A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

[seafoid]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/09/12/trump-united-ireland-would-be-a-great-thing/
Donald Trump said he would "love" to see a united Ireland in an extraordinary intervention into one of the UK's most sensitive topics.
During a press conference with Micheal Martin, Ireland's taoiseach, in Dublin, Mr Trump said that a united Ireland was inevitable and would be a "great thing".
"Well, I don't want ⁠to cause any problems, but I will tell you, I'd love to see it unified," the US president told reporters.

[Torcrua]

Trump saying he would "love" to see a united Ireland is some intervention, particularly given the sensitivity of the issue and the fact that it is ultimately a matter for the people of Ireland to decide.

Whether you agree with him or not, his comments are bound to stir things up. A united Ireland is no longer some distant political talking point it is a very real conversation, and one that will probably become even more prominent over the coming years.

The interesting part for me is the word "inevitable." That is a pretty strong statement to make on an issue that remains deeply divisive.

Personally, I think any future constitutional change has to be decided democratically and with proper respect for both traditions. But Trump's comments certainly add another layer to an already fascinating debate.

What do people make of it significant intervention, or just Trump being Trump?

[MrsBinfield]

I didn't argue against anything.
Just stated a fact.
If I was to keep repeating "Border poll now" maybe the Army Council would appoint me leader of Sinn Féin?

Throwing in references to the IRA army council now? Oh dear. When Meehole goes, I think you're a shoo-in.

The references to Army Council don't help. I agree with you there. But it's hardly a one-sided issue. Plenty of references to quislings etc from the other side of the debate. When we see people resort to that type of name calling we can be sure that they have very little constructive to add to the debate and probably a weak enough understanding of the issues.

[MrsBinfield]

Does anybody see zero role for a NI/6 Counties/North of Ireland/The North assembly and a power sharing executive in the new united Ireland?

[Rossfan]

There will be some form of "home rule' there.
Then ye can continue yer separate education system, motor reg plates, keep an International soccer team , enter Commonwealth games etc.
Not to mention dual nationality under GFA.

[Armagh18]

There will be some form of "home rule' there.
Then ye can continue yer separate education system, motor reg plates, keep an International soccer team , enter Commonwealth games etc.
Not to mention dual nationality under GFA.

So stay the way it is now?

Stormont about as much use as a chocolate teapot, can't think of anyone that be sad to see it go bar the ones getting £ out of it lol

[MrsBinfield]

There will be some form of "home rule' there.
Then ye can continue yer separate education system, motor reg plates, keep an International soccer team , enter Commonwealth games etc.
Not to mention dual nationality under GFA.

So stay the way it is now?

Stormont about as much use as a chocolate teapot, can't think of anyone that be sad to see it go bar the ones getting £ out of it lol

I agree with your analysis of the performance of Stormont. But that is a separate point.

I think everyone agrees on the following 2 points.

1) the only path to a united ireland is that partially outlined in the GFA ie 2 synchronous referenda.
2) the GFA ascribes the role of calling for the northern referendum to the Secretary of State (and by implication to the UK government or its successor).

These points alone preclude the idea that a northern referendum could ever be called without a water tight guarantee that the rights of a minority would be protected via power sharing, whatever the outcome.

When projecting what a new Ireland would look like I think we would do well to bear this in mind. Assuming that UK/USA/EU are operating on the basis that the agreement they are bound to uphold is founded on the basis that power sharing in NI only holds during the era when Unionists are in the majority is at best foolhardy. Equally foolhardy is to assume that those "in the centre" who could be persuaded either way in a northern referendum (and potentially in a southern referendum also) would not look for some reassurance that northern unionism would not be consigned to powerless position whilst northern nationalism gets the opportunity to repeat all of unionism's earlier mistakes.

[armaghniac]

There will be some form of "home rule' there.
Then ye can continue yer separate education system, motor reg plates, keep an International soccer team , enter Commonwealth games etc.
Not to mention dual nationality under GFA.

So stay the way it is now?

Stormont about as much use as a chocolate teapot, can't think of anyone that be sad to see it go bar the ones getting £ out of it lol

I agree with your analysis of the performance of Stormont. But that is a separate point.

I think everyone agrees on the following 2 points.

1) the only path to a united ireland is that partially outlined in the GFA ie 2 synchronous referenda.
2) the GFA ascribes the role of calling for the northern referendum to the Secretary of State (and by implication to the UK government or its successor).

These points alone preclude the idea that a northern referendum could ever be called without a water tight guarantee that the rights of a minority would be protected via power sharing, whatever the outcome.

