Unification?

Redbishop

Happyman42 wrote: »

As regards security and a return to violence...if it is done correctly and we truly set up a republic (not the sham we have now) then it need not descend into conflict.

The way it is worded suggests that if it is done incorrectly, and what you call our present sham is not replaced then it could decend in to conflict. Is that not saying there could be violence.

Happyman42 wrote: »

How does it sound like a 'threat'?
Are we allowed to express an opinion on how we see things going without being accused of making 'threats'. Pitiful comment tbh.

I dont mind you making comments or expressing opinion, I just answered with what I picked up from it.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, we are electing a government. The question of 'unity' has never been put to the Irish people on this island.

Except for when it was, of course. NI was part of the free state, until they opted to return to the UK on the back of a democratically elected political representation. So there's your answer - no consensus on unity, then, or since. And no prospect of unity until some rather dramatic shift in opinion occurs in NI.

smcgiff

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, because 'I'm alright Jack' the rest of ye can sling yer hook?
Sounds like the partitionists charter.

I'm saying NI would be easier to integrate than a communist country and comparing to Germany is ludicrous.

I'd like UI, but only if the majority of the people that have existed in a state/ region for nearly 100 years agree to it.

liam24

The Republic of Ireland could not afford to subsidize Northern Ireland and its gigantic budget deficit. I can see literally no benefit to the people of the Republic of having to shoulder this poverty-stricken backwards ultra-conservative hellhole. The English turned it to ****, let them deal with it.

Happyman42

Redbishop wrote: »

The way it is worded suggests that if it is done incorrectly, and what you call our present sham is not replaced then it could decend in to conflict. Is that not saying there could be violence.



I dont mind you making comments or expressing opinion, I just answered with what I picked up from it.

Stating that in my opinion we will again descend into cyclical violence is not a 'threat'.
Just like saying that if the situation in Greece is not sorted, it will descend into violence, is not a threat, it is just an opinion.

alastair

AnotherYear wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem paying extra tax if it meant my fellow countrymen & women could reunify with the rest of us. A united country is a stronger country in the long run.

'Extra tax'!?

You do realise that NI is a basket case, economically, and that the overhead for absorbing NI into the state would equate to doubling the worst years of recent deficit and austerity, for essentially the fore-seeable future?

liam24

alastair wrote: »

'Extra tax'!?

You do realise that NI is a basket case, economically, and that the overhead for absorbing NI into the state would equate to doubling the worst years of recent deficit and austerity, for essentially the fore-seeable future?

NI has an annual budget deficit of 30%. Ireland did that once, because of an exceptional year when a lot of bankers had to be paid off, before falling to 11% the next year. And that was considered catastrophic!

Redbishop

Happyman42 wrote: »

Stating that in my opinion we will again descend into cyclical violence is not a 'threat'.
Just like saying that if the situation in Greece is not sorted, it will descend into violence, is not a threat, it is just an opinion.

Thanks, you cleared that up for me.

AnotherYear

alastair wrote: »

'Extra tax'!?

You do realise that NI is a basket case, economically, and that the overhead for absorbing NI into the state would equate to doubling the worst years of recent deficit and austerity, for essentially the fore-seeable future?

You should write doomsday novels. I think you'd do quite well

alastair

AnotherYear wrote: »

You should write doomsday novels. I think you'd do quite well

Anyone mention 'doom', other than yourself? I'm pointing out that the actual economic overhead of carrying NI's deficit would, by any assessment, require rather more long-term hardship than 'extra tax'.

AnotherYear

alastair wrote: »

Anyone mention 'doom', other than yourself? I'm pointing out that the actual economic overhead of carrying NI's deficit would, by any assessment, require rather more long-term hardship than 'extra tax'.

Your post equated to doom. It was hardly sunshine and lollipops now was it. I said a united country is a stronger country . I'm sure it would take time but eventually it would be.

Your opinion is entirely based on possible financial iimplications where as mine is more heart felt. In other words I don't care what it might cost as it's worth it IMO. It probably isn't worth it in yours and that's fine

alastair

AnotherYear wrote: »

Your post equated to doom. It was hardly sunshine and lollipops now was it. I said a united country is a stronger country . I'm sure it would take time but eventually it would be.

Your opinion is entirely based on possible financial iimplications where as mine is more heart felt. In other words I don't care what it might cost as it's worth it IMO. It probably isn't worth it in yours and that's fine

No sunshine and lollipops for sure, but no doom either. Simply a level of hardship that no majority, North or South, would condone. Unity will require a complete economic turnaround in NI before it becomes a realistic proposition - even the many who have a heart-felt desire for it.

