Republic and Northern Ireland will eventually be reunited, predicts Enda Kenny

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because investigations of such kind are expensive and need to be justified. Irish unification isn't on the table for at least several decades if ever so investigating the possibility now would be a waste of resources.

Well what a perfect little circle.

Irish unity is too expensive
prove it
no, it's too expensive

Seems to me this is just a standard response partitionists use when unity is brought up and they dont want anybody messing with it.

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

See, until a proper investigation is done into how it would (or wouldn't) work then people will just continue to repeat the empty "cant afford it" mantra ad nauseam

Simple maths can give a fair indication that a united Ireland would be bankrupt. Take the deficit for the north and add the -revenue for the south.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

Simple maths can give a fair indication that a united Ireland would be bankrupt. Take the deficit for the north and add the -revenue for the south.

A ridiculous over simplification and again only proving my point that a proper investigation needs to be done.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well what a perfect little circle.

Irish unity is too expensive
prove it
no, it's too expensive

Seems to me this is just a standard response partitionists use when unity is brought up and they dont want anybody messing with it.

you misinterpreted, it's more like:

Irish unity is too expensive
prove it
no, it's too expensive until Irish unity is realistically an option.

Irish unity is several decades away if ever so if we did a report now it would be out of date when the time to consider it came around. Of course don't be naive, if unification were to happen several white papers would need to be drawn up by the government from various unbiased parties (read not SF).

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

you misinterpreted, it's more like:

Irish unity is too expensive
prove it
no, it's too expensive until Irish unity is realistically an option.

Irish unity is several decades away if ever so if we did a report now it would be out of date when the time to consider it came around. Of course don't be naive, if unification were to happen several white papers would need to be drawn up by the government from various unbiased parties (read not SF).

Well there's your whole attitude summed up there. Why, when discussing the future of the entire nation, would you exclude the opinion of a huge section of the electorate? 10% in the south (more now if opinion polls are anything to go by) and 27% in the north. You dont agree with them so their views are not to be counted. There is a huge well of talent and experience there that you wouldnt draw from because you dont like them. Let's hope you arent too involved in building this new Ireland

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well there's your whole attitude summed up there. Why, when discussing the future of the entire nation, would you exclude the opinion of a huge section of the electorate? 10% in the south (more now if opinion polls are anything to go by) and 27% in the north. You dont agree with them so their views are not to be counted. There is a huge well of talent and experience there that you wouldnt draw from because you dont like them. Let's hope you arent too involved in building this new Ireland

Wow you must have needed a running start for that huge leap of logic. Where did I disregard anyone's opinion?

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Wow you must have needed a running start for that huge leap of logic. Where did I disregard anyone's opinion?

You just advocated excluding Sinn Fein from any unity process. No running jump needed, just a gentle stroll in the direction your post was pointing

woodoo

getz wrote: »

why are you getting so upset that some people who live in the north of the island do not want to call themselves irish ?, being irish in the EU is not the most popular thing at this time.

I understand british identity as a 2nd identity, Any british people i know from Britain are culturally Scottish, English and Welsh first then they refer to themselves as british. How exactly can someone be culturally british. What culture is that is it scottish or welsh or english they are all different.

I just think that people from NI who state they are british only are missing a part of the jigsaw. Junder is northern irish and british if he really can't stand to just say irish then thats fine. But he is not just British. The people from mainland britain understand this clearly which is why they would refer to Junder as irish or sometimes northern irish, almost never british. They are british and from britain the island so it seems strange to them to just say someone is british and them from ireland.

Thomas_I

woodoo wrote: »

I understand british identity as a 2nd identity, Any british people i know from Britain are culturally Scottish, English and Welsh first then they refer to themselves as british. How exactly can someone be culturally british. What culture is that is it scottish or welsh or english they are all different.

I just think that people from NI who state they are british only are missing a part of the jigsaw. Junder is northern irish and british if he really can't stand to just say irish then thats fine. But he is not just British. The people from mainland britain understand this clearly which is why they would refer to Junder as irish or sometimes northern irish, almost never british. They are british and from britain the island so it seems strange to them to just say someone is british and them from ireland.

