The island of Ireland has a smaller population than that of London.
Unification means the removal of the artificial border, and the implementation of island-wide institutions.
Anything less would just propogate the division.
Off course, the DUP would first have to believe in evolution
It feels like every second sentence in that article mentions religion.
One of the more challenging parts of any reunification is going to be convincing both sides in the north that nobody cares what religion they are.
That the reunification process wouldn’t be the Tadhgs taking over with their catholic government and majority catholic ideals.
It’s that literally nobody else in the entire EU, let alone just Ireland gives a shit about what religion you are. It’s not a reason to be linked to any political stance and anybody in NI who thinks that way is very much seen as being politically antiquated.
Literally nobody else cares. You can be Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or a scientologist.
It matters a fuck to anybody else.
Seeing a religion as tied to a political stance? and a society that acts like it still is?
Nobody want’s to deal with that type of mentality and It’s an attitude that they need to lose… Or else they’ll just get even further left behind by the rest of their neighbours.
Northern Ireland is again governed by its civil servants. No Executive has been formed since last May’s elections. Since its establishment in 1998, the Northern Assembly has been suspended — whether formally or informally — for more than 40 per cent of the time.
The latest hiatus stems from unionist opposition to the Northern Ireland protocol, suggesting that maintenance of the Belfast Agreement institutions is not a DUP priority. However, the invaluable series of Irish Times–Arins opinion polls suggests greater unionist attachment to the devolved institutions when a united Ireland is contemplated. There was strong support among northern Protestants for retention of the Stormont Executive and Assembly in any unified state.
In contrast, respondents in the Republic, and to a lesser extent northern Catholics, preferred a fully integrated Ireland with one set of governing institutions, presumably an adaptation and extension of those operating in Dublin.
The accompanying focus group research suggests the desire to minimise change is a significant driver of attitudes among northern Protestants, while national identity and symbolism drive the contrary attitudes in the Republic.
Devolution has posed challenges in the UK but these would be accentuated in a united Ireland because TDs from Northern Ireland alone would make up roughly 30 per cent of the membership of the Dáil, in contrast to the 18 per cent of MPs at Westminster who represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, assuming a similar model is implemented.
There would be a democratic concern if deputies from Northern Ireland could vote on education and health policy affecting the South while deputies from the South could not vote on those subjects if they are devolved to Northern Ireland. This concern would acquire a sharp political edge if, for instance, a Dublin government relied on northern deputies to implement less generous public spending in the South than in the North.
The Oireachtas would — like Westminster — retain its competence to legislate for the whole state, but when and how could it choose to legislate for Northern Ireland without destabilising the devolution settlement? In the UK, this question is regulated by a convention that Westminster will not normally legislate for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without the consent of their legislatures.
This convention, which is not legally binding, has not prevented Brexit legislation that the devolved assemblies opposed, but it appears to be still observed on other matters. The Irish State, however, has no experience of self-conscious reliance on constitutional conventions to constrain legislative choices, so it is difficult to see any similar practice being effective post-unification.
The Northern Ireland institutions have regularly been suspended. If suspension were necessary in a unified state, how should Dublin respond? Appointment of a government minister for Northern Ireland with the Oireachtas enacting legislation specifically for Northern Ireland as necessary is one option.
But the standing possibility that Dublin could impose “direct rule” would undermine the reassurance to northern Protestants that the devolved model is meant to provide.
London governments dependent on the political support of DUP MPs at Westminster struggled to act as effective and impartial mediators between the parties in Northern Ireland. But a Dublin government — in which one or more Northern Ireland parties might serve while others formed the principal opposition in the Dáil — might have to mediate the sort of political disputes that in the past have led to the suspension of northern institutions. It would be difficult to separate impartial interventions in Belfast from the political incentives that would apply in Dublin.
I suspect these challenges are insurmountable. Nevertheless, securing “losers’ consent” for a newly unified state is a critically important objective as the Arins/Irish Times surveys suggest. Minimising constitutional change in Northern Ireland when unification occurs may help reduce opposition to the new state from at least some of those opposed to its creation. It is important, therefore, to gauge just how important the devolved model is to northern Protestants.
The apparent inconsistency between northern Protestant support for the current suspension of the institutions and enthusiasm for their revival in a united Ireland may simply be a pragmatic assessment of which arrangements are most likely to protect their interests.
A deliberative forum, led by professors John Garry and Brendan O’Leary, suggests that the preference of northern Protestants for the devolved model declines somewhat after deliberation. One factor in this diminishing support may be the realisation that, post-unification, unionists would necessarily be a minority in Northern Ireland.