AnotherYear

alastair wrote: »

No sunshine and lollipops for sure, but no doom either. Simply a level of hardship that no majority, North or South, would condone. Unity will require a complete economic turnaround in NI before it becomes a realistic proposition - even the many who have a heart-felt desire for it.

Ok fair enough. I would disagree with your point about no majority in South would condone it. I think more indepth polls are needed like the run up to the Scottish Independence vote to gather a clearer picture of what people actually think. I'll agree to disagree on that point for now

And yes a better economy in the North would certainly help those who wish to see reunification.

Happyman42

Continued cuts in NI will help to change attitudes.
Unionists are only too well aware that their position has changed and is changing. And Unionism at it's core is pragmatic. NI will have to face up to a future that might not be ideal but it does offer the best chance for prosperity. I would think most Unionists would know in their hearts(they aren't ready to publically say it though) that it won't be with Britain.

eire4

At the begining of the 20th century any kind of Irish independance seemed beyond a long shot but it did happen. Time will tell the tale on unification.I think we are in for some very interesting times politically in upcoming years.

Redbishop

I think if it is looked at in purely economic terms it has to be a no go for now certainly. We in the Republic couldnt afford to take it on financially, and in reality the population in Northern Ireland would have to take a drastic cut to the services they are used to as well. There would certainly initially have to be significant subsidisation by the british govt and possibly Eu to make it in any way viable and they may not be willing to pay towards the dream.
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1028259.shtml
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21640334-guns-mostly-silent-ulster-can-begin-deal-its-lamentable-economy-new-kind

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

At the begining of the 20th century any kind of Irish independance seemed beyond a long shot but it did happen. Time will tell the tale on unification.I think we are in for some very interesting times politically in upcoming years.

A different scenario altogether. There are now two distinctly separate states, with their own strong identities, and no strong desire to change that fact on the part of the majority.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

most Unionists would know in their hearts(they aren't ready to publically say it though) that it won't be with Britain.

If they knew that, they wouldn't be UNIONists....

In any case, they can have whatever future they want. It won't be with us.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

If they knew that, they wouldn't be UNIONists....

In any case, they can have whatever future they want. It won't be with us.

It took 30 to 40 years of sad violence for them and our resident (but disappearing partitionists) to bite the bullet and accept that their future would have to be shared with us. The GFA.
Only the foolish would deny that more and more will be shared...because that border never made any sense at any time, economically, socially and culturally.

smcgiff

eire4 wrote: »

At the begining of the 20th century any kind of Irish independance seemed beyond a long shot but it did happen. Time will tell the tale on unification.I think we are in for some very interesting times politically in upcoming years.

Agreed, and nothing more interesting than the dynamic that will play out once national parties are in the majority in NI.

The traditional unionists parties will be in the minority, yet the majority of people will want to remain in the UK, including a sizeable proportion/majority of the traditional nationalist party voters.

Why would those that traditionally vote for Nationalist parties want change, they'll finally be running the place while England pays the bills.

For there to be a UI it will take the London government to go from being pretty passive about the union to be pro UI. The longer the peace, the more likely that will happen in my opinion.

katydid

smcgiff wrote: »

Agreed, and nothing more interesting than the dynamic that will play out once national parties are in the majority in NI.

The traditional unionists parties will be in the minority, yet the majority of people will want to remain in the UK, including a sizeable proportion/majority of the traditional nationalist party voters.

Why would those that traditionally vote for Nationalist parties want change, they'll finally be running the place while England pays the bills.

For there to be a UI it will take the London government to go from being pretty passive about the union to be pro UI. The longer the peace, the more likely that will happen in my opinion.

And there's the little matter of the consent of the people of the Republic...

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

It took 30 to 40 years of sad violence for them and our resident (but disappearing partitionists) to bite the bullet and accept that their future would have to be shared with us. The GFA.
Only the foolish would deny that more and more will be shared...because that border never made any sense at any time, economically, socially and culturally.

The GFA doesn't mean they share their future with us. It only means that a majority in both jurisdictions would have to come to a certain decision. That isn't going to happen today or tomorrow, or anywhere in the foreseeable future, so their future and ours is pretty safe in that respect.

Nothing wrong with sharing. Just not taking them into our society. They have a lot of issues to sort out first, leaving aside the political dimension.

ardmacha

katydid wrote: »

Nothing wrong with sharing. Just not taking them into our society. They have a lot of issues to sort out first, leaving aside the political dimension.

Good plan, exclude people with issues from society. Can we start a list?

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

The GFA doesn't mean they share their future with us. It only means that a majority in both jurisdictions would have to come to a certain decision. That isn't going to happen today or tomorrow, or anywhere in the foreseeable future, so their future and ours is pretty safe in that respect.

Nothing wrong with sharing. Just not taking them into our society. They have a lot of issues to sort out first, leaving aside the political dimension.

The simple truth is (and the likes of Peter Robinson knows it only too well) is that a shared future is what will bring secure prosperity for all. Jim Molyneaux knew that the GFA 'was the worst thing that ever happened to us' only too well, because he knew the ramifications of it.

By the way, could you give us some sample rhetoric 'against' a United Ireland that might come from FG or FF ministers in the event of a poll? I don't know about anyone else but I can't see them or hear them objecting too strongly to the notion. Can you really hear them objecting with sentences like...'we don't want your problems down here' or 'In what way would adding a bunch of disgruntled unionists and bigots from both communities to our society be best for us?'

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

The simple truth is (and the likes of Peter Robinson knows it only too well) is that a shared future is what will bring secure prosperity for all. Jim Molyneaux knew that the GFA 'was the worst thing that ever happened to us' only too well, because he knew the ramifications of it.

By the way, could you give us some sample rhetoric 'against' a United Ireland that might come from FG or FF ministers in the event of a poll? I don't know about anyone else but I can't see them or hear them objecting too strongly to the notion. Can you really hear them objecting with sentences like...'we don't want your problems down here' or 'In what way would adding a bunch of disgruntled unionists and bigots from both communities to our society be best for us?'

A shared future is a different kettle of fish from a unified Ireland. We are all members of the EU, and have a shared future there. There could well be a confederacy on this island, with the Republic and Northern Ireland in an agreement whereby certain things are shared, where it benefits both. But the political systems can't be shared; we are a republic, they are a monarchy, and never the twain will meet. And you can't force a million monarchists into a republic.

And we don't need rhetoric from politicians. We can think for ourselves. And we know that no matter how bad things are here, we at least don't have the sectarian bigotry they have up there. It's a dysfunctional entity, and has to heal itself before it can join anyone.

Balmed Out

Id like to see a united Ireland but dont see it happening anytime soon. The republics economy isnt strong enough with too much debt and the norths depends so much on support from the UK.
Can't understand posters who seem to think FF OR FG would be against it happening in the long term, especially FF, id imagine them trying to take complete credit for it.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

A shared future is a different kettle of fish from a unified Ireland. We are all members of the EU, and have a shared future there. There could well be a confederacy on this island, with the Republic and Northern Ireland in an agreement whereby certain things are shared, where it benefits both. But the political systems can't be shared; we are a republic, they are a monarchy, and never the twain will meet. And you can't force a million monarchists into a republic.

And we don't need rhetoric from politicians. We can think for ourselves. And we know that no matter how bad things are here, we at least don't have the sectarian bigotry they have up there. It's a dysfunctional entity, and has to heal itself before it can join anyone.

So, therefore, like hardline Unionism atm, you can't even allow a debate on this or a poll. Figures.
What a head in the sand philosophy. There will be both, a debate and a poll and those 'bigots' and 'sectarians' will be up to be persuaded.
If the British (and I think they will, come the day) clearly indicate that they too think unification is the best way forward and actively encourage it and demonstrate what the future is (a process they have clearly started-reduced subsidy, cuts etc) then unity is very much up for grabs and you won't be able to cover your ears and shout no no no anymore.
Unity will be presented truthfully...expensive to begin with but a huge investment in the future of everybody on the island and the chance to build a new kind of republic (and aren't the majority in the south calling for that already?)

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, therefore, like hardline Unionism atm, you can't even allow a debate on this or a poll. Figures.

There's been regular polls on the subject. They clearly demonstrate that there's no appetite for a break from the UK in NI. And it's nothing to do with 'hardline unionism' that there's no referendum on a break - we all signed up to the mechanism that will allow for such a referendum - the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland will call one if and when there's any chance of it passing - which there currently isn't.

Happyman42

Like any Minister, the Secretary of State will do what he/she is told when the time comes. Any fool can see that it is only a matter of time until SF will have a bargaining chip in their hand to exert the pressure. There has been no poll yet that proves conclusively what the mindset is and more to the point, the issue has not been seriously debated. Until that debate is held and serious proposals are made, any poll is just an indication of where hidebound mindsets are at currently.

