Talk:United Ireland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Highest per capita subvention?

In reference to,

"At present the annual British "subvention" (the net financial support from central government) for Northern Ireland was estimated in January 2007 to be £6,000,000,000, the highest per capita amount in Europe."

It is rather unclear what this could possibly mean. What is the subnational unit applied to every state in Europe such that NI has the largest subvention?

A) Isn't this rather arbitrary? B) If the subnational unit is not identified in the article then this provides little information of real substance to the reader. 80.229.27.11 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious correlation to United Ireland Politics

I had added a comment 09 Mar 2009 contrasting the relatively complex religious make-up of early nationalist movements, e.g. United Irishmen, to the current basic contrast of Protestant (=Unionist) vs Catholic (=Nationalist/Republican) which permeates a lot of the examples and assertions elsewhere in the article.

My comment then strayed into uncited speculation about the some of the factors which may have brought this change about, which quite fairly brought about its removal by editor.

However, I would suggest that the article as it stands lacks such a historical perspective, and statements about current divisions based solely on religious grounds may therefore be essentially misleading in its presentation of religion and politics as one and the same. Don't want to get into revision ping-pong, so thought it best to open a discussion.

NB I am aware that references to "United Irishmen" might be a little confusing in this article without detailed clarification (the "uniting" they were interested in being a little different from the geographical "uniting" which a lot of current debate centres on) and to an extent belongs more properly in a more general discussion of Nationalism, but the two areas are inextricably linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgladdery (talk • contribs) 10:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What you propose may be more relevant to the articles on Irish nationalism, or even History of Ireland. The concept of "united Ireland" as per this article is surely only relevant to the post-1921 situation? Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent, but would then ask why this article has an extensive historical section beginning with discussion of the High Kings of Ireland. Changes in attitudes since the establishment of the border and the divergence of political and social landscapes North and South is relevant if any serious historical context is being attempted, likewise possibly some detail about the reasoning which led up to Partition, if not overly duplicating articles elsewhere. It seems to be trying to be several different things at the same time: a analysis of the extent to which Ireland could ever have been said to have been united prior to partition and the establishment of the Republic; a discussion of the some of the historic and current issues around partition; opinion poll statistics around removal of the border; listing of sectarian/party political viewpoints and sundry political bulletpoints. The principal arguments used for and against a unitary state are not clearly presented. Hard to see how to get around this - a split into two articles, one on historical Irish national unity and one on Partition vs Unification/Reunification would be as controversial as Partition itself. Will leave it in the meantime. Mcgladdery (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)McGladdery

I think most of the historical stuff in this article is not relevant and should be removed. Mooretwin (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1923-25 Boundary Commission added

I've added the Boundary Commission (Ireland) link in the "1922-1998" section, as the December 1925 deal that fixed the line of the border is obviously an important part of the background. It was approved by the parliaments in Dublin, Belfast and London within a month.86.42.248.121 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Capital U?

So what is the consenus regarding the "U" in United Ireland? I believe that it should be a capital in all cases.Bjmullan (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A capital makes it a propper noun and thus should only be used if refering to United Ireland as if it were a single country by that name, for most uses the lower case would be correct as the article is mostly refering to various historical unions and proposed future unifications. I've a feeling there are political reasons for using both aswell (linked to what I said above) and for that reason I'm not going to change anything.(92.40.20.182 (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

POV and misleading section

" 1653-1921

"Although ruled by Britain, Ireland was a united political entity from the end of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in 1653 until 1921.

"Until the Constitution of 1782, Ireland was placed under the effective control of the British-appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland due to restrictive measures such as Poynings Law. From 1541 to 1801, the island's political status was of a Kingdom of Ireland in personal union with the English (and later the British) Crown. Under the leadership of Henry Grattan, the Irish parliament (still dominated by the Ascendancy) acquired a measure of autonomy for a time. After the Act of Union, Ireland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a single entity ruled by the Parliament at Westminster."

This is very misleading, from 1800 onwards although it was governed from Westminster, Irish ministers did sit in the parliament and they were represented to an extent. They may have been under-represented and could be outruled by the English Majority MPs (as well as being denied devolution) but it was a very different situation from say British rule in India where Indians had no say. I'm pretty much neutral on this issue but re-writing history to make Ireland look like a colony is not what an encyclopedia should do.

