Junkyard Tom wrote: » The question will be how we do it not if. After a pro-UI vote in the north NI ceases to exist and the transition to the unitary state will begin.
VinLieger wrote: » This question should be fully answered prior to any vote north or south.
James Brown wrote: » What are you on about?
VinLieger wrote: » I have no family up there and I don't see how as a 35 year old I'm held account for abandoning anyone? As far as I'm concerned it's not my problem.
Zaph wrote: » Surely that's only dependent on a pro-UI vote in the Republic as well? They can't just decide that they're joining unilaterally.
a very cool kid wrote: » Whinging about the past in ROI won't close the budget gap in a united Ireland...
James Brown wrote: » That's cool that if it doesn't affect you directly you've no interest.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » So a no-to-UI vote happens in the south. There will be a very serious political schism and the state's very legitimacy is called into question. The flag would no longer be appropriate, as would the anthem, the constitution would be defunct and so on. What then?
VinLieger wrote: » But a UI does affect me directly and I very mu h have an interest, I don't want me or my children to pay the cost of reunification, I don't want to share a country with troglodytes like the DUP and their friends along with all the very real security issues it will bring upon us. What really infuriates me is people like you saying we are responsible or somehow owe them when nobody alive has ever had a choice in the matter.
James Brown wrote: » Stop whinging so? You do know Ulster is still partially under British rule? Not sure what you mean by 'the past'.
Zaph wrote: » Not sure why you think that the legitimacy of the state would be called into question or the constitution would be defunct.
If articles 2 and 3 remained unchanged you might have a point, but given that a UI is now only as aspiration rather than there being an outright claim to NI, I don't see any particular issues with either.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Pro-UI people will claim the state as no longer fit for purpose. Not a hope in hell the flag, anthem, symbols, and whatnot will be retained by those seeking to prevent a United Ireland. It would be considered a betrayal of everyone who ever has fought for Ireland's self-determination.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » You think no-to-UI people would get agreement on a new constitution that removes the aspiration and abandons northern pro-UI people to their fate again? Not a hope in hell.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Say the moment a pro-UI vote passes in the north a United Ireland is declared by those who support it. What then? Do you understand the potential terrible schism a rejection of a United Ireland could unleash?
Zaph wrote: » So basically you're saying that if NI voted yes and the Republic voted no there'd be a revolution in the Republic to overthrow the government and install a new pro-UI regime? Because short of that you can declare whatever you like but it doesn't make it fact.
WhatYaSay wrote: » I don't think it's right to dismiss peoples opinions because they don't see themselves as involved in the Norths history. It's easy to say people are being dismissive because the North doesn't affect them and they don't want a UI. But a UI would affect everyone's lives, and surely we all are entitled to a view on that. You have to take into account that the majority of people under 30 don't know anything but a post GFA agreement Ireland, so any change to that will effect them hugely and you can't blame people for having an opinion on that.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If the north doesn't affect them...what are they doing arguing about it on a NI thread? The 'North' affects us all whether we like it or not, frankly.
WhatYaSay wrote: » Yes you're right, but this is a thread about a potential United Ireland in which we'll all live. Say you're a 27 year old somewhere in Galway, unless your family were fairly politically involved then up until now Northern Ireland and it's history/politics didn't play much of a part in your day to day life. The prospect of a united Ireland which you haven't asked for will change that fact to some extent, how much remains to be seen. There will be a large demographic out there who will wonder why invite such upheaval.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Then Northern Ireland does affect you. Your government and the people of this country signed up to an internationally binding agreement. That is likely to come to pass. If you object to it, it is up to you to find the political representation and the majority to change that agreement. Otherwise it's clauses and terms will be upheld. If a majority vote for a UI it will happen. So again, Northern Ireland does affect you whether you like it or not.
WhatYaSay wrote: » Yes, If a majority vote for UI, that's the part that remains to be seen. All I'm saying is people who have no interest in a change to the status quo are as entitled to their vote and argument as anyone else, and I really don't think that is reflected in the discussion.
JimmyVik wrote: » I dont believe there is any way in hell this is happening where we dont end up paying more taxes. Maybe there will be some money from Europe or the Uk for 10 years or so to fool us into thinking its zero sum, so we only notice after 10 years. Maybe there will be stealth taxes that can cover it. I know a lot of people up the North. The lack of NHS really scares them if there was a united Ireland. That will hit them in the pockets. Maybe the NHS will still cover them for a few years after the move. God help them after that though They wont know what hit them when they go to the Doctor or hospital.
VinLieger wrote: » We? Im 35 i dont remember having any responsibility in the mess that NI currently is.
a very cool kid wrote: » The whole NI - ROI hookup benefitting is economically is nonsense when you look at it really. Business wise there have been no barriers to trade or investment between NI and ROI or incentives available in ROI that weren't in NI - and they have fallen miles behind (particularly in the past 30 years). Why when you change the flag and the currency does NI suddenly become an economic powerhouse? There's a reason the costs are quite specific and the benefits kind of vague.... If the subvention were half of what is reported you're looking at a 10% tax increase across the board in ROI (58% marginal income tax rate on everything over 35k anyone?). That's just to keep the lights on as they are now before you increase welfare and civil salaries to ROI levels.
blanch152 wrote: » There is a third choice - an independent Northern Ireland within the Commonwealth. Northern Ireland is bigger both population-wise and economically than Cyprus, Latvia, Malta and Estonia, all full members of the EU. Luxembourg is smaller by population, but is wealthier. An independent Northern Ireland, member of both the EU and the Commonwealth, would have access automatically to regional EU funding that would not be available in a united Ireland context.
blanch152 wrote: » Spot on, this is an emerging attitude in the South that matches the emergence of the Northern Irish identity up North. After 100 years, that is not surprising. Sure, there are some who cling on to romantic pasts and with the surge in toxic nationalist ideologies around the world, they will have got a boost, but a united Ireland, while a fine dream and hope, is not something that people really want.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You need to find somebody to represent that view in the coming campaign. All party leaders are in favour of unification. Finding it hard to think of an TD who is against it. None in my border constituency.Then you will have to ally with those in NI who are against it. Good luck with that.
