oscarBravo wrote: » I have no objection to a united Ireland in principle. What worries me is the prospect of rushing into a UI in a Brexit-like fashion - "it will be wonderful, and anyone saying otherwise is just peddling Project Fear". The point has been well-made on this forum that we are better at referendums than the UK, because we have a deliberative process by which we work out the details of how something will work before we seek the permission of the people to implement it. We need to keep doing that. I don't want to see competing slogans shouting that it will cost us money, or that it will save us money. I want to see a costed plan. Will we pay Irish social welfare rates to Northern Ireland residents? Will we achieve cost savings by firing most of the existing civil service up north? These and hundreds of similar questions need to be answered before we're asked to vote.
blanch152 wrote: » In the scale of things, we don't vote for the parties that will raise taxes the most - the likes of PBP and the other fringe left never get significant votes. You may well be right, a lot of turkeys vote for Christmas, but that doesn't mean it is the best choice.
Mehapoy wrote: » Surely, after the brexit headaches of the last few years and ongoing into the future, the last thing ireland/uk 'these islands' needs is a divisive and destabilising unification vote. By all means create a 'new ireland forum 2.0' -unionists will boycott, to discuss a framework for the next 50 years but its not going to be something that will come up in the next 10 years at least.
Peregrinus wrote: » We are different. We consistently whinge about higher taxes, but we consistently vote for the parties that impose them, which is why we have taxes that are higher than in the UK. We do this for the very good reason that, though we dislike high taxes, there are other things we dislike even more. By their deeds ye shall know them. This notino that we will automatically reject any policy that will cost taxpayers money is simply not borne out by the easily-observed evidence.
facehugger99 wrote: » German reunification was nothing like the situation in UI.
facehugger99 wrote: » They're also still paying for it 30 years later FYI.;)
facehugger99 wrote: » Reunification tax? - No thanks.
Peregrinus wrote: » This is the kind of thing that's in the remote future for a long time, and then when it happens it happens quite fast. Less than three years passed between Reagan's "tear down this wall!" speech in Berlin in 1988, at which point nobody envisaged German reunification as imminent, and actual reunion. What changed, of course, was the external context - glasnost, perestroika, the Soviet coup, the collapse of the Soviet Union. We don't envisage similarly dramatic changes in the context that effects Northern Ireland but, then, we wouldn't, would we? It's in the nature of surprising developments that they take you by surprise. But if a crash-out Brexit does lead to the splintering of the UK, which is not impossible, then, yeah, NI's future will be very much in play all of a sudden, and things could move quite fast.
facehugger99 wrote: » Irish people (in the Republic) might play lip service to a general aspirational hankering for unification, but as an electorate, we have consistently resisted the notion of paying additional taxes . . . .
blanch152 wrote: » The UK cancelled on the EU family for 350k a week for the NHS. It would be naive to think people on this island are any different.
facehugger99 wrote: » We won't choose to. Not a chance.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The current arrangement suits the cynical me feiners. Tax won't even be an issue for the vast majority. As I said, if we were forced to take worse for private concerns we'll take markedly less for the greater good of the island and Irish nationality and deal with what comes of it. You don't cancel on family because the bill might be inconvenient. We could imagine a Fine Gael minister made a financial gaffe, which he or she isn't responsible for, and write any costs off. 'Unification cost a small fortune, my bad'. And give him/her full confidence
Berserker wrote: » It was never put upon them. Ireland opted to join the UK and the RoI decided to break away from the rest of the UK after that.
facehugger99 wrote: » Irish people (in the Republic) might play lip service to a general aspirational hankering for unification, but as an electorate, we have consistently resisted the notion of paying additional taxes. The first mention of a 'Unification Tax' and the idea will be quietly parked (probably for 20 years). While it might be something that people want, they certainly don't want it enough to have to pay for it or anything. Any support for the notion, is, has been and will continue to be super-soft. The truth is that the current arrangement suits us perfectly. Let the Brits deal with policing and paying for the dysfunctional headache of NI.
Berserker wrote: » Not correct. Think you'll find that a certain vote occurred on the matter. It's often skipped in Irish history lessons. Doesn't fit in with the victim sob story, I suppose.
NI doesn't cost us 9-10-11-12 billion at the moment. As I said above, taking it on would cost more. That's just the base cost. I'm not including policing etc in that. I see that the UK is going to buy Brazilian beef after Brexit. The first of many blows to the Irish economy. Will be interesting to see how the EU digs you guys out of that hole. That's 50% of Irish exports that need a new home.
blanch152 wrote: » Before the British, we were a disorganised rabble of separate "kingdoms".
mrbrianj wrote: » Ireland was never partitioned before British rule, different political system for sure, but its a stretch to say Ireland was united by Britain.
blanch152 wrote: » Some people would label the Brexit referendum as an undemocratic or unfair vote because of people being bribed about NHS money or Russian influence or illegal spending, all modern versions of the Act of Union vote. However, there is no doubt that both results stand as democratic decisions of their time. It is also conveniently forgotten that Ireland has never been united except under British rule.
seamus wrote: » You mean the vote that the British ran a second time after it was defeated the first time? And where members of the Irish parliament were offered money, land and titles in exchange for supporting the act of union? Let's not forget that 90% of the actual population weren't permitted to vote, so the Parliament itself represented a minority. It's often "skipped", because it can't be considered a democratic or fair vote. Ireland was joining the union one way or another, the British just decided that bribery was easier than violence.
Berserker wrote: » Not correct. Think you'll find that a certain vote occurred on the matter. It's often skipped in Irish history lessons. Doesn't fit in with the victim sob story, I suppose. NI doesn't cost us 9-10-11-12 billion at the moment. As I said above, taking it on would cost more. That's just the base cost. I'm not including policing etc in that. I see that the UK is going to buy Brazilian beef after Brexit. The first of many blows to the Irish economy. Will be interesting to see how the EU digs you guys out of that hole. That's 50% of Irish exports that need a new home.
Imreoir2 wrote: » Ireland never opted to join the UK. Please don't spread such nonsense.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Taking on northern Ireland and the real subvention (not the 9-10-11-12 billion one we hear partitionists quoting) is the only way we can finally stop it costing us huge amounts of money and lives. The British will see it the same way. Nobody, except those shamefacedly with their hands out, sees the future of a failed state as sustainable. It will be that simple.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
