Costs of Irish unification.

tomwaterford · 30-12-2017 09:59AM

HivemindXX wrote: »

You are the one who cannot be taken seriously. Your critical thinking skills are sorely lacking. You should try some analysis and take in ideas from outside your bubble. Randomly capitalising trite phrases also does nothing. Of course you've already admitted all you are doing is taking the piss so perhaps you don't care to put any work in to formulating an actual argument.

What has he/she said wrong?

Is it not true the north has moved on from violence and many of what's purported as debate here is merely rehashing of decades old caractures/trying to create bogeyman and if was attempted about immigrants would be closed down and result in bans??

Sidey · 30-12-2017 10:17AM

HivemindXX wrote: »

You are the one who cannot be taken seriously. Your critical thinking skills are sorely lacking. You should try some analysis and take in ideas from outside your bubble. Randomly capitalising trite phrases also does nothing. Of course you've already admitted all you are doing is taking the piss so perhaps you don't care to put any work in to formulating an actual argument.

Yerra so my last few posts are full of actual facts, ya know election results, demographic changes, historical facts and trends, actual text of relevant legislation/GFA etc. And attempting to get some meat on the bones of daft ideas like demanding a majority of unionists have to vote for a UI and how on earth that is supposed to work in practice.

It's the hysterical partitionists that aren't making any sort of reality-based contribution at all, just cliches, crude stereotypes and general nonsense.

PeadarCo · 30-12-2017 10:40AM

Sidey wrote:

Yerra so my last few posts are full of actual facts, ya know election results, demographic changes, historical facts and trends, actual text of relevant legislation/GFA etc. And attempting to get some meat on the bones of daft ideas like demanding a majority of unionists have to vote for a UI and how on earth that is supposed to work in practice.

Just because someone votes Sinn Fein does not necessarily mean that they will vote for reunification. The same for demographics changes. The Scottish referendum is a very good example.

The reason why some people would like to see the majority of unionists to vote in favour of a united Ireland is reduce the amount of violence. Given northern Irelands history some level of violence is inevitable. Look at the troubles. The IRA and the various loyalist paramilitaries both had no problem going around bombing and killing people despite the fact that the majority of people in both communities supported peaceful means. The 1987 documents Jerry Adams considered the IRA a liability and that they couldn't force the British out of Northern Ireland. However bombing continued for nearly a decade after this point. That's before you look at loyalist paramilitaries and their activities.

Look at Brexit it is a mess. The reason for the mess and arguably Brexit in the first place was that many legitimate points were waved away. The result is after phase 1 the UK has had to give way to the UK on all substantial points. Even in the event of a hard Brexit it will be a number of years before EU law ceases to impact directly the UK. In the event of a united Ireland there will be a need for a transition period as Brexit shows.

Points like what will a united Ireland look like I.e. will NI have a separate parliament, how will it be paid for, how will the inevitable violence be dealt with. This all need to be discussed.

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 11:15AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Nor are pensioners going to vote in favour of a situation that leaves them receiving occupational pensions in Sterling while living in Euro-land......

......likewise mortgagors, will their misty eyed sentimentalism trump the inevitable re-denominating of their loans into Euros when it comes to voting?

.....same with health and education, will people be willing to swap the NHS for the HSE, or their free education for the Republic's "free" education?

Answering a hypothetical as part of a poll is one thing but, as the Scottish indyref showed, actually voting to permanently change your life circumstances is something entirely different.

The Scottish ref would have passed had not Cameron, Brown etc etc rode to the ramparts to deliver their pleas.
It worked, just about, to scare people into voting for the status quo.

That will not happen imo in NI, in fact, I think you will see the same people encourage a UI.

Meanwhile, I also happen to think you are watching the UK slowly break up anyway.

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 11:24AM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Just because someone votes Sinn Fein does not necessarily mean that they will vote for reunification. The same for demographics changes. The Scottish referendum is a very good example.

The reason why some people would like to see the majority of unionists to vote in favour of a united Ireland is reduce the amount of violence. Given northern Irelands history some level of violence is inevitable. Look at the troubles. The IRA and the various loyalist paramilitaries both had no problem going around bombing and killing people despite the fact that the majority of people in both communities supported peaceful means. The 1987 documents Jerry Adams considered the IRA a liability and that they couldn't force the British out of Northern Ireland. However bombing continued for nearly a decade after this point. That's before you look at loyalist paramilitaries and their activities.

