Costs of Irish unification.

blanch152 · 08-01-2018 04:42PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like what?

Size, inhabitants, governing structure, etc.

blanch152 · 08-01-2018 04:45PM

Schumi7 wrote: »

Firstly, thank you for your reply. It can't help but escape my notice however that you are the only poster among the resident, shall we say, UI sceptics on the thread to at least reference the paramount point I made in my original post. You didn't respond to it directly which is disappointing; whereas I find the lack of interaction with it from other said posters to be at the very least suggestive.

Before I answer your query directly I'll be blunt and say that I would expect primary consideration to go to your fellow countrymen, woman and children and citizens in the North/NI first - for the reasons I already outlined. As for the effect of unity on the British people in Northern Ireland, of course it is fair to take cognisance of it. That would go without saying. In the event I would expect this 'new' nation to be more than accommodating and generous to them.

.

As a voter in the South, I elect politicians whose primary consideration is and should be the welfare of the people living in the South, and to be blunt, that is the way I will vote in any referendum on the North.

Voting for the GFA was a no-brainer, it brought peace, an end to the terrorism, got rid of the silly territorial claim in our constitution etc. Voting for a united Ireland is not as simple.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2018 04:49PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Size, inhabitants, governing structure, etc.

It's a tiny lake in Donegal through which a notional border line runs.

Schumi7 · 08-01-2018 04:50PM

blanch152 wrote: »

As a voter in the South, I elect politicians whose primary consideration is and should be the welfare of the people living in the South, and to be blunt, that is the way I will vote in any referendum on the North.

Voting for the GFA was a no-brainer, it brought peace, an end to the terrorism, got rid of the silly territorial claim in our constitution etc. Voting for a united Ireland is not as simple.

I take it you read the specific point of oscar's that that part of my reply referred to?

^ That's a rhetorical question btw.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2018 04:51PM

blanch152 wrote: »

As a voter in the South, I elect politicians whose primary consideration is and should be the welfare of the people living in the South, and to be blunt, that is the way I will vote in any referendum on the North.

Voting for the GFA was a no-brainer, it brought peace, an end to the terrorism, got rid of the silly territorial claim in our constitution etc. Voting for a united Ireland is not as simple.

So you wont vote for a politician who makes NI a primary concern?

Red_Wake · 08-01-2018 04:55PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

As a voter in the South, I elect politicians whose primary consideration is and should be the welfare of the people living in the South, and to be blunt, that is the way I will vote in any referendum on the North.

Voting for the GFA was a no-brainer, it brought peace, an end to the terrorism, got rid of the silly territorial claim in our constitution etc. Voting for a united Ireland is not as simple.

So you wont vote for a politician who makes NI a primary concern?

I wouldn't. NI is well down my list of priorities.

James Brown · 08-01-2018 04:56PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Natural is not an unambiguous term. Is it based on geographical, historical or political realities?

You can argue that Ulster is a naturally separate independent kingdom going back to the time of the Kings of Ulster. Your map would back up this natural position [Historically].

You can also argue that Ireland is naturally part of the UK because we spent centuries either under the rule of the English King or as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which encompassed the natural archipelago of the British Isles (Britain, Ireland, Channel Islands, Hebrides, Isle of Man etc.) and English is the dominant cultural language across the archipelago. [Historically, Geographically, Politically and Cultural].

You can also argue that Ireland is naturally part of Europe through geography and its membership of the European Union [Geographically and Politically]

All of those arguments are valid. Which one you pick depends on your perspective. There is nothing inherently natural about any political arrangement. To a 800 A.D. peasant, the idea that there would be political union on the island would have been deemed logistically impossible.

Ireland can join, leave, be occupied, follow EU policy, but Ireland includes Ulster. I never claimed any Irish political state for my reasoning, despite best efforts of some to drag us down that particular rabbit hole.
I simply state the fact that Ireland includes Ulster. The country's natural state included Ulster regardless of the current foreign occupation of a portion of Ulster.
A reunited whole Ireland includes Ulster. That's why the term 'united Ireland' is often referenced. Not a 'Ireland and the partial counties of Ulster'.
I'll leave you there. We're going around in circles.

My hope is that the Unionists realise, (despite any bigots on either side) most of us are more than happy for them to hold to their culture and beliefs. There is a decline in religion overall, (long may it continue). Maybe we'll put any religious differences to bed when the country is whole. As regards Ulster Scots, nobody can deny what they are nor would wish to.
At the moment I feel it's a tit for tat stopping any political progress. With the occupation ended and a united Ireland maybe we'll get down to creating and enforcing policies based on what's best for the people. Having the DUP and a stronger Sinn Fein etc. in the mix might scare FF/FG straight for a time.

blanch152 · 08-01-2018 04:58PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you wont vote for a politician who makes NI a primary concern?

