United Ireland Poll - please vote

jh79 wrote: »

But the interest in NI is due to its access to both the EU and UK markets. Unification would remove that advantage.

UK jurisdiction is holding the place back and probably always will. I'd say within a few years of unification the north would be easily on a par economically with the rest of the country.

Dublin is overheating while Belfast remains cool, they could easily be Sister cities with an economic corridor along the east coast incorporating good rapid rail/motorway connections.

Again, what cost partition?

Edit: I may as well be talking to a wall, as you and Blanch are steadfastly 'never-to-unification' people, but hopefully neutral people will consider the possible benefits.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

UK jurisdiction is holding the place back and probably always will. I'd say within a few years of unification the north would be easily on a par economically with the rest of the country.

Dublin is overheating while Belfast remains cool, they could easily be Sister cities with an economic corridor along the east coast incorporating good rapid rail/motorway connections.

Again, what cost partition?

Edit: I may as well be talking to a wall, as you and Blanch are steadfastly 'never-to-unification' people, but hopefully neutral people will consider the possible benefits.

Hubner reckoned 8 years but he had a flawed assumption that it's growth would match that of the Republic even though education is far behind in NI . Fitzgerald reckons 20 plus years taking into account catch up required in education.

Belfast taking the heat off Dublin sounds good but surely other cities in the Republic could do the same?

jh79 wrote: »

Hubner reckoned 8 years but he had a flawed assumption that it's growth would match that of the Republic even though educatio

8 years is a snapshot in time. If you consider the costs over the last 100 years and the benefits over the next century then you're getting a more rounded picture.

How much did the troubles cost us? I'd say hundreds of billions of GBP in security for Britain combined with loss of investment/productivity in Ireland, north and south. That's before you consider the human trauma which is inter-generational.

Partition has been a disaster by any reasonable person's standards. Unionism is irredeemable, its reason for being is prevention of a functional integrated economy and community. Remove British jurisdiction and Unionism ends in its current belligerent, destructive, regressive form.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Seems it's your thing to be disingenuous while pretending to want a serious discussion.

We can all play this game.

You need to head back a few posts Bonnie, I explained discussion for you.

You still seem confused though. Do you need the definition of disingenuous as well?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

8 years is a snapshot in time. If you consider the costs over the last 100 years and the benefits over the next century then you're getting a more rounded picture.

How much did the troubles cost us? I'd say hundreds of billions of GBP in security for Britain combined with loss of investment/productivity in Ireland, north and south. That's before you consider the human trauma which is inter-generational.

Partition has been a disaster by any reasonable person's standards.

I can't say I agree with this comment. The cost to Britain is hardly a concern for people in RoI, mind you I dare say we have had some cost on security side ourselves. But would it be anywhere near the deficit numbers?

Productivity and investment in the south has been mind boggling good. All the multinational companies we have brought here shows the Republic (helped by a good tax system for sure) is a great place to invest.

There most certainly is multi generation human trauma in NI. No denying. The Republic doesn't/hasn't had similar impacts.

Are we voting based on feeling sorry for the North though?

I suppose there is scope that a united Ireland much like Brexit could pay off in the very long run. But what are we looking at time frame wise?

FileNotFound wrote: »

Are we voting based on feeling sorry for the North though?

I do think there is an element of 'rescue mission' when the north votes for unification. For me the main reasons for unification are moral (partition was done to us) and for our security (malevolent British state and proxies).

Our people were being murdered in the streets until not so long ago, unification would really diminish the risk to our people/country in the future.

I suppose there is scope that a united Ireland much like Brexit could pay off in the very long run. But what are we looking at time frame wise?

I'd imagine that the economic return will flow naturally from unification over time. The North needs some tinkering not nation-building, all the pieces are in place.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I do think there is an element of 'rescue mission' when the north votes for unification. For me the main reasons for unification are moral (partition was done to us) and for our security (malevolent British state and proxies).

Our people were being murdered in the streets until not so long ago, unification would really diminish the risk to our people/country in the future.

I'd imagine that the economic return will flow naturally from unification over time. The North needs some tinkering not nation-building, all the pieces are in place.

The IRA were and now Republican criminality are bigger threats to our security than the British.