Karl Stein

smcgiff wrote: »

Why would those that traditionally vote for Nationalist parties want change, they'll finally be running the place while England pays the bills.

It's a funny old world. Unionists are locked into a situation where their future in the UK depends on how happy with their lot non-Unionists are - perhaps that's what Molyneaux was referring to.

I'd imagine England/London (despite the rhetoric) would be delighted to disengage. If I was an English planner I'd be welcoming cross-border harmonisation of public policy and would be cutting the subsidy in anticipation of getting out at some time in the future.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

A different scenario altogether. There are now two distinctly separate states, with their own strong identities, and no strong desire to change that fact on the part of the majority.

Yes 2 different times no doubt about it. At the begining of the 20th century Ireland was a colonized country with centuries of domination by Britain the most powerful empire on earth at the time. Any kind of independance emerging from that scenario seemed to use your terminolgy a "dream". Thankfully that dream came true.

Redbishop

eire4 wrote: »

Yes 2 different times no doubt about it. At the begining of the 20th century Ireland was a colonized country with centuries of domination by Britain the most powerful empire on earth at the time. Any kind of independance emerging from that scenario seemed to use your terminolgy a "dream". Thankfully that dream came true.

How long is it since Ireland was a united country ruled completely by one governing entity? We have been ruled by foreigners for so long and by different factions and tribes of our own I wonder was there ever a totally united Ireland. Maybe the dream is to create something that has never really existed?

bilston

Somebody try and sell a United Ireland to this Northern Irish Unionist?

How would it look? Do you all see it being just be an annexation of NI into the Republic or would everything be up for discussion? Would the people of the Republic be prepared to see changes to their flag, their anthem, their political system even? Perhaps go down the federal route? I suspect a lot of that would be red line stuff for many down south.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

A shared future is a different kettle of fish from a unified Ireland. We are all members of the EU, and have a shared future there. There could well be a confederacy on this island, with the Republic and Northern Ireland in an agreement whereby certain things are shared, where it benefits both. But the political systems can't be shared; we are a republic, they are a monarchy, and never the twain will meet. And you can't force a million monarchists into a republic.

And we don't need rhetoric from politicians. We can think for ourselves. And we know that no matter how bad things are here, we at least don't have the sectarian bigotry they have up there. It's a dysfunctional entity, and has to heal itself before it can join anyone.

There is of course the distinct possibility that we will not all be members of the EU in a few years time. The Tories have pledged to hold a referendum to withdraw Britain from the EU if they form the next government in Britain.


I would also suggest you cut out the use of the royal "we" and focus on speaking for yourself. There certainly is plenty of racism and dysfunction on display I will agree with that. However we have to our own shame though plenty of examples of discrimination, dysfunction and much worse from own government as the sheer evil that was exposed in the Ryan Report and McAleese report showed and I shudder to think the horrors that await to be fully revealved in the upcoming inquiry.

The Golden Miller

No one knows what will happen in the future really, but for those saying there is no chance of a united Ireland really do have their head in the sand. In 30-40 years Catholics/Nationalists will have a sizeable majority. It won't be a case of having to persuade unionists anymore. No one can predict how the economy will go. Our economy picks up and we continue to have a higher standard of living than people in the north and the UK's goes to sh!te, will these Nationalists that stay in the UK over economic benefits today be that hard pushed to vote into a more prosperous society in the future?

In time, Scotland eventually leaves the UK, UK effectively dissolves. You think England will be happy to subsidise the North to the tune of billions by themselves? All UK countries go it alone. Northern Ireland fails as an entity by itself. Again, will the Nationalist majority, including those who would have voted to stay in the UK for free HSE etc, be happy living in a failing state with none of these benefits? Again, wouldn't be too hard pushed to join the south.

Not that either of these scenario's will happen, but it's amusing watching these partitionists from the south come onto a Northern Ireland forum for no reason, and be so passionate about telling northern nationalists they aren't wanted, and convincing themselves and united Ireland will never happen. And why? In the future there is every chance is could happen. Economic performance will be telling and no one can predict that. I can see it going down the road similar to scenario 2.