Minimising constitutional change in Northern Ireland when unification occurs may help reduce opposition to the new state from at least some of those opposed to its creation. It is important, therefore, to gauge just how important the devolved model is to northern Protestants.
The apparent inconsistency between northern Protestant support for the current suspension of the institutions and enthusiasm for their revival in a united Ireland may simply be a pragmatic assessment of which arrangements are most likely to protect their interests.
A deliberative forum, led by professors John Garry and Brendan O’Leary, suggests that the preference of northern Protestants for the devolved model declines somewhat after deliberation. One factor in this diminishing support may be the realisation that, post-unification, unionists would necessarily be a minority in Northern Ireland
Why would there *be* devolution? I don’t see the point of having a United Ireland if the first thing we do is split it in two again.
I think some form of devolution with Stomont staying on as regional assembly is inevitable. Mostly because its the path of least resistance and partly because people born in NI will still be entitled to be British citizens even after a UI so that necessitates some kind of legal distinction.
Just read the Shape of a United Ireland by Brendan O’ Leary. Really good on this topic and other things we would have to decide if we want reunification. Basically we would need to decide how much to try and accommodate Unionists before it becomes being held hostage to their whims.
We can’t treat them like they treated Catholics but we should have a limit to nonsense demands
Federal state ar nós na Spáinne. Let each constituency in the North vote whether they want autonomy as part of the federated statelet, which will be allowed to remain in the Commonwealth, or be part of full blown Ireland
The issue at the moment is that the majority of people in the North pay zero attention to media in the South. We are dominated by a mix of local media geared around radio and newspaper and British TV.
There seems to be a belief that a United Ireland vote can be won on the idea that all of Northern Ireland’s political and cultural institutions will cease to exist and the entire state will be succumbed into the ROI. This is wishful thinking.
It can only be won at this stage through massive concessions to middle class Alliance voters mostly living in and around Belfast. These individuals support Ireland at rugby but not at soccer, they read the Guardian and not the Irish Times and they don’t have a clue who Ryan Turbidy is.
If you want to actually win a vote on a UI and keep ROI as it is you will have to hope there is a massive demographic and identity change over the next 30/40 years. Otherwise the flag, anthem, institutions and the relationship with the UK will all be on the negotiation table.
What I don’t get is, why do we have to have a devolved system like Britain? Why can’t we have federalism like everyone else in the world?
10 comments
The island of Ireland has a smaller population than that of London.
Unification means the removal of the artificial border, and the implementation of island-wide institutions.
Anything less would just propogate the division.
Off course, the DUP would first have to believe in evolution
It feels like every second sentence in that article mentions religion.
One of the more challenging parts of any reunification is going to be convincing both sides in the north that nobody cares what religion they are.
That the reunification process wouldn’t be the Tadhgs taking over with their catholic government and majority catholic ideals.
It’s that literally nobody else in the entire EU, let alone just Ireland gives a shit about what religion you are. It’s not a reason to be linked to any political stance and anybody in NI who thinks that way is very much seen as being politically antiquated.
Literally nobody else cares. You can be Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or a scientologist.
It matters a fuck to anybody else.
Seeing a religion as tied to a political stance? and a society that acts like it still is?
Nobody want’s to deal with that type of mentality and It’s an attitude that they need to lose… Or else they’ll just get even further left behind by the rest of their neighbours.
Northern Ireland is again governed by its civil servants. No Executive has been formed since last May’s elections. Since its establishment in 1998, the Northern Assembly has been suspended — whether formally or informally — for more than 40 per cent of the time.
The latest hiatus stems from unionist opposition to the Northern Ireland protocol, suggesting that maintenance of the Belfast Agreement institutions is not a DUP priority. However, the invaluable series of Irish Times–Arins opinion polls suggests greater unionist attachment to the devolved institutions when a united Ireland is contemplated. There was strong support among northern Protestants for retention of the Stormont Executive and Assembly in any unified state.
In contrast, respondents in the Republic, and to a lesser extent northern Catholics, preferred a fully integrated Ireland with one set of governing institutions, presumably an adaptation and extension of those operating in Dublin.
The accompanying focus group research suggests the desire to minimise change is a significant driver of attitudes among northern Protestants, while national identity and symbolism drive the contrary attitudes in the Republic.
Devolution has posed challenges in the UK but these would be accentuated in a united Ireland because TDs from Northern Ireland alone would make up roughly 30 per cent of the membership of the Dáil, in contrast to the 18 per cent of MPs at Westminster who represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, assuming a similar model is implemented.
There would be a democratic concern if deputies from Northern Ireland could vote on education and health policy affecting the South while deputies from the South could not vote on those subjects if they are devolved to Northern Ireland. This concern would acquire a sharp political edge if, for instance, a Dublin government relied on northern deputies to implement less generous public spending in the South than in the North.
The Oireachtas would — like Westminster — retain its competence to legislate for the whole state, but when and how could it choose to legislate for Northern Ireland without destabilising the devolution settlement? In the UK, this question is regulated by a convention that Westminster will not normally legislate for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without the consent of their legislatures.
This convention, which is not legally binding, has not prevented Brexit legislation that the devolved assemblies opposed, but it appears to be still observed on other matters. The Irish State, however, has no experience of self-conscious reliance on constitutional conventions to constrain legislative choices, so it is difficult to see any similar practice being effective post-unification.
The Northern Ireland institutions have regularly been suspended. If suspension were necessary in a unified state, how should Dublin respond? Appointment of a government minister for Northern Ireland with the Oireachtas enacting legislation specifically for Northern Ireland as necessary is one option.
But the standing possibility that Dublin could impose “direct rule” would undermine the reassurance to northern Protestants that the devolved model is meant to provide.
London governments dependent on the political support of DUP MPs at Westminster struggled to act as effective and impartial mediators between the parties in Northern Ireland. But a Dublin government — in which one or more Northern Ireland parties might serve while others formed the principal opposition in the Dáil — might have to mediate the sort of political disputes that in the past have led to the suspension of northern institutions. It would be difficult to separate impartial interventions in Belfast from the political incentives that would apply in Dublin.
I suspect these challenges are insurmountable. Nevertheless, securing “losers’ consent” for a newly unified state is a critically important objective as the Arins/Irish Times surveys suggest. Minimising constitutional change in Northern Ireland when unification occurs may help reduce opposition to the new state from at least some of those opposed to its creation. It is important, therefore, to gauge just how important the devolved model is to northern Protestants.
The apparent inconsistency between northern Protestant support for the current suspension of the institutions and enthusiasm for their revival in a united Ireland may simply be a pragmatic assessment of which arrangements are most likely to protect their interests.
A deliberative forum, led by professors John Garry and Brendan O’Leary, suggests that the preference of northern Protestants for the devolved model declines somewhat after deliberation. One factor in this diminishing support may be the realisation that, post-unification, unionists would necessarily be a minority in Northern Ireland.
Minimising constitutional change in Northern Ireland when unification occurs may help reduce opposition to the new state from at least some of those opposed to its creation. It is important, therefore, to gauge just how important the devolved model is to northern Protestants.
The apparent inconsistency between northern Protestant support for the current suspension of the institutions and enthusiasm for their revival in a united Ireland may simply be a pragmatic assessment of which arrangements are most likely to protect their interests.
A deliberative forum, led by professors John Garry and Brendan O’Leary, suggests that the preference of northern Protestants for the devolved model declines somewhat after deliberation. One factor in this diminishing support may be the realisation that, post-unification, unionists would necessarily be a minority in Northern Ireland
Why would there *be* devolution? I don’t see the point of having a United Ireland if the first thing we do is split it in two again.
I think some form of devolution with Stomont staying on as regional assembly is inevitable. Mostly because its the path of least resistance and partly because people born in NI will still be entitled to be British citizens even after a UI so that necessitates some kind of legal distinction.
Just read the Shape of a United Ireland by Brendan O’ Leary. Really good on this topic and other things we would have to decide if we want reunification. Basically we would need to decide how much to try and accommodate Unionists before it becomes being held hostage to their whims.
We can’t treat them like they treated Catholics but we should have a limit to nonsense demands
Federal state ar nós na Spáinne. Let each constituency in the North vote whether they want autonomy as part of the federated statelet, which will be allowed to remain in the Commonwealth, or be part of full blown Ireland
The issue at the moment is that the majority of people in the North pay zero attention to media in the South. We are dominated by a mix of local media geared around radio and newspaper and British TV.
There seems to be a belief that a United Ireland vote can be won on the idea that all of Northern Ireland’s political and cultural institutions will cease to exist and the entire state will be succumbed into the ROI. This is wishful thinking.
It can only be won at this stage through massive concessions to middle class Alliance voters mostly living in and around Belfast. These individuals support Ireland at rugby but not at soccer, they read the Guardian and not the Irish Times and they don’t have a clue who Ryan Turbidy is.
If you want to actually win a vote on a UI and keep ROI as it is you will have to hope there is a massive demographic and identity change over the next 30/40 years. Otherwise the flag, anthem, institutions and the relationship with the UK will all be on the negotiation table.
What I don’t get is, why do we have to have a devolved system like Britain? Why can’t we have federalism like everyone else in the world?