United Ireland Poll - please vote

ittakestwo

The Great wrote: »

"Nationalist or anyone from Ireland are Irish by that fact. "

WRONG ! Just because you were born in a stable, it does not make you a horse.

We had a Referendum in 2004 to allow our government change citizenship laws to avoid recognising Irish born children of illegal immigrants the right to Irish Citizenship. Pretty clear from the Referendum that we (75% of the electorate) did not see these people as Irish

"The British in Ireland is by citizenship which is precarious on the UK surving or the North staying in the union"

Ireland has NO sovereignty to Northern Ireland. Never had. UK has. It is a matter for the people of NI and only NI as to whether they will stay with the UK or not

I highly highly highly doubt, if NI leave the UK to set up their own nation or join the South, that Westminster will enact UK wide legislation to change their citizenship laws which would prevent people of Northern Ireland born at the time of the act , from applying for British Citizenship. Maybe prevent people born after the enactment of such legislation, but even then , they would be able to get their British Citizenship from their parent (and maybe grandparent) They won't be able to revoke British citizenship from Unionists who already possess it. You don't have a leg to stand on . That view is nonsense. There is no legal basis for this. People like you should refrain from uttering such ill informed statements like that .


"It can only be inferred by the unionists who say they aren't Irish but British only that they see themselves as foreigners to this Island."

At no stage has the State of Ireland, ever have sovereignty over the 6 counties of Northern Ireland. Old Article 2 and 3 were mere rhetorical and in the words of the Supreme Court in the case of McGimpsey v Ireland 1988(ish) "aspirational".

Northern Ireland is part of the UK. It was not until 1998 that a kid born in NI, but the island of Ireland, could simply apply for Irish Passport without doing anything else

Prior to GFA, the only people being constitutionally entitled to citizenship of the Irish state post-1937 Constitution were those who had been citizens of the Irish Free State before its dissolution. The 1956 Act as amended, prior to GFA provided that anyone born in Northern Ireland was NOT automatically an Irish citizen but entitled to be an Irish citizen - by making applications for it . People like Mary McAleese was deemed an Irish Citizen as of birth via her father, who was born in Roscommon - how embarrassing for Republicans in the North

GFA DOES NOT and Never purported to remove the automatic birth right of all born in NI to be British Citizens !!

All those born in NI are still automatically British Citizens , just like pre 1998 - This was a recent event in the De Sousa case in NI . That case still requires that specific issue to be answered by the Superior Courts because at Appeal, the Court reserved judgment on that point, instead favouring her on other points. (the point being whether or not she had to renounce her British citizenship - she claimed, laughably, that she never had British Citizenship (she was born before GFA)

Your post miss misunderstood the point.

An identity of being from a place is just that. If you are born and raised in x therefore you are from x and can identify as being from x. For example a person born and raised in England is English. They're not an English citizen as there is no such thing. A person from Ireland born and raised can say they are Irish. Everyone born and raised in the North is Irish by that fact in the same way everyone born and raised in the north of England is English.

The British identity in the north is by their citizenship. What happens when the UK dissolves which is the growing threat due to a rise of English and Scottish nationalism. There will be no such thing as a British citizen. People born and raised on Ireland by that fact were not born and raised on Britain so the unionist identity of being British is gone.

Some unionists also see themselves as Irish but many just say they're British with no Irish identity. It can only be inferred by this that they see themselves as foreigners to Ireland. That their ancestry originally come from Britain and are only here while there is rule from Britain. So if there was a resettlement grant it only makes sence to offer to people who see themselves as foreigners.

Junkyard Tom

Hamsterchops wrote: »

would we be mad to let it happen (without total buy-in from the Unionists)?

A unionist vote will equal one vote and that's the end of it.

James Brown

hots wrote: »

you'd make a good divorce lawyer

I don't see the comparison. If were going off on one, if your son/daughter moves out do you send them a bill for part of the mortgage?

James Brown

The Great wrote: »

"Nationalist or anyone from Ireland are Irish by that fact. "

WRONG ! Just because you were born in a stable, it does not make you a horse.
...

Makes you born in a stable and if the stable is in London it would make you English, if it's in Carlow or Belfast, Irish.

The Great

ittakestwo wrote: »

Your post miss understood the point.

An identity of being from a place is just that. If you are born and raised in x therefore you are from x and can identify as being from x. For example a person born and raised in England is English. They're not an English citizen as there is no such thing. A person from Ireland born and raised can say they are Irish. Everyone born and raised in the North is Irish by that fact in the same way everyone born and raised in the north of England is English.

The British identity in the north is by their citizenship. What happens when the UK dissolves which is the growing threat due to a rise of English and Scottish nationalism. There will be no such thing as a British citizen. People born and raised on Ireland by that fact were not born and raised on Britain so the unionist identity of being British is gone.

Some unionists also see themselves as Irish but many just say they're British with no Irish identity. It can only be inferred by this that they see themselves as foreigners to Ireland. That their ancestry originally come from Britain and are only here while there is rule from Britain. So if there was a resettlement grant it only makes sence to offer to people who see themselves as foreigners.

The point was engulfed with major inaccuracies . Your most recent comment gets even worse.

" If you are born and raised in x therefore you are from x and can identify as being from x. "

You could, but it does not mean that you are factually and legally correct !

" A person from Ireland born and raised can say they are Irish."

NO, not all of them! This has been clearly explained. What difficulty do you suffer from this blatant failure to comprehend this legal fact?

" Everyone born and raised in the North is Irish by that fact "

Someone please help with to read properly , maybe explain relatively simple words to you.

Ireland consists of 26 counties. It does not consist of 6 counties. Legal FACT.

Irish legislation claim extra territory on people outside the 26 Counties. A matter that might be at odds with International law if tested.

Irish Citizenship is merely an "entitlement" for people from NI. They do not need to take it and they are entitled not to be considered Irish, if they so wish. That is NOT the same as declaring that everyone born on the island is Irish

Section 6 of the Irish Citizenship Act "Subject to section 6A , every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen"

That is different to saying "every born born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen"

"What happens when the UK dissolves "

Laughable assumption that this will happen or anytime soon . You know nothing about Britain or Northern Ireland . The rise of Scottish Nationalism ...lol

eire4

James Brown wrote: »

Makes you born in a stable and if the stable is in London it would make you English.

Not necessarily. A person can be born anywhere for various reasons but not be of the country they were technically born in. For example an Irish diplomat on assignment in say France has a kid.

end of the road

blanch152 wrote: »

Legacy NI debt is a proportionate share of UK debt. The only question is whether UK debt is divided by population, by GDP or by share of UK public expenditure.

if we even agree to take a proportion of it, it will be divided along whatever creates the smallest amount otherwise there will be no agreement to take it, even if there is an agreement to take it, for which we have no obligation to take on any part of the UK'S national debt, even though technically it would be NI doing it.

ittakestwo

The Great wrote: »

The point was engulfed with major inaccuracies . Your most recent comment gets even worse.

" If you are born and raised in x therefore you are from x and can identify as being from x. "

You could, but it does not mean that you are factually and legally correct !

" A person from Ireland born and raised can say they are Irish."

NO, not all of them! This has been clearly explained. What difficulty do you suffer from this blatant failure to comprehend this legal fact?

" Everyone born and raised in the North is Irish by that fact "

Someone please help with to read properly , maybe explain relatively simple words to you.

Ireland consists of 26 counties. It does not consist of 6 counties. Legal FACT.

Irish legislation claim extra territory on people outside the 26 Counties. A matter that might be at odds with International law if tested.

Irish Citizenship is merely an "entitlement" for people from NI. They do not need to take it and they are entitled not to be considered Irish, if they so wish. That is NOT the same as declaring that everyone born on the island is Irish

Section 6 of the Irish Citizenship Act "Subject to section 6A , every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen"

That is different to saying "every born born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen"

"What happens when the UK dissolves "

Laughable assumption that this will happen or anytime soon . You know nothing about Britain or Northern Ireland . The rise of Scottish Nationalism ...lol

I am not referring to citizenship. You can say you are from a place without that being your citzenship. Can a person
say they are English or Scottish? What quaifys a person to say theyre English or Scottish? Can you answer those two questions?


And yes the rise in Scottish nationalism. In 2015, 46% voted for independence.

James Brown

The Great wrote: »

The point was engulfed with major inaccuracies . Your most recent comment gets even worse.

" If you are born and raised in x therefore you are from x and can identify as being from x. "

You could, but it does not mean that you are factually and legally correct !

" A person from Ireland born and raised can say they are Irish."

NO, not all of them! This has been clearly explained. What difficulty do you suffer from this blatant failure to comprehend this legal fact?

" Everyone born and raised in the North is Irish by that fact "

Someone please help with to read properly , maybe explain relatively simple words to you.

