Discussion on a United or re-partitioned Ireland

[BonnieShels]

Following on from the discussion in the eligibility thread...

http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1677818#post1677818

[culloty82]

Granted, most of the nationalist and unionist areas of NI are geographically contiguous, but can't see how the GFA could be adapted for any re-partition scheme, or that any party would be prepared to sign up. Interestingly, back in the Redmond era, the suggested solution was "county option", but Carson ruled that out of hand, and Tyrone was more Protestant at the time. As for a Border poll, NI Catholics seem evenly divided between the status quo and unity according to recent surveys, so consistent results of 60% would be needed before a referendum would be practical.

[Sleepingpartner]

Somebody was talking about redrawing the border. Not very likely from a unionist perspective.
Thoughts about turkeys and Xmas sprung to mind.

[geysir]

Okay, as it stands now 'we' can take back South Down, Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Armagh and Belfast.
On second thoughts, keep the Tyronies, let them stew for another decade.

[DannyInvincible]

Incidentally, 51% wouldn't be enough, surely (particularly if you're equating it to the slogan of 50% + 1). The majority would have to be large enough to be secure against reversal in the next election, to avoid all the embarrassment/ instability etc. that would follow. So closer to 55%.

Ah, to convince the Secretary of State? Possibly. 51 per cent (edit: sorry, 50 per cent plus one; cheers, Fly! :p ) would be enough in any referendum though.


Who's doing that? Not I. A few posts back I specifically mentioned the possibility of the Unionist rump in Ireland becoming too small to self-sustain, in which case I'd have to accept a united Ireland. I would adapt to a significantly changed circumstance. You seem unable to, basically because as I mentioned your first principle is not self-determination but a united Ireland.

Unless my memory deceives me, you formerly insisted that 50 per cent plus one of the north's electorate voting in favour of Irish unity would not be sufficient for the motion to pass as the concern of a majority of unionists would also have to be considered. Essentially, that would amount to a unionist veto - which I understood you to be (once) advocating - but nowhere is a provision for such included in the terms of the GFA. Have you since modified your stance?

And sure what would be wrong with permitting an electorate determined by unionism to self-determine? More fool unionism for dragging a significant unwilling minority into matters and wanting to keep them there; then, apparently agreeing to a blueprint for Irish unity with them.

More seriously, however, I might as well be honest that unity would ultimately be my first principle if it really came down to it - in that I don't think I would have it in me to vote against it were the opportunity ever to arise - but I would prefer if that was achieved via bi-communal consent and without unionists feeling coerced by a hypothetical nationalist majority. That would be an ideal.


You haven't moved on since learning it by rote at Ballygobackwards Integrated Primary ;)

Hehe, not so sure about that. My principal's husband - who coached our football "squad", numbering about nine pupils, every Friday afternoon - had all sorts of Rangers and Union regalia tattooed up his fore-arms.


Couldn't agree more. Do you not think that both sides have pretty much fulfilled those in the last 15 years?

Sure, but we're talking about the future and obligations in time.


See what I mean? Those nasty Unionists! They just won't accept it isn't 1998/ 1925/ 1169 any more and want a more up-to-date workable agreement!

Are you suggesting the GFA is no longer workable? Continually switching the goal-posts isn't inspiring politics. It's inconsiderate, patronising and disrespectful of the minority to intend to go back on promises. What about what they might want?

[Charlie Darwin]

Ah, to convince the Secretary of State? Possibly. 51 per cent would be enough in any referendum though.



You formerly insisted that 51 per cent of the north's electorate voting in favour of Irish unity would not be sufficient for the motion to pass as the concern of a majority of unionists would also have to be considered.
Is 51% an appropriate threshhold where secession or unifying states is concerned?

[DannyInvincible]

Is 51% an appropriate threshhold where secession or unifying states is concerned?

Those who framed and agreed the GFA appeared to think so.

[Charlie Darwin]

Yeah, but is it appropriate?

[The Fly]

Ah, to convince the Secretary of State? Possibly. 51 per cent would be enough in any referendum though.



Is 51% an appropriate threshhold where secession or unifying states is concerned?

It's 50% +1 chaps. http://z5.ifrm.com/5902/57/0/e14482//e14482.gif

[The Fly]

Yeah, but is it appropriate?

