How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are many ways to finance a cost we don't yet know the full extent of.
I think the Irish people will be up for a unified island because it means much more than just 'cost'. It is an investment in a peaceful respectful future for all of us.
If that investment pays off, Ireland will be more secure as a result, although I accept and I think we all accept that our prosperity will always be that of a small country.

The first paragraph is incorrect. The costs of investment can be calculated from GDP, it's only the true cost of the subvention that is unknown. SF just focus on the subvention as they don't want to frighten off voters in the Republic.

Also, the Republic is a pretty prosperous country overall. The issue is the relative size of NI. It's a population increase of 30%. Subvention could easily cost 3-5 billion pa. Another 3 billion for inward investment, 10 / 20 / 30 years before that pays off. The overall cost will be huge.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the Irish people will be up for a unified island because it means much more than just 'cost'.
.

Why was it not an election issue for the vast majority of voters in the Republic so?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The whole tone of your posting sounds like you are hat doffing. The idea that by compromising and working an agreement that humbled the UK into treating 'Irish' people as equal is somehow taking the 'queens schilling'. I mean what kind of subservient nonsense is that for any self respecting Irish person to come out with?

Also you complete ignorance of the pressures on the UK economy and regional spending...are you living in some sort of bubble? They are already making swingeing cuts to the Northern Ireland subvention that is bringing pressure to bear.
Also the idea that 2 million people are necessarily always going to be a burden, they are earners, have potential and can be net contributors to society.

Your self deprecation is tedious.

You speak of the UK being 'humbled'by comprising and are constantly throwing accusations of 'hat doffing' etc about.
Some people may suspect you have an inferiority complex.I've spoken to Irish men who fought for Britain in WW2(some at Dunkirk)and they didn't see it as 'hat doffing' or demeaning-they were heroes in my eyes and I'd even say your'hat doffing'comments are disrespectful to all those brave men.

jh79 wrote: »

The first paragraph is incorrect. The costs of investment can be calculated from GDP, it's only the true cost of the subvention that is unknown. SF just focus on the subvention as they don't want to frighten off voters in the Republic.

Also, the Republic is a pretty prosperous country overall. The issue is the relative size of NI. It's a population increase of 30%. Subvention could easily cost 3-5 billion pa. Another 3 billion for inward investment, 10 / 20 / 30 years before that pays off. The overall cost will be huge.

30% increase in population would bring in revenues if they are working. I think the level of investment in the north would be massive to see a UI work.
A working UI is in the interests of the wider EU, in Britain's interests etc.

I would have no worries on that front tbh.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

30% increase in population would bring in revenues if they are working. I think the level of investment in the north would be massive to see a UI work.
A working UI is in the interests of the wider EU, in Britain's interests etc.

I would have no worries on that front tbh.

There probably should be more of a discussion on potential positive economic opportunities of a UI?

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

You speak of the UK being 'humbled'by comprising and are constantly throwing accusations of 'hat doffing' etc about.
Some people may suspect you have an inferiority complex.I've spoken to Irish men who fought for Britain in WW2(some at Dunkirk)and they didn't see it as 'hat doffing' or demeaning-they were heroes in my eyes and I'd even say your'hat doffing'comments are disrespectful to all those brave men.

Can you explain to me why British people think so much of Dunkirk where basically the British withdrew and left the French to the mercy of the Nazis and then some British refer to the French as ''Surrender Monkeys''.

The biggest retreat of WWII was the British retreat!

RobMc59 wrote: »

You speak of the UK being 'humbled'by comprising and are constantly throwing accusations of 'hat doffing' etc about.
Some people may suspect you have an inferiority complex.I've spoken to Irish men who fought for Britain in WW2(some at Dunkirk)and they didn't see it as 'hat doffing' or demeaning-they were heroes in my eyes and I'd even say your'hat doffing'comments are disrespectful to all those brave men.

Why would they see it as 'hat doffing'? If you join a foreign army hat doffing is the least of your issues.

Maggie 'the Iron Lady' regretted signing the AIA and Michael Gove thinks the GFA was a surrender. They aren't alone.
Trust me, if you are a British person of the type that damaged Ireland over the years or a belligerent Unionist who was happy to see that damage inflicted the GFA was a humiliation.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

30% increase in population would bring in revenues if they are working. I think the level of investment in the north would be massive to see a UI work.
A working UI is in the interests of the wider EU, in Britain's interests etc.

I would have no worries on that front tbh.

So you think that the EU would partially fund it?

jm08

jh79 wrote: »

So you think that the EU would partially fund it?

In the same way that it funded Ireland's infrastructure (and the way it funds developing countries like Poland who are in receipt of massive EU funds).

jh79 wrote: »

So you think that the EU would partially fund it?

They have sunk huge money in so far. A UI is massively in the EU's interests now, so yes, I think they will incentivise a successful UI.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would they see it as 'hat doffing'? If you join a foreign army hat doffing is the least of your issues.

Maggie 'the Iron Lady' regretted signing the AIA and Michael Gove thinks the GFA was a surrender. They aren't alone.
Trust me, if you are a British person of the type that damaged Ireland over the years or a belligerent Unionist who was happy to see that damage inflicted the GFA was a humiliation.

That's just your disgruntled republican opinion and describing the UK compromising as 'humbling' won't persuade NI people to want Irish language signs etc because people with your view would gloat and see it as a weakness rather than compromising. .

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have sunk huge money in so far. A UI is massively in the EU's interests now, so yes, I think they will incentivise a successful UI.

Another variable to add to the mix. Richer countries in the EU don't seem to be as willing to fund the poorer ones anymore. They are pushing for the COVID money to be loans for example.

Backstop down the Irish Sea solves most problems for the EU.

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's just your disgruntled republican opinion and describing the UK compromising as 'humbling' won't persuade NI people to want Irish language signs etc because people with your view would gloat and see it as a weakness rather than compromising. .

When your belligerence and support of a transparently sectarian bigoted statelet causes the deaths of over 3000 people and destroys countless more lives then saying you were 'humbled' when you finally accepted parity of esteem and the right to be Irish in Ireland.
As I said, that is directed at the Maggie Thatcher's and the Michael Goves of this world and there are plenty of them still.

NI has plenty of Irish Language signs (See earlier in the thread)...nobody is gloating and no Unionist is suffering because they are there.

Junkyard Tom

BloodyBill wrote: »

great Irish generals in the British army

They're on the wrong side of history when it comes to Ireland. They participated in a brutal colonial project that enslaved millions and killed millions more, to their eternal shame.

The ' North of Ireland'. Its Northern Ireland. You cant even regulate your language, ... you weaponise English terms aswell.

We were not consulted on partition, it was forced upon the Irish people by threat of "immediate and terrible war" by the British state coupled by the threat of a mass-terrorism at the hands of Unionists.

Ask Downcow if he'd be happy to reach across the divide and find accommodation with his neighbours on a new agreed-upon name for the region, new agreed-upon flag, and new agreed-upon anthem and he'd **** the bed. These were imposed upon a gerrymandered Irish/Gael/Native population and therefore I refuse to recognise the current terror-derived artefacts that purport to represent the people in the north.

not alone do you weaponise the Irish Language

The language was weaponized long before I was born when it was suppressed by the dominant Anglo/British colonists.

'Hey we helped put those railways into India..we designed many of them'

Hilarious. Those railways were built by poor Indians to extract their own resources and impose British terms and conditions on Indian trade. India was one of the richest places on Earth before the British came along. One railway route was built by poor Indians for dim-witted British governors, born into privilege, to holiday in the Himalayas because they couldn't handle the heat the Indian farmers toiled in.

Tell me, does this image give you a feeling of pride?

No instead many eejits try to identify with the plight of Aborigines,as if our stories were similar

Oh you better believe it, I'd much rather identify with people who survived institutional scumbaggery then those who perpetrated it.

trying to claim a link through colonisation with indigenous peoples in Australia or India or wherever.

The links I have pride in are those in the British colonial forces who mutinied in India and the 'West Indies' because they could see the evil of it all. We also inspired Indians and other around the World to resist British colonialism.

As a gesture of our remorse for participating in Britain's rotten empire we should build monument to remember the assassin of Lieutenant Governor Michael O'Dwyer who was implicated in the Amritsar Massacre.

He wanted to crush the spirit of my people, so I have crushed him. For full 21 years, I have been trying to wreak vengeance. I am happy that I have done the job ... I have seen my people starving in India under the British rule. I have protested against this, it was my duty.

Udham Singh

jm08 wrote: »

Can you explain to me why British people think so much of Dunkirk where basically the British withdrew and left the French to the mercy of the Nazis and then some British refer to the French as ''Surrender Monkeys''.

The biggest retreat of WWII was the British retreat!

Get your facts right-the evacuation of 198,000 British troops and 140,000 French and Belgium troops from the German Blitzkrieg meant all those soldiers were saved from god knows what-and apart from the British who else were there to help France and the rest of Europe?

downcow wrote: »

Another excellent post.
I just think it is really interesting that you have opened up a whole new window to me. I haven't really considered this angle.
Why I appreciate it so much is because it reinforces my belief that this continual raking over the past and trying to convince ourselves that the other side was to blame for everything, is really disabling us moving forward.
We really do need to park the past, and especially stuff that is not even in living memory. We need to move forward from here. It is what it is.
This is Northern Ireland, part of the UK. We have agreed to the GFA which does mean that if the majority want it, we will become a united island.
This is the point we need to start from.
If some people want to try and negotiate a new agreement to replace the GFA, then that's fine - I think they have little hope mind you.
If the United Island ever happens, then those of us who are interested can campaign for a separate state, or anything else we wish.

When did we say you couldn't or deny the reality that the GFA gave us?

It's your goodself who is rattled by fadas on signs and "tacit withdrawals" by the government they have been "loyal" to.

Good to see you won't be violent any more in the event of a UI coming to pass democratically.

jh79 wrote: »

You also need to take into account the actual populations too. Adding 2 million people to a population of 6 million is obviously going to have a larger effect.

And will the GNI of the North remain static in a UI?

Do you not think it will be a worthy investment for FDI like we are, rather than the Oliver Twist of the UK - asking for more - that it currently is?

BloodyBill

Look at Australia,New Zealand, USA, Canada . All English speaking countries founded by us. I dont mind people criticising colonialism. But most Irish people cant even cope with the fact we were in the thick of it.
Let's look at Icons like Ned Kelly ...hard done by it would seem. Irish parents forced to emigrate. He was arrested by the Victoria state police who were 80% Irish. The judge who sentenced him was Irish. Most Irish that were in Australia went of their own free will. They cant show that in the movies because it would blow the minds of the common eejit.. check out the Irish who were administrating the whole Empire. Theyve interesting stories. Gleason from Clare is one...founded the Clare Valley in south Australia...brought out 1000s of orphans and encouraged immigration. He made his crust in India. Did he do some dodgy bookkeeping? I'd say so. Our history wasnt just Invasion , rebellion ,Famine.. the bits inbetween are the interesting parts . Those guys that Dev wanted us to forget because when we remember we cant play the victim anymore.

jh79 wrote: »

The first paragraph is incorrect. The costs of investment can be calculated from GDP, it's only the true cost of the subvention that is unknown. SF just focus on the subvention as they don't want to frighten off voters in the Republic.

Also, the Republic is a pretty prosperous country overall. The issue is the relative size of NI. It's a population increase of 30%. Subvention could easily cost 3-5 billion pa. Another 3 billion for inward investment, 10 / 20 / 30 years before that pays off. The overall cost will be huge.

Aren't huge capital costs paid for by lengthy bonds over decades? 20/30/40 years is nothing in the life of a nation.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Get your facts right-the evacuation of 198,000 British troops and 140,000 French and Belgium troops from the German Blitzkrieg meant all those soldiers were saved from god knows what-and apart from the British who else were there to help France and the rest of Europe?

At least they didn't send them over the top in wanton waste of life like they did a few years earlier in France and Belgium.

Nice description of a retreat though, you should pursue a career in spin speechwriting.

mehico wrote: »

There probably should be more of a discussion on potential positive economic opportunities of a UI?

You would think that. But it seems that Partitionists only want to talk about the negatives. I wonder why?

jh79 wrote: »

So you think that the EU would partially fund it?

Given we are the EU I would say so, yes.

The EU is a peace project primarily. The reunification of Ireland would be up there with the reunification of Germany as an example of the great things the EU can help its members achieve.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

At least they didn't send them over the top in wanton waste of life like they did a few years earlier in France and Belgium.

Nice description of a retreat though, you should pursue a career in spin speechwriting.

When have I denied the British were forced to retreat to Dunkirk?

RobMc59 wrote: »

When have I denied the British were forced to retreat to Dunkirk?

I never said you denied, but you did spin it as an 'evacuation' when it was a bog standard retreat.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said you denied, but you did spin it as an 'evacuation' when it was a bog standard retreat.

If you look it up yourself it is described as an evacuation.The Germans slipped up by pausing which gave the British time to evacuate over 300,000 troops which is pretty good going I`d say.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Evacuation-of-Dunkirk/

Edit:Mersey ferryboats `Iris` and `Daffodil` were also used in the evacuation and were allowed to use the names `Royal Iris` and `Royal Daffodil`from that day.

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you look it up yourself it is described as an evacuation.The Germans slipped up by pausing which gave the British time to evacuate over 300,000 troops which is pretty good going I`d say.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Evacuation-of-Dunkirk/

Edit:Mersey ferryboats `Iris` and `Daffodil` were also used in the evacuation and were allowed to use the names `Royal Iris` and `Royal Daffodil`from that day.

The 'retreat' came before the evacuation. Were you out at the toilet when they did that bit in history class.

Retreat to Dunkirk
Also on 31 May, General Von Kuechler assumed command of all the German forces at Dunkirk. His plan was simple: launch an all-out attack across the whole front at 11:00 on 1 June. Strangely, Von Kuechler ignored a radio intercept telling him the British were abandoning the eastern end of the line to fall back to Dunkirk itself.[36]

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Aren't huge capital costs paid for by lengthy bonds over decades? 20/30/40 years is nothing in the life of a nation.

Or in other words increased national debt and interest repayments.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Given we are the EU I would say so, yes.

The EU is a peace project primarily. The reunification of Ireland would be up there with the reunification of Germany as an example of the great things the EU can help its members achieve.

We already have peace and there are other nations fighting for money from the same pot. Backstop in the Irish Sea will move focus away from Ireland.