I was born in NI. I live in NI. I've worked and traveled around the world and have many friends at home how do not think of themselves as C or P. A border poll was not even on the sinn fein radar until the english and welsh voted to cut their own throat. brexit has brought forward a border poll forward by 10 years. Maybe sooner. Here in NI we are not having the supply chain issues you are having in gb because we are still in the single market and customs union. The majority of people here can see this. The dup will not be the ruling party next year and are doing there level best to stir as must shit, so as to raise their profile. The majority of businesses don't have a problem with "protocol". So what's the problem. Politicians don't generate wages, businesses do. Politicians generate problems to suit their profile today, businesses generate jobs and wealth, and pay taxes to pay for these;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
With respect, I would say that politicians follow the votes, not the other way around. The DUP wouldn't exist if there were not plenty of folks on the ground who support them and other Unionist parties. With regard to Brexit, it was England's choice and as aforementioned, I'm in favour of an independent Northern Ireland with redrawn borders based on the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, and if every district, both Nationalist and Unionist, voted for a United Ireland, then I would be in favour of that too. In either regard, the Unionist community supported Brexit and its they would have been hit the hardest with the effects of the protocol which has cut them off from their biggest trading partner for the time being, England.
An independent NI wouldn't be economically viable. It costs the British a fortune to keep it afloat. Ok the three countries that your suggesting they give are the worst off. But still it would be hard to see it surviving. The Northern Ireland protocol bill will tell a tail. If it separates us from the EU, it will harden nationalist resolve for a United Ireland, maybe some unionists would consider it as well. If unionists could of lived with the NI protocol it could have been a final solution. With many nationalist being happy with the status quo. But shit happens and the DUP are doing more for Irish unity than Sinn féin ever did
”No taxation without out representation” you said. You do realise, that in a united Ireland and its PR system, Unionist parties would always be the kingmaker in the formulation of any new coalition governments. They would be in a powerful position to ensure their future as against the lack of representation they receive Westminster. Boris threw the Unionist under the bus and they will not forget that. Partitioning Ireland created an artificial majority that ensured minority discrimination and it took 100 years to equalise, your idea is just going to recreate these conditions again. ROI, USA & EU will never allow this to happen. Non-starter mate.
None of those entities has the capability to seriously stop the UK beyond words and sanctions, but besides that one point, I have a response video coming out now that answers my new stance on this issue (as well as pointing out the strength that Unionists would have in the Dail)
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp . LOL. you certainly received heat on this one from equally good people. But one learns as we go along. Remember Peace is paramount in Ireland.
I totally get your opinion, but I don't think more/new borders is the solution. Would a more inclusive new Ireland not make more sense? Why do Catholic/Nationalist minorities always have to be the ones to compromise and everything is done to please the other side? How about creating an entity that works for everyone, equally? A new Ireland could involve the political system being completely overhauled to ensure inclusiveness, a new constitution, a new flag. The Irish state is smart enough to know that the unionist communities will not accept a simple reunification into the Republic that exists today and is preparing for this eventuality. We need something much, much better than what exists today, on both sides.
To that I would flip the question: suppose one were to suggest a United Ireland, back as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? As I say in the video, that would be a ridiculous proposition to make, because it would disrespect the wishes of the Irish Nationalist community. So why then would a United Ireland ruled from Dublin be any less insulting to the national sentiments of the Unionist community in Ulster? That's the question. I have no doubt that the RoI could and would do an excellent job at governing the North in a fair and pluralistic way, but it would never be able to respect the Self-Determination of the Unionists who wish to be governed by anywhere BUT Dublin. Thanks for your contribution anyway, I hope to hear more from you!
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Fair question and this is the core issue and why it's all so complicated. We need to look at all solutions and carefully evaluate them with complete consensus before any changes are made. Just look at the mess of Brexit and how rushing these seismic changes can cause so much destruction. We need a "New Ireland" and not necessarily ruled by a single parliament in Dublin, this simply won't work. Perhaps a two capitals approach could work? Or how about a Federal approach? Each historic province with its own parliament? There are plenty of other avenues to explore and it will probably take another 100 years. I don't think it should be rushed.
@@colinmur1 On Brexit, Brexit was such a mess because England has no codified constitution (which I've written a draft of with Brexit and other constitutional matters in mind). And with regard to your Irish points, I cover that in a response video which will come out tomorrow, so watch that.
That's a reasonable point Colin, but what else can the Republic give? We gave up our claim to the six counties, we have adopted an alternative flag in sporting events ( rugby, hockey, golf etc) we have bent over backways to facilitate unionist concerns regarding their sovereignty, we have agreed that there will be no united Ireland unless unionists agree to it , what else do they want ? All you get from them is NO NO NO, well guess what ? They have run out of road and have little or no sympathy down south any more. They're time is up just like the union .
Now imagine the outrage if a Unionist suggested that to the Irish Nationalists...its amazing to see from an outsider's perspective just how tribal the thinking is on this issue, the levels of Supremacism are just off the charts!
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp they have been suggesting it for years, the majority of the island never wanted partition, it was divided on a sectarian head count, intended to be temporary. It has been a disaster from start until now, the majority of the island have wanted to be unified since the inception of the failed state that is NI. Unionists and people of all traditions race or religion are and will always be welcome in Ireland however should they feel uncomfortable there is nothing stopping them for going back to their ancestral homeland.
@Hal Eduardo they have constantly due to nearly a century of discrimination from unionist sectarian rule, in a failed state, that failed state is on its last legs, so there is no need to anymore, and when that so called state has dissolved, as I previously mentioned, if the unionists are that uncomfortable and want to stay ruled by the Britian, there is nothing stopping them from going there.......Arlene foster agrees 👍
In the wrong country, you said. You could have just stopped there. The days of the British drawing lines on Ireland are over for good. No repartition of Ireland will ever be accepted by the Irish people. That's the reality of the situation that you need to be aware of.
A) This is about the people of Northern Ireland, not Ireland. B) Clearly you never watched the video, because I clearly said that it should be the people of Northern Ireland redrawing the border, not Brits (I'm English not British also, but again, you'd know that if you actually watched it properly)
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp But repartition would just perpetuate the division. You are not the first person to think of this. It wouldn't work. NI would be even more of an oddity than it is already.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskpWhether you see yourself as British or English makes no difference to me. You are not Irish though are you? So why do you think you know what's best for Ireland. The Irish want to see an end to all British rule in Ireland, for the nightmare to finally end. The likes of David Frost holding my country hostage against the EU has made the reunification of Ireland an urgent strategic necessity. I know you don't understand my POV, but just try and put yourself in Irish shoes. Imagine France had an enclave in England, and used it against you whenever it was useful to them. But I suppose little Ireland can't have interests or national feeling like mighty Britain. The partition of Ireland would be illegal under international law now and has been since the 50's. Carving up countries during decolonisation is an evil act which has caused cilvil strife throughout the world where it has been done. We want to live in peace together and heal. Repartition would just start a new hell. Is it worth it, just to hold two counties in Ireland?
@@deborahh2195 Define "work"? NI is already an oddity having such a large number of its citizens wanting to no longer belong to it. Asking them to redraw the border themselves would mean that the Nationalists would become part of the RoI and the Unionists would maintain their independence from Dublin rule. A win-win for both sides (except for those who want an All-or-Nothing approach)
@@deborahh2195 If my national identity makes no difference to you, why should I continue to engage? I respect you as being Irish, you ought to respect me as being English and respect the Loyalists in Ulster as wanting to maintain their independence from Dublin.
Like you, it once occurred to me that the solution to the Northern Ireland issue was indeed a redrawing of the border and I engaged in an online forum discussion on the subject. In my scenario, Antrim and Down, where there are overwhelming Unionist majority would remain in the UK, while Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Armagh would unify with the rest of Ireland. I got schooled. Firstly, I was told that nationalists in Northern Ireland would not tolerate fellow nationalists in Belfast being abandoned inside the UK - it would be a repeat of what happened in 1920. I was chastened by that, as it had never occurred to me. It also made me consider that Unionists in the other counties would also feel betrayed by a simple redrawing of the border. Secondly, I was reminded that Irish unity has no longer had anything to do with territory, the Belfast Agreement is based on a complete shift in perspective: unity of the people through consent, not unity of territory. This was understood by Irish nationalists as being a long-term project that would occur gradually over time. The border was only ever supposed to be a temporary arrangement pending a final settlement. In 1920, Irish republicans and the British government assumed that Northern Ireland would join with the Irish Free State in due course. However, the Border Commission findings were never implemented because once it became clear that the Free State would actually lose more territory than it would gain, it became politically toxic and Dublin buried it. In 1937, Eamon de Valera wrote a new constitution for the Free State, replacing the Free State Constitution. It was Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution that the irredentist claim on Northern Ireland was placed. The purpose of this claim was to provide alternative constitutional means to achieve unity for his critics (Sinn Féin), without actually doing anything about it. It was also focused on unity of territory and not on the unity of the people, which was the real issue. This shift in focus from 'territory' to 'people' in the Belfast Agreement marked an evolution in Irish nationalist thinking that evolved from the start of The Troubles. What this means is that any united Ireland will have to be a negotiated one, and a new state will have to be agreed between NI Unionists, NI Nationalists, and the inhabitants of the rest of Ireland. This new Ireland will need to be one where multi-layered identities will need be accommodated, and it is likely that unionists in this new state - if they come together - will almost always hold the balance of power. However, Brexit has brought this discussion to the fore too soon and it is not the context within which a rational discussion on unity can take place, because in Northern Ireland it leaves one side or the other feeling like a winner or loser. Who is to say that Irish unity will not be influenced by events in Britain rather than Ireland in the coming years? What if England left the Union as you would advocate, and there was no United Kingdom - what would be the point of redrawing new borders in Northern Ireland in that context? I suspect there is some anxiety in both Dublin and Belfast regarding the next step in the evolution of English nationalism.
