Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

United Ireland Poll - please vote

1910121415155

Comments



  • I think the cross party support has been limited to mild lip service for about 50 years tbh. But it won't wash anymore, and if there's an SF Taoiseach it will become even more of an issue.

    On TV last week Micheal Martin was talking like a politician 10 or 15 years ago, need for discussions and respect etc, lovely soft talk, but unfortunately for people like him partition is a genuine issue again and will probably be the biggest political issue for the next 25 years. Varadkar at least seems to realise that soundbytes that were fine ten years ago aren't enough.

    Martin is trying to wrest control of the UI agenda with his saccharine Unity Unit, which seems more interested in not offending anyone than it is in anything else.
    He sees it (wresting control of the UI agenda)as bolstering his alliance with the SDLP, themselves frantic to restore some political credibility.
    Varadkar will basically say anything in any given situation that he thinks will bolster his statesmanesque inner demons.




  • Martin is trying to wrest control of the UI agenda with his saccharine Unity Unit, which seems more interested in not offending anyone than it is in anything else.
    He sees it (wresting control of the UI agenda)as bolstering his alliance with the SDLP, themselves frantic to restore some political credibility.
    Varadkar will basically say anything in any given situation that he thinks will bolster his statesmanesque inner demons.




    I really get the impression Martin hasn't a notion of taking on the issue at all. He'll be gone as Taoiseach and leader before a border poll anyway, he's just spouting inoffensive positive sounding buzzwords on the issue.

    Varadkar may be looking at it a bit differently, whoever is Taoiseach when there is any change in the constituional position will have a major place in history.




  • I really get the impression Martin hasn't a notion of taking on the issue at all. He'll be gone as Taoiseach and leader before a border poll anyway, he's just spouting inoffensive positive sounding buzzwords on the issue.

    Varadkar may be looking at it a bit differently, whoever is Taoiseach when there is any change in the constituional position will have a major place in history.

    Martin is thinking the party and the long game.
    Varadkar is thinking of whatever comes into his head at a given time.

    Being honest here. I have zero respect for any of them in the context of a fixed position. Possibly a bit more for Martin.




  • Martin is thinking the party and the long game.
    Varadkar is thinking of whatever comes into his head at a given time.

    Being honest here. I have zero respect for any of them in the context of a fixed position. Possibly a bit more for Martin.


    Come on now, Martin is only thinking about nothing but himself, he would have done and said literally anything to become Taoiseach so as he didnt go down as the first FF leader to have not been one. Now that's done hes been given an ultimatum by the parliamentary party that he just has to finish his stint then take the brunt of any FF covid blame. Then when Leo becomes Taoiseach again he steps aside as FF leader and 6 months later they drop the coalition for another election hoping he takes the majority of the stink and they can get more seats than FG.




  • VinLieger wrote: »
    Come on now, Martin is only thinking about nothing but himself, he would have done and said literally anything to become Taoiseach so as he didnt go down as the first FF leader to have not been one. Now that's done hes been given an ultimatum by the parliamentary party that he just has to finish his stint then take the brunt of any FF covid blame. Then when Leo becomes Taoiseach again he steps aside as FF leader and 6 months later they drop the coalition for another election hoping he takes the majority of the stink and they can get more seats than FG.

    Martin had to come up with a different angle to SF and something to bring the SDLP into the fold.

    What better than the saccharine and platitudinous Unity Unit, where people like Dearbhail McDonald get to demonstrate their unwillingness to choose which is really their unwillingness just to admit they don't want a UI (it's ok to not want it Dearbhail...really. :) )


  • Advertisement


  • Didn't this topic come up last week, or maybe I just replied to it then.

    In any case, no thanks.

    * We can't afford it. Even less so once the upcoming austerity kicks in when we've to repay the tens of billions of Euro spent over the last year, and remembering we weren't exactly debt free beforehand

    * We already have a massively inefficient public sector as it is without taking on a province where they're the main employer

    * Security issues. It's not like the hardcore unionists are just going to shrug and go quietly

    * We have enough problems here that we're not dealing with/failing to address. Housing, health, infrastructure, general cost of living etc. Plus why would those in NI want to sign up for those issues?

