downcow wrote: » Absolutely. He spent precious little time in the country now known as Ireland. The vast majority of his time was spent in ni and gb Now why does that remind me of many of your international footballers lol
FrancieBrady wrote: » For years on here the scare mongers were spouting about the scary billions of the subvention. SF said for years it was not the headline figure of 10/12/13 billions touted here and elsewhere. Trinity professor confirms it is much much lower, the scaremongers switch to the scary running costs. So not spoofing on that and provided the figures years ago to anyone who cared to listen. Loads of other stuff too. But I am not trying to convince you- you have to make your own mind up. Don't worry, there will be others along soon to convince you if Leo isn't spoofing. I'm looking forward to it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » FFs JH79 - I never said they produced a proposal Read what is being said please. Far as I can see, SF want to have discussions on a UI before any 'proposal' is made. They have made many comments on what they would like to see, what needs to be resolved, what compromises might need to be made and have commissioned reports on it.
ineedeuro wrote: » I want a United ireland, I’m just pointing out none of the parties have a breeze how to get it. What you described above to me sounds like Sinn Fein are the spoofers in this situation, it’s like one of those Facebook videos and they roll out a person claiming to be an expert. “Hi Dr Nick” How can a professor in Trinity proclaim any number unless he was given full access by all the governments? Which I expect he wasn’t provided with?
jh79 wrote: » The trinity lad is Fitzgerald and has it a bit higher, Doyle is from DCU. As pointed out at the time while Doyle puts the figure at 2.5bn with a 5% increase in the standard rate of tax to fund it. He also says its not the real cost if unification and the true cost is much higher. Is Professor Doyle scaremongering too?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I don't know tbh jh79. What I do know is that it set certain posters scrambling for a new angle not to mention the Paulian conversion of FG. .
FrancieBrady wrote: » Now you want me to do your research. His report is online, google is your friend. Who do you think will be doing the expert work on this stuff by the way? Not exactly a field for random posters on the internet or somebody who is qualified as a mechanic.
jh79 wrote: » I followed him on Twitter like you suggested and have to say don't think he's a partitionist and seems quite keen on unification. He says that the the 5% tax increase isn't the significant part of the cost. Fitzgerald has it much higher. How is it scaremongering repeating the evidence of two different experts especially if one on the surface seems to be an advocate for a UI?
ineedeuro wrote: » You raised the professor as "proof" then throw your toys out of the pram when someone asks about it. Sorry Im not qualified as a mechanic
FrancieBrady wrote: » When I incurred the biggest 'cost' of life, buying my home, I could have looked at the cost as 'scary'. Or been convinced by somebody not to do it because it was a scary figure. I didn't look at it that way, I looked at how to manage the cost because ultimately it is an investment in all my family. Granted the scaremongers harping on about the cost have some convinced, but I can guarantee you that like SF, come the day FF and FG will be talking in future investment terms. Those harping on about the scary costs will sound very negative and run out of road very quickly if they refuse to countenance the benefits.
jh79 wrote: » But the numbers are based on known facts , the costs while difficult to predict shouldn't be too far off. How is it scaremongering to repeat what the experts say? If the figures are wrong then debunk them if not how do you know it's scaremongering if you do not know of an alternative as fir comparison?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Every investment has a cost. Sick saying this. If all you do is point to the cost, that is scaremongering IMO.
Shebean wrote: » He certainly damaged the future merger with the DUP.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » I would predict a pro-British/GB/UK party in a United Ireland that would be a home to unionists and others. They could work on keeping Ireland close to Britain in civil, political, and cultural, matters and would experience generosity from other parties.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Huh :eek: Do my eyes deceive me, can you really be suggesting this? I mean I thought the whole gist of your argument (along with Francie & others) has always been removal of anything even remotely British or connected to the rest of these islands! What's going on, have you been hypnotised by Her Maj, or aroused by Camilla's latest summer frock Downcow will be stunned (in a good way).
Junkyard Tom wrote: » There's a big island called Britain next to us with enormous influence on us and a complex intertwined history, anyone who denies this is a dope. We need to keep relations good with our nearest neighbour and our people happy and that would include those with British/N. Irish identity in a United Ireland, and yes that would include hosting the British Monarchy that unionists are emotionally and culturally invested in. I don't think this is in any way controversial, where else on Earth could a British person feel more at home than Ireland? Nowhere.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The only people who have difficulty with accommodation are partitionists here in the south and dissidents and belligerent Unionists in the north.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I don't know tbh. . .
FrancieBrady wrote: » SF have produced detailed views and reports on the matter. You may no agree with them, but you cannot say they haven't a breeze. Let FG now come up with their proposal. *I didn't see the interview but I think SF's view on the flag is that it needs to be discussed and other views need to be heard before a decision is made on it.
blanch152 wrote: » This is getting funny. SF haven’t produced a proposal, but they have produced detailed views and reports which aren’t a proposal, but the onus is now on FG to produce a proposal. And all in your own words.
blanch152 wrote: » I don’t think so. For example, I (one you have mislabelled partitionist) would have no issue with retaining the name Londonderry in the event of a united Ireland, or committing that there is no need for Irish language signs in the six counties given the absence of any real Gealtachts there. However, I doubt that yourself and the other exclusionary nationalists would be so accommodating.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Some laugh a person that repeats bot-like 'exclusionary nationalism' accompanied by a never-ending phobic crusade to exclude nationalists in the north from forming a United Ireland with their countrymen in the south. It really is quite unhinged posting.
ittakestwo wrote: » In a UI, it is up to the people of the jurisdiction whether we have Irish signs throughout it. If a certain part of a UI dont want Irish signs then why cant certain parts of NI that want Irish signs have them? Basically you want sectrerism to still exist in a UI and a gerrymandered part of a UI to suppress the Irish nation. Btw majority of the inhabitants of Derry want Derry to be its official name... so according to your logic of letting people decide, you should want the city to be called Derry as that is what they want. Can you confirm this.....there is holes everywhere in your arguments.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » The DUP would be a lunatic fringe party nobody would seek to work with in a United Ireland. The only reason DUP have any footprint in the north is because of the factionalism that is downstream from partition. I would predict a pro-British/GB/UK party in a United Ireland that would be a home to unionists and others. They could work on keeping Ireland close to Britain in civil, political, and cultural, matters and would experience generosity from other parties.
Fionn1952 wrote: » One would expect Opposition parties to opine and government parties to make proposals, no?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
