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

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG have begun the alliance, they have invited the No side (the DUP) to address their party conference, even applauded their suggestion that we once again pay homage to a monarch by re-joining the Commonwealth the present monarch heads.

The commonwealth is a completely harmless club of nations , if rejoining either helped speed up reunification or deterred some unionists from involving themselves in the inevitable terror campaign , id vote for rejoining the commonwealth

to me Canada , Australia ,India etc are not subservient to the UK like they were in the past

Unionists are a sentimental bunch in some ways and if being able to say they are still in the commonwealth post a United Ireland , let them have it i say

id rather have Elizabeth II as head of state than Miggeldy , thats for sure

bubblypop wrote: »

Clearly you're the belligerent one in here if that's what you take from my post.

I don't think you know what Belligerent means.

I'm only reading what you post. If there's some nuance or latent definitions there to be missed, then let me know.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Jesus, reunification is now a luxury?

Have you ever been north of Julianstown? Mother of Christ.

Reread what I said, Francie is accusing me of being selfish and I was just pointing out that this isn't about me not being able to afford a luxury item. It's way bigger than that.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The commonwealth is a completely harmless club of nations , if rejoining either helped speed up reunification or deterred some unionists from involving themselves in the inevitable terror campaign , id vote for rejoining the commonwealth

to me Canada , Australia ,India etc are not subservient to the UK like they were in the past

Unionists are a sentimental bunch in some ways and if being able to say they are still in the commonwealth post a United Ireland , let them have it i say

id rather have Elizabeth II as head of state than Miggeldy , thats for sure

Well if the first part of your post wasn't a load of nonsense, then this certainly takes the biscuit.

That's the end of that engagement anyway.

FrancieBrady

Mad_maxx wrote: »

SF voters seem to believe that only their idea of a United Ireland should be considered , hence the 50+1 majority and thats all that is needed line

I am absolutely in favour of a United Ireland and would vote for one today as i believe it would benefit the whole island economically , never mind anything else , Markets hate borders , Ireland has a lot of friends internationally in a corporate sense and Northern Ireland can offer much to big business in terms of investment .

I dont believe that its unaffordable , quite the contrary , i see it as a great economic opportunity , Northern Ireland is never on the radar of any budding tory or Labour government from an economic standpoint as the votes of Northern Ireland citizens are rarely ever needed , as such its economic blackspot status can be safely taken for granted along with its votes

I would honestly however vote for the Ulster Unionists in a post United Ireland state ahead of SF as the idea of a socialist republic sends shivers down my spine , il probably get labelled a " West Brit " for saying that but to reiterate my opening point

SF voters think they have a monopoly of ideas on the prospect - plan for a United Ireland , they need to get over that idea quick

The idea that SF would sweep to 'power ever after' in a UI, is a figment of your imaginations TBH.

They are a political party on the island, an island where most of the political parties are officially pro UI.

In other words - they are 'just' anther political party that you can elect into power or not, as the case may be.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Could you point me to any of those people arguing that we should go from border poll to unified overnight, and then just let NI plod along as is?

Your vote will count the same as mine, so you don't have to justify why you favour continued partition, but I'd question why when you do try to justify it, you're so insecure as to have to result to outright lies?

I have consistently said I will vote no if I have to pay for it, so far not a single party has put forward a proposal on how it could be paid for.

If I see a sensible proposal I will vote yes.

jh79 wrote: »

GDP of Ireland is 335 bn approx for 6 million
GDP of NI is 53 bn for approx 2 million!

NI should have a GDP of approx 110 bn give or take.

I think Ireland invests 20% of GDP to stimulate the economy. 20% of what NI should be is 22bn.

Obviously this is done over time and scaled up but it illustrates the scale of the required investment. And then you have to match the subvention until it gets to the desirable productivity.

Any economists on here? Would love to hear a professional opinion.

I don't think that maths is proving what you think it is. If anything it shows the folly of Partition and why it must end.

jh79 wrote: »

Reread what I said, Francie is accusing me of being selfish and I was just pointing out that this isn't about me not being able to afford a luxury item. It's way bigger than that.

The very essence of "I don't want to pay for it" is selfishness.

I don't want to pay for Roscommon. But sure that's life.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't know why you think we'll turn into a 2 party system in the event of a UI, but sure look...

As regards the apparent monopoly on a UI that you think SF supporters think they have; well, as someone who isn't an SF supporter, I'm gonna politely call shít on that.

Of other parties don't engage in UI discussions, it can hardly be the fault of a party who do.

The clamour at the end of those shouting "we were never consulted" will be deafening!

