Arlene Foster, single-handedly and unintentionally paving the way forward for a UI

jmayo

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The D.U.P. insisted they wanted no hard border.

May has delivered.

The D.U.P. funded a front and back page advert in the metro( a free newspaper on the London underground) asking folks to vote Brexit.

N.I. voted remain.London voted remain.

Remainer's realise that they would better off not leaving than accepting this deal.

Brexiteers must realise that too.

The D.U.P. must realise that they have overstretched themselves.

The don't want the break up of the U.K.

They don't want a hard border.

Actually a lot of staunch unionists, who would probably be DUP voters, want this exact thing.
Hell one guy interviewed on radio this morning stated he would like Trump to come and build a wall.

To a lot of staunch unionists, the ones that never backed the GFA, NI has got too comfortable with the ROI and that has to be stopped.
How better to do it than shove a great bloody big border back in between the two.

In the old days the ROI, or the Free State to some of the narrow minded bigots, offered the threat of papist rule, but now it is even worse it offers the threat of gays, abortion, liberal social ideas that are anathema to the church going orange order types.

The problem is in any election a huge chunk of the electorate revert to voting on tribal grounds even if they disagree with the parties and it's representatives on economic matters such as the undoubted fallout of a hard Brexit.

end of the road

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's no coincidence that the most vocal supporters of a UI are those that don't pay income tax.

according to?

facehugger99 wrote: »

The taxpayers of this country would revolt rather than pony up 10billion per annum on a basket case, not to mention the security headaches. Simply not worth it.

the security headaches are going to be nothing compared to what is being claimed by the time any UI happens. there is no way the tiny few diehards on either side which are getting fewer and fewer are going to be able to do anything more then rioting. no major support for a return to violence, and no logistical support in terms of weaponry will be forthcoming.
also, you are assuming that a vote in the south will be able to prevent it from happening, chances are it absolutely won't if britain and the EU decide to force a UI should the north ever vote for it, which i have a feeling is quite a possibility.

bnt

Honestly, even though I'm from the UK myself, I don't have any trouble envisioning a united 32-county Ireland. There are specific issues that would need to be addressed, though.

#1 on the list is freedom of religion. Yes, I know what the Irish Constitution says, but as long as the Catholic Church has any control over school curricula, that would be unacceptable to any staunchly Protestant parent. The ideal solution to that problem is 100% secular schools, no Church involvement at all, but the alternative is one I saw in Scotland: Protestant schools alongside the Catholic ones. (My first school before I emigrated was like that: two small primary schools with one common playground, and at breaks the students formed opposing football teams and worked out their religious frustrations that way.) Today, religious schools are a small minority in Scotland, and non-denominational schools would be the preferred way forward.

What else is there? Patriotism? Living in Ireland hasn't made me any less Scottish than I've always been. If the UK ever goes to war, people would volunteer or not according to their consciences, as happened with Irish soldiers during the two world wars. Living under a different government does not change one's nationality.

facehugger99

bnt wrote: »

What else is there?

The 100 billion per decade?

I think we'd manage to build some schools, hospitals, roads and social housing that would prove better value than funding a Shinnerbot's wet dream.

jmayo

bnt wrote: »

Honestly, even though I'm from the UK myself, I don't have any trouble envisioning a united 32-county Ireland. There are specific issues that would need to be addressed, though.

#1 on the list is freedom of religion. Yes, I know what the Irish Constitution says, but as long as the Catholic Church has any control over school curricula, that would be unacceptable to any staunchly Protestant parent. The ideal solution to that problem is 100% secular schools, no Church involvement at all, but the alternative is one I saw in Scotland: Protestant schools alongside the Catholic ones. (My first school before I emigrated was like that: two small primary schools with one common playground, and at breaks the students formed opposing football teams and worked out their religious frustrations that way.) Today, religious schools are a small minority in Scotland, and non-denominational schools would be the preferred way forward.

What else is there? Patriotism? Living in Ireland hasn't made me any less Scottish than I've always been. If the UK ever goes to war, people would volunteer or not according to their consciences, as happened with Irish soldiers during the two world wars. Living under a different government does not change one's nationality.

Schools aren't a problem.
There are secular educate together schools, catholic schools, protestant schools here already.

In fact the same exists in the North so don't see what the problem is.

It is not as if the only schools in ROI are catholic, much as some might try and spin it.
Even in the depths of the countryside catholic ethos schools now allow children of different or no faiths to not attend religious classes.

And besides no one would be forcing kids in the Shankhill to go to a catholic ethos school in Cavan.

If anything I could see people of a unionist persuasion being against the removal of religion from education.

bnt

facehugger99 wrote: »

The 100 billion per decade?

I think we'd manage to build some schools, hospitals, roads and social housing that would prove better value than funding a Shinnerbot's wet dream.

I don't get the reference. Who's a Shinnerbot and how does that relate to what I posted?

cgcsb

maxwell smart wrote: »

Never mind Brexit, the above is real news to me. I thought she was a single and very willing to mingle type.

Good luck unpicking what Arlene's hypothetical sexual preference would be.

cgcsb

Berserker wrote: »

She's the only person representing NI.

Leo Varadkar is the only person representing NI. Arlene is representing Arlene.

bnt

jmayo wrote: »

Schools aren't a problem.
There are secular educate together schools, catholic schools, protestant schools here already.
...

If anything I could see people of a unionist persuasion being against the removal of religion from education.

I know there is diversity in schooling, but nowhere near enough. There are semi-weekly stories in the papers about parents forced to get their kids baptised just so they can go to a school in their catchment area. I think Scotland is the model: religious schools are on the way out there, slowly.

cgcsb

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Watching Sammy Wilson standing alongside Snarlene on the BBC, he looked like he was going to throw up.

She has a face on her like a smacked arse these past 2 days, it's just dawned on here that the English folk aren't actually that keen on paddies that wear poppies.

cgcsb

Gintonious wrote: »

Can't say I'm not enjoying seeing the DUP slowly realize that they have been used during all of this, and that May is basically sacrificing them.

Although I can't figure out how it took them this long. Idiots.

Did they genuinely think they were valued as an integral part of the UK? probably, certainly the face Arlene has on her the past 48 hours is one of shocked realisation, she probably wasn't the brightest in her class.

cgcsb

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's no coincidence that the most vocal supporters of a UI are those that don't pay income tax.

The taxpayers of this country would revolt rather than pony up 10billion per annum on a basket case, not to mention the security headaches.

Simply not worth it.

We paid more to bondholders in fairness. I doubt there would be any opposition to a UI in the South. Even if it meant paying more.

cgcsb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

A rejection of Prime Minster May's deal, if triggering a no-deal Brexit, would make Breunion a slam dunk, as the only way to keep the border open, peace, commerce, and maintaining the cooperation and common purpose that has become the custom on the island over the last 20 years. The Irish govt will have plans for this contingency ready to roll if things go that way. It will be a hard sell to some of the die-hards, but there will be a lot of will on both sides of the community to make it work, and make the south welcome in the UK. And create a stronger British Isles block, in every respect, as it moves forward in a renewed shared future.

Have you been at the cooking sherry?

cgcsb

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The British would be delighted to get rid of the north. It is a drain on resources and a cause of endless political nuisance. It would be the same in a United Ireland. Irish soldiers and guards being shot by loyalist extremists. A large socially conservative political block in the dail.

A

Loyalists? it's 2018, loyalists couldn't shoot their nurse at bed-bath time. These people are ancient. Even when they were young they were only able to cause trouble with MI5, the UK army and RUC holding their hands.

buried

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

A rejection of Prime Minster May's deal, if triggering a no-deal Brexit, would make Breunion a slam dunk, as the only way to keep the border open, peace, commerce, and maintaining the cooperation and common purpose that has become the custom on the island over the last 20 years. The Irish govt will have plans for this contingency ready to roll if things go that way. It will be a hard sell to some of the die-hards, but there will be a lot of will on both sides of the community to make it work, and make the south welcome in the UK. And create a stronger British Isles block, in every respect, as it moves forward in a renewed shared future.

The lol @ Lucretia

cgcsb

bnt wrote: »

I know there is diversity in schooling, but nowhere near enough. There are semi-weekly stories in the papers about parents forced to get their kids baptised just so they can go to a school in their catchment area. I think Scotland is the model: religious schools are on the way out there, slowly.

NI schools are not going to be all demolished and replaced with 'Our Lady, Queen of the Universe' convent schools. They'll have the same schools they've always had.

Kermit.de.frog

Theresa May to hold press conference at 5 pm.

facehugger99

cgcsb wrote: »

We paid more to bondholders in fairness. I doubt there would be any opposition to a UI in the South. Even if it meant paying more.

Well, you're incorrect.

Fann Linn

facehugger99 wrote: »

Well, you're incorrect.

And people can change their minds. Remember those referendums.

nice_guy80

Unlike schools in the north where schools themselves pay the salaries of their staff, every teacher in the ROI state system is paid by the department of education.

Schools are far more independent in the ROI than up north with a more open BOM structure than the board of governors used in most schools up north.

mick malones mauser

Northern Ireland is a failed political experiment. It has been almost since its inception.
However the "lost tribe " will not go quietly. Thats for sure.
It could get very nasty if the "mainland "abandon them or are even seen to be thinking about it.
Any Taig will do.....remember??

klaaaz

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's no coincidence that the most vocal supporters of a UI are those that don't pay income tax.

The taxpayers of this country would revolt rather than pony up 10billion per annum on a basket case, not to mention the security headaches.

Simply not worth it.

Still perpetuating the "unaffordable" myth we see.
https://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-costings-4144760-Jul2018/

An IMF senior economist during German Reunification, Gunther Thumann, carried out the research, along with Daly, for the Oireachtas Committee. It shows that Northern Ireland would have a near balanced budget in a unification situation

I trust the word of a top IMF economist over someone spouting nonsense on an internet forum.

Brilliant. Miriam O'Callaghan on Prime Time a second ago brings in one of the guests who has been waiting a long time, a Welsh guy via satellite.
MOC: 'Whathisname, I'm sorry you're in the middle of three Irish people here". Last guest was none other than Sammy Wilson, he of the famous Ali G. interview in about 2007 -

Ali. G: "So, is you Irish?"
SW: "No, I'm British"
Ali G.: "So, is you 'ere on holiday like me?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCNG5UeKMZw

blanch152

klaaaz wrote: »

Still perpetuating the "unaffordable" myth we see.
https://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-costings-4144760-Jul2018/


I trust the word of a top IMF economist over someone spouting nonsense on an internet forum.

Laughable analysis in those reports, full of unattainable assumptions.

Where would all the public servants go? Huge savings from sacking 50,000 public servants in the North. If that's your plan, why would any public servant in the North, Catholic or Protestant, nationalist or unionist, vote for a united Ireland?

The problem for the likes of Sinn Fein, is that any unification deal means hardship for someone. That means some rump, be it Northern public servants, or Southern taxpayers or social welfare recipients will vote against it. Imagine if you told social welfare recipients down South that their payments were being cut by 20% to bring them in line with the North so that 50,000 public servants in the North could keep their jobs? Of course, you could also tell every worker on the island that we are increasing income tax by 5% or you could tell every MNC that we are increasing corporation tax by 10%. I don't care, pick whichever option, but somebody will have to pay for a united Ireland, and so long as it is not me, that's ok.

klaaaz

blanch152 wrote: »

Laughable analysis in those reports, full of unattainable assumptions.

Where would all the public servants go? Huge savings from sacking 50,000 public servants in the North. If that's your plan, why would any public servant in the North, Catholic or Protestant, nationalist or unionist, vote for a united Ireland?

The problem for the likes of Sinn Fein, is that any unification deal means hardship for someone. That means some rump, be it Northern public servants, or Southern taxpayers or social welfare recipients will vote against it. Imagine if you told social welfare recipients down South that their payments were being cut by 20% to bring them in line with the North so that 50,000 public servants in the North could keep their jobs? Of course, you could also tell every worker on the island that we are increasing income tax by 5% or you could tell every MNC that we are increasing corporation tax by 10%. I don't care, pick whichever option, but somebody will have to pay for a united Ireland, and so long as it is not me, that's ok.

What a knee jerk typical hardline Unionist response, oops maybe an opinion engrossed by the Indo's tabloid scaremongering nonsense?.
The IMF guy actually studied all the facts and any assumptions that occur in such a scenario, you are not qualified to diss the expert's work on the issue. Plus its frecking amazing that you have spoken for business leaders, the workers and social welfare recipients, is that you Edward Carson reborn??

MSVforever

MSVforever wrote: »

Also the romantic idea of an United Ireland wouldn't be backed up by a majority in the South imo once people's taxes will be raised to subsidise the North.

This very wrongly assumes the English would be able to, and willing to, subsidise their settler-colonialists in this last remnant of England's Irish colony for long more. It's a massive assumption. Where, pray tell, will England get that money? And when their economy becomes more fúcked that it has been in a long, long time, do you really think that even with the overabundance of abject stupidity on display collectively by the English establishment and the 17 million people who voted for Brexit that the English are going to send £10 billion of their money per year off with the ease that they could do so when London was making hundreds of billions out of being the financial centre of the entire EU?

In other words, to state the obvious: by the time of Irish reunification, there won't be any British subsidy for the Irish to replace.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's no coincidence that the most vocal supporters of a UI are those that don't pay income tax.

And your source for this spectacularly idiotic assertion? Nothing, of course.

facehugger99 wrote: »

The taxpayers of this country would revolt rather than pony up 10billion per annum on a basket case

That's a fairly staggering disconnect from reality right there. Irish taxpayers paying some €80 billion to cover the losses of basket case private financial institutions didn't get as much as a whimper out of this supposedly rebellious Irish taxpayer, so I'd be fairly desperate if I had to present the Irish taxpayer as some sort of courageous, principled rebel up there with Tone and Pearse.

blanch152

klaaaz wrote: »

What a knee jerk typical hardline Unionist response, oops maybe an opinion engrossed by the Indo's tabloid scaremongering nonsense?.
The IMF guy actually studied all the facts and any assumptions that occur in such a scenario, you are not qualified to diss the expert's work on the issue. Plus its frecking amazing that you have spoken for business leaders, the workers and social welfare recipients, is that you Edward Carson reborn??

I am as qualified as the quack that did the report for Sinn Fein.

As for the junior IMF economist, I wouldn't have faith in his work either.

I don't do the bow down to expert opinion that others do, I look at their work and critically analyse. Both of those reports have been discussed at length previously in the politics threads and both of them have been ridiculed for their naive assumptions.


P.S. I see the resident silent SF co-ordinator gave you a thanks for your post, enough for me to know I am on the right track

bnt

bnt wrote: »

I know there is diversity in schooling, but nowhere near enough. There are semi-weekly stories in the papers about parents forced to get their kids baptised just so they can go to a school in their catchment area. I think Scotland is the model: religious schools are on the way out there, slowly.

On the other hand, as the head of the UK in 2018 is also head of the Anglican Church - and it is impossible to be head of the UK state if you're not head of the Anglican Church - all state schools there are Protestant schools. As such, I don't think anybody in the UK is in a position to lecture the Irish on religious involvement in education (a system which was created under British rule, lest we forget).


De Valera to his eternal credit not only gave explicit recognition to the Jewish religion in 1930s Europe, but he refused to follow the UK example by making one denomination the state church. The most he would give the RCC was a 'special position', much to its chagrin in 1937. It's always ironic that the West Brits, in their stereotypical historical illiteracy, pillory him as being backward.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

I am as qualified as the quack that did the report for Sinn Fein.

As for the junior IMF economist, I wouldn't have faith in his work either.

I don't do the bow down to expert opinion that others do, I look at their work and critically analyse. Both of those reports have been discussed at length previously in the politics threads and both of them have been ridiculed for their naive assumptions.


P.S. I see the resident silent SF co-ordinator gave you a thanks for your post, enough for me to know I am on the right track

So the IMF guy's research was criticised on Boards.ie so he must be wrong? Why do you bring SF into every thread?