Condominium in Northern Ireland?

Could it be possible, in an alternate Good Friday agreement or earlier, for an effective condominium in Northern Ireland, with both Ireland and the UK sharing power in the region (even more so than OTL), and Northern Ireland sending MPs to both the House of Commons and the Daíl? It could be interesting to have the UUP as the SDLP analogue in the Daíl and the DUP as the Sinn Fein analogue.
 
Well despite what all parties say in public, the reality is that Northern Ireland is a considerable economic burden of which the UK is keen to divest itself and the ROI is not particularly anxious to take on. Polls in the ROI generally show a 57-60% majority in favour of unifying Ireland but, if asked the question whether they would still be in favour if it meant higher taxes, this drops to a 35-38% minority. Cynics in Northern Ireland have noted that every time the UK introduces something that Unionists will find unpalatable a Royal Visit is predictably trotted out as a sweetener and that every time the ROI is asked to take on any role that would involve significant allocation of financial or personnel resources to NI there is an equally predictable leak of something (talks with Sinn Fein, talks with IRA, talks with Jeremy Corbyn, whatever) that will cause the Unionists to walk out and the deal to collapse. Of course it all could be coincidence;)
 
Well despite what all parties say in public, the reality is that Northern Ireland is a considerable economic burden of which the UK is keen to divest itself and the ROI is not particularly anxious to take on. Polls in the ROI generally show a 57-60% majority in favour of unifying Ireland but, if asked the question whether they would still be in favour if it meant higher taxes, this drops to a 35-38% minority. Cynics in Northern Ireland have noted that every time the UK introduces something that Unionists will find unpalatable a Royal Visit is predictably trotted out as a sweetener and that every time the ROI is asked to take on any role that would involve significant allocation of financial or personnel resources to NI there is an equally predictable leak of something (talks with Sinn Fein, talks with IRA, talks with Jeremy Corbyn, whatever) that will cause the Unionists to walk out and the deal to collapse. Of course it all could be coincidence;)

Yeah, no the Republic has never been asked to take on any role in direct management of NI, with London ruling it out (even without Unionist actions), in fact it has been proposed many times (during the Anglo-Irish talks Gardaí being assigned to the North for example). Even when we have the stop start running of Stormont the Unionist insist on the adherence to the "Strands".
 
London has actually been very receptive in private to the ROI increasing its soft power in Northern Ireland by devolving more power to cross-border bodies, shared emergency services etc. I never said direct management. However the ROI has been historically reluctant to take steps like setting up a separate Department for Northern Ireland or ponying up their share of the cash for the sort of cross-border measures we are talking about (essentially only if the North/UK is willing to pay for it). Logical from the Dublin POV. They have no votes in NI and not an awful lot in Sligo, Donegal and Cavan (likely major Southern beneficiaries). Direct involvement in governance or policing would be too provocative at this time. I am talking about reluctance by the ROI to take even the preliminary baby steps that might lead to this longer term.
 
London has actually been very receptive in private to the ROI increasing its soft power in Northern Ireland by devolving more power to cross-border bodies, shared emergency services etc. I never said direct management. However the ROI has been historically reluctant to take steps like setting up a separate Department for Northern Ireland or ponying up their share of the cash for the sort of cross-border measures we are talking about (essentially only if the North/UK is willing to pay for it). Logical from the Dublin POV. They have no votes in NI and not an awful lot in Sligo, Donegal and Cavan (likely major Southern beneficiaries). Direct involvement in governance or policing would be too provocative at this time. I am talking about reluctance by the ROI to take even the preliminary baby steps that might lead to this longer term.

Really? Like when we invested in the North's Road Infrastructure while gutting our own Capital spend and the UK turned around and stuck a HGV tax on our vehicles using NI roads to go to Donegal? Orthe fact that we paid in to the Derry hospital upgrades, or the fact that I haven't heard anything about NHS NI paying into the Children's Hospital? Or not charging the North for any helicopter support we give them (Coastguard/Air Corp)? Or the fact that we are going to pay for the Interconnectors for the National Gird? A "Department of NI" or the like would and will always be highly provocative to Unionists and Loyalists and most likely would have been a point for the GFA along with Articles 2 and 3.
 
Not aware of payments to the NI Road infrastructure (genuinely never heard of this, not being snide, have you any specific details?).
If you mean Altnagelvin Hospital, I understood that to be a fairly hard headed business deal -cheaper paying for guaranteed access into a major hospital in Stroke City than opening or expanding facilities in Sligo or Donegal. Maybe you were able to downgrade or close a facility or two there as well, I wouldn't have heard not having any relatives still living in Donegal.
Are we going to be using the Children's Hospital? We have very good paediatric facilities in the Royal in Belfast so wouldn't have thought this one of the areas where cross-border co-operation would have been necessary over and above the normal sharing of consultants, lab work etc. between NI and ROI Hospitals
My understanding is that we pay for the helicopter fuel costs, certainly that is what happened when your Army Air Corps helped out during the winter snow crisis in 2012.
As Viridian/NI Electricity is owned by ROI interests, it is very difficult for ROI not to pay for the Interconnectors. If NI were to "pay" by a levy on the electricity profits then you would end up paying anyhow - I'll pay, gimme £50 million quid!
 
Think it was under the Saint Andrew's Agreement, by the then National Development Plan, not sure which roads in NI got it though.
In terms of the Derry Hospital it was to stop Donegal/border areas having to go to Galway/Sligo for Cancer treatments, don't think anything that way was downgraded.
Yeah, NI is going to be using the Children's hospital for certain procedures, NHS guidelines say the population is too small for high end surgeries so that will be done in Dublin, think right now Dublin is providing the consultant that is covering Belfast. As far as I know the agreement is that Belfast will provide aftercare, also maybe there was some agreement about improving transport capability.
Again from memory in the Daíl questions at the time I think the Minister stated that no payment had been sought (though at least this time we didn't have to cover our markings like we had to before).
Guess for the interconnector, it depends on whose bills end up going up to pay for it?
 
I think now you mention it, there were to be connector roads to the A5 but not sure if these went ahead or not given A5 hiatus. There is a business team in the Belfast Health Trust (and I presume similar in the others or it acts as a lead on all their behalf) re reimbursing ROI hospitals for work carried out obo NI Health Service -and vice versa (Due to our unhappy political situation, we are world leaders on reconstructive surgery of the knee and elbow!). So we might not have funded the Children's Hospital but won't be using it for free either. There is a significant amount of co-funding and barter.
And don't get the idea I am knocking the ROI for not wanting to get heavily involved in the NI situation, Britain is a richer economy and can better afford to pay for our public services (Gordon Brown and the Banking Crisis notwithstanding) . What I am saying is that there is no discernible willingness in Dublin to commit real assets to long term Irish unity (the sort of issues we are discussing are identical to what might be discussed between Belgium and Luxembourg).
I fully accept that Dublin is acting responsibly and not fuelling violence and instability by not setting up a "Department for National Reunification". But I don't see them making any proposals to expand the funding or remit of cross-border bodies or having a neutrally named unit of 50-100 staff looking at benign ways to tie the North closer to the South economically either.

And I can assure you, back as far as the Eighties anyone mentioned the words "dual sovereignty" or moves towards the same there was always some leak or announcement out of Dublin of something calculated to alienate the Unionists -be it opposition to a sanctions on Argentina during the Falklands, talks with Sinn Fein during the 80s, talks with the IRA during the 90s. And, funnily enough, no such leaks at all during the St. Andrews negotiations which didn't involve the ROI having to do more (and yes I fully appreciate that the constitutional amendments were a huge gesture and not without political cost) than be a good neighbour. Make of that what you will.
 
And I can assure you, back as far as the Eighties anyone mentioned the words "dual sovereignty" or moves towards the same there was always some leak or announcement out of Dublin of something calculated to alienate the Unionists -be it opposition to a sanctions on Argentina during the Falklands, talks with Sinn Fein during the 80s, talks with the IRA during the 90s. And, funnily enough, no such leaks at all during the St. Andrews negotiations which didn't involve the ROI having to do more (and yes I fully appreciate that the constitutional amendments were a huge gesture and not without political cost) than be a good neighbour. Make of that what you will.

Really? So you think for example it was Dublin in regards to the position on Argentina, not say the PM/cabinet that was so outraged by Charlie's position that she asked to review the citizenship rights of Irish in the UK as a result (thankfully sane heads prevailed), again during the 80's why think it was Garrett, rather than London, given Maggie's reception to any suggestion put forward by Dublin during that period? During the 90's what "dual sovereignty" suggestions (other than the threat of some Dublin involvement in Direct Rule if the Unionists wouldn't come to the table? Following the GFA, all the other talks have just been "would you please grow up and go to work" talks, and even still both London and the Unionists are pretty clear on where they do and don't allow Dublin to step in.
 
Could it be possible, in an alternate Good Friday agreement or earlier, for an effective condominium in Northern Ireland, with both Ireland and the UK sharing power in the region (even more so than OTL), and Northern Ireland sending MPs to both the House of Commons and the Daíl? It could be interesting to have the UUP as the SDLP analogue in the Daíl and the DUP as the Sinn Fein analogue.

Just outside my work, every Saturday, there are people who protest that the Union Flag is not being displayed 365 days a year over the City Hall.

This change happened in 2011.

The flag flies more often over City Hall now than it did at Stormont then or now.

That is how committed Loyalists are to ensuring that Ireland isn't united. I've seen TLs on this site where Churchill hands over the six counties if Ireland joins the War, and there isn't a whimper. These people barely thirty years before were publicly threatening to shoot British soldiers if they were under Home Rule. The amount of Catholics who are pragmatically Unionist when it comes down to it is about half and half. It is almost unanimous that Protestants are Unionists, and very few care about any economic arguments; it would be like trying to convince England people to become a part of America based on economic interest. People outside of Northern Ireland often badly underestimate the absolute fanaticism within Loyalists, or think its equivalent to the Republican movement in Northern Ireland. Loyalists are on permanent paranoia that at any moment all their culture is on the verge of being swept away, or outlawed; at this point Loyalists have never been so on edge, yet the support of the Union has never been stronger in Northern Ireland, and the turnouts at Loyalist festivals and bands are as high as ever. Northern Irish Loyalism * is an ideology awash in paranoia, especially towards Westminster, whom they fear are out to sell them down the river.

It took more than forty years of state pogroms, state discrimination and Sectarian marches through their own streets, a Civil Rights Movement being rejected by Stormont and then ignored by Westminster, for Republicans to launch widespread rioting in the region. Bare in mind, that's just starting from 1921; you can easily find centuries of abuse if you keep going back.

It took a flag being raised on fewer days on a City Hall for Loyalists to launch widespread rioting in the region.

Any attempt to give serious power to Dublin over Northern Ireland without referendum (bear in mind, Thatcher shoved the Anglo-Irish Agreement, an exceptionally moderate treaty, down N.I.'s throat because she knew it would lose said referendum) would result in the UVF and UDA going into Doomsday mode, the results of which would not be pretty, especially for Catholic civilians. The UDA actually published what they would do if abandoned by Westminster, which consisted of interning the Catholic population as ransom.

So no, any attempt to give Dublin more say over Northern Ireland would be rejected in the Good Friday Referendum, and would embolden Loyalists to commit more indiscriminate violence.

* NB: Loyalism is not Unionism; the latter is a moderate position, the other is awash with people fighting the same battles as a few hundred years ago.
 
Frankly, I regard virtually all the actors in the mess that is Northern Ireland as incompetent buffoons. Because of the sectarian divide both sides will elect a blue-arsed baboon if it is wearing the right party colours and blue arsed baboons are increasingly what we are getting.
I have some respect for the McDermott father and son, Craigavon, Charlemont, Maynard Sinclair Wee Joe Devlin, Paddy Devlin, Brian Faulkner and David Trimble and regard Terence O'Neill as well meaning if not entirely effectual as a politician. And Gerry Fitt was a decent man and a good politician (though not much good as a Minister). And I give John Hume and Seamus Mallon credit for a decent principled stance even if I don't share their politics. I cannot condone Martin McGuinness' early career but do respect his capacity in government and stabilising influence. And Brid Rodgers was a decent Agriculture Minister-best since Archdale or Ross (who I would also respect in that limited capacity). And Richard Needham as a British direct Rule Minister for his economic development work.
The British rarely had a clue and the Irish generally just backed up the SDLP. I'll give Garret Fitzgerald credit -he was the only Taoiseach who ever had the Unionist leadership running scared, because he frankly stated the ROI wasn't a desirable place for Unionists and started the changes necessary to make it more so. Begrudgery both sides are great at, coping with generosity unsettles them.
I don't defend Maggie's reaction but presumably that was the reaction that Charlie was attempting to provoke?
I don't think it was London who leaked in the 80s and 90s because improved military technology had rendered Shackleton, Gilnahirk and Bishopscourt obsolete and there was no longer a military reason to remain in Ireland. Moreover they wanted the troops out of Ireland and in Europe to cover the rather fraught situation as the Soviet Union started to totter. Leaked diplomatic documents from the 80s indicate that Britain was trying to persuade Ireland to rejoin the Commonwealth and join NATO to make reunification more palatable (bit of a pipe dream and doesn't take into account the tribal feeling here) but doesn't suggest they were welcoming or orchestrating Unionist walkouts. Or would stand in the way of Irish reunification.
GFA and post GFA no real incentive for leaks.
 
I don't defend Maggie's reaction but presumably that was the reaction that Charlie was attempting to provoke?
I don't think it was London who leaked in the 80s and 90s because improved military technology had rendered Shackleton, Gilnahirk and Bishopscourt obsolete and there was no longer a military reason to remain in Ireland. Moreover they wanted the troops out of Ireland and in Europe to cover the rather fraught situation as the Soviet Union started to totter. Leaked diplomatic documents from the 80s indicate that Britain was trying to persuade Ireland to rejoin the Commonwealth and join NATO to make reunification more palatable (bit of a pipe dream and doesn't take into account the tribal feeling here) but doesn't suggest they were welcoming or orchestrating Unionist walkouts. Or would stand in the way of Irish reunification.
GFA and post GFA no real incentive for leaks.

Charlie's aim was to piss off Maggie full stop, if she said Water was wet he'd say it was as dry as a desert just to annoy her, nothing to do with NI at all.
As to the suggestion of the UK trying to get Ireland into NATO/Commonwealth... There was zero chance of any such change in the 1980's and anyone connected to the Anglo-Irish relationships at the time would know that, and would also know that even if that happened it still wouldn't make a blessed difference to the Unionists of NI, hell Ireland could rejoin the UK itself and it wouldn't change their views.
 
If it somehow does happen through vigorous handwaving, I could see the DUP pulling a reverse Sinn Fein, and standing in the Irish elections, but refusing to take their seats.

Or, at least the UUP doing this, with the DUP boycotting the whole thing.
 
If it somehow does happen through vigorous handwaving, I could see the DUP pulling a reverse Sinn Fein, and standing in the Irish elections, but refusing to take their seats.

Or, at least the UUP doing this, with the DUP boycotting the whole thing.

Yeah the DUP wouldn't stand I'd say, while the UUP might eventually bring themselves to go to the Daíl (or whatever it might end up called), but it's certainly ASB.
 
difference to the Unionists of NI, hell Ireland could rejoin the UK itself and it wouldn't change their views.
Oh it would, they would rediscover Presbyterianism's tradition of republicanism and revive Ulster Nationalism. Whatever the other side wants, they want the opposite!
 
Charlie's aim was to piss off Maggie full stop, if she said Water was wet he'd say it was as dry as a desert just to annoy her, nothing to do with NI at all.
As to the suggestion of the UK trying to get Ireland into NATO/Commonwealth... There was zero chance of any such change in the 1980's and anyone connected to the Anglo-Irish relationships at the time would know that
Doesn't that rather prove my point that there was no serious drive for Irish unification? Maggie was the first time since Partition (other than an offer by Winston Churchill during WW2 that he probably couldn't deliver on, though ROI would have probably picked up South Armagh (which Stormont never wanted) and maybe South Fermanagh) that the ROI has a sniff of a smell of involvement in NI affairs. A Taoiseach really committed to reunification would be thinking at that point "I can't stand the oul bitch but she's the first one to give us an in in the North" not "this will really piss her off, heh, heh".
Not to mention that securing an EU wide blockade of Argentine produce would have boosted exports for the Irish grain and cattle sectors quite nicely for two-three years. He must have forgot to take counsel from his friend Larry about that one!
A sober
"While Ireland and Britain have had their differences over the years and have some outstanding territorial issues, [Hell, do we ever, the ****!] both sides are committed to negotiations and to a solution by peaceful democratic means [the old bastard was right about not sending the Army in, we would have ended up with our head in our hands, ach I was young then] We are working with the British to improve the lives of the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland and the worst excesses of the Stormont regime have already been removed. We are confident that the British will co-operate in further reforms and will continue to work for a just and peaceful settlement [They'll owe me big for this, the bastards. And I'll collect] However this invasion involves the use of force by a Fascist junta against a neighbouring [No Irishman wants to be thought a bad neighbour] parliamentary democracy and fellow member of the EU [ lets see the ******* Blueshirts or the lefties outflank me on that] which is not acceptable and Ireland will be fully supportive of a total ban on all trade with Argentina throughout the EU until this matter is fully resolved [and no hurry lifting it either, that should bring the farming vote in come election time] would have won him a lot of favours he could cash in on, involved no great effort on Ireland's part and done the Irish economy no harm either.

The British were very naïve about the NI situation during the seventies and eighties. Prior to the Troubles, MI6 had no involvement in NI and MI5 wasn't interested in the IRA (left that to RUC Special Branch) -only in security at Aldergrove and the MOD bases. The British Embassy in Dublin and Irish section in FCO knew a bit about ROI politics and the international law around the Foyle/Carlingford territorial waters but had very little idea about NI (which seemed to be a quiet little devolved backwater). It's understandable, I suppose - I wouldn't have a clue about the politics of Wales or Jersey and the last time I heard anything about politics in the Isle of Man was when they finally banned the birch. The Home Office prior to 1968 devoted the services of one Principal Officer for half a week to Northern Ireland. He spent the other half week on the Channel Islands. They didn't really get the tribal thing here and assumed both sides were rational actors and their stated positions represented their real beliefs and desires. Whereas there was a huge amount of overstatement and playing to the gallery which enflamed the situation here enormously.

I agree there was no chance of Ireland joining NATO or rejoining the Commonwealth in the 1980's but that is just the point. Effectively, De Valera wrote off Irish reunification as an objective from 1932. Michael Collins, Kevin O'Higgins and W.T. Cosgrave didn't remain within the Empire/Commonwealth (and would probably have considered joining NATO with a few provisos about American and not British troops had they still been around) because they were Anglophiles or loved the British Crown, it was because they hadn't written off an eventual reunification with the North in whole or in part in the future and wanted to make this as easy as possible when the time came. A united Ireland became a pious ideal not a serious policy objective after 1932.
 
Doesn't that rather prove my point that there was no serious drive for Irish unification? Maggie was the first time since Partition (other than an offer by Winston Churchill during WW2 that he probably couldn't deliver on, though ROI would have probably picked up South Armagh (which Stormont never wanted) and maybe South Fermanagh) that the ROI has a sniff of a smell of involvement in NI affairs. A Taoiseach really committed to reunification would be thinking at that point "I can't stand the oul bitch but she's the first one to give us an in in the North" not "this will really piss her off, heh, heh".
Not to mention that securing an EU wide blockade of Argentine produce would have boosted exports for the Irish grain and cattle sectors quite nicely for two-three years. He must have forgot to take counsel from his friend Larry about that one!
A sober
"While Ireland and Britain have had their differences over the years and have some outstanding territorial issues, [Hell, do we ever, the ****!] both sides are committed to negotiations and to a solution by peaceful democratic means [the old bastard was right about not sending the Army in, we would have ended up with our head in our hands, ach I was young then] We are working with the British to improve the lives of the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland and the worst excesses of the Stormont regime have already been removed. We are confident that the British will co-operate in further reforms and will continue to work for a just and peaceful settlement [They'll owe me big for this, the bastards. And I'll collect] However this invasion involves the use of force by a Fascist junta against a neighbouring [No Irishman wants to be thought a bad neighbour] parliamentary democracy and fellow member of the EU [ lets see the ******* Blueshirts or the lefties outflank me on that] which is not acceptable and Ireland will be fully supportive of a total ban on all trade with Argentina throughout the EU until this matter is fully resolved [and no hurry lifting it either, that should bring the farming vote in come election time] would have won him a lot of favours he could cash in on, involved no great effort on Ireland's part and done the Irish economy no harm either.

The British were very naïve about the NI situation during the seventies and eighties. Prior to the Troubles, MI6 had no involvement in NI and MI5 wasn't interested in the IRA (left that to RUC Special Branch) -only in security at Aldergrove and the MOD bases. The British Embassy in Dublin and Irish section in FCO knew a bit about ROI politics and the international law around the Foyle/Carlingford territorial waters but had very little idea about NI (which seemed to be a quiet little devolved backwater). It's understandable, I suppose - I wouldn't have a clue about the politics of Wales or Jersey and the last time I heard anything about politics in the Isle of Man was when they finally banned the birch. The Home Office prior to 1968 devoted the services of one Principal Officer for half a week to Northern Ireland. He spent the other half week on the Channel Islands. They didn't really get the tribal thing here and assumed both sides were rational actors and their stated positions represented their real beliefs and desires. Whereas there was a huge amount of overstatement and playing to the gallery which enflamed the situation here enormously.

I agree there was no chance of Ireland joining NATO or rejoining the Commonwealth in the 1980's but that is just the point. Effectively, De Valera wrote off Irish reunification as an objective from 1932. Michael Collins, Kevin O'Higgins and W.T. Cosgrave didn't remain within the Empire/Commonwealth (and would probably have considered joining NATO with a few provisos about American and not British troops had they still been around) because they were Anglophiles or loved the British Crown, it was because they hadn't written off an eventual reunification with the North in whole or in part in the future and wanted to make this as easy as possible when the time came. A united Ireland became a pious ideal not a serious policy objective after 1932.

You have an interesting view of Anglo-Irish relations, Maggie hated Charlie as much as he hated her. As to your suggestion that she wanted Dublin involvement in NI, her reaction to Fitzgerald in the Anglo-Irish talks makes it VERY clear that that was the furthest thing from her mind.
 
Difference is, Maggie could (on occasion) rise above her personal feelings when she perceived it to be in the national interest. And the Anglo-Irish agreement is about Irish involvement in NI. If Maggie hated Charlie as much as all that and kept slapping Garret down hard, there wouldn't ever have been an agreement in the first place. And the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the precursor and ground-breaker for GFA.
Maggie didn't want to spook the Unionists or go too far too fast. Or be too blatant in disowning them. Fitzgerald was publicly articulating in front of the Unionists and SDLP (and journalists) things that an Irish diplomat who was absolutely not representing Dublin and a British diplomat who was absolutely not representing London could probably agree to in private (without raising expectations or setting an unworkable timescale. Then there'd be talks about talks. Then talks. Orchestrated gestures and "deals" (the real deal done privately long before). But I think you are conflating "Pas devant les enfants et domestiques!" with "Never!" Lots of potential weasel-outs with "consent of the majority of the population" and "desire of the people of Northern Ireland" in the British position. Options there like repartition and salami-slicing, if Dublin really wanted to increase its territory and population. Can't see a total unification (or condominium) prior to OTL present day as Loyalists and Unionists would go apeshit. But moving the border up to the Bann and Lough Neagh through a series of local referenda? Could have been attempted if Dublin had been keen and Northern Nationalists prepared to take the jump when it came down to it.
 
Top