That´s the way I see it too. There are two exemptions in this.

The first as for the people in Great Britain who have no English, Scottish or Welsh ancestry, they refer to themselves as British in the first place, according to their citizenship and to their cultural background from their parents and / or grandparents who came from abroad to the UK. This was - as I recall it - an result of an survey taken a couple of years ago (probably reported on the BBC websites).

The second exemption are the Ulster-Scotts, they refer clearly to their Scottish ancestry and being Unionists. Unionists in NI refer to themselves as British because of socio-political reasons as way of selfdistinction from the catholic Irish population. This has been a long tradition there and therefore there isn´t anything strange to me anymore, since I´ve read some sources from different Unionist views in matters concerning themselves and their relation to NI.

getz

woodoo wrote: »

I understand british identity as a 2nd identity, Any british people i know from Britain are culturally Scottish, English and Welsh first then they refer to themselves as british. How exactly can someone be culturally british. What culture is that is it scottish or welsh or english they are all different.

I just think that people from NI who state they are british only are missing a part of the jigsaw. Junder is northern irish and british if he really can't stand to just say irish then thats fine. But he is not just British. The people from mainland britain understand this clearly which is why they would refer to Junder as irish or sometimes northern irish, almost never british. They are british and from britain the island so it seems strange to them to just say someone is british and them from ireland.

there is a difference between being of british culture and being a british citizen,british culture is including our irish/welsh/scottish and english culture in one big pot, in the local schools and community centres,any night of the week you will have culture and music from all over these islands, in fact in manchester the irish culture is practiced far more than it is in the republic, and if i had a mind to do so,i could learn irish, welsh,or anyone of the six native languages,

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because investigations of such kind are expensive and need to be justified. Irish unification isn't on the table for at least several decades if ever so investigating the possibility now would be a waste of resources.

Well, it isn´t on the table for an unpredictable time. How many investigations or call it surveys are made in Ireland for various purposes and how expensive were they when done in or for the public sector?

I think that to investigate the costs of a unification of Ireland is half the work done for an eventualltiy in the future which as then only to get ajusted according the circumstances in that time in the future. The more details needed, the more expensive it might get, but not necessarilly too much. I wouldn´t regard such an research and calculation as a waste of resources at all.

If anybody had asked you some 25 years ago whether you´d expecting the end of the cold war some two to three years later, you´d have said that´s impossible. This shows that nothing is impossible, but it´s just a matter of time and sometimes time is shorter than one might think.

Anyway, I´m expecting 2014 to be a decisive year for the UK and the two years to go are the time of preparation for what the Scottish people will vote and the policy the current UK government is providing and following concerning the whole of the UK. This might also have its effect on the Scottish electorate for the outcome of that referendum. I don´t know whether the SNP has taken the efforts to get some calculations about the costs for Scotlands independence, but I´m sure that this is an issue and will last as such until the day of the referendum, because people are going to ask them what they´d have to pay for it. If the SNP has such figures, then they have some arguments to debate in the pretime of their referendum. So it hasn´t been a waste of resources, because what they want is absolute independence and leaving the Union. That´s cristal clear and such is the question stated for the electorate to decide. Just as an example.

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

A ridiculous over simplification and again only proving my point that a proper investigation needs to be done.

Some things don't need to be complicated. Ireland's dept, negative revenue and the ni deficit along with the higher spending on security = disaster. Simples.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

Some things don't need to be complicated. Ireland's dept, negative revenue and the ni deficit along with the higher spending on security = disaster. Simples.

No, not simples. Perhaps things don't need to be complicated but they certainly need to be thorough. Basing your entire view of Ireland's constitutional position on one over simplified sentence is not only ridiculous but idiotic and dangerous.
You're focusing on one small area of a huge issue with many different aspects and not only that but you're making assumptions on it.
I'm in favour of a proper investigation so that people will have cold hard facts not blind assumptions.

