Republican Mandate

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, I see. You're not a nationalist.

I do not fit your narrow view of nationalism strawman.

I have never - ever - expressed the view that we didn't have a right to self-determination. I have expressed the view that we didn't need to start a war to achieve independence,

If a foreign power by virtue of oppression and the use of a large imperial army supresses your right to democratically pursue self determination then your choices are limited to armed revolution.

Apparently being a relatively poor part of a rich country makes for an inherent fiscal instability that can only be solved be redrawing national boundaries.

Thats your strawman not mine. Not always, thats your strawman, but certainly in the case of Northern Ireland whose resources, economy and circumstances are a far better fit with the ROI than with Britain.

Apparently there are no other rich countries in the world with poor regions.

strawman. Yawn.

I would like to see tribalism eliminated so people stopped killing each other for reasons that are objectively stupid, like where a line is drawn on a map, or which government is wasting your tax money.

As pointed out in the study, the root cause of sectarianism and conflict in Nortehrn Ireland is anti-catholicism at all levels. You are ignorant of the source of the Northern conflict, you chose to blame the nationalist side becuase it suits your worldview.
There was a conflict there long before there was a border. The border has just inevitably made it more accute.
Im interested. Do you view the stormont regime from 1921-70s as democracy?

I have never attempted to make an economic case for the border. All I've done is pointed out that your so-called economic case for getting rid of it is completely fabricated.

Because you cant. You agree that an all Island economy makes more sense.

Clear this up for me: are you saying you don't consider yourself a nationalist, and are offended by the idea that someone would consider you one?

You tell me what you believe a nationalist is and Ill tell you if i am one based on your definition.

I have no idea what this means.

It means that self righteousness and hyocrisy are two sides of the same coin. Thats why you can observe yourself on your high horse. Clear?

I've made it clear that I'm not a unionist. I've explained why.

You ahve not. You stated that you believe Ireland has a right to self determination, you didnt state what youw ould wish Irealnd to do with that right either back in the 20's or now. Clear it up for us will you?

So Spain and Portugal should be one country? Ireland and Britain should be one country?

No. no. no. strawman. They are geographically compatible, just one factor usually needed to form a state as i said...3 times now, strawman.

That is why states are made up of regions beside eachother. Or do you think states should made of regions scatterred randomly across continents?

Ireland and Britain have a certain practical geographical compatibilty as neighbouring Islands. NI and ROI more so as they are on the same Island.

I am not claiming that gegraphy is the only reason for forming states. But it is clearly a powerful. Please do not deliberately misrepresent me on this again. Show integrity in your argument.

gallag

Jack and friends, you are underestimating the will of unionists, I personally believe that they would reek far more havock on the Irishgov that the IRA ever caused the Brita. Tens of thousands of Ulster unionists have served or are serving in the British army, the loyalists still have massive arms cashes and the gards and the DF would be a lot more underfunded and I'll equipped to deal with this, nothing to fight for you say? How about the entire country?

An Coilean

gallag wrote: »

Jack and friends, you are underestimating the will of unionists, I personally believe that they would reek far more havock on the Irishgov that the IRA ever caused the Brita. Tens of thousands of Ulster unionists have served or are serving in the British army, the loyalists still have massive arms cashes and the gards and the DF would be a lot more underfunded and I'll equipped to deal with this, nothing to fight for you say? How about the entire country?

This is just scaremongering if you ask me, I see nothing to suggest that the majority of the Unionist community are blood thisty or prone to mindless violence.
In the absence of oppression from the new all island state, I don't believe the mainstream unionist community will act any differently to how the mainstream nationalist community are behaving now, Ie working peacefully to achieve their legitimate aispirations.

gallag

An Coilean wrote: »

This is just scaremongering if you ask me, I see nothing to suggest that the majority of the Unionist community are blood thisty or prone to mindless violence.
In the absence of oppression from the new all island state, I don't believe the mainstream unionist community will act any differently to how the mainstream nationalist community are behaving now, Ie working peacefully to achieve their legitimate aispirations.

You also believe that N.Ireland with a ten billion deficit and near fifty percent state employment would become prosperous in a U.I instead of becoming the poor isolated north just like Donegal, I am inclined to believe you will dismiss anything that casts doubt or is in anyway negative about a U.I.

An Coilean

gallag wrote: »

You also believe that N.Ireland with a ten billion deficit and near fifty percent state employment would become prosperous in a U.I instead of becoming the poor isolated north just like Donegal, I am inclined to believe you will dismiss anything that casts doubt or is in anyway negative about a U.I.

Think you are confusing me with someone else.
NI faces significent economic challenges in the years ahead, but I do believe that there is no economic rational for partition and that the economy of the island as a whole has the potential to do better in an UI than as two seperate jusitictions.

Painted Pony

An Coilean wrote: »

Think you are confusing me with someone else.
NI faces significent economic challenges in the years ahead, but I do believe that there is no economic rational for partition and that the economy of the island as a whole has the potential to do better in an UI than as two seperate jusitictions.

But a united Ireland will be immediately down several billion euro annually on day one, as the British exchequer would stop subsidizing it. There would have to be a serious dividend to a united Ireland to recover from such a devastating setback from the off.

An Coilean

Painted Pony wrote: »

But a united Ireland will be immediately down several billion euro annually on day one, as the British exchequer would stop subsidizing it. There would have to be a serious dividend to a united Ireland to recover from such a devastating setback from the off.

