"IF" a United Ireland did happen...(Mod warning in OP, stay on topic!))

DarkyHughes

Does Republican Sinn Fiens strategy of a federal Ireland with four different parliaments not seem more fair to Unionist instead of being out breathed by Catholics (assuming for arguments sake Catholics want a UI) and being shoved into one & being ruled from Dublin?

Mod warning:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93924363&postcount=464

How this thread has ended up as another "who started it" one, I don't know, but that isn't the subject matter. The subject is the future and the possibility of a United Ireland, not repeating the same arguments about who started the Troubles.

Iwasfrozen

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Does Republican Sinn Fiens strategy of a federal Ireland with four different parliaments not seem more fair to Unionist instead of being out breathed by Catholics (assuming for arguments sake Catholics want a UI) and being shoved into one & being ruled from Dublin?

It seems protestants are being out bred by catholics any way.

Don't make the mistake of protestant = unionist, catholic = nationalist though, that isn't as largely true as it once was. Many catholics seem to be turing their back on the idea of a UI, moreso than protestants turning their back on unionism.

DarkyHughes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It seems protestants are being out bred by catholics any way.

Don't make the mistake of protestant = unionist, catholic = nationalist though, that isn't as largely true as it once was. Many catholics seem to be turing their back on the idea of a UI, moreso than protestants turning their back on unionism.

i kniw that but just for arguments sake say Catholic did = nationalist or even if the UK just decided to piss off out of the place again for arguments sake.. Which deal do you think unionist would prefer RSF federal idea or the Provos being ruled from Dublin idea.

I remember Ruari O'braidgh was having secret discussions with UVF & UDA leaders during the 75 ceasefire when the federal Ireland idea was Provo policy in the mid 70's & they said they'd rather take that deal than the Dublin government one, these discussions were going well until that excuse for a human being Conor C O'Brien blew the whistle on the discussion & we had 20 more years of bloodshed

Iwasfrozen

DarkyHughes wrote: »

i kniw that but just for arguments sake say Catholic did = nationalist or even if the UK just decided to piss off out of the place again for arguments sake.. Which deal do you think unionist would prefer RSF federal idea or the Provos being ruled from Dublin idea.

I remember Ruari O'braidgh was having secret discussions with UVF & UDA leaders during the 75 ceasefire when the federal Ireland idea was Provo policy in the mid 70's & they said they'd rather take that deal than the Dublin government one, these discussions were going well until that excuse for a human being Conor C O'Brien blew the whistle on the discussion & we had 20 more years of bloodshed

For arguments sake, I don't speak for unionists but I would imagine they would prefer NI to be an autonomous region with it's current borders within a united Ireland. Similar to Scotland in the UK or Quebec in Canada.

DarkyHughes

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For arguments sake, I don't speak for unionists but I would imagine they would prefer NI to be an autonomous region with it's current borders within a united Ireland. Similar to Scotland in the UK or Quebec in Canada.

Glad you agree.. I think unionists would prefer that as well.

valor rorghulis

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Does Republican Sinn Fiens strategy of a federal Ireland with four different parliaments not seem more fair to Unionist instead of being out breathed by Catholics (assuming for arguments sake Catholics want a UI) and being shoved into one & being ruled from Dublin?

No, if there was a united Ireland Northern Ireland, Stormont & power sharing would remain, it would just fall under Irish instead of UK jurisdiction

There's no logic to eire nua whatsoever. It was just disingenuously put forward as an idea to look like an effort was being made to accommodate unionists without appearing to adhere to British influence

Which is actually quite ironic considering the formalisation of the four provinces as we know them was a British thing..

Richard

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Does Republican Sinn Fiens strategy of a federal Ireland with four different parliaments not seem more fair to Unionist instead of being out breathed by Catholics (assuming for arguments sake Catholics want a UI) and being shoved into one & being ruled from Dublin?

The capital of Ulster was to be Dungannon or something, hardly a realistic strategy.

DarkyHughes

valor rorghulis wrote: »

No, if there was a united Ireland Northern Ireland, Stormont & power sharing would remain, it would just fall under Irish instead of UK jurisdiction

There's no logic to eire nua whatsoever. It was just disingenuously put forward as an idea to look like an effort was being made to accommodate unionists without appearing to adhere to British influence

Which is actually quite ironic considering the formalisation of the four provinces as we know them was a British thing..