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

Well, it isn´t on the table for an unpredictable time. How many investigations or call it surveys are made in Ireland for various purposes and how expensive were they when done in or for the public sector?

I think that to investigate the costs of a unification of Ireland is half the work done for an eventualltiy in the future which as then only to get ajusted according the circumstances in that time in the future. The more details needed, the more expensive it might get, but not necessarilly too much. I wouldn´t regard such an research and calculation as a waste of resources at all.

If anybody had asked you some 25 years ago whether you´d expecting the end of the cold war some two to three years later, you´d have said that´s impossible. This shows that nothing is impossible, but it´s just a matter of time and sometimes time is shorter than one might think.

Anyway, I´m expecting 2014 to be a decisive year for the UK and the two years to go are the time of preparation for what the Scottish people will vote and the policy the current UK government is providing and following concerning the whole of the UK. This might also have its effect on the Scottish electorate for the outcome of that referendum. I don´t know whether the SNP has taken the efforts to get some calculations about the costs for Scotlands independence, but I´m sure that this is an issue and will last as such until the day of the referendum, because people are going to ask them what they´d have to pay for it. If the SNP has such figures, then they have some arguments to debate in the pretime of their referendum. So it hasn´t been a waste of resources, because what they want is absolute independence and leaving the Union. That´s cristal clear and such is the question stated for the electorate to decide. Just as an example.

i dont think they have the SNP will lose its faslane nuke base,that its self will effect 15,000 people and jobs,many of the UK head offices are also in scotland and would have to relocate,60% of the SNPs local goverment spending come from whitehall,they would have to generate that back by increased taxing,on the northern ireland question a similar thing would happen,the loss of the free NHS and thousands of jobs,and a relocation of many a company head office that is based there,

Crooked Jack

getz wrote: »

i dont think they have the SNP will lose its faslane nuke base,that its self will effect 15,000 people and jobs,many of the UK head offices are also in scotland and would have to relocate,60% of the SNPs local goverment spending come from whitehall,they would have to generate that back by increased taxing,on the northern ireland question a similar thing would happen,the loss of the free NHS and thousands of jobs,and a relocation of many a company head office that is based there,

This article on Scottish Independence is excellent and debunks a lot of myths. Some of what is written could also apply here but it's mostly specific to Scotland

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

getz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This article on Scottish Independence is excellent and debunks a lot of myths. Some of what is written could also apply here but it's mostly specific to Scotland

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

if you believe that tripe you will believe anything,for a start what makes them think the EU will let them join?/or even the eurozone,its just another site that is trying to split the scottish people,notice the word unionist smeer

burgermasters

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right. Some people don't.

That's one of the biggest problems in this country people don't know or understand the history of this country, the history in itself is still very much in the present and yet alot of people cant understand???? the one thing i will say is that it is fact that in 1922 before he was shot collins had planned to redraw the border and take the north back but then he was shot,, that my friends is the unfinished business of this country, i do not think we should resolve to fighting as that could become the war of all wars, i do think we should start entering to talks now about it instead of putting on the long finger,, it IS IRELAND and should be a whole not split this is 2012 not 1912 it is time for england to pull out now and move forward and stop holding it for the sake of it,

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You just advocated excluding Sinn Fein from any unity process. No running jump needed, just a gentle stroll in the direction your post was pointing

I never said they should be excluded from the process. That was your leap in logic. I only said any white paper drawn up by SF should be discounted because it comes from an unbiased source. I would feel the same about the DUP.

burgermasters wrote: »

That's one of the biggest problems in this country people don't know or understand the history of this country, the history in itself is still very much in the present and yet alot of people cant understand???? the one thing i will say is that it is fact that in 1922 before he was shot collins had planned to redraw the border and take the north back but then he was shot,, that my friends is the unfinished business of this country, i do not think we should resolve to fighting as that could become the war of all wars, i do think we should start entering to talks now about it instead of putting on the long finger,, it IS IRELAND and should be a whole not split this is 2012 not 1912 it is time for england to pull out now and move forward and stop holding it for the sake of it,

Northern Ireland will join the Republic when and if the great people of Northern Ireland vote for it as per the terms of the GFA and not one second sooner. But on another note why shouldn't it be split? Nations aren't defined by geographical boundaries and Ulster Scots are a separate culture to our own.

gallag

Do you think it should be a democratic process? I.e if most people in Ireland, north and south want n.I to remain part of the u.k would you agree it should stay part of the u.k?

