Republican Mandate

Chicken Ryan

Has anyone considered what an all island mandate for Sinn Fein might mean for dissident republican terror groups? I'm concerned about the rise of Sinn Fein and I don't think their ideology is much different from dissident republican groups apart from their commitment to engage in peaceful politics. However I am concerned that republican terror groups opposed to the Good Friday Agreement might use any gains by Sinn Fein as an excuse to escalate an armed campaign.The flags dispute in Belfast is a good example of how fragile the situation is and as a citizen of Northern Ireland, I am very concerned by the prospect aborder poll might bring. Should restrictions be placed on Sinn Fein on what they can and cannot do since their actions are influencing a breach of the peace and have the potential to further escalate the situation?

harryr711

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

Has anyone considered what an all island mandate for Sinn Fein might mean for dissident republican terror groups? I'm concerned about the rise of Sinn Fein and I don't think their ideology is much different from dissident republican groups apart from their commitment to engage in peaceful politics. However I am concerned that republican terror groups opposed to the Good Friday Agreement might use any gains by Sinn Fein as an excuse to escalate an armed campaign.The flags dispute in Belfast is a good example of how fragile the situation is and as a citizen of Northern Ireland, I am very concerned by the prospect aborder poll might bring. Should restrictions be placed on Sinn Fein on what they can and cannot do since their actions are influencing a breach of the peace and have the potential to further escalate the situation?

Stronger constitutional republicanism means weaker dissident republicanism and vice versa.

Crooked Jack

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

Has anyone considered what an all island mandate for Sinn Fein might mean for dissident republican terror groups?

Yes, it means that the SF strategy is working and that dissident groups would have less reason than ever to exist.

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

I'm concerned about the rise of Sinn Fein and I don't think their ideology is much different from dissident republican groups apart from their commitment to engage in peaceful politics.

Their ideology, in terms of uniting Ireland, isnt much different from FF, FG or Labour either, what's your point?

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

However I am concerned that republican terror groups opposed to the Good Friday Agreement might use any gains by Sinn Fein as an excuse to escalate an armed campaign.

This makes no sense, a stronger SF means weaker dissidents.

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

The flags dispute in Belfast is a good example of how fragile the situation is and as a citizen of Northern Ireland,

What has that got to do with anything?

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

I am very concerned by the prospect a border poll might bring.

Why would people exercising democracy (or at least what passes for it in the north) concern you

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

Should restrictions be placed on Sinn Fein on what they can and cannot do since their actions are influencing a breach of the peace and have the potential to further escalate the situation?

What?! What sort of restrictions? Perhaps we should ban their voices on TV and radio and have actors dub over them, that'll stop them.

This entire post is idiotic.

Leftist

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

The flags dispute in Belfast is a good example of how fragile the situation is

Yep. That and the lunatics putting up a plaque on the ardoyne road commemorating a man who killed 9 civilians including two children.

Very confident the majority of the south would vote no to unification. We do not want that animal behaviour.

harryr711

Leftist wrote: »

Yep. That and the lunatics putting up a plaque on the ardoyne road commemorating a man who killed 9 civilians including two children.

Very confident the majority of the south would vote no to unification. We do not want that animal behaviour.

Speak for yourself. The polls say the vast majority in the 26 counties would be willing to pay extra tax to support unification, and nobody likes paying more tax!

Leftist

harryr711 wrote: »

Speak for yourself. The polls say the vast majority in the 26 counties would be willing to pay extra tax to support unification, and nobody likes paying more tax!

what polls?

Crooked Jack

Leftist wrote: »

Yep. That and the lunatics putting up a plaque on the ardoyne road commemorating a man who killed 9 civilians including two children.

Very confident the majority of the south would vote no to unification. We do not want that animal behaviour.

Recent polls and voting patterns since the creation of the state make your confidence ill founded.

Crooked Jack

Leftist wrote: »

what polls?

