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

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

jh79 wrote: »

Jaysus you really are hurting.

It was challenged and I backed it up. That is the situation according to 2 individual experts and a UK economic institute.

Doyle wasn't bothered and has promised a reply. Not an insecure Republican presumably.

I don't think the institute is saying what you think its saying.

Current pensions are funded from current NI payments. Funds backed by £s. That's not to say there is no backing in the future, they have the backing of the UK government. The UK government could theoretically renege on pensions. How long do you think they'd stay in power?

Speculation that the UK would stop paying pensions is not worthy of serious consideration.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think the institute is saying what you think its saying.

Current pensions are funded from current NI payments. Funds backed by £s. That's not to say there is no backing in the future, they have the backing of the UK government. The UK government could theoretically renege on pensions. How long do you think they'd stay in power?

Speculation that the UK would stop paying pensions is not worthy of serious consideration.

What are you on about "staying in power"?
In a United Ireland they wouldn't have a vote anymore. Did you honestly think they meant all pensions being stopped!!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You backed away from it as unimportant when challenged. And stated you didn't believe it yourself.

Nobody hurting here but your cred.

Sure... that's what happened.

Insecure Republican traits at the forefront today.

Would you like me to find an official UK document on it? Unlikely 2 experts and a UK institute are wrong but I don't mind.

jh79 wrote: »

Sure... that's what happened.

Insecure Republican traits at the forefront today.

Would you like me to find an official UK document on it? Unlikely 2 experts and a UK institute are wrong but I don't mind.

Speaking of 'insecurity'.
Anything else that you don't think will happen for us?

:D

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Speaking of 'insecurity'.
Anything else that you don't think will happen for us? :D

So are you after an official document or happy to accept I am right?

It's the case for Ireland too by the way.

jh79 wrote: »

So are you after an official document or happy to accept I am right?

It's the case for Ireland too by the way.

You are right about an opinion that you don't think is going to happen.

Honestly, I have heard it all. Presenting stuff that you don't think will happen is desperation stuff.

Keep it coming.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are right about an opinion that you don't think is going to happen.

Honestly, I have heard it all. Presenting stuff that you don't think will happen is desperation stuff.

Keep it coming.

What are you on about? There is no legal obligation in the UK to pay pensions is a fact. NI is part of the UK in case you've forgotten.

jh79 wrote: »

What are you on about? There is no legal obligation in the UK to pay pensions is a fact. NI is part of the UK in case you've forgotten.

But you think they will. How can you claim it's an 'expert' opinion when you don't even agree with it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you think they will. How can you claim it's an 'expert' opinion when you don't even agree with it.

Quote the offending post so.

jh79 wrote: »

Quote the offending post so.

Still, I can't see them not paying.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117544848&postcount=3834

jh79 wrote: »

What are you on about "staying in power"?
In a United Ireland they wouldn't have a vote anymore. Did you honestly think they meant all pensions being stopped!!

The UK either pay everyone that paid NI (as they currently do) or not pay anyone. You're the one saying they could change that. Precedence has legal effect.

In the UK parliament is sovereign, so technically they could change the law. Similarly they could make rape legal. Neither are remotely likely to happen.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117544848&postcount=3834

That's your "proof"!

I posted a summary of various experts on the pension issue all in a single post.

Now, where did i say it was likely to happen and then change my mind like you claim?

The whole "Big Reveal" white paper thing has really got to you.

jh79 wrote: »

That's your "proof"!

I posted a summary of various experts on the pension issue all in a single post.

Now, where did i say it was likely to happen and then change my mind like you claim?

The whole "Big Reveal" white paper thing has really got to you.

Why would you post opinions you dont agree with?

Bizarre carry on.
Almost as bizarre as inventing something I said and claiming a victory.

Seriously jh79, review the strategy.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would you post opinions you dont agree with?

Bizarre carry on.
Almost as bizarre as inventing something I said and claiming a victory.

Seriously jh79, review the strategy.

So my crime has gone from being factually incorrect to saying it was likely to happen but then backtracking to then retreating when challenged to wait for it.....

Posting expert opinion about a possible scenario I personally believe wouldn't happen. On an internet discussion board of all places!

jh79 wrote: »

So my crime has gone from being factually incorrect to saying it was likely to happen but then backtracking to then retreating when challenged to wait for it.....

Posting expert opinion about a possible scenario I personally believe wouldn't happen. On an internet discussion board of all places!

Why would you do it? Was the question.
Did you think it wouldn't be challenged and you wouldn't have to reveal you didnt think it would happen, and then the real doozy, that it's not that important anyway.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would you do it? Was the question.
Did you think it wouldn't be challenged and you wouldn't have to reveal you didnt think it would happen, and then the real doozy, that it's not that important anyway.

Ok Francie one thing at a time seeing as your determined to keep digging.

* I always said the subvention wasn't important. Do you really need to see Doyle's tweet again calling it irrelevant? An expert you recommend by the way.

Pensions make up part of the subvention. The subvention is just the deficit. Part of that is what they pay out on the pension. If pension commitments drop the deficit will reduce ie the subvention will reduce.

But as already pointed out an expert you recommended says the subvention is irrelevant in a debate on Irish Unity.

How you are surprised that I would say the pension issue is irrelevant is beyond me? Especially you, given I'm been saying it to you for god knows how long.

Are you saying pensions are not part of the subvention? That the only other possibility I can think of.