Then, to answer your question in a different way, the people of Northern Ireland aren't electing politicians who have the interests of NI as a primary concern. They are more interested in finding side-issues to squabble about, such as the languages act, rather than dealing with the big issues in everyday life.

Why should I bother voting for a politicians who makes NI a primary concern, when the people of NI on either side can't even do that, and keep electing two sectarian divisive parties.

blanch152 · 08-01-2018 05:01PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ireland can join, leave, be occupied, follow EU policy, but Ireland includes Ulster. I never claimed any Irish political state for my reasoning, despite best efforts of some to drag us down that particular rabbit hole.
I simply state the fact that Ireland includes Ulster. The country's natural state included Ulster regardless of the current foreign occupation of a portion of Ulster.
A reunited whole Ireland includes Ulster. That's why the term 'united Ireland' is often referenced. Not a 'Ireland and the partial counties of Ulster'.
I'll leave you there. We're going around in circles.

My hope is that the Unionists realise, (despite any bigots on either side) most of us are more than happy for them to hold to their culture and beliefs. There is a decline in religion overall, (long may it continue). Maybe we'll put any religious differences to bed when the country is whole. As regards Ulster Scots, nobody can deny what they are nor would wish to.
At the moment I feel it's a tit for tat stopping any political progress. With the occupation ended and a united Ireland maybe we'll get down to creating and enforcing policies based on what's best for the people. Having the DUP and a stronger Sinn Fein etc. in the mix might scare FF/FG straight for a time.

The British Isles' natural state includes Ireland, does that mean that we should rejoin the UK? That until the nationalists in Ireland realise that most of the British Isles are more than happy for them to hold on to their culture and beliefs (as the Welsh have done) within the UK, that makes it ok?

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2018 05:08PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Then, to answer your question in a different way, the people of Northern Ireland aren't electing politicians who have the interests of NI as a primary concern. They are more interested in finding side-issues to squabble about, such as the languages act, rather than dealing with the big issues in everyday life.

Why should I bother voting for a politicians who makes NI a primary concern, when the people of NI on either side can't even do that, and keep electing two sectarian divisive parties.

More patronising nonsense tbh.

Will you vote for a politician that makes a priority of NI?

murphaph · 08-01-2018 05:20PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

I wouldn't. NI is well down my list of priorities.

As it is for most people in the republic in reality. People are mostly concerned about their own standard of living, first and foremost.

murphaph · 08-01-2018 05:21PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ireland can join, leave, be occupied, follow EU policy, but Ireland includes Ulster. I never claimed any Irish political state for my reasoning, despite best efforts of some to drag us down that particular rabbit hole.
I simply state the fact that Ireland includes Ulster. The country's natural state included Ulster regardless of the current foreign occupation of a portion of Ulster.
A reunited whole Ireland includes Ulster. That's why the term 'united Ireland' is often referenced. Not a 'Ireland and the partial counties of Ulster'.
I'll leave you there. We're going around in circles.

My hope is that the Unionists realise, (despite any bigots on either side) most of us are more than happy for them to hold to their culture and beliefs. There is a decline in religion overall, (long may it continue). Maybe we'll put any religious differences to bed when the country is whole. As regards Ulster Scots, nobody can deny what they are nor would wish to.
At the moment I feel it's a tit for tat stopping any political progress. With the occupation ended and a united Ireland maybe we'll get down to creating and enforcing policies based on what's best for the people. Having the DUP and a stronger Sinn Fein etc. in the mix might scare FF/FG straight for a time.

Which part of Borneo or Hispaniola is occupied?

blanch152 · 08-01-2018 05:25PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More patronising nonsense tbh.

Will you vote for a politician that makes a priority of NI?

Absolutely not at this point in time. Northern Ireland currently has the tools to solve its own problems, it doesn't need hand-holding from the South.

We have enough problems of our own - climate change, public transport, renewable energy etc. - which are not being addressed. At least the current government is competent and doing well in many of the other areas.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2018 05:28PM

murphaph wrote: »

As it is for most people in the republic in reality. People are mostly concerned about their own standard of living, first and foremost.

Funny that Leo's ratings shot up when he stood up for the north.
Of course people's own standard of living counts, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is their only concern.

murphaph · 08-01-2018 05:35PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Funny that Leo's ratings shot up when he stood up for the north.
Of course people's own standard of living counts, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is their only concern.