Look at Brexit it is a mess. The reason for the mess and arguably Brexit in the first place was that many legitimate points were waved away. The result is after phase 1 the UK has had to give way to the UK on all substantial points. Even in the event of a hard Brexit it will be a number of years before EU law ceases to impact directly the UK. In the event of a united Ireland there will be a need for a transition period as Brexit shows.

Points like what will a united Ireland look like I.e. will NI have a separate parliament, how will it be paid for, how will the inevitable violence be dealt with. This all need to be discussed.

I find it very hard to see a FF voter refusing to vote for a UI never mind a SF voter, come the time.

They would need to be facing into an economic apocalypse to vote against it imo.

PeadarCo · 30-12-2017 11:52AM

FrancieBrady wrote:

I find it very hard to see a FF voter refusing to vote for a UI never mind a SF voter, come the time.

Its very easy. Look at Scotland. Just because a person voted for the SNP didn't mean they would be guaranteed to voted for independence. It does mean they are more likely. But people vote for political parties for many reasons. A vote in a general/local/European election is different than a vote in a referendum. Look at the Seanad vote. Every major and minor party in the Dail were for abolition. However the electorate opted to keep the Seanad. The Seanad is an extreme example but it illustrates the point.

The one way to lose a referendum is to assume its a guaranteed win and you don't have to continuely advocate for it. That does mean engaging with people's concerns. The potential costs of a united Ireland and the likely violence that will likely come with have to be addressed. They can't be hand waved away because they are inconvenient.

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 11:59AM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Its very easy. Look at Scotland. Just because a person voted for the SNP didn't mean they would be guaranteed to voted for independence. It does mean they are more likely. But people vote for political parties for many reasons. A vote in a general/local/European election is different than a vote in a referendum. Look at the Seanad vote. Every major and minor party in the Dail were for abolition. However the electorate opted to keep the Seanad. The Seanad is an extreme example but it illustrates the point.

The one way to lose a referendum is to assume its a guaranteed win and you don't have to continuely advocate for it. That does mean engaging with people's concerns. The potential costs of a united Ireland and the likely violence that will likely come with have to be addressed. They can't be hand waved away because they are inconvenient.

Who in Ireland would you think will not be up for a debate on a UI?

Even though we are told again and again by certain people that it would be a clear win for anti UI parties they have never taken the chance to consolidate their position. Why do you think that is?

IMO it is because extreme Unionism does not want to hear what opinions on a UI are, they do not want to hear how easy it might be to unite and they so not want their support to hear what actual opinion in London might be in 2017 on it.

So Project Fear will continue. But that is ok by me, because Project Fear's generally have a negative effect in the long run.

PeadarCo · 30-12-2017 12:17PM

FrancieBrady wrote:

Who in Ireland would you think will not be up for a debate on a UI?

Large amounts of people in Ireland are perfectly happy with how things are currently. FF and FG have only ever offered token support to the idea of a united Ireland. They will say they would like to see a united Ireland but don't do anything that will bring about a united Ireland in the short/medium term. Even SF espouse their socialist routes in the Republic. They position themselves as a left wing party and not a united Ireland party.

There is a certain section of the population which I would include myself who would like to see a united Ireland but only on the right terms. For example I would like to see a united Ireland but if a referendum was held tomorrow I would vote against it because I don't believe either state is ready for a united Ireland and its consequences. A number of opinion poles have shown that support for a united Ireland drops if costs a lot. So my opinion is far from unique.

I don't think any party will campaign against a united Ireland but that does not mean it's guaranteed. Look at the Seanad referendum. Look at Brexit where all parties were at least nominally in favour of Brexit. People exist independently of political parties. As opinion polls have shown there is a variety of opinions on a united Ireland a when and how it should on. Working on the basis that a united Ireland vote is guaranteed in the republic is one way to lose it.

dok_golf · 30-12-2017 12:28PM

Small amounts of people in the south are happy with the way things are. They are afraid to look deeper into what is actually happening in the north for fear of upsetting the apple cart. The most recent poll done by the Telegraph shows a 60% majority in the south in favour of a UI ( and here is the important bit) even when it will cost 9 billion euros per year.

