Unification?

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

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

So do I, and I also know NI very well and if you knew anything you would know that bigotry in the North is very confined and disappearing. The vast majority are people who want to live in peace and prosperity.
You would also know that there is a deep desire in the south to finally unify this island, above economics and selfish interests.

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

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

I'm sure you do alright. Considering you think people in the south follow "norn iron" if Ireland gets knocked out in football because they are "kinda Irish", and then you argue this for 10 messages. Clued into delusion is about the height of it

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

So do I, and I also know NI very well and if you knew anything you would know that bigotry in the North is very confined and disappearing. The vast majority are people who want to live in peace and prosperity.
You would also know that there is a deep desire in the south to finally unify this island, above economics and selfish interests.

NI can't even have a normal democratic system because of the inability of the two sides to work together. NI has riots about flying the national flag. In NI, someone who changes their Christian denomination is regarded by many ans a traitor to their community.

A long way to go.

There is no "deep desire" to unify this island. There is a vague aspiration, but one that would be very unlikely to manifest itself in a vote to change the status quo.

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

NI can't even have a normal democratic system because of the inability of the two sides to work together. NI has riots about flying the national flag. In NI, someone who changes their Christian denomination is regarded by many ans a traitor to their community.

A long way to go.

There is no "deep desire" to unify this island. There is a vague aspiration, but one that would be very unlikely to manifest itself in a vote to change the status quo.

Well it's a good thing we don't need it to manifest itself into a vote here so. It will happen regardless and pass if the north vote for re-unification at some stage in the future.

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Well it's a good thing we don't need it to manifest itself into a vote here so. It will happen regardless and pass if the north vote for re-unification at some stage in the future.

Sorry, but it's not just down to the people of the North. The people of the Republic have a say as well, and I wouldn't be holding my breath.

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

Sorry, but it's not just down to the people of the North. The people of the Republic have a say as well, and I wouldn't be holding my breath.

It will not matter if our "vague aspiration" for unity manifests itself into a vote or not. The vote will happen regardless if the north votes for re-unification. What do you not understand? And the vote in the south, with the backing of every party, will pass. And if you believe the south will vote no if the time ever comes, then you really are deluded. As much chance of that happening as UCD winning the Champions League. We have a say, a token say, and the only reason we have it is because it will change the constitution. If that wasn't needed, then we wouldn't even get a vote, which would only be right

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

.
You would also know that there is a deep desire in the south to finally unify this island, above economics and selfish interests.

Not really Happyman , there is a massive wishy washy aspirational support for it yes and that will continue to remain high in direct proportion to it remaining a vague future ideal. And why ? That is the way we are as a people , as long as it remains non committal we are all for it - much the same way as we all support the Irish language and profess to be catholic in the census.

But if it ever even comes to a present reality James Carville's phrase
'It's the economy,stupid' will be the deciding factor.

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It will not matter if our "vague aspiration" for unity manifests itself into a vote or not. The vote will happen regardless if the north votes for re-unification. What do you not understand? And the vote in the south, with the backing of every party, will pass. And if you believe the south will vote no if the time ever comes, then you really are deluded. As much chance of that happening as UCD winning the Champions League anytime soon. We have a token say

I would bet my house on the fact that a vote wouldn't pass in the Republic. Why would we vote for something that would make our state worse?

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

I would bet my house on the fact that a vote wouldn't pass in the Republic. Why would we vote for something that would make our state worse?

Again, you make the mistake that your opinion is an opinion that somebody cares about or that it's fact and everyone believes the same thing as you.

Again it's your opinion it would be made worse. I'm afraid not everyone has the same beliefs as your childish opinions. And to reiterate, there's a hell of a lot of people out there who know fcuk all about economics and politics, and every party will be backing this, and everyone will be promoting it........against you and godge chained to a railing picketing

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

I would bet my house ?

With the 'knowledge' you have displayed of what is going on in the country I am suprised you still have it.
When it comes to a vote there will be a choice...do you believe those who say it will be for the better or those who are too scared to make the leap.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

I would bet my house on the fact that a vote wouldn't pass in the Republic. Why would we vote for something that would make our state worse?

