Can Northern Ireland's border issue be solved by repartition?

41

4

In following the ongoing Brexit drama, it seems everything is resolved except the question of the Northern Irish border, which is very difficult indeed to solve.

Idea: draw a new border that splits Northern Ireland into two pieces of roughly 60:40 in size (this is based on a guesstimate of what the proportion of both sides are; adjust if this is inaccurate). Get all nationalists to the 40% side, all unionists to the 60% side. The 40% side joins Ireland and becomes one of its provinces; the 60% side stays in the UK. Then implement a hard border. There'll be mechanical problems to this of course (e.g. it would necessarily involve a lot of people having to buy new houses) but those should be temporary. Meanwhile if this works, it would separate the two infighting populations and hopefully solve the problem permanently.

Such a solution would not necessarily have to involve forced population transfers — one could choose to stay put, and then agree to identify with & abide by the laws of the country one ends up in (whichever that is).

I am wondering if can plausibly resolve the conflict.

  • If so, has it been seriously discussed?

  • If not, why not?


Related: Would it be plausible to solve the Irish Border issue by unifying Ireland?

Allure

Posted 2019-09-18T07:23:50.803

Reputation: 13 239

39

I'm guessing we don't hear much about it because historical examples were not terribly happy events, e.g. Turkey and Greece in the aftermath of WWI and more one-sided transfers as European borders were redrawn after WWII...

– Fizz – 2019-09-18T07:45:54.300

34

Or indeed the creation of NI itself... Partition

– Jontia – 2019-09-18T08:04:55.767

50

See also the partition of India for a good example of why this is probably a very bad idea.

– Steve Melnikoff – 2019-09-18T10:26:47.797

@SteveMelnikoff interesting. What was the alternative then before the partition, and would it have led to less violence? – Allure – 2019-09-18T11:31:51.497

1@Allure violence had already been in play from 1916 onwards (Easter Risings; shelling of Dublin by the British Army; execution of the conspirators). The obvious alternative would have been the complete independence of a united Ireland, but that was violently opposed by Protestant communities in the North. At the time partition was intended to be the "least violence" solution. – pjc50 – 2019-09-18T12:19:50.877

@pjc50 right, and do we know if another partition won't again be the "least violence" solution? – Allure – 2019-09-18T13:03:40.023

11@Allure Bremain would be the "least violence" solution – Caleth – 2019-09-18T15:11:06.603

34To the downvoters: even though partition would not be an effective solution to the problem, an articulate and thoughtful question about partition deserves upvotes because it gives an opportunity for articulate and thoughtful answers explaining why partition would not solve the problem. – phoog – 2019-09-18T15:14:59.920

1@Allure Partition as a solution concept dates from the high point of ethnonationalism, before WW2, and certainly before the modern framework of human rights. In many ways the real solution to the Troubles was the Human Rights Act guaranteeing equal treatment to all the population regardless of faction. It is simply not an acceptable policy in the 21st century. It's not achievable without high levels of state violence. – pjc50 – 2019-09-18T15:39:22.503

Do you agree with the title change edited in by others? [re]partition doesn't involve much population exchange. I think your question does "a lot of people having to buy new houses" etc. So I think your original title better reflected what you are asking about... – Fizz – 2019-09-18T15:52:06.473

1@pjc50 that sounds rather more like an answer than a comment. Moderators are very strict here, so it probably won't have a very long life in its present incarnation. – phoog – 2019-09-18T16:22:02.883

@Fizz you make a good point. To that I would add that partition often involves population exchange, but not necessarily. But both can be similarly problematic, alone or in combination. – phoog – 2019-09-18T16:23:48.633

Are you suggesting that forced relocation based on political affiliation is a new concept that has not been tried out before, in other situations? – PoloHoleSet – 2019-09-18T17:57:00.357

3I wonder if you personally would be happy to relocate from anywhere you live to another place, because somebody in government decided your area was not to be part of the country anymore. In other words, the problems with your idea are far from mechanical. – Gnudiff – 2019-09-18T20:36:43.660

@Gnudiff I've already relocated because the government in my birth country decided they didn't want me, in case you're wondering. It turned out better for me too, because I discovered communities that did want me. – Allure – 2019-09-18T20:50:16.720

3@Allure I am happy to hear it turned out better for you, however, my question was about something a bit different rather than long-term consequences. I don't know your situation, but in a country like mine, I'd say people would take huge exception if somebody tried to tell them they had to forcibly relocate, unless for a reason of some major natural disaster. – Gnudiff – 2019-09-18T20:56:19.370

@Gnudiff if you're thinking about personal happiness, then the answer is still "yes". If I lived in Northern Ireland I'd be OK with moving like this (very annoying to have to find a new job though) if it solves the problem permanently. I grant that most people seem to prefer happiness right now instead of solving the underlying problems, but the latter has always made more sense to me. – Allure – 2019-09-18T21:06:24.657

It was often mooted during the "troubles", along with some sort of Swiss style cantonal system. The admittedly imperfect solution of power sharing and EU membership seems to have worked out a lot better. Also, what of those in Northern Ireland, probably a majority, for whom prosperity is more important than sectarianism? – Rich – 2019-09-18T21:37:29.550

5@Allure quite so, except don't forget that according to some notes in the answers below, it is people who are reasonably content where they are. After all, nothing prevents them from leaving for some other place right now -- they have dual citizenship and can go where they please. As I mentioned in previous comment, there are (in fact I'd think majority, but I have no stats on this) people who have invested their lives in where they live. They live where their parents and grandparents lived, and are quite attached to the place. – Gnudiff – 2019-09-18T22:09:52.503

@Gnudiff are you sure people are reasonably content where they are? If so, why would there be violence if there is a hard border? Also my parents & grandparents lived in my birth country too. I was born there, I grew up there, I left anyway. – Allure – 2019-09-18T22:15:40.207

20

There's a term for coercing people to vacate their homes based on their identity: Ethnic Cleansing

– T.E.D. – 2019-09-18T22:41:13.407

@T.E.D. the definition given by Wikipedia includes the phrase "... by a more powerful ethnic group" though, and the arrangement in this case would not involve such a group (since some people in both groups would have to move). I think the term ethnic cleansing is too strong. This scenario might not even have to lead to forced moves, although those who do not want to move would have to agree to identify with their new country & abide by their laws. – Allure – 2019-09-19T00:34:25.800

2@Allure: 1) The violence is the product of a very small subset of people on both sides. 2) The great majority probably don't care all that much about the politics either way. They might be pleased if those detestable others decided to pack up and move, but they wouldn't pay to rent their moving vans :-) – jamesqf – 2019-09-19T02:00:37.603

9This is a hilariously bad idea! The part you are missing is that a lot of people in Northern Ireland don't really care either way, they are fine with NI being in the UK at the moment, and are equally fine with the prospect of a UI in the future (as long as it happens in a sensible way). They just want to live their lives. The name of the game in Northern Ireland is keeping the peace, not creating new unnecessary upheaval! – JMK – 2019-09-19T09:31:40.527

3I know this was just mention in passing to set up the real question, but I think its laughably preposterous to say, regarding Brexit, that "everything is resolved" except for this one issue. The Irish border might be the element most likely to incite a literal shooting war, but that doesn't mean everything else (or anything else, really) is settled. What about, oh I don't know, having no agreements with the EU about trade or travel?!? Or about the possibility that Scotland might choose to leave the UK and re-join the EU if Brexit goes through. You know, little stuff like that. – BradC – 2019-09-19T15:10:37.790

Answers

59

No, repartition will not solve the problem.

In 1994 the Ulster Defence Association, a loyalist terrorist organisation active during The Troubles, threatened that if the British Army withdrew from Northern Ireland they would "repartition Ulster", falling back to majority Protestant areas, and ethnic cleansing any Catholics left.

Repartition has been suggested now and again, usually with less genocidal intent. In 1984 Margret Thatcher was briefed on the possibility of repartition, but it was and still is a ridiculous proposal. It would result in unworkable areas, like West Belfast becoming a walled ghetto. Belfast is a patchwork quilt of areas with are mostly Protestant, mostly Catholic, or a mix.

See below map, it's from 1991 data but is close enough to contemporary circumstance.

With regards to population transfers... with the possible exception of some small villages along the border, this is impossible. West Belfast for example has a population of 94,639 (2016), and is a republican stronghold. This was the heartland of the Provisional Irish Republican Army's Belfast brigade, and is still overseen by their Army Council through the PIRA (which like all terrorist organisations from The Troubles still exists) and Sinn Fein.

This is one of the most republican communities anywhere on the island of Ireland, north or south of the border. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of them agreeing to move, much less to placate loyalists. This point is of critical importance; Irish Republicans believe wholly in a United Ireland free from British influence. This means the very suggestion of population transfers is antithetical to their cause.

religious map of belfast

inappropriateCode

Posted 2019-09-18T07:23:50.803

Reputation: 11 315

10This is a good answer to the repartition question, but frankly the OP was asking about population exchanges (Before some rather uninspired title changes by others, this was even more clear.) Population exchanges would avoid exactly the patchwork... at other human costs though. – Fizz – 2019-09-18T15:57:08.267

3One thing that may be worth mentioning in your answer, is that not everyone in Northern Ireland is either Unionist or Nationalist, and that it is probably that this number will increase in the future (due to immigration, secularization, and newer generations just being fed up with the division, etc.). This makes the idea of repartition even less realistic. Also there will be families and couples comprised of both Uniosts and Nationalists, further complicating matters. – JeroenHoek – 2019-09-20T06:25:07.113

68

"Northern Ireland" itself was created by a variation of that process: there was a referendum on whether to become independent after the Irish War Of Independence, and those electoral regions which voted to remain in the UK were assembled into a unit.

Forced population transfer is usually considered to be a crime against humanity and is included in the UN definition of genocide. Don't forget that most people living in NI are currently entitled to hold both UK and Irish passports and therefore entitled to live wherever they like in either country.

Also, regardless of that, the Good Friday Agreement still applies, and it is very unlikely Ireland would ever agree to this scheme. Remember that until the GFA Ireland's constitution claimed the entire island.

pjc50

Posted 2019-09-18T07:23:50.803

Reputation: 20 613

8

Modern scholarship on the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey (for example) indeed points out that the post-1950 international law, the Convention on Refugees in particular, makes a solution like that most likely illegal as it would almost certainly not be entirely voluntary at individual level (even if the two the countries involved agree at leadership level). The Convention conveniently only came in force/being after the post-WW2 forced population transfers (which took place mostly in Eastern Europe) were fait accompli.

– Fizz – 2019-09-19T00:20:53.847

1

Probably the best known example of the latter where there was bilateral movement (and agreement) was between Ukraine SSR and Poland.

– Fizz – 2019-09-19T00:29:21.470

1I don't understand the 3rd paragraph: 1) If the UK attempts to do this, can they argue that it's interior to the UK (although Ireland could veto the new 40% province joining Ireland, in which case they presumably become independent)? 2) if Ireland's current constitution no longer claims the entire island, why would they disagree with the scheme? – Allure – 2019-09-19T00:44:19.050

2

@Allure: The GFA has a referendum provision (with no date set), which would allow Irish [re]unification. The demographic trends make it somewhat probable in the future. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43823506

– Fizz – 2019-09-19T10:51:29.380

Please link to the relevant source where 'forced population transfer' is considered genocide. – JJJ – 2019-09-19T16:48:45.900

45

The problem of Brexit for Northern Ireland isn't what you think it is. It has little to do with the distribution of the population. It's about cross-border trade and co-operation between Protestants and Catholics, which repartition would do nothing to fix and would be more likely to harm. Many businesses in the north run by Protestants/Unionists trade extensively with the south, and many in the south trade extensively with the north (this is why even in the Unionist community there was significant support for remaining in the EU, particularly among the educated and middle classes, despite what Unionist politicians wanted). Putting in barriers to that trade will be deeply damaging: this may include checks on agricultural products, and tariffs on components, as well as tariffs on finished products. Here is a report by InterTradeIreland, the intergovernmental body responsible for cross-border trade which sets out the degree of inter-relatedness.

In addition there are many services shared between Protestant and Catholic communities (e.g. health services) that would be affected by a split: they couldn't be moved or repartitioned. Even things like free movement of horses for horseracing would be affected. (Report on Brexit impact study)

A peace based on repartition has been proposed in the past, but the practical difficulties and expense would be enormous, as would the upheaval, and it's not clear it would satisfy idealogues on either side. It would also create as many grudges and resentments as it would solve. And despite what the OP thinks, the communities are not in a state of out and out war: they more or less live side by side most of the time without significant trouble, so it's not worth a big costly change for a small benefit.

Stuart F

Posted 2019-09-18T07:23:50.803

Reputation: 852

22

The only reason a peace deal exists today is because it was a deal that let everyone in Northern Ireland act as if they were living in the country of their choice, with the citizenship of their choice. That worked because the open borders made it almost moot whether a bit of territory was Irish territory or UK. Ireland and the UK were effectively sharing Northern Ireland (with the UK technically having temporary ownership).

Without open borders, that deal simply cannot exist. However, getting rid of the EU's open borders and regulations was pretty much the entire point of Brexit. The border is required to enforce the regulations, so if the UK leaves and doesn't follow EU regulations, the border has to be closed there. Therefore Brexit inherently destroys the Good Friday Agreement.

There is no partition you can make that won't displease or displace anyone. Partition was in fact the entire intractable problem that the accords fixed.

T.E.D.

Posted 2019-09-18T07:23:50.803

Reputation: 11 584

2Honestly, IMHO a much better solution would be for the UK to simply hand over NI to the RoI. I refuse to assume voter ignorance, so Brexit voters had to know what they were voting for would screw up NI, and just didn't think that was important enough to change their vote. If they don't care about NI, they should hand it over to a country that does. – T.E.D. – 2019-09-18T20:40:52.290

...not that that would be a great solution either. Ulster Unionists would hate it, and a lot of them will probably resort to violence. But violence is probably unavoidable if Brexit goes through. At least this way a few hotheads might be cooled by the fact that the UK explicitly gave them up, so there's no legal basis to hope for reintegration with the UK (short of a future "Brenter") – T.E.D. – 2019-09-18T20:45:48.647

1This is nonsense. Ireland and the UK have always had free movement and the right to trade, live and work in both countries, since independence. The EU added nothing to that. – Ben – 2019-09-19T07:56:43.877

17@Ben: You seem to miss that Ireland and the UK joined the EU at the same date. This is critically important. The EU external border never ran through the British Isles. Before 1973, both countries were outside the EU, afterwards they were inside. Brexit will cause the first internal border. – MSalters – 2019-09-19T08:48:56.343

@T.E.D. The majority of Brexit voters outside of Northern Ireland did not consider for one moment how it would affect the GFA, any more than they considered how it would affect Gibraltar. It was absolutely voter ignorance, though I'm not sure that affects your point. – Ross Thompson – 2019-09-19T20:44:02.347

3@RossThompson - As I touched on in the answer, it might be comforting to think people who voted a way you disagree with were just ignorant, but I reject that both because falling into insults is too comforting, and because it lets the guilty off too easy. The necessary info was there before they voted. If they didn't want to listen to it, then clearly they didn't think it was important enough to consider against what they wanted out of Brexit. That's a voter's right, and the human consequences they didn't consider important are their responsibility. – T.E.D. – 2019-09-19T20:57:02.883

1@T.E.D. I don't disagree with your conclusion. However, the fact that people didn't consider the NI problem is a recorded fact, with even pro-Leave politicians expressing surprise at its existence a year after the referendum. Remain literature also didn't touch on it before the referendum, either because they also didn't think about it, or because they thought other arguments were stronger. Yes, voters have a responsibility to educate themselves before voting, but I don't think we can insist that someone is "ignorant" just because they haven't spent days considering every possibility. – Ross Thompson – 2019-09-20T14:40:52.397

@T.E.D. Added to which, this was a non-binding resolution, which many people did not expect to turn into immediate, irrevocable government policy, whatever the outcome. I don't think people who voted Leave were "ignorant" just because they didn't know that an issue they'd not heard about in ten years was affected by EU membership in a way that neither campaign talked about, any more than I think they were "ignorant" for not considering how it would affect our importing of radiotherapy treatments under EurAtom. Yes, the data was there if you searched for it, but why would you? – Ross Thompson – 2019-09-20T14:45:19.363

2@RossThompson - IMHO the "non-binding resolution" point is your single best point there. I'd further stipulate, as an EU outsider resident in a country where seemingly minor changes in the process of government require a lengthy process with several 2/3rd majority hurdles to clear, the concept of completely changing how a country is run in ways that can't be undone based off of a single public poll with a 50% + 1 majority seems horrifying. – T.E.D. – 2019-09-20T15:38:17.697

20

There is only one way to unify Ireland without causing even bigger problems and repartition isn't it

AS other answers show, repartition is impractical because the populations are too mixed and forced repartition would have potentially catastrophic effect because of the disruption that would result (in addition to being a violation of many people's basic rights that we no longer consider acceptable). And partition didn't work in the long term to solve the last Irish problem (after WW1).

But there is a route to achieving it without disruption. The Good Friday agreement allows a majority vote of the people of the North to trigger union with the south. All sides agreed to this (that's why it is called an agreement).

if the people of the North were so pissed off at the mess ensuing from Brexit (not totally impossible) this would likely swing the vote in favour of union. More remarkably a recent opinion poll by Lord Ashcroft suggested that the current situation is balanced on a knife edge. In other words the whole population is split 50:50 on whether to vote for reunion even before they know what will happen if there is a hard Brexit.

So, not only would repartition not help, it might not be necessary.

matt_black

Posted 2019-09-18T07:23:50.803

Reputation: 1 867

But that won’t fix the Brexit problem. There will need to be some equivalent to the Good Friday Agreement for the Unionists, to prevent any barriers between Northern Ireland as part of Ireland and the UK, so the same issues will arise on the border in the Irish Sea. – Mike Scott – 2019-09-18T20:06:47.073

9@MikeScott The point of the GFA is that the unionists signed up to it. If the majority vote to rejoin the republic they have no argument. And if the unionists switch their vote because their businesses are far worse of under Brexit than a united Ireland, then why would they complain? – matt_black – 2019-09-18T20:10:22.080

3Most sensible answer here (although without looking at any recent polling, this seems unlikely to pass in Northern Ireland). However, I think there's nothing in that agreement preventing the UK from just giving NI away unilaterally. If they really want Brexit enough to not care what happens in NI as a result, then that seems the easiest solution to accomplish it. – T.E.D. – 2019-09-18T20:54:51.180

1@T.E.D. Check the poll I linked. – matt_black – 2019-09-18T20:56:02.793

@matt_black - Hmmm. I gotta think an actual accomplished Brexit might change those #'s. If people there really want to be part of the EU, and Ireland could offer that, and had a whole campaign season to make her case ... – T.E.D. – 2019-09-18T20:59:02.830

You say "all sides" agreed to this, but it's notable that the DUP didn't. I find the idea that the unionists will calmly accept the unification of Ireland a dubious proposition at best. – Jack Aidley – 2019-09-19T11:06:46.427

2@JackAidley The DUP got into government in NI because they had agreed to the GFA. They might not calmly accept it but they signed up to the deal that made a peaceful unification possible. They might campaign against, but they can't quibble if they lose. – matt_black – 2019-09-19T13:15:43.623

3Sorry but I have to comment on your opening sentence. There is never only one way to solve anything. But if you want to talk about absolute, consider this: There was only one way to unify Ireland peacefully and it was being implemented (Ireland joins EU, UK joins EU, Ireland and NI sign the GFA ...). All of this was working fine is apeasing the tensions in Ireland ... until the last referendum :( – Hoki – 2019-09-20T10:22:27.470

16

This is one of those mathematical answers that doesn't take into account that people are human. Many people have connections to place, to countryside, to geography. History is not something that happened to someone else, it is something they feel as part of their identity. There is no way you can simply "buy them a similar house" and have them move because they have a strong sense of place.

After all, no one will solve the Israel-Palestine problem by offering people a "land just as dry and hot" next door.

Kieran Mullen

Posted 2019-09-18T07:23:50.803

Reputation: 555

+1 Actually the British, for a while, thought that was solution in Israel/Palestine. And some Zionists (not in any derogatory sense) were convinced that was the solution even later. https://doi.org/10.1016/0962-6298(92)90019-P Some variants, which include territorial exchanges, are even discussed nowadays.

– Fizz – 2019-09-19T11:10:16.420

11

Partition will not solve the problem. It will create complications that would be difficult to resolve.

I give, as an example, the Partition of India into India and Pakistan,(and later Bangladesh).

  1. It led to communal clashes between Hindus and Sikhs, and Muslims. Thousands died in the clashes.

  2. It led to the Kashmir war. Even today, Kashmir remains a war zone.

  3. It led to the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, which created the country of Bangladesh.

  4. It led to the 1965 Indo-Pak war and the Kargil war.

  5. It led to the growth of Islamic terrorism in Pakistan. Al Qaeda, LeT, JeM all grew in Pakistan. The Taliban is supported by Pakistan. It was Pakistan that harboured Osama bin Laden and helped him pull off 9/11 and other acts of terrorism.