I believe he's referring to an Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll held in November. It revealed that the majority in the south were in favour of Irish reunification and that on top of that a majority would be willing to pay extra taxes to make it happen.
I tried attaching a link but the Irish times seems to have archived the article so you need a login to get it.

Leftist

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I believe he's referring to an Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll held in November. It revealed that the majority in the south were in favour of Irish reunification and that on top of that a majority would be willing to pay extra taxes to make it happen.
I tried attaching a link but the Irish times seems to have archived the article so you need a login to get it.

convenient.

I'm confident the citizens of the ROI have more sense. Certainly by the time any such a farce vote could be held, the older generation of the ROI, the mass going , default plastic republican element will have died off.

Plus we don't have to worry about it anyway, the majority of the north will always want to remain separate. All power to them.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Leftist wrote: »

what polls?

Polls have always shown that most in the south want a united Ireland in the very least on a principle basis.

An Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll last November shows a majority want a united Ireland and are prepared to pay more taxes for it, but don’t expect it to happen for a long time. Indifference and ignorance play into these attitudes, which vary across parties and regions. The Belfast Agreement would require a unity referendum in both parts of the country.

To answer the op, a stronger Sinn Fein reduces the strength, legitimacy and ability for violent Republicanism to flourish. Sinn Fein have steered almost the entire Republican movement into the democratic process and that doesn't look like it will, or even can change for the foreseeable future.

From my point of view the border needs to be diluted for economic reasons sooner rather than later. We need to have the same currency to stop cross border shopping. We need people from Donegal using hospitals in Derry. We need an all Ireland tax policy.

I think the north needs and should always have a strong degree of autonomy from both Britain and southern Ireland. I see the future of the north being a half way house, it will eventually have to fund itself, will have full control over it's own internal affairs like the PSNI and courts, 'national defence' will be handled be Britain, and taxes and social issues will be done in cooperation with the south.

bmaxi

I'm pretty sure if it was explained, in stark monetary terms, to the voters here in the Republic just how much it would cost in real terms to support unification, the romantic image might be tarnished somewhat. This wouldn't be a short term effort to achieve a goal, like the last few budgets but more of the same for a long time to come.
Maybe the tactic in tackling dissidents should be to demonstrate how much it hurts the Brits to fund the place.

Crooked Jack

Leftist wrote: »

convenient.

I'm confident the citizens of the ROI have more sense. Certainly by the time any such a farce vote could be held, the older generation of the ROI, the mass going , default plastic republican element will have died off.

Plus we don't have to worry about it anyway, the majority of the north will always want to remain separate. All power to them.

Well seeing as youre still prattling on about it I find it decidedly inconvenient. The poll is out there, go and look for it if you dont believe me. There was even a boards thread on it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056819113

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well seeing as youre still prattling on about it I find it decidedly inconvenient. The poll is out there, go and look for it if you dont believe me. There was even a boards thread on it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056819113

I posted a link to the Irish times article. Post No.10.

Crooked Jack

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I posted a link to the Irish times article. Post No.10.

I see that but there was a previous article on the Irish times site that gave a more detailed breakdown of all the questions asked in the poll.
Anyway, it's not always helpful to put too much emphasis on polls. Elections and referendums, that's where it's at.

Crooked Jack

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm pretty sure if it was explained, in stark monetary terms, to the voters here in the Republic just how much it would cost in real terms to support unification, the romantic image might be tarnished somewhat. This wouldn't be a short term effort to achieve a goal, like the last few budgets but more of the same for a long time to come.
Maybe the tactic in tackling dissidents should be to demonstrate how much it hurts the Brits to fund the place.

I dont buy this. I think once a border poll is announced and we get a proper debate going on what future reunification would look like and proper investigations done into the pros and cons of it, then we'll see what the true costs would be. There are plenty of people arguing that it would leave Ireland with a much stronger economy, especially in the long term.
The fact is until some proper research is done, statements like this are utterly meaningless and display an incredible ignorance about the overall subject.
"Durr, de sout kant a4d it" seems to be the mindless panic stations default response to the subject of reunification for some people on this site.