Somehow I highly doubt your really willing to bet your house on a vote for unification. Personally I don't think unification would make our state worse.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Somehow I highly doubt your really willing to bet your house on a vote for unification. Personally I don't think unification would make our state worse.

You don't think that our state would be worse for having a million resentful unionists in it, even assuming that none of them resorted to violent protest? And wouldn't be worse for having people who regard religion as a tribal badge and those who change religion as traitors?

Maybe not to you, but to any normal person...

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

You don't think that our state would be worse for having a million resentful unionists in it, even assuming that none of them resorted to violent protest? And wouldn't be worse for having people who regard religion as a tribal badge and those who change religion as traitors?

Maybe not to you, but to any normal person...

Well if none of them even resorted to a violent protest, then happy days surely? You think they aren't gonna go to work and feed their families out of spite so as just not to contribute to society? Of course they would. So they would be paying their tax and contributing to society in that regard, and this without any violence. So what would the problem be?

When are you, in Cork, going to stumble across this religious tribalism, anymore than you would now? A nothing point

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

You don't think that our state would be worse for having a million resentful unionists in it, even assuming that none of them resorted to violent protest? And wouldn't be worse for having people who regard religion as a tribal badge and those who change religion as traitors?

Maybe not to you, but to any normal person...

What Unionist protest has amounted to anything other than confined violence that peters out over time? Unionists in the main are pragmatic people, the key here will be Britian and whether they will 'write it on the wall'. And I think they will. Unification is in their interests too.

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Well if none of them even resorted to a violent protest, then happy days surely? You think they aren't gonna go to work and feed their families out of spite so as just not to contribute to society? Of course they would. So they would be paying their tax and contributing to society in that regard, and this without any violence. So what would the problem be?

When are you, in Cork, going to stumble across this religious tribalism, anymore than you would now? A nothing point

The point is some of them probably will resort to violent protest. But EVEN if they don't, you'll still have a million p*ssed off people added to our society. How can that be an improvement?

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

What Unionist protest has amounted to anything other than confined violence that peters out over time? Unionists in the main are pragmatic people, the key here will be Britian and whether they will 'write it on the wall'. And I think they will. Unification is in their interests too.

Ah that's ok. A million p&ssed off people who won't resort to violence. Just what we need.

The Golden Miller

katydid wrote: »

The point is some of them probably will resort to violent protest. But EVEN if they don't, you'll still have a million p*ssed off people added to our society. How can that be an improvement?

Bigger economy? You keep saying they will be pissed even if they wouldn't resort to violence, without actually saying how them being pissed off will have any actual effect on anything? So could you explain that one please?

Karl Stein

bilston wrote: »

would everything be up for discussion?

I'm not trying to sell it to you I just think that would be the only way it could come about. Everything on the table.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

Ah that's ok. A million p&ssed off people who won't resort to violence. Just what we need.

Where are you getting a million pissed off people from? If the circumstances are right it won't be a biggy for them. You listen too closely to the politicos, look at the apocalypse they have predicted at various times (the GFA, Marches, Flags) that has never materialised.
Why? Because not all Unionists are violent and belligerent, they are pragmatists.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where are you getting a million pissed off people from? If the circumstances are right it won't be a biggy for them. You listen too closely to the politicos, look at the apocalypse they have predicted at various times (the GFA, Marches, Flags) that has never materialised.
Why? Because not all Unionists are violent and belligerent, they are pragmatists.

There are a million unionists in NI. The hint is in the world UNIONists...

The Golden Miller

Again katydim...You keep saying they will be pissed even if they wouldn't resort to violence, without actually saying how them being pissed off will have any actual effect on anything? So could you explain that one please?

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

Ah that's ok. A million p&ssed off people who won't resort to violence. Just what we need.

There's 1,000,000 unionists in Northern Ireland?

katydid

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Again katydim...You keep saying they will be pissed even if they wouldn't resort to violence, without actually saying how them being pissed off will have any actual effect on anything? So could you explain that one please?