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 12:41PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Large amounts of people in Ireland are perfectly happy with how things are currently. FF and FG have only ever offered token support to the idea of a united Ireland. They will say they would like to see a united Ireland but don't do anything that will bring about a united Ireland in the short/medium term. Even SF espouse their socialist routes in the Republic. They position themselves as a left wing party and not a united Ireland party.

There is a certain section of the population which I would include myself who would like to see a united Ireland but only on the right terms. For example I would like to see a united Ireland but if a referendum was held tomorrow I would vote against it because I don't believe either state is ready for a united Ireland and its consequences. A number of opinion poles have shown that support for a united Ireland drops if costs a lot. So my opinion is far from unique.

I don't think any party will campaign against a united Ireland but that does not mean it's guaranteed. Look at the Seanad referendum. Look at Brexit where all parties were at least nominally in favour of Brexit. People exist independently of political parties. As opinion polls have shown there is a variety of opinions on a united Ireland a when and how it should on. Working on the basis that a united Ireland vote is guaranteed in the republic is one way to lose it.

What is the point here?
Who is assuming anything here? Is it not those who constantly assume that the 'threat' of apocalypse, both economic and socially will be enough to convince Irish people not to vote for a UI?

What I have consistently wanted here is a clear, transparent fully involved debate on all aspects of a UI.
That will reveal good and bad things and that will be the sensible and adult way to choose whats happens for the future.

PeadarCo · 30-12-2017 02:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote:

What is the point here? Who is assuming anything here? Is it not those who constantly assume that the 'threat' of apocalypse, both economic and socially will be enough to convince Irish people not to vote for a UI?

This is the type of comment I am referring to. Its the same type of comment Brexiters used to dismiss the issue Brexit would cause. As has been shown many of issues highlighted by project "fear" are proving to be correct. Those dismissals and the continued dismissals are actively hindering a successful Brexit.

I see no difference between this post any standard dismissals put out by Brexiteers in the UK.

While there are assumptions on any future predictions Northern Ireland costs the UK a lot of money and has a history of violence that no other part of the Ireland and UK has. These issues are not going to disappear in the medium term. They can't be handwaved away and will have to be dealt with whenever a referendum occurs.

tomwaterford · 30-12-2017 02:06PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

While there are assumptions on any future predictions Northern Ireland costs the UK a lot of money and has a history of violence that no other part of the Ireland and UK has. These issues are not going to disappear in the medium term. They can't be handwaved away and will have to be dealt with whenever a referendum occurs.

Your more likely to get killed in dublin than anywhere in western Europe by gunshot due to drug fueds???

London is a mess if near weekly acid attacks

(Also as innocent bystander)....should we vote to expel dublin from the free state?? (Obviously not)

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 02:11PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

This is the type of comment I am referring to. Its the same type of comment Brexiters used to dismiss the issue Brexit would cause. As has been shown many of issues highlighted by project "fear" are proving to be correct. Those dismissals and the continued dismissals are actively hindering a successful Brexit.

I see no difference between this post any standard dismissals put out by Brexiteers in the UK.

While there are assumptions on any future predictions Northern Ireland costs the UK a lot of money and has a history of violence that no other part of the Ireland and UK has. These issues are not going to disappear in the medium term. They can't be handwaved away and will have to be dealt with whenever a referendum occurs.

Southern Ireland has a history of violence...worse, some would say, than the northern half.

Nobody is handwaving anything away.
What I am seeing are predictions of doom (violence and economic strife) based on very little credible evidence.
Of course there will be a 'cost', but will that cost need to cripple or can it be managed/handled in everyone's longterm interests? Nobody will know that until there is a proper and full debate.
The reality of the evidence relating to a 'violent' uprising is scant. The GFA was the time (the roadmap to a UI) when we should have seen a violent uprising. That was when a UI could have been defeated. It didn't happen in any organised or even threatening way.
Violent Loyalism is even weaker now in terms of support. There is zero evidence that a sustained campaign, that could threaten stability, in any meaningful way can be mounted.

My position is based in reality, not fantasy.

PeadarCo · 30-12-2017 02:18PM

tomwaterford wrote:

Your more likely to get killed in dublin than anywhere in western Europe by gunshot due to drug fueds???

