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

markodaly wrote: »

You do know there are many Republics as members of the Commonwealth? Like India, South Africa and Singapore?

However, you illustrate the point Mad_Maxx made very well, that for Irish Republicans, any and all links to Britan and the Monarchy should be dismantled in a UI, regardless of if that makes a UI better and more peaceful for all involved. The dogmatic way Irish Republicans view this is one of the reasons for a UI to be a success, Sinn Fein and their ilk, should be as far as away from the process as possible.

Who are Sinn Féin's ilk?

Do you agree with the concept of monarchies?

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

Are you debating Francie or SF?

I'm not sure why you need to bring this weird SF obsession into every post.

You were the very one complaining that SF supporters say that they have a monopoly on a UI discussion. We get it, you're not a fan of Sinn féin or of the concept of social democracy it seems.

Stick to the salient point, because you are capable of making them without resorting to the CA trope of "buh Sinn Féin".

[Deleted User]

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Literally the same place all capital expenditure comes from.

Actually another possible cost of unification. Increased interest rates due to the dilution of our economy with the massive population increase with only a 50bn contribution in GDP.

markodaly wrote: »

OK, fair enough but there are the ardent Irish Republican types who see unification as a conquest of territory, not a unification of people. The goal of course is the latter, not the former.

There are partitionists who see the denial of a UI as a 'conquest' too. And the satisfying of petty grudges. Both should be ignored as belligerents should be ignored.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fully prepared to go with the majority on it. I am a democrat.

Well, that brings us to the other big question.
We will need to know what we are voting for, therefore the plan of what a UI looks like will need to be trashed out beforehand.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This constant hive minding of Irish Republicans is odd.

I'm an Irish Republican, and I don't give a toss either way about the Commonwealth, if it helped ease the transition into a Unified Ireland for those from a Unionist background, I'd be happy to compromise on it. I'd say for every Irish Republican you can find who is dogmatically opposed to it, you'll find at least one who doesn't care, so portraying it as, 'the dogmatic way Irish Republicans' anything is facile.

OK, fair enough but there are the ardent Irish Republican types who see unification as a conquest of territory, not a unification of people. The goal of course is the latter, not the former.

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, but any links to the Commonwealth post a UI is a red-line issue for you.

Like it or not, there will be some vestiges of the Commonwealth or Monarchy attained to satisfy and alley the fears of Unionists. It's all ceremonial anyway, and it doesn't really matter to most, so just give them something to work with and away we go. For example, I can certainly see the Monarchy being kept on for the North as some dual head of state or some fudge and we in the south rejoining the commonwealth. I think it would be a given tbh, and most Irish people wouldn't care if we did.

Fully prepared to go with the majority on it. I am a democrat.

Are you withdrawing your slur that I wish to dismantle all ties to Britain?

I was careful to say I am against any deference to the concept of monarchy, whether that be British or elsewhere.

jh79 wrote: »

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

Literally the same place all capital expenditure comes from.

markodaly wrote: »

Does India feel less of a Republic? I very much doubt it.
How poor are Australia and Canada that they had to join the Commonwealth?

Now you are the one passing on personal judgements about what should constitute a Republic.

You will have to ask India.

Australia have ongoing divisions about attachment to the monarchy.

Yes, it is my opinion, freely given. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else on the issue.

jh79 wrote: »

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/

Well, we'll need your contribution to get going of course.

markodaly wrote: »

You do know there are many Republics as members of the Commonwealth? Like India, South Africa and Singapore?

However, you illustrate the point Mad_Maxx made very well, that for Irish Republicans, any and all links to Britan and the Monarchy should be dismantled in a UI, regardless of if that makes a UI better and more peaceful for all involved. The dogmatic way Irish Republicans view this is one of the reasons for a UI to be a success, Sinn Fein and their ilk, should be as far as away from the process as possible.

This constant hive minding of Irish Republicans is odd.

I'm an Irish Republican, and I don't give a toss either way about the Commonwealth, if it helped ease the transition into a Unified Ireland for those from a Unionist background, I'd be happy to compromise on it. I'd say for every Irish Republican you can find who is dogmatically opposed to it, you'll find at least one who doesn't care, so portraying it as, 'the dogmatic way Irish Republicans' anything is facile.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know you can pretend to be a republic too.

Never expressed an interest to 'dismantle' links to Britain. That would be impossible to do and I have no interest in doing that. Please don't start lying about me here mark, this is a good discussion of views.

Ah, but any links to the Commonwealth post a UI is a red-line issue for you.

Like it or not, there will be some vestiges of the Commonwealth or Monarchy attained to satisfy and alley the fears of Unionists. It's all ceremonial anyway, and it doesn't really matter to most, so just give them something to work with and away we go. For example, I can certainly see the Monarchy being kept on for the North as some dual head of state or some fudge and we in the south rejoining the commonwealth. I think it would be a given tbh, and most Irish people wouldn't care if we did.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Deference to or indeed acceptance of the concept of 'monarchy' is anathema to me as a republican. I wouldn't feel we were a republic if we give any deference to it.
Countries joined the Commonwealth because they were desperate for the economic benefits (India etc) we don't need to do that as we are full members of an economic union already and indeed, if Boris and the Tories developed a plan to develop it as an economic Union, it could take us into conflict with our valued position in the EU.

Does India feel less of a Republic? I very much doubt it.
How poor are Australia and Canada that they had to join the Commonwealth?

Now you are the one passing on personal judgements about what should constitute a Republic.

markodaly wrote: »

You do know there are many Republics as members of the Commonwealth? Like India, South Africa and Singapore?

However, you illustrate the point Mad_Maxx made very well, that for Irish Republicans, any and all links to Britan and the Monarchy should be dismantled in a UI, regardless of if that makes a UI better and more peaceful for all involved. The dogmatic way Irish Republicans view this is one of the reasons for a UI to be a success, Sinn Fein and their ilk, should be as far as away from the process as possible.

I know you can pretend to be a republic too.

Never expressed an interest to 'dismantle' links to Britain. That would be impossible to do and I have no interest in doing that. Please don't start lying about me here mark, this is a good discussion of views.

Aegir wrote: »

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

Deference to or indeed acceptance of the concept of 'monarchy' is anathema to me as a republican. I wouldn't feel we were a republic if we give any deference to it.
Countries joined the Commonwealth because they were desperate for the economic benefits (India etc) we don't need to do that as we are full members of an economic union already and indeed, if Boris and the Tories developed a plan to develop it as an economic Union, it could take us into conflict with our valued position in the EU.

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.

You do know there are many Republics as members of the Commonwealth? Like India, South Africa and Singapore?

However, you illustrate the point Mad_Maxx made very well, that for Irish Republicans, any and all links to Britan and the Monarchy should be dismantled in a UI, regardless of if that makes a UI better and more peaceful for all involved. The dogmatic way Irish Republicans view this is one of the reasons for a UI to be a success, Sinn Fein and their ilk, should be as far as away from the process as possible.

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

The tone of superior southern united Ireland people here towards those in the UK is astonishing and extraordinary. You would think NI was a third world nation of slums and starvation from some of the attitudes. And then the colonial arrogance of - we must integrate the region to lift it out of such destitution - oh the irony.

Sure thing Comrade...

Natterjack from Kerry

The tone of superior southern united Ireland people here towards those in the UK is astonishing and extraordinary. You would think NI was a third world nation of slums and starvation from some of the attitudes. And then the colonial arrogance of - we must integrate the region into the Republic to lift it out of such destitution - oh the irony.

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Why should unionist give any input into a new state that they don't want? It takes two to tango. If they aren't interested in such a development then its to be expected that they will have no input.

And its perfectly reasonable to concede that they are entitled to run their affairs as part of the UK. And not have a foreign country with notions about having a right to interfere deciding it will deign to take it under its wing.

Suspicions rising that Natterjack is a deep cover staunch Republican out to undermine those who favour continued partition.

Maybe the Shinnerbots are real and a lot more clever than we thought?

Natterjack from Kerry

Annd9 wrote: »

.

I for one want unionist input into how a new state might be formed and how it can be beneficial to working class people from both sides of the community . They are the people with most in common , not JRM or Boris they don't give two ****s about the north and that is getting clearer every single day !

Why should unionist give any input into a new state that they don't want? It takes two to tango. If they aren't interested in such a development then its to be expected that they will have no input.

And its perfectly reasonable to concede that they are entitled to run their affairs as part of the UK. And not have a foreign country with notions about having a right to interfere deciding it will deign to take it under its wing.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

Let's talk philosophically for a second, as I brought up before; do you think we should have a privatised Fire service? Should you have to pay when your car is stolen to have the Gardai investigate it?

We can move on to the practicalities of reform and public support for it afterwards, but let's just discuss the principles here for a second.

[Deleted User]

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

The demographics by the looks of it are not looking after themselves and so far neither Brexit or COVID have tipped it in favor of unification. I wouldn't be confident that NI will ever choose to be part of the Republic.

Mad_maxx

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

Mad_maxx

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

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.

[Deleted User]

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?

Mad_maxx

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

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.

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?!