Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Would you like to see a united Ireland?
Options
Comments
-
With the whole island back in the Commonwealth (to help sweeten the bitter pill)!
Exactly. I think the decision to leave the commonwealth and declare a republic in 1949 was one of the worst mistake's in the history of the 26 county state. I would put it just behind the decision to open our borders to the East Europeans after EU enlargement.0 -
Cutting through the BS, in response to your last response:
How the fsck do you know we'd be wealthier - outside of not having had 60 years of isolationist Free state idiot economics that kept us a basket case economy? Are these just opinions or do you have any argument and evidence to back it up.Not only would we be in the same position today had we remained in the union with Britain but we'd also probably be wealthier and still united. We'd also probably have far fewer immigrants.
As for fewer immigrants, if that's your worry, we should just return the the aforementioned economic policies that made us such a basket case. You'll find very few people want to immigrate to a third world country.
By that logic there will be many unionists who will want to keep that soil in NI British - by force.Because I think many unionists value their British identity so much that I'm sure they would rather live on British soil under a British government than live on Irish soil under an Irish government, even if that government and the nationalist population is bending over backwards to make them feel welcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland#Free_State.2FRepublic_.281922-present.29What do you mean it became a less friendly place for protestants after the establishment of the Free State? What evidence do you have that it was any less friendly than it was before the establishment of the free state?
More opinion.You're assuming that if they stay they'll fight which I don't think is a fair assumption. I believe most of them will stay but I can't see them choosing to fight.
The UVF is a figment of our imagination then.I don't believe they will resort to violence.
Most countries, including Ireland.Controlled and limited immigration? What country are you talking about?
In a simplistic universe, you'd be right, but that's not how economics works.The size of the territory will increase as well so it's not really correct to say that it's just the population that's increasing. It's the size of the national territory that's increasing.
Well, if you stop trying to peddle unsubstantiated claims, it might happen less.Forgiven and forgotten old boy! Forgiven and forgotten!
Good for you. Note: Opinion rather than fact or argument backed up with evidence. Again.I am more than confident that the majority of the people in the 26 counties will be prepared to bear a financial burden as great as that borne by the west Germans after German reunification.
You've not met many Germans then.I've never met any Germans who regrets that their country was united.
"You think" - there we go again presenting opinion and seeking that we accept it as fact.I've met Irish people who don't want a united Ireland. There are plenty of them on this forum. I think they're only a very small minority of the Irish population though.
Because it did not mention that it did. In fact it mentioned precious little, and simply made a vague assertion about integration between the two economies. On that basis, it's a pretty safe assumption that it didn't take a lot into account.Does it? How do you know this wasn't factored into the calculations?
I'm sure the loyalists thought the same of the nationalists back in the early sixties.They may not be happy with the idea now, but when the time comes that a majority of them vote in favour of it then a majority of them will be happy about it. And I can't see the the unhappy people causing many problems.
You're assuming a lot of things here. Firstly you're assuming that we will be able to afford low taxes - remember, there's a €6.3 billion shortfall that we have to shore up once the Brits stop paying.Most of the foreign companies who have invested in the north will be in a better position in a united Ireland because not only will they have the same access to the same markets but they'll also have to pay a lower level of corporation tax. FDI will almost definitely increase in the north if Ireland is united.
Secondly, you seem to labouring under the delusion that low corporation tax is the only contributing factor to Irelands economic successes. It's not - please, please, please read up about the subject more.
Rubbish. Economically, migration will always tend to be of those who have greater possibility to migrate. Those with qualifications, skills and experience will move because they can and have an incentive to do so, those who don't will still get the Dole.And the human migration would be a good thing if the people emigrating are unionists. It will ease the sectarian tension between the two sides.
So what? You claimed that a united Ireland would have a combined GDP per capita of the sum of their respective GDP's per capita and I pointed out that this does not follow, giving one example of this.On the comparison with German unification, East Germany was much poorer than West Germany and had an infrastructure that was in need of huge amount of investment. Compared with Ireland, the north has a more developed infrastructure than the 26 counties and the difference in average standard of living between both parts of the country is not as great as it was between East and West Germany.
You made a false assertion, I showed that this is not how GDP per capita works in the Real World and so rebutted it. End of.0 -
Your ideals are seriously outdated; demographics and political attitudes in Northern Ireland are far more complex than you make out. First of all, according to the 2001 census, just over 20% of the Northern Irish population describe themselves as neither Catholic nor Protestant:As long as we have the support of the majority of the catholic population, all we would need to do is persuade a minority of the protestant population to get over 50% of the north's electorate.
http://www.nisranew.nisra.gov.uk/census/Excel/KS07a%20DC.xls
According to a 2007 poll, the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland do not want a united Ireland:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html
According to the same poll, 43% of Catholics do not consider themselves nationalist:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/UNINATID.html
A United Ireland is by no means inevitable.
I'm guessing a large chunk of the population would not.I would be prepared to pay as much proportionately for Irish unification as the west Germans paid for German unification.
