United Ireland Poll - please vote

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.

They aren't entitled to say NI doesn't affect them or that they have no responsibility. They do.

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.

you are assuming the NHS will still exist in years to come.

VinLieger wrote: »

We? Im 35 i dont remember having any responsibility in the mess that NI currently is.

you don't need to have or have had any responsibility for NI'S issues for his point to be the case.

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.

there has been a massive barrier in the form of british rule, which has prevented foreign investment and job creation in NI.
with NI part of ireland the issues that made NI unstable in the form of the invisible border are no more so there is a willingness to invest.
realistically your numbers in terms of tax rises and all else are speculatory with no basis apart from throwing out deliberately high numbers.

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.

the common wealth is a dead duck, so if they could even be part of it while being part of the EU it would only ever be for symbolic reasons.
the EU is the big trading block, and the important block they need to be a member of.
an independant NI is not going to happen, it's reunification or reunification, as in there is only 1 choice given britain is now faultering and heading for break up.

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.

you may not want it but it's going to happen whether you want it or not, so it will be better for you and for everyone to work out how it is going to happen, because happen it is going to, it's a question of when and not if.
as i already suggested, a no vote in the south is not going to stop security issues if there are going to be any, in fact it is that situation that is likely to bring security issues and quite big ones, rather then a yes or no vote across both territories.
which is why voting no in the aim of stopping potential security issues is a bad strategy.

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.

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.

blanch152 wrote: »

No TD is against a united Ireland, no Irish person is against it either, just they have different preconditions. Mine are much much higher than yours, that is all.

Ok.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You want a UI as much as I want Ireland back in the UK.

This issue isn't going away.

Ever.

Oh, I have no doubt, just look at the Greeks and their eyes on North Macedonia, just look at India/Pakistan, just look at Turkey and the Kurds, the toxic ideology of nationalism doesn't die that easily.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I posted before about this. In the run up to a border poll there'll be plenty of amateur economists and economists with an agenda, typing furiously. We have had them here already. We have even had people posting Graham Gudgin work here as gospel. I include republican agenda's in that too.

This is a very good piece on the inherent dangers of listening to agenda driven 'experts' slant their figures and analysis.

http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/comparing-living-standards-north-and-south/?fbclid=IwAR0oirEOjv8Ov5FMMMuRPK-MlbIubGGXG-G5iHg_aGStr_0X7gsy_6oPtEI

Posters typing furiously, the irony:)

This poll is interesting.

end of the road wrote: »

not really, the yes vote is winning all be it split between now and in 10 years.
but either way, more people want it then dont', it doesn't matter when they want it as long as they do.

The yes vote is winning??????

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

The yes vote is winning??????

yes, over 53% of people want it ultimately, some want it soon as and others want to wait a bit.
but the majority in the pole do want it and that is the important thing.

blanch152 wrote: »

No TD is against a united Ireland, no Irish person is against it either

Your wrong, im against it. A UI would be a victory for people who like to force their opinions onto others and a victory for people who love living in the past. Those who want a UI are still unable to sell what the benifits of one would be, they have thrown common sense out the window and have let romantic dreams take over.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I posted before about this. In the run up to a border poll there'll be plenty of amateur economists and economists with an agenda, typing furiously. We have had them here already. We have even had people posting Graham Gudgin work here as gospel. I include republican agenda's in that too.

This is a very good piece on the inherent dangers of listening to agenda driven 'experts' slant their figures and analysis.

http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/comparing-living-standards-north-and-south/?fbclid=IwAR0oirEOjv8Ov5FMMMuRPK-MlbIubGGXG-G5iHg_aGStr_0X7gsy_6oPtEI

Interesting article, I found this the most relevant quote:

"If a referendum is called, it will be too late to do that research and seek to discuss it in the white heat of a referendum campaign."

I made a suggestion earlier in the thread that the best thing for a SOS to do would be to hold an indicative referendum detached from the GFA asking whether people in the North wanted to have the issue of reunification put on the table. Subject to a yes, this could be followed by a process whereby all of the questions could be answered right down to how much social welfare would be cut in the South, how many public service redundancies would take place in the North and how much income tax would increase for everyone. After that, we could have a proper GFA vote where everyone knew what would happen.

Unfortunately, I don't think that will ever come to pass, because SF are afraid of such a vote.

Greyfox wrote: »

Your wrong, im against it. A UI would be a victory for people who like to force their opinions onto others and a victory for people who love living in the past. Those who want a UI are still unable to sell what the benifits of one would be, they have thrown common sense out the window and have let romantic dreams take over.

I have a lot of sympathy for that view. 100 years have passed and the North is a very different society than the South. Where I think this should go is that the parties that want a united Ireland should focus on reducing the difference between the two. The recent vote where SF abstained on abortion rights in the North was a big blow to any efforts to unite this island.

A united Ireland will cost some people an awful lot of money, that much is clear. With the divergence over 100 years, everything from health to education, from taxation to social welfare is vastly different. Harmonisation comes with a cost.

In that context, I am not surprised that young people in the South who worry about jobs, who worry about owning their own house, believe that taking on the problems of the North is a step too far.

Greyfox wrote: »

Your wrong, im against it. A UI would be a victory for people who like to force their opinions onto others and a victory for people who love living in the past. Those who want a UI are still unable to sell what the benifits of one would be, they have thrown common sense out the window and have let romantic dreams take over.

At least you are honest. A lot more will have to be come the campaign.


I know to some of our political class and some here it is anathema but they dishonestly pretend to be for it. Their discomfort will be fun to watch as will their discomfort being on the same side as some of the most bigoted fundamentalist suprematists these islands have seen - the DUP/TUV types.

Zaph wrote: »

I don't see that as an issue tbh. It is possible to oppose the same thing as the next guy but for entirely different reasons. Just because you want the same result doesn't mean that you agree with his reason for wanting it.

Say a Border Poll succeeds, can you imagine being the political party or TD who was against it?

The political fallout of that would be so scary, the politicians to whom it is anathema to, will keep up the pretence in my opinion.

That 'not wanting to be seen as an ally of bigots' will be an 'issue' IMO. You'll find it very hard to get political party support as a result.

I voted no, I'm comfortable with the idea someone else is running a different part of the country to keep our Government in check.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Say a Border Poll succeeds, can you imagine being the political party or TD who was against it?

The political fallout of that would be so scary, the politicians to whom it is anathema to, will keep up the pretence in my opinion.

That 'not wanting to be seen as an ally of bigots' will be an 'issue' IMO. You'll find it very hard to get political party support as a result.

Yes, I can imagine that. What's your point?

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, I can imagine that. What's your point?

There won't be a political party in the south supporting the partitionist agenda.

Partitionists will have to depend on Peter Casey and Kevin Myers types while all the political parties will be coming up with proposals for a UI.
It will be 'get on the train' or be left in the station time.

No Irish political party will turn it's back on Unification. That's a big hill to die on.

Zaph wrote: »

I think if it gets to the point where there's a proper reasoned debate about a poll there'll be enough politicians who will realise that in pure economic terms a UI would be massively damaging. Then there will be no option but to have a proper discussion about it, unless they want to follow the UK government's lead where they lied to the electorate about Brexit. Having seen that mess, I don't think people here will accept being asked to vote on something without having the full facts.

They won't lie, they will present it as an investment in our future. Northern Ireland as a part of an Irish state, not couched as a 'cost', in the same way as Munster or Connacht is not couched ever as a cost to us all.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I feel a responsibility and I will vote for a UI. My vote is as valid as yours.
Your selfishness does not infuriate me, it makes me sad actually. Where would you be had others not made sacrifices.

LOL did you actually just try to compare yourself to those who fought and died for our independence?

I would argue you're need to see a UI is also rooted in a perverse selfishness, in my opinion you and others like you just want to win the war, you don't care about the consequences for anyone involved and the ends justify the means.