"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement

I think Scottish Independence, if it happened, might move the dial. The union would be essentially done. For a PUL point of view their historical origins would be out of the union. You'd imagine the English might be sensing a chance to offload NI, maybe some "not alone have we no selfish interest in NI, we absolutely want to withdraw all involvement at the earliest opportunity", maybe some budget slashing, to convince enough that their fate would be better within a 32. So I'm inclined to let that play out before getting too invested in UI possibilities. We're probably at the high point of Brexit/Protocal disillusionment, they patch a few bits and pieces, the DUP will eventually take their beating (hopefully at the ballot box), and hype about UI starts to recede.
 
Wants to retain Stormont - no. Wants to have guaranteed seats - why?

We are a country of religious freedom and property rights and EU legislation at every turn - if there is a UI there's nothing that will set aside those rights and norms. Do protestants in the 26 have guarantees of this and that?, do they need them?

Above all, Stormont has to die, the eternal bunfight must end, keeping it is just perpetuating the cycle. Let unionists be coalition partners in a 32 county arrangement, their needs will be well looked after in the coalition structure in the 32.
 
Betsy Og said:
Wants to retain Stormont - no. Wants to have guaranteed seats - why?
Click to expand...

It's pure tokenism on the part of O'Connor. He is not saying anything that he could not have been saying for 40yrs, but chose not to. There is good reason, its nonsense.

The only thing of significance is that he is saying it now. Its simply a sign of how the topic of a UI has breached the banks of SF and has become part of the general discourse across the political spectrum.
 
At least SF are being honest. UI will be a very cold place for unionists. They (the unionists) are not fooled by the weasel words from well meaning Southern players such as Jack of parity of esteem for them in that eventuality.
So let's be honest, it would be utter madness for any unionist to vote for UI. And as for a section of the Catholic middle classes, especially that significant proportion receiving British pensions, its all very well to wave your tricolour in an opinion poll but when it comes to the real thing??

And another thing. Despite the € having done well against £ in its short lifetime, it has a poor reputation and the folk in NI, both Catholic and Protestant, do like to see the Queen's head on their currency (again easily dismissed in an opinion poll). In fact this €/£ thing will also doom Scottish Indyref 2.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
At least SF are being honest. UI will be a very cold place for unionists.
Click to expand...
What exactly are SF being honest about?

I don't believe a UI will be a cold place for unionists, I think the warm winds from the south will usher in an era of regular politics. At the moment they're fighting with SF over everything everyday. Will SF necessarily be in government in the 32?, they'd surely get the euphoria bounce, but I'm not convinced about their abilities - I think they're one term in government away from being back in "the pack" - hurling from the ditch is all well and good, they don't like getting pulled up on the record north of the border, there'll be no shirking what they do (or don't do) when in government in the South.

Do you not think unionists would get more fair play from Labour, FG, FF than they do from SF?

p.s. I don't think we'll ever convince unionists of same, that's why I don't believe we should move off 50% +1. It'll just have to be a pleasant surprise for them when/if/ever it happens. Anything more than a simple majority stinks of unionist veto by another name.
 
Betsy Og said:
What exactly are SF being honest about?
Click to expand...
None of this "shared island", guaranteed ministries, 12th a national holiday, Pied Piper pallaver.

It could be argued that the whole UI question has become almost entirely symbolic, little more than a Celtic/Rangers match (not to belittle that bunfight). We are a long distance from 1912 when unionists could genuinely fear Home Rule as being Rome Rule. And we are a long way from when the six counties was ruled by a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people.
I agree we can't move the goalposts. As I mentioned before I think the goalposts (SoS thinks Yes is "likely") makes the goalposts narrow enough to make a very close Yes result "unlikely".
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
We are a long distance from 1912
Click to expand...

I would argue that is not so the case.
There are two tribal, and to all intents and purposes, immovable positions.
The Union with Britain and the 'firm will' of a UI. The Union has deeper roots because it is a reality. The UI is aspirational and, like Brexit, we dont know what it means, other than it is something the vast majority here would like to see.

The principle source of contention for Unionists in 1912 was the prospect of being a minority in a Catholic dominated society and government.
These fears are no longer credible. Prepared now to share power with their Catholic neighbours in NI, being a 'minority' on the basis of religious denomination is not a plausible cause for fear any more.

Duke of Marmalade said:
to make a very close Yes result "unlikely".
Click to expand...

While polls on a UI in the North indicate a consistent majority to remain in the union there is method to the 'madness' of pro-UI's wanting to hold a poll despite the apparent inevitable defeat.

It is important to note that the DUP have still not signed up to GFA and have not tied themselves to the principle of consent . They are very much in the 'things far stronger than (parliamentary) majorities' when it comes to NI status within the UK.
Meaning, the best outcome for them to a border poll on a UI is not a rejection of a UI, but to never hold a poll in the first instance.
They need to be challenged on this.

It's also why Jack O'Connors intervention is derisory. As if the last 100-400yrs was centred around a few seats at cabinet.
What a clown!
Trying to convince Unionists of a united Ireland will mean constitutional guarantees of irradicable ties to the British Crown and Her Majestys government. Trying to coerce Unionists into an independent Irish Republic will be about as successful as Unionists attempts to brow-beat Nationalists that 'Ulster is British!' for the last 100yrs.

The framework for a United Ireland already exists, it was derived over a 100yrs ago when the vast majority of Irish people on the whole island were content with remaining in the UK. All they sought was a parliament of their own to govern themselves.

The principle of consent has been established, but it needs to be applied.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
None of this "shared island", guaranteed ministries, 12th a national holiday, Pied Piper pallaver.
Click to expand...
I heard Mary Lou on that it can't just be adding the 6 to the 26, so I think she's able to espouse "Shared Island" as good as the best of us. I do think the 12th should be national holiday in the 26, United Irishmen Day. We're short a bank holiday in July, we have May, June & August, just need 1 more.
 
@Betsy Og Know them by what they say in the early morning after an election victory. If there ever was a Yes vote in a border poll, the "Up the 'Ra" shouts would be deafening.
 
Attempting to frame this issue in the manner of SF v rest is way off track.
SF have not a snowballs chance in hell of delivering a UI by way of a majority decision North and South. They know that, everyone knows that.

What SF are good at is keeping the issue of a UI on the agenda. By virtue of their presence on an All Ireland basis they have, from the get-go of the Brexit result, argued for NI as a special status.
It has forced the "now is not the right time" brigade to get the finger out and face up to the centuries old division the prevails on this island.
But any UI, for the foreseeable future, will require compromise from all positions.

SF want a 32 county socialist republic. But they have already shown that they will compromise by entering Stormont, a parliament under British rule.

How much would the partitionists in the South be willing to compromise? In the face of growing momentum for a border poll, what would FF and FG envision that would look like?
Vradakar has made the point that Bunreacht na hÉireann is a Constitution for an Irish Ireland. Where are the cast iron constitutional rights of one million Protestants that identify as British in that document?

The Constitution, the political structures of Ireland would have to go under profound change.
How much would the 80% pro-UI votes in the South be willing to compromise of the 'Irish Republic' in order to accommodate the Unionist community into a United Ireland?
 
We changed it before (the constitution), Art 2 &3 for the GFA, we'll change it again. Is the special status for the catholic church still in there?, I'd have zero problems with that going if its still there.

Beyond that you've flag, anthem etc etc, all superficial stuff - do you think the union flag will be replaced on the 12th with the new Ireland flag?, I doubt it but I don't care one way or the other. Likewise for many the tricolour and Amhrán na bFhiann will always be their choice. The only thing that causes me concern is the cost and how its paid for, but it wouldn't change my voting choice.
 
Betsy Og said:
Art 2 &3 for the GFA, we'll change it again
Click to expand...

Yes, but to what? Would you be prepared to accept an Irish Constitution that was based on Republican ideals of democracy and equality for all citizens but acknowledging the subordination of the All Ireland Parliament to the British monarch?

An Irish President (or viceroy), but only of the Parliament, required to take an oath of allegiance to the British monarch?
In return, an All Ireland parliament?
 
Wolfie, I dunno where you are going with this. Scotland will probably vote out (almost certainly will eventually) - there's stronger demographics on this one than NI. England has no interest high up or low down in Ireland. Even if we wanted to attach ourselves to some sort of UK union I don't think there'd be anyone there to meet us by the time there's a UI vote.

And anyway, why would we want to?, there's no preconditions on a 50%+1 vote in the 6 for a UI. Would I go along with it to have the 20% tail wag the 80% dog? - No. The limit of grand gestures would be Commonwealth ..... through gritted teeth. There's nothing for fear in a UI, if like Arlene they don't want to stick around to find out, well we have no lawful basis for detaining them.
 
In 1973 there was a border poll in NI. Nationalists boycotted it. The IRA planted bombs in London the day of the poll. Why is it that today the IRA want a poll? Surely they don’t think they can win.
 
Last edited:
@Betsy Og fair enough. I suppose my point is that at the two extreme ends of the equation there is the pursuit of an independent Irish Republic ala 1916 Proclaimation and there is the 'Ulster is British, No Surrender'.

Somewhere in between there is formula of political engagement and compromise that will be enough to swing the NI vote to 50%+1 for a UI, but would such a formula be enough to sustain a 50%+1 in the South.
In other words, for compromise, some unpalatable sacrifices will have to be made.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm "easy" about there being a UI, if NI was functioning fine with an open border then hey ho, isn't that dandy. We've a grand country here and if ye want to join it then fine, we'll redecorate a bit and such. But I'm not interested in major contortions to try to get a UI quickly, it'll come in its own time.....or not.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Why is it that today that the IRA want a poll? Surely they don’t think they can
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before, while the principle of consent has been established, it has not been applied.
The 1973 border poll, like Brexit, was not binding.
Nationalists boycotted it,
- number of polling stations reduced
- constituency analysis suppressed
- bias over postal votes.

The problem with such a poll is that even in the event of an unlikely vote for a UI, it was not legally binding and as such there would be requirement to actually follow through on it.

The DUP have never signed up to the principle of consent with regard to NI status within the UK. To them, NI is as British as Finchley. They very much lean on the sentiments of 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland

"....that all Papists and persons marrying Papists shall be excluded from and for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part thereof And in every such case the Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person being a Protestant as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case such Papists or person marrying a Papist was naturally dead according to the provision for the Descent of the Crown of England made by another Act of Parliament "

The GFA has legally binding provisions for the govt of UK to implement necessary measures along with the govt of Ireland. The DUP have not signed up to this and in the event of a 50%+1 vote for a UI it is unlikely that the DUP and that block of Unionism that supports it, will accept the result.
 
A 50%+1 will however be sufficient reason for the UK (if it still then exists) to stop writing the cheques & wash its hands of the whole thing. No cheques no union no choice. We'll be lucky if we're not presented with this ultimatum before we're ever ready for a border poll.

English nationalism has risen, if Scotland escapes then in a wave of bitterness it'll be 'England First' and 'Why are we paying for NI?'
 
@WolfeTone My question was a simple one and not trying to score points. I didn’t expect a reply referencing the 1701 Act of Union.
The 1973 poll was boycotted by Nationalists because everyone knew what the result would be and it was therefore seen as a propaganda weapon.
The IRA are now wild keen for a border poll. Do they think there will be a different result from 1973? I could similarly ask why unionists are so against it when they relished the 1973 poll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register