Also the first line "Ireland was a united political entity" is clearly written to support a republican viewpoint as is "ruled by Britain", it wasn't ruled by Britain it was part of Britain as I said above.212.183.140.4 (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to Unification of Ireland

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move per discussion  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

United Ireland → Unification of Ireland —

It is suggested to move United Ireland to Unification of Ireland, a move and edits which O Fenian has reverted. The main reason for this is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. It has not happen, it is an ongoing process, we cannot predict the result. The Unification]] of Ireland is a very serious topic and most certainly worthy of inclusion but is wrongly entitled as "United Ireland". No such place exists. It is doubtful whether it will ever exist (because if unification does happens, it will still be the Republic of Ireland).

Support

1. Most scholar works refer to the term United Ireland as "a united Ireland" (small case 'u'). This is not a proper name and so not worth of a topic title. Few references of "United Ireland" exist beyond the titles for propaganda etc and even in those case, it is dubious that they are the proposal of a name for the nation. If there are enough citations for the concept of United Ireland, I would be happy for a separate topic to exist but the ongoing process of the unification of Ireland should be separate. --LevenBoy (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
2. for Unification of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
3. You really gota laugh at this. I've not come across this article before but when you think about it the current title is, well, laughable! It sounds like a football team; United Ireland, Ireland United, or maybe a company or something. The biggest problem is, however, that it strongly suggests that the entity exists, which thankfully it doesn't. (Re)Unification of Ireland is an eminently sensible name for this article, since it describes a concept, rather than something that doesn't exist. LemonMonday Talk 20:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
4. This article is about the possibility of unifying Ireland into a single state, how much support there is for unification, and so on. It is not about how a united Ireland might function, and so I support the proposed moved. The Celestial City (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
5. Support per nom, & as the article deals almost entirely with the modern issue - "United Ireland" suggests a longer historical period which is here only covered in a brief introduction (I don't have a problem with that btw). Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Support as per nominator. "United Ireland" is misleading as to the real state of affairs. I could understand the case for "a united Ireland", but "United Ireland" by itself doesn't work. "United" is past tense, implying that it has already happened, which is clearly not the case. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 10:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Opposed Support, as United Ireland sounds like the name of a football team D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

   You mean "support", surely? "Oppose" means that the name will stay as "United Ireland", which seems to be the version you do not like. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 10:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   Oops. I moved it to the support section. D'oh! D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

8. Yes, I think the proposed title is a more encyclopedically clear way of referring to the subject of the article (of course both terms refer to something as yet unreal, but I prefer an unrealized abstract concept to an unreal entity - I just think it will be more intuitive for a reader).--Kotniski (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If "united Ireland" is not a proper noun and therefore not worthy of a topic title, then equally neither is "unification of Ireland". "it will still be the Republic of Ireland" is another non-argument, since the name of the country is not, and has never been, Republic of Ireland anyway, it is Ireland. The proposed title is also pushing an extreme loyalist point-of-view as well, but I would still not support a move to the neutral Reunification of Ireland. There is no prediction involved in the article title, that is the term applied to a reunified state, not necessarily the name of the state when it does happen. In fact is LevenBoy that has introduced misleading crystal balling into the article, the sentence currently reading "One of the names for such a state is United Ireland" used to read "A united Ireland (UI) is the term used to refer to a sovereign state", obviously "term" does not imply "name of actual state". O Fenian (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
2. Republic of Ireland is not the name of the sovereign state. The name of the state is Ireland. This is proposal is just playing word games. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
3. per O Fenian Mo ainm~Talk 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
4. Commonly used term which best describes the aspirations of the majority of Irish people. Need I say more? Bjmullan (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
5. A commonly used term, as Bjmullan says. We have to ask what a Wikipedian user would be looking for when they come across this article. Probably they'll have heard the expression "united Ireland" in the media, or seen it in another article, and want to know what's the idea – why do people call for a united Ireland, what might it mean, and so forth. Neither a treatment of the topic, nor the use of the term, presupposes support for a united Ireland (or for that matter opposition). We also have an article on the dictatorship of the proletariat, under that title. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia supports a dictatorship of the proletariat; it means that the concept deserves to be encyclopaedically treated and explained, as does the term itself. Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose per O Fenian and Domer48. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment Not going to vote on something I know little about but I will say for GoodDay to be fair, Ireland wasn't technically united on it's own before because of when the Pope gave the titles of Ireland to Henry IIin the 1100's they were all divided tribes and so when it all came together it was under the UK and split from that,so Reunification of Ireland would be incorrect as that would insinuate the republic rejoining the UK so just uni without the re- would be better. As for WP:UCN It does say that "...ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common." so I would advise people just to bear that in mind while voting. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Since "United Ireland" is neither inaccurate or ambiguous, there is no problem is there? I should also point out that Northern Ireland left the Irish Free State after independence, thus reunite. See the definition linked to in the first paragraph. O Fenian (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. This isn't a re-unification of the Kingdom of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unification is a process, not a proper noun. The unification or reunification process of Ireland is most certainly notable. The Republic of Ireland is the name of the sovereign state. The Island of Ireland is already united (the two parts joined up approximately 440m years ago, the northern island formed in the same part of the earth as Scotland and the southern half sharing its geological origin with England and Wales). We are not discussing that. Show us your sources that prove "United Ireland" is notable and for what, rather than Unification of Ireland process. The only ones I see are propaganda, or simple adjective forms, e.g. "moving towards a united Ireland".

