All-New United Ireland Thread

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Well in that case you are wrong, imo. It won't be long now before there's a push for pro choice legislation. The DUP are embarrassing themselves this week on that very topic. They've a thriving gay community and they can deny climate change, but I'm quite sure most people take science over rhetoric.
I would counter, as we move further away from the criminal past of the catholic church, the more appealing Ireland is to the average non-DUP member.

There are numerous signs of it as I have already explained, not just abortion and SSM, but also in areas such as church attendance, alcohol regulation, retail hours at weekends etc. The South is now as secular a society as there is in the Western world. The North is a religious society divided between denominations who nonetheless share many similar characteristics. These are on-the-ground cultural differences that have nothing to do with political parties.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

There are numerous signs of it as I have already explained, not just abortion and SSM, but also in areas such as church attendance, alcohol regulation, retail hours at weekends etc. The South is now as secular a society as there is in the Western world. The North is a religious society divided between denominations who nonetheless share many similar characteristics. These are on-the-ground cultural differences that have nothing to do with political parties.

So religious denomination has nothing to do with the northern political parties or the policies they enact? Are you familiar with the occupied counties at all?
Again, I would suggest, the average punter just wants to live and let live. Nobody will be dragged out of mass by the ear for pints and a slice of gay cake.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So religious denomination has nothing to do with the northern political parties or the policies they enact? Are you familiar with the occupied counties at all?
Again, I would suggest, the average punter just wants to live and let live. Nobody will be dragged out of mass by the ear for pints and a slice of gay cake.

What I am saying is that the cultural differences between North and South exist independently of any political party.

you constantly want to draw the focus back on the respective political parties. But I am only looking at society.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

What I am saying is that the cultural differences between North and South exist independently of any political party.

you constantly want to draw the focus back on the respective political parties. But I am only looking at society.

You're focusing on a section of that society, who would tend to vote for a certain political party with quite conservative outdated religious views on things, including Sunday opening hours, alcohol, same sex marriage, homosexuality and abortion.

You can't serperate their religious beliefs and influences from their politics in this case.


Stop trying to claim otherwise.

McGiver

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Mtx wrote: »

What is the consensus in the south on whether they want reunification? Any polls I seen were northern Ireland survey's.

There's a large consensus in the south and always has been for reunification.

You can take it as read that a large majority want it. Especially seeing as all major political parties are pro-unification, even the Blueshirts.

Either way though the mechanisms that allow it can't come into play until the north vote for it.

You sure? Even if that meant higher taxes and/or cuts to subsidise NI?

Thomas_IV

blanch152 wrote: »

What I am saying is that the cultural differences between North and South exist independently of any political party.

you constantly want to draw the focus back on the respective political parties. But I am only looking at society.

You just pick the pieces from that that suits you which is always reflected in every post of you.

In general I have observed that Republicans in NI are of a more progressive mindset than the Unionists.

McGiver

blanch152 wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Well in that case you are wrong, imo. It won't be long now before there's a push for pro choice legislation. The DUP are embarrassing themselves this week on that very topic. They've a thriving gay community and they can deny climate change, but I'm quite sure most people take science over rhetoric.
I would counter, as we move further away from the criminal past of the catholic church, the more appealing Ireland is to the average non-DUP member.

There are numerous signs of it as I have already explained, not just abortion and SSM, but also in areas such as church attendance, alcohol regulation, retail hours at weekends etc. The South is now as secular a society as there is in the Western world. The North is a religious society divided between denominations who nonetheless share many similar characteristics. These are on-the-ground cultural differences that have nothing to do with political parties.

Long way to go to call the South secular. Compared to Europe and even the UK.

Thomas_IV

McGiver wrote: »

You sure? Even if that meant higher taxes and/or cuts to subsidise NI?

For some time period after unification, these measures are unavoidable. I'd say that it might be for around twenty to twenty five years, depending on the growing of the economy and how good the integration into the system of the Republic would develop.

keane2097

McGiver wrote: »

Long way to go to call the South secular. Compared to Europe and even the UK.