With the greatest respect, this is a nonsense. Firstly, because as aforementioned the division based on counties or along any territorial lines like that would be a non-starter. Secondly, there will always be some sector of the Unionist community which will be opposed to Irish unity, so even if only one area remained Unionist and the whole rest of NI came around to the idea of Irish Unity, it would still require a division between themselves and Dublin, as there can be no governance without consent by the People, and therefore if that principle is to be adhered to rather than simply abandoned (as GFA logically points towards), a border somehow, somewhere is a necessity. As aforementioned also, this slowly-boiling-the-frog approach is insulting to the Unionist community. Imagine the outrage if it was ever suggested that eventually after 100 years the Irish Nationalists could be tweaked bit by bit to accepting British rule? Are Unionists so foolish that they will allow their freedom from Dublin rule to be taken away from them without their noticing? And it would be logical to redraw the borders because as I came to the conclusion: Unionists can move to England, but Loyalists will never surrender. Their identity is stronger than Unionism, and they won't budge or negotiate. If the UK collapses (God's speed) they will not simply accept that, they will form an independent Northern Ireland, and if that is the logical conclusion then it necessitates that the border ought to be drawn in a more fitting and accountable way than is presently the case. I know that I talk a lot in my videos, but I find it quite strange when points are clearly laid out in the video and yet are ignored and in need of being repeated in the comment section.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Well, with respect, I thought that it was clear from my post that the county by county division was also a non-starter, for the reason given in relation to the Belfast Agreement. All I did was walk you though my experience. I also find it odd that when arguments are clearly and carefully pointed out in my comments they are ignored and in need of being repeated in the comment section. The point I was making is that creating news borders - islands of loyalism outside the new state, is not the answer either and in some areas would lead to more ethnic cleansing as it does already. While there will always be some section of the broader Unionist community opposed to Irish unity, a minority cannot hold a veto in border poll. That is simply not democracy. [It should also be noted that the Ulster-Scots and Anglo-Irish that remained in the 26 counties post-1922 are fully integrated into the southern state. No islands of unionism were required in those instances, and there are still villages along the southern side of the border that are entirely Protestant] My second point: unionists have told nationalists even before the Belfast Agreement that they will need to be persuaded that unity is the best option for them and Northern Irish nationalists have told Dublin they feel the same for their community, believe it or not - so this more complicated that it first seems. In the past, one of the reasons unionists opposed unity was the claim that Ireland was not a plural state. Well, that has certainly changed in recent years and indeed pluralism is enshrined in the Irish constitution. The Dublin government has established a Shared Island Initiative to work with the Northern Ireland Executive in matters of shared mutual interest. Over a long period of time, nationalists hope, this will break down suspicions between the two communities and persuade unionists that unity in a new Irish agreed state is the way forward, because by that stage much of that unity will have happened naturally through consent, not through stealth as you suggest. What does this process look like? Well, one example that comes to mind is the new children's hospital, currently under-construction in Dublin, the only one on the island, will have a 32 county remit. The analogy with boiling the frog is based on deception and is not what I am suggesting at all. Small incremental demonstrations of real and practical benefits made through agreement over a long period of time is the agreed way to create the unity that will lead to that new Irish state over many decades. Unity is about people, not territory. But persuasion from Dublin is only one part of the equation. It was one most people accepted in Ireland, and prior to June 2016, most assumed unity would occur long after they were dead. Indeed, the new arrangement was so popular south of the border people there would have been happy to accept it as a final settlement if that was the way it would turn out, especially as there were now excellent relations between Dublin and London in the mix also, indicating a maturing of both Irish nationalism and of the British perspective on Ireland. Peace was more important than unity for most people. The Brexit vote changed all of that. It now introduced another part of the equation: 1) disruptive events on the other island. Brexit came in like a wrecking ball in June 2016, and everyone in Ireland wanted to know 'what about the border?'. It was clear to many observers in Ireland that we were witnessing a step in the process of the break up of the United Kingdom too, and this was confirmed in the poll of members of the Conservative Party in 2018, where achieving Brexit was considered more important than maintaining the union, an indicator of where priorities lay - you have mentioned this poll before. 2) Nationalists are on the cusp of being the majority in the Northern Ireland and the next assembly elections are likely to have Sinn Féin First Minister in Stormont. Unionists will feel the rug is being pulled out from under them. One other factor is the likelihood that Sinn Féin will soon be in government in Dublin too. This should not be construed as evidence that people in the republic want a border poll - it will be because of bread and butter issues like health and housing - but if they are in power in both Dublin and Belfast they will seek to advance the unity agenda. This is problematic. While the Belfast Agreement allows for a 50%+1 result in any border poll - just like as the Brexit vote did for leaving the EU - no Irish party would ever agree to a poll unless there was a clear majority that included a significant minority of unionists also, for obvious political reasons. In other words, unless there was prospect of 70% or 80% in favour of unity in NI, no Irish government would support it. That's a problem. A border poll on unity, even one that rejects it, in the next few years would be seriously divisive, especially against the backdrop of Brexit. And what if there is not United Kingdom anymore? Unionists will not have consented to that either. The unity question has been put on the table long before the people on either side of the border are ready for it. While I share your aspiration for an independent England one day, I do not share your desire for the UK to collapse, though I fear this may be an outcome. The notion of a chaotic break up and the appalling possibility of one or more failed states in Britain and with chaos in Northern Ireland is chilling. As a future politician, would you not consider a Velvet-type revolution similar to the break up of Czechoslovakia being more desirable? It will require leadership and co-operation - could you could be the man for the job.?
With respect, you're just not listening. There's no point in speaking to someone if they are not listening to any points being said. There will only be ethnic cleansing if idiots are foolish enough to do it and if cowards are weak enough to allow it. Borders around the world are capable of having enclaves, and if the people within these enclaves saw what the situation was, over a period of 3-4 years they could through Citizen's Assemblies decide that they'd rather be integrated within the surrounding nation, if they so chose. The fact that was said multiple times and yet still ignored means that what you are doing is talking too much and not listening enough (pretty ironic to patronize someone like a child and then not even conduct a discussion in an adult manner). And you're just not listening again, the Loyalists don't want small incremental steps over 10 years or 100 years or 1000 years, they want to be left ALONE! Is that so unreasonable to allow a people to just be left alone without having someone else's nationality forced on them? The Irish were Anglicized for 800 years and yet still this never worked, so stop being so disrespectful as to imagine that a few children's hospitals and borrowed cups of sugar will somehow turn Unionists into Irish Nationalists.
And finally on your point about the UK and if I were to become a future PM of England: My responsibilities and my duty of care are to the People of England, and no one else unless it serves England's national interest. I offered this proposal as a framework for how the NI themselves could solve the inevitable train crash that the GFA has in store for NI as soon as a majority seek Irish Unity, I foresaw from speaking to Unionists/Loyalists that they would never stand for it and call for a repartition, and so to pre-empt that, I took the time to offer a peaceful, democratic solution to a foreign country. My stance now as a result of people like yourself and others in the comment section is to look at what England did in India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine (which I have done videos on). Britain sought to rule these people, but the long-standing hatred between them was something which would never be squashed, so the British drew the new borders for the locals and left. The mistake of these colonial officials was firstly to seek to rule foreigners to begin with, and secondly, their mistake was in being the ones to draw the borders themselves (the myth of Divide and Rule has been debunked in my videos before, so I won't waste time restating it now). Were it me who had been in charge in 1947 or 1948, I would have just packed up our bags and let the natives draw their own borders themselves. We didn't start the hatred, we didn't fuel the hatred, we sought to govern these places with as much harmony as possible (civil war is bad for business after all), but as I am not an imperialist I would seek an immediate withdrawal. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but at least if England withdrew she would have none of her troops killed and none of her people being attacked on her soil. If the UK disintegrated tomorrow, England would have no more responsibility to the people of NI than she would to RoI, and were I to be the PM overseeing this withdrawal, I would only intervene if the ensuing civil war split over and came to England. However, in the event of an immediate withdrawal, who would be angry at England enough to conduct such acts against her? The Republicans would have got exactly what they want, they'd be cheering in the streets that 800 years of Englishmen in Ireland were at an end. The Unionists? If we withdrew only from NI but kept Scotland and Wales they'd feel bitter at the betrayal, but if England left all 3 of them equally, they could hardly be angry at England's declaration of her own independence. The Loyalists? They'd curse England for throwing them under the bus, but it wouldn't be the first time and they've come to expect London to betray them (this betrayal echoed in Kipling's poem). So where would the threat of this civil war in NI spilling over into England come from? If there is therefore no spill over, then England's stance upon her withdrawal ought to be "Apres moi, le deluge!" ("After me, the Flood!") Your responses as well as others on this comment section have hardened my heart towards the people of NI, and so if this is the vitriol I get for offering a way out of this inevitable civil war on the horizon, I wash my hands of you all. There will be no Velvet Revolution, NI will be Bosnia and England will be Slovenia; staying firmly out of it all and watching from the side-lines.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Okay, thanks. Listen I have decided to unsubscribe and will not be commenting again. This is not out of any spite towards you, but you are just too intense for me to have to tip-toe around your feelings on serious topics. I wish you all the best in your endeavours though. Cheers!
In many ways your northern ireland already exists, all major motorways, most train stations, airports and hospitals are in the east is where you would have your northern ireland, leaving nationalists in West northern ireland less access to services and jobs, if was the intension or not is unclear but the boarder created a soci-ecomonic void in northern ireland and as a consequence a wider void for Ireland in its entirety. The boarder needs to go, why there is idealogy that ireland should somehow tolerate a border where ever it is drawn is not fair. Britain went to war for countries that were invaded but yet will not give the chance to the Irish to rule themselves. Australia, New Zealand, Greater India, the Conolies etc. have got their right to free themselves of British rule, should Ireland not too? Our land was the first conqured by the empire so it is only fair we get it back. I respect the fact you have actually educated yourself about thr current situation of Ireland. Go raith maith agatsa!!! (Thanks in Irish)
With respect, its not "my Northern Ireland", Im an English nationalist who wishes that we were never in Ireland or anywhere else; a lot of headache for very little gain. I also pointed out that I wanted the people of Northern Ireland to sort the border issue themselves, independent of both London and Dublin. You dismissing the need for a border is not in-keeping with the views of 1 million Unionists.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp we will never agree on the border. Thanks for the comment. Might bump into you the next time you are in Belfast or maybe Derry. Sláinte agat! 👍😊
The name for what you suggest is Balkanisation. You assume that the minorities in the new areas will be treated well, even though they have no chance of political power. You assume the minorities will not resent their status. Historically this sort of arrangement has lead to ethnic cleansing, if not outright genocide. Sorting people by ethnic group is bad. Treating everyone equally because of common human rights is the way to go.
