Costs of Irish unification.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I thought SF was only interested in equality insofar as it gave them an electoral advantage......Didn't Adams say.....



Kind of leaves you wondering that if something less salubrious came along that offered greater advantage they wouldn't trump for that in a heartbeat even if it meant abandoning equality.

The 'fantasy' being actively encouraged again.
That quote does not mean what you sledgehammered it to mean.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'fantasy' being actively encouraged again.
That quote does not mean what you sledgehammered it to mean.

Well here's the full transcript, so I'll leave it for others to make up their minds as to what Adams was driving at.

Roger_007

I think it's foolish for people in the South to be talking about a united Ireland as if it was a realistic option. I have many relatives in Northern Ireland who tell me that the unionists would never contemplate such an eventuality in any circumstances. They say that we in the South have no idea of the depths of hatred that still exist in many areas of the North between the two communities. There are still 'peace walls' in Belfast.
The GFA states that unity can only come about when a majority of the people in the North wish it to happen. Can anyone imagine what would happen if there was a poll in the North and 51% voted for a united Ireland. Would the other 49% say "that's grand, we'll go along with that"? Absolutely not. The prospect of unification would ignite a violent backlash from the the more radical elements of unionism. When we try to estimate the cost of unification, we should not forget that the major cost would probably be in human lives.
Unsatisfactory as it is, the current arrangement is probably the best for all concerned.

end of the road

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Of course SF have never said anything along those lines, they are too smart for that.

But do you not think that unionists would fear retribution in a UI ?

I personally fear SF becoming the lead party in government in the republic, it would be enough for me to consider leaving.

A leader that has lasted over 30 years even with numerous scandals surrounding him, including the huge one of being a terrorist.
Kangaroo courts like the Cahill abuse scandal.
No contest for the leader in NI.
Multiple resignations at grass roots level over bullying and the handling of bullying.

What would SF do if they had the reins of power, what little changes would they make bit by bit to consolidate that power ?

And look at that from a unionists POV.
Time to reposess that land folks, time for you to go back to where your 10 times great grandfather came from.

if i were you i'd fear the undemocratic unionist party rather then sf. sf are far from perfect but they have for the most part modernised. people like arleen foster don't care about you. those of us who support a UI on the other hand do care about you and will welcome you if you vote to join us.
we want you to come join us and help us to build a bigger better country where we can all be equal. britain doesn't care about you and has been keeping NI a wellfare dependant basket case which does nothing for nobody. it's time for change, you deserve better. don't settle for low grade, demand better.

Jawgap wrote: »

Well here's the full transcript, so I'll leave it for others to make up their minds as to what Adams was driving at.

he was driving at the behaviour and views of the extremist party that is the undemocratic unionist party. how they do not believe in equality.

Junkyard Tom

Roger_007 wrote: »

The prospect of unification would ignite a violent backlash from the the more radical elements of unuionism.

To what ends?

Independence? Forget it.
To force the British back? Forget it.
To re-partition the northeast? Forget it.
For UVF controlled enclaves? They'd be welcome to them.

Jawgap

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

To what ends?

Independence? Forget it.
To force the British back? Forget it.
To re-partition the northeast? Forget it.
For UVF controlled enclaves? They'd be welcome to them.

Glad you think the various Loyslist factions will all respond rationally to any vote.

More wishful thinking that somehow those disposed towards violence will meekly accept a majority vote and troop off to engage in constitutional politics.

Looks like it's not just the cost of the unification process that's bring wildly, almost hilariously, under-estimated.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

To what ends?

Independence? Forget it.
To force the British back? Forget it.
To re-partition the northeast? Forget it.
For UVF controlled enclaves? They'd be welcome to them.

The IRA campaign ended in them encasing their weapons in concrete for a Sunningdale type agreement. It came nowhere close to achieving its aims so it was futile. Don't think futility won't stop a campaign targeting the south from happening.

Junkyard Tom

Jawgap wrote: »

Glad you think the various Loyslist factions will all respond rationally to any vote.

What would would an irrational response entail and what would they hope to achieve from it?

murphaph: Don't think futility won't stop a campaign targeting the south from happening.

For what?

Jawgap

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What would would an irrational response entail and what would they hope to achieve from it?



For what?

Feel free to correct that second quote.....I never posted it.