It says that in the GFA?

So basically yes, they would rather the RSF idea just needs to be tweaked in a few places to satisfy everyone.

getzls

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't make the mistake of protestant = unionist, catholic = nationalist though, that isn't as largely true as it once was. Many catholics seem to be turing their back on the idea of a UI, moreso than protestants turning their back on unionism.

Good post.
What Republicans used to post, 50% plus one was always utter bollocks.

Say if the population was 50-50 on a religious breakdown, lets estimate the way they would vote.

96% of Protestants would vote to stay in the U.K. so that makes 48% for the U.K.

50% of Catholics vote to remain part of the U.K. then that's 25% of the vote.

Add them to-gether and that makes 73% for the U.K.

I can never see a U.I.,and most certainly not in my lifetime.

daviecronin

getzls wrote: »

Good post.
What Republicans used to post, 50% plus one was always utter bollocks.

Say if the population was 50-50 on a religious breakdown, lets estimate the way they would vote.

96% of Protestants would vote to stay in the U.K. so that makes 48% for the U.K.

50% of Catholics vote to remain part of the U.K. then that's 25% of the vote.

Add them to-gether and that makes 73% for the U.K.

I can never see a U.I.,and most certainly not in my lifetime.

You're agreement makes no sense. As you should know its not just Northern Ireland who vote on and UI but all of Ireland. I personally feel a UI Ireland is coming and soon

daviecronin

argument **

junder

daviecronin wrote: »

You're agreement makes no sense. As you should know its not just Northern Ireland who vote on and UI but all of Ireland. I personally feel a UI Ireland is coming and soon

The vote in the Republic is only relevant if northern Ireland votes yes to a united Ireland

daviecronin

junder wrote: »

The vote in the Republic is only relevant if northern Ireland votes yes to a united Ireland

It's the whole of Ireland that votes on it regardless

Berserker

daviecronin wrote: »

It's the whole of Ireland that votes on it regardless

No, it's the decision of the people of N.I., first and foremost. If they decided to go for a UI then we would have to decide on whether we, the RoI, wanted it. Otherwise, you could have the absurd idea of a UI being forced on the people of N.I. against he wishes of the majority, across all communities.

icecold1066

Everyone with a brain accepts the principle of democratic consent.
NI will only be part of an UI with the consent of the majority of the population of NI.
Then of course the people of the Republic of Ireland would have to have their say if they want NI to be part of an UI.

getzls

daviecronin wrote: »

You're agreement makes no sense. As you should know its not just Northern Ireland who vote on and UI but all of Ireland. I personally feel a UI Ireland is coming and soon

I do know this.

Both Northern Ireland and the Republic have to agree. The Republic gets a vote also, if necessary.

Which of course will likely never happen.:)

DarkyHughes

Okay say if the Scottish vote goes 51 - 49% in favor of independence the whole of Scotland gets independence or do places with large Unionist majorities remain in the UK like here in 1921?

Berserker

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Okay say if the Scottish vote goes 51 - 49% in favor of independence the whole of Scotland gets independence or do places with large Unionist majorities remain in the UK like here in 1921?

Comparing the campaign for independence in Scotland, to what went on in Ireland almost 100 years ago, makes absolutely no sense. The 'No' side is comfortably ahead anyway, by as much as 10% according to some polls, so it'll be a clear win for the 'No' side.

DarkyHughes

Berserker wrote: »

Comparing the campaign for independence in Scotland, to what went on in Ireland almost 100 years ago, makes absolutely no sense. The 'No' side is comfortably ahead anyway, by as much as 10% according to some polls, so it'll be a clear win for the 'No' side.

I'm not comparing it to what went on 100 years ago here, I don't need to go back 100 years we still have the same situation here today.

Still doesn't answer my question tho. Will Scotland be partitioned if it goes yes by a slight majority?

T runner

icecold1066 wrote: »

Everyone with a brain accepts the principle of democratic consent.
NI will only be part of an UI with the consent of the majority of the population of NI.
Then of course the people of the Republic of Ireland would have to have their say if they want NI to be part of an UI.

I don't accept its as a principle no more than I would accept the principle of democratic consent for Eastern Ukraine, or for a partioned Scotland. Anyone with a brain accepts the idea of partitioning Ireland on sectarian grounds was utterly wrong. It has to be accepted rather as a political reality.

junder

T runner wrote: »

I don't accept its as a principle no more than I would accept the principle of democratic consent for Eastern Ukraine, or for a partioned Scotland. Anyone with a brain accepts the idea of partitioning Ireland on sectarian grounds was utterly wrong. It has to be accepted rather as a political reality.