A) As aforementioned, it would be for the People themselves to decide said borders. B) There is no problem in the Balkans where there are clear boundaries between ethnic groups. Slovenia and Croatia had hardly any problem, the same is true in Serbia. Where the issues were were mainly in Bosnia; an artificial state that is nothing more than a mishmash of competiting peoples all wanting their own nationhood. NI is Bosnia and will end up like that if the borders are not redrawn to better reflect the ethnicities there, just as ought to be done in Bosnia. Poorly drawn borders do not make peace, at best one can have a truce. It is with respect a facile argument to talk of human rights, as of course every state ought to. But the question is: what state and what ought to be the borders of such a state? That is the central question. Whether NI is British, Irish, independent as a whole or independent with new reflective borders, human rights ought to be respected, but that does not solve the issue at hand.
The Loyalists will be a minority within a United Ireland, just as the Irish Nationalists are a minority in NI now. In either case and in all, minorities will exist. That is not the question. The question is: ought each side to be given the right to self-determine their own borders, or will outsiders impose these borders on them, as has been the case and seems will remain the case now?
Interesting to hear a constructive attempt to improve matters in Ireland. You are absolutely right that the attitudes are ingrained and very very slow to change. The problem of the Unionist population is one that all advocates of a United Ireland need to face up to
Thanks for the kind words, due to the recent release of the 2021 Census, I'm going to be doing a video that will come out this week on Sunday, so stayed tuned for my fresh take on this matter!
Hard borders in Northern Ireland are likely to become targets for violent removal. Anybody seeking to construct or use such physical infrastructure would be doing so at their own risk.
The "Peace Walls" were set up and still stand in Belfast and Londonderry etc without too much problem. The myth of no hard borders in NI is one that can be debunked by simply walking about within NI herself, to say nothing of the "Mauer im Kopf" (Wall in the Head) between Unionists and Nationalists even where there are no physical walls.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Peace walls are not borders, and they will come down. People are getting sick of living behind them after 25 years of peace. They are only in the most deprived parts of Belfast. There are none in the well to do parts, apart from my next-door neighbour. He built his own wall
A lot has happened since Kipling was alive, and a great deal has changed in the relationship between Ireland, Britain, and the wider world; including the European Union and the United States of America. For me, the most interesting aspect is the attitude of the British, especially the 52% that supported Brexit, and the survey that revealed a huge majority in favour of Northern Ireland being sacrificed if it meant getting Brexit done. The special arrangements that continue to bedevil trade between Northern Ireland and the mainland has only heightened tension in the province. Whatever the eventual outcome, one can't have separate regions of Northern Ireland each claiming loyalty to different states. Therein lies the recipe for even more chaos. Northern Ireland is on the up economically, largely because it remains int the Customs Union. Will the Unionists shoot themselves in the foot and vote against that state of affairs continuing so that they can remain united to an England that couldn't care less about them? It would be foolish thing to do. Time will tell.
Northern Ireland is already a province separated by different national loyalties with hard borders between the communities and more importantly, a hard border within the hearts of the two communities against each other. The argument for national sovereignty is never one based on economics, as aforementioned, and therefore prosperity will not ease the tensions between those seeking to live under separate flags. Not much has changed since Kipling's days, the same divisions are still there and the same issue is still at hand; England has every right to focus on herself and she ought to, but there is a need for each community in NI to live under separate nationalities. The Unionists will no more accept Dublin rule than the Nationalists have accepted 100 years of London rule, and so my proposal here was to accept that reality and to ensure that the next 100 years are not a repeat of the last, just in reverse. However, given the state of the comment section here, I have hardened my heart to the issue, and as an English Brexiteer, I want England to withdraw and for the NI to sort this out amongst themselves. I no longer care about the issue and wish for my own country to wash their hands of this whole mess. This video was meant as a way of avoiding the inevitable train crash that the GFA has locked in for NI's future, but those who refuse to listen and act now will suffer the consequences of believing that time will tell them something different than what time has already shown them up until this point.
Many countries have divisions including your own. I had trouble with the national front when I lived there, easily handled didn't take up too much of my time. But England is just as divided as the north and it seems to manage. Ok it supports the same football team in the World Cup but there is a lot of intolerance toward the others. I'd take the train wreck for long term gain
Your suggestion that unionists will always be a thorn in the side of the Irish government does not hold weight historically. After Irish partition, unionists in the south either left or just got on with it . The same thing will happen in NI if Westminster decides to do the same thing today. Unionists will leave or stay and just get on with it .
To compare tiny pockets of Unionists in the rest of Ireland to Loyalists living in Ulster for 400 years, and living in a separate, autonomous region for most of the last 100 years, would immediately show one why it could work in the former and not the latter
What political power could Unionists have wielded in the Free State? Not much. But now with DUP, UUP and TUV members in the Dail, they'd make up about 11% of the seats, making them potential king makers in any coalition.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp loyalism was just as deep rooted in the South before partition as it is in the north east today. The war of independence created serious political issues for the landed " Anglo Irish" gentry who were both protestant and loyalist. They were driven out and indeed in many cases burned out and forced to flee to Britain much more so than NI. Those who remained muddled through and often with help of neighbours settled and reintegrated and became a very influential part of Irish society.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp That was the precise reason for partition in the first place. Unionists would have had very little influence on Irish political affairs . The religious influence also formed a basis for separation as protestants believed that home rule meant Rome rule. That was very true given the power of the Catholic church in the country at that time. Britain also had an interest in keeping the north for military purposes as it was the entrance to the north channel and thus to the main ports on England's west coast. Today one hundred years later Ireland is a different place. Gone is the influence of the Catholic church, it is a secular multi national society, well off with a very well educated population. You suggest that paries like the DUP UUP and the TUV could possibly be king makers in a United Ireland ? I don't believe so because those parties have never progressed idealogically. They remain tied to fundimentalist religious and ultra right wing views that are more dogmatic than realistic. That was clearly evidenced by a recent DUP leader who was a self proclaimed creationist. They are rooted to the past and have little or nothing to offer to a vibrant political entity that thrives on a system that debates rather than dictates. Unionism as it is has no future either in Ireland or elsewhere.
Unification of Ireland is inevitable. Brexit has only sped up the process. Pragmatic Unionists will get on fine, Sectarianism just isn't a thing in the South. The Unionist vote will serve them far better in Dublin than it ever did in Westminster. They will be a bigger minority and will hold more influence on a purely demographic basis. It'll be expensive but I think its oart of the process of Ireland's journey as a nation and an island. We're still a young nation, growning & evolving.
Partition gets a bum rap. How was an Irish government going to impose its rule on a resistant Protestant north in 1923? The wealthy UK (population around 50 million) had enough problem with half a million Catholics in Northern Ireland. How was poverty-stricken Southern Ireland (population 5 million) going to handle a million Protestants? Partition was the best outcome AT THE TIME. However, I am not sure a new partition would leave a particularly viable northern state.
Very true at the time, and its very true also that the situation has changed. But national sovereignty has never been nor ever ought to be about economic viability; its about Self-Governance.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp How do you have self governance of a non-viable state? If it is not economically viable, it must either collapse, or become a dependency of somewhere else, which is the reverse of self-governance. I am afraid that a new partition is not viable this time, not least because the North's capital is no longer majority Protestant and other Protestant majority areas are not all contiguous. The Protestants have had a century to consolidate their position in Northern Ireland, but the reverse has happened due to a lower birth rate and and higher emigration rate.
@@markaxworthy2508 Why would it be non-viable? Plenty of countries worldwide have a few 100,000 citizens, with much poorer economies than Northern Ireland.
I think this is an excellent solution, although as you said, there will be people left unsatisfied. Like, i would completely understand if the unionist community felt like they were being encircled by Dublin and the more extreme loyalists attempt to restart the violence. There are people on both sides who still fester in their hatred and honestly I believe the return to violence doesn’t phase them. That being said though, I don’t think violence on the scale of the troubles will happen again (fingers crossed) but there are elements up in the North who wouldn’t particularly mind. But anyway I’m only five minutes into the video, so I best start finishing! Excellent work so far, my friend 🇮🇪🏴
What if Northern Ireland became a sovereign nation? This would prevent the unionists being ruled by Dublin and allow the nationalists to have a separate flag from Britain’s and not be Ruled from London.
An excellent solution and one which I support, although the Republicans have shown in the comment section here that they want an All-or-Nothing approach, and so would never consent to this, which means that they are choosing conflict over compromise and are therefore unwilling to hear any rational ways of mitigating the inevitable train crash that NI is heading towards. NI will become like Bosnia, mark my words!
For a while this was a popular idea within unionism, although it was quickly shelved for obvious reasons. 'Northern Ireland' costs the UK millions if not billions of pounds every year. It wouldn't work for a variety of reasons
Still don't see the "obvious reasons". From a Unionist/Loyalist standpoint it makes complete sense, its only the Republicans who make this idea difficult because of their intransigence.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp If it makes complete sense where are the unionists/loyalists advocating for it? They toyed with the idea 50 years ago and, as I say, shelved it. Take it up with them. Republicans want the Republic - that means no minority-led, foreign-enforced partition. You can't lambast us as wanting an all-or-nothing approach in response to the cliché'd ridiculous fantasies of re-drawing the border or the 6 counties becoming a "sovereign nation".
@@maitiucibhleachain5139 Because up until now they've had a majority, and thus they have had an All-or-Nothing approach for the last 100 years. Now that the Nationalists will become a majority, the shoe is on the other foot. Logically speaking, the cross-over point would be the logical time for a new approach, rather than just flipping onto the other side of the same old rusty coin.
If everyone were as reasonable and thoughtful as yourself then resolution(s) would be simple. GFA did more than freeze conflict - it provided a roadmap out but as you rightly point out the Unionists of NI remain a problem going forward. Trimble was a reluctant supporter and the DUP voted against GFA. The more sensible -and sensitive- politicians in the South recognise that the Unionist population is a major problem,which is why they are not vociferously pushing unification. Personally I don’t think unification will happen until the Unionists of NI finally realise that the English really don’t want them; they will also however need to develop an ‘Irish ‘ identity to supplant the unsustainable ‘British’ identity that they are currently clinging to. Another partial unification would not be a good idea
There is no reason they couldn't hold onto their British identity Tony. As a Nationalist I never liked it when my Irish identity was threatened or questioned. There might even be room for the North to stay in the Commonwealth if is still exist. With the NI protocol working better because Irish officials would be in charge and able to check goods coming into the north from Britain making sure they stayed in the north.