Cody Pomeray

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

Has anyone considered what an all island mandate for Sinn Fein might mean for dissident republican terror groups? I'm concerned about the rise of Sinn Fein and I don't think their ideology is much different from dissident republican groups apart from their commitment to engage in peaceful politics.

Oh, that small matter? "Commitment to engage in peaceful politics"… a trifling afterthought, in your unique world?

This is just childish. If someone can't discern much difference between a group that pursues re-unification through constitutionalism, and one that pursues it through militancy, that person has a serious cognitive issue on their hands.

As it happens I think SF made a mistake in pursuing constitutionalism too soon and burning all of its bridges as it entered the political process, but I don't even see how a serious debate can take place on that matter while there are individuals who take fright at the mere fact of SF participation in Irish political life.

Leftist

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm pretty sure if it was explained, in stark monetary terms, to the voters here in the Republic just how much it would cost in real terms to support unification, the romantic image might be tarnished somewhat. This wouldn't be a short term effort to achieve a goal, like the last few budgets but more of the same for a long time to come.
Maybe the tactic in tackling dissidents should be to demonstrate how much it hurts the Brits to fund the place.

what's so romantic about it anyway?

The sinn feiners, the same kind of people who put up plaques of mass murderers even in 2013, think that they have some moral highground and they bleat and whine about british expansionism. yet in NI, clearly the majority is against joining the ROI. So what is that if not wishful expansionism?

No thanks. It will never happen. I just wish the northern republicans would realise they are northern irish.

bmaxi

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I dont buy this. I think once a border poll is announced and we get a proper debate going on what future reunification would look like and proper investigations done into the pros and cons of it, then we'll see what the true costs would be. There are plenty of people arguing that it would leave Ireland with a much stronger economy, especially in the long term.
The fact is until some proper research is done, statements like this are utterly meaningless and display an incredible ignorance about the overall subject.
"Durr, de sout kant a4d it" seems to be the mindless panic stations default response to the subject of reunification for some people on this site.

And I don't buy your argument. You only have to look at how the taxpayers of this country have turned on welfare recipients, and I don't mean the layabout element, to see just how people react when their lifestyle is threatened by tax increases. Unification, because of the high numbers employed in the Public service in NI would just be 1.5 million more people dependent on the public purse here. What has NI to offer us in return for unification, we're not an economy like Germany who can absorb the huge costs involved, even to this day, the former East Germany is rife with unemployment and a festering ground for Neo Nazism. Keep it, I'm one who won't be voting for it.

Happyman42

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm pretty sure if it was explained, in stark monetary terms, to the voters here in the Republic just how much it would cost in real terms to support unification,

So, given that others 'need it explained' you must have an idea of what it would cost. Have you figures?

Leftist wrote: »

The sinn feiners, the same kind of people who put up plaques of mass murderers even in 2013,

Have you ever had a walk around London and looked at the commemorative statues?

harryr711

Leftist wrote: »

what's so romantic about it anyway?

The sinn feiners, the same kind of people who put up plaques of mass murderers even in 2013, think that they have some moral highground and they bleat and whine about british expansionism. yet in NI, clearly the majority is against joining the ROI. So what is that if not wishful expansionism?

No thanks. It will never happen. I just wish the northern republicans would realise they are northern irish.