Why would they lose their British nationality? Will that be one of the conditions of living in your UI?Most of them will stay but I can see huge numbers of them deciding to emigrate to retain their British nationality.
You think Republicans would be happy to accept Queen Elizabeth as their head of state (or some such)? I doubt even non-Republicans would go along with such an idea. You are seriously deluded.I wouldn't underestimate the sacrifices that republicans would be prepared to make if it meant an end to partition.
Can you give a few examples of these people?I was referring to a general tendency to dismiss the idea of a united Ireland because their "not like us" by the same people who would condemn people for giving the same reason for restricting immigration.0 -
Your ideals are seriously outdated; demographics and political attitudes in Northern Ireland are far more complex than you make out. First of all, according to the 2001 census, just over 20% of the Northern Irish population describe themselves as neither Catholic nor Protestant:
http://www.nisranew.nisra.gov.uk/census/Excel/KS07a%20DC.xls
According to a 2007 poll, the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland do not want a united Ireland:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html
According to the same poll, 43% of Catholics do not consider themselves nationalist:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Political_Attitudes/UNINATID.html
A United Ireland is by no means inevitable.
I'm guessing a large chunk of the population would not.
Why would they lose their British nationality? Will that be one of the conditions of living in your UI?
You think Republicans would be happy to accept Queen Elizabeth as their head of state (or some such)? I doubt even non-Republicans would go along with such an idea. You are seriously deluded.
Can you give a few examples of these people?
To quote Mark Twain - "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Satistics in their collection and presentation can be doctored in any fashion. How people vote in elections is a better indication, no matter what people say it will always basically come down to nationalist SF & SDLP, unionist DUP & OUP.0 -
Depends on their motivation. Many people will vote for a party or candidate on local issues, and in the case of both the DUP or SF this is very much the case, rather than the unification issue.McArmalite wrote: »To quote Mark Twain - "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Satistics in their collection and presentation can be doctored in any fashion. How people vote in elections is a better indication, no matter what people say it will always basically come down to nationalist SF & SDLP, unionist DUP & OUP.
One thing I've noticed is that SF has become rather quiet on the subject since getting into power. Sure it's still officially part of the programme, but it's been relegated to the appendices - just like parties in the south pay the issue lip service but frankly make no effort to achieve it.
And that's what people voted for.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not saying that the stats I presented are set in stone. I'm just trying to illustrate the point that catholic=nationalist and protestant=unionist is a ridiculously outdated analysis.McArmalite wrote: »Satistics in their collection and presentation can be doctored in any fashion.
I disagree. First of all, I think it's quite likely that politics in Northern Ireland will become less polarised in the future than it has been in the past; this is already evident with the emergence of the Alliance Party.McArmalite wrote: »How people vote in elections is a better indication, no matter what people say it will always basically come down to nationalist SF & SDLP, unionist DUP & OUP.
Secondly, as The Corinthian has already pointed out, you don't have to agree with all of a party's policies in order to vote for one of their candidates.0 -
Exactly. I think the decision to leave the commonwealth and declare a republic in 1949 was one of the worst mistake's in the history of the 26 county state. I would put it just behind the decision to open our borders to the East Europeans after EU enlargement.
TBH O'Morris, and dont take this as a personal insult, because Its not, but your opinion seems to be very racist. Your pro the unionists leaving the North, and obviously anti the nationalists leaving, which is blatantly discriminatory. Then you stick in one about the Eastern Europeans coming over.
You see, many of the people peddling a united Ireland are just racists who would sooner see the unionists gassed. Although I doubt you are this extreme, the raw anti unionism stinks of discrimination, which really discredits any policy you are trying to forward.0 -
Ol' Mac? Racist? Unpossible.0
-
Its not racism as they are both the same race.
Sectarian is probably the word you are looking for, but lets be honest religion really has nothing to do with it any more.
Tribalism is probably the most accurate label.0 -
How about biggotry? All the fun and satisfaction of racism without the nasty guilty aftertaste.
Anyway, when did you white folk get your own sub races?
You all look the same to me.
Seriously though, lets keep the personal comments out of debate and focus on the issues.0 -
Advertisement
-
Going back to the OP's question....
In theory in and in an ideal world and if we hadn't been set back years by bigotry, criminality and murders - yes.
In practice, no.0 -
I disagree. First of all, I think it's quite likely that politics in Northern Ireland will become less polarised in the future than it has been in the past; this is already evident with the emergence of the Alliance Party.
I'd venture that at this moment the Alliance party is fairly irrelevant in terms of NI politics. It gains a few Assembly seats due to middle class voters in South Belfast and North Down. I'd also venture that when NI is ready for non-tribal politics that mainstream UK and RoI political parties will move in to take up the middle ground, and so Alliance will remain irrelevant.
I'd agree though that a united Ireland referendum wouldn't necessarily split as per usual local/national government elections, and certainly not straight down the line in terms of religion as some have suggested.