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No, not simples. Perhaps things don't need to be complicated but they certainly need to be thorough. Basing your entire view of Ireland's constitutional position on one over simplified sentence is not only ridiculous but idiotic and dangerous.
You're focusing on one small area of a huge issue with many different aspects and not only that but you're making assumptions on it.
I'm in favour of a proper investigation so that people will have cold hard facts not blind assumptions.

But it's not a blind assumption. Ireland is broke and getting worse. N.I runs on a deficit and has 50% state employment and there would be more money needed for the security budget. You seem to have a utopian idea that every thing would be grand but it is more likely that it would be a disaster, the troubles would reignite, tourism would plumit, the Irish government would find its self fighting a guerilla war and in time would have its own bloody Sunday situations against the near half million protesting. Of course non of this is fact but in my opinion it is more likely than it all being grand.

gallag

Slightly of topic but how do people think the dynamics of this topic will change if Ireland falls into line with the European federation plans? Is it more likely that Ireland will be part of that before a u.I happens and how would it affect the voting trends in the north? Would republican voters lose interest if they are choosing between the u.k or a completely Brussels controlled Ireland that I am assuming they would also be against?

Just out of interest, and completely hypothetical, if presented with a choise of Ireland becoming a state of a European federation or rejoining the common wealth what would you pick and why?

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

if you believe that tripe you will believe anything,for a start what makes them think the EU will let them join?/or even the eurozone,its just another site that is trying to split the scottish people,notice the word unionist smeer

If Scotland fulfils the terms and conditions to joint the eurozone of the EU I´ve not doubt that they´d be in. Scotland would be part of the EU which is out of question so it will be a member. As part of the UK it is already a member but it´s on Scotland and the EU whether they´ll find it necessary to take up extra negotiations to settle a separate membership for Scotland. The similar question would occure if Belgium would split in two parts (which was nearly the case in resent time). Such things can be solved easier with countries who are already in the EU.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

But it's not a blind assumption. Ireland is broke and getting worse. N.I runs on a deficit and has 50% state employment and there would be more money needed for the security budget. You seem to have a utopian idea that every thing would be grand but it is more likely that it would be a disaster, the troubles would reignite, tourism would plumit, the Irish government would find its self fighting a guerilla war and in time would have its own bloody Sunday situations against the near half million protesting. Of course non of this is fact but in my opinion it is more likely than it all being grand.

It is a blind assumption and i don't have a utopian idea. Once again i clearly state that I'm calling for a thorough investigation into how it would (or wouldn't) work. I just want to know what the facts are. Note the words "know" and "facts," they're kind of the opposite of your blind assumptions.
For a start everybody knows that the GFA only provides for a UI once the majority north and south agree, so who is going to start this guerilla war against the vast majority and why should that small minority dictate to the rest of us. Smacks of cowardice to me.
How would tourism plummet. If nothing else I can only see it getting better. Think of all the people who would want to come and see this new Ireland.
I ask for a fact based investigation into what a possible UI might look like and how it would work and you respond with hysterical scaremongering. Seems to me like somebody's afraid of something.

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

...
Northern Ireland will join the Republic when and if the great people of Northern Ireland vote for it as per the terms of the GFA and not one second sooner. But on another note why shouldn't it be split? Nations aren't defined by geographical boundaries and Ulster Scots are a separate culture to our own.