I would either leave Belfast or find myself as once more in a minority community ruled by Unionists. Why should I? The first time around was bad enough
How would parts of Belfast be connected to the republic? You have been very vague on this point. Ireland would be better off as a single sovereign nation. We would stand a better chance of dealing with our drug problem if we had control of all our ports. We would have handed Covid better as well. I would pity anyone left behind in this repartition left in a Unionist statelet for another 100 years. Repartition of Ireland is just as stupid as the partition of Ireland 100 years ago.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskpWest Berlin was geographically connected to west Germany, and East Berlin to East Germany. Belfast would be separated from the republic. Nationalist enclaves in Belfast would probably end up like Gazza. Possible, yes but not ideal. What we got now is much better, thanks to the GFA
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp how would Irish areas in Belfast be policed where would criminals be judged and go to jail. Belfast has sea excess but that is in loyalists areas
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp fare enough but they were the same people and didn't have a war with each other to divide them like South and north Korea and here. Belfast is linked to the sea but in loyalist areas. It would be near impossible to for the Irish government to police or protect nationalist enclaves in such conditions that this redrawing of the map would create. Where would the courts be and the jails? NI is not like England were there are Hospitals everywhere rural areas already struggling to get people into hospitals could find themselves in trouble. Everything Irish would come under attack going through loyalist areas, to try and make nationalist move to safer parts of the new republic. Check out the burning of Bombay Street at the start of the troubles. Thats what happens when you have a 90% Unionist police force. things are more even now. The police force is more representative of the community. Your plan would never work. Nationalist would never except it, they would be foolish to and if it was forced on them, they would rise up and use violence, against those who would impose it. Your plan resembles the UDA doomsday plan in many ways and would make it easier for them to complete their plan. It would also affect the balance of power, making nationalist left in unionist areas prone to discrimination, and possible victims of the UDA doomsday plan check their plan out. Nationalist will never make it easy for them to do what they are thinking about doing. The GFA is all we got stick with it no matter what. It has been held up around the world as a templet for conflict resolution. It has become too big to fail.
Haha thanks very much for that, very much appreciated! In the midst of all the negative comments, positive ones often get lost! Thanks for your kind words!
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp If an open border between EU/N EU have worked for 25 years in some countries, -why doesn't it work for you? Why isn't it mentioned?
I still dont get your point. Norway is in the Single Market, the UK isnt, so unless an independent NI joined the Single Market there would need to be some sort of closed border. I imagine that they would, but also dont forget that Norway and Sweden havent had centuries of troubles, and thus an open border is easy. But again, I still dont get what your point is because it has nothing to do with what I had been suggesting in the video. It would be up to the NI people what sort of border they would want, if they chose to have a border there at all.
As much as possible I've tried my best to say Unionist/Nationalist rather than Protestant/Catholic, as its more accurate, so if I've misspoken at any point in the video, apologies for that. And the absurdity of the schism is a debateable point to be fair, but thanks for sharing your points on this anyway!
Firstly, I do not think there is a solution, at present, which will satisfy both sides sufficiently to ensure that this argument is confined to history. The are very different views of any poll or referendum which could result in a united Ireland. In my opinion a border poll will bring nothing but bloodshed and misery once again. I firmly believe that it will take another generation or two before this issue can be resolved. As time goes by, hardened views die out with the passing of generations who have lived through those violent times. It is only when there is respect and an appreciation of each other's cultures and history that a solution may be found. That time is yet to come but it is coming and for that reason there is hope. That hope lies with young people who have known nothing but peace, however fragile in some areas. The youth of today just want to live their lives, get educated , travel and get on with their lives. They have a broader view on life which is not constrained by religion, politics, border, flags or history. There is a bright future for Northern Ireland and when the youth of today bury the past and those who cling onto entrenched views, there will be a resolution.
Its a solution in part, but it doesn't solve the fundamental issue of what nation one lives under, the UK, the RoI or an independent NI. I admire your optimism and openness, but the deeper issue at hand won't simply be solved. Englishmen and Irishmen nowadays get on great, but an Irishman no more wishes to belong to the UK than the Loyalists wish to belong to the Republic. Therein lies the problem.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp thanks for your reply and I agree that a Loyalist or an Irishman would not wish to live under the others preferred flag but with the added caveat , "at this present time". Nationalists would not identify as being British and Loyalists do not identify as being Irish. Although i do know some Loyalists who identify as Irishmen, however for the majority the common ground is that they all identify as being from Northern Ireland. There in lies the solution in my opinion, a separate state, independent of any outside control. That may be possible in time but not until the entrenched positions on both sides die out along with those who hold them. I would love to see a united Ireland where all traditions are accepted and have the same opportunities but I do not want to see it if it means a return to violence , and that threat is ever present.
@@damienobrien7016 True, as I stated here, I support an independent Northern Ireland, but I cant see a situation where it could survive with so many wanting it to become part of RoI, and thats why I suggested for folks to redraw their own borders.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp there is one thing that I'm not sure you have considered, apologies if you have, and that is there would need to be a referendum in the Rep. before unification could take place. Despite the emotive arguments made by some sections of society, Irish people are not stupid, the financial implications would put a massive burden on the tax payer, public finances and our public services such as our health care system. Being patriotic is an admirable trait but with the prospect of potential crippling hike in taxes for the average person, I suspect that a vote in favour of unification is not a foregone conclusion.
@@damienobrien7016 True, I covered that in my very first video on Ireland, but I feel that (as aforementioned in my more recent video on "Is Brexit to Blame?") Nationalism is never about whats economically sound. Neither the US nor Ireland were in a good economic state at the time of independence, but they did it anyway because of Nationalism. I cant see the RoI voting against a United Ireland, no matter the cost
I really like appreciate this video. I think the proposals offered here make a lot of sense. My own slightly different solution to the NI question would be to repartition Northern Ireland with the part wanting to retain UK citizenship being formally added to Scotland. Northern Ireland would cease to exist. Many Unionists in Northern Ireland have ancestral connections to Scotland. How hard would it be to become newly and fully Scottish again? Especially if Boris Johnson's proposed bridge between Scotland and Ireland becomes a reality. Places like Belfast where Unionist and Republican populations are intermingled would be a bit trickier to sort out. Some sort of UK/ Republic of Ireland resettlement program would help. People would be paid to move to the side of their choice. Those that elected to stay put would have to pledge alliance to their new governments - Republic of Ireland or UK. For a long time it looked like to me that NI unification with the Republic was inevitable. But now I think it might never happen if everyone sticks to the Good Friday Agreement. My comments represent my own American viewpoint.
Thanks for the kind words and suggestions, what I will say that you as an American may not know is that today's Scots have very little in common with the Ulster Scots, much in the same way that Scots today share little with Appalachia's Scots-Irish. Look at the SNP, Scotland nowadays is very liberal and progressive and they despise many Unionists in NI. Also I considered the payment thing before as compensation. The problem is that moderates who could live anywhere will see it as a freebie and the hardliners will take it as an insult, so it could be offered, but I feel wont work. At any rate Ive washed my hands of the matter, as one can see in the comment section, these people are not ready for a sensible conversation and that I as an English patriot am now vowing to stay out of this issue and leave them to it. If Irish Unity happens, it will be Bosnia 2.0, mark my words!
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp My ideas have no possiblity of becoming reality since they would require enormous and coordinated effort by the governments of UK, Scotland and Republic of Ireland. It would take some calamity to make them act. I think things will just muddle on via the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. If Sinn Fein becomes the majority party in next May's election, as many are predicting, then a new Border Poll will probably be put on the agenda. But how soon?
As aforementioned, I am an English patriot, and so upon reflection, I'd be hesitant for 1 million Unionists coming to England (the example of the Pied Noirs in French Algeria didn't bode well for either them nor the Metropolitan French, and I fear the same would happen with the very different Ulsterman compared with the English). Also on the Remain point, another reason why England needs independence from the UK so as to not face risking being dragged back into the EU by the other nations of the UK).
What part?Seven of the nine counties of Ulster plus Belfast City already votes Irish and European, two counties is hardly a country. My solution is a United country but the whole of Ulster now being policed by the E.U and the minority the British can keep their British citizenship through out Ulster. Peace is all our interests in Europe.
@@grahamfleming8139 Plenty of countries are smaller than that, so with respect that argument is a nonsense. Europe cannot police its own borders so how it could ever hope to police a population that dont want to belong to it (the majority of Unionists voted for Brexit) is beyond me. A United Ireland would only make these issues worse, so its no solution, and if allowing people to hold foreign passports was a solution, then there would be no Irish Nationalists in NI demanded reunification. After all, they have the right to an Irish citizenship, and yet that hasnt diminished their nationalist zeal. What makes you think that retention of British passports (bear in mind as aforementioned I am an English patriot who seeks the dissolution of the UK) would solve the crisis?
Tan are you still pretending to be Irish? We're not following ye gobshites down yellow brick road to xenophobic isolation. Rule for life is we're going to do the opposite of whatever ye do. Mostly out of spite.
They all forget that the ROI is broke🤔 and could not afford to take on the financial debts of NI just remember the caliphate of Londonstan has twice the population of the whole of Ireland and look at the financial mess they are in🤔🥺😂😂😂😂
London is in no way, shape or form a caliphate, our Muslim population is a minority and are incredibly tolerant compared to the rest of the country. I'd appreciate it if you kept this comment section respectful. "The mind is like a parachute, it works best when its open".
This is a terrible idea, this is just the partitioning our island yet again.
I like your comment, straight to the point. If only every was as concise with their disagreements. Thanks anyway and take care!
I was born in NI. I live in NI. I've worked and traveled around the world and have many friends at home how do not think of themselves as C or P. A border poll was not even on the sinn fein radar until the english and welsh voted to cut their own throat. brexit has brought forward a border poll forward by 10 years. Maybe sooner. Here in NI we are not having the supply chain issues you are having in gb because we are still in the single market and customs union. The majority of people here can see this. The dup will not be the ruling party next year and are doing there level best to stir as must shit, so as to raise their profile. The majority of businesses don't have a problem with "protocol". So what's the problem. Politicians don't generate wages, businesses do. Politicians generate problems to suit their profile today, businesses generate jobs and wealth, and pay taxes to pay for these;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
With respect, I would say that politicians follow the votes, not the other way around. The DUP wouldn't exist if there were not plenty of folks on the ground who support them and other Unionist parties. With regard to Brexit, it was England's choice and as aforementioned, I'm in favour of an independent Northern Ireland with redrawn borders based on the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, and if every district, both Nationalist and Unionist, voted for a United Ireland, then I would be in favour of that too. In either regard, the Unionist community supported Brexit and its they would have been hit the hardest with the effects of the protocol which has cut them off from their biggest trading partner for the time being, England.