Following general MOS, we have Unification of Germany, Unification of Nepal, Unification of Saudi Arabia etc. I would accept Irish unification (also redirect), Irish territorial reunification (which is what Sinn Féin use), Reunification of Ireland, etc but Unification of Ireland sounds more formal to me. United Ireland is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL --LevenBoy (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Republic of Ireland is the name of the sovereign state", you really should read articles you take the time to link to. If you had done, you would know that the name of the sovereign state is "Ireland" not "Republic of Ireland".

"Following general MOS", which general MOS is that exactly? Link to it and quotes from it that support your position then? All the articles you linked to (Unification of Germany, Unification of Nepal, Unification of Saudi Arabia) are talking about events that have already happened, so are of no relevance when talking about this article.

Since you have not linked to a MOS, I will for you - WP:COMMONNAME. 69,300 for "United Ireland" on Google Books, 2,680 for "unification of Ireland". 4,830 for "United Ireland" on Google Scholar, 337 for "unification of Ireland". There is no crystal ball involved in the use of "united Ireland", as I have already pointed out that is not the proposed name of the state, despite your disruptive attempts to add such a claim to the article. O Fenian (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And "About 71,200 results" on Google Books to support that view.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That is good point C of E. It is also worth pointing out that if we go back even further, Ireland the Island was ruled by any number of Kings and small kingdoms. Neither the Vikings, the Normans or even the English conquered it. The future really may well bring out the first unification of Ireland and I hope it does.

As I pointed out to you, O Fenian, most of the sources, academic and non-academic are for "a united Ireland" (small case 'u') in which case the united is merely used as an adjective and entirely non-notable, and non-applicable. That really much applies to your Google comment too Domer48. It means nothing. Look at the links. Try Google Scholar on an with advance search option instead.

BTW, I don't understand the grounds of your oppose, "Republic of Ireland is not the name of the sovereign state. The name of the state is Ireland". Yes, but you seem to be opposing the motion for some unrelated reason. Call Ireland what you want on the topic, I don't mind, but there is no such thing as a United Ireland yet. You could argue that there have been a number of United Ireland movements, but even they have no such clear, single name and aim.

On the Wikipedia, just as Deutschland is called Germany, the state is referred to as Republic of Ireland here, see Government of Ireland and a long and resource wasting dispute which ended at Arbcom and decided Republic of Ireland, of which you know all about but appear to be still fighting, see [1].

Does the Wikipedia justify articles on the basis of "aspirations". --LevenBoy (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are aware of what the name of the state is, why are you still peddling the fiction that it is called "Republic of Ireland"? And I am still waiting for the link to the "general MOS" you talked about? O Fenian (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I was thinking about football there [2] but that battle was lost at Arbcom and we can take this and other topics relating to the block vote back there if you want? I have read the constitution but it still does not justify an adjective of Ireland getting a Wikipedia page on the basis of people's future aspirations. The Unification of Ireland efforts do. We don't have the end result yet to report.

Personally, I prefer Eire as a name. The nation should not be polluted by the English language and it would resolve all the problems. I think Ireland should be united. The world has never been the same since Dana and it would make our job her much easier. Ulster could go off and become independent within Europe as a second best but no one would trust our banks the way they do the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, so the economy would probably go even further down the pan even further. Not a good idea. --LevenBoy (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the "general MOS" you apparently fraudulently claimed supports your proposal? Yes or no? O Fenian (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion needs opening up to previously uninvolved and disinterested editors. How to do? LemonMonday Talk 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see in the history the editors involved in this move discussion are all previously uninvolved. Mo ainm~Talk 18:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What it really needs is discussion based on the name conventions, instead of people being dishonest about what they actually say and refusing to admit their attempt at deception. O Fenian (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of being dishonest and deceitful? And of what precisely?--LevenBoy (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with O Fenian, this discussion is not about the "possibility of unifying Ireland" or any other personal opinion of editors. Lets as O Fenian correctly points out focus on the name conventions, which is what this discussion is about i.e. a name change for this article. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you're quoting from me, how at all is that a personal opinion? It is completely what the article is about. As for the stuff about Ireland being "reunified", Ireland has never existed as a unified and independent state in its past; prior to British colonisation and annexation, Ireland was made up of various small states. The Celestial City (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

United Ireland is not as widely discussed and well defined political theory in the same way the Marxist term is.

