47.9% of NI would back a United Ireland in the event of a 'hard Brexit'

Avatar MIA · 31-12-2017 12:36AM

murphaph wrote: »

And there's no mental wall (as well as the physical ones) separating Catholic and Protestant in NI?

There is currently and there would be in a UI.

However the unionist/Protestant side are coming from a not an inch/No surrender attitude. Whereas, there would have to be concessions to Unionist/Protestants from the get go under a UI.

Jayop · 31-12-2017 01:29AM

murphaph wrote: »

And there's no mental wall (as well as the physical ones) separating Catholic and Protestant in NI?

Murph dude I don't know you and I don't know where you're from but I'm from the north and I can tell you that the situation is incomparable. The mental wall in Germany is totally different because now in the north the traditionally oppressed catholic is now better educated and has more prospects.

Blazer · 31-12-2017 05:15AM

blanch152 wrote: »

So the taxpayer in the South will pay with increased taxation rates, glad that was cleared up.

And that's why it will never fly.
As usual the middle working class will subsidize everyone else.
If it came to a vote on Unification most of the PAYE workers will vote No.

Sidey · 31-12-2017 05:22AM

Blazer wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

So the taxpayer in the South will pay with increased taxation rates, glad that was cleared up.

And that's why it will never fly.
As usual the middle working class will subsidize everyone else.
If it came to a vote on Unification most of the PAYE works will vote No.

Despite repeated polls for decades saying otherwise, and despite a poll just a few days ago showing a large majority in the south in favour even if it costs 9bn a year.

There's a hardcore of rabid anti-republican partitionists online, but out in the really real world views like yours are only shared by a small minority. You can argue against a UI all you like, indeed most of us welcome it because almost all the anti-UI arguments are easily debunked. Just stop projecting your own prejudices onto everyone else and claiming to speak for the majority of your fellow citizens when you have no evidence to back that up.

murphaph · 31-12-2017 09:24AM

Jayop wrote: »

Murph dude I don't know you and I don't know where you're from but I'm from the north and I can tell you that the situation is incomparable. The mental wall in Germany is totally different because now in the north the traditionally oppressed catholic is now better educated and has more prospects.

The education system in the former East was never particularly poor (arguably it was better in some respects). Eastern Germans are not discriminated against with respect to employment.

You won't find any situation bring entirely comparable with NI but comparisons can still be drawn with the few examples of unification which we have.

The technical financial issues need to be openly discussed. How do NI mortgage holders feel about redenominating their mortgages to Euro? The Euro itself is not universally liked. What exactly will happen to tax rates in the south? What planned infrastructure in the south will be shelved to divert funds to the new six counties etc. etc.

Those who think unification will be done and dusted in a few years are deluding themselves. It will take a generation at the very least for NI to become a normal part of the country. The sh1t's been going on for 400 years after all.

murphaph · 31-12-2017 09:34AM

Sidey wrote: »

Despite repeated polls for decades saying otherwise, and despite a poll just a few days ago showing a large majority in the south in favour even if it costs 9bn a year.

There's a hardcore of rabid anti-republican partitionists online, but out in the really real world views like yours are only shared by a small minority. You can argue against a UI all you like, indeed most of us welcome it because almost all the anti-UI arguments are easily debunked. Just stop projecting your own prejudices onto everyone else and claiming to speak for the majority of your fellow citizens when you have no evidence to back that up.

Don't tell him/her what to say.

I feel the polls are deeply unreliable because quite simply many people feel pressured into declaring their über-Irishness when asked such questions by pollsters or even the census form (nobody believes the figures of Irish speakers or Catholics matches the reality) so they just say they'd vote for a UI.

Have an open debate and tell them how much infrastructural investment will be diverted from their area to NI and how much they can expect to pay in a Solidarity Tax (still paid by workers in Germany today) and let them cast their secret ballot and the race will be much much closer than recent polls suggest.

Most people care about their own pocket, especially in Ireland. It's why tax cuts are more popular than infrastructure. Also Ireland has a significant number of new citizens who have no Irish ancestry and absolutely no romantic ideas about unification.

