United Ireland Poll - please vote

Spanish Eyes · 27-03-2021 5:14pm

Let's say the Monarchy is abolished.
Let's say the UK is eventually fragmented post Brexit.
That would give me grounds for considering it. But on the bigger picture today it is a total NO from me. Far too divisive and dangerous, fraught with potential triumphalism from those who want a UI, cue trouble from those who don't. The expense financially, the political fallout, the total division up there is a scary thing to import. The only people that will be happy are the misty eyed in America really. The Shinners and dissidents are all mouth and no trousers playing to the gallery.

Jim_Hodge · 27-03-2021 5:20pm

king_gizzard wrote: »

Would this forum not skew towards a slightly older/conservative demographic?

I would have thought the exact opposite.

briany · 27-03-2021 6:36pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Let's say the Monarchy is abolished.
Let's say the UK is eventually fragmented post Brexit.
That would give me grounds for considering it. But on the bigger picture today it is a total NO from me. Far too divisive and dangerous, fraught with potential triumphalism from those who want a UI, cue trouble from those who don't. The expense financially, the political fallout, the total division up there is a scary thing to import. The only people that will be happy are the misty eyed in America really. The Shinners and dissidents are all mouth and no trousers playing to the gallery.

The North's current status is divisive among its inhabitants, so a UI being divisive is moot. Of course there would be those in NI who'd never accept it, but they can not accept it in a peaceful manner, just as Irish nationalists in the North reject British rule, but no longer really express this through violent means. Unless , in a United Ireland, British Unionists were so put upon that they felt no alternative but to resort to violence to make their voice heard, they'd have no cause to be violent, and doing so would only isolate them on the international stage and give them no political allies around the world.

To qualify this a bit, 'put upon' would not mean no longer being able to fly the Union Jack over Belfast city hall, but rather systemic discrimination and bigotry which actively diminished their quality of life and economic prospects.

Galwayguy35 · 27-03-2021 9:25pm

Hope John Taylor keeps out of the coffin long enough to see it, the shock of it would probably finish him off.

He's on twitter spewing hatful bile every day, this is the guy who once said if Loyalists have to kill someone its better to cross the border and murder someone in the 26 counties.

wicklowstevo · 28-03-2021 1:59pm

jm08 wrote: »

What do you propose should be done with former members of the paramilitaries? Keep them all in jail?

murders thieves rapists and assorted other criminals ?

jail is where they should be don't you think ?

a lot of them ended up back there with out a political cause to claim anyway

the release of some of these monsters from both sides was the worst part of the gfa by a huge margin and has contributed to the horrendous state that ni is in today

downcow · 28-03-2021 9:40pm

briany wrote: »

The North's current status is divisive among its inhabitants, so a UI being divisive is moot. Of course there would be those in NI who'd never accept it, but they can not accept it in a peaceful manner, just as Irish nationalists in the North reject British rule, but no longer really express this through violent means. Unless , in a United Ireland, British Unionists were so put upon that they felt no alternative but to resort to violence to make their voice heard, they'd have no cause to be violent, and doing so would only isolate them on the international stage and give them no political allies around the world.

To qualify this a bit, 'put upon' would not mean no longer being able to fly the Union Jack over Belfast city hall, but rather systemic discrimination and bigotry which actively diminished their quality of life and economic prospects.

I think you would find the strongly british north eastern bit of Ireland would initially ask for devolution, then autonomy, then independence. Would you say devolution should not be granted if a majority of a region of Ireland wanted it?

downcow · 28-03-2021 9:43pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Hope John Taylor keeps out of the coffin long enough to see it, the shock of it would probably finish him off.

He's on twitter spewing hatful bile every day, this is the guy who once said if Loyalists have to kill someone its better to cross the border and murder someone in the 26 counties.

This is disgraceful bile. I have no love for the senior version of john Taylor and his clumsy racist and sectarian outbursts.
He was critically injured in a sectarian attack by the Ira so I give him some latitude.

Junkyard Tom · 28-03-2021 9:47pm

downcow wrote: »

I think you would find the strongly british north eastern bit of Ireland would initially ask for devolution, then autonomy, then independence.

