Giving some of N.I. back to the Republic

Sheldons Brain

The Corinthian wrote: »

Funny how it didn't seem to bother you earlier in the thread when it was the Jackeens been made fun of.

I don't have time to monitor every thread for bovine excreta. But the fact that you point out that there is other irrelevant nonsense earlier in the thread supports my observation that this is a thread better suited to After Hours.

Anyhow here's a video to pass the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cr70gaJmeg

K-9

Mod:

Ok, that's enough. Stick to the topic and less of the juvenile jackeen, Limerick and culchie stuff, thank you.

GaelMise

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lol, sixth largest economy in the world and predicted to grow faster than any other major western economy. Recently voted as having global influence and expected to become the largest European economy over the next fifteen years.

let's face reality shall we, NI ain't going anywhere in the foreseeable future.

Predicted by who? The same clowns that didnt see the economic crash comming? Don't think I would be taking much that economists have to say abut what will happen in the future any more seriously than the lads predicting the end of the world in Time Square.

sparky42

GaelMise wrote: »

Predicted by who? The same clowns that didnt see the economic crash comming? Don't think I would be taking much that economists have to say abut what will happen in the future any more seriously than the lads predicting the end of the world in Time Square.

Either way the UK economy will always be vastly larger than the Republics and NI will always face reductions if there was unification (along with the South facing massive increases in tax burdens)

ardmacha

Either way the UK economy will always be vastly larger than the Republics and NI will always face reductions if there was unification (along with the South facing massive increases in tax burdens)

This presupposes that NI is inevitably significantly poorer than Britain/ROI and so in need of all of these subsidies. There is no intrinsic reason why this should be case, you would expect that Belfast/East NI would be much the same level of prosperity as the rest of Ireland and that perhaps West Tyrone/Fermanagh might be like Roscommon.

sparky42

ardmacha wrote: »

This presupposes that NI is inevitably significantly poorer than Britain/ROI and so in need of all of these subsidies. There is no intrinsic reason why this should be case, you would expect that Belfast/East NI would be much the same level of prosperity as the rest of Ireland and that perhaps West Tyrone/Fermanagh might be like Roscommon.

It's the public expenditure of Northern Ireland that's my cause for doubt, they have the same public service numbers for 1.8 million people as the Republic for 4.6 million, add in their NHS system and the domestic economy can never support that (with less than a million employed 1/3 public service). If they were a stand alone they would have had to gut their expenditure long before now, as it is their export industries/volumes are vastly smaller than the Republic with only a handful of companies making up the majority of those exports.

To keep the services they have they would have to jack up their taxes massively compared to the Republic or introduce massive reforms and expenditure reductions.

Reekwind

sparky42 wrote: »

It's the public expenditure of Northern Ireland that's my cause for doubt, they have the same public service numbers for 1.8 million people as the Republic for 4.6 million...

Which is, like the NE of England, a symptom of economic malaise. Public sector funds are essentially keeping an otherwise sick economy afloat. This scale of public funding would not be necessary if we posit a rise in prosperity to match the rest of Ireland.

Either that or the Tories in Westminster will gut the public sector subsidies anyway

sparky42

Reekwind wrote: »

Which is, like the NE of England, a symptom of economic malaise. Public sector funds are essentially keeping an otherwise sick economy afloat. This scale of public funding would not be necessary if we posit a rise in prosperity to match the rest of Ireland.

Either that or the Tories in Westminster will gut the public sector subsidies anyway

The North would have had much more infrastructure investment up until the Tiger years, and areas like medical expenses would be much lower than the Republic, and yet it's economy has been shrinking more and more compared to the South. The North has always had one of if not the highest unemployment rate in the UK (100K+ right now), trying to pass that off as just malaise ignores the fact that even if it reached full economic employment they couldn't sustain it's own budget without reductions.

In terms of reductions, the North is unstable enough, reducing the employment levels won't help that and London isn't going to increase that (oh and if tomorrow Dublin was in charge "gutting" would be a mild verb to use as there's no choice). But yes in trying to dress up unification as the solution to everything while ignoring the systemic and decades long issues in the North is just fine, I'm sure you'll be the first to volunteer to increase your taxes and reduce your services for the North.

gallag

Reekwind wrote: »

Which is, like the NE of England, a symptom of economic malaise. Public sector funds are essentially keeping an otherwise sick economy afloat. This scale of public funding would not be necessary if we posit a rise in prosperity to match the rest of Ireland.

