Imreoir2 wrote: » You don't compete with yourself. If after unification a multi-national company sets up in Belfast, it is a gain not a loss to Ireland.
facehugger99 wrote: » Great, so it will be competing with us for FDI? Sounds fantastic.
blanch152 wrote: » Are you seriously suggesting that ending partition will fix the problem of those with a British identity wanting to live in the rest of Britain?
jm08 wrote: » They will be ''us'' then. It will be like Cork and Limerick competing for FDI.
facehugger99 wrote: » So maybe explain how that's a positive.
jm08 wrote: » Take Pfizer for example (who have about six plants in Ireland). They want to expand and they need an available workforce - instead of heading off to Poland, why not keep it in Ireland is and where they get exactly the same conditions just an hour from their European HQ.
facehugger99 wrote: » So NI can compete with Poland because of lower corporation taxes? Which ROI can now do anyway. Makes no sense- there's no benefit to the republic in that scenario - it's a cost neutral example. If you want to expound on the economic benefits of a UI you're going to need to do better.
jm08 wrote: » Ireland can compete because of a) English speaking b) Young, educated available workforce c) Stable government d) Corporate tax rate The sense is that if you have all those people working away in NI paying tax to the Irish Gov., we will be beneficiaries.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Well, it didn't really have the desired effect having those poor misguided souls in Fermanagh and Tyrone decamping to Cavan, Donegal and Leitrim. The temerity of them staying where they're from. I wonder blanch is there anything positive you could propose re partition? Like did it make things better, and so much so that it should continue ad infinitum.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Are those reluctant or against unification anytime soon saying partition was a bad thing, in the least for N. Ireland? I'm hearing how much of a basket case it is. My point is, it seems those seeking unification and those against it don't seem to think partition was a good thing, for varying reasons. An exception might be for romanticised notions of Britishness amongst some?
blanch152 wrote: » There are a couple of things to consider. Firstly, as has been postulated on this thread (and not refuted), Germany is not seeing the benefits of unification 25 years on that were predicted or expected. Secondly, I and others are arguing that thanks to 100 years of divergence means there are huge differences in culture, economics and society. These will not vanish overnight, nor can they easily be overcome. Thirdly, while it is not a basket-case, it is a region of the UK that requires excessive subvention. Where it has suffered economically, it can be traced back to a number of factors including a reliance on heavy industry and a failure to modernise. The wholly unnecessary terrorist campaign also paid a part in the economic failings of Northern Ireland and reinforced the other problems by creating a defensive and introverted culture among the population targetted by the campaign. The modern DUP is in many ways a creature created by the IRA. Fourthly, the resistance to unity is constantly under-estimated by those backing it. Fifthly, the naive predictions that you can get rid of hundreds of thousands of Northern Irish civil servants while forgetting that you need them to vote for unity don't convince. It may well be that people won't vote against unity down South even if it means increased taxation, but people will always vote to save their job. Finally, we wouldn't even be having this discussion it it wasn't for Brexit. Brexit may not happen, or we may end up with the softest of Brexits, in which case we will all be reminded that the current system actually works quite well for both sides. Up until Brexit appeared over the hill, there was no great desire for unity and in many ways the Brexit issue has been hijacked. We are all in danger of ignoring the bigger economic issues if we are distracted by the border one.
Baron de Charlus wrote: » The IRA actually predates the DUP.
Matt Barrett wrote: » If thats regarding my post: "I would argue that the IRA was a need created by the attitude of the likes of the DUP and their ilk including criminal and terrorist activities perpetrated by the British forces and government." Those who created a need for the IRA had the mechanics of the state on their side.
Matt Barrett wrote: » There are not huge differences in culture.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Even the Ulster-Scots claim ownership of the Irish province of Ulster as part of their heritage. They use the red hand quite happily. They have lived on and farmed the same land as us and viewed as Irish by the entire world albeit under the jurisdiction of the UK, (those who are aware of that). So while there are some cultural differences, they are very minor and more to do with their politics and that's not even true of the entire population.
Matt Barrett wrote: » As for 'The wholly unnecessary terrorist campaign' despite any PR to the contrary most people seek peace, including nationalists. Freedom fighters/terrorists are not born in a vacuum they require external factors to come into being. I would argue that the IRA was a need created by the attitude of the likes of the DUP and their ilk including criminal and terrorist activities perpetrated by the British forces and government.
Matt Barrett wrote: » So you say. I think the idea of the north's financials playing a major role in peoples decisions is exaggerated IMO. There is no move to sack any civil servants. This is one of many issues that needs debating. There are numerous options. The north will need administrators, especially during the move to unification.
Matt Barrett wrote: » No, Brexit is just the latest in a long line of issues that brings the ongoing, never ending discussion on reunification to the fore. Trying to compare the two is a false analogy.
blanch152 wrote: » I reject this completely and it is an insult to the likes of John Hume, Seamus Mallon and many hundreds of thousands of others who campaigned peacefully for civil rights and never resorted to violence.
blanch152 wrote: » Which is it? We will save a fortune by sacking civil servants or we will keep them all on and pay them a fair Dublin rate for their work? I wish proponents of unification would come clean on such issues and tell us which they favour.
The North was stable until Brexit. If brexit disappears, it will be stable again.
Imreoir2 wrote: » What part of voluntary redundancies and natural wastage do you not understand? You don't have to sack people to reduce the number employed in the civil service. You are setting up a false choice and complaining when people don't dance to your tune.
Baron de Charlus wrote: » Exactly, that chicken was there before the egg. Regarding the final line, that's akin to saying that US interference in the Middle East crated a "need" for Osama bin Laden. Perhaps a poor choice of words on your part?
I would argue that the IRA was a need created by the attitude of the likes of the DUP and their ilk including criminal and terrorist activities perpetrated by the British forces and government.
blanch152 wrote: » There are millions of Irish people who abhorred everything the IRA did and everything they stood for. There was no need for the IRA. There is only very rarely a need for violence to achieve political ends. Northern Ireland after the civil rights reforms was not such a place that "needed" violence.
blanch152 wrote: » Have you ever spent time in Northern Ireland? Abortion, same-sex marriage, retail hours, flags, parades, observation of the Sabbath, drinking culture, some of them reflect badly on them, some of them reflect badly on us. Yet there is no denying that there are differences.
blanch152 wrote: » It is what they view themselves as that is crucial. One of the key aspects of the GFA was the recognition of both identities living on this island - the British as well as the Irish one. You are attempting to conflate their identity into an Irish one, which is a rejection of the principles of the GFA.
blanch152 wrote: » The North was stable until Brexit. If brexit disappears, it will be stable again.
Imreoir2 wrote: » While arguably prolonged by Brexit, the current crisis in the devolved arangement in the North was not caused by Brexit, it was caused by DUP corrution and and a growing feeling in the nationalist community that Unionism was treating nationalists as a second class people and which resulted in SF being pressured by their electorate to stand up for them.
Matt Barrett wrote: » We'll have to see won't we? There are many options. You're the one suggesting mass lay offs.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Have you been following Stormount, the troubles, internment, shoot to kill, H-Block, the GFA and on and on? Are you really trying to say before Brexit it was stable?
blanch152 wrote: » Some people believe there is a magic money tree option where there is no cost to the option. I don't.
blanch152 wrote: » The North has been stable since the GFA up until Brexit. Since Brexit, those with a unity agenda have used Brexit to attempt to destablise the North to further their agenda. It is no surprise that the likes of Varadkar and Martin have cautioned against these charlatans.
blanch152 wrote: » Voluntary redundancy costs money. Voluntary early retirement costs even more money. If natrual wastage see nurses leave for Dubai, you can't just replace them with surplus fire-fighters. Your ideas are the sort of nonsense that convinced Charlie McCreevy that decentralisation could work. It didn't. At least now though, we do know that you favour one of the more costly options.
blanch152 wrote: » The North has been stable since the GFA up until Brexit.
murphaph wrote: » If Brexit doesn't happen a border poll won't happen either.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Wishful thinking by some I'm sure, but the reality is that the GFA is a one way street regardless, with the cul de sac ending being a border poll.
