nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

[Deleted User]

Is there another way of looking at it?
It’s still very, very divided, and actually seems to be getting more polarized over the last five years. It’s economy is woeful, very heavily dependent on the public sector.
Unionists are making plans to celebrate its centenary, but there seems to be very little to be happy with, certainly far less than the Republic or the rest of the UK.
No point in arguing about a border poll on this thread, but is there any possible way of looking at NI as a social, political and economic failure?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Fann Linn

tom1ie wrote: »

so how long would you be willing to carry an EXTRA 5 billion worth of debt to keep NI afloat?

How many billions did we spend to keep a few banks afloat. 5 billion is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

tom1ie

Deleted User wrote: »

I see it as an investment. A bit like investing in a new business at ground zero. And if you see my subsequent point it potentially becomes self funding.

yeah but how long can we sustain the extra debt burden, considering we are up to our eyeballs in sovereign debt as it is?

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Thanks. Yes neither annoy me but I know they wind up many unionists because they jump to Bonnies position of assuming you have put thought into it and are trying to make a political point to wind them up.

You putting words in my mouth again?

That's awful rude for someone who's skirting direct questions of him at every turn.

It's amazing how you completely missed the substantive point of the post and latched onto something else therein because the point the post was clear and obvious to the less belligerent of us.

Incase you missed it it is thusly:
Natterjack is talking through his hoop

[Deleted User]

tom1ie wrote: »

yeah but how long can we sustain the extra debt burden, considering we are up to our eyeballs in sovereign debt as it is?

Until the UI is being run to the maximum of its potential and greater than the sum of its initial parts. Bear in mind the national debt is spread out over approx 7m rather than 5m, so that gives a good amount of headroom.

tom1ie

Fann Linn wrote: »

How many billions did we spend to keep a few banks afloat. 5 billion is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:REALLY! % billion every year is peanuts! meanwhile we dont have enough hospital beds SNA's schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure!!!!
Come on now stop being silly.

Fann Linn

tom1ie wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek:REALLY! % billion every year is peanuts! meanwhile we dont have enough hospital beds SNA's schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure!!!!
Come on now stop being silly.

We've never had enough hospital beds, schools, infrastructure etc.even in the best of times so subsuming another 5 billion is possible. How many extra billions have we pulled outta the air in 10 months of this virus impacting Ireland? Far more I guess than the 5 billion you mentioned earlier.

[Deleted User]

tom1ie wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek:REALLY! % billion every year is peanuts! meanwhile we dont have enough hospital beds SNA's schools, hospitals

The same issues you'll find English people complaining about. It's practically a universal constant.

tom1ie wrote: »

transport infrastructure!!!!

Transport is improved on an economy of scale. That's why GB has excellent transport infrastructure even if NI's is very poor in comparison.

tom1ie

Fann Linn wrote: »

We've never had enough hospital beds, schools, infrastructure etc.even in the best of times so subsuming another 5 billion is possible. How many extra billions have we pulled outta the air in 10 months of this virus impacting Ireland? Far more I guess than the 5 billion you mentioned earlier.

yeah from Europe, to deal with the pandemic. once the pandemic is over we wont be borrowing more to deal with the pandemic.
You want to add an extra 5 billion a year for the forseable to our already fooked balance sheet for nationalism!
that's nuts.
A united Ireland is great in theory, but realistically it leads to service cuts and tax increases for the rep of Ireland.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Right.

So subscribe to the idea of it "appearing likely" that it will pass as the measure of the criteria of it being called?

Does that also preclude us from discussing it at all until then as well?

Do you think that Partitionists and belligerent Unionists should have a veto on all aspects of the discussion so that they don't feel uncomfortable?

Well, as I keep saying, talking about a border poll is premature until we have some idea of what a united Ireland might look like.

I have previously attempted to discuss integration of social welfare, tax and public service pay and got drowned out by the dreamers of unicorns. If posters are serious about a united Ireland, they should be honest about who will pay.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I know what I wrote. Thanks for the reminder.

Have you anything substantive to ask or shall we do this little dance?

My contribution was substantive, pointing out that there will be different questions, North and South.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, as I keep saying, talking about a border poll is premature until we have some idea of what a united Ireland might look like.

I have previously attempted to discuss integration of social welfare, tax and public service pay and got drowned out by the dreamers of unicorns. If posters are serious about a united Ireland, they should be honest about who will pay.

It will be paid for by all of us and whosoever wants it to succeed. Which is everybdy bar belligerent Unionists (moderates will not want a failure if it happens) and partitionists.

Natterjack from Kerry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It will be paid for by all of us and whosoever wants it to succeed. Which is everybdy bar belligerent Unionists (moderates will not want a failure if it happens) and partitionists.

Is it fair to expect unionists to row in when belligerent republicans are what dragged NI through hell, unable to accept the crumble of the cookie in 1922 ? Why should unionists be expected to behave better a hundred years later ?

The imperfect solution of 1922 was the least imperfect way out of a a particular situation. The ROI maintaining its claim over the 6, and belligerent republicans in the there, are what has stalled NI from being a functional part of the UK and a normal society. People north and south could have chosen to make it work. They chose continued strife. Until that strife is settled, moving it from one jurisdiction to another does NOTHING to resolve it.

FrancieBrady

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Is it fair to expect unionists to row in when belligerent republicans are what dragged NI through hell, unable accept crumble of the cookie in 1922 ? Why should unionist be expected to behave better a hundred years later ?

The imperfect solution of 1922 was the least imperfect way out of a a particular situation. The ROI maintaining its claim over the 6, and belligerent republicans in the there, are what has stalled NI from being a functional part of the UK and a normal society. People north and south could have chosen to make it work. They chose continued strife. Until that strife is settled, moving it from one jurisdiction to another does NOTHING to resolve it.

They should have submitted that complaint before agreeing to the GFA. Maybe if they hadn't moved to change the voting system after partition and ran a sectarian bigoted hellhole there'd have been a chance of it lasting.

Fionn1952

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Is it fair to expect unionists to row in when belligerent republicans are what dragged NI through hell, unable to accept the crumble of the cookie in 1922 ? Why should unionists be expected to behave better a hundred years later ?

The imperfect solution of 1922 was the least imperfect way out of a a particular situation. The ROI maintaining its claim over the 6, and belligerent republicans in the there, are what has stalled NI from being a functional part of the UK and a normal society. People north and south could have chosen to make it work. They chose continued strife. Until that strife is settled, moving it from one jurisdiction to another does NOTHING to resolve it.

Obvious troll remains obvious.

Natterjack from Kerry

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Obvious troll remains obvious.

If you disagree with the points in the post, counter them. It is incorrect to conclude that views not aligned with your own, or your conception of possible views, are trolls.
Many republicans and nationalists are as blinkered in their own way as, it must be admitted, the stereotypical staunch unionist of the north.

Junkyard Tom

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Is it fair to expect unionists to row in

What other choice do they have? There is no prospect of re-partition.

BonnieSituation

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Westminster does not subsidise Northern Ireland. Every country has transfers of wealth between different areas, with centres of high wealth and productivity, shouldering a greater part of the national bill than others. The idea of NI being a region 'supported' is nonsense. It is an integral part of the UK. The UK supports itself in it entirety.

Look at this guy

BonnieSituation

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Then it wont happen. The discussion is pointless.

If it's pointless why are you in this thread talking nonsense?

FrancieBrady

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

If you disagree with the points in the post, counter them. It is incorrect to conclude that views not aligned with your own, or your conception of possible views, are trolls.
Many republicans and nationalists are as blinkered in their own way as, it must be admitted, the stereotypical staunch unionist of the north.

As opinions on what happened in Ireland go, your view is about as blinkered as it gets tbh.

BonnieSituation

tom1ie wrote: »

yeah but how long can we sustain the extra debt burden, considering we are up to our eyeballs in sovereign debt as it is?

Probably forever, given the very nature of sovereign debt.

Do you think that the burden remains static and happens in a vacuum?

Capt'n Midnight

tom1ie wrote: »

so how long would you be willing to carry an EXTRA 5 billion worth of debt to keep NI afloat?

That's the thing. It won't be ongoing. As civil servants retire a lot of that cost fades away due to the UK funding existing pensions. As more jobs are created the unemployment costs fade away. And there'd be a few jobs in motorway construction. And possibly in railways.

Better transport links and better integration should reduce some of the costs of carrying the border counties and that has also to taken into the equation.

https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/er/countyincomesandregionalgdp/2015/Map_of_Ireland_2015_72_dpi.png

BonnieSituation

tom1ie wrote: »

yeah from Europe, to deal with the pandemic. once the pandemic is over we wont be borrowing more to deal with the pandemic.
You want to add an extra 5 billion a year for the forseable to our already fooked balance sheet for nationalism!
that's nuts.
A united Ireland is great in theory, but realistically it leads to service cuts and tax increases for the rep of Ireland.

I reckon we could tap our "EU masters" for some help in this regard.

I mean, reunification is peace project at heart.

Just stomping your feet and shouting"5 BILLION" is not really a solution or a substantive discussion point. We get it, you don't understand how national debt works.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, as I keep saying, talking about a border poll is premature until we have some idea of what a united Ireland might look like.

I have previously attempted to discuss integration of social welfare, tax and public service pay and got drowned out by the dreamers of unicorns. If posters are serious about a united Ireland, they should be honest about who will pay.

You have in your ronnie. Your approach is to shout and complain about the numbers being wrong and then to disappear for a few weeks.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You have in your ronnie. Your approach is to shout and complain about the numbers being wrong and then to disappear for a few weeks.

The same poster complains that there is no plan, then decrees that we will simply keep the systems we have already.

A UI is a chance to reinvent systems we have gotten wrong.

tom1ie

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Probably forever, given the very nature of sovereign debt.

Do you think that the burden remains static and happens in a vacuum?

I think it potentially gets worse.
I think at a time when we are massively in debt we are talking about taking on more debt to satisfy nationalism.
Don’t get me wrong I love the IDEA of a United ireland but the economics just don’t stack up.
Who loses out to pay for this?

tom1ie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That's the thing. It won't be ongoing. As civil servants retire a lot of that cost fades away due to the UK funding existing pensions. As more jobs are created the unemployment costs fade away. And there'd be a few jobs in motorway construction. And possibly in railways.

Better transport links and better integration should reduce some of the costs of carrying the border counties and that has also to taken into the equation.

https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/er/countyincomesandregionalgdp/2015/Map_of_Ireland_2015_72_dpi.png

Who pays for these infrastructure projects that haven’t been included in the rep Ireland’s transport projects going forward?
Tax payers who are south of the border at the moment yeah?

[Deleted User]

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

If you disagree with the points in the post, counter them. It is incorrect to conclude that views not aligned with your own, or your conception of possible views, are trolls.

He was giving you the benefit of the doubt what with the Protestant parliament for a Protestant people, gerrymandering, 1 man 1 vote issue, jobs for prods (which ironically spectacularly backfired) and suppression of civil rights. Housing favouritism.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

My contribution was substantive, pointing out that there will be different questions, North and South.

Pointing it out?

Jesus, have some self-respect.

I was pointing out to a poster that there will be a singular question in either referendum. Whether they would be exactly the same or not is not important. It adds nothing to the discussion except a chance to derail it.

The question as it will be asked is an unkown. It will however be related to the reunification of Ireland and any agreement made in relation to it.

It is almost certain that it will be ONE question either side of the border just as the referendum in 1998 was:

North: Do you support the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?

South: To permit the state to be bound by the British–Irish Agreement

You seemed to indicate that it would be complicated, I further explained how it will not be a complicated process for the voter.

The history of our referenda confirms this.

I know that getting hung up on certain details to derail discussion is your MO but it would be nice if you decided to discuss reunification on its merits and leave the Partitionist rhetoric behind.

maccored

here we go again with waffle of costs, social welfare blah blah feckity blah

FIRST THE COUNTRY NDEEDS TO DISCUSS IT

finance etc will be part of that discussion

BonnieSituation

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Is it fair to expect unionists to row in when belligerent republicans are what dragged NI through hell, unable to accept the crumble of the cookie in 1922 ? Why should unionists be expected to behave better a hundred years later ?

The imperfect solution of 1922 was the least imperfect way out of a a particular situation. The ROI maintaining its claim over the 6, and belligerent republicans in the there, are what has stalled NI from being a functional part of the UK and a normal society. People north and south could have chosen to make it work. They chose continued strife. Until that strife is settled, moving it from one jurisdiction to another does NOTHING to resolve it.

Wow.