United Ireland Poll - please vote

Isn't it quite fortunate that they'll be joined by almost 7000 new members who have extensive experience dealing with the Loyalist drug dealers you think will suddenly become capable of insurgency, despite historic evidence showing they were only capable of anything of the sort when supported by British security forces?

I think there is zero evidence that loyalists could mount a UI destabilising campaign against a UI. Zero.

They have threatened violence since the Anglo Irish Agreement and it hasn't amounted to anymore than blocking roundabouts and wrecking their own areas.

They threatened 'destabilising protests' in Dublin with one Unionist/Loyalist on here saying he thought they should do it every Friday and it has amounted to a hill of cold beans.

They would have no support, no supply channels and would be quickly hemmed in and neutralised.

Convince me otherwise with facts.

Which bit of increasing the rate by 5% but taking a tax of 5% and leaving them in the exact same financial situation do you not understand?

So how will they be plunged further into poverty? This is the problem with communists like yourself. Mathematics and economics are alien concepts.

Can you link to 'it has been tried before and failed'? We should be able to work out why it failed and adjust.

And ever here the Beckett line, about 'trying'? Why ever would you allow failure to stop you trying?

So because something failed under the power swap, it cannot work? Is that what you are saying?

p.s. I know why it failed here, I wanted you to say it though, because as soon as FG or FF are pointed at for failing, you will probably step back from it. 😀

Being pedantic, you are correct, but my meaning was clear from the start - compensate social welfare and minimum wage for the 5% USC charge, all for the demonstrative effect that everybody should pay something.

Who knew, blanch is on the same side as the Shinners on this one! 😁

Personally I would like to see the opportunity a UI presents to reform and rationalise both PS's

Which is why I contend FF FG SF The Greens Labour etc etc will sell a UI on the benefits when the time comes. Partitionists/anti-UIers will have to run a very negative in comparison campaign.

If they can get anyone of substance to represent them politically that is.

LOL, I can see the banner from SF.

"Vote for SF, we will ask Westminister to cut off the cash to force a United Ireland"

You are not thinking this through are you.

so you have no problem then using a poll to push your point and then you want me not to claim I'm speaking for the majority and yet you feel you can speak for the majority.. are you NI as well per chance? Definitely sounds like it with that atitude.

This is an incredible argument. It's like a couple in a relationship where one wants to run up massive credit card and debt and when the other points out that is unaffordable, they get called out as a spoilsport.

Using references to name calling as partitionists is simply childish. And you do it because you know that your arguments for a UI don't stand up to logical rationale. You refuse to acknowledge that the cost of incorporating NI to the country as a whole will have some detrimental consequences.

All we are getting are Brexit type sunny uplands points.

There's no doubt that Scottish independence completely destroys the northern unionist point of view, and just shows them up as anti Irish bigots.

When the Scottish don't want to be in the Union, what possible argument do a bunch of people in an island, that the English view as Irish, have to hold on to?

An independent Scotland joining the EU would be ideal for cementing the ties between the Irish, Scottish and their descendent planters

But I am reading the thread.

You continually want to change the narrative and focus from the costs as if they don't matter. Whimsically waving then away in favour of "opportunities".

Painting other posters as partitionists is childish name-calling just like using terms such as blueshirts and shinnerbots, in an attempt to denigrate anyone who questions how a UI should evolve.

So now you say you expect a UI to cost money, how about telling us how much we'll have to pay, to see if we think it's worth it?

You do sound a bit like Bertie when he was telling us not worry about the economy prior to the crash though.

You're on a discussion forum, discussing a potential united ireland, but if you even think about mentioning the costs of that you are a dirty partitionist, a belligerent unionist (whatever that is). The costs will be sorted out magically, through economics idiot (no need to ask how).

Feel free to discuss the benefits though, that's all gravy

There were reports that the UDA armed themselves in Tigers Lodge during the bonfire season, to stop emergency personal and the PSNI from going in and dismantelling those mad high bonfires.

Anyone who completely dismisses the possibility of a Loyalist insurgency post a UI is lying to you as they do not know. It has to be considered.

Beware of snake oiled salesmen telling porkies and lies to further a political ideology. They are charlatans and preachers who believe that faith alone will deliver the utopia that is a United Ireland.

Financing the costs via national debt would also be an option. If one saw significant social and economic benefits, at a time with low interest rates it may even be a better option than austerity type cuts to services or increases to tax.

I'm fully aware that the proverbial piper still needs paying, but if the economic gains were above the level of interest that was accumulating on the debt then this would lead to a gradual paying off of that debt without cuts to services or increases to taxes.

Would the gains be significant enough to make that a viable option? Not a clue tbh.

Are interest rates likely to jump to the point where they surpass economic growth? Not a clue tbh.

I'm not suggesting it is the right option, I'll leave that to greater minds than mine to work out and propose in the lead up to a border poll, but increased tax or cuts to services aren't the only options. I'd imagine the reality will be a mix of all three.

To be fair Fionn, I've consistently said the cost is the same whether it involves income tax rises or cuts to services. It's a handy metric that everyone is familiar with.

I'd imagine from an economist's perspective, income tax is easier to model on.

But not necessarily the same if financed via debt and (big if) the economic benefits outweigh the cost of financing that debt.

Say hypothetically it costs €50 billion over 10 years to fix it after any outside assistance. That would lead to a 20% increase in our National Debt, which is certainly quite scary on the surface. The interest payable on that would be around €2bn, if the economic returns are noticeably greater than €2bn, then the investment pays for itself in the long term by paying off the interest and the remainder paying down the capital of the loan.

Obviously a great simplification, and I don't know the numbers, but I'd expect any economist who was serious about coming to honest conclusions would at least consider partially incorporating that into some models to project the outcome, even if it is easier to model income tax increases. I wasn't aware that the best economic models were the easiest; maybe I should look at a change of career!