    * Beyond nationalist romanticism, what benefits are there for the South? I can see why NI would want it if the UK turn off the money tap, and the benefits to them of getting back into the EU, but what do I as an Irish citizen and taxpayer get from the deal beyond more taxes?

    I think the best thing that could happen is that NI becomes an independent state with EU subsidies (as Ireland used to get) and retaining benefits of the CTA and Good Friday agreements, but that's as far as I would go personally.




  • You should read back over this thread or the 'How long before Irish unification' thread. Much of what you ask has been covered more than once.

    If Unionists are treated equally, as they no doubt will be, those missing being privileged or top dog will be upset. They would be in a minority and not able to muster public support IMO. So policing wouldn't be as much of an issue as we've seen.


    This isn't about equality or logic for the Unionists. As with Brexit, this is about identity politics, which nobody can really negotiate or reason with, and which has caused its fair share of wars worldwide.

    As I said, one does not need to have the full support of the population to make a terrible mess of a country. Look at the Sunnis in Iraq - outnumbered by the Shias to be sure, but this didn't prevent them crushing the Iraqi army in 2014 - and they missed their 'privileges' under the Saddam regime to be sure. After the dust settled, after ISIS murdered ten thousands, are you so sure taking their privileges away from them was such a good way to go?

    Even NI's own history should illustrate this. The Nationalists themselves in NI (the ones who endorsed violence anyway) were substantially a minority thirty years ago. That didn't stop the IRA (who were tightly organized, well trained, etc.) from tying down tens of thousands of British troops for years on end and killing thousands, not to mention devastating the NI economy. What about the IRB in 1916? They hardly had support from most Irish people during the rising (Despite what everyone's granny likes to say). Didn't stop Sackville street being turned into a smoking ruin.

    I should also point out that there are plenty of working class Protestants who are not necessarily 'privileged' - but who may well be prepared to resort to violence. Please by all means show me the argument that shows how the Unionists being treated as equal will absolutely prevent them from resorting to force. No sarcasm intended, but honestly I'd like to see a serious plan and breakdown for how the Irish government intends to deal with these issues.

    Peace out,
    Inquirer.




  • Inquirer wrote: »
    Unionist violence.

    The IRA of old and PIRA had achievable aims, the British pulled out of most of Ireland in the case of the former and seriously considered it in the latter and agreed to piss off when a pro-UI vote happens.

    Unionists though? What would they hope to achieve by shooting a couple of innocent Catholics? There is no viable Unionist micro-state to be had. After a pro-UI vote the 'Northern Ireland' ceases to exist. Derry and Belfast are majority Nationalist cities and four of the six counties are non-Unionist majorities.

    548715.png

    So tell me, what would Unionist violence be for?




  • The IRA of old and PIRA had achievable aims, the British pulled out of most of Ireland in the case of the former and seriously considered it in the latter and agreed to piss off when a pro-UI vote happens.

    Several British PM's actively considered pulling out and ordered analysis of it. Wilson, Callaghan and Thatcher to name 3.. The IRA probably got wind of it through spies etc. and would have been spurred on.

    Even the most ardent Loyalist would realise that they would never be able to bomb or kill their way back in.

    That's before you get to the other insurmountable (IMO) how so you arm a campaign capable of destabilising in any major way with all ranged against you, the Irish, the British and American security frces as well as the rest of the EU...to whom a successful transition would be of major importance and not just a feather in the cap good feeling either. It is now in the interests of Ireland, Britain and the rest of the EU that a UI works.




  • Can’t see loyalist violence getting them anywhere, surely can’t bomb their way back into the UK if a vote takes them out! So what will they do?


  • Advertisement


  • Inquirer wrote: »
    This isn't about equality or logic for the Unionists. As with Brexit, this is about identity politics, which nobody can really negotiate or reason with, and which has caused its fair share of wars worldwide.

    As I said, one does not need to have the full support of the population to make a terrible mess of a country. Look at the Sunnis in Iraq - outnumbered by the Shias to be sure, but this didn't prevent them crushing the Iraqi army in 2014 - and they missed their 'privileges' under the Saddam regime to be sure. After the dust settled, after ISIS murdered ten thousands, are you so sure taking their privileges away from them was such a good way to go?

    Even NI's own history should illustrate this. The Nationalists themselves in NI (the ones who endorsed violence anyway) were substantially a minority thirty years ago. That didn't stop the IRA (who were tightly organized, well trained, etc.) from tying down tens of thousands of British troops for years on end and killing thousands, not to mention devastating the NI economy. What about the IRB in 1916? They hardly had support from most Irish people during the rising (Despite what everyone's granny likes to say). Didn't stop Sackville street being turned into a smoking ruin.

    I should also point out that there are plenty of working class Protestants who are not necessarily 'privileged' - but who may well be prepared to resort to violence. Please by all means show me the argument that shows how the Unionists being treated as equal will absolutely prevent them from resorting to force. No sarcasm intended, but honestly I'd like to see a serious plan and breakdown for how the Irish government intends to deal with these issues.

    Peace out,
    Inquirer.

    In short, a terrorist group fighting inequality and injustice will garner more support than a terrorist group fighting for a flag or a feeling of being hard done by because they are treated as equals.
    Never claimed there'd be no violence. I believe it won't be anywhere near what we've had, therefore, getting back to your point, we wouldn't need the same army/policing regime.
    I've zero issue with the 12th. We celebrate Chinese New Year and Bastille day. I don't see any issues with an honest family type celebration of culture.




  • _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    Didn't this topic come up last week, or maybe I just replied to it then.

    In any case, no thanks.

    * We can't afford it. Even less so once the upcoming austerity kicks in when we've to repay the tens of billions of Euro spent over the last year, and remembering we weren't exactly debt free beforehand

    * We already have a massively inefficient public sector as it is without taking on a province where they're the main employer

    * Security issues. It's not like the hardcore unionists are just going to shrug and go quietly

    * We have enough problems here that we're not dealing with/failing to address. Housing, health, infrastructure, general cost of living etc. Plus why would those in NI want to sign up for those issues?

    * Beyond nationalist romanticism, what benefits are there for the South? I can see why NI would want it if the UK turn off the money tap, and the benefits to them of getting back into the EU, but what do I as an Irish citizen and taxpayer get from the deal beyond more taxes?

    I think the best thing that could happen is that NI becomes an independent state with EU subsidies (as Ireland used to get) and retaining benefits of the CTA and Good Friday agreements, but that's as far as I would go personally.

    we certainly can afford it, even if we did end up with austerity which isn't looking likely at the moment, as once NI is free from british rule it's costs reduce due to no longer having to contribute to british institutions such as the military, royal family etc.
    taking NI on means a forced reform of everything, so that would actually be a good thing surely.
    the hardcore unionists realistically won't be able to do very much or engage in a sustained campaign, they no longer and will not have support or arms from the british government and military and security services, and whatever they would be trying to achieve wouldn't work out.
    realistically, it's more likely to be in the event of a yes vote in NI but a no vote within the ROI, that there is the potential for serious security issues, so voting no here in the south won't protect us from security issues if there are any, to be honest.
    same as the public sector, a UI forces reformes of housing health etc.
    what you get is a whole island economy which is stable and which brings greater investment and 2 more cities, 1 being a definite equal to dublin once investment pores in, which will increase economic activity.
    NI as an independant state isn't going to happen, why it is even being suggested is still beyond me as it will never happen.