Ireland consists of 26 counties. It does not consist of 6 counties. Legal FACT.

Irish legislation claim extra territory on people outside the 26 Counties. A matter that might be at odds with International law if tested.

Irish Citizenship is merely an "entitlement" for people from NI. They do not need to take it and they are entitled not to be considered Irish, if they so wish. That is NOT the same as declaring that everyone born on the island is Irish

Section 6 of the Irish Citizenship Act "Subject to section 6A , every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen"

That is different to saying "every born born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen"

"What happens when the UK dissolves "

Laughable assumption that this will happen or anytime soon . You know nothing about Britain or Northern Ireland . The rise of Scottish Nationalism ...lol

I think you are confusing citizenship status with where someone is born. I know a girl born in Africa, lived in Canada with Irish parents, (protestants from the north actually, interesting if not really relevant) and she considers herself Canadian citizen but African due to birth.
Will you tell her or will I?

Tell you what, you go to Scotland, Wales, England, the U.S.A, Australia and tell them you were born in Belfast and explain why they shouldn't refer to you as Irish, because they will.

blanch152

ittakestwo wrote: »

Your post miss misunderstood the point.

An identity of being from a place is just that. If you are born and raised in x therefore you are from x and can identify as being from x. For example a person born and raised in England is English. They're not an English citizen as there is no such thing. A person from Ireland born and raised can say they are Irish. Everyone born and raised in the North is Irish by that fact in the same way everyone born and raised in the north of England is English.

The British identity in the north is by their citizenship. What happens when the UK dissolves which is the growing threat due to a rise of English and Scottish nationalism. There will be no such thing as a British citizen. People born and raised on Ireland by that fact were not born and raised on Britain so the unionist identity of being British is gone.

Some unionists also see themselves as Irish but many just say they're British with no Irish identity. It can only be inferred by this that they see themselves as foreigners to Ireland. That their ancestry originally come from Britain and are only here while there is rule from Britain. So if there was a resettlement grant it only makes sence to offer to people who see themselves as foreigners.

A person born in Ireland is from Ireland, that doesn't mean they are Irish. Identity and place are no longer intrinsically linked. The Irish nation encompasses many people, some born in Ireland, some born in Northern Ireland, some born in Australia etc.

A person born in Northern Ireland is from Northern Ireland and can be British or Irish as they wish.

A person born as a man can identify as a woman, nothing wrong with that, and you can't deny them their right to identity, in the same way that you cannot deny unionists their birthright to identify as British.

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

A person born in Ireland is from Ireland, that doesn't mean they are Irish. Identity and place are no longer intrinsically linked. The Irish nation encompasses many people, some born in Ireland, some born in Northern Ireland, some born in Australia etc.

A person born in Northern Ireland is from Northern Ireland and can be British or Irish as they wish.

A person born as a man can identify as a woman, nothing wrong with that, and you can't deny them their right to identity, in the same way that you cannot deny unionists their birthright to identify as British.

Regarding your first paragraph. If a person is from a place. You can use the demonym of that place to describe them. The demonym of Ireland is Irish. So if you're are from Ireland you are Irish by that fact.

Regarding second paragraph. You are now taking about citizenship. In 2021 people from the North can be both British and Irish citizens. But citizenship only lasts or exists as long as the sovereign jurisdiction exists. My great grandparents were Irish but not Irish citizens as it did not exist. The British citizenship in the North is dependent on the UK surviving.

Regarding third paragraph. If unionists identify as British only and in the real case of no British citizenship existing then they must see themselves as foreigners to Ireland. People like Arlene Foster said they would emigrate if there was a UI. Presumably she does not see herself as Irish and will only live on Ireland if there is British rule in Ireland. There must be thousands of unionists like this that will want to move if there is a UI.

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

Your post miss misunderstood the point.

An identity of being from a place is just that. If you are born and raised in x therefore you are from x and can identify as being from x. For example a person born and raised in England is English. They're not an English citizen as there is no such thing. A person from Ireland born and raised can say they are Irish. Everyone born and raised in the North is Irish by that fact in the same way everyone born and raised in the north of England is English.

The British identity in the north is by their citizenship. What happens when the UK dissolves which is the growing threat due to a rise of English and Scottish nationalism. There will be no such thing as a British citizen. People born and raised on Ireland by that fact were not born and raised on Britain so the unionist identity of being British is gone.

Some unionists also see themselves as Irish but many just say they're British with no Irish identity. It can only be inferred by this that they see themselves as foreigners to Ireland. That their ancestry originally come from Britain and are only here while there is rule from Britain. So if there was a resettlement grant it only makes sence to offer to people who see themselves as foreigners.

This is completely wrong. The courts have ruled to the contrary.
Everyone born in the North is British by birth. They then have, under the Good Friday agreement, the right to take up Irish nationality.
I am honestly not sure if they still remain British, or whether they can rescind their British identity - I don't think that one has been tested in the courts. Maybe someone else knows otherwise?

downcow

James Brown wrote: »

I think you are confusing citizenship status with where someone is born. I know a girl born in Africa, lived in Canada with Irish parents, (protestants from the north actually, interesting if not really relevant) and she considers herself Canadian citizen but African due to birth.
Will you tell her or will I?

Tell you what, you go to Scotland, Wales, England, the U.S.A, Australia and tell them you were born in Belfast and explain why they shouldn't refer to you as Irish, because they will.

People can refer to any of us as anything they like, that doesn't make it correct. There is a guy lives up the road from me and I think he is a Martian - but that doesn't make a Martian

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

Regarding your first paragraph. If a person is from a place. You can use the demonym of that place to describe them. The demonym of Ireland is Irish. So if you're are from Ireland you are Irish by that fact.

Regarding second paragraph. You are now taking about citizenship. In 2021 people from the North can be both British and Irish citizens. But citizenship only lasts or exists as long as the sovereign jurisdiction exists. My great grandparents were Irish but not Irish citizens as it did not exist. The British citizenship in the North is dependent on the UK surviving.

Regarding third paragraph. If unionists identify as British only and in the real case of no British citizenship existing then they must see themselves as foreigners to Ireland. People like Arlene Foster said they would emigrate if there was a UI. Presumably she does not see herself as Irish and will only live on Ireland if there is British rule in Ireland. There must be thousands of unionists like this that will want to move if there is a UI.

So does that make someone born in Cork, British, because they were born on the British Isles?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

This is completely wrong. The courts have ruled to the contrary.
Everyone born in the North is British by birth. They then have, under the Good Friday agreement, the right to take up Irish nationality.
I am honestly not sure if they still remain British, or whether they can rescind their British identity - I don't think that one has been tested in the courts. Maybe someone else knows otherwise?

A legal construct of a foreign entity (Britain), does not change the fact that this island is Irish and those born on it are Irish and then quite legally and correctly identify as they wish.

We could make laws saying anyone born here is Martian, but that, as you know and outline in your next post, does not make them Martians.

blanch152

end of the road wrote: »

if we even agree to take a proportion of it, it will be divided along whatever creates the smallest amount otherwise there will be no agreement to take it, even if there is an agreement to take it, for which we have no obligation to take on any part of the UK'S national debt, even though technically it would be NI doing it.

If there is no agreement to take on the debt of Northern Ireland, unification would be delayed for monetary reasons.

There are precedents. West Germany took on all of the East German debt on reunification. Czechoslovakia's properties and debts were split on a population basis between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Like it or not, the precedent and the obligations under international law would mean that we are required to take on the international debt of Northern Ireland. If the UK play hardball, (and if a Boris Johnson is Prime Minister, they will) then we could be asked to take on the historical debt due to the subvention for example.

The unicorns and rainbow perspective of the EU and the UK paying for reunification is a 1980s dream from when the EU was smaller and Ireland was the poor relation. It is not a runner anymore.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A legal construct of a foreign entity (Britain), does not change the fact that this island is Irish and those born on it are Irish and then quite legally and correctly identify as they wish.

We could make laws saying anyone born here is Martian, but that, as you know and outline in your next post, does not make them Martians.

Wow, just wow.

Citizenship by birthright does not exist in Ireland or in Northern Ireland. Checkout the map with this report.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/birthright-citizenship/global.php

In fact, it does not exist anywhere in Europe either.

You can keep making posts saying that those born on this island are Irish, but as you know and have had explained to you many times, that does not make them Irish, as it is nothing more than a fantastical construct.

James Brown

downcow wrote: »

People can refer to any of us as anything they like, that doesn't make it correct. There is a guy lives up the road from me and I think he is a Martian - but that doesn't make a Martian

They can of course. Why would it? Unless you where born on Mars, then it would.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A legal construct of a foreign entity (Britain), does not change the fact that this island is Irish and those born on it are Irish and then quite legally and correctly identify as they wish.

We could make laws saying anyone born here is Martian, but that, as you know and outline in your next post, does not make them Martians.

Oh absolutely, there is nothing illegal about identifying as you wish.

blanch152

ittakestwo wrote: »

Regarding your first paragraph. If a person is from a place. You can use the demonym of that place to describe them. The demonym of Ireland is Irish. So if you're are from Ireland you are Irish by that fact.

You can, but it has no legal standing, it is demeaning and insulting in certain contexts and carries seriously dangerous extreme nationalist undertones.

Imagine if you tell someone born in America on a Sioux reservation that he is American not Sioux. Imagine if you tell someone born in Turkey that he is Turkish not Kurdish.

Once you take your small-minded example out of its small-minded context and apply it more generally, the unacceptable nature of it becomes clear.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A legal construct of a foreign entity (Britain), does not change the fact that this island is Irish and those born on it are Irish and then quite legally and correctly identify as they wish.

We could make laws saying anyone born here is Martian, but that, as you know and outline in your next post, does not make them Martians.

have you gone all freeman of the land on us ?

blanch152

wicklowstevo wrote: »

have you gone all freeman of the land on us ?

It does sound like that, doesn't it. Deny the law, deny the international agreement, and just put your own interpretation out there.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You can, but it has no legal standing, it is demeaning and insulting in certain contexts and carries seriously dangerous extreme nationalist undertones.

Imagine if you tell someone born in America on a Sioux reservation that he is American not Sioux. Imagine if you tell someone born in Turkey that he is Turkish not Kurdish.

Once you take your small-minded example out of its small-minded context and apply it more generally, the unacceptable nature of it becomes clear.

Once you take somebody off this island they are seen as Irish. Paisley, Trimble etc all accepted that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It does sound like that, doesn't it. Deny the law, deny the international agreement, and just put your own interpretation out there.

I haven't denied the international agreement. I clearly said then quite legally and correctly identify as they wish.

Zaph

blanch152 wrote: »

Legacy NI debt is a proportionate share of UK debt. The only question is whether UK debt is divided by population, by GDP or by share of UK public expenditure.

Just to put some numbers on this so we can see what we're actually dealing with.

At the end of 2020 the UK national debt was EUR 2,229bn. That's two trillion Euros. Obviously the easiest way to calculate NI's share quickly is by population. In 2019 NI had 2.8% of the UK population, so their share equals EUR 62.4bn. Ireland's national debt stood at EUR 219bn at the end of the year, so taking on NI's 62.4bn would increase the national debt by 28.5%. That's an extra EUR 62bn of debt to be serviced annually, on top of all the other costs we'd be lumbered with. And it's all very well saying that an all-Ireland economy will be more attractive to FDI, but even this week the US government is talking about a global minimum tax rate of 21% on US companies. That suddenly makes our 12.5% rate look a lot less appealing if they still have to pay an extra 8.5% to Uncle Sam to meet the minimum rate. There is absolutely no economic sense in a UI, certainly not now or in the short to medium term. Maybe at some stage in the future the numbers will work, but anyone who thinks they work now is only deluding themselves with their misty-eyed dreams of a single country on the island of Ireland.

James Brown

Zaph wrote: »

Just to put some numbers on this so we can see what we're actually dealing with.

At the end of 2020 the UK national debt was EUR 2,229bn. That's two trillion Euros. Obviously the easiest way to calculate NI's share quickly is by population. In 2019 NI had 2.8% of the UK population, so their share equals EUR 62.4bn. Ireland's national debt stood at EUR 219bn at the end of the year, so taking on NI's 62.4bn would increase the national debt by 28.5%. That's an extra EUR 62bn of debt to be serviced annually, on top of all the other costs we'd be lumbered with. And it's all very well saying that an all-Ireland economy will be more attractive to FDI, but even this week the US government is talking about a global minimum tax rate of 21% on US companies. That suddenly makes our 12.5% rate look a lot less appealing if they still have to pay an extra 8.5% to Uncle Sam to meet the minimum rate. There is absolutely no economic sense in a UI, certainly not now or in the short to medium term. Maybe at some stage in the future the numbers will work, but anyone who thinks they work now is only deluding themselves with their misty-eyed dreams of a single country on the island of Ireland.

If a family member came to your door would you do sums before inviting them in?

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

You can, but it has no legal standing, it is demeaning and insulting in certain contexts and carries seriously dangerous extreme nationalist undertones.

