Costs of Irish unification.

jm08

oscarBravo wrote: »

At least you've finally admitted it's just a belief.

The problem with basing your worldview on a dogmatically-held belief is that it actively prevents you from accepting other possibilities, which condemns you to only ever considering a subset of possible solutions to the world's problems.

So you suggest you just leave it as it is, despite being a failure since its inception or do you have some other suggestions?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said that posts ago, when you have people forced into an unnatural arrangement (partition) they will invariably band closer together in order to protect themselves and that invariably leads to entrenchment, socially and politically.

Remove partition and you remove the entrenchment. I fully understand that unionists will fear this but I do not think they will have anything to fear in a new republic of genuine equals. I think we in the south have come a long way in breaking down the barriers already.

Are you seriously suggesting Belfast wasn't a cauldron of sectarianism in the 19th century already?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting Belfast wasn't a cauldron of sectarianism in the 19th century already?

Most of the island was a cauldron of sectarianism for centuries Murphaph.
Partition concentrated it, like reducing a sauce on a pan. Totally the wrong thing to do.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Surely Sinn Fein should be calling for the unification of Spain and Portugal?

On what basis?

We hear a lot (particularly on here where it is repeated ad nauseum) that Ireland is a natural country. Well the Iberian Peninsula is natural as well, so not only should Catalonia remain part of Spain, but Portugal should join them as well.

And so is Europe one big landmass with the interruption of rivers, lakes and mountains (which is what is the situation between Spain and Portugal which results that they speak different languages).

That is how the logic of a "natural" country works.

Its more than just a large landmass. Rivers and mountains come into it as well.

Should Norway and Sweden be amalgamated as well to form a natural country?

The Scandinavian Mountain range (which has very steep slopes) divides them. In the 1600 km border, there are 10 customs crossings between the two countries.

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

Sorry but the divisions existed before partition. These divisions are the cause of partition, not the other way round!

Remember the Ulster Covenant?

Remember the civil war? should we have partitioned households?

If there had been no division before partition Ireland would not have been partitioned.

Remember the civil war? Should we have partitioned the rest of the country?

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course there is political division in the Republic - as there is in any healthy democracy.

The difference being we don't let it define us - or at least we stopped letting it define us.

The communities in NI are kind of like the Deep South in the US - they cling desperately to what's familiar (the Bible and guns in their case) and cannot countenance change. The problem is that the politicians are only too willing to take advantage and indeed encourage it so the people remain helpless while the politicians keep their snouts firmly in the trough.

Again, as long as this inertia persists what is the argument for a UI? Why should the Republic step in to fund a society so desperate to cling to the past and to familiar divisions?

We still very much have a civil war leaning with families and their political allegiances. Why on earth would people still support the likes of Fianna Fail for example? It's highly unlikely the lion's share of their grass roots are voting based on reasoned political policy summation, same goes for many Fine Gaelers.

blanch152 wrote: »

Based on your argument, it is equally valid to call for the reunification of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

That will remove partition.

Sure throw in India :rolleyes:

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Remember the civil war? Should we have partitioned the rest of the country?


We still very much have a civil war leaning with families and their political allegiances. Why on earth would people still support the likes of Fianna Fail for example? It's highly unlikely the lion's share of their grass roots are voting based on reasoned political policy summation, same goes for many Fine Gaelers.

Forty years ago the civil war had far more meaning on day to day politics. Not anymore, that generation is gone.

Why vote FF/FG?

Well Id be really interested in alternatives. But most other parties like SF / PBP / SD have little interest in going in to government.... so why would I vote for them.

The independents are too parochial, they have zero interest in the national good

Both groups are passing time on the opposition benches loudly proclaiming all that is wrong with the country with no intention of doing anything to fix it.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Forty years ago the civil war had far more meaning on day to day politics. Not anymore, that generation is gone.

Why vote FF/FG?

Well Id be really interested in alternatives. But most other parties like SF / PBP / SD have little interest in going in to government.... so why would I vote for them.

The independents are too parochial, they have zero interest in the national good

Both groups are passing time on the opposition benches loudly proclaiming all that is wrong with the country with no intention of doing anything to fix it.

I disagree. There are people, families, who still refer to coming from a Fianna Fail family etc. These people keep the civil war parties afloat. Anyone using lack of options can look to their own conscience. I'm saying people exist who will vote for these parties come boom or bust. It's simply more transparent up in the north of the country.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I disagree. There are people, families, who still refer to coming from a Fianna Fail family etc. These people keep the civil war parties afloat. Anyone using lack of options can look to their own conscience. I saying people exist who will vote for these parties come boom or bust.

Ah the family loyaly is still there alright in some families but I wouldn't believe it with the vast majority of ordinary voters.

oscarBravo

jm08 wrote: »

So you suggest you just leave it as it is, despite being a failure since its inception or do you have some other suggestions?

Oi, get back here with those goalposts.