So if you dont accept the principal of democratic consent as laid out in the gfa, what is your ( realistic) alternative

eire4

Berserker wrote: »

No, it's the decision of the people of N.I., first and foremost. If they decided to go for a UI then we would have to decide on whether we, the RoI, wanted it. Otherwise, you could have the absurd idea of a UI being forced on the people of N.I. against he wishes of the majority, across all communities.

Kind of how partion was forced onto the people of Ireland after the 1918 general election in Ireland by the British despite the vast majority of the country voting for independance.


Or why were Fermanagh and Tyrone ever forced under Stormont rule when a majority of both counties were also in favour of being with Ireland?

Bob Z

valor rorghulis wrote: »

Which is actually quite ironic considering the formalisation of the four provinces as we know them was a British thing..

Really?

Chrissybhoy

The 32 County's should have a say in any referendum for a 32 Republic ultimately it's there land governed by the British.

getzls

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

The 32 County's should have a say in any referendum for a 32 Republic ultimately it's there land governed by the British.

No it's not.:cool:

The Corinthian

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

The 32 County's should have a say in any referendum for a 32 Republic ultimately it's there land governed by the British.

Daft. I suppose that England should also be voting on Scottish independence this week, with a majority deciding, then?

Were there to be a referendum on a UI it would almost certainly be akin to the vote over Cyprian reunification - both sides having separate referendum and if both passed, then so would the initiative. And as it turned out one didn't.

Thing is too, that I would not be so certain that it would pass in the South either. The economic costs involved would likely cause many a southern armchair nationalist reconsider the issue, when it finally came to the moment of truth. It's easy to support unification and be a 'patriot' when it's the long finger.

walshb

getzls wrote: »

No it's not.:cool:

It is their land. It's Irish land that is occupied/governed by a foreign country/kingdom. Nothing will change that fact.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

It is their land. It's Irish land that is occupied/governed by a foreign country/kingdom. Nothing will change that fact.

Tell you what, let's all go up to Tara and take turns stepping on Lia Fáil. If the stone shouts out someones name when they do, then we will have someone with a legitimate claim to calling it their land.

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Tell you what, let's all go up to Tara and take turns stepping on Lia Fáil. If the stone shouts out someones name when they do, then we will have someone with a legitimate claim to calling it their land.

Wha?

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

Wha?

Surely an expert like you on Ireland would know what I meant.

Chrissybhoy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Daft. I suppose that England should also be voting on Scottish independence this week, with a majority deciding, then?

Were there to be a referendum on a UI it would almost certainly be akin to the vote over Cyprian reunification - both sides having separate referendum and if both passed, then so would the initiative. And as it turned out one didn't.

Thing is too, that I would not be so certain that it would pass in the South either. The economic costs involved would likely cause many a southern armchair nationalist reconsider the issue, when it finally came to the moment of truth. It's easy to support unification and be a 'patriot' when it's the long finger.

Scotland entered into a personal and political union with England. Don't think Ireland did this. As long as There is British occupation in the north it will breath resistance. It's unfair to say the 32 county's shouldn't have a say when
The only reason unionists are in the north is because of English and Scottish Protestants through plantation. Open to correction

The Corinthian

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

Scotland entered into a personal and political union with England. Don't think Ireland did this. As long as There is British occupation in the north it will breath resistance.

Well actually Ireland did enter a personal and political union with England; more correctly Britain, in 1800.

Of course, you have to consider what you mean by Ireland, because as a united island it had existed only as a client state of England. Prior to that there was no Ireland, beyond a geographical entity with some aspirations of unity that never actually materialized beyond the nominal and semi-mythical High Kings.

These High Kings were really only Kings in name only, nominal elected monarchs with less authority than the Holy Roman Emperors had by the 18th century. In reality, pre-Norman Ireland was a patchwork of warring petty kingdoms, just as England had been, and lest we forget it was one of these warring petty kingdoms that invited the Normans over in the first place.

In short, there was no real legal entity known as 'Ireland' that could lay claim to 'our' land. The closest we got to it was a nominal 'high king' of a collection of independent kingdoms who's 'authority' came from the same nobles who eventually swore fealty to the English crown and from a magic stone on the hill of Tara that would call out his name when he stepped on it.

It's unfair to say the 32 county's shouldn't have a say when

Of course the 32 counties should have a say, but it is bizarre to suggest that it should be a 32 county referendum. By that logic, Scotland's future should be based by a referendum of the whole UK, where the Scottish population would have little hope of overcoming the voting power of the much greater English one.

Any referendum would likely take the approach of two referenda; one for the six counties and one for the Republic, with both requiring a pass to succeed. That is the model that has been taken in other unification referenda, such as Cyprus.

The only reason unionists are in the north is because of English and Scottish Protestants through plantation. Open to correction

Absolutely correct. Then I presume that you support Israeli displacement of Palestinians, given that the only reason they're there is due to Roman, Byzantine and later Arab invasion and migrations, and that the land is Israeli by right - they were there first and, unlike us, they even got the endorsement of God that it's theirs.

Chrissybhoy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well actually Ireland did enter a personal and political union with England; more correctly Britain, in 1800.

Of course, you have to consider what you mean by Ireland, because as a united island it had existed only as a client state of England. Prior to that there was no Ireland, beyond a geographical entity with some aspirations of unity that never actually materialized beyond the nominal and semi-mythical High Kings.

These High Kings were really only Kings in name only, nominal elected monarchs with less authority than the Holy Roman Emperors had by the 18th century. In reality, pre-Norman Ireland was a patchwork of warring petty kingdoms, just as England had been, and lest we forget it was one of these warring petty kingdoms that invited the Normans over in the first place.

In short, there was no real legal entity known as 'Ireland' that could lay claim to 'our' land. The closest we got to it was a nominal 'high king' of a collection of independent kingdoms who's 'authority' came from the same nobles who eventually swore fealty to the English crown and from a magic stone on the hill of Tara that would call out his name when he stepped on it.

Of course the 32 counties should have a say, but it is bizarre to suggest that it should be a 32 county referendum. By that logic, Scotland's future should be based by a referendum of the whole UK, where the Scottish population would have little hope of overcoming the voting power of the much greater English one.

Any referendum would likely take the approach of two referenda; one for the six counties and one for the Republic, with both requiring a pass to succeed. That is the model that has been taken in other unification referenda, such as Cyprus.

Absolutely correct. Then I presume that you support Israeli displacement of Palestinians, given that the only reason they're there is due to Roman, Byzantine and later Arab invasion and migrations, and that the land is Israeli by right - they were there first and, unlike us, they even got the endorsement of God that it's theirs.

No I wouldn't support Israel like the Protestants in the north. They wrongly confiscated land and wanted to wipe a culture. I'd agree with other countries and not recognise it as a state Palestine was always Palestine and I don't agree with the partition same as I don't agree with the partition of Ireland both are states by default

The Corinthian

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

No I wouldn't support Israel like the Protestants in the north. They wrongly confiscated land and wanted to wipe a culture. I'd agree with other countries and not recognise it as a state Palestine was always Palestine and I don't agree with the partition same as I don't agree with the partition of Ireland both are states by default

Sorry, but Palestine was not always Palestine, it was Judea and Israel before and so by your earlier logic, the Palestinians are just interlopers, just like the Scots-Irish up North.

IrishProd

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but Palestine was not always Palestine, it was Judea and Israel before

Oh gee, that justifies everything the Israeli regime has committed then...

The Corinthian

IrishProd wrote: »

Oh gee, that justifies everything the Israeli regime has committed then...

Apparently, it might if one also follows the line that "the only reason unionists are in the north is because of English and Scottish Protestants through plantation." Same logic the Israelis use.

Godge

The Corinthian wrote: »

Apparently, it might if one also follows the line that "the only reason unionists are in the north is because of English and Scottish Protestants through plantation." Same logic the Israelis use.

Interesting, you have a good point. If land belongs to the original owners along the lines of "Ireland belongs to the Irish", then "Israel belongs to the Israelis" is another slogan you have to follow in order not to be a hypocrite ie. IRA supporter must equal Israel supporter.

On the other hand, if you believe in negotiated peace with mutual recognition of different cultures and aspirations as in the GFA, then Israel are wrong.

DarkyHughes

Sinn Fein are growing all the time in the North, 20 years ago they were not the majority in one of the 6 counties now their a majority in 4 & growing, if the SDLP got out of the way instead of trying to block Sinn Fein (that's basically a party who has a goal of Irish unity exists anymore -blocking SF) Sinn Fein could become the majority party in the North & win a border referendum.

And Gerry K's bombing of the Old Bailey would have been worth it

The Corinthian

Godge wrote: »

Interesting, you have a good point. If land belongs to the original owners along the lines of "Ireland belongs to the Irish", then "Israel belongs to the Israelis" is another slogan you have to follow in order not to be a hypocrite ie. IRA supporter must equal Israel supporter.

On the other hand, if you believe in negotiated peace with mutual recognition of different cultures and aspirations as in the GFA, then Israel are wrong.

Exactly. Whenever I hear some intellectual come out with the argument "the only reason unionists are in the north is because of English and Scottish Protestants through plantation" in relation to NI while supporting the Palestinian position in the Middle East, it really tests my faith in Darwinism. My other favourite line of logic is that Ireland should be united because it's an island - inspired genius.

This is probably why I think we should lace Majors and Carrols with contraceptives for the good of the species.

sparky42

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Sinn Fein are growing all the time in the North, 20 years ago they were not the majority in one of the 6 counties now their a majority in 4 & growing, if the SDLP got out of the way instead of trying to block Sinn Fein (that's basically a party who has a goal of Irish unity exists anymore -blocking SF) Sinn Fein could become the majority party in the North & win a border referendum.

And Gerry K's bombing of the Old Bailey would have been worth it

You had a look at the results of the polling for the border poll? SF would have to overturn a 20 point gap (and that's if you count the ones that are supportive of it happening within the generation rather than immediately), if you go for an immediate unification it's something less than 10% in support.

If the Unionists were smart they would call the vote, and watch SF loose and end the debate for a generation at least, that's not even getting into the debates down here in the referendum regarding who picks up the €12 billion a year that NI needs to keep the lights on, if you haven't enjoyed the last 5 years just wait for the decades of carrying the dead weight of NI:rolleyes:.

Esel

DarkyHughes wrote: »

... Sinn Fein could become the majority party in the North & win a border referendum.

The biggest party, maybe; the majority party, no.

Anyway, do you really think that if the SDLP folded its tent, all their voters would transfer to SF? I would have thought that most of them would go to the Alliance Party.

Even if they all did go SF, that in no way makes winning a border referendum a foregone conclusion.

Godge

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Sinn Fein are growing all the time in the North, 20 years ago they were not the majority in one of the 6 counties now their a majority in 4 & growing, if the SDLP got out of the way instead of trying to block Sinn Fein (that's basically a party who has a goal of Irish unity exists anymore -blocking SF) Sinn Fein could become the majority party in the North & win a border referendum.

And Gerry K's bombing of the Old Bailey would have been worth it

Ah yes, the demographic dream of Sinn Fein.

I thought that the Catholics were supposed to outbreed the Protestants some time in the 1980s.

sparky42

Godge wrote: »

Ah yes, the demographic dream of Sinn Fein.

I thought that the Catholics were supposed to outbreed the Protestants some time in the 1980s.

Well they are at parity now, it's just that SF and their bots have to come up with a reason now why that isn't reflected in the polls regarding the border issue, or any other issue. The Truth there are plenty of NI Catholics that don't want to join the Republic...

Godge

sparky42 wrote: »

Well they are at parity now, it's just that SF and their bots have to come up with a reason now why that isn't reflected in the polls regarding the border issue, or any other issue. The Truth there are plenty of NI Catholics that don't want to join the Republic...

A lot of people are missing the big implication of the Scottish referendum in terms of Northern Ireland. Devolution of powers to Scotland will have to be mirrored in Northern Ireland. There is a great opportunity for Unionists to show that devolution works and to copperfasten the union.

The problem for Sinn Fein is that co-operating with the devolution will only show that Northern Ireland can work. Disrupting devolution in those circumstances only shows to the Southern voter that SF are not to be trusted and will scare people in the North off giving them power.

Either way, support for a United Ireland declines.

eire4

Godge wrote: »

A lot of people are missing the big implication of the Scottish referendum in terms of Northern Ireland. Devolution of powers to Scotland will have to be mirrored in Northern Ireland. There is a great opportunity for Unionists to show that devolution works and to copperfasten the union.

The problem for Sinn Fein is that co-operating with the devolution will only show that Northern Ireland can work. Disrupting devolution in those circumstances only shows to the Southern voter that SF are not to be trusted and will scare people in the North off giving them power.

Either way, support for a United Ireland declines.

Your logic assumes that London continues to subsidize Stormont which is far from certain as London looks to cut back spending and as more power gets devolved away from London. Based on 2012 numbers the cost of running the government is about 20B of which locally only 9B is raised in taxes. Is London going to hand over more power and continue to hand over 11B as well? Hardly seems likely that London will be ok with handing over power and not cutting back at least some if not all of that massive subsidy they currently hand over to keep Stormont afloat.

sparky42

eire4 wrote: »

Your logic assumes that London continues to subsidize Stormont which is far from certain as London looks to cut back spending and as more power gets devolved away from London.

They will continue to provide the block grant, that might get reduced but it's still going to be there, NI's childish tactic of threatening to blow up if they don't get their way will ensure that. And since NI has just demonstrated that it's not mature enough for it's current spending powers, I don't see them getting more any time soon as the NI secretary has pointed out.

Godge

eire4 wrote: »

Your logic assumes that London continues to subsidize Stormont which is far from certain as London looks to cut back spending and as more power gets devolved away from London. Based on 2012 numbers the cost of running the government is about 20B of which locally only 9B is raised in taxes. Is London going to hand over more power and continue to hand over 11B as well? Hardly seems likely that London will be ok with handing over power and not cutting back at least some if not all of that massive subsidy they currently hand over to keep Stormont afloat.

I would also suggest that

(1) the South will not take on any financial burden
(2) the South will not let the North maintain its devolved powers

There will be many in the North otherwise in favour of unity who would baulk at them.

A further lesson from the Scottish referendum is that people will want to know what happens after the vote.

eire4

Godge wrote: »

I would also suggest that

(1) the South will not take on any financial burden
(2) the South will not let the North maintain its devolved powers

There will be many in the North otherwise in favour of unity who would baulk at them.

A further lesson from the Scottish referendum is that people will want to know what happens after the vote.

You fail to address the Stormont budget issue though. As I said currently London sends a subsidy of about 11B out of a 20B budget. That is a massive subsidy. Stormont as things stand cannot function without being proped up by London financially.

sparky42

Godge wrote: »

I would also suggest that

(1) the South will not take on any financial burden
(2) the South will not let the North maintain its devolved powers

There will be many in the North otherwise in favour of unity who would baulk at them.

A further lesson from the Scottish referendum is that people will want to know what happens after the vote.

Or you know go the SNP route, deny any comment that disagrees with their positions, and proclaim repeatedly that everything will be grand sure...:rolleyes:.

Has SF ever talked about how many Public service numbers in NI would be cut in the event of a Yes vote? Or do we have to support duplicated backroom systems just to keep them happy? (and when you consider the 300K out of 900K virtually everyone in NI might be impacted).

sparky42

eire4 wrote: »

You fail to address the Stormont budget issue though. As I said currently London sends a subsidy of about 11B out of a 20B budget. That is a massive subsidy. Stormont as things stand cannot function without being proped up by London financially.

And? There is no way NI can ever support their expenditure? And the instability that deeply cutting it would not be acceptable to London or Dublin. As things stand I'd say at the most there would be a gradual reduction while forcing down NI spending (I mean the current "issues" is £200 million out of a £23 billion budget:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:).

There's no addressing it as the ROI could never might that gap (taking current figures that's about 1/3 of out Tax revenue, or over 1/4 of our expenditure just to keep the NI economy functioning.

Which is why the Unionists if they were smart would support it and force SF to put positions forward North and South on this. Guessing it wouldn't end well...

eire4

sparky42 wrote: »

And? There is no way NI can ever support their expenditure? And the instability that deeply cutting it would not be acceptable to London or Dublin. As things stand I'd say at the most there would be a gradual reduction while forcing down NI spending (I mean the current "issues" is £200 million out of a £23 billion budget:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:).

There's no addressing it as the ROI could never might that gap (taking current figures that's about 1/3 of out Tax revenue, or over 1/4 of our expenditure just to keep the NI economy functioning.

Which is why the Unionists if they were smart would support it and force SF to put positions forward North and South on this. Guessing it wouldn't end well...

Support what? More devolved powers? If they go that route I don't see London still being prepared to subsidize Stormont to the massive extent they currently do.