Reunification Question

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why seek retribution (which you do all the time) for one side's contribution to the conflict and seek to minimise the cause of that conflict?

You can't unring a bell any more than you can go back and undo the causes of the current problems - try think in terms of solutions.

Also, as regards my criticism of Shinners and the 'RA - it's not one sided. As soon as the Tories, Labour etc look to run in our elections I'll be equally critical of them.......or at least the ones that maintain private armies

Happyman42

Jawgap wrote: »

You can't unring a bell any more than you can go back and undo the causes of the current problems - try think in terms of solutions.

Also, as regards my criticism of Shinners and the 'RA - it's not one sided. As soon as the Tories, Labour etc look to run in our elections I'll be equally critical of them.......or at least the ones that maintain private armies

When called in the inherent hypocrisy in your posts....compartmentalise. Excellent.

Crooked Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously, 1.4 million people get to decide the future of the whole island, including the 4 or so million who live in the Republic?

Democracy in action :rolleyes:

Indeed. there should be one all Ireland vote.

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

When called in the inherent hypocrisy in your posts....compartmentalise. Excellent.

Thanks.

The Corinthian

end of the road wrote: »

the south has sold itself out again and again to the EU to the detriment of all, so on such an issue they couldn't be trusted not to sell out our irish brothers up north if they voted to rejoin us. which is why only the north should decide our future, and we except them come what may as is our duty.

So most of the population of the island of Ireland would not have a say in their future because you're afraid the vote would not go the way you want it to go? I presume you're rejecting democracy here.

You do understand that were Ireland an anti-democratic regime that this would likely not play out well for you? Someone with your views, in such a society, would likely end up in a land-fill before long.

Jamsiek

end of the road wrote: »

which is why only the north should decide our future, and we except them come what may as is our duty.

It's not our "duty", that's fascism.
We would need to change the constitution and that can only be done by a referendum in the south and we can choose to vote against it if we wish, that's democracy

armaghlad

Jawgap wrote: »

There wasn't - so you right one wrong by perpetrating another?

And you can persist with that line of argument, but all ridiculous rhetoric like that does, imo, is alienate the moderates in the Republic making it increasing likely they'd not vote or vote no for a united Ireland.

I would have thought "ridiculous rhetoric" like that would be a gentle reminder to our cousins in the South to vote for what is right... but maybe being the eternal optimist my wishes are somewhat misplaced.

In any case I would not advocate anything other than full democratic process, as per the GFA, when it comes to Irish unity.

Jawgap

armaghlad wrote: »

I would have thought "ridiculous rhetoric" like that would be a gentle reminder to our cousins in the South to vote for what is right... but maybe being the eternal optimist my wishes are somewhat misplaced.

In any case I would not advocate anything other than full democratic process, as per the GFA, when it comes to Irish unity.

I think if we learned anything from the Scottish referendum it's that people will vote to protect their economic interests even it means not voting for what's right.

armaghlad

Jawgap wrote: »

I think if we learned anything from the Scottish referendum it's that people will vote to protect their economic interests even it means not voting for what's right.

Really? I think what that shows is the power media has to influence politics. Look at the SNP now. Scottish independence is still very much a possibility in the future.

Jawgap

armaghlad wrote: »

Really? I think what that shows is the power media has to influence politics. Look at the SNP now. Scottish independence is still very much a possibility in the future.

If you look at the post election reseach you'll find a huge majority (somewhere north of 65%) wanted to vote for independence but were effectively swayed by uncertainty over three things - sterling, the NHS and pensions.

That uncertainty won't be easily driven out of people which probably why, within in a short space of time, you can observe the apparent paradox of a vote against independence followed by a landslide win for the SNP.

I don't doubt that there'll be another vote for Scottish independence in the next 5 to 10 years, but given the uncertainty won't have gone away and has probably been exacerbated by the way oil prices have tanked over the last year, the outcome won't be much different.

The same factors (minus the oil) will be at play in NI when it votes on unification - the currency, pensions, health (as well as the usual concerns over education, tax rates etc).

When the Republic votes, the potential cost (and expect lots parallels with and discussion of German unification and their post-unification recession) will likely cause people either not to vote or vote no.

Crooked Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

I think if we learned anything from the Scottish referendum it's that people will vote to protect their economic interests even it means not voting for what's right.

The only thing the scottish referendum showed us was that people can be swayed by fear mongering and lies.

