nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

United Ireland Poll - please vote

bonzothedog

Simple question - if there was a poll for a United Ireland would you vote yes or no - or yes but it would have to happen within 10 years.

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Chips Lovell

Talking about costs is, to a certain extent, putting the cart before the horse. Before we even get into talking about how much it's going to cost and how that bill could conceivably be cut, there's the question of why are we would want to do this?

sebdavis

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Talking about costs is, to a certain extent, putting the cart before the horse. Before we even get into talking about how much it's going to cost and how that bill could conceivably be cut, there's the question of why are we would want to do this?

We wouldn't but that is too straight forward of an answer. You then have to provide reasons why you wouldn't do it.

To me the financial reasons are big but the biggest is that we would end up with a civil war. I think some people just can't handle the fact Ireland finally has peace and would prefer to send us down a road which will end up back in guns & bombs.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, it's three economists from three different institutes that you suggest we should ignore because of a white paper that might come about but will definitely be based on the work of the very same economists! It's a niche issue too so doubt there will be too many other papers on it either.

Everything is there to estimate the cost the only thing missing is who'll pay for it.

Good luck trying to sell a measly 1.3% over 8 years as a good investment no matter he ends up paying.

The subvention used to be touted (just a few months ago on this very forum) as a fixed figure that we would have to replace...again and again posters here told us that.

No reason in the world that the 1.3% could change too. Plenty of discussion seems to change these things people hide behind.

We are investing primarily in people and the quality of their lives, not an investment that has to pay back in purely fiscal terms anyway.

You never answered by the way, did Fitzgerald suggest any ways to mitigate the costs?

FrancieBrady

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Talking about costs is, to a certain extent, putting the cart before the horse. Before we even get into talking about how much it's going to cost and how that bill could conceivably be cut, there's the question of why are we would want to do this?

Perhaps we could poll the 69% who want a UI? Or the over 80% who voted to aspire to a UI in the GFA?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The subvention used to be touted (just a few months ago on this very forum) as a fixed figure that we would have to replace...again and again posters here told us that.

No reason in the world that the 1.3% could change too. Plenty of discussion seems to change these things people hide behind.

We are investing primarily in people and the quality of their lives, not an investment that has to pay back in purely fiscal terms anyway.

You never answered by the way, did Fitzgerald suggest any ways to mitigate the costs?

More disingenuous lies. Posters told you and others that the subvention was only the starting point, that there were huge costs to harmonisation that would have to be met on top of the subvention. UI advocates like yourself spent months talking down the amount of the subvention as if it was the only cost (when it was only ever a component of the cost) without even thinking about all of the other issues. Will middle-class Catholics in the North want to give up their segregated schools system that is giving better outcomes to their kids for another system they don't know?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Perhaps we could poll the 69% who want a UI? Or the over 80% who voted to aspire to a UI in the GFA?

I thought it was only 34% in the North who wanted a UI? Did I read the poll wrong?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The appointed expert government advisers are NPHET blanch.

That is an entirely different thing.

Stop now please with the sidetrack.

So now appointed expert government advisers are infallible, but other opinions are not? Get off the stage with your moving goalposts, you are knocking people down the way they are swinging to extremes.

FileNotFound

I love the fact the Boards.ie poll here actually shows people really do not want a united Ireland.

Interesting but much the opinion I get when discussing it with most people, everything from not wanting to suffer the anger and hate that would come from part of the population, to the massive economic deficit, to the swing in political power (SF being the largest party overnight) and then having the DUP potentially getting a say in things.

Have never really heard one good reason from uniting beyond the old romantic notion of a united Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So now appointed expert government advisers are infallible, but other opinions are not? Get off the stage with your moving goalposts, you are knocking people down the way they are swinging to extremes.

I never said they were 'infallible'.

All I ever said was the government ignored the advise of their appointed experts NPHET. And they did. End of.

sebdavis

FileNotFound wrote: »

I love the fact the Boards.ie poll here actually shows people really do not want a united Ireland.

Interesting but much the opinion I get when discussing it with most people, everything from not wanting to suffer the anger and hate that would come from part of the population, to the massive economic deficit, to the swing in political power (SF being the largest party overnight) and then having the DUP potentially getting a say in things.

Have never really heard one good reason from uniting beyond the old romantic notion of a united Ireland.

Plenty of polls will tell you that the majority of people both sides of the border don't want a United Ireland. This does not matter to some people, hence why you have this constant noise about a United Ireland.

Boards poll has circa 22% who want a United Ireland now, no matter what. The other poll also ha 22% willing to have a United Ireland even with additional taxes. We are starting to see a trend.

FrancieBrady

sebdavis wrote: »

Plenty of polls will tell you that the majority of people both sides of the border don't want a United Ireland. This does not matter to some people, hence why you have this constant noise about a United Ireland.

Boards poll has circa 22% who want a United Ireland now, no matter what. The other poll also ha 22% willing to have a United Ireland even with additional taxes. We are starting to see a trend.

69% want a UI in the south according to the poll we are discussing. Majorities in both jurisdictions want a Border Poll...that's why you are hearing 'noise'.

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

69% want a UI in the south according to the poll we are discussing. Majorities in both jurisdictions want a Border Poll...that's why you are hearing 'noise'.

What poll are you discussing, we were talking about the one at the top of this page.

Its says that in the boards.ie community there is no will for UI. And that mirrors what i see in RL.

Any good reason for UI beyond romantic notions and mad assumptions about how the north will magically improve after?

FrancieBrady

FileNotFound wrote: »

What poll are you discussing, we were talking about the one at the top of this page.

Its says that in the boards.ie community there is no will for UI. And that mirrors what i see in RL.

Any good reason for UI beyond romantic notions and mad assumptions about how the north will magically improve after?

The latest poll in the Indo and Belfast Telegraph.

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The latest poll in the Indo and Belfast Telegraph.

We are discussing other polls so, they tend to disagree with the poll you are discussing.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Francis if it were generally agreed amongst economists and sociologists that a UI would result in a prlonged period of hardship, would you vote against it?

Francie, under what circumstances - if any - would you vote against a UI?

FrancieBrady

FileNotFound wrote: »

We are discussing other polls so, they tend to disagree with the poll you are discussing.

That's polls for ya.

FrancieBrady

suicide_circus wrote: »

Francie, under what circumstances - if any - would you vote against a UI?

Not being ready for it. Like 'if a poll was held tomorrow', which is often asked as a question in search of a negative answer in these polls. Like the 'do you want to pay more tax' one.

suicide_circus

So do you reckon we're ready now?

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not being ready for it. Like 'if a poll was held tomorrow', which is often asked as a question in search of a negative answer in these polls. Like the 'do you want to pay more tax' one.

In fairness - if in years to come the North changes positively I may change my own opinion on a UI.

Anything i state is based on now (won't lie i do not see any meaningful change in the next 10+ years - Brexit damage will slow any forward progress IMO).

FrancieBrady

suicide_circus wrote: »

So do you reckon we're ready now?

No..not by a long shot. I said before that we need to see the direction Brexit will take us first. That is going to take a few years. We should not be doing nothing though.
The more opinions we hear the better, then we need a plan to present to people. I think we are in the embryonic stages of that. FF in particular, seem to want to take ownership of it..

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The subvention used to be touted (just a few months ago on this very forum) as a fixed figure that we would have to replace...again and again posters here told us that.

No reason in the world that the 1.3% could change too. Plenty of discussion seems to change these things people hide behind.

We are investing primarily in people and the quality of their lives, not an investment that has to pay back in purely fiscal terms anyway.

You never answered by the way, did Fitzgerald suggest any ways to mitigate the costs?

The 1.3% could change but given it was based on a flawed assumption and the financial impact of COVID, I can't see it getting any better. Just have to wait for the next one that includes COVID related impacts.

With regards Fitzgerald, what do you mean by mitigate the costs? Do you mean does he suggest who else could pay? If that's the case I don't think so. That's the role of a politician rather than an economist i would say.

Junkyard Tom

When the north votes in favour of a United Ireland it's going to happen sooner or later. What do people think would happen with a pro-UI vote in the north and rejection in the south? Everything goes back to the way it was? Not a hope in hell.

NI ceases to exist the day after a pro-UI vote in the north and we'll be working out how we reunite Ireland one way or another, anyone who thinks this plays any other way really hasn't a bull's notion.

[Deleted User]

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

When they people in the north vote for a United Ireland it's going to happen sooner or later. What do people think would happen with a pro-UI vote in the north and rejection in the south? Everything goes back to the way it was? Not a hope in hell.

NI ceases to exist the day after a pro-UI vote in the north and we'll be working out how we reunite Ireland one way or another, anyone who thinks this plays any other way really hasn't a bull's notion.

A border poll won't happen in NI if the Republic don't want to pay for.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

A border poll won't happen in NI if the Republic don't want to pay for.

The majorities want a border poll, which means they want the discussion and a plan.

Junkyard Tom

jh79 wrote: »

A border poll won't happen in NI if the Republic don't want to pay for.

What part of the GFA is that in?

Chips Lovell

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What part of the GFA is that in?

Secretary of State can call a border poll only if he thinks a majority would want to join Ireland. If it's abundantly clear that Ireland doesn't want NI, then it wouldn't be clear that a majority in NI would vote for a union.

[Deleted User]

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What part of the GFA is that in?

The bit where the Irish government ring the SoS and tell him we aren't willing to pay for it.

Why would the British go to the hassle when public opinion is against it in this hypothetical situation.

sebdavis

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What part of the GFA is that in?

I suggest you read the Good Friday Agreement.

Junkyard Tom

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If it's abundantly clear that Ireland doesn't want NI

NI is Ireland and it's not going anywhere. This stuff isn't going away, it's in the DNA of this country.

You partitionists/unionists are like Brexiters, you think if you get your way everything remains just as it is.

Let me assure you one thing, it definitely will not.

jh79 wrote: »

The bit where the Irish government ring the SoS and tell him we aren't willing to pay for it.

Is this some sort of fever-dream you're speaking of? Because that ain't happening.

Junkyard Tom

sebdavis wrote: »

I suggest you read the Good Friday Agreement.

I suggest you read it too, there is no stipulation for a referendum on whether people want to pay for a UI theoretically at some point in the future.

The desperation is embarrassing.