And for us in the south having a say on unification, wise up. We effectively don't and shouldn't. Who are we to say another Irish man in the north has or hasn't the right to be ruled under an Irish government? If the north at some point votes for unification, every major party in the south will push for it, for no other reason that they will have to be seen to be in favour of it. And once the scaremongering starts, we all know how easily manipulated Irish people are.... ala Lisbon no. 2. Not to mention there is already a majority who supports it. So it's a moot point really. It will fly through in the south if the scenario ever comes about, and all the partitionists know it too, so ye may as well stop clinging to it as some sort of last gasp bit of hope

eire4

Redbishop wrote: »

How long is it since Ireland was a united country ruled completely by one governing entity? We have been ruled by foreigners for so long and by different factions and tribes of our own I wonder was there ever a totally united Ireland. Maybe the dream is to create something that has never really existed?

I am assuming you mean when was Ireland a united country ruled by one native governing entity as obviously the answer would othwise be about 100 years ago when Britain ruled all of Ireland.


As you say we were colonized and ruled by Britain for a very long time. So long in fact that it stretches into a time in history when the nation state as we know it today was not the norm.

Redbishop

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No one knows what will happen in the future really, but for those saying there is no chance of a united Ireland really do have there head in the sand. In 30-40 years Catholics/Nationalists will have a sizeable majority. It won't be a case of having to persuade unionists anymore. No one can predict how the economy will go. Our economy picks up and we continue to have a higher standard of living than people in the north and the UK's goes to sh!te, will these Nationalists that stay in the UK over economic benefits be that hard pushed to vote into a more prosperous society?

In time, Scotland eventually leaves the UK, UK effectively dissolves. You think England will be happy to subsidise the North to the tune of billions by themselves? All UK countries go it alone. Northern Ireland fails as an entity by itself. Again, will the Nationalist majority, including those who would have voted to stay in the UK for free HSE etc, be happy living in a failing state with none of these benefits? Again wouldn't be too hard pushed to join the south.

Not that either of these scenario's will happen, but it's amusing watching these partitionists from the south come onto a Northern Ireland forum for no reason, and be so passionate about telling northern nationalists they aren't wanted, and convincing themselves and united Ireland will never happen. And why? In the future there is every chance is could happen. Economic performance will be telling and no one can predict that. I can see it going down the road similar to scenario 2

I think you will find boards.ie doesent present borders and this is a public forum, talking about a thread that concerns both sides of the border as one cant unify without the consent of the other.

Redbishop

eire4 wrote: »

I am assuming you mean when was Ireland a united country ruled by one native governing entity as obviously the answer would othwise be about 100 years ago when Britain ruled all of Ireland.


As you say we were colonized and ruled by Britain for a very long time. So long in fact that it stretches into a time in history when the nation state as we know it today was not the norm.

Well yes, but I meant governed from within our own boundaries. Before the british took over.

Happyman42

Redbishop wrote: »

I think you will find boards.ie doesent present borders and this is a public forum, talking about a thread that concerns both sides of the border as one cant unify without the consent of the other.

You tell us then...which party in the south would go against Unity if a majority of Northerners vote for it? Actually, which party would actively campaign against it, even before a vote.

Redbishop

Happyman42 wrote: »

You tell us then...which party in the south would go against Unity if a majority of Northerners vote for it? Actually, which party would actively campaign against it, even before a vote.

Probably none? But would a majority of voters in the republic go for it when the financial implications are fully explained?. If it were tomoro I dont think I would vote for it.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Like any Minister, the Secretary of State will do what he/she is told when the time comes. Any fool can see that it is only a matter of time until SF will have a bargaining chip in their hand to exert the pressure. There has been no poll yet that proves conclusively what the mindset is and more to the point, the issue has not been seriously debated. Until that debate is held and serious proposals are made, any poll is just an indication of where hidebound mindsets are at currently.

Yeah - the polls merely tell us that there's no appetite for a break with the union. And no-one's attempting to stop such polls. And again - the fiction of 'hard line unionists' blocking a referendum is kind of undermined by the actual sequence of events that are required to bring about a referendum. The DUP's eagerness to facilitate SF's campaign for a border poll - on the basis of the re-iteration of the lack of interest in breaking with the union across all of the NI populace, might make the particular (and rather less sexy) reasons for the lack of a referendum, clear enough. It's pointless because there's no chance of it changing the status quo. People remain unconvinced that a change would benefit them.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Yes 2 different times no doubt about it. At the begining of the 20th century Ireland was a colonized country with centuries of domination by Britain the most powerful empire on earth at the time. Any kind of independance emerging from that scenario seemed to use your terminolgy a "dream". Thankfully that dream came true.