The smoke cleared, they saw they'd been duped and now support for the SNP is on the rise even further and opinion polls are putting pro-independence voters well ahead

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1327913-stv-poll-scots-would-vote-yes-if-a-second-referendum-were-held-now/

The Corinthian

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The only thing the scottish referendum showed us was that people can be swayed by fear mongering and lies.

Ignoring for a moment that there were very real economic considerations, regardless of whether they were exaggerated or not, it still amounts to being swayed by economic concerns.

The 2004 Cypriot reunification referendum is another case in point, where economic concerns also swayed voting both pro (Turkish Cypriots seeking inclusion in the EU) and against (Greek Cypriots rejecting the proposed compensation deal for lost property in northern Cyprus).

It's very easy for someone to suggest that they should vote in favour of unification and damn the economic consequences, but typically I suspect that those who chant the mantra of 'it's worth it' are those who have nothing to lose; unemployed (or in safe government jobs), students, with no families to support, no savings to speak of and no assets to protect. For them the cost is worth it because they're asking others to pay it. It's no skin off their nose.

The reality is that for unification to happen, those economic concerns would need to be addressed. Patriotism may convince us to make some sacrifice in the interests of unification, but as things stand the price would be disastrous and few southerners would be willing to bankroll what would otherwise be a failed state just because a few mooching losers who stand to sacrifice nothing want us to do so on their behalf.

And if that were not a reality, then we would not be hearing preposterous suggestions by some such as that any referendum should be voted upon solely by the people of NI. It's a stark admission that they know the people of Ireland do not follow their views.

If there is something that is ultimately solely in the hands of the people of NI, if it is their will to unite, it is the effort to reform economically and politically. If they cannot face up to that and simply want to continue the gravy train under another flag, they can continue waiting.

Happyman42

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The only thing the scottish referendum showed us was that people can be swayed by fear mongering and lies.

The smoke cleared, they saw they'd been duped and now support for the SNP is on the rise even further and opinion polls are putting pro-independence voters well ahead

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1327913-stv-poll-scots-would-vote-yes-if-a-second-referendum-were-held-now/

The political landscape in Britain is changing, no doubt about it. If Corbyn manages to build a new Labour party, capable of challenging for power, it will get very interesting.

Jawgap

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The only thing the scottish referendum showed us was that people can be swayed by fear mongering and lies.

The smoke cleared, they saw they'd been duped and now support for the SNP is on the rise even further and opinion polls are putting pro-independence voters well ahead

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1327913-stv-poll-scots-would-vote-yes-if-a-second-referendum-were-held-now/

No, it just showed that people are people and we're inherently risk averse - what people have they hold.

Or to paraphrase Hugh Leonard - people sitting in nettles won't get up in case someone takes their seat.

It's not politics - it's human nature.

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

The political landscape in Britain is changing, no doubt about it. If Corbyn manages to build a new Labour party, capable of challenging for power, it will get very interesting.

Corbyn, for all his virtues as a person and politician, will be gone in 2 years or less.

Once the Labour Party realise how unelectable he is as a potential PM the heave will start - probably just before the mid-point of the current Parliament to give whoever comes in some chance to salvage their prospects in the run up to the 2020 GE.

About 10% of the Labour PP voted for him.

Happyman42

Jawgap wrote: »

Corbyn, for all his virtues as a person and politician, will be gone in 2 years or less.

I'm sure he'll be delighted to hear that.

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm sure he'll be delighted to hear that.

I'd be pretty sure he doesn't give a flying fúck about anything I might have to say.

Crooked Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

Corbyn, for all his virtues as a person and politician, will be gone in 2 years or less.

Once the Labour Party realise how unelectable he is a potential PM the heave will start - probably just before the mid-point of the current Parliament to give whoever comes in some chance to salvage their prospects in the run up to the 2020 GE.

About 10% of the Labour PP voted for him.

The labour party would be idiotic in the extreme to get rid of him. Right now he's the only thing separating labour from just being conservative light. He's also the only thing that might help them claw back a few seats in scotland from the SNP.
What Labour need to do now is get behind corbyn and try and engage the entire generation his election campaign has motivated and created an interest of politics in.
Kicking corbyn out in two years would, in my opinion, be the death knell for the labour party. A clear indication to all left leaning people out there that despite what their supporters say labour has a cabal of centre and centre right people at the top who ultimately decide who's in charge.

alaimacerc

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Indeed. there should be one all Ireland vote.

SF "full support for the GFA" looking a tad patchy there. Again.

alaimacerc

armaghlad wrote: »

And when exactly was a "free and fair" vote taken to annex six counties [...]