If the North only needs a bit of tinkering (is it not a "failed statelet"?) , why haven't SF/DUP improved the economy? Subvention has increased every year since the GFA. Advantages for both sides.

jh79 wrote: »

The IRA were and now Republican criminality are bigger threats to our security than the British.

If the North only needs a bit of tinkering (is it not a "failed statelet"?) , why haven't SF/DUP improved the economy? Subvention has increased every year since the GFA. Advantages for both sides.

Of course it has 'failed' it requires an international agreement between 2 sovereign states to function at all.
And even then it has not functioned for long periods.

'Partition' and the warped, unbalanced state it created is the reason one single political party cannot reform it/improve it.

jh79 wrote: »

The IRA were and now Republican criminality are bigger threats to our security than the British.

The IRA were a symptom of British/Unionist misrule and were choirboys compared to the misery the British state has caused here then, and over the generations. Maybe your all-consuming hatred of SF has impaired your ability to understand this.

They British state is still inviting the remnants of murder gangs to conferences about trade issues. Killer gangs who stalked innocent Catholics and murdered them in the hundreds and hundreds for nothing other than their religion.

While we're here you remind me of another good benefit to unification, a seriously hard crackdown on subversive elements, if they remained, with no border-hopping to prevent it.

jh79 wrote: »

The IRA were and now Republican criminality are bigger threats to our security than the British.

We know that, but several of your audience on here are so brainwashed and steeped in 'the cause' as to be blind and impervious to normal thought. Of course the Provos were a massive threat North & South, but some people (supporters of SF) can never admit that their terrorist wing were a force for evil.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

We know that, but several of your audience on here are so brainwashed and steeped in 'the cause' as to be blind and impervious to normal thought. Of course the Provos were a massive threat North & South, but some people (supporters of SF) can never admit that their terrorist wing were a force for evil.

The signal problem in terms of 'admitting' on the island of Ireland is admitting that it was wrong from the beginning ...I.E. Those who allowed it to begin are the most responsible for what happened.

If you wish to brand one side as 'savages'/force for evil then the other side are also savages/forces for evil.

If you allow the set of circumstances that were allowed pertain in the north, anywhere, it will eventually go up in flames. You don't need even a pass in history class to work that out.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The IRA were a symptom of British/Unionist misrule and were choirboys compared to the misery the British state has caused here then, and over the generations. Maybe your all-consuming hatred of SF has impaired your ability to understand this.

They British state is still inviting the remnants of murder gangs to conferences about trade issues. Killer gangs who stalked innocent Catholics and murdered them in the hundreds and hundreds for nothing other than their religion.

While we're here you remind me of another good benefit to unification, a seriously hard crackdown on subversive elements, if they remained, with no border-hopping to prevent it.

Doesn't change the fact that the IRA were the greatest threat to our security. Jerry McCabe , Stack, O Snod and his spy ring.

Good Republicans with links to SF will just change to a different type of criminality and will have the benefit of a "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" attitude from SF. They benefit from that now so why would it change?

jh79 wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that the IRA were the greatest threat to our security.

What a hilariously bad take. We've mass graves here with bones of men, women, and children as a result of British misrule. The British Navy shelled Dublin during the rising. The Black and Tans burned Cork and creameries in rural towns.

British proxies set off no-warning bombs in Dublin and Monaghan racking up the worst death toll in any one day during the Troubles. Almost 1000 innocent Irish Catholics were murdered by the British and their proxies during the Troubles.

'But the IRA' you say. Honestly, you can't expect to be taken seriously with such inability to absorb simple facts.

... like I was saying jh79 they are "so brainwashed and steeped in 'the cause' as to be blind and impervious to normal thought.

It's like they feed on it, maybe they're being paid for keeping the treadmill going?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What a hilariously bad take. We've mass graves here with bones of men, women, and children as a result of British misrule. The British Navy shelled Dublin during the rising. The Black and Tans burned Cork and creameries in rural towns.

British proxies set off no-warning bombs in Dublin and Monaghan racking up the worst death toll in any one day during the Troubles. Almost 1000 innocent Irish Catholics were murdered by the British and their proxies during the Troubles.

