Weather: Hi 9°C / Lo 4°C
51% majority not enough for Irish unity: Ahern
Thursday, 20 November 2008
enlarge
Print
Email
A united Ireland could not be achieved by a simple majority poll in favour of constitutional change, according to former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.
In a previously unpublished interview, carried in today's Belfast Telegraph, Mr Ahern said a narrow 50% plus one in favour of unification would not work.
He argued that “a sizeable amount of people” north and south would be required to move to a united Ireland.
“The only way it can be done is if there’s a sizeable amount of people on the island of Ireland, North and South, believe this is the way forward,” he said.
“Fifty per cent plus one is not the way to do it. That would be a divisive thing to do. There’s no point having votes to find out that you’re 1 percent short or 1 percent over. That’s not the way to do it.”
The former Taoiseach’s views on Irish unity are contained in a lengthy interview conducted by Irish Times London Editor Frank Millar shortly after Mr Ahern left office in May this year.
However, in Dublin this week Mr Ahern stressed the unification of Ireland remains an “imperative” and not “an empty aspiration”.
He added: “I believe that the sooner we engage in the process of addressing Irish unity, in all its complexities, with all of its challenges, and the many opportunities it will present, the sooner the reality will occur.”
In Mr Millar’s book, ‘Northern Ireland: A Triumph of Politics”, Mr Ahern also remains upbeat about the survival of the power-sharing arrangement at Stormont and declares his confidence that First Minister Peter Robinson will be able to “square the circle” in leading a Democratic Unionist Party that still defines itself in terms of “smashing Sinn Fein”.
As the Executive gets back to work today after the 154-day deadlock between the DUP and Sinn Fein over the devolution of policing and justice powers, Mr Ahern repeated his understanding that Sinn Fein had “a cast iron guarantee” over the original May 1 deadline for achieving the return of the powers to local politicians.
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
Comments
32 Comments
If a united Ireland is to happen then there will have to be constituational changes to guaranette the Unionist rights etc so that they would not feel "out in the cold" like recongising there unionist background an apology by the Irish gov on it's past stance which alienated unionist (like Rome Rule) a few permanent senior cabinet posts in every gov
Funding for health school etc would have to be maintained as the same levels aswell as civil & public service jobs for say 10-20 yrs therefore the Irish gov has to built up a large reserve of money to fund the North for few yrs The reason that reunionafication hasn't happened is that Dev didn't want it because Ireland wouldn't be 90+ Catholic and the Protestants would kill of his myth of a "pure Ireland"
Ireland has to offer the North something that it wants, that it needs but so far it can't offer anything
If an handover does happen it would have to headed by an international body to make sure that everything goes smoothly
Posted by Martin | 31.01.09, 19:06 GMT
Have a look at the last election before partition (1918)
Co. Fermanagh:
Turnout = 85.6%
Total Unionist vote = (46.4%)
Total Nationalist vote = (53.6%)
Co. Tyrone:
Turnout = 81.3%
Total Unionist vote = (45.4%)
Total Nationalist vote = 11,605 (54.8%)
Despite the clear nationalist majority in both counties they were included in Northern Ireland because to do otherwise would have shown just how geographically limited unionism was (and still is).
Nationalists already have a majority in four northern counties, and at the last election for the first time, the Unionist parties got less than 50% of the vote in Northern Ireland as a whole.
Essentially a Unionist majority in Antrim and Down is holding four counties in a United Britain against the majority of the wishes of the inhabitants of those counties.
Once a majority vote for a United Ireland the Good Friday Agreement will continue to operate to protect the minority (Unionists).
Posted by Biffo | 17.12.08, 13:53 GMT
As a man from the Republic, I would like to answer the following:
"Would the almost 4m citizens of the irish republic be prepared to change their flag, anthem, constitution, not to mention pay increased taxes and sadly most probably put up with civil disorder all for a United Ireland?"
As a democratic country we would try and avoid the civil disorder. As for the rest, well in our democracy we could vote. Personally, I would gladly change the flag, and the Anthem (how about Danny Boy? class tune). I would also like the NHS, and more power at the local level. Northern Ireland would have a huge, mainly positive, influence on a United Ireland
And I think you will find most Irish people want an Ireland of equals. Why dont you try visiting sometime? You would be more than welcome.
It is amazing how so many people think they can redifine democracy when it suits them. 51% is a majority and that is how democracy works.
