Discussion on a United or re-partitioned Ireland

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Fly educates Da South. ;)

---

Dat's the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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 :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

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.

Quote:

---

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 ;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Alternatively you could lobby to join Massachussets. Next parish Boston and all that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

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.

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?

---

It's vague without any detailed policies. It's not new, Sinn Fein were talking about it 30 years.

IIRC, Lionel raised an interesting suggestion: that the IFA might agree to dissolve in favor a single united side, as a sop playing half the games in Belfast. But then suppose than ex-NI fans were unhappy with this and formed their own team, in due course playing other countries and possibly joining UEFA and FIFA. Yet you'd still have the other team playing half its games in Belfast...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny Invincible

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

---

Heh.One of the small advantages of (previously) living in NI? The proportion of monarchists is only half that in England, Scotland or Wales ;)

Not sure how that Unionist bloc would use the large minority to benefit its electorate. Devolution? Permanent single-issue nationality politics? Irrelevance? Hard to say.

You're joking about the constitution surely? Its articles two and three denied reality for 60 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

You're joking about the constitution surely? Its articles two and three denied reality for 60 years

---

What's the relevance of two articles that were removed a decade and a half ago? I thought you were looking towards the future...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

What's the relevance of two articles that were removed a decade and a half ago? I thought you were looking towards the future...

---

That they were allowed to remain for so long last time? Point taken though.

Ha, there is no chance of this fanciful re-partition. As there's no public appetite or demand. Not least from either DUP/SF who represent around 85% of active voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepingpartner

Ha, there is no chance of this fanciful re-partition. As there's no public appetite or demand. Not least from either DUP/SF who represent around 85% of active voters

---

DUP/SF combined vote share in 2010 General Election: 50.5%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/elect...s/region/6.stm

My mistake. Meant of the voters who decide seats. With the SDLP included. Anyway none of these 3 parties are campaigning for this or showing any inclination to do so.

And whilst the notion of it may be fanciful or fantastic we are here to discuss it in in hypothetics.

Which is also mainly farcical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepingpartner

Which is also mainly farcical.

---

Be that as you may think. You are under no obligation to partake or to view this thread.

Yes of course that worked.

Nice needless bumping

So JFK done wrote this about Partition in the Milwaukee Sentinel on 29 July 1945:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?i...7357%2C3508302

Apropos nothing, what is a dissident republican ? I hear this term used a lot for offshoots of the IRA who are continuing the terrorist campaign. It's as if only the IRA were republicans and if you didn't like them giving up their arms, you are a dissident republican. I am a republican and would love to see a 32 country republic achieved by consent as would be the majority (I believe) of most people in the Republic, although I was surprised when I discussed this with some friends recently they weren't too bothered about a united Ireland. Should the dissident republicans not be called "dissident IRA" rather than using the word republican which has become almost synonymous with the IRA or Sinn Fein? Fianna Fail used to describe themselves as the "Republican Party" while Fine Gael was the party which founded the Free State and declared the country a Republic. It's as if the word "republican" is a dirty word and is associated with violence.

I think the idea of a United Ireland is a cool thought.

I don't see what benefit it is to either state though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

Apropos nothing, what is a dissident republican ? I hear this term used a lot for offshoots of the IRA who are continuing the terrorist campaign. It's as if only the IRA were republicans and if you didn't like them giving up their arms, you are a dissident republican. I am a republican and would love to see a 32 country republic achieved by consent as would be the majority (I believe) of most people in the Republic, although I was surprised when I discussed this with some friends recently they weren't too bothered about a united Ireland. Should the dissident republicans not be called "dissident IRA" rather than using the word republican which has become almost synonymous with the IRA or Sinn Fein? Fianna Fail used to describe themselves as the "Republican Party" while Fine Gael was the party which founded the Free State and declared the country a Republic. It's as if the word "republican" is a dirty word and is associated with violence.

---

"Dissident" is a politically-loaded term used by the establishment and those supportive of the northern peace-process, including the Provisional republican movement (Sinn Féin), to discredit militant republicans in the north who've decided to prolong an armed struggle they see as continuing through the decades from 1916 and in pursuit of putting the proclaimed or "theoratical" republic of 1916 into practice. The so-called "dissidents" (although that's not how they self-refer obviously) believe they are inheriting legitimacy from 1916 and would actually in turn accuse Sinn Féin and other republican entities, such as Fianna Fáil, of having dissented from the "authentic" or "legitimate" republican line. To suggest someone is a "dissident" is obviously a rhetorical means of suggesting they're anti-consensus or on the outside of accepted/valid doctrine or convention, or on the "wrong path", in other words.

This Wiki article generally outlines pretty well the main developments and splits along the line of Irish republican thought from 1916 up until the Provisional/Continuity split in 1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_...n_legitimatism

The next major split along the "legitimatist" line was when the "Real" IRA (also referred to as the "New" IRA) splintered from the (P)IRA in 1997 in the run-up to the (P)IRA committing to a cessation of their struggle and Sinn Féin signing the GFA.

In the south, I do sense that "republican" (and even "nationalist") are traduced terms (although I have no qualms or reservations in identifying with either; I'm a democrat too, importantly). There's a reason for this sense of "dirty baggage" being attached to the words. These words are popularly associated with Sinn Féin and Sinn Féin now pose a very serious and pressing threat to the southern establishment. According to Dr. Pat Walsh, who has written about what he sees as the southern media's pursuit of Gerry Adams, this sort of re-framing of the meaning of words that might be connected to or of benefit to Sinn Féin - as "dubious" or somehow "suspect" - serves the purpose of tarnishing the growing party's image, despite the fact Sinn Féin are fully committed to peace and have been for quite some time: https://drpatwalsh.com/2016/04/23/th...f-gerry-adams/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Pat Walsh

The principal thing driving the ‘Get Adams’ campaign in the South was the fear of a Northern contamination of the cosy Partitionist Southern body politic. Adams went South to capture the Louth seat and the people put a Northerner in the Dail. But Adams as the leader of an all-Ireland party crossed the line which no Northern Catholic is supposed to cross—unless they have become harmless, and fully integrated cogs of the party system of the South, like Frank Aiken and Austin Currie.

Adams, in coming South, was confronting the 26 Counties with the fact that the issue of the Northern Catholics was not put to bed in 1925 or indeed 1998 and that there was still unfinished business in the North. Jack Lynch is praised by all shades in the South for having kept the North at bay but the presence of Adams and the rise of Sinn Fein in the Opinion Polls was a sharp reminder that Lynch failed.

…

There is a complete absence from the Irish National press of any publication sympathetic to the predicament of the Northern Catholic community. Such sympathy is seen by the social stratum that produces the media as sympathy with Sinn Fein.

The fact that Sinn Fein was produced out of the situation in which the Northern Catholic community was placed, not by Partition as such, but by the political arrangements made by Britain as the means of enacting Partition and maintaining it, is denied. The implications of admitting it are too awful to contemplate for those in control of the media. This is an issue which goes beyond careerism and is connected to the basic orientation of the State. It is a remarkable fact that there is no mainstream media organisation which fully reflects the true national interests of the Irish state. There was one newspaper in the past which represented native Ireland, the Irish Press. It was brought down in 1995 and has not been replaced. Martin O Muilleoir, the Belfast publisher, attempted to establish a newspaper on an all-Ireland basis, but was blackguarded by the Southern Establishment, with the Progressive Democrat Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, in the lead. It started publication in January 2005 and closed down in September 2006.

In the Irish media dispassionate description of British political conduct, whether in ‘Northern Ireland’ or in the world, is put down as Anglophobia, a product of the bad old world of backward, independent Ireland. A phobia is defined as a groundless, irrational fear or hatred of something. But, in Dublin a strictly accurate, rational and factual account of how Britain managed the Six Counties is decreed to be Anglophobic and not helpful. In short, the truth cannot be told in Dublin about the North because the truth might be of benefit to Sinn Fein. So the conflict ‘up there’ needs to be presented as a campaign of murder and mayhem against lawful activity.