But following what Q.L. wrote above, I notice Wikipedia also has a topic about Mordor. Therefore, I'd like to offer a third option that we split the stuff about the fictional or potentially future State, into a topic on United Ireland and put the stuff about the unification process and attempts at Unification of Ireland? How does that sound as a compromise?

For me, the Unification of Ireland sounds far more formal and mature. United Ireland sounds like a slogan. I can understand other individuals' emotional attachment to the idea of a united Ireland but I would like to ask those who follow me around whether they are not just voting against anything I propose and reverting all my edits out of habit in an attempt to dishearten me, rather than out of Good Faith for the sake of the Wikipedia?

The Unification of Ireland sounds like something Marx would have written but many Irish communists saw a united Ireland as one more enemy of the proletariat and against the unification of the workers of the British Isles, as part of a world process. I must have a look at the article and see how the Left's position is represented. Are we talking about a capitalist unification of Ireland or a communist unification of Ireland? Ireland is not united. --LevenBoy (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see that there will be much, if any, information on attempts at reunification that do not belong in the article about the concept. It would be lax if we did not include any attempts to bring about a united Ireland in this article. O Fenian (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets keep this on topic. "The main reason" for this is move request is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL so lets deal with it. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. "Unification of Ireland" is an event (or a process) that has not yet happened, and may never. It is exactly WP:CRYSTALBALL. "United Ireland" is not; it's already familiar political slogan, a term, an aspiration, widely bruited about. Billy Wright used the expression. Theoretically neutral journalists still regularly do. I think the parallel with dictatorship of the proletariat is apt, but if you don't like it, what about manifest destiny? Here's a concept as unavoidable in considering the political and ideological history of the United States as a united Ireland is in considering that of Ireland. Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Arriving late in the discussion, I would make a modest proposal: the article should be renamed "The Idea (or Ideal?) of a United Ireland" and it should be focused much more sharply on the history of the notion, and the role it has played in Irish and U.K. politics. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Economic consequences" section

This section seems to depend on out-of-date data. It also made no reference to the present economic situation in the South, with the deficit, bailout etc. I have added refs for this, and propose to seek more up-to-date information on the U.K. subvention to NI, given the budget cuts there. Other eyes on this would be most welcome. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section. It uses sources which are out of date and/or sources which do not even mention Irish reunification, which make it original research. I am sure there are previously sources that have talked about the economic consequences, but as they are likely to be useless due to changing economic situations I do not see the point of the section. O Fenian (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee! I'm sure you don't! Nor the differences in benefit levels. There is somewhat too much synthesis in the section as removed, but these are basic facts which the occasional Irish economist manages to get into print, and are of course the dominant factor for all politicians, especially now. I will preserve the diff here to help the reinsertion, and have re-added the section header with an expand tag - you do agree that the matter is of some slight relevance, or is that going too far? Of course if anyone feels the wholesale removal of the section is wildly POV, there are ways of readding some of it until more up to date info arrives. Meanwhile, no doubt you are going round updating all Irish political article for the latest economic situation? Johnbod (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the last sentence of my post covered my belief that while such a section might be useful to the article, it will be very difficult to properly source such a section with up-to-date information. If am I wrong, and there are commentators (other than op-ed ranters) exploring the consequences of Irish reunification in the current economic climate then go right ahead and add them to the article. I do not see the removal of out-of-date information as point-of-view, only removing information that is of no relevance given the current economic claimate. O Fenian (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the section has its problems, but probably needs to be reinstated pending a rewrite with up to date sources. O Fenian's point about whether any commentators are exploring the consequences of Irish reunification is well made. There doesn't appear to be much brainpower focused on the question at all these days. Perhaps the whole article should be deleted? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is there seem to be no sources dealing with the economic consequences of Irish reunification in the current economic climate. The three source you added did not even mention Irish reunification. So in the absence of sources that actually deal with the economic consequences of Irish reunification in the current economic climate, we have two choices. The first choice is to use the reliable sources that have previously covered the economic consequences of Irish reunification, which I am sure everyone will agree are no use because due to the current economic climate they simply do not apply any more. The second choice is to have no section at all. O Fenian (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough I don't agree. It has only been a short while since the latest turn in the crisis, and no doubt Geryy Adam's participation in the upcoming election will provoke some consideration of the matter. In fact the crisis doesn't alter the fundamentals all that much, but we should wait for some more recent sources. The issue certainly needs covering here. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with the whole article, not just the economic section, is that it is about an idea rather than an actuality. It's all speculation, in that sense. There isn't even a proposal for a united Ireland at present. Gerry Adams's intervention may provoke some more speculation around the idea, but it is the intervention of the EU and IMF that will prove most telling in the medium-term. I rather doubt there will be provision for the costs of a united Ireland in any economic plan they approve. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am reinstating it, but "consequences" should be aspects or similar. Obviously the finances of a United Ireland belong on the page; who is paying what and who will pay what. What it costs to run now; is that enough?; is there a shortfall? Who will pay it - these are important political aspects of a political question. Agreed that some of the sources are a few years old, but that indicates the development of policies over time. They were mostly governmental documents, so very relevant.Red Hurley (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

