Unification?

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

They only thought the no side would romp home months in advance , when it really counted the Yes side were ahead and seemed comfortable and only losing in the last few days when it really counted . Security always trumps sentiment I'm afraid .

Of course we have a grasp of what it would entail and it is absolutely impossible in the foreseeable future . To do so would plunge the whole island into a recession that would make Greece look like a cakewalk . And don't count on Britain to honour any obligations , once she is shut of us we won't see her for dust . Look how Cameron is already reneging on the pledges given to Scotland.

Richard

marienbad wrote: »

when it really counted the Yes side were ahead and seemed comfortable and only losing in the last few days when it really counted

No was ahead in almost every poll, although it was closer than expected.

Of course we have a grasp of what it would entail and it is absolutely impossible in the foreseeable future . To do so would plunge the whole island into a recession that would make Greece look like a cakewalk . And don't count on Britain to honour any obligations , once she is shut of us we won't see her for dust . Look how Cameron is already reneging on the pledges given to Scotland.

It's possible that anyone could renege on pledges, not least those advocating unity because, unlike a general election result, a referendum result isn't overturned 5 years later. As for Cameron supposedly reneging on pledges this time, despite what some of his political opponents might say, he hasn't had time to renege yet - commitments take parliamentary time to come about.

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

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

The facts state that there's not 1,000,000 unionists in the 6 counties.
You made up the 1,000,000 figure.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

They only thought the no side would romp home months in advance , when it really counted the Yes side were ahead and seemed comfortable and only losing in the last few days when it really counted . Security always trumps sentiment I'm afraid .

Of course we have a grasp of what it would entail and it is absolutely impossible in the foreseeable future . To do so would plunge the whole island into a recession that would make Greece look like a cakewalk . And don't count on Britain to honour any obligations , once she is shut of us we won't see her for dust . Look how Cameron is already reneging on the pledges given to Scotland.

The fact remains that economics where not the primary factor motivating a yes vote. In an Irish context the issues of partition and unity are much more raw and significant than they would have been in Scotland.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

The fact remains that economics where not the primary factor motivating a yes vote. In an Irish context the issues of partition and unity are much more raw and significant than they would have been in Scotland.

Yes they were , just a different reading of them ,as with the no vote .It all came down to the quest of where would we be better off in or out of the union .

It is the same here ,when push come to shove economics will decide . So to make unity a reality we must first bridge that economic gap.

Crooked Jack

hfallada wrote: »

Unification doesnt make economic sense. The likes of IDA will have to be seen to give jobs to NI, like West Germany were encouraged to get foreign companies to locate in the East. Although a fair amount of West Germany badly needed jobs eg Duisburg.

Will people in NI be happy with getting HSE healthcare rather than NHS? Will they happily pay for the GP and medicine like people in the south? I highly doubt it. Will NI be happy