Costs of Irish unification.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, beware of them. They are immune to the dogma that states that desire for a UI must be unconditional and unquestioning.

Their position is just as dogmatic as anyone else's. I would say hidebound and afraid would be more descriptive because they are not open to be persuaded.

Personally I want an open and frank, transparent debate about a UI. no romanticism and no scaremongering.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? People are allowed to have different opinions. Some people are for a united Ireland others opposed and there's a whole pile of opinion in between.

I have no problem with people honestly stating that they are opposed to a UI.

BonnieSituation

Schumi7 wrote: »

In keeping with that honesty I must admit that the prospect of it…even seeing it discussed in this thread…gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I mentioned it to family and friends (nationalist friends) over the past week and the reaction was both unsurprising and universal. The initial response was the same as mine - dismissive of the prospect. Further inquiry into how they would feel was…yet again…the same as mine - a feeling of utter devastation. It’s hard to convey the horror of this for those of us in the North, and I don’t use the word horror lightly or for dramatic effect, bubilt as a suitable descriptor because to put it bluntly a No result would effectively make nationalists (i.e Irish people in the North) refugees in their own country. Perhaps it’s best to just let that sink in…

Even as a Southern Nationalist with Fermanagh provenance just reading that made me ill.

I couldn't countenance it tbh.

When I see a UI being discussed with economics at the forefront of the argument I get dismayed. For me and others there is a romantic and psychological reasoning for wanting a UI. I think others should be aware that that will always have a larger part to play in people's mind when they go into the booth. Look at Brexit ffs.

Another couple of things to remember is that there is ZERO chance of any political party coming out against a UI should we in the South get an opportunity to vote after NI vote in favour (by at least 50% + 1 I might add).

And we will not be voting in a vacuum, Europe and Britain will hardly want to see it fail so the economic issues WILL be cushioned. It's inevitable.

But first we must wait on the NISec to see the tea leaves swirl in favour of reunification.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Their position is just as dogmatic as anyone else's.

No, that's not fair to say. You're doing exactly what you've repeatedly denied doing: making it a binary choice where you're with us or you're agin us.

You'll deny that yet again, but your denials ring hollow. Look what you did: you accused anyone who says "I want a UI but..." of being dogmatically opposed to a united Ireland. In other words, they don't subscribe completely to your view therefore they subscribe completely to the opposite view.

Feel free to deny it for the umpteenth time, but until you accept the heretic possibility that some people will actually require persuasion before accepting a united Ireland, all you're doing is contradicting yourself.

I would say hidebound and afraid would be more descriptive because they are not open to be persuaded.

Now you're calling anyone claims to be open to persuasion a liar.

I really wish you could understand how you're actually representing one of the biggest obstacles to the acceptance of a UI among those of us who are not axiomatically convinced of its self-evident rightness. If there was a rational case to be made for it, you wouldn't have to be so self-righteous in your condemnation of anyone who doesn't subscribe unquestioningly to your dogma.

Personally I want an open and frank, transparent debate about a UI. no romanticism and no scaremongering.

That's lovely in theory, except that (a) you dismiss literally any argument against a UI as scaremongering, which means that you're really just asking for an open, frank and transparent debate that only includes arguments that conform to your dogma, and (b) you're not immune to the scaremongering yourself.

oscarBravo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

For me and others there is a romantic and psychological reasoning for wanting a UI. I think others should be aware that that will always have a larger part to play in people's mind when they go into the booth. Look at Brexit ffs.

Believe me, I am: which is precisely why I've drawn the parallels between Irish nationalists and Brexiteers (thank you for doing the same), and precisely why I want a debate to be based on facts rather than on romantic delusions.

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

I have no problem with people honestly stating that they are opposed to a UI.

Why do you not think a person can hold an in between position I.e. support united Ireland under x circumstances and that a person who holds that position is being "dishonest". The world isn't black and white.

jm08

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's something truly bizarre about this obsession with "natural" borders.

Nothing bizarre about natural boundaries if you know anything about communications.

Yes, the border between Germany and Austria follows a number of rivers, except where it doesn't. In the same way, the border between Scotland and England follows rivers, except where it doesn't. There are also a great many rivers that don't form borders at all.

You need to look at a map that shows the natural relief of the German Austrian Border. There are also mountains where rivers rise and which would make the rivers in the low lands deep and fast flow (so difficult to ford without bridges).

Artificial borders between nation-states often take advantage of convenient natural features. That doesn't make those borders natural. The absence of one continuous river conveniently bordering Northern Ireland doesn't make Ireland "naturally" a single country; it's just another example of people arguing from their conclusion. The absence of a "natural" border between Scotland and England doesn't seem to inhibit many of the same people arguing for Irish unity equally arguing for Scottish independence.