More like un-annexing 26 of 'em (to oversimplify and skip quite a few steps, even so).

Crooked Jack

alaimacerc wrote: »

SF "full support for the GFA" looking a tad patchy there. Again.

Just celebrating a rare meeting of minds with Jawgap there

Jawgap

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Just celebrating a rare meeting of minds with Jawgap there

Except I wasn't advocating one all island vote - I'd be more inclined to support a vote in each jurisdiction, with NI going first so we might be spared the cost of having our own vote.

Crooked Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

Except I wasn't advocating one all island vote - I'd be more inclined to support a vote in each jurisdiction, with NI going first so we might be spared the cost of having our own vote.

It's exactly this type of sneering smugness that, much like the referendum in Scotland, will seriously aid the independence side.
A lot of people dismissed the Yes campaign in Scotland before it got off the ground. They'd fairly changed their tune by polling day.

Jawgap

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's exactly this type of sneering smugness that, much like the referendum in Scotland, will seriously aid the independence side.
A lot of people dismissed the Yes campaign in Scotland before it got off the ground. They'd fairly changed their tune by polling day.

It's just a simple fact - if NI votes first and votes down the idea then we don't have to run a referendum. It typically costs us €15m to run a referendum - better we saved it and spent it on something else.

I'm sure the Nordies would prefer us to go first then, if it's voted down, they get to save some money.

In reality, the vote in both jurisdictions, will likely take place on the same day.

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

It's just a simple fact - if NI votes first and votes down the idea then we don't have to run a referendum. It typically costs us €15m to run a referendum - better we saved it and spent it on something else.

I'm sure the Nordies would prefer us to go first then, if it's voted down, they get to save some money.

In reality, the vote in both jurisdictions, will likely take place on the same day.

I'll just love when SF have to stop making nice PR statments/cheap shots and actually start getting down to issues like, will NI keep NHS level services and who pays for it, does the NI public service have to be reduced by tens of thousands, will entire departments of NI government be shut down (and if not why and who pays for the duplication of the job), police/sercurity funding in the Republic has to be increased by several percent of GDP, tax rate changes etc...

Jawgap

sparky42 wrote: »

I'll just love when SF have to stop making nice PR statments/cheap shots and actually start getting down to issues like, will NI keep NHS level services and who pays for it, does the NI public service have to be reduced by tens of thousands, will entire departments of NI government be shut down (and if not why and who pays for the duplication of the job), police/sercurity funding in the Republic has to be increased by several percent of GDP, tax rate changes etc...

Will mortgages have to be redenominated in Euros? - Now that's an 'enticing' idea, having to pay a sterling mortgage off in Euros:eek:

armaghlad

Not that I necessarily disagree entirely, worth nothing that:

- NHS is already under threat with the Tories in charge.
- Public sector needs reduced regardless of any referendum outcome.
- Any governmental department shake up will be much needed, and will help eradicate the Belfast-centric (mainly pro-unionist) culture of investing as little as possible west of the Bann

Agreed policing could pose a major problem. Would expect a substantial backlash from loyalists, who are still coming to terms with the notion of Catholics having equality.

In any case, you may hold your excitement as you will be waiting a while on Sinn Féin tackling any of the above. The sheer notion of a united Ireland is completely beyond unionists, they refuse to comprehend the idea of it, let alone talk about it. Sinn Féin, and the SDLP, would be as well investing their efforts in persuading their own electorate so that when forecast demographic changes start to talk shape we can let democracy take its course.

Jawgap

I'd still take a Tory-gutted NHS over the HSE any day of the week.

Even the Tories won't be able to gut the NHS to the point of making it comparable to the HSE!

landofthetree

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The labour party would be idiotic in the extreme to get rid of him. Right now he's the only thing separating labour from just being conservative light. He's also the only thing that might help them claw back a few seats in scotland from the SNP.
What Labour need to do now is get behind corbyn and try and engage the entire generation his election campaign has motivated and created an interest of politics in.
Kicking corbyn out in two years would, in my opinion, be the death knell for the labour party. A clear indication to all left leaning people out there that despite what their supporters say labour has a cabal of centre and centre right people at the top who ultimately decide who's in charge.

He will be gone in two years if the Polls show Labour falling well behind. Highly likely in my opinion.

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd still take a Tory-gutted NHS over the HSE any day of the week.

Even the Tories won't be able to gut the NHS to the point of making it comparable to the HSE!

oh yes they will. they will do whatever to destroy it.