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

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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.

No support from the people. Anyway republicans have fought for so long for the north to be ruled by Dublin they have not realised Dublin will soon be controlled by Brussels, why does it then matter. Will it really make you happy if the north follows the south to being the whipping boy of Europe. There is a more pressing problem for republicans, a lot has been achieved in the north, democracy and peace and the possibility of a U.I if the people want it, there is nothing left to fight for in the north, the fight is now to not lose the south, a fight against being the least relevant state in a federation that is happy to push enough dept onto you that your grand children will be paying it. At least the brits only screwed over one generation. I hope yous win that fight and truly believe yous have the support of the the unionist community. Millions of Irish children to suffer so that German bondholders don't have to and yous think the u.k is the enemy.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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.

I remember very well how the campaines were run last year for the election of the President of Ireland. Some of the Irish parties, but all of the candidates showed their true colours towards an united Ireland. I also remember the candidates very well, as if it happened just yesterday. Higgins won the election because the people don´t wanted McGuinness elected, and among all these candidates he was the only one who cleary was in favour of uniting Ireland. But as he´s from NI and his former role in the IRA and SF during the troubles, were the major points for rejecting him. A very controversial campain then, but with some insight on the thinking of the people in the Republic of Ireland. Something which shouldn´t be left ignored by considering an unification of Ireland. Just true facts, based on the expression of the people. It was nearly fifty/fifty concering an united Ireland.

I´ll never forget how some of the candidates behaved and sometimes it appeared like an real farce.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

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).

I like it, and don't think we would need the USA or a leading nation, everyone equal would be the foundation for success. The U.K and Ireland tell the E.U to do one, the U.K stops giving them billions and Ireland reneges on the dept. the eurozone collapses and the commonwealth nations become a industrial power house trading freely with each other and Russia and America, Brazil and China etc while learning the lessons from the eurozone experiment and not trying to control each other's government. **** it lets do it.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

No support from the people. Anyway republicans have fought for so long for the north to be ruled by Dublin they have not realised Dublin will soon be controlled by Brussels, why does it then matter. Will it really make you happy if the north follows the south to being the whipping boy of Europe. There is a more pressing problem for republicans, a lot has been achieved in the north, democracy and peace and the possibility of a U.I if the people want it, there is nothing left to fight for in the north, the fight is now to not lose the south, a fight against being the least relevant state in a federation that is happy to push enough dept onto you that your grand children will be paying it. At least the brits only screwed over one generation. I hope yous win that fight and truly believe yous have the support of the the unionist community. Millions of Irish children to suffer so that German bondholders don't have to and yous think the u.k is the enemy.

This all sounds very sinister and the future bondholders wouldn´t sitting in Berlin but rather in China.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

This all sounds very sinister and the future bondholders wouldn´t sitting in Berlin but rather in China.

It sound sinister because it is. Do you not agree that more and more power is taken from the Irish and given to Brussels and more and more dept is taken from Brussels and given to the irish. It's like a crazy power for dept deal. Come on soilder, the fight for the north is over, time to fight for the south:-)

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

I like it, and don't think we would need the USA or a leading nation, everyone equal would be the foundation for success. The U.K and Ireland tell the E.U to do one, the U.K stops giving them billions and Ireland reneges on the dept. the eurozone collapses and the commonwealth nations become a industrial power house trading freely with each other and Russia and America, Brazil and China etc while learning the lessons from the eurozone experiment and not trying to control each other's government. **** it lets do it.