Either that or the Tories in Westminster will gut the public sector subsidies anyway

if we posit a rise in prosperity to match the rest of Ireland?
I don't think N.Ireland is behind Ireland in terms of prosperity, don't be fooled by figures like GDP for Ireland, they include the profits multinational companies are just filtering through Ireland to avoid tax. I always think new car sales is a good way to compare economies, it's simple but it does show cash to spend without all the hard to gather figures like GDP, salary, taxes, health costs etc etc.

marienbad

gallag wrote: »

if we posit a rise in prosperity to match the rest of Ireland?
I don't think N.Ireland is behind Ireland in terms of prosperity, don't be fooled by figures like GDP for Ireland, they include the profits multinational companies are just filtering through Ireland to avoid tax. I always think new car sales is a good way to compare economies, it's simple but it does show cash to spend without all the hard to gather figures like GDP, salary, taxes, health costs etc etc.

Whatever about multinationals your method is just ignoring the even more bloated public sector in Northern Ireland so any prosperity is somewhat artificial .

Sooner or later no matter who is in charge that excess will have to be tackled.

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

if we posit a rise in prosperity to match the rest of Ireland?
I don't think N.Ireland is behind Ireland in terms of prosperity, don't be fooled by figures like GDP for Ireland, they include the profits multinational companies are just filtering through Ireland to avoid tax. I always think new car sales is a good way to compare economies, it's simple but it does show cash to spend without all the hard to gather figures like GDP, salary, taxes, health costs etc etc.

Fair enough, 2012: 47,000 cars in NI, 80,000 in the Republic for the same year.

If you look at the NI budget, it's still a significant amount below the Republics even after the reductions that have happened due to the Troika. a fair point about the GDP, however that's why there's GNP, which unlike GDP does strip out the multinational transfers:
GNP of the Republic: €164 billion
GNP of Northern Ireland: £29 billion (from what I can find)

Conchur

sparky42 wrote: »

Fair enough, 2012: 47,000 cars in NI, 80,000 in the Republic for the same year.

Bear in mind the population of the Republic is more than twice that of the North, though, so that's 0.017 new cars per person in the Republic and 0.026 new cars/person in the North.

sparky42

Conchur wrote: »

Bear in mind the population of the Republic is more than twice that of the North, though, so that's 0.017 new cars per person in the Republic and 0.026 new cars/person in the North.

Yes but the North's numbers have been collapsing while the Republic's has been recovering (which makes sense due to the credit crunch in the South and the debt overhanging people). In 06 the South bought 160K of cars (220K for all motor vehicles) while NI bought 68K cars.

gallag

sparky42 wrote: »

Yes but the North's numbers have been collapsing while the Republic's has been recovering (which makes sense due to the credit crunch in the South and the debt overhanging people). In 06 the South bought 160K of cars (220K for all motor vehicles) while NI bought 68K cars.

52k for N.I in 2013, 74k for Ireland.

Reekwind

sparky42 wrote: »

The North would have had much more infrastructure investment up until the Tiger years, and areas like medical expenses would be much lower than the Republic, and yet it's economy has been shrinking more and more compared to the South. The North has always had one of if not the highest unemployment rate in the UK (100K+ right now), trying to pass that off as just malaise ignores the fact that even if it reached full economic employment they couldn't sustain it's own budget without reductions

Absolutely none of which is inherent to the North. There is nothing about the people, geography or economic base that condemns it to lower prosperity than the rest of the island - as witnessed by its long history of exactly that

And yes, economic malaise is exactly the term that should be used to describe a situation in which long-term unemployment is chronic and public sector employment accounts for almost a third of all jobs. A stronger economy, for which divorce from London is necessary, would reduce both of these

This is not a uniquely Irish problem - Scotland and the north of England suffer from similar economic neglect

gallag wrote:

I don't think N.Ireland is behind Ireland in terms of prosperity, don't be fooled by figures like GDP for Ireland

Explain the fact that the average wage in NI is some €12k less than the rest of Ireland

sparky42

Reekwind wrote: »

Absolutely none of which is inherent to the North. There is nothing about the people, geography or economic base that condemns it to lower prosperity than the rest of the island - as witnessed by its long history of exactly that

And yes, economic malaise is exactly the term that should be used to describe a situation in which long-term unemployment is chronic and public sector employment accounts for almost a third of all jobs. A stronger economy, for which divorce from London is necessary, would reduce both of these

