The 'unionist minority'

[Lar Naparka]

Lar Naparka, interesting post which seems to say that your position would be to achieve a majority and then let the reconciliation work begin in earnest before there would be a single Irish state.

No, Roger, that is not quite what I intended to convey.

I feel that the mere act of a minority unionist vote being returned won't guarantee that a single state Ireland will inevitably follow on.
I am concerned that many Nationalists do not seem to have any coherent plan about what will happen after that vote takes place. Unionists, by and large, seem to accept that they will be in a minority situation sometime in the future but, so far, appear reticent about what they would expect or accept whenever that day may come.
I don't wish to upset anyone in the north of the country when I say that a minority unionist vote in any future vote in any constitutional referendum may very well signal the end of the present union with Britain. That's fine but it doesn't automatically imply that a merger with the Republic is a given- unless we in the south have indicated our prior willingness to do so.
In my last post, I felt it unnecessary to point out that voters in such a referendum must have the implications of the vote clearly spelt out for them before coming within sight of a polling booth. That would include an idea of what to expect when the result was returned.
Negotiations would certainly need to be conducted between all parties concerned if a Nationalist majority was achieved. But they should commence the vote occurs. Otherwise, all voters in NI would be buying a pig in a poke.

The Republic's policy now seems to be a bit more sedated on this, as does the SDLPs, but I don't see the point in promoting something in such a way that makes its ultimate goal even more difficult in the future whilst making life on both sides pretty shite now.

I think it is understandable that lives on both sides are pretty shite now but I don't accept that this is the fault of those of us who live in the Republic.
Yes, the Republic's policy has naturally become more sedated as the possibility of some form of a UI becomes a probability. It's now time for caution and mature consideration for us!
There is another reason; in the aftermath of the GFA and official recognition that parity of esteem be extended to all members of the non-Unionist community, our concern at the plight of our fellow-Nationalists has eased somewhat.
I don't wish to annoy anyone, Nationalist or Unionist, on this matter but I think our consensus in the south is that we'll wait and see what transpires in NI and what progress is made at reconciliation and cooperation there before committing ourselves to anything.
IMO, we honestly harbour no grudges or ill will against any community that shares the island with us and we have no designs on subjugating anyone.
I know, Roger, that many of your fellow-Unionists might not trust what I say but, believe me; we don't spend too much time thinking about it or scheming to your disadvantage either.
We have quite enough f**king problems of our own to contend with to worry about oppressing anyone else!

[Roger]

the economies are very different, ni has a sizeable public service for a start. as for richer/poorer all i would venture is that they would come closer together over time

I would think that a merger would be worse for all in Ireland. Do you feel that people in the ROI are currently wealthier? I'm no economist but it seems to me that people in the ROI are paid more but pay out more and this has been the result of benefiting excessively from a boom which was one overinflated bubble that has now burst.  Recent commentary like this http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/irelands-celtic-tiger-may-be-gone-for-good-14303316.html or this http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/firms-here-surviving-.htmlssion-better-than-in-republic-14306143.html don't fill me with any envy of the economic success and wealth in the south.  UK regions such as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are as you say all bolstered by disproportionately larger public sector employment which is a distinct economic advantage albeit one that has to reduce imo.

because just like there are nuts on the nationalist side that think its ok to murder if it suits there would be similar ones on the unionist side if the shoe was on the other foot

I personally don't believe there would be enough support from unionists for the nutters that endorse terror campaigns.  These nutters were consistently rejected by the vast majority of unionists over the last 40 years and I can't see that increasing ever.

[armaghniac]

The ROI had 10 years of genuine economic progress followed by 5 years of more modest real economic progress together with an amount of unreal economic progress caused by the property boom. This unreal bit is now disappearing. Britain had less real growth and a smaller unreal growth in this period, this too is gone. But as Roger said Scotland, NI and Wales get a lot of public spending, they get this because they are below average in the UK context. The UK is based on policies suitable for England, recently only the city of London and spreading the tax collected in England to the Celtic fringe. There are two points about this, NI can not surpass England in this model and in the future the enormous debt will mean that high public spending will not last. In a UI there is no reason why the Eastern part of the 6 counties should not be prosperous as the Dublin and Cork areas are now and even if the the Western part is less prosperous it can only benefit from the elimination of the border.

I don't agree with Lar Naparka about the Republic being an obstacle, the German example is relevant, considerable sentiment can arise if the opportunity arises. I do agree with Roger about the parties in the North not having a plan, SF in particular is a party of protest with no idea whatsoever about being responsible for something, which is why they'll never do well in 26 county elections.

