Discussion on a United or re-partitioned Ireland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Talking of the Maiden City, I notice that you divert attention from City's latest Eurothrashing with a dig at Brit consular officials in Riga for hampering Liepaja's visa applications for Belfast. Actually ye have a point- when my parents worked abroad for the Foreign Office, both the diplomats and local clerks never missed a chance to shut the shop and head for the Baltic equiv of Glastonbury- Trip to the Spit?

---

It was a mere reporting of what I was told by someone who'd read about Liepāja's misfortune on Bert Kassies' forum rather than a "dig" aimed at anyone in particular. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a wee bit paranoid. ;)

And Derry were very poor against Midtjylland; the result was a disaster. I acknowledged that in multiple posts throughout the match in the 'LOI clubs in Europe' thread. Crusaders' result, on the other, was an impressive one (even if Liepāja were missing half their first-team), so congrats on that. :)

(By the way, what's the Spit?) :confused:

Ta for good wishes. Excellent performance by the Crues, although I'd have Liepaja as slight favorites now. Apparently only one or two of their exotic foreigners (Mauretania a fave source) would likely have started. But if we do hang on, the Shore Road is to be renamed Via Baltica in the team's honor ;)

The Curonian Spit is that long sandbank/ lagoon in the eastern Baltic. The Hatchet Hardcore are sunning themselves on it as we speak...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

^{*Obviously ignoring Peter Barry and Micheal Martin}

---

You're talking about Lynch, right....?

Saw this tweet from Ireland's ambassador in London today pointing out that Ireland was ranked the eighth-best country to live in by the UN in their annual Human Development Report. The UK was ranked 16th.

That'll convince them Danny. :p

Heh, unionists may take more convincing, certainly, but such facts might at least persuade those nationalists who presently favour a maintenance of the Union under the misguided belief that it is in their socio-economic interests to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Heh, unionists may take more convincing, certainly, but such facts might at least persuade those nationalists who presently favour a maintenance of the Union under the misguided belief that it is in their socio-economic interests to do so.

---

Whatever about nationalists, people really need to take the blinkers off when it comes to this notion of convincing unionists of the merits of unification.

Do you feel proponents of unity should abandon efforts to convince or reach out to unionists and, instead, rely on demographics (or nationalists becoming a majority, in other words)? Or would you suggest an alternative strategy? If so, what would it be?

Just as there is a segment of nationalists who can seemingly be swayed by the most appealing economic argument, in spite of their sentimental attachment to an all-Ireland cultural sense, there's surely also a portion of unionists - be they "soft" or progressive or whatever - who could similarly be swayed towards unity on economic (or even socio-political) grounds, especially if the Tories drive Britain further to the right, implement a hard Brexit, uphold austerity and continue dismantling the NHS. Even our resident unionist-with-a-small-'u' GR admitted he'd be swayable under such circumstances. ;)

Obviously, there are plenty of unionists/loyalists who are prepared to suffer financially/economically in order to maintain the connection with Britain - that's essentially what they're doing now and they're effectively imposing that increased hardship (relative to the rest of the island) upon thousands of unwilling others - but, theoretically-speaking, unity advocates need not convince every unionist of the merits of unity. Obviously, it would be ideal in practice if all unionists could be convinced of the merits of re-unification (or if they could at least be reassured that they have nothing to fear from re-unification and will be accepted as equals in a new Ireland), but, in order for a unity referendum to be successful, convincing all nationalists and even just a quarter of unionists would be enough as a bare minimum for it to pass. Every little helps.

In saying that, I don't think that would justify neglecting our duty to ensure that a united Ireland will be a comfortable and welcoming place for those who may remain sceptical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

especially if the Tories drive Britain further to the right, implement a hard Brexit, uphold austerity and continue dismantling the NHS. Even our resident unionist-with-a-small-'u' GR admitted he'd be swayable under such circumstances. ;)

---

Of course I'm only 'virtually' resident, having lived for years outside Ireland.

Most big-U Unionists I've spoken to aren't swayable- their reaction is broadly similar to the Fly's ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Do you feel proponents of unity should abandon efforts to convince or reach out to unionists and, instead, rely on demographics (or nationalists becoming a majority, in other words)? Or would you suggest an alternative strategy? If so, what would it be?

---

What I'm saying is that such efforts, although well meaning, amount largely to whistling in the wind and stem from this general belief that unionists labour under a false consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Just as there is a segment of nationalists who can seemingly be swayed by the most appealing economic argument, in spite of their sentimental attachment to an all-Ireland cultural sense, there's surely also a portion of unionists - be they "soft" or progressive or whatever - who could similarly be swayed towards unity on economic (or even socio-political) grounds, especially if the Tories drive Britain further to the right, implement a hard Brexit, uphold austerity and continue dismantling the NHS. Even our resident unionist-with-a-small-'u' GR admitted he'd be swayable under such circumstances. ;)

---

The geo-political aspect that Brexit has introduced is the most important factor here, much more so than Tory cuts. Unity is now 'inextricably linked' to the European Union.

As for our virtually resident unionist-with-a small-'u' GR, he's also responsible for the thread title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Obviously, there are plenty of unionists/loyalists who are prepared to suffer financially/economically in order to maintain the connection with Britain - that's essentially what they're doing now and they're effectively imposing that increased hardship (relative to the rest of the island) upon thousands of unwilling others - but, theoretically-speaking, unity advocates need not convince every unionist of the merits of unity.

---

Your use of the words 'prepared to suffer' hint at the false consciousness I referred to above. It's kind of akin to wondering why people in Connaught are prepared to put up with the East-West economic imbalance in the South.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Obviously, it would be ideal in practice if all unionists could be convinced of the merits of re-unification (or if they could at least be reassured that they have nothing to fear from re-unification and will be accepted as equals in a new Ireland), but, in order for a unity referendum to be successful, convincing all nationalists and even just a quarter of unionists would be enough as a bare minimum for it to pass. Every little helps.