This is not a uniquely Irish problem - Scotland and the north of England suffer from similar economic neglect

I agree, the day the NI executive suggests making 200K of the public service redundant and limit their expenditure to what they can pay for themselves in order to boost competitiveness and encourage domestic growth I'll consider your points, however since that's not going to happen then I'll remain deeply doubtful that NI can ever catch up with the rest of the Republic without requiring the Republic to take on massive burdens.

gallag

Reekwind wrote: »

Explain the fact that the average wage in NI is some €12k less than the rest of Ireland

Different currency, different value of currency, different tax threshold and levels, different municipal charges, different price of bread and every other item in the grocery shop, different health care costs and different working benefits like child and tax credits.

Reekwind

sparky42 wrote: »

I agree, the day the NI executive suggests making 200K of the public service redundant and limit their expenditure to what they can pay for themselves in order to boost competitiveness and encourage domestic growth I'll consider your points, however since that's not going to happen then I'll remain deeply doubtful that NI can ever catch up with the rest of the Republic without requiring the Republic to take on massive burdens.

These aren't well paid roles we're talking about and nor is it a chicken and egg scenario. The issue with the NI public sector is the lack of private sector alternative: give people the option to move out of low-paid clerical jobs and they'll do so. A period of readjustment would of course be necessary but c'est la vie

gallag wrote:

Different currency, different value of currency...

No, that was a Euro value. But hey, maybe the NI and Ireland are on the same level. And both are £8k less than the rest of the UK, right?

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

Different currency, different value of currency, different tax threshold and levels, different municipal charges, different price of bread and every other item in the grocery shop, different health care costs and different working benefits like child and tax credits.

And the GNP which strips out the multinationals? Converted the Average industrial wages are €29005.60 (NI) to €41800 (ROI). I'm not sure how the rest of your post affects Average wages, it effects Cost of Living but Average wages is just that how much is the average wage.

sparky42

Reekwind wrote: »

These aren't well paid roles we're talking about and nor is it a chicken and egg scenario. The issue with the NI public sector is the lack of private sector alternative: give people the option to move out of low-paid clerical jobs and they'll do so. A period of readjustment would of course be necessary but c'est la vie

Over 120K of that number is Health and Education, something that the UK wouldn't push to be private and considering the HSE god knows what they'd get up to but again that requires the NI population to give up a major quality of life issue for them. Education isn't going to be privatised, neither would Policing for another 10K, maybe you manage to reduce the civil service/ local government number from 30K but how much you'd get out of that is up in the air, the rest I can't find exactly what they are in but I'd be really interested in finding out what you intend to privatise to somehow make NI competitive? The only ones I'd guess are political suicide buttons.

Sheldons Brain

But yes in trying to dress up unification as the solution to everything while ignoring the systemic and decades long issues in the North is just fine, I'm sure you'll be the first to volunteer to increase your taxes and reduce your services for the North.

Unification may not be the solution to everything, but the things that are required to make unification possible are in themselves desirable for NI. It may have escaped notice, but the UK budget deficit and accumulated debt is also large and public expenditure is not going to be on an upward trajectory. In addition, the Scottish political developments are almost certainly going to lead to some sort of reassessment, or at least great transparency, of financial transfers in the UK.

Over 120K of that number is Health and Education, something that the UK wouldn't push to be private and considering the HSE god knows what they'd get up to but again that requires the NI population to give up a major quality of life issue for them. Education isn't going to be privatised, neither would Policing for another 10K, maybe you manage to reduce the civil service/ local government number from 30K but how much you'd get out of that is up in the air, the rest I can't find exactly what they are in but I'd be really interested in finding out what you intend to privatise to somehow make NI competitive? The only ones I'd guess are political suicide buttons.

If NI has more public spending pro rata than other places which also have health, education etc then it is being spent on something else. This is where the reduction should lie.

sparky42

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Unification may not be the solution to everything, but the things that are required to make unification possible are in themselves desirable for NI. It may have escaped notice, but the UK budget deficit and accumulated debt is also large and public expenditure is not going to be on an upward trajectory. In addition, the Scottish political developments are almost certainly going to lead to some sort of reassessment, or at least great transparency, of financial transfers in the UK.