Let me recap for you, to avoid the tangent: some argue that Northern Ireland is a sectarian basket case, and that before unification is seriously considered, the people of Northern Ireland should demonstrate an ability to function like a halfway normal society, without being an eye-watering drain on a host nation's finances. But, others retort, the sectarian basket case is a consequence of partition, and removing the border will magically transform this failed statelet into an economic powerhouse populated by former enemies only too happy to work together towards shared goals!

So, no: I don't suggest leaving it as it is. I'm pointing out the rather glaring flaw in the claim that partition is the source of all Northern Ireland's problems, which is that it's a mere article of faith with no evidence to support it.

James Brown

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Ah the family loyaly is still there alright in some families but I wouldn't believe it with the vast majority of ordinary voters.

It's the only way I can understand why adults with all their faculties in place continue to vote as they do. It's a solid base. All either needs is enough hesitant, better the devil you know types to get in with a shout.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oi, get back here with those goalposts.

Let me recap for you, to avoid the tangent: some argue that Northern Ireland is a sectarian basket case, and that before unification is seriously considered, the people of Northern Ireland should demonstrate an ability to function like a halfway normal society, without being an eye-watering drain on a host nation's finances. But, others retort, the sectarian basket case is a consequence of partition, and removing the border will magically transform this failed statelet into an economic powerhouse populated by former enemies only too happy to work together towards shared goals!

So, no: I don't suggest leaving it as it is. I'm pointing out the rather glaring flaw in the claim that partition is the source of all Northern Ireland's problems, which is that it's a mere article of faith with no evidence to support it.

Who said this bit?

into an economic powerhouse populated by former enemies only too happy to work together towards shared goals!

You wouldn't be projecting stuff on to what others say by any chance?

PeadarCo

Matt Barrett wrote:

It's the only way I can understand why adults with all their faculties in place continue to vote as they do. It's a solid base. All either needs is enough hesitant, better the devil you know types to get in with a shout.

The thing is FF and FG governments have a good job overall since independence. Ireland is one the richest countries in the world. Its a far cry from the agriculture based economy they took over. One of the reasons for unionists staying as part of the UK was economic. NI situation shows the republics success wasn't inevitable.

murphaph

jm08 wrote: »

So you suggest you just leave it as it is, despite being a failure since its inception or do you have some other suggestions?

The south was an abject failure (with the emigration to prove it) for decades after independence. We had to look inside ourselves and stop blaming the Brits for everything before we finally started getting somewhere.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Most of the island was a cauldron of sectarianism for centuries Murphaph.
Partition concentrated it, like reducing a sauce on a pan. Totally the wrong thing to do.

Ah ok so now you're not saying that partition caused the division in the north anymore.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You wouldn't be projecting stuff on to what others say by any chance?

It's called paraphrasing, and it was in response to someone informing me that I had suggested something I hadn't. I note you didn't call him out on that.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Ah ok so now you're not saying that partition caused the division in the north anymore.

Instead of the boring pedantic attempt to catch me out could you try and contribute ideas of your own that explains why society in northern Ireland is entrenched along the lines defined when the island was partitioned?
Unionist - Nationalist/Republican.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's called paraphrasing, and it was in response to someone informing me that I had suggested something I hadn't. I note you didn't call him out on that.

He wasn't 'paraphrasing' 'misquoting' me?

And by the way, paraphase or not, I said nothing about an economic powerhouse.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Instead of the boring pedantic attempt to catch me out could you try and contribute ideas of your own that explains why society in northern Ireland is entrenched along the lines defined when the island was partitioned?
Unionist - Nationalist/Republican.

It's not pedantic. It destroys the core of your argument. You have been blaming partition for the division in the north for pages and now you admit there was division in the north before partition. Simple as that.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

It's not pedantic. It destroys the core of your argument. You have been blaming partition for the division in the north for pages and now you admit there was division in the north before partition. Simple as that.

No, Muraphaph, I was blaming the entrenchment in the north on the effects of partition.
I have already said that divisions exist in the south too and might always do. Remember that?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'crocodiles' will be back for more?

It may have escaped your attention here, but you do realise that in a UI, we will all be taxpayers? Any overspend, wasted subsidy will come out of all our pockets.
The 'republic' as we know will be gone.

Everyone is capable of change you just have to remove the shackles. Which is what people are, shackled by the effects of partition.

So which is NI - entrenched or shackled?

And if so many are paying taxes in NI how come they need billions in subsidies?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

So which is NI - entrenched or shackled?

And if so many are paying taxes in NI how come they need billions in subsidies?

You are the man bandying about figures, break down the subvention for us and we'll see.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Instead of the boring pedantic attempt to catch me out could you try and contribute ideas of your own that explains why society in northern Ireland is entrenched along the lines defined when the island was partitioned?
Unionist - Nationalist/Republican.

Because people keep voting for extremist sectarian parties like the DUP and SF.

(Please note the bipartisan criticism)

James Brown

mickmac76 wrote: »

While browsing the Brexit thread I came across a post that mentioned some people are against Irish unification because of the costs involved. I have to say that I never considered that point of view.

