Why I'll say no to a united ireland

Why though?
To appease Unionists who refuse the democratic wishes of the electorate?

There isn't even a sign in each of the regions that they want devolved administration. It's cuckoo stuff from those who cannot tolerate the idea of a UI

you couldn’t possibly be more wrong. I absolutely do not mean unionists. I mean Northern Irish. I know that it is very disconcerting for you that many from a nationalist background now regard themselves as northern Irish.

Unionism is not an identity downcow

You can be British and be a supporter of Irish nationalism (I know several who do)

You can be Irish and be a supporter of NI Unionism (see this thread)

Your mistake of course is thinking that the Northern Irish identity supports devolution or independence for NI. You have zero evidence for that of course.

72% of the population of ni voted for devolution the last time it was tested. But I guess you know better.

Well only because its head is the head of the CoE

You cant have a catholic or muslim as head of the CoE

Although it is rather bizarre that the head was a woman for decades when women clergy werent around

Technically a Roman Catholic cant be UK PM either as they recomnend names for Archbishops of Canterbury although Tony Blair was a secret catholic as was Borris

whatever of a foreign invader and occupier of the past, your constitution now supports the existence of two countries on this island. So are you not wanting your constitution changed? Or are you happy with it supporting the existence of OWC?

Mmm.

We do have the slightly unusual situation that (a) the people of Great Britain get no say in whether the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is to be dissolved, but (b) the people of Ireland (the state) do get a say (as in, they can prevent a dissolution of the UK that would otherwise happen if they vote not to unify with NI).

A scenario in which NI votes to unify with IRL but IRL votes not to unify with NI is, to be honest, wildly unlikely in real life. But it does remain a striking fact that IRL, not a part of the UK, gets to vote on the dissolution of the UK while GB, a part of the UK, does not.

What explains this is that almost nobody in GB would think of the departure of NI as the "dissolution of the UK", even though that is what it would be. In the same way, very few people in GB think of the UK as a country which split in two as a result of a violent conflict just over a hundred years ago, although that is exactly what happened.

(They don't think like this because they don't really think of Ireland, north or south, as a proper part of their country. It's more a vestige of empire — important for status, and not without moral and political obligations and responsiblities but, ultimately, neither it or its people are truly British any more than, say, Gibraltarians or Bermudans or Montserratians are. If they choose to leave, this has no more implications for the UK as a state, or for the British people as a nation, than did, say, the independence of Jamaica in 1962.)

None of this means, though, that the future of NI is "in the hands of others" because, of course, the people of NI do get a vote. If they vote to stay in the UK they get to stay in the UK regardless of how the people of IRL vote or how the people of GB would vote, if they were permitted to vote. The future of NI is in the hands of others only to the extent that NI cannot unite with IRL unless IRL agrees to that, but that's hardly an unusual limitation on the freedom of any country to decide its political future.

The poll makes bad reading from a UI point of view.

No government is going to touch this anytime soon.

Haha, a classic case of playing the man Francie.

You must be very desperate to try and sully the man's reputation after he hammered a nail into the UI coffin.

A classic attempt to deflect from the post content.
The man seems desperate for clickbait type publicity.
He has a new Institute to promote after all.

You are ignoring the questions asked.

10% will never vote for a UI

42% will never vote for a UI if it means any tax increase.

That is 52%, and we have not even talked about flags, anthems, monarchy and all that symbolic stuff.

Its dead Francie. Its not going to happen in our lifetimes.

Mostly it seems the, 'value' is in people cherry picking a recent poll that supports their existing position and using it to smugly assert how right they are.

Jaysus I just love it when my point is proven almost instantly.

Phrasing any polling question around, 'would you pay extra tax' is always going to push a much heavier negative number, much like the wishy washy, 'would you hypothetically some day' phrasing pushes an overwhelmingly positive number. 

Paying for a UI is going to be an inevitability. That is a certainty. That is going to have to be funded either through more borrowing or more taxes or more likely both.

This report puts paid to the idea that a UI will be cost-free in the short to medium term at least. It will have to be paid for somehow.

Those advocating a UI but totally refusing to deal with the realities of it, like SF and some posters here are just lying to themselves and the people they are trying to convince.

There is no simple, Mom Apple Pie solution here.

And even if the numbers are only half right, are people willing to pay an extra €10 billion a year in taxes or borrowing for what could be a vanity project for romantic Irish Nationalists?

Utterly unlikely and a deluded position imo.

Once upon a time 95% of people in the Republic would have voted for a UI, maybe in the 1920's or 1930's when the country was an agrarian economic backwater of little worth.

Now, however, we are wealthier and thus have more to lose. People are ultimately self-interested when it comes to economic questions. According to the poll, 52% of people will not vote for a UI if it cost them a cent.

But you make the point for me.

The longer this goes on, the more likely that people in the South will deviate away from supporting a UI and will be happy with the status quo with cross-border institutions and shared Island initiatives and the like.

A compromise so to speak.

The poll question is fairly loaded; the implication is that the new study is objectively correct when in fact it's contested, and it also inaccurately summarises what the study actually concludes.

Given this, I think it's quite striking that 43% of respondents said they would be prepared to pay more tax, versus 42% who said they would not.