Discussion on a United or re-partitioned Ireland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke

That last one is f*ckin quality :)

''history in Ireland as in Russia is a living matter and the blood rivers the British shed in Ireland are not forgotten''

Indeed comrade, indeed.

---

They devoted great prominence to the existence of the short-lived Limerick soviet of 1919. I can't for the life of me think why...

We also, "like [the Russians], remember everything", ha. Is this another subtle dig at forgetful Britain's expense? Of course, it was GK Chesterton who once remarked that "the tragedy of the English conquest of Ireland in the 17th century is that the Irish can never forget it and the English can never remember it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Zdravstvitye Tovarishch, afternoon all.

Just switched on Twitter and did a double-take as a smiling McGuinness endorsed the SF candidate in Derry. Party Marty's son Fiachra, looks very like his father

---

Afternoon!

He does indeed:

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-k5Lz1Q1AUJI/A...ffff/photo.jpg

We can't be uniting with any part of anything where people dress like that.

'More than 50 per cent of people in the North want a border poll at some point over the next five years': https://www.thesun.ie/news/1017253/n...s-border-poll/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Johnson

A poll reveals 51 per cent back a vote over the North’s place in the UK at some point in the next five years. The Irish Sun survey [conducted by LucidTalk], in conjunction with Belfast radio station U105, also shows 52.8 per cent endorse bringing in an Irish Language Act.

...

Examining the support for a referendum on Northern Ireland’s constitutional future reveals that among Catholics, 75.8 per cent back a border poll while 16 per cent are against such a move. Among Protestants, 26.3 per cent are for it while 68.3 per cent are against.

In terms of an Irish Language Act, 30.5 per cent of Protestants back the idea while 52 per cent are against it. Among Catholics, a resounding 90 per cent want an Irish Language Act and four per cent oppose.

---

Meanwhile, accounting for all communities, 39.4 per cent of people oppose a referendum on unity whilst only 22.78 per cent oppose an Irish language act.

In a rather unexpected development, Colum Eastwood - usually one to cool or defer talk of a unity referendum - has been making explicit noises about such a referendum potentially being held after Brexit takes effect: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/polit...ions-1.3101566

He stated the following at the SDLP's election manifesto launch when asked about his position on a referendum: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/05/30...rexit-process/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colum Eastwood

I want a border poll, we’ve just made it a lot more winnable, because of the work that Mark and our MPs did in Westminster with David Davis. The work that we did in negotiations when we were talking about lots of different things, we were talking to the British Secretary of State with making sure that we get re-entry into the European Union…

We think there is a route for actually winning a border poll… I think that will need to happen after Brexit.

---

According to David McCann of Slugger O'Toole:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David McCann

Eastwood did stress that it was important to work on engaging with Unionists and building a reconciled Ireland, rather than focusing on just getting better election results. He argued for a Unity Poll to be seen as a key part of rejoining the EU, rather than a narrowly focused issue.

---

There is no express mention of a referendum in the SDLP's actual manifesto, nor has Eastwood specified a time-frame, other than saying he thinks it will need to happen after Brexit, but it's an interesting development nonetheless to have the SDLP now pushing for a referendum too. Let's hope it's not just an electioneering tactic.

Brian Walker on Slugger O'Toole asks some questions to ponder over the next few years and emphasises the need for James Brokenshire to outline how exactly he'll judge "when it appears likely to him" that a majority of the northern electorate would vote for a united Ireland: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/05/30...t-be-left-out/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Walker

Here is a run of questions for consideration.

Should the GFA be renegotiated to require the decision on a Northern referendum to be taken jointly by the two governments?

Should the perceived gap of an arbitrary seven years between two referendums in the North (border polls), survive?

Under the present law, how does the secretary of state judge “what seems likely to him” that a majority of the electorate would vote for a UI?

• On a run of opinion polls and Life and Times surveys ? Some unionists are saying “ bring it on.” How long a run of polls and surveys? What questions?
• Specially commissioned polls with the questions approved by the Electoral Commission?
• A combined nationalist share of the vote in one, two or more regional elections of any kind?
• A majority of members voting for it in the Assembly or any other regional election?
• A simple, or cross community majority vote in the Assembly?
• Without an Assembly, a people’s petition requiring Downing St’s criteria of 10,000 petitions to require a government response? Then 250,000 say to trigger a referendum?
• A mix of polls, surveys and elections over an electoral cycle of five years?
• The two referendums north and south are supposed to be concurrent. Does the Republic have an effective veto on UI if the North votes yes and they vote No? How might this be managed? If so what is the holding pattern for another go? The North must delay for seven years as the law stands.

The decision is for both parts of Ireland alone. But must the British government be neutral?

---

An in-depth presentation produced by the BBC looking at life along the Irish border: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/...hardest_border

I read through that yesterday evening. shame they confused the Irish Setter on the BÉ logo with a Greyhound. tut tut tut.

'UK tried to block Kenny move on unity clause': https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/...-unity-clause/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTÉ

The so-called unity clause was to be inserted into the minutes of an extraordinary summit meeting in Brussels on 29 April. However, two days beforehand, Irish officials were subject to what one source described as a sustained diplomatic offensive by Britain to try to block the declaration. At one point officials from the British Department for Exiting the EU tried to set up a phone call between Mrs May and Mr Kenny on the issue. However, the officials were told that the phone call would not happen, and that Mr Kenny was sticking to his guns.

RTÉ News also understands there were phone calls to Dublin from the Northern Ireland Office, and calls from Downing Street to European Council officials in Brussels to try to get the declaration delayed until an EU summit at the end of June. Throughout, British officials made it clear that it could damage Mrs May in the middle of an election campaign.

---

It's good to know they were told where to go. :)

I really enjoyed that read yesterday. It's like we always seemed to have the upperhand with the Tories re the north when Kenny was in power. Coveney is likely to be next MinFA. We'll see.

Last time we sent a Cork man to do our bidding; we all know what happened*.













^{*Obviously ignoring Peter Barry and Micheal Martin}

Simon Coveney says the Irish government will insist on post-Brexit "special status" for the north of Ireland: http://www.independent.ie/business/b...-35855713.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Coveney

You have heard talk about the need to ensure that we do not have the re-emergence of a hard border. And some people seem to be talking in the context of using technology to make sure that that isn’t the case. For me that misses the point totally.

This is not about finding a way of avoiding queues on roads, through better use of cameras and people being able to apply online for permits to transit between two jurisdictions. What we are insisting on achieving, is a special status for Northern Ireland that allows the interaction on this island as is currently the case to be maintained as close to the current norm as possible.

It’s not so much about a soft or hard border, it’s about an invisible border effectively that you don’t notice as you cross it, in terms of either physical barriers or indeed other barriers.

---

This seems to represent a welcome change in language and attitude from the government. Coveney's predecessor Charlie Flanagan was always reluctant to use the term "special status", but Coveney is now unequivocal in declaring what the Irish government desires.

Economist David McWilliams writes another piece that comprehensively dismantles unionism's economic case for continued partition, in the Belfast Telegraph, of all places!: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/op...-35865222.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David McWilliams

Immigration is a good indicator of economic success. People move to places where they feel their kids will have a better life. Today in the Republic one in six people are foreign-born. In Northern Ireland it is one in a hundred.

If immigration tells you about foreign people’s choices, direct foreign investment tells you about the choices made by foreign capital. Since the Good Friday Agreement, American corporations alone have invested close to $400 bn (£312bn) in the Republic. This is equivalent to 56 years of the British Government’s annual subvention to keep Northern Ireland afloat!

The dependent nature of the NI economy has become endemic, with handouts from Whitehall replacing the urge to pay for itself. This is evidenced again by the DUP’s approach to propping up May’s government which has nothing to do with making Northern Ireland self-sufficient — in fact, it is nothing more that a subsidy junky’s shopping basket. This will make Northern Ireland’s economy more, not less, fragile.

---

I happened to come across the following video on YouTube of David McWilliams - as a guest on RTÉ's Prime Time back in 2014 - affirming the potential economic viability of Scottish independence:

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

The presenter David McCullagh made a point that also has relevance to the question of the potential economic viability of Irish re-unification. He posed the following to McWilliams:

"[The Scots] pay £53 billion a year in taxes, including oil taxes, and get £65 billion back, so you're starting with a £12 billion deficit..."

Of course, the north of Ireland receives a block grant or subvention of nearly the same amount as Scotland's annual budget deficit every year from Westminster - £10 billion reportedly - and re-unification sceptics or opponents often ask how the south would be able to afford that in the event of re-unification. McWilliams responded to McCullagh as follows in respect of Scotland:

"If you reduce economics to the budget deficit, you're actually putting the cart before the horse. The question is: 'How do you get there and can the Scottish economy be dynamic enough to generate revenue over the course of, let's say, ten years and to reduce its expenditure to narrow that budget deficit?' In actual fact, the budget deficit doesn't matter a lot as long as they can finance themselves and I have no doubt they can."

McWilliams went on in the clip to explain in greater detail why he believed Scotland could finance themselves, but his answer could equally be applied to a re-unified Irish economy.

Also, I think it's worth noting that the subvention received from the UK by the north of Ireland is actually a cost of partition. That doesn't mean that sum will translate into a cost of re-unification for the south in a post-unity scenario. To the contrary, a single, harmonious island economy, rather than two smaller competing economies on the one island, will be well capable of covering and surpassing the present cost of partition. Evidently, it's partition that Ireland really can't afford afford; not re-unification.

Anyway, what I find so intriguing or novel about David McWilliams' very welcome contributions to the Irish re-unification debate is that he primarily comes at it from a rationalist perspective, rather than a romantic, sentimental or cultural one, considering he isn't from what many might regard as a traditionally nationalist or republican background. His grandparents were Scottish Protestants and his wife is an east Belfast Anglican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Anyway, what I find so intriguing or novel about David McWilliams' rationalist perspective...his wife is an east Belfast Anglican

---

Let's hope her irrationalist perspective doesn't influence his articles then...

Kevin Meagher spoke with George Galloway yesterday on the prospect of Irish unity in light of recent events:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ON-x2OfBSU

Meagher feels the DUP's deal with the Tories will make unity more likely. Paraphrasing, he outlines that the money from the DUP-Tory deal is going to be spent on things like underwriting the north's move next year to cut its corporation tax-rate to 12.5 per cent from 18 per cent to try and compete with the south, which obviously has had a much lower corporation tax-rate historically. The idea behind this move, he says, is that American and European investors will think there's not much difference between investing in the north and the south and so will be attracted to the north, but Meagher asserts that "there's not a single economist" of whom he knows that actually thinks the cut in the corporation tax-rate will make "a blind bit of difference" due to additional factors like Brexit and the south's continued access to the Single Market. The south will still remain the more attractive option for international investors, in Meagher's opinion. However, when the north makes the cut, he adds that there is a fiscal deficit that will need to be plugged and that part of the deal this week is about measures to address things like that as well.

Meagher continues:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Meagher

Does that make a united Ireland more or less likely? I think it makes it more likely because a lot of the measures in this package that we've seen in the last 48 hours are there to try and improve and boost Northern Ireland's private sector. At the moment, Northern Ireland is reliant on a subvention from the British exchequer of about £10 billion a year, so its private sector is fairly tight. It's got a very big public sector and a very small private sector....

So, any measures that actually improve Northern Ireland's private sector - improve its competitiveness and its productivity - actually makes it much easier to sell to people in the south of Ireland, to think: 'We can take this place on. It's not a great big economic albatross that we're taking on. Actually, it's a place that's got some prospects.' ... If Northern Ireland starts to wash its face financially and is less reliant on the British exchequer, it makes it much, much easier in the sort of medium term - in the next five years - to integrate Northern Ireland into southern Ireland and have a single Irish state.

---

'Matt Carthy: Unionists have nothing to fear from a united Ireland': http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/matt...72571-Jun2017/

"Selling" the North to the Southern electorate was never gonna be a difficult thing. It would be overwhelmingly approved if it went to a ballot. Reunification is purely emotional thing for a lot of Nationalists. The cost is secondary. If reunification cost a billion a minute, it still wouldn't stop me voting yes.

Selling the South to the Northern Unionist however is a different game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

"Selling" the North to the Southern electorate was never gonna be a difficult thing. It would be overwhelmingly approved if it went to a ballot. Reunification is purely emotional thing for a lot of Nationalists. The cost is secondary. If reunification cost a billion a minute, it still wouldn't stop me voting yes.

Selling the South to the Northern Unionist however is a different game.

---

Not just emotional for many people though. When the cost is taken into account, it gets more complicated:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0304/85...nited-ireland/

Quote:

---

Using estimates from recent British government budget accounts, Ireland Thinks used a rough estimate of €9bn per annum as the cost for reunification.

Asked how they would vote in a referendum if the cost of a united Ireland was €9bn a year 33.1% said they would vote in favour while 32.5% said they would vote against and 34.4% were undecided.

When the undecided are excluded - 50.4% said they would vote in favour, 49.6% said they would vote against.

---

If I were campaigning in a unification referendum, I wouldn't be relying on just the emotional appeal, especially considering the devastating impact an Irish No to Unity vote would have.

I still think it would pass alright in the end.

But I wonder what the fine print of any such referendum would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

But I wonder what the fine print of any such referendum would be.

---

That they can burn all the tri colour painted stacks of pallets they want in bouts of cultural expression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke

That they can burn all the tri colour painted stacks of pallets they want in bouts of cultural expression

---

Aye, them boneys are terrible, such wanton intimidation. Even when they win a photography award...

http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/ima...mage/image.jpg

Anyway, apologies to DI for delay in response to latest long posts- my laptop conked out, which at least is a sign the Gorgeous Galloway filter's working ;)

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?