An independent NI wouldn't be economically viable. It costs the British a fortune to keep it afloat.
Ok the three countries that your suggesting they give are the worst off. But still it would be hard to see it surviving. The Northern Ireland protocol bill will tell a tail. If it separates us from the EU, it will harden nationalist resolve for a United Ireland, maybe some unionists would consider it as well. If unionists could of lived with the NI protocol it could have been a final solution. With many nationalist being happy with the status quo. But shit happens and the DUP are doing more for Irish unity than Sinn féin ever did
”No taxation without out representation” you said. You do realise, that in a united Ireland and its PR system, Unionist parties would always be the kingmaker in the formulation of any new coalition governments. They would be in a powerful position to ensure their future as against the lack of representation they receive Westminster. Boris threw the Unionist under the bus and they will not forget that.
Partitioning Ireland created an artificial majority that ensured minority discrimination and it took 100 years to equalise, your idea is just going to recreate these conditions again. ROI, USA & EU will never allow this to happen. Non-starter mate.
None of those entities has the capability to seriously stop the UK beyond words and sanctions, but besides that one point, I have a response video coming out now that answers my new stance on this issue (as well as pointing out the strength that Unionists would have in the Dail)
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Thank you. Look forward to this.
@@briancostello9325 Its not a very happy video tbh, I feel quite drained from this whole topic.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp . LOL. you certainly received heat on this one from equally good people. But one learns as we go along. Remember Peace is paramount in Ireland.
If only the Irish themselves wanted Peace, they could have it in the next second.
I totally get your opinion, but I don't think more/new borders is the solution. Would a more inclusive new Ireland not make more sense? Why do Catholic/Nationalist minorities always have to be the ones to compromise and everything is done to please the other side? How about creating an entity that works for everyone, equally? A new Ireland could involve the political system being completely overhauled to ensure inclusiveness, a new constitution, a new flag. The Irish state is smart enough to know that the unionist communities will not accept a simple reunification into the Republic that exists today and is preparing for this eventuality. We need something much, much better than what exists today, on both sides.
To that I would flip the question: suppose one were to suggest a United Ireland, back as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? As I say in the video, that would be a ridiculous proposition to make, because it would disrespect the wishes of the Irish Nationalist community. So why then would a United Ireland ruled from Dublin be any less insulting to the national sentiments of the Unionist community in Ulster? That's the question.
I have no doubt that the RoI could and would do an excellent job at governing the North in a fair and pluralistic way, but it would never be able to respect the Self-Determination of the Unionists who wish to be governed by anywhere BUT Dublin.
Thanks for your contribution anyway, I hope to hear more from you!
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Fair question and this is the core issue and why it's all so complicated. We need to look at all solutions and carefully evaluate them with complete consensus before any changes are made. Just look at the mess of Brexit and how rushing these seismic changes can cause so much destruction. We need a "New Ireland" and not necessarily ruled by a single parliament in Dublin, this simply won't work. Perhaps a two capitals approach could work? Or how about a Federal approach? Each historic province with its own parliament? There are plenty of other avenues to explore and it will probably take another 100 years. I don't think it should be rushed.
@@colinmur1 On Brexit, Brexit was such a mess because England has no codified constitution (which I've written a draft of with Brexit and other constitutional matters in mind). And with regard to your Irish points, I cover that in a response video which will come out tomorrow, so watch that.
I hope so too, the quicker this all unravels the better.
That's a reasonable point Colin, but what else can the Republic give? We gave up our claim to the six counties, we have adopted an alternative flag in sporting events ( rugby, hockey, golf etc) we have bent over backways to facilitate unionist concerns regarding their sovereignty, we have agreed that there will be no united Ireland unless unionists agree to it , what else do they want ? All you get from them is NO NO NO, well guess what ? They have run out of road and have little or no sympathy down south any more. They're time is up just like the union .
One Ireland ruled from Dublin as it should be.Anyone that doesnt like it,Ryanair are doing plenty of cheap flights to UK.
Now imagine the outrage if a Unionist suggested that to the Irish Nationalists...its amazing to see from an outsider's perspective just how tribal the thinking is on this issue, the levels of Supremacism are just off the charts!
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp they have been suggesting it for years, the majority of the island never wanted partition, it was divided on a sectarian head count, intended to be temporary. It has been a disaster from start until now, the majority of the island have wanted to be unified since the inception of the failed state that is NI. Unionists and people of all traditions race or religion are and will always be welcome in Ireland however should they feel uncomfortable there is nothing stopping them for going back to their ancestral homeland.
@Hal Eduardo they have constantly due to nearly a century of discrimination from unionist sectarian rule, in a failed state, that failed state is on its last legs, so there is no need to anymore, and when that so called state has dissolved, as I previously mentioned, if the unionists are that uncomfortable and want to stay ruled by the Britian, there is nothing stopping them from going there.......Arlene foster agrees 👍
Why? The only time there has ever been "One Ireland ruled from Dublin" was under the British. Is this the precedent you advocate?
In the wrong country, you said. You could have just stopped there. The days of the British drawing lines on Ireland are over for good. No repartition of Ireland will ever be accepted by the Irish people. That's the reality of the situation that you need to be aware of.
A) This is about the people of Northern Ireland, not Ireland. B) Clearly you never watched the video, because I clearly said that it should be the people of Northern Ireland redrawing the border, not Brits (I'm English not British also, but again, you'd know that if you actually watched it properly)
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp But repartition would just perpetuate the division. You are not the first person to think of this. It wouldn't work. NI would be even more of an oddity than it is already.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskpWhether you see yourself as British or English makes no difference to me. You are not Irish though are you? So why do you think you know what's best for Ireland. The Irish want to see an end to all British rule in Ireland, for the nightmare to finally end. The likes of David Frost holding my country hostage against the EU has made the reunification of Ireland an urgent strategic necessity. I know you don't understand my POV, but just try and put yourself in Irish shoes. Imagine France had an enclave in England, and used it against you whenever it was useful to them. But I suppose little Ireland can't have interests or national feeling like mighty Britain. The partition of Ireland would be illegal under international law now and has been since the 50's. Carving up countries during decolonisation is an evil act which has caused cilvil strife throughout the world where it has been done. We want to live in peace together and heal. Repartition would just start a new hell. Is it worth it, just to hold two counties in Ireland?
@@deborahh2195 Define "work"? NI is already an oddity having such a large number of its citizens wanting to no longer belong to it. Asking them to redraw the border themselves would mean that the Nationalists would become part of the RoI and the Unionists would maintain their independence from Dublin rule. A win-win for both sides (except for those who want an All-or-Nothing approach)
@@deborahh2195 If my national identity makes no difference to you, why should I continue to engage? I respect you as being Irish, you ought to respect me as being English and respect the Loyalists in Ulster as wanting to maintain their independence from Dublin.
Like you, it once occurred to me that the solution to the Northern Ireland issue was indeed a redrawing of the border and I engaged in an online forum discussion on the subject. In my scenario, Antrim and Down, where there are overwhelming Unionist majority would remain in the UK, while Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Armagh would unify with the rest of Ireland.
I got schooled.
Firstly, I was told that nationalists in Northern Ireland would not tolerate fellow nationalists in Belfast being abandoned inside the UK - it would be a repeat of what happened in 1920. I was chastened by that, as it had never occurred to me. It also made me consider that Unionists in the other counties would also feel betrayed by a simple redrawing of the border.
Secondly, I was reminded that Irish unity has no longer had anything to do with territory, the Belfast Agreement is based on a complete shift in perspective: unity of the people through consent, not unity of territory. This was understood by Irish nationalists as being a long-term project that would occur gradually over time.
The border was only ever supposed to be a temporary arrangement pending a final settlement. In 1920, Irish republicans and the British government assumed that Northern Ireland would join with the Irish Free State in due course. However, the Border Commission findings were never implemented because once it became clear that the Free State would actually lose more territory than it would gain, it became politically toxic and Dublin buried it.
In 1937, Eamon de Valera wrote a new constitution for the Free State, replacing the Free State Constitution. It was Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution that the irredentist claim on Northern Ireland was placed. The purpose of this claim was to provide alternative constitutional means to achieve unity for his critics (Sinn Féin), without actually doing anything about it. It was also focused on unity of territory and not on the unity of the people, which was the real issue.
This shift in focus from 'territory' to 'people' in the Belfast Agreement marked an evolution in Irish nationalist thinking that evolved from the start of The Troubles. What this means is that any united Ireland will have to be a negotiated one, and a new state will have to be agreed between NI Unionists, NI Nationalists, and the inhabitants of the rest of Ireland. This new Ireland will need to be one where multi-layered identities will need be accommodated, and it is likely that unionists in this new state - if they come together - will almost always hold the balance of power.
However, Brexit has brought this discussion to the fore too soon and it is not the context within which a rational discussion on unity can take place, because in Northern Ireland it leaves one side or the other feeling like a winner or loser. Who is to say that Irish unity will not be influenced by events in Britain rather than Ireland in the coming years? What if England left the Union as you would advocate, and there was no United Kingdom - what would be the point of redrawing new borders in Northern Ireland in that context? I suspect there is some anxiety in both Dublin and Belfast regarding the next step in the evolution of English nationalism.
With the greatest respect, this is a nonsense. Firstly, because as aforementioned the division based on counties or along any territorial lines like that would be a non-starter. Secondly, there will always be some sector of the Unionist community which will be opposed to Irish unity, so even if only one area remained Unionist and the whole rest of NI came around to the idea of Irish Unity, it would still require a division between themselves and Dublin, as there can be no governance without consent by the People, and therefore if that principle is to be adhered to rather than simply abandoned (as GFA logically points towards), a border somehow, somewhere is a necessity.
As aforementioned also, this slowly-boiling-the-frog approach is insulting to the Unionist community.
Imagine the outrage if it was ever suggested that eventually after 100 years the Irish Nationalists could be tweaked bit by bit to accepting British rule? Are Unionists so foolish that they will allow their freedom from Dublin rule to be taken away from them without their noticing?
And it would be logical to redraw the borders because as I came to the conclusion: Unionists can move to England, but Loyalists will never surrender. Their identity is stronger than Unionism, and they won't budge or negotiate. If the UK collapses (God's speed) they will not simply accept that, they will form an independent Northern Ireland, and if that is the logical conclusion then it necessitates that the border ought to be drawn in a more fitting and accountable way than is presently the case.
