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.
Hamsterchops wrote: » 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.
Hamsterchops wrote: » All this talk of a United Ireland is great fun, but we're now 3206 pages into this thread going round and around in circles, offering up the same solutions to the same problems, but the fact remains that there are still one million (approx) people up North who do NOT want to become one with this state, they just don't want it. Leave them alone untill they want it, then invite them in.
gourcuff wrote: » my argument was against the idea that belfast would not see any economic dividend from a UI- thats all really. this dividend would likely come from organic or new growth rather than vast swathes of job transfers. if you believe all of what you claim will happen, of course you are free to vote for continued partition, you will have one vote the same as the rest of Ireland
Shebean wrote: » British people abroad receive their pension after paying into them as British taxpayers all their working life. After a UI anyone previously due or getting a pension would still get it. Their revenue paid the pensions of others. British accrual of future liabilities will stop on creation of UI. They probably will still be responsible for state pensions for retired people and for contributions made by current workers. So if you have worked for 20 years and are 40 years old you would be entitled to 50% current pension rates when you retire in 20 years. Will not be an open end. Other 20 years working in UI will generate UI state pension
Shebean wrote: » British people abroad receive their pension after paying into them as British taxpayers all their working life. After a UI anyone previously due or getting a pension would still get it. Their revenue paid the pensions of others. Apart from lumping people looking forward to a united Ireland in with Brexiteers, what are the similarities between Brexit and a UI? You could more easily compare a section of the island of Ireland wanting to remain tied to another island and government brexit thinking. You should note advocating for things to remain as they are is what proponents of Brexit in N.I. want. A UI isn't all 'shinners'. While we've many scaremongering about a UI I don't see anyone claiming it will be a utopia.
Shebean wrote: » Apart from lumping people looking forward to a united Ireland in with Brexiteers, what are the similarities between Brexit and a UI?
FileNotFound wrote: » In fairness the comparison to Brexit is voting is a pretty solid one. All the UI supporters here are saying similar things to the Brexiteers. - This isn't what we and our ancestors fought for (current state of things). - Once its done things will just get better - cause they will?? - General romantic notions and historical justifications. - Many here throw the name partitionist around like a brexiteer calls anyone who questioned brexit a remoaner.. So far this thread does seem to be people expressing actual fiscal concerns being countered by others purporting romantic notions.
drdidlittle wrote: » British accrual of future liabilities will stop on creation of UI. They probably will still be responsible for state pensions for retired people and for contributions made by current workers. So if you have worked for 20 years and are 40 years old you would be entitled to 50% current pension rates when you retire in 20 years. Will not be an open end. Other 20 years working in UI will generate UI state pension
blanch152 wrote: » Of course, anyone currently receiving a pension will continue to receive it from the UK. However, if on day 2 of a united Ireland, having only worked in Northern Ireland, and Joe retires, Joe's pension will be paid by the new united Ireland construct out of their current revenues.
Shebean wrote: » Your bullet points are anecdotal. Point two is tomfoolery. People on the island looking to stay tied to a dead empire and dictated to by Westminster rather than 100% self govern is the oddity. Looking at Brexit, looking at N.I. with the same lens, how damaging and nonsensical is anyone wanting to keep the UK as is? If a family member knocks on your door you don't check your piggy bank before you invite them in. When you view ulster like munster, it is beyond romanticism. We prepare as best we can and we engage in talks to work out a fair change. I'd say it's people realistic but hopeful verses scaremongering with a grain of genuine concern. The financials will be a concern. I've not seen anyone expect no issues. Lets have honest debate.
FileNotFound wrote: » How exactly is pointing out the current response from the UI supporters and comparing it to an identical response from the Brexit supporter - Tomfoolery? I am not sure what this honest debate is meant to be. - The potential costs (which are very valid for anyone in RoI) have been raised: - The cost of switching all NI Business across to the Euro. - The cost of supporting all NI businesses as they absorb the costs of meeting Irish employment law. - The costs of increasing social welfare and the challenges of not creating a wealth upset between NI and RoI. Does ours drop? - The not insignificant deficit that the UK fill right now. All the costs might not have mattered as much had we not just lived through recession followed by Covid. - The lack of a clear leader of any no campaign has been raised. - The potential issue with unionists feeling like nationalists do now. - Very much discounted on this thread - under the guise of too good for them. - What happens to our Flag and Anthem was raised, consensus being they would have to change. - The direct impact on the political landscape (Depending on your view of SF this could be a pro or Con), SF to be the biggest party, DUP in Dail. All of the above has been highlighted and no discussion seems to happen. What exactly would you propose we discuss?
blanch152 wrote: » If it's about natural states, there is nothing natural about humans organising themselves into national states with attendant flags and anthems and bunting.
Shebean wrote: » I was talking about this point: "Once its done things will just get better - cause they will??: I've not seen anybody suggest such a thing. That's what I mean by honest debate.
downcow wrote: » Could you tell me where there is a natural state anywhere in Europe and what exactly makes it ‘natural’
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/practical-options-in-brexit-should-not-fall-foul-to-ideology-or-nationalism-varadkar-40495141.html The exclusionary nationalists on here continuously downplay the role of the third minority in Northern Ireland, even to deny its existence, so it is nice to see the Tanaiste acknowledge the reality. "He said that there is no “majority” in Northern Ireland any more and instead three communities - people that identify themselves as being British, people that identify themselves as Irish and people that identify as Northern Irish. “I find it really exciting to see that middle ground grow. We need to not make the mistake that any one party or any one community is Northern Ireland, it’s not. Northern Ireland is a territory of minorities now, that makes it more complicated to manage and work with,” he said." It is time we moved on to a shared Island approach, with separate jurisdictions working together, rather than the outdated and failing nationalistic tribalism that has dominated the debate on both sides over the last 20 years.
blanch152 wrote: » There is none. Nationalism is an artificial construct driven by fear of others.
Shebean wrote: » A nation is a group of people living under the same rules with a shared history and culture. Such things should be celebrated and enjoyed by others from different nations. Trying to make nationalism a dirty word to support the situation in N.I, which is driven by the Unionist fear others might treat them as they treated others, is odd.The U.K. is a construct built on murder and theft defended by those who feel they might lose power if it's dissembled. Being in a portion of the Irish province of Ulster and taking direction from a parliament in another country seems pretty unnatural to me. French people having France is natural. English people having England is natural. The British construct occupying part of Ulster isn't. We should welcome and respect all cultures. In a UI people will be welcome to identify as they wish and will have the same rights as everyone else.
blanch152 wrote: » Contradict yourself in one post, just because you don't accept other people's view of themselves. You probably don't even see the contradiction.
Shebean wrote: » A nation is a group of people living under the same rules with a shared history and culture. Such things should be celebrated and enjoyed by others from different nations. Trying to make nationalism a dirty word to support the situation in N.I, which is driven by the Unionist fear others might treat them as they treated others, is odd. The U.K. is a construct built on murder and theft defended by those who feel they might lose power if it's dissembled. Being in a portion of the Irish province of Ulster and taking direction from a parliament in another country seems pretty unnatural to me. French people having France is natural. English people having England is natural. The British construct occupying part of Ulster isn't. We should welcome and respect all cultures. In a UI people will be welcome to identify as they wish and will have the same rights as everyone else.
Shebean wrote: » If the U.K. was a country, sure. There's no contradiction. I suggest you look again. I very much accept and respect people's own view of themselves. You seem to have issue with accepting some Irish people wanting their country unified and being from the north and viewing themselves as Irish. That's okay but you probably don't even see the contradiction.
blanch152 wrote: » Most people in the UK are proud to be part of a kingdom, they love their own nation/country/kingdom, they celebrate it, yet you denigrate it by saying "The U.K. is a construct built on murder and theft defended by those who feel they might lose power if it's dissembled." It is a feature of exclusionary nationalism to demonise the other, to make your nation superior to others, this comes through very clearly in yours and other posts on here, where it is Irish good, British bad every single time.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's a feature of partitionism to demonise just one other ideology/aspiration. And please don't try and claim that you are equal in your judgement, you simply aren't equal, like the partitionist element in FG for instance who give succour to one side whenever the opportunity arises. Quite simply blanch, Britain was bad for almost every place they colonised. Their own people are only beginning to come to terms with that and in a lot of cases being made to accept it. They have done plenty of good too.
blanch152 wrote: » Rubbish, as always. I have no truck with the likes of Poots, no more than O'Neill and the boys in Belfast. All are creatures of exclusionary nationalism.
BonnieSituation wrote: » And this from the man who thinks Foster is a moderate and deserving of praise.
blanch152 wrote: » Inaccurate paraphrasing? Or seeing what you want to see?
blanch152 wrote: » I have no truck with the likes of Poots, no more than O'Neill and the boys in Belfast. All are creatures of exclusionary nationalism.
