Costs of Irish unification.

blanch152

CelticRambler wrote: »

Totally different contexts. If you can't see that for yourself, there's no point in continuing the discussion. :rolleyes:

However, if - when a majority of the local population has voted for reunification - hard-core unionists are elected and then abstain from the Dáil, moderate unionists won't be long in exploiting that. If the DUP are not at the table in Dublin, they won't be getting any subsidies and their electorate will soon realise the power of proportional representation in national elections.

Just like the SDLP exploited the SF abstentionist policy and currently hold more seats in Westminister...........................oh.

I have previously pointed out that the most deprived area in the UK - West Belfast - is also the area that has been represented by a former terrorist abstentionist MP for a very long time. The people of West Belfast never voted him out despite his failure to represent them at the table in London where the money and subsidies were being handed out.

Jawgap

CelticRambler wrote: »

Totally different contexts. If you can't see that for yourself, there's no point in continuing the discussion. :rolleyes:

However, if - when a majority of the local population has voted for reunification - hard-core unionists are elected and then abstain from the Dáil, moderate unionists won't be long in exploiting that. If the DUP are not at the table in Dublin, they won't be getting any subsidies and their electorate will soon realise the power of proportional representation in national elections.

Changing the context doesn't change anything for a community that sees itself as British and defines itself as such. If anything the fact that the extremist parties (both in Nationalist and Unionist areas) have been gaining ground at the expense of the more moderate parties (and their 'softer' views of community identity) suggests that NI is becoming more polarised, not more homogenous.

Your arguments remind me of the Colonel in Full Metal Jacket - to paraphrase his analysis and apply it here you seem to think that "inside every Unionist representative is an Irish constitutional politician trying to get out" and asking for people to "get with the programand jump on the team and come on in for the big win."

And you have yet to post up any evidence or analysis, aside from your own opinion, that suggests what you are describing is within the reasonable bounds of reality.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a failed state, that is why it can't and will never be fully done. It failed because partition was and will always be wrong.

You can't use that excuse for everything. Partition doesn't cause poor education. The money is there. Stormont has responsibility.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

All of which it has currently under the umbrella of the UK but that still hasn't stopped it becoming a basket case. Which leads me to believe that it's Northern Ireland itself and not the border that's the problem. It's gone from being an economic powerhouse to a backwater and there seems to be no sense of urgency about reversing that trend.

It needs to get its house in order. Simply swapping one sugar daddy for another isn't going to fix it.

I would suggest Catholics and nationalists having more of an equal footing drove the likes of the DUP into a 'cutting their nose to spite their face' style of governance played a major role and of course countered by Sinn Fein.
A return to the natural state of a complete country would see an end to a lot of this.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would suggest Catholics and nationalists having more of an equal footing drove the likes of the DUP into a 'cutting their nose to spite their face' style of governance played a major role and of course countered by Sinn Fein.
A return to the natural state of a complete country would see an end to a lot of this.

Ireland has never been a natural unified state with a central government except when under British rule prior to the Act of Union.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

You can't use that excuse for everything. Partition doesn't cause poor education. The money is there. Stormont has responsibility.

You cannot build a fair and equal and efficient education systems when partition forces communities into protective huddles.

If you guys could move beyond your obbsessions and try and see a bigger picture of cause and affect it would help.
The notion that the problems of northern Ireland began with events after 1969 is as tired as it is wrong.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot build a fair and equal and efficient education systems when partition forces communities into protective huddles.

If you guys could move beyond your obbsessions and try and see a bigger picture of cause and affect it would help.
The notion that the problems of northern Ireland began with events after 1969 is as tired as it is wrong.

Hang on aren't there denominational and non-denominational education systems in NI?

It seems people have a choice - send their kids to the denominational schools or the non-denominational schools and/or vote in politicians reform-minded enough to introduce a single education system.