Moderate Unionists swung to the DUP because the UUP was being seen (in the eyes of even the most moderate Unionist) as toothless in stopping Sinn Fein gaining power before any decommissioning or admitting the Provos weren't/aren't nice people. The majority of DUP voters arent gay-bashing bible waving Free-P's, they just don't trust SF.
I can't picture Nationalists, even moderately pro-UK nationalists (i.e. Irish but in favour of remaining in the UK) voting for the unionist parties simply because the DUP is too hardline and the UUP still has too many ties with Orangeism etc. Sinn Fein are more active on the ground and so have destroyed the SDLP who have been left wondering why they did so much work opening the door to SF in the first place.
In the event of a UI I don't foresee the mass exodus of Unionists/Protestants that some on this thread appear to desire in order to complete the "greening" process....the traditional brain drain of young protestants to the UK for university etc is slowing due to the increased college places in NI, and a significantly higher number are starting to work and study in RoI which would have been unheard of even 10yrs ago.0 -
FF are planning such a move in the not-too-distant future, aren't they?aquascrotum wrote: »I'd also venture that when NI is ready for non-tribal politics that mainstream UK and RoI political parties will move in to take up the middle ground, and so Alliance will remain irrelevant.
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that the Alliance Party is the future of NI politics, just that a sizeable number of voters are looking for an alternative to tribal politics.0 -
FF are planning such a move in the not-too-distant future, aren't they?
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that the Alliance Party is the future of NI politics, just that a sizeable number of voters are looking for an alternative to tribal politics.
Think I read in the last 2 weeks that FF had pulled that plan, and it wasn't clear whether it was an alliance with SDLP or an actual FF movement. In terms of Alliance, their vote is down all over the country and has been since pretty much the signing of the Agreement, with the recent exception (I think) of South Belfast where Anna Lo attracted a significant Asian vote.
IMO politics here will continue to be very polarised, with the Unionist vote split again with the UUP resurging a bit due to the DUP having signed up to the same deal people left the UUP because of, DUP falling off accordingly, and hardliners (a minority) moving to the new Traditional Unionist party, which is totally opposed to power sharing.
I can't see a way back for the SDLP given their financial status and the money and PR machine behind SF. It'll take a massive blooper from SF for their vote to fall.0 -
In response to an earlier comment relating to us having fewer immigrants living here if we had not left the commonwealth; Firstly why is that a good thing? It seems to me we have a much better multicultural and in fact; better looking population, since we got increased immigration.
Also looking in England itself as a whole, they are and have been considerably more multicultural than we are for years.. how would us remaining part of the commonwealth reduce something with us that they have a greater number of over there?
and once again why would you think that it's a bad thing that we have other nationalities living here; do you really want a completely cut off insular society? if thats what your'e into theres always the gaeltacht.0 -
Eh, yeah, I think he does.jim o doom wrote: »and once again why would you think that it's a bad thing that we have other nationalities living here; do you really want a completely cut off insular society?0 -
aquascrotum wrote: »It'll take a massive blooper from SF for their vote to fall.
the worst thing that could probably happen for them as a political party, is a united Ireland.
Would their main support in the north still support them or would they migrate to more mainstream parties.0 -
I would love to see a united Ireland someday.
It doesnt matter to me what the financial implications are. It would be worth it. Ireland as a whole is Irish, not at all British... I have sympathy for unionists, they were planted here and consider Northern Ireland British. But as an Irishman i always feel a little off when the Northern question is raised. We are an undefeasible nation.
Attempted genocide couldnt finish us in the 17th century, famine couldnt do it in the 19th. Religious oppresion could never manage it. And occupation could never do it. The implication of financial difficulties certainly is not gonna stop the march of a nation.
I do not agree with violent means anymore to achieve a united Ireland. But the day a Nationalist majority vote democratically to Reunite this Island ill be smiling.0 -
The Corinthian wrote:How the fsck do you know we'd be wealthier
Calm down old boy, you're getting emotional. I feel uncomfortable being involved in a discussion like this with someone who's so easily excited.
I didn't say I knew we'd be wealthier, I said we'd probably be wealthier.The Corinthian wrote:outside of not having had 60 years of isolationist Free state idiot economics that kept us a basket case economy?
You need to read up on some economic history. If we had 60 years of isolationist economics then that would mean that the Irish economy only opened up in the early 1980s. The Lemass government came to power in 1959 and it was during the 1960s that the policies of protectionism came to an end.The Corinthian wrote:Are these just opinions or do you have any argument and evidence to back it up.
Just opinions.The Corinthian wrote:As for fewer immigrants, if that's your worry, we should just return the the aforementioned economic policies that made us such a basket case. You'll find very few people want to immigrate to a third world country.
Either that or we could be like Japan and have neither a high level of immigration or a basket case economy.The Corinthian wrote:By that logic there will be many unionists who will want to keep that soil in NI British - by force.
And by that logic there were many unionists in the 1920s who wanted to keep the soil of the 26 counties British by force.The Corinthian wrote:More opinion.
That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Although, no, wait, no, it is an opinion. I'm sorry, I really need to stop expressing those opinions. It's so out of place on this forum.The Corinthian wrote:The UVF is a figment of our imagination then.
Have the UVF threatened violence if the majority of people in the north vote for a united Ireland?The Corinthian wrote:Most countries, including Ireland.
If immigration into Ireland is controlled and limited, I'd hate to see what uncontrolled immigration would look like.The Corinthian wrote:In a simplistic universe, you'd be right, but that's not how economics works.
So when the EU enlarged overnight in January 2005, that was just the population of the pre-enlargement EU member states that increased. Those people who thought that the territory of the EU increased were just living in a simplistic universe?The Corinthian wrote:Well, if you stop trying to peddle unsubstantiated claims, it might happen less.
I'm really sorry. I should follow the example of those people who predict that there will be a civil war if Ireland is united. As they're never challenged to substantiate their claims they must being doing something right and so I should really try to be more like them.The Corinthian wrote:"You think" - there we go again presenting opinion and seeking that we accept it as fact.
What are you on about? What led you to think (I'm sure even you do it sometimes) that I seek to have others accept my opinion as fact? I'm happy enough to have people accept my opinions as opinions.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Because it did not mention that it did.
It was hardly a vague assertion about integration when the comparison was with the degree of integration between the East and West German economies prior to unification. Whatever about the level of integration between the economies in the north and south, it would be hard to deny that they're more integrated today than the west and east German economies were in the late 1980s.simply made a vague assertion about integration between the two economies
It isn't a safe assumption really when you think about it.On that basis, it's a pretty safe assumption that it didn't take a lot into account.
I honestly don't know what a united Ireland would cost us. As I've said in a previous post, I think we need to have a proper feasibility study carried out by economists (proper economists - not armchair economists like yourself and myself) to determine just how much a united Ireland will cost and how long it will take before the two economies will be fully integrated. If the costs are found to be too high that people in the republic would be unlikely to afford it then we'll just need to abandon the idea of a united Ireland for another generation to see if things change.The Corinthian wrote:I'm sure the loyalists thought the same of the nationalists back in the early sixties.
I don't think (there I go again) they did. I think (there I go again) the loyalists always knew that the Roman Catholics would cause them problems. Good protestants were taught from their youth to be always on their guard against the enemy in their midst. Violence didn't suddenly erupt in the 1960s because the nationalists suddenly decided that they didn't like partition. It was protestant paranoia about the motives of the civil rights people that ignited the sectarian backlash and that gave the republicans the fuel to relaunch their armed campaign against the occupying forces.The Corinthian wrote:You're assuming a lot of things here.
I'm assuming low corporation tax, nothing else.The Corinthian wrote:Firstly you're assuming that we will be able to afford low taxes - remember, there's a €6.3 billion shortfall that we have to shore up once the Brits stop paying.
There would be a 6.3 billion shortfall if Ireland was united tomorrow or the next day but there's no prospect of a united Ireland tomorrow or the day after or anytime within the next ten years. We can't base the costs of unification on a current comparison of the economies, we need to base the costs on the likely costs of unification at the time that the majority of people in the north would be likely to vote in support of it. We need to consider current economic trends as well as current economic costs.
If the economic conditions aren't right in another ten years then we'll just need to wait for another ten years. It wouldn't matter too much to me if we have to wait another 30 or 40 years for a united Ireland. As long as it happens in my lifetime I'd be happy enough. I'm 18 years old now so I'd still only be 58 if it takes 40 years for it to happen.The Corinthian wrote:Secondly, you seem to labouring under the delusion that low corporation tax is the only contributing factor to Irelands economic successes.
No, I'm labouring under the delusion that low corporation tax is one of the the main pull factors attracting foreign investment to this country and that once the north gets the same corporation tax rate that they will see an increase in foreign investment.
I think there are other contributing factors to Ireland's economic success but I can't see those other factors being threatened in a united Ireland.The Corinthian wrote:It's not - please, please, please read up about the subject more.
Never, never, never. I'm a man of poetry. Economics is just too much prose for a sensitive soul like myself.The Corinthian wrote:You claimed that a united Ireland would have a combined GDP per capita of the sum of their respective GDP's per capita
I don't think I did claim that a united Ireland would have a combined GDP of the sum of their respective GDP's per capita. I think it would approximate to the average of the two GDP's per capita, the same as happened in Germany.
You didn't give an example of anything that I would disagree with. The overall GDP per capita of Germany was lower than the west Germany GDP prior to unification. The same thing will happen in a united Ireland. The average GDP per capita will be lower than the current 26 county GDP per capita but higher than the 6 county GDP per capita.and I pointed out that this does not follow, giving one example of this.The Corinthian wrote:You made a false assertion, I showed that this is not how GDP per capita works in the Real World and so rebutted it.
I made a false assertion and you rebutted it? Just so I don't repeat it, can you remind me of what that false assertion was and what you did to rebut it?The Corinthian wrote:End of.
You wish0 -
djpbarry wrote:Your ideals are seriously outdated; demographics and political attitudes in Northern Ireland are far more complex than you make out. First of all, according to the 2001 census, just over 20% of the Northern Irish population describe themselves as neither Catholic nor Protestant:
http://www.nisranew.nisra.gov.uk/cen...KS07a%20DC.xls
Good. The fewer people there are who identify themselves as protestants the better. It's the hardline, ethnic, cultural opposition to Irish unity that we have to worry about, not the soft, limp-writed,"what-about-the-economy" type opposition.djpbarry wrote:According to a 2007 poll, the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland do not want a united Ireland:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Polit.../NIRELND2.html
I wouldn't be too worried about that. They're soft unionists rather than hard unionists. The only reason they would be opposed to a united Ireland would be because of their fears over the economic consequences of Irish unity. I think there heart is with their kinsmen in the 26 counties though. Don't worry, they'll be easily brought around when the time comes.djpbarry wrote:According to the same poll, 43% of Catholics do not consider themselves nationalist:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Polit.../UNINATID.html
And according to the same poll, 30% of protestants don't consider themselves unionist. I think we should welcome both results for showing that the political divisions are not as aligned to the religious divisions as they were in the bad old days.djpbarry wrote:I'm guessing a large chunk of the population would not.
I agree, I'm sure a large chunk of them would not. I believe the majority would though. According to the poll carried out by the Sunday Business Post, only 10% of the population believe the government should make no effort to unite Ireland. If people were as worried about the economic consequences of Irish unity then you would expect that percentage to be much higher.djpbarry wrote:Why would they lose their British nationality?
If they want to hold on to their British nationality then good luck to them. I don't want to force them to become Irish any more than I want to force the Nigerians or Poles or Chinese to become Irish. They will become Irish after a few years though, just as the Nigerians and the Poles will become Irish. I look on all of these people as being New Irish and I can see them all being fully assimilated into the Irish population after a generation or two. We'll all be one big happy family in 50 years from now.djpbarry wrote:Will that be one of the conditions of living in your UI?
I wouldn't encourage it but if they want to hold on to their British passports and if they want to see themselves as British then that's up to them.djpbarry wrote:You think Republicans would be happy to accept Queen Elizabeth as their head of state
I never said that she should become the head of state. I just think we should give her some minor constitutional role. It's the least we could do for her after all she did to help this country.djpbarry wrote:You are seriously deluded.
I get that a lot. Maybe some of you gents would benefit from taking a look at a thesaurus some time.djpbarry wrote:Can you give a few examples of these people?
I can't find any examples. I was wrong to suggest that that this was a general tendency in the Irish unity debate. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it as a reason for us not to united with the north and I don't expect to ever see it being used in the future.0 -
Advertisement
-
turgon wrote:Your pro the unionists leaving the North, and obviously anti the nationalists leaving
I am pro the unionists leaving and anti the nationalists leaving but that doesn't mean that I want us to force the unionists to leave.
I've said several times that I want us to make a united Ireland as accomodating a place for northern protestants as it's possible for us to make it. At the same time I think that if there is a united Ireland that it's very probable that many unionists will voluntarily decide to move to Britain. I don't think that would be an altogether bad thing as it would help ease the sectarian tension in the north and it will make the process of assimilating the remaining protestant population far less difficult.turgon wrote:Then you stick in one about the Eastern Europeans coming over.
I think our government made a mistake when they opened the borders to the East Europeans after EU enlargement. I don't believe we'll be able to assimilate this number of people into our population and I think it will lead to Ireland being a less Irish country in fifty years from now. I think (there I go again) that most Irish people share my view on this.turgon wrote:You see, many of the people peddling a united Ireland are just racists
Many people opposed to a united Ireland are racists as well. Do you have any evidence to show that the anti-UI side are more racist than the other side?turgon wrote:Although I doubt you are this extreme, the raw anti unionism stinks of discrimination, which really discredits any policy you are trying to forward.
I've already said that I'm a unionist myself and I am prepared to make sacrifices to accomodate the northern protestant population in a united Ireland. The raw anti unionism that you refer to is nothing more than a desire to see the process of integration run as smoothly as possible. The fewer of them there are, the easier it will be for us to assimilate them into our population.jim o doom wrote:why would you think that it's a bad thing that we have other nationalities living here;
I don't think it's a bad thing that we have other nationalities here. We've always had other nationalities living here and I hope we always will have other nationalities living here. Why I have a problem with is the number of people of other nationalities living here. I think it's too high and I don't think it will be possible for us to assimilate them into our population. The indigenous Irish population has fallen to around 88% of the total after less than a decade of immigration. Unless we take action to reduce the number of people coming in we can expect that number to fall further.jim o doom wrote:do you really want a completely cut off insular society?
No, I'd be happy enough with the kind of society the Japanese have. I'd even settle for the kind of society the Norwegians and the Icelandics have.0 -
Well I think we can pretty much agree that NI is like a black hole with tax money, whether its in the UK or the Republic. So when we have our referendum down here to decide on unification (a referendum will be necessary to edit the constitution), a big list will be made of which voters voted which way.
If you voted NO to unification you get to live life normally. All efforts will be made to ensure that the transition will have no economic effect on your life.
If, on the other hand, you voted YES, you will have to pay the cost for the North. A big tally will be had of how much of a strain the North will be on our public finances, from subsidies to government etc. This tally will then be funded by those who actually wanted this economic mess. In effect, if you vote YES your tax will be jacked up to accommodate the financial repercussions of your vote.
Fair enough? Give me a reason why not!
Exactly like the West Germans taking in the East. Still counting the cost now. I say leave them at it. I for one like the job us "mexicans" have done down south. We have a pluralist society and have a sense of national pride which is increasingly independant from old fashioned catholic nationalism. I resent the tone from this thread that our country is in a state compared to the north. North is a black hole on taxes at least we stand on our own two feet.
Naw let the two hateful tribes flounder around at policing and dual language signs. Call us in 20 or 30 years if you ever learn how a real country is run. All you have is a pretend parliament and a blank check from Uncle Gordon.
I wish the guards would do something about the yellow reg's speeding on the roads "Hows about ya, I'm only down for a few days officer". What hope do we have for United anything when we can't even sort out the driver penalty point system.0 -
I am pro the unionists leaving and anti the nationalists leaving but that doesn't mean that I want us to force the unionists to leave.
I've said several times that I want us to make a united Ireland as accomodating a place for northern protestants as it's possible for us to make it. At the same time I think that if there is a united Ireland that it's very probable that many unionists will voluntarily decide to move to Britain. I don't think that would be an altogether bad thing as it would help ease the sectarian tension in the north and it will make the process of assimilating the remaining protestant population far less difficult.
I've already said that I'm a unionist myself and I am prepared to make sacrifices to accomodate the northern protestant population in a united Ireland. The raw anti unionism that you refer to is nothing more than a desire to see the process of integration run as smoothly as possible. The fewer of them there are, the easier it will be for us to assimilate them into our population.
I think you are leaping to a completely unsubstantiated presupposition. This presupposition stems from a need to fill in the gaps in your UI faith. The same behaviour can be witnessed all the time from people who hold strong religious convictions.
As history has shown us when a large migration of a community occurs it is always the moderate and less stubborn that migrate. The more dogged individuals stay no matter what they endure such as Serbian nationalists in Kosovo or Israeli settlers in the west bank. So if any level of unionist migration were to take place if the north united with the south, it would be the hard-liners who'd stay. Lacking any moderates in their communities encouraging accommodation of the new state they would have absolute free reign to oppose the new state absolutely.0 -
Many people opposed to a united Ireland are racists as well. Do you have any evidence to show that the anti-UI side are more racist than the other side?
No, but just because the "others" are racist in no way excuses you.I've already said that I'm a unionist myself
I think you getting a bit muddled there. Within the context of this thread, a unionist is a person who believes in keeping the union with Britain. You are opposed to this. Your not a unionist.0 -
I think you are leaping to a completely unsubstantiated presupposition. This presupposition stems from a need to fill in the gaps in your UI faith. The same behaviour can be witnessed all the time from people who hold strong religious convictions.
As history has shown us when a large migration of a community occurs it is always the moderate and less stubborn that migrate. The more dogged individuals stay no matter what they endure such as Serbian nationalists in Kosovo or Israeli settlers in the west bank. So if any level of unionist migration were to take place if the north united with the south, it would be the hard-liners who'd stay. Lacking any moderates in their communities encouraging accommodation of the new state they would have absolute free reign to oppose the new state absolutely.
i doubt even the moderate unionists would move and to be honest it would be understandable.
hes assuming that most of them will just give up and move away which is fairly ignorant.0 -
I think you are leaping to a completely unsubstantiated presupposition.
What presupposition do you think I'm leaping to?sink wrote:So if any level of unionist migration were to take place if the north united with the south, it would be the hard-liners who'd stay.
They probably will stay. I've never suggested that it would be only the moderates who would leave. The point I made was making was that the smaller that the unionist population is in a united Ireland the less difficult it will be to assimilate them. It's the same with the non-national population in the 26 counties. The fewer of them there are the greater the chances are that they will be absorbed into the majority population.sink wrote:Lacking any moderates
Lacking any moderates? Are you saying won't be any moderate unionists in a united Ireland. Isn't that a bit of an unsubstantiated presupposition?sink wrote:they would have absolute free reign to oppose the new state absolutely.
Let them. As long as they do it do it peacefully and democratically then I don't see a problem.
I don't believe they'll resort to violence because I think they know they wouldn't stand much chance of gaining what they want. I think they will act the same way as the unionists in the 26 counties at the time of partition in the 1920s. There were plenty of hardline unionists in the south as well but they knew they wouldn't achieve much through violence because they were so heavily outnumbered and because they knew there wasn't much chance of reversing what had happened.