I have no intention of engaging with someone who can't show basic respect in an adult discussion.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

There are a million unionists in NI. The hint is in the world UNIONists...

How many do you think where in the South at Independence who knuckled down and got on with it?
You are scaremongering about something that will not happen on any scale. If they and their cultures are respected and enshrined in a new republic, there will be no need for this silly scaremongering.
There is no evidence to back up your claims, again I ask...where was a sustained campaign at the time of the GFA, Flags etc? The last time Unionism achieved anything from public disobedience and violence was at the Sunningdale Agreement (they brought it down) and that was only because they had the backing of British troops.
The GFA was and should have been the pivot point for those afraid of losing the union. Pragmatic Unionism accepted it.

katydid

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

There's 1,000,000 unionists in Northern Ireland?

48.4% of the population identify as British. The population is 1.8 million, so close enough, if you add in the 29.4% who identify as Northern Irish. Only 28.4% identify as Irish.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

How many do you think where in the South at Independence who knuckled down and got on with it?
You are scaremongering about something that will not happen on any scale. If they and their cultures are respected and enshrined in a new republic, there will be no need for this silly scaremongering.
There is no evidence to back up your claims, again I ask...where was a sustained campaign at the time of the GFA, Flags etc? The last time Unionism achieved anything from public disobedience and violence was at the Sunningdale Agreement (they brought it down) and that was only because they had the backing of British troops.
The GFA was and should have been the pivot point for those afraid of losing the union. Pragmatic Unionism accepted it.

There weren't a million.

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

48.4% of the population identify as British. The population is 1.8 million, so close enough, if you add in the 29.4% who identify as Northern Irish. Only 28.4% identify as Irish.

So, Northern Irish isn't Irish then.....that's your mindset right there.

876,000 declared themselves as British...sure what's 114,000 people if you can use the 1,000,000 figure to skew your point?

Karl Stein

The '1 million pissed-off Unionists' is just more hysterical doom-mongering. If the lads in London/England want to cut the north loose at some time in the future (which I believe they'd be delighted to) then Unionists will have little choice but to get on with it.

You often hear 'but union/loyalists would kick-off if the gears of a UI began to turn' and to those people I say 'to what ends'? Take us back England? What would 'us' even be? Unionism is concentrated in certain areas of the six counties.

katydid

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

So, Northern Irish isn't Irish then.....that's your mindset right there.

876,000 declared themselves as British...sure what's 114,000 people if you can use the 1,000,000 figure to skew your point?

I'm just quoting you the facts. I didn't make them up. Arguing numbers doesn't change them...

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

There weren't a million.

And a million Unionists barring a few belligerents have accepted, The GFA, the removal of The Flag, Drumcree, March rerouting. Much as they shout and whinge, the politicos of Unionism cannot muster anything more by way of a 'violent' campaign. Loyalism even, could never sustain a campaign south of the border without collusion with British forces.
You are scaremongering about a non existent threat here.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

The '1 million pissed-off Unionists' is just more hysterical doom-mongering. If the lads in London/England want to cut the north loose at some time in the future (which I believe they'd be delighted to) then Unionists will have little choice but to get on with it.

You often hear 'but union/loyalists would kick-off if the gears of a UI began to turn' and to those people I say 'to what ends'? Take us back England? What would 'us' even be? Unionism is concentrated in certain areas of the six counties.

So you don't think that a million people who have no wish to be part of this state wouldn't affect the way the state operates?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

And a million Unionists barring a few belligerents have accepted, The GFA, the removal of The Flag, Drumcree, March rerouting. Much as they shout and whinge, the politicos of Unionism cannot muster anything more by way of a 'violent' campaign. Loyalism even, could never sustain a campaign south of the border without collusion with British forces.
You are scaremongering about a non existent threat here.

and you are underestimating sentiment in the Republic.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

and you are underestimating sentiment in the Republic.

No I am not. I cannot in my wildest dreams/nightmares see a southern electorate repudiating a majority wish in NI to unify. Not going to happen.

Godge

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

When I talk about the romantic dream of a united Ireland, this is the type of post I have in mind. It is full of unrealistic assumptions and biased conclusions that lead a neutral to believe that the nationalist community in the North is more than mildly delusional.