That's why NI needs to be attractive and not seen as a millstone as it is currently.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 11:12AM

What is uber-Irishness when it is at home?

oscarBravo · 31-12-2017 11:17AM

Sidey wrote: »

Despite repeated polls for decades saying otherwise, and despite a poll just a few days ago showing a large majority in the south in favour even if it costs 9bn a year.

I can see that that's going to be the talking point of choice for some time to come.

Irish people have no problem whatsoever with large amounts of money being spent on things, as long as it's someone else's money. 9 billion? No problem, just raise someone else's taxes. We saw that in the thread about homelessness, where people were passionately arguing that the government should throw endless amounts of money at the problem - as long as it wasn't their money being thrown at it.

If the question were asked again, and if it were framed in terms of how much their income tax would increase, or how much the health or education budget would have to be cut, are you confident that the large majority would hold firm?

tomwaterford · 31-12-2017 11:21AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the question were asked again, and if it were framed in terms of how much their income tax would increase, or how much the health or education budget would have to be cut, are you confident that the large majority would hold firm?

Yes??

Because it'll be like all irish referendums and be just rerun and rerun until they pass......

There is also a massive unknown of a nationlists campaign of violence afross the free state....if it's passed in North and rejected in the south??

The 2nd referendum in such a scenario would be effectively a vote for peace

>>for perpetually offended this deosnt mean I support said campaign of violence

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 11:23AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can see that that's going to be the talking point of choice for some time to come.

Irish people have no problem whatsoever with large amounts of money being spent on things, as long as it's someone else's money. 9 billion? No problem, just raise someone else's taxes. We saw that in the thread about homelessness, where people were passionately arguing that the government should throw endless amounts of money at the problem - as long as it wasn't their money being thrown at it.

If the question were asked again, and if it were framed in terms of how much their income tax would increase, or how much the health or education budget would have to be cut, are you confident that the large majority would hold firm?

The everyone else is 'stupid/hoodwinked/operating the magic money tree' response?

The problem people have with money being spent on homelessness, would mostly centre around it being spent wrongly and inefficiently mostly from what i can see.
Of course there are those who object to their money being spent, you have that selfishness at both ends of the spectrum...in every economy in the world. No different here than anywhere else.
Most people know that money needs to be spent and invested.

oscarBravo · 31-12-2017 11:39AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

There is also a massive unknown of a nationlists campaign of violence afross the free state....if it's passed in North and rejected in the south??

The 2nd referendum in such a scenario would be effectively a vote for peace

...and we're back to the argument that loyalists will peacefully accept the destruction of their entire raison d'etre without fuss, while nationalists will immediately launch into a campaign of terrorism as soon as democracy lets them down.

>>for perpetually offended this deosnt mean I support said campaign of violence

Of course not. You're just happy to hold out the threat of it as leverage.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The everyone else is 'stupid/hoodwinked/operating the magic money tree' response?

No, the "experience clearly shows that Irish people are only happy spending other people's money" response.

The rest of your reply is just the usual "of course people will be happy to pay sharp increases in taxation to fund something that I hold dear, and anyone who doesn't is a selfish bastard" handwaving.

We won't know until that's the actual question that's asked. In the meantime, keep repeating the "nine billion" mantra as if it means anything.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 11:43AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and we're back to the argument that loyalists will peacefully accept the destruction of their entire raison d'etre without fuss, while nationalists will immediately launch into a campaign of terrorism as soon as democracy lets them down. Of course not. You're just happy to hold out the threat of it as leverage.

No, the "experience clearly shows that Irish people are only happy spending other people's money" response.

The rest of your reply is just the usual "of course people will be happy to pay sharp increases in taxation to fund something that I hold dear, and anyone who doesn't is a selfish bastard" handwaving.

We won't know until that's the actual question that's asked. In the meantime, keep repeating the "nine billion" mantra as if it means anything.

Is it not you being the prime proponent of 'you can't spend my money' on that project? Because you don't like the project?
If the Irish people decide that a UI is project worth investing in, what is the problem exactly?

tomwaterford · 31-12-2017 11:44AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course not. You're just happy to hold out the threat of it as leverage.

All I've said is it hasn't been discussed atal in this thread and numbers of Irish nationlists across the free state are in much higher numbers than loyalists in the 6 counties

Loyalists like I've said are still protesting at Drumcree every Sunday. ..over 20 years later....still protesting about the flag. (Of which I fully support people right to protest)....I've seen nothing to suggest they can mount anything approaching a sustained campaign of insurrection....they needed mi5 to provide them with virtually all there info in tge troubles

Unless you think mi5 is going to assist loyalist paramilitaries in a united Ireland (for what ends?). ...in such a scentrio we should be looking at ejecting the British embassy

oscarBravo · 31-12-2017 11:46AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it not you being the prime proponent of 'you can't spend my money' on that project? Because you don't like the project?
If the Irish people decide that a UI is project worth investing in, what is the problem exactly?

If the Irish people decide that, then fine. But I was talking about the confident assertion that the Irish people will agree to hikes in their own taxes or cuts to their own services, because they weren't asked about that: they were asked would they support it at a cost of 9bn.

When they're asked whether they'd support it at a personal cost to themselves, come back to me with your confident prediction that such an opinion poll will translate into an actual vote.

oscarBravo · 31-12-2017 11:48AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

All I've said is it hasn't been discussed atal in this thread and numbers of Irish nationlists across the free state are in much higher numbers than loyalists in the 6 counties

You've said that nationalists will turn to terrorism if they can't get their way democratically, while loyalists won't.

You can squirm and wriggle all you want, but it's not me who has said that nationalists are more violent than loyalists; it's you. You can claim you didn't say that, but it's the clear implication of your words.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 11:49AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the Irish people decide that, then fine. But I was talking about the confident assertion that the Irish people will agree to hikes in their own taxes or cuts to their own services, because they weren't asked about that: they were asked would they support it at a cost of 9bn.

When they're asked whether they'd support it at a personal cost to themselves, come back to me with your confident prediction that such an opinion poll will translate into an actual vote.

But your assertion is that those asked are not aware that the 9bn has to come from somewhere, is it not?
Are you saying they are too stupid/blinkered/delusional to figure out that the cost will be to them?
What are you saying?

tomwaterford · 31-12-2017 11:58AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've said that nationalists will turn to terrorism if they can't get their way democratically, while loyalists won't.
.

I havnt....I said the possibilty of it hasn't been investigated.....perhaps you need brush up on comprehension

Edit:I havnt said nationlists are more violent...just greater in number

People are wailing and raving about loyalist violense (which needs mi5 assistance to be credible)......all the while saying nationlists should accept people of the north should be cut off and left to deal with loyalist violence alone
(This worked out well last time

)

oscarBravo · 31-12-2017 12:17PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But your assertion is that those asked are not aware that the 9bn has to come from somewhere, is it not?
Are you saying they are too stupid/blinkered/delusional to figure out that the cost will be to them?
What are you saying?

I've made my point. You disagree with it, because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. That's fine. If you choose to believe that Irish people will volunteer for increased personal taxation and/or reduced public services as the cost of unification, that's fine too. I'll believe it when that's the actual question they're asked.

oscarBravo · 31-12-2017 12:20PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

I havnt....I said the possibilty of it hasn't been investigated.....perhaps you need brush up on comprehension

Edit:I havnt said nationlists are more violent...just greater in number

Fine. I'll ask the question directly: do you think that nationalist terrorism is more likely in response to a rejection of unification than loyalist terrorism would be in response to an acceptance of unification?

People are wailing and raving about loyalist violense (which needs mi5 assistance to be credible)......all the while saying nationlists should accept people of the north should be cut off and left to deal with loyalist violence alone
(This worked out well last time )

Why would there be loyalist violence in the event of no vote for unification? You're not making sense.

As for the whole "loyalists need MI5 assistance to be terrorists, while nationalists are capable of being terrorists all by themselves", you're not doing much to dispel the idea that nationalists are more inherently violent than loyalists.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 12:21PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've made my point. You disagree with it, because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. That's fine. If you choose to believe that Irish people will volunteer for increased personal taxation and/or reduced public services as the cost of unification, that's fine too. I'll believe it when that's the actual question they're asked.

But you didn't clarify what you meant.

What do you think the people who were asked 'Would they vote for a UI if it cost 9bn a year' were thinking?

Were they all thinking someone else would pay this cost? Is that your point here?

oscarBravo · 31-12-2017 01:03PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you didn't clarify what you meant.

What do you think the people who were asked 'Would they vote for a UI if it cost 9bn a year' were thinking?

