Hamsterchops wrote: » It's still part of the UK, but only just by the sounds of it, and I guess if it leaves the UK then you just have Great Britain ... until Scotland leaves? Then you have England & Wales, although there must be catchier name for that duo.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There you go...doing exactly what I pointed out. Withering on about something nobody is proposing...i.e. us subsuming NI as is and carrying on. Ridiculous.
jh79 wrote: » Such nonsense. In the event of Unification it is the Republic paying for NI. No amount of word play changes that. Increased spending on education to fix the low standards in NI is a cost that only exists in the event of a UI. Increased spending on infrastructure, social welfare, PS pay and pensions only occurs in the event of unification. There is no financial return for the Republic we are just fixing the failed statelet. Fixing the "whole island" narrative is nonsense too. Unification only means we have less money to fix the problems in the Republic. The addition of NI adds no advantage to the Republic.
jh79 wrote: » Simple question for you Francie,Originally Posted by FrancieBrady View Post 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. The "things" that need fixing in the Republic, can they be fixed without unification? I'm assuming you mean things like the health service, housing etc
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, I don't believe they can be fixed. We paid a price for partition too, we got the power swap for 100 years which has led us to where we are now. Fundamental root and branch reform and a political realignment that better represents all of the people is required and on offer in a UI.
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.
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » You can use all the playground style name-calling you like, but its not unreasonable (or even anti-United Ireland) to ask how much it would cost and who will pay for it
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » Can you explain what the bold bit means - about leaving our fellow Irish people/families means? There are plenty of emigrated Irish living good lives in GB with no inclination to move back, are we leaving them behind? You might have had a point back in the 1960s but that's not the case these days. Political power is being shared, job/housing discrimination is gone, Catholics have equal opportunities. *** How is anyone being left behind in the North? What is the actual advantage to unification over what they have currently and will have while they benefit from the dual EU / UK market access?
guy2231 wrote: » It is when some posters on here are so adamantly against it that those questions are merely a tactic to further their partionist agenda.
An average of almost 40% said they would be willing to pay an extra 2% of their own income in taxes for better healthcare and pensions.https://www.newstalk.com/news/irish-likely-pay-higher-taxes-better-healthcare-oecd-841947
jh79 wrote: » No word from Francie on something that is broken in the Republic that can only be fixed with unfication. Anybody care to make an attempt?
Shebean wrote: » The HSE.
jh79 wrote: » Why do we need to wait for unfication to fix the HSE?
Varik wrote: » The HSE could be scrapped to make way for a new UI version that "might" not be as bloated or wasteful as it is now, and in the event of a UI the drive for a change might be more forceful than the resistance within the HSE to any change. But chances are we'd just have the current HSE grow, more bloat, more waste, less money to go around.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I haven't dismissed anything jh79. The 67% in favour should tell you that there are other considerations in a UI than the amount of money left in your wallet. The reason why you have NO political support for partitionism lies in the above. You should consider it very seriously before adopting a negative campaign.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, you cannot even say that. I pay taxes I am not in favour of, because I know I have to. As 'democrats' we do things we aren't in favour of all the time, that's the deal. It is a nonsense question. We have no idea how many would or wouldn't pay tax, just the number who would not be in favour of it. How many would not be 'in favour' of property tax, but still pay it? Etc etc etc.
Shebean wrote: » It's a loaded question. Generally nobody wants to pay more tax. Especially when we see how it's mismanaged and wasted. Here's one: While 40% is a decent figure, pensions and health directly effect all of us yet less than half are willing to pay more tax for them. Does that mean 60% would refuse or don't want better health service and pensions?
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » When we don't want to pay water charges, despite it being the norm across Europe, even for socialist countries, what makes you think we would accept additional taxes to cover NI?
blanch152 wrote: » You have been talking for weeks about unknown "consequences" if a united Ireland is rejected, yet you dismiss the known implications of a united Ireland - the huge fiscal burden to be bourne by ordinary Irish people. Now you are also talking about a mythical "value" in uniting the country. Care to elaborate this time, or is it the value from criminal thugs stopping being criminal thugs?
jh79 wrote: » Granted it might be the impetus for change but the change itself isn't dependent on a UI.
Varik wrote: » Don't think it'd happen anyway, they'd still get a mass of resistance from the HSE to any change so it'd be easier to fold NI's NHS into the HSE. Or it'd remain separate even with a UI, I doubt anyone in NI is looking on at the HSE with envy.
Whatcar212 wrote: » The troubles is the name given to it by the UK government to downplay the fact that they had an internal civil war. In any other country it would be referred to as a civil war, simple as that. Do you refer to the current Israel/Palestine conflict as 'troubles' SF/IRA are no different to UVF/DUP yet there seems to be complete absolution of the DUP and unionist terrorists. Lets not forget that the first murders of the civil war 'troubles' was by the ruc and uvf not the ira. Too many people in this thread do a great job of calling out sf and the ira (which is deserved) but refused to acknowledge all the murder caused by the british state and terrorists. The job of a united Ireland is to move on the those issues and build a new future that is better for everyone. That will be hard to do when for its whole existence the north has thrived of division and conflict. And its made more difficult by southern partitionists who are so removed from the horror that people in the north lived through that all they care about is the money in their pocket. Compassion and empathy for their fellow humans is less important than being able to go to the pub or buy new things.
guy2231 wrote: » Not true at all, there was no civil war. The troubles were the Provisional IRA waging a war against the state.
Whatcar212 wrote: » We define a civil war as a politically organized, large-scale, sustained, physically violent conflict that occurs within a country principally among large/numerically important groups of its inhabitants or citizens over the monopoly of physical force within the country. Civil wars usually have incumbent governments that control the state and have a monopoly of force before the civil war and challengers.https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21428/wbro_28_2_159.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Shebean wrote: » Because FF and FG either can't or don't want to. Unification will force such institutions be revisited and reassessed. 41 Billion of national debt is a pretty big fiscal burden and that's just to finance us returning to where we were, including enriching many of those responsible. We have a gangland drug feud in the country not related to 'the troubles'. It's going on years and not looking like stopping. We won't be avoiding criminal thugs either way. Two Garda shot there recently.
blanch152 wrote: » Thanks for that. It confirms that there was no civil war in Northern Ireland, as the terrorist campaign doesn't meet that definition. It was physically violent in the way that criminal thugs and mafioso are physically violent, but it fails the other criteria.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/87962ff026856470eacf12f9c3179c90.svg)