I´d had bet that you like it. How about the African members of the Commonwealth which are eceonomically not that strong as the others, should they be within the club? The whole of the debate, I told you about, barely got deeper than on the surface of the matter. It´s naturally so when people debate on internetforums. But I´ve found another page on my survey about the British Empire and there is some page that might interest you. The creator of that website has really done well and there it is:

http://www.atlasofbritempire.com/Proposals.html

Enjoy the reading, but he missed the Republic of Ireland in the listing of the potential memberstates.

golden lane

Thomas_I wrote: »

I remember very well how the campaines were run last year for the election of the President of Ireland. Some of the Irish parties, but all of the candidates showed their true colours towards an united Ireland. I also remember the candidates very well, as if it happened just yesterday. Higgins won the election because the people don´t wanted McGuinness elected, and among all these candidates he was the only one who cleary was in favour of uniting Ireland. But as he´s from NI and his former role in the IRA and SF during the troubles, were the major points for rejecting him. A very controversial campain then, but with some insight on the thinking of the people in the Republic of Ireland. Something which shouldn´t be left ignored by considering an unification of Ireland. Just true facts, based on the expression of the people. It was nearly fifty/fifty concering an united Ireland.

I´ll never forget how some of the candidates behaved and sometimes it appeared like an real farce.

the enigma of ireland.......

the outpouring of nationalism, the anti brit faction....

the majority of the irish nation just want peace and prosperity, and what happens regarding unification is very low on most peoples list of priority.

most irish people are inwardly embarrassed at what is shouted from the rooftops supposedly in their name.....

the loud voices do not speak for the nation as a whole.....

if unification comes about peacefully they will be relieved, rather than overjoyed....just to get the flag waving hatred out of the way and firmly into the past.....

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

It sound sinister because it is. Do you not agree that more and more power is taken from the Irish and given to Brussels and more and more dept is taken from Brussels and given to the irish. It's like a crazy power for dept deal. Come on soilder, the fight for the north is over, time to fight for the south:-)

Let´s postpone this until the Scottish referendum for independence has passed.

As for Brussels, I agree partially concerning the pressure from there upon EU member states in regards of national depts. I just like to remind you that it´s not the EU who created the financial crisis, it´s made on the Stock Markets in London and New York. Both non-Euro-zone places.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´d had bet that you like it. How about the African members of the Commonwealth which are eceonomically not that strong as the others, should they be within the club? The whole of the debate, I told you about, barely got deeper than on the surface of the matter. It´s naturally so when people debate on internetforums. But I´ve found another page on my survey about the British Empire and there is some page that might interest you. The creator of that website has really done well and there it is:

http://www.atlasofbritempire.com/Proposals.html

Enjoy the reading, but he missed the Republic of Ireland in the listing of the potential memberstates.

No man left behind, the African nations could be the next emerging economy. But I think the problem with the E.U is that it was planed to be a federation from the beginning, there is no need for a central government. Power should remain in each individual government, all you need is a good free trade policy and let capitalism take over, the rich would invest in the African country's etc.

Thx for the link, off to read it.

Thomas_I

golden lane wrote: »

the enigma of ireland.......

the outpouring of nationalism, the anti brit faction....

the majority of the irish nation just want peace and prosperity, and what happens regarding unification is very low on most peoples list of priority.

most irish people are inwardly embarrassed at what is shouted from the rooftops supposedly in their name.....

the loud voices do not speak for the nation as a whole.....

if unification comes about peacefully they will be relieved, rather than overjoyed....just to get the flag waving hatred out of the way and firmly into the past.....

I suppose that these phrases fits into the impression I´ve got from last years presidential election campaines.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

No man left behind, the African nations could be the next emerging economy. But I think the problem with the E.U is that it was planed to be a federation from the beginning, there is no need for a central government. Power should remain in each individual government, all you need is a good free trade policy and let capitalism take over, the rich would invest in the African country's etc.

Thx for the link, off to read it.

I´d agree with you on the African nations, at least sometimes it seems like they were improving their economical situation in some countries. But I´m not quite so sure about it, because what is shown on the regular CNN Programm "African Voices" is depicted as if they´d be on the best updated level in general, but I see it rather as that these good working companies are just a few in compare to the whole picture. But I didn´t get the right whole picture yet and I don´t watch that programm regularly.

The outset of the planning for what is currently the EU based on the realities of the early years of the cold war and the lessons taken from two world wars. Winston Churchill himself was advocating this kind of federation, if wasn´t his own idea in his considerations about Europes future after WWII. The outset was more for the continental countries, not quite defined which role the UK would take in that. But one has to keep in mind that Churchill was the advocate of the British Empire and at that time, it was still in tact even when already starting the decline from 1947 onwards. In this regards it is also important to acknowledge the doctrin of "Decolonisation" set up by F. D. Roosevelt on which the UNO followed.

CerebralCortex

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm a Republican, and obviously this is something I aspire to see. I acknowledge however that it won't happen in the very near future. I do think it's inevitable at some point however. The economics of both states will need to improve, and cross-border co-operation will need to increase more and more, until it's united in most matters - all but in name.

I remember a Unionist poster posting on here a while back, stating that the southern state was built up to be a boogey man for him until he moved to Dublin - which eventually wiped out any negative notions he had. I think many Unionists have an unfair perception of the south, and don't understand that the majority of people have zero ill-will towards them. Unfortunately, knuckle-draggers are often see as the epitome of 'Irishness'.

More cross-community work, more respect of each other's culture and views... More cross-border operations, bodies, etc...

I haven't read through the thread so maybe this has been answered already. But who really cares? All that matters to me is that there is secular democratic governance no matter where you are, something which the south needs to perfect and the north definitely needs to work on.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

No support from the people. Anyway republicans have fought for so long for the north to be ruled by Dublin they have not realised Dublin will soon be controlled by Brussels, why does it then matter. Will it really make you happy if the north follows the south to being the whipping boy of Europe. There is a more pressing problem for republicans, a lot has been achieved in the north, democracy and peace and the possibility of a U.I if the people want it, there is nothing left to fight for in the north, the fight is now to not lose the south, a fight against being the least relevant state in a federation that is happy to push enough dept onto you that your grand children will be paying it. At least the brits only screwed over one generation. I hope yous win that fight and truly believe yous have the support of the the unionist community. Millions of Irish children to suffer so that German bondholders don't have to and yous think the u.k is the enemy.

Do people not vote for these parties? Lets have a border poll then and find out.
Id also like to point out that republicans have never campaigned to have "the north ruled by Dublin," we merely ask that Ireland be ruled by its own people.
"yous think the u.k is the enemy"
"the north to be ruled by Dublin"
Your language is so archaic and militaristic. It's a bit sad.

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Do people not vote for these parties? Lets have a border poll then and find out.
Id also like to point out that republicans have never campaigned to have "the north ruled by Dublin," we merely ask that Ireland be ruled by its own people.
"yous think the u.k is the enemy"
"the north to be ruled by Dublin"
Your language is so archaic and militaristic. It's a bit sad.

And is Ireland ruled by its own people? And if so for how long? You are happy to be oppressed, impoverished, hoodwinked and betrayed as long as its your own doing it. If I was you I would be more worried about my children being born with €60,000 dept for the honor of Ireland being the laughing stock of Europe. And don't think I get I kick out of saying that, what the Irish government is doing to its own people is disgusting, soon yous will have a German telling you what you can pay your nurses and police, what your pensioners can have just so that yous can borrow more money to give away. No matter what you think of me I guarantee I hold the Irish people in higher regard than the eurocrats, bondholders and your own government does.

Do you not think the single most daming thing is the swing of opinion in catholics in the north against a reunion with the south. Its no longer just the unionists you have to convince.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

And is Ireland ruled by its own people? And if so for how long? You are happy to be oppressed, impoverished, hoodwinked and betrayed as long as its your own doing it. If I was you I would be more worried about my children being born with €60,000 dept for the honor of Ireland being the laughing stock of Europe. And don't think I get I kick out of saying that, what the Irish government is doing to its own people is disgusting, soon yous will have a German telling you what you can pay your nurses and police, what your pensioners can have just so that yous can borrow more money to give away. No matter what you think of me I guarantee I hold the Irish people in higher regard than the eurocrats, bondholders and your own government does.

Do you not think the single most daming thing is the swing of opinion in catholics in the north against a reunion with the south. Its no longer just the unionists you have to convince.

No, it's not. That's what republicans seek to change, north and south. Again you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a united Ireland is. Not a 32-county free state, a brand new country and brand new republic. Something unionists will be an essential part of and somewhere they will have far more say and influence than in Westminster where they form less than 2% of the total number of representatives.
I am totally in favour of Ireland working with Britain and Europe, I just dont want to see it ruled by them.

As for that Belfast Telegraph poll, it has been blown way out of proportion. I'll trust election results and a border poll when it happens.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

... soon yous will have a German telling you what you can pay your nurses and police, what your pensioners can have just so that yous can borrow more money to give away...

What exactly brings you to such conclusions?

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

...I am totally in favour of Ireland working with Britain and Europe, I just dont want to see it ruled by them.
...

That´s what most people think and want for their own country in Europe, regarding the EU, me too. At least the people in the Republic of Ireland had their say twice with referendums on decisive EU matters in recent years.

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No, it's not. That's what republicans seek to change, north and south. Again you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a united Ireland is. Not a 32-county free state, a brand new country and brand new republic. Something unionists will be an essential part of and somewhere they will have far more say and influence than in Westminster where they form less than 2% of the total number of representatives.
I am totally in favour of Ireland working with Britain and Europe, I just dont want to see it ruled by them.

As for that Belfast Telegraph poll, it has been blown way out of proportion. I'll trust election results and a border poll when it happens.

The way Ireland is slipping into the death grip of Europe I don't think the Irish would be able to reform. What would happen to the dept? Would it still be in the E.U?
I think the best plan here sofar is the north reforms with the south, the u.k and Ireland pull out of the E.U and let it crash while starting a new era of friendsip and neighbourly co-operation, then we all live happily ever after under a newly forged common wealth with every country equal and with no intergovernmental interference except for a few rules like a unilateral corporation tax and no import/export taxes. In that link Thomas posted the economy of this common wealth mark two would be the biggest in the world. Anyway get the papers drawn up and we will meet at the temple bar in our new capital city to sign.

gallag

Infact strike the last, Belfast should be the capital, just because, you know, it's better.:-)

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

The way Ireland is slipping into the death grip of Europe I don't think the Irish would be able to reform. What would happen to the dept? Would it still be in the E.U?
I think the best plan here sofar is the north reforms with the south, the u.k and Ireland pull out of the E.U and let it crash while starting a new era of friendsip and neighbourly co-operation, then we all live happily ever after under a newly forged common wealth with every country equal and with no intergovernmental interference except for a few rules like a unilateral corporation tax and no import/export taxes. In that link Thomas posted the economy of this common wealth mark two would be the biggest in the world. Anyway get the papers drawn up and we will meet at the temple bar in our new capital city to sign.

something along those lines could actually work, especially with an independent Scotland and perhaps some of the nordic regions

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

something along those lines could actually work, especially with an independent Scotland and perhaps some of the nordic regions

It's a plan that crazy it might just work lol. There is no chance of the Scott's voting for independence though.

gallag

http://www.atlasofbritempire.com/Proposals.html
Thanks to Thomas for the link. I am pretty amazed at how many large and fast growing economy's are in the common wealth. Worth a read if you have 5 mins. also, and purley Hypothetical If one of the compromises for a united Ireland was to have a small union jack in the corner of the tricolor would that be to hard to stomach? In the context of the sacrifices the unionists would be making and to show faith in the common wealth.

Crooked Jack

gallag wrote: »

It's a plan that crazy it might just work lol. There is no chance of the Scott's voting for independence though.

The most popular political party in Scotland seem to disagree.
Aw, look at that, we briefly agreed for a second.

gallag

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The most popular political party in Scotland seem to disagree.
Aw, look at that, we briefly agreed for a second.

I know you are smarter than this, most of the people that voted for the snp would not vote for independence. You can not ignore the land slide of opinion polls and information that all points to a large majority in support of staying in the U.K. let's not wast our time debating common knowledge when we have a new nation and common wealth to sort out.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

http://www.atlasofbritempire.com/Proposals.html
Thanks to Thomas for the link. I am pretty amazed at how many large and fast growing economy's are in the common wealth. Worth a read if you have 5 mins. also, and purley Hypothetical If one of the compromises for a united Ireland was to have a small union jack in the corner of the tricolor would that be to hard to stomach? In the context of the sacrifices the unionists would be making and to show faith in the common wealth.

I´ve read that months ago before I posted the link in my reply to you. That´s why I recalled it and thought that it´d be of interest to you.

In all this theory that suites you, I´d rather recommend to consider the huge number of member states of the current Commonwealth of Nations. In this regard I can´t really believe that it´d better work than the current EU. But I´d rather see it working if in this "New Commonwealth" the members would only be the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and India. India for the reason that it has developed itself during the last decades into an considerable economical factor in Asia, competitive to China. This outset would had have the benefit of just a couple of member states and therefore it could be more effective in making decisions with the minimum of bureaucracy.

I don´t fancy the idea of an small Union Jack in the corner of the Irish Tricolour. These colours doesn´t fit together (just an aesthetic thought). Aside from that, I don´t think that in establishing such a new Commonwealth with Ireland within, that the question of Irelands unification would matter very much, as long the Scottish stay in the UK. You could say something similar according to the current status of the UK and RoI in the EU. This is no issue on the EU agenda, they probably don´t see it as important in either way. It´s just the point that one had to convince Irish Republicans to join that New Commonwealth and this is it when it starts to get tricky, because the sacrifices would be more on the republican side.

Crooked Jack

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´ve read that months ago before I posted the link in my reply to you. That´s why I recalled it and thought that it´d be of interest to you.

In all this theory that suites you, I´d rather recommend to consider the huge number of member states of the current Commonwealth of Nations. In this regard I can´t really believe that it´d better work than the current EU. But I´d rather see it working if in this "New Commonwealth" the members would only be the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and India. India for the reason that it has developed itself during the last decades into an considerable economical factor in Asia, competitive to China. This outset would had have the benefit of just a couple of member states and therefore it could be more effective in making decisions with the minimum of bureaucracy.

I don´t fancy the idea of an small Union Jack in the corner of the Irish Tricolour. These colours doesn´t fit together (just an aesthetic thought). Aside from that, I don´t think that in establishing such a new Commonwealth with Ireland within, that the question of Irelands unification would matter very much, as long the Scottish stay in the UK. You could say something similar according to the current status of the UK and RoI in the EU. This is no issue on the EU agenda, they probably don´t see it as important in either way. It´s just the point that one had to convince Irish Republicans to join that New Commonwealth and this is it when it starts to get tricky, because the sacrifices would be more on the republican side.

It's probably the word Commonwealth itself that is the problem, it evokes images of British imperial superiority.
As a republican i would have no problem whatsoever with an independent Ireland entering into an economic agreement with a number of neighbouring countries in which each country had equal standing and retained its sovereignty.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's probably the word Commonwealth itself that is the problem, it evokes images of British imperial superiority.
As a republican i would have no problem whatsoever with an independent Ireland entering into an economic agreement with a number of neighbouring countries in which each country had equal standing and retained its sovereignty.

how does "Commonwealth" invoke images of British imperial superiority? the whole idea of the word was to get away from that.

The former USSR used Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS when it was dismantling for the same reason.

And no, there would be no union jack in the corner of the tri colour and there would be no impact on Irish sovereignty.

woodoo

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.

I think a lot of people in the south who would favour the idea of a United Ireland would get a little bit of the "lord make me pure, but just not yet" syndrome if a UI looked imminent.

Its such a long way off if it ever comes about. There is no question that ireland couldn't afford it now. I like the idea of a peaceful cooperative united ireland. How to make that happen is another matter altogether.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's probably the word Commonwealth itself that is the problem, it evokes images of British imperial superiority.
As a republican i would have no problem whatsoever with an independent Ireland entering into an economic agreement with a number of neighbouring countries in which each country had equal standing and retained its sovereignty.

There´s no way back to either British imperial superiority nor to a new British Empire. Although I know about the fact that even "Commonwealth" sounds rather alarming to some Irish people, I couldn´t find some other better word as an replacement. Maybe "Common Trade Federation" would do (Union instead of Federation sounds more misleading).

getz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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.

the belief in that well reasoned article [your words] that a independent scotland would not have to pay back the share of the debt that the UK has run up,is a fantasy the bank of scotland alone owes more money to the UK tax payer than the debt of the irish republic,

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

There´s no way back to either British imperial superiority nor to a new British Empire. Although I know about the fact that even "Commonwealth" sounds rather alarming to some Irish people, I couldn´t find some other better word as an replacement. Maybe "Common Trade Federation" would do (Union instead of Federation sounds more misleading).

the word commonwealth is used simply because they have a common interest/ background connected to britian,

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

the word commonwealth is used simply because they have a common interest/ background connected to britian,

Quite so and even in this theory of another Commonwealth, the centre would be in London.

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

Quite so and even in this theory of another Commonwealth, the centre would be in London.

the queen is the head of the commonwealth,as fully excepted by all commonwealth states even the republican countries,that is the main reason it works,there is also a number of countries who have no background of britishness who are still trying to join,its not polictical its just makes common sence,in the likes of the commonwealth conference there is a consultation between prime ministers on defence,finance,trading,of the sovereign independent members of the commonwealth,these are informal discussions meetings and the implements of policies is decided by individual goverments,as well as the sporting aspects,it is well excepted that commonwealth countries that trade with each other can get up to a 40% trade benefit, if fact its a big like minded club

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

the queen is the head of the commonwealth,as fully excepted by all commonwealth states even the republican countries,that is the main reason it works,there is also a number of countries who have no background of britishness who are still trying to join,its not polictical its just makes common sence,in the likes of the commonwealth conference there is a consultation between prime ministers on defence,finance,trading,of the sovereign independent members of the commonwealth,these are informal discussions meetings and the implements of policies is decided by individual goverments,as well as the sporting aspects,it is well excepted that commonwealth countries that trade with each other can get up to a 40% trade benefit, if fact its a big like minded club

Yes, I know that but this other commonwealth would be just about trade affaires and the benefits of it for the member states. I can´t imagine that Ireland would get herself more involved than this, except financial aspects like to have a common trade currency which would be GBP. The head of that commonwealth must not necessarily be the Queen (or the British Monarch). A Chairman would do.

Crooked Jack

getz wrote: »

the belief in that well reasoned article [your words] that a independent scotland would not have to pay back the share of the debt that the UK has run up,is a fantasy the bank of scotland alone owes more money to the UK tax payer than the debt of the irish republic,

Once again, you're picking and choosing from it. He does not say that, he just reasons that if it did have to pay back a share of the debt then surely it is owed a share of all of the "uk's" interests. 8 % is the figure he uses I believe.
So all he is doing is quite fairly stating that if an independent Scotland must bear some of the old "uk's" debt then it must also get its share of the old "uk's" wealth.
These are all issues that would have to be sorted out between Scotland and England in the event of independence, his article is merely pointing out that some of the unionist scaremongering on a number of issues is in fact unfounded

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Once again, you're picking and choosing from it. He does not say that, he just reasons that if it did have to pay back a share of the debt then surely it is owed a share of all of the "uk's" interests. 8 % is the figure he uses I believe.
So all he is doing is quite fairly stating that if an independent Scotland must bear some of the old "uk's" debt then it must also get its share of the old "uk's" wealth.
These are all issues that would have to be sorted out between Scotland and England in the event of independence, his article is merely pointing out that some of the unionist scaremongering on a number of issues is in fact unfounded

Something similar would be the case in the event of NI uniting with the RoI. Another issue might be the currency, whether to keep the Euro or returning to the Irish Pound. I´m not sure what the Scottish like to have if they vote for independence, an currency of their own, the GBP or the Euro.