Once the border is gone it won't be coming back.turgon wrote:No, but just because the "others" are racist in no way excuses you.
It doesn't excuse me of what?turgon wrote:Within the context of this thread, a unionist is a person who believes in keeping the union with Britain. You are opposed to this. Your not a unionist.
I'm a supporter of a union of the British isles and so in that sense I'm a unionist.pablomakaveli wrote:hes assuming that most of them will just give up and move away which is fairly ignorant.
It's a bit hypocritical to accuse someone of ignorance while at the same time showing yourself to be ignorant of what that person has actually said.
If you had bothered to read what I've written you would see that I've never suggested that most of them would leave. I've actually said the opposite.0 -
pablomakaveli wrote: »i doubt even the moderate unionists would move and to be honest it would be understandable.
I agree that there probably will be little if any migration of Unionists. That was not the main point of my post.What presupposition do you think I'm leaping to?
Obviously the presupposition that it will be easier to integrate the Unionist community if there are less of them.They probably will stay. I've never suggested that it would be only the moderates who would leave. The point I made was making was that the smaller that the unionist population is in a united Ireland the less difficult it will be to assimilate them. It's the same with the non-national population in the 26 counties.
The non-national population are not an engrained community which claim hereditary privilege to their own state on this island and thus are not suitable for comparison.The fewer of them there are the greater the chances are that they will be absorbed into the majority population.
There is no evidence that is the case. Can you point to one historical example where the size of the community inhabiting a region made them more or less palpable to be controlled by a larger community in the greater region.Lacking any moderates? Are you saying won't be any moderate unionists in a united Ireland. Isn't that a bit of an unsubstantiated presupposition?
No I'm using a hyperbole as a model to demonstrate the lack of rationale behind your assertion.Let them. As long as they do it do it peacefully and democratically then I don't see a problem.
That doesn't exactly fit with your assertion that they will be easier to integrate.I don't believe they'll resort to violence because I think they know they wouldn't stand much chance of gaining what they want. I think they will act the same way as the unionists in the 26 counties at the time of partition in the 1920s. There were plenty of hardline unionists in the south as well but they knew they wouldn't achieve much through violence because they were so heavily outnumbered and because they knew there wasn't much chance of reversing what had happened.
That is a pretty big assumption to make and if you are wrong the consequences could be disastrous.
I must not have made my argument clear. The entire objective of my last post was to demonstrate that your belief in a UI is more akin to religious faith than to political stance built upon reason. It the modus operandi of all who hold firm convictions of faith to make arguments built entirely upon presuppositions.
Thus it is impossible for the one with conviction to convince one who forms the basis of their opinion upon evidence and reason. Likewise it is impossible for the one with reason to convince the one with faith due to the absence of reason in their conviction.0 -
They probably will stay. I've never suggested that it would be only the moderates who would leave. The point I made was making was that the smaller that the unionist population is in a united Ireland the less difficult it will be to assimilate them. It's the same with the non-national population in the 26 counties. The fewer of them there are the greater the chances are that they will be absorbed into the majority population.
I find this idea of "assimilation" into some form of non-existant Irish master-race bizarre. There are Protestants/Unionists in Northern Ireland who probably have a longer genealogical presence in Ireland (living as British citizens) than some of those jumping up and down wanting a UI, ergo they have as much right to be here as those "pure-bred Irish".
They didn't all just jump over here in the last boat from Stranraer for the craic of it and will run "home" at the first opportunity - they've been here quite a while. To almost paraphrase our pal beardy Gerry, they're not going to go away you know.
Comments such as "assimilition" of Unionists into Irish society (i.e. erode their culture to the point that it isn't noticable) simply add to the paranoid perceptions of any future all Ireland state within the Unionist community.0 -
Sustained idiocy has a negative effect on my mood I'm afraid - there are only so many times you can make sweeping, unsubstantiated statements, based on nothing more than opinion and/or wishful thinking and expect people to entertain them.Calm down old boy, you're getting emotional. I feel uncomfortable being involved in a discussion like this with someone who's so easily excited.
Even ascribing a significant probability is a ridiculous assumption.I didn't say I knew we'd be wealthier, I said we'd probably be wealthier.
Thank you for the pedantry. Is 72 years accurate enough, or would you want that narrowed down to an exact day?You need to read up on some economic history. If we had 60 years of isolationist economics then that would mean that the Irish economy only opened up in the early 1980s. The Lemass government came to power in 1959 and it was during the 1960s that the policies of protectionism came to an end.
Then write a poem, don't seek to debate.Just opinions.
Do you actually know anything about how the Japanese economy works before coming out with another misinformed opinion?Either that or we could be like Japan and have neither a high level of immigration or a basket case economy.
Incorrect; you're jumping to false conclusions. The unionist population in what is now the Republic was quite small in comparison to the north. That is, after all, why we had partition in the first place.And by that logic there were many unionists in the 1920s who wanted to keep the soil of the 26 counties British by force.
The purpose of debates such as here is to ultimately test one's opinions and that is why an opinion without argument, fact or evidence to back it up is worthless - or worse, because untested opinions can be wrong just as easily as right, and if we were simply to act on blind opinion, where would that find us?Although, no, wait, no, it is an opinion. I'm sorry, I really need to stop expressing those opinions. It's so out of place on this forum.
You claimed that loyalists would not resort to violence, I debunked that delusion by pointing out that the have had no problem doing so in the past, in the shape of the UVF. Wheither it is the UVF or another organization in the future makes little difference, the fact remains that when pushed far enough the unionist community has turned to force and there is nothing stopping them doing so again. Apart from your opinion.Have the UVF threatened violence if the majority of people in the north vote for a united Ireland?
Germany 1990.If immigration into Ireland is controlled and limited, I'd hate to see what uncontrolled immigration would look like.
Personally, I believe that the enlargement was too fast, too much and too ambitious and was essentially a 'land-grab' of eastern Europe before the Russians and the Yanks got to do so. The population and territory increased, but it was ultimately an economic shock and the EU has been paying for it since.So when the EU enlarged overnight in January 2005, that was just the population of the pre-enlargement EU member states that increased. Those people who thought that the territory of the EU increased were just living in a simplistic universe?
But this is another debate and ultimately, neither am I suggesting that's not to say it should not have happened, but taking into account that such shocks to the system should be limited so as to avoid adverse effects, it is simplistic to simply equate an increase in population-territory with a linear or even proportional increase in GDP per capita.
It is impossible to say that there would be civil war as, importantly, we do not know the conditions under which any unification would take place. However, given past history in NI, it is a safe enough bet that we would see unionist violence of some degree or other.I'm really sorry. I should follow the example of those people who predict that there will be a civil war if Ireland is united. As they're never challenged to substantiate their claims they must being doing something right and so I should really try to be more like them.
Because you present your opinions as fact and unless one questions everything you say, they may actually swallow them.What are you on about? What led you to think (I'm sure even you do it sometimes) that I seek to have others accept my opinion as fact? I'm happy enough to have people accept my opinions as opinions.
Neither is it evidence of truth.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It was vague because it merely stated that one was far better integrated than the other and made no effort to explain why, how or, for that matter what, evidence there was to support this.It was hardly a vague assertion about integration when the comparison was with the degree of integration between the East and West German economies prior to unification. Whatever about the level of integration between the economies in the north and south, it would be hard to deny that they're more integrated today than the west and east German economies were in the late 1980s.
Why not? I've said why it is, so if you're going to disagree, you might as well do me the courtesy of backing up your opinions.It isn't a safe assumption really when you think about it.
But you think it worth the price nonetheless - whatever that price may be.I honestly don't know what a united Ireland would cost us.
With respects, you're not an economist, armchair or otherwise. However, as to the rest of of your statement, I would tend to agree.As I've said in a previous post, I think we need to have a proper feasibility study carried out by economists (proper economists - not armchair economists like yourself and myself) to determine just how much a united Ireland will cost and how long it will take before the two economies will be fully integrated. If the costs are found to be too high that people in the republic would be unlikely to afford it then we'll just need to abandon the idea of a united Ireland for another generation to see if things change.
No, you're assuming a lot about the economic effects of corporation tax as well as discounting the economic effects of the other policies that made the Celtic Tiger possible.I'm assuming low corporation tax, nothing else.
Now all this is beginning to make sense.I'm 18 years old now so I'd still only be 58 if it takes 40 years for it to happen.
It's one factor. There are/were many others.No, I'm labouring under the delusion that low corporation tax is one of the the main pull factors attracting foreign investment to this country and that once the north gets the same corporation tax rate that they will see an increase in foreign investment.
Ever been in Bosnia? I have and I can assure you that having a political set-up where you have to deal with an entity such as the Republika Srpska has a pretty big effect on your economy.I think there are other contributing factors to Ireland's economic success but I can't see those other factors being threatened in a united Ireland.
Then you should understand that something is not true simply because a man will die for it.Never, never, never. I'm a man of poetry. Economics is just too much prose for a sensitive soul like myself.
Where did you claim this?I don't think I did claim that a united Ireland would have a combined GDP of the sum of their respective GDP's per capita. I think it would approximate to the average of the two GDP's per capita, the same as happened in Germany.
And even if you did, that's still not a good thing.
I think it has been demonstrated that most of the wishing taking place has been in that poetic soul of yours.You wish0 -
Advertisement
-
I would love to see a united Ireland someday.
Not if the people dont want it feller ..........It doesnt matter to me what the financial implications are. It would be worth it. Ireland as a whole is Irish, not at all British...
Oh really, apart from maybe one million Unionists up North (& a few down here also)
I do not agree with violent means anymore to achieve a united Ireland. But the day a Nationalist majority vote democratically to Reunite this Island ill be smiling.
anymore - so when did you stop agreeing with murder
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement