jmayo wrote: » What about the increased security costs for the south ? What about the necessary ramp up in our military numbers and spending which will undoubtedly be needed since we are taking on extra territory, a territory which historically has had terrorists and unrest ? Maybe the Brits will leave us a load of kit.:rolleyes:
Ah so the Brits will gladly keep paying the pensions. Any chance you could get that in writing for us ?
Our police force haven't the resources to really fight a few gangs never mind a possible hostile community that could resort to violence and terrorism. Even if no terrorism, imagine the cost of policing all those parades.
Yeah because the FDIs site in Ireland for the Irish market. Fecks sake I hope you don't believe that shyte. :rolleyes:
Can you give us some examples of what economic benefits NI will bring to the rest of this island and the economy of the Republic ?
facehugger99 wrote: » Listen, I can save you a bit of time in future responses. Going forward you can assume that any posts I make are my opinion on the matter. Your own posts are remarkably short on any hard figures. It'll all become a lot clearer if the issue ever threatens to go to a poll, but we're many years, even decades away from any serious chance of that. It would be my own hope that this 18th century focus on nationalistic borders will have been consigned to the dustbin of history by then anyway,
jm08 wrote: » I'm well aware that there was plenty of talking going on, which went no where until the bombing of the Stock Exchange. The Provos had complete control of their own areas and were happy to use any method such as punishment beatings, kneecapping ect. to maintain that control. Lack of a social life were the least of nationalist's troubles. The GAA was far more central to nationalists social lives than boozing in the local pub anyway.
jmayo wrote: » What about the increased security costs for the south ? What about the necessary ramp up in our military numbers and spending which will undoubtedly be needed since we are taking on extra territory, a territory which historically has had terrorists and unrest ? Maybe the Brits will leave us a load of kit.:rolleyes: Ah so the Brits will gladly keep paying the pensions. Any chance you could get that in writing for us ? Our police force haven't the resources to really fight a few gangs never mind a possible hostile community that could resort to violence and terrorism. Even if no terrorism, imagine the cost of policing all those parades. Yeah because the FDIs site in Ireland for the Irish market. Fecks sake I hope you don't believe that shyte. :rolleyes: Can you give us some examples of what economic benefits NI will bring to the rest of this island and the economy of the Republic ?
BonnieSituation wrote: » It's very conservative says who? You?
BonnieSituation wrote: » In your view... And when we know the true cost... I mean, you couldn't make it up!
downcow wrote: » HMG were talking to the IRA from the beginning of the troubles. It didnt take bombs in the 90s to achieve that.
I did not claim loyalists killing catholics got hmg talking to provos. I said it brought serious pressure on the IRA from within their own community. I remember clearly how vast numbers of cathiolics had stopped going out to pubs etc because they were afraid of the despicable pub shootings, whereas Prods were getting on with their social lives fairly unhindered. There was a IRA ceasefire within a year
jmayo wrote: » What about the increased security costs for the south ? What about the necessary ramp up in our military numbers and spending which will undoubtedly be needed since we are taking on extra territory, a territory which historically has had terrorists and unrest ? Maybe the Brits will leave us a load of kit.:rolleyes: Our police force haven't the resources to really fight a few gangs never mind a possible hostile community that could resort to violence and terrorism. Even if no terrorism, imagine the cost of policing all those parades. ?
BonnieSituation wrote: » It's very conservative says who? You? Earlier in the thread someone mentioned that the North's defence force proportion is approx 988m. That no longer will have to be paid. So straight away we've brought down, to an even more conservative 9bn.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Do you know how pension liabilities work? We are literally not gonna be on the hook for that save some agreement with Britain. Why keep saying we are. It's almost like you're being disingenuous with your "argument".
BonnieSituation wrote: » Right, so now we have to assume costs for terrorist attacks? Isn't that why police forces have budgets? You vastly over estimate loyalist capabilities and support. You also make out that in your fantasy world where both north and south have voted to reunify that loyalists would have any support given the clear democratic will of both jurisdictions.
BonnieSituation wrote: » What FDI would be lost? If anything FDI would receive a boost, suddenly the island is a good news story with an extra 1.8m people within its jurisdiction.
BonnieSituation wrote: » ... You seem to think that no body works in the north; that there's no tax take at all to be had. Do you really think that on unification that there's just gonna be an Extra 1.8m dole spongers or public sector workers?
facehugger99 wrote: » The €10bn figure is very conservative. It doesn't take account of the drag to the economy in paying billions to NI public servants - money that could be used to boost productivity {vague} in the Republic through much need infrastructural investments {vague}.
or does it take account of funding a €98bn public servant pension liability.
Nor does it take account of increased security costs and loss of FDIs should some head-the-balls take a leaf out of the IRA playbook.
In my view €10bn doesn't even come close to the true cost and once that cost is known, no Irish citizen will mortgage his children and grandchildren's future on the basis of some outdated nationalist pipe dream.
jm08 wrote: » I'm not living in the past and I certainly don't want to go back there. My point about the Stock Exchange is that the threat to the City is what got the British Government talking to the Provos, not loyalists killing catholics in Northern Ireland as has been claimed. The Canary Wharf bombing in 1996 was a reminder to the British Government ''That they had not gone away''.
facehugger99 wrote: » Nor does it take account of funding a €98bn public servant pension liability.
BonnieSituation wrote: » My God you are incessant I'll give you that. Sure we can all play that game: Do you want Unification - Sure, OK. Do you want to pay €1bn a year for it? - Sure thing boss. --- Any chance you can explain how you think that that 10bn from the Brits will just be swapped for 10bn from Ireland? You've been asked repeatedly and you've cime up with nothing outside of "that's what the subvention is, so that's what the subvention will be..."
facehugger99 wrote: » Honestly, the question of you 'swaying' me is immaterial - you seemed confused that I was commenting in a thread about a border poll when I don't care about norther nationalist opinion - I hope that I've been able to explain that one to you. As to the supposed slam-dunk of the ROI voting for it - the question of cost has never been fully factored in to such poll questions and when it has, even obliquely, there's a huge drop off in support. Do you want Unification - Sure, OK. Do you want to pay €10bn a year for it? - Ahh no, you're grand thanks.
Havockk wrote: » No, I'm under no illusions but all indications and polling show that a healthy majority in the South will vote for unification. I don't have to sway you, it's unnecessary.
facehugger99 wrote: » Are you under the impression that a unification vote will only be carried out in the North?
Research carried out by Amch on behalf of the Claire Byrne Live show found that 86% of people wanted to see a 32 county republic rather than the 14% who wanted a hard border. Meanwhile, when asked “Are you in favour of a united Ireland”, 54% of people said yes, 21% said no while 25% said they did not know. Over 1,000 people from the Republic of Ireland were surveyed for both polls.
Havockk wrote: » If you don't care it doesn't make much sense to be in debating about it in the border poll thread you'll not mind me pointing out so.
facehugger99 wrote: » Nor do I care. It's an entirely different jurisdiction. I'm only concerned about the Republic of Ireland.
Havockk wrote: » You have literally no clue as to what is happening in the minds of nationalists in the North right now. Even if brexit is resolved, nothing will change with this new push to unification. The North is going to take another hit for even in the 'best of both worlds' scenario one of those worlds, the UK is going to go down the drain anyway. So literally the best we can hope for is to 'stay the same' as now... in which case, we already know we are a hell of a lot worse off.
facehugger99 wrote: » I think it would may a fair few people in the Republic reconsider whether unification was worth the hassle. The ROI electorate has always been very soft on unification. It's not something that forms part of the national conversation. We're a bit like Saint Augustine - Lord, make us unified - but not yet. From what I can see, other than the odd SF politician every few months and about 4 posters on Boards, it's never really mentioned at all in day to day life. Once the Brexit question is resolved, it'll be quietly popped to the back-burner again, as has always been the case.
Avatar MIA wrote: » any threat or act of loyalism in the run up to a UI would likewise be ineffective.
RobMc59 wrote: » The bombing campaign in Britain towards the end was a serious miscalculation
RobMc59 wrote: » Living your life in the past won't bring a UI-neither will snide comments. There's nothing wrong with being patriotic but extreme views unsettle ordinary people and cause entrenchment.
Avatar MIA wrote: » So, can we all agree history proves terrorism isn't effective (and possibly galvanises opposition) and any threat or act of loyalism in the run up to a UI would likewise be ineffective. Terrorism post a UI would be beyond pointless.
jm08 wrote: » The bombing of the Stock Exchange is what really worked. Dunkirk Spirit fight talk doesn't work on the markets!
Peregrinus wrote: » I don't think you can say, with a straight face, that HMG did not shift its position, but simply "facilitated an opportunity for the IRA to save face through the GFA". The GFA was itself a huge shift in position by HMG. As was the Downing Street Declaration before it. Having said that, the GFA of course followed the IRA ceasefire, so it can hardly be said to have caused or facilitated it. (Other way round, if anything. Or, most accurately, the Downing Street Declaration opened up the possiblity of the ceasefire, which opened up the possiblity of the GFA.) In general I think it's unhelpful (and probably deliberately so) to insist on an "admission of defeat" as a condition of further progress; demanding the humiliation of your interlocutor is rarely a productive way to make shared progress. But in this case it would also be untrue. The ceasefire represented an acknowledgement that the armed campaign had failed in its primary objective, the securing of Irish unity. But this is quite different from admitting defeat, because of course the obective of securing Irish unity has not been defeated. It still exists and is still pursued, and indeed the GFA acknowledges that fact, legitimises it and provides a (peaceful, constitutional, agreed) framework for pursuing it. So, there was no surrender, to coin a phrase.
RobMc59 wrote: » The bombing campaign in Britain towards the end was a serious miscalculation by the ira,the Americans with their noraid had finally woken up to exactly what was really going on. Unless you see paramilitary terrorists from all sides as repugnant there is no point discussing it as you can't reason with closed minds.
janfebmar wrote: » Ihe IRA was always motivated by sectarianism, even 100 years ago when there were many innocent Protestants killed in Cork, for example, and many more burnt out. It was a cold house for Protestants, and extremely few got jobs in public office. Not surprising their number fell in the Republic but times have changed, it is not the same now thankfully.
