Discussion on a United or re-partitioned Ireland

**BonnieShels** · 11/04/2013, 11:50 AM

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

http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligib...18#post1677818

**culloty82** · 11/04/2013, 12:19 PM

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

**Sleepingpartner** · 11/04/2013, 1:27 PM

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

**geysir** · 11/04/2013, 8:40 PM

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

**DannyInvincible** · 12/04/2013, 1:10 AM

Originally Posted by Gather round

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

Ah, to convince the Secretary of State? Possibly. 51 per cent (edit: sorry, 50 per cent plus one; cheers, Fly!

) would be enough in any referendum though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Charlie Darwin** · 12/04/2013, 1:34 AM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

You formerly insisted that 51 per cent of the north's electorate voting in favour of Irish unity would not be sufficient for the motion to pass as the concern of a majority of unionists would also have to be considered.

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

**DannyInvincible** · 12/04/2013, 2:01 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

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

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

**Charlie Darwin** · 12/04/2013, 2:07 AM

Yeah, but is it appropriate?

**The Fly** · 12/04/2013, 3:02 AM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

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

It's 50% +1 chaps.

**The Fly** · 12/04/2013, 3:42 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Yeah, but is it appropriate?

I take it you mean is it desirable?

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

**Charlie Darwin** · 12/04/2013, 3:49 AM

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

**The Fly** · 12/04/2013, 4:13 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

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

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

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

**DannyInvincible** · 12/04/2013, 5:52 AM

Originally Posted by The Fly

It's 50% +1 chaps.

Fly educates the south.

**DannyInvincible** · 12/04/2013, 6:02 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

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

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

**The Fly** · 12/04/2013, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Fly educates the south.

It's Da South Danny.

**BonnieShels** · 12/04/2013, 11:44 AM

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

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

**gastric** · 12/04/2013, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

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

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

I would share the same sentiment Bonnie!

**BonnieShels** · 12/04/2013, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by gastric

I would share the same sentiment Bonnie!

Then you better get home for the inevitable campaign.

**Charlie Darwin** · 12/04/2013, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

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

**punkrocket** · 12/04/2013, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

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

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

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