Triangle wrote: » Not exactly, it's a little old but 40% would pay extra tax for better services.https://m.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/40-willing-to-pay-more-taxes-for-better-services-26480683.html That's nearly double that would pay extra tax for a UI.
jh79 wrote: » Sorry, just not getting the reference. Pym means?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The question was 'Would you be in favour of paying higher taxes to fund the costs of a united Ireland?' The answer to that in general from most people would be: 'No I am not in favour of paying higher taxes'.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Two big 'Top 10' United Ireland threads running concurrently in Current Affairs! Tension & anticipation building, like it's imminent, what's happening?
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » So what is your issue then? If any government can find a way to deliver a UI without raising taxes then they can count on the 67%. If they can only deliver a UI by raising taxes, they can only count on 22% The issue of tax increases is a dealbreaker for the 45% in between. No need for the mental gymnastics, its very straightforward.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Fair enough. But again I would draw attention to the question...'extra taxes' in return for something better. There is no plan or 'something better' on the table. Give people a plan and they will react differently. Also, interesting that only 21% said 'economic growth was the most important measure of progress'. There's more to life than what's left in your wallet...as I said.
blanch152 wrote: » Apparently, not imminent.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/referendum-rules-must-be-updated-ahead-ofany-border-poll-on-irish-unity-40469929.html "The academics conclude that a border poll, as provided for in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, is not inevitable" "The authors also note that the Good Friday Agreement allows that “50pc-plus one” would be enough to decide the issue. “But the ethos of consensual politics should be upheld as far as possible,” they add by way of warning." "voters must be protected from misinformation" Must look for a full copy of the report.
The academics conclude that a border poll, as provided for in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, is not inevitable but could well happen in the wake of the 2016 Brexit referendum and a potential rerun of the Scottish independence vote.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Google is your friend: try these terms - 'irish independent, pym'
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/working-group-unification-referendums-island-ireland Here is a link to the full report, only skimmed it so far but very interesting reading.
15.3. Our legal analysis in Chapter 4 identified certain key provisions that are either explicit or implicit in the 1998 Agreement. Unification could come about only through referendums in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Such votes must be ‘concurrent’—on effectively the same proposals—but need not necessarily be simultaneous. Unification would be required if simple majorities of 50% + 1 of voters in each jurisdiction supported it. Unification would not come about if a majority of voters either north or south opposed it. 15.4. Throughout our analysis we have also emphasised the broader ethos of the 1998 Agreement, which stresses the value of proceeding as consensually as possible on many matters. That consensual principle does not apply to the basic question of sovereignty, which must be decided by simple majorities north and south. Subject to that constraint, however, an inclusive and consensual approach should be sought in the development of plans for the referendum process and the development of proposals for the form of a united Ireland or for any reforms to the Union.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Bean-counter partitionists are like those people who buy something in the euro-store having to replace it every couple of years instead of spending the money on something of quality that will stand the test of time. 'Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing' I believe it's known as. It just seems beyond the imagination of pound-shop-partitionists to see the value in uniting the country and finally ending the disruption of the border and British jurisdiction. This shit with Brexit/NIP will be repalced by some other issue in years to come, and then some other issue, and then another, and so on.
jh79 wrote: » Back to imaginary carrots and sticks. You gave us all a good laugh with the imaginery sticks the last time.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And the doom laden negativity isn't imaginary?
jh79 wrote: » Our relative GDPs are imaginary? Our relative GDP per capita are imaginary? Lack of investment in education in NI (needed for FDI) is imaginary? Excessive levels of PS employment in NI is imaginary? Deficit / Subvention in NI is imaginary?
FrancieBrady wrote: » No doom laden negativity is imaginary. I want a UI so we can fix things on this island. If 'things' need fixing, it stands to reason they are currently broken. You want to hold on tight to what you have got. Own it, selfish partitionism has never changed.
jh79 wrote: » I'm fine with the selfish partitionist label but your not kidding anyone with the narrative that unification benefits the Republic. It's about us paying to fix NI and to bring it in line with the Republic. We gain nothing from it. Some will be happy with dramatic tax increases to fix it but they'll will nothing in return.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Which is just head in the sand nonsense. A UI is now in the interests of; The people of NI who voted to stay in the EU. Us in the south. The rest of the EU. The UK. There is zero evidence that a planned UI will dramatically increase taxation. If we subsume NI with no intention of making island wide infrastructural change and leave NI as it is (with no transition phase adjustments by two sovereign governments in who's interests a successful UI now is.) then YES there will be dramatic tax increases.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » I'll be looking forward to the Orange parades and pallet burning the night before on the 12th going past the GPO on O Connell st, all nice and peaceful with the Irish citizenry happy to embrace Unionist and protestant culture and customs in our capital and other towns seeing we are so much into diversity and acceptance of other cultures these days...:D If we cant accept that and you are outraged by the thought of such happening...well then we have no business with unification.
jh79 wrote: » The people of NI wanted a UI in the event of a hard brexit. Since that didn't occur support has dropped in the last 2 polls. Without that majority only the NI protocol or similar can solve the issues for us and the EU. The rest of your post makes no sense. You have it completely backwards! *The low cost option is taking on only the deficit and would require a 20/30bn budget adjustment such as a 8% increase in the standard rate of tax. Could be done via services cuts instead but either way a 20/30bn adjustment. The reason for the difference is the increased population. Fair enough a transition period will impact here. *Island wide changes to infrastructure, harmonization of services is what will lead to "dramatic" tax increases to account for the massive increase in spending. We are talking about a 2 million increase in population. Can't see how a transition period helps here? The UK don't invest at the moment and can't see them increasing investment. * A planned unification will still require the same about of extra spending it just might mean someone else will fund it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Just getting to DUP levels of 'Never Never Never' here now. When you draw a partitionist out the level of negativity is reclusive. Keep it up. Very very few people are like that.
jh79 wrote: » Won't be long until you are claiming its not "a failed statelet" after all! I'm just being realistic. Deluded if you think a region with 2 million people generating only 35bn a year and propped up by the British with excessive employment in the PS and a subvention can be taken on by a country of 6 million without dramatic tax increases.
FrancieBrady wrote: » A UI is now in the interests of; The people of NI who voted to stay in the EU. Us in the south. The rest of the EU.The UK.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Not really in the interests of the UK if one part of the UK leaves, as it deminishes & breaks the UK. Of course their loss is our gain, in theory.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Did not one of our resident Unionists claim that the UK would remain even if Scotland left. Is that not the existential crisis Unionism is having...is it 'really' a full part of the UK considering what has happened to them?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