My point about the violence is I have no desire for a repeat of the troubles. The drug feuds are in no way comparable to that. As bad as the feuds are gangs generally avoid indiscriminate shooting and haven't gone about blowing up pubs. Was it not the UVF that started the bombing before the IRA came on the scene. That was in response to an effort to make NI more equal. Correct me if I am wrong but are some loyalist paramilitaries not active. A genuine question what should be the plan for dealing with the inevitable violence that will happen.

Jawgap · 30-12-2017 02:19PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Scottish ref would have passed had not Cameron, Brown etc etc rode to the ramparts to deliver their pleas.
It worked, just about, to scare people into voting for the status quo.

That will not happen imo in NI, in fact, I think you will see the same people encourage a UI.

Meanwhile, I also happen to think you are watching the UK slowly break up anyway.

It's interesting a week before IndyRef, "Yes" was polling at 49% to 42% for "No".....

......the polls immediately after the vote were 49% and 46% in favour of independence (45% No in both cases), yet the result of the vote was only 44.7% yes.

People like the idea of an independent Scotland, just like they like the idea of a UI, but pragmatic self-interest dictates where their vote goes, and unless people in both jurisdictions can be persuaded that it will not cost them more taxes and/or decreased services they'll do what they always do when such uncertainty prevails......vote the status quo.

That tendency is all the more greater when the matter is irrevocable. Unification carries with it a high probability of increased taxes, reduced services and a dimunition in lifestyle - people are going to need more than promises, ballads, sentimentality and fantasy economic wishful thinking to vote for it.

tomwaterford · 30-12-2017 02:26PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

. A genuine question what should be the plan for dealing with the inevitable violence that will happen.

Face them down....they have been getting away with threat of violence for too long

Look at Drumcree....there still protesting there every week,the flags riots...still protesting....

Loyalist paramilitaries effectively riot at the behest of the dup (why only riotd in the constituency the dup lost to alliance party?)

and theres nothing to riot for in the event of democratic result going againest them...personally think it'll be small confined pockets.....most people are too pragmatic to fall head over heels into riots over a peaceful democratic decision

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 02:29PM

Jawgap wrote: »

It's interesting a week before IndyRef, "Yes" was polling at 49% to 42% for "No".....

......the polls immediately after the vote were 49% and 46% in favour of independence (45% No in both cases), yet the result of the vote was only 44.7% yes.

People like the idea of an independent Scotland, just like they like the idea of a UI, but pragmatic self-interest dictates where their vote goes, and unless people in both jurisdictions can be persuaded that it will not cost them more taxes and/or decreased services they'll do what they always do when such uncertainty prevails......vote the status quo.

That tendency is all the more greater when the matter is irrevocable. Unification carries with it a high probability of increased taxes, reduced services and a dimunition in lifestyle - people are going to need more than promises, ballads, sentimentality and fantasy economic wishful thinking to vote for it.

Only a few need to be 'persuaded' is surely what you mean.

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 02:39PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

My point about the violence is I have no desire for a repeat of the troubles. The drug feuds are in no way comparable to that. As bad as the feuds are gangs generally avoid indiscriminate shooting and haven't gone about blowing up pubs. Was it not the UVF that started the bombing before the IRA came on the scene. That was in response to an effort to make NI more equal. Correct me if I am wrong but are some loyalist paramilitaries not active. A genuine question what should be the plan for dealing with the inevitable violence that will happen.

A 'repeat of the troubles'???

How would that happen? Where do you see that coming from.

Please map it out for us what you 'see'?

Loyalist extremists could not mount a sustained campaign at any time without the aid of security forces and even then could only mount attacks outside northern Ireland on rare occasions.
That is a containable threat when you remove security force collusion.

And after all that you have to ask, at that stage (A democratic passing of a UI vote) what would be the point of a sustained campaign? Please show us how you see moderate Unionism supporting that campaign? Again I say to you, do not be fooled by the bluster of DUP politicians. The reality is that there is no appetite for such a campaign in Unionism.

Jawgap · 30-12-2017 02:57PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Only a few need to be 'persuaded' is surely what you mean.

There was a 5% difference between expressed voting intention the week before IndyRef and the actual votes cast......if you want to view that as "Only a few need to be 'persuaded'" then good luck to you, I'll file it under "More SF wishful thinking"

Do you not grasp the significance of an effective 5% swing a week out from an electoral poll with no intervening event?

