It would disrupt the hard-won peace

The argument

The argument against a united Ireland here is that unification is the single event most likely to disrupt a peace that took decades to secure. The reasoning begins with what caused the conflict in the first place. The Troubles arose from the mistreatment of Catholics in a Northern Ireland with a Protestant majority — a community holding power over another and using it to that community's disadvantage. Unification would invert that arrangement, placing Northern Ireland's Protestants as a minority within a predominantly Catholic state, and proponents argue that they will fear a similar situation arising with the positions reversed. That fear is not treated as speculative. Loyalist paramilitary groups have made their opposition to a united Ireland extremely clear, and the significance of their objection lies in their capacity to act on it. These are organisations with the means to take violent action, and their numbers are swelling as unionists disillusioned by the political direction of events look for somewhere to place that discontent. A grievance held by an armed and growing constituency is a different proposition from one expressed at the ballot box. The decisive point concerns what follows. Loyalist violence would not occur in isolation, because the structure that produced the Troubles remains in place beneath the settlement. Republican paramilitaries would be likely to respond, and a reciprocal escalation between the two is precisely the sequence that constituted the conflict before. The end point proponents foresee is Northern Ireland returned to where it stood during the Troubles, with the peace that was so painfully constructed dismantled by the attempt to resolve the underlying question. Because unification would disrupt that hard-won peace, the argument concludes, Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom.

Context

The Good Friday Agreement created a peace that has lasted for more than 20 years in Northern Ireland after decades of violence. This took a huge amount of work and sacrifices, especially to ensure it continues. Almost everybody in Northern Ireland recognises that this peace has been a huge improvement over life in the Troubles and thus we should do what we can to preserve it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Lessons have been learned from the Troubles and the Good Friday Agreement and these can be taken to help ensure peace in a United Ireland. The Troubles started because of inequality between Protestants and Catholics under a Protestant Northern Irish parliament which denied many Catholics - and working-class Protestants - basic human rights such as housing. This does not have to be the case. If a framework can be devised which includes protections to ensure all groups are fairly represented and their human rights are protected, a united Ireland can be a peaceful nation. Violence against civilians and profiling from security forces was also a key reason for the escalation of the Troubles. Again, lessons can be learned from this and a softer, cross-community approach such as that of the PNSI can be followed to police Northern Ireland rather than the tactics of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Good Friday Agreement and prior agreements also provided a framework for peace. One key feature of the Good Friday Agreement was a power-sharing government and a 'decision-making by consensus' approach. This can be applied in a united Ireland to ensure unionists feel democratically represented. In the same way that all-Ireland institutions were set up as part of the peace process, British/Irish institutions could be set up in a United Ireland.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Continued partition may be a greater threat to peace than a united Ireland