---

Yep, all that's needed is 50% +1. I'd estimate that that the maximum number of unionists that could be convinced lies in the 10 - 15% range. Anything above that is wishful thinking imo (at least at this present time).

Convincing nationalists en masse of unity is much more important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

In saying that, I don't think that would justify neglecting our duty to ensure that a united Ireland will be a comfortable and welcoming place for those who may remain sceptical.

---

Agreed and that goes without saying. My desire for unity has nothing to do with rubbing it up unionists. Unity will remain a completely toxic concept for them as long as Sinn Fein are chief cheerleaders. In order to make it much more tolerable what I would like to see next is the Southern political parties (FF & FG) organising in NI and standing candidates in elections.

The SDLP cannot provide real competition anymore and it's logical that this should happen in the wake of Brexit anyway.

Perhaps Brexit will prove to have taken the 'all-island' aspirations of the aforementioned parties out of the small print in their constitutions and into the reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Of course I'm only 'virtually' resident, having lived for years outside Ireland.

Most big-U Unionists I've spoken to aren't swayable- their reaction is broadly similar to the Fly's ;)

---

Indeed, and some will even consider re-partition if the prospect of unity appears solidly on the horizon. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

What I'm saying is that such efforts, although well meaning, amount largely to whistling in the wind and stem from this general belief that unionists labour under a false consciousness.

---

Hmm, I'm not sure I fully agree. Of course, there'll be plenty who will not be open to persuasion (and that's their prerogative), but look at it from our perspective as nationalists. There are plenty of people - northerners - who identify as Irish nationalists and who would culturally identify with the 32-county conception of Irishness; they hold Irish passports, watch RTÉ, play GAA, learn/speak Irish, support the FAI's team in football and so forth. Yet, seemingly for reasons of supposed economic security, they are content for the Union with Britain to remain in place. That doesn't necessarily make them culturally British though.

So, if a significant number of nationalists can be persuaded by suspect economic arguments for the maintenance of the Union without compromising their Irish national identity, why would it be any different in reverse for (at least some) unionists, especially if they're confronted with compelling economic arguments for Irish re-unification? I don't necessarily see why their British identity would be undermined if they were to come round to supporting or going along with Irish unity on the basis of economics.

Nationalist and republican politicians, writers and commentators should make this clear to fellow nationalists and republicans so as to re-assure unionists that their British identity would neither be compromised nor seen to be compromised if unionists were to see merit in the prospect of Irish unity. Coming round to supporting unity on the basis of economic reasons wouldn't amount to proof that cultural unionists "weren't British, after all" (and sincere nationalists/republicans certainly shouldn't be baiting unionists with such intolerant and identity-denying triumphalism). It's an over-simplistic view of national identity.

Quote:

---

Your use of the words 'prepared to suffer' hint at the false consciousness I referred to above. It's kind of akin to wondering why people in Connaught are prepared to put up with the East-West economic imbalance in the South.

---

I fully acknowledging the British identity of unionists and loyalists. I have no problem whatsoever even with accepting the British identity of many Ulster Protestants born in Donegal. In fact, I'd support them in their quest for formal national recognition from the British government, even if that was to mean British nationality law would have some sort of extra-territorial effect over Donegal or other southern border counties.

After David McWilliams published one of his recent pieces on how Brexit and economics may deliver Irish unity, unionist commentator Alex Kane tweeted the following:

"We're a long, long way from the point at which a unionist would dilute 'identity' in favour of a more favourable economic climate."

That's pretty much another way of saying what I said, is it not? He's more or less stating that unionists generally are prepared to endure or suffer an unfavourable economic climate so as to avoid breaking the political link with Britain, which many, or perhaps most, fear would dilute their British cultural identity. Of course, they're entitled to their fears. It's up to us to convince them that their fears are unfounded.

I would still support Irish unity for political, socio-cultural and sentimental reasons even if it was to be achieved at an economic cost, so, under such a scenario, I would be just as prepared to say of myself then that I'd be willing to suffer economically in order to achieve Irish unity. I wouldn't necessarily apply such a description only to unionists who support the Union in spite of the economic arguments. However, if I was to back unity at an economic cost, I would also have to bear on my conscience the fact that my political, socio-cultural and sentimental preference for Irish unity was also having the effect of making other people poorer too. With democratic rights comes moral responsibility for the effects of the exercising or expression of those rights.

Quote:

---

Yep, all that's needed is 50% +1. I'd estimate that that the maximum number of unionists that could be convinced lies in the 10 - 15% range. Anything above that is wishful thinking imo (at least at this present time).

Convincing nationalists en masse of unity is much more important.

---

Fair enough, which I think is very much achievable, particularly in the present climate.

Quote:

---

Agreed and that goes without saying. My desire for unity has nothing to do with rubbing it up unionists. Unity will remain a completely toxic concept for them as long as Sinn Fein are chief cheerleaders. In order to make it much more tolerable what I would like to see next is the Southern political parties (FF & FG) organising in NI and standing candidates in elections.

The SDLP cannot provide real competition anymore and it's logical that this should happen in the wake of Brexit anyway.

Perhaps Brexit will prove to have taken the 'all-island' aspirations of the aforementioned parties out of the small print in their constitutions and into the reality.

---

The unity campaign needs to be an all or cross-party effort, definitely.

I understand Fianna Fáil are intending to stand candidates north of the border from 2019 onward: http://www.highlandradio.com/2014/03...-east-motions/

They're already registered with the UK Electoral Commission (and have been since 2007): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7133848.stm

Fianna Fáil also have branches in Queen's and the University of Ulster.