I take it you mean is it desirable?

In which case the answer is clearly no; it wouldn't be desirable for any state to contain such a large number of people with little or no affiliation to it. However, as Danny points out, legally it doesn't matter. The problem with reunification is that it is always framed in the context of Northern Ireland being simply absorbed into the Republic in the event of that 50% +1 vote.

[Charlie Darwin]

No, I meant appropriate as in whether it's the ideal threshhold compared to, for example, 60% or 2/3. 50%+1 is an inherently unstable majority for such a far-reaching political decision to be made.

[The Fly]

No, I meant appropriate as in whether it's the ideal threshhold compared to, for example, 60% or 2/3. 50%+1 is an inherently unstable majority for such a far-reaching political decision to be made.

The super-majority examples you provide are common for adopting new constitutions as well as for amending constitutions. They foster consensus and provide guarantees for electoral minorities. In the event of reunification I imagine one would be used for a new Irish constitution.

However it's a moot point as regards any prospective Border Poll in Northern Ireland, as there would never have been an agreement in the first place had a super-majority been insisted upon.

[DannyInvincible]

It's 50% +1 chaps. http://z5.ifrm.com/5902/57/0/e14482//e14482.gif

Fly educates the south. ;)

[DannyInvincible]

No, I meant appropriate as in whether it's the ideal threshhold compared to, for example, 60% or 2/3. 50%+1 is an inherently unstable majority for such a far-reaching political decision to be made.

Instability would only be a concern if one or both blocs were to go back on their promises and obligations. They both agreed to 50 per cent plus one as being an acceptable and appropriate threshold. Besides, it's not as if NI has been a bastion of stability throughout its short existence. Any decision, no matter how fine the majority, is likely to disgruntle a significant minority.

[The Fly]

Fly educates the south. ;)

It's Da South Danny. http://z5.ifrm.com/5902/57/0/e14482//e14482.gif

[BonnieShels]

I've been thinking more and more about this over the week since this discussion arose.

I think that whilst I'm an unashamed nationalist if it boiled down to giving up the ideal of a United Ireland in exchange for reunification of portion of Fatdad with the Free State I would jump at it... and then vote yes without question.

[gastric]

I've been thinking more and more about this over the week since this discussion arose.

I think that whilst I'm an unashamed nationalist if it boiled down to giving up the ideal of a United Ireland in exchange for reunification of portion of Fatdad with the Free State I would jump at it... and then vote yes without question.

I would share the same sentiment Bonnie!

[BonnieShels]

I would share the same sentiment Bonnie!

Then you better get home for the inevitable campaign. :)

[Charlie Darwin]

Instability would only be a concern if one or both blocs were to go back on their promises and obligations. They both agreed to 50 per cent plus one as being an acceptable and appropriate threshold. Besides, it's not as if NI has been a bastion of stability throughout its short existence. Any decision, no matter how fine the majority, is likely to disgruntle a significant minority.
Not instability in that sense. If the threshhold is 50%+1, then the next day the result could be drastically different. That's what a supermajority guards against - even if there is a demographic shift or change in voter preference or whatever, the decision is still strong enough that it won't suddenly become the minority preference.

[punkrocket]

I've been thinking more and more about this over the week since this discussion arose.

I think that whilst I'm an unashamed nationalist if it boiled down to giving up the ideal of a United Ireland in exchange for reunification of portion of Fatdad with the Free State I would jump at it... and then vote yes without question.

Then you're not really a nationalist then, sorry.

[Charlie Darwin]

Then you're not really a nationalist then, sorry.
Why not?

[BonnieShels]

Then you're not really a nationalist then, sorry.

I am.

However, when the option is given to me I can alter my beliefs to suit what I believe is best for me and my country.

So after the vote I may not fit your nationalist ideal (and to be honest I doubt I do anyway as it stands) and I'd be okay with that but until the option is given to me and the rest of my nation I remain a Nationalist who wishes for reunification of my WHOLE country into one jursidiction.

[punkrocket]

You can't be a wee bit pregnant or a part time vegan.

[BonnieShels]

You can't be a wee bit pregnant or a part time vegan.

We are talking in hypotheticals here.

So then define my politics please if I am not a Nationalist?

Also, if it was put to you for the Free State to subsume parts of Fatdad would you vote yes or are you an all-or-nothing kinda guy?

[Charlie Darwin]

A nationalist is somebody who aspires for all Irish people in Ireland to live together as a single political society. Some nationalists choose to interpret this as having to include self-identifying British people on the island of Ireland (who are actively opposed to the idea of living in a united Ireland), others don't, and more still are pragmatic like BS.

[punkrocket]

I'm not declaring as anything in particular, although I do have my political opinions. You are the one who claimed to be an unashamed nationalist who went on to state that you'd jump at the chance to jettison, and I'm second guessing a bit here, a sizeable chunk of northern nationalists (your fellow nationalists) for a quiet life. It just seems a strange way for an unashamed nationalist to be thinking to me. In your dreams you'd like to see Unity but if the going gets tough self interest takes over. Which is fair enough just don't call yourself an irish nationalist. You know where you stand with a unionist.

[Gather round]

but can't see how the GFA could be adapted for any re-partition scheme

Replace it...


Somebody was talking about redrawing the border. Not very likely from a unionist perspective. Thoughts about turkeys and Xmas sprung to mind

You do realise that redrawing the border is basically what Unionists did in 1920?


Okay, as it stands now 'we' can take back South Down, Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Armagh and Belfast. On second thoughts, keep the Tyronies, let them stew for another decade

Aye, your local towns are going to transfer too. Renamed as Kefla-wicklow and Achill-eyri.


Unless my memory deceives me, you formerly insisted that 50 per cent plus one of the north's electorate voting in favour of Irish unity would not be sufficient for the motion to pass as the concern of a majority of unionists would also have to be considered. Essentially, that would amount to a unionist veto - which I understood you to be (once) advocating - but nowhere is a provision for such included in the terms of the GFA. Have you since modified your stance?

Hardly. 50% + 1 just wouldn't work because of its inherent instability, not because anyone had a veto.If you choose to interpret my preference for self-determination for a large localised population as a veto, you'll just stay in that blind alley with no hope of a united Ireland in the foreseeable.


More fool unionism for dragging a significant unwilling minority into matters and wanting to keep them there; then, apparently agreeing to a blueprint for Irish unity with them

Quoting your old mate Jim Allister again? ;)

I don't agree. GFA included much that barely any Unionists supported, but many of us thought that worth enduring if it meant an end to 30 years of day-to-day paramilitary violence. If/ when it looks likely to act as your blueprint, Unionists will entirely democratically look to agree something better.


I might as well be honest that unity would ultimately be my first principle if it really came down to it - in that I don't think I would have it in me to vote against it were the opportunity ever to arise - but I would prefer if that was achieved via bi-communal consent and without unionists feeling coerced by a hypothetical nationalist majority. That would be an ideal

That's nice, and thanks for the offer, but we aren't interested. So do you want to parley something more realistic or not?


Sure, but we're talking about the future and obligations in time

No-one's obliged to fulfil a deal that's been replaced.


Are you suggesting the GFA is no longer workable? Continually switching the goal-posts isn't inspiring politics. It's inconsiderate, patronising and disrespectful of the minority to intend to go back on promises. What about what they might want?

No, I've said specifically that it may be in the foreseeable future (in another 15 years, say). So actually nobody is suggesting moving goalposts. The real patronisation is spending decades arguing for something while doing nothing in practice to achieve even a fraction of it.


Instability would only be a concern if one or both blocs were to go back on their promises and obligations.

I know you've repeated this so long that you believe it, but it simply isn't realistic. Renegotiating a bilateral deal isn't a breach of promise, and doesn't carry all previously agreed obligations into any new deal.


Besides, it's not as if NI has been a bastion of stability throughout its short existence. Any decision, no matter how fine the majority, is likely to disgruntle a significant minority

Northern Ireland has indeed been unstable since the 1920s, basically as a border region between the British and Irish states. And there was similar instability in the previous centuries. Any political agreement should seek to reduce that instability. I'm suggesting that including as many people as possible on their preferred side of the border is the best way to achieve this.


Is 51% an appropriate threshhold where secession or unifying states is concerned?