And if they make improvements then the attraction to unification may well be reduced as well. In regards to the rest of the UK, like I pointed out a policy of the Peace Process has always been "carrot" either the Governments have offered or the NI have demanded (see Marty's recent Haass suggestion), so any adjustment will still leave NI getting the better part of 10 billion. As for Scotland, a) I don't see the Independence side winning and b) given the North Sea oil/gas they have many more cards than NI will ever have.

If NI has more public spending pro rata than other places which also have health, education etc then it is being spent on something else. This is where the reduction should lie.

Unemployment, child benefit, Pensions (remember they have 100K unemployed and another 900K that aren't in the workforce), that's a fair chunk of the rest of the spending I'd bet.

Sheldons Brain

In regards to the rest of the UK, like I pointed out a policy of the Peace Process has always been "carrot" either the Governments have offered or the NI have demanded (see Marty's recent Haass suggestion), so any adjustment will still leave NI getting the better part of 10 billion.

NI being a backward mendicant, remaining behind the rest of these islands, is not a very attractive outcome. And if Britain thought it could be rid of NI in a peaceful and agreed way they'd not strike a hard deal on the transitional arrangements.

RoyalCelt

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Is this thread in a serious forum or in After Hours? From its ridiculous title to the type of irrelevant predjudice in the previous post, it sets a low standard even for the Politics forum.

Northern Ireland needs to build a proper future for itself as it moves towards a nationalist majority, this requires real political work, not fantasy maps.

I was and still am very serious about this thread.

RoyalCelt

ardmacha wrote: »

This presupposes that NI is inevitably significantly poorer than Britain/ROI and so in need of all of these subsidies. There is no intrinsic reason why this should be case, you would expect that Belfast/East NI would be much the same level of prosperity as the rest of Ireland and that perhaps West Tyrone/Fermanagh might be like Roscommon.

I think the trouble in the north puts a lot of companies off moving to places like Belfast. Expenditure on things like policing would also be through the roof.

gallag

Reekwind wrote: »

No, that was a Euro value. But hey, maybe the NI and Ireland are on the same level. And both are £8k less than the rest of the UK, right?

And the rest? Tax allowance? Rates? If someone in the U.K earns about 20000 a year and has kids they will get about 5000 a year child tax credits, what about living costs? Is a pint of milk or a pack of nappies cheaper in the UK? Free bins, dental, health care and water?

How do you explain people in N.Ireland being able to buy more new cars?

marienbad

gallag wrote: »

And the rest? Tax allowance? Rates? If someone in the U.K earns about 20000 a year and has kids they will get about 5000 a year child tax credits, what about living costs? Is a pint of milk or a pack of nappies cheaper in the UK? Free bins, dental, health care and water?

How do you explain people in N.Ireland being able to buy more new cars?

You are on a loser here gallag, because people in the Republic are/were mired in debt (you night have read about it ) and we can see even with a small recovery car sales are on the increase again.

Fratton Fred

RoyalCelt wrote: »

I think the trouble in the north puts a lot of companies off moving to places like Belfast. Expenditure on things like policing would also be through the roof.

Exactly.

Then you have the spiral of unemployment breeding radicalism to make matters worse.

Solution? Ship a lot of public sector jobs out of London and in to northern Ireland. It's a win win, it creates jobs where needed and reduces the cost of those jobs to the exchequer.

marienbad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Exactly.

Then you have the spiral of unemployment breeding radicalism to make matters worse.

Solution? Ship a lot of public sector jobs out of London and in to northern Ireland. It's a win win, it creates jobs where needed and reduces the cost of those jobs to the exchequer.

That just prolongs the problem- sooner or later the economy must become competitive . That is the only solution

Fratton Fred

marienbad wrote: »

That just prolongs the problem- sooner or later the economy must become competitive . That is the only solution

It was never going to be competitive whilst people were killing each other. Who in their right mind would recommend the North to a board of directors as a viable place to set up, when s sizeable chunk of people are actively trying to destroy the economic infrastructure of Northern Ireland?

marienbad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It was never going to be competitive whilst people were killing each other. Who in their right mind would recommend the North to a board of directors as a viable place to set up, when s sizeable chunk of people are actively trying to destroy the economic infrastructure of Northern Ireland?

I fully accept that as long as the conflict continued there was no possibility of economic recovery. But sooner or later it will have to be tackled and I don't see the current politicians having the balls for it.

sparky42

marienbad wrote: »

I fully accept that as long as the conflict continued there was no possibility of economic recovery. But sooner or later it will have to be tackled and I don't see the current politicians having the balls for it.