Meanwhile, aren't Fine Gael to sort of "re-brand" as "the United Ireland party" in light of Leo Varadkar's recent election as party leader?: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-35750841.html

Suppose you could put this in here:

http://www.irishnews.com/news/2017/0...tage--1079835/

Tempted to lob it into the eligibility thread.

That manages to be terrifying and hilarious at the same time.

Surely Mrs De Souza is wrong to claim that she's never been British- it's an automatic entitlement from birth. Forcing her to renounce it is a bit crass though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Hmm, I'm not sure I fully agree. Of course, there'll be plenty who will not be open to persuasion (and that's their prerogative), but look at it from our perspective as nationalists. There are plenty of people - northerners - who identify as Irish nationalists and who would culturally identify with the 32-county conception of Irishness; they hold Irish passports, watch RTÉ, play GAA, learn/speak Irish, support the FAI's team in football and so forth. Yet, seemingly for reasons of supposed economic security, they are content for the Union with Britain to remain in place. That doesn't necessarily make them culturally British though.

---

Of course it doesn't make them British. Their 'contentment' with the union, if that's even the best way to describe it, is more about the power of the status quo and loss aversion than anything. People tend to put a much higher value on losses than on gains. It's a quirk of human psychology but it has to be dealt with. Polls centred around the unity question tend to prove this, i.e nationalist responses for the short term versus their long term aspirations.

Just to correct any mistaken perception you may have - I'm not saying that nationalists as a whole should stop mentioning outreach to unionists. It's just that it's naive to think that the majority of unionists could be open to persuasion. I know you haven't claimed that - I'm just using broad brushstrokes to illustrate a wider point which I've expanded on below. Furthermore, I don't actually believe that there's anything wrong with the message. My main gripe lies with SF as the main messengers of it, which does more damage to said outreach than anything imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

So, if a significant number of nationalists can be persuaded by suspect economic arguments for the maintenance of the Union without compromising their Irish national identity, why would it be any different in reverse for (at least some) unionists, especially if they're confronted with compelling economic arguments for Irish re-unification? I don't necessarily see why their British identity would be undermined if they were to come round to supporting or going along with Irish unity on the basis of economics.

---

I just think that you underestimate the extent to which identity lies at the core of the debate. The British identity of most unionists is bound to their unionism and Irish unity kills unionism off. The two are incompatible. In order for unionists to meaningfully engage with unity they would have to sacrifice their unionism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Nationalist and republican politicians, writers and commentators should make this clear to fellow nationalists and republicans so as to re-assure unionists that their British identity would neither be compromised nor seen to be compromised if unionists were to see merit in the prospect of Irish unity. Coming round to supporting unity on the basis of economic reasons wouldn't amount to proof that cultural unionists "weren't British, after all" (and sincere nationalists/republicans certainly shouldn't be baiting unionists with such intolerant and identity-denying triumphalism). It's an over-simplistic view of national identity.

---

Most nationalist and and even republican politicians, writers and commentators have been saying this for a long time though. Has it moved the debate on much? No. Brexit has done it for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

After David McWilliams published one of his recent pieces on how Brexit and economics may deliver Irish unity, unionist commentator Alex Kane tweeted the following:

"We're a long, long way from the point at which a unionist would dilute 'identity' in favour of a more favourable economic climate."

That's pretty much another way of saying what I said, is it not? He's more or less stating that unionists generally are prepared to endure or suffer an unfavourable economic climate so as to avoid breaking the political link with Britain, which many, or perhaps most, fear would dilute their British cultural identity. Of course, they're entitled to their fears. It's up to us to convince them that their fears are unfounded.

---

Alex also said he'd probably leave here in the event of unity. GR would like re-partition to be considered. Both, I'm sure you'd agree, are reasonable individuals but identity is also at the centre of this for them. Perhaps GR could add some follow up here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Fair enough, which I think is very much achievable, particularly in the present climate.

---

I tend to agree but I'm hesitant to put a time frame on it. In regards to unionists, of particular interest are the post-troubles generation, who have lived in a much different environment to their forebears and one in which European Union membership was taken for granted. Those who perhaps don't have the overly simplistic view of national identity you referred to above. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the coming years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

The unity campaign needs to be an all or cross-party effort, definitely.

I understand Fianna Fáil are intending to stand candidates north of the border from 2019 onward: http://www.highlandradio.com/2014/03...-east-motions/

They're already registered with the UK Electoral Commission (and have been since 2007): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7133848.stm

Fianna Fáil also have branches in Queen's and the University of Ulster.

Meanwhile, aren't Fine Gael to sort of "re-brand" as "the United Ireland party" in light of Leo Varadkar's recent election as party leader?: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-35750841.html

---

Fingers crossed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

That manages to be terrifying and hilarious at the same time.

Surely Mrs De Souza is wrong to claim that she's never been British- it's an automatic entitlement from birth. Forcing her to renounce it is a bit crass though.

---

British nationality law does attempt to impose British nationality upon all people born in the north (if they are born to a "settled" or British national parent), although forcing someone to recognise that against their will (which Emma DeSouza would have to do even in order to initiate a formal "renunciation" process) clearly contravenes the GFA, which outlined that the British and Irish governments "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

the GFA, which outlined that the British and Irish governments "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose

---

My (technical) point was that as a 'birthright', people obviously have it from birth. Before they (in practice adults on their behalf) can exercise it, they are effectively dual citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFly

GR would like re-partition to be considered. Both, I'm sure you'd agree, are reasonable individuals but identity is also at the centre of this for them. Perhaps GR could add some follow up here?

