UK considered giving half of NI to ROI

grainnewhale · 09-01-2014 09:38PM

Godge wrote: »

you are thinking in sentimental terms.

A United Ireland in say 2020 woulld mean turning around to southern public servants and saying hey, remember your pay was cut several times over ten years ago and you still haven't got it back, well, don't expect to see it for another ten years as we have to take on the increased costs of the six counties who can't pay for themselves as well as an unknown increased security cost and risk from those who won't like it. And you taxpayers over there who thought we might be relaxing some of that USC by now, well we might have to increase it instead.

How much loyalty will that Cork tax-paying public servant feel to his Derry counterpart then?

A lot of sentimental rubbish is posted here when the hard economic realities mean that anyone paying tax in the South would be mad to vote for a united Ireland.

I wouldn't expect much from a corkman, considering it was one who created this mess. Regardless of the cost its the very least a southern irish person could do, given the years of neglect and inactivity while are fellow irish people suffered.

VinLieger · 09-01-2014 10:58PM

grainnewhale wrote: »

I wouldn't expect much from a corkman, considering it was one who created this mess. Regardless of the cost its the very least a southern irish person could do, given the years of neglect and inactivity while are fellow irish people suffered.

Really invoking that old argument? Talk about trying to derail the thread.

I was born in 1986 and tbh as far as im concerned it is not my problem and I know a hell of a lot of people of my genaration who would agree with me.

I will never vote yes for a United Ireland as I do not see one iota of benefit for me in doing so. And I feel no loyalty or embarassment when people try to tell me I am abandoing my contrymen or whatever.
Im from the Republic of Ireland thats is my country and Northern Ireland is not so whats best for the ROI comes first for me always and I do not think a UI is best for it.

Dr.Tank Adams · 10-01-2014 12:04AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Really invoking that old argument? Talk about trying to derail the thread.

I was born in 1986 and tbh as far as im concerned it is not my problem and I know a hell of a lot of people of my genaration who would agree with me.

I will never vote yes for a United Ireland as I do not see one iota of benefit for me in doing so. And I feel no loyalty or embarassment when people try to tell me I am abandoing my contrymen or whatever.
Im from the Republic of Ireland thats is my country and Northern Ireland is not so whats best for the ROI comes first for me always and I do not think a UI is best for it.

That's good for you, most people are a little bit more selfless when it comes to there own country/countrymen though. Maybe it won't do you personally one iota of good, but it may well do many people around you a lot of good and happiness. At the end of the day, even if it doesn't improve your life dramatically, is it going to make it any worse either? I doubt it somehow, but you seem pretty set in your views so I suppose thoughts like that don't even cross your mind. BTW, the official name of "your country" is Ireland, although I'm not all that surprised that you refer to it as "The Republic of"....

tdv123 · 10-01-2014 02:08AM

timthumbni wrote: »

I was simply referring to what one of the sdlp members had said about the iras campaign. And let's face it the iras bombing and shooting campaign has not really moved a united Ireland much closer now has it? So I would agree with his statement.

If you want someone to "unite" with you then it's a bit weird to think that bombing and shooting them will acheive this. The ira and other republicans tried to bomb and shoot unionists into submission for 30 odd years and therefore into a united ireland. They failed... Spectacularly. However they did succeed in making even moderate unionists and even a lot of neutrals despise the ground they walk on right up to their political brothers in arms, Sinn Fein? (And for good reason)

Regarding a truely united ireland in the future the only ways this could be achieved successfully is if:-

1. - the ira or current offshoots whatever they call themselves bomb or shoot the majority of the current unionist population either to death or forcing them to move away to the uk mainland.

2. - that republicans or nationalists try to peacefully and rationally persuade unionists that their best course of action is to accept a united Ireland model at some stage in the future and work towards this.