That Britain is not responsible for the political condition of the ‘Northern Ireland’ region of its State is held as an article of faith, in defiance of all fact and reason. But, if that is the case, it rules out all understanding of the problem and all effective solution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

I think the idea of a United Ireland is a cool thought.

I don't see what benefit it is to either state though.

---

Pooling the island's resources, labour and services would surely be beneficial and much more efficient for everyone on the island. Even present-day unionists would have more of a say in an all-Ireland parliament than they have in Westminster as they'd make up about a fifth of the national population.

I should have also added that there are some "dissidents" who aren't militant at all. I think Éirigí (classed as "dissident" because they oppose the GFA), for example, are committed to peaceful methods. Other than that, I'm not sure what their strategy for achieving unity is.

I think it's fascinating how language is used generally to legitimise and delegitimise certain ideas, concepts and entities, but I should clarify I'm pro-GFA myself and see it as an imperfect means to an end. Hopefully.

There is a dispassion that had crept in towards the end of FF's last foray into power with RTÉ (and it seemed southern media-wide took their lead in sudden referencing of "police in Northern Ireland" as opposed to "authorities/police in the North" and similar "slips" of the tongue. It signaled to me the final nail in the coffin of real Southern will to end partition. I complained to RTÉ about this and obviously received no response.

The North? The North-East? Of Ireland? Louth and Meath? GAH!

---

It's a bit much to have Pat Walsh state that "The Butcher of Altnaveigh", Frank Aiken was harmless! He was a scumbag of the highest order and completely contemptuous. How he can possibly be mouthed within the same sentence of benign Austin beggars belief.

"Jack Lynch is praised by all shades in the South for having kept the North at bay but the presence of Adams and the rise of Sinn Fein in the Opinion Polls was a sharp reminder that Lynch failed."

Come off it Pat. Lynch would put Bertie and CJ to shame for populism. An absolute cur of a man with his attitude towards Northern-nationalists. An ostrich if anything! Isn't it a good thing thing that he didn't stand "idly by"?
I honestly know of very few people that praise Lynch. In fact the last decent thing I remember said of him was when he kicked the bucket.

David McWilliams with a pretty crushing dissection of northern (economic) unionism: http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/0...t-write-it-off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David McWilliams

Up to now, there has been a significant number of Northern Irish Catholics who might have felt that staying with the UK was the right thing to do for their back pockets. But when you look at the numbers you can see clearly that this is a bizarre choice.

A cursory glance at the performance of the Northern Irish economy since 1922 would suggest that the Union has been an economic disaster for the people of Northern Ireland. They have been impoverished by the Union and this shows no sign of letting up. The only solace the Northerners might hold onto is the fact that all British regions have lost out income-wise to Southern England; however, “we’re all getting poor together” is hardly a persuasive chorus for an ode to the Union. Indeed, the relative under-performance of the once-rich Scottish economy was (and is) a central argument of the Scottish Nationalists in the last referendum.

However, forget the other British regions: the contrast between the economic performances of the North and South is shocking.

If we go back to 1920, 80 per cent of the industrial output of the entire island of Ireland came from the three counties centred on Belfast. This was where all Irish industry was. It was industrial and innovative; northern entrepreneurs and inventors were at the forefront of industrial innovation. By 1911, Belfast was the biggest city in Ireland, with a population of close to 400,000, which was growing rapidly. It was by far the richest part of the island.

In contrast, the rest of the Irish economy was agricultural and backward and the only industrial base we had could be termed a ‘beer and biscuits’ economy, dominated by the likes of Guinness and Jacobs.

Fast-forward to now and the collapse of the once-dynamic Northern economy versus that of the Republic is shocking. Having been a fraction of the North’s at independence, the Republic’s industrial output is now ten times greater than that of Northern Ireland. Exports from the Republic are €89 billion while from the North, exports are a paltry €6 billion. This obviously reflects multinationals, but it also underscores just how far ahead the Republic’s industrial base is. Producing 15 times more exports underscores a vast difference in terms of the globalisation of business.

The total size of the Republic’s economy is now four times of that of the North, even though the labour force is not even two and a half times bigger. In terms of income per head, the Republic is now almost twice as rich per person as the North. The average income per head in the Republic is €39,873, while it languishes at €23,700 up North. The differing fortunes of North and South can be easily seen in the fact that, having been smaller than Belfast at the time of partition, the population of the greater Dublin area is now almost three times bigger than the greater Belfast metropolitan region.

Obviously there are significant differences in terms of prices, access to public services and housing between the two parts of the island, but the fact remains that the Union has been an economic calamity for everyone in the North. The contrast is made more significant by the fact that economically the North was, at one stage, so far ahead of the South. So where does that leave us?

Well, in the distant past, there was good reason to believe that the Union preserved living standards in the North, but this is a myth and has not been the case since 1990. Indeed, the end of the Troubles, which should have marked the resurgence of the relative performance of the North, has actually delivered the opposite.

Relative to the South, the Northern economy has fallen backwards since the guns were silenced. If there was an economic peace dividend, it went South.

---

But this has been obvious to all and sundry especially to those of us who visit ulster regularly from the Pale or those who are from there.

Nice article though it must be said. I like adding facts to my anecdotes.

I have many friends from in and around Dungannon and Armagh and they all scarpered South as soon as the degree was acquired from QUB. Every last one of them.

But how do you explain that (you know, logic?) to entrenched northern Unionists?

I could well end up in QUB (It's looking likely at present) for my masters, but I sincerely doubt I'll stick around when I'm done.

---

One of the things I think we all have noticed over the last two decades have been the role-reversal in road quality and how you almost long to be hitting the border going south bound. Which I'm sure wasn't always the case. :)

Unionists might well argue that the Troubles played a massive part in holding the economy back, and that probably takes a long time to overcome. There is a still an aftermath of poverty, gangsterism and sectarian hatred there that is damaging also. No other part of the UK or Ireland had such an impediment and it's a bit unfair of McWilliams to underplay it.

As noted above though the difference to someone brought up near the border in how our infrastructure has improved while that on the other side has hardly changed is remarkable. There was a time when going to Dublin from Donegal the aim was to spend as much time on the good Northern Ireland roads as possible- now it's the opposite.

The troubles have been over for over 22 years. There has to come a point when you can't blame a particularly low level conflict any more.

To put it in context consider how the German economy was performing in 1967? Then consider how badly damaged Germany was in 1945, and compare that to the north in 1994.

The future to this is dynamic nationalism starting to make the case made by David McWilliams above. It is as plain as the nose on your face that the North is being very badly held back by the union. There is no reason why the people of the Republic should be doing so much better than people in the North. This would be to everyone's benefit, north and south. The north would obviously benefit, but the south would also surely benefit from the extra capacity, and from the economies of scale.

Much of what you say there is true, but the North's politics has been stuck in the sectarian headcount / bunfight for much of that time. Note East Germany had a crap government and they weren't exactly flying it. Even yet the the hard questions at Stormont are often fudged or avoided. And that won't suddenly disappear if there is a United Ireland. Indeed a new Loyalist insurgency would be quite possible if that happened. Lots of things that may seem blindingly obvious from a southern nationalist perspective are not so from outside it.

I'm not saying the Union has been a massive success- it clearly hasn't. But the alternatives may not have gone much better.

Indeed East Germany did have a crap government. The solution here would remarkably similar to what worked there!

I'm not saying it would be a panacea, but it would be hard to do much worse in the North.

It wouldn't all be one was though. We have things up here that you guys could benefit from (e.g. we have all the structures in place to support single national health and fire services. Why would you build new ones when you could just use the structures already in place up here. It's as much bother to running a fire service to cover 32 counties as it is to cover 6).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Much of what you say there is true, but the North's politics has been stuck in the sectarian headcount / bunfight for much of that time. Note East Germany had a crap government and they weren't exactly flying it. Even yet the the hard questions at Stormont are often fudged or avoided. And that won't suddenly disappear if there is a United Ireland. Indeed a new Loyalist insurgency would be quite possible if that happened. Lots of things that may seem blindingly obvious from a southern nationalist perspective are not so from outside it.