---

I've made clear many times that

a) repartition is administratively doable and potentially offers widespread advantage. Nationalists in 90% majority towns (Strabane, Newry) get to live in the South; the non-Nationalist majority overall increases; the broad shape and size of NI doesn't change much ;)

b) there's no realistic chance of it happening given the exaggerated outrage on both sides anytime it's mentioned- which is largely why I present it as a remake of Milligan's Puckoon

c) an end to NI as presently set up is also possible in the mid-term future. Either if Unionists get corraled into too small a geographic area, or are too thinly spread as a numerical minority.

That said, I agree that Brexit is the game-changer. Before it, there was no realistic likelihood of a border poll etc. Now there is, even if few Unionists so far seem to be up to change their minds.

Even the theoretical possibility of re-partition seems largely irrelevant now

PS can DI or any other legal/ technical experts explain the ads targeted here? Mine have changed from mature dating sites to corporate law training and Phil Lynott t-shirts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

My (technical) point was that as a 'birthright', people obviously have it from birth. Before they (in practice adults on their behalf) can exercise it, they are effectively dual citizens.



I've made clear many times that

a) repartition is administratively doable and potentially offers widespread advantage. Nationalists in 90% majority towns (Strabane, Newry) get to live in the South; the non-Nationalist majority overall increases; the broad shape and size of NI doesn't change much ;)

b) there's no realistic chance of it happening given the exaggerated outrage on both sides anytime it's mentioned- which is largely why I present it as a remake of Milligan's Puckoon

c) an end to NI as presently set up is also possible in the mid-term future. Either if Unionists get corraled into too small a geographic area, or are too thinly spread as a numerical minority.

That said, I agree that Brexit is the game-changer. Before it, there was no realistic likelihood of a border poll etc. Now there is, even if few Unionists so far seem to be up to change their minds.

Even the theoretical possibility of re-partition seems largely irrelevant now

PS can DI or any other legal/ technical experts explain the ads targeted here? Mine have changed from mature dating sites to corporate law training and Phil Lynott t-shirts?

---

Thanks but the follow up was in relation to the identity issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

Thanks but the follow up was in relation to the identity issue

---

Is there a specific question? My (self-) identity hasn't changed, I still say I'm from Duncairn/ Belfast/ NI/ Britain depending on context, how interested/ informed other person is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Is there a specific question? My (self-) identity hasn't changed, I still say I'm from Duncairn/ Belfast/ NI/ Britain depending on context, how interested/ informed other person is.

---

I'm referring to the issue of identity generally and its central importance when it comes to the constitutional question; as compared to other considerations like economics.

Identity is a social construct that we humans have invented in order to separate ourselves from one another. Why we continue to live in this caveman like fashion, I'll never know!

Or a construct to bring us closer together to our neighbours...

Obviously those that live in close proximity to each other will feel a sense of purpose within themselves. And this gets repeated over different regions and lands which ultimately leads to division of our species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

PS can DI or any other legal/ technical experts explain the ads targeted here? Mine have changed from mature dating sites to corporate law training and Phil Lynott t-shirts?

---

There was a thread about these in the 'Support' section a while back: http://foot.ie/threads/221211-Certain-NSFW-ads

Supposedly, they're based on your browsing history. :o

A very compelling fact-based article (with plenty of statistics) by Gerry Carlile here on the socio-economic drawbacks of partition and the Union and the potential benefits and opportunities presented by the prospect of Irish unity: http://eamonnmallie.com/2017/08/new-...gerry-carlile/

Had meant to reply to your post #454 before now Fly, but haven't been on the forum much over the past month and a half or so. Just getting a proper opportunity now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

Of course it doesn't make them British. Their 'contentment' with the union, if that's even the best way to describe it, is more about the power of the status quo and loss aversion than anything. People tend to put a much higher value on losses than on gains. It's a quirk of human psychology but it has to be dealt with. Polls centred around the unity question tend to prove this, i.e nationalist responses in the short term versus their long term aspirations.

---

That's a fair point. Generally-speaking, people probably are less inclined to take perceived risks and will tend to stick with the perceived immediate security of the status quo. As you say, that's something that unity proponents have to work with.

It's also why I think the threshold that must be met for the mere calling of a referendum is rather high. For a referendum to be called, it must already be the case that 50 per cent of the northern electorate will back unity (in the opinion of the secretary of state). The relevant GFA clause effectively necessitates that pro-unity parties invest their time, energy and resources in focused and concerted campaigning on the matter in the hope of simply triggering a referendum before then potentially and immediately having to run a second campaign for the actual referendum itself in direct competition with an organised counter-campaign opposing unity. Devoting such single-tracked focus to convince a majority of the benefits of unity simply in order to trigger the calling of a referendum in the first place, with no guarantee that it will even be called, is obviously high-risk, so the whole set-up is very much weighted in favour of maintaining the status quo.

In hindsight, the clause seems a rather unfortunate inclusion in the GFA and represents an instance of either poor foresight or poor negotiation. As a comparison, Scottish independence was supported by a mere 30 per cent or so of Scots when they were granted their referendum.

Quote:

---

Just to correct any mistaken perception you may have - I'm not saying that nationalists as a whole should stop mentioning outreach to unionists. It's just that it's very naive to think that the vast majority of unionists (at this present time) are open to persuasion. Furthermore, I don't actually believe that there's anything wrong with the message. My main gripe lies with SF as the main messengers of it, which does more damage to said outreach than anything imo.

---

Just to clarify myself, it's not as if I think the vast majority of unionists would be easily swayed either. I noted above that it would be a hard sell and, to quantify somewhat, I also mentioned above that a "portion" may be open to persuasion. To be clearer and being realistic, I would see no more than a fifth or a quarter (maybe a third at an extreme push) as persuadable, if even. But I do think there is a bit of leg-room there and enough to be genuinely optimistic anyway.

There are plenty of people in the north who identify as nationalists but who have been content to maintain the Union because they don't find it unpalatable and may even see it (misguidedly, in my view) as benefiting them financially. They seem content even though their personal, cultural or national identity isn't necessarily reflected or channelled through the state in which they live. There's no reason why a significant number of unionists wouldn't mirror the same sort of attitude in a united Ireland. Why would they be any different?

On your Sinn Féin point, Sinn Féin are the dominant nationalist party in the north at present, so they are representative of the will of the majority of the nationalist population right now, whether one likes it or not. They are the main messengers because people vote for them and they channel people's politics and aspirations. If unity is to be achieved, unionism will still have to be reconciled with republicanism and the significant swathe of the Irish population who regard themselves as republicans. If Sinn Féin were to somehow cease to exist overnight, it's not as if the quarter of a million people who vote for them in the north would simply disappear too. Another entity would inevitably emerge to fill such a democratic vacuum or those voters would simply vote for another entity who would best represent and channel their republicanism, which unionists would probably still take issue with anyway, until the two conflicting perspectives can be somehow reconciled.

Quote:

---

I think you underestimate the extent to which identity lies at the core of the debate. The British identity of unionists is bound to their unionism and Irish unity kills unionism off. The two are incompatible. In order for unionists to meaningfully engage with unity they would have to sacrifice their unionism.

---

There are plenty of southern-born Ulster Protestants from around the border region who still identify as British and/or unionist despite the state in which they were born no longer having any formal political connection to Britain. Willie Hay, Maurice Devenney, Basil McCrea and Charley McAdam are just some individual examples who have public profiles. I'd like to think a new Ireland could cater for their identity on an equal pedestal alongside the Irish nationalist identity.

Irish unity doesn't have to "rob [unionists] of role, purpose and the ability to reverse the result of a border poll" either (as Alex Kane claimed it would in a recent article in the Newsletter). Kane appears to be seeking a sort of parity of esteem in what he writes, but doesn't seem convinced that such an ideal is realisable in a united Ireland. Parity of esteem is a noble concept and I believe in it myself. I was actually speaking to CTP about this on WhatsApp recently and he suggested we could duly include then a clause in a new unity settlement whereby unionists can take the whole island back into a union with Britain if they can peacefully and politically achieve it via the winning of a democratic majority within the new democratic unit. I thought such a proposal to be reasonable and acceptable. Isn't that the hoop through which nationalists and republicans are being asked to jump by Alex and other unionists in order to achieve our aspiration? This clause would politically validate unionism's ambition and would give unionists a platform on or towards which to work, so why not? Wouldn't that be a form of parity of treatment?

I think the most fundamental thing for nationalists and republicans to acknowledge and accept is the following; what we expect in the north in terms of parity and equal treatment, we have to be prepared to extend the very same to unionists in a new united Ireland. Otherwise, we leave ourselves open to charges of hypocrisy and bad faith. If that entails official recognition of unionist and Ulster Protestant traditions/symbolism by the new state, so be it. In fact, the Irish government already includes some Ulster-Scots poetry by Ulster Presbyterian James Orr on the current Irish passport. I feel this is a step in the right direction.

Quote:

---

Most nationalist and and even republican politicians, writers and commentators have been saying this for a long time though. Has it moved the debate on much? No. Brexit has done it for them.

---

Down the line, it may make the difference between unionists accepting/tolerating unity, albeit reluctantly, and unionists instigating armed revolt against the prospect.

Interestingly, I've heard numerous commentators warn unionists that it's not Irish nationalism of which they should be fearful and that it's really an increasingly-isolationist English nationalism that should scare them. I'd be inclined to agree with such an analysis. As the cost to the English taxpayer of keeping the northern unionist project on life-support becomes more and more apparent to people in Britain, they'll simply ask themselves why on earth they're clinging on to a part of Ireland that's evidently costing them and with which they don't remotely identify, culturally or politically. They'll become much more ready to cut it adrift. The recent storm over the Tory-DUP deal may have been an enlightening precursor to this shift in mood.

Quote:

---

I tend to agree but I'm hesitant to put a time frame on it. In regards to unionists, of particular interest are the post-troubles generation, who have lived in a much different environment than their forebears and one in which the European Union membership was taken for granted. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the coming years.

---

You probably saw them at the time as you posted immediately after me, but, in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote, I'd provided links to quite a few examples of "default" unionists or people who had identified as cultural unionists their whole lives but who, overnight, had become open to the idea of Irish unity. It is an evolving situation though and, as you say, it will indeed be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years.

Something I came across recently that I thought was interesting here: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politi...10305unity.pdf

It's the SDLP's published position on Irish unity. I'm not sure when it was published (looks like it would have been whilst Mark Durkan was party leader, so between 2001–2010) or if it has been amended or updated since, but I thought this section was particularly interesting:

http://i66.tinypic.com/etbnfr.png

Why I thought it was particularly interesting is because it has been Gerry Adams who has been criticised of late (by Fintan O'Toole, for example) for expressing the view that the idea of 50 per cent plus one when it comes to a unity referendum is "what democracy is about". O'Toole wrote the following in a recent article:

In the context of Ireland’s future, 50 per cent + 1 is not, as Adams claims, “what democracy is about”. That kind of crude, tribal majoritarianism is precisely what the Belfast Agreement is meant to finish off.

Isn't "50 per cent + 1" essentially another term for the principle of consent though?

Article 1 (ii) of the Good Friday Agreement states that the participants "recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".

Far from "finishing it off", it is the text of the Good Friday Agreement makes "crude, tribal majoritarianism" (to use O'Toole's description) a stipulation; not Sinn Féin or Gerry Adams. The term "majority" is specifically used in the text (as one can read above).