Depends on the terms you´re thinking in these times of globalism. The smaller the country, the less their influence in the world. Some people are talking already about the decline of the USA as an world power and looking towards East to wait for the dawn of the shifting of that weight towards the PR China or (preferrably to China) India. They are both advanced in many ways in compare to the Western countries, both Europe and America. And guess why, because the West helped them and moved there to get their production cheaper.

Where is Ireland left in that? Not to talk about Irelands role in the network of global powers, but about its place in Europe and its opportunities for its own wellfare and economical chances.

Crooked Jack

getz wrote: »

if you believe that tripe you will believe anything,for a start what makes them think the EU will let them join?/or even the eurozone,its just another site that is trying to split the scottish people,notice the word unionist smeer

What tripe? You mean that well thought out, well written, well reasoned article that, far from smearing anybody as you suggest, explores numerous aspects of possible independence.
Ie - you mention an independent Scotland joining the EU. He never says it would, he outlines a number of possibilities, one of them being joining the EU. He also points out that if the EU were to view Scotland as a new country it would have to view what remained of the "uk" as a new country and it would have to reapply as well. Highly unlikely the EU would just drop the whole region.
The point is the author isnt doing what unionism is, which is making blunt, unproven and scaremongering statements on what an independent Scotland would look like. He is calmly and clearly exploring numerous avenues and explaining them.
I'd recommend that article to anyone with questions on the whole Scottish issue.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

But it's not a blind assumption. Ireland is broke and getting worse. N.I runs on a deficit and has 50% state employment and there would be more money needed for the security budget. You seem to have a utopian idea that every thing would be grand but it is more likely that it would be a disaster, the troubles would reignite, tourism would plumit, the Irish government would find its self fighting a guerilla war and in time would have its own bloody Sunday situations against the near half million protesting. Of course non of this is fact but in my opinion it is more likely than it all being grand.

New worlds were never created by pessimists, they were won and build by those who were optimistic and dared to think about the apparently impossible in the present but without exclusion to the future.

gallag

Sorry for going of on a tangent here guys but I would love to here some of you republican guys opinions on the whole European union thing. It's an aspect I had not thought much about but I suppose the thought of Ireland being ruled by a foreign government before its even united would be disturbing to some, I know I would be quite against the u.k becoming more E.U tied, hell I would probably be talked into a united Ireland easier than a European federation state ;-).that's another interesting seniereo, say Ireland held out and retained its independence from a European federation but the UK did not, how would that sit with unionists in the north?
I know this all seems crazy but the simple fact is that talk of European federation is on the table now and there could be a lot of changes in the E.U long before there is any voting on a united Ireland.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I never said they should be excluded from the process. That was your leap in logic. I only said any white paper drawn up by SF should be discounted because it comes from an unbiased source. I would feel the same about the DUP.

I'm constantly baffled when people try to backtrack on a discussion board. I mean, the exact text of what the person wrote is right there.
In your case you said this

"if unification were to happen several white papers would need to be drawn up by the government from various unbiased parties (read not SF)."

Seems pretty clear to me. Also, who exactly would you consider unbiased. FF, FG? Who are these people who have no prior opinion on what ireland should look like.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It is a blind assumption and i don't have a utopian idea. Once again i clearly state that I'm calling for a thorough investigation into how it would (or wouldn't) work. I just want to know what the facts are. Note the words "know" and "facts," they're kind of the opposite of your blind assumptions.
For a start everybody knows that the GFA only provides for a UI once the majority north and south agree, so who is going to start this guerilla war against the vast majority and why should that small minority dictate to the rest of us. Smacks of cowardice to me.
How would tourism plummet. If nothing else I can only see it getting better. Think of all the people who would want to come and see this new Ireland.
I ask for a fact based investigation into what a possible UI might look like and how it would work and you respond with hysterical scaremongering. Seems to me like somebody's afraid of something.

It´s apparently to me that both might have a common ground on this subject, because I agree with most of your posts.

Crooked Jack

Thomas_I wrote: »

It´s apparently to me that both might have a common ground on this subject, because I agree with most of your posts.

