Unification?

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

When was there a debate and vote on unity? Correct, there hasn't been one, so your assertion is just an opinion.
In my opinion we cannot call ourselves 'civilised' until we deal with the issues arising from the fact that we turned our backs on the whole notion of a republic with integrity and a huge swathe of fellow Irish men, women and children as well.
There are some (gaining in influence and power) who wish to put that right, I see nothing that will deny them that debate and vote.

Every time we vote for our government, we are recognising the validity of this state.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

How bizarre. Of course it would be in the future - it would hardly be in the past now would it?

He said "some time in the unknown future". Not the same as next week.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

Every time we vote for our government, we are recognising the validity of this state.

No, we are electing a government. The question of 'unity' has never been put to the Irish people on this island.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Whose 'romantic' dream for NI has been shattered? Unionists - the bigoted sectarian statelet has been dismantled and their 'dream' has turned to a nightmare. Witness their inability to come to terms with the new realities.
The only dream still possible and still on course is unification.

This is funny.

The reality is that Northern Ireland is going to remain part of the UK for the rest of my lifetime and my childrens' lifetime too at the very least.

The romantic dream of a united Ireland is more likely to be overtaken by the reality of a united Europe than for the romantic dream to become a reality.

I don't know why some people cling to outdated and ancient concepts of nationality, identity and territory as having to be always brought together.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

This is funny.

The reality is that Northern Ireland is going to remain part of the UK for the rest of my lifetime and my childrens' lifetime too at the very least.

The romantic dream of a united Ireland is more likely to be overtaken by the reality of a united Europe than for the romantic dream to become a reality.

I don't know why some people cling to outdated and ancient concepts of nationality, identity and territory as having to be always brought together.

The point is, there is nothing 'romantic' about it. It will be done because it has always been the practical thing to do. Yes it will be initially difficult, but there is much more to be gained from unity for everyone. And it is more than a dream it is a credible aspiration whose day is coming, and with the rise of SF that day may come sooner than you 'think' (or is that 'FEAR'?)
The dream of 'a Protestant state for a protestant people' has been well and truly shattered though and rightly so.

DarkyHughes

Redbishop wrote: »

"Taoiseach Enda Kenny told the Dáíl last October that there were other issues that needed to be prioritised over any referendum but predicted in a separate event that same month that the North and south would eventually be united."
http://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-economy-sinn-fein-pearse-doherty-970262-Jun2013/


I wouldnt be against it myself in principle but it would need great consideration, not something to be rushed in to.


There is a message here about Voodoo economics I include for you Deja
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/united-ireland-978055-Jul2013/

Yeah they say that but I don't think they really mean it.

Yea I agree I would like to see it but don't it's something that should be rushed into.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The point is, there is nothing 'romantic' about it. It will be done because it has always been the practical thing to do. Yes it will be initially difficult, but there is much more to be gained from unity for everyone. And it is more than a dream it is a credible aspiration whose day is coming, and with the rise of SF that day may come sooner than you 'think' (or is that 'FEAR'?)
The dream of 'a Protestant state for a protestant people' has been well and truly shattered though and rightly so.

There is no practicality to it at all.

At the moment there is peace because there is a stable equilibrium between the two sides at the moment.

Any attempt to radically change that equilibrium would risk a return to civil disobedience or violence. Neither government wants that so neither government will risk the instability of a unity poll even though they both know it would be heavily defeated. SF will continue to make noises about how good a united Ireland would be and how they are pushing for a referendum. Their electorate will swallow this wholeheartedly but nothing will change.

As for fearing the rise of SF, they have already peaked in the South and are on the way back down.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

There is no practicality to it at all.

The only thing you have against it is fear of losing or been seen to lose. Of course there will be teething issues but once overcome it would be the best for everyoe to be a unified island.

At the moment there is peace because there is a stable equilibrium between the two sides at the moment.

This, turn a blind eye philosophy of partitionists won't hold. Alll the main players say the peace is brittle and is stagnating. That is what we should be scared of.

As for fearing the rise of SF, they have already peaked in the South and are on the way back down.

I visualise you on your knees with your eyes tight shut and your hands over your ears....why is that?

Redbishop

Happyman42 wrote: »

"The only thing you have against it is fear of losing or been seen to lose. Of course there will be teething issues but once overcome it would be the best for everyoe to be a unified island."

In your opinion maybe, but why would it be best for everyone?


"This, turn a blind eye philosophy of partitionists won't hold. Alll the main players say the peace is brittle and is stagnating. That is what we should be scared of."

Are you saying then that it is either unite or back to the violence until we do?




I visualise you on your knees with your eyes tight shut and your hands over your ears....why is that?

No comment on that one

bilston

Karl Stein wrote: »

I see some people are still living in the past. It won't require a Unionist majority for the gears of a UI to begin to turn just a regular ol' majority.

To be honest if the opinion polls I've been reading over the past 5 years are to be believed there isn't even a majority of Nationalist voters in Northern Ireland who want a United Ireland.

Godge

bilston wrote: »

To be honest if the opinion polls I've been reading over the past 5 years are to be believed there isn't even a majority of Nationalist voters in Northern Ireland who want a United Ireland.

You have been reading them correctly.

However, in recent times they added a question as to whether you would support a United Ireland eventually if certain conditions were met. Given the ambiguous nature of the question, support shot up.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The only thing you have against it is fear of losing or been seen to lose. Of course there will be teething issues but once overcome it would be the best for everyoe to be a unified island.

As a Southern taxpayer I cannot see how it would be anyway good for me. Happy to remain as I am without the added burden of the North.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

The only thing you have against it is fear of losing or been seen to lose. Of course there will be teething issues but once overcome it would be the best for everyoe to be a unified island.

)

How would it be best for me as a citizen of the Republic of Ireland? In what way would adding a bunch of disgruntled unionists and bigots from both communities to our society be best for us?

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

How would it be best for me as a citizen of the Republic of Ireland? In what way would adding a bunch of disgruntled unionists and bigots from both communities to our society be best for us?

We are constantly being told that austerity will be good for us in x amount of years. Unification, while it might be expensive will bring greater prosperity to the island as a whole because a border is and has been a hindrance to that since it was created.
As regards security and a return to violence...if it is done correctly and we truly set up a republic (not the sham we have now) then it need not descend into conflict. I think the British being honest players would be a huge factor in that and I judge the mood there to be in favour of Irish unificatiom.

Redbishop

Happyman42 wrote: »

We are constantly being told that austerity will be good for us in x amount of years. Unification, while it might be expensive will bring greater prosperity to the island as a whole because a border is and has been a hindrance to that since it was created.
As regards security and a return to violence...if it is done correctly and we truly set up a republic (not the sham we have now) then it need not descend into conflict. I think the British being honest players would be a huge factor in that and I judge the mood there to be in favour of Irish unificatiom.

To me that sounds like a threat of violence if it is not done to suit you and your agenda. What political entity are you speaking for or at least think you are speaking for or is it from your own mind.
I see Mr McGuiness is talking it up too.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

We are constantly being told that austerity will be good for us in x amount of years. Unification, while it might be expensive will bring greater prosperity to the island as a whole because a border is and has been a hindrance to that since it was created.
As regards security and a return to violence...if it is done correctly and we truly set up a republic (not the sham we have now) then it need not descend into conflict. I think the British being honest players would be a huge factor in that and I judge the mood there to be in favour of Irish unificatiom.

That is all motherhood and apple pie and based on unrealistic assumptions.

It took Germany twenty years to recover from unification, we don't have an economy as strong as that. I am not prepared to have thirty years of austerity just to make some angry republicans in the North happy.

Unification is a silly dream.

smcgiff

Godge wrote: »

That is all motherhood and apple pie and based on unrealistic assumptions.

It took Germany twenty years to recover from unification, we don't have an economy as strong as that. I am not prepared to have thirty years of austerity just to make some angry republicans in the North happy.

Unification is a silly dream.

Are you comparing NI to a communist wretch of a country :pac:

Happyman42

Redbishop wrote: »

To me that sounds like a threat of violence if it is not done to suit you and your agenda. .

How does it sound like a 'threat'?
Are we allowed to express an opinion on how we see things going without being accused of making 'threats'. Pitiful comment tbh.