When projecting what a new Ireland would look like I think we would do well to bear this in mind. Assuming that UK/USA/EU are operating on the basis that the agreement they are bound to uphold is founded on the basis that power sharing in NI only holds during the era when Unionists are in the majority is at best foolhardy. Equally foolhardy is to assume that those "in the centre" who could be persuaded either way in a northern referendum (and potentially in a southern referendum also) would not look for some reassurance that northern unionism would not be consigned to powerless position whilst northern nationalism gets the opportunity to repeat all of unionism's earlier mistakes.

What we do not what is a Stormont where a minority of unionists are blocking every bloody thing. Unionists have influence in a UI because they make up a bloc that can decide coalitions etc. They have considerably more votes than the province of Connacht.

[MrsBinfield]

There will be some form of "home rule' there.
Then ye can continue yer separate education system, motor reg plates, keep an International soccer team , enter Commonwealth games etc.
Not to mention dual nationality under GFA.

So stay the way it is now?

Stormont about as much use as a chocolate teapot, can't think of anyone that be sad to see it go bar the ones getting £ out of it lol

I agree with your analysis of the performance of Stormont. But that is a separate point.

I think everyone agrees on the following 2 points.

1) the only path to a united ireland is that partially outlined in the GFA ie 2 synchronous referenda.
2) the GFA ascribes the role of calling for the northern referendum to the Secretary of State (and by implication to the UK government or its successor).

These points alone preclude the idea that a northern referendum could ever be called without a water tight guarantee that the rights of a minority would be protected via power sharing, whatever the outcome.

When projecting what a new Ireland would look like I think we would do well to bear this in mind. Assuming that UK/USA/EU are operating on the basis that the agreement they are bound to uphold is founded on the basis that power sharing in NI only holds during the era when Unionists are in the majority is at best foolhardy. Equally foolhardy is to assume that those "in the centre" who could be persuaded either way in a northern referendum (and potentially in a southern referendum also) would not look for some reassurance that northern unionism would not be consigned to powerless position whilst northern nationalism gets the opportunity to repeat all of unionism's earlier mistakes.

What we do not what is a Stormont where a minority of unionists are blocking every bloody thing. Unionists have influence in a UI because they make up a bloc that can decide coalitions etc. They have considerably more votes than the province of Connacht.

I would suggest that the likelihood of US/EU and more importantly UK (or its successor) being convinced by that argument is zero. And without the latter (and probably all 3) being convinced you won't get your northern referendum. My prediction is that a better answer will be required and the work that goes into working out what a new Ireland looks like will have to tease this out. My sense is that a new Ireland will have to accommodate a Northern Ireland and power-sharing within it. That shouldn't deter people from pursuing a UI. Ireland is by and large, a modern and forward looking place. These things are all achievable but people pretending that there won't be a NI or power sharing are not really engaging in the real debate.

[weareros]

It will have to be cold turkey. Bin Stormont. Unionists will eventually enjoy the Dáil and the power it brings, just like they never shy to hop on a plane for St. Paddy's Day in Washington. In Stormont they have crumbs and all they can do is debate on identity/culture and events of no relevance to their department, while the MPs only ever speak to an empty house of commons, not surprising because the English/Scots/Welsh don't want to listen to their auld blather about the windsor framework and the "sangle" market for the thousandth time.

[armaghniac]

There will be some form of "home rule' there.
Then ye can continue yer separate education system, motor reg plates, keep an International soccer team , enter Commonwealth games etc.
Not to mention dual nationality under GFA.

So stay the way it is now?

Stormont about as much use as a chocolate teapot, can't think of anyone that be sad to see it go bar the ones getting £ out of it lol

I agree with your analysis of the performance of Stormont. But that is a separate point.

I think everyone agrees on the following 2 points.

1) the only path to a united ireland is that partially outlined in the GFA ie 2 synchronous referenda.
2) the GFA ascribes the role of calling for the northern referendum to the Secretary of State (and by implication to the UK government or its successor).

These points alone preclude the idea that a northern referendum could ever be called without a water tight guarantee that the rights of a minority would be protected via power sharing, whatever the outcome.

When projecting what a new Ireland would look like I think we would do well to bear this in mind. Assuming that UK/USA/EU are operating on the basis that the agreement they are bound to uphold is founded on the basis that power sharing in NI only holds during the era when Unionists are in the majority is at best foolhardy. Equally foolhardy is to assume that those "in the centre" who could be persuaded either way in a northern referendum (and potentially in a southern referendum also) would not look for some reassurance that northern unionism would not be consigned to powerless position whilst northern nationalism gets the opportunity to repeat all of unionism's earlier mistakes.

What we do not what is a Stormont where a minority of unionists are blocking every bloody thing. Unionists have influence in a UI because they make up a bloc that can decide coalitions etc. They have considerably more votes than the province of Connacht.