And you need to accept that Britain doesn't want you.
Posted by Alan | 26.11.08, 14:59 GMT
John Doe since you didn't bother to check your facts here they are as the situation existed for 2008:
Ireland (income tax)
20% on the first €35,400
41% on the balance
UK (income tax)
10% £2,320
20% on the first £34,800
40% on the balance
Posted by Jake M | 25.11.08, 12:51 GMT
Please help me with Irish history. What was the percentage of the vote of the people to divide Ireland? What percentage did separation get in Tyrone and Fermanagh? Derry? What percentage will the Scots need?
Posted by JerryF | 24.11.08, 20:08 GMT
John Doe, exactly who is paying 44% tax in the south? The standard individual? Not a chance, don't muddy the debate with lies, either stand by the facts or don't bother.
Posted by Gerard | 22.11.08, 13:33 GMT
taking all other factors out of this equation, how would this impact the std individual.
where would you have more money in your pocket at the end of the day? You're comparing 25% tax in the north vs 44% rate in the south.
Posted by John Doe | 21.11.08, 20:35 GMT
It is interesting that a unionist posting here saying " i'm a Unionist who'd prefer to stay part of the UK, however i'm also a democrat and would just accept whatever the electorate want." and a nationalist with corresponding sentiments both totally ignore the democratic and sovereign will of the people in the all-Ireland vote in 1918. Only now that the Brits are occupying six counties do they accept democracy. That is certainly a British state of mind.
Posted by Vic | 21.11.08, 19:09 GMT
This is an interesting article. I have dual Irish/Australian nationality with parents from both sides of the border and a cross border interest and identity. I agree that a large majority of people in NI would need to be in favour of some union that guarantees the equality of all citizens and "communities" (which is an unfortunate differentiating term in the plural) on the island. I understand the concerns of those who feel that what is proposed is NI being subsumed within the Republic. And why not a government of national unity in Belfast? I do think that Scotland will ultimately be the sticking point on the political unity of the people of the island of Ireland. If the UK breaks up (and Scotland is integral to it - and it could stand alone with European help) I cannot conceive how NI could "work" as a stand alone nation. Circumstances would force the whole island to a long overdue maturity. I am for political unity (albeit with my outside perspective) but not at any price.
Posted by Niall Connolly | 21.11.08, 00:32 GMT
what is the big deal over Irish unity? Unity doesn't create a civil society. Unity simply means the removal of identity from at least 1 million people.
Does anyone think for one moment that the thugs that manipulate and intimidate will go away if we have "unity". Would it not be easier to deal with the core inequality and wrong in our small managable society and create a more egalitarian and dynamic place that we can happily grow old in, our children would want to stay in and take forward and others want to emulate?
Posted by derek | 20.11.08, 20:44 GMT
Would this mean it would require 60-70% to remain in the UK, this would be only fair, would it not.
Posted by Kevin | 20.11.08, 18:09 GMT
Eranu, fair enough if you want to wax lyrically about the advantages of being part of the larger UK etc but perhaps you could refrain for the lazy description of my state as " a 'chip on the shoulder' separate Irish state". What on earth does that mean? The Republic of Ireland is a sovereign, stable state and one of the oldest continuous democracies in Europe. It is an independent state because the majority of its people wish it to be so as is their democratic right to control their own destiny.
In defense of your own UK unionist view of the world try and refrain from insulting those that have chosen an alternative independent Irish view of the world.
Posted by Jake M | 20.11.08, 17:43 GMT
Unification is not the way to go.It will not benefit the Republic and
it will not truly benefit Northern Ireland.Sinn Fein quietly
is trying to bring unification about,and DUP and other Protestant
groups remain opposed.It will take years to overcome these feelings.What should be done is the two should work to build
a strong Northern Ireland with strong cross border ties.
Posted by J Penson | 20.11.08, 16:48 GMT
There could'nt be such a vote asking 'do you want a UI? - tick here for yes or here for no'....there could only be a vote on a number of different arrangements or deals that outlines the governing of such a new state. And since it is strongly a nationalist aspiration, the deals should be very much in favour of unionist preferences. One deal could be as is in NI now, a power sharing executive and a guarantee that unionists (or former by then!) would be in a fixed respectful proportion of the new govt. for 5,10,20 or whatever years. Move the goverment upto belfast, using the excuse that it will be the 'brains of ireland' (this being from the shape of the island) even if only for period of 10, 20 years or so. Make July 12 a national holiday with island-wide festivities, but with a brand new image (such as the orange fest etc..). The new state should join the commonwealth as a symbolic gesture. And invoke very strong anti-terrorism laws.
Posted by Jason | 20.11.08, 16:45 GMT
Simple. Britain should take back Southern Ireland- when its economy is back up and running. A United Ireland AND goverened by the UK. Win/win. My genius scares me sometimes :-)
Posted by soarer | 20.11.08, 16:35 GMT
Whether we like it or not this is the fundamental question for everybody in Northern Ireland to consider.
It is the root cause of our political stalemate, our bar room brawls and all our rivalries.
I’m glad the likes of Ahern are confronting it with a balanced view.
However, in order for our politicians to get some work done, this question needs to be sidelined and then they can concentrate on more important things like the economy, health and education.
I can understand why many Unionists want to remain part of the UK, it is a much larger country than ROI, with all the benefits that brings. I'd count myself among them.
However, I’m a democrat and the will of the people must prevail. That's why if an acceptable majority (70%+) was to call for a united Ireland, I’d go along with it.
A united Ireland would not, and should not be under Sinn Fein's terms. How about a united Ireland with Belfast as its capital? I'd vote for that tomorrow. Though, they may not down South!
Posted by K | 20.11.08, 16:04 GMT
Funny i was thinking about this today. A United Ireland just wouldn't work, yes i'm a Unionist who'd prefer to stay part of the UK, however i'm also a democrat and would just accept whatever the electorate want. However any United Ireland would have to take account of Unionists.
Would the almost 4m citizens of the irish republic be prepared to change their flag, anthem, constitution, not to mention pay increased taxes and sadly most probably put up with civil disorder all for a United Ireland? The fact is while i'm a fairly liberal Unionist who would accept it if that's what the people want there are tens, if not several hundreds of thousand who wouldn't and that is just a whole world of pain waiting to happen.
Anyway as time goes on and Northern Ireland becomes more and more stable and people are more content with their lot then the desire amongst Nationalists for a United Ireland will probably whither away. Why upset the applecart when the current system is working
Posted by Gav | 20.11.08, 15:55 GMT
Bertie Ahern is absolutely right. A very clear majority (min over 65%) in the Republic and in NI would be required for any change. Whatever about getting a large majority in NI to vote for unity, I and many others in the Republic would vote against until I was absolutely sure that we would not be lumbered with a disgruntled, restless minority that did not owe loyalty to the Irish state (ie reverse of the recent conflict). I do have an affinity for nationalists in NI who feel excluded from the Irish state as "our people" and welcome closer links to help accommodate an Irish dimension for them in NI. In reality large numbers of unionists implacably opposed to the idea of unity would be a very negative addition to the Irish state.
Paul don't overestimate your 2% don't forget your own PM Mr Brown neglected to mention NI in his recent articles on the future of the union. Since there are only 4 members of the UK that is a pretty glaring omission by any account.
Posted by Jake M, Dublin | 20.11.08, 15:54 GMT
Being from Dublin and having lived in Belfast these past few years, i can see the pros and cons of a United Ireland more clearly than before. However, in my opinion, before that issue is ever addressed the 6 counties would probably have to go the way that Scotland is looking to go, and look for independence. At the end of the day i cannot, ever, see hardline Unionists welcoming or accepting becomming part of a United Ireland.
Posted by Kevin B | 20.11.08, 15:17 GMT
sean, i think its basically just that most people in NI prefer to be part of the larger UK which has more to offer socially and economically. they havent much interest in being part of a 'chip on the shoulder' separate irish state. theres no need to go off into a separate state when the people of the british isles have so much in common and are already all in the same country.
unionists arent 2% of the voting public. they are almost all the voting public. as far as i know all the main stream parties are unionist, its the default position. you can work out the % for SNP, SF etc if you want.
the 2% / 20% thing you mention. all i can say is that i think most people in the UK dont really consider it that important whether a person is irish, scottish , welsh or english. they just dont think in the same way as irish nationalists, who seem to thrive on all that 'old enemy' talk and create an us and them mindset.
a regional assembly to take care of local issues is ok for most people.
Posted by eranu | 20.11.08, 14:42 GMT
32 Comments