Frankly, everyone should be able to find common ground on this subject because I'm not calling for a United Ireland tomorrow, all I want is a proper investigation into how it would work and what it would look like. Surely even the partitionists, confident in the validity of the artificial divide imposed on this country, could agree with that.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

New worlds were never created by pessimists, they were won and build by those who were optimistic and dared to think about the apparently impossible in the present but without exclusion to the future.

But people like food and hospitals more than utopian ideals. A young ideological republican might be willing to risk more than a father or mother in steady work with a comfortable life style.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

But people like food and hospitals more than utopian ideals. A young ideological republican might be willing to risk more than a father or mother in steady work with a comfortable life style.

By this logic then we should never rock the boat. Just keep the same people in charge doing the same things and accept what comes our way.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Frankly, everyone should be able to find common ground on this subject because I'm not calling for a United Ireland tomorrow, all I want is a proper investigation into how it would work and what it would look like. Surely even the partitionists, confident in the validity of the artificial divide imposed on this country, could agree with that.

That´s what I mean and I like the idea, eventhough it´s only about a theory but it sounds very interesting and thoughtprovocing.:)

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

But people like food and hospitals more than utopian ideals. A young ideological republican might be willing to risk more than a father or mother in steady work with a comfortable life style.

I never met people who really like hospitals.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

I never met people who really like hospitals.

Then you have never met a sick person with no access to one. People are happy with the status quo. That's why demand for a united Ireland is on the decline both sides of the border. People will work out the positives and negatives and atm the negative list for a U.I is longer than the positive for most.

gallag

Thomas, jack etc would love to here your opinions on what any big shifts in the E.U would do to the dynamics of U.I opinions? Are republicans against a European federation? Could you see a battle to keep Ireland independent temporally becoming more important than the U.I. issue? I am not looking opinions to use against your U.I stance, more genuine interest in something I had not thought much about, have you guys thought much about big shake ups in the E U affecting the chances for a UI? I can see situations for helping and hindering. I am of the opinion that if Ireland became a federation state demand for a UI would lesson, while if the UK became a lot closer to Europe unionists in the north might be more inclined to a least be receptive to independence?

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

Then you have never met a sick person with no access to one. People are happy with the status quo. That's why demand for a united Ireland is on the decline both sides of the border. People will work out the positives and negatives and atm the negative list for a U.I is longer than the positive for most.

No, I never met such a person and it´s a worse thing if some has no access to a hospital.

As far as I know, the reformation of the NHS in the UK hasn´t vanished from the agenda of the Cameron government. Well, if the UK wouldn´t be able to afford a NHS for free then it would affect NI as well and PM Cameron´s intention was (and I believe still is) to reform the NHS to cut the costs of the public sector, which would made it even worse for sick people. If it comes to that, despite mass protests as we have seen in Great Britain since Cameron took over, you won´t be better off than those in RoI.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

No, I never met such a person and it´s a worse thing if some has no access to a hospital.

As far as I know, the reformation of the NHS in the UK hasn´t vanished from the agenda of the Cameron government. Well, if the UK wouldn´t be able to afford a NHS for free then it would affect NI as well and PM Cameron´s intention was (and I believe still is) to reform the NHS to cut the costs of the public sector, which would made it even worse for sick people. If it comes to that, despite mass protests as we have seen in Great Britain since Cameron took over, you won´t be better off than those in RoI.

I absolutely agree, the nhs is a big reason to for some to vote against a U I, if it is removed then that is one of the key reasons to stay in the U.k removed for many happy people who put tangible assets ahead of their ideological views. Do we agree that a lot of people want free health care more than a united Ireland?

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

Thomas, jack etc would love to here your opinions on what any big shifts in the E.U would do to the dynamics of U.I opinions? Are republicans against a European federation? Could you see a battle to keep Ireland independent temporally becoming more important than the U.I. issue? I am not looking opinions to use against your U.I stance, more genuine interest in something I had not thought much about, have you guys thought much about big shake ups in the E U affecting the chances for a UI? I can see situations for helping and hindering. I am of the opinion that if Ireland became a federation state demand for a UI would lesson, while if the UK became a lot closer to Europe unionists in the north might be more inclined to a least be receptive to independence?