'But the IRA' you say. Honestly, you can't expect to be taken seriously with such inability to absorb simple facts.

It really is all the evidence of brainwashing and simpering hat doffing inferiority for somebody to come out with what those two posters are trying to say.

The IRA are gone as a military threat, the perfidious British state unfortunately is not.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It really is all the evidence of brainwashing and simpering hat doffing inferiority for somebody to come out with what those two posters are trying to say.

The IRA are gone as a military threat, the perfidious British state unfortunately is not.

Posters criticise the Provisional IRA (a terrorist organisation) and you have the audacity to come back at us with that ^ ^ ^

As I say, brainwashed and steeped in the cause, which has of course gone all green and peaceful now, but what about all the bodies in the ground thanks to your Provo heroes!

Disgusting train of thought, but carry on and don't let us stop you worshiping your 'Freedom fighters".

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It really is all the evidence of brainwashing and simpering hat doffing inferiority for somebody to come out with what those two posters are trying to say.

The IRA are gone as a military threat, the perfidious British state unfortunately is not.

As a military threat I agree, they are more armed drug dealers now.
Same as the Unionist groups.
UI won't change the fact that former IRA factions are actively involved in organised crime and that already exists in the Republic.

I do look at the Brits and think they damage they do nowadays is more down to beligernece and general stupidity rather than the menace of the past.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

the perfidious British state unfortunately is not.

And will always be a potential malevolent force but we can work to offset it by finally ending of British jurisdiction in Ireland.

In a future UI I'd like to see us end our ridiculous 'neutrality' and start integrating ourselves into European defence structures if/when the opportunity presents itself.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Posters criticise the Provisional IRA (a terrorist organisation) and you have the audacity to come back at us with that ^ ^ ^

As I say, brainwashed and steeped in the cause, which has of course gone all green and peaceful now, but what about all the bodies in the ground thanks to your Provo heroes!

Disgusting train of thought, but carry on and don't let us stop you worshiping your 'Freedom fighters".

I don't worship anyone involved HC, that is the point. I never supported the IRA. There is a difference in 'supporting' and understanding the context in which something occurred.

I appraise all of them equally, based on who they were and what their role was supposed to be and what their role actually was.

If you use that metric (equality) then the IRA are somewhere down the list of those who failed in their responsibilities.

FileNotFound wrote: »

As a military threat I agree, they are more armed drug dealers now.
Same as the Unionist groups.
UI won't change the fact that former IRA factions are actively involved in organised crime and that already exists in the Republic.

I do look at the Brits and think they damage they do nowadays is more down to beligernece and general stupidity rather than the menace of the past.

If former members of the IRA/British Army/Irish Army/ Loyalist groups are involved in criminality then they are 'criminals' and should be treated the same.

BY THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEALING WITH CRIMINALS. If there is evidence (and you seem to have it) of criminality then why are they roaming free?

Hamsterchops wrote: »

you have the audacity to come back at us with that

You're a British empire fanboy and you think you've a leg to stand on? Good grief now that is brainwashing.

You moan about terrorists while exalting in the inter-generational destruction that the British state has wrought and continues to with its weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other degenerate head-chopping regimes.

Take the shrubbery out of your own eye before complaining about splinters in others'.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If former members of the IRA/British Army/Irish Army/ Loyalist groups are involved in criminality then they are 'criminals' and should be treated the same.

BY THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEALING WITH CRIMINALS. If there is evidence (and you seem to have it) of criminality then why are they roaming free?

Are you asking why drug dealers exist?
I was agreeing with your previous comment

Maybe you misread.

Never mentioned Irish or British army - just former paramilitaries and that comes through reading the paper like most of my information on criminal gangs. But as I said that already exists so has no bearing in my mind on a UI.

Very defensive for someone who does not and did not support these people?

FileNotFound wrote: »

Are you asking why drug dealers exist?
I was agreeing with your previous comment Maybe you misread.

Never mentioned Irish or British army - just former paramilitaries and that comes through reading the paper like most of my information on criminal gangs. But as I said that already exists so has no bearing in my mind on a UI.

Very defensive for someone who does not and did not support these people?

The point I was making is that it is not the responsibility of political party's to police criminality.

