Charles Babbage wrote: » I suggest your data is out of date.
Aegir wrote: » So an Irish passport holder in the UK is not foreign, but a British passport holder in Ireland is??
circadian wrote: » Let's just say a border poll passes. All the details are ironed out, everyone is included and most political leaders agree on a way forward that benefits all in this new Ireland. Aegir, downcow et al. How would you feel then? Would you still be against this new Ireland?
cgcsb wrote: » So called Northern Ireland, a territory that the UK has annexed in a Crimea style to be exact. The natives are not foreigners, the colonists (most of them) self-identify as foreign.
downcow wrote: » Its such an alien idea to me. There is no way i could embrace it - Could my grandchilden? maybe I don't want appear difficult but its a bit like if Ireland hold poll to rejoin UK and poll passes. All the details are ironed out, everyone is included and most political leaders agree on a way forward that benefits all in this new UK. How would you feel then? Would you be against this new UK? Its a very small example but the history of Unifying in Ireland is not good eg Rugby team
Matt Barrett wrote: » People keep using this 'rejoin'. We never 'joined'. Partition happened in your Great Grandparents time and you took to it, so stands to reason a reversal would be as welcome by the next generation.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Agreed, but it's not a new union between British colonists loyal to Britain and possibly the Dutch and the rest of Ireland. It's the unification of Ireland. That said of course there needs to be big changes but including anything British would be plain silly considering moving away from Britain is the whole point.
jm08 wrote: » This video from the Guardian which shows varying views on the border. Some varying views from those of a unionist background - two women (from 12.4 if you don't want to watch the full video) - one young, one middle aged from Enniskillen give opposing views on the border. The young girl wants a United Ireland, the other woman (ex-army) said she wants a hard border and everything back to what it was 40 years ago! Getting rid of a flag or anthem isn't going to do it for her. Said she would get into uniform again if there was to be a United Ireland!https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2019/feb/13/brexit-breakdown-fear-and-anger-on-the-irish-border-video
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/liam-weeks-are-we-really-united-about-our-lost-fourth-green-field-37823456.html One of the more interesting points made was the following: "The most obvious is how we would pay for the €11bn annual subvention Northern Ireland gets from the UK. In a study last year, Professors John FitzGerald and Edgar Morgenroth said that taking on this bill would permanently reduce our standard of living by 15pc." From what I could find, this statement seems to come from the following paper to the Dublin Economics Workshophttp://dublineconomics.com/papers/8502.pdf Unlike the previous calculations sponsored by groups linked to Friends of Sinn Fein, John FitzGerald and Edgar Morgenroth are respected Irish economists with an understanding of this economy. If they are really saying that unification would reduce living standards by 15%, then it should be listened to.
downcow wrote: » Its a very small example but the history of Unifying in Ireland is not good eg Rugby team
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/liam-weeks-are-we-really-united-about-our-lost-fourth-green-field-37823456.html A more realistic take on a united Ireland. "While it sounds great to sing of an undefined and romantic united Ireland after a few drinks, the reality is that so many in this part of the island have a disconnect with Northern Ireland." One of the more interesting points made was the following: "The most obvious is how we would pay for the €11bn annual subvention Northern Ireland gets from the UK. In a study last year, Professors John FitzGerald and Edgar Morgenroth said that taking on this bill would permanently reduce our standard of living by 15pc." From what I could find, this statement seems to come from the following paper to the Dublin Economics Workshophttp://dublineconomics.com/papers/8502.pdf Unlike the previous calculations sponsored by groups linked to Friends of Sinn Fein, John FitzGerald and Edgar Morgenroth are respected Irish economists with an understanding of this economy. If they are really saying that unification would reduce living standards by 15%, then it should be listened to.
briany wrote: » In a way, I could see a UI becoming a bit like Ireland's Brexit. It's a political issue with a lot of emotion around it and where the valid concerns of experts becomes lost amid nationalist, populist fervour. And just like Brexiteers might say "I'm willing to take the hit if it means being out of the EU.", Irish nationalists might express the same kind of sentiment about a UI. This is not to say that I'm against a UI at all, but yes it is important for the country to go into the thing with eyes wide open and have none of the sloganeering bluster that went into the Brexit referendum. Very thorough, frank conversations should be had.
Imreoir2 wrote: » While the cost of unification is an open question, a figure of 11bn is hardily credible as this includes NI's notional share of the cost of defence projects such as the UK's carrier fleet and their Nuclear deterrent. Assuming a United Ireland will not try to replicate Trident and will not require a carrier fleet, then one assumes that this is a cost that will not transfer over. Correct me if I am wrong, but that report outlines the impact if Ireland were to take on NI and simply continue running it as the British have without making any atempt to reform the NI economey and bring it into line with the rest of the country. The main point of the report being that this would be a terrible idea and as such significant resources and planning need to be dedicated to overhauling NI to make unification work.
Imreoir2 wrote: » For what it's worth, I believe that unification has a good posibility of being a long term net positive economically for Ireland, but that is not the basis of my support for it. Unlike the Brexiteers who claimed that Brexit would be easy and would have noting but positives, I am quite happy to admit that Unification will be dificult, it will have costs and risks, and will require a lot of planning, hard work and investment to make it work. But I do think that it can work and that it is the right thing to do in the long term. If Ireland was a united country, I seriously doubt that a good economic arguement could be made that partition would be better for the island economically.
Imreoir2 wrote: » I will freely admit that the economic side of unification is not the priority for me. I am not pro unification because I think it will put a few extra euros in my pocket, nor would the loss of a few euros from my pocket cause me to change my mind. For what it's worth, I believe that unification has a good posibility of being a long term net positive economically for Ireland, but that is not the basis of my support for it. Unlike the Brexiteers who claimed that Brexit would be easy and would have noting but positives, I am quite happy to admit that Unification will be dificult, it will have costs and risks, and will require a lot of planning, hard work and investment to make it work. But I do think that it can work and that it is the right thing to do in the long term. If Ireland was a united country, I seriously doubt that a good economic arguement could be made that partition would be better for the island economically.
cgcsb wrote: » This has been rubbished multiple times, even by the IMF, who are not friends of SF. The Irish civil service also has produced a report on same. The budget would be balanced a lot quicker than Germany's post unification budget.
blanch152 wrote: » All of the reports including that one exclude the cost of harmonising social welfare rates and public service pay. Both of those are of such significance that the costs of unification are grossly underestimated and wipe out several times any possible saving from cost of defence projects.
blanch152 wrote: » All of the reports including that one exclude the cost of harmonising social welfare rates and public service pay.