An ever-decreasing minority will be in no position to be seeking 'autonomy then independence'. Fantasy stuff.

downcow · 28-03-2021 9:47pm

wicklowstevo wrote: »

murders thieves rapists and assorted other criminals ?

jail is where they should be don't you think ?

a lot of them ended up back there with out a political cause to claim anyway

the release of some of these monsters from both sides was the worst part of the gfa by a huge margin and has contributed to the horrendous state that ni is in today

Absolutely. Both sets of terrorists have demonstrated how evil they are.
A Sunday paper up north is running a story today of an ira member has come out to name a leading sf/ira member (I can’t remember his name - he was mates with Gerry Adams) who raped him at age 12. The senior ira figure forced him at 12 years of age to get girls clothes and dress up before he raped him.

downcow · 28-03-2021 10:15pm

I realise the poll is a small sample but it is interesting.
The poll was compromised by a load of pro-UI assumptions that can never be realised.
Even with that we discover that more than 75% * will not vote for a UI. A shocking result which I am very surprised mirrors the stats for ni

* the ‘fully agreed’ agreement that 25% said they would vote for obviously cannot happen. ie I for one can assure you I won’t be agreeing to a UI under any circumstances.

igCorcaigh · 28-03-2021 10:36pm

downcow wrote: »

I realise the poll is a small sample but it is interesting.
The poll was compromised by a load of pro-UI assumptions that can never be realised.
Even with that we discover that more than 75% * will not vote for a UI. A shocking result which I am very surprised mirrors the stats for ni

* the ‘fully agreed’ agreement that 25% said they would vote for obviously cannot happen. ie I for one can assure you I won’t be agreeing to a UI under any circumstances.

It is surprising.
I'm one of the No voters, but of course it all depends on the context of which the real vote is done.

igCorcaigh · 28-03-2021 10:44pm

downcow wrote: »

I for one can assure you I won’t be agreeing to a UI under any circumstances.

Can I ask you why?
Is it for purely ideological reasons?

My No vote on the poll is probably a mix of ideological and practical, but I'm all very unsure.

ittakestwo · 29-03-2021 5:07am

downcow wrote: »

I think you would find the strongly british north eastern bit of Ireland would initially ask for devolution, then autonomy, then independence. Would you say devolution should not be granted if a majority of a region of Ireland wanted it?

If the majority in the region did not want a UI then it is not going to happen by the terms of the GFA. If there is a UI then the strongly British in the region have been out numbered. Democracy will dictate the precarious status of the region.

Also in the poll by agreement it is ment Dublin London and even Brussels are in agreement on how it is going to be United. If you think one political party who only know the word no can stop a democratic border poll think again.

downcow · 29-03-2021 8:24am

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Can I ask you why?
Is it for purely ideological reasons?

My No vote on the poll is probably a mix of ideological and practical, but I'm all very unsure.

Without going into a big long post, It’s probably same reason I guess you would not vote to reunite with the U.K. I could go into more detail if that doesn’t explain clearly

...and yes it is both idealogical and practical and indeed financial

downcow · 29-03-2021 8:28am

ittakestwo wrote: »

If the majority in the region did not want a UI then it is not going to happen by the terms of the GFA. If there is a UI then the strongly British in the region have been out numbered. Democracy will dictate the precarious status of the region.

Also in the poll by agreement it is ment Dublin London and even Brussels are in agreement on how it is going to be United. If you think one political party who only know the word no can stop a democratic border poll think again.

I didn’t say any of that. I simply said the the original poster set the conditions of the poll. He asked if you would vote yes if it was ‘fully agreed’. I’m just saying that scenario can’t happen. He didn’t say that hundreds of thousands of people would be vehemently opposed to it.

I just would have been interested in results if a real scenario had been posted

bonzothedog · 29-03-2021 10:12am

I said that the unionists accpeted the verdict of the poll as a prerequisite to the poll going ahead. Of course I am assuming that the unionists wouldn't be happy if the vote goes for a United country but because they accept the result they would have to go along with it.

The 10 years part is about then dealing with the mechanics of the arrangement - eg flags, anthem, economy, social and medical etc etc.

Not for a minute do I believe that there wouldn't be 100,000's unhappy,.

i

downcow · 29-03-2021 11:33am

bonzothedog wrote: »

I said that the unionists accpeted the verdict of the poll as a prerequisite to the poll going ahead. Of course I am assuming that the unionists wouldn't be happy if the vote goes for a United country but because they accept the result they would have to go along with it.

The 10 years part is about then dealing with the mechanics of the arrangement - eg flags, anthem, economy, social and medical etc etc.

Not for a minute do I believe that there wouldn't be 100,000's unhappy,.

i

I don’t mean to get at you here, but if you believe that why did you not include it in the assumptions. I agree with you that it would be the reality, and I think if you had said that then it would have impacted the yes vote significantly.
You said l the positive stuff eg ‘fully agreed’ but none of the negative

Here is what you said in full (a pretty Rosie unrealistic picture)
“ Assumptions - there is economic sense to it and that Ireland can afford it.
The majority of the north want it and opinion polls are showing this. The background work has been done and the unionists though far from happy have reluctantly agreed with accepting the vote's result.”

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2021 11:38am

bonzothedog wrote: »

I said that the unionists accpeted the verdict of the poll as a prerequisite to the poll going ahead. Of course I am assuming that the unionists wouldn't be happy if the vote goes for a United country but because they accept the result they would have to go along with it.