[Roger]

Lar Naparka, again an interesting post.  Hard to reply to such a long post but the bits I would comment on /query are these...

I feel that the mere act of a minority unionist vote being returned won't guarantee that a single state Ireland will inevitably follow on.

When Aherne was the Chief (can't spell the Gaelic Irish name and am worried Rossfan be offended as there's no such word in English  ) in the ROI he stated that 50% plus one vote would kick this off.  It didn't seem that it was something that he would be hanging about on. Has the mood changed?  

I don't wish to upset anyone in the north of the country when I say that a minority unionist vote in any future vote in any constitutional referendum may very well signal the end of the present union with Britain. That's fine but it doesn't automatically imply that a merger with the Republic is a given- unless we in the south have indicated our prior willingness to do so.

Is there a feeling in the ROI now that it might not be such a good idea?  The irredentist policies and outlook of that state point towards the necessity and whilst it has now been reduced to a constitutional "aspiration"  needing endorsement by the people of the Republic, it would be flabberghasting to conceive that if the UK said "The democratic wish of the people of NI is granted" and the Republic tried to stuff the genie back in the bottle saying "We need to think about this".  

Otherwise, all voters in NI would be buying a pig in a poke.

I agree.  Would you agree that that is exactly what nationalists are currently selling?

I think it is understandable that lives on both sides are pretty shite now but I don't accept that this is the fault of those of us who live in the Republic.

I don't think lives in the Republic are adversly affected as they have largely ceased to overtly agitate and you claim that people aren't really interested.  However, in Northern Ireland we have people who agitate like mad and haven't even thought the thing out and articulated what it is they agitating for. That's what I meant by shite ie creating division and ill-feeling about something that isn't really understood or presented as a credible alternative.

I don't wish to annoy anyone, Nationalist or Unionist, on this matter but I think our consensus in the south is that we'll wait and see what transpires in NI and what progress is made at reconciliation and cooperation there before committing ourselves to anything.

This would be extraorindary if the feeling in the Republic had changed to actually contemplating not seeking "a nation once again" for selfish reasons which would probably be mostly economic although it would be also because they don't fancy having 1m unionists entering the Political arena in the Republic.  I don't see it myself.  I think it's part of the psyche that would result in patriotic fervour even if that meant the heart ruling the head regardless.

IMO, we honestly harbour no grudges or ill will against any community that shares the island with us and we have no designs on subjugating anyone.
I know, Roger, that many of your fellow-Unionists might not trust what I say but, believe me; we don't spend too much time thinking about it or scheming to your disadvantage either.
We have quite enough f**king problems of our own to contend with to worry about oppressing anyone else!

I suppose that depends on who "we" is regarding harbouring grudges but I'll accept your own position but don't think it is apparent to many unionists that that is the commonly held position of those in the Republic. If it is the case I'm glad because as a convinced unuonist (and I intend no offense by this) I believe it is better not to concern yourself with something that isn't any of your business in the first place.

[Rossfan]

Chief (can't spell the Gaelic Irish name and am worried Rossfan be offended as there's no such word in English  )

T  A  O  I  S  E A C H

[Lar Naparka]

Fair enough, Roger, my posts on this topic have been quite long but there has been a lot of ground to cover and while I normally don't partake on the normal us vs. them topics, I thoughtsome observations might be in order here.
I can sum up what I have been saying reasonably briefly:
When Bertie Ahern was Taoiseach, he did say what you referred to. He was implying that the Republic would be ready to begin the process of negotiation if and when a vote in to end the Union was carried.
Notice we are talking about 'negotiation' here and not about making claims to walk in and take over the show. You may very well feel that claims from the Republic were fairly belligerent in times gone by. But I would ask that they should be judged in the context of their times.
"A Protestant State for a Protestant People," may be a misquotation of Craigavon's famous response to De Valera but thiswas how it was interpreted down south.
The vast majority of northern Nationalists would have had reason to feel aggrieved at their treatment in the early decades of the Union.
Whatever Craigavon may have actually said, in practice it was clearly a case of a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Most Nationalists of the time would be quick to acknowledge this.
My point is that the casting of blame works both ways and if, as you say, Dev was a divisive figure in Irish history, he was certainly matched in bigotry and intransigence by his counterparts at Stormont.
Ahern was a party to the GFA negotiations, as was Blair and other concerned parties.

