nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Border Poll discussion

segarox

i hope some people from northern ireland are reading this because it concerns them.

i've been watching a few videos on what might happen to the north following brexit and one of the options is to reunify with ireland, which i believe, is not everyone cup of tea. me personally as an irishman, i have no strong feelings about this but i think it'd be nice to see a complete ireland on a map. however, i think i may have seen an option that hasn't been considered.

what if the north was to vote to rejoin ireland but in name only; establish yourselves as a separate state with your own government, your own police force (technically you have that already; Stormont and the PSNI) and your own currency.

could have the benefits of staying in the EU and not have the unpleasant taste of irish in your mouths. or am i talking rubbish? please, i'd to hear what you have to say.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think you can calculate the average Irish person's willingness to support a united Ireland without putting a price on it. For example, I already asked how much you were willing to pay.

If it meant an increase of 7% in the standard rate of tax, a 10% cut in social welfare, the quadrupling of the property tax, and an increase in water charges, would you still be willing to pay?

If if if if...

What would be acceptable to you blanch?

I mean surely there's a point that you would find acceptable?

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm not misunderstanding your viewpoint -'I want this thing and I'm willing to pay any price for it regardless'- I'm just very confident it can be disregarded as it's not a view that would be shared by very many people.

Yeah that's pretty much my view, but I'd also be concerned about the cost and how it's managed. Bizarre right?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If if if if...

What would be acceptable to you blanch?

I mean surely there's a point that you would find acceptable?

Ireland joining the UK, (which has been touted elsewhere) or the UK give us back that portion of Ulster with a big bag of money on the understanding we give unionists 51% of the say in the new all Ireland Stormont I'd imagine.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think you can calculate the average Irish person's willingness to support a united Ireland without putting a price on it. For example, I already asked how much you were willing to pay.

If it meant an increase of 7% in the standard rate of tax, a 10% cut in social welfare, the quadrupling of the property tax, and an increase in water charges, would you still be willing to pay?

19th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland (1998). 94% support for it.

Article 3
1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament[2] that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

facehugger99

jm08 wrote: »

19th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland (1998). 94% support for it.

Article 3
1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament[2] that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

You didn’t highlight the relevant bit.

Unification tax?

No thanks.;)

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If if if if...

What would be acceptable to you blanch?

I mean surely there's a point that you would find acceptable?

(1) No cost to me as a taxpayer
(2) No risk of loyalist violence

To meet those pre-conditions, Northern Ireland needs to become a normalised secular society with buy-in from across all sections of society and also needs to develop an advanced economy.

What is amazing to me is that those who want a united Ireland most - Sinn Fein - are abdicating themselves from making it an attractive proposition by boycotting both Westminister and Stormont, and are therefore conceding ground to those who oppose unity. You could call it cowardice if you were being honest.

In other words, I would be delighted if we could have a united Ireland, so long as there is no hassle or disturbance to our society and economy down here.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

19th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland (1998). 94% support for it.

Article 3
1. It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament[2] that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

#

Not a problem for me, it is my firm will to see a united Ireland, but not until it is financially not an issue, and not until there is buy-in from across the society.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) No cost to me as a taxpayer
(2) No risk of loyalist violence

To meet those pre-conditions, Northern Ireland needs to become a normalised secular society with buy-in from across all sections of society and also needs to develop an advanced economy.

What is amazing to me is that those who want a united Ireland most - Sinn Fein - are abdicating themselves from making it an attractive proposition by boycotting both Westminister and Stormont, and are therefore conceding ground to those who oppose unity. You could call it cowardice if you were being honest.

In other words, I would be delighted if we could have a united Ireland, so long as there is no hassle or disturbance to our society and economy down here.

The reason we need unification is that northern Ireland will never be a 'normal society' and will continually and cyclically blight the societies around it, because it was never going to work properly in essence (and in the minds of those who set it up 'temporarily' btw)

There is ALWAYS a risk of violence and actual violence because of the above. Just because it doesn't affect you is not a reason to ignore it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The reason we need unification is that northern Ireland will never be a 'normal society' and will continually and cyclically blight the societies around it, because it was never going to work properly in essence (and in the minds of those who set it up 'temporarily' btw)

There is ALWAYS a risk of violence and actual violence because of the above. Just because it doesn't affect you is not a reason to ignore it.

Violence in India and Pakistan does not affect me and I am also ignoring that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Violence in India and Pakistan does not affect me and I am also ignoring that.

And Irish people will not, given a vote, be so glib, blasé and irresponsible as the small
nub of partitionists resident here are.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think you can calculate the average Irish person's willingness to support a united Ireland without putting a price on it. For example, I already asked how much you were willing to pay.

If it meant an increase of 7% in the standard rate of tax, a 10% cut in social welfare, the quadrupling of the property tax, and an increase in water charges, would you still be willing to pay?

Given that nothing like the extremity of these measures was required during the recession, why would you assume that it is relevant to a unification scenario?

jm08

facehugger99 wrote: »

You didn’t highlight the relevant bit.

Unification tax?

No thanks.;)

The criteria is peaceful. If a referendum is yes to unification, are you going to refuse to pay a unification tax?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

#

Not a problem for me, it is my firm will to see a united Ireland, but not until it is financially not an issue, and not until there is buy-in from across the society.

Thats the thing though - NI has had self-Government (Stormont Gov), direct rule from Westminister and now power sharing and none of them have worked out well for the people of NI.

Personally, I would have had great hopes for the GFA and powersharing - but that isn't working either. The British Gov. are just not interested and the Irish Gov. are shut out by Unionists. I can only see two options now - either joint authority by British and Irish Gov., or a UI.

facehugger99

jm08 wrote: »

The criteria is peaceful. If a referendum is yes to unification, are you going to refuse to pay a unification tax?

It's won't be an issue for me.

Unification is a pipe-dream, as far away now as it ever has been.

I enjoy seeing the Shinners practically wet their pants with excitement at the thoughts of a hard-Brexit, as much as the next man, but when the dust settles, the arguments against a UI will all still be in place.

The Irish electorate will not chose unification if it leads to increased taxation - and it will.

That is a fact that even the most ardent supported of a UI know deep down.

Any talks of Brexit, borders and polls is just noise from the usual suspects intent on destabilisation.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's won't be an issue for me.

Unification is a pipe-dream, as far away now as it ever has been.

I enjoy seeing the Shinners practically wet their pants with excitement at the thoughts of a hard-Brexit, as much as the next man, but when the dust settles, the arguments against a UI will all still be in place.

The Irish electorate will not chose unification if it leads to increased taxation - and it will.

That is a fact that even the most ardent supported of a UI know deep down.

Any talks of Brexit, borders and polls is just noise from the usual suspects intent on destabilisation.

One might say that this is the usual talk of those intent on maintaining a ridiculous and always unstable partition.

You are just saying stuff without any back up at all now. Monkey with fingers in ears springs to mind.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One might say that this is the usual talk of those intent on maintaining a ridiculous and always unstable partition.

You are just saying stuff without any back up at all now. Monkey with fingers in ears springs to mind.

Partition is not always unstable. There have been long periods of stability in Northern Ireland.

jm08

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's won't be an issue for me.

Unification is a pipe-dream, as far away now as it ever has been.

I enjoy seeing the Shinners practically wet their pants with excitement at the thoughts of a hard-Brexit, as much as the next man, but when the dust settles, the arguments against a UI will all still be in place.

The Irish electorate will not chose unification if it leads to increased taxation - and it will.

That is a fact that even the most ardent supported of a UI know deep down.

Any talks of Brexit, borders and polls is just noise from the usual suspects intent on destabilisation.

So basically, you don't care as long as you get one over the Shinners.
You need to grow up.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Partition is not always unstable. There have been long periods of stability in Northern Ireland.

When? During the apartheid Stormont regime?

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's won't be an issue for me.

Unification is a pipe-dream, as far away now as it ever has been.

I enjoy seeing the Shinners practically wet their pants with excitement at the thoughts of a hard-Brexit, as much as the next man, but when the dust settles, the arguments against a UI will all still be in place.

The Irish electorate will not chose unification if it leads to increased taxation - and it will.

That is a fact that even the most ardent supported of a UI know deep down.

Any talks of Brexit, borders and polls is just noise from the usual suspects intent on destabilisation.

This isn't about unification or any costs that may or may not be associated with same, you just want to say He see something opposite to what the shinners say or want.....

Also ignoring the fact that every party in Ireland these days aspire to see the unification of the island at some point (including FG).

But shure Sinn Fein.

facehugger99

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Also ignoring the fact that every party in Ireland these days aspire to see the unification of the island at some point (including FG).

Aspiration costs nothing and means less.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Partition is not always unstable. There have been long periods of stability in Northern Ireland.

If you are and have always been intent on ignoring northern Ireland, it is no surprise you would think that.
However, those interested, can readily see how quickly the inherent absurdity of a 'temporary' partition (which favoured the concentration of one political and religious dogmatic sect or tribe) can descend into dangerous instability.
That is cyclical and will never change because of the inherent absurdity mentioned.

seamus

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If you want to claim that unification would cost 15bn a year for 20 or 30 years, you really really need to back that claim up. Do you have a single shred of evidence to back that up?

To be fair, we already know that the yearly cost of keeping the lights on in NI is £10bn.

So based on today's exchange rates, that's €11.6bn. Based on 2015 exchange rates that would be closer to €15bn, but lets stick with todyay.

That's nearly €12bn just to keep the lights on. But we don't want to just keep the lights on. We want to make NI stand on its own two feet. This requires investment.

The National Development Plan proposes €9bn of investment per year over ten years in the Republic. To assume NI into that plan, would require an additional €3bn per year, taking into account the size of NI.

So that's €14.6bn per year over ten years. But that's just to keep up with the Republic. The NI is already behind. At the end of that ten years, you'll still need to keep paying the €11.6bn to keep the lights on. In order to reduce that burden, you need to overspend.

So, extend the development plan by 10 more years, giving you €15bn per year for 20 years? Or maybe double the spending in NI, making it €18bn a year over ten years, in the hope that NI will only require €5bn/year subvention in the decade that follows? And maybe none at all in the decades after that, if investment continues.

And the figures above ignore any transitional costs required in the unification process.

There is a significant financial implication in unification, that cannot be ignored. €15bn is about €6,000 per taxpayer. I.e. an average increase in income tax of €500/month for everyone in the Republic.

How many people do you think are willing to pay that for a decade or two?

Chips Lovell

There's few who'd disagree that Northern Ireland is unstable.

One of the important questions for voters would be though whether it would be any more stable under Irish rule compared to British rule.

ToBeFrank123

I cannot see the Unionists trade being the largest political force in the North to be a lesser force in the south. This conundrum has to be solved first.

It may actually mean Devolution and Stormont stays in place where unionists and nationalists share power in the north. But northern parties also elect to the Dail. Not an ideal solution, but it gives unionists some form of power in the north. Otherwise they become a minority in a 32 county Ireland - they would never go for that, it would be wishful thinking that they would.

That's not to mention a sizeable catholic minority who want to remain in the union for the foreseeable future. And of course the south would have to subsidize the north for a couple of decades.

firemansam4

ToBeFrank123 wrote:

That's not to mention a sizeable catholic minority who want to remain in the union for the foreseeable future. And of course the south would have to subsidize the north for a couple of decades.

If this is true then reunification would never get the backing in a border poll anyway.
In order for a border poll to succeed for unification I would have thought that the mast majority of catholics would have to vote for it, I doubt many protestants would ever vote for it, even if one day it made economic sense.

ToBeFrank123

firemansam4 wrote: »

If this is true then reunification would never get the backing in a border poll anyway.
In order for a border poll to succeed for unification I would have thought that the mast majority of catholics would have to vote for it, I doubt many protestants would ever vote for it, even if one day it made economic sense.

I don't have the exact stats or polls to hand.
I'd imagine maybe 10-20% of Protestants would vote for unification, probably the younger generation who are more open minded and progressive and also those who are not dependent on a civil service job
. Among Catholics, I think as its something like 30% wouldn't vote for unity, probably because life is good for them as it stands. This may have changed lately.

You'd want to be talking a minimum 30% protestants and maybe 80% catholics before it had a chance of success. The catholics would be easier to convince than protestants.

Unless and until we find a pot of gold to pay for all this and make a transition that allows the protestants and unionists keep their power and also cushy jobs in the civil service, its hard to see it passing.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Partition is not always unstable. There have been long periods of stability in Northern Ireland.

I suppose it was pretty stable when the Taigs knew their place.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) No cost to me as a taxpayer
(2) No risk of loyalist violence

To meet those pre-conditions, Northern Ireland needs to become a normalised secular society with buy-in from across all sections of society and also needs to develop an advanced economy.

What is amazing to me is that those who want a united Ireland most - Sinn Fein - are abdicating themselves from making it an attractive proposition by boycotting both Westminister and Stormont, and are therefore conceding ground to those who oppose unity. You could call it cowardice if you were being honest.

In other words, I would be delighted if we could have a united Ireland, so long as there is no hassle or disturbance to our society and economy down here.

I wouldn't look to SF as representing people looking forward to a united Ireland, rather they are a party who also supports a united Ireland. Looking for flaws or making criticism of their ideology is fine but it only relates to those who support that party and not a united Ireland.

jm08

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's not to mention a sizeable catholic minority who want to remain in the union for the foreseeable future. And of course the south would have to subsidize the north for a couple of decades.

I think that has all changed now. Very little interest in remaining in the UK now if you look at how they returned only absentee Sinn Fein MPs to Westminister in the last election.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There's few who'd disagree that Northern Ireland is unstable.

One of the important questions for voters would be though whether it would be any more stable under Irish rule compared to British rule.

Even current present day, look at Stormont. That's not stable. Look at the DUP trying to rattle sabers over two fishing boats getting done. There are people who don't want stability as long as they feel threatened, on both sides.

It's about the unification of Ireland. Part of Ireland coming under Irish rule. No Unionist will need resort to violence to be afforded fair play and respect from the mechanics of Irish government. There will be no foreign government making allowances for sub par governance to ensure seats, we do that well enough ourselves.
Be tough for loyalists to justify any violent cause when the UK leaves them, isn't taken away.

Junkyard Tom

seamus wrote: »

we already know that the yearly cost of keeping the lights on in NI is £10bn.

That number is not meaningful as it would include costs like decades of expensive PS/RUC/UDR/Prison Officers pensions, military stuff, Royal family stuff, British national debt etc that would not be inherited by a United Ireland.

There'd also have to be a reduction in the size of the public/civil service, corporation tax harmonisation, the IDA going all Ireland etc so the whole idea that the northeast would remain a dependency in perpetuity is a total red herring.