We're out from under the yoke of the Catholic Church for about half a wet week and we have suddenly developed deep and irreconcilable differences with our neighbours up the road who go to mass :pac:

FrancieBrady

keane2097 wrote: »

We're out from under the yoke of the Catholic Church for about half a wet week and we have suddenly developed deep and irreconcilable differences with our neighbours up the road who go to mass :pac:

Incredible how it can be spun isn't it? There are as many if not more religious zealots in the south as there are north of the border.


Nationalists are well and painfully aware of this but Unionists and partitionists should take serious note of the content of this speech.
The British have no interest or concern for the Irish or indeed those who aspire to be British. They literally don't care what happens here.

He also questioned the weight laid on the contentious Irish border issue in the government’s approach to the negotiations.

“It’s so small and there are so few firms that actually use that border regularly, it’s just beyond belief that we’re allowing the tail to wag the dog in this way. We’re allowing the whole of our agenda to be dictated by this folly,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/07/boris-johnson-admits-there-may-be-a-brexit-meltdown?CMP=share_btn_fb

Chips Lovell

Thomas_IV wrote: »

For some time period after unification, these measures are unavoidable. I'd say that it might be for around twenty to twenty five years,....

This is it in a nutshell. Once this becomes public knowledge, it'll have a bearing on any vote. At the moment it's purely hypothetical and most people don't even think about the costs.

But its not just cost in terms of additional taxation. There's also the question of whether people are willing to bear the political costs. Will Northern Ireland continue to have devolved self-government as it does now? Or will we have to guarantee representation in central government for the two Northern communities, a sort of Stormont for the island of Ireland?

It's hard to gauge how much public support there would be until all of these are fully fleshed out.

blanch152

keane2097 wrote: »

We're out from under the yoke of the Catholic Church for about half a wet week and we have suddenly developed deep and irreconcilable differences with our neighbours up the road who go to mass :pac:

Nope, these differences have been identified for quite a while. The recent referenda have only crystallised the changes in Irish society and exposed the real differences between North and South. Here is an article from 2013:

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/numbers-in-irelands-catholic-church-continue-to-drop-stigma-attached-to-attending-mass-200315991-237575781

"Despite the lack of figures in Northern Ireland, the sentiment is that Catholics in Northern Ireland have a closer hold on their Catholic religion after having fought to keep it."

If someone has some hard figures to dispute my argument, please feel free to post them. However, you only need to spend a small amount of time in both jurisdictions on a Sunday to realise the wide difference in approach.

blanch152

McGiver wrote: »

You sure? Even if that meant higher taxes and/or cuts to subsidise NI?

I think this is a key point. Social welfare in the South is far more generous, will it be equalised down or equalised up? If it is equalised down, why would a person on social welfare in the South vote for unity? If it is equalised up, why would a person already paying high personal taxes in the South vote for unity? If the question isn't answered, why would either of them vote for unity?

If you have uncertainty about what happens, people will be reluctant to vote for unity. If you have certainty you firm up opposition from some area of society. All of that will become apparent in a campaign.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, these differences have been identified for quite a while. The recent referenda have only crystallised the changes in Irish society and exposed the real differences between North and South. Here is an article from 2013:

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/numbers-in-irelands-catholic-church-continue-to-drop-stigma-attached-to-attending-mass-200315991-237575781

"Despite the lack of figures in Northern Ireland, the sentiment is that Catholics in Northern Ireland have a closer hold on their Catholic religion after having fought to keep it."

If someone has some hard figures to dispute my argument, please feel free to post them. However, you only need to spend a small amount of time in both jurisdictions on a Sunday to realise the wide difference in approach.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/poll-only-29-oppose-reform-of-abortion-laws-in-northern-ireland-35975596.html

Everyone knows who the 29% are and what political party they vote for. Northern Ireland is as ripe for change as we were down south. What is needed is political leaders to smell the change and change sides just as FG did here and get the job done.

Why do you keep denying this reality to repudiate the idea of a UI?

