United Ireland Poll - please vote

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So you've nothing to be worrying about then.

Not me claiming we don't need a border poll in the Republic because opinion polls are showing a lack of support.

briany wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I think calling people 'partitionists' is just lazy barstooler language used to browbeat anyone asking questions about the feasibility of a UI or how it would work or whatever.

It absolutely is not. It's a valid labelling of a believers and defenders of partition.

It's easily understood, and hardly derogatory.

I mean partitionists can go around flinging "republican" or mentioning Sinn Féin at the drop of a hat or stay deathly silent on the subject of State sanctioned murder and then get offended at partitionist as a term?

Come on now.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

67% in the south is not a 'minority' by a long shot.

35% in favour of it in the north without a plan or a proposal is extraordinary numbers.

A plan featuring "dramatic" tax increases in the Republic and reducancies in the NI PS is hardly going to improve the numbers.

jh79 wrote: »

A plan featuring "dramatic" tax increases in the Republic and reducancies in the NI PS is hardly going to improve the numbers.

Where is this plan you speak of?

jh79 wrote: »

Not me claiming we don't need a border poll in the Republic because opinion polls are showing a lack of support.

Is that the claim? Is that the reason behind the phantom claim?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where is this plan you speak of?

Hubner for a start. The one promoted by Pearse as giving us a 35bn increase in GDP or 1.3% over 8 years if the Republic bears all the cost!

The cost is predicted to lead to dramatic increases in taxation.

Just to maintain economic partition would require 20/30bn adjustment every year

jh79 wrote: »

Hubner for a start. The one promoted by Pearse as giving us a 35bn increase in GDP or 1.3% over 8 years if the Republic bears all the cost!

The cost is predicted to lead to dramatic increases in taxation.

Just to maintain economic partition would require 20/30bn adjustment every year

They are not 'plans' jh79...they are 'opinions' based on certain variables.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are not 'plans' jh79...they are 'opinions' based on certain variables.

You do realise all budgets and plans are based on "certain variables"?

Why would this "plan" be any more reliable than the papers by Hubner, Doyle or Fitzgerald?

jh79 wrote: »

You do realise all budgets and plans are based on "certain variables"?

Why would this "plan" be any more reliable than the papers by Hubner, Doyle or Fitzgerald?

Because it will be the plan or proposal and will contain the costs or investment people will be asked to make.

Timeframes will be important too, how long transition will be and what external help and support we can depend on. etc etc.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because it will be the plan or proposal and will contain the costs or investment people will be asked to make.

Timeframes will be important too, how long transition will be and what external help and support we can depend on. etc etc.

Sound like you are expecting a binding agreement where the EU and USA commit to certain amounts. Don't see that happening myself.

Can't see any country paying for it on our behalf. Why would they? We'll get some help but it won't be written in stone and we'll be expected to pay the majority ourselves.

FileNotFound

No doubt we will get to have a good factual debate and vote on it at some point in the future.

Then the people of RoI can choose to be like brexiteers and vote with their feelings or use their heads and see if it's actually beneficial for them.

When it's all laid out, tax increases, changes to political landscape, potential violence, concessions to reduce chances of violence, loss of national anthem and flag.

Well we'll see I suppose.

jh79 wrote: »

Sound like you are expecting a binding agreement where the EU and USA commit to certain amounts. Don't see that happening myself.

Can't see any country paying for it on our behalf. Why would they? We'll get some help but it won't be written in stone and we'll be expected to pay the majority ourselves.

But 'what you see' is also only an opinion.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But 'what you see' is also only an opinion.

But this "plan" can only be revealed after a border poll is called or when SF go in to government after the next election?

Based on the polls the numbers won't be likely to pass so the "plan" is needed now.

jh79 wrote: »

But this "plan" can only be revealed after a border poll is called or when SF go in to government after the next election?

Based on the polls the numbers won't be likely to pass so the "plan" is needed now.

The government will be proposing a UI as per the aspiration in the constitution.

Not Hubner, Doyle or Fitzgerald - the 'government'. They will then attempt to sell the merits of a UI to the electorate. Much discussion will ensue, exactly what happens in every referendum we have.

Junkyard Tom

As soon as there's a pro-UI vote in the north NI ceases to exist, British rule is over, and the transitory state in the south will no longer be fit for purpose. We won't be negotiating the if but the how.

I mean what do the partitonists think will happen if they 'win'? NI goes back under British rule and everyone in the south goes back into the Dail and pretends nothing changed?

