Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Why credit-crunch means we need cross-border links more than ever
Monday, 16 February 2009
Would you vote for a united Ireland now?
The surprisingly large response to the question I posed last week has been such as to lead me to believe the issue still runs deep in the body politic of this island.
My column dwelt on the suggestion by Sinn Fein’s Conor Murphy, the Regional Development minister, that there could be a new referendum on Irish unity before the 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising in 2016. He made his comments to a gathering at Westminster before Christmas as part of Sinn Fein’s new united Ireland strategy going forward towards the anniversary. So how would you vote, I asked? Yes or No.
The views of many readers who emailed the Belfast Telegraph’s website show just how thin-skinned we remain when it comes to discussing Northern Ireland’s constitutional future. Scratch the surface and political passions readily emerge. The tendency remains for the heart to rule the head.
My conclusion last week was that the credit crunch has set back nationalist aspirations of Irish unity by a generation, if not more. I argued that neither part of the island could afford unity for very different reasons. The south was broke and the north required a £9bn British subsidy to keep it afloat. The economic circumstances on the island were such that a united Ireland was out of the question for the foreseeable future.
Of the readers who disagreed, one wrote: “The Irish community living in the north, which now accounts for almost half the population, does not feel like changing its nationality because economics bring a chill wind. We are Irish, so please acknowledge that fact. Credit Crunch — so what? We survived the famine ...”
Another northern reader said: “The subsidy from Westminster is a scandalous amount of money to waste on us. Similarly the Republic was still a net recipient of EU funds even before the death of the Tiger ? One island, two failed states.”
Another email read: “In reality the majority of unionists are and have always been perfectly happy with our Northern Ireland and British identity regardless of whether or not the Irish are booming or bust. As for the future it’s going to be a very long time before the Irish Republic will be able to attract back eastern Europeans never mind the folks up north.”
One of many emails from the south said: “I can simply say as a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, that no matter the economic implications of accepting a united Ireland, I would still say yes. To me it is a question of caring more about the weight of your dignity, than the weight of your pocket.
“If people fail to support a united Ireland purely for economic reasons it shows that, ultimately, the people's loyalty is to money and not to Britain or Ireland, and that in any case, would be a shame.”
In general, unionists seem reassured and nationalists disappointed that the global downturn has impacted so severely on their respective constitutional aspirations.
But if the prospect of full scale Irish unity has receded, where does that leave co-operation across a border that remains politically, financially, but not physically in place? We may have very different constitutional goals but we are all in this recession together.
If ever there were a need to help one another, if ever there were a time to set aside past prejudices and to realise that waving banners, flags and emblems will not save any of us from the bills and bailiffs of 2009, this is the moment.
I would suggest that this is no time to row back from north-south co-operation. This is a time to ensure that every channel of co-operation, good neighbourliness and business opportunity is kept open and developed as, for example, the traders of Newry, Enniskillen and the north-west will surely testify as they view the hordes of southern shoppers flocking to buy their goods.
Northern Ireland’s position within the UK is a no-brainer in the current economic climate but let’s be thankful that hardly anyone in Britain, buried in its credit crunch gloom, questions why Stormont gets an annual £9bn subsidy or how it is spent. Long may that be the case for the sake of all our well-beings, unionist and nationalist alike.
A referendum on breaking that link will simply reignite old coals. It would prove nothing more than we know now. Namely that a majority of people in Northern Ireland continue to have no interest in either withdrawing from the British-subsidised link or folding into an increasingly debt-ridden Irish economy.
It took 50 years to dismantle unionist majority rule at Stormont and another 30 years to put a partnership British unionist/ Irish nationalist coalition in its place. Unless there is a dramatic change in the fortunes of Northern Ireland and the Republic from their present parlous state, a new Yes/No vote on Irish unity would be utter folly and solve nothing. Irish unity — No. Continued and better north-south cooperation — a big Yes.
