blanch152 wrote: » There are numerous signs of it as I have already explained, not just abortion and SSM, but also in areas such as church attendance, alcohol regulation, retail hours at weekends etc. The South is now as secular a society as there is in the Western world. The North is a religious society divided between denominations who nonetheless share many similar characteristics. These are on-the-ground cultural differences that have nothing to do with political parties.
Matt Barrett wrote: » So religious denomination has nothing to do with the northern political parties or the policies they enact? Are you familiar with the occupied counties at all? Again, I would suggest, the average punter just wants to live and let live. Nobody will be dragged out of mass by the ear for pints and a slice of gay cake.
blanch152 wrote: » What I am saying is that the cultural differences between North and South exist independently of any political party. you constantly want to draw the focus back on the respective political parties. But I am only looking at society.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Mtx wrote: » What is the consensus in the south on whether they want reunification? Any polls I seen were northern Ireland survey's. There's a large consensus in the south and always has been for reunification. You can take it as read that a large majority want it. Especially seeing as all major political parties are pro-unification, even the Blueshirts. Either way though the mechanisms that allow it can't come into play until the north vote for it.
Mtx wrote: » What is the consensus in the south on whether they want reunification? Any polls I seen were northern Ireland survey's.
blanch152 wrote: » Matt Barrett wrote: » Well in that case you are wrong, imo. It won't be long now before there's a push for pro choice legislation. The DUP are embarrassing themselves this week on that very topic. They've a thriving gay community and they can deny climate change, but I'm quite sure most people take science over rhetoric. I would counter, as we move further away from the criminal past of the catholic church, the more appealing Ireland is to the average non-DUP member. There are numerous signs of it as I have already explained, not just abortion and SSM, but also in areas such as church attendance, alcohol regulation, retail hours at weekends etc. The South is now as secular a society as there is in the Western world. The North is a religious society divided between denominations who nonetheless share many similar characteristics. These are on-the-ground cultural differences that have nothing to do with political parties.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Well in that case you are wrong, imo. It won't be long now before there's a push for pro choice legislation. The DUP are embarrassing themselves this week on that very topic. They've a thriving gay community and they can deny climate change, but I'm quite sure most people take science over rhetoric. I would counter, as we move further away from the criminal past of the catholic church, the more appealing Ireland is to the average non-DUP member.
McGiver wrote: » You sure? Even if that meant higher taxes and/or cuts to subsidise NI?
McGiver wrote: » Long way to go to call the South secular. Compared to Europe and even the UK.
keane2097 wrote: » We're out from under the yoke of the Catholic Church for about half a wet week and we have suddenly developed deep and irreconcilable differences with our neighbours up the road who go to mass :pac:
He also questioned the weight laid on the contentious Irish border issue in the government’s approach to the negotiations. “It’s so small and there are so few firms that actually use that border regularly, it’s just beyond belief that we’re allowing the tail to wag the dog in this way. We’re allowing the whole of our agenda to be dictated by this folly,” he said.
Thomas_IV wrote: » For some time period after unification, these measures are unavoidable. I'd say that it might be for around twenty to twenty five years,....
blanch152 wrote: » Nope, these differences have been identified for quite a while. The recent referenda have only crystallised the changes in Irish society and exposed the real differences between North and South. Here is an article from 2013:https://www.irishcentral.com/news/numbers-in-irelands-catholic-church-continue-to-drop-stigma-attached-to-attending-mass-200315991-237575781 "Despite the lack of figures in Northern Ireland, the sentiment is that Catholics in Northern Ireland have a closer hold on their Catholic religion after having fought to keep it." If someone has some hard figures to dispute my argument, please feel free to post them. However, you only need to spend a small amount of time in both jurisdictions on a Sunday to realise the wide difference in approach.
FrancieBrady wrote: » https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/poll-only-29-oppose-reform-of-abortion-laws-in-northern-ireland-35975596.html Everyone knows who the 29% are and what political party they vote for. Northern Ireland is as ripe for change as we were down south. What is needed is political leaders to smell the change and change sides just as FG did here and get the job done. Why do you keep denying this reality to repudiate the idea of a UI? Everyone can see what you are so desperately trying to do here.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Zubeneschamali wrote: » I would admit that I would not be too happy to see the DUP in Leinster House and Sinn Fein boosted by their NI voters to be the countries largest party. SF voters might be released by unification, a bit like UKIP voters after the Brexit referendum, but the DUP would only strengthen and become even more obstreperous in opposition. I can see them partnering with Fine Gael, similar personalities. Be a sad day for FF and the civil war monopoly.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I would admit that I would not be too happy to see the DUP in Leinster House and Sinn Fein boosted by their NI voters to be the countries largest party. SF voters might be released by unification, a bit like UKIP voters after the Brexit referendum, but the DUP would only strengthen and become even more obstreperous in opposition.