But it had an impetus to change. There is no impetus in the Republic, as we are happy the way we are, and also don't have any wish to take on a dysfunctional society.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

There is of course the distinct possibility that we will not all be members of the EU in a few years time. The Tories have pledged to hold a referendum to withdraw Britain from the EU if they form the next government in Britain.


I would also suggest you cut out the use of the royal "we" and focus on speaking for yourself. There certainly is plenty of racism and dysfunction on display I will agree with that. However we have to our own shame though plenty of examples of discrimination, dysfunction and much worse from own government as the sheer evil that was exposed in the Ryan Report and McAleese report showed and I shudder to think the horrors that await to be fully revealved in the upcoming inquiry.

My example of the EU was not in relation to the fact that Britain and the Republic of Ireland or both members. It was just an example of how two separate states can remain separate while sharing a common goal. You're right that Britain may not stay in the EU, but there are other options where we can share where it makes sense without losing our separate identities.

There is SOME bigotry in this state, but nothing on the scale of NI. There certainly isn't the religious bigotry that is rife there. It's a dysfunctional state, whatever way you look at it. They can't even have a normal democracy, for heaven's sake!

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No one knows what will happen in the future really, but for those saying there is no chance of a united Ireland really do have their head in the sand. In 30-40 years Catholics/Nationalists will have a sizeable majority. It won't be a case of having to persuade unionists anymore. No one can predict how the economy will go. Our economy picks up and we continue to have a higher standard of living than people in the north and the UK's goes to sh!te, will these Nationalists that stay in the UK over economic benefits today be that hard pushed to vote into a more prosperous society in the future?

In time, Scotland eventually leaves the UK, UK effectively dissolves. You think England will be happy to subsidise the North to the tune of billions by themselves? All UK countries go it alone. Northern Ireland fails as an entity by itself. Again, will the Nationalist majority, including those who would have voted to stay in the UK for free HSE etc, be happy living in a failing state with none of these benefits? Again, wouldn't be too hard pushed to join the south.

Not that either of these scenario's will happen, but it's amusing watching these partitionists from the south come onto a Northern Ireland forum for no reason, and be so passionate about telling northern nationalists they aren't wanted, and convincing themselves and united Ireland will never happen. And why? In the future there is every chance is could happen. Economic performance will be telling and no one can predict that. I can see it going down the road similar to scenario 2.

And for us in the south having a say on unification, wise up. We effectively don't and shouldn't. Who are we to say another Irish man in the north has or hasn't the right to be ruled under an Irish government? If the north at some point votes for unification, every major party in the south will push for it, for no other reason that they will have to be seen to be in favour of it. And once the scaremongering starts, we all know how easily manipulated Irish people are.... ala Lisbon no. 2. Not to mention there is already a majority who supports it. So it's a moot point really. It will fly through in the south if the scenario ever comes about, and all the partitionists know it too, so ye may as well stop clinging to it as some sort of last gasp bit of hope

What's amusing is your flight of fancy.

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

What's amusing is your flight of fancy.

Yes saying no one can predict the economy of either state, and it comes down to economics for many in the south by the sounds of it and that's what you consider a flight of fancy? Or the probability that Scotland will leave the UK at some point in the future?

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

My example of the EU was not in relation to the fact that Britain and the Republic of Ireland or both members. It was just an example of how two separate states can remain separate while sharing a common goal. You're right that Britain may not stay in the EU, but there are other options where we can share where it makes sense without losing our separate identities.

There is SOME bigotry in this state, but nothing on the scale of NI. There certainly isn't the religious bigotry that is rife there. It's a dysfunctional state, whatever way you look at it. They can't even have a normal democracy, for heaven's sake!

Our separate identities? What separate identities do two Irish people living two minutes either side of border have?

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

There is no impetus in the Republic, as we are happy the way we are, .

Is this not also a 'flight of fancy'? How can you say that, what proof have you of that...a chat down the local?

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is this not also a 'flight of fancy'? How can you say that, what proof have you of that...a chat down the local?

Hardly a flight of fancy. I live in this state, I know what people think of the North.

The Golden Miller

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is this not also a 'flight of fancy'? How can you say that, what proof have you of that...a chat down the local?

She seems to like giving her opinions in a matter of fact manner, as if she speaks on behalf of everyone in the south

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

She seems to like giving her opinions in a matter of fact manner, as if she speaks on behalf of everyone in the south

SHE is more clued in to the real world than you clearly are.