Oddly enough, it's people with attitudes like yours, those who wish to wash their hands of the 6 counties, who do more than anyone else in driving the growth of anti-GFA republicanism, both peaceful and violent. It's no coincidence that anti-GFA republican groups have grown since Fine Gael has taken power. Both SF and FF have been very critical of them in this respect. Micheál Martin drew attention to it again yesterday at the annual Wolfe Tone commemoration: http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/michel-martin-accuses-government-abandoning-2473627

Godge

harryr711 wrote: »

Oddly enough, it's people with attitudes like yours, those who wish to wash their hands of the 6 counties, who do more than anyone else in driving the growth of anti-GFA republicanism, both peaceful and violent. It's no coincidence that anti-GFA republican groups have grown since Fine Gael has taken power. Both SF and FF have been very critical of them in this respect. Micheál Martin drew attention to it again yesterday at the annual Wolfe Tone commemoration: http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/michel-martin-accuses-government-abandoning-2473627

I really don't understand this point.

What you are saying is that Northern Republicans, so long as they see a favourable democratic environment in the South will not resort to violence, but if the democratically elected government in the South changes to one that they don't like, they feel empowered to turn to violence again?

harryr711

Godge wrote: »

I really don't understand this point.

What you are saying is that Northern Republicans, so long as they see a favourable democratic environment in the South will not resort to violence, but if the democratically elected government in the South changes to one that they don't like, they feel empowered to turn to violence again?

I'm saying that if the peace process stagnates then anti-GFA groups will grow, as they have done since FG have taken power. The anti-GFA groups are made up of people from all 32 counties, I don't understand why you just mention "Northern Republicans".

raymon

harryr711 wrote: »

Oddly enough, it's people with attitudes like yours, those who wish to wash their hands of the 6 counties, who do more than anyone else in driving the growth of anti-GFA republicanism, both peaceful and violent. It's no coincidence that anti-GFA republican groups have grown since Fine Gael has taken power. Both SF and FF have been very critical of them in this respect. Micheál Martin drew attention to it again yesterday at the annual Wolfe Tone commemoration: http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/michel-martin-accuses-government-abandoning-2473627

What relevance has Michael Martin got in the context of this discussion ?

bmaxi

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, given that others 'need it explained' you must have an idea of what it would cost. Have you figures?

Recent figures put the annual running costs of NI as STG £20bn of which £9bn is contributed in taxes, leaving a shortfall of £11bn.( €13bn) to be funded from elsewhere. This is equivalent to a new bank bailout every five years and it's going to take Irish taxpayers a minimum of thirty years to pay off the one we have. I think we can live without that.

harryr711

bmaxi wrote: »

Recent figures put the annual running costs of NI as STG £20bn of which £9bn is contributed in taxes, leaving a shortfall of £11bn.( €13bn) to be funded from elsewhere. This is equivalent to a new bank bailout every five years and it's going to take Irish taxpayers a minimum of thirty years to pay off the one we have. I think we can live without that.

That's too simplistic a way to look at the operating deficit of the six counties though. People need to look beyond the headline figures and look at where the money goes, where savings can be made, and the increased attractiveness for fdi.

Painted Pony

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

…apart from their commitment to engage in peaceful politics.

We won’t be certain of SF commitment to peaceful politics until democracy stops delivering for them. And they have broadly being on the rise democratically since the ceasefires, and this is likely to continue for another bit, so we won’t know for a while yet

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

However I am concerned that republican terror groups opposed to the Good Friday Agreement might use any gains by Sinn Fein as an excuse to escalate an armed campaign.

First, modern physical force republicans never concerned themselves with trifling matters like mandates.

Second, I think the dissidents will be constrained by the limits of their capabilities. It’s hardly as if they have substantial firepower and are holding off until the timing is right, or until SF bounce a bit higher in the polls as you seem to think.

Conall Cernach

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

Has anyone considered what an all island mandate for Sinn Fein might mean for dissident republican terror groups? I'm concerned about the rise of Sinn Fein and I don't think their ideology is much different from dissident republican groups apart from their commitment to engage in peaceful politics. However I am concerned that republican terror groups opposed to the Good Friday Agreement might use any gains by Sinn Fein as an excuse to escalate an armed campaign.The flags dispute in Belfast is a good example of how fragile the situation is and as a citizen of Northern Ireland, I am very concerned by the prospect aborder poll might bring. Should restrictions be placed on Sinn Fein on what they can and cannot do since their actions are influencing a breach of the peace and have the potential to further escalate the situation?

You are not a citizen of "Northern Ireland". You are either a British citizen (formerly subject) or an Irish citizen.

RandomName2

harryr711 wrote: »

Speak for yourself. The polls say the vast majority in the 26 counties would be willing to pay extra tax to support unification, and nobody likes paying more tax!

By the vast majority you mean...?


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/border-poll-just-7-of-voters-would-say-yes-to-irish-unification-tomorrow-28759983.html

http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/02/20/leinster-says-no/

People don't want unification, either North or south.

Dissident Republicans don't want it either, for different reasons admittedly from most people, on the grounds that they hate the Dail, politics and peace.

Sinn Fein would like unification on the basis that it would give them more power - but on the other hand would remove a lot of their reasons for existing in the first place.

RandomName2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

As it happens I think SF made a mistake in pursuing constitutionalism too soon and burning all of its bridges as it entered the political process,

How soon is too soon? They spent 20 years on the sidelines saying that the Dail had no legitimacy. The fact that nobody in the south voted for a party that would refuse to take their seats if elected and spat on Irish nationalism, it's a surprise that they didn't enter constitutionalism sooner!

And while I don't think that Sinn Fein are boogey men - in much the same way that there's nothing real to fear from the Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party or the CPI (Catholic Party of Ireland) it doesn't mean that the histories that these parties condone, or the policies that they currently espouse, are to be wholeheartedly embraced.

harryr711

RandomName2 wrote: »

By the vast majority you mean...?


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/border-poll-just-7-of-voters-would-say-yes-to-irish-unification-tomorrow-28759983.html

People don't want unification, either North or south.

Dissident Republicans don't want it either, because they hate the Dail, politics and peace.

Sinn Fein would like unification on the grounds that it would give them more power - but on the other hand would remove a lot of their reasons for existing in the first place.

The vast majority of people south of the border support unification and there is support north of the border although obviously not a majority yet as the poll you've quoted indicates. The recession has no doubt affected people's views on unification, clearly a poll taken during the recession in 2012 may differ from one in a few years time as the economy starts growing again. Above all else though, there needs to be engagement in the peace process and continuous efforts put into the economic and social development of the whole island or we could face into troubling times once again.

I'm lost for words at the suggestion that republicans don't want a united Ireland, it's absolutely ridiculous.

bmaxi

harryr711 wrote: »

That's too simplistic a way to look at the operating deficit of the six counties though. People need to look beyond the headline figures and look at where the money goes, where savings can be made, and the increased attractiveness for fdi.

You're free to parse it. It also doesn't allow for the numbers employed in the Public service in the north which would be dupicates of those in the Republic. Are we going to be faced once more with a bloated Public Service or are we going to eliminate one set and, at a stroke, reduce net tax take while increasing the burden on the welfare system? It's a no win situation for the Irish taxpayer.

harryr711

bmaxi wrote: »

You're free to parse it. It also doesn't allow for the numbers employed in the Public service in the north which would be dupicates of those in the Republic. Are we going to be faced once more with a bloated Public Service or are we going to eliminate one set and, at a stroke, reduce net tax take while increasing the burden on the welfare system? It's a no win situation for the Irish taxpayer.

Absolutely the public sector needs to be looked at, how services can be integrated to avoid unnecessary duplication. Of course, just as when there are public sector cuts in any country the post-tax savings would be less than the cut. I wouldn't agree it's a no win situation though, there are many positive economic impacts to consider as well.

bmaxi

harryr711 wrote: »

Absolutely the public sector needs to be looked at, how services can be integrated to avoid unnecessary duplication. Of course, just as when there are public sector cuts in any country the post-tax savings would be less than the cut. I wouldn't agree it's a no win situation though, there are many positive economic impacts to consider as well.

What exactly are these many positive economic impacts?

Happyman42

bmaxi wrote: »

Recent figures put the annual running costs of NI as STG £20bn of which £9bn is contributed in taxes, leaving a shortfall of £11bn.( €13bn) to be funded from elsewhere. This is equivalent to a new bank bailout every five years and it's going to take Irish taxpayers a minimum of thirty years to pay off the one we have. I think we can live without that.

As I thought, an unbalanced assessment of the costs to arrive at the conclusion you want.
It will be a plus and minus game and I don't think anybody has come up with credible figures yet.

Painted Pony

Happyman42 wrote: »

It will be a plus and minus game.

That's certainly true. A big plus for the British exchequer and an even bigger minus for the Irish one.

Happyman42

Painted Pony wrote: »

That's certainly true. A big plus for the British exchequer and an even bigger minus for the Irish one.

Not necessarily. In the short term possibly minus but in the long term and correctly managed a huge plus.

harryr711

bmaxi wrote: »

What exactly are these many positive economic impacts?

From my own point of view and that of the industry I work in, it would be far more attractive to invest into one larger market, without having to deal with two regulatory systems, two tax systems, two legal systems and two currencies. In addition (and perhaps crucially), two smaller markets means lower economies of scale which means lower investment and even lower economies of scale. As things stand there are far more attractive places to invest, and the money that could be invested will go elsewhere in the world.

junder

harryr711 wrote: »

From my own point of view and that of the industry I work in, it would be far more attractive to invest into one larger market, without having to deal with two regulatory systems, two tax systems, two legal systems and two currencies. In addition (and perhaps crucially), two smaller markets means lower economies of scale which means lower investment and even lower economies of scale. As things stand there are far more attractive places to invest, and the money that could be invested will go elsewhere in the world.

Do you support Scottish independence?

tdv123

Leftist wrote: »

Yep. That and the lunatics putting up a plaque on the ardoyne road commemorating a man who killed 9 civilians including two children.

Very confident the majority of the south would vote no to unification. We do not want that animal behaviour.

Yeah because people in the South before independence never acted like animals.:rolleyes:

Hannibal

some ridiculous point being made on the three previous pages.

Anyway below is highlights of what Sinn Féin Economy spokesperson and MP for Newry/Armagh Conor Murphy said on the subject at the New Ireland conference in London this very weekend.


“There is no doubt that a planned and agreed approach to economic development across the island of Ireland would have a positive impact on trade, investment, economic growth, workforce skills, productivity, innovation, research and development.
“Even those politically opposed to reunification do not attempt to contradict this analysis but continue to use unverifiable and unsustainable arguments about dependence on subsistence from the British Exchequer and scare tactics about the ‘South’ not able to afford us.

“The economic arguments against uniting Ireland being put by those opposed to Irish unity are full of misinformation. Not only is the British Exchequer refusing to provide verifiable figures for revenue generated in the North but proponents of the union with Britain produce figures that they claim a new national government in Ireland would have to replace as though absolutely no revenue is generated in the North at all.

“A new national Government in Ireland would not automatically have to replace the £10billion subvention that it is claimed the Northern executive receives from the Westminster government.

“If you scrutinise these figures - which we have been doing for quite a period of time - the £10 billion actually contains up of £6 billion that you wouldn’t be required to spend in an indigenous all-Ireland economy.

“For instance we wouldn’t be helping fund the exploits of the British army, Imperial museums in England, Scotland and Wales, umpteen members of royalty, their entourages and their dozens of residences and the other myriad of areas that are simply to do with the British establishment.

“And this doesn’t take account of the savings that would be realised through the elimination of the duplication of every tier and aspect of government on the island of Ireland. It does not make economic sense to have an island nation of 6.5 million people split into two separate tax, currency and legal systems and two separate economies with split populations of 4.6m and 1.9m people in competition with each other.

Mr Murphy concluded: “A new stronger economy arising from the integration of both existing states into a new, agreed Ireland can deliver sustainable economic prosperity that the present status quo is incapable of delivering. There is a better way for the people of Ireland and it is through taking control of our own sovereign economic and political destiny. I challenge those opposed to Irish Unity to enter the debate based on full disclosure of accurate economic figures and not on the basis of scaremongering and the misrepresentation of revenue streams.“

bmaxi

harryr711 wrote: »

From my own point of view and that of the industry I work in, it would be far more attractive to invest into one larger market, without having to deal with two regulatory systems, two tax systems, two legal systems and two currencies. In addition (and perhaps crucially), two smaller markets means lower economies of scalei which means lower investment and even lower economies of scale. As things stand there are far more attractive places to invest, and the money that could be invested will go elsewhere in the world.

Would the investment produce a net 24 billion euro annually to the Irish exchequer? That's the break even figure.

wingsof daun

RandomName2 wrote: »

Dissident Republicans don't want it either, for different reasons admittedly from most people, on the grounds that they hate the Dail, politics and peace.

Sinn Fein would like unification on the basis that it would give them more power - but on the other hand would remove a lot of their reasons for existing in the first place.

I don't believe anyone hates peace unless they are an Islamic extremist. People might believe in armed struggle against an enemy, but they don't want themselves or their families hurt.
I think most people in Ireland hate politics... it is corrupt as hell here.
SF didn't exist to remove British occupation in Ireland, the IRA did.

The OP concerns are legitamite, we will see history repeating itself, the border poll will eventually decide on a united 32-county Ireland, as is allowed within the GF agreement. A united Ireland will be voted for some time in the future. The British will appease the loyalists like when we voted for Home rule, and will supply them with new arms to keep Ulster British.

harryr711

bmaxi wrote: »

Would the investment produce a net 24 billion euro annually to the Irish exchequer? That's the break even figure.

Come on, it's a bit disingenuous to first state that the current deficit would have to come from elsewhere and now you're pointing at the entire budget figure. The industry that I work in would certainly make a dent in tackling a deficit, whatever figure that turns out to be (as I've said, it's not enough just to look at the current headline figure). My industry is a small part of a much larger industry sector, and there is very real potential there for investment from other parts of the sector too.

Leftist

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, given that others 'need it explained' you must have an idea of what it would cost. Have you figures?



Have you ever had a walk around London and looked at the commemorative statues?

Did those people plant a bomb in a take away specifically to kill a bunch of civilians? The fact that you even suggest a comparison is enough to show that you agree with this plaque. Absolutely disgusting.

harryr711 wrote: »

Oddly enough, it's people with attitudes like yours, those who wish to wash their hands of the 6 counties, who do more than anyone else in driving the growth of anti-GFA republicanism

Yes of course it is.

bmaxi

harryr711 wrote: »

Come on, it's a bit disingenuous to first state that the current deficit would have to come from elsewhere and now you're pointing at the entire budget figure. The industry that I work in would certainly make a dent in tackling a deficit, whatever figure that turns out to be (as I've said, it's not enough just to look at the current headline figure). My industry is a small part of a much larger industry sector, and there is very real potential there for investment from other parts of the sector too.

Of course the whole budget figure would have to be met, it's the running cost not the deficit that counts, the tax figure could only be met if the original finance is there. What you expect us to believe is that there are investors out there with potential access to a market of 400 million people, who are deterred by not having direct access to 1.5 million.

Happyman42

Leftist wrote: »

Did those people plant a bomb in a take away specifically to kill a bunch of civilians? The fact that you even suggest a comparison is enough to show that you agree with this plaque. Absolutely disgusting.

Dresden and Colonge? World War 2 carpet bombing on the orders of Churchill, the killing and burning to death of civillians with the intent of causing terror.

This is what happens in every war, there is no such thing as a clean moral war. It is nasty filthy stuff and will go out of control unless those vested with the responsibility, do what they are supposed to do.

Churchill is plaqued and statuted all over Britain btw. I'm sure that is fairly 'disgusting' to people from Dresden and Colonge not to mention those affected by what he got up to elsewhere.

oscarBravo

harryr711 wrote: »

From my own point of view and that of the industry I work in, it would be far more attractive to invest into one larger market, without having to deal with two regulatory systems, two tax systems, two legal systems and two currencies. In addition (and perhaps crucially), two smaller markets means lower economies of scale which means lower investment and even lower economies of scale. As things stand there are far more attractive places to invest, and the money that could be invested will go elsewhere in the world.

That's a compelling argument for uniting all European nations into a single country. I presume you'd be in favour of such a proposal?

harryr711

bmaxi wrote: »

Of course the whole budget figure would have to be met, it's the running cost not the deficit that counts, the tax figure could only be met if the original finance is there. What you expect us to believe is that there are investors out there with potential access to a market of 400 million people, who are deterred by not having direct access to 1.5 million.

Nobody said the whole budget figure doesn't have to be met, but obviously every business isn't going to shut it's doors overnight. The crucial number is what the true deficit would be.

Investors are deterred from investing in Ireland because of the existence of the two separate markets. In my industry, Britain is an attractive market, yet the cost of doing business in the six counties is 15%-40% higher than in Britain before grappling with different legals and logistics. Ireland could be a very attractive place for us to invest if there was a single larger market, single regulator, tax system etc. which would allow us to achieve a better economy of scale and good returns.

Happyman42

harryr711 wrote: »

Nobody said the whole budget figure doesn't have to be met, but obviously every business isn't going to shut it's doors overnight. The crucial number is what the true deficit would be.

Investors are deterred from investing in Ireland because of the existence of the two separate markets. In my industry, Britain is an attractive market, yet the cost of doing business in the six counties is 15%-40% higher than in Britain before grappling with different legals and logistics. Ireland could be a very attractive place for us to invest if there was a single larger market, single regulator, tax system etc. which would allow us to achieve a better economy of scale and good returns.

You have also got to factor in that Britain cannot and will not be allowed to just walk away. They would have a responsibility to see to it that the transition is economically smooth.
It is what they want ultimately and they will be proactive in ensuring it works imo, along with the the rest of the world. That will be a considerable aid to success.
The last thing the British need is an unstable Ireland, their attitude since the GFA is definitely leaning towards a UI as being the longterm solution, they will become the biggest persuaders imo.

Crooked Jack

bmaxi wrote: »

You're free to parse it. It also doesn't allow for the numbers employed in the Public service in the north which would be dupicates of those in the Republic. Are we going to be faced once more with a bloated Public Service or are we going to eliminate one set and, at a stroke, reduce net tax take while increasing the burden on the welfare system? It's a no win situation for the Irish taxpayer.

Youre making the assumption that reunification would be announced on Monday and happen on Tuesday. The public sector in the north needs to be cut down to an appropriate size, this could be done over a number of years through recruitment stall, retirements and voluntary redundancies. This has to happen anyway, the north can continue to run a public sector this size indefinitely. Far from being a draw back, completely restructuring the Irish public service, north and south, would be one of the advantages of reunification.

Crooked Jack

Leftist wrote: »

Did those people plant a bomb in a take away specifically to kill a bunch of civilians? The fact that you even suggest a comparison is enough to show that you agree with this plaque. Absolutely disgusting.

You're either deliberately lying or being willfully ignorant. Either way, what happened in Frizzle's chip shop was horrendous and tragic enough without your hyperbole, I cant understand the mentality that thinks something like that isnt horrendous enough and feels the need to lie to make it appear even worse. There's almost a bloodlust element to that type of mentality.