I'd imagine an irrational response would entail pretty much what we see around the Marching Season except it becoming a pretty much a permanent, year round aspect of life......are we really that stupid that we'd import that type of toxicity into our country and endure higher taxes and/or reduced services to fund it?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Feel free to correct that second quote.....I never posted it.

I'd imagine an irrational response would entail pretty much what we see around the Marching Season except it becoming a pretty much a permanent, year round aspect of life......are we really that stupid that we'd import that type of toxicity into our country and endure higher taxes and/or reduced services to fund it?

Who is going to get upset about a few (in an all island context) wrecking their own areas?

That is not a huge problem and easily containable and would die out because as pointed out it would be pointless.
The time for violent reaction was around the GFA and that has long since died out.
The principal objectors have been implementing it for 20 years or more and have conceded on everything eventually.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is going to get upset about a few (in an all island context) wrecking their own areas?

That is not a huge problem and easily containable and would die out because as pointed out it would be pointless.
The time for violent reaction was around the GFA and that has long since died out.
The principal objectors have been implementing it for 20 years or more and have conceded on everything eventually.

Come off it. The GFA itself did not deliver loyalists into a UI. A UI would. Are you seriously telling me that nobody will die at the hands of loyalists if a UI comes to pass? Really? Or are you saying you agree that some people will die but their lives will be worth sacrificing for the UI itself?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is going to get upset about a few (in an all island context) wrecking their own areas?

That is not a huge problem and easily containable and would die out because as pointed out it would be pointless.
The time for violent reaction was around the GFA and that has long since died out.
The principal objectors have been implementing it for 20 years or more and have conceded on everything eventually.

And who is going to pay financially and socially for the cost of containment in a unified Ireland?

And the violence persists.....as recently as 2015.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvzGtb0QZM

.....quite happy that we don't have to worry about such feral behaviour, or fund the containment, the response or the clean up.

end of the road

murphaph wrote: »

Come off it. The GFA itself did not deliver loyalists into a UI. A UI would. Are you seriously telling me that nobody will die at the hands of loyalists if a UI comes to pass? Really? Or are you saying you agree that some people will die but their lives will be worth sacrificing for the UI itself?

the extreme loyalists won't have the support needed to ultimately do more then a bit of rioting. the british government won't support them, the british military won't support them, most of their own won't support them.

murphaph

Jawgap wrote: »

And who is going to pay financially and socially for the cost of containment in a unified Ireland?

And the violence persists.....as recently as 2015.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvzGtb0QZM

.....quite happy that we don't have to worry about such feral behaviour, or fund the containment, the response or the clean up.

And that carry on will definitely not stop in a UI.

murphaph

end of the road wrote: »

the extreme loyalists won't have the support needed to ultimately do more then a bit of rioting. the british government won't support them, the british military won't support them, most of their own won't support them.

So you're giving your guarantee that no loyalists will kill anyone because a UI comes to pass?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

And who is going to pay financially and socially for the cost of containment in a unified Ireland?

And the violence persists.....as recently as 2015.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvzGtb0QZM

.....quite happy that we don't have to worry about such feral behaviour, or fund the containment, the response or the clean up.

That behaviour has seriously waned in the last 20 yrs. The OO has long since accepted that they don't have the right to march where they are not wanted.

A lot of the issues that drive the 'feral' aspects will have been settled by a UI and work can be done in recognising the acceptable parts of Orangism. Nobody has a problem with that.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That behaviour has seriously waned in the last 20 yrs. The OO has long since accepted that they don't have the right to march where they are not wanted.

A lot of the issues that drive the 'feral' aspects will have been settled by a UI and work can be done in recognising the acceptable parts of Orangism. Nobody has a problem with that.

A few posts ago you were saying

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is going to get upset about a few (in an all island context) wrecking their own areas?

That is not a huge problem and easily containable and would die out because as pointed out it would be pointless.
The time for violent reaction was around the GFA and that has long since died out.
The principal objectors have been implementing it for 20 years or more and have conceded on everything eventually.

....and nothing like the prospect of a UI to actualise the potential for violence that still exists meaning 'winning' will be something of a Pyrrhic victory!

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

A few posts ago you were saying



....and nothing like the prospect of a UI to actualise the potential for violence that still exists meaning 'winning' will be something of a Pyrrhic victory!

The violence around Orangism is nothing to do with a UI. It has to do with losing the ability to express the supremacy of a single religion.
It died out in the south and would likely die out in a UI. Not a lot of people are interested anymore.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

So you're giving your guarantee that no loyalists will kill anyone because a UI comes to pass?

That's as preposterous as asking for a guarantee that not doing anything will ensure no more deaths.
The future of the island is unresolved. The GFA is a process...not an end. You kinda need to understand that.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The violence around Orangism is nothing to do with a UI. It has to do with losing the ability to express the supremacy of a single religion.
It died out in the south and would likely die out in a UI. Not a lot of people are interested anymore.

It has absolutely everything to do with a UI.....it's ridiculous to think that communities steeped in violence will suddenly give it up the day after 51% of the society in which they are based votes them out of the construct they work so hard to demonstrate they are a part of.

If UI happens anytime in the next 20 years, it will be messy and we'll be picking up a never ending tab for it. Then when we're finished paying for it, our kids will be paying for it.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

It has absolutely everything to do with a UI.....it's ridiculous to think that communities steeped in violence will suddenly give it up the day after 51% of the society in which they are based votes them out of the construct they work so hard to demonstrate they are a part of.

If UI happens anytime in the next 20 years, it will be messy and we'll be picking up a never ending tab for it. Then when we're finished paying for it, our kids will be paying for it.

Why, what is going to happen in 20 years?

We know there is violence, there always was. Some cannot turn their backs on that and ignore it. That is when it breeds more.

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

It has absolutely everything to do with a UI.....it's ridiculous to think that communities steeped in violence will suddenly give it up the day after 51% of the society in which they are based votes them out of the construct they work so hard to demonstrate they are a part of.

If UI happens anytime in the next 20 years, it will be messy and we'll be picking up a never ending tab for it. Then when we're finished paying for it, our kids will be paying for it.

the amount we would pay would be affordible to the country.

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

the amount we would pay would be affordible to the country.

Not too familiar with the concept of opportunity cost, are you?

Of course we could generate the €10 billion or so NI needs to function.....that's not the issue.....the issue is what we'll have to forego to pay to keep the lights on there.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why, what is going to happen in 20 years?

We know there is violence, there always was. Some cannot turn their backs on that and ignore it. That is when it breeds more.

Well, it's over 20 years since the GFA and the 12th is still as contentious as ever......the appetite for violent protest and dysfunctional politics seems not to have waned......if anything it has become more tribal and polarised with the squeezing out of the moderate parties.

Likewise, the required economic convergence has not taken place. The proportion of the economy in NI dependent on fiscal transfers from the centre is twice what it is here.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's as preposterous as asking for a guarantee that not doing anything will ensure no more deaths.
The future of the island is unresolved. The GFA is a process...not an end. You kinda need to understand that.

No! You see the GFA as part of an inexorable process leading to a UI. I don't. Brexit has cast doubt on the status quo but Brexit may well end up being so soft that the status quo is effectively preserved, in which case all this UI talk will die down as a huge sigh of relief is breathed by the majority on both sides of the border.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, it's over 20 years since the GFA and the 12th is still as contentious as ever......the appetite for violent protest and dysfunctional politics seems not to have waned......if anything it has become more tribal and polarised with the squeezing out of the moderate parties.

Likewise, the required economic convergence has not taken place. The proportion of the economy in NI dependent on fiscal transfers from the centre is twice what it is here.

Nothing like what it was pre GFA. No amount of fantasizing will make it seem that way either.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

No! You see the GFA as part of an inexorable process leading to a UI. I don't. Brexit has cast doubt on the status quo but Brexit may well end up being so soft that the status quo is effectively preserved, in which case all this UI talk will die down as a huge sigh of relief is breathed by the majority on both sides of the border.

Well, it was delivered as a process. As an agreement to deliver many things, including equality. There is no specific clause to deliver a UI but the right to consider it is most definitely there.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, it was delivered as a process. As an agreement to deliver many things, including equality. There is no specific clause to deliver a UI but the right to consider it is most definitely there.

So you accept a UI may never happen?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

So you accept a UI may never happen?

Of course. I am a democrat, I will live with what the people decide, if they are let decide.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing like what it was pre GFA. No amount of fantasizing will make it seem that way either.

Not exactly going in the right direction though......

Understanding productivity in Northern Ireland

Over the last decade, NI’s GVA per capita grew by 2.3% per annum, which was the weakest of the UK regions. The result is that NI’s relative income now lags further behind the UK average and the gap is greater than at any point during the last decade