistically be overlooked by way of some broad-brush constitutional decree. The reason the Commission ban certain parades isn't just because some people somewhere might get offended; it's because they're a major risk to public safety/order in specific areas/communities and require huge security operations to police them because those who organise them have consistently demonstrated themselves incapable of policing themselves and showing respect for the other community with whom they share the land.

3. We'll sign something that says they were the baddies and then never mention the Provos again.

I think truth and transparency, first and foremost, is crucial to building trust and reconciliation. Pretending like this that 'the Troubles' were a conflict between "good" and "evil" doesn't just grossly misrepresent history; it's also grossly insulting to those who suffered at the hands of the British army, the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries. And still these elements (who systematically colluded with one another, after all) conceal the truth behind the dubious curtain of "national security", in direct contravention of ECtHR directions and in breach their ECHR obligations. State forces and loyalist paramilitaries were targetting civilians before the Provos ever emerged. The British army were on the ground buttressing the discriminatory unionist status quo four months before anyone knew anything of the Provos. Officialising or setting in stone a false historical narrative would be dangerously Orwellian and pretty dubious foundational grounds on which to establish a new Ireland for all.

8. The Queen/King of England can be Head of State. Rather than having a President we'll elect a Lord Lieutenant to live in the Aras and exercise the current powers of the President

That would essentially mean we'd be relinquishing our status as a sovereign republic - with all the ideals of equality and so forth that that is supposed to entail - and re-joining the UK. As head of state of Ireland, the queen or king of England would have the ultimate say over all our laws. In other words, not happening. It would be in total contravention of everything we stand for as a republic of supposed equal citizens.

9. Londonderry. We won't promise to say it, but we will put it on the roadsigns. Even the ones in Donegal.

I say we just let the people of the city fairly and democratically decide the name of their own city once and for all. :)

DannyInvincible

21/01/2017, 1:56 AM

Dur tooken oor lough!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1117/832423-lough-foyle/

That's some serious gall on behalf of Brokenshire to come out with that in this day and age.

It was, wasn't it. Flanagan didn't go far enough in rebuffing Brokenshire's nonsense, in my opinion. The Irish state actually has a much more credible legal claim to the entire waters allegedly under dispute - never mind a half-way split - than Britain does, by virtue of an act passed by the British parliament itself. See this post from the flag protests thread: http://foot.ie/threads/175511-The-Flag-Issue-Cheist-an-Bratach-The-Fleg-Prooblum?p=1809368&viewfull=1#post1809368

A good summary of the Irish position was given by the then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, during a D�il debate on 29 February 1972:

...[W]e claim that the territorial waters around the whole island of Ireland are ours and our claim to the territorial waters around Northern Ireland is based on the Government of Ireland Act of 1920. This Act is so referred to in the 1921 Treaty that the Northern Ireland which withdrew from the Irish Free State is identical with the Northern Ireland defined in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and defined as consisting of named counties and boroughs. It is, I think, common case between us that in English law the counties do not include adjacent territorial waters and, therefore, according to our claim these territorial waters were retained by the Irish Free State.

So we're getting back to the days of the Treaty Ports... good times...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1130/835434-foster-northern-border/

It's somewhat amusing how "taking back control" has now come to mean "designating control of UK immigration to the Irish government". I hope the Irish government tells the British government to do one. :rofl:

backstothewall

23/01/2017, 8:55 PM

I sense some of these are semi-serious or in jest, but I've had a few months off and need to tuck my teeth into something, so I'll bite. :)

Are you from a community regularly affected by intrusive and imperious parading? You may well be, but I think the collective wishes of communities directly impacted upon should not and cannot realistically be overlooked by way of some broad-brush constitutional decree. The reason the Commission ban certain parades isn't just because some people somewhere might get offended; it's because they're a major risk to public safety/order in specific areas/communities and require huge security operations to police them because those who organise them have consistently demonstrated themselves incapable of policing themselves and showing respect for the other community with whom they share the land.

