Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
WITH THE GENERAL election only two days away, TheJournal.ie has been asking each political party for their positions on a variety of issues affecting people across Ireland.
So far, we’ve published Q&A pieces on housing, insurance, cycling, childcare and agriculture.
Each article teases out parties’ positions by asking them a number of specific questions.
For this article we asked parties about their stance on one of the most fundamental issues in the State. Specifically, what constitutes the nation and whether Irish people should vote on reunification.
There’s been increased debate around the issue of a united Ireland ever since the Brexit vote in 2016, a poll which saw Northern Ireland vote to remain in the EU.
The subsequent Brexit negotiations saw the border become the single biggest stumbling block to progress and the eventual agreement led to customs arrangements in Northern Ireland being treated differently to the rest of the UK.
In December, Northern Ireland elected more nationalist MPs than unionist MPs for the first time, raising questions about whether changing demographics and voter sentiment were moving unification closer than ever before.
Under the Good Friday Agreement, it is acknowledged that a united Ireland can be brought about if voters both north and south “exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given”.
The decision to hold a border poll is ultimately one to be taken by the UK’s Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The agreement states that the secretary is to hold such a poll if they deem it likely a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote for a united Ireland.
So given that context, we’ve asked parties running in the general election whether they are in favour of a united Ireland and if/when a border poll should take place.
The responses below are word-for-word what were given by the parties with the exception of the answers from the Social Democrats and Aontú, who did not respond but have manifesto policies on the issue.
Fine Gael: The party’s full official title is “Fine Gael – The United Ireland Party”. So, yes based on the principle of consent and a majority, north and south, being in favour.
Fianna Fáil: Yes. A United Ireland is a founding goal of our party. We believe it should be achieved through consensus.
Sinn Féin: Yes.
Labour: Labour aspires to the unification of all the people on the island of Ireland, first and foremost, as the logical and necessary first step towards political unity. The best thing we can do to secure that now is to ensure the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement are fully operational.
People Before Profit: Yes we do.
Green Party: Yes.
The Social Democrats (From the party’s manifesto): We believe that a United Ireland, achieved by consent, has the real potential to benefit the people of the entire island economically, politically and culturally. We will therefore work towards achieving this in a spirit of mutual respect of all peoples who share this island and based on a foundation of Social Democratic principles.
Aontú (The party’s website outlines the following policy): Aontú seeks the independence of the Irish people north and south, east and west. We believe in self-determination; that decisions made as close to the people that they affect, are better decisions. Irish people can influence those decisions and they can hold the decision makers to account. When decisions are made in London, Brussels and Berlin they are not made in Ireland’s interest.
Irish Freedom Party: Yes we aspire to a democratic United Ireland. We are an all-Ireland party who wants an Ireland ruled by the Irish people not by London or Brussels.
The National Party: The National Party supports the unification of Ireland in one sovereign and independent republic.
Fine Gael: An Taoiseach said during the seven-way leaders’ debate that he believes in a United Ireland but it should only be put to the people when we believe the poll would pass both North and South. Calls for a border poll at this time, which are not properly thought through, are only likely to exacerbate division and uncertainty.
Fianna Fáil: No. A border poll at this point would be divisive rather than conciliatory.
Sinn Féin: Yes.
Labour: No. It is clear that any border poll held in the next five years would be highly divisive in Northern Ireland at a time when Brexit has already increased tensions across the nationalist-unionist divide.
People Before Profit: We are for a border poll – held on both sides of the border.
Green Party: One thing we have learned from Brexit is that we should not rush into decisions, particularly through referenda, that have not been sufficiently prepared for or had sufficient public engagement on. Therefore we would only be happy to hold a border poll if sufficient public debate, engagement of all communities, and a robust economic assessment of the impact of reunification has been completed and this would be difficult to progress in the lifetime of this government.
Aontú (The party’s website outlines the following policy): A referendum on Irish reunification is now the only reasonable next step and is necessary to allow the north to move forward economically and socially. Aontú will support calls for this referendum and will actively campaign for a Yes to Unity vote.
Irish Freedom Party: Our preference is to have a period of consultation and preparation with all of the stakeholders on the island. Brexit is a factor too and it will take a few years to see the full effect of that on the island.
The National Party: We do not believe Ireland’s national unity is beholden to the temporary whim of an electorate in the form of a border poll. We support a negotiated settlement between the south and the north to achieve sovereignty and independence.
Fine Gael: An Taoiseach has said, he believes in a United Ireland but it should only be put to the people when we believe the poll would pass both North and South.
Fianna Fáil: We will establish within the Department of an Taoiseach a unit to lead a formal study and cross-community consultation on a Green Paper to outline how the Irish government should approach the handling of any unity referendum should circumstances arise where it can be called.
Sinn Féin: Sinn Féin wants to see a referendum on Irish unity within the next five years.
Labour: Any referendum in Ireland should be a vote to agree the reunification of Ireland if the majority in Northern Ireland had already voted in favour of this.
People Before Profit: The circumstances are appropriate at the moment.
Green Party: A border poll in the Republic should come at the same time as a poll is conducted north of the border. It should only be carried out when there is a likelihood of it passing.
Irish Freedom Party: When it is clear and obvious that a majority of people on the island desire a United Ireland and a sufficient level of consultation has taken place.
The National Party: We do not believe a border poll is a viable vehicle to practically achieve unity and independence.
Fine Gael: Any holding of a border poll, either North or South, would be inappropriate at this time as specified above. As such, any determination as to whether the polls should be held simultaneously or otherwise is, similarly, inappropriate as it would only exacerbate division and uncertainty.
Fianna Fáil: This sequencing should be considered as part of overall preparations for a United Ireland.
Sinn Féin: That should be discussed by a Citizens’ Assembly.
Labour: The Belfast Good Friday Agreement sets out that a border poll should be held in Northern Ireland to confirm a situation where the majority of people is in favour of reunification of Ireland. Any referendum in Ireland should follow this, unless a wide range of political parties in Northern Ireland ask the Irish government to hold a simultaneous poll.
People Before Profit: In our view, a similar poll should be held on same day in the 26 counties.
Green Party: It should be conducted at the same time.
Irish Freedom Party: We should await the outcome of the vote in the north.
The National Party: See above. The Good Friday Agreement is not a permanent settlement. From a nationalist-republican perspective, the GFA can only be judged by its utility in moving us further towards a United Ireland. It has failed to achieve this, and the National Party staunchly opposes blind faith in the institutions and mechanisms of the GFA.
Fine Gael: The Irish Government should be focused on actively supporting the Good Friday Agreement and the restored institutions. Fine Gael’s vision aligns with the Good Friday Agreement aspiration of ‘equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity’ and fully equal rights for same-sex couples and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTI+) people across the island.
Fianna Fáil: We will establish within the Department of an Taoiseach a unit to lead a formal study and cross-community consultation on a Green Paper to outline how the Irish government should approach the handling of any unity referendum should circumstances arise where it can be called.
Sinn Féin: Yes it should. The Irish Government has a duty and obligation to make preparations for Irish unity. In Government, Sinn Féin will:
Labour: Labour leader Brendan Howlin has for a number of years called for an inclusive, non-sectarian public conversation on the future of Ireland, modelled on the New Ireland Forum of the 1980s, including discussion of a potential unitary Irish state while open to other political views including British Unionist perspectives.
People Before Profit: It should. Within such a forum People Before Profit will be promoting the case for a socialist United Ireland rather than extending the current 26 county tax haven.
Green Party: Yes.
Aontú (The party’s website outlines the following policy): Given that the opinions of Irish people north and south are changing significantly in support of Irish unity and given the demographic change, it is foolish and irresponsible for the governments in Dublin and London not to start to plan for the unity of the Irish people. We need to see the ongoing, planned and increasing devolution of far more powers from London to Ireland, to allow a managed transition to unification. The North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association must be developed to provide deeper and more regular parliamentary support to the work of the North/South Ministerial Council
Irish Freedom Party: Yes, because it is a realistic possibility and any government would be wise to maximise its preparation.
The National Party: The government must immediately end its partitionist mindset and adopt a 32-county approach to questions of policy, while also respecting the temporary political realities of the island. Practically, only a nationalist government can set about laying the foundations for the creation of a united and sovereign republic.
Fine Gael: It is far too early to start making pronouncements and decisions on political structure. It would be divisive and counterproductive to the goal of a United Ireland.
Fianna Fáil: This should be considered as part of overall discussions and considerations.
Sinn Féin: That should be discussed by a Citizens’ Assembly.
Labour: It is too soon for any party to set down a fixed vision of appropriate institutions for political unity across Ireland. The whole point of having a broad, inclusive dialogue with all communities is to tease out some of these issues, not to prejudge the outcome of such dialogue.
People Before Profit: We do. There should be a constituent assembly to draw up a new constitution for a 32 county Ireland. Beforehand there should be citizens assemblies held all over the country to have a democratic input into the making of this constitution. At such assemblies we will advocate new political structures which extend democracy by giving electors a right to re-call deputies who break their manifestos.
Green Party: The continuation of the Stormont Assembly is likely to be retained in any United Ireland. While the Green Party has not set out any specific set of constitutional reforms, using provincial assemblies as a model for regional government under a new remit is something this which could be considered under the principle of subsidiarity and strengthening democracy.
Irish Freedom Party: There would need to be a huge consultation process regarding the political structure. Our preference would be a federal Ireland with a bill of rights for all.
The National Party: The National Party would be open to considering political structural options such as a unitary or a federal state as part of prospective negotiations between north and south. However, the fundamental Irish nationalist demand of national independence and sovereignty for the entire island in one political entity must first be satisfied.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Why does somebody have to die before anything is done in this country? RIP
It’s not just “this country”.
Sad, but true.
Considering this, how Ireland got onto the EU Human Rights Council recently is beyond me!
apologies UN Human Rights Council
Because they passed a bill which gives the UN the right to bring in any law into ireland on any day of the week and their is sweet fuk all we can do!
If it does turn out that her death could have been avoided, if the legislation had been enacted, ( which seems likely ), and if her death, in turn leads to the legislation finally being enacted to prevent this avoidable tragedy ever happening again, then I think it is incumbent upon us to at least honour her memory in some way. While I’m not normally a fan of associating victims names with laws, I think in this case it might be the right thing to do. So, premature as my suggestion is, if the legislation is enacted, perhaps we should consider calling it Savitas law in her memory.
plus 1
This would be just a lovely idea . Savinna’s law . I am sure her husband and family would have to agree .
Way past time for the government to be hiding behind an expert group to chicken out of complying with its own Supreme Court’s decision.
Reading comments here and on other places, I’ve never seen anything anger the (at least online) population so much. If they avoided it as a populist agenda before, they’ll be we’ll served addressing it now. While no political party can raise this as a political issue as it was avoided for 20 years, its incumbent amongst all the parties to raise it now as no one in the country wants to see a death attributable again to the catholic ethos. The issue of it only being a lifestyle choice has tragically now clearly been put to bed and The pro life religious groups would do well to keep their heads below the parapet on this one.
Catherine
There was a time when the goal of respectability was enough for everyone and particularly at a time when poverty stalked our land. The use of vulgarity and foul language which comes so easy to you would then have cost you even that status.
because we are a nation of cowards
Not really…..the cowards just always seem to be in charge.
We didn’t need legislation to save this poor woman’s life. It seems to me that the medics involved were reticent to progress to termination either because they feared some backlash, they were confused or they had some religious or moral conviction against it. In any case it’s inexcusable. We now need to sort this out. Legislate for abortion rights now.
Declan – You start with “we don’t need” and finish with “legislate now”.
We do need legislation for this precisely because medics have to confront these issues. By legislating no doctor will ever need to question their actions on cases like this.
Our constitution has been argued by both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice debate as supporting their point. This means that any medic who takes a stand either way may put themselves at risk of ending up in front of a judge who will interpret the poorly worded constitution subjectively. Right now, that’s all there is and in the absence of legislation it will always be that poor wording that is put under the subjective microscope.
Convenient that reilly says that he only got this report in 24 hours .
Eileen are you suggesting that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health lied about the date on which an Official Report was received by State or are you just using irony to make your points.
Garry Fitzgerald
Not at all . I am so very sorry if you have misunderstood my comment .
I am not suggesting anything of the kind . I am saying in plain English that
the taoiseach and the minister for health are liars and are lying through their
teeth as they have done and continue to do since they came into power in
the government .
I hope this clears up any confusion you may have :)
Ireland 2012 still suffering the fallout from the Catholic Churches iron grip on this nation. Disgusting and shocking after all the damage this organisation has inflicted on this nation to be still able to influence the decision makers within our society. Progress?…
If anyone bothered to listen to her husband or READ the original story the woman did NOT ask for an abortion, she asked for labour to be induced which was declined by the medical profession as it is considered a medical termination once there is a heartbeat present, even though her baby would not have survived at 17 weeks gestation. Her waters had broken 2 days previously and she was open to infection, her death is a direct result of her NOT being given prophylactic antibiotics on case of the possibility of infection because there WAS no guidelines in place for antibiotics prior to 32 weeks gestation. Antibiotics given within 8 hours of the rupture of membranes may have saved her. I say may because I do not know for sure but it bears investigating. As to the miscarriage, in cases like this the legislation needs to be changed to allow for induction when there is no hope of saving the child.
Seriously Patrick…. Have you not read about this horrific nightmare ? I can’t understand it … Then again I can…the ,catholic churches influence on all areas of social policy is still in existence in 2012. I initially thought that this lady died due to the inequalities in our health service. I thought maybe that she didn’t have health insurance.., this would have been bad enough but to die because this ” is a catholic country” is just unbelievable. I’m absolutely appalled. RIP
I feel there is alot more going on as 2 women died in 48 hours in the Coombe hospital after giving birth, While of course this case is horrific I think the hospitals are at a crisis point…and I would question the doctors decision..Was it down to law or budget?
This was an emergency situation! wtf do you think she was doing?
tv news said 500 protesters, as usual they cut numbers’
Inappropriate comment of the year award.
No Pat. She was a dentist and no woman, asylum seeker or not, should have to endure that.
@ Patrick, I’m sorry, do you think asylum seekers or non nationals are second class citizens that don’t deserve to be cared for?? It wasn’t that long ago that Irish ppl were on a boat out of here looking for a better life!! The famine, the 80′s… Last week!! Get your backward head out of the dark ages. RIP Savita and condolences to her family.
What if she was an asylum seeker Patrick. What would have been your reaction? That it was her own fault? That she shouldn’t come to Ireland to have an abortion, that she was was a sponger? What, you little pr**k, would have been your reaction!??
Calmed down a bit now…. FYI as far as I understood she was a dentist.
She might still be alive if the Catholic Church didn’t have a say in medical science in this country. That’s all anyone needs to know.
It’s not like they weren’t warned. Sickening.
It is first noted that the ground upon which a woman can seek a lawful abortion in Ireland is expressed in broad terms: Article 40.3.3, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case, provides that an abortion is available in Ireland if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, including a risk of self harm, which can only be avoided by a termination of the pregnancy (the X case, cited at paragraphs 39-44 above). While a constitutional provision of this scope is not unusual, no criteria or procedures have been subsequently laid down in Irish law, whether in legislation, case law or otherwise, by which that risk is to be measured or determined, leading to uncertainty as to its precise application. Indeed, while this constitutional provision (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case) qualified sections 58 and 59 of the earlier 1861 Act (see paragraph 145 above), those sections have never been amended so that, on their face, they remain in force with their absolute prohibition on abortion and associated serious criminal offences thereby contributing to the lack of certainty for a woman seeking a lawful abortion in Ireland.
Moreover, whether or not the broad right to a lawful abortion in Ireland for which Article 40.3.3 provides could be clarified by Irish professional medical guidelines as suggested by the Government (and see the High Court judgment in MR v. TR and Others, at paragraph 97 above), the guidelines do not in any event provide any relevant precision as to the criteria by which a doctor is to assess that risk. The Court cannot accept the Government’s argument that the oral submissions to the Committee on the Constitution, and still less obstetric guidelines on ectopic pregnancies from another State, could constitute relevant clarification of Irish law. In any event, the three conditions noted in those oral submissions as accepted conditions requiring medical intervention to save a woman’s life (pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix and ectopic pregnancies) were not pertinent to the third applicant’s case.
Furthermore, there is no framework whereby any difference of opinion between the woman and her doctor or between different doctors consulted, or whereby an understandable hesitancy on the part of a woman or doctor, could be examined and resolved through a decision which would establish as a matter of law whether a particular case presented a qualifying risk to a woman’s life such that a lawful abortion might be performed.
what was she doing here asking for an abortion….what was the doctor’s professional opinion?
have you actually bothered to read up on the story?
Read the story Patrick
She was asking for her life to be saved, when it was obvious that her child’s life could not be saved. Is that clear enough?.
What an ignorant comment, you must be some sort of idiot, can you not be bothered to even read the article before posting stupid pure ignorant comments?
So in the space of 4 hours between comments, you still couldn’t be bothered to look up on the story. Are you just waiting for today’s Sun or Daily Mail for your news?
have your say