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; } } }

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

Comments

Varik

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

There would be an obligation for the UK to still cover some liabilities just as they have to pay to the EU post-Brexit. E.g. they would still be obliged to pay for pensions as these are acquired by people contributing to social insurance.

And like the Brexit divorce bill the UK isn't on the hook for any increases after they left for that current budget.

Payment for NI would be the same as if the person moved from England to Spain to retire as you said it's for their contributions. All of this was discussed in the UK leading up to Scottish referendum.

Considering our pension payments are over 50% higher, and how keen governments are for a bit of vote buying among pensioners we can easily assume that'd we'd be topping that up the rest of the way.

Add to that they'd probably do the same for those not retired with now partial contributions, as the minimum qualify UK pension is very low. Every year they contributed to the UK is obviously a year they didn't to Ireland, so makes the required contributions for an Irish pension is a bit harder to get. So they probably do the same and top it up.

What we'd have is NI pensions cost going up by 50%, we'd be paying 1/3 of that from day one and our contribution to that increasing every year.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The ESRI are working off us taking over what is there, I don't believe for a second that is how it will happen. There will be no 'take over' nor will it happen overnight without adjustments and preparations being made.

You guys have to have the scary scenarios front and centre and will not countenance any positivity.

A doomed doom strategy.

No they are not. The ESRI are working off the premise that social welfare in the South won't be cut, pensions in the South won't be cut, public service pay in the South won't be cut etc. and applying YOUR rule of one rate for the whole country. They have costed that at 8% tax increase.

blanch152

Varik wrote: »

And like the Brexit divorce bill the UK isn't on the hook for any increases after they left for that current budget.

Payment for NI would be the same as if the person moved from England to Spain to retire as you said it's for their contributions. All of this was discussed in the UK leading up to Scottish referendum.

Considering our pension payments are over 50% higher, and how keen governments are for a bit of vote buying among pensioners we can easily assume that'd we'd be topping that up the rest of the way.

Add to that they'd probably do the same for those not retired with now partial contributions, as the minimum qualify UK pension is very low. Every year they contributed to the UK is obviously a year they didn't to Ireland, so makes the required contributions for an Irish pension is a bit harder to get. So they probably do the same and top it up.

What we'd have is NI pensions cost going up by 50%, we'd be paying 1/3 of that from day one and our contribution to that increasing every year.

It is a big assumption that the UK will continue to pay pensions into Northern Ireland, they may very well argue (and mostly correctly) that pensions are paid from current revenue and they no longer have any revenue from the North so why should they pay. We could be left with 100% of the pension payments.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think people will look at it in all it's aspects, not just the economic impacts. The same thing that keeps most of us in this country. People who think only of their walle (and they do exist) generally leave to where they can make money.

We will be running a country...there won't be anyone (except bitter partitionists) keeping a tab and pointing at 'themuns, costing me a fortune'.

What are "all its aspects" other than the economic ones?

Spell them out.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Says poster who runs in fear of a significant number (50+1) of the population 'getting their way'.

You are as hidebound on the issue as a DUPer is on the issue of the Union.

So, once again, no answer, just insult.

Thanks.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So, once again, no answer, just insult.

Thanks.

If you think the truth is an insult...fair enough.

You are as hidebound on a possible UI as any belligerent loyalist I know.

That's is your right.

I gave you and answer...the welfare rate will be the one set by the new UI government.

drdidlittle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you think the truth is an insult...fair enough.

You are as hidebound on a possible UI as any belligerent loyalist I know.

That's is your right.

I gave you and answer...the welfare rate will be the one set by the new UI government.

So let assume SF are leading this new government. What in your opinion, based on you being a said SF voter would you propose SF set the rate at?

FrancieBrady

drdidlittle wrote: »

So let assume SF are leading this new government. What in your opinion, based on you being a said SF voter would you propose SF set the rate at?

I wouldn't assume anything for SF.

The rate will be what it has to be and I would hope it is decent and possible to live with dignity while being on it.

It will be one of a myriad of factors in the decision making process on a UI for voters. I have no doubt there will be many more scare stories put about, about it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wouldn't assume anything for SF.

The rate will be what it has to be and I would hope it is decent and possible to live with dignity while being on it.

It will be one of a myriad of factors in the decision making process on a UI for voters. I have no doubt there will be many more scare stories put about, about it.

In other words, you are not ruling out social welfare cuts in order to pay for a united Ireland. A brave stance, if I may say so myself, but at least honest as well.

Doubt any SF politician will repeat that though.

Hamsterchops

The funny thing is though, just like the Brexit movement of the Tory right, this yearning for a so called "United" Ireland is based on emotion and an urge, a Grá for something that needs to be done, because it's the end game, it's what we've always wanted, and once we get it we will finally be free and liberated.

Did Brexit sort out Britain or did it create other unforseen problems? Yes they got their utopia, they got to the Holy Grail, they finally got Brexit done, but at what cost?

Shinners beware, your vision of a United Ireland may not be the Utopia you stubbornly strive to achieve. Let Brexit be a lesson from history.

[Deleted User]

This is not confined to SF and their supporters though, most political parties on the island have an aspiration to a UI.

Hamsterchops

mehico wrote: »

This is not confined to SF and their supporters though, most political parties on the island have an aspiration to a UI.

The Shinners are driving the bus though, they are the Brexiteers of the United Ireland movement, the Shinners are the most vocal & pig headed about getting it, at any cost.

Phoebas

mehico wrote: »

This is not confined to SF and their supporters though, most political parties on the island have an aspiration to a UI.

Aspirations are easy.

Taking it past aspiration is a good deal more difficult as we can see from this thread.
It becomes all very 'Brexity' - we're being asked to trust it's proponents that somehow we'll all land on the sunlit uplands.

Junkyard Tom

Ireland is a country that was partitioned. Britain isn't a country, it's three countries. Brexit is an English derived Eton-mess gleefully pounced-on by spiteful hibernophobic bigots (the DUP) in an attempt to unravel Ireland's restitching together.

The previous couple of years have taught those paying attention that The British/English, of the type who drove Brexit, and their useful idiots, can never be trusted when it comes to Ireland.

When we end British jurisdiction in Ireland DUP-types will never again be able to count on the bully-next-door to rescue them from themselves. The ending of the British threat would see former unionists like the DUP becoming a lunatic fringe, while moderates would thrive and work towards mutual British-Irish respect within a self-governed Ireland.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ireland is a country that was partitioned. Britain isn't a country, it's three countries. Brexit is an English derived Eton-mess gleefully pounced-on by spiteful hibernophobic bigots (the DUP) in an attempt to unravel Ireland's restitching together.

The previous couple of years have taught those paying attention that The British/English, of the type who drove Brexit, and their useful idiots, can never be trusted when it comes to Ireland.

When we end British jurisdiction in Ireland DUP-types will never again be able to count on the bully-next-door to rescue them from themselves. The ending of the British threat would see former unionists like the DUP becoming a lunatic fringe, while moderates would thrive and work towards mutual British-Irish respect within a self-governed Ireland.

Such old-style thinking. Humanity matters, not countries.

Thinking rooted in 1930s exclusionary nationalism talking about bullies next door and useful idiots is so far from modern thinking that it is difficult to believe that there are still adherents.

blanch152

mehico wrote: »

This is not confined to SF and their supporters though, most political parties on the island have an aspiration to a UI.

Aspiration = lip-service for the likes of FF, FG, SDLP etc. Most of the voters also agree with the lip-service and run scared of a united Ireland once the cost issues, for example, are raised.

It is fine to have aspirations and dreams, it is not always fine to act on them.

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

Such old-style thinking. Humanity matters, not countries.

Thinking rooted in 1930s exclusionary nationalism talking about bullies next door and useful idiots is so far from modern thinking that it is difficult to believe that there are still adherents.

Do you realise almost everything you said there is actually agreeing with toms post? Brexit wasnt driven by humanity,it was driven by nationalisn,and it wasnt in the 1930,s it was onlyna few years ago

Junkyard Tom

droidman123 wrote: »

Do you realise almost everything you said there is actually agreeing with toms post? Brexit wasnt driven by humanity,it was driven by nationalisn,and it wasnt in the 1930,s it was onlyna few years ago

He knows but, due to a deep-seated hatred of Irish Republicanism, is seeking to conflate ethno-nationalism with the ending of Unionist/British malevolence in Ireland. He probably views paleo-Unionism and partitionism as counter-balances to Irish Republicanism which is a simply wrong.

We have Polish-Irish, Italian-Irish, Brazilian Irish, Anglo-Irish, Nigerian-Irish and all sorts of different nationalities living here and nobody is all that bothered. Why? Because we are overwhelming accepting of those of different nationalities making their home here. The Scots/British Irish are already here in the northeast and will thrive in a United Ireland when the DUP types have lost the threat of bringing the British state to bear on the Irish people.

blanch152

droidman123 wrote: »

Do you realise almost everything you said there is actually agreeing with toms post? Brexit wasnt driven by humanity,it was driven by nationalisn,and it wasnt in the 1930,s it was onlyna few years ago

Well yes, Brexiteer thinking, and its small-town exclusionary nationalism is almost identical to Tom's type of thinking. Those types are welcome to each other.

The problems, as we saw with Brexit, is that voters can be fooled or conned into supporting such ideologies, because of the way that it can be simplified and sloganised. Notwithstanding the modern manifestation in Brexit and a united Ireland, not to mention some of the far-right and far-left nationalistic movements across Europe, it is still 1930s thinking.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Such old-style thinking. Humanity matters, not countries.

.

So let's make sure the new country has decent and respectable welfare rates and system?

Let's lash in a decent housing and health system and equal rights for all regardless of creed.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Aspiration = lip-service for the likes of FF, FG, SDLP etc. Most of the voters also agree with the lip-service and run scared of a united Ireland once the cost issues, for example, are raised.

It is fine to have aspirations and dreams, it is not always fine to act on them.

I've never had any doubt that the parties mentioned use a UI when conveinient...all of them have a history of being fond of the comfy seats and would say anything and more importantly 'do anything' to maintain them.

That era is has ended in northern Ireland and is coming to a close in the south...all of those 3 parties being shadows of their former selves.

Phoebas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So let's make sure the new country has decent and respectable welfare rates and system?

Let's lash in a decent housing and health system and equal rights for all regardless of creed.

You'll need to compress that a little bit more to get it to fit on the side of the bus.

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

Aspiration = lip-service for the likes of FF, FG, SDLP etc. Most of the voters also agree with the lip-service and run scared of a united Ireland once the cost issues, for example, are raised.

It is fine to have aspirations and dreams, it is not always fine to act on them.

I wouldn't agree that aspiration = lip service.

I do agree that there has been a history of lip service paid by some political parties to a UI but believe this is changing now.

FrancieBrady

Phoebas wrote: »

You'll need to compress that a little bit more to get it to fit on the side of the bus.

How about: DON'T BELIEVE CHARLATANS WHO TELL YOU HUMANITY IS THEIR PRIORITY

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a big assumption that the UK will continue to pay pensions into Northern Ireland, they may very well argue (and mostly correctly) that pensions are paid from current revenue and they no longer have any revenue from the North so why should they pay. We could be left with 100% of the pension payments.

So the "big assumption" is wrong but your own assumption is allowed?

Cmon now.

It's almost like you'll just say anything in the hope that it won't be queried.

Is there any precedent at all for the UK to pay pensions to those no longer living in their jurisdiction but who had earned pensions under their jurisdiction? Any precedent at all? Any? Surely?

BonnieSituation

Hamsterchops wrote: »

The Shinners are driving the bus though, they are the Brexiteers of the United Ireland movement, the Shinners are the most vocal & pig headed about getting it, at any cost.

Is that true or is that just your devil's advocate mask slipping again?

It's hard to tell what's your opinion and what's not these days.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

In other words, you are not ruling out social welfare cuts in order to pay for a united Ireland. A brave stance, if I may say so myself, but at least honest as well.

Doubt any SF politician will repeat that though.

Lot of focus on SW cuts from you. Surprising how much you want to keep rates at their current levels?

With the Commission on Social Protection due to report next year, perhaps you could make submissions to them.

FileNotFound

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Lot of focus on SW cuts from you. Surprising how much you want to keep rates at their current levels?

With the Commission on Social Protection due to report next year, perhaps you could make submissions to them.

In fairness, silly as it sounds the like of a potential social welfare cut (not sure it would be the reality but initially money will have to come from somewhere) will have a direct impact on a percentage of the voter base so could potentially be an influence.
Much like reduction in hospital funding for the existing infrastructure.
Additional taxation for the average worker.

All the above would heavily depend on economic circumstances at the time I guess.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So the "big assumption" is wrong but your own assumption is allowed?

Cmon now.

It's almost like you'll just say anything in the hope that it won't be queried.

Is there any precedent at all for the UK to pay pensions to those no longer living in their jurisdiction but who had earned pensions under their jurisdiction? Any precedent at all? Any? Surely?

Where do I make any assumption?

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a big assumption that the UK will continue to pay pensions into Northern Ireland, they may very well argue (and mostly correctly) that pensions are paid from current revenue and they no longer have any revenue from the North so why should they pay. We could be left with 100% of the pension payments.

"They may" and "we could" are not assumptions.

BonnieSituation

FileNotFound wrote: »

In fairness, silly as it sounds the like of a potential social welfare cut (not sure it would be the reality but initially money will have to come from somewhere) will have a direct impact on a percentage of the voter base so could potentially be an influence.
Much like reduction in hospital funding for the existing infrastructure.
Additional taxation for the average worker.

All the above would heavily depend on economic circumstances at the time I guess.

But the likes of blanch haven't got the imagination to think that perhaps there's more than one way to solve this conundrum.

Again, this will all be part of a massive undertaking by this State to work out how this will work in the lead up to any poll. But of course, that is anathema to Partitionists.

Like their belligerent friends in loyalism any progress in any department can't be welcomed as that would mean a UI can be achieved.