50% + 1 is silly because obviously all you need is Mrs O'Kelly not to turn up at the next election, and the result changes.

52- 53% is unreliable because it's within the margin of error to allow for even NI's minority of floating voters, or freakish conditions like the recent bad weather.

The 55% I suggested clearly wouldn't mean the end of sizeable opposition, just that the next result was unlikely to contradict.

As others suggest, Nationalists would present any result better than 50% + 1 as 85% (or whatever it was) massively endorsing unity. They probably wouldn't risk a simultaneous election in the South though, just to be on the safe side ;)


The problem with reunification is that it is always framed in the context of Northern Ireland being simply absorbed into the Republic

Er, how else do you suggest framing it?


I think that whilst I'm an unashamed nationalist if it boiled down to giving up the ideal of a United Ireland in exchange for reunification of portion of Fatdad with the Free State I would jump at it... and then vote yes without question

A pragmatic offer there from Bonnie and Gastric.


Then you're not really a nationalist then, sorry... You know where you stand with a unionist

Did you consult the ghosts of Redmond, Collins and Eddie Coll before press-releasing that?

You obviously don't realise that your stance is contradicted by this very thread, ie both unionist and nationalist posters looking to compromise.

[BonnieShels]

A nationalist is somebody who aspires for all Irish people in Ireland to live together as a single political society. Some nationalists choose to interpret this as having to include self-identifying British people on the island of Ireland (who are actively opposed to the idea of living in a united Ireland), others don't, and more still are pragmatic like BS.

I wanted him to define what was wrong with my stance Charlie. No need for your succintness here. :)

Though I take umbridge that the difference between Unionism and Nationalism is simply a case of one group wanting a United Ireland and the other wanting partition.

Unionism should be framed as wishing for Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom as a unified territory as it was from 1801-1922.

Ulster Unionism as it is today is framed based on what has happened post-1922. Partition is not the wish for all but a the reality we have.

If we look at Unionism in this context you can reach common-ground between the two concepts much readily.


I'm not declaring as anything in particular, although I do have my political opinions. You are the one who claimed to be an unashamed nationalist who went on to state that you'd jump at the chance to jettison, and I'm second guessing a bit here, a sizeable chunk of northern nationalists (your fellow nationalists) for a quiet life. It just seems a strange way for an unashamed nationalist to be thinking to me. In your dreams you'd like to see Unity but if the going gets tough self interest takes over. Which is fair enough just don't call yourself an irish nationalist. You know where you stand with a unionist.

I did claim to be an unashamed Nationalist. And one whose idea of Nationalism may differ from your green-tinted view I'm sure.

I fail to see how I am jettisoning anyone? What would happen in this hypothetical scenario and as already been mentioned over in the Eligibility thread from which this thread gestated, would mean that (in my mind) Fermanagh (the family seat), Tyrone, West Derry and South Armagh all coming under the jurisdiction of an Independent Irish State. and the rest remaining as they were within the United Kingdom. Now I picked those particular areas for ****s and giggles to be honest but insert whatever you want. The major Nationalist centres in the remaining rump NE corner; mainly in Moyle, South Down and West Belfast will continue along with their status quo. How am I jettisoning them? They are and would remain as part of teh United Kingdom.

I'm curious to see how the going could get tough or even tougher from where it is now. This is an excercise in discussion. Nothing more.
If the going got tough and we extracted a concession which would see more of this State including parts of the Six I don't see how we could refuse it.

Where do I stand with a Unionist? Side-by-side with a fellow Irishman who has a different definition of his Irishness.

I call myself Irish. Nothing more and nthing less. I will never be anything else.
My politics can be defined as Nationalist; that you disagree with that is your wont.

[punkrocket]

Who says I don't want to compromise? I haven't mentioned my personal politics yet. My issue is with people claiming to be something that they are not.
A for the thread, the title of his thread is an either/or job, united or repartitioned. Now if it's united then you are a nationalist if it's repartitioned it's, lets not call it partitionist as this may be construed as offensive, is repartitionist okay? Aspiring to be nationalist if the price is right?
A unionist can continue to claim to be a unionist even if repartition reduces NI to Castlereagh Borough anyone who claims to be an unashamed nationalist who settles for anything other than unity has to think of another name for himself. Letsgetalongerist is popular these days.