An United Ireland isn´t a big issue for the EU and therefore there are no big shifts necessary (in my opinion). It´s a matter between the UK (or after an asumed independence of Scotland the state that will remain of the UK) and the RoI. An independent Scotland would had much more effect on the EU because it would extend the numbers of memberstates. Just the unification of the RoI with NI does not change the numbers of EU memberstates. So no shifts necessary, although the number of the population of an united Ireland hasn´t been considered.

If a united Ireland won´t remain in the EU, it could opt out and (in no livetime of an Republican) re-join the British Commonwealth of Nations. How does that sound?

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

... Do we agree that a lot of people want free health care more than a united Ireland?

Yes, that might be the case, depending on the social (or better to say) financial status of the people, because there you´d find the different answers.

The way you´ve set your question on me makes me think that you´d regard any consideration about an united Ireland as pure luxury.

There is no guarantee that this free health care in the UK will last for ever. David Cameron has time until the next general election in 2015 to proceed with his agenda, as long as his coalition governments lasts.

golden lane

Thomas_I wrote: »

Yes, that might be the case, depending on the social (or better to say) financial status of the people, because there you´d find the different answers.

The way you´ve set your question on me makes me think that you´d regard any consideration about an united Ireland as pure luxury.

There is no guarantee that this free health care in the UK will last for ever. David Cameron has time until the next general election in 2015 to proceed with his agenda, as long as his coalition governments lasts.

it will always be free for those that cannot afford it......


the british community i northern ireland will not be concerned about heath and socil matters.....

they will be very reluctant to give up the power they have......but time will change that.....got too fast and there will be a bad outcome....

Thomas_I

golden lane wrote: »

it will always be free for those that cannot afford it......


the british community i northern ireland will not be concerned about heath and socil matters.....

they will be very reluctant to give up the power they have......but time will change that.....got too fast and there will be a bad outcome....

Maybe it´ll always be free for those who can´t afford it, but the question remains who´s providing the free health care, if the state can´t afford it anymore? They might be left to the care of charity.

Why will they not be concerned about health and social matters, are they all the rich people and these matters only concering the "Irish" in NI, in old tradition because they´re the poor?

Yes time will change many things and those who can´t cope with it, are left behind.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I'm constantly baffled when people try to backtrack on a discussion board. I mean, the exact text of what the person wrote is right there.
In your case you said this

"if unification were to happen several white papers would need to be drawn up by the government from various unbiased parties (read not SF)."

Seems pretty clear to me. Also, who exactly would you consider unbiased. FF, FG? Who are these people who have no prior opinion on what ireland should look like.

There was no back track. I would like to see several white papers drawn up on unification when it is realistically on the table by unbiased sources. SF are not an unbiased source. There was no back track you just misinterpreted my point. And no I wouldn't consider FF or FG to be unbiased sources. Probably a committee would need to be drawn up that would include representatives from various none political parties ( like trade unions).

Thomas_I wrote: »

Depends on the terms you´re thinking in these times of globalism. The smaller the country, the less their influence in the world. Some people are talking already about the decline of the USA as an world power and looking towards East to wait for the dawn of the shifting of that weight towards the PR China or (preferrably to China) India. They are both advanced in many ways in compare to the Western countries, both Europe and America. And guess why, because the West helped them and moved there to get their production cheaper.

Where is Ireland left in that? Not to talk about Irelands role in the network of global powers, but about its place in Europe and its opportunities for its own wellfare and economical chances.