I don't think it is realistic to invision Unification as an overnight event.

Painted Pony

An Coilean wrote: »

I don't think it is realistic to invision Unification as an overnight event.

Doesn't matter what the time frame is. We will be going from a situation where the UK are forking out 8-10 billion euro annually to one where they are not. Maybe they'll wind down their sugar daddying over a few years but ultimately we will have to take up that slack. And I don't see anything in a united Ireland framework that would enable us to generate that kind of revenue that could not be done outside of a UI framework.

LordSutch

An Coilean wrote: »

In the absence of oppression from the new all island state, I don't believe the mainstream unionist community will act any differently to how the mainstream nationalist community are behaving now, Ie working peacefully to achieve their legitimate aispirations.

Three sweetners to woo the Unionist British people of Northern Ireland a little closer to there being one political entity/juristiction on this island.

1/ ROI should rejoin the Commonwealth, thus creating one Island/country, namely Ireland (the island of).
2/ Extend the NHS down south (NHS.ie), to spread the cost of healthcare across the whole island.
3/ Create new all Ireland flag & anthem, which would obviously be Unionist inclusive . . .

Sadly, I suspect the Republican mandate doesn't include any of the above

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

An Coilean

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

An Coilean

LordSutch wrote: »

Three sweetners to woo the Unionist British people of Northern Ireland a little closer to there being one political entity/juristiction on this island.

1/ ROI should rejoin the Commonwealth, thus creating one Island/country, namely Ireland (the island of).
2/ Extend the NHS down south (NHS.ie), to spread the cost of healthcare across the whole island.
3/ Create new all Ireland flag & anthem, which would obviously be Unionist inclusive . . .

Sadly, I suspect the Republican mandate doesn't include any of the above

Can't see a UI joining the commonwealth to be honest, that is a question for the whole island, not just one community on it, but then again, you never know. It may well form part of a negioation but the Unionist community can not expect to get everything they want and I would bet that there are other issues that would take priority over the commonwealth for them.

NHS.ie, dunno. Not opposed to it in principle, but NHS.co.uk is struggeling as it is, we do need a significent change in our health system and setting up a UI would be a good oppertunity to tackle it, i'm sure there are some good examples within the NHS worth incorperating in a new all island system, but then again I am sure there are some bad features that we would be better off not repeating. Overall though, changing our health system and bringing it more in line with the NHS is not something I would have any particular issue with as long as it was done in a sustainable way.

New flag and anthem would be a small price as part of negioations for a UI as far as I am concerned, but I doubt they will be on top of the wishlist for Unionists in reality, the right to retain British citizenship would probably be far more important to them.

No doubt there would be many issues that the Unionist community would seek to be accomadated on in the event of a UI, and they should be accomodated to a reasonable extent.
One of the better ideas republicens have had in thinking about a potential UI is setting up a federal Ireland with regional government, in this the Unionist community could have a significant input in Ulster and be accomated on issues important to them within that region without having an excessive or unnecessary impact on the rest of the country, all under a national parliment that would have a more limited role in which the Unionists would also have representation.

rockatansky

gallag wrote: »

, loyalists still have massive arms cashes ?

Of course they do, drug pushing is a dangerous business.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's completely logical because it acknowledges that in the event of a united Ireland they would have nothing to fight for, as I pointed out but you chose to ignore as it doesnt suit your argument. This is the future we're talking about here, they're all assumptions but if we're going strictly on logic then looking at the north since partition one could only conclude that continued partition will result in, at some point, continued violence. Reunification however, as I pointed out, leaves loyalists with nothing to fight for and noone to fight their battles for them. Now Im not saying there would be no loyalist violence but it would firstly be manageable and secondly, not nearly as bad as it will be if the north is left to continue to fester away indefinitely.

If the British Government was to withdraw then Unionists would fight for an 'Independent Northern Ireland' than a 32 County Republic.

LordSutch

An Coilean wrote: »

One of the better ideas republicens have had in thinking about a potential UI is setting up a federal Ireland with regional government, in this the Unionist community could have a significant input in Ulster and be accomated on issues important to them within that region without having an excessive or unnecessary impact on the rest of the country, all under a national parliment that would have a more limited role in which the Unionists would also have representation.

A regional Government! but surely that is what Stormont currently is, (albeit a regional government within the UK). Ergo the Republican equivalent would be to substitute London for Dublin as the financier, & holder of the purse strings? A tall order by any stretch of the imagination, specially with hostile Unionist/Loyalist communities who just don't want to be relegeted (in their view) to being a region outside of the United Kingdom.

An Coilean

LordSutch wrote: »

A regional Government! but surely that is what Stormont currently is, (albeit a regional government within the UK). Ergo the Republican equivalent would be to substitute London for Dublin as the financier, & holder of the purse strings? A tall order by any stretch of the imagination, specially with hostile Unionist/Loyalist communities who just don't want to be relegeted (in their view) to being a region outside of the United Kingdom.

Well, As I understand it, the regions would be the provinces, so it would be Ulster (9 counties) rather than just NI under the Dáil, the other provinces would also have their own asemblies which would also be under the Dáil.

They might not like it, but they would have quite a bit of influence in both regional and national government in such a system. In the absence of oppression by the state, while they might not be happy with the situation, I seriously doubt there would be a desire to return to violence over it within mainstream unionism.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

The bit in bold above is not logial. Neither is the rest of the paragraph. There is a huge assumption in the paragraph which is that the then large minority of unionists would be happy to roll over and accept a change in status without there being a change in their levels of support for violence or participation in violence. That is a reckless assumption at best and not one supported by logic given the history of support of violence by minorities in Northern Ireland. To make this argument stick, you would have to argue that Northern unionists are morally superior to the Northern republicans that supported violence over the last 30/40 years. I wouldn't make that argument.

The key point is that the current equilibrium gives peace. This peace is something that wasn't there under previous arrangements and agreements and there is no guarantee that it would be maintained under any future change. To win the argument for change, the united Irelanders will have to show that the future united Ireland will guarantee peace. Yes, it will guarantee an end to republican violence but that is not equal to peace. without a convincing argument (and I have not heard one) a lot of people, including moderate nationalists, will be afraid that a change in status will bring a return to violence and for that reason (aside from other reasons about change resistance and fear of economic loss) it will lead a significant minority of nationalists to vote against a change in the status quo.

oscarBravo wrote: »

In summary, your point is that some republicans will never, ever stop using violence to subvert democracy, but loyalists are more likely to accept the will of the people and permanently renounce violence?

Interesting.

I don't see how you can have a problem with his argument, what would 'Loyalists' have to be Loyal to or Unionists have to be in union with? The reality for them is that Britain will abandon them, they have said it as forcefully as signing an internationally binding agreement for god's sake.
There would be nothing to fight for and no allies anymore. Unless they are suicidal (not a trait I associate with 99% of Unionists) or stupid then a campaign of violence would be an excercise in futility and would further isolate and impoverish them.

gallag wrote: »

Jack and friends, you are underestimating the will of unionists,

Are these the Unionists who where gonna bring the world to it's knees over Drumcee, Marches and the Flag? The reality is that there is no concensus among Unionists about the way forward or what to do now that they have been placed in limbo, a limbo of their own making because they refuse to deal with a fundamental reality, Britain will not be sending warships to defend them, because the British believe that they are Irish and ultimately belong in an Irish nation.

gallag wrote: »

You also believe that N.Ireland with a ten billion deficit and near fifty percent state employment would become prosperous in a U.I instead of becoming the poor isolated north just like Donegal, I am inclined to believe you will dismiss anything that casts doubt or is in anyway negative about a U.I.

Has it ever occurred to you what is causing Donegal's isolation?

Painted Pony

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't see how you can have a problem with his argument, what would 'Loyalists' have to be Loyal to or Unionists have to be in union with? The reality for them is that Britain will abandon them, they have said it as forcefully as signing an internationally binding agreement for god's sake.
There would be nothing to fight for and no allies anymore. Unless they are suicidal (not a trait I associate with 99% of Unionists) or stupid then a campaign of violence would be an excercise in futility and would further isolate and impoverish them.?

There is more than echo in all of that in what some republican, including yourself, say about Northern nationalists. I.e. that those that they looked to as their allies (us down South) abandoned them And yet, oddly enough, they didn’t think it stupid or suicidal to continue their campaign of violence, nor that it would be an exercise in futility and would further isolate and impoverish them? (Though I think it certainly did do some of these things).

Now why do you suppose unionists have more smarts than republicans? Why wouldn’t they sneer at mainland Britons calling them free staters (or whatever their equivalent would be) and embark on a futile and stupid war?

If republicans didn’t need a show of solidarity from the South, why would unionists need one from the East?

Happyman42

Painted Pony wrote: »

There is more than echo in all of that in what some republican, including yourself, say about Northern nationalists. I.e. that those that they looked to as their allies (us down South) abandoned them And yet, oddly enough, they didn’t think it stupid or suicidal to continue their campaign of violence, nor that it would be an exercise in futility and would further isolate and impoverish them? (Though I think it certainly did do some of these things).

Now why do you suppose unionists have more smarts than republicans? Why wouldn’t they sneer at mainland Britons calling them free staters (or whatever their equivalent would be) and embark on a futile and stupid war?

If republicans didn’t need a show of solidarity from the South, why would unionists need one from the East?

The republicans had something achievable and still have. Are you saying you can bomb your way into a Union with somebody who has cut you lose? Bit silly that one, don't you think.

Painted Pony

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying you can bomb your way into a Union with somebody who has cut you lose? Bit silly that one, don't you think.

Are you talking about Northern republicans bombing their way to a union of the two states on this island, despite the South having cut them loose?

I think you have an warranted expectation of how intelligent and rational unionists will behave. That they may have no prospect of success won't, IMO, deter then from trying. British oriented nationalist urgings are every bit as irrational and emotionally based as Irish oriented ones.

Happyman42

Painted Pony wrote: »

Are you talking about Northern republicans bombing their way to a union of the two states on this island, despite the South having cut them loose?

I think you have an warranted expectation of how intelligent and rational unionists will behave. That they may have no prospect of success won't, IMO, deter then from trying. British oriented nationalist urgings are every bit as irrational and emotionally based as Irish oriented ones.

Trying what? Any violent reaction would be futile and wouldn't last long. Unionists have always gone for the pragmatic road after a bit of bluster. Look at the last 20 odd years for instance.

Manassas61

They are loyal to Ulster and would see it as a war for independence. To say there would be nothing to be loyal to is wrong.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

They are loyal to Ulster and would see it as a war for independence. To say there would be nothing to be loyal to is wrong.

Okay I'll play.

Independence for what? Let's pretend that every Unionist was for a conflict. 4 counties of the 6 have non-Unionist majorities. Belfast is more-or-less 50-50. Derry City is what 65-35?

At best they might be able to create no-go enclaves in the larger towns and cities.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Thinking there will be peace in a United Ireland is just delusions of grandeur.

Actually things change even among the deary steeples of Fermanagh all the time. The idea that nothing has changed since 1690 essentially is just not true- and yet a lot of Unionists continue to believe this. If you think its a delusion of grandeur than why bother with politics at all?

Happyman42

Manassas61 wrote: »

They are loyal to Ulster and would see it as a war for independence. To say there would be nothing to be loyal to is wrong.

They are loyal to an unworkable, antiquated notion of statehood that probably never existed. Effectively Loyalists/Unionists are homeless because their 'loyalty' has been spurned.
The simple fact remains, the British (who thousands of Irish people truly did express loyalty to) have said clearly that the aspiration to be British only applies as long as there is a majority, once that changes then they will not defend the right to be British as that right is not tenable or maintainable legally. (It is for the people of the island of Ireland to decide (without outside influence) their future)

Manassas61

Happyman42 wrote: »

They are loyal to an unworkable, antiquated notion of statehood that probably never existed. Effectively Loyalists/Unionists are homeless because their 'loyalty' has been spurned.
The simple fact remains, the British (who thousands of Irish people truly did express loyalty to) have said clearly that the aspiration to be British only applies as long as there is a majority, once that changes then they will not defend the right to be British as that right is not tenable or maintainable legally. (It is for the people of the island of Ireland to decide (without outside influence) their future)

No more unworkable than the Republic of Ireland which is controlled by Germany. So practically we would not be joining a Republic and also we would be joining the Euro. I'd rather not.

Happyman42

Manassas61 wrote: »

No more unworkable than the Republic of Ireland which is controlled by Germany. So practically we would not be joining a Republic and also we would be joining the Euro. I'd rather not.

Britain had the exact same intervention by Europe before, they got over it and moved on, as will the Republic.
What is on offer or rather 'what will be on offer' will be the setting up of a new republic, of which former Unionists/Loyalists will be an integral part, with the same rights as everybody else.
I believe that the entire island now needs that, out with the old and in with a bright new future for us all.

Manassas61

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain had the exact same intervention by Europe before, they got over it and moved on, as will the Republic.
What is on offer or rather 'what will be on offer' will be the setting up of a new republic, of which former Unionists/Loyalists will be an integral part, with the same rights as everybody else.
I believe that the entire island now needs that, out with the old and in with a bright new future for us all.

I'd rather have the block grant from Westminister. The Republic is in a bad way and is in no position at all for what you propose.

SoulandForm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Britain had the exact same intervention by Europe before, they got over it and moved on, as will the Republic.
What is on offer or rather 'what will be on offer' will be the setting up of a new republic, of which former Unionists/Loyalists will be an integral part, with the same rights as everybody else.
I believe that the entire island now needs that, out with the old and in with a bright new future for us all.

Actually he has a valid point though it wasnt expressed very well; there is a "national question" around the EU. The EU is heading towards a super state which I and many others definitely do not want to be a part of. Sooner or later the UK will probably be asked to leave- having a single currency (which the UK isnt a part of) with many separate governments setting interest rates, economic policy, etc is not feasible in the medium term so either the Euro goes or there will be further centralization soon enough and when that happens than we will see a divorce between London and Brussels.

That said a pariah Loyalist state of two counties is no option at all if it did get anywhere off the ground would collapse in on itself in further civil war and he cant seem to address how badly the UK has served the six counties nor offer any solutions to the north's continuing problems.

T runner

gallag wrote: »

You also believe that N.Ireland with a ten billion deficit and near fifty percent state employment would become prosperous in a U.I instead of becoming the poor isolated north just like Donegal, I am inclined to believe you will dismiss anything that casts doubt or is in anyway negative about a U.I.

Painted Pony wrote: »

But a united Ireland will be immediately down several billion euro annually on day one, as the British exchequer would stop subsidizing it. There would have to be a serious dividend to a united Ireland to recover from such a devastating setback from the off.

These are relevant points. There would have to be a serious adjustment in the NI deficit before a UI would be possible.

The NI public service has been bloated for years by Unionists trying to pretend that NI is a real country.

This needs to be cut and private enterprise needs to be bolstered. At the moment NI cant compete with the likes of Dublin or London when it comes to foreign investment. It has a relatively very small skilled workforce and cant compete with the Corporation Tax in Dublin.

Cutting CT levels to the same as the Republic would help. The Unionists parties (right wing) dont have the stomach for this ..anyway it would make a UI more likely. The nationalist parties are left leaning and ironically increasing dependence on london makes a UI less likely.

If the PS is cut to size and foreign investment increases then the deficit is manageable in a UI. Added to that removing duplication of public services will bring the UI defecit down more, and depressed border areas will increase in economic activities with their natural hinterlands restored (Derry, Newry, Dundalk).

In short NI needs to cut its PS and position its economic cycle to resemble Dublins which will bring the defecit down and make a UI economically viable.

In the long term the NEs economy should thrive in a UI, now able to compete with Dublin and London benefittingf rom being in Dublins economic cycle not LOndons.

oscarBravo

T runner wrote: »

Cutting CT levels to the same as the Republic would help. The Unionists parties (right wing) dont have the stomach for this ..anyway it would make a UI more likely. The nationalist parties are left leaning...

So right-wing parties won't cut corporation tax, but left-leaning parties will?

You're just making it up as you go along at this stage, aren't you?

junder

T runner wrote: »

These are relevant points. There would have to be a serious adjustment in the NI deficit before a UI would be possible.

The NI public service has been bloated for years by Unionists trying to pretend that NI is a real country.

This needs to be cut and private enterprise needs to be bolstered. At the moment NI cant compete with the likes of Dublin or London when it comes to foreign investment. It has a relatively very small skilled workforce and cant compete with the Corporation Tax in Dublin.

Cutting CT levels to the same as the Republic would help. The Unionists parties (right wing) dont have the stomach for this ..anyway it would make a UI more likely. The nationalist parties are left leaning and ironically increasing dependence on london makes a UI less likely.

If the PS is cut to size and foreign investment increases then the deficit is manageable in a UI. Added to that removing duplication of public services will bring the UI defecit down more, and depressed border areas will increase in economic activities with their natural hinterlands restored (Derry, Newry, Dundalk).

In short NI needs to cut its PS and position its economic cycle to resemble Dublins which will bring the defecit down and make a UI economically viable.

In the long term the NEs economy should thrive in a UI, now able to compete with Dublin and London benefittingf rom being in Dublins economic cycle not LOndons.

The great irony of the demand to cut CT by those in favour in a united ireland is that the vast majorty of employees in the public sector are from the nationalist community, due in no small part to the higher educational attainment in nationalist community's so voting for a united ireland, turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind,

Manassas61

How will the Republic make up for the block grant we get from Westminster in Northern Ireland? If some one can explain to me how the Republic can afford Northern Ireland and what the view of the people in the Republic would think about it, go ahead.

Crooked Jack

Manassas61 wrote: »

How will the Republic make up for the block grant we get from Westminster in Northern Ireland? If some one can explain to me how the Republic can afford Northern Ireland and what the view of the people in the Republic would think about it, go ahead.

Are you even reading the thread? T Runner has gone into it in great detail over the past few pages.

gallag

T runner wrote: »

These are relevant points. There would have to be a serious adjustment in the NI deficit before a UI would be possible.

The NI public service has been bloated for years by Unionists trying to pretend that NI is a real country.

This needs to be cut and private enterprise needs to be bolstered. At the moment NI cant compete with the likes of Dublin or London when it comes to foreign investment. It has a relatively very small skilled workforce and cant compete with the Corporation Tax in Dublin.

Cutting CT levels to the same as the Republic would help. The Unionists parties (right wing) dont have the stomach for this ..anyway it would make a UI more likely. The nationalist parties are left leaning and ironically increasing dependence on london makes a UI less likely.

If the PS is cut to size and foreign investment increases then the deficit is manageable in a UI. Added to that removing duplication of public services will bring the UI defecit down more, and depressed border areas will increase in economic activities with their natural hinterlands restored (Derry, Newry, Dundalk).

In short NI needs to cut its PS and position its economic cycle to resemble Dublins which will bring the defecit down and make a UI economically viable.

In the long term the NEs economy should thrive in a UI, now able to compete with Dublin and London benefittingf rom being in Dublins economic cycle not LOndons.

Ha, reading this you seem to believe that Ireland and Dublin have a successful economy, you do realize that Ireland's low CT has not made it a roaring success and it relies on aid from the E.U to keep the lights on, does that make Ireland not a real country just like N.I?

Cant believe you are hopeing N.I follows Ireland's economic wizardry haha.

T runner

oscarBravo wrote: »

So right-wing parties won't cut corporation tax, but left-leaning parties will? You're just making it up as you go along at this stage, aren't you?

Can you point out where exactly i said that nationalists would or wouldnt cut coorporation Tax? In your own time strawman.
Please try and argue with a point i have actually made.

None of the political parties want to cut the bloated public service bill to any serious degree. It is ironic that the left wing nationalist parties wont do it because by not doing it they are increasing NIs dependence on the UK exchequer and therefore making a UI more unlikely.

junder wrote: »

The great irony of the demand to cut CT by those in favour in a united ireland is that the vast majorty of employees in the public sector are from the nationalist community, due in no small part to the higher educational attainment in nationalist community's so voting for a united ireland, turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind,

Cutting the CT and cutting the Public services bill are two different things.
Most parties favour cutting CT, none (not even alliance) favour cutting the PS bill to any significant degree.

The political and religious identity of the occupiers of public service jobs etc is obviously still of concern in NI given the discrimination there (lets face it, through nearly a century of Unionist control in these areas.)
These issues have not been a concern in the ROI for a very long time.

In a UI, the payoff for reducing a hugely bloated and unsustaineable public sector is a boosted private sector capable of competing with Dublin and London for foreign investment. The overall picture improves greatly although some individual people employed in the public sector would work in the private sector. I dont see an issue there for either community.

I dont really believe you when you say "the vast majorty of employees in the public sector are from the nationalist community". You should be able to verify this with official statistics?

T runner

gallag wrote: »

Ha, reading this you seem to believe that Ireland and Dublin have a successful economy, you do realize that Ireland's low CT has not made it a roaring success and it relies on aid from the E.U to keep the lights on, does that make Ireland not a real country just like N.I?

Cant believe you are hopeing N.I follows Ireland's economic wizardry haha.

The banking collapse and bailout has little to do with Irelands low CT and Irelands booming exports. The UK is suffering too in case you havent noticed and has the world's third largest deficit.

Look at the issue of competition this way:

Currently, with a uniform CT rate around the UK, higher than the RoI, instability visible around the streets of Belfast, a small local NI market, a small NI pool of skilled labour in NI (compared to London or Dublin) why would leading global businesses want to set up in NI?

NI needs to make itself into an open economy (similar to ROI) capable of attracting foreign direct investment. It can do this to a certain extent within the UK but even still it cant compete with Dublin for some of the reasons outlined above. As part of the ROI, Belfast establishes itself as a second Irish hub for foreign investment.

gallag

T runner wrote: »

The banking collapse and bailout has little to do with Irelands low CT and Irelands booming exports. The UK is suffering too in case you havent noticed and has the world's third largest deficit.

Look at the issue of competition this way:

Currently, with a uniform CT rate around the UK, higher than the RoI, instability visible around the streets of Belfast, a small local NI market, a small NI pool of skilled labour in NI (compared to London or Dublin) why would leading global businesses want to set up in NI?

NI needs to make itself into an open economy (similar to ROI) capable of attracting foreign direct investment. It can do this to a certain extent within the UK but even still it cant compete with Dublin for some of the reasons outlined above. As part of the ROI, Belfast establishes itself as a second Irish hub for foreign investment.

You seem to think Ireland is on a pig's back with foreign companies setting up small offices with skeleton staff to avail of low tax, and Ireland choose to build an economy on the house ponzy scheme, you seem to think Ireland had nothing to do with it's own demise, it's pretty laughable that you hope N.I follows Ireland's blueprint of financial success.

T runner

gallag wrote: »

You seem to think Ireland is on a pig's back with foreign companies setting up small offices with skeleton staff to avail of low tax, and Ireland choose to build an economy on the house ponzy scheme, you seem to think Ireland had nothing to do with it's own demise, it's pretty laughable that you hope N.I follows Ireland's blueprint of financial success.

From HERE

More than 12,700 jobs were created by foreign companies in 2012, boosting total employment in the sector to almost 153,000, according to IDA Ireland..... the biggest increase in over a decade.

Hardly skeleton staff is it?


I didnt say Ireland had nothing to do with its own banking collapse and bailout. I said our low CT rate and exports had little to do with it. Our high public sector bill did contribute, however, and our public service is relatively small compared to NI.

Before you laugh at (or whetever you are doing) the southern economy consider this: The southern deficit is currently €20 billion. NIs deficit is £12 bill. That equates to €32 bill equivalent for the south. ROI can and does position itself to grow out of that (see above), NI cant. NI doesnt even have the political will to cut the PS bill.

The Belfast area can't attract multinationals, and the rest of the area is comprised mainly of small low profit businesses. No significant jobs growth there. All NI can do is lumber on with a bloated public service providing the bulk of employment, and hope London keeps the annual 12 billion bailout coming. I think the game is up there too isnt it?

Cut the PS bill to bring costs down, open up the economy to bring intake up. And you cant open the economy up enouugh in the UK. You can in the ROI.

It might be possible short of a UI, by allowing Nortehrn companies to register in Dublin somehow. But the economic argument for partition is gone at that stage.

gallag

T runner wrote: »

From HERE



Hardly skeleton staff is it?


I didnt say Ireland had nothing to do with its own banking collapse and bailout. I said our low CT rate and exports had little to do with it. Our high public sector bill did contribute, however, and our public service is relatively small compared to NI.

Before you laugh at (or whetever you are doing) the southern economy consider this: The southern deficit is currently €20 billion. NIs deficit is £12 bill. That equates to €32 bill equivalent for the south. ROI can and does position itself to grow out of that (see above), NI cant. NI doesnt even have the political will to cut the PS bill.

The Belfast area can't attract multinationals, and the rest of the area is comprised mainly of small low profit businesses. No significant jobs growth there. All NI can do is lumber on with a bloated public service providing the bulk of employment, and hope London keeps the annual 12 billion bailout coming. I think the game is up there too isnt it?

Cut the PS bill to bring costs down, open up the economy to bring intake up. And you cant open the economy up enouugh in the UK. You can in the ROI.

It might be possible short of a UI, by allowing Nortehrn companies to register in Dublin somehow. But the economic argument for partition is gone at that stage.

It is a skeleton staff if you compare it the the profits the company's are putting through solely for tax avoidance. You also make it sound like N.I has no investment from multi nats, N.I has an ever expanding aerospace sector and also air defense and renewable energy markets. But all these semantics aside you have to acceptthat you are argureing that the failure that is the Irish economy when joined with the failure that is the N.I economy will somehow make both of these failed economys a success. The only time Ireland had a successful economy is during the Celtic tiger housing boom, is that what you hope will happen again?

harryr711

I've missed a couple of pages, although I doubt I've missed too much.

gallag wrote: »

You seem to think Ireland is on a pig's back with foreign companies setting up small offices with skeleton staff to avail of low tax, and Ireland choose to build an economy on the house ponzy scheme, you seem to think Ireland had nothing to do with it's own demise, it's pretty laughable that you hope N.I follows Ireland's blueprint of financial success.

You'd swear Ireland was the only country where there is a recession and a collapsed housing market.

gallag wrote: »

It is a skeleton staff if you compare it the the profits the company's are putting through solely for tax avoidance. You also make it sound like N.I has no investment from multi nats, N.I has an ever expanding aerospace sector and also air defense and renewable energy markets. But all these semantics aside you have to acceptthat you are argureing that the failure that is the Irish economy when joined with the failure that is the N.I economy will somehow make both of these failed economys a success. The only time Ireland had a successful economy is during the Celtic tiger housing boom, is that what you hope will happen again?

So despite foreign multinationals employing huge numbers of people, it's a skeleton staff because they don't pay as much corporation tax as they would in other countries?

gallag

harryr711 wrote: »

I've missed a couple of pages, although I doubt I've missed too much.


You'd swear Ireland was the only country where there is a recession and a collapsed housing market.



So despite foreign multinationals employing huge numbers of people, it's a skeleton staff because they don't pay as much corporation tax as they would in other countries?

It's a skeleton staff in a lot of companies because they just run quite a small office to channel profits through, we have different opinions of what constitutes massive employment. And is Ireland a net contributer to the E.U as you stated?

harryr711

gallag wrote: »

It's a skeleton staff in a lot of companies because they just run quite a small office to channel profits through, we have different opinions of what constitutes massive employment. And is Ireland a net contributer to the E.U as you stated?

What in your opinion constitutes massive employment? Most of the large foreign multinationals employ thousands. I removed that to check the figures, before the recession it was expected that Ireland would become a net contributor having reduced the surplus to around half a billion euro (not a huge amount to be fair), I believe the aim is to be neutral towards the end of the next MFF period.

T runner

gallag wrote: »

It is a skeleton staff if you compare it the the profits the company's are putting through solely for tax avoidance. You also make it sound like N.I has no investment from multi nats, N.I has an ever expanding aerospace sector and also air defense and renewable energy markets. But all these semantics aside you have to acceptthat you are argureing that the failure that is the Irish economy when joined with the failure that is the N.I economy will somehow make both of these failed economys a success. The only time Ireland had a successful economy is during the Celtic tiger housing boom, is that what you hope will happen again?

That is not actually correct. The ROI had a successful economy in the 60s and early 70s and in the Celtic Tiger era of the 90's up until 2002. The housing boom took off then when the Irish government became over dependent on the income from the construction industry and the sale of houses thereafter. This housing boom was mirrorred in NI: The Northern Ireland Residential Property Price Index shows that house prices have fallen by 56% since the peak of quarter 2 2007. This shows that NI is very much part of an All Ireland economy but has fiscal strategy dictated with a British economy in mind.


Levels of employment are taken independent of profit levels. Multinationals do locate here for the low CT rate, the large pool of highly skilled and educated workers, and an English speaking state within the EU.

Although NI has some multi nationals: NI does not, can not and will not compete with the ROI in attracting foreign investment. This sector is small in comparison.

The Irish economy is basically sound, exports are among the highest per capita in Europe, but it needs spending power to improve in Europe and then at home.

Remember Ireland is now tied to a European agreement that (hopefully) safeguards against fiscal irresponsibility. (UK and NI is not)

Also a comparison between domestic product per person in NI and in the S and E of the ROI is stark.

Southern & Eastern Ireland (3 million) €35,725 GDP equiv per person
Northern Ireland (1.75 million) €19,603 (£15,249) GVO equiv. per person

Pre-partition these rates were most likely a great deal smaller and reversed.

To keep 30x% of NIs workforce in the massively bloated Public service, NIs deficit is actually worse than that of Greece.

NI doesnt have the political will or responisbility to cut public expenditure. It doesnt have fiscal independence or potential like Dublin, to position itself as an open economy, to grow.

Britain will make the cuts for NI eventually and inevitably, (UK has 3rd highest global national debt) and that will depress the NI economy (without the huge increase in foreign investment needed to offset these cuts).
At this point, economically, joining a UI makes most sense for NI. With a low deficit the ROI can absorb NI, and assume NI GDP will react favourably to its policy being decided in Dublin based on an all Ireland economy (as the ROI has).

Hannibal

Manassas61 wrote: »

How will the Republic make up for the block grant we get from Westminster in Northern Ireland? If some one can explain to me how the Republic can afford Northern Ireland and what the view of the people in the Republic would think about it, go ahead.

How much is the block grant? they say it's £10bn

That £10 billion contains up of £6 billion that you wouldn’t be required to spend in an all-Ireland economy. That £10bn includes helping fund the exploits of the British army, imperial museums in England, Scotland and Wales. What about the hundreds of 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. The remaining £4bn also doesn't include taxes that are took out of N.I. by British based companies whose taxes go direct to London rather than Belfast so now that block grant is whittled down.

LordSutch wrote: »

Three sweetners to woo the Unionist British people of Northern Ireland a little closer to there being one political entity/juristiction on this island.

3/ Create new all Ireland flag & anthem, which would obviously be Unionist inclusive . . .

Sadly, I suspect the Republican mandate doesn't include any of the above

The flag already represents unionists hence the orange part. The crown over the Ulster red hand on the current NI flag isn't exactly inclusive of nationalists is it?

rockatansky wrote: »

If the British Government was to withdraw then Unionists would fight for an 'Independent Northern Ireland' than a 32 County Republic.

unionists wouldn't be able to fight for an "independent NI" because 4 out of the 6 counties have nationalist majorites and 4 out of the 5 cities have nationalist majorities. Derry, Newry and the counties of Tyrone, Fermanagh and Armagh would easily be swallowed into a stable Ireland. At best unionists would be enclosed and confined to various small enclaves in Antrim and Down.

Happyman42

Hannibal wrote: »

unionists wouldn't be able to fight for an "independent NI" because 4 out of the 6 counties have nationalist majorites and 4 out of the 5 cities have nationalist majorities. Derry, Newry and the counties of Tyrone, Fermanagh and Armagh would easily be swallowed into a stable Ireland. At best unionists would be enclosed and confined to various small enclaves in Antrim and Down.

It's a fantasy that can be promoted on the internet because nobody is really answerable for what they say here.
In real life, in order to sustain any campaign you have to have a credible goal.
The situation the Unionists find themselves in and their failure to see that the British have ultimately spurned their nationality claim is further complicated by this kind of fantasy. If it comes to a union with the ROI then they have very few options and backing further into a corner(which any doomed campaign of violence would be) would be terminal for the survival of their culture. Much better to face realities now and be part of the future rather than be kicked and dragged into it, as they have been in the peace process. Time to consider the maybe's and the what if's rather than the constant No, No, No.

The Corinthian

Hannibal wrote: »

How much is the block grant? they say it's £10bn

It's actually £5bn.

That £10 billion contains up of £6 billion that you wouldn’t be required to spend in an all-Ireland economy. That £10bn includes helping fund the exploits of the British army, imperial museums in England, Scotland and Wales. What about the hundreds of 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. The remaining £4bn also doesn't include taxes that are took out of N.I. by British based companies whose taxes go direct to London rather than Belfast so now that block grant is whittled down.

Do you have a source for this breakdown, or are you just making it all up as you go along?

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's actually £5bn.

Looks like your wikipedia link .......may be wrong.....

The North’s main source of funding for public expenditure – the £10.5 billion (€12.1 billion) block grant from the UK Treasury – could be vulnerable to the British government’s ongoing austerity drive.

Thats roughly half of total public service monies every year gifted from London!

On the bright side for Unionists.......the complete lack of will to sort this makes a UI unlikely. Doing the right thing (cutting dependency on London and creating an open dynamic economy to further reuce the deficit)....makes a UI economically very possible. Im betting on the former in the short term.

The Corinthian

T runner wrote: »

Looks like your wikipedia link .......may be wrong.....

Fair enough. I'd still love to know where Hannibal got his information for his claims on how this money is spent though.

On the bright side for Unionists.......the complete lack of will to sort this makes a UI unlikely. Doing the right thing (cutting dependency on London and creating an open dynamic economy to further reuce the deficit)....makes a UI economically very possible. Im betting on the former in the short term.

Cutting dependency on London and forcing NI to become more economically self sufficient would be the right thing, but is NI politically stable enough to have the training wheels taken off?

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough. I'd still love to know where Hannibal got his information for his claims on how this money is spent though.

Cutting dependency on London and forcing NI to become more economically self sufficient would be the right thing, but is NI politically stable enough to have the training wheels taken off?

At this point in time its hard to know. Loyalists were protesting recently at Belfast aeroport about ethnic cleansing in the taxi industry! The flags issue was more serious and sinsiter. The mainly nationalist flats that the protesters "visited" everyday on their walk back home, is a flashpoint and was a site of a lot of Catholic murders in the 60s in the lead up to the civil rights marches and the re-emergence of the IRA. I wouldnt have been surprised if id heard that a Catholic from there had been shot dead from there, with a serious threat of reprisal and escalation.....making loyalists very relevant again.

If there is any instablity DUP/SF can walk hand in hand to Dowing street and get the cheque back....but that wont last.
The UK has the 3rd highest national debt. The block grant cant continue as is.

Living standards will have to come down. NI may get more Direct Foreign Investment if they can persuade London to cut CT to 12.5 %. That would come with an obligatory immediate block grant cut under European rules. And what about Scotland?

Living standards will come down and tensions will rise in Loyalist areas.
Unfortuanetly NI cant compete with the larger southern pool of workers so they will never generate enough income to really be sustainable.

If the deficit comes down closer to (future) ROI levels and the economy stagnates, then re-unification begins to look like the best economic option. If NI gets a third of any FDI going then it can function in proportion to teh rest of ireland and a UI works (economically).

The underlying bottom up issue of sectarianism was not adequately addressed by the top down GFA. Unionists dont really have an incentive in dealing with it or breaking down the ethnic boundary.


The British can force cuts....but they cant force out sectarianism.

Nationalist policy for a UI should be to cut dependency, improve income and not provoke loyalism thereby isolating them and minimising the (inevitable) instability.

Ideally Unionists need to keep everything as is as much as possible..ie keep those training wheels on...for ever..if possible.
The real worry is that it may be more a case of puncturing a hot air baloon than taking training wheels off.