FrancieBrady wrote: » Very selective reading of the word 'also'. For instance saying that 'Liverpool scored against Man U and also drew with Arsenal' is perfectly acceptable grammar and use of the word 'also' if it is said in the context of winning the league. Context is everything.
Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: » Are you claiming on behalf of cgcsb that neither report exists, both reports exist or only one report exists? In the case of both or one report existing, I'd be interested to see that report. If the claim is that the IMF "rubbished" something outside of a report, I'd be interested to see where they did so and where, in the history of the IMF, they have made claims outside of an official report.
blanch152 wrote: » We have a few Friends of Sinn Fein reports which say it will be all right on the night, just like Brexit. The FDI that will flow into Northern Ireland sounds a lot like the great trade deals that will be done when the UK escapes the stranglehold of the EU. We have another report from two respected Irish economists who say that unification will lead to a 15% drop in living standards for people down South. I know which one I believe.
Fr Tod Umptious wrote: » d I think we should get on with Brexit and dealing with that without even bothering with a border poll for a long long time
FrancieBrady wrote: » All I am saying is that he/she didn't say there was an IMF report.
blanch152 wrote: » The €5-7bn comes from the Friends of Sinn Fein reports.https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/ A more interesting take on the possibility of unification here:https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/03/12/a-united-ireland-is-not-inevitable-here-is-why/ "There are hundreds of questions for Nationalists to address before they can put a case for Northern Ireland seceding from the Union with the UK to join with the Republic of Ireland under the rule of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. What happens to the NHS – will we see GP & presciption charges? (€40-€65 to see your doctor in the Republic) What of EU inspired water and bin charges based on usage/weight? Would a United Ireland be a unitary State or would there still be a devolved Stormont? What happens to Northern Irish civil servants, firemen, police officers etc? What happens on pensions and benefits? What about the subvention Northern Ireland receives – could the South afford it? Will the Union flag be hoisted alongside the Tri Colour on the Dail in the name of parity and equality? Will we get a new agreed all-Ireland flag? Will we get a new agreed all-Ireland National Anthem? Will we be entitled to dual British & Irish citizenship and passports? What happens to the cross-border bodies? Will mandatory powersharing be implemented in the Dail with D`Hondt? Will their be an all-Ireland parades commission?" Of course, we could just have a referendum like the Brexit one in the UK, where we vote based on sentiment and promises and lies.
seamus wrote: » It's a bit of a stretch to equate an article by a contrarian economist twice removed from Fine Gael, as being official Fine Gael policy, or having been at all written with the assent or co-operation of the government. .
FrancieBrady wrote: » There will be a certain amount of risk in embarking on a UI and that is fine.
Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: » So how did the IMF "rubbish" anything then... sky-writing, carrier pigeon? I think it's safe to assume from the history of the IMF and the post in question that there is an implication that there is an IMF report and, frankly, I don't understand your aim here other than to provoke an argument over semantics?
facehugger99 wrote: » It's not fine with me and hundreds of thousands of other private sector taxpayers that are expected to take on these so-called 'risks'.
Baron de Charlus wrote: » While I don't think the piece is in any way supposed to be representative of Fine Gael policy, at the same time you'd want to be seriously deluded to think that they're in favour of a united Ireland. None of the major political parties, barring SF and a few of the more traditional element of FF, are serious about wanting one. It's something you pay lip service too rather than actively pursue, because there's nothing politically to be gained from actively opposing. If a border poll was ever on the cards, expect most of them to try and edge away from it, something along the lines of "We're in favour in principle, but now is not the right time etc..."
FrancieBrady wrote: » FF would edge away from a UI?
Bambi wrote: » Certain parties will either dismiss or endorse these studies solely on the basis of whether or not the report bolsters their opposition to UI. My opinion is that all of these reports are based on so many assumptions that they all should come with health warnings. If Brexit has shown us anything is that you need to call out bad actors at source rather than indulge their arguing in bad faith. These lads wouldn't want a UI even if it was totally cost neutral. They don't want a UI full stop. Start from that point and work back.
Baron de Charlus wrote: » I can see the Eamon O'Cuiv wing being all for it. But I'd say it would bring Micheal Martin out in hives.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sorry, I just cannot in my wildest imagination see Michael Martin actively discouraging unity if there is a poll imminent. I am no fan of FF or believe for a minute it's leadership believe in anything but self preservation but it is outlandish to suggest they would do that.
Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: » If FF don't go for the jugular on FG after Brexit then I don't think Martin will be leader of FF for much longer.
topmanamillion wrote: » I don't think unification is even on the agenda or will be any time soon. The North will be looking to batten down the hatches and weather the economic hit of Brexit. There'll be zero appetite for heading into more of the unknown.There is one nation listed with the UN - Ireland. It just so happens to have two states controlled by two different governments. The simple fact is if a high percentage majority of catholics/republican identifing citizens in the North strongly wanted unification, it would lead to a border poll. The fact there's no such push says it all.
Baron de Charlus wrote: » While I don't think the piece is in any way supposed to be representative of Fine Gael policy, at the same time you'd want to be seriously deluded to think that they're in favour of a united Ireland.
I think, at the outset, a United Ireland worth having, is one whereby people are united, whereby everyone in the country would feel they're part of the country, a country in which nobody feels they've been left out and that's one thing I would always think when people talk about United Ireland in the traditional sense, bringing Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland together into a 32 county state. I would not like to visit on unionists in Northern Ireland what, I believe, was visited on nationalists and Catholics in Northern Ireland - people feeling that this wasn't their state, that they weren't really part of it, that they were bounced into it or left in it against their will., and if we have seen anything from Brexit it's that anything important decided on a tight margin is going to be a disaster.
