4 ms·

It's an interesting proposal that honestly I hadn't considered before, was it ever on the table at all or is it just an interesting idea? I'd be curious how pop

by smcl 4y ago

It's an interesting proposal that honestly I hadn't considered before, was it ever on the table at all or is it just an interesting idea? I'd be curious how popular it would be among the populace of Northern Ireland itself. In terms of the political parties I am relatively certain it would be a non-starter. I think it would be seen by the unionist parties as a huge leap in the direction of re-unification, and they won't want to cede an inch. And given their recent momentum Sinn Féin could be confident that they'll gain some kind of mandate for reunification proper without relying on this compromise. I'm not a resident of nor am I affiliated with Ireland or Northern Ireland at all so my gut-feel may be way off :)

skissane 4y ago
It is not a new idea. In 1984, the Irish government established a "New Ireland Forum", bringing together nationalist politicians from both North and South, to come up with proposals for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, as an alternative to the violent tactics of the Provisional IRA. It proposed three options: (1) a united Ireland as a unitary state; (2) Ireland as a federation or confederation of both the north and south; (3) Northern Ireland to be ruled by a "joint authority" established by both the UK and Irish governments. Option (3) is essentially a condominium, even if they didn't use the word. The Thatcher government, and Northern Ireland unionists, rejected all three options out of hand. The SDLP leader, Colum Eastwood, publicly repeated the condominium/"joint authority" proposal in 2017, as an alternative to direct rule from London due to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive, but the DUP and UUP opposed the idea. (I'm not sure what Sinn Fein had to say about it.) > I think it would be seen by the unionist parties as a huge leap in the direction of re-unification, and they won't want to cede an inch. And given their recent momentum Sinn Féin could be confident that they'll gain some kind of mandate for reunification proper without relying on this compromise. A pattern I see in Northern Ireland: the First Minister and deputy First Minister are formally equal in power, but the first has the more prestigious title. When Sinn Fein had the deputy role, they wanted to change the titles to give them equal prestige – such as by renaming both to "Joint First Minister" – the DUP refused. Now that Sinn Fein is supposed to get the First Minister role, suddenly DUP is expressing interest in changing the name – Sinn Fein is refusing, essentially saying "If you didn't want to compromise with us then, why should we compromise with you now?" So I think you are right: unionists will oppose any compromises on the constitutional status question until the point at which it becomes obvious they are going to lose. Then the nationalists will say to them: "if you'd come to us in decades past, we quite possibly would have said yes, but why should we compromise with you now?"
- smcl 4y ago
  That’s fascinating, thanks for outlining the situation so clearly

by smcl 4y ago

skissane 4y ago

It is not a new idea. In 1984, the Irish government established a "New Ireland Forum", bringing together nationalist politicians from both North and South, to come up with proposals for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, as an alternative to the violent tactics of the Provisional IRA. It proposed three options: (1) a united Ireland as a unitary state; (2) Ireland as a federation or confederation of both the north and south; (3) Northern Ireland to be ruled by a "joint authority" established by both the UK and Irish governments. Option (3) is essentially a condominium, even if they didn't use the word. The Thatcher government, and Northern Ireland unionists, rejected all three options out of hand. The SDLP leader, Colum Eastwood, publicly repeated the condominium/"joint authority" proposal in 2017, as an alternative to direct rule from London due to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive, but the DUP and UUP opposed the idea. (I'm not sure what Sinn Fein had to say about it.) > I think it would be seen by the unionist parties as a huge leap in the direction of re-unification, and they won't want to cede an inch. And given their recent momentum Sinn Féin could be confident that they'll gain some kind of mandate for reunification proper without relying on this compromise. A pattern I see in Northern Ireland: the First Minister and deputy First Minister are formally equal in power, but the first has the more prestigious title. When Sinn Fein had the deputy role, they wanted to change the titles to give them equal prestige – such as by renaming both to "Joint First Minister" – the DUP refused. Now that Sinn Fein is supposed to get the First Minister role, suddenly DUP is expressing interest in changing the name – Sinn Fein is refusing, essentially saying "If you didn't want to compromise with us then, why should we compromise with you now?" So I think you are right: unionists will oppose any compromises on the constitutional status question until the point at which it becomes obvious they are going to lose. Then the nationalists will say to them: "if you'd come to us in decades past, we quite possibly would have said yes, but why should we compromise with you now?"

smcl 4y ago
That’s fascinating, thanks for outlining the situation so clearly