When you do, I will almost certainly be removing it. The problem was it was rife with original research, using sources that did not even mention the economic consequences of a United Ireland. I quote direct from the policy, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented". O Fenian (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed once again

As expected, the addition flouts policy. The sources were:

• [3] - A dead link
• [[4] - A link requiring registration

Judging by the text both of those sources were simply reporting the GDP of both states, not dealing with economic consequences of reunification. There is then a mass of unsourced text.

• [5] - A source that does not deal with the economic consequences of Irish reunification
• [6] - A source that does not deal with the economic consequences of Irish reunification
• [7] - A source that does not deal with the economic consequences of Irish reunification, and certainly not does source the assertion "outside of the European Structural Funds, this amount would have to be met by the combined economy of a newly-united Ireland merely to maintain current living standards in Northern Ireland"
• [8] - A dead link
• [9] - A source that does not deal with the economic consequences of Irish reunification
• [10] - A source that does not deal with the economic consequences of Irish reunification
• [11] - A source that does not deal with the economic consequences of Irish reunification
• [12] - A source that apparently does not deal with the economic consequences of Irish reunification

Not acceptable. O Fenian (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It was renamed "economic aspects". You are right that some of the links have died. In fact the whole page needs a legal aspects section as well, because even if all the people in Northern Ireland wanted to join us in the south, we would have to hold a constitutional referendum as things stand. The article editors have to decide whether the United Ireland that they are writing about is a long-term vague aspirational thing, or something that, if proposed in the coming year, would have obvious political, legal and economic aspects that we should attempt to list. I was lucky enough to be in Germany when it re-united, and discussion covered all these areas. The same discussions on matters of fact could have been held in 1988 when a united Germany was unthinkable. So, is this article to be an airy-fairy thing or a bit more solid?Red Hurley (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They do not deal with "economic aspects" of a United Ireland either. What are needed are secondary sources that actually deal with the known figures in terms of a United Ireland, not a mass of synthesis of primary sources. Of course the problem with that, as I have already stated, is that unless someone has written about it post-bailout everything is going to be rendered useless as it will be hopelessly out of date. O Fenian (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, and so the first step would be to examine the overall basic realities of the Republic, the North and GB next door. More than likely GB will continue to support the Northern economy for a time, and so its current subvention is relevant, but that can be found in Economy of Northern Ireland. If the NI First Minister said (in 2009?) that the subvention was/is inadequate, then that is relevant as well as a matter of Public finance. The basic problem is that removing serious analysis of the legal and economic aspects makes it appear that the policy is all but ready to roll, but it will be much more complex and will involve the European Union as well. If what the rest of us call reality doesn't fit in with the page's "policy", then the page is not going to be as informative as Wikipedia should be. In the meantime I'll stick with the likes of Old Moore's Almanac, whose 2011 predictions have a much greater chance of success.Red Hurley (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against a section dealing with it, and were it not for the collapse of the Irish economy I believe one could easily be written. It might even be possible to write something in a separate section dealing with objections to Irish reunification on economic grounds as well as other things. It might also be possible to write something about how the current economic situation has decreased the likelihood of Irish reunification. But the previous section really was no use, it was a mass of primary sources that were largely out of date anyway. O Fenian (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

European integration could be a model in terms of the practicalities, as suitable sources arise. It's fair to say that the feelings for and against a United Ireland in the past were largely based on emotion, including the polls mentioned, some of which are also "largely out of date", but still of historic interest. The legal possibilities are now open-ended, but therefore very flexible. As you probably know we in the Republic had a constitutional claim in 1937-98 that only allowed for one format, inclusion of the 6 counties into the republic. We may well have European political union before a United Ireland, and would presumably all live in one Irish Province.Red Hurley (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)