blanch152 wrote: » You are making about something that might happen as opposed to something that has happened. So what reality am I denying? I am not just talking about abortion legislation - it is one of many indicators. Furthermore, as far as I can see, there is no mainstream political party in the North that supports unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks, which has just been voted on in the South. Again, that is a reality. Yes, there is a proposed Ard Fheis in SF to change that, but a proposal isn't reality. It seems to me that the contention being put to me is that if you ignore the whole Unionist population, and the more significant conservative Catholic population in Northern Ireland, then the two parts of the island are the same. I don't think I will ignore those realities.
Thomas_IV wrote: » McGiver wrote: » You sure? Even if that meant higher taxes and/or cuts to subsidise NI? For some time period after unification, these measures are unavoidable. I'd say that it might be for around twenty to twenty five years, depending on the growing of the economy and how good the integration into the system of the Republic would develop.
blanch152 wrote: » Nope, these differences have been identified for quite a while. The recent referenda have only crystallised the changes in Irish society and exposed the real differences between North and South. Here is an article from 2013:https://www.irishcentral.com/news/numbers-in-irelands-catholic-church-continue-to-drop-stigma-attached-to-attending-mass-200315991-237575781 "Despite the lack of figures in Northern Ireland, the sentiment is that Catholics in Northern Ireland have a closer hold on their Catholic religion after having fought to keep it."If someone has some hard figures to dispute my argument, please feel free to post them. However, you only need to spend a small amount of time in both jurisdictions on a Sunday to realise the wide difference in approach.
McGiver wrote: » Look, I'm not Irish but if I was, I think I wouldn't want to pay for this. I think vast majority in the South are lukewarm nationalists - up to the point when it concerns their wallet. Which is exactly the same case here. You seriously think that people squeezed by neoliberal agenda in ROI with poor public services, housing crisis, Dublin centralisation, unregulated ripoff insurance companies etc would want to pay out of their pocket to subsidise a backward province where half of the population stuck to sectarianism, religious bigotry, anti-science ideology and cling to a foreign country instead of their own? And all that to fulfil some old romantic dream of UI? Hardly. I think people in ROI know this and are pragmatic enough just to forget about NI. Think UI is not feasible at this stage. The matter was lost in 1920s. I fir, NI is a failed statelet - UK doesn't want it really, it's them who desperately want to be part of the UK. ROI doesn't want them either given the costs and given that ROI would have to deal with say 750 thousand troublemaking sectarian people completely opposed to the Republic.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They haven't had the debate about abortion yet. Because a single party representing a minority is blocking it despite poll after poll saying that the majority want change, and there must be many non dogmatic unionists among that majority. Keep ignoring this reality to make your spurious point, you are making no sense.
blanch152 wrote: » Well, if they haven't had the debate yet, one can only imagine the outcome, one cannot claim it as a reality being ignored. The reality goes far beyond abortion rights.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I am very unenthusiastic about a United Ireland - my grandparents were burnt out of their home in Belfast by loyalists in the 1920s, and the troubles made me cordially dislike both sides. Nationalism and Unionism both swinging behind their worst parties with the SDLP, Alliance and the UUP made irrelevant after the GFA did not improve my opinion. But if the North ever voted for a United Ireland, I think it would be our duty to take them in. There are many decent Irish people up there, we could not abandon them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The SDLP in particular, who were willing to sell out nationalist aspirations to gain. The electorate repaid them for that in spades.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Before Sinn Fein showed them how to sell out and get away with it.
Baron de Charlus wrote: » This is it in a nutshell. Once this becomes public knowledge, it'll have a bearing on any vote. At the moment it's purely hypothetical and most people don't even think about the costs. But its not just cost in terms of additional taxation. There's also the question of whether people are willing to bear the political costs. Will Northern Ireland continue to have devolved self-government as it does now? Or will we have to guarantee representation in central government for the two Northern communities, a sort of Stormont for the island of Ireland? It's hard to gauge how much public support there would be until all of these are fully fleshed out.
McGiver wrote: » Religious backward homphobic racist (yes racist!) bigots will partner with party whose leader is a half-foreigner not exactly white gay??? Doubt it
Matt Barrett wrote: » For a lot of people cost doesn't come into it. We took generational debt for private banks and numerous 'errs', coupled with the number of working people having a tough time of it anyway....
FrancieBrady wrote: » You should be able to show that in voting patterns. Can you?