PeadarCo · 30-12-2017 03:01PM

FrancieBrady wrote:

And after all that you have to ask, at that stage (A democratic passing of a UI vote) what would be the point of a sustained campaign? Please show us how you see moderate Unionism supporting that campaign? Again I say to you, do not be fooled by the bluster of DUP politicians. The reality is that there is no appetite for such a campaign in Unionism.

Get the UK involved again. Again look at Brexit and the EU demands regarding citizens rights. I don't see why a united Ireland wouldn't be any different. The UK is going to demand certain protections for it citizens.

In regards to loyalist terrorism, the IRA carried out nearly 30 years of shooting and bombing without security force collusion and aiming for a completely unachievable goal. The IRA ignored the democratic will of the nationalist community of this period, never mind the will of Northern Ireland as a whole. I don't see why loyalists can't do the same.

tomwaterford · 30-12-2017 03:03PM

Jawgap wrote: »

There was a 5% difference between expressed voting intention the week before IndyRef and the actual votes cast......if you want to view that as "Only a few need to be 'persuaded'" then good luck to you, I'll file it under "More SF wishful thinking"

Do you not grasp the significance of an effective 5% swing a week out from an electoral poll with no intervening event?

Do you not grasp that it was eu membership swong that referendum....once it become clear they weren't gaurenteed eu membership in independance it was toast

Whereas the north will be back in the eu upon reunification....your being a bit obtuse and not comparing like with like??....

in fact there's every much as reason to believe any gaurentees and offers by the eu in weeks leading to such a referendum could cause the swing in favour of reunification??

tomwaterford · 30-12-2017 03:06PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Get the UK involved again. Again look at Brexit and the EU demands regarding citizens rights. I don't see why a united Ireland wouldn't be any different. The UK is going to demand certain protections for it citizens.

But of course ireland should forget it's citizens in the six counties and pander to fear mongering unionist paramilitaries to give them a veto??

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 03:06PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Get the UK involved again. Again look at Brexit and the EU demands regarding citizens rights. I don't see why a united Ireland wouldn't be any different. The UK is going to demand certain protections for it citizens.

In regards to loyalist terrorism, the IRA carried out nearly 30 years of shooting and bombing without security force collusion and aiming for a completely unachievable goal. The IRA ignored the democratic will of the nationalist community of this period, never mind the will of Northern Ireland as a whole. I don't see why loyalists can't do the same.

How would they do it?
The IRA didn't operate without support and a network of support for that matter. They also had the benefit of being able to disappear into the south to more support.

Where or how would loyalism achieve that? Mount attacks from Scotland, north of Britain?

Think about it realistically for more than 5 minutes and you will see the insurmountable logistic problems posed.
Yes they can 'riot' to their hearts content, but not doing something democratically decided, on the basis of some 'might' riot would be wholly wrong.

murphaph · 30-12-2017 03:24PM

Sidey wrote: »

OK so you aren't dealing in facts, just your own prejudices and fantasies. I'm from Derry BTW. It's been pretty clear throughout this thread that your knowledge of the north is sketchy at best and usually either wildly out of date or completely inaccurate. I really don't think you are someone to be taken seriously on this topic, do you?

I don't care where you are from. You'll have your NI referendum some day perhaps and if that happens there will be an equivalent referendum held in the south for me to vote in. If the north is then still as divided as it is today then I will vote against unification. If it's largely a healed place with no need for peace lines and the economic case can be made then I see a positive case for unification and I'll vote for it.

If I'm in a tiny minority of southern voters who will not automatically rubber stamp the north's decision then you've nothing to get worked up about and you'll be living under Dublin rule when the time comes.

I have been a FF voter in the past, just for those that think a FF voter would never vote against unification!

Brexit has been a lesson in how not to conduct a referendum on changing the constitutional status of a country. We will have an open and lengthy debate about potential unification should NI actually vote for it itself. The pros and cons will be discussed and the people of the Republic will have the final say.

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 03:31PM

murphaph wrote: »

I don't care where you are from. You'll have your NI referendum some day perhaps and if that happens there will be an equivalent referendum held in the south for me to vote in. If the north is then still as divided as it is today then I will vote against unification. If it's largely a healed place with no need for peace lines and the economic case can be made then I see a positive case for unification and I'll vote for it.