So if say Brexit goes ahead as planned and the six counties held a referendum and decided to join the South what exactly would it cost the rest of us. I suppose there would be one off costs like changing the economy over to the euro. But doesn't northern Ireland also cost the UK government a fair bit of money every year. The thing is I have no idea apart from security what it's spent on.

How much would it cost the average tax payer in the 26 counties to bring about unification and could we afford it or would the potential costs put off people in the south from unifying.

If Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have shown us anything, it's that we can afford anything we like. It just depends on the will. I believe cost won't play a part for most.

There's a political tit for tat team mentality played both sides of the border. As borne out with quips from messers O'Dea and Varadkar, when answers aren't preferable.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Because people keep voting for extremist sectarian parties like the DUP and SF.

(Please note the bipartisan criticism)

Is that not a definition of entrenchment?

Now all you need to do is work out why that happened and is continuing to happen.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have shown us anything, it's that we can afford anything we like. It just depends on the will. I believe cost won't play a part for most.

No, what they have shown us is that if we take that attitude for a year or two, it takes a decade of pain to recover.

tomwaterford

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now all you need to do is work out why that happened and is continuing to happen.

Becoz sinn fein basically politically out manoeuvred the UUP the dup capitalised on it and it's obvious to a blind man there's noone in the sdlp politically strong/astute enough to stand up the dup


Ie....people vote for those that'll best represent them....only in the world of the mentally unwell would this be considered a bad thing

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are the man bandying about figures, break down the subvention for us and we'll see.

Well I've consistently used the word shackled.

And I'm not bandying anything......simply reporting and quoting from numerous sources the size of the handout NI receives to plug the fiscal deficit. The figure, currently, seems to be somewhere north of €8 billion and possibly as high as €10 billion, which is pretty incredible when you think about the size of the place and its population.

jm08

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oi, get back here with those goalposts.

Let me recap for you, to avoid the tangent: some argue that Northern Ireland is a sectarian basket case, and that before unification is seriously considered, the people of Northern Ireland should demonstrate an ability to function like a halfway normal society, without being an eye-watering drain on a host nation's finances. But, others retort, the sectarian basket case is a consequence of partition, and removing the border will magically transform this failed statelet into an economic powerhouse populated by former enemies only too happy to work together towards shared goals!

So, no: I don't suggest leaving it as it is. I'm pointing out the rather glaring flaw in the claim that partition is the source of all Northern Ireland's problems, which is that it's a mere article of faith with no evidence to support it.

The financial costs have been repeated Ad Nasaum (despite not really having a clue) but how about throwing some light on what you think would be best for the island of Ireland and its people
1) Leave everything as it is 2) Return to Direct Rule or 3) A UI?

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

The south was an abject failure (with the emigration to prove it) for decades after independence. We had to look inside ourselves and stop blaming the Brits for everything before we finally started getting somewhere.

And there I thought that the big turn around in Ireland's fortunes came about when Ireland joined the EEC which attracted FDI because of the very large tariff free market opened up.

Schumi7

To those posters misrepresenting Francie and trying to catch him out for whatever reason regarding partition and the effect it had on the North/NI...let me spell it out for you - Partition gave rise to Northern Ireland, but it was the colonial project known as the Plantation which gave rise to the sectarian division that led to partition. Stating that historical fact should never be officiated because one fears to offend the sensibilities and sensitivities of people today, unless those people of today subscribe to the righteousness of those previous historical actions.

Also - in case anyone is any doubt as to what my viewpoint is - the British people in Northern Ireland today are not colonisers or occupiers; they are native to this island. It's also my view that that should be the starting point for everyone.

Unfortunately though the deflection and straw men were and are out in full force yet again. This issue seems to attract it like moths to a flame. That favoured straw man, often deployed by unionists, that 'Ireland was never united under Irish rule so why bother now?' kind of thing made repeated appearances but was then thankfully removed by a moderator; albeit for the legitimate reason of straying off topic and derailing the thread. This was followed up with more guff speculating as to when exactly the concept of Irishness arose and now more cul-de-sacs concerning 'natural borders'.

I'll deal with the latter nonsense first. The references made to the 'unnatural' border in Ireland are in relation to just that - it doesn't follow a natural geographic boundary. In case this invites yet another straw man, the significance of this is that this is the reason why the Irish border does not separate two distinct peoples by religion, language or custom.

Let's all be clear and leave the bull**** aside - Land does not have a nationality, but the people who live on the land do!

I'll deal with the 'concept of Irishness in my next post, and then hopefully people can return to discussing the topic at hand. In meantime here's something for the fans of Worzel Gummidge to get excited about -



Yep, that's a whole map of Europe with a whole new supply of straw men. Now, the more eagle eyed amongst you may notice it has Athlone down as Ireland's capital, a reference to the old Eire Nua policy adopted by Sinn Féin during the 1970s and early 1980s. Just in case that invites yet more deflection let me make it clear - I don't endorse said policy. :rolleyes:

To everyone else - imagine the craic at the Euros if this had played out!