The inclusion of the principle of consent was a unionist demand and a republican compromise in light of the fact that the northern statelet was created and weighted specifically in unionism's favour and had questionable democratic legitimacy in the first place. I have always understood the consent principle to be a fundamental element of the Agreement, so it's odd to hear O'Toole - along with other purported supporters of the GFA (such as Leo Varadkar and Bertie Ahern) recently - attempt to dismiss this component. To start insinuating that the pro-unity side meeting this threshold in a future unity referendum (in tandem with a pro-unity result in a southern referendum) may not be enough to achieve unity appears to me to be a move towards shifting the goalposts.

Societal unity, rather than mere territorial unity, is the obviously ideal for unity proponents, but unionists and opponents can hardly complain when the consent mechanism that they demanded be included delivers a verdict they don't like.

Societal unity can hopefully be brought about by reconciliation, outreach and explicit acknowledgement of the parity of and equal place for the British/Protestant/unionist/loyalist tradition on this island in a new united Ireland. This can all be done in tandem with working towards winning the consent of a pro-unity majority in the north and south. Even though many unionists may not vote for unity, the new arrangement will have to be as tolerable for them as we can make it. I believe this to be the right, respectful and civil thing to do, but it is also within the practical interests of republicanism to agree and help create a unionist-friendly united Ireland; the more intolerable and objectionable the new state is for unionists, the greater the likelihood of widespread discontent, violence and/or the project failing.

An interesting article/review in the Irish Times relating to a book which documents when, in 1930s Belfast, a cross-community class politics existed and Catholics and Protestants rioted together: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/b...ther-1.3200941

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I think the threshold that must be met for the mere calling of a referendum is rather high...so the whole set-up is very much weighted in favour of maintaining the status quo

In hindsight, the clause seems a rather unfortunate inclusion in the GFA and represents an instance of either poor foresight or poor negotiation. As a comparison, Scottish independence was supported by a mere 30 per cent or so of Scots when they were granted their referendum

---

Every almost annual election in NI for decades has been effectively a border poll. Almost everyone votes for the two blocs that contest that issue and little else. The Nationalist bloc hasn't reached 50% in any of those elections, but if/ when that changes the one-question referendum quickly following the election will presumably mirror the result.

Generally, I prefer that if we have to have referenda (which I dislike as often simplistic) there should be a higher threshold to force change- say 55%.

Quote:

---

If Sinn Féin were to somehow cease to exist overnight, it's not as if the quarter of a million people who vote for them in the north would simply disappear too

---

Indeed. My local UKIP MP stood again for Westminster this year and saw his vote share collapse from 25% to 5%. His ex-voters likely still think as they did on the EU, immigration etc., even if they've gone back to ticking Labour or Tory.

Quote:

---

Irish unity doesn't have to "rob [unionists] of role, purpose and the ability to reverse the result of a border poll"

---

Heh. If that comment is even semi-serious you're ignoring what some commentators have called the 'equity' problem. Nationalists only need 50%+1 of NI to force a change; Unionists need the same proportion of a much larger all-island electorate to reverse it. Although admittedly it's probably moot because of this:

Quote:

---

it's really an increasingly-isolationist English nationalism that should scare them...the recent storm over the Tory-DUP deal may have been an enlightening precursor to this shift in mood

---

Up to a point. A while back I'd have agreed more strongly, when it looked like English nationalism was ready to jettison the Scots as well ;) English public opinion has long been both dismissive and uninterested in NI. We've never been an issue in their elections, even during the Troubles. Don't rely on the English electorate being sophisticated enough to shift their mood as you'd prefer- as we saw in June and I mentioned here, we had a succession of journalists and active and semi-retired politicians queueing about to spout ill-informed sh*te about the DUP deal. Wider opinion doesn't know and doesn't care, alas

Quote:

---

it will indeed be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years

---

Or decades?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Generally, I prefer that if we have to have referenda (which I dislike as often simplistic) there should be a higher threshold to force change- say 55%.

---

Why the bias in favour of the status quo? Coincidentally, I read a piece on Slugger O'Toole yesterday actually arguing for a shifting of the goal-posts in any future unity referendum via the introduction of a requirement for a supermajority of 65 per cent. I thought the following response dealt with the proposal very well:

"The severe flaw in your proposal, which you fail to address, is the bias toward the status quo.

There is no democratic justification for keeping the status quo when as much as 64.9%, under your proposal, could favour change.

As democrats, ultimately we want circumstances that are as fair as possible for all. Your proposal assumes the status quo is fair and justifiable. It does not put the possibility of change on an equal footing with the status quo.

If 50% +1 is not fair on the 49%, why then would it be fair to keep the 50%+1 inside the United Kingdom against their will?

Where do you even draw the line? What if Unionist community numbers fall drastically, do we change the supermajority needed to 70%, 75%?

What you're talking about is a Unionist veto. If reunification is to be realised then it can only happen with fairness and compassion that must include protection of British people's rights within a new Ireland. There would need to be a whole host of new imaginative solutions to assuage fears of the British people on the Island. But the actual decision to pursue change itself won't be held back if there is a majority in favour."

Quote:

---

Heh. If that comment is even semi-serious you're ignoring what some commentators have called the 'equity' problem. Nationalists only need 50%+1 of NI to force a change; Unionists need the same proportion of a much larger all-island electorate to reverse it.

---

So, manipulating the parameters with regard to what constitutes the democratic unit is acceptable when it favours unionism long-term (i.e. partition), despite the wishes to the contrary of the democratic majority in the original democratic unit, but it wouldn't be considered a serious or acceptable proposition if democratically-agreed change to the parameters of the democratic unit - or a return to the original state of play - was to favour nationalism long-term, despite advance cross-community agreement on and acceptance of the prospective legitimacy of the new political unit? Hmm, I see...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DI

Why the bias in favour of the status quo?

---

It's actually a safeguard against unnecessary instability. Which would likely follow a 50%+1 result (there'd be pressure for a re-run which could be reversed if Mrs Kelly gets out of bed on the other side), or even a 52-48 (possibly largely influenced by force majeure, freak weather etc.). My example isn't comparable to the 65% you suggest. I don't really have a bias, in other words.

Quote:

---

So, manipulating the parameters with regard to what constitutes the democratic unit is acceptable

---

Yes- although I'd call it 'self-determination'. Unionists (or whatever name they and everyone else use after a UI) deserve that like anyone else. They've as little chance of persuading the English to take them back as the South to join in, as I said.

There's obviously no chance of the 'unionist' vote in a UI rising much above 15%. But that figure is large (and localised) enough for influence (balance of power, say), maybe autonomy as you and others have suggested on here, then who knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

It's actually a safeguard against unnecessary instability. Which would likely follow a 50%+1 result (there'd be pressure for a re-run which could be reversed if Mrs Kelly gets out of bed on the other side), or even a 52-48 (possibly largely influenced by force majeure, freak weather etc.). My example isn't comparable to the 65% you suggest. I don't really have a bias, in other words.

---

In fairness, your proposal is slightly less unacceptable. :o

Quote:

---

Yes- although I'd call it 'self-determination'. Unionists (or whatever name they and everyone else use after a UI) deserve that like anyone else. They've as little chance of persuading the English to take them back as the South to join in, as I said.

---

How do you envisage your preferred arrangement working exactly in the event of a united Ireland? Would the six north-eastern counties be distinguished as a region for the purpose of a potential plebiscite to return those six counties to British rule? Why should nationalist constituencies in the north-eastern six counties be lumped into this against their will after having just won a referendum - the conditions of which were agreed and accepted on a cross-community basis - to free themselves of British rule? Who would call the vote and how might they know if and when the time was appropriate? Would the region's distinguished status be a permanent fixture within the new united Ireland or would a threshold of a certain number of years be set once re-unification took effect, after which the region would then lose its unique status?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DI

How do you envisage your preferred arrangement working exactly in the event of a united Ireland? Would the six north-eastern counties be distinguished as a region for the purpose of a potential plebiscite to return those six counties to British rule? Why should nationalist constituencies in the north-eastern six counties be lumped into this against their will after having just won a referendum - the conditions of which were agreed and accepted on a cross-community basis - to free themselves of British rule? Who would call the vote and how might they know if and when the time was appropriate? Would the region's distinguished status be a permanent fixture within the new united Ireland or would a threshold of a certain number of years be set once re-unification took effect, after which the region would then lose its unique status?

---

1 I don't think I have an exact or even preferred arrangement at this stage, as so much is unclear.

2 Can't see the old NI borders being used in the way you describe. If post-UI Unionists want any effective autonomy, they're unlikely to ask for large number of Nationalists to be polled

3 See (2). They wouldn't be lumped in as you call it

4 Unionists, if anyone, would call for self-determination if and when they thought there was some advantage in doing so. That would almost certainly be rather less than rejoining the UK, or an independent NI. But there are other possibilities and examples in other countries

5 The uniqueness you mention could last as long as there's a demand for it from Unionists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

2 Can't see the old NI borders being used in the way you describe. If post-UI Unionists want any effective autonomy, they're unlikely to ask for large number of Nationalists to be polled

3 See (2). They wouldn't be lumped in as you call it

4 Unionists, if anyone, would call for self-determination if and when they thought there was some advantage in doing so. That would almost certainly be rather less than rejoining the UK, or an independent NI. But there are other possibilities and examples in other countries

---

What would happen there then? Re-partition with maybe one or two counties - minus some internal nationalist districts - withdrawing from the new united Irish state? If not independent or part of the UK again, what would the status of the newly-separate region be? What are the other possibilities and examples in other countries? Do you mean a significant degree of internal autonomy (or devolution/federalism or whatever one wishes to call it) within the borders of the new united state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

What would happen there then? Re-partition with maybe one or two counties - minus some internal nationalist districts - withdrawing from the new united Irish state? If not independent or part of the UK again, what would the status of the newly-separate region be? What are the other possibilities and examples in other countries? Do you mean a significant degree of internal autonomy (or devolution/federalism or whatever one wishes to call it) within the borders of the new united state?

---

Autonomy more likely than repartition/ independent NI.

Although the latter isn't entirely impossible. I was in a 30,000 population sovereign state only last weekend.

Anomalies other than SMR/ Andorra etc. include Gibraltar, or say Aland/ Ahvenmaa (island in the Baltic where the entirely Swedish-speaking population is part of Finland).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

In fairness, your proposal is slightly less unacceptable. :o



How do you envisage your preferred arrangement working exactly in the event of a united Ireland? Would the six north-eastern counties be distinguished as a region for the purpose of a potential plebiscite to return those six counties to British rule? Why should nationalist constituencies in the north-eastern six counties be lumped into this against their will after having just won a referendum - the conditions of which were agreed and accepted on a cross-community basis - to free themselves of British rule? Who would call the vote and how might they know if and when the time was appropriate? Would the region's distinguished status be a permanent fixture within the new united Ireland or would a threshold of a certain number of years be set once re-unification took effect, after which the region would then lose its unique status?

---

In fairness, the nationalists would have to accept some sort of compromise. This would actually seem pretty reasonable. Scotland was ruled directly from Westminster for hundreds of years, but the referenda on devolution and independence were still voted on by only the population of Scotland. Apart from a bit of grumbling from more extreme Brit-nats, nobody really felt that the unionist population of Scotland had been lumped into a special region against their will. A northern Ireland ruled from Dublin with some devolved powers to reflect its special status with a large unionist/protestant population would be fully acceptable to me.

I acknowledge that nationalists/republicans will have to accept some form of compromise - no issue with that - and a continuation of some form of devolution or special autonomy for the northern region (or perhaps for volunteering/self-selecting unionist constituencies) with a regional legislative chamber in Belfast to govern the devolved/local/internal affairs of the semi-autonomous region within the overall framework of a united Ireland is something to which I don't think I'd necessarily object in theory.

However, I fear the prospect of re-partition could become a reality in practice then as I'd envisage the devolved assembly making continual demands for a reverse plebiscite (to opt out of a united Ireland and possibly rejoin the UK) if it was to be dominated by unionists. To counter that prospect, what about a devolved assembly to govern the province of Ulster (rather than six or fewer north-eastern counties) or a prior agreement that there would be no re-partitioning along new lines (whatever about the constitutional status of the north-eastern six counties remaining up for discussion after unity)?

No way I'd ever support Donegal being thrown in with the loonies across the border. Just another reason for us to go for our independence. Frankly we're too cool for the rest of you anyway.

Guy Verhofstadt discusses the surrealism of the Irish border on his visit to Ireland: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...rity-1.3228978

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael O'Regan

Mr Verhofstadt was addressing members of the Oireachtas committees on European Union Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence, and the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in the Dáil chamber on Thursday. He said the Irish Border was in no way a natural one. It was not a river, nor a mountain range. “It meanders for 310 miles through meadows, forests, farmlands,’’ he said.

On Wednesday evening he visited a border farm in Co Monaghan, remarking that it was impossible to see where one jurisdiction starts and the other ends. It was an illogical divide which should remain invisible as it was today, except for the marking in yellow when entering the Republic rather than white, said Mr Verhofstadt. "Certainly the cows couldn't see it. Cows from the north eating grass from the south, milked in the north by a farmer from the south with their milk bottled in the south," he said. "I'm a Belgian so surrealism comes naturally to me, but to reinstate the border would be more than surreal, it would be totally absurd, even for me." He said borders, worst of all, could run through people’s hearts and minds and breed division, discrimination and hostility. Borders were best when they were just lines on maps, Mr Verhofstadt added. To reduce the Irish Border as a line on the map was a crucial achievement in the Good Friday Agreement, he said.

---

He re-emphasised that the EU would not be imposing any hard border in Ireland after Brexit and stated that it was the UK's responsibility entirely to come up with a practicable solution towards preserving openness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

No way I'd ever support Donegal being thrown in with the loonies across the border. Just another reason for us to go for our independence. Frankly we're too cool for the rest of you anyway.

---

It's either us or Connacht. It's up to you.

I guess what is being discussed is some kind of Hong Kong type arrangement. It's about timing for me. I'm not adverse to that now, or in the near future if there could be some sort of cross community movement built towards it. But if it requires the sectarian headcount to tick to 50%+1 I wouldn't be open to any consideration to the feelings of unionism at all. At that stage I'd be looking for UN or EU soldiers to maintain stability for a few years while the 6 county state is dismantled and elections to the Dail could be held.

'Fintan O’Toole: The Tories have already betrayed the DUP': https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/f...-dup-1.3233355

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fintan O'Toole

The DUP always acknowledged that a hard frontier [post-Brexit] is not just undesirable but impossible, a reality made starker by figures showing the Border is crossed 110 million times a year. But it has been pushing a magical solution: technology. Some as-yet-undiscovered technology (vaguely imagined as having something to do with number-plate recognition and data analytics) would allow the frictionless movements of goods and people. There was something oddly touching in this act of faith, like one of those cargo cults that developed on remote South Sea islands when fridges and TVs washed ashore and were worshipped as mysterious messages from the gods.

But, while the DUP was placing all its bets on this technological thoroughbred, its Tory friends dragged the poor beast out the back and shot it. At the end of July, Jeffrey Donaldson was still rhapsodising about the ingenious machines that were going to solve the Border problem, sighing that “Modern technology is a wonderful thing”. Two weeks later the Tory government published its long-awaited position paper on the Irish dimension of the Brexit negotiations. It was a mercy killing without the mercy. The DUP’s solution was dismissed in a single line, committing the UK to “avoid any physical border infrastructure in either the United Kingdom or Ireland, for any purpose”. No physical Border infrastructure means no magic machines. Unless it is going to suggest that Border controls will be purely spiritual, it is hard to see where this leaves the DUP.

---

Fintan O'Toole has been writing incisive stuff on the incoherence of Brexit, the folly of the DUP and the difficulty posed by the border question of late.

Meanwhile, Newton Emerson was in the commentators' corner at the end of The View last Thursday night and seemed to be suggesting that the word from Europe was that the north would remain within the Customs Union and Single Market with the effective UK-EU border being shifted to the Irish Sea. He acknowledged that the DUP wouldn't like it, but that it would suit everybody else, so the DUP will pretty much just have to suck it up.

Emerson stated the following whilst making reference to reports from last week:

"[T]he consensus is emerging among customs officials across Europe that the solution to our border will be a sea border, effectively. We'll stay in the Customs Union and the Single Market and there'll be a light enforcement of the European border at our ports. It won't be a re-drawing of the border. It will just be checks at the ports by the EU for goods only. That won't please the DUP, but it will please everyone else and I think that's the kind of solution you're looking at."

Sounds promising. Effectively, Ireland - north and south - will form an economic unit of sorts (albeit whilst still operating two different currencies) within the Customs Union and Single Market that will be distinct from Britain outside of the Customs Union and Single Market.

What effect might this have upon potential political unity down the line, I wonder? Economics and material concerns are such powerful drivers of politics that I would be optimistic. Of course, they're not the only drivers - national identity plays a huge role here too - but I think effective economic unity can only benefit the push for full Irish unity in the long-run as the two jurisdictions in Ireland grow ever closer whilst Britain treads in the other direction down its own precarious path of isolation.