  • we certainly can afford it, even if we did end up with austerity which isn't looking likely at the moment, as once NI is free from british rule it's costs reduce due to no longer having to contribute to british institutions such as the military, royal family etc.
    taking NI on means a forced reform of everything, so that would actually be a good thing surely.
    the hardcore unionists realistically won't be able to do very much or engage in a sustained campaign, they no longer and will not have support or arms from the british government and military and security services, and whatever they would be trying to achieve wouldn't work out.
    realistically, it's more likely to be in the event of a yes vote in NI but a no vote within the ROI, that there is the potential for serious security issues, so voting no here in the south won't protect us from security issues if there are any, to be honest.
    same as the public sector, a UI forces reformes of housing health etc.
    what you get is a whole island economy which is stable and which brings greater investment and 2 more cities, 1 being a definite equal to dublin once investment pores in, which will increase economic activity.
    NI as an independant state isn't going to happen, why it is even being suggested is still beyond me as it will never happen.


    One question is right up there at the top to the vast majority of voters. How much will come out of my pocket for this?




  • Arlene Foster said again she would emigrate if there was a UI. Should there be financial incentives offered to people who would like to go to the UK? Would be potentially divisive but probably very effective.




  • Arlene Foster said again she would emigrate if there was a UI. Should there be financial incentives offered to people who would like to go to the UK? Would be potentially divisive but probably very effective.


    Incentive - I would take it :)
    And I live south of the border.




  • Arlene Foster said again she would emigrate if there was a UI. Should there be financial incentives offered to people who would like to go to the UK? Would be potentially divisive but probably very effective.

    I find that one of the most bizarre things said in this whole debate.

    Imagine voting for somebody and putting them in the position where they will abandon you to your fate if they fail politically.

    Can't get my head around that.




  • we certainly can afford it, even if we did end up with austerity which isn't looking likely at the moment, as once NI is free from british rule it's costs reduce due to no longer having to contribute to british institutions such as the military, royal family etc.

    Make no mistake, austerity is coming. Pascal and others have already been making noises about the next budgets.
    taking NI on means a forced reform of everything, so that would actually be a good thing surely.

    When have we EVER reformed anything effectively here? I even read somewhere the other day that there's a suggestion of devolving the HSE back into regional health boards again
    the hardcore unionists realistically won't be able to do very much or engage in a sustained campaign, they no longer and will not have support or arms from the british government and military and security services, and whatever they would be trying to achieve wouldn't work out.

    Maybe, but personally I'd rather not see a return to the days of coded warnings and bomb threats on busy streets - and likely not just up North either.
    what you get is a whole island economy which is stable and which brings greater investment and 2 more cities, 1 being a definite equal to dublin once investment pores in, which will increase economic activity.

    An all-island economy is pure speculation. Look at the situation as it is with the huge dependency and bias towards Dublin. We already have other regions complaining constantly about that. Imagine telling them that further investment was going north rather than to their areas.
    NI as an independant state isn't going to happen, why it is even being suggested is still beyond me as it will never happen.

    Maybe not, but it's probably the cleanest option for all sides really.




  • Arlene Foster said again she would emigrate if there was a UI. Should there be financial incentives offered to people who would like to go to the UK? Would be potentially divisive but probably very effective.

    I think you may not have fully thought this one through. You may find that it is unionists who have the greatest attachment to NI. Many nationalists may take the incentive and follow family members to GB, thereby increasing the unionist majority in NI




  • downcow wrote: »
    I think you may not have fully thought this one through. You may find that it is unionists who have the greatest attachment to NI. Many nationalists may take the incentive and follow family members to GB, thereby increasing the unionist majority in NI


    This would be in the event of a positive result in a UI referendum. Let whoever wants to avail of resettlement grants take them, going from what unionist leaders say there will probably be a good few who will be going anyway, so make it a bit easier for them.




  • Sounds a lot like something Robert Mugabe came up with

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Land_seizures_and_growing_condemnation:_2000–2008

    and in south Africa


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_South_Africa

    is there a when terrorists take power hand book or something ?