  6. Both the countries are forced to spend a large amount on their defence budget, to effectively counter the other.

JERRY_XLII

Posted 2019-09-18T07:23:50.803

Reputation: 483

A number of these points is not relevant to this topic. For example sixth point is common for every single country and every country spends on its defence budget. – Prav – 2019-09-18T16:10:39.797

Additionally this question doesn't answer the above question. – Prav – 2019-09-18T16:11:17.423

@Prav I think you meant "this answer doesn't answer the above question." – phoog – 2019-09-18T16:27:23.153

8@Prav Note: The Republic Ireland has the lowest defense budget in in the EU. I think point 6 is very relevent – Lyndon White – 2019-09-18T17:46:20.783

2What was the alternative to partitioning India, and would it have led to less violence? – Allure – 2019-09-19T00:54:50.290

1What Allure said. Quote from the movie (Nehru to Gandhi with Jinnah standing next to them) "Do you want an independent India and an independent Pakistan? Or ... do you want a civil war?" – Jyrki Lahtonen – 2019-09-19T07:38:36.120

Otherwise, I agree with the first four points. Points five and six seem rather detached. – Jyrki Lahtonen – 2019-09-19T07:44:11.073

@Allure There were many alternatives to Partition. Many people were opposed to the Partition at the time, including Mahatma Gandhi. India could easily be united today. It would be economically stronger and would only have one major adversary in the form of China. – JERRY_XLII – 2019-09-19T10:10:04.937

@JERRY_XLII do you have a source for that claim (that India could easily be united today)? – Allure – 2019-09-19T10:34:56.940

1@Allure I meant that India could have been united IF the Partition had not happened. Uniting India today would indeed be a difficult(possibly impossible) task. – JERRY_XLII – 2019-09-19T10:41:23.270

@JERRY_XLII I understand, but I'd still like to see a source for that. How do we know that India would've stayed and remained united instead of, e.g., ending up in a civil war that kills a lot of people? – Allure – 2019-09-19T10:43:58.227

1@Allure the debate about what would happen if the Partition did not happen is still ongoing. Sources disagree over the topic. This is why I have used the word 'could' and not 'will'. It could easily have gone very wrong, or the united India could have become a lot more democratic (the Indian National Congress has formed the Union government for most of India's history; and no Pakistani democratically elected government has lasted for its full term, marred by coups and scandals). – JERRY_XLII – 2019-09-19T10:57:39.300

2Partition had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. That happened only with American Jihad against Soviets during the 80s and the rest is its legacy. Alqaeda actually grew in Afghanistan and KSA. Pakistan had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks. Taliban are supported by Pakistan as a proxy to check the influence of their archrival since it is imperative for Pakistan that India cannot establish herself on their Western border. I am not entirely sure of why you added that #5 point – NSNoob – 2019-09-19T14:22:33.527

Not to mention, its not like India has done nothing wrong. Unlike Pakistan where far-right terror remain fringe outfits, In India it has become mainstream with a political wing of RSS gaining political power (BJP). Furthermore, India has trained, armed and protected terrorists such as Tamil Tigers, Mukti Bahini which were used against Sri Lanka and Pakistan (20 years before Pakistan created proxies to pay India back). And there's reasonable evidence India supports Taliban in Pakistan and provides aid and sanctuary to other insurgencies there. – NSNoob – 2019-09-19T14:25:35.823

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#India. All the other conflicts stem not from partition itself but rather from its unfinished agenda that is the state of Kashmir. At best you could point to violence of partition itself, the rest is simplistic, and quite honestly, wrong. – NSNoob – 2019-09-19T14:25:39.260

@NSNoob if the Partition never happened, neither country would even need to consider proxy terrorism. – JERRY_XLII – 2019-09-19T14:48:16.473

@JERRY_XLII Partition itself was envisaged to avoid wider bloodshed. Had the two remained together, instead of the riots we see now, There would have been civil wars. Had Kashmir issue been resolved as per the principles of partition, there would have been nothing but cordial or at least normal relations between the two. Even today, the only topic used to galvanise the public in both nations against each other, the sole talking point is Kashmir (And the terrorism/proxy war it entails). If NI is partitioned without any part in limbo like Kashmir, continuous hostility is unlikely. – NSNoob – 2019-09-19T15:00:03.310

Although immediate violence in the wake of partition can't be ruled out, as you pointed out it remains a distinct possibility. – NSNoob – 2019-09-19T15:00:54.417

-1

No.

In my opinion the only solution that won't cause the two sides to reignite their war is to leave things as they are. Leave that border exactly as is even if England (and Northern Ireland) leaves the EU and Ireland stays. Yes, that will cause administrative problems with Schengen, customs and so on - but they'll all be solvable without shooting anybody or blowing things up like the IRA used to do. Establishing any kind of division on that border will cause violence and loss of lives.

P. Goetterup

Posted 2019-09-18T07:23:50.803

Reputation: 117