Would you vote for a united Ireland now? Have your say at the Belfast Telegraph website: www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk: or read what others think
- Text Size
Comments
47 Comments
Northern Ireland is a joke. It depends totally on a charity handout of 5 billion pounds, which no other region of the UK gets. Many other people in different parts of the UK are mightliy angry about this.
Posted by Patrick Murphy | 17.03.09, 12:42 GMT
What is the economic price of abandonment? What will it cost to replace those who leave, those who will not vote yes, those who will leave?
It is a real question. Belfast is not the powerhouse it was at the height of the ethos of Harland and Wolff, yet what is cost of "brain drain"?
Posted by lanelle | 23.02.09, 03:32 GMT
A reunited Ireland with closer links to Britain and iron-clad guarantees to protect the religious and cultural heritage of Ulster Protestants would be beneficial to the British Isles as a whole. Partition was never contemplated by great Irish statesmen such as Henry Grattan, Isaac Butt, Charles S. Parnell, John Redmond, all of whom favouured an Independent Ireland but were willing to retain a British connection.
Posted by Seán MacCurtain | 21.02.09, 19:06 GMT
Solution!
Federal Republic of Britain & Ireland
House of Commons becomes English Parliment (which it is anyway)
Each of the four Nations have their own fully functioning parliment, legal system & the right to set their own taxes. Then a streamlined federal government supported by a small federal tax.
Posted by Gerry R | 21.02.09, 03:20 GMT
I agree with you Edd like more north south coorperation is needed but no to a reunited Ireland that would just be plane stupid as how would people live?
Posted by Kerry | 20.02.09, 20:19 GMT
@ Steven 73
"Alan, as per my previous comments below, a vote for a Nationalist Party does not mean a vote for a United Ireland."
If you had bothered to read my previous comments you would see that I have already acknowledged this. In fact, I have attempted to highlight the difficulty in getting an figure on the issue.
Posted by Alan | 20.02.09, 16:03 GMT
Alan, as per my previous comments below, a vote for a Nationalist Party does not mean a vote for a United Ireland.
All Nationalist Parties have an ideology of a United Ireland, but it is only an ideology, the truth of the matter is that many people like the ideology, but not the reality of the situation, with the exception of Sinn Fein of course who are determined, at whatever cost, to achieve a United Ireland whether the majority of Catholics or Protestants want it.
As I have said before, I have friends who vote Sinn Fein, but not all of them want a UI, some of them just wanted a greater role in Northern Ireland, to see the end of the RUC, equality, the Irish Language Act etc, but they are not in favour of a UI for economic reasons.
I'm just telling as it is, no hidden agenda, no great plan to change mindsets, just what I discuss with my friends at the dinner table.
I just don't get why some people find it so offensive that not everyone wants a United Ireland?
Posted by Steven 73 | 20.02.09, 13:19 GMT
@ Daithí
What has that point got to do with anything. If you know that, it would mean you know more about the Irish banking system, not the political system. While we are at please learn to spell your name, It leads one to believe that you are not who you say you are.
As for the FF ruling out a vote for 20 years. It is called realism. Why hold a vote you might not win when by waiting a little longer you can ensure that you would win it.
@ Mickey
They do not seem to have posted my previous answer but yes I would treat such polls with disdain as they are of little or no value.
Posted by Alan | 20.02.09, 12:54 GMT
alan
what if and i mean what if one of the anglo irish 10 is a politician? and a member of one of the big political parties we will see who knows the most about irish politics then
Posted by daithi | 19.02.09, 21:26 GMT
@ Mickey
"I wonder would similar polls which happened to state the a "united" "Ireland" was a top priority for everyone within NI be treated with such disdain...."
Fair point but from me the answer is yes. Polls are simply opinions where the opinion giver faces no consequence as a result of their opinion.
@ Daithí
FF(I should say I am not an FF'er) are simply being realistic. The vote would be unlikely to yield a positive result, from their perspective, within the next 20 years. SF are certainly being unrealistic with a target of 2016.
Maybe you should try stepping back into reality yourself.
Posted by Alan | 19.02.09, 17:49 GMT
Alan: I wonder would similar polls which happened to state the a "united" "Ireland" was a top priority for everyone within NI be treated with such disdain....
Posted by mickey | 19.02.09, 14:15 GMT
saiorse36 - "Southern economic advancement of the Celtic Tiger"? Pay attention at the back, girl - have you been asleep for the last year?
Posted by neil | 19.02.09, 14:04 GMT
Also FF said last year that a united ireland vote is off the agenda for 20 years thats not the attitude of a party that is dedicated to a united ireland i think thats called putting it on the long finger
Posted by Daithi de Burca | 19.02.09, 12:37 GMT
@ Mickey
"But hey, it's easier to sweep the results of surveys under the carpet isn't it or dismiss them altogether... "
Yes it is especially when you realise that they are usually inaccurate (check the US Primrary polls) are only a small sample. You should learn some research methodology and you would soon realise that such surveys are often just a load of rubbish. Also as the vote was not being carried out in 2007, a 2007 poll is pointless. Such a vote is not likely to happen in the next ten years by which time the demographics of NI will have changed and thus the answer would be different again - either higher or lower.
As there is no consequence for an answer given in a poll, a voting record would be a more accurate way to assess voter sentiment, although by no means a perfect one.
Posted by Alan | 18.02.09, 16:16 GMT
Ciaran - Then if it looks as though a united Ireland is going to be forced on them, you could see an unprecendented shift in voting patterns. But hey, it's easier to sweep the results of surveys under the carpet isn't it or dismiss them altogether...
Posted by mickey | 18.02.09, 12:07 GMT
@Daithi
I might as well break it to you gently. The 2 biggest parties in Ireland when given their full name are Fianna Fáil - The Republican Party and Fine Gael - The United Ireland Party. Irish politics is steered towards a United Ireland with the vast majority of Irish voters supporting parties who support a United Ireland.
So the majority of Irish people are against you.
Posted by Alan | 18.02.09, 11:36 GMT
Mickey
I wouldnt pay much attention to these surveys saying that only 60% of northern catholics support a united ireland. The simple fact is that nearly 100% of them vote for nationalist parties. They are hardly going to do that if they wanted to stay in the UK
Posted by Ciaran | 18.02.09, 11:26 GMT
@ Daithi
Your ignorance continues to astound me. At least you have finally worked out that the party with the most support is the biggest party. Congratulations on that but why do you have to offer up all the meaningless excuses and what ifs.
FF allowed the articles of the constitution to be changed so that the GFA could be passed, thus meaning for the first time a vote on the future of NI will be possible ie nationalists now have more power than ever. Follow along.
You are also making a major mistake by assuming that FF and SF are the only parties who want a United Ireland. By the way SF lost a seat in the last election but received 20,000 more votes overall.
As for Dev, I would say to hell with him, but he is probably already there.
Posted by Alan | 18.02.09, 00:29 GMT
Alan, more people voted against FF if you add up all the independents and all the other parties against FF. So the majority of irish people did not want FF in power. Also with the local and european elections this summer FF will suffer. Yes they are the largest party, but proportional representation and transfers of votes coupled with the undecided and now remorseful impulse voters has an effect on their true voting (loyal) electorate.
They are the largest party if they last the full term, how long will the greens be prepared to let themselves go the way of the PDs. if FFs sole aim is the reunification of ireland why under their term in office did they allow articles two and three of the constitution to be changed as the reason FF were founded was in opposition to the treaty and to claim the 6 counties. Dev would be rolling over in his warm grave with its majestic views of Hell, if he knew his "kin" were selling out, then again they have a history of hypocrisy along with nazi sympathy
Posted by Daithi de burca | 17.02.09, 20:45 GMT
@ Mickey
"I have often wondered if the UK joined the EU, would this in fact strengthen Northern Ireland's hand rather than hinder it. "
Where have you been for the last 36 years Mickey? They joined on the same day as Ireland and Denmark. As one might say:
"You'll always get the odd eejit but they are to be pitied rather than scorned"
Posted by Alan | 17.02.09, 20:43 GMT
47 Comments