QuoteWhether unionists (somewhere around 14 per cent of the population of the island of Ireland, as you say) were to be considered part of the Irish nation or not, either way, I would still argue that broad agreement exists within the Irish nation for unity. To be considered part of the Irish nation, however, wouldn't unionists be first expected to accept their birthright entitlement?Originally Posted by Gather round
I generally understand the term to possess negative connotations of unilateral coercion or aggression whereas the clause outlines that unity can "be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people" in both jurisdictions on the island. Thus, unity would be a bilateral decision and unionists should have nothing to be irritated about so long as they support the democratic process.I'll repeat. As long as it aspires to get rid of the border it meets the basic criterion to be irredentist, as simply defined above. Regardless of how formal the GFA, how great its popularity, or how obvious the widespread feeling that the Irish Republic's political institutions and most of its electorate haven't the remotest intention of following it up.
Besides, a significant majority of unionists did vote in favour of the GFA, after all, which is where the clause finds its roots. The territorial claim was "demoted" to an aspiration following mutual agreement with the NI electorate and the UK government. Furthermore, the GFA even describes the aspiration as the "legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland".
If a referendum on Irish unity ever comes around in your lifetime and you happen to be on an electoral register north or south of the border, you'll also be offered a vote on the matter. You'll be perfectly entitled to vote against it.Not really the same thing. If you want to offer me RoI citizenship, fine. I'm not interested but don't mind you offering.
Depends on what you deem the "foreseeable future", although the further away the realisation of unity appears to be would surely do anything but irritate unionists. Not that any time-frame, realistic or otherwise, ought to be placed upon something like that anyway against which its worth, legitimacy or validity as an aspiration be adjudged. Some form or other of complete Irish independence from Britain or repeal of the Act of Union has been an aspiration held by many in Ireland for centuries. I suppose it could prevail for another few if needs be, to be entirely speculative.The constitution is a bit more irritating because it
a) keeps going on about unity by consent when there's no realistic chance of that happening in the foreseeable future
That's arguable, considering harmony, friendship and peace appear to be over-riding concerns in achieving consent. Either way, it's in line with the GFA which stated that "it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people".b) ignores the likelihood that even a notional 50%+1 nationalist majority in NI is unlikely to be widely accepted as consent to a united Ireland, or perceived as fair/ achievable beyond Ireland
I must ask you though why a theoretical democratic majority of 51 per cent in favour of unity wouldn't be considered fair or acceptable, considering those were the terms to which the NI electorate signed up? Democracy's ethos seeks consensus, but not absolute agreement from each and every one of its subjects, so whilst the view that unity would be unacceptable might be widespread within NI, so long as the view was held by no more than 49 per cent of the electorate, it would be of little consequence, in theory at least. And I'm not sure what the perception of those beyond Ireland would have to do with anything so long as the Irish state/electorate, the UK and the NI electorate were in agreement. I'd imagine that international opinion would follow suit - it would be rather uncustomary and indecorous for it not to - so long as the UN or whoever you're referring to exactly were confident that the referendum was conducted in a method that was above board.
I don't profess to be a supporter of either party so more shame to them for being hypocritical, I suppose. I don't think it means that the constitution is self-contradicting, however. Would unionists rather they did contest elections in NI then in the interests of being faithful to their word?c) is implicitly self-contradicting as above: if FG and FF and their supporters were that bothered you might have expected them to seek electoral support in NI sometime in the last 85 years. But they haven't.
It most certainly does. Have another read of the particular clause we're discussing if you wish. Their opinion will also be taken into account.
Bookmarks