I wasnt speaking within the context of official Dail Party position , i meant amongst the common people like on this forum etc

I meant id vote for the likes of the Ulster Unionist party in the event of a United ireland if the only other option was SF , it was a hypothetical to make a point , many SF people think a new state would turn into a left wing enterprise and that unionists would be delighted about it , never mind people down here

Mad_maxx wrote: »

SF voters seem to believe that only their idea of a United Ireland should be considered , hence the 50+1 majority and thats all that is needed line

I am absolutely in favour of a United Ireland and would vote for one today as i believe it would benefit the whole island economically , never mind anything else , Markets hate borders , Ireland has a lot of friends internationally in a corporate sense and Northern Ireland can offer much to big business in terms of investment .

I dont believe that its unaffordable , quite the contrary , i see it as a great economic opportunity , Northern Ireland is never on the radar of any budding tory or Labour government from an economic standpoint as the votes of Northern Ireland citizens are rarely ever needed , as such its economic blackspot status can be safely taken for granted along with its votes

I would honestly however vote for the Ulster Unionists in a post United Ireland state ahead of SF as the idea of a socialist republic sends shivers down my spine , il probably get labelled a " West Brit " for saying that but to reiterate my opening point

SF voters think they have a monopoly of ideas on the prospect - plan for a United Ireland , they need to get over that idea quick

A totally reasonable post.

As to my own opinions, I think the NHS is pretty much the greatest achievement Britain has ever had, and would love to use unification as a way to bring in universal, free at the point of service health care herr, I believe education should be free and I support having a strong safety net in our society.

My employment is also quite dependent on FDI and global MNCs, and I don't support social ownership of the means of production.

Would that meet the criteria for SF's 32 county Socialist Republic? I have no idea, but I'd be confident that should unification occur, we will land closer to my desired social democracy than to an outright Socialist state.

FrancieBrady

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The commonwealth is a completely harmless club of nations , if rejoining either helped speed up reunification or deterred some unionists from involving themselves in the inevitable terror campaign , id vote for rejoining the commonwealth

to me Canada , Australia ,India etc are not subservient to the UK like they were in the past

Unionists are a sentimental bunch in some ways and if being able to say they are still in the commonwealth post a United Ireland , let them have it i say

id rather have Elizabeth II as head of state than Miggeldy , thats for sure

So you aren't a republican. Fair enough. I'll be strenuously voting against rejoining any organisation with vestiges of deference to a monarchy, be that a British monarch or any other monarch.

I'll let your head of state preference and the personal insult to our President speak for itself.

Deleted User wrote: »

would commonsense not tell you then,that ni is in for a boom in a utd ireland

Is it true our gdp went up last year,despite being in lockdown for most of the year ...imagine what we can do for the entire ireland upon reunification

I mean the fact the government covered up a report on its costs to take heat out of situation politically during brexit negociations tells alot

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-costings-4144760-Jul2018/%3famp=1

The report assumes funding. There is a report coming on the true cost of a UI so my opinion could well change on publication.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well if the first part of your post wasn't a load of nonsense, then this certainly takes the biscuit.

That's the end of that engagement anyway.

i cant stand our president , you have another view , fine

jh79 wrote: »

I have consistently said I will vote no if I have to pay for it, so far not a single party has put forward a proposal on how it could be paid for.

If I see a sensible proposal I will vote yes.

just so the SF voters dont think im being unjustly critical

those down here who think they can say NO to a United Ireland like a fancy bottle of wine in the supermarket need to realise that we will have to take on the project eventually as London will eventually just reach a tipping point in terms of a willingness to prop up the place

We have an absolute duty to deal with a future where the north east corner is our responsibility

we should be planning for it in our minds on a regular basis

Fionn1952 wrote: »

A totally reasonable post.

As to my own opinions, I think the NHS is pretty much the greatest achievement Britain has ever had, and would love to use unification as a way to bring in universal, free at the point of service health care herr, I believe education should be free and I support having a strong safety net in our society.

My employment is also quite dependent on FDI and global MNCs, and I don't support social ownership of the means of production.

Would that meet the criteria for SF's 32 county Socialist Republic? I have no idea, but I'd be confident that should unification occur, we will land closer to my desired social democracy than to an outright Socialist state.

forget about universal healthcare , nothing is free and free stuff mentality has this place ruined , we need a german approach to our health service

Deleted User wrote: »

chances are,ireland will paying more and more into the eu going forward.....support for withdrawing from eu is near zero

Surely such money,would be better spent on the island?

Where would the rest come from? And we are talking about billions, subventions of between 2-6bn and probably an equal amount in investment.