Imagine if you tell someone born in America on a Sioux reservation that he is American not Sioux. Imagine if you tell someone born in Turkey that he is Turkish not Kurdish.

Once you take your small-minded example out of its small-minded context and apply it more generally, the unacceptable nature of it becomes clear.

downcow wrote: »

This is completely wrong. The courts have ruled to the contrary.
Everyone born in the North is British by birth. They then have, under the Good Friday agreement, the right to take up Irish nationality.
I am honestly not sure if they still remain British, or whether they can rescind their British identity - I don't think that one has been tested in the courts. Maybe someone else knows otherwise?

People from the North are automatically British citizens by birth but they're are not from Britain and are from Ireland. In the same way an English person is British by birth but from England. British citizenship will only last as long as the UK jurisdiction survives. Citizenship can change. Everyone in the north were European citizens two years ago and now they're not.

For the unionist who's connection to where they are from is dependent on what jurisdiction it is part of are in trouble when the jurisdiction collapses or becomes part of another. They are making no connection to the real place and will see themselves as foreigners in the North if not be part of the UK

FrancieBrady

Zaph wrote: »

Just to put some numbers on this so we can see what we're actually dealing with.

At the end of 2020 the UK national debt was EUR 2,229bn. That's two trillion Euros. Obviously the easiest way to calculate NI's share quickly is by population. In 2019 NI had 2.8% of the UK population, so their share equals EUR 62.4bn. Ireland's national debt stood at EUR 219bn at the end of the year, so taking on NI's 62.4bn would increase the national debt by 28.5%. That's an extra EUR 62bn of debt to be serviced annually, on top of all the other costs we'd be lumbered with. And it's all very well saying that an all-Ireland economy will be more attractive to FDI, but even this week the US government is talking about a global minimum tax rate of 21% on US companies. That suddenly makes our 12.5% rate look a lot less appealing if they still have to pay an extra 8.5% to Uncle Sam to meet the minimum rate. There is absolutely no economic sense in a UI, certainly not now or in the short to medium term. Maybe at some stage in the future the numbers will work, but anyone who thinks they work now is only deluding themselves with their misty-eyed dreams of a single country on the island of Ireland.

When the UK left the EU, they had no negotiating position when it came to their debt to the EU. The EU had the power to say pay or PFO.

The same does not apply in the event of a UI vote by a majority, the UK are not in a position, by dint of what they have agreed to already, to make it a take it or leave it stance.
They have committed to 'making a UI happen'.

So 'debt' will be negotiated to sustainable levels, unless our negotiators are weak, would be my guess.

Zaph

James Brown wrote: »

If a family member came to your door would you do sums before inviting them in?

There's a bit of a difference between a family member and 1.9m people I don't know. As I've said before, even excluding the financial implications, a UI is something I'm pretty ambivalent about anyway, as I fail to see what benefits it brings to the Republic.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When the UK left the EU, they had no negotiating position when it came to their debt to the EU. The EU had the power to say pay or PFO.

The same does not apply in the event of a UI vote by a majority, the UK are not in a position, by dint of what they have agreed to already, to make it a take it or leave it stance.
They have committed to 'making a UI happen'.

So 'debt' will be negotiated to sustainable levels, unless our negotiators are weak, would be my guess.

It's a fair point, and I would imagine that there would be significant bargaining on that point from very early on given the magnitude of the impact it could have. That said, if negotiations were to start tomorrow I can't say that I'd be massively confident in our negotiators, we'd probably end up taking Scotland's national debt as well.

Hamsterchops

Here's a thought, British institutions!

If there was to be a "United" Ireland would we allow certain British institutions to come in here along with the Unionist people?

The NHS for example, could we come to some agreement with Westminster whereby the NHS is extended down to the South with us contributing as part of a new Ireland?

Same for the BBC, would we allow the BBC to remain on this island if the Unionist people wanted to keep it, and if the BBC allowed. RTE & BBC available island wide in your car (terrestrial).

Then there's that old chestnut about Ireland (the whole island of) being part of the Commonwealth of countries, this would also make it easier for Unionism to swallow the pill, but would we agree to it?

All of the above in the context of the island becoming one entity, one country, one nation, while inviting Ulster Unionism into the ROI fold.

Personally, I'd love to be able to receive the BBC on my car radio, I'd also love us to have the NHS as our health service, so if we ever convince the North to leave the UK, can those institutions be part of an agreement?

Brings this whole island closer (but separate) to the Great Britain I guess, which still might be a problem for some?