The position as understood by all sides is that a vote of 50% +1 would be enough to signal the end of the present Union .Ahern has merely reiterated that the Republic is ready to stand by its obligations and will be prepared to enter negotiations when the time comes.
He did not state anywhere that the Republic would be waiting in the wings, ready to move in and take over the show.
I am confident that I am representing a popular view down here when I say that we are upset that both parties in the north appear to take us for granted. If and when the vote Ahern referred to occurs, we should not be taken for granted.
I do think a referendum in the Republic would be comfortably carried- if the wording was appropriate.
I agree with Roger that the Nationalists up north do not appear to have formulated any coherent set of proposals as to what should follow an ending of the Union. Unionists also seem to have no position to fall back on if the vote should be lost.
What are we expected to feel down here, I would ask.
Is it not reasonable for us to feel concerned at entering some sort of merger with the parties in the north, if we have no clear indication of what we are being expected to do?
Armaghniac, my point about the German model is that West Germans did not see their long-separated brethren as equals in any way. It was a financial damage limitation exercise from beginning to end.
They did not let sentiment or compassion of any sort get in their way as they went about closing down uneconomic factories and other businesses in order to stop the liberated region being a financial drain on their resources.

[slow corner back]

There is a quote from Jamie Delargy in todays Irish news that states 15% of all GDP in Africa is outside state aid in NI it is 25%. Anyone who thinks NI is any other than an economic basket case is dreaming. With a major recession here already and the UK economy in trouble for the next 10 years at least I can see huge slashes in the NI budget from Mr Cameron when he gets into power in 12 months time. The recession is already here in NI and it is going to be long and deep.

[Myles Na G.]

Fair enough, Roger, my posts on this topic have been quite long but there has been a lot of ground to cover and while I normally don't partake on the normal us vs. them topics, I thoughtsome observations might be in order here.
I can sum up what I have been saying reasonably briefly:
When Bertie Ahern was Taoiseach, he did say what you referred to. He was implying that the Republic would be ready to begin the process of negotiation if and when a vote in to end the Union was carried.
Notice we are talking about 'negotiation' here and not about making claims to walk in and take over the show. You may very well feel that claims from the Republic were fairly belligerent in times gone by. But I would ask that they should be judged in the context of their times.
"A Protestant State for a Protestant People," may be a misquotation of Craigavon's famous response to De Valera but thiswas how it was interpreted down south.
The vast majority of northern Nationalists would have had reason to feel aggrieved at their treatment in the early decades of the Union.
Whatever Craigavon may have actually said, in practice it was clearly a case of a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Most Nationalists of the time would be quick to acknowledge this.
My point is that the casting of blame works both ways and if, as you say, Dev was a divisive figure in Irish history, he was certainly matched in bigotry and intransigence by his counterparts at Stormont.
Ahern was a party to the GFA negotiations, as was Blair and other concerned parties.

The position as understood by all sides is that a vote of 50% +1 would be enough to signal the end of the present Union .Ahern has merely reiterated that the Republic is ready to stand by its obligations and will be prepared to enter negotiations when the time comes.
He did not state anywhere that the Republic would be waiting in the wings, ready to move in and take over the show.
I am confident that I am representing a popular view down here when I say that we are upset that both parties in the north appear to take us for granted. If and when the vote Ahern referred to occurs, we should not be taken for granted.
I do think a referendum in the Republic would be comfortably carried- if the wording was appropriate.
I agree with Roger that the Nationalists up north do not appear to have formulated any coherent set of proposals as to what should follow an ending of the Union. Unionists also seem to have no position to fall back on if the vote should be lost.
What are we expected to feel down here, I would ask.
Is it not reasonable for us to feel concerned at entering some sort of merger with the parties in the north, if we have no clear indication of what we are being expected to do?
Armaghniac, my point about the German model is that West Germans did not see their long-separated brethren as equals in any way. It was a financial damage limitation exercise from beginning to end.
They did not let sentiment or compassion of any sort get in their way as they went about closing down uneconomic factories and other businesses in order to stop the liberated region being a financial drain on their resources.

It's very difficult for nationalists in the north to formulate any strategy for reunification while unionists refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of it happening. If we're going to build a state which is acceptable to all the people, there has to be a unionist input, but at the moment this isn't forthcoming. That may change once there's a nationalist majority at the ballot box, but I'm not as optimistic as some on here that that's going to happen within the next 20 years or so.

[Rossfan]

Nationalists in the 26 Cos dont seem to have any strategy or plan either.
While everything will obviously have to be negotiated surely SDLP/SF/FFBuilders/FG/Lab etc should at least in the meantime have some broad outline as to how  they'd see an All Ireland set up operating.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

I suppose that depends on who "we" is regarding harbouring grudges but I'll accept your own position but don't think it is apparent to many unionists that that is the commonly held position of those in the Republic. If it is the case I'm glad because as a convinced unuonist (and I intend no offense by this) I believe it is better not to concern yourself with something that isn't any of your business in the first place.