Last year, Ireland paid €229 million into the EU budget more than it received, an amount which represents 0.08% of Ireland's gross national income (GNI).

https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2020/1109/1177074-ireland-eu-budget-contribution/

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you aren't a republican. Fair enough. I'll be strenuously voting against rejoining any organisation with vestiges of deference to a monarchy, be that a British monarch or any other monarch.

I'll let your head of state preference and the personal insult to our President speak for itself.

I dont care about the British monarch one way or another , on a personal level , id much prefer her to what sits in the Aras right now however but thats irrelevant

My over arching point was that if rejoining the commonwealth paved a smoother path both to reunification and a more harmonious new state , id vote for joining the commonwealth , if that rules me out as a republican , thats ok , it does not mean im not irish or that my vision for a united ireland should be discounted

i dont attend or host Queen lizzy of england birthday celebrations but dont subscribe to the SF narrative of a post UI scenario either

jh79 wrote: »

I have consistently said I will vote no if I have to pay for it, so far not a single party has put forward a proposal on how it could be paid for.

If I see a sensible proposal I will vote yes.

Not a single party has put forward any sort of proposal, nor are they likely to until a border poll is on the table.

A proposal put forward at this stage would essentially be worthless as there are far too many unknowns, and they will remain unknown until a border poll is actually discussed, namely because a lot of this would have to be negotiated in the run up.

For example, the much lauded subvention to NI, how much of it would we actually have to continue paying? We don't know because we don't actually know the full breakdown of the subvention (just as one example, obviously the UK military spend makes up part of this and this would not be an Irish responsibility in the event of unification).

How soon would the transition happen, and how would the UK financial commitments to NI be tapered off?

What level of financial support would the EU be willing to commit to it?

And also, to keep our resident partitionists happy, how would we approach welfare standardisation and the bloated NI civil service?

I've said it before, but when a border poll is called for, it would be madness to just run it ASAP thereafter, I'd suggest (and expect) a run up to it of at least a year, realistically more like two, during which in the early points, Ireland, the UK and the EU can actually negotiate specific commitments, at which point a clear scenario can be laid out for which we have a referendum, then parties would be free to campaign for a yes or no vote.

You know, how we always do referenda here in Ireland.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

just so the SF voters dont think im being unjustly critical

those down here who think they can say NO to a United Ireland like a fancy bottle of wine in the supermarket need to realise that we will have to take on the project eventually as London will eventually just reach a tipping point in terms of a willingness to prop up the place

We have an absolute duty to deal with a future where the north east corner is our responsibility

we should be planning for it in our minds on a regular basis

The point I was making is that this isn't about me not being able to afford a discretionary item due to a unification related tax. The consequences of a poorly managed 32 county Ireland could be far greater for society as a whole.

London has no choice when it comes to NI and they have an economy (no matter what shape it is in) better able to fund NI.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Not a single party has put forward any sort of proposal, nor are they likely to until a border poll is on the table.

A proposal put forward at this stage would essentially be worthless as there are far too many unknowns, and they will remain unknown until a border poll is actually discussed, namely because a lot of this would have to be negotiated in the run up.

For example, the much lauded subvention to NI, how much of it would we actually have to continue paying? We don't know because we don't actually know the full breakdown of the subvention (just as one example, obviously the UK military spend makes up part of this and this would not be an Irish responsibility in the event of unification).

How soon would the transition happen, and how would the UK financial commitments to NI be tapered off?

What level of financial support would the EU be willing to commit to it?

And also, to keep our resident partitionists happy, how would we approach welfare standardisation and the bloated NI civil service?

I've said it before, but when a border poll is called for, it would be madness to just run it ASAP thereafter, I'd suggest (and expect) a run up to it of at least a year, realistically more like two, during which in the early points, Ireland, the UK and the EU can actually negotiate specific commitments, at which point a clear scenario can be laid out for which we have a referendum, then parties would be free to campaign for a yes or no vote.

You know, how we always do referenda here in Ireland.

Predictions on the full cost of unification do not require more data, the only unknow is where the money will come from.

Deleted User wrote: »

but would you really prefer someone,who is widely believed to be suffering demenita as head of state

Royalty is an extremly outdated concept,i see no reason for it....for all our ills,i think the notion anyone,can come from nowhere and make it as head of state,is the greatest example and encourager of civic engagement there is

Where as royalty is just an example of inequality....no country should exist with royalty and food banks simutanoeusly

in a philosophical position , i have no ideological conviction for or against a monarch though , I dont believe that monarchs are all bad if they help bind a nation together in meaningful ways so i dont mock brits who staunchly believe in and support their monarch , same with other countries who have a monarch as head of state

my position on joining the commonwealth is purely pragmatic , i suspect strongly that ulster unionists would react favourable and i dont believe ulster unionist should be taken to task on every point of difference , especially ones that cost us nothing in my opinion

i also believe unionists are over indulged in many ways by everyone including our own media down here , nothing is ever expected of unionists and they have never been expected to atone for anything whatsoever

FrancieBrady

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I dont care about the British monarch one way or another , on a personal level , id much prefer her to what sits in the Aras right now however but thats irrelevant

It's highly relevant, in that you are allowing your opinion of individuals to express your opinion of the office they hold.
I don't care if Dustin the turkey is President, the ffice and what it stands for is more important.

My over arching point was that if rejoining the commonwealth paved a smoother path both to reunification and a more harmonious new state , id vote for joining the commonwealth , if that rules me out as a republican , thats ok , it does not mean im not irish or that my vision for a united ireland should be discounted

i dont attend or host Queen lizzy of england birthday celebrations but dont subscribe to the SF narrative of a post UI scenario either

I have no issue with flags or anthems changing but I do have issue with watering down what a republic should be and it should have nothing whatsoever to do with deference to a monarch.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

forget about universal healthcare , nothing is free and free stuff mentality has this place ruined , we need a german approach to our health service

Even as someone with a very nice private health insurance for my family, provided from my work, I absolutely have no intention of forgetting about universal health care.

Allowing illnesses to get worse because someone can't/won't spend €50-70 to see a GP doesn't save us money as a society.

We already have a ridiculous spend per capita on our health service, so the funding of it isn't the issue. The massive inefficiency of our current system is. Full reform of the HSE is needed and Unification provides a great opportunity to do so.

Nothing is free indeed, but to paraphrase something I read in an American politics discussion, if your house catches fire would you like to be calling round for a quote from private fire services? Do you want to have to hire a private investigator if your car is stolen? Why would you not apply the same mentality to health services?!

jh79 wrote: »

Predictions on the full cost of unification do not require more data, the only unknow is where the money will come from.

Ah right, sound.....can you give me a full breakdown of the UK subvention to NI then so?

Also your figures on how much new FDI could be attracted by the lower property costs of Belfast by the new Irish corporation tax?

Just two off the top of my head.

jh79 wrote: »

The point I was making is that this isn't about me not being able to afford a discretionary item due to a unification related tax. The consequences of a poorly managed 32 county Ireland could be far greater for society as a whole.

London has no choice when it comes to NI and they have an economy (no matter what shape it is in) better able to fund NI.

of course London have a choice , political reality will eventually set in as each generation cares less and less about holding on to Northern Ireland

a border poll will pass , even the first one fails , it wont be the last one and twenty years does not be long going round

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's highly relevant, in that you are allowing your opinion of individuals to express your opinion of the office they hold.
I don't care if Dustin the turkey is President, the ffice and what it stands for is more important.

I have no issue with flags or anthems changing but I do have issue with watering down what a republic should be and it should have nothing whatsoever to do with deference to a monarch.

how would joining the commonwealth water down what the republic is?

Natterjack from Kerry

jh79 wrote: »

I think partitionist is a moot term now SF have officially come out as a partitionist party with the donation of 4 million..

Partitionist is indeed a meaningless term in this discussion. It supposes their is something to be partitioned. There isn't. There are two states on the island of Ireland. The geography of Bein an island is irrelevant. I would be like saying Belgium is Partitionist because it had a border with Holland.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's highly relevant, in that you are allowing your opinion of individuals to express your opinion of the office they hold.
I don't care if Dustin the turkey is President, the ffice and what it stands for is more important.

I have no issue with flags or anthems changing but I do have issue with watering down what a republic should be and it should have nothing whatsoever to do with deference to a monarch.

thats fine , its a line in the sand for you , not for me

my point from the start is that their are different shades of opinion down here even in terms of those who fully support a border poll and would vote for a United Ireland

its often the case that SF voters see themselves as the only ones allowed drive the bus

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Even as someone with a very nice private health insurance for my family, provided from my work, I absolutely have no intention of forgetting about universal health care.

Allowing illnesses to get worse because someone can't/won't spend €50-70 to see a GP doesn't save us money as a society.

We already have a ridiculous spend per capita on our health service, so the funding of it isn't the issue. The massive inefficiency of our current system is. Full reform of the HSE is needed and Unification provides a great opportunity to do so.

Nothing is free indeed, but to paraphrase something I read in an American politics discussion, if your house catches fire would you like to be calling round for a quote from private fire services? Do you want to have to hire a private investigator if your car is stolen? Why would you not apply the same mentality to health services?!

reform of the health service isnt going to happen in a state run service as voters dont want reform , they dont want small hospitals closed down , staff fired ( as they are related to them ) or wages reduced