Regarding option 1 the ira have already tried a form of this and failed. I can't imagine that this would ever succeed when dealing with NI unionists as they are equally if not more stubborn than NI nationalists. Present day republicans (some call them dissidents) would like this sort of option but hopefully they will be dealt with.

That leaves option 2 which is obviously the option that should be pursued by anyone sane. The problem with this is that Sinn Fein despite a few sound bites over this last few years about reconciliation with unionists have not been practising what they preach. Some of their mlas seem hellbent on rubbing up unionists the wrong way.

This may seem funny to their own supporter base etc but it also suits the unionist parties who can point to this and say. Look, we told you this is what you are dealing with, SF/IRA, no change etc. imagine what would happen in a united Ireland etc.

If nationalists could even persuade a sizable number of unionists that a united ireland in the future is in their best interests then it would make that option much more likely. As it is, everyone sits in their trenches. That position is probably much easier to take as a unionist as Norn Iron remains under British rule.

I know you didn't say it I was saying the SDLP's statement was a load of rubbish. I agree the IRA campaign hasn't done much to further the cause of a UI but I think it is certainly closer than before they started. But I think that is irrelevant anyway to the IRA. Most young people who joined the IRA didn't join out of a burning desire for a UI they joined it out of anger & sense of injustice. There would have been armed resistance from nationalists in the 70's whether the IRA existed or not. If it wasn't the IRA it would have been the INLA or the IPLO or Soar Eire or Independents or something extremely sectarian like the UVF etc..

Godge · 10-01-2014 11:17AM

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

No I'm not, I'm thinking in terms of how most Irish people feel a little bit of camaraderie towards their fellow country men. As for the economic side of things, yes there would be some extra burden on the taxpayer, but not as much as some scaremongerers like yourself try to make out, increased population and resources means increased gov. income which goes a long way to balancing the difference, and it's not as if the Irish gov. would continue with the ridiculously high subsidies the British gov. pours into the north, they'd simply bring it into line with the amount of money they put into the rest of the areas of Ireland, further balancing things out.

Are you kidding me? You don't see the illogicality of your argument.

As long as there is a huge British subsidy to Northern Ireland there can never be a united Ireland because either North or South has too much to lose.

If your argument is right, that the South would no longer continue with the ridiculously high subsidies, then why would anyone in the North vote to join the South? In the case the the high subsidies are needed to continue (and they will need to be greater as the North's social welfare rates will have to increase) the South won't vote for it.

Those who want a United Ireland paradoxically would create the best conditions for achieving it by demonstrating that the six counties by themselves are economically viable as in that case it would cost neither the North nor the South anything if a united Ireland were to happen.

grainnewhale wrote: »

I wouldn't expect much from a corkman, considering it was one who created this mess. Regardless of the cost its the very least a southern irish person could do, given the years of neglect and inactivity while are fellow irish people suffered.

That is silliness. In this world nobody owes anybody anything because of years of neglect and inactivity. Appealing to sentiment like that might win an opinion poll but you would do best to remember two proven political adages

(1) All politics is local
(2) It's the economy, stupid

Until you can win on both those grounds, a United Ireland is a silly dream.

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

That's good for you, most people are a little bit more selfless when it comes to there own country/countrymen though. Maybe it won't do you personally one iota of good, but it may well do many people around you a lot of good and happiness. At the end of the day, even if it doesn't improve your life dramatically, is it going to make it any worse either? I doubt it somehow, but you seem pretty set in your views so I suppose thoughts like that don't even cross your mind. BTW, the official name of "your country" is Ireland, although I'm not all that surprised that you refer to it as "The Republic of"....

Selfless? The same people who vote repeatedly at every election for tax cuts and expenditure increases. If the Irish people were selfless, they would vote for 90% income tax, subsistent type social welfare rates and send the tax to the third world. Dream on.

A united Ireland in the next twenty years would do nothing for anyone in the South except increase their taxes.

VinLieger · 10-01-2014 01:04PM

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

That's good for you, most people are a little bit more selfless when it comes to there own country/countrymen though. Maybe it won't do you personally one iota of good, but it may well do many people around you a lot of good and happiness. At the end of the day, even if it doesn't improve your life dramatically, is it going to make it any worse either? I doubt it somehow, but you seem pretty set in your views so I suppose thoughts like that don't even cross your mind. BTW, the official name of "your country" is Ireland, although I'm not all that surprised that you refer to it as "The Republic of"....

What Countrymen? The may be Irish but they aren't my countrymen. As I said my Country is ROI theirs is NI there is a difference even if some people like you refuse to recognise that.

The landmass is called Ireland the sate or country is called the republic of but its not really surprising since i can guess from the views you have expressed on here you probably "dont recognise the illegitimate rule yada yada......"

Also calling me selfish for thinking of myself first? Bit rich considering that is exactly what people up in NI who want a UI want. They are only thinking of themselves when they ask for this and don't care about the repercussions for anyone else

bear1 · 10-01-2014 01:48PM

grainnewhale wrote: »

I wouldn't expect much from a corkman, considering it was one who created this mess. Regardless of the cost its the very least a southern irish person could do, given the years of neglect and inactivity while are fellow irish people suffered.

What a completely stupid thing to say.

on the river · 10-01-2014 02:12PM

bear1 wrote: »

What a completely stupid thing to say.

He has a right to say what ever he likes . furthermore he may be right in his point of view

bear1 · 10-01-2014 02:16PM

on the river wrote: »

He has a right to say what ever he likes . furthermore he may be right in his point of view

And I have the right to dispute it.

on the river · 10-01-2014 02:20PM

bear1 wrote: »

And I have the right to dispute it.

Do you??? going against the founding fathers of this state who risks their lives for the good of ireland. Anyone can talk it take more guts to make things happen and they did . regardless of the outcome devalera collins must be shown respect for what they did.

bear1 · 10-01-2014 02:24PM

on the river wrote: »

Do you??? going against the founding fathers of this state who risks their lives for the good of ireland. Anyone can talk it take more guts to make things happen and they did . regardless of the outcome devalera collins must be shown respect for what they did.

Eh? You do realise that my original post is now agreeing with you?
It was posted that a Corkman started this mess and that he doesnt expect much from a Corkman due to this.
This is as you are now saying showing a lack of respect for the hard work that was involved to get us this far.
I commented that it was a stupid thing to say.
So tell me, where am I in the wrong?

on the river · 10-01-2014 02:39PM

bear1 wrote: »

Eh? You do realise that my original post is now agreeing with you?
It was posted that a Corkman started this mess and that he doesnt expect much from a Corkman due to this.
This is as you are now saying showing a lack of respect for the hard work that was involved to get us this far.
I commented that it was a stupid thing to say.
So tell me, where am I in the wrong?

Bear 1 bear1 it seems that we ae united on are opinions which pleases me . so lets get back to the topic at hand ok.

bear1 · 10-01-2014 02:43PM

I read an interesting article today in the Independent:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ian-paisley-taking-dangerous-road-ni-first-minister-29905012.html

Of course, he is quite the character but it is stuff like this that just further enhances my opinion that I just don't want to have NI.

on the river · 10-01-2014 02:48PM

bear1 wrote: »

I read an interesting article today in the Independent:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ian-paisley-taking-dangerous-road-ni-first-minister-29905012.html

Of course, he is quite the character but it is stuff like this that just further enhances my opinion that I just don't want to have NI.

o god this opens more crap i dont know where to begin

Dr.Tank Adams · 10-01-2014 08:59PM

VinLieger wrote: »

What Countrymen? The may be Irish but they aren't my countrymen. As I said my Country is ROI theirs is NI there is a difference even if some people like you refuse to recognise that.

The landmass is called Ireland the sate or country is called the republic of but its not really surprising since i can guess from the views you have expressed on here you probably "dont recognise the illegitimate rule yada yada......"