Happyman42

smcgiff wrote: »

Are you comparing NI to a communist wretch of a country :pac:

So, because 'I'm alright Jack' the rest of ye can sling yer hook?
Sounds like the partitionists charter.

AnotherYear

Godge wrote: »

As a Southern taxpayer I cannot see how it would be anyway good for me. Happy to remain as I am without the added burden of the North.

Ah. I often feel sorry for the people in the North who identify as Irish. Being seen as not properly/really Irish by a certain % of those south of the border. I saw it so much when I was travelling abroad.

I wouldn't have a problem paying extra tax if it meant my fellow countrymen & women could reunify with the rest of us. A united country is a stronger country in the long run.

Remember 100 years ago all of Ireland was in the UK. The North still is. I wonder if Munster or leinster was in the North position would the demographic who identify as Irish be forgotten about as easily

Redbishop

Happyman42 wrote: »

As regards security and a return to violence...if it is done correctly and we truly set up a republic (not the sham we have now) then it need not descend into conflict.

The way it is worded suggests that if it is done incorrectly, and what you call our present sham is not replaced then it could decend in to conflict. Is that not saying there could be violence.

Happyman42 wrote: »

How does it sound like a 'threat'?
Are we allowed to express an opinion on how we see things going without being accused of making 'threats'. Pitiful comment tbh.

I dont mind you making comments or expressing opinion, I just answered with what I picked up from it.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, we are electing a government. The question of 'unity' has never been put to the Irish people on this island.

Except for when it was, of course. NI was part of the free state, until they opted to return to the UK on the back of a democratically elected political representation. So there's your answer - no consensus on unity, then, or since. And no prospect of unity until some rather dramatic shift in opinion occurs in NI.

smcgiff

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, because 'I'm alright Jack' the rest of ye can sling yer hook?
Sounds like the partitionists charter.

I'm saying NI would be easier to integrate than a communist country and comparing to Germany is ludicrous.

I'd like UI, but only if the majority of the people that have existed in a state/ region for nearly 100 years agree to it.

liam24

The Republic of Ireland could not afford to subsidize Northern Ireland and its gigantic budget deficit. I can see literally no benefit to the people of the Republic of having to shoulder this poverty-stricken backwards ultra-conservative hellhole. The English turned it to ****, let them deal with it.

Happyman42

Redbishop wrote: »

The way it is worded suggests that if it is done incorrectly, and what you call our present sham is not replaced then it could decend in to conflict. Is that not saying there could be violence.



I dont mind you making comments or expressing opinion, I just answered with what I picked up from it.

Stating that in my opinion we will again descend into cyclical violence is not a 'threat'.
Just like saying that if the situation in Greece is not sorted, it will descend into violence, is not a threat, it is just an opinion.

alastair

AnotherYear wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem paying extra tax if it meant my fellow countrymen & women could reunify with the rest of us. A united country is a stronger country in the long run.

'Extra tax'!?

You do realise that NI is a basket case, economically, and that the overhead for absorbing NI into the state would equate to doubling the worst years of recent deficit and austerity, for essentially the fore-seeable future?

liam24

alastair wrote: »

'Extra tax'!?

You do realise that NI is a basket case, economically, and that the overhead for absorbing NI into the state would equate to doubling the worst years of recent deficit and austerity, for essentially the fore-seeable future?

NI has an annual budget deficit of 30%. Ireland did that once, because of an exceptional year when a lot of bankers had to be paid off, before falling to 11% the next year. And that was considered catastrophic!

Redbishop

Happyman42 wrote: »

Stating that in my opinion we will again descend into cyclical violence is not a 'threat'.
Just like saying that if the situation in Greece is not sorted, it will descend into violence, is not a threat, it is just an opinion.

Thanks, you cleared that up for me.

AnotherYear

alastair wrote: »

'Extra tax'!?

You do realise that NI is a basket case, economically, and that the overhead for absorbing NI into the state would equate to doubling the worst years of recent deficit and austerity, for essentially the fore-seeable future?

You should write doomsday novels. I think you'd do quite well

alastair

AnotherYear wrote: »

You should write doomsday novels. I think you'd do quite well

Anyone mention 'doom', other than yourself? I'm pointing out that the actual economic overhead of carrying NI's deficit would, by any assessment, require rather more long-term hardship than 'extra tax'.