Didn't the Romans build Hadrian's Wall to keep the Picts out of England? The decendents of these Picts were dispatched to Northern Ireland

I wish people wouldn't be so transparently intellectually dishonest in their arguments. If the best rationale you can come up with for Irish unity is that it's "natural", that betrays a pretty weak case for it.

Who are you to judge and dismiss people for thinking their opinion is dishonest?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, that's not fair to say. You're doing exactly what you've repeatedly denied doing: making it a binary choice where you're with us or you're agin us.

You'll deny that yet again, but your denials ring hollow. Look what you did: you accused anyone who says "I want a UI but..." of being dogmatically opposed to a united Ireland. In other words, they don't subscribe completely to your view therefore they subscribe completely to the opposite view.

Feel free to deny it for the umpteenth time, but until you accept the heretic possibility that some people will actually require persuasion before accepting a united Ireland, all you're doing is contradicting yourself. Now you're calling anyone claims to be open to persuasion a liar.

I really wish you could understand how you're actually representing one of the biggest obstacles to the acceptance of a UI among those of us who are not axiomatically convinced of its self-evident rightness. If there was a rational case to be made for it, you wouldn't have to be so self-righteous in your condemnation of anyone who doesn't subscribe unquestioningly to your dogma. That's lovely in theory, except that (a) you dismiss literally any argument against a UI as scaremongering, which means that you're really just asking for an open, frank and transparent debate that only includes arguments that conform to your dogma, and (b) you're not immune to the scaremongering yourself.

You totally ignored the fact that I said 'some posters' on here.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

And what's wrong with that? People are allowed to have different opinions. Some people are for a united Ireland others opposed and there's a whole pile of opinion in between.

And I said, I don't have issue with honest objections, I do have issues with some who say they would like a UI but will scaremonger and argue against it on the basis of things that cannot be fixed until partition is gone.

jm08

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing is support for a united Ireland is very soft. No party in the Dail actively using the idea on the campaign trail. Even Sinn Fein beef up there socialist and not FG/FF credentials before a united Ireland is mentioned. SF, FG, and FF always will say they want a united Ireland but in the republic anyway don't campaign on that ideal(there would be backlash if they came out against). Most people in the republic would like a united Ireland but consider there to be more important things to worry about. Even on this thread no one has come out against a united Ireland its largely been around the timing.

You missed how the Unionists went crazy because Simon Coveney said he would like to see a UI in his lifetime?

A good comparison in polls is to look at support for the Irish language. Most people say they would like to keep it alive. But only a small minority actually follow through on that and speak it on a daily basis. People will support it as long as it doesn't cost them anything personally. The united Ireland position isn't that different from my point of view given the only vague mention of it in elections is in relation to the IRA which is used to bash SF. At the moment FF and FG won't go into coalition with SF never mind unionists.

The problem with Irish is how it was taught up to now. Gaelscoil seem to be thriving (and much in demand as they get very good results) Its 'cool' now to speak Irish and play GAA.

PeadarCo

jm08 wrote:

The problem with Irish is how it was taught up to now. Gaelscoil seem to be thriving (and much in demand as they get very good results) Its 'cool' now to speak Irish and play GAA.

The thing is for all the success of gaelscoils based on the last census you could fit all the daily speakers of Irish in Croke park. If you look at surveys the majority of a population of 4.5 million people want to keep Irish alive. The vast vast majority don't make any effort which is my point. Its very easy to say yes to a united Ireland but if a person is looking at a large drop in disposable income their opinion might change. Irish people don't like tax increases or spending cuts as a general rule.

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

And I said, I don't have issue with honest objections, I do have issues with some who say they would like a UI but will scaremonger and argue against it on the basis of things that cannot be fixed until partition is gone.

What has been posted on this thread that you consider scaremongering?

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing is for all the success of gaelscoils based on the last census you could fit all the daily speakers of Irish in Croke park. If you look at surveys the majority of a population of 4.5 million people want to keep Irish alive. The vast vast majority don't make any effort which is my point. Its very easy to say yes to a united Ireland but if a person is looking at a large drop in disposable income their opinion might change. Irish people don't like tax increases or spending cuts as a general rule.

Must people are against drops in income if there is no return on it.
I think for instance that the majority have no problem with paying for water. It was that they percieved the way IW was set up was a complete waste of money.

Nobody as yet, knows what a UI will cost (although they will scaremonger plenty about it) and what costs will be offset by aid and support.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

What has been posted on this thread that you consider scaremongering?

