Bowie wrote: » Another 'good republican'
jh79 wrote: » I'd have some trust in him to have a sensible approach to it. Not sugar coat it but get out there and secure some investment. Recognise the financial hurdles and get ahead of them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who is proposing a UI without securing investment and support jh79...do tell? Must have sent you guys reeling in shock that Coveney reckons it's doable in his political lifetime.
Bowie wrote: » There's folk think a transition period would be discrimination
blanch152 wrote: » There are folk that think there is no cost to unification, that believe in taxing unicorns and rainbows to pay for it, that harmonisation is not necessary, thereby preserving discrimination. Complete charlatans that ignore the costs of unification.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There are folk who think partition has cost nothing either.
jh79 wrote: » Francie i've posted many times that if you wanted an UI FG are the party to vote for as they would be best for the economy. SF populist someone else will pay approach is not going to achieve it. Gonna be hard for Coveney to achieve from the opposition benches.
markodaly wrote: » And there are folks that think a UI should happen regardless of cost.
RandomViewer wrote: » You seem to be missing one vital fact, in all likelihood Coveney's political career ends at the next election,
jh79 wrote: » You missed the last line of my post. Not much he can do from the opposition benches.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There is consensus on a UI in the political sphere jh79...government/opposition in alignment, so from a UI perspective we have a national government.
jh79 wrote: » There's not a consensus on timelines though. Bluster from Martin / MLD on it not happening / happening within 5 years. Leo seems to think it's a long time away. While it's essentially up to the British i can't see anything happening untill the economy is fixed and after that it could be decades of negotiations to get it right.
FrancieBrady wrote: » if's and buts. Fact is you don't know jh79.
jh79 wrote: » Either do you but my opinion that the Republic is not willing to pay for it is supported by an opinion poll. A 40% drop when asked if they were willing to pay via taxation would be foolish to ignore.
touts wrote: » Had to laugh when I heard Pearse Doherty called out red handed for spreading Fake News on Saturday with Katie Hannon. And by Mary Butler of all people. She's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer and yet she gutted him and all he could do was stammer and stutter a half apology. And in the week that people are not exactly very friendly to populist rabble rousers.
jh79 wrote: » What happened?
touts wrote: » She left him go off on a rant about how Ireland was the worst ranked country in Europe for percentage of population vaccinated. He was getting really riled up and then she just interrupted with actual facts and he was speechless. Knew he had been caught out on a complete lie.
blanch152 wrote: » It is the Trump/Brexit tactic, make up a statistic to criticise your opponent, lie about it, double down on the lie, keep repeating it. Unfortunately, as we have seen with Trump, it works a lot of the time. Sinn Fein are quick to pick up on every nasty trick in the book.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Is that the guy Leo helped with planning and who sympathised with him on his media issues?
SafeSurfer wrote: » The same guy who attended a $500 a plate fund raising dinner for Sinn Fein and met privately with then Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams. Maybe they compared notes on their property empires or swapped notes on how best to suppress sexual assault allegations. The same guy Adams later congratulated on being elected the 45th president of the US.
FrancieBrady wrote: » What was wrong with that? Doing planning favours SS though...that used to get you in trouble back in the day.