I'm not saying the Union has been a massive success- it clearly hasn't. But the alternatives may not have gone much better.

---

I think this is something that certainly deserves a great deal of consideration. A likelihood of violent resistance to unification would certainly put me off the idea.

I think too much stall is put in potential loyalist violence. In fact it's this threat that has hampered any realistic discussion about reintegration further last 90 years. It also is this threat that brought about partition in the first place.

Loyalism only exists to threaten. I think it's time that the weight of their concerns at a united Ireland are given the weight they deserve. No more no less.

If loyalist violence was to be an issue in the event of a successful referendum it would have to be faced down. Anything else would be nothing short of cowardice and would be an appalling affront to democracy.

In any event the army have conducted peacekeeping operations in the some of the most difficult regions in the world. I'm sure they would be fit to restore law and order in Ballymena and Newtownards.

Peacekeeping isn't counter-insurgency, or counter-terrorism. They're very different things. The Irish Defence Forces has neither the numbers, training or practical experience (right now) to fight an asymmetric war in the north, and the idea of Irish reunification coming into being with soldiers patrolling the streets isn't very appealing (Can you imagine the outcry if the Irish Army starts killing Irish citizens?).

But I'm not deaf to the laudable idea that violent threats to democratic will should be combated against. But I do think that the conditions in the north before any potential vote on unification is contemplated should be very carefully considered. No one wants any blood spilled over Irish politics anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Unionists might well argue that the Troubles played a massive part in holding the economy back, and that probably takes a long time to overcome. There is a still an aftermath of poverty, gangsterism and sectarian hatred there that is damaging also. No other part of the UK or Ireland had such an impediment and it's a bit unfair of McWilliams to underplay it.

---

McWilliams does mention that all of the regions within the UK are trailing behind London and presently suffering. Wales and Scotland never had conflict, so you could argue the north would be relatively impoverished regardless if the other regions are any indication. The UK is Anglo/London-centric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

I think this is something that certainly deserves a great deal of consideration. A likelihood of violent resistance to unification would certainly put me off the idea.

---

I think gestures will have to be made to pre-empt possible loyalist insurrection. We want a united Ireland that will be stable, enduring, peaceful, prosperous and welcoming for all. That will entail nationalists/republicans making compromises in advance, so it's something we need to start thinking about. What compromises are we prepared to make in order to achieve what we desire? Are our present flags, anthems, symbols and institutions sacred or are they secondary to unity of people? If we expect parity-of-esteem to be applied in the north, surely we must accept the application of similar principles (for the benefit of the unionist minority) in a 32-county arrangement. These sorts of things are almost taboo or heresy within republican discourse, but they're something we need to face up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I think gestures will have to be made to pre-empt possible loyalist insurrection. We want a united Ireland that will be stable, enduring, peaceful, prosperous and welcoming for all. That will entail nationalists/republicans making compromises in advance, so it's something we need to start thinking about. What compromises are we prepared to make in order to achieve what we desire? Are our present flags, anthems, symbols and institutions sacred or are they secondary to unity of people? If we expect parity-of-esteem to be applied in the north, surely we must accept the application of similar principles (for the benefit of the unionist minority) in a 32-county arrangement. These sorts of things are almost taboo or heresy within republican discourse, but they're something we need to face up to.

---

I wouldnt mind as long as Ireland Calls isn't our national anthem!:p

I certainly can't imagine our current anthem being acceptable to northern unionists, anymore than God Save The Queen would be for us.

I've often wondered if Irish unification would have to be bought with some kind of federalised system wherein the north gets a healthy chunk of local government powers - what could we call it? Home Rule? - with even the retention of Stormont as a devolved administration underneath Dublin as it is to London currently.