What do the Irish really think on unification?

EnglishObserver

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
2,769
With regard to the Republic of Ireland:








Furthermore, it is worth noting that:



As regards Northern Ireland:



Tremendous detail - much obliged.
 


Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,824
Twitter
No
Much rather be reunified with Bermuda, to be honest, and I suspect I'd not be alone in that.

But anyone who has ever glimpsed a map of the Island of Ireland could probably grasp the sense in ambitions to re-unify.
 

tsarbomb

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
4,977
Varadkar also said we'd need a new constitution, something I was attempting to discuss elsewhere before tripping over a narrow mind. Perhaps I'll have better luck here.

Even without the context of a united Ireland the thought of replacing the constitution fills me with dread.

As an atheist I'm a second-class citizen under our constitution but I can still recognise the beauty of it.

De Valera chose well when he chose John Hearne and the others of the Constitutional Committee. Hearne in particular was an educated and erudite public servant. He had the background and training to understand the import of his duty and, more than just the the ability to discharge it, he had the old-fashioned patriotism and character to discharge it well.

He wouldn't have a hope of being involved in drafting a replacement today. As a pale, stale, male member of The Elite his sort would wouldn't fit with the need for 'inclusion', 'balance' and the need to consider people's 'lived experience'.

Rather than experts, a 21st Constitutional Committee would surely be some sort of monstrosity like the Citizen's Assembly. Some randomly chosen members from Dublin and other selected parts of the country would be joined by 'representatives of Civil Society' - the sort worthies whom recent Presidents and Taoisigh have appointed to the Council of State and the Seanad respectively. They'll all emote at a professional level but few will have the intellectual capacity or academic background for the task.

After a lot of 'public consultation', and doubtless a few focus groups, they'll produce some sort of woolly-headed mish-mash of a thing that will be filled with good intentions and pious aspirations but which will, if it's adopted, cause untold misery when used to deal with real-life matters in the courts.

The only small glimmer of hope I'm willing to entertain is that it will be defeated by the combined votes of the awkward squad (who can be relied on to oppose everything) and the ever diminishing cohort of educated voters.
That's a thoughtful post.

I think you should rest easy. The current government aren't the types to write a new constitution. For all its faults, Bunreacht has held up well and it's amendable, so if we need a constitutional change to make reunification more attractive then it's not impossible.

The more I think about it Varadkar`s comment on the need for a new state is probably just scaremongering.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,824
Twitter
No
Ah well, you know politicians and change. Every suggestion to them is impossible until it becomes probable at which point they will claim they foresaw it all along.

Nature of the beast.

What people sometimes forget about the constitution (and those who drafted it did point this out) is that it was never intended as some kind of Rosetta Stone, never to be redrafted in case existence lost all meaning. They specifically said it was their view that the aspirations and duties described in the constitution should change in line with the expressed wishes of the people.

It is supposed to be a dynamic thing, not a stationary block on change.
 


New Threads

Top