Thank you for a beautifully written article on the complexities of these laws. It is, as always, a delight to read, and to begin to savour the richness contained in the laws you choose to analyse.
It is notable that the legislation discussed in this article mentions that a majority must vote in favour of reunification without touching upon the distinction between a majority of the (adult?) population and a majority of voters in any poll.
Given the lessons of the Brexit referendum (52-48) I foresee many fascinating future articles on the specific terms under which referendums on both sides of the border will operate.
(At a minimum I think that voting should be mandatory.)
You seem to be of the opinion that UK governments will strive to retain NI within the UK. Are you sure that is the case? Also, well beyond the scope of your article I know, but were a poll to result in a majority for unification, with a militant minority against, are we sure Ireland would want facilitate the process?
Section 1(1) of the 1998 Act says clearly "a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting ......".
The requirement in Section 1(2) is for the British Government to bring forward legislation to implement proposals agreed between the two governments to give effect to the result of the referendum. But what if the two governments could not agree on such proposals? For instance, the British Government might think it their duty in such a situation to insist on safeguards for the Unionist minority in a united Ireland. The Irish Government might not think that necessary or the two governments might not agree on the form those safeguards should take.
The brilliant discussion focusses on whether the UK side could opportunistically delay a vote. But I wonder about al alternative problem. What if Machiavellian folk on the Unionist side tried to force through a border poll prematurely in order to shut down the debate for a generation if it got a no response.
Could any legal action stop a poll on the grounds that though a majority supported holding a poll, there isn't evidence that it will vote for Irish unification?
Dear David, thanks for a really interesting article. I have a question. You say above that "If the majority in such a poll supports unification, then the government of the United Kingdom has to bring forward the legislation that would make this so", and of course this accurately reflects the wording of sub-section 1(2) of the 1998 Act. However, it seems to me that while the UK Parliament could indeed legislate for Northern Ireland to "cease to be a part of the United Kingdom", it is not at all clear to me that it is within the competence of the UK Parliament to legislate for Northern Ireland to "form part of a united Ireland" (despite the wording at the end of sub-section 1(2) "as may be agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Ireland"). It may well be that this is already provided for elsewhere in the Good Friday Agreement or related documents/instruments, but I am not aware that this is the case. I do note, however, that Article 3 of the Irish Constitution, which was amended in response to the Good Friday Agreement, now states that "a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island". This clearly requires that a poll be held in Ireland as well as in Northern Ireland and that a majority be in favour of unification in both jurisdictions before the Irish Government would also (presumably) introduce relevant legislation to unite Northern Ireland with Ireland. I'd be interested in your views.
Thank you for a beautifully written article on the complexities of these laws. It is, as always, a delight to read, and to begin to savour the richness contained in the laws you choose to analyse.
I was under the impression shedule was standard British English anyway, skedule, American.
I once had someone sk-edule a meeting to discuss a sh-edule.
It is notable that the legislation discussed in this article mentions that a majority must vote in favour of reunification without touching upon the distinction between a majority of the (adult?) population and a majority of voters in any poll.
Given the lessons of the Brexit referendum (52-48) I foresee many fascinating future articles on the specific terms under which referendums on both sides of the border will operate.
(At a minimum I think that voting should be mandatory.)
You seem to be of the opinion that UK governments will strive to retain NI within the UK. Are you sure that is the case? Also, well beyond the scope of your article I know, but were a poll to result in a majority for unification, with a militant minority against, are we sure Ireland would want facilitate the process?
I am not “sure” about most things I write about, and so that is not a standard I can reach for you in many topics. Sorry.
It's ALWAYS sh-edule in English, only sk-edule in America
You would be surprised. I once had someone sk-edule a meeting to discuss a sh-edule.
Section 1(1) of the 1998 Act says clearly "a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting ......".
The requirement in Section 1(2) is for the British Government to bring forward legislation to implement proposals agreed between the two governments to give effect to the result of the referendum. But what if the two governments could not agree on such proposals? For instance, the British Government might think it their duty in such a situation to insist on safeguards for the Unionist minority in a united Ireland. The Irish Government might not think that necessary or the two governments might not agree on the form those safeguards should take.
The brilliant discussion focusses on whether the UK side could opportunistically delay a vote. But I wonder about al alternative problem. What if Machiavellian folk on the Unionist side tried to force through a border poll prematurely in order to shut down the debate for a generation if it got a no response.
Could any legal action stop a poll on the grounds that though a majority supported holding a poll, there isn't evidence that it will vote for Irish unification?
This is actually very ingeniously explored in a recent BBC R4 drama " Border Poll." https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001gwz6
Bit long for Raab, can you do it to fit in a cracker?
Dear David, thanks for a really interesting article. I have a question. You say above that "If the majority in such a poll supports unification, then the government of the United Kingdom has to bring forward the legislation that would make this so", and of course this accurately reflects the wording of sub-section 1(2) of the 1998 Act. However, it seems to me that while the UK Parliament could indeed legislate for Northern Ireland to "cease to be a part of the United Kingdom", it is not at all clear to me that it is within the competence of the UK Parliament to legislate for Northern Ireland to "form part of a united Ireland" (despite the wording at the end of sub-section 1(2) "as may be agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Ireland"). It may well be that this is already provided for elsewhere in the Good Friday Agreement or related documents/instruments, but I am not aware that this is the case. I do note, however, that Article 3 of the Irish Constitution, which was amended in response to the Good Friday Agreement, now states that "a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island". This clearly requires that a poll be held in Ireland as well as in Northern Ireland and that a majority be in favour of unification in both jurisdictions before the Irish Government would also (presumably) introduce relevant legislation to unite Northern Ireland with Ireland. I'd be interested in your views.