If I'm in a tiny minority of southern voters who will not automatically rubber stamp the north's decision then you've nothing to get worked up about and you'll be living under Dublin rule when the time comes.

I have been a FF voter in the past, just for those that think a FF voter would never vote against unification!

Brexit has been a lesson in how not to conduct a referendum on changing the constitutional status of a country. We will have an open and lengthy debate about potential unification should NI actually vote for it itself. The pros and cons will be discussed and the people of the Republic will have the final say.

I would doubt you are the typical FF voter I referred to earlier.
The idea that a significant amount of Irish people would ignore a majority vote for unification (after a full and transparent debate) in northern Ireland is not credible to be honest.
I would suggest that there are indeed those that would selfishly, only consider their own futures, but they are wholly in the minority.
The wind didn't have to change all that much for FG to start talking about a UI in fairness.

PeadarCo · 30-12-2017 03:46PM

FrancieBrady wrote:

How would they do it? The IRA didn't operate without support and a network of support for that matter. They also had the benefit of being able to disappear into the south to more support.

So what you are saying is the IRA had local sympathisers who hid them and provided money etc. I don't see how its any different for loyalists.

Anyone who as ever even passed through NI will be aware there are strongholds of each side. Remember the IRA was and is a terrorist organization in Ireland. The special criminal court was set up to deal with the IRA.

tomwaterford · 30-12-2017 04:07PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

So what you are saying is the IRA had local sympathisers who hid them and provided money etc. I don't see how its any different for loyalists.

The ira had these across the free state aswell:D

Do you think your local protestant neighbours are about to mount attacks in conjuction with there lunatic fringe within the north??

Of course not,they tried all their might to force nationlists out of the north for years and the ira stopped em in their tracks,....they are no longer even a majority in the majority of the 6 counties (hence why they needed so much collusion and assistance from the state to murder)....

They have no appetite to return to violence,quite what makes you think they can amount a serious long term insurrection,when virtually all main attacks have implicated mi5

Just this week a letter from the uvf to haughy emerged,where they explained mi5 were wanting to launch attacks in the free state (assination haughey and wreak the economy) and them (uvf)claim responsibity for it.....

.the following years attacks by the uda/uff increased 75%....you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see mi5 used them instead

Jawgap · 30-12-2017 04:15PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

Do you not grasp that it was eu membership swong that referendum....once it become clear they weren't gaurenteed eu membership in independance it was toast

Whereas the north will be back in the eu upon reunification....your being a bit obtuse and not comparing like with like??....

in fact there's every much as reason to believe any gaurentees and offers by the eu in weeks leading to such a referendum could cause the swing in favour of reunification??

Really? Have you anything to back that up?

I only ask because the post-IndyRef Ashcroft focus groups suggested that EU membership was the lowest ranked issue for both Yes and No voters (12% and 15% respectively).

The three top issues for the No voters were the NHS, Sterling and pensions - fourth was concerns about public spending. Yes, people were concerned about the risk and uncertainty around continuing EU membership, but in the end nothing the EU could've done/said would've affected concerns around the NHS, Sterling and pensions. Is there any reason to think NI would not similarly rate these issues as critical?

But if you have other data showing "it was eu membership swong that referendum" perhaps you could post it?

FrancieBrady · 30-12-2017 04:36PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

So what you are saying is the IRA had local sympathisers who hid them and provided money etc. I don't see how its any different for loyalists.

Anyone who as ever even passed through NI will be aware there are strongholds of each side. Remember the IRA was and is a terrorist organization in Ireland. The special criminal court was set up to deal with the IRA.

I don't think you quite understand how the IRA campaign was sustained and organised.

blanch152 · 30-12-2017 05:36PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would doubt you are the typical FF voter I referred to earlier.
The idea that a significant amount of Irish people would ignore a majority vote for unification (after a full and transparent debate) in northern Ireland is not credible to be honest.
I would suggest that there are indeed those that would selfishly, only consider their own futures, but they are wholly in the minority.
The wind didn't have to change all that much for FG to start talking about a UI in fairness.

"It's the economy, stupid"

"All politics is local"

For you to be right, that people will put some aspirational goal above their short-term local selfish economic interests, you would have to see the key universally understood political statements turned on their head.

Enough will change their mind fearful of their dole being cut or their taxes being increased to stop unification. More importantly, who will guarantee that pensions won't be cut?

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments