ancapailldorcha wrote: » I don't think that it is scaremongering to suggest that the road to a United Ireland will be anything but easy.
blanch152 wrote: » There have been one or two posters asking those concerned about costs whether they would support a united Ireland if there was no cost. I don't think any of them have shirked answering. It is legitimate to ask those proclaiming the merits of a united Ireland whether there is a cost that they would baulk at, whether that cost is in lives lost to unionist resistance or whether it is financial and economic cost at a societal or individual level or some other cost such as the flag or the anthem. The replies on the financial issue have been non-existent, some of the other replies have been quite revealing.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The scaremongering is designed to dissuade any such move or even discussion on the matter being taken seriously. The reality is the question of when is never going away. We're not sure when, we're not sure about the cost. Deciding it'll be too expensive and dismissing any conversation is akin to King Canute, in the least the issue isn't going anywhere and for anyone to try dismiss it is burying their head in the sand.
Havockk wrote: » I'm a Northerner first off. And why is it so important for you for me to mention a fixed amount? I'll leave that to the likes of David McWilliams or Paul Gosling who make the relevant points about the benefits of unification and the economy and understand it better than you, or I.
RobMc59 wrote: » For a UI vote to happen would Northern Ireland vote 1st then Ireland? I imagine there would have to be intense negotiations for at least a year before it even got to that stage.
Havockk wrote: » I imagine it would be after any border poll in the North, and if it is successful the South would get vote to ratify. but I could be wrong on that.
facehugger99 wrote: » David McWilliams is widely regarded as a buffoon BTW.
Havockk wrote: » That's nice.
jmayo wrote: » And remind us again who will pay the salaries of all those PSNI officers ? Remind us again who is going to have to pay for all the new Land Rovers with armour plating ? Or will you just run the old inherited ones into the ground.
Who is the ones paying for the new firearms and the bullets used in training a highly armed police force ?
Shure isn't Arlene going to leave.
Yes, but who will pay their wages ? Who will pay for all the special surveillance ?
Fook sake the delusion. NI's industrial past is exactly that, the past. Harry Ferguson left long ago. Maybe they can open a new shipyard to compete with the Koreans and build another super ship that famously sinks. Problem solved. :rolleyes:
facehugger99 wrote: » If you're from NI, then it's not important. David McWilliams is widely regarded as a buffoon BTW.
Havockk wrote: » I'm a Northerner first off. And why is it so important for you for me to mention a fixed amount?
facehugger99 wrote: » Oh, there's been a few. I'm presuming that you're not one of those though - so what is the maximum cost per annum that you would accept for unification? - to the nearest billion say.
blanch152 wrote: » There have been a number of posters who have loudly proclaimed that a united Ireland is worth it, no matter the cost.
Havockk wrote: » No one is making that point. You will have your chance to cast your vote like the rest of us, even campaign for your desired outcome. If teh vote asses, then yes you will be asked to accept it.
blanch152 wrote: » Equally, saying that we should accept unification no matter the cost is not just burying your head in the sand, it is willfully diving into quicksand.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Saying we don't know what the costs might be isn't ignoring them. Neither is not accepting at best hypothetical costs being sold as ball park fact. I think saying we can't afford it with no hard facts or figures is just burying your head in the sand. It's a mater of looking at what might happen and preparing as best we can. The only relation I can see with hard line brexiteers is those saying 'It'll never happen so why bother talking about it'. Very close to the remainers attitude too.
Avatar MIA wrote: » I can go one better. Eventually it would make Ireland (Great Ireland TM) more prosperous. Economies of Scale.
Peregrinus wrote: » I'm not saying there will be an easy or simply solution to the financial and economic challenges of reunification. But I am saying that to frame those challenges in terms of the current subvention from Westminister to Stormont is absurdly reductive, and treats the current subvention as an immutable law of nature rather than as the chance outcome of a number of contingent and transient circumstances. You need to look beyond the current subvention at the real issues, and at how they will be changed by the very fact of reunification,.
facehugger99 wrote: » I'm pretty sure that even the most fervent believers in the money-trees aren't claiming it would cost nothing, so I fail to see the relevance of the question.
jmayo wrote: » As opposed to you that totally dismisses the huge economic costs of running NI. The day to day running costs are very well substantiated whereas your hair brained ideas are well just your hair brained ideas. Oh and probably a huge chunk of sinn feins. :rolleyes: Actually blanch152 hit the nail on the head, your argument is a carbon copy of the hard-line Brexiteers. You might as well just use the slogan "Just believe".
jm08 wrote: » Where are the PSNI (and its kit) going?
jm08 wrote: » They might not do it gladly, but I'm fairly sure that Arlene and Co. will make sure they get their British pensions.
jm08 wrote: » PSNI are well probably the most highly trained anti-terrorism police force in the world. And they know who they are.
jm08 wrote: » Some of the reasons why FDI's locate to Ireland are a) English speaking, b) young, educated workforce, c) CT rate. As it is, approx. 18% of the Republic's workforce are imported!, who all need to be housed and schools built for their children. FDI's can get all of those things in NI now. Take Boston Scientif - they have 3 plants in Ireland (Galway, Cork & Clonmel). If they want to expand, they would likely be attracted to siting their new plant (with the same conditions like tax etc), in the North East where there is an available workforce. A country's wealth is its people. With its traditional engineering history, it would complement the rest of the island.
jm08 wrote: » Just think of the Titanic Quarter in Belfast - it was transformed by Harcourt Development into a thriving prosperous area that is bringing money into Belfast and no doubt into the developers pockets (and who pay their CT in the ROI).
BonnieSituation wrote: » So I'll ask again, if it cost nothing would you still vote for reunification?
BonnieSituation wrote: » You're the one that is obsessed with cost though and who has page after page continued to roll out the same unsubstantiated nonsense.
RobMc59 wrote: » I don`t see how your posts would persuade anyone to have a sudden epiphany and wish for a NI ,living alongside all the wonderful people you`re describing
I thought of that exchange earlier last week when Jarlath Burns described the national anthem and the tricolour as "divisive" and said he would support giving them up at GAA games if it would help to persuade some Unionists to support us. "It wouldn't cost me a thought," he said. "If I thought for a moment that Ulster Unionist MLA Tom Elliott would become our greatest fan, I would get rid of them surely." It is worth reminding ourselves that Tom is the man who proudly boasted at his party conference in 2010 that he would "never go to a GAA game or a gay march." The reality is that no appeasement would satisfy the Tom Elliotts of this world. The whole point of a civilised society is to respect difference, not abandon what we are in order to satisfy extremists. The world is awash with political correctness. Its main function is to make us feel embarrassed about who we are and what we think, and to create a world that is entirely bland.