Also calling me selfish for thinking of myself first? Bit rich considering that is exactly what people up in NI who want a UI want. They are only thinking of themselves when they ask for this and don't care about the repercussions for anyone else

Eh, I absolutely recognise that the north is currently under the administration of the UK government, it would be ignorant and counter-productive to try and deny that, I'm simply pointing out to you that the official name of this state (26 counties) is in fact Ireland and not "the republic of " which is a name used within the British system. As I said, I'm not surprised that you use the name that was proposed by the British state instead of the name set by the Irish state for itself, it's systematic of the type of views that you espouse.

Fr Tod Umptious · 10-01-2014 11:23PM

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Eh, I absolutely recognise that the north is currently under the administration of the UK government, it would be ignorant and counter-productive to try and deny that, I'm simply pointing out to you that the official name of this state (26 counties) is in fact Ireland and not "the republic of " which is a name used within the British system. As I said, I'm not surprised that you use the name that was proposed by the British state instead of the name set by the Irish state for itself, it's systematic of the type of views that you espouse.

I thought it was FIFA who came up with "Republic of Ireland"

oscarBravo · 11-01-2014 12:57AM

Actually, it was Ireland that came up with "the Republic of Ireland". It's in, of all places, the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948.

mitosis · 11-01-2014 01:01AM

[Jackass] wrote: »

Jesus, the absolute contempt she had for the Irish.

Although in fairness, some of them did try and blow her up.

Who are "them"?

Them Irish?

Dr.Tank Adams · 11-01-2014 01:40PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, it was Ireland that came up with "the Republic of Ireland". It's in, of all places, the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948.

Which was insisted upon by the British Government because they wanted a clear differentiation Between the "Irish" state and "northern Irish" state. It's an interesting act, along the lines that "The Republic of" is a description of the state whereas the official name of the state would remain "Ireland" or "Eire".

oscarBravo · 11-01-2014 03:00PM

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Which was insisted upon by the British Government...

Source?

Dr.Tank Adams · 11-01-2014 05:32PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Source?

"The United Kingdom's government objected to the name for the same reason as the unionists.[3] By the 1960s the United Kingdom was the only state in the world not to use the name Ireland, but since the late 1990s it too has used the name.[3]"

"The following note of what Prime Minister Clement Attlee said at a British Cabinet meeting on 12 January 1949 illustrates some of the considerations the British government had to consider following this declaration:[56]

N.I. [Northern Ireland] Ministers accepted the name "N.I." eventually (the Northern Ireland Government would have preferred the name Ulster). They wanted us, however, to go on using "Eire" (for the Irish state). But other countries won't do so. Suggested therefore we sh[oul]d use "Republic of Ireland". N.I. prefer "Irish Republic". But let us not speak of "Ireland". Can we put Republic of Ireland on Bill: but use in official pp. [papers] etc. (:) Irish Republic or Southern Ireland. Agreed.

Ultimately, the British responded by passing the Ireland Act 1949 which provided that:[57][57]

The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland. (s 1.3)"

A couple of quick lines from wikipedia, I'm sure there are better sources out there, but I haven't got time to look for them today.

oscarBravo · 12-01-2014 02:09AM

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

"The United Kingdom's government objected to the name for the same reason as the unionists.[3] By the 1960s the United Kingdom was the only state in the world not to use the name Ireland, but since the late 1990s it too has used the name.[3]"

"The following note of what Prime Minister Clement Attlee said at a British Cabinet meeting on 12 January 1949 illustrates some of the considerations the British government had to consider following this declaration:[56]
N.I. [Northern Ireland] Ministers accepted the name "N.I." eventually (the Northern Ireland Government would have preferred the name Ulster). They wanted us, however, to go on using "Eire" (for the Irish state). But other countries won't do so. Suggested therefore we sh[oul]d use "Republic of Ireland". N.I. prefer "Irish Republic". But let us not speak of "Ireland". Can we put Republic of Ireland on Bill: but use in official pp. [papers] etc. (:) Irish Republic or Southern Ireland. Agreed.
Ultimately, the British responded by passing the Ireland Act 1949 which provided that:[57][57]
The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland. (s 1.3)"

A couple of quick lines from wikipedia, I'm sure there are better sources out there, but I haven't got time to look for them today.

Unfortunately, none of that backs up your earlier claim, not least because everything in it refers to events after the enactment of the Republic of Ireland Act.

So, again: what's your source for the claim that the British government insisted on the term "Republic of Ireland"?

Dr.Tank Adams · 12-01-2014 01:08PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unfortunately, none of that backs up your earlier claim, not least because everything in it refers to events after the enactment of the Republic of Ireland Act.

So, again: what's your source for the claim that the British government insisted on the term "Republic of Ireland"?

If that's what they were saying in 1949, I think it's fairly safe to say that that was the message they were intimating to the Dail in 1948 also...

Godge · 12-01-2014 01:40PM

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

If that's what they were saying in 1949, I think it's fairly safe to say that that was the message they were intimating to the Dail in 1948 also...

"fairly safe to say" doesn't make it around here.

For example, 90% of the Irish people down south would be of the belief that it is "fairly safe to say" that Gerry Adams was a leading member of the IRA and participated in its illegal activities yet that is not accepted as good enough proof by large numbers of posters here.

oscarBravo · 12-01-2014 01:48PM

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

If that's what they were saying in 1949, I think it's fairly safe to say that that was the message they were intimating to the Dail in 1948 also...

So you made it up. Fair enough.

Dr.Tank Adams · 12-01-2014 06:28PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you made it up. Fair enough.

Ooh how delightfully sarcastic! No, I did not make it up my sharp little friend, the Dail would have known the British opinion on the naming debate (as mentioned by Atlee in the quote) and also that they would throw up a fuss about the bill if it didn't solve the naming dispute somewhat satisfactorily, hence the whole rigmarole of "The Republic of" being a description of the state but the official name remaining Ireland. If there was no pressure from the British the description and the official name would have just been Ireland, there would have been no reason whatsoever to involve the "Republic of" caveat.

oscarBravo · 13-01-2014 01:40AM

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Ooh how delightfully sarcastic! No, I did not make it up my sharp little friend, the Dail would have known the British opinion on the naming debate (as mentioned by Atlee in the quote) and also that they would throw up a fuss about the bill if it didn't solve the naming dispute somewhat satisfactorily, hence the whole rigmarole of "The Republic of" being a description of the state but the official name remaining Ireland. If there was no pressure from the British the description and the official name would have just been Ireland, there would have been no reason whatsoever to involve the "Republic of" caveat.

Nice. It still doesn't amount to anything more than speculation on your part, though - which is why I asked for a source for your assertion, to which you still haven't produced anything but your own personal beliefs.

fergus1001 · 13-01-2014 01:55AM

Reunification today right now would bankrupt Ireland and those vulnerable in society would suffer for the egotistical dreams off a few people who call themselves patriots

harryr711 · 13-01-2014 11:17AM

Those people who are dead set against a UI have no concept of economic realities and display a typical ignorance whereby they pick and choose headline figures to support their ill-founded viewpoints in the hope that nothing will change, mé féiners who are happy with their feathered nests and don't dare think of the benefits of change or the opportunity costs of maintaining the status quo.

Happyman42 · 13-01-2014 01:03PM

fergus1001 wrote: »

Reunification today right now would bankrupt Ireland and those vulnerable in society would suffer for the egotistical dreams off a few people who call themselves patriots

Properly structured and supported by (an enthusiastic Britain) Europe and other world economies (which is what would happen) it would not necessarily cause bankruptcy.
If there was an 'out' for Britain, most British people would be in favour of investing in it.

UK considered giving half of NI to ROI

Comments