volchitsa wrote: » Right so it's not really because of the events in Derry at all then, there'd have been some other reason if that hadn't happened. Only you seemed to be saying it had been a factor.
RobMc59 wrote: » She is originally from Drogheda and has never really been particularly interested in living in NI,that was something I was interested in-she likes breaks in NI but that`s as far as it goes.We`ve obviously spent a lot of time in Ireland (mainly East coast)and apart from a few hairy moments(for me!) around the back roads of Dundalk back in the 80`s there`s never been any problem-I think the car bomb was an excuse to say no to NI as a place to live-we`ve been to Derry since that incident and had a great time.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » The last bomb in Ireland that caused significant injury to anyone was in 2001 the last one causing death was in 1999 (Loyalists assassinated Rosemary Nelson). (20 years ago) In contrast, the last bombs in Britain that maimed and killed people in major numbers were in 2017 at the Ariana Grande concert. (Less than two years ago) Does your wife know this I wonder?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » RobMc59 mentioned the possibility of a year of intense negotiations to which you responded with the term "scaremongering".
RobMc59 wrote: » I'm English and live in England but would have no problem relocating to NI but the wife wasn't keen before and recent events sealed it. I'd like to see a UI but think it's a none starter at the moment. I'm interested in this subject as my family is originally from Donegal/Derry.
jm08 wrote: » 1) No Assembly 2) Brexit that will more than likely create a hard border. You are going to get a lot of pain regardless. You will need to explain this to me. Your Irish wife wants to leave NI because dissident republicans planted a bomb?
RobMc59 wrote: » As things stand,is there much incentive to want a UI?-Not everyone sees things the same as you and wouldn't be interested in taking any pain. Personally I would live in NI as it is like a shot but the wife (Irish)wouldn't entertain it,especially after recent events in Derry.
RobMc59 wrote: » As things stand,is there much incentive to want a UI?
Not everyone sees things the same as you and wouldn't be interested in taking any pain.
Personally I would live in NI as it is like a shot but the wife (Irish)wouldn't entertain it,especially after recent events in Derry.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why would it need to be replicated? I am sure the majority that vote for a UI will be willing to make changes and take some pain if it is necessary. Remember they will be voting for something that they believe will be better.
Havockk wrote: » I'm talking about the North. I'm a Northerner.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Is the Republic a basketcase? I don't see this offsetting NIs subsidy from London any time soon even if it happens.
Havockk wrote: » That will have to be negotiated. But I imagine from Ireland, the UK and the EU. The plan has to be to bring us into line with the rest of the country by which time a subvention would no longer be necessary. It's near time we stopped being a basketcase.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Where does the money for this come from?
Havockk wrote: » We don't need that replicated at all. What we need is major support, infrastructure and opportunities. We will never get that as long as we are partitioned. Brexit will exacerbate the already profound knowledge that we are the poor cousins on the island and that's what has to change. This is the fundamental change post-brexit, this question will not go away now. Pandora is out of her box.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I'm basing it on the status quo. Northern Ireland is a net beneficiary of being in the United Kingdom. This would need to be replicated upon reunification.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Agreed. I don't see anyone suggesting it will be child's play to organise. There will need be a long set of negotiations and likely changes to the constitution among other things.
Matt Barrett wrote: » It's not, you're right. What would you call claiming we can't afford it in advance of any hard figures and talk of pensions like it's a foregone conclusion we'd be paying them or saying it'll never happen? Being cautious is a different story. Most of us are trying to discuss what you mention here. Point out where anyone is rushing headfirst or fantasy. There's accusations of it sure.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I don't think that it is scaremongering to suggest that the road to a United Ireland will be anything but easy. There are questions about the Unionist community, an increased tax burden, pensions for NI’s public sector to be answered. Then there’s how it happens if a border poll returns a result in favour of unification. Does it happen gradually or does Dublin assume control in a month or two? If Brexit has shown us anything, it’s that rushing headfirst into the unknown based on nationalistic fantasy and emotion is an appalling idea.
Sam Russell wrote: » I think that if there was a border poll, it would include a plan - an implementation plan. There would be an implementation date - say 12 months after the vote. On that date, the Irish Gov would become the sovereign state responsible for the whole island. The Irish Supreme Court would take over judicial functions from the UK Supreme Court. All courts in NI would then pass control to the Irish Courts Service. The Irish Constitution would apply to the whole island. On the same date, the Irish Central Bank would take over the supervision functions currently dealt with by the Bank of England. At a future date, the North would change to the Euro, with all bank balances changing. [This would be optional, but it would be at a fixed rate that would only apply for those balances]. The PNSI would report to the Irish Dept of Justice just as the Guards do now. There would be a transition period while the two forces would work towards amalgamation or a modus vivandi so that they work seamlessly together. The offices of the CPS and DPP would work together towards amalgamation. The VAT system would also merge, with the rate moving towards each other. The same would happen with excise duty. The Revenue Commissioners would take over the equivalent body in the north. Any likely redundancies would be avoided by passing work from the republic to the northern civil servants to benefit from greater efficiencies from unification. The legal systems would co-exist for a period, but would be moved closer together by legislation designed to take the best route to a single system. The rest would need to be negotiated. 1: How much will the UK continue to pay, and for how long. Things like pensions would be part of this. 2. How much will the EU and the USA be prepared to help out. 3. How much can the Irish Gov do to prime the economic pump in NI to get the economy into Tiger mode. 4. Tax rates and welfare rates would need to work towards each other. 5. The health services would also need to work towards each other. Let us hope we get the NHS rather than they get the HSE. These would need to be at least open to an understanding by the general public in both jurisdictions in order to get the UI referendum passed. Obviously, the above is just my speculation. Who pays for what is also pure speculation and would be up to the two Governments to agree before going for the UI referendum.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » When did I say this?
Havockk wrote: » You would think the Unionist population of the North are neanderthals just waiting to pounce in murderous violence should they not get their way.
blanch152 wrote: » Here is one example: It is a good example of looking at an argument and using facts to dismantle it.
Havockk wrote: » I've never once on my time on boards seen you dismantle anything. I'll give you this, you are consistant in your arguments. which is what i wrote.
Havockk wrote: » You would think the Unionist population of the North are neanderthals just waiting to pounce in murderous violence should they not get their way. Completely disparaging in its own right. Does anyone else remember the arguments about the hand over of power in SA some time back? If that can be negotiated then why cannot the North?
blanch152 wrote: » An interesting comparison.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_assassinations_in_post-apartheid_South_AfricaIf you think that widespread political assassination is a useful outcome, then we could certainly follow the South African example. We could also look to Zimbabwe for another example of successful handover of power.
blanch152 wrote: » Did I label any economist a buffoon? Don't recall, but then again I wouldn't classify David McWilliams as an economist. After all, his last big idea was to advise Brian Lenihan to introduce the bank bailout and we know how all that panned out. He wrote a number of newspaper articles about Lenihan sitting at his kitchen table having the conversation. I don't ignore economic figures or arguments, I dismantle them, usually with references to works by others. Sometimes I don't have to say anything. For example, there is no need for me to to say anything about the unification reports commissioned indirectly by Sinn Fein through organisations like the KRB as the Slugger O'Toole website has completely demolished those reports and I can just highlight the relevant bits. You could call my position "preconceived notions". Alternatively, you could label it as logically supported arguments. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween, but in my opinion more towards the logical end.
Havockk wrote: » You simply ignore any economic figures or arguments that are presented which don;t match your own preconceived notions. You are completely intransigent, never accepting a single point. That, or your cohorts on that side of the debate simply label those economists 'buffoons'. (I thought that was a highlight tbh).
