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

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.

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.

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?

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: »

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: »

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: »

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: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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".

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?

markodaly wrote: »

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.

This keeps coming up too.

Who exactly is proposing that we blindly leap from agreeing that a border poll should be called to having the poll tomorrow and unifying Ireland on Thursday?!

I wouldn't vote for Unification without knowing exactly what I'm voting for either like.

Of course we need to know what we are voting for, and at the point that a border poll becomes imminent, of course we need a plan on what a UI will look like. The current government have already started working on this, but the finer details would of course need to be negotiated with the UK and the EU. Those negotiations won't take place until a border poll has been called, and why I have said I would prefer a delay between the SoS calling a border poll and the actual referenda. I would think this is so self evidentially obvious as to be a certainty.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'm an Irish Republican.

It's perfectly reasonable to be a republican, but a 26 county one. 'Republicans' of some colours seem to equate 'republican' as synonymous with 32 countyism.

markodaly wrote: »

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.

Finally you've come around to what we've all been discussing this whole time.

Almost to a man on this thread those that are pro-UI want to discuss what sort of State we will be voting for?

Almost to a man, the Partitionists' and Belligerents have been telling us that "now is not the time"... Pick a lane.

jh79 wrote: »

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.

Only 50bn? Very confident in that assertion.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Who are Sinn Féin's ilk?

Do you agree with the concept of monarchies?

It's a trivial fine print and makes no difference to the matters of import in the running of a country. Spain, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, etc are perfectly fine modern and successful countries, as is the UK.

[Deleted User]

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Only 50bn? Very confident in that assertion.

It has the smallest economy of all regions within the UK, with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of €50.8b,

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/base-profile/northern-ireland

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This keeps coming up too.

Who exactly is proposing that we blindly leap from agreeing that a border poll should be called to having the poll tomorrow and unifying Ireland on Thursday?!

I wouldn't vote for Unification without knowing exactly what I'm voting for either like.

Of course we need to know what we are voting for, and at the point that a border poll becomes imminent, of course we need a plan on what a UI will look like. The current government have already started working on this, but the finer details would of course need to be negotiated with the UK and the EU. Those negotiations won't take place until a border poll has been called, and why I have said I would prefer a delay between the SoS calling a border poll and the actual referenda. I would think this is so self evidentially obvious as to be a certainty.

That's the thing. This is literally the last bastion of safety that they have.

The mere idea, in the absence of a confirmed date means that they can, with bizarre confidence, make out that we can go from calling a poll to reunification over a wet weekend. They'll hold onto this for dear life cos they've nothing else.
The GDP argument vanished rather quickly when the cost of Partition for the north was pointed out.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This keeps coming up too.

Who exactly is proposing that we blindly leap from agreeing that a border poll should be called to having the poll tomorrow and unifying Ireland on Thursday?!

I wouldn't vote for Unification without knowing exactly what I'm voting for either like.

Of course we need to know what we are voting for, and at the point that a border poll becomes imminent, of course we need a plan on what a UI will look like. The current government have already started working on this, but the finer details would of course need to be negotiated with the UK and the EU. Those negotiations won't take place until a border poll has been called, and why I have said I would prefer a delay between the SoS calling a border poll and the actual referenda. I would think this is so self evidentially obvious as to be a certainty.

Oh, there are plenty of people who want to have a vote first and depending on a positive result, figure out all the big and small details after, which of course would be a disaster for all concerned. Blindly voting for a 'Yes/No' question of such huge importance brings us back to the Brexit debacle. No one really knew what Yes stood for then.

We should learn from that where everyone knows exactly what voting 'Yes' entails.