The 10 years part is about then dealing with the mechanics of the arrangement - eg flags, anthem, economy, social and medical etc etc.

Not for a minute do I believe that there wouldn't be 100,000's unhappy,.

i

Unionists have been unhappy with all the signal progressive event and agreements of the last 40 years.

One of them - the GFA - is the pivotal one, as you say. In that they agreed to be democrats even though unhappy with it.
We now have political parties trying to insinuate that a majority will go back on their word. Those political parties NEVER signed up to it in the first place and try to hide behind elements of it and to use elements of it legally to their advantage.
The fact is the conditions for UI is already agreed when a majority want it. The onus (under international binding agreement) is on the two sovereign government to make that happen should the majority vote for it.

Junkyard Tom · 29-03-2021 7:01pm

Gregory Campbell was on the BBC Radio Ulster 'Talkback' Show this afternoon debating a United Ireland with Jim O'Callaghan from Fianna Fáil. Now if someone had said 5 years ago that such a thing would happen they'd have been laughed at.

It's good that the United Ireland discussion widens out from SF as SF carry the baggage of the Troubles in the north wheres the southern parties' baggage is hidden in a dusty basement and has been largely forgotten about.

Inquirer · 29-03-2021 8:20pm

I'm going to (Gulp) wade into this one.

Please, lets keep this reasonably respectful. I know for many people here this is a highly charged issue, and I am not trying to personally have a go at anybody or disrespect anybody's ideals.

During the height of the troubles, the British army had 14,000 - 27,000 troops stationed in Northern Ireland. They also had the option of rotating these troops out with the 150+ total that they had in their army back then.

The Irish army at present have, what? 7,300? Plus 1300 reservists and the air corps and 'navy.' Would this be realistically enough to police northern Ireland?

We need to ask ourselves a harsh question here: if things went really bad, I mean ... worst case scenario, does our army, police force and state have the numbers, resources and competence to handle such a situation? I haven't heard a single seriously thought-out response to this question.

Lets say large numbers of Unionists simply refuse, point blank, to respect any referendum. I should point out that insurgencies do not require the vast majority of any given population to be hostile. A small, well-trained force just need to make a mess - look at the Taliban, or hell, the IRB. Does anybody here really have the balls to face up to bombings on O'Connell street? Or the threat of assassinations, or god forbid, widespread conventional warfare if the Irish army isn't up to the job?

Now I want people to really look at the situation we're facing at the moment in the north and the world:

Post-covid, the world is ridiculously unstable. We're living in a world where the Capitol hill was stormed. That which was strong and reliable is no longer. Things are unpredictable. I think there's too many negative scenarios that could happen.

There is widespread unemployment and dependency on public jobs in northern Ireland, not to mention a not-wonderful political system ('Cash for ash' - anyone heard of that?) I don't claim to know much about NI politics - but I know enough to know that unification would be a BIG risk - and I know a potential conflict zone when I see one. And I, personally, do not feel some nationalist desire to 'save' people who may, frankly, not care for us when we're the ones in charge - I seriously fear the IRA as well. Southern Ireland itself is not as strong a social or economic system as we all think we are. Hell, only a few years ago we were nearly prostrated by the economic recession, yet we all suddenly seem keen on taking on the NHS and etc. Could we deal with an insurgency going on for years or decades? Does anybody here want to deal with conscription? Or paying for a much larger army? Obviously, these are worst-case, nightmare scenarios. But somebody has to point these out. I think we should take a breather here.

With Respect, inquirer.

James Brown · 29-03-2021 8:36pm

Inquirer wrote: »

I'm going to (Gulp) wade into this one.

Please, lets keep this reasonably respectful. I know for many people here this is a highly charged issue, and I am not trying to

During the height of the troubles, the British army had 14,000 - 27,000 troops stationed in Northern Ireland. They also had the option of rotating these troops out with the 150+ total that they had in their army back then.

The Irish army at present have, what? 7,300? Plus 1300 reservists and the air corps and 'navy.' Would this be realistically enough to police northern Ireland?

We need to ask ourselves a harsh question here: if things went really bad, I mean ... worst case scenario, does our army, police force and state have the numbers, resources and competence to handle such a situation? I haven't heard a single seriously thought-out response to this question.

Lets say large numbers of Unionists simply refuse, point blank, to respect any referendum. I should point out that insurgencies do not require the vast majority of any given population to be hostile. A small, well-trained force just need to make a mess - look at the Taliban, or hell, the IRB. Does anybody here really have the balls to face up to bombings on o'Connell street? Or the threat of assassinations, or god forbid, widespread conventional warfare if the Irish army isn't up to the job?

Now I want people to really look at the situation we're facing at the moment in the north and the world:

Post-covid, the world is ridiculously unstable. We're living in a world where the Capitol hill was stormed. That which was strong and reliable is no longer. Things are unpredictable. I think there's too many negative scenarios that could happen.

There is widespread unemployment and dependency on public jobs in northern Ireland, not to mention a not-wonderful political system ('Cash for ash' - anyone heard of that?) I don't claim to know much about NI politics - but I know enough to know that unification would be a BIG risk - and I know a potential conflict zone when I see one. And I, personally, do not feel some nationalist desire to 'save' people who may, frankly, not care for us when we're the ones in charge - I seriously fear the IRA as well. Southern Ireland itself is not as strong a social or economic system as we all think we are. Hell, only a few years ago we were nearly prostrated by the economic recession, yet we all suddenly seem keen on taking on the NHS and etc. Could we deal with an insurgency going on for years or decades? Does anybody here want to deal with conscription? Or paying for a much larger army? Obviously, these are worst-case, nightmare scenarios. But somebody has to point these out. I think we should take a breather here.

With Respect, inquirer.

You should read back over this thread or the 'How long before Irish unification' thread. Much of what you ask has been covered more than once.

If Unionists are treated equally, as they no doubt will be, those missing being privileged or top dog will be upset. They would be in a minority and not able to muster public support IMO. So policing wouldn't be as much of an issue as we've seen.

wicklowstevo · 29-03-2021 9:38pm

Inquirer wrote: »

I'm going to (Gulp) wade into this one.

Please, lets keep this reasonably respectful. I know for many people here this is a highly charged issue, and I am not trying to

During the height of the troubles, the British army had 14,000 - 27,000 troops stationed in Northern Ireland. They also had the option of rotating these troops out with the 150+ total that they had in their army back then.

The Irish army at present have, what? 7,300? Plus 1300 reservists and the air corps and 'navy.' Would this be realistically enough to police northern Ireland?

We need to ask ourselves a harsh question here: if things went really bad, I mean ... worst case scenario, does our army, police force and state have the numbers, resources and competence to handle such a situation? I haven't heard a single seriously thought-out response to this question.

Lets say large numbers of Unionists simply refuse, point blank, to respect any referendum. I should point out that insurgencies do not require the vast majority of any given population to be hostile. A small, well-trained force just need to make a mess - look at the Taliban, or hell, the IRB. Does anybody here really have the balls to face up to bombings on o'Connell street? Or the threat of assassinations, or god forbid, widespread conventional warfare if the Irish army isn't up to the job?

Now I want people to really look at the situation we're facing at the moment in the north and the world:

Post-covid, the world is ridiculously unstable. We're living in a world where the Capitol hill was stormed. That which was strong and reliable is no longer. Things are unpredictable. I think there's too many negative scenarios that could happen.

There is widespread unemployment and dependency on public jobs in northern Ireland, not to mention a not-wonderful political system ('Cash for ash' - anyone heard of that?) I don't claim to know much about NI politics - but I know enough to know that unification would be a BIG risk - and I know a potential conflict zone when I see one. And I, personally, do not feel some nationalist desire to 'save' people who may, frankly, not care for us when we're the ones in charge - I seriously fear the IRA as well. Southern Ireland itself is not as strong a social or economic system as we all think we are. Hell, only a few years ago we were nearly prostrated by the economic recession, yet we all suddenly seem keen on taking on the NHS and etc. Could we deal with an insurgency going on for years or decades? Does anybody here want to deal with conscription? Or paying for a much larger army? Obviously, these are worst-case, nightmare scenarios. But somebody has to point these out. I think we should take a breather here.

With Respect, inquirer.

to argue against this post is to argue again logic and reason , clearly and eloquently put.

now sit back and watch the responses from the Serbian party machine

maccored · 30-03-2021 11:24am

wicklowstevo wrote: »

to argue against this post is to argue again logic and reason , clearly and eloquently put.

now sit back and watch the responses from the Serbian party machine

Personally I think the poster raises great issues that could be debated in the discussions that have to be had.

You on the other hand use it as some kind of '**** you lets not discuss anything, lets not even bother with a UI as we might have to sit down and think about how its done'.

wicklowstevo · 30-03-2021 12:55pm

maccored wrote: »

Personally I think the poster raises great issues that could be debated in the discussions that have to be had.

You on the other hand use it as some kind of '**** you lets not discuss anything, lets not even bother with a UI as we might have to sit down and think about how its done'.

if you have relevant articulate and intelligent points that you feel would counter that post then id love to hear them , if you don't then maybe its because there isn't any .

the rest of your post is just petulance at being shown up again by logic

as in you've lost the argument and now you don't want to play anymore , school yard stuff lads :pac::pac:

for what its worth change the 10 years to 50 years and I bet the out come of the poll would lean a lot more towards UI and probably get my vote too but for now the stench of death, crime and corruption off of sf still gags to many decent Irish people

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2021 12:59pm

wicklowstevo wrote: »

if you have relevant articulate and intelligent points that you feel would counter that post then id love to hear them , if you don't then maybe its because there isn't any .

the rest of your post is just petulance at being shown up again by logic

as in you've lost the argument and now you don't want to play anymore , school yard stuff lads :pac::pac:

for what its worth change the 10 years to 50 years and I bet the out come of the poll would lean a lot more towards UI and probably get my vote too but for now the stench of death, crime and corruption off of sf still gags to many decent Irish people

The Irish Government (democratically elected by the people) will be proposing a UI, whenever the time comes.

wicklowstevo · 30-03-2021 1:09pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish Government (democratically elected by the people) will be proposing a UI, whenever the time comes.

so no then ……. :rolleyes:

I wonder if the poll was effected by the online army in Serbia though

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2021 1:14pm

wicklowstevo wrote: »

so no then ……. :rolleyes:

I wonder if the poll was effected by the online army in Serbia though

Well even if you subtract two votes...the anti UI crowd still lose. And that reduces to one vote if I bother to cast mine.

The desire for a UI crosses party lines and unless a new party emerges here, then ANY Irish government of the future will be proposing and endorsing a UI.

wicklowstevo · 30-03-2021 1:20pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well even if you subtract two votes...the anti UI crowd still lose. And that reduces to one vote if I bother to cast mine.

The desire for a UI crosses party lines and unless a new party emerges here, then ANY Irish government of the future will be proposing and endorsing a UI.

lol , that's what you think the poll show's ?

like I said , if you have a viable argument id love to hear it but until then your just going around in circles with the rest of the online army

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2021 1:22pm

wicklowstevo wrote: »

lol , that's what you think the poll show's ?

like I said , if you have a viable argument id love to hear it but until then your just going around in circles with the rest of the online army

Any poll on this shows cross party support for a UI. That is because THERE IS cross party support.

Why would here be any different?

Sunny Disposition · 30-03-2021 2:09pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any poll on this shows cross party support for a UI. That is because THERE IS cross party support.

Why would here be any different?

I think the cross party support has been limited to mild lip service for about 50 years tbh. But it won't wash anymore, and if there's an SF Taoiseach it will become even more of an issue.

On TV last week Micheal Martin was talking like a politician 10 or 15 years ago, need for discussions and respect etc, lovely soft talk, but unfortunately for people like him partition is a genuine issue again and will probably be the biggest political issue for the next 25 years. Varadkar at least seems to realise that soundbytes that were fine ten years ago aren't enough.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2021 2:14pm

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think the cross party support has been limited to mild lip service for about 50 years tbh. But it won't wash anymore, and if there's an SF Taoiseach it will become even more of an issue.

On TV last week Micheal Martin was talking like a politician 10 or 15 years ago, need for discussions and respect etc, lovely soft talk, but unfortunately for people like him partition is a genuine issue again and will probably be the biggest political issue for the next 25 years. Varadkar at least seems to realise that soundbytes that were fine ten years ago aren't enough.

Martin is trying to wrest control of the UI agenda with his saccharine Unity Unit, which seems more interested in not offending anyone than it is in anything else.
He sees it (wresting control of the UI agenda)as bolstering his alliance with the SDLP, themselves frantic to restore some political credibility.
Varadkar will basically say anything in any given situation that he thinks will bolster his statesmanesque inner demons.

Sunny Disposition · 30-03-2021 2:34pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Martin is trying to wrest control of the UI agenda with his saccharine Unity Unit, which seems more interested in not offending anyone than it is in anything else.
He sees it (wresting control of the UI agenda)as bolstering his alliance with the SDLP, themselves frantic to restore some political credibility.
Varadkar will basically say anything in any given situation that he thinks will bolster his statesmanesque inner demons.

I really get the impression Martin hasn't a notion of taking on the issue at all. He'll be gone as Taoiseach and leader before a border poll anyway, he's just spouting inoffensive positive sounding buzzwords on the issue.

Varadkar may be looking at it a bit differently, whoever is Taoiseach when there is any change in the constituional position will have a major place in history.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2021 3:52pm

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I really get the impression Martin hasn't a notion of taking on the issue at all. He'll be gone as Taoiseach and leader before a border poll anyway, he's just spouting inoffensive positive sounding buzzwords on the issue.

Varadkar may be looking at it a bit differently, whoever is Taoiseach when there is any change in the constituional position will have a major place in history.

Martin is thinking the party and the long game.
Varadkar is thinking of whatever comes into his head at a given time.

Being honest here. I have zero respect for any of them in the context of a fixed position. Possibly a bit more for Martin.

VinLieger · 30-03-2021 4:16pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Martin is thinking the party and the long game.
Varadkar is thinking of whatever comes into his head at a given time.

Being honest here. I have zero respect for any of them in the context of a fixed position. Possibly a bit more for Martin.

Come on now, Martin is only thinking about nothing but himself, he would have done and said literally anything to become Taoiseach so as he didnt go down as the first FF leader to have not been one. Now that's done hes been given an ultimatum by the parliamentary party that he just has to finish his stint then take the brunt of any FF covid blame. Then when Leo becomes Taoiseach again he steps aside as FF leader and 6 months later they drop the coalition for another election hoping he takes the majority of the stink and they can get more seats than FG.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2021 4:25pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Come on now, Martin is only thinking about nothing but himself, he would have done and said literally anything to become Taoiseach so as he didnt go down as the first FF leader to have not been one. Now that's done hes been given an ultimatum by the parliamentary party that he just has to finish his stint then take the brunt of any FF covid blame. Then when Leo becomes Taoiseach again he steps aside as FF leader and 6 months later they drop the coalition for another election hoping he takes the majority of the stink and they can get more seats than FG.

Martin had to come up with a different angle to SF and something to bring the SDLP into the fold.

What better than the saccharine and platitudinous Unity Unit, where people like Dearbhail McDonald get to demonstrate their unwillingness to choose which is really their unwillingness just to admit they don't want a UI (it's ok to not want it Dearbhail...really.

)

_Kaiser_ · 30-03-2021 5:54pm

Didn't this topic come up last week, or maybe I just replied to it then.

In any case, no thanks.

* We can't afford it. Even less so once the upcoming austerity kicks in when we've to repay the tens of billions of Euro spent over the last year, and remembering we weren't exactly debt free beforehand

* We already have a massively inefficient public sector as it is without taking on a province where they're the main employer

* Security issues. It's not like the hardcore unionists are just going to shrug and go quietly

* We have enough problems here that we're not dealing with/failing to address. Housing, health, infrastructure, general cost of living etc. Plus why would those in NI want to sign up for those issues?

* Beyond nationalist romanticism, what benefits are there for the South? I can see why NI would want it if the UK turn off the money tap, and the benefits to them of getting back into the EU, but what do I as an Irish citizen and taxpayer get from the deal beyond more taxes?

I think the best thing that could happen is that NI becomes an independent state with EU subsidies (as Ireland used to get) and retaining benefits of the CTA and Good Friday agreements, but that's as far as I would go personally.

Inquirer · 30-03-2021 7:00pm

James Brown wrote: »

You should read back over this thread or the 'How long before Irish unification' thread. Much of what you ask has been covered more than once.

If Unionists are treated equally, as they no doubt will be, those missing being privileged or top dog will be upset. They would be in a minority and not able to muster public support IMO. So policing wouldn't be as much of an issue as we've seen.

This isn't about equality or logic for the Unionists. As with Brexit, this is about identity politics, which nobody can really negotiate or reason with, and which has caused its fair share of wars worldwide.

As I said, one does not need to have the full support of the population to make a terrible mess of a country. Look at the Sunnis in Iraq - outnumbered by the Shias to be sure, but this didn't prevent them crushing the Iraqi army in 2014 - and they missed their 'privileges' under the Saddam regime to be sure. After the dust settled, after ISIS murdered ten thousands, are you so sure taking their privileges away from them was such a good way to go?

Even NI's own history should illustrate this. The Nationalists themselves in NI (the ones who endorsed violence anyway) were substantially a minority thirty years ago. That didn't stop the IRA (who were tightly organized, well trained, etc.) from tying down tens of thousands of British troops for years on end and killing thousands, not to mention devastating the NI economy. What about the IRB in 1916? They hardly had support from most Irish people during the rising (Despite what everyone's granny likes to say). Didn't stop Sackville street being turned into a smoking ruin.

I should also point out that there are plenty of working class Protestants who are not necessarily 'privileged' - but who may well be prepared to resort to violence. Please by all means show me the argument that shows how the Unionists being treated as equal will absolutely prevent them from resorting to force. No sarcasm intended, but honestly I'd like to see a serious plan and breakdown for how the Irish government intends to deal with these issues.

Peace out,
Inquirer.

Junkyard Tom · 30-03-2021 7:11pm

Inquirer wrote: »

Unionist violence.

The IRA of old and PIRA had achievable aims, the British pulled out of most of Ireland in the case of the former and seriously considered it in the latter and agreed to piss off when a pro-UI vote happens.

Unionists though? What would they hope to achieve by shooting a couple of innocent Catholics? There is no viable Unionist micro-state to be had. After a pro-UI vote the 'Northern Ireland' ceases to exist. Derry and Belfast are majority Nationalist cities and four of the six counties are non-Unionist majorities.

So tell me, what would Unionist violence be for?

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2021 7:27pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The IRA of old and PIRA had achievable aims, the British pulled out of most of Ireland in the case of the former and seriously considered it in the latter and agreed to piss off when a pro-UI vote happens.

Several British PM's actively considered pulling out and ordered analysis of it. Wilson, Callaghan and Thatcher to name 3.. The IRA probably got wind of it through spies etc. and would have been spurred on.

Even the most ardent Loyalist would realise that they would never be able to bomb or kill their way back in.

That's before you get to the other insurmountable (IMO) how so you arm a campaign capable of destabilising in any major way with all ranged against you, the Irish, the British and American security frces as well as the rest of the EU...to whom a successful transition would be of major importance and not just a feather in the cap good feeling either. It is now in the interests of Ireland, Britain and the rest of the EU that a UI works.

Sunny Disposition · 30-03-2021 8:38pm

Can’t see loyalist violence getting them anywhere, surely can’t bomb their way back into the UK if a vote takes them out! So what will they do?

James Brown · 30-03-2021 9:28pm

Inquirer wrote: »

This isn't about equality or logic for the Unionists. As with Brexit, this is about identity politics, which nobody can really negotiate or reason with, and which has caused its fair share of wars worldwide.

As I said, one does not need to have the full support of the population to make a terrible mess of a country. Look at the Sunnis in Iraq - outnumbered by the Shias to be sure, but this didn't prevent them crushing the Iraqi army in 2014 - and they missed their 'privileges' under the Saddam regime to be sure. After the dust settled, after ISIS murdered ten thousands, are you so sure taking their privileges away from them was such a good way to go?

Even NI's own history should illustrate this. The Nationalists themselves in NI (the ones who endorsed violence anyway) were substantially a minority thirty years ago. That didn't stop the IRA (who were tightly organized, well trained, etc.) from tying down tens of thousands of British troops for years on end and killing thousands, not to mention devastating the NI economy. What about the IRB in 1916? They hardly had support from most Irish people during the rising (Despite what everyone's granny likes to say). Didn't stop Sackville street being turned into a smoking ruin.

I should also point out that there are plenty of working class Protestants who are not necessarily 'privileged' - but who may well be prepared to resort to violence. Please by all means show me the argument that shows how the Unionists being treated as equal will absolutely prevent them from resorting to force. No sarcasm intended, but honestly I'd like to see a serious plan and breakdown for how the Irish government intends to deal with these issues.

Peace out,
Inquirer.

In short, a terrorist group fighting inequality and injustice will garner more support than a terrorist group fighting for a flag or a feeling of being hard done by because they are treated as equals.
Never claimed there'd be no violence. I believe it won't be anywhere near what we've had, therefore, getting back to your point, we wouldn't need the same army/policing regime.
I've zero issue with the 12th. We celebrate Chinese New Year and Bastille day. I don't see any issues with an honest family type celebration of culture.

end of the road · 30-03-2021 10:12pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Didn't this topic come up last week, or maybe I just replied to it then.

In any case, no thanks.

* We can't afford it. Even less so once the upcoming austerity kicks in when we've to repay the tens of billions of Euro spent over the last year, and remembering we weren't exactly debt free beforehand

* We already have a massively inefficient public sector as it is without taking on a province where they're the main employer

* Security issues. It's not like the hardcore unionists are just going to shrug and go quietly

* We have enough problems here that we're not dealing with/failing to address. Housing, health, infrastructure, general cost of living etc. Plus why would those in NI want to sign up for those issues?

* Beyond nationalist romanticism, what benefits are there for the South? I can see why NI would want it if the UK turn off the money tap, and the benefits to them of getting back into the EU, but what do I as an Irish citizen and taxpayer get from the deal beyond more taxes?

I think the best thing that could happen is that NI becomes an independent state with EU subsidies (as Ireland used to get) and retaining benefits of the CTA and Good Friday agreements, but that's as far as I would go personally.

we certainly can afford it, even if we did end up with austerity which isn't looking likely at the moment, as once NI is free from british rule it's costs reduce due to no longer having to contribute to british institutions such as the military, royal family etc.
taking NI on means a forced reform of everything, so that would actually be a good thing surely.
the hardcore unionists realistically won't be able to do very much or engage in a sustained campaign, they no longer and will not have support or arms from the british government and military and security services, and whatever they would be trying to achieve wouldn't work out.
realistically, it's more likely to be in the event of a yes vote in NI but a no vote within the ROI, that there is the potential for serious security issues, so voting no here in the south won't protect us from security issues if there are any, to be honest.
same as the public sector, a UI forces reformes of housing health etc.
what you get is a whole island economy which is stable and which brings greater investment and 2 more cities, 1 being a definite equal to dublin once investment pores in, which will increase economic activity.
NI as an independant state isn't going to happen, why it is even being suggested is still beyond me as it will never happen.

JimmyVik · 31-03-2021 8:27am

end of the road wrote: »

we certainly can afford it, even if we did end up with austerity which isn't looking likely at the moment, as once NI is free from british rule it's costs reduce due to no longer having to contribute to british institutions such as the military, royal family etc.
taking NI on means a forced reform of everything, so that would actually be a good thing surely.
the hardcore unionists realistically won't be able to do very much or engage in a sustained campaign, they no longer and will not have support or arms from the british government and military and security services, and whatever they would be trying to achieve wouldn't work out.
realistically, it's more likely to be in the event of a yes vote in NI but a no vote within the ROI, that there is the potential for serious security issues, so voting no here in the south won't protect us from security issues if there are any, to be honest.
same as the public sector, a UI forces reformes of housing health etc.
what you get is a whole island economy which is stable and which brings greater investment and 2 more cities, 1 being a definite equal to dublin once investment pores in, which will increase economic activity.
NI as an independant state isn't going to happen, why it is even being suggested is still beyond me as it will never happen.

One question is right up there at the top to the vast majority of voters. How much will come out of my pocket for this?

Sunny Disposition · 31-03-2021 9:15am

Arlene Foster said again she would emigrate if there was a UI. Should there be financial incentives offered to people who would like to go to the UK? Would be potentially divisive but probably very effective.

JimmyVik · 31-03-2021 9:26am

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Arlene Foster said again she would emigrate if there was a UI. Should there be financial incentives offered to people who would like to go to the UK? Would be potentially divisive but probably very effective.

Incentive - I would take it

And I live south of the border.

FrancieBrady · 31-03-2021 9:51am

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Arlene Foster said again she would emigrate if there was a UI. Should there be financial incentives offered to people who would like to go to the UK? Would be potentially divisive but probably very effective.

I find that one of the most bizarre things said in this whole debate.

Imagine voting for somebody and putting them in the position where they will abandon you to your fate if they fail politically.

Can't get my head around that.

_Kaiser_ · 31-03-2021 12:58pm

end of the road wrote: »

we certainly can afford it, even if we did end up with austerity which isn't looking likely at the moment, as once NI is free from british rule it's costs reduce due to no longer having to contribute to british institutions such as the military, royal family etc.

Make no mistake, austerity is coming. Pascal and others have already been making noises about the next budgets.

taking NI on means a forced reform of everything, so that would actually be a good thing surely.

When have we EVER reformed anything effectively here? I even read somewhere the other day that there's a suggestion of devolving the HSE back into regional health boards again

the hardcore unionists realistically won't be able to do very much or engage in a sustained campaign, they no longer and will not have support or arms from the british government and military and security services, and whatever they would be trying to achieve wouldn't work out.

Maybe, but personally I'd rather not see a return to the days of coded warnings and bomb threats on busy streets - and likely not just up North either.

what you get is a whole island economy which is stable and which brings greater investment and 2 more cities, 1 being a definite equal to dublin once investment pores in, which will increase economic activity.

An all-island economy is pure speculation. Look at the situation as it is with the huge dependency and bias towards Dublin. We already have other regions complaining constantly about that. Imagine telling them that further investment was going north rather than to their areas.

NI as an independant state isn't going to happen, why it is even being suggested is still beyond me as it will never happen.

Maybe not, but it's probably the cleanest option for all sides really.

downcow · 31-03-2021 1:56pm

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Arlene Foster said again she would emigrate if there was a UI. Should there be financial incentives offered to people who would like to go to the UK? Would be potentially divisive but probably very effective.

I think you may not have fully thought this one through. You may find that it is unionists who have the greatest attachment to NI. Many nationalists may take the incentive and follow family members to GB, thereby increasing the unionist majority in NI

Sunny Disposition · 31-03-2021 2:22pm

downcow wrote: »

I think you may not have fully thought this one through. You may find that it is unionists who have the greatest attachment to NI. Many nationalists may take the incentive and follow family members to GB, thereby increasing the unionist majority in NI

This would be in the event of a positive result in a UI referendum. Let whoever wants to avail of resettlement grants take them, going from what unionist leaders say there will probably be a good few who will be going anyway, so make it a bit easier for them.

wicklowstevo · 31-03-2021 3:26pm

Sounds a lot like something Robert Mugabe came up with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Land_seizures_and_growing_condemnation:_2000–2008

and in south Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_South_Africa

is there a when terrorists take power hand book or something ?

United Ireland Poll - please vote

Comments