Neither Dublin nor London 'forces' the current education arrangements on NI - it's a devolved matter and if it's failing, in spite of the huge sums ploughed into it, then whose fault is that? The politicians and those who voted for them or perfidious Albion and their devious scheme of devolution?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot build a fair and equal and efficient education systems when partition forces communities into protective huddles.

If you guys could move beyond your obbsessions and try and see a bigger picture of cause and affect it would help.
The notion that the problems of northern Ireland began with events after 1969 is as tired as it is wrong.

You cannot blame something that happened a century ago for the problems of today.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You cannot blame something that happened a century ago for the problems of today.

Unless it is still the cause of the problem.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unless it is still the cause of the problem.

Would you care to explain how partition forces a parent to choose a denominational school for their child?

I know some of my own relatives in Belfast had no trouble sending their kids to non-denominational schools, other than the extra commute required to attend the secondary school they went to.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the parties in Northern Ireland have yet to admit to the problem.

Which is partition.

You're begging the question.

"Partition is the problem" is nothing more than nationalist dogma. It's an article of faith: no problem can be solved until partition is gone; no problem will exist for long once partition is gone.

No evidence is ever offered for this, other than logical fallacies: there was partition, and then there was a failed state, therefore partition is the cause of the failed state; post hoc ergo propter hoc.



I'm reminded over and over and over again of the parallels between Irish nationalists and Brexiteers. Their article of faith was that all the UK's problems stem from EU membership, and that quitting the EU would Make Britain Great Again. Then there are the wing-growers: let's jump off the cliff, it'll all work out on the way down (get rid of the border, and Northern Ireland's problems will all Just Go Away). And, of course, the vitriol aimed at the traitors who have the temerity to want to rationally discuss the pros and cons.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're begging the question.

"Partition is the problem" is nothing more than nationalist dogma. It's an article of faith: no problem can be solved until partition is gone; no problem will exist for long once partition is gone.

No evidence is ever offered for this, other than logical fallacies: there was partition, and then there was a failed state, therefore partition is the cause of the failed state; post hoc ergo propter hoc.



I'm reminded over and over and over again of the parallels between Irish nationalists and Brexiteers. Their article of faith was that all the UK's problems stem from EU membership, and that quitting the EU would Make Britain Great Again. Then there are the wing-growers: let's jump off the cliff, it'll all work out on the way down (get rid of the border, and Northern Ireland's problems will all Just Go Away). And, of course, the vitriol aimed at the traitors who have the temerity to want to rationally discuss the pros and cons.

Nobody said it dogmatically.

Great progress has been made in northern Ireland since the GFA and as long as it is a process then a UI could arguably have been long fingered.

However it has become painfully evident over the last 5 years or so that belligerent bigoted unionism is not willing to create a normal society based on equality.
That has led to first, stagnation of the process and finally to colapse altogether.

Ask yourself why belligerent bigoted unionism is that way. What gave them to believe that they have some god given right to vetos in northern Ireland.

Back we come again to the cyclical problem - partition.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Would you care to explain how partition forces a parent to choose a denominational school for their child?

I know some of my own relatives in Belfast had no trouble sending their kids to non-denominational schools, other than the extra commute required to attend the secondary school they went to.

I suggest you do some research on that yourself. I have and my conclusion is that is an attitude inculcated and fostered by the partition of the country which created a unionist controlled religiously and culturally bigoted enclave which finally exploded into conflict circa 1969.

Chips Lovell

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A return to the natural state of a complete country would see an end to a lot of this.

No country has a "natural state" though. All political boundaries are largely artificial constructs.

FrancieBrady

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

No country has a "natural state" though. All political boundaries are largely artificial constructs.

And is it not time that we pronounce the effort to artificially create a state were unionism could thrive has been a dramatic and tragic failure?

Junkyard Tom

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Can't see any of that happening. Any unification deal will likely involve significant constitutional change to give guarantees to both communities up North.

Both communities? This is an insight into the mindset that has been created in some by partition. The Irish in the north wouldn't need any guarantees that aren't already in place in the south. What guarantees would the Irish in the north want that the Irish in the rest of Ireland don't have?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot build a fair and equal and efficient education systems when partition forces communities into protective huddles.

If you guys could move beyond your obbsessions and try and see a bigger picture of cause and affect it would help.
The notion that the problems of northern Ireland began with events after 1969 is as tired as it is wrong.

Partition doesn't do this. Sectarianism does this. Sectarianism won't disappear after unification! It may even get worse.

Even so, the division in society doesn't cause poor education. The UK throws more than enough money at Stormont to fund these parallel systems. Many Irish towns also have segregation in education by the way...I went to school in such a town. To the boys school.

Chips Lovell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Both communities? This is an insight into the mindset that has been created in some by partition. The Irish in the north wouldn't need any guarantees that aren't already in place in the south. What guarantees would the Irish in the north want that the Irish in the rest of Ireland don't have?

Just like the unionists in the North don't need any guarantees that aren't already in place in the rest of the UK?

If we know one thing about the Northern political parties, it's that they're masters of intransigence and brinkmanship. None of of them are going to roll over without extracting something significant. And neither side will want to be seen to be getting less out the deal than the other.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Partition doesn't do this. Sectarianism does this. Sectarianism won't disappear after unification! It may even get worse.

Even so, the division in society doesn't cause poor education. The UK throws more than enough money at Stormont to fund these parallel systems. Many Irish towns also have segregation in education by the way...I went to school in such a town. To the boys school.

So if you create a state that gives supremacy to one side, what effect do you think that would have on society?

Would it
A. Prevent Sectarianism
B. Encourage it.

Please refer to Irish history in the period 1922 - to the present in giving your answer.

If you think sectarianism is a naturally occurring phenomena in particular human beings please present the science behind this study.

Junkyard Tom

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Just like the unionists in the North don't need any guarantees that aren't already in place in the rest of the UK?

What?

If we know one thing about the Northern political parties, it's that they're masters of intransigence and brinkmanship. None of of them are going to roll over without extracting something significant. And neither side will want to be seen to be getting less out the deal than the other.

You're still speaking to the issue as if the north would be a separate region in the event of a UI. I can't engage with that mindset because it's nonsensical. In a UI nationalist wishes, rights and aspirations are automatically granted, the rights enjoyed by the rest of the country would extend into the northeast.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And is it not time that we pronounce the effort to artificially create a state were unionism could thrive has been a dramatic and tragic failure?

The Catholic state south of the border was a failure for decades (especially for women likely mother who were compelled to resign upon marriage in the 1970s!! and of course for anyone else that didn't conform to the Catholic ideal). Homosexuality was illegal until 1993. For gays it was a failed state until then at least. We've come an awful long way but for much of the time (most of the time) the two states have existed, I would argue the south was the bigger failure.

NI is no longer a Protestant country for a Protestant people. Unionists are in the majority but must share power equally with nationalists. Nationalists have more power than they deserve according to population size thanks to the GFA.

Chips Lovell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're still speaking to the issue as if the north would be a separate region in the event of a UI. I can't engage with that mindset because it's nonsensical.

Fair enough. If there ever is a successful border poll I'll guess we'll find out.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

The Catholic state south of the border was a failure for decades (especially for women likely mother who were compelled to resign upon marriage in the 1970s!! and of course for anyone else that didn't conform to the Catholic ideal). Homosexuality was illegal until 1993. For gays it was a failed state until then at least. We've come an awful long way but for much of the time (most of the time) the two states have existed, I would argue the south was the bigger failure.

NI is no longer a Protestant country for a Protestant people. Unionists are in the majority but must share power equally with nationalists. Nationalists have more power than they deserve according to population size thanks to the GFA.

Deflection doesn't help.

