If there was an united Ireland, would we in the North be better off?

Bob the Builder · 31-01-2007 07:38PM

Yes, ye' would, cos now, ireland is about 6billion richer than ye lot, but the biggest problem would be to merge the two states...

jimmycrackcorm · 01-02-2007 02:55AM

kevmy wrote:

I know that but AFAIK it takes a certain percentage (around 70% i think) of Unionist politicians in the Assembly to agree to the vote on All Ireland status before the referendum can go ahead. So it doesn't really matter what percentage of the overall pop just percentage of Unionist politicans

Source for this anti-democratic information?

csk · 01-02-2007 10:36AM

Sleepy wrote:

LOL, you could (and I would) say the exact same about Irish Republicanism.

Yes you could and I would agree but you obviously missed the point of why I said Unionism in the first place.

Though most southern 'Republicans' would soon change their minds when faced with the economic reality of any union.

You miss the point entirely WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ECONOMIC REALITY OF ANY UNION WILL BE. Unless of course you are somehow psychic and can predict the future ?

Sleepy to paraphrase your good self, the way I see it is that Ireland is our collective house. As it stands, we have a small minority living in the coal shed whilst the vast majority live in double en suite bathrooms.

Sleepy isn't it funny how principles seem to be dead and gone when potentially your own economic welfare comes under threat ?

csk · 01-02-2007 10:46AM

kevmy wrote:

I know that but AFAIK it takes a certain percentage (around 70% i think) of Unionist politicians in the Assembly to agree to the vote on All Ireland status before the referendum can go ahead. So it doesn't really matter what percentage of the overall pop just percentage of Unionist politicans

I thought it had something to do with the Secretary of State as well but I'm not sure.

But surely if Nationalist population increased then so too would their representation in the Assemby and so they would carry any potential vote ?

It would hardly have to be 70% of designated Unionists in the Assembly because that sounds wholly undemocratic to me. Even if there were only say ten Unionist politicians left, then 7 of them could hold the rest of Northern Ireland to ransom ? That's sound wholly undemocratic to me but I'll check.

kevmy · 01-02-2007 12:14PM

csk wrote:

I thought it had something to do with the Secretary of State as well but I'm not sure.

But surely if Nationalist population increased then so too would their representation in the Assemby and so they would carry any potential vote ?

It would hardly have to be 70% of designated Unionists in the Assembly because that sounds wholly undemocratic to me. Even if there were only say ten Unionist politicians left, then 7 of them could hold the rest of Northern Ireland to ransom ? That's sound wholly undemocratic to me but I'll check.

I'm not certain about the numbers on that but I'm almost certain that some decisions have to be made by a majority of both Unionists and Nationlists to ensure that one side cannot force decisions on the other side.

Sleepy · 01-02-2007 12:22PM

csk, nice comeback on the 'collective house' but to look at that analogy again, I'd see the Republic of Ireland as one house and the North as our Neighbour's extension - i.e. their problem, not ours

brianthebard · 01-02-2007 01:10PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Source for this anti-democratic information?

How is that undemocratic? he just explained that a democratic vote was necessary.

Terry · 01-02-2007 01:26PM

brianthebard wrote:

How is that undemocratic? he just explained that a democratic vote was necessary.

because it is one sided.
the unionists do not make up 70% of the population of the north. (52% at the last count and falling due to population growth amongst nationalists). even If only 51% of the nationalists wanted a united Ireland, then it should really only require 51% unionist support.

csk · 01-02-2007 03:13PM

Sleepy wrote:

csk, nice comeback on the 'collective house' but to look at that analogy again, I'd see the Republic of Ireland as one house and the North as our Neighbour's extension - i.e. their problem, not ours

Quite but you do see how such comments of yours could be misconstrued as hypocritical especially if I was to further paraphrase the one about "lottery of Birth" etc.

The whole "its their problem let's bury our heads in the sand til it goes away" is precisely how we found our way into this mess in the first place.

Suffice it to say whether you see them as such or not, the people of the north are just as Irish as you or me (well me at least).

hmmm · 01-02-2007 03:47PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Source for this anti-democratic information?

A democracy does not mean simple majority rule.

Sleepy · 01-02-2007 04:12PM

csk wrote:

Quite but you do see how such comments of yours could be misconstrued as hypocritical especially if I was to further paraphrase the one about "lottery of Birth" etc.

Not at all. As members of the EU, British citizens are entitled to move to Ireland whenever they like. My arguments regarding "lottery of birth" would extend to not preventing freedom of movement or freedom of markets. I'm open to correction but I believe people in Northern have that right with respect to the Republic.

The whole "its their problem let's bury our heads in the sand til it goes away" is precisely how we found our way into this mess in the first place.

It's largely a problem of their own creation. The majority of people in the North didn't want to become part of the new Free State at the time of our nation's birth. TBH, if I'd been there at the time and had wanted to be part of it, I'd have moved south of the border. Easier said than done obviously but if being part of a nation that wasn't under British rule was that important to someone, I think it was the more sane option than trying to terrorise the rest of their country into submission.

Suffice it to say whether you see them as such or not, the people of the north are just as Irish as you or me (well me at least).

In your opinion. Many Northern people, both protestant and catholic, would very much disagree with you and from most surveys I've seen they make up the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.

bl1986 · 28-02-2007 09:44PM

The north wud be much better off as part of a united ireland it wud eventually become as prosporous as the rest of ireland and overall both sides of the divide wud become better off, i know its not the same but we only have to look at sport and compare 32 county sports like rugby to partitioned sports like football to see this

Mr.Nice Guy · 01-03-2007 03:13AM

Sleepy wrote:

It's largely a problem of their own creation.

Nonsense. Northern Ireland was an entity constructed to guarantee unionist supremacy, brought into being thanks to British and Irish treaty delegates. Hardly a problem "of their own creation".

Sleepy wrote:

The majority of people in the North didn't want to become part of the new Free State at the time of our nation's birth.

Wow what a flawed sentence. The nation is the island, don't confuse statehood with nationhood. And what is this "North" you speak of? According to poll results of the time, Fermanagh and Tyrone had a 55-45% nationalist population. These people were taken into the Northern Ireland entity. And if you look at the 9 counties of Ulster, it was an even split - hence why 3 counties were ultimately excluded. So to say "the majority of people in the North didn't want to become part of the new Free State" is utterly inaccurate. They weren't given a chance.

Sleepy wrote:

TBH, if I'd been there at the time and had wanted to be part of it, I'd have moved south of the border.

You would have uprooted your family and left relatives, friends and a steady job behind to go live in a different part of the island and face a difficult and uncertain future? Oh how brave of you!

Sleepy wrote:

Easier said than done obviously but if being part of a nation that wasn't under British rule was that important to someone, I think it was the more sane option than trying to terrorise the rest of their country into submission.

Yes because all nationalists "terrorised" the rest of their "country", didn't they? Have you been reading Ian Paisley's history of Ulster by any chance?

Terry · 01-03-2007 03:22AM

Who screwed around with my edit?

have at it.

Free staters vs Nordies./
The Nordies wanted to be part of the free state, but we abandoned them.

Here is what really happened:

75 years ago, peole who are no longer alive made a political decision.
part of Ireland remained in Ulster, the rest was what was to become the republic of Ireland.
Deal with it.
We are not out to get you.
We don't have it in for you.
The PSNI don't have it in for you either.
Grow the **** up, learn to realise that the IRA ? INLA ? whatever are terrorists and so are the UVF/ UNLA/ Whoever.
We in the south don't care for that.
Sort your own problems out and then come crying to us about crap.
Or else just grow up.
Yeah, that's the best one.
Just grow up.

K-9 · 01-03-2007 03:28AM

I agree with Terry's general point. I want a United Ireland but the political situation at the minute isn't a great advertisement for it. Not even an agreed Northern government, So how could there be an agreed 32 county united Ireland. There's no point just incorporating the same problems and prejudices in a United Ireland.

Terry · 01-03-2007 03:41AM

Huh?
I was just wondering who screwed with the edit I made to the title of the thread.
I made a point?
I'm off to edit the title again.

EDIT:
Sems I can't edit the title.

nesf · 01-03-2007 05:07AM

Terry wrote:

Huh?
I was just wondering who screwed with the edit I made to the title of the thread.
I made a point?
I'm off to edit the title again.

EDIT:
Sems I can't edit the title.

Hmm, but I can...

brianthebard · 01-03-2007 11:13AM

bl1986 wrote:

The north wud be much better off as part of a united ireland it wud eventually become as prosporous as the rest of ireland and overall both sides of the divide wud become better off, i know its not the same but we only have to look at sport and compare 32 county sports like rugby to partitioned sports like football to see this

Yes lets compare a small sport that relatively few nations play to a world wide sport played by just about everyone. That'll be all the proof needed to ensure that the six counties return to the warm bosom of Irish Irishness.:rolleyes:

daveirl · 01-03-2007 11:29AM

This post has been deleted.

Judt · 01-03-2007 02:32PM

Economically speaking, a "United Ireland" would be a disaster. The GDP per capita in Northern Ireland is €19,603. In The Republic of Ireland it's €41,000. In NI the government accounts for 63% of the economy, versus 36% in the ROI.

The UK government accounts for 20% of NI's economy in subvention (economic aid by any other name); that's £5 billion, or about €7.43 billion. Our revenue in the ROI last year was €44.3 billion, and the budget €45.4 billion. Given that NI is a net loser of funds just to keep the ship running, let alone invest the billions it takes for an economic turnaround, our budget would increase dramatically without a significant increase in revenue. National debt would go through the roof and both the North and the South would be worse off - the south would lose huge amounts of money to the north, and the north would not get enough money to make itself economically viable.

darkman2 · 02-03-2007 03:19AM

Judt wrote:

Economically speaking, a "United Ireland" would be a disaster. The GDP per capita in Northern Ireland is €19,603. In The Republic of Ireland it's €41,000. In NI the government accounts for 63% of the economy, versus 36% in the ROI.

The UK government accounts for 20% of NI's economy in subvention (economic aid by any other name); that's £5 billion, or about €7.43 billion. Our revenue in the ROI last year was €44.3 billion, and the budget €45.4 billion. Given that NI is a net loser of funds just to keep the ship running, let alone invest the billions it takes for an economic turnaround, our budget would increase dramatically without a significant increase in revenue. National debt would go through the roof and both the North and the South would be worse off - the south would lose huge amounts of money to the north, and the north would not get enough money to make itself economically viable.

I will get my 2 cents in here. The Republic could afford the North and much easier then people think. Your tax system would be abolished. The Republic need a deprived six counties really because that means growth for us. Your tax system would be changed to ours and that changes things significantly because FDI would flow like a river into the North. It would mean less to spend here but only for a time. The North of our country would develope quickly in a UI and it would eventually become net contributer to our coffers. Lets face it, the North is poor compared to us. The British dont give a sh!t what happens there. In fact they are slyly off loading it on us. Thankfully we can afford it now but will the Celtic Tiger stay?

If there was an united Ireland, would we in the North be better off?

Comments