Were they all thinking someone else would pay this cost? Is that your point here?

My point, which is obvious to anyone not wilfully attempting to misunderstand it, is that at least some of them would assume that someone else would pay it.

It suits you to believe that most or all people would be willing to pay increased taxes or accept reduced services in return for unification. Again: that's fine, I can't help what you choose to accept as an article of faith. Once again, I'll believe it when that's the actual question that's asked.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 01:07PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

My point, which is obvious to anyone not wilfully attempting to misunderstand it, is that at least some of them would assume that someone else would pay it.

Why would they? It seems like an obvious enough question. 'Would you still want an apple if it cost 20 euro?'

What about that question tells you that somebody else would be paying for it?

It suits you to believe that most or all people would be willing to pay increased taxes or accept reduced services in return for unification. Again: that's fine, I can't help what you choose to accept as an article of faith. Once again, I'll believe it when that's the actual question that's asked.

Says the person that believes that a significant amount of people have assumed that somebody else is picking up the 9bn tab.

'Articles of faith' indeed!

murphaph · 31-12-2017 01:29PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would they? It seems like an obvious enough question. 'Would you still want an apple if it cost 20 euro?'

What about that question tells you that somebody else would be paying for it?

Says the person that believes that a significant amount of people have assumed that somebody else is picking up the 9bn tab.

'Articles of faith' indeed!

Not everyone is paying for their own apples. Welfare recipients see no income tax deductions on their pay slips. It's all magic money to most of them.

murphaph · 31-12-2017 01:29PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is uber-Irishness when it is at home?

When you start answering my questions I'll answer yours.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 01:31PM

murphaph wrote: »

When you start answering my questions I'll answer yours.

What questions?
The 'have you stopped beating your wife' style ones? I already have.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 01:34PM

murphaph wrote: »

Not everyone is paying for their own apples. Welfare recipients see no income tax deductions on their pay slips. It's all magic money to most of them.

And we know how many of these 'welfare recipients' took part in the poll, how exactly? Or did we just 'assume' because we don't like the findings?

Blazer · 31-12-2017 02:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And we know how many of these 'welfare recipients' took part in the poll, how exactly? Or did we just 'assume' because we don't like the findings?

What they should ask is would you support the cost of Unification if it meant that VAT was doubled, welfare payments were taxed, PAYE was increased and everyone earning a wage paid USC.
And this would be for at least a decade.
Because no matter what Gerry says there is no magic fix to requiring over 10 billion to support NI. At least not for a decade.
I’m pretty sure the SF supporters wouldn’t be long dropping their votes once they realized they affected them.
And besides even if both sides both for it how would we keep the peace up there?
I don’t want it to go back to the 80’s etc.

Avatar MIA · 31-12-2017 02:36PM

Blazer wrote: »

Because no matter what Gerry says there is no magic fix to requiring over 10 billion to support NI.

Fair play for providing a figure. Where are you getting this from?

Avatar MIA · 31-12-2017 02:43PM

Back in 1997 the subvention to NI by the UK was only £3.3 billion and now is over £9b. (inflation not taken into account). Why the large increase?

But these are the bare figures. What amount is paid on services that would cease such as military spending.

It's interesting that NI was a net contributor to the UK until the the 1930s.

The make up of the £9b needs to be looked into in detail.

Blazer · 31-12-2017 02:48PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Fair play for providing a figure. Where are you getting this from?

There’s a few being bandied around but all are around 8-10 billion required to support it.
I imagine we could offset 1-2 billion from EU support and maybe we could swing a few billion or so for a decade from the UK in support of it but that still leaves a significant amount. Also I imagine welfare would have to realign so I’m guessing theirs would increase in line with ours to keep the peace.
Also their infrastructure is bad so that would require some investment also so again we are looking at a significant amount.
Would Irish people accept that or would they prefer we spent that additional money on addressing the housing crisis, or investing more into the HSE or maybe to hell with them all and don’t touch my money?

Whatever happens we would need the parties on all sides to post plans on how they plan to support it financially and the implications for every citizen.

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.newstalk.com/AMP/How-much-money-does-Northern-Ireland-really-get-from-the-EU

47.9% of NI would back a United Ireland in the event of a 'hard Brexit'

Comments