FrancieBrady wrote: » Here: https://www.reformplan.per.gov.ie/2014/downloads/files/Progress%20report%202017-A4s.pdf It can be done and it is modified and changed all the time.
facehugger99 wrote: » There's no reason to think it can be managed. I wouldn't like to accuse you of trite responses, so perhaps you could post up some examples of successful public service reform that's been managed recently? Take your time now...........
downcow wrote: » I don’t understand the question. Are you asking why the dup are standing by their election pledge?
FrancieBrady wrote: » but there is no reason to think that can not be managed.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nobody has adequately analysed or explained the DUP strategy here for me. May's deal or even a NI backstop only is nirvana for them, but for an abstract notion of connection they are literally sacrificing the whole union caboddle. Or at best seriously undermining it. blanch, downcow, rob, any other anti UI posters offer a sensible analysis of why they are going against farming, business and the majority here, when a small abstract swallow gives them at least 20 years of grace before a border poll? I genuinely don't get what they are doing.
facehugger99 wrote: » An investment in keeping 30% of the population in their cushy public service jobs? No thanks.
janfebmar wrote: » A boycott by a small minority of people. Overall voter turnout was higher than we get in referendums here / elections here, but nobody ever claimed referendums here were not valid because some people boycotted it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It wouldn't be a subvention to 'northern Ireland' it would be an investment in the whole island of Ireland.
blanch152 wrote: » I am in favour of a united Ireland. However, I don't believe it is worth a drop of blood being shed, neither do I believe that Northern Ireland is ready for unity, and until the costs have been fully worked out we shouldn't even consider it. Neither is it that important or that much of a priority. I would much prefer €11bn a year be spent on public transport and environmental protection than on a subvention to Northern Ireland.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » It's a total gift.
Charles Babbage wrote: » I'm sure 60% of unionists do not want a border in the Irish Sea. But if the British English are determined to act in a lunatic manner then this may be the least worst option.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It was valid. The union continued. The point is, nationalists/republicans voice wasn't heard in it. That is all we can say about it. The GFA has a facility for another border poll. Do you object to that or something?
downcow wrote: » I don’t have the energy to go check but I will be surprised if you are telling 60% of unionist want a border in the Irish Sea. I think there must me more to that question than you are stating. As for you other 3 stats there is nothing there surprised me. Is this the same poll that quotes even less satisfaction in Michelle than Arlene ?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sorry, can you run that by me again?
FrancieBrady wrote: » It was doomed from the start, because there was an unresolved conflict/war ongoing. It was clear from the outset that there would be a boycott.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » Rob are you sure you're au fait with politics in Ireland, especially in the north eastern part?
RobMc59 wrote: » How can you say that when SF are against the GFA which would make a border poll possible and has brought peace to Ireland?-or would they change their tune if there was a poll now?
janfebmar wrote: » What was sham about it? It was open and fair and everyone of voting age had a vote. And not all Republicans shunned it: 1.1 % of voters voted for a united Ireland.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Republicans shunned the sham referendum.
janfebmar wrote: » After all if you think it was justifiable for extremists on one side to bomb and kill and not use the ballot box (even though it was open and available to them) in 1973, then to be consistent you must think it would also be justifiable for extremists on the other side to bomb and kill and not use the ballot box in the future?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Republicans shunned the sham referendum in the middle of an ongoing conflict/war. The 'Union' continued regardless. If Unionists boycott a referendum, I am sure our posters, claiming the 1973 one was significant, will be crying foul because unionists didn't take part. They don't seem to get 'ironic'.
RobMc59 wrote: » They'd have no excuse this time(if it happens),especially following Ireland and the World recognising NÌ as part of the UK. Don't get me wrong,I've said what I think about a UI but if one group is too mardy to vote then they miss a golden opportunity.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The conflict/war is over.
FrancieBrady wrote: » A border poll is the next step in the GFA process, is what I meant. Nationalists/republicans didn't vote? Why wouldn't nationalists/republicans vote?
janfebmar wrote: » In the referendum in 1973 on a United Ireland extremist Republicans presumably did not vote - you say they boycotted it and anyways it appears they were busy setting off bombs and running away. Did Republicans express real remorse for murdering people like in Bloody Friday, when the ballot box was open to them?