Roger,

I'm not sure who you referring to there:  intent in the republic towards Northern Ireland or unionist concern about said intent?

Whatever about irredentist policies of the republic, it would be remiss of any government here to adopt a policy of "it isn't any of your business in the first place" attitude to Northern Ireland given the significant minority of nationalists that look to this state for support.  I think that a more proactive approach to this duty of care would have better served past governments than grandiose statements in the constitution.

As for unionist attitude to intent in the south, it is not inconcievable that it will someday be quite relevant.

[Hound]

In the event of a United Ireland, the ramifications for those many people employed in the civil service in the north would be interesting:

- Teachers would clearly still be required in the north, so they'd transfer over as employees of the Irish civil service. Presumably some element of re-training would be required as part of process of gradually moving to the Leaving Certificate model. I'd imagine everyone already in secondary school would continue the A Level route (or whatever its called), while new entrants to secondary would start on the Junior/Leaving syllabus.

- PSNI would be subsumed into the Gardai

- No more NHS, hello HSE for nurses etc.

- Many more like fire fighters, etc where people would still do a very similar job, but now under Irish rule rather than British rule.

- Presumably though there would be a large number of jobs (thousands) that relate to the UK rather than the north, and therefore those jobs would move to GB rather than stay in Ireland, and presumably the current holder of those jobs would have the choice of moving to GB with their job or taking a redundancy...     

There'll certainly be a whole lot of stuff to sort out if it does happen 

[Rossfan]

In the event of a United Ireland, the ramifications for those many people employed in the civil service in the north would be interesting:

- Teachers would clearly still be required in the north, so they'd transfer over as employees of the Irish civil service. Presumably some element of re-training would be required as part of process of gradually moving to the Leaving Certificate model. I'd imagine everyone already in secondary school would continue the A Level route (or whatever its called), while new entrants to secondary would start on the Junior/Leaving syllabus.
Could we not have two separate systems?
- PSNI would be subsumed into the Gardai -
not necessarily if we had a confederation. you could have PSNI for 6 co area, Gardai for 26 Co,both dealing with local policing and an all Ireland force dealing with major crime,CAB typeetc
- No more NHS, hello HSE for nurses etc.
Again I suspect both organisations would run local operations and the Confederacy Health Dept would be in overall control
- Many more like fire fighters, etc where people would still do a very similar job, but now under Irish rule rather than British rule.
These would remain under local council or Administration Control
- Presumably though there would be a large number of jobs (thousands) that relate to the UK rather than the north, and therefore those jobs would move to GB rather than stay in Ireland, and presumably the current holder of those jobs would have the choice of moving to GB with their job or taking a redundancy...  If they are servicing local residents they would remain in the North    [/color]
There'll certainly be a whole lot of stuff to sort out if it does happen 
There will but most of it should and will be sorted out beforehand

[/b]

[Hound]

In the event of a United Ireland, the ramifications for those many people employed in the civil service in the north would be interesting:

- Teachers would clearly still be required in the north, so they'd transfer over as employees of the Irish civil service. Presumably some element of re-training would be required as part of process of gradually moving to the Leaving Certificate model. I'd imagine everyone already in secondary school would continue the A Level route (or whatever its called), while new entrants to secondary would start on the Junior/Leaving syllabus.
Could we not have two separate systems?
- PSNI would be subsumed into the Gardai -
not necessarily if we had a confederation. you could have PSNI for 6 co area, Gardai for 26 Co,both dealing with local policing and an all Ireland force dealing with major crime,CAB typeetc
- No more NHS, hello HSE for nurses etc.
Again I suspect both organisations would run local operations and the Confederacy Health Dept would be in overall control
- Many more like fire fighters, etc where people would still do a very similar job, but now under Irish rule rather than British rule.
These would remain under local council or Administration Control
- Presumably though there would be a large number of jobs (thousands) that relate to the UK rather than the north, and therefore those jobs would move to GB rather than stay in Ireland, and presumably the current holder of those jobs would have the choice of moving to GB with their job or taking a redundancy...  If they are servicing local residents they would remain in the North    [/color]
There'll certainly be a whole lot of stuff to sort out if it does happen 
There will but most of it should and will be sorted out beforehand

[/b]

This is where you'd get as much problems for the nationalists as the unionists.

Two education (or any other) systems would be too inefficient and costly in the long run. One country one system. That's what you should be voting on. IMO.

Obviously the last point in my previous post was where they werent servicing local residents.

