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

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.

Berserker

eire4 wrote: »

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.

Why not? The unionists are pushing for this since the result of the Scottish vote. It might actually work out well for Westminster. NI can't really get much worse as public finances goes. It is heavily reliant on the public sector. The private sector workers think and work like public sector workers as well. The private sector in the RoI is like the moon to them. Whatever way you look at things, Westminster is going to be pumping billions into NI for many years to come.

Also, as a matter of interest, how would welfare recipients be dealt with? Welfare in NI is far less generous than welfare down here. How would you manage that? Are you going to cut it down here? Or are you going to leave those in NI with less to live on than those in the RoI.

eire4

Berserker wrote: »

Why not? The unionists are pushing for this since the result of the Scottish vote. It might actually work out well for Westminster. NI can't really get much worse as public finances goes. It is heavily reliant on the public sector. The private sector workers think and work like public sector workers as well. The private sector in the RoI is like the moon to them. Whatever way you look at things, Westminster is going to be pumping billions into NI for many years to come.

Also, as a matter of interest, how would welfare recipients be dealt with? Welfare in NI is far less generous than welfare down here. How would you manage that? Are you going to cut it down here? Or are you going to leave those in NI with less to live on than those in the RoI.

Because I don't see them giving up power and yet still having to pay for everything and being responsible for everything as well.

The Corinthian

NI does not have a real economy. While social welfare payments there are lower than in the Republic, they enjoy benefits in education and health that the south can only dream of. Unemployment is kept low though high public sector expenditure (I believe it accounts for something like 40% of employment) and a generous grant system.

Running at what is presently an over 100% deficit, it's not difficult to conclude that this is basically a single-resource economy, which uses that resource to fund everything else which is running at a loss. Unlike other single-resource economies like Libya or Venezuela, that resource is not oil, but subsidies from the UK.

Why isn't difficult to understand. PJ O'Roorke noted the use of the phrase "acceptable level of violence" in NI, and basically that's what it is - keep people in jobs and benefits at all costs, so that they're not butchering everyone.

The problem is that the RoI cannot afford to maintain this approach. Even if it could, it could never sell it to the southern electorate who would have to see their taxes increased even further so that northerners could continue to get their free dental care.

Meanwhile NI has no stomach for economic reform. Who wants to give up their cushy state funded gigs?

And no one is suggesting any alternatives that would make a united Ireland viable. Unionists have no interest in doing so. Nationalists, Sinn Fein in particular, still live in the magical land of 1980's Marxism. London and Dublin mumble a few things but effectively passed the buck when they both accepted the principle of self determination.

And, AFAIK, the only suggestion has been a political, rather than economic one, for a federal Ireland, which hardly addresses the question of what happens when a federal unit of that Ireland cannot pay the bills - I think the idea is that they get autonomy, but no fiscal responsibility, and that's not a concept that's going to sell down south, even with the armchair republicans who'll end up voting with their pockets rather than their hearts at the end of the day.

So until that's resolved, I can't see unification happening. And given that only the Northern nationalists are doing more than spouting platitudes to pursue this end, I cant see a resolution any time soon, given that economics is still a distant priority after issues like marches and flags for them.

Godge

http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/11/05/despite-a-slightly-increased-catholic-population-parents-are-walking-away-from-segregated-ed/


Interesting article with very interesting statistics regarding the move away from Catholic schools to integrated educatiom.

A further statistical sign of people moving away from the United Ireland idea.

maccored

?

No - it shows people moving away from religion surely?

Godge wrote: »

http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/11/05/despite-a-slightly-increased-catholic-population-parents-are-walking-away-from-segregated-ed/


Interesting article with very interesting statistics regarding the move away from Catholic schools to integrated educatiom.

A further statistical sign of people moving away from the United Ireland idea.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/11/05/despite-a-slightly-increased-catholic-population-parents-are-walking-away-from-segregated-ed/


Interesting article with very interesting statistics regarding the move away from Catholic schools to integrated educatiom.

A further statistical sign of people moving away from the United Ireland idea.

What?

You do know it takes two to 'integrate'?

eire4

Godge wrote: »

http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/11/05/despite-a-slightly-increased-catholic-population-parents-are-walking-away-from-segregated-ed/


Interesting article with very interesting statistics regarding the move away from Catholic schools to integrated educatiom.

A further statistical sign of people moving away from the United Ireland idea.

Can't say I would agree with that. It suggests to me a move away from denominational education and not very surprising given the churchs behaviour in Ireland which has been exposed in recent years. Hopefully also a positive for the long term future of Ireland.

DarkyHughes

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.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if we did? Just like England letting Scotland & Wales having devolved powers?

Oh and along with the 6 counties in Ulster we (Republicans) have a new demand. We want county Kilburn in London back. :pac:

Godge

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Wouldn't it be a lot easier if we did? Just like England letting Scotland & Wales having devolved powers?

Oh and along with the 6 counties in Ulster we (Republicans) have a new demand. We want county Kilburn in London back. :pac:

So we let the North keep their devolved powers but without the subsidy from London. How would that work out?

Well, the North would vote no, it would be mad to vote otherwise.
If we were to pick up the tab, we would be mad to vote yes.

There is no hope for Irish unity until Northern Ireland weans itself off the English tit.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

There is no hope for Irish unity until Northern Ireland weans itself off the English tit.

English?

One of Britain's ways of 'letting go'(convincing the Unionists) will be to constantly and incremently remove that tit and that process of convincing has begun.