I know that I talk a lot in my videos, but I find it quite strange when points are clearly laid out in the video and yet are ignored and in need of being repeated in the comment section.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Well, with respect, I thought that it was clear from my post that the county by county division was also a non-starter, for the reason given in relation to the Belfast Agreement. All I did was walk you though my experience. I also find it odd that when arguments are clearly and carefully pointed out in my comments they are ignored and in need of being repeated in the comment section. The point I was making is that creating news borders - islands of loyalism outside the new state, is not the answer either and in some areas would lead to more ethnic cleansing as it does already. While there will always be some section of the broader Unionist community opposed to Irish unity, a minority cannot hold a veto in border poll. That is simply not democracy.
[It should also be noted that the Ulster-Scots and Anglo-Irish that remained in the 26 counties post-1922 are fully integrated into the southern state. No islands of unionism were required in those instances, and there are still villages along the southern side of the border that are entirely Protestant]
My second point: unionists have told nationalists even before the Belfast Agreement that they will need to be persuaded that unity is the best option for them and Northern Irish nationalists have told Dublin they feel the same for their community, believe it or not - so this more complicated that it first seems. In the past, one of the reasons unionists opposed unity was the claim that Ireland was not a plural state. Well, that has certainly changed in recent years and indeed pluralism is enshrined in the Irish constitution. The Dublin government has established a Shared Island Initiative to work with the Northern Ireland Executive in matters of shared mutual interest. Over a long period of time, nationalists hope, this will break down suspicions between the two communities and persuade unionists that unity in a new Irish agreed state is the way forward, because by that stage much of that unity will have happened naturally through consent, not through stealth as you suggest. What does this process look like? Well, one example that comes to mind is the new children's hospital, currently under-construction in Dublin, the only one on the island, will have a 32 county remit.
The analogy with boiling the frog is based on deception and is not what I am suggesting at all. Small incremental demonstrations of real and practical benefits made through agreement over a long period of time is the agreed way to create the unity that will lead to that new Irish state over many decades. Unity is about people, not territory.
But persuasion from Dublin is only one part of the equation. It was one most people accepted in Ireland, and prior to June 2016, most assumed unity would occur long after they were dead. Indeed, the new arrangement was so popular south of the border people there would have been happy to accept it as a final settlement if that was the way it would turn out, especially as there were now excellent relations between Dublin and London in the mix also, indicating a maturing of both Irish nationalism and of the British perspective on Ireland. Peace was more important than unity for most people.
The Brexit vote changed all of that. It now introduced another part of the equation: 1) disruptive events on the other island. Brexit came in like a wrecking ball in June 2016, and everyone in Ireland wanted to know 'what about the border?'. It was clear to many observers in Ireland that we were witnessing a step in the process of the break up of the United Kingdom too, and this was confirmed in the poll of members of the Conservative Party in 2018, where achieving Brexit was considered more important than maintaining the union, an indicator of where priorities lay - you have mentioned this poll before. 2) Nationalists are on the cusp of being the majority in the Northern Ireland and the next assembly elections are likely to have Sinn Féin First Minister in Stormont. Unionists will feel the rug is being pulled out from under them.
One other factor is the likelihood that Sinn Féin will soon be in government in Dublin too. This should not be construed as evidence that people in the republic want a border poll - it will be because of bread and butter issues like health and housing - but if they are in power in both Dublin and Belfast they will seek to advance the unity agenda. This is problematic. While the Belfast Agreement allows for a 50%+1 result in any border poll - just like as the Brexit vote did for leaving the EU - no Irish party would ever agree to a poll unless there was a clear majority that included a significant minority of unionists also, for obvious political reasons. In other words, unless there was prospect of 70% or 80% in favour of unity in NI, no Irish government would support it. That's a problem. A border poll on unity, even one that rejects it, in the next few years would be seriously divisive, especially against the backdrop of Brexit.
And what if there is not United Kingdom anymore? Unionists will not have consented to that either.
The unity question has been put on the table long before the people on either side of the border are ready for it.
While I share your aspiration for an independent England one day, I do not share your desire for the UK to collapse, though I fear this may be an outcome. The notion of a chaotic break up and the appalling possibility of one or more failed states in Britain and with chaos in Northern Ireland is chilling. As a future politician, would you not consider a Velvet-type revolution similar to the break up of Czechoslovakia being more desirable?
It will require leadership and co-operation - could you could be the man for the job.?
With respect, you're just not listening. There's no point in speaking to someone if they are not listening to any points being said.
There will only be ethnic cleansing if idiots are foolish enough to do it and if cowards are weak enough to allow it. Borders around the world are capable of having enclaves, and if the people within these enclaves saw what the situation was, over a period of 3-4 years they could through Citizen's Assemblies decide that they'd rather be integrated within the surrounding nation, if they so chose.
The fact that was said multiple times and yet still ignored means that what you are doing is talking too much and not listening enough (pretty ironic to patronize someone like a child and then not even conduct a discussion in an adult manner).
And you're just not listening again, the Loyalists don't want small incremental steps over 10 years or 100 years or 1000 years, they want to be left ALONE! Is that so unreasonable to allow a people to just be left alone without having someone else's nationality forced on them? The Irish were Anglicized for 800 years and yet still this never worked, so stop being so disrespectful as to imagine that a few children's hospitals and borrowed cups of sugar will somehow turn Unionists into Irish Nationalists.
And finally on your point about the UK and if I were to become a future PM of England: My responsibilities and my duty of care are to the People of England, and no one else unless it serves England's national interest. I offered this proposal as a framework for how the NI themselves could solve the inevitable train crash that the GFA has in store for NI as soon as a majority seek Irish Unity, I foresaw from speaking to Unionists/Loyalists that they would never stand for it and call for a repartition, and so to pre-empt that, I took the time to offer a peaceful, democratic solution to a foreign country.
My stance now as a result of people like yourself and others in the comment section is to look at what England did in India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine (which I have done videos on). Britain sought to rule these people, but the long-standing hatred between them was something which would never be squashed, so the British drew the new borders for the locals and left.
The mistake of these colonial officials was firstly to seek to rule foreigners to begin with, and secondly, their mistake was in being the ones to draw the borders themselves (the myth of Divide and Rule has been debunked in my videos before, so I won't waste time restating it now). Were it me who had been in charge in 1947 or 1948, I would have just packed up our bags and let the natives draw their own borders themselves. We didn't start the hatred, we didn't fuel the hatred, we sought to govern these places with as much harmony as possible (civil war is bad for business after all), but as I am not an imperialist I would seek an immediate withdrawal.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but at least if England withdrew she would have none of her troops killed and none of her people being attacked on her soil. If the UK disintegrated tomorrow, England would have no more responsibility to the people of NI than she would to RoI, and were I to be the PM overseeing this withdrawal, I would only intervene if the ensuing civil war split over and came to England.
However, in the event of an immediate withdrawal, who would be angry at England enough to conduct such acts against her? The Republicans would have got exactly what they want, they'd be cheering in the streets that 800 years of Englishmen in Ireland were at an end. The Unionists? If we withdrew only from NI but kept Scotland and Wales they'd feel bitter at the betrayal, but if England left all 3 of them equally, they could hardly be angry at England's declaration of her own independence. The Loyalists? They'd curse England for throwing them under the bus, but it wouldn't be the first time and they've come to expect London to betray them (this betrayal echoed in Kipling's poem).
So where would the threat of this civil war in NI spilling over into England come from? If there is therefore no spill over, then England's stance upon her withdrawal ought to be "Apres moi, le deluge!" ("After me, the Flood!")
Your responses as well as others on this comment section have hardened my heart towards the people of NI, and so if this is the vitriol I get for offering a way out of this inevitable civil war on the horizon, I wash my hands of you all. There will be no Velvet Revolution, NI will be Bosnia and England will be Slovenia; staying firmly out of it all and watching from the side-lines.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Okay, thanks.
Listen I have decided to unsubscribe and will not be commenting again. This is not out of any spite towards you, but you are just too intense for me to have to tip-toe around your feelings on serious topics.
I wish you all the best in your endeavours though.
Cheers!
In many ways your northern ireland already exists, all major motorways, most train stations, airports and hospitals are in the east is where you would have your northern ireland, leaving nationalists in West northern ireland less access to services and jobs, if was the intension or not is unclear but the boarder created a soci-ecomonic void in northern ireland and as a consequence a wider void for Ireland in its entirety. The boarder needs to go, why there is idealogy that ireland should somehow tolerate a border where ever it is drawn is not fair. Britain went to war for countries that were invaded but yet will not give the chance to the Irish to rule themselves. Australia, New Zealand, Greater India, the Conolies etc. have got their right to free themselves of British rule, should Ireland not too? Our land was the first conqured by the empire so it is only fair we get it back. I respect the fact you have actually educated yourself about thr current situation of Ireland. Go raith maith agatsa!!! (Thanks in Irish)
Go Raibh Maith Agat
What you wrote is not Irish
Thanks Arda. The 'raith' was a typo on my behalf, but look up the rules of irish. I can assure it is. Can we not make this about my spelling
With respect, its not "my Northern Ireland", Im an English nationalist who wishes that we were never in Ireland or anywhere else; a lot of headache for very little gain.
I also pointed out that I wanted the people of Northern Ireland to sort the border issue themselves, independent of both London and Dublin. You dismissing the need for a border is not in-keeping with the views of 1 million Unionists.
Thanks for the kind words though, much appreciated!
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp we will never agree on the border. Thanks for the comment. Might bump into you the next time you are in Belfast or maybe Derry. Sláinte agat! 👍😊
The name for what you suggest is Balkanisation. You assume that the minorities in the new areas will be treated well, even though they have no chance of political power. You assume the minorities will not resent their status. Historically this sort of arrangement has lead to ethnic cleansing, if not outright genocide. Sorting people by ethnic group is bad. Treating everyone equally because of common human rights is the way to go.
A) As aforementioned, it would be for the People themselves to decide said borders.
B) There is no problem in the Balkans where there are clear boundaries between ethnic groups. Slovenia and Croatia had hardly any problem, the same is true in Serbia. Where the issues were were mainly in Bosnia; an artificial state that is nothing more than a mishmash of competiting peoples all wanting their own nationhood.
NI is Bosnia and will end up like that if the borders are not redrawn to better reflect the ethnicities there, just as ought to be done in Bosnia.