Unless I am wrong, politics have broken down completely in northern Ireland yet again.
And the reasons that has happened are not A. Southern Ireland was once a catholic state.
B. That the basic divisions have been solved and we have somehow gotten new ones.

We keep coming back to the core issue of why the statelet keeps failing.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deflection doesn't help.

Unless I am wrong, politics have broken down completely in northern Ireland yet again.
And the reasons that has happened are not A. Southern Ireland was once a catholic state.
B. That the basic divisions have been solved and we have somehow gotten new ones.

We keep coming back to the core issue of why the statelet keeps failing.

No Francie. You keep coming back to what you perceive to be the reason for all the ills on the island. It's your perception.

Personally I'd say devolution has broken down again because both sides vote for the most extreme option available when more moderate parties are available on all sides! The electorate is firmly to blame for the north's current political problems!

GritBiscuit

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We keep coming back to the core issue of why the statelet keeps failing.

The statelet keeps failing because two opposing communities and their respective political representatives prefer to live in the past than forge a future.

What will removal of partition do given that is the primary issue? You cannot simply rewind history, put the political boot on the opposite community foot and expect the issues of social divides, sectarianism, political unwillingness and economic quicksand to miraculously disappear...

It's the same pitch, the same players, the same staff - you are merely switching the goalposts and have convinced yourself it will be a completely different game in the second half.

Ironically the entrenched, blinkered focus with a fat side of finger-pointing that the other side is to blame for all woes is exactly what does not look in the least bit enticing to take on in a unification vote. Until all are willing to change their narrative and work together, rather than dismissing other perspectives out of hand lest they give a mm in the perpetual petty game of tug-of-war NI and her politics has now become synonymous with, getting votes from any bar those who favour "a United Ireland whatever the cost" is going to be a very hard sell.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Ireland has never been a natural unified state with a central government except when under British rule prior to the Act of Union.

You misunderstood. It's natural state being a complete country that includes all of Ulster.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I suggest you do some research on that yourself. I have and my conclusion is that is an attitude inculcated and fostered by the partition of the country which created a unionist controlled religiously and culturally bigoted enclave which finally exploded into conflict circa 1969.

Well for someone who is quick enough to demand others post up sources to back up their assertions you're fairly slow to reciprocate.

My Ma's family are all Belfast born and reared in a staunchly Nationalist area and it doesn't seem to have stopped more than a few of them sending their kids down the non-denominational route. And there's nothing exceptional about them that I can see, so I'm assuming it's simply a matter of choice, as far as I can see.

Jawgap

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What?



You're still speaking to the issue as if the north would be a separate region in the event of a UI. I can't engage with that mindset because it's nonsensical. In a UI nationalist wishes, rights and aspirations are automatically granted, the rights enjoyed by the rest of the country would extend into the northeast.

Why wouldn't it be? It's defined as a region under the EU's NUTS2 methodology - will that methodology be changing following a UI?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

No Francie. You keep coming back to what you perceive to be the reason for all the ills on the island. It's your perception.

Personally I'd say devolution has broken down again because both sides vote for the most extreme option available when more moderate parties are available on all sides! The electorate is firmly to blame for the north's current political problems!

Why Murphaph, why has this happened?

Is it natural in a proper normal society?

It is like claiming that some people are more disposed to violence so that you can blame the violence on them.

Look to the underlying reasons for why these things have happened to people just like you and I.
Then you can come up with solutions instead of temporary band aids.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well for someone who is quick enough to demand others post up sources to back up their assertions you're fairly slow to reciprocate.

My Ma's family are all Belfast born and reared in a staunchly Nationalist area and it doesn't seem to have stopped more than a few of them sending their kids down the non-denominational route. And there's nothing exceptional about them that I can see, so I'm assuming it's simply a matter of choice, as far as I can see.

Which abjectly fails to explain why more send their children to denominational schools.

We know there are exceptions. :rolleyes: