Daily Telegraph data adds credence to Ireland being united in less than 20 years

Calibos · 20-09-2013 07:59PM

If rejoining the commonwealth was enough to keep a lid on loyalist violence then I'd be ok with a united Ireland. I guess I am a bit of a west Brit and don't think we should have left the commonwealth. I flip flop on whether I think we should have left the Union

kowloon · 20-09-2013 08:00PM

Was this narrated by a smartphone?

dd972 · 20-09-2013 08:20PM

If you remove all the other aspects regarding civil unrest and such, I wonder what the fiscal cost of reunifying would be ?, the currency would be the most obvious thing that comes to mind, I wouldn't see the point of making all the road signage up there ROI style apart from the speed ones.

Karl Stein · 20-09-2013 08:21PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

no mention of the unionists waging a IRA type war against the new united Ireland

Against who and to what ends? See: Parade of Horribles fallacy.

Agricola wrote: »

Purely from an OCD point of view, it would be nice for the whole island to be one political/economic entity. From every other point of view, no fúckin way.

British control of a part of the body of this island will be a problem as long as it remains and has been for hundreds of years.

The end of the border. Cross border smuggling, welfare tourism, differing VAT rates, economic deprivation in border counties all these are problems associated with the border.

The economics of having two political jurisdictions, two bureaucracies on one small island is bananas. An all-island rationalisation could take place.

Tourism would benefit.

Having lots of Protestants in the Dail would probably speed up the retreat of the Catholic Church from Irish institutions.

Elbaston · 20-09-2013 08:24PM

Not that unbelievable.
Majority of people on both islands would prefer to see Ireland united.

Totality of nationalists (north+south) is growing exponentially quicker than unionists.

20-09-2013 08:33PM

dd972 wrote: »

If you remove all the other aspects regarding civil unrest and such, I wonder what the fiscal cost of reunifying would be ?, the currency would be the most obvious thing that comes to mind, I wouldn't see the point of making all the road signage up there ROI style apart from the speed ones.

You could have a compromise on the others, bilingual direction signs up north and European warning signs down south (rather than these US style ones)

Painted Pony · 20-09-2013 09:31PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Against who and to what ends? See: Parade of Horribles fallacy.

You think loyalists devise strategies that guide their actions to some end?

I must say a lot of what I have seen them get up to in the past did not show much evidence of any kind of strategic thinking that you credit them with.

In recent times they got in to a right state because the union fly was to be flown in line with other British jurisdictions. Don’t you think they might be just a tad miffed at a united Ireland?

I don’t know if there is an opposite fallacy to your parade of horribles. But if there is, completely dismissing a possible loyalist response would be a nice example of it.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

British control of a part of the body of this island will be a problem as long as it remains and has been for hundreds of years.

So goes the republican mantra. An alternative explanation is that there are two competing constitutional aspirations amongst the people of Northern Ireland and they cannot both be kept happy. Zero sum game. What one side loses (constitutionally), the other gains.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

The economics of having two political jurisdictions, two bureaucracies on one small island is bananas. An all-island rationalisation could take place.

Is that an argument for a united Ireland or for a merging of the R of I and the UK?

Karl Stein · 20-09-2013 09:59PM

Painted Pony wrote: »

You think loyalists devise strategies that guide their actions to some end?

You're answering a question with a question

In recent times they got in to a right state because the union fly was to be flown in line with other British jurisdictions. Don’t you think they might be just a tad miffed at a united Ireland?

So in the event of a vote for a UI we allow a hardcore minority to dictate the aspirations of everyone else? That was done before on the island (can you think of when and by who?) and all it did was kick the can down the road.

I don’t know if there is an opposite fallacy to your parade of horribles. But if there is, completely dismissing a possible loyalist response would be a nice example of it.

To what ends would this Loyalist response be and with the support of who?

So goes the republican mantra. An alternative explanation is that there are two competing constitutional aspirations amongst the people of Northern Ireland and they cannot both be kept happy. Zero sum game. What one side loses (constitutionally), the other gains.

Right. You're comparing hundreds of years of strife on this island due to opposition to British interference with the modern history of a sectarian state created by the British on the threat of violence by a minority on the island (that might help you answer my question above).

Is that an argument for a united Ireland or for a merging of the R of I and the UK?

If you manage to push the two land masses together so that they are the one island then the question wouldn't be so utterly pointless and irrelevant.

dd972 · 20-09-2013 10:11PM

Instead of rejoining the UK how about subsuming the UK into the Irish Republic ? :pac:

markesmith · 20-09-2013 10:13PM

I'd like to see the country united. Historically, we never were really united, but neither was Spain, Italy or Russia until relatively recently. So, a united Ireland, if only to stop my kids asking, "Daddy, why is there two Irelands?"

It's an unresolved question. Doesn't mean that we'll kill all the Protestants or anything like that. I don't mind having a few Protestants in the country :P

Painted Pony · 20-09-2013 10:29PM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

You're answering a question with a question

It was a rhetorical question. The anser is no, their actions were not always rationally designed to being a particular end. Did you perceive any particular rational consequence of the actions of the Shankill butchers or their ilk?

Charlie Rock wrote: »

So in the event of a vote for a UI we allow a hardcore minority to dictate the aspirations of everyone else? That was done before on the island (can you think of when and by who?) and all it did was kick the can down the road.

I dispute your interpretation of what happened 90 years ago but that is besides the point that I am making. It would be foolish to think there would be no issue with this minority just because they would have no democratic grounds to object a united Ireland. They might, and likely would, take their cue from another Irish minority (can you think of when and by who?) who similarly disregarded the democratic wishes of the Irish people.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

To what ends would this Loyalist response be and with the support of who?

Again you assume they would have a well defined end. And they wouldn’t necessarily need support. That they got a helping hand from British forces in the past does not mean that they would be impotent without them.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Right. You're comparing hundreds of years of strife on this island due to opposition to British interference with the modern history of a sectarian state created by the British on the threat of violence by a minority on the island (that might help you answer my question above).

Er, wrong. I’m not saying anything like that. I’m saying northern nationalists (supposedly!) want a united Ireland and unionists want to retain the link with Britain, and they can’t both have their way.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

If you manage to push the two land masses together so that they are the one island then the question wouldn't be so utterly pointless and irrelevant.

You miss the point. If economy of scale is an argument to have single institutions for the island then it is even a better argument for a union of Ireland and the UK. Nobody of course argues of the latter, which exposes the spuriousness of this argument.

The quest for a united Ireland is an emotional aspiration, not a rational one. Those who want one have decided as much in advance and seek to retrofit rational arguments to give credibility to their positions. Almost nobody who favours a UI will ever change their mind, no matter what rational arguments there might be for them to do so.

Dyr · 20-09-2013 10:36PM

markesmith wrote: »

It's an unresolved question. Doesn't mean that we'll kill all the Protestants or anything like that. I don't mind having a few Protestants in the country :P

Not too many though :pac:

That said, if scotland leaves the union first where are all our loyal brethren going to have to f**k off to?

20-09-2013 11:09PM

Bambi wrote: »

Not too many though :pac:

That said, if Scotland leaves the union first where are all our loyal brethren going to have to f**k off to?

They're not called Ulster Scots for nothing! :pac:

20-09-2013 11:10PM

You know that ad on UTV for old age pensioners making sure they're claiming everything they're entitled to?

For me it sums up why there won't be a united Ireland anytime soon.

TeddyTedson · 20-09-2013 11:14PM

Agricola wrote: »

Purely from an OCD point of view, it would be nice for the whole island to be one political/economic entity. From every other point of view, no fúckin way.

I'm all for a united Ireland, however I do like the fact that we can avail of the border. I keeps the government from going OTT on our VAT.
I hate that "**** the north we don't want them attitude", I meant we don't want several counties and we're stuck with them bhoy :P

Sleepy · 20-09-2013 11:26PM

freevoice wrote: »

To the people that " don't want the North" , How about we split the country up into four provinces and give that a go for a while , as there seems to be little nationalistic pride around anymore .

I think that would work out extremely well for Leinster while Ulster would be utterly ****ed. Unless of course the UK is going to continue to subsidize them which might suit Donegal (which even as the most heavily subsidized county in the Republic isn't subsidized to anything like the extent the six counties currently are).

LordSutch · 20-09-2013 11:52PM

To all you posters who really want a so called "United Ireland" I say 'consider the cost to your nationalist ideals'. Take the national anthem for example, there is no way that could carry on as the anthem of a new Ireland which included the Unionist North, as they just wouldn't stand for it (literally), same goes for the current flag which would have to be binned too! then what about compulsory Irish in NI schools for all Unionist children!!! Me thinks NOT.

As part of a United Ireland would we expect Northerners to drop the NHS? Would we expect them to obey the Dail? would they really drop the pound too? Would we expect them to renounce their Britishness? The list of compromises is endless, so before people say they want a United Ireland, they should first be aware that current flags, symbols, anthems, etc will all be changed to accommodate Unionism & Loyalism.

If we want to make a start, we could rejoin the Commonwealth, just to show that we are making an effort to be more united.

Karl Stein · 21-09-2013 01:04AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Take the national anthem for example, there is no way that could carry on as the anthem of a new Ireland which included the Unionist North, as they just wouldn't stand for it (literally)

No problem.

same goes for the current flag which would have to be binned too! then what about compulsory Irish in NI schools for all Unionist children!!! Me thinks NOT.

No problem.

As part of a United Ireland would we expect Northerners to drop the NHS? Would we expect them to obey the Dail? would they really drop the pound too?

Em... that would be the nature of a UI so yes.

Would we expect them to renounce their Britishness?

Absolutely not. In the event of a UI freedom to be British would have to be written into the constitution.

The list of compromises is endless, so before people say they want a United Ireland, they should first be aware that current flags, symbols, anthems, etc will all be changed to accommodate Unionism & Loyalism.

No problem.

If we want to make a start, we could rejoin the Commonwealth, just to show that we are making an effort to be more united.

We could but the new Ireland would put that to a democratic vote. I'd vote no. I don't like the imperial undertones of the British Commonwealth (whose wealth?) and having a head of state by virtue of birth. No.

LordSutch · 21-09-2013 01:14AM

Charlie Rock wrote: »

We could but the new Ireland would put that to a democratic vote. I'd vote no. I don't like the imperial undertones of the British Commonwealth (whose wealth?) and having a head of state by virtue of birth. No.

So after all your 'No problems' you say the Commonwealth would be a bridge too far for Nationalist Ireland. Interesting. Of all the consessions & compromises (flag/anthem/etc), I would never have thought that rejoining the Commonwealth would be the main stubling block to a UI.

Karl Stein · 21-09-2013 01:22AM

LordSutch wrote: »

I would never have thought that rejoining the Commonwealth would be the main stubling block to a UI.

Your nit-picky stumbling block is it? The 'commonwealth' is one of those Orwellian phrases that has the opposite meaning to its connotation where Britain's colonies suffered and Britain prospered.

There was no 'common wealth' there was British backed terrorists plundering less technologically advanced people - if they didn't comply they were subject to destruction, torture and murder.

No thanks. I want nothing to do with the exceptional wealth derived from common misery.

Karl Stein · 21-09-2013 01:42AM

Painted Pony wrote: »

The anser is no,

'No' to what?

Okay. I'm going to get the chronological sequence of this debate in order, someone has to and it don't think you're able to. So let's start at the beginning shall we? (It's a very good place to start).

dj jarvis wrote: »

no mention of the unionists waging a IRA type war against the new united Ireland

My answer.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Against who and to what ends?

Your question of my question was.

Painted Pony wrote: »

You think loyalists devise strategies that guide their actions to some end?

My response was:

Charlie Rock wrote: »

You're answering a question with a question

To which you respond:

Painted Pony wrote: »

It was a rhetorical question. The anser is no, their actions were not always rationally designed to being a particular end. Did you perceive any particular rational consequence of the actions of the Shankill butchers or their ilk?

Which brings us right back to my 'to what ends' which still stands.

Fundamentalist Loyalism has no ends. They were little more than a collection of gangsters and serial killers during the troubles (albeit backed by the British army and other British elements).

In the event of a UI the British would be delighted to see the back of the north so anyone agitating against British interests would be seen as an enemy. If anything the future of a UI would see an alliance of overwhelming majority pro-UI people in Britain and Ireland.

Think.

Dyr · 21-09-2013 02:48AM

LordSutch wrote: »

As part of a United Ireland would we expect Northerners to drop the NHS? Would we expect them to obey the Dail? would they really drop the pound too? Would we expect them to renounce their Britishness?

No Mr sutch, Ve expect you to die :P

pharmaton · 21-09-2013 02:55AM

last of the mohicans, lofe that tune

stefan idiot jones · 21-09-2013 04:25AM

You're all missing a trick here, your children could be brought up on gravy rings if you play your cards right.

Rubeter · 21-09-2013 08:12AM

LordSutch wrote: »

So after all your 'No problems' you say the Commonwealth would be a bridge too far for Nationalist Ireland. Interesting. Of all the consessions & compromises (flag/anthem/etc), I would never have thought that rejoining the Commonwealth would be the main stubling block to a UI.

Flags, symbols, anthems etc are nothing, these can be easily changed and within a generation the new usually becomes the norm, joining something like the commonwealth is on a different order of magnitude altogether.
To the vast majority of people on this island it would be too much like rejoining the UK, so the chances of it ever happening are so remote as be practically nill.

It's interesting you consider symbols more important than actual realities.

knucklehead6 · 21-09-2013 08:32AM

Keno wrote: »

Is that Ringo Star narrating? I was waiting for Thomas the tank engine to make an appearance.

Sounded like a sat Nav voice to me. Took a wrong turning somewhere around the assertion that a United Ireland would be peaceful though.

knucklehead6 · 21-09-2013 08:42AM

LordSutch wrote: »

To all you posters who really want a so called "United Ireland" I say 'consider the cost to your nationalist ideals'. Take the national anthem for example, there is no way that could carry on as the anthem of a new Ireland which included the Unionist North, as they just wouldn't stand for it (literally), same goes for the current flag which would have to be binned too! then what about compulsory Irish in NI schools for all Unionist children!!! Me thinks NOT.

The flag as is symbolises the two major religions in this country, with peace between them.

As for an anthem, sure don't we have Ireland's call already!!

Quazzie · 21-09-2013 08:47AM

BX 19 wrote: »

The UK can keep the North. I don't want them.

I was actually hoping for it to be the other way around. I was hoping we'd be joining the UK again.

LordSutch · 21-09-2013 09:30AM

Rubeter wrote: »

To the vast majority of people on this island it would be too much like rejoining the UK, so the chances of it ever happening are so remote as be practically nill.

Not sure about a statement like 'the vast majority of people on this island' . . . because of course part of this island is already in the UK, which is the same part of this island which is also part of the Commonwealth! so either they ditch the Commonwealth , or we embrace it (a compromise in the face of them exiting the UK).

Rubeter wrote: »

It's interesting you consider symbols more important than actual realities.

I was merely listing Nationalist symbols like the Tricolour, Anthem etc which I presumed would be big stumbling blocks for Nationalist Ireland.

21-09-2013 09:32AM

Do we want it?

Then we have to deal with all the parades BS and bitterness.

Might be best to leave as is tbh.

Daily Telegraph data adds credence to Ireland being united in less than 20 years

Comments