Unionists and a United Ireland.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You got the DeLorean working then mark!


Why would your 'imagining'(which is what it is, unless you really do have time travelling abilities) be any more reliable than anybody else's?

Why is our vision of a UI more reliable than mine?
Are you going to tell us we should ship Unionist over to Britain again?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Why is our vision of a UI more reliable than mine?

Because the reality is that pragmatic and moderate unionism has 'gotten on' with it historically, after a bout of Never Never Never from the belligerent wing.
That same pragmatic and moderate unionism knows a UI is coming some day too.

See belligerent unionism getting marginalised in the talks at the moment?...same thing will happen in the run up to a UI. Moderates will engage with the process (even Peter Robinson sees they need to do this and others have already engaged with the All Party Committee) and so lead the way.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because the reality is that pragmatic and moderate unionism has 'gotten on' with it historically, after a bout of Never Never Never from the belligerent wing.
That same pragmatic and moderate unionism knows a UI is coming some day too.

See belligerent unionism getting marginalised in the talks at the moment?...same thing will happen in the run up to a UI. Moderates will engage with the process (even Peter Robinson sees they need to do this and others have already engaged with the All Party Committee) and so lead the way.

Yes, that's lovely, but what will a UI look like Francie

You love talking but you say very little.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, that's lovely, but what will a UI look like Francie

You love talking but you say very little.

Very much like what we have now, but with more unionists. We should imo take the opportunity for an overhaul of our constitution and find ways to energise the economy of the entire island.

Nobody is pretending that it is going to be some utopia.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very much like what we have now, but with more unionists. We should imo take the opportunity for an overhaul of our constitution and find ways to energise the economy of the entire island.

Nobody is pretending that it is going to be some utopia.

So, the same but radically different.

Great hindsight you have.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

Why is our vision of a UI more reliable than mine?
Are you going to tell us we should ship Unionist over to Britain again?

Ah yes, the dream of ethnic cleansing the glens of Antrim dressed up as doing unionists a favour.

It was a chilly day when we saw that written down, and the mask slip from the true face of extreme republicanism.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

So, the same but radically different.

Great hindsight you have.

What?

We overhaul aspects of our constitution all the time by agreement, nothing radical about it really. Updating and modernising should be a built in facet of any republic.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

So, the same but radically different.

Great hindsight you have.

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah yes, the dream of ethnic cleansing the glens of Antrim dressed up as doing unionists a favour.

It was a chilly day when we saw that written down, and the mask slip from the true face of extreme republicanism.

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, that's lovely, but what will a UI look like Francie

You love talking but you say very little.

Any more sneering or misrepresentation and I'm handing out bans. You both know better than this.

McGiver

OK, couple of points.

Any sort of reservation for Unionists in UI Dail or government is a total nonsense and must never be thought about, ever. I've heard that silly suggestion on the radio. The only effect this would have is perpetuation of medieval sectarianism - absolutely unacceptable. Worst possible idea which would only bring instability and institutionalise religious conflict. Religion must be out of politics, it's a personal not governance matter.

UI would be a great opportunity to make Ireland a secular Republic. It is secular only on paper at the moment and UI would be the impetus to finally implement it.

Now, Unionists will need to be accommodated not appeased. These are two different things. The Irish Republic motto should be unity in diversity and equal opportunity for all - regardless of religion, sect, class etc.

To accommodate the Unionists there are few options:

1. Federalised/regionalised UI - Ulster, Connacht, Munster, Leinster and Dublin with their own assemblies and high degree of autonomy, federal government and Parliament in Dublin; this is how it works in Austria for example

2. Decentralised UI - each of the 32 counties would get much more power delegated by the central government, including ability to set tax rates; this is how it works in Sweden for example

Anyhow, the massive Dublin centralisation will need to be addressed as it's causing too many issues in RoI and wouldn't get worse in UI.

The suggested federal arrangement of NI + the South is in my opinion also a bad idea, doesn't address the structural issues in RoI and also perpetuates the sectarian setup in NI.

fly_agaric

McGiver wrote: »

Anyhow, the massive Dublin centralisation will need to be addressed as it's causing too many issues in RoI and wouldn't get worse in UI.

I think you meant "would"?

Yes, any type of UI where there isn't a proper local government (some sort of provincial setup, county level, perhaps current NI as a unit itself + splitting the rest of the current Irish state into a few new local admin units) is going to be a disaster. It will be set up to fail from day one.

The steady sucking up of all powers by central government & various quangos etc is causing some problems already in Ireland IMO (not least for Dublin itself).
Local government really does very little any more here + powers seem to get taken off it with each new government.

An Ciarraioch

blanch152 wrote: »

Ah yes, the dream of ethnic cleansing the glens of Antrim dressed up as doing unionists a favour.

It was a chilly day when we saw that written down, and the mask slip from the true face of extreme republicanism.

Has anyone on this thread actually said this, Blanch? In the short term, Stormont would still be required, whether on its own, or part of a federal model, and Unionists would essentially be left to their own devices, as for the most part, they would want the minimal possible interaction with the institutions of the Republic.

FrancieBrady

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Has anyone on this thread actually said this, Blanch? In the short term, Stormont would still be required, whether on its own, or part of a federal model, and Unionists would essentially be left to their own devices, as for the most part, they would want the minimal possible interaction with the institutions of the Republic.

It would be a huge mistake if unionists took that attitude to the new state. Unionist and protestant numbers decreased massively after independence because 'as they said themselves' the community took a no participation stance/attitude to the new state.
A vicious circle of their own making coupled with the rise of the RC church.

BluePlanet

McGiver wrote: »

1. Federalised/regionalised UI - Ulster, Connacht, Munster, Leinster and Dublin with their own assemblies and high degree of autonomy, federal government and Parliament in Dublin; this is how it works in Austria for example
.

Yes to a truly secular republic.
But federal? No way, it's too small an island and population.
It would be duplication of services and a bloated civil service beyond what it already is.
Locks-in inefficiency.

An Ciarraioch

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yes to a truly secular republic.
But federal? No way, it's too small an island and population.
It would be duplication of services and a bloated civil service beyond what it already is.
Locks-in inefficiency.

Not if you abolish the county councils.

Geuze

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yes to a truly secular republic.
But federal? No way, it's too small an island and population.
It would be duplication of services and a bloated civil service beyond what it already is.
Locks-in inefficiency.

Belgium, Austria and Switz are federal.

Aus - 9m people, 9 states.

Switz - 8.5m, 26 cantons.

BluePlanet

It's an opportunity to build the 2nd Irish Republic.
The first one was created out of the ashes of fire and war and partition.
Everything is on the table: anthems, flags and language etc

Geuze

McGiver wrote: »

OK, couple of points.

2. Decentralised UI - each of the 32 counties would get much more power delegated by the central government, including ability to set tax rates; this is how it works in Sweden for example

Interesting.

The are 31 local governments in the RoI.

There are 11 districts in NI.

So currently 42 councils.

McGiver

BluePlanet wrote:

Yes to a truly secular republic. But federal? No way, it's too small an island and population. It would be duplication of services and a bloated civil service beyond what it already is. Locks-in inefficiency.

Geuze beat me to it.

NI would be 6M+.

Austria is 8M and has 9 states. NI with 5-6 states would be perfectly fine and inline with that. There wouldn't be any duplication, the point of federal arrangements is to delegate competencies to the local level. Apart from the police, which is actually good thing.

Optimally, the central government should only deal with few areas of national, strategic importance.

Boredstiff666

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

It’s going to happen within 20 years. Unionists way better off of it happens. One of the many terrible effects of the IRA was they delayed unification and the impact is still being felt, unionists still reflexively opposed.

I have seen that the rest of the UK subsidise NI by approx £10 billion every year.

If this is correct then why would anyone in NI whichever side of the fence you are on vote to leave that and re-unite with a country with a banana economy?

Could the Republic equal that and would it's citizens want to pay such a lot extra in tax to do such?

Then you have Brexit and the knock to the Republics economy.

What if vat is abolished in NI which has been talked about? The loss to the UK is minimal but the boost to NI is off the scale, but the poor Republic would be toast.

Interesting times ahead.

BluePlanet

The subvention to NI wouldn't remain the same.

Anyway there are already unionists discussing a UI: https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/08/04/paul-gosling-it-costs-more-for-ni-to-be-within-the-uk-than-for-the-uk-to-be-in-eu-feile18/


Link to his document here: http://www.paulgosling.net/2018/06/a-new-union-a-new-society-ireland-2050/

McGiver

BluePlanet wrote:

The subvention to NI wouldn't remain the same.

Also it is expected that the UK will, the EU and possibly even the US would chip in, initially. UK and EU for sure, there's no doubt. The UK has to pay for the damage their colonialism and imperialism had caused. And the EU will pay out of principle - in the same way they were involved in the GFA etc - UI will be a culmination of a peace process affecting one of the EU members.

Del.Monte

McGiver wrote: »

Also it is expected that the UK will, the EU and possibly even the US would chip in, initially. UK and EU for sure, there's no doubt. The UK has to pay for the damage their colonialism and imperialism had caused. And the EU will pay out of principle - in the same way they were involved in the GFA etc - UI will be a culmination of a peace process affecting one of the EU members.

Awful old guff. Will the UK be seeking reparation for the damage inflicted on it by the Roman and Danes, not to mention the Normans? Everybody will be paying except little old Ireland, but that's okay because everybody loves the Irish.

Anyway, it's Christmas and the season of goodwill so I will take my leave from this thread before I really say what I think.

McGiver

Del.Monte wrote:

Awful old guff. Will the UK be seeking reparation for the damage inflicted on it by the Roman and Danes, not to mention the Normans? Everybody will be paying except little old Ireland, but that's okay because everybody loves the Irish.

We are talking about 20th century events with implications until this day. The truce, yes truce, came into effect just 22 years ago. Your talk about medieval events is an absurd and ridiculous comparison.
They caused a civil war, in otherwise stable part of the world, actually in an EU member state. EU don't do civil wars on their territory, it's unacceptable, and against everything the EU was built on and stands. Of course the EU will financially help with the unification, it's essentially a culmination of a peace process on its territory. And there will be a strong diplomatic pressure on the UK to chip in (and pay damages) to the transfer the control to the Irish jurisdiction.

FrancieBrady

Del.Monte wrote: »

Awful old guff. Will the UK be seeking reparation for the damage inflicted on it by the Roman and Danes, not to mention the Normans? Everybody will be paying except little old Ireland, but that's okay because everybody loves the Irish.

Anyway, it's Christmas and the season of goodwill so I will take my leave from this thread before I really say what I think.

The British could pay up to 9 Billion (if the figures are correct) and still come out of a UI, up 1 Billion.
Merry Christmas!

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

Anyway, it's Christmas and the season of goodwill so I will take my leave from this thread before I really say what I think.

It's okay, we can infer your L'awdship. Do be telling us when you're in town so we know to step out of your way. *takes cap off head and backs out of post*

jimmytwotimes 2013

You'd hope the government is consulting with Germany, as we speak, to discuss the issues they faced when the East reunified with the West. Economic differences still exist between the two sections and most business still locates in the West. Clearly the West still more affluent too.

Not exactly comparable situations but lessons to be learned from the German experience for sure.

If it ever happened, and I still don't think it will, you'd also assume an EU aid package for a number of years until the Northern part of the country could survive without its annual 6 billion from the UK.

Religion would have to come out of schools, should do anyway, and we would need to move to a secular state.

FrancieBrady

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

You'd hope the government is consulting with Germany, as we speak, to discuss the issues they faced when the East reunified with the West. Economic differences still exist between the two sections and most business still locates in the West. Clearly the West still more affluent too.

Not exactly comparable situations but lessons to be learned from the German experience for sure.

If it ever happened, and I still don't think it will, you'd also assume an EU aid package for a number of years until the Northern part of the country could survive without its annual 6 billion from the UK.

The all party committee's work included a presentation on the German experience.

jimmytwotimes 2013

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The all party committee's work included a presentation on the German experience.

Cool, hope they get as many answers from the Germans as they can and continue to consult

Boredstiff666

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

If it ever happened, and I still don't think it will, you'd also assume an EU aid package for a number of years until the Northern part of the country could survive without its annual 6 billion from the UK.

.

EU money? From where? The magic money tree? They have just lost the British money and cant agree to replace that and now others are saying 'no more'.

blanch152

McGiver wrote: »

Also it is expected that the UK will, the EU and possibly even the US would chip in, initially. UK and EU for sure, there's no doubt. The UK has to pay for the damage their colonialism and imperialism had caused. And the EU will pay out of principle - in the same way they were involved in the GFA etc - UI will be a culmination of a peace process affecting one of the EU members.

Where will the EU get the money?

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/available-budget/

The total budget for all regional policy was €351 bn, except that was spread over six years meaning €58 bn per year. To get €9bn a year, we would need to take 15.5% of the total budget. But wait, what about Brexit, well Brexit is going to result is less money being available for the EU to spend on regional development, so we will probably need to secure 20% of all regional policy funding for the period 2021-27.

How realistic is it that the EU is going to hand over 20% of all regional funding, already under pressure because of Brexit, to a region that wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for Brexit?

Seriously?