[Lar Naparka]

It's very difficult for nationalists in the north to formulate any strategy for reunification while unionists refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of it happening. If we're going to build a state which is acceptable to all the people, there has to be a unionist input, but at the moment this isn't forthcoming. That may change once there's a nationalist majority at the ballot box, but I'm not as optimistic as some on here that that's going to happen within the next 20 years or so.

I think your first sentence, Myles, has summed up the nub of the problem perfectly.
I have no problem whatever in agreeing fully with what you've posted here.

[Roger]

Fair enough, Roger, my posts on this topic have been quite long but there has been a lot of ground to cover and while I normally don't partake on the normal us vs. them topics, I thoughtsome observations might be in order here.

I wasn't complaining but more apologising for the difficulty trying to respond.

I can sum up what I have been saying reasonably briefly:
When Bertie Ahern was Taoiseach, he did say what you referred to. He was implying that the Republic would be ready to begin the process of negotiation if and when a vote in to end the Union was carried.

"Negotiation" seems to be a new concept and a change of tactic.  A cynic would claim this is just a tactic to beg/squeeze as much money out of everyone else to get what they wanted in the first place.  What do you think is up for "negotiation" and with whom?

Notice we are talking about 'negotiation' here and not about making claims to walk in and take over the show. You may very well feel that claims from the Republic were fairly belligerent in times gone by. But I would ask that they should be judged in the context of their times.
"A Protestant State for a Protestant People," may be a misquotation of Craigavon's famous response to De Valera but thiswas how it was interpreted down south.
The vast majority of northern Nationalists would have had reason to feel aggrieved at their treatment in the early decades of the Union.
Whatever Craigavon may have actually said, in practice it was clearly a case of a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Most Nationalists of the time would be quick to acknowledge this.

Not quite sure of the relevance.  I never recall Craigavon ever claiming jurisdiction over the Freestate and if he had supported terrorism down there you'd be sure to have it very well publicised.  Two very different states in their approach to each other. Context of the times is one thing but constitutionally the Republic has only recently down graded from claiming jurisdiction over another state to aspiring to claim it back up by irredentist policies.  This backed up with greater influence over Northern Ireland than before.  We can disagree about the rights and wrongs of this, but unionists never wanted partition but importantly never wanted anything to do with the Republic once the two states had been formed. Unionists have never and still don't like the interference from the Republic. The idea of the Republic "negotiating" to get what they have been banging on about for years what they consider to be their right, is a bit rich if not confusing.

My point is that the casting of blame works both ways and if, as you say, Dev was a divisive figure in Irish history, he was certainly matched in bigotry and intransigence by his counterparts at Stormont.

I don't recall Craigavon having much interference or designs on the Republic.  Not relevant when dealing with inter-state relations imo.

The position as understood by all sides is that a vote of 50% +1 would be enough to signal the end of the present Union .Ahern has merely reiterated that the Republic is ready to stand by its obligations and will be prepared to enter negotiations when the time comes.

There's something strange about a FF leader and Chief in the Republic stating he is willing to enter negotiations for a "United Ireland".  This is either a big change in viewpoint or a tactical manoeuvre which I can't quite work out. 

I am confident that I am representing a popular view down here when I say that we are upset that both parties in the north appear to take us for granted. If and when the vote Ahern referred to occurs, we should not be taken for granted.

I don't think you can blame Unionists for taking the Republic for granted.  Certainly unionists have distrust for that country and its intentions (not difficult to see why).  If the Republic turned round and rejected and all-Ireland state outside the Union then they would soon become good friends and neighbours.

I do think a referendum in the Republic would be comfortably carried- if the wording was appropriate.

So do I.  That's why this negotiation and 'taken for granted' thing just seems a bit of a tactic.

I agree with Roger that the Nationalists up north do not appear to have formulated any coherent set of proposals as to what should follow an ending of the Union. Unionists also seem to have no position to fall back on if the vote should be lost.

Unionists do not plan for defeat. Would you expect them to? No Political party does. They certainly wouldn't publish a plan B or give any inclination that they might need a plan B. If the Union were to end I believe that would effectively be the end of Unionist parties. There isn't a plan B. The difference with nationalist parties is they don't plan for what they see as victory. I find that more strange for a Political party that they don't know what victory might look like.

What are we expected to feel down here, I would ask.
Is it not reasonable for us to feel concerned at entering some sort of merger with the parties in the north, if we have no clear indication of what we are being expected to do?

I don't really know and never really thought about it much.  From a unionist perspective it is irrelevant to me but I find it interesting since all the parties in the Republic are nationalist parties so I imagine one of your own parties who have been banging on about Ireland, the Irish nation, Re-unification, etc for almost a hundred years would have an answer.