I would suggest that the likelihood of US/EU and more importantly UK (or its successor) being convinced by that argument is zero. And without the latter (and probably all 3) being convinced you won't get your northern referendum. My prediction is that a better answer will be required and the work that goes into working out what a new Ireland looks like will have to tease this out. My sense is that a new Ireland will have to accommodate a Northern Ireland and power-sharing within it. That shouldn't deter people from pursuing a UI. Ireland is by and large, a modern and forward looking place. These things are all achievable but people pretending that there won't be a NI or power sharing are not really engaging in the real debate.

People can have rights, and a new agreement can be proposed. But we cannot have a scenario where a minority at Stormont can thwart that something a majority voted for by have a veto on every individual change as it arises.

[Rossfan]

It would be a glorified County Council type thing with 50 members.
If we're having a Confederacy of the 2 existing areas (after c120 years of Partition) the 26 would have a similar "Home Rule" Dáil with around 75 seats.
All major issues would be reserved to the Confederacy and its  Congress/Assembly/Senate.

[MrsBinfield]

It will have to be cold turkey. Bin Stormont. Unionists will eventually enjoy the Dáil and the power it brings, just like they never shy to hop on a plane for St. Paddy's Day in Washington. In Stormont they have crumbs and all they can do is debate on identity/culture and events of no relevance to their department, while the MPs only ever speak to an empty house of commons, not surprising because the English/Scots/Welsh don't want to listen to their auld blather about the windsor framework and the "sangle" market for the thousandth time.

If that was the attitude that US/EU/UK were confronted with (and I'm not saying it is/will be) then there would never be a united ireland as the referendum would never take place.

This is why there is going to need to be a discussion on what a new Ireland looks like. Anthems and football teams will come up and no doubt be contentious but they are not remotely close to the real meat of this. If you ponder this for a while you will probably see why no party has yet set out any detail of what it would look like.

[MrsBinfield]

There will be some form of "home rule' there.
Then ye can continue yer separate education system, motor reg plates, keep an International soccer team , enter Commonwealth games etc.
Not to mention dual nationality under GFA.

So stay the way it is now?

Stormont about as much use as a chocolate teapot, can't think of anyone that be sad to see it go bar the ones getting £ out of it lol

I agree with your analysis of the performance of Stormont. But that is a separate point.

I think everyone agrees on the following 2 points.

1) the only path to a united ireland is that partially outlined in the GFA ie 2 synchronous referenda.
2) the GFA ascribes the role of calling for the northern referendum to the Secretary of State (and by implication to the UK government or its successor).

These points alone preclude the idea that a northern referendum could ever be called without a water tight guarantee that the rights of a minority would be protected via power sharing, whatever the outcome.

When projecting what a new Ireland would look like I think we would do well to bear this in mind. Assuming that UK/USA/EU are operating on the basis that the agreement they are bound to uphold is founded on the basis that power sharing in NI only holds during the era when Unionists are in the majority is at best foolhardy. Equally foolhardy is to assume that those "in the centre" who could be persuaded either way in a northern referendum (and potentially in a southern referendum also) would not look for some reassurance that northern unionism would not be consigned to powerless position whilst northern nationalism gets the opportunity to repeat all of unionism's earlier mistakes.

What we do not what is a Stormont where a minority of unionists are blocking every bloody thing. Unionists have influence in a UI because they make up a bloc that can decide coalitions etc. They have considerably more votes than the province of Connacht.

I would suggest that the likelihood of US/EU and more importantly UK (or its successor) being convinced by that argument is zero. And without the latter (and probably all 3) being convinced you won't get your northern referendum. My prediction is that a better answer will be required and the work that goes into working out what a new Ireland looks like will have to tease this out. My sense is that a new Ireland will have to accommodate a Northern Ireland and power-sharing within it. That shouldn't deter people from pursuing a UI. Ireland is by and large, a modern and forward looking place. These things are all achievable but people pretending that there won't be a NI or power sharing are not really engaging in the real debate.

People can have rights, and a new agreement can be proposed. But we cannot have a scenario where a minority at Stormont can thwart that something a majority voted for by have a veto on every individual change as it arises.

Devils advocate here but if there was a total refusal of Unionism to engage in a power sharing discussion and they simply had a voting majority in NI hand hung on to majority rule instead of power sharing under GFA where would we be?

It's not feasible to say there has to be power sharing in NI when there is a nationalist minority but not when there is a nationalist majority. The signatories and guarantors wouldn't  accept it. We have to deal with the real world.

[MrsBinfield]

It would be a glorified County Council type thing with 50 members.
If we're having a Confederacy of the 2 existing areas (after c120 years of Partition) the 26 would have a similar "Home Rule" Dáil with around 75 seats.
All major issues would be reserved to the Confederacy and its  Congress/Assembly/Senate.

it already is a glorified county council. But is likely to remain so, rather than be wished away in a new Ireland.