Terry136 wrote: » The Partitionists are out with their propaganda today.
Terry136 wrote: » One little poll taken six years ago probably in some snobby little suburb in South Dublin means absolutely nothing. Here's another poll that means nothing too but probably far more accurate to the one you posted just an example 88% of people wanting a United Ireland out of 5,000 people who took part in the poll not too long ago The Partitionists are out with their propaganda today.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You'll always get a negative answer to a 'do you want to pay more tax' question. If the proposers of a UI can show how a UI would be an investment then the result would be much different. You get the same answer to UI questions that are phrased 'Would you vote for a UI tomorrow' etc. Question the questioners is a good way to look at polls.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » That's a colossal "if" considering that decades of being part of one of the wealthiest nations on earth for decades hasn't done NI that many favours. It's not wrong to point out the fiscal risks and burdens in the short to medium term if not the long term.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Ah come on...are you suggesting that 'the wealthiest nation' had the interests of a part of Ireland at heart? There are risks with anything and benefits. As part of an island there is no reason why the north cannot contribute and enhance the island in many ways.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Such as?
FrancieBrady wrote: » It contributes and enhances as the south. east and west does.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » What is this based on? What evidence or even projections are there which show that incorporating the north would benefit the Republic and/or NI?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Stands to reason. Invest and reap the rewards. It now suits the UK, It now suits Ireland, It now suits the rest of the EU for a UI to be successful, stands to reason there will be plenty wanting to invest. It would be then in our own interests to make it work. Plenty of studies out there where you can find the areas for growth and potential. They are constants even if you don't think it would work. I cannot see why they wouldn't. And I am not suggesting it will be some happy ever after nirvana.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Not good enough. I have no intention of researching your argument for you. Frankly, this is exactly the sort of insipid nationalism that brought us Brexit.
When offering an opinion, please state so. Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flaming and a poster/moderator may demand further evidence. When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nonsense...this isn't a thread on a UI. As I said, plenty of studies out there with the areas where benefits can occur are listed and gone into. You are free to agree or disagree, those areas remain the same. I have read them. My research is done and doesn't require scrutiny from you. If it does, I will ask for it.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I didn't raise the question of a UI. It's what was being discussed when I clicked on this thread. Vaguely alluding to unknown studies isn't an argument. You'll be convincing very few people with that kind of logic. But maybe UI is getting a bit off topic so I'll be leaving things there.
yagan wrote: » What evidence was there for accepting poor non industrial Ireland into the EEC?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Negativity and scaremongering if it had been responded to would have seen us left out, is the answer to that, We are the perfect example of what happens when investment is made. We are now net contributors to the EU in my lifetime..
PeadarCo wrote: » So project fear. There are genuine questions about how Northern Ireland can be financed by the Republic. The reason the UK is in such a mess is because hard questions were ignored. Obvious questions like Northern Ireland were ignored and waved away. What Brexit showed is that's its relatively easy to win a referendum but that implementing the result can be very difficult. The same lesson should be taken for Northern Ireland. A vote for unification is the easy bit. What comes after is the hard bit. Waving away hard questions ie calling people who highlight issues names or scaremongering is exactly the tactics Brexiters use. You'd hope that the biggest impact that Brexit has on Northern Ireland is that it highlights the need for an open discussion on the implications of unification and plan for them. Brexit shows nationalistic fervour can only carry you so far and won't address hard economic realities.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, and it is after that discussion takes place that polls that are relevant can be taken. People arriving into the debate with big scary headline figures of 12 billion and 'bills' show their agendas immediately imo. Open discussion probably won't change their minds. The economic aspect of a UI is not the primary reason for a UI for me anyhow. I think a UI will end the cyclical conflict (Violent and otherwise) partition will cause here and that is why I think it is important we work for it. The point about the EEC was about the principle of it...had risks not been taken we would probably be in the same place we were in the 60's...a regressive, insular society with a stunted economy, A UI will be a challenge but a worthwhile one in my opinion.
View wrote: » The £12bn isn’t a “big scary headline”. It’s grim reality and nothing to do with any supposed “agenda”. Ignoring isn’t going to make it go away. The old economists’ joke about a country being an economy with a flag stuck on it may be an oversimplification but there is a huge amount of truth in it.
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » I think it was David McWilliams who made the point that the UK's subvention figure involves over a billion on defence spending. I find it quite depressing to hear Irish people putting a price on their fellow citizens north of the border. If I were told, as a Dubliner, that I stood to make savings if several Munster counties in the ROI broke away, I wouldn't be in favour as I would rather have my country intact. I suspect most people would feel the same way, which is why I can't help but wonder how many of those advocating economic pragmatism regarding NI are actually emotionally attached to partition...
Fionn1952 wrote: » With most first world countries, the area around the economic capital would benefit from cutting off everywhere else, be that the UK's Greater London area, The Pale area of Ireland or the Industrial Triangle of Italy. The vast majority of Ireland outside the Pale are net economic receivers.
beggars_bush wrote: » Not true. Prove otherwise
PeadarCo wrote: » https://www.dublinchamber.ie/business-agenda/economic-profile-of-dublin See the link above. Some key points Dublin contributes over half of Irelands income tax reciepts at 51% and has just below 32% of Irelands working age population. There was a post done up a good few years ago at this stage by a previous mod called Scofflaw that showed that Dublin and to a lesser degree Cork City financed the rest of the country. In terms of the impact Brexit will have on Northern Ireland, it will make London poorer long term and adversely impact the UK services economy in general. This in conjunction with no more EU grants will reduce the ability of the UK to support poorer areas of the UK such as Northern Ireland. That has the potential to increase support for unification particularly with people who are unaligned and don't subscribe to the traditional nationalist unionist political duopoly in the North.