Everyone can see what you are so desperately trying to do here.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/poll-only-29-oppose-reform-of-abortion-laws-in-northern-ireland-35975596.html

Everyone knows who the 29% are and what political party they vote for. Northern Ireland is as ripe for change as we were down south. What is needed is political leaders to smell the change and change sides just as FG did here and get the job done.

Why do you keep denying this reality to repudiate the idea of a UI?

Everyone can see what you are so desperately trying to do here.

You are making about something that might happen as opposed to something that has happened. So what reality am I denying?

I am not just talking about abortion legislation - it is one of many indicators. Furthermore, as far as I can see, there is no mainstream political party in the North that supports unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks, which has just been voted on in the South. Again, that is a reality. Yes, there is a proposed Ard Fheis in SF to change that, but a proposal isn't reality.

It seems to me that the contention being put to me is that if you ignore the whole Unionist population, and the more significant conservative Catholic population in Northern Ireland, then the two parts of the island are the same. I don't think I will ignore those realities.

McGiver

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would admit that I would not be too happy to see the DUP in Leinster House and Sinn Fein boosted by their NI voters to be the countries largest party.

SF voters might be released by unification, a bit like UKIP voters after the Brexit referendum, but the DUP would only strengthen and become even more obstreperous in opposition.

I can see them partnering with Fine Gael, similar personalities. Be a sad day for FF and the civil war monopoly.

Religious backward homphobic racist (yes racist!) bigots will partner with party whose leader is a half-foreigner not exactly white gay??? Doubt it

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You are making about something that might happen as opposed to something that has happened. So what reality am I denying?

I am not just talking about abortion legislation - it is one of many indicators. Furthermore, as far as I can see, there is no mainstream political party in the North that supports unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks, which has just been voted on in the South. Again, that is a reality. Yes, there is a proposed Ard Fheis in SF to change that, but a proposal isn't reality.

It seems to me that the contention being put to me is that if you ignore the whole Unionist population, and the more significant conservative Catholic population in Northern Ireland, then the two parts of the island are the same. I don't think I will ignore those realities.

They haven't had the debate about abortion yet. Because a single party representing a minority is blocking it despite poll after poll saying that the majority want change, and there must be many non dogmatic unionists among that majority.

Keep ignoring this reality to make your spurious point, you are making no sense.

McGiver

Thomas_IV wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

You sure? Even if that meant higher taxes and/or cuts to subsidise NI?

For some time period after unification, these measures are unavoidable. I'd say that it might be for around twenty to twenty five years, depending on the growing of the economy and how good the integration into the system of the Republic would develop.

Look, I'm not Irish but if I was, I think I wouldn't want to pay for this. I think vast majority in the South are lukewarm nationalists - up to the point when it concerns their wallet. Which is exactly the same case here. You seriously think that people squeezed by neoliberal agenda in ROI with poor public services, housing crisis, Dublin centralisation, unregulated ripoff insurance companies etc would want to pay out of their pocket to subsidise a backward province where half of the population stuck to sectarianism, religious bigotry, anti-science ideology and cling to a foreign country instead of their own? And all that to fulfil some old romantic dream of UI? Hardly. I think people in ROI know this and are pragmatic enough just to forget about NI.

Think UI is not feasible at this stage. The matter was lost in 1920s. I fir, NI is a failed statelet - UK doesn't want it really, it's them who desperately want to be part of the UK. ROI doesn't want them either given the costs and given that ROI would have to deal with say 750 thousand troublemaking sectarian people completely opposed to the Republic.

keane2097

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, these differences have been identified for quite a while. The recent referenda have only crystallised the changes in Irish society and exposed the real differences between North and South. Here is an article from 2013:

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/numbers-in-irelands-catholic-church-continue-to-drop-stigma-attached-to-attending-mass-200315991-237575781

"Despite the lack of figures in Northern Ireland, the sentiment is that Catholics in Northern Ireland have a closer hold on their Catholic religion after having fought to keep it."