[punkrocket]

And one whose idea of Nationalism may differ from your green-tinted view I'm sure.


Again with the assumptions.

[punkrocket]

BS at the moment the 2 "sides" are approaching parity, are you seriously trying to tell me that reducing the relative size of one of these to the other would be welcomed by them as it is in "Ireland's" greater interests and not felt as anything other than being abandoned. Your understanding the northern nationalist is less than I thought

[BonnieShels]

BS at the moment the 2 "sides" are approaching parity, are you seriously trying to tell me that reducing the relative size of one of these to the other would be welcomed by them as it is in "Ireland's" greater interests and not felt as anything other than being abandoned. Your understanding the northern nationalist is less than I thought

My my my.

Firstly learn to use the multi-quote function.

My understanding of northern nationalism is pretty bang-on I would wager. However, you singularly fail to see, as GR pointed out, the point of this thread.

You've accused me of making assumptions about your politics and yet when I make statements trying to allay any misunderstanding you may have you go and make assumptions of your own.

[Gather round]

I really am spending a lot of time on that internet, it needs to stop. Possibly with a ban. So, I call on the mods and Mr D Hamster to consider re-admitting Mr Bhoy of Ardee to the discussion...

[Gather round]

A unionist can continue to claim to be a unionist even if repartition reduces NI to Castlereagh Borough anyone who claims to be an unashamed nationalist who settles for anything other than unity has to think of another name for himself. Letsgetalongerist is popular these days

Some variation on the thread, excellent. We've had straw man arguments, now it's a reduction to absurdity.


BS at the moment the 2 "sides" are approaching parity, are you seriously trying to tell me that reducing the relative size of one of these to the other would be welcomed by them

Are you seriously trying to claim that 50/50 is approached by 58/42?

[punkrocket]

Is the point of the thread letsgetalong?

[BonnieShels]

Is the point of the thread letsgetalong?

No, it's not. May I point you in the direction of Eligibility thread.

Start reading from here (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1674683&viewfull=1#post1674683).

Maybe that will give you an idea that this thread didn't just spring up.

[DannyInvincible]

It's Da South Danny. http://z5.ifrm.com/5902/57/0/e14482//e14482.gif

Fly educates Da South. ;)


Not instability in that sense. If the threshhold is 50%+1, then the next day the result could be drastically different. That's what a supermajority guards against - even if there is a demographic shift or change in voter preference or whatever, the decision is still strong enough that it won't suddenly become the minority preference.

Only the one result would count as final - it would indicate the opinion of the electorate at a particular chosen moment in time - as with the results of all elections and referenda. (Unless it's the Lisbon Treaty...) So long as the pre-set criteria are satisifed, what might have been the previous day or what might be the following day is inconsequential. Besides, if the motion were to pass, the former electorate would no longer be.


Hardly. 50% + 1 just wouldn't work because of its inherent instability, not because anyone had a veto.

In what way would it be necessarily unworkable?


I don't agree. GFA included much that barely any Unionists supported, but many of us thought that worth enduring if it meant an end to 30 years of day-to-day paramilitary violence. If/ when it looks likely to act as your blueprint, Unionists will entirely democratically look to agree something better.

If you supported the GFA, does it really matter what euphemism is used? :p

And what would be entirely democratic about it if nationalism wasn't prepared to play ball?


No-one's obliged to fulfil a deal that's been replaced.

Why ought nationalists be compelled to toe the line on this?


Er, how else do you suggest framing it?

Unity isn't necessarily the same thing as absorption/subsumption.

[BonnieShels]

subsumption.

What a grotesque word. Awful.

[Not Brazil]

BS at the moment the 2 "sides" are approaching parity, are you seriously trying to tell me that reducing the relative size of one of these to the other would be welcomed by them as it is in "Ireland's" greater interests and not felt as anything other than being abandoned.

Curious as to how you would define "the 2 sides", and in what way(s) they are approaching parity?

I do tend to agree with your interpretation of what Irish Nationalism means.