On the contrary. Elections are won in Ireland with promises of tax cuts. Come to Germany and they are won on promises of what to spend the tax take on. Germany is far more socialist in its outlook. It's why public transport is so awful in Ireland. It doesn't win elections.

Did Leo stand up for the North? From my perspective he stood up for the interests of the south.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2018 05:40PM

murphaph wrote: »

On the contrary. Elections are won in Ireland with promises of tax cuts. Come to Germany and they are won on promises of what to spend the tax take on. Germany is far more socialist in its outlook. It's why public transport is so awful in Ireland. It doesn't win elections.

Did Leo stand up for the North? From my perspective he stood up for the interests of the south.

Which also happened to be the interests of the north. A case for a UI?

James Brown · 08-01-2018 06:03PM

blanch152 wrote: »

....There is nothing inherently natural about any political arrangement.

Completely agree.

blanch152 wrote: »

Absolutely not at this point in time. Northern Ireland currently has the tools to solve its own problems, it doesn't need hand-holding from the South.

We have enough problems of our own - climate change, public transport, renewable energy etc. - which are not being addressed. At least the current government is competent and doing well in many of the other areas.

You missed corrupt Garda, housing, homelessness, quality of life.
If our current government is competent, how come it's such a mess and they've no power over the DoJ seemingly? This plays a role as regards a united Ireland. As covered, people are use to being hung out to dry by governments to follow the fabled road to prosperity for all, which turns out to be a boom for some, credit availability for most, followed by a bust; so the price tag on a united Ireland is difficult to get too concerned about when you look at our recent history and current return path. I believe the Irish people would be willing to 'take one for the team' *wink/smiley face from Noonan* as regards reuniting the country.

markodaly · 08-01-2018 06:16PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ireland can join, leave, be occupied, follow EU policy, but Ireland includes Ulster. I never claimed any Irish political state for my reasoning, despite best efforts of some to drag us down that particular rabbit hole.
I simply state the fact that Ireland includes Ulster. The country's natural state included Ulster regardless of the current foreign occupation of a portion of Ulster.
A reunited whole Ireland includes Ulster. That's why the term 'united Ireland' is often referenced. Not a 'Ireland and the partial counties of Ulster'.
I'll leave you there. We're going around in circles.

My hope is that the Unionists realise, (despite any bigots on either side) most of us are more than happy for them to hold to their culture and beliefs. There is a decline in religion overall, (long may it continue). Maybe we'll put any religious differences to bed when the country is whole. As regards Ulster Scots, nobody can deny what they are nor would wish to.
At the moment I feel it's a tit for tat stopping any political progress. With the occupation ended and a united Ireland maybe we'll get down to creating and enforcing policies based on what's best for the people. Having the DUP and a stronger Sinn Fein etc. in the mix might scare FF/FG straight for a time.

I mentioned this in another thread but Ireland was never united under Irish rule. So we cannot re-unite something that was never united in the first place.

James Brown · 08-01-2018 06:22PM

markodaly wrote: »

I mentioned this in another thread but Ireland was never united under Irish rule. So we cannot re-unite something that was never united in the first place.

The country, Ireland, includes Ulster. Ireland was inhabited by people who would call themselves Irish, as too was/is Ulster. The fact that we've a foreign power, with loyalties outside of Ireland, occupying a section of Ulster and some people resident in Ireland, who feel they are not Irish, is the anomaly here.

markodaly · 08-01-2018 06:25PM

murphaph wrote: »

On the contrary. Elections are won in Ireland with promises of tax cuts. Come to Germany and they are won on promises of what to spend the tax take on. Germany is far more socialist in its outlook. It's why public transport is so awful in Ireland. It doesn't win elections.

Did Leo stand up for the North? From my perspective he stood up for the interests of the south.

There seems to be a massive hole in the argument for a UI. That is the self interest of southern voters. Sure, its a nice aspiration possibly, until we look at the actual short and medium term costs.

We can't even get people to pay a euro or two a week for fresh clean water, how on earth are we going to be able to afford the Billions upon Billions of euro needed to unite the two regions. Unless the EU give us the guts of €100 Billion, no strings attached I cannot see the economic argument ever swaying the middle class who will decide the outcome.

Those advocating a UI will have to do a lot better, then calling you unpatriotic or making up Brexit like nonsense about saved billions.

Lastly, Brexit and the difficulties of actually carrying out such a task should give everyone a shot of realism in the arm on how the hell a UI could actually be carried out and negotiated.

FrancieBrady · 08-01-2018 06:30PM

markodaly wrote: »

There seems to be a massive hole in the argument for a UI. That is the self interest of southern voters. Sure, its a nice aspiration possibly, until we look at the actual short and medium term costs.

