Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prime Time special on a United Ireland

Options
1234568»

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    'The' leading question... the question about tax was wrong imo as you were always likely to get a negative result.
    That's not what you'd think when listening to barstool Republicans on such matters. It's not a "leading" question at all, or in any way biased in its wording that I can see. It's not like it said "Given that a UI will cost a ton of money and lead to higher taxes...", it asked an entirely reasonable hypothetical. Perhaps you're confusing "leading" with "not leading in a way that SF would like".
    Dilution -more regional autonomy, English parliament etc.
    I doubt think those are "game changers". Those things would be "business as usual" in most developed democracies. A botched implementation of EVEL might accelerate actual breakup of the UK, but unless and until it gets to that point, I don't think it has any strong implications for NI.
    Despite the sarcasm I detect tacit acknowledgement that questions about the future need to be more nuanced and less headline.
    I'm all in favour of nuance, but it would have been somewhat wasted on a show like that. Nor is it particularly clear what nuance is actually missing in this respect. What would a better question for addressing the economic angle have been?
    Funny that, I was just wondering in another post how one party could be so wrong in EVERYTHING they say and do in the eyes of some posters on here.
    So "rationality" is to be measured, not in whether someone has supporting arguments for whatever arguments for or against something, on the basis of the ratio of criticism to praise? Curious. I wonder how you'd fare if judged by that standard, in relation to each political party other than SF?


Advertisement