If someone has some hard figures to dispute my argument, please feel free to post them. However, you only need to spend a small amount of time in both jurisdictions on a Sunday to realise the wide difference in approach.

Your own quote says it doesn't have any figures to sustain itself but you think figures from the other side are needed to assail it :pac:

I'm happy to dismiss it as absolute twaddle tbh, I don't honestly believe you're even attempting make a serious point.

Thomas_IV

McGiver wrote: »

Look, I'm not Irish but if I was, I think I wouldn't want to pay for this. I think vast majority in the South are lukewarm nationalists - up to the point when it concerns their wallet. Which is exactly the same case here. You seriously think that people squeezed by neoliberal agenda in ROI with poor public services, housing crisis, Dublin centralisation, unregulated ripoff insurance companies etc would want to pay out of their pocket to subsidise a backward province where half of the population stuck to sectarianism, religious bigotry, anti-science ideology and cling to a foreign country instead of their own? And all that to fulfil some old romantic dream of UI? Hardly. I think people in ROI know this and are pragmatic enough just to forget about NI.

Think UI is not feasible at this stage. The matter was lost in 1920s. I fir, NI is a failed statelet - UK doesn't want it really, it's them who desperately want to be part of the UK. ROI doesn't want them either given the costs and given that ROI would have to deal with say 750 thousand troublemaking sectarian people completely opposed to the Republic.

I'm no Irish either and what I posted in my previous post was just what I experienced since the re-unification of my own country Germany in 1990, for which we're paying to this day.

Re-unification was a task enshrined in the West-German constitution and when the chance to realise it was there due to the crumbling of the Eastern Bloc the West-German govt was constitutionally obliged to take every peaceful effort to bring about re-unification. The people in the former GDR were more emotionally for re-unification than we in West-Germany, but in a short time there was major consent on both sides that this chance for unification should be taken and so it went (we needed the consent and approval of all the former allied powers - USA, UK, France and USSR - to get it, for that we had the '2+4 negotiations' the former allies and the two German states to work on a re-unification treaty).

I know that this re-unification article was removed from the constitution of the Republic of Ireland due to the GFA, but nonetheless I believe that when it comes to a chance for it there might be a certain majority on both sides of the border who would vote in favour of a UI, even if that would be on second thoughts.

It is certainly for the people to decide whether they want it or not, but to drop the whole idea always because of the Unionist/Loyalist/OO nutters isn't really fair. They have hold this country in ransom for long enough, actually for far too long and their regressiveness will one day bring them to the fall which they deserve because they have outlived themselves in our modern times. Once the UK breaks up on Brexit (the chances for that are rather increasing than declining), the moderate, progressive and pragmatic Unionists in NI will be left with no other option than to consider their chances in a UI because NI cannot sustain itself economically and financially. But it should be clear that a UI won't come without financial burdens and I think that many know that but those in favour of a UI would raise no objections to it. In the whole process of such an Event, I would hope that the EU will help Ireland in this as much as it helped Germany in 1990.

Zubeneschamali

I am very unenthusiastic about a United Ireland - my grandparents were burnt out of their home in Belfast by loyalists in the 1920s, and the troubles made me cordially dislike both sides. Nationalism and Unionism both swinging behind their worst parties with the SDLP, Alliance and the UUP made irrelevant after the GFA did not improve my opinion.

But if the North ever voted for a United Ireland, I think it would be our duty to take them in. There are many decent Irish people up there, we could not abandon them.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They haven't had the debate about abortion yet. Because a single party representing a minority is blocking it despite poll after poll saying that the majority want change, and there must be many non dogmatic unionists among that majority.

Keep ignoring this reality to make your spurious point, you are making no sense.

Well, if they haven't had the debate yet, one can only imagine the outcome, one cannot claim it as a reality being ignored.

The reality goes far beyond abortion rights.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, if they haven't had the debate yet, one can only imagine the outcome, one cannot claim it as a reality being ignored.

The reality goes far beyond abortion rights.

What goes on in the mind of somebody so wholly opposed to seeing the nationalist/those who identify as Irish gain an inch is not reality.

I live on the border the reality is there is little difference, culturally or otherwise in northern society with southern society.

The difference is one community is repressed and denied by a minority community of bigots and religious suprematists.
The reality of abortion rights, religious observance (and also see language and civil rights) and who is blocking progress on them is clear to anyone.
Anyone, who is not desperate to see something else.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am very unenthusiastic about a United Ireland - my grandparents were burnt out of their home in Belfast by loyalists in the 1920s, and the troubles made me cordially dislike both sides. Nationalism and Unionism both swinging behind their worst parties with the SDLP, Alliance and the UUP made irrelevant after the GFA did not improve my opinion.

But if the North ever voted for a United Ireland, I think it would be our duty to take them in. There are many decent Irish people up there, we could not abandon them.

What is so great about the SDLP, The Alliance and the UUP?

They have shown that they are unfit to represent the people of the north at their own various times.

The myth that these parties are somehow less 'worse' needs to be demolished tbh.
The SDLP in particular, who were willing to sell out nationalist aspirations to gain.
The electorate repaid them for that in spades.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The SDLP in particular, who were willing to sell out nationalist aspirations to gain.
The electorate repaid them for that in spades.

Before Sinn Fein showed them how to sell out and get away with it.

An Ciarraioch

Interesting BBC/Lucid Talk poll out today - headline figures show 45% would vote to remain in UK, 42% for a united Ireland, and the remainder undecided. 97% of Catholics consider themselves Irish, 82% European, 27% NI, and 4% British. Protestants are 83% British, 82% NI, 31% European and 29% Irish, with combined results of 59% Irish, 58% NI, 57% European and 46% British. 41% have always backed remaining in the UK, 28% would switch from backing the UK to supporting a united Ireland, and 27% have always supported a united Ireland.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1004960910794985477

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Before Sinn Fein showed them how to sell out and get away with it.

You should be able to show that in voting patterns. Can you?

It is a bitter pill to swallow for some that the electorate are just stubbornly refusing to see that SF sold them out.
The SDLP voting patterns however.....:D

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell. Once this becomes public knowledge, it'll have a bearing on any vote. At the moment it's purely hypothetical and most people don't even think about the costs.

But its not just cost in terms of additional taxation. There's also the question of whether people are willing to bear the political costs. Will Northern Ireland continue to have devolved self-government as it does now? Or will we have to guarantee representation in central government for the two Northern communities, a sort of Stormont for the island of Ireland?

It's hard to gauge how much public support there would be until all of these are fully fleshed out.

For a lot of people cost doesn't come into it. We took generational debt for private banks and numerous 'errs', coupled with the number of working people having a tough time of it anyway, any concerns about the cost of a united Ireland will be put to the side and I would be interested to see which parties and politicians say 'Hold the re-unification, what about the cost?' It'll be the 'home to vote', repeal the 8th, equal rights for gays x10.

James Brown

McGiver wrote: »

Religious backward homphobic racist (yes racist!) bigots will partner with party whose leader is a half-foreigner not exactly white gay??? Doubt it

They'll partner with the Dutch to overthrow the British if they don't like the way the British are leaning. They'll certainly get behind 'the indian' if it suits. They aren't anything if not opportunists. In fact it may amuse them to do some kind of deal with a tory admiring 'foreigner' than some pasty Fenian.

Chips Lovell

Matt Barrett wrote: »

For a lot of people cost doesn't come into it. We took generational debt for private banks and numerous 'errs', coupled with the number of working people having a tough time of it anyway....

They're not really comparable situations though. Here the choice is between additional expenditure of around €10 billion a year and the status quo. In the financial crisis, whatever we did, bank bailout or no bank bailout, would have had immense consequences for tax payers. If there had been an option to just keep things the same, it would have been a no brainier.

Besides, the cost of unification would be vastly higher than the bank bailout. The net cost of the banking bailout amounts to about four years of keeping Northern Ireland afloat.