The more one is considering the details, the complicated it gets. Therefore I´m absolutely with you to take the efforts of getting an survey about how it could be realised and how much the costs might be.

getz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Once again, you're picking and choosing from it. He does not say that, he just reasons that if it did have to pay back a share of the debt then surely it is owed a share of all of the "uk's" interests. 8 % is the figure he uses I believe.
So all he is doing is quite fairly stating that if an independent Scotland must bear some of the old "uk's" debt then it must also get its share of the old "uk's" wealth.
These are all issues that would have to be sorted out between Scotland and England in the event of independence, his article is merely pointing out that some of the unionist scaremongering on a number of issues is in fact unfounded

the SNP is already under fire because of the question of the wording they wish to put on the referendum,they want people to vote yes or no to the question,do you agree that scotland should be a independant country,the question will now be scrutinised by the electoral watchdog,experts say it encourages a yes vote by not mentioning an end to the union,that same question if put to the english would also encourage a yes vote,

Thomas_I

getz wrote: »

the SNP is already under fire because of the question of the wording they wish to put on the referendum,they want people to vote yes or no to the question,do you agree that scotland should be a independant country,the question will now be scrutinised by the electoral watchdog,experts say it encourages a yes vote by not mentioning an end to the union,that same question if put to the english would also encourage a yes vote,

From my understanding it´s cristal clear that a yes vote includes automatically the leaving of the union with England. There´s no much to criticise the SNP, it´s an agreement between the Scottish and the UK Government to keep the question simple. Otherwise it´d make no sense if the SNP would seek to get Scotland an Free State within the UK. Such a thing would rather provoke the question whether the UK would be intended to become a federal monarchy for example.

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

From my understanding it´s cristal clear that a yes vote includes automatically the leaving of the union with England. There´s no much to criticise the SNP, it´s an agreement between the Scottish and the UK Government to keep the question simple. Otherwise it´d make no sense if the SNP would seek to get Scotland an Free State within the UK. Such a thing would rather provoke the question whether the UK would be intended to become a federal monarchy for example.

he is trying every trick he can to get a yes vote,by giving 16 year olds a vote,and not allowing scottish citizens to vote on the issue who live and work elswhare in the UK ,yet giving the vote to those EU citizens who live in scotland a say,sounds as if he is a bit desperate

krustovski

i love these arguments,particuarily when people try sounding all intelectual about the subject of uniting ireland and commenwealth issues,at the end of the day the people will decide and whether unionists like it or not they will be outnumbered in the not so distant future,ive met quite a few loyalists/orangemen/unionists over the years and they seem to have this misinterpitation of people from the south all being extreme nationalists and antibritish,someone should point out that the largest ethnic group in the south are british,and i also find it hilarious that when unionists are abroad on holidays they tend to drink in irish bars and stay in mainly irish circles,as for the commenwealth,ireland basically are part but arent,would it be so bad if we joined properly?

Iwasfrozen

krustovski wrote: »

i love these arguments,particuarily when people try sounding all intelectual about the subject of uniting ireland and commenwealth issues,at the end of the day the people will decide and whether unionists like it or not they will be outnumbered in the not so distant future,ive met quite a few loyalists/orangemen/unionists over the years and they seem to have this misinterpitation of people from the south all being extreme nationalists and antibritish,someone should point out that the largest ethnic group in the south are british,and i also find it hilarious that when unionists are abroad on holidays they tend to drink in irish bars and stay in mainly irish circles,as for the commenwealth,ireland basically are part but arent,would it be so bad if we joined properly?

What makes you say that? Protestants are being out numbered but seemingly not unionists.

getz

krustovski wrote: »

i love these arguments,particuarily when people try sounding all intelectual about the subject of uniting ireland and commenwealth issues,at the end of the day the people will decide and whether unionists like it or not they will be outnumbered in the not so distant future,ive met quite a few loyalists/orangemen/unionists over the years and they seem to have this misinterpitation of people from the south all being extreme nationalists and antibritish,someone should point out that the largest ethnic group in the south are british,and i also find it hilarious that when unionists are abroad on holidays they tend to drink in irish bars and stay in mainly irish circles,as for the commenwealth,ireland basically are part but arent,would it be so bad if we joined properly?

the only way in the near future i could see it is if the euro zone goes tits up or on a two teir system[last time two years ago] i mentioned that the euro would be in trouble a mod gave me a ban] or a break up of the EU,and there is a good chance the UK will be looking to leave it,so that could be the start of the collapse,then both the UK and ireland would be looking at each other for a closer ties,

jasonmcco

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Not a chance. Unionism in the south is virtually non-existent.

You dont have to be a Unionist to want to join the UK ,i think you would have to be a RATIONALIST.

Irish people should not let the past shape their future if it is to the detriment of their future .

Membership of the British Isles is a geographical reality so whether we like it or not we are British. Before the ignorant rise remember that doesnt make us English.

Sunnyisland

jasonmcco wrote: »

You don't have to be a Unionist to want to join the UK ,i think you would have to be a RATIONALIST.

Irish people should not let the past shape their future if it is to the detriment of their future .

Membership of the British Isles is a geographical reality so whether we like it or not we are British. Before the ignorant rise remember that doesn't make us English.

The British Isles is purely a geographical definition, as I am quite sure you know that already or is it you the one who is being ignorant.

Shea O'Meara

jasonmcco wrote: »

You dont have to be a Unionist to want to join the UK ,i think you would have to be a RATIONALIST.

Irish people should not let the past shape their future if it is to the detriment of their future .

Membership of the British Isles is a geographical reality so whether we like it or not we are British. Before the ignorant rise remember that doesnt make us English.

Eh, would it not be more a case of us wanting to stay self-governing, (regardless of how much of a balls of it FFail continually make)?
I mean would you want your laws dictated to you by London for possibly better interest rates?

We're not British, lanteren jaysus. Are Canadians American? So the Isle of Man is Irish, like I mean it's in the Irish sea?
I don't recall Ireland signing up for any British membership. If we had of invaded Scotland, Wales and still illegally occupied a portion of England it would be called the Irish Isles, that would not make the free part of England automatically Irish. Cop on.

It's only a matter of time before a united Ireland. Maybe the Brits will apologise and leave

Iwasfrozen

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

We're not British, lanteren jaysus. Are Canadians American? So the Isle of Man is Irish, like I mean it's in the Irish sea?
I don't recall Ireland signing up for any British membership. If we had of invaded Scotland, Wales and still illegally occupied a portion of England it would be called the Irish Isles, that would not make the free part of England automatically Irish. Cop on.

The argument is indeed ridiculous but it's the same one put forward by irish nationalists who claim ulster unionists are Irish.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

It's only a matter of time before a united Ireland. Maybe the Brits will apologise and leave

I wouldn't be so sure.

jasonmcco

realies wrote: »

The British Isles is purely a geographical definition, as I am quite sure you know that already or is it you the one who is being ignorant.

Then i can argue all country names are just geographical definitions.

jasonmcco

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Eh, would it not be more a case of us wanting to stay self-governing, (regardless of how much of a balls of it FFail continually make)?

you mean like we are now or have ye not heard about us losing control of our own finances recently.
I mean would you want your laws dictated to you by London for possibly better interest rates?

London or Berlin? I pick London.

We're not British, lanteren jaysus. Are Canadians American? So the Isle of Man is Irish, like I mean it's in the Irish sea?
I don't recall Ireland signing up for any British membership. If we had of invaded Scotland, Wales and still illegally occupied a portion of England it would be called the Irish Isles, that would not make the free part of England automatically Irish. Cop on.

We live in British Isles so can be called British just like we are called Europeans for living in Europe. Definitions put on humans don't really define us.

It's only a matter of time before a united Ireland. Maybe the Brits will apologise and leave

I agree it's only a matter of time and really hope it's in my lifetime.
The Brits who are around when the Island is united wont have to apologise for their fathers bad decisions just like you are never expected to apologise for your fathers and his generation who created the environment which allowed priests to abuse our children

Proud of being Irish i'm not i'm ashamed.

It's no longer the banana Republic but the paedophillic Republic.And will remain so until we confront the abuse that goes on especially within the families of Ireland.

junder

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.

If anybody refers to me as Irish, i politely correct them

Crooked Jack

junder wrote: »

If anybody refers to me as Irish, i politely correct them

I bet you're great craic at parties