I think truth and transparency, first and foremost, is crucial to building trust and reconciliation. Pretending like this that 'the Troubles' were a conflict between "good" and "evil" doesn't just grossly misrepresent history; it's also grossly insulting to those who suffered at the hands of the British army, the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries. And still these elements (who systematically colluded with one another, after all) conceal the truth behind the dubious curtain of "national security", in direct contravention of ECtHR directions and in breach their ECHR obligations. State forces and loyalist paramilitaries were targetting civilians before the Provos ever emerged. The British army were on the ground buttressing the discriminatory unionist status quo four months before anyone knew anything of the Provos. Officialising or setting in stone a false historical narrative would be dangerously Orwellian and pretty dubious foundational grounds on which to establish a new Ireland for all.

That would essentially mean we'd be relinquishing our status as a sovereign republic - with all the ideals of equality and so forth that that is supposed to entail - and re-joining the UK. As head of state of Ireland, the queen or king of England would have the ultimate say over all our laws. In other words, not happening. It would be in total contravention of everything we stand for as a republic of supposed equal citizens.

I say we just let the people of the city fairly and democratically decide the name of their own city once and for all. :)

Tongue was firmly in cheek, though to be honest I probably would be prepared to suck all that lot up to end partition and get rid of the English.

I'd disagree with saying bringing back queenie would be effectively rejoining the UK though. Canada is no less independent because they still have her as head of state. I'd prefer a republic, but it's a good place to give a bit of ground. It would have no practical effect on running the place.

Gather round

24/01/2017, 10:02 AM

Hi GR, long time no squabble! Hope you've been keeping well...As you may have noticed, I've been on a digital detox for a few months

Welcome back, admirable self-restraint. I should try the same myself, although to be fair I did go eight weeks 'dry' on here between November and earlier this month.

Polls in the south indicate clear majority-support for unity. Anyway, I still don't understand what I'm supposed to have been side-stepping

Opinion polls, sure. But the thing is, there's never been an election (or referendum) result that mandates a Southern government to start negotiating for even a limited redraw of the border. As I sometimes mention, it hasn't moved a metric mile (or indeed inch) away from Puckoon since 1925. Southern voters want a united Ireland until it becomes more than a notional possibility, at which point I still think they're likely to get cold feet. You're not alone, most Southern (and Northern Nationalist) commentators shy away from this possibility.

Naturally, events of late have somewhat eroded [Foster's] teflon coating. The upcoming assembly election will be very interesting

Aye, Arlene proves the 'Peter Principle'. She had a safe pair of hands until promotion showed she didn't ;) .Contrary to bull****ting hacks like Emerson, who claim they always knew she was a wrong 'un but just never got round to telling us until December...

As in other recent polls, isn't it separate head-counts within the two blocs, basically no voters floating between them, and the rest of us hoping that the little guys will prosper or at least hang on.

I still can't believe that she turned her nose up at Martin McGuinness' [noble], forward-thinking and leaderly suggestion that they both attend an Ireland game and a NI game at the Euros together

Ha ha. Alternatively, Marty proposed a predictable stunt, Arlene politely ignored it. Anyway, you're forgetting that she did go to watch the team representing NI's main minority language community ;)

Wolfman

24/01/2017, 11:21 AM

Foster went to watch Ireland? Or Scotland? :eek:
What did they do to deserve that?

As for a UI the main thing putting people off in Ireland is economic reasons, mainly because the North has been sucking on the British teat for so long and because the people there don't want to lose their vast financial subsidy!

DannyInvincible

24/01/2017, 12:39 PM

Welcome back, admirable self-restraint. I should try the same myself, although to be fair I did go eight weeks 'dry' on here between November and earlier this month.

Ha, cheers and fair play. I've used the freed-up time to go for a daily cycle, which has been very beneficial for body and mind, although I do plan on keeping that up.

Opinion polls, sure. But the thing is, there's never been an election (or referendum) result that mandates a Southern government to start negotiating for even a limited redraw of the border. As I sometimes mention, it hasn't moved a metric mile (or indeed inch) away from Puckoon since 1925. Southern voters want a united Ireland until it becomes more than a notional possibility, at which point I still think they're likely to get cold feet. You're not alone, most Southern (and Northern Nationalist) commentators shy away from this possibility.

There was a poll last July which found that two thirds of southern voters would back unity tomorrow if it was on the table: http://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-referendum-recovery-2901609-Jul2016/

I'm still not sure what I'm side-stepping though.

DannyInvincible

24/01/2017, 1:16 PM

Foster went to watch Ireland? Or Scotland? :eek:
What did they do to deserve that?

Knowing GR's weakness for a cryptic wind-up, I'm guessing he meant she went (sort of indirectly) to watch Poland?

As for a UI the main thing putting people off in Ireland is economic reasons, mainly because the North has been sucking on the British teat for so long and because the people there don't want to lose their vast financial subsidy!

David McWilliams soundly dismantled the economic case for partition/unionism in a prospective piece he wrote just before the Brexit referendum: http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/05/16/daily-note-a-nation-once-again-dont-write-it-off

An in-depth analysis by another economist, Michael Burke, found that unity could benefit the island by €35.6 billion over eight years: http://prcg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Modeling-Irish-Unification-Report.pdf

Gather round

24/01/2017, 5:56 PM

Knowing GR's weakness for a cryptic wind-up, I'm guessing he meant she went (sort of indirectly) to watch Poland?

Indeed. After the game, my party avoided the overfull Irish bars and had an agreeable dinner with some Polish yuppies, during which there was a wide-ranging discussion on Brexit. The only slight embarrassment was when the waiter assumed the Poles wanted a round of beers before they'd had a chance to ask for the wine list :cool:

David McWilliams soundly dismantled the economic case for partition/unionism...An in-depth analysis by another economist, Michael Burke

Thanks for those, good reading for a series of long journeys on Thursday.

You've partly answered the sidestep point, fair dos. Did the poll put the question in terms of a 40% increase to population, many of whom would be truculent at best? Show that and I'll drop the charge...

DannyInvincible

25/01/2017, 12:08 AM

Thanks for those, good reading for a series of long journeys on Thursday.

Ah, sorry to disappoint, but I'm pretty sure you'll have read them before as I posted them here (http://foot.ie/threads/178393-Discussion-on-a-United-or-re-partitioned-Ireland?p=1879265&viewfull=1#post1879265) earlier in the thread and you didn't seem too enamoured (http://foot.ie/threads/178393-Discussion-on-a-United-or-re-partitioned-Ireland?p=1879465&viewfull=1#post1879465). :o

You've partly answered the sidestep point, fair dos. Did the poll put the question in terms of a 40% increase to population, many of whom would be truculent at best? Show that and I'll drop the charge...

I'd imagine most people in the south are knowledgeable and well-educated enough to know that unity will entail merging with another two million or so people presently residing in another jurisdiction, just over half of whom would identify as British/unionist and may not be too keen on the idea of unity right now. That's just basic Irish history/knowledge, no?

For what it's worth, there's further info on the poll and the question posed here: http://www.redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Paddy-Power-29th-July-2016-Poll-Report.pdf

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/redc_zps5exkrux8.png

I think the significant thing about this poll is that a very considerable majority would support unity right now; usually when people express positive sentiment for unity in these types of polls, it's a distant desire for a vague emotional or romantic concept. That's why I think Brexit is a game-changer. The above poll was conducted shortly after the Brexit referendum and people in the south have clearly reacted to the abrupt change of situation and mood in the north. Southerners and nationalists in the north are now taking the idea of unity in the short-term, as an antidote to Brexit, very seriously.

Mr A

25/01/2017, 10:37 AM

On the other hand polling before referenda often indicates one outcome but the campaign can crystallise things in unpredictable ways.

Interesting that 21% of SF supporters would not vote for a United Ireland.

NeverFeltBetter

25/01/2017, 10:53 AM

backstothewall

25/01/2017, 6:18 PM

I recall that cross-border survey done in 2015 asked the "Do you support Irish unification?" question and then "Do you support Irish unification if it would result in increased taxation?" and there was a noticeable drop between answers that's telling. When dealing with reunification as a distant abstract ideas Irish people take a romantic course and are all for it, but if it every was seriously put to a vote, it wouldn't take all that much for many people to be put off, especially if fears of an economic horror show or violent Unionist resistance became part of the narrative.

I still think it would pass in the south, and wouldn't even be especially close. The SSM vote showed the electorate can decisively ignore negative campaigning on occasion. But I doubt it would be a 60+% landslide affair.

I don't think money would be an issue. To give him his dues even a blueshirt like Kenny put Europe on notice that we would expect the same generous terms from the EU that Germany got in the 90's if this were to come to pass. A precedent was set there and spread across the entire continent the numbers would be fairly insignificant. Certainly not enough to back out of supporting Ireland or Cyprus who are the only people ever coming for the cash.

Between Europe and America supporting the project i suspect we would be awash with money, north and south.

Gather round

28/01/2017, 9:43 AM

I'd imagine most people in the south are knowledgeable and well-educated enough to know that unity will entail merging with another two million or so people presently residing in another jurisdiction, just over half of whom would identify as British/unionist and may not be too keen on the idea of unity right now. That's just basic Irish history/knowledge, no?

No, I'm not implying any lack of education in Southern voters. Rather that- like voters anywhere else- they sometimes vote irrationally*, believe contradicting things at the same time, or simplify complex issues. The key stat is the two million- given that scale it's likely upheaval for everyone, not just Unionists.

* you still as keen on an election where your favored candidate expects to lose?

I think the significant thing about this poll is that a very considerable majority would support unity right now; usually when people express positive sentiment for unity in these types of polls, it's a distant desire for a vague emotional or romantic concept. That's why I think Brexit is a game-changer

Agreed it's a game changer. We just don't know yet to what extent, though March's election may be telling.

I don't think money would be an issue. To give him his dues even a blueshirt like Kenny put Europe on notice that we would expect the same generous terms from the EU that Germany got in the 90's if this were to come to pass. A precedent was set there and spread across the entire continent the numbers would be fairly insignificant. Certainly not enough to back out of supporting Ireland or Cyprus who are the only people ever coming for the cash...Between Europe and America supporting the project i suspect we would be awash with money, north and south

We discussed this upthread. Cyprus has similar divides to Ireland, and is only a fraction of the size. But it's little closer to political unity thn when I worked there as a student. In 1981...

I still think it would pass in the south, and wouldn't even be especially close. The SSM vote showed the electorate can decisively ignore negative campaigning on occasion. But I doubt it would be a 60+% landslide affair

So it'll pass with about 55% support then. Is that a precise estimate, or like BttW above a hopeful guess?

On the other hand polling before referenda often indicates one outcome but the campaign can crystallise things in unpredictable ways.Interesting that 21% of SF supporters would not vote for a United Ireland

I think we can rule out ****taking/ carelessness/ not understanding the question for that sort of scale. They don't think a UI is imminent, so won't vote thus until they think it is?

DannyInvincible

28/01/2017, 11:50 AM

No, I'm not implying any lack of education in Southern voters. Rather that- like voters anywhere else- they sometimes vote irrationally*, believe contradicting things at the same time, or simplify complex issues. The key stat is the two million- given that scale it's likely upheaval for everyone, not just Unionists.

* you still as keen on an election where your favored candidate expects to lose?

Thankfully, I don't have to throw all my eggs into one basket. Such is the beauty of the PR system. :)

I very much agree with McCann's progressive outlook on social issues - equal marriage for those of the same sex, full reproductive rights for women, et cetera - and also have great time for his critiques/analyses of and insights into the structures of economy, capital and societal power. He also did stellar work for the Bloody Sunday families, is a strong advocate for holding power to account and seeks disclosure of the truth of what happened during the conflict in the north; I feel similarly and very strongly on that, for what it's worth, both for familial reasons and more general reasons relating to a belief that transparency can be cathartic for all concerned and will ultimately generate the trust and reconciliation we broadly desire as a society. Naturally, that would ultimately be good for social stability, cross-communal harmony and international relations.

However, I also wish to see an exception being made for the north in respect of Brexit, so that it can remain within the EU, along with the rest of Ireland and in line with the will of the region's people. The notion of a return to a more physical border, be it military, customs-based or whatever with impediments to the movement of people, labour and goods, in my natural and familial hinterland of Derry and Donegal is repugnant to me, my family, my friends and my community. It's not just ideologically and emotionally incendiary, it will also present a major material nuisance. It's a very immediate and pressing concern, but McCann won't offer me anything on that front - he supported Brexit, after all, or the idea of a "Lexit" even (which I feel was ultimately misguided, albeit emanating from a good place) - nor will he vigorously pursue Irish cultural matters such as the promised Irish language act, which are also important to me.

So, I'll give McCann my first-preference as he'll hopefully offer an important, alternative voice in Stormont if re-elected, but if he's not re-elected, it's not as if Stormont will become an irrelevance for me or as if I'll have no stake or interest in what's going on there, so I'll allot my secondary and tertiary votes or preferences accordingly and carefully based upon weighing up my mix or spectrum of views/beliefs and evaluating which potential representatives align or correlate best with those or based upon who I feel will provide them the best and broadest representation.

Is that irrational? It's simply me hoping, or trying to ensure even, that my feelings on matters will be broadly represented surely. Unless one has the means and time to set up their own party or stand as an electoral candidate themselves, the way any electoral system operates forces voters to try and simplify or (perhaps crudely) prioritise their spectrum of views to some degree, but PR specifically enables me to sort of compartmentalise or balance all my interests better than other electoral systems, if that makes sense, just like it does for any other voter.

Agreed it's a game changer. We just don't know yet to what extent, though March's election may be telling.

I will admit - with a wry grin - that potential constitutional upheaval is a big part of the reason why I'm so looking forward to the election. Let's see how it goes and where it leaves us. Maybe we're finally on the direct path to Irish unity...

I'll also enjoy that feeling of sweet schadenfreude if the DUP do indeed - as I hope they do - suffer detrimental consequences on account of their galling corruption, long-standing bigotry, continuous disrespect and reneging on various agreements.

backstothewall

28/01/2017, 12:21 PM

Thankfully, I don't have to throw all my eggs into one basket. Such is the beauty of the PR system. :)

I very much agree with McCann's progressive outlook on social issues - equal marriage for those of the same sex, full reproductive rights for women, et cetera - and also have great time for his critiques/analyses of and insights into the structures of economy, capital and societal power. He also did stellar work for the Bloody Sunday families, is a strong advocate for holding power to account and seeks disclosure of the truth of what happened during the conflict in the north; I feel similarly and very strongly on that, for what it's worth, both for familial reasons and more general reasons relating to a belief that transparency can be cathartic for all concerned and will ultimately generate the trust and reconciliation we broadly desire as a society. Naturally, that would ultimately be good for social stability, cross-communal harmony and international relations.

However, I also wish to see an exception being made for the north in respect of Brexit, so that it can remain within the EU, along with the rest of Ireland and in line with the will of the region's people. The notion of a return to a more physical border, be it military, customs-based or whatever with impediments to the movement of people, labour and goods, in my natural and familial hinterland of Derry and Donegal is repugnant to me, my family, my friends and my community. It's not just ideologically and emotionally incendiary, it will also present a major material nuisance. It's a very immediate and pressing concern, but McCann won't offer me anything on that front - he supported Brexit, after all, or the idea of a "Lexit" even (which I feel was ultimately misguided, albeit emanating from a good place) - nor will he vigorously pursue Irish cultural matters such as the promised Irish language act, which are also important to me.

So, I'll give McCann my first-preference as he'll hopefully offer an important, alternative voice in Stormont if re-elected, but if he's not re-elected, it's not as if Stormont will become an irrelevance for me or as if I'll have no stake or interest in what's going on there, so I'll allot my secondary and tertiary votes or preferences accordingly and carefully based upon weighing up my mix or spectrum of views/beliefs and evaluating which potential representatives align or correlate best with those or based upon who I feel will provide them the best and broadest representation.

Is that irrational? It's simply me hoping, or trying to ensure even, that my feelings on matters will be broadly represented surely. The way any electoral system operates forces voters to try and simplify to some degree, but PR specifically enables me to sort of compartmentalise or balance all my interests better than other electoral systems, if that makes sense, just like it does for any other voter.

I will admit - with a wry grin - that potential constitutional upheaval is a big part of the reason why I'm so looking forward to the election. Let's see how it goes and where it leaves us. Maybe we're finally on the direct path to Irish unity...

I'll also enjoy that feeling of sweet schadenfreude if the DUP do indeed - as I hope they do - suffer detrimental consequences on account of their galling corruption, long-standing bigotry, continuous disrespect and reneging on various agreements.

+1

I can't put it any better than that

backstothewall

28/01/2017, 12:26 PM

We discussed this up thread. Cyprus has similar divides to Ireland, and is only a fraction of the size. But it's little closer to political unity thn when I worked there as a student. In 1981...

That simply isn't true. The only difference since up thread and now is that the talks they are having on reunification have made significant further progress, and that statements such as this are now disparagingly referred to as "Alt-Facts"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/09/talks-to-secure-cyprus-reunification-enter-final-stages

Gather round

29/01/2017, 10:19 AM

Is [all] that irrational?

I'd say from your POV, wanting an election NOW (as opposed to any particular set of preferences) is irrational. Because the likelihood is you'll lose more from McCann not being around than gain elsewhere.

I will admit - with a wry grin - that potential constitutional upheaval is a big part of the reason why I'm so looking forward to the election. Let's see how it goes and where it leaves us. Maybe we're finally on the direct path to Irish unity

Indeed. Of course you might get the upheaval (understatement?) without the real change. Or, if you prefer, chaos in health, education, housing and public finances, but no Irish cultural legislation. Maybe the chance of Irish Unity (which I accept has risen from close to zero in the last year) still won't be that high...

I'll also enjoy that feeling of sweet schadenfreude if the DUP do indeed - as I hope they do - suffer detrimental consequences on account of their galling corruption, long-standing bigotry, continuous disrespect and reneging on various agreements

The DUP may well lose out, either symbolically (with SF as biggest party) or in influence (if UUP and TUV make gains). But then you think all unionists are basically as bad as each other, so where's the satisfaction in that? Unless there's a significant swing from them to Nationalists overall, will things really have changed?

That simply isn't true. The only difference since up thread and now is that the talks they are having on reunification have made significant further progress, and that statements such as this are now disparagingly referred to as "Alt-Facts"

OK,variously

a) I offered a brief opinion only

b) the content of that Graun article supports rather than contradicts my opinion. These are the first multilateral talks since the 70s. Officials on all sides describe them as the last as well as best chance, which hardly suggests overwhelming confidence or unbroken progress. T he article accepts that Turkish Cypriots won't want to lose land or the 40,000 soldiers guarding them. Of the three 'guarantors', Greece is economically weak, Britain distracted by Brexit and Turkey effectively a dictatorship with dodgy links to war in Syria and beyond

c) Alt-facts? Spare me your trendy jargon, hipster ;)

d) I accept your knowledge of the local situation may be more detailed and up-to-datet han mine. That said, are you really offering much more than a coincidence- that the 80-20 ethnic split is similar to Ireland- and an over-emphasis on scale? If you argue as many Irish Nationalists do that unity is the only rational choice for a small island, then it must be even more so for a tiny one...

Wolfman

29/01/2017, 10:30 AM

More alt-waffle, more like.

Is it really so difficult to make a meaningful point?

Gather round

29/01/2017, 11:37 AM

Is it really so difficult to make a meaningful point?

I'll answer that if and when you make one.

Wolfman

29/01/2017, 12:24 PM

I already have.

Eminence Grise

29/01/2017, 4:34 PM

Oh no you didn't.
Oh yes I did.
Oh no...

And there was me thinking panto season was over.:rolleyes:

Gather round

29/01/2017, 5:10 PM

And there was me thinking panto season was over.:rolleyes:

Aye, it's behind you.

Anyway relax. The other constant of a politics thread will soon apply, when Wolfie gets kicked off for just too much sectarian gibberish ;)

backstothewall

29/01/2017, 7:46 PM

d) I accept your knowledge of the local situation may be more detailed and up-to-datet han mine. That said, are you really offering much more than a coincidence- that the 80-20 ethnic split is similar to Ireland- and an over-emphasis on scale? If you argue as many Irish Nationalists do that unity is the only rational choice for a small island, then it must be even more so for a tiny one...

I never offered any coincidence or made any arguments about what is or isn't rational. The only reason i raised the example again was to demonstrate how insignificant the financial sums required to bring about Irish or Cypriot unity would be, and that for such low sums it wouldn't be worth trashing the precedent set in Germany.

You added all that other stuff. Not me

Wolfman

29/01/2017, 10:50 PM

Anyway relax. The other constant of a politics thread will soon apply, when Wolfie gets kicked off for just too much sectarian gibberish

Presumably the last word is ironic? It's certainly as ever, not a point worth repeating.

DannyInvincible

29/01/2017, 11:57 PM

I'd say from your POV, wanting an election NOW (as opposed to any particular set of preferences) is irrational. Because the likelihood is you'll lose more from McCann not being around than gain elsewhere.

I've outlined my interests and preferences. If McCann loses out, so be it. I'm aware of the likelihood of it happening, but I can still weigh things up in a perfectly rational manner.

Indeed. Of course you might get the upheaval (understatement?) without the real change. Or, if you prefer, chaos in health, education, housing and public finances, but no Irish cultural legislation. Maybe the chance of Irish Unity (which I accept has risen from close to zero in the last year) still won't be that high...

The prospect of Irish unity has become much more likely over the past year. Even members of the British and Irish establishments speak of it as a solution to the north's Brexit woes.

The DUP may well lose out, either symbolically (with SF as biggest party) or in influence (if UUP and TUV make gains). But then you think all unionists are basically as bad as each other, so where's the satisfaction in that? Unless there's a significant swing from them to Nationalists overall, will things really have changed?

You're putting words in my mouth. I said that, as an ideology, unionism has demonstrated itself to be intransigent and beyond compromise. I was referring to political unionism and clarified that I was specifically referring to the DUP, UUP and TUV. (Would you disagree with my perception?)

I don't think unionists are bad people or "as bad as each other", as you put it. Plenty of unionists are empathetic, compromising and tolerant. Sure aren't you a shining example? ;)

With the exception of guys like Doug Beattie, such unionists just don't tend to fill the ranks of the parties that profess to represent the unionist people.

I think nationalism will do a lot better in this election than it has done in previous elections where apathy seems to have afflicted the nationalist voter.

CraftyToePoke

30/01/2017, 2:51 AM

With the exception of guys like Doug Beattie, such unionists just don't tend to fill the ranks of the parties that profess to represent the unionist people.

So do you feel there is a section of Unionism not represented in elected office by Unionist politicians ? By that I mean is there an emerging demographic who may be willing to begin to have the conversation about on what terms Irish unity might be acceptable, if not with Nationalist Ireland yet, then among themselves for now.

Economic Unionism has always seemed a fall back position, that the people are simply better served in terms of prospects and services inside the UK but the London government seems to have gone a touch every man for himself here to my eye. They never seem to mention NI in Brexit interviews unless directly faced with a question on it and even then its coming over like sound bite lip service to NI.

Gather round

30/01/2017, 11:46 AM

The only reason i raised the example again was to demonstrate how insignificant the financial sums required to bring about Irish or Cypriot unity would be, and that for such low sums it wouldn't be worth trashing the precedent set in Germany

But you didn't demonstrate that, either by quoting figures or comparing the different contexts. Unity in Ireland and/ or Cyprus won't inevitably be proportionately cheaper than the much larger Germany. East Germany didn't have a noisy majority of Soviet loyalists, or a huge garrison of outside troops who hung around for 40 years AFTER everyone else accepted that the DDR was toast.

You added all that other stuff. Not me

I guessed at your motives. To be fair, I also tend to quote other people, sometimes at length, before replying. That you hit on Cyprus for the reasons I gave was a reasonable guess.

The prospect of Irish unity. has become much more likely over the past year. Even members of the British and Irish establishments speak of it as a solution to the north's Brexit woes

We agree it's increased. March 2 may indicate by how much.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said that, as an ideology, unionism has demonstrated itself to be intransigent and beyond compromise. I was referring to political unionism and clarified that I was specifically referring to the DUP, UUP and TUV. (Would you disagree with my perception?) I don't think unionists are bad people or "as bad as each other", as you put it. Plenty of unionists are empathetic, compromising and tolerant. Sure aren't you a shining example?

See reply to BttW above. I quote you (plural) and then draw conclusions from what you say. Unionism as intransigent and Unionist voters as tolerant contradict each other. You're clearly exaggerating the former for effect. So I do disagree- the UUP as a party, independents like Sugden and Harmon, even Paisley Junior and some other individuals in the DUP aren't beyond compromise.

I'm an example (shining or otherwise) of someone who's never voted for or supported a Unionist party (closest I've got was being bought a drink by a young Gregory Campbell in the HoC bar ;) )

So do you feel there is a section of Unionism not represented in elected office by Unionist politicians ?

It's not as if there isn't a choice- four parties (plus briefly the NI21), those independents and at a pinch the local Tory and UKIP set-ups. In last year's election, Foster could credibly claim to represent the whole spectrum from Big House through Garden Centre and Prayer Meeting to Sink Estate. A measure of the new demographic you mention might be any increase this time for Alliance, Green, PBP etc. (the non-nationality parties, if you like).

Current scoreboard (2016 Election)

Unionist 49% (DUP 29%, UUP 13%, TUV 3%, UKIP/Tory 2%, PUP 1%, Indeps 1%)

Nationalist 36% (SF 24%, SDLP 12%, Indeps <1%)

Others 15% (AP 7%, GP 3%, PBP 2%, Others & Indeps 3%)

Wolfman

30/01/2017, 12:38 PM

Ha, never voted for a Unionist party, yeah right. If it walks like a duck...

DannyInvincible

30/01/2017, 11:26 PM

So do you feel there is a section of Unionism not represented in elected office by Unionist politicians ? By that I mean is there an emerging demographic who may be willing to begin to have the conversation about on what terms Irish unity might be acceptable, if not with Nationalist Ireland yet, then among themselves for now.

Economic Unionism has always seemed a fall back position, that the people are simply better served in terms of prospects and services inside the UK but the London government seems to have gone a touch every man for himself here to my eye. They never seem to mention NI in Brexit interviews unless directly faced with a question on it and even then its coming over like sound bite lip service to NI.

Liberal and/or progressive unionists fill the ranks of Alliance and the NI Green Party. Unionists like Basil McCrea of the ill-fated NI21 are thoroughly decent and respectful of difference and contrasting perspectives. All you have to do is look at GR for proof of the emerging demographic of unionist who is prepared to have a discussion on Irish unity and consider it. He has more or less said on a couple of occasions on this forum that he'd be open to the idea if the circumstances were right and he felt alienated enough by what the Tories are presently doing in/to Britain and the north of Ireland (for example, privatising the NHS). Such alienation appears to be an ongoing process and I'm sure many moderate unionists feel similarly, especially since Brexit (http://foot.ie/threads/178393-Discussion-on-a-United-or-re-partitioned-Ireland?p=1877622&viewfull=1#post1877622). Surveys (https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1104/739474-same-sex-marriage/) also indicate that unionists are generally a lot more tolerant than the representatives for whom they vote would lead us to believe.

See reply to BttW above. I quote you (plural) and then draw conclusions from what you say. Unionism as intransigent and Unionist voters as tolerant contradict each other. You're clearly exaggerating the former for effect. So I do disagree- the UUP as a party, independents like Sugden and Harmon, even Paisley Junior and some other individuals in the DUP aren't beyond compromise.

I'm an example (shining or otherwise) of someone who's never voted for or supported a Unionist party (closest I've got was being bought a drink by a young Gregory Campbell in the HoC bar ;) )

You may never have voted for a party that officially designate themselves as "Unionist" for assembly purposes, but you are a unionist though, no? You identify as British and support the union, to the best of my knowledge. That's a unionist in my book. Would you disagree?

I identify as a nationalist/republican but I will also vote for McCann of PBP in the upcoming election. PBP officially designate as "Other", just like Alliance and Green, but voting for a party who designate as "Other" doesn't/won't negate my nationalism/republicanism. Likewise, you don't have to vote for those parties who designate as "Unionist" to actually be a unionist.