Could you just clear this up first?

jh79 wrote: »

Ok Francie one thing at a time seeing as your determined to keep digging.

* I always said the subvention wasn't important. Do you really need to see Doyle's tweet again calling it irrelevant? An expert you recommend by the way.

Pensions make up part of the subvention. The subvention is just the deficit. Part of that is what they pay out on the pension. If pension commitments drop the deficit will reduce ie the subvention will reduce.

But as already pointed out an expert you recommended says the subvention is irrelevant in a debate on Irish Unity.

How you are surprised that I would say the pension issue is irrelevant is beyond me? Especially you, given I'm been saying it to you for god knows how long.

Are you saying pensions are not part of the subvention? That the only other possibility I can think of.

Could you just clear this up first?

Perhaps stop calling people you don't agree with 'experts'?

I am 'surprised' by you introducing something you didn't believe would happen.

And I never 'recommended' Mr Doyle to anyone. Another invention/lie on the lines of me talking about a 'big reveal'.

If you are seriously against a UI, you need to up the game.

Take care. No need to clog up the thread with the back and forth.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Perhaps stop calling people you don't agree with 'experts'?,

Seriously?

I should stop calling an academic who published a rebuttal to Doyle's research in the very same journal an expert because I personally don't think it would happen!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I never 'recommended' Mr Doyle to anyone. Another invention/lie on the lines of me talking about a 'big reveal'.
.

You posted his Irish Times article and paraphrasing here said "it would shake things up" on the subvention. Not long after you recommended following him on Twitter. I did and my first reply to you was the tweet saying the subvention was irrelevant.

Ring a bell at all, do you really need to see the posts?

jh79 wrote: »

Seriously?

I should stop calling an academic who published a rebuttal to Doyle's research in the very same journal an expert because I personally don't think it would happen!

How can you call someone an expert if you disagree with their point? Maybe it was a bit of gloss you added to give the opinion weight before you were challenged on it. Who knows.

Maybe I was raised in a different era when words meant something.

Anyway, I'm done with this. Over and out.

jh79 wrote: »

You posted his Irish Times article and paraphrasing here said "it would shake things up" on the subvention. Not long after you recommended following him on Twitter. I did and my first reply to you was the tweet saying the subvention was irrelevant.

Ring a bell at all, do you really need to see the posts?

Clutching at straws now.
I told you to follow him on Twitter BECAUSE you could not get enough info from the article I posted. I post loads of articles about loads of topics.

Slimy attempt there to mis-represent again.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117065460&postcount=1900

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Clutching at straws now.
I told you to follow him on Twitter BECAUSE you could not get enough info from the article I posted. I post loads of articles about loads of topics.

Slimy attempt there to mis-represent again.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117065460&postcount=1900

So did he shake things up? Do you agree with his research?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How can you call someone an expert if you disagree with their point? Maybe it was a bit of gloss you added to give the opinion weight before you were challenged on it. Who knows.

Maybe I was raised in a different era when words meant something.

Anyway, I'm done with this. Over and out.

His reply was published in the journal as a rebuttal to peer reviewed research. He's an expert not some random person off boards or twitter.

Don't think it's the era Francie, just you.

What is your field? If not similar a bit arrogant to think you know more on the subject to judge him as not an expert don't you think?

jh79 wrote: »

So did he shake things up? Do you agree with his research?

Do some more research, I have been saying for years the subvention is not as high as the scaremongers insisted.

I agree with him and others who said it before.

Seems it takes an 'expert' from certain quarters for you guys to finally accept what it didn't take an 'expert' (me) to work out.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do some more research, I have been saying for years the subvention is not as high as the scaremongers insisted.

I agree with him and others who said it before.

Seems it takes an 'expert' from certain quarters for you guys to finally accept what it didn't take an 'expert' (me) to work out.

And his tweet about it being irrelevant ? Do you agree with that too?

jh79 wrote: »

And his tweet about it being irrelevant ? Do you agree with that too?

I've also been saying the costs IMO are irrelevant to the benefits of a UI (said again yesterday) so yes I agree with him. But that point was also made by others before.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I've also been saying the costs IMO are irrelevant to the benefits of a UI (said again yesterday) so yes I agree with him. But that point was also made by others before.

Interesting spin. I'll get back to you on that one. Want to give it another read. Certain he did a podcast with times too on the subject. Don't remember much talk on the anything other than the financial.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I've also been saying the costs IMO are irrelevant to the benefits of a UI (said again yesterday) so yes I agree with him. But that point was also made by others before.

Just so we don't waste each others time. What do you mean by benefits? Peace , equality that kind of stuff or do you mean the financial benefits make the cost irrelevant?

Just to rule that out before I reply properly.

Also, are you basing this on the paper? Nothing in his Irish Times article fits the bill.

Just in case I am accused of it. I don't 'recommend' Susan McKay as any particular expert on the subject, I post this as opinion of interest to the debate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/opinion/northern-ireland-centenary.html

jh79 wrote: »

Just so we don't waste each others time. What do you mean by benefits? Peace , equality that kind of stuff or do you mean the financial benefits make the cost irrelevant?

Just to rule that out before I reply properly.

Also, are you basing this on the paper? Nothing in his Irish Times article fits the bill.

I have pointed this all out/debated it before. Not really bothered to do it again. I am not here to be interrogated at the court of jh79.

Quick Links