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..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » FF would edge away from a UI?
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..."
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'.
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?
FrancieBrady wrote: » There will be a certain amount of risk in embarking on a UI and that is fine.
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. .
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » All I am saying is that he/she didn't say there was an IMF report.
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
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.
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.
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.
blanch152 wrote: » Until somebody can produce credible evidence that unification is a long term investment that will pay off, those peddling unification look an awful lot like those peddling Brexit.
briany wrote: » If the concerns around a United Ireland are put to scrutiny and it's found that they do not hold water, that would be absolutely fine. Far better that they are brought up and honestly discussed than waved away with an "it'll be grand..."
seamus wrote: » I'm paywalled from the IT article, but I recall his figure was £10bn, not euro. So I put some overhead in there because there will be increased integration and development costs for us in the medium-term. The UK pumps in £10bn just to keep NI afloat. If we want a functioning economy, we'd need to pump in billions in development funding on top of that. I'm not sure where the €5-7bn figure comes from. Maybe thats's the one-off cost after a border poll. But it's definitely not the ongoing cost.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Everything time the cost of unification is mentioned it increases. €5-7bn is generally the accepted figure, the IT author has it at €10bn, seamus had it at €15bn and professore has it at €72tn.
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. The author does seem to make his money saying the economic things that you're not supposed to say. He wrote an article in the Guardian saying that despite being a remainer, he is fully behind Brexit...because Britain is holding the EU back. Some quarters seem to be making a taboo out of the suggestion that any Irish person may not want a United Ireland. We've been spoonfed this propaganda about rebellion and partition and oppression since we were toddlers, such that we can't even countenance the idea that perhaps we're not entitled to claim domain over another jurisdiction just because it's connected to us. The thrust of what the article is saying (IMO) is that making noises about a United Ireland at this stage is premature. The UK and by extension Northern Ireland is going to be an economic and ideological mess for at least a decade. While it seems like a no-brainer that the time to call a UI poll is when the UK is in disarray, economically we'd be opening up a big hole into which we'd have to pour €15bn a year. Considering that's about a fifth of our current budget, it's something that we can't afford. "Formalising" partition in this context refers to the certainty that we won't have to take on that economic burden in the short-term. I do however feel that he has missed out on the obvious; the assistance the EU would provide in such a scenario.
professore wrote: » I heard on the radio this morning that there's a guy from Cork running buses to Belfast so elderly people can have cataracts removed. Until we sort out the health service, people in NI would be insane to vote to join a united Ireland. Hell I'd join the UK for that reason alone. Consider what a disaster it would be if we had a united Ireland. It would be the Bank bailout times 100. PS Salaries and social welfare reduced to UK levels would be a start to pay for it.