The constant talk of 9bn, 10bn, 11bn and 12bn. (I think those figures have all been bandied about)

The constant talk about a massive upsurge in sustained violence among unionists

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

Nobody as yet, knows what a UI will cost (although they will scaremonger plenty about it) and what costs will be offset by aid and support.

So basically anyone who puts forward an opposing opinion is scaremongering.

I would disagree with what you have said there particularly in relation to aid and support. But if I go into detail in my objections are you would consider my opinion to be scaremongering. If I bring up a cost figure you dissagree with its suddenly scaremongering. Two people can't have a discussion if one side is going to wave away any opinions that are not in line with x dogma/point of view.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

So basically anyone who puts forward an opposing opinion is scaremongering.

I would disagree with what you have said there particularly in relation to aid and support. But if I go into detail in my objections are you would consider my opinion to be scaremongering. If I bring up a cost figure you dissagree with its suddenly scaremongering. Two people can't have a discussion if one side is going to wave away any opinions that are not in line with x dogma/point of view.

You simply cannot come up with a cost at this stage. It is ridiculous to pretend you can.
To keep raising it at this stage is to 'scaremonger'.

jm08

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing is for all the success of gaelscoils based on the last census you could fit all the daily speakers of Irish in Croke park. If you look at surveys the majority of a population of 4.5 million people want to keep Irish alive. The vast vast majority don't make any effort which is my point. Its very easy to say yes to a united Ireland but if a person is looking at a large drop in disposable income their opinion might change. Irish people don't like tax increases or spending cuts as a general rule.

Rome was not built in a day. There are 50,000 students attending Gaelscoil (with another 13,000 attending Irish medium schools in Gaeltacht areas).

As for the cost of a UI - as being said elsewhere - we don't know how much extra it will cost or what the deal would be with the UK/EU to support the unification. The way I would look at it is that the NI State has been a disaster up to now for both nationalists and unionists. We in the Republic can't turn our back on them again.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Rome was not built in a day. There are 50,000 students attending Gaelscoil (with another 13,000 attending Irish medium schools in Gaeltacht areas).

As for the cost of a UI - as being said elsewhere - we don't know how much extra it will cost or what the deal would be with the UK/EU to support the unification. The way I would look at it is that the NI State has been a disaster up to now for both nationalists and unionists. We in the Republic can't turn our back on them again.

It's been a disaster for the south too.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's been a disaster for the south too.

For some border areas perhaps but not for the vast majority of the country.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

For some border areas perhaps but not for the vast majority of the country.

Are you making more 'others' now?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you making more 'others' now?

Just pointing out some facts Francie.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Just pointing out some facts Francie.

So because you live around the border it doesn't really matter. Very good.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So because you live around the border it doesn't really matter. Very good.

Francie you like to put words in my mouth a lot.

The fact is that partition and the resultant border does not affect someone (your average person) in Cork, Galway or Dublin.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Francie you like to put words in my mouth a lot.

The fact is that partition and the resultant border does not affect someone (your average person) in Cork, Galway or Dublin.

It does and did. Because partition has cost this state vast sums of money. But ignore that if you will. It's like trying to claim the housing crisis doesn't affect me here because there are no homeless people in my particular place. It's an essentially selfish world view you have.

BonnieSituation

murphaph wrote: »

Francie you like to put words in my mouth a lot.

The fact is that partition and the resultant border does not affect someone (your average person) in Cork, Galway or Dublin.

In what sense?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It does and did. Because partition has cost this state vast sums of money. But ignore that if you will. It's like trying to claim the housing crisis doesn't affect me here because there are no homeless people in my particular place. It's an essentially selfish world view you have.

I consider you selfish for wanting a UI at any cost to the republic. See how annoying that is? Maybe try to stick to the points and not attack me as a person. K thx bye.

murphaph

BonnieSituation wrote: »

In what sense?

I'll probably regret this but what the hell...

It's self evident that a person who lives hundreds of miles from the border is likely unaffected by said border.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I consider you selfish for wanting a UI at any cost to the republic. See how annoying that is? Maybe try to stick to the points and not attack me as a person. K thx bye.

I never said at 'any cost'. You invented that little projection all on your ownsome.

And I was sticking to the point. You claim that those hundreds of miles from a border are unaffected by it, when they are and have been paying for the security of it since partition. Just because it is now invisible to all intents and purposes does not mean it is costless.

So out the window goes your claim.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said at 'any cost'. You invented that little projection all on your ownsome.

So under some circumstances you yourself would vote against a UI?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

So under some circumstances you yourself would vote against a UI?

Yes, the timing has to right.