Lol.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The government will be proposing a UI as per the aspiration in the constitution.

Not Hubner, Doyle or Fitzgerald - the 'government'. They will then attempt to sell the merits of a UI to the electorate. Much discussion will ensue, exactly what happens in every referendum we have.

Whatever the plan is will be informed by them lads. There will be a range of options given by each party but none will stray too far from the research , i hope at least. They"ll be looking at the same numbers as the three lads. Hardly likely all three are wrong.

FileNotFound

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As soon as there's a pro-UI vote in the north NI ceases to exist, British rule is over, and the transitory state in the south will no longer be fit for purpose. We won't be negotiating the if but the how.

I mean what do the partitonists think will happen if they 'win'? NI goes back under British rule and everyone in the south goes back into the Dail and pretends nothing changed?

Lol.

Yup everyone in the south goes back to normal and NI do whatever the f they do.

What else would happen?

FileNotFound

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As soon as there's a pro-UI vote in the north NI ceases to exist, British rule is over, and the transitory state in the south will no longer be fit for purpose. We won't be negotiating the if but the how.

I mean what do the partitonists think will happen if they 'win'? NI goes back under British rule and everyone in the south goes back into the Dail and pretends nothing changed?

Lol.

Yup everyone in the south goes back to normal and NI do whatever the f they do.

What else would happen?

jh79 wrote: »

Whatever the plan is will be informed by them lads. There will be a range of options given by each party but none will stray too far from the research , i hope at least. They"ll be looking at the same numbers as the three lads. Hardly likely all three are wrong.

Couple of months ago there were lads and lassies in here shouting about the 10-12 billions and billions costs.

Things change as we see.

Facts - majorities in both jurisdictions want a decision on this.

Barry904

Funny people taking this poll by the independent of a few hundred people as fact of peoples opinions.

Barry904 wrote: »

Funny people taking this poll by the independent of a few hundred people as fact of peoples opinions.

Partitionists will grab anything that agrees with their view and use it to stick their fingers in their ears and shout for us to go away.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Couple of months ago there were lads and lassies in here shouting about the 10-12 billions and billions costs.

Things change as we see.

Facts - majorities in both jurisdictions want a decision on this.

Yes a range of values have been given for the subvention but it's not the true cost of unification anyways. The big money is the harmonization required as per the SF approved Hubner paper.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Partitionists will grab anything that agrees with their view and use it to stick their fingers in their ears and shout for us to go away.

Hilarious post. The findings of two opinion polls and three economists all rejected without reason by insecure Republicans on here. Fingers in ears alright but the cost aspect isn't going away. Only last week the dail was told that dramatic tax increases would be required.

Interesting to note a call for an all island citizens assembly from figures outside of nationalist circles last week. Unlikely mainstream unionism would get involved but important all voices are heard at such an assembly.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/republicofirelandnews/2021/05/12/news/baptist-minister-calls-for-citizen-s-assembly-on-ireland-s-future-2318852/

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is that the claim? Is that the reason behind the phantom claim?

Yes, the "republicans" are now running scared of a referendum in the South as the truth about the cost of a united Ireland is slowly becoming clearer and the people won't pay more taxes for it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Couple of months ago there were lads and lassies in here shouting about the 10-12 billions and billions costs.

Things change as we see.

Facts - majorities in both jurisdictions want a decision on this.

Facts - majorities in both jurisdictions don't want a united Ireland if it means more taxes.

Facts - a united Ireland will mean more taxes

jh79 wrote: »

Hilarious post. The findings of two opinion polls and three economists all rejected without reason by insecure Republicans on here. Fingers in ears alright but the cost aspect isn't going away. Only last week the dail was told that dramatic tax increases would be required.

Glad you're able to laugh at yourself it's healthy.

So as I said, you've nothing to worry about by having a referendum.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As soon as there's a pro-UI vote in the north NI ceases to exist, British rule is over, and the transitory state in the south will no longer be fit for purpose. We won't be negotiating the if but the how.

I mean what do the partitonists think will happen if they 'win'? NI goes back under British rule and everyone in the south goes back into the Dail and pretends nothing changed?

Lol.

More fantasy flat-earth stuff.

There won't be a border poll without it being clear what happens next. There won't be a united Ireland if the people of the South vote against it. Simple as.

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, the "republicans" are now running scared of a referendum in the South as the truth about the cost of a united Ireland is slowly becoming clearer and the people won't pay more taxes for it.

Want to point out where you're seeing this?
This is the second time I've asked you.