Sinn Fein's senior negotiator Conor Murphy has insisted that the 1998 Good Friday Agreement is "absolutely clear" that "if a simple majority vote in favour of reunification, both governments are then obliged to legislate for it". Mr Murphy has argued that there's "an onus on the Irish government to plan for unity, to become a persuader for unity, to build the maximum agreement and to secure and win a referendum on unity.
Sinn Féin is seeking a new, agreed and united Ireland. We want to build a just, fair and equal Ireland, an economically prosperous and socially and culturally inclusive Ireland. We want to protect our most vulnerable, the elderly, children, the ill, the ethnic minorities, those with disabilities – and ensure that equality is the touchstone upon which all policies are formulated. The republican vision of a united Ireland is based on the principles of equality, inclusion and sovereignty. There can be no place for sectarianism, exclusion or discrimination.
She said: “Obviously, our unionist brothers and sisters need to be part of planning a new Ireland, their first option, of course, is to maintain the union with Britain and we respect that, but as one ex-leader of the DUP put it, they need to start now planning for all eventualities and unionism needs a Plan B.”
None of the major political parties, barring SF and a few of the more traditional element of FF, are serious about wanting one. It's something you pay lip service too rather than actively pursue, because there's nothing politically to be gained from actively opposing.
If a border poll was ever on the cards, expect most of them to try and edge away from it, something along the lines of "We're in favour in principle, but now is not the right time etc..."
johnnyskeleton wrote: » I guess it depends on what you mean by "United Ireland", and what you mean by "in favour" as well. The most recent spat was over the question as to whether a 50% +1 majority in Northern Ireland for a United Ireland was the appropriate time for a border poll. Varadkar said that more than that was required, his reasoning being that you have to carry along all the people of Northern Ireland: He was immediately criticised by Sinn Fein of having a partitionist mentality etc:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41655699 But yet Sinn Fein's own policy documents are much closer aligned to what Varadkar said:http://www.sinnfein.ie/a-republic-for-all-policy And their leader Mary Lou:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/prepare-for-a-united-ireland-sinn-féin-tells-unionists-1.3780337 I really don't see the difference between what either party is saying, with the exception that FG have said that a 50% +1 result would be a bad outcome, whereas SF avoid the question directly. But all are clear that it can't be a divisive or forceful unification, and that the Unionist population must be part of it. I would say they all are, and all have similar views, it's just that SF talk about it more and get upset when other parties mention it. What does being serious about wanting one actually mean in practical terms? If all parties agree that both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland must be respected and brought along with the process, then you could argue that SF are the least serious about wanting it. We have a situation where FG and FF reach out to the Unionists and try to work with them. SF meanwhile criticise FG and FF for this, making the Unionists nervous about what would happen to them in a United Ireland. If SF were serious about it, they would stop making cheap political points about "partitionist mindsets" etc. But they can't, because that is what they use to differentiate themselves from the other parties. Well do you think now is the right time for a border poll? the demographic split is closer than ever and the opinion polls show that the difference in opinion is very tight. But it is still majority remain part of the UK. A lot of the increase in Catholics in Northern Ireland are from Eastern Europe, so it is not clear if they can vote. And looking at the Scottish Independence vote, we can see how people tend to shy away from the moves when they get closer to the voting day, as practical matters trump the essential principle. So now is not the right time if you want to actually get a 50% +1 vote in favour of a United Ireland. Let's say next year you did, however; would that be ideal? I suspect a narrow victory will lead to violence, only it is the Irish Army vs Unionist Paramilitants.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » So now is not the right time if you want to actually get a 50% +1 vote in favour of a United Ireland. Let's say next year you did, however; would that be ideal? I suspect a narrow victory will lead to violence, only it is the Irish Army vs Unionist Paramilitants.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And typical of Varadkar, he fails to address what vista he will create if he ignores a 51% in favour result, for fear of annoying some unionists.
blanch152 wrote: » Well, we wouldn't want to create a situation like the UK where a 51% vote is taken to mean the most extreme form of Brexit is the default. There is a lot to be said for bringing the vast majority of people along with you when addressing a significant constitutional issue such as Brexit or a united Ireland. Relying on a 50% +1 vote is not the best thing to do as we have seen over the last two years.
Imreoir2 wrote: » 50% +1 is hardily ideal, but it would be far worse to maintain the union with the UK when that union has lost the consent of the majority of the people of NI. To fail to disolve the Union should a majority, even a narrow majority, support doing so would be to destroy the GFA. To fail to hold a referendum when a majority, even a narrow majority, support unification again would be to stab at the heart of the peace agreement. Would that be ideal? Would proving the disidents right not run an equal or even greater risk of a return to violence?
Bambi wrote: » The concerns and scrutiny of the voters I assume. Or do you mean the concerns and scrutiny of a small set in the Republic who are four square set against a UI regardless of the potential benefits or pitfalls? Because I'm not worried about wasting time on them
Baron de Charlus wrote: » This is kind of what I'm talking about. Varadkar can say the right time is "one whereby people are united, whereby everyone in the country would feel they're part of the country, a country in which nobody feels they've been left out ..." etc. because he knows that that time is never going to come.