If you are drug dealing then you are a criminal, no matter what cause you attach yourself to.

Former members of almost every organisation under the sun have gotten involved in criminal is also the point made.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't worship anyone involved HC, that is the point. I never supported the IRA. There is a difference in 'supporting' and understanding the context in which something occurred.

The context never ever gave them a right to plant bombs and to kill people, never, and certainly not in the name of the Irish people or in the name of the Irish army! Disgusting.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I appraise all of them equally, based on who they were and what their role was supposed to be and what their role actually was.

You appraise all of them equally? You mean appraising all terrorist groups equally or what?
Who's all of them?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you use that metric (equality) then the IRA are somewhere down the list of those who failed in their responsibilities.

Their responsibility was to murder as many security personnel as possible, to destroy business & commerce in NI (by bombings), to kill as many security guards & off duty policemen, to blow up members of the judiciary and to ethnically cleanse protestant farmers from the border areas + everything else in between, including knee capping their own, so according to that metric I would say that the Provisional IRA totally succeeded in their responsibilities.

Stovepipe

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

East & West Germany.

true but it cost the "West" Germans a serious amount of money initially as the East had to be dragged into the 21st century, as it's infrastructure was falling to bits and huge swathes of the newly absorbed labour force were laid off and West German profiteers bought up the whole place for a song. That alone created huge resentment as a significant proportion of the "Ossies" never worked again but it was, for the most part, peaceful and successful. They also had the Stasi files to deal with, which exposed a lot of hookery going on behind the scenes, especially in higher levels of the West German political,military and police establishments....you'd wonder what would appear if the North suddenly rejoined the South.

Hamsterchops wrote: »

The context never ever gave them a right to plant bombs and to kill people, never, and certainly not in the name of the Irish people or in the name of the Irish army! Disgusting.

Nobody was given 'rights' to run a sectarian bigoted state that inevitably went up in flames either.
As soon as society implodes as it did because the British state stood over what was happening to 'rights' then 'rights' and the observance of them tragically go out the window - that is what conflict/war is.

Disgusting that you ignore this...empire arrogance personified.

You appraise all of them equally? You mean appraising all terrorist groups equally or what?
Who's all of them?

All of the players.
'Terrorist' is a defunct, useless term in an Irish context. All sides, all players used 'terror' to achieve their aims. Not least the British state.

Their responsibility was to murder as many security personnel as possible, to destroy business & commerce in NI (by bombings), to kill as many security guards & off duty policemen, to blow up members of the judiciary and to ethnically cleanse protestant farmers from the border areas + everything else in between, including knee capping their own, so according to that metric I would say that the Provisional IRA totally succeeded in their responsibilities.

Now apply the various 'responsibilities' to the other players in the conflict/war. See what you come up with.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody was given 'rights' to run a sectarian bigoted state that inevitably went up in flames either.
As soon as society implodes as it did because the British state stood over what was happening to 'rights' then 'rights' and the observance of them tragically go out the window - that is what conflict/war is.

Disgusting that you ignore this...empire arrogance personified.

All of the players.
'Terrorist' is a defunct, useless term in an Irish context. All sides, all players used 'terror' to achieve their aims. Not least the British state.

Now apply the various 'responsibilities' to the other players in the conflict/war. See what you come up with.

...empire arrogance

That one sentence in bold and the use of the word 'empire' tells me exactly what were dealing with here. Why would you use that word unless you're so close to the trees that you cannot see the woods! That empire sh|t is usually only used by hardened old school republicans.

I did hold out some hope for you Francie, but I guess you're much closer to Tom (and his hard line) than I thought

Normal Irish people don't make excuses for terrorists, we just don't, and yet just reading your latest contribution tells us that you at least understood what the Provos did during the Troubles, and for that, you will always be my enemy (in your train of thought).

And if we can't even be united in our thoughts, then what hope have we ever uniting with the North & with Unionists?

Zero, if your thoughts are anything to go by

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It really is all the evidence of brainwashing and simpering hat doffing inferiority for somebody to come out with what those two posters are trying to say.

The IRA are gone as a military threat, the perfidious British state unfortunately is not.

Gone as a military threat but the remnants are still involved with criminality. Still have friends in SF.