Just to take the first assumption that in 30/40 years the nationalists will have a sizeable majority. I have been criticised on here by people like the Golden Miller for daring to suggest that there won't be a united Ireland in my lifetime. Well, it is good to see them finally agreeing with me. If I live 40 years I will be close to collecting my cheque from "the midget parasite's" (as he is known by water protestors) successor. Well I have more faith in my ability to collect than in a united Ireland.

I am also amused at the economic assumptions. On the one hand, the Shinnerbots tell us that Northern Ireland is a failed economic entity, on the other hand they tell us that it will have sorted it out in 10 years time so we can unite. Well which is it lads?

Even if they get that right, and we believe their fantasies about the Northern Ireland economy, why would an entity that has sorted itself out want to join us?

As for unionists voting to leave the NHS to join the HSE and pay their VHI as an extra tax, give me a break.

Listen lads, go back to the drawing board and take out the crayons. There is a tiny chance that a current two-year old will see a united Ireland, but that is only possible in the context of a federal Europe with regions, including the sub-region of Ireland.

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

So, Northern Irish isn't Irish then.....that's your mindset right there.

876,000 declared themselves as British...sure what's 114,000 people if you can use the 1,000,000 figure to skew your point?

This is drivel. You are supporting a united Ireland but you see no difference between 1,000,000 opposed and 876,000 opposed. Either way it is a lot and the point you are making is as irrelevant as usual.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

No I am not. I cannot in my wildest dreams/nightmares see a southern electorate repudiating a majority wish in NI to unify. Not going to happen.

You obviously underestimate the power of the Crotty judgment.

If there ever is a referendum (which I doubt there will) on Irish unity and if I am alive (I reckon I will be long dead if there is ), I will form a group to oppose the referendum and focus on the cost of unification to the Irish taxpayer and to the Irish social welfare recipient.

I reckon social welfare rates will need to drop by 20% in the South and that both income tax rates will need to increase by 5%.

Anyone disputing this will have to provide figures of their own as to the cost and the Southern population will be faced with a choice of it costs you a lot or it costs you a huge amount. I have full confidence that the answer will be no in those circumstances.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

No I am not. I cannot in my wildest dreams/nightmares see a southern electorate repudiating a majority wish in NI to unify. Not going to happen.

Then you don't know the power of economics my friend , there is no way the electorate would accept it in the foreseeable future . It simply isn't feasible .

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You obviously underestimate the power of the Crotty judgment.

If there ever is a referendum (which I doubt there will) on Irish unity and if I am alive (I reckon I will be long dead if there is ), I will form a group to oppose the referendum and focus on the cost of unification to the Irish taxpayer and to the Irish social welfare recipient.

I reckon social welfare rates will need to drop by 20% in the South and that both income tax rates will need to increase by 5%.

Anyone disputing this will have to provide figures of their own as to the cost and the Southern population will be faced with a choice of it costs you a lot or it costs you a huge amount. I have full confidence that the answer will be no in those circumstances.

You are plucking figures outta your derriere. I wouldn't begin to cost it until it is looked at seriously.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Then you don't know the power of economics my friend , there is no way the electorate would accept it in the foreseeable future . It simply isn't feasible .

The economics will be a factor, but it won't be the only one.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are plucking figures outta your derriere. I wouldn't begin to cost it until it is looked at seriously.

He is not really happyman , we can hazard a guess fairly easily , right now the Uk gives a subvention of 10 billion and the state employs 30%, these are the two major issues to be overcome .

How do you suggest we do that ?

Karl Stein

katydid wrote: »

So you don't think that a million people who have no wish to be part of this state wouldn't affect the way the state operates?

This is silly. We're talking about in the event of a majority vote in the north, not as it is right now. Heck, I believe in a united future but I don't think the time is anywhere near right at the moment (nor is there the support for it).

The island is gradually uniting by osmosis anyway, political unity will follow in imo.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are plucking figures outta your derriere. I wouldn't begin to cost it until it is looked at seriously.

You won't begin to cost it until it is looked at seriously yet you can come out with the following type of bull**** to say the cost don't matter.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No I am not. I cannot in my wildest dreams/nightmares see a southern electorate repudiating a majority wish in NI to unify. Not going to happen.

Seriously, you have a logic deficit going on.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

He is not really happyman , we can hazard a guess fairly easily , right now the Uk gives a subvention of 10 billion and the state employs 30%, these are the two major issues to be overcome .

How do you suggest we do that ?

He plucks one cost outta the air, doesn't factor in any input from an encouraging Britain, inward investment from the international community and his case is proven?
Give me a break here please.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

He plucks one cost outta the air, doesn't factor in any input from an encouraging Britain, inward investment from the international community and his case is proven?
Give me a break here please.

Why are the standards you are applying to him not applying to you ? Where are your costings ? Even basic estimates ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Why are the standards you are applying to him not applying to you ? Where are your costings ? Even basic estimates ?

I am saying that the economic factor will be there but not the most important one, because I believe it will be sold as a huge economic package with many aspects.
There will be a cost, I am not in denial about that.

Karl Stein

Happyman42 wrote: »

an encouraging Britain

That shouldn't be underestimated. The majority of British people are in favour of a UI - what that means is there would be no considerable popular opposition to a UI in Britain.

I'd imagine the lads/ladies in the halls of power in London/England have already made contingency plans in the event of a majority vote - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they'd grasp the opportunity and support it with a concerted actions to those ends.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

He plucks one cost outta the air, doesn't factor in any input from an encouraging Britain, inward investment from the international community and his case is proven?
Give me a break here please.

You assume an input from an encouraging Britain that may not exist, but even if it does is shortlived.

You also assume inward investment from the international community which is laughable as the instability of a united Ireland will see the opposite effect especially in the short-term.

You ignore the cost effects of either harmonising social welfare to the Southern norms or income taxation to the Northern norms.

To sun up, the wishful thinking of the "believers" is amusing

Karl Stein

Happyman42 wrote: »

There will be a cost, I am not in denial about that.

It could be negligible in a relatively short period of time with a little political will.

London has already said that any benefit enjoyed by a harmonising of corporate tax will see a reduction in transfers from England/Britain to the north.

Hmmm..

Godge wrote: »

the instability of a united Ireland will see the opposite effect especially in the short-term.

'A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action. Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions'.

It's odd how hysterical and emotional a hardcore of people get at even a discussion about a UI.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am saying that the economic factor will be there but not the most important one, because I believe it will be sold as a huge economic package with many aspects.
There will be a cost, I am not in denial about that.

You are, you are pulling others up on their figures while simultaneously providing none of your own . In any scenario where they have a bearing the economics will be the only deciding factor.

Some decisions are irrevocable such as a vote for unity , whereas a vote against just means you can always have another vote .

The Scotland referendum is a classic example - when push came to shove 'its the economy stupid' won the day and against the odds.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You assume an input from an encouraging Britain that may not exist, but even if it does is shortlived.

You also assume inward investment from the international community which is laughable as the instability of a united Ireland will see the opposite effect especially in the short-term.

You ignore the cost effects of either harmonising social welfare to the Southern norms or income taxation to the Northern norms.

To sun up, the wishful thinking of the "believers" is amusing

In the context of the earlier mentioned fact (that Unionism has been unable to sustain a campaign of violence against the greatest changes they have ever had to make) are you seriously suggesting that Public servants and farmers - clearly informed that Britain is no longer interested in the 'union' and is supportive of a UI, are going to violently destroy massive inward investment promising them seamless prosperity? Or that any group hemmed in at the northern end of an island by the Irish authorities and the British at nearest landfall, are going to be able to sustain a campaign of violence capable of taking down the new state?
And I'm wishful thinking? :rolleyes:

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

The Scotland referendum is a classic example - when push came to shove 'its the economy stupid' won the day and against the odds.

There where those who thought that the SR would come down to 'economics' and that the No side would romp home. In reality it was much more complex. It will be the same here.
I wouldn't get into figures because I don't believe anybody has a grasp on what they are or might be yet.