People always say a European super state would be a bad thing. But i really don't see why.

larchill

We'd want to get our own little state right first. Its been a very up & down (mostly down) affair since 1922. The first decade was getting over the Civil War. The 30s, 40s & 50s was the Devalera/Church dictatorship! We arrived @ 1960 after 40 years of so called independence having gone nowhere, the population at under 3m. The Lemass/Whitaker era saw some progress in the 60s. The 70s brought the EEC & the energy crisis. On to the 80s we made a bags of things. 90s & 2000s at last some economic progress but a major bags of things in the mid/late 2000s & onto today! Now another 15 years of malaise at least. How can we expect to attract our Northern brethren? :P

gallag

larchill wrote: »

We'd want to get our own little state right first. Its been a very up & down (mostly down) affair since 1922. The first decade was getting over the Civil War. The 30s, 40s & 50s was the Devalera/Church dictatorship! We arrived @ 1960 after 40 years of so called independence having gone nowhere, the population at under 3m. The Lemass/Whitaker era saw some progress in the 60s. The 70s brought the EEC & the energy crisis. On to the 80s we made a bags of things. 90s & 2000s at last some economic progress but a major bags of things in the mid/late 2000s & onto today! Now another 15 years of malaise at least. How can we expect to attract our Northern brethren? :P

A lot of nationalists don't get this. As a unionist I will still always put the needs of my children ahead of my ideology. If a united Ireland offered my children a better, safer life would I be selfish to deneigh them? I can't say what I would do but if there where no threat to their safety and no striping of services along with a wayward economy it would be a lot less scary. This also worksthe other way, a lot of Catholics are now happy with the way things are, representation at every level from government to police, and a good quality of life, I am sure they are the same as me and asking "what is in it for my children"?

I think like any thing in life compromise would be needed and I believe in the future smaller independent economics will struggle, perhaps a united Ireland within the common wealth would help Ireland's security and economy in the future while leaving unionists not feeling like they lost.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

... I think like any thing in life compromise would be needed and I believe in the future smaller independent economics will struggle, perhaps a united Ireland within the common wealth would help Ireland's security and economy in the future while leaving unionists not feeling like they lost.

What does the Commonwealth of Nations have to do with Irelands security? It´s an organisation of former British colonies and mainly based on trade. I never came across any statement in which the Commonwealth was described as being economically stronger than the European Union. Just to don´t leave the Unionists feel they are lost doesn´t makes much sense to me, because I assume that a membership in that club isn´t for free and I don´t know much about the benefits Ireland would get from such a membership.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

What does the Commonwealth of Nations have to do with Irelands security? It´s an organisation of former British colonies and mainly based on trade. I never came across any statement in which the Commonwealth was described as being economically stronger than the European Union. Just to don´t leave the Unionists feel they are lost doesn´t makes much sense to me, because I assume that a membership in that club isn´t for free and I don´t know much about the benefits Ireland would get from such a membership.

I suppose you are right, the e.u is working fine for Ireland and considering other options is daft.

gallag

Non of this matters atm any way, there is no support for a united Ireland and I think you republicans will be more busy fighting of the Germans, tackling your dept and avoiding becoming zone z of the European federation.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

Non of this matters atm any way, there is no support for a united Ireland and I think you republicans will be more busy fighting of the Germans, tackling your dept and avoiding becoming zone z of the European federation.

Every major party in Ireland bar two (DUP and UUP) favour reunification. What they are doing about it is another thing altogether but to say there is no support is just plain wrong.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

I suppose you are right, the e.u is working fine for Ireland and considering other options is daft.

I just like to tell that in former times on some BBC Messageboards, there were a couple of fellows advocating that the UK should leave the EU and create some similar organisation based on a membership of members of the Commonwealth of Nations. The outset of that plan has only included the economically strong members of the Commonwealth, means Canada, Australia, New Zealand and of course the UK. Within this minority there have been just one of two posters who suggested to get Ireland into that club. Oh, and one or two also suggested to get the USA also into the club. This is were it started to get unrealistic, but the debate continued for a while.

I´m not saying that considering other options is daft in general. Anyway, it´d be interesting what you think about the above suggestions. The leading Nation in this theory would have been the UK and that´s the point why I considered it unrealistic by getting the USA within (given that they´d have no interest in joining them at all).