Considering even the upcoming NI politicians I don't see that changing anytime soon.

RoyalCelt

How will Scotland getting independence (if they do) affect the UK's economy? London must get a lot from scotlands energy sector?

radiocrackle

it amazes me how simple people seem to believe the issue of the north is - as if you can just stick it onto the south. If the north and south were ever going to unite, it would mean a completely new country, with a completely new political system developed over a very long period of time. Its not a matter of adding the 6 counties to the other 26 and still running the republic as it is.

orangesoda

It's nonsense, sure there is villages in them orange regions that have 90 odd % nationalist population and vice versa in the green regions

RoyalCelt

Scotland pushing ahead with independence. I think they will do quite OK on their own. Will they join the euro and will N.I ever look for independence?

tdv123

RoyalCelt wrote: »

Scotland pushing ahead with independence. I think they will do quite OK on their own. Will they join the euro and will N.I ever look for independence?

The question has to be asked why are the people of Scotland allowed to decide as a single unit the future of their country & Ireland's future is decided by small minority in the North East. Whether your against full independence or for it you have to admit that's unfair & undemocratic

The Corinthian

tdv123 wrote: »

The question has to be asked why are the people of Scotland allowed to decide as a single unit the future of their country & Ireland's future is decided by small minority in the North East. Whether your against full independence or for it you have to admit that's unfair & undemocratic

By that logic then England, Wales and NI should also have a vote in Scottish independence - or any future NI independence, given that otherwise Britain's future would be decided by small minority in the north, either.

Ironically, I suspect it would make independence more likely for Scotland or, especially, NI.

Also, I think you're confusing how any such NI referendum would be likely to work, as it would not be one vote, but two; one for NI independence and a second for unification with the Republic. I wholeheartedly support the notion that all parties involved in the latter should have a say in it as you suggest, but where it comes to the former, it really is ultimately their independence, and hence their business.

tdv123

The Corinthian wrote: »

By that logic then England, Wales and NI should also have a vote in Scottish independence - or any future NI independence, given that otherwise Britain's future would be decided by small minority in the north, either.

Ironically, I suspect it would make independence more likely for Scotland or, especially, NI.

Also, I think you're confusing how any such NI referendum would be likely to work, as it would not be one vote, but two; one for NI independence and a second for unification with the Republic. I wholeheartedly support the notion that all parties involved in the latter should have a say in it as you suggest, but where it comes to the former, it really is ultimately their independence, and hence their business.

Have a little longer memory than that mate.

If Scotland votes for independence the country wont be partitioned & thugs like the auxiliaries won't be sent to Scotland to try & thwart the democratic wishes of the Scottish people. When people voted for independence here in 1918 their wishes were ignored.

My point is we have no say if the country is partitioned or not whether we'd vote for unity or against it. It's left in the hands of a small minority to decide the future of partition

R P McMurphy

The Corinthian wrote: »

By that logic then England, Wales and NI should also have a vote in Scottish independence - or any future NI independence, given that otherwise Britain's future would be decided by small minority in the north, either.

Ironically, I suspect it would make independence more likely for Scotland or, especially, NI.

Also, I think you're confusing how any such NI referendum would be likely to work, as it would not be one vote, but two; one for NI independence and a second for unification with the Republic. I wholeheartedly support the notion that all parties involved in the latter should have a say in it as you suggest, but where it comes to the former, it really is ultimately their independence, and hence their business.

What section of the GFA covers these two referendums?

ectoraige

Reekwind wrote: »

For the same reason that the North comprised the six counties to begin with: the rump would be even less economically viable as a state. The initial proposals for the North had envisaged divorcing only the three Unionist-minority provinces from the rest of the island, something arbitrarily changed by London to provide Belfast with more territory

If a referendum were held today then I'd be confident that three, maybe four, of the counties of Ulster would rejoin Ireland. But that would leave the remainder simply too small to exist independently (even with British subsidies). So it's not in the interests of London or Belfast (or Dublin) to let that happen. Again, we have to live with old failures of British statecraft

Just curious, I hear this argument a lot, that it would be economically unviable, but have there been any research to back up this argument? There are examples the world over of small territories existing in various forms, especially post-colonial outposts such as Gibraltar and the Falklands. It seems to me that it's one of these things that is true only because say it is true.

The Corinthian

tdv123 wrote: »

Have a little longer memory than that mate.

If Scotland votes for independence the country wont be partitioned & thugs like the auxiliaries won't be sent to Scotland to try & thwart the democratic wishes of the Scottish people. When people voted for independence here in 1918 their wishes were ignored.

My point is we have no say if the country is partitioned or not whether we'd vote for unity or against it. It's left in the hands of a small minority to decide the future of partition

You're going to have to explain that again, because it makes no sense. If NI is to vote for independence, then it's really up to NI to do so. If you suddenly decide that another sovereign state, the Republic, should also have a say in the independence of NI, then essentially you have to extend the same right to Scottish independence to Britain - or for that matter a say in even NI's independence for Britain.

If you disagree with this, then you're going to have to come up with a better argument than some historical sob story that is no longer relevant anyway given our democratic acceptance of the principles of the Good Friday and Anglo-Irish agreements. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

tdv123

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're going to have to explain that again, because it makes no sense. If NI is to vote for independence, then it's really up to NI to do so. If you suddenly decide that another sovereign state, the Republic, should also have a say in the independence of NI, then essentially you have to extend the same right to Scottish independence to Britain - or for that matter a say in even NI's independence for Britain.

If you disagree with this, then you're going to have to come up with a better argument than some historical sob story that is no longer relevant anyway given our democratic acceptance of the principles of the Good Friday and Anglo-Irish agreements. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

It's not a sob story it's a fact it happened, if you want to skip over facts that's up to you. The British government is ultimately responsible for all the violent conflicts in Ireland that happened in the 20th century.

I would have rather the whole island stayed under British rule instead of splitting the country up & creating multiple divisions between Irish people.
Like I said in a other thread we didn't have a revolution just to change the color of the flag, abandon our fellow countrymen in the North who split their blood for us in Dublin & to be ruled by a extreme conservative Rome rule government.

The Corinthian

tdv123 wrote: »

It's not a sob story it's a fact it happened, if you want to skip over facts that's up to you.

Like how you seem to be forgetting where the Good Friday agreement enshrined NI's right to self-determination?

tdv123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Like how you seem to be forgetting where the Good Friday agreement enshrined NI's right to self-determination?

I know but your missing the point I'm making. All the Irish people should be allowed to decide their future together. The Irish nation just doesn't stop at the border. Someone from Tyrone is just as Irish as someone from Cork or Kerry. The GFA was just a sop to the UVF, they were killing Catholics to keep NI in the Union they got what they wanted & then some by forcing the Free State to relinquish it's claim over the North.

The Corinthian

R P McMurphy wrote: »

What section of the GFA covers these two referendums?

Who said the GFA covers either? I suggested was how it "would be likely to work".

tdv123 wrote: »

I know but your missing the point I'm making. All the Irish people should be allowed to decide their future together.

Totally agree; I did point out that both sides of the border should be involved were it comes to unification. I'm just pointing out that there are two parts to the process, independence and unification. The first part realistically should be posed to the people of Northern Ireland alone, as it is their independence.

R P McMurphy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Like how you seem to be forgetting where the Good Friday agreement enshrined NI's right to self-determination?

In so far as a future within the UK or Ireland, not an independent entity

tdv123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who said the GFA covers either? I suggested was how it "would be likely to work".

Totally agree; I did point out that both sides of the border should be involved were it comes to unification. I'm just pointing out that there are two parts to the process, independence and unification. The first part realistically should be posed to the people of Northern Ireland alone, as it is their independence.

I agree they should be allowed to decided their own future but it's hard for them make a unbiased decision with the UVF calling the shots & the OO's scare mongering.

Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the country was never partitioned?

The Corinthian

tdv123 wrote: »

I agree they should be allowed to decided their own future but it's hard for them make a unbiased decision with the UVF calling the shots & the OO's scare mongering.

Ultimately, it's their decision to make, even they will be under pressure from the UVF, or equally from dissident republican groups. Or economic arguments (personally, I suspect it'll come down to this on both sides of the border). Or whatever. Otherwise it sounds more like you're worried they won't make the 'right' decision, rather than an unbiased one.

Unfortunately, it's comments like that that make me pretty certain that no matter which way such a vote goes, it's still going to turn out badly because some fanatical idiot on either side will be convinced that the Will of the People wasn't properly served.

The Corinthian

tdv123 wrote: »

Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the country was never partitioned?

Sure and how many lives would have been saved if the archduke Franz Ferdinand had asked "look honey, is that guy up ahead carrying a pistol?"