[Gather round]

Only the one result would count as final - it would indicate the opinion of the electorate at a particular chosen moment in time - as with the results of all elections and referenda. (Unless it's the Lisbon Treaty...) So long as the pre-set criteria are satisifed, what might have been the previous day or what might be the following day is inconsequential. Besides, if the motion were to pass, the former electorate would no longer be

That would create what I once heard described as an equity problem- ie, Nationalists can have effective border polls time and again until they get the desired result. Yet Unionists would be unable to change it, because the new all-Ireland constituency would leave them as a semi-permanent minority of about 15%. Or alternatively...


In what way would it be necessarily unworkable?

There would be a real possibility of the result being reversed, maybe quite quickly. Unionist media lobbies etc. would demand another election, maybe multiple recounts of the first one, there would be a rash of opinion polls commissioned and the like. Inherent instability. While you'd be left to plead "But you promised, 15/30/45 years ago!"


If you supported the GFA, does it really matter what euphemism is used?

Heh. Although not quite touche. I'm not fudging having supported it in the past, I accept it as the current deal in the present.


And what would be entirely democratic about it if nationalism wasn't prepared to play ball?

Come on, it doesn't need total agreement on everything to be democratic.


Why ought nationalists be compelled to toe the line on this?

The only compulsion would be to recognise that events have moved on. If Nationalists won't parley, and as a result Unionists give notice to withdraw from the GFA, we could be back to a 1920 situation with all the hassle that followed.


Unity isn't necessarily the same thing as absorption/subsumption

Agreed in principle, but in practice I think the onus is on you and Fly to spell out the detail. Or, as I put it previously, to sell Unity to the Unionists.

I saw SF's broadcast on TV last night. Unfortunately, in three minutes (half of which was Gerry stumbling through some Irish translations) we didn't really get far.

[ifk101]

Could you not sell the west midlands to your fellow unionist? Understandably that's a harder sell than unity with the fenians but you're more than capable of multi-quoting them into submission and could comfort them by saying at least it's not brazil.

[The Fly]

Fly educates Da South. ;)

Dat's the way.



Unity isn't necessarily the same thing as absorption/subsumption.

Exactly.



Agreed in principle, but in practice I think the onus is on you and Fly to spell out the detail. Or, as I put it previously, to sell Unity to the Unionists.


I saw SF's broadcast on TV last night. Unfortunately, in three minutes (half of which was Gerry stumbling through some Irish translations) we didn't really get far.

Just to summarize my thoughts, I believe a large part of the problem is that the vision for a united Ireland has never been properly articulated. In order for it to be successful it would have to be stressed, not just in words but also in action, that this would be a new nation. It's lazy thinking to suggest that it would simply be a matter of the Republic absorbing Northern Ireland. In reality, such a prospect is both unworkable and undesirable. Hoping to redraw the border to stave off the impending osmosis is just the flip side to fenian fantasy.

The are many barriers to be overcome. In keeping with your comments above, I'd suggest the first is the removal of Sinn Fein as chief salesmen. A so-called 'united Ireland' will remain a toxic concept for unionists as long as it is left to Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein alone, to espouse it.

[Gather round]

Just to summarize my thoughts, I believe a large part of the problem is that the vision for a united Ireland has never been properly articulated. In order for it to be successful it would have to be stressed, not just in words but also in action, that this would be a new nation

You must have some articulate ideas of your own though, and links to those of others?


It's lazy thinking to suggest that it would simply be a matter of the Republic absorbing Northern Ireland

In the absence of any alternative suggestion, it's not laziness but a recognition of the current situation.


In reality, such a prospect is both unworkable and undesirable. Hoping to redraw the border to stave off the impending osmosis is just the flip side to fenian fantasy

We're part-agreed then. Although I see my suggestion as trying to be imaginative rather than fantastic...


The are many barriers to be overcome. In keeping with your comments above, I'd suggest the first is the removal of Sinn Fein as chief salesmen. A so-called 'united Ireland' will remain a toxic concept for unionists as long as it is left to Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein alone, to espouse it

Does that just mean Fine Gael and the rest parroting what SF says :(

[The Fly]

You must have some articulate ideas of your own though, and links to those of others?


For starters, I imagine a federal republic with a significant degree of autonomy for the territory that constitutes the current geographic area of Northern Ireland. Perhaps this federal system could be rolled out on a provincial basis island-wide, but I have no idea as to the popularity of such a proposal. In order to ease unionist fears, and following India's precedent, I suggest applying to join the Commonwealth of Nations and establishing some sort of formal link to Britain. I realize that link is very loose to say the least but perceptions matter.

Any thoughts?



In the absence of any alternative suggestion, it's not laziness but a recognition of the current situation.


When has the absorption model been suggested? You have just assumed it to be the case.



We're part-agreed then. Although I see my suggestion as trying to be imaginative rather than fantastic...

Notwithstanding your spin on re-partition:rolleyes: (The Irish state increases its territory + I'm more secure = problem sorted. How can Nationalists not like that?), I see it as a sad reversion to type.



Does that just mean Fine Gael and the rest parroting what SF says :(

No, and I can see how you may have inferred that. Apologies.

[Gather round]

For starters, I imagine a federal republic with a significant degree of autonomy for the territory that constitutes the current geographic area of Northern Ireland. Perhaps this federal system could be rolled out on a provincial basis island-wide, but I have no idea as to the popularity of such a proposal. In order to ease unionist fears, and following India's precedent, I suggest applying to join the Commonwealth of Nations and establishing some sort of formal link to Britain. I realize that link is very loose to say the least but perceptions matter

Would Nationalists in ex-NI, especially in their majority up-country and border areas, really want the old six as a whole to have autonomy? That suggests a continued talking shop at Stormont.

I'd guess there'd be little demand for federalism in Cork or Galway. Wouldn't people just complain abut more gombeen hack politicians?

The nature of Unionist fears has changed. During the troubles, there was obviously a lot of genuine intimidation, on both sides; now, as you mentioned earlier, people in your village are worried about falling numbers threatening the future of their Church, or local primary school. I doubt the Republic joining the Commonwealth would do anything to soothe that.


When has the absorption model been suggested? You have just assumed it to be the case

Implicit in the huge majority of related discussions over decades, I'm afraid ;)


Notwithstanding your spin on increasing the Republic's territory :rolleyes:, I see it as a sad reversion to type

Partitionist sticks to partition, you mean? I haven't left type.

[The Fly]

Would Nationalists in ex-NI, especially in their majority up-country and border areas, really want the old six as a whole to have autonomy? That suggests a continued talking shop at Stormont.

I did state in my previous post that there would be a significant degree of autonomy not the full autonomy you have inferred - the amount is something to be discussed.

In any case I'd say I wouldn't have much of a problem with it and I suspect the majority of nationalists wouldn't mind either. If such an arrangement is voted for then I suggest that the will of the people will be respected.



I'd guess there'd be little demand for federalism in Cork or Galway. Wouldn't people just complain abut more gombeen hack politicians?

Possibly, although they may also appreciate a provincial assembly tailored to their own needs and in charge of regional development. However, as I stated earlier, I have no idea as to the popularity of such a proposal.



The nature of Unionist fears has changed. During the troubles, there was obviously a lot of genuine intimidation, on both sides; now, as you mentioned earlier, people in your village are worried about falling numbers threatening the future of their Church, or local primary school. I doubt the Republic joining the Commonwealth would do anything to soothe that.

I appreciate that. Indeed, joining the Commonwealth would be largely symbolic but the organisation itself is largely symbolic.

---------

Is that a No to both proposals?



Implicit in the huge majority of related discussions over decades, I'm afraid ;)

So you've just gone along with the troubles-related discourse then?



Partitionist sticks to partition, you mean? I haven't left type.

More like Unionist Northern Irishman is willing for Northern Ireland's territorial integrity to be punctured with no opportunity for repair. A move that would pave the way for future redraws; eventually leaving an Antrim, North Down and North Armagh shaped candle holder in union with Britain. What are your fellow Unionists in these ceded areas supposed to to do by the way? Will Westminster fund a repatriation scheme?

[Gather round]

I did state in my previous post that there would be a significant degree of autonomy not the full autonomy you have inferred - the amount is something to be discussed

OK, I was just thinking aloud. I don't think the level of autonomy from Dublin really matters when you're preparing a sales pitch to Unionists.


I appreciate that. Indeed, joining the Commonwealth would be largely symbolic but the organisation itself is largely symbolic...is that a No to both proposals?

Afraid so. They're vague and intangible.


So you've just gone along with the troubles-related discourse then?

No, I've asked numerous Nationalists down the years to suggest cmething compelling, and to date none of you have.

At the relatively superficial football team level, Third Policeman and I have rehashed the argument on here a few times. It tends to go like this:

TP: A single all-Ireland team wouldn't simply take over NI; the Republic's team would disappear too

GR: Hardly, if it was playing all its matches in Dublin under a tricolor in front of McAleesenthal or Michael D singing the Soldier's Song

TP: How do you know what the silent majority of NI fans think?

GR: I can be pretty sure that at the very least, by definition, they want there to be a separate NI team...


More like Unionist Northern Irishman is willing for Northern Ireland's territorial integrity to be punctured with no opportunity for repair. A move that would pave the way for future redraws; eventually leaving an Antrim, North Down and North Armagh shaped candle holder in union with Britain. What are your fellow Unionists in these ceded areas supposed to to do by the way? Will Westminster fund a repatriation scheme?

I trailed two suggestions above: one pushed the border to the edge of Portadown, Ballynahinch and Limavady; the other 'merely' nudged it around Derry Cityside, Newry and Strabane. I'm not hidebound by territorial integrity; that latter example wouldn't affect the largely non-existent Unionist voters in those towns. Win-win-no more 'loss' than now, as I suggested above.

There have been no redraws, barely any suggestion of one, since 1925; so it just doesn't follow that one in 2025 would be followed by an annual event.

Giving up a larger geographical area would of course strand more Unionists, but at the same time nominally benefit even more Nationalists. I'm not denying that securing a deal would be difficult, but remember you can't have it both ways. To illustrate a point above, you stressed the vanishing Unionist presence in Moy; if that's repeated on any sort of large scale, you wouldn't need to repatriate as people will have left anyway of their own accord.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Here's a curve ball. I'm thinking it's time Limerick left the Republic of Ireland ...an institution I've sadly come to conclude is essentially a (Dublin) city state with a (presumed) hinterland of the rest of the country. When I say I'm walking out the door with Limerick by the way I just mean the city -you can keep the wannabee Kerry-folk one encounters beyond Mungret though I'm taking our natural hinterlands and infrastructures such as the near starved to death shannon airport and the estuary ports with us.

We'll forge our own path and we'll be fine. I'm toying with the idea of applying to join her majestys benevolent union. There's some local RSF gowls it'd really wind up for a bit of extra sport.

[The Fly]

OK, I was just thinking aloud. I don't think the level of autonomy from Dublin really matters when you're preparing a sales pitch to Unionists.

Afraid so. They're vague and intangible.

A Federal Republic is hardly vague. It's an entirely new form of government for the island, as opposed to the unitary states that exist at present. If you require further description then it would have its own constitution, anthem etc. I haven't decided on economic, education, health or defence policies yet though. Perhaps that's better discussed at the time.

Anything agreeable there?




No, I've asked numerous Nationalists down the years to suggest cmething compelling, and to date none of you have.


Is that not because there is nothing that would compel you to contemplate it? Your suggestion for re-partition indicates so.




At the relatively superficial football team level, Third Policeman and I have rehashed the argument on here a few times. It tends to go like this:

TP: A single all-Ireland team wouldn't simply take over NI; the Republic's team would disappear too

GR: Hardly, if it was playing all its matches in Dublin under a tricolor in front of McAleesenthal or Michael D singing the Soldier's Song

TP: How do you know what the silent majority of NI fans think?

GR: I can be pretty sure that at the very least, by definition, they want there to be a separate NI team...

Hardly surprising if you persistently view it as mere absorption.....Dublin, tricolors, Amhrán na bhFiann,.....yada yada.

Did alternate venues, neutral anthems etc, never enter the conversation?

[DannyInvincible]

Aren't you a republican, GR? Perhaps Irish unity would be your best chance of shaking off your undesired monarchy? Unionists might even have a greater say in controlling their own affairs in a new Ireland. The Ulster unionist bloc would amount to a much more significant minority in an all-island state than it does at present in the UK, with the added safeguard of a codified constitution.