  • Advertisement


  • The vote would be a vast majority if it went to the people in the south.

    I think there'll be a UI in the next 30/40 years.




  • Sounds a lot like something Robert Mugabe came up with

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Land_seizures_and_growing_condemnation:_2000–2008

    and in south Africa


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_South_Africa

    is there a when terrorists take power hand book or something ?

    The Irish government, (terrorists who took power) nor British, (also terrorists and occupiers) never offered such a thing to my knowledge.

    Unlikely Unionists would vote for such seizures. You know it would be a fair equal democracy right?




  • Sounds a lot like something Robert Mugabe came up with

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Land_seizures_and_growing_condemnation:_2000–2008

    and in south Africa


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_South_Africa

    is there a when terrorists take power hand book or something ?


    It's far too long since the Plantation to have land reform, but its still a potentially good idea to offer help with relocation if people want to remain in the UK, following a potential NI vote for reunification.




  • Inquirer wrote: »
    I'm going to (Gulp) wade into this one.


    Please, lets keep this reasonably respectful. I know for many people here this is a highly charged issue, and I am not trying to personally have a go at anybody or disrespect anybody's ideals.

    During the height of the troubles, the British army had 14,000 - 27,000 troops stationed in Northern Ireland. They also had the option of rotating these troops out with the 150+ total that they had in their army back then.

    The Irish army at present have, what? 7,300? Plus 1300 reservists and the air corps and 'navy.' Would this be realistically enough to police northern Ireland?

    We need to ask ourselves a harsh question here: if things went really bad, I mean ... worst case scenario, does our army, police force and state have the numbers, resources and competence to handle such a situation? I haven't heard a single seriously thought-out response to this question.

    Lets say large numbers of Unionists simply refuse, point blank, to respect any referendum. I should point out that insurgencies do not require the vast majority of any given population to be hostile. A small, well-trained force just need to make a mess - look at the Taliban, or hell, the IRB. Does anybody here really have the balls to face up to bombings on O'Connell street? Or the threat of assassinations, or god forbid, widespread conventional warfare if the Irish army isn't up to the job?

    Now I want people to really look at the situation we're facing at the moment in the north and the world:

    Post-covid, the world is ridiculously unstable. We're living in a world where the Capitol hill was stormed. That which was strong and reliable is no longer. Things are unpredictable. I think there's too many negative scenarios that could happen.

    There is widespread unemployment and dependency on public jobs in northern Ireland, not to mention a not-wonderful political system ('Cash for ash' - anyone heard of that?) I don't claim to know much about NI politics - but I know enough to know that unification would be a BIG risk - and I know a potential conflict zone when I see one. And I, personally, do not feel some nationalist desire to 'save' people who may, frankly, not care for us when we're the ones in charge - I seriously fear the IRA as well. Southern Ireland itself is not as strong a social or economic system as we all think we are. Hell, only a few years ago we were nearly prostrated by the economic recession, yet we all suddenly seem keen on taking on the NHS and etc. Could we deal with an insurgency going on for years or decades? Does anybody here want to deal with conscription? Or paying for a much larger army? Obviously, these are worst-case, nightmare scenarios. But somebody has to point these out. I think we should take a breather here.

    With Respect, inquirer.

    You could compare the scenario in the North after a successful United Ireland vote to Dublin and Donegal in 1921. There were lot of Unionists in Dublin and Donegal in 1921. They just shut up, went with the flow and kept a low profile when the 26 Counties gained independence. That's what will happen up the North if there is a united Ireland.
    The pragmatist within them will take over and they will realise they are on a hiding to nothing if they keep on whinging and whining about their situation.




  • This would be in the event of a positive result in a UI referendum. Let whoever wants to avail of resettlement grants take them, going from what unionist leaders say there will probably be a good few who will be going anyway, so make it a bit easier for them.

    Resettlement grants? Are they not just a nicer modern version of what happened in Zimbabwe and South Africa? Or just revenge on Cromwell and the plantations?

    Those who propose them just don't realise or accept that people are entitled to live on this island as British.




  • _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    Make no mistake, austerity is coming. Pascal and others have already been making noises about the next budgets.



    When have we EVER reformed anything effectively here? I even read somewhere the other day that there's a suggestion of devolving the HSE back into regional health boards again



    Maybe, but personally I'd rather not see a return to the days of coded warnings and bomb threats on busy streets - and likely not just up North either.



    An all-island economy is pure speculation. Look at the situation as it is with the huge dependency and bias towards Dublin. We already have other regions complaining constantly about that. Imagine telling them that further investment was going north rather than to their areas.



    Maybe not, but it's probably the cleanest option for all sides really.

    there probably will be some cutbacks for a time certainly, but i don't think it will be quite serious austerity, after all the economy was in a good place before covid and while covid will have caused some job losses and business closures the economy will bounce back ultimately once we are out of the pandemic situation.
    in a UI situation, the world's eyes will be on us, so we will absolutely have to reform things in a proper manner, there will be serious pressure on us to insure we do it.
    none of us want to return to violence, but realistically, the more likely situation for violence to happen is in a yes vote in NI but no vote in ROI situation, because in that case hardcore republicans/nationalists will have an argument to say that their home country have rejected them.
    the fact is belfast is a bigger city then cork etc, so ultimately they will have to lump it that the island's second city is getting investement to build it up, investment it needed since the GFA and has been getting very little of.
    realistically, an independant northern ireland isn't a clean option, but in fact a potentially dangerous one given the DUP would likely seaze it as an opportunity to return it to a sectarian state. realistically the clean option is a no vote in NI.




  • The amount of public service workers in the North will be a massive issue when it comes to vote. In fact, it could be a deal breaker.

    Isn't it something like 30% of the NI workforce is public service? Something crazy like that.




  • 6 wrote: »
    The amount of public service workers in the North will be a massive issue when it comes to vote.

    I suspect, due to Brexit, the north is going to experience some pretty serious austerity in the coming years including slashing of public/civil service jobs.




  • blanch152 wrote: »
    Resettlement grants? Are they not just a nicer modern version of what happened in Zimbabwe and South Africa? Or just revenge on Cromwell and the plantations?

    Those who propose them just don't realise or accept that people are entitled to live on this island as British.

    Of course they are. We have all sorts living here. Most welcome they are too.
    I hope Verona Murphy doesn't suggest re-education camps :eek:


  • Advertisement


  • we certainly can afford it, even if we did end up with austerity which isn't looking likely at the moment, as once NI is free from british rule it's costs reduce due to no longer having to contribute to british institutions such as the military, royal family etc.

    You keep mentioning that we can afford it, but just to clarify a couple of points. NI does not contribute to the running of the British royal family, their income comes from a grant from the British government equal to 25% of the income of the royal estates. That amounts to about £80-90m per year. Even if they paid the lot of it directly, that's a drop in the ocean compared to the £9bn subvention Britain pays every year to prop up the NI economy.

    Secondly, a lot of that support comes in the form of public sector jobs in NI, it's the single biggest employer there. What happens to all those jobs if NI leaves the UK? It's not like all of them will be automatically transferrable to our public sector, that's already bloated as it is. So instead of all those people contributing to the economy many are more likely to end up on the dole, which will cost us even more.

    No matter how you dice it, NI receives vastly more from the UK than it contributes to the central coffers. That in itself isn't unusual, the tax take in Dublin supports the cost of maintaining services in other parts of the country. But the sheer scale of what would be foisted upon us would end up either crippling the economy here, and probably not helping the NI economy much either as they certainly wouldn't be getting £9bn a year, or would result in significant tax hikes for everyone. Personally I feel I pay more than enough tax, and being asked to pay more for some people's romantic notion of a United Ireland is not something that I would be happy to do.


Advertisement