Poorly drawn borders do not make peace, at best one can have a truce.
It is with respect a facile argument to talk of human rights, as of course every state ought to. But the question is: what state and what ought to be the borders of such a state?
That is the central question. Whether NI is British, Irish, independent as a whole or independent with new reflective borders, human rights ought to be respected, but that does not solve the issue at hand.
The Loyalists will be a minority within a United Ireland, just as the Irish Nationalists are a minority in NI now. In either case and in all, minorities will exist. That is not the question. The question is: ought each side to be given the right to self-determine their own borders, or will outsiders impose these borders on them, as has been the case and seems will remain the case now?
NI, WALES, ENGLAND & SCOTLAND should all be independent sovereign nations.
Very true!
Scotland got a chance of independence and rejected it
Load of bollocks nobody’s got any money 🤔💩🤬🏴
Interesting to hear a constructive attempt to improve matters in Ireland. You are absolutely right that the attitudes are ingrained and very very slow to change. The problem of the Unionist population is one that all advocates of a United Ireland need to face up to
Thanks for the kind words, due to the recent release of the 2021 Census, I'm going to be doing a video that will come out this week on Sunday, so stayed tuned for my fresh take on this matter!
The video is out now, check it out and let me know your thoughts!
Hard borders in Northern Ireland are likely to become targets for violent removal. Anybody seeking to construct or use such physical infrastructure would be doing so at their own risk.
The "Peace Walls" were set up and still stand in Belfast and Londonderry etc without too much problem. The myth of no hard borders in NI is one that can be debunked by simply walking about within NI herself, to say nothing of the "Mauer im Kopf" (Wall in the Head) between Unionists and Nationalists even where there are no physical walls.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Peace walls are not borders, and they will come down. People are getting sick of living behind them after 25 years of peace. They are only in the most deprived parts of Belfast. There are none in the well to do parts, apart from my next-door neighbour. He built his own wall
A lot has happened since Kipling was alive, and a great deal has changed in the relationship between Ireland, Britain, and the wider world; including the European Union and the United States of America. For me, the most interesting aspect is the attitude of the British, especially the 52% that supported Brexit, and the survey that revealed a huge majority in favour of Northern Ireland being sacrificed if it meant getting Brexit done. The special arrangements that continue to bedevil trade between Northern Ireland and the mainland has only heightened tension in the province. Whatever the eventual outcome, one can't have separate regions of Northern Ireland each claiming loyalty to different states. Therein lies the recipe for even more chaos. Northern Ireland is on the up economically, largely because it remains int the Customs Union. Will the Unionists shoot themselves in the foot and vote against that state of affairs continuing so that they can remain united to an England that couldn't care less about them? It would be foolish thing to do. Time will tell.
Northern Ireland is already a province separated by different national loyalties with hard borders between the communities and more importantly, a hard border within the hearts of the two communities against each other. The argument for national sovereignty is never one based on economics, as aforementioned, and therefore prosperity will not ease the tensions between those seeking to live under separate flags.
Not much has changed since Kipling's days, the same divisions are still there and the same issue is still at hand; England has every right to focus on herself and she ought to, but there is a need for each community in NI to live under separate nationalities. The Unionists will no more accept Dublin rule than the Nationalists have accepted 100 years of London rule, and so my proposal here was to accept that reality and to ensure that the next 100 years are not a repeat of the last, just in reverse.
However, given the state of the comment section here, I have hardened my heart to the issue, and as an English Brexiteer, I want England to withdraw and for the NI to sort this out amongst themselves. I no longer care about the issue and wish for my own country to wash their hands of this whole mess.
This video was meant as a way of avoiding the inevitable train crash that the GFA has locked in for NI's future, but those who refuse to listen and act now will suffer the consequences of believing that time will tell them something different than what time has already shown them up until this point.
Many countries have divisions including your own. I had trouble with the national front when I lived there, easily handled didn't take up too much of my time. But England is just as divided as the north and it seems to manage. Ok it supports the same football team in the World Cup but there is a lot of intolerance toward the others. I'd take the train wreck for long term gain
Your suggestion that unionists will always be a thorn in the side of the Irish government does not hold weight historically. After Irish partition, unionists in the south either left or just got on with it . The same thing will happen in NI if Westminster decides to do the same thing today. Unionists will leave or stay and just get on with it .
To compare tiny pockets of Unionists in the rest of Ireland to Loyalists living in Ulster for 400 years, and living in a separate, autonomous region for most of the last 100 years, would immediately show one why it could work in the former and not the latter
What political power could Unionists have wielded in the Free State? Not much. But now with DUP, UUP and TUV members in the Dail, they'd make up about 11% of the seats, making them potential king makers in any coalition.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp loyalism was just as deep rooted in the South before partition as it is in the north east today. The war of independence created serious political issues for the landed " Anglo Irish" gentry who were both protestant and loyalist. They were driven out and indeed in many cases burned out and forced to flee to Britain much more so than NI. Those who remained muddled through and often with help of neighbours settled and reintegrated and became a very influential part of Irish society.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp That was the precise reason for partition in the first place. Unionists would have had very little influence on Irish political affairs . The religious influence also formed a basis for separation as protestants believed that home rule meant Rome rule. That was very true given the power of the Catholic church in the country at that time. Britain also had an interest in keeping the north for military purposes as it was the entrance to the north channel and thus to the main ports on England's west coast. Today one hundred years later Ireland is a different place. Gone is the influence of the Catholic church, it is a secular multi national society, well off with a very well educated population. You suggest that paries like the DUP UUP and the TUV could possibly be king makers in a United Ireland ? I don't believe so because those parties have never progressed idealogically. They remain tied to fundimentalist religious and ultra right wing views that are more dogmatic than realistic. That was clearly evidenced by a recent DUP leader who was a self proclaimed creationist. They are rooted to the past and have little or nothing to offer to a vibrant political entity that thrives on a system that debates rather than dictates. Unionism as it is has no future either in Ireland or elsewhere.
Unification of Ireland is inevitable. Brexit has only sped up the process.
Pragmatic Unionists will get on fine, Sectarianism just isn't a thing in the South.
The Unionist vote will serve them far better in Dublin than it ever did in Westminster.
They will be a bigger minority and will hold more influence on a purely demographic basis.
It'll be expensive but I think its oart of the process of Ireland's journey as a nation and an island. We're still a young nation, growning & evolving.
Partition gets a bum rap. How was an Irish government going to impose its rule on a resistant Protestant north in 1923? The wealthy UK (population around 50 million) had enough problem with half a million Catholics in Northern Ireland. How was poverty-stricken Southern Ireland (population 5 million) going to handle a million Protestants? Partition was the best outcome AT THE TIME. However, I am not sure a new partition would leave a particularly viable northern state.
Very true at the time, and its very true also that the situation has changed. But national sovereignty has never been nor ever ought to be about economic viability; its about Self-Governance.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp How do you have self governance of a non-viable state? If it is not economically viable, it must either collapse, or become a dependency of somewhere else, which is the reverse of self-governance.
I am afraid that a new partition is not viable this time, not least because the North's capital is no longer majority Protestant and other Protestant majority areas are not all contiguous. The Protestants have had a century to consolidate their position in Northern Ireland, but the reverse has happened due to a lower birth rate and and higher emigration rate.
@@markaxworthy2508 Why would it be non-viable? Plenty of countries worldwide have a few 100,000 citizens, with much poorer economies than Northern Ireland.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp Well......if a rump Northern Ireland wants to be a "poorer economy" anything is possible.
I think this is an excellent solution, although as you said, there will be people left unsatisfied. Like, i would completely understand if the unionist community felt like they were being encircled by Dublin and the more extreme loyalists attempt to restart the violence. There are people on both sides who still fester in their hatred and honestly I believe the return to violence doesn’t phase them. That being said though, I don’t think violence on the scale of the troubles will happen again (fingers crossed) but there are elements up in the North who wouldn’t particularly mind. But anyway I’m only five minutes into the video, so I best start finishing! Excellent work so far, my friend 🇮🇪🏴
Thanks so much for your kind words! Loving that, although Im doing a response to this video so check that out for my new stance on the matter.
If a majority of northern Irish want Irish reunification, then that's that. Offer northern Irish British citizenship, dual citizenship.
An all or nothing approach will lead to nothing but more tension; a gradual redrawing, council by council, will make for a smoother transition.
What if Northern Ireland became a sovereign nation? This would prevent the unionists being ruled by Dublin and allow the nationalists to have a separate flag from Britain’s and not be Ruled from London.
An excellent solution and one which I support, although the Republicans have shown in the comment section here that they want an All-or-Nothing approach, and so would never consent to this, which means that they are choosing conflict over compromise and are therefore unwilling to hear any rational ways of mitigating the inevitable train crash that NI is heading towards.
NI will become like Bosnia, mark my words!
For a while this was a popular idea within unionism, although it was quickly shelved for obvious reasons. 'Northern Ireland' costs the UK millions if not billions of pounds every year. It wouldn't work for a variety of reasons
Still don't see the "obvious reasons". From a Unionist/Loyalist standpoint it makes complete sense, its only the Republicans who make this idea difficult because of their intransigence.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp If it makes complete sense where are the unionists/loyalists advocating for it? They toyed with the idea 50 years ago and, as I say, shelved it. Take it up with them. Republicans want the Republic - that means no minority-led, foreign-enforced partition. You can't lambast us as wanting an all-or-nothing approach in response to the cliché'd ridiculous fantasies of re-drawing the border or the 6 counties becoming a "sovereign nation".
@@maitiucibhleachain5139 Because up until now they've had a majority, and thus they have had an All-or-Nothing approach for the last 100 years. Now that the Nationalists will become a majority, the shoe is on the other foot.
Logically speaking, the cross-over point would be the logical time for a new approach, rather than just flipping onto the other side of the same old rusty coin.
If everyone were as reasonable and thoughtful as yourself then resolution(s) would be simple. GFA did more than freeze conflict - it provided a roadmap out but as you rightly point out the Unionists of NI remain a problem going forward. Trimble was a reluctant supporter and the DUP voted against GFA. The more sensible -and sensitive- politicians in the South recognise that the Unionist population is a major problem,which is why they are not vociferously pushing unification. Personally I don’t think unification will happen until the Unionists of NI finally realise that the English really don’t want them; they will also however need to develop an ‘Irish ‘ identity to supplant the unsustainable ‘British’ identity that they are currently clinging to. Another partial unification would not be a good idea
There is no reason they couldn't hold onto their British identity Tony. As a Nationalist I never liked it when my Irish identity was threatened or questioned. There might even be room for the North to stay in the Commonwealth if is still exist. With the NI protocol working better because Irish officials would be in charge and able to check goods coming into the north from Britain making sure they stayed in the north.
I would either leave Belfast or find myself as once more in a minority community ruled by Unionists. Why should I? The first time around was bad enough
How would parts of Belfast be connected to the republic? You have been very vague on this point. Ireland would be better off as a single sovereign nation. We would stand a better chance of dealing with our drug problem if we had control of all our ports. We would have handed Covid better as well.
I would pity anyone left behind in this repartition left in a Unionist statelet for another 100 years. Repartition of Ireland is just as stupid as the partition of Ireland 100 years ago.
Watch my latest video on this (my mind has changed somewhat), but on the point about enclaves, they are possible (West Berlin, Kaliningrad etc).
@@skeletonkeysproductionskpWest Berlin was geographically connected to west Germany, and East Berlin to East Germany. Belfast would be separated from the republic. Nationalist enclaves in Belfast would probably end up like Gazza. Possible, yes but not ideal. What we got now is much better, thanks to the GFA
@@edwardandrews4087 No it wasnt, Berlin was almost 100 miles away from West Germany, and Belfast has access to the sea, unlike Berlin
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp how would Irish areas in Belfast be policed where would criminals be judged and go to jail. Belfast has sea excess but that is in loyalists areas
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp fare enough but they were the same people and didn't have a war with each other to divide them like South and north Korea and here. Belfast is linked to the sea but in loyalist areas.
It would be near impossible to for the Irish government to police or protect nationalist enclaves in such conditions that this redrawing of the map would create. Where would the courts be and the jails?
NI is not like England were there are Hospitals everywhere rural areas already struggling to get people into hospitals could find themselves in trouble.
Everything Irish would come under attack going through loyalist areas, to try and make nationalist move to safer parts of the new republic. Check out the burning of Bombay Street at the start of the troubles. Thats what happens when you have a 90% Unionist police force. things are more even now. The police force is more representative of the community.
Your plan would never work. Nationalist would never except it, they would be foolish to and if it was forced on them, they would rise up and use violence, against those who would impose it.
Your plan resembles the UDA doomsday plan in many ways and would make it easier for them to complete their plan. It would also affect the balance of power, making nationalist left in unionist areas prone to discrimination, and possible victims of the UDA doomsday plan check their plan out. Nationalist will never make it easy for them to do what they are thinking about doing.
The GFA is all we got stick with it no matter what. It has been held up around the world as a templet for conflict resolution. It has become too big to fail.
it is odd to see an enlishman who has done his homework on this subject. good.
Haha thanks very much for that, very much appreciated! In the midst of all the negative comments, positive ones often get lost! Thanks for your kind words!
It has never bin any border debacle regarding NON EU Norway and EU Sweden.
What's your point?
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp If an open border between EU/N EU have worked for 25 years in some countries, -why doesn't it work for you? Why isn't it mentioned?
I still dont get your point. Norway is in the Single Market, the UK isnt, so unless an independent NI joined the Single Market there would need to be some sort of closed border. I imagine that they would, but also dont forget that Norway and Sweden havent had centuries of troubles, and thus an open border is easy.
But again, I still dont get what your point is because it has nothing to do with what I had been suggesting in the video. It would be up to the NI people what sort of border they would want, if they chose to have a border there at all.
By the way this protestant / Catholic schism is completely absurd!
As much as possible I've tried my best to say Unionist/Nationalist rather than Protestant/Catholic, as its more accurate, so if I've misspoken at any point in the video, apologies for that. And the absurdity of the schism is a debateable point to be fair, but thanks for sharing your points on this anyway!
Firstly, I do not think there is a solution, at present, which will satisfy both sides sufficiently to ensure that this argument is confined to history. The are very different views of any poll or referendum which could result in a united Ireland. In my opinion a border poll will bring nothing but bloodshed and misery once again. I firmly believe that it will take another generation or two before this issue can be resolved. As time goes by, hardened views die out with the passing of generations who have lived through those violent times. It is only when there is respect and an appreciation of each other's cultures and history that a solution may be found. That time is yet to come but it is coming and for that reason there is hope. That hope lies with young people who have known nothing but peace, however fragile in some areas. The youth of today just want to live their lives, get educated , travel and get on with their lives. They have a broader view on life which is not constrained by religion, politics, border, flags or history. There is a bright future for Northern Ireland and when the youth of today bury the past and those who cling onto entrenched views, there will be a resolution.
Its a solution in part, but it doesn't solve the fundamental issue of what nation one lives under, the UK, the RoI or an independent NI. I admire your optimism and openness, but the deeper issue at hand won't simply be solved. Englishmen and Irishmen nowadays get on great, but an Irishman no more wishes to belong to the UK than the Loyalists wish to belong to the Republic. Therein lies the problem.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp thanks for your reply and I agree that a Loyalist or an Irishman would not wish to live under the others preferred flag but with the added caveat , "at this present time". Nationalists would not identify as being British and Loyalists do not identify as being Irish. Although i do know some Loyalists who identify as Irishmen, however for the majority the common ground is that they all identify as being from Northern Ireland. There in lies the solution in my opinion, a separate state, independent of any outside control. That may be possible in time but not until the entrenched positions on both sides die out along with those who hold them. I would love to see a united Ireland where all traditions are accepted and have the same opportunities but I do not want to see it if it means a return to violence , and that threat is ever present.
@@damienobrien7016 True, as I stated here, I support an independent Northern Ireland, but I cant see a situation where it could survive with so many wanting it to become part of RoI, and thats why I suggested for folks to redraw their own borders.
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp there is one thing that I'm not sure you have considered, apologies if you have, and that is there would need to be a referendum in the Rep. before unification could take place. Despite the emotive arguments made by some sections of society, Irish people are not stupid, the financial implications would put a massive burden on the tax payer, public finances and our public services such as our health care system. Being patriotic is an admirable trait but with the prospect of potential crippling hike in taxes for the average person, I suspect that a vote in favour of unification is not a foregone conclusion.
@@damienobrien7016 True, I covered that in my very first video on Ireland, but I feel that (as aforementioned in my more recent video on "Is Brexit to Blame?") Nationalism is never about whats economically sound. Neither the US nor Ireland were in a good economic state at the time of independence, but they did it anyway because of Nationalism.
I cant see the RoI voting against a United Ireland, no matter the cost
I really like appreciate this video. I think the proposals offered here make a lot of sense. My own slightly different solution to the NI question would be to repartition Northern Ireland with the part wanting to retain UK citizenship being formally added to Scotland. Northern Ireland would cease to exist. Many Unionists in Northern Ireland have ancestral connections to Scotland. How hard would it be to become newly and fully Scottish again? Especially if Boris Johnson's proposed bridge between Scotland and Ireland becomes a reality. Places like Belfast where Unionist and Republican populations are intermingled would be a bit trickier to sort out. Some sort of UK/ Republic of Ireland resettlement program would help. People would be paid to move to the side of their choice. Those that elected to stay put would have to pledge alliance to their new governments - Republic of Ireland or UK. For a long time it looked like to me that NI unification with the Republic was inevitable. But now I think it might never happen if everyone sticks to the Good Friday Agreement. My comments represent my own American viewpoint.
Thanks for the kind words and suggestions, what I will say that you as an American may not know is that today's Scots have very little in common with the Ulster Scots, much in the same way that Scots today share little with Appalachia's Scots-Irish.
Look at the SNP, Scotland nowadays is very liberal and progressive and they despise many Unionists in NI.
Also I considered the payment thing before as compensation. The problem is that moderates who could live anywhere will see it as a freebie and the hardliners will take it as an insult, so it could be offered, but I feel wont work.
At any rate Ive washed my hands of the matter, as one can see in the comment section, these people are not ready for a sensible conversation and that I as an English patriot am now vowing to stay out of this issue and leave them to it. If Irish Unity happens, it will be Bosnia 2.0, mark my words!
@@skeletonkeysproductionskp My ideas have no possiblity of becoming reality since they would require enormous and coordinated effort by the governments of UK, Scotland and Republic of Ireland. It would take some calamity to make them act. I think things will just muddle on via the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. If Sinn Fein becomes the majority party in next May's election, as many are predicting, then a new Border Poll will probably be put on the agenda. But how soon?
As aforementioned, I am an English patriot, and so upon reflection, I'd be hesitant for 1 million Unionists coming to England (the example of the Pied Noirs in French Algeria didn't bode well for either them nor the Metropolitan French, and I fear the same would happen with the very different Ulsterman compared with the English). Also on the Remain point, another reason why England needs independence from the UK so as to not face risking being dragged back into the EU by the other nations of the UK).
What part?Seven of the nine counties of Ulster plus Belfast City already votes Irish and European, two counties is hardly a country.
My solution is a United country but the whole of Ulster now being policed by the E.U and the minority the British can keep their British citizenship through out Ulster.
Peace is all our interests in Europe.
@@grahamfleming8139 Plenty of countries are smaller than that, so with respect that argument is a nonsense. Europe cannot police its own borders so how it could ever hope to police a population that dont want to belong to it (the majority of Unionists voted for Brexit) is beyond me. A United Ireland would only make these issues worse, so its no solution, and if allowing people to hold foreign passports was a solution, then there would be no Irish Nationalists in NI demanded reunification. After all, they have the right to an Irish citizenship, and yet that hasnt diminished their nationalist zeal. What makes you think that retention of British passports (bear in mind as aforementioned I am an English patriot who seeks the dissolution of the UK) would solve the crisis?
We dont want northern Ireland we cant run our own state of affairs. Irexit
Haha fair enough
Tan are you still pretending to be Irish? We're not following ye gobshites down yellow brick road to xenophobic isolation. Rule for life is we're going to do the opposite of whatever ye do. Mostly out of spite.
They all forget that the ROI is broke🤔 and could not afford to take on the financial debts of NI just remember the caliphate of Londonstan has twice the population of the whole of Ireland and look at the financial mess they are in🤔🥺😂😂😂😂
London is in no way, shape or form a caliphate, our Muslim population is a minority and are incredibly tolerant compared to the rest of the country. I'd appreciate it if you kept this comment section respectful. "The mind is like a parachute, it works best when its open".
Bullshit we will manage we have overcome tougher challenges