We can't even get people to pay a euro or two a week for fresh clean water, how on earth are we going to be able to afford the Billions upon Billions of euro needed to unite the two regions. Unless the EU give us the guts of €100 Billion, no strings attached I cannot see the economic argument ever swaying the middle class who will decide the outcome.

Those advocating a UI will have to do a lot better, then calling you unpatriotic or making up Brexit like nonsense about saved billions.

Lastly, Brexit and the difficulties of actually carrying out such a task should give everyone a shot of realism in the arm on how the hell a UI could actually be carried out and negotiated.

The majority of Irish people have no problem paying for water. The way they were asked to pay was the problem.

James Brown · 08-01-2018 06:48PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The majority of Irish people have no problem paying for water. The way they were asked to pay was the problem.

Maybe Fine Gael will simply put us into debt by the billions for a United Ireland? More palatable than what it went towards last time.

I can see the spin now, 'We partied/went mad during the troubles' etc. etc.

markodaly · 08-01-2018 06:48PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The country, Ireland, includes Ulster. Ireland was inhabited by people who would call themselves Irish, as too was/is Ulster. The fact that we've a foreign power, with loyalties outside of Ireland, occupying a section of Ulster and some people resident in Ireland, who feel they are not Irish, is the anomaly here.

So, you accept that we were never united under Irish rule? Good.

In the North, people can claim to be Irish or British. We voted for this as part of the Friday Agreement, it is part of our constitution.So, there is no anomaly here. Much like East Timorese identity as East Timorese and not Indonesian.

James Brown · 08-01-2018 07:40PM

markodaly wrote: »

So, you accept that we were never united under Irish rule? Good.

In the North, people can claim to be Irish or British. We voted for this as part of the Friday Agreement, it is part of our constitution.So, there is no anomaly here. Much like East Timorese identity as East Timorese and not Indonesian.

Your argument, your conclusion.
Despite the best efforts of some good meaning folk, I've simply been stating that Ulster is naturally a part of Ireland. I made no mention of the Lisbon treaty nor any ruling made by the judges on Dancing with the stars that ties Ireland together or states what is and isn't the country of Ireland.

People can claim, and be citizens of where ever they like. However they would still be resident in Ireland, which consists of Ulster.
Nobody is disputing part of Ulster isn't currently occupied by a foreign power. They can call themselves what they wish.
There is quite assuredly an anomaly as regards the six counties. Such as the Ulster Scots folk, claiming to be Ulster Scots. For one Ulster is part of Ireland and more strange, part of Ulster isn't even in the same jurisdiction. How does that tally? Are there now two Ulsters?

murphaph · 08-01-2018 09:13PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The country, Ireland, includes Ulster. Ireland was inhabited by people who would call themselves Irish, as too was/is Ulster. The fact that we've a foreign power, with loyalties outside of Ireland, occupying a section of Ulster and some people resident in Ireland, who feel they are not Irish, is the anomaly here.

So you won't even grant them the right to identify as British as enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement?

jm08 · 08-01-2018 10:16PM

murphaph wrote: »

So you won't even grant them the right to identify as British as enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement?

They have the right to identify whatever way they like (that means nationalists and unionists).

Close to a million people (and growing) of Irish people with Irish passports in NI! The Irish Government has a responsibility to its citizens whether they are north or south of the border.

Edit: that concession was given by unionists so that the Irish Republic would renounce its claim to the territory of NI.

johnnyskeleton · 09-01-2018 12:13AM

Mod note:

Can we go back to serious posts on the issue of Irish Unification, specifically the costs / other practical issues arising therefrom please?

Schumi7 · 09-01-2018 12:34AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Can we go back to serious posts on the issue of Irish Unification, specifically the costs / other practical issues arising therefrom please?

Thanks be to Jesus.

The amount of nonsense and deflection on this thread in incredible. Farmers up North could keep much of precious Ulster's fields free from birds with the amount of straw men used.

Cheers johnny!

murphaph · 09-01-2018 07:55AM

The only known cost we have is the current NI subsidy of about €9bn. Without concrete commitments from the UK and or EU that they will pick up this bill for a couple of decades the cost is simply unaffordable for the Republic.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 08:00AM

murphaph wrote: »

The only known cost we have is the current NI subsidy of about €9bn. Without concrete commitments from the UK and or EU that they will pick up this bill for a couple of decades the cost is simply unaffordable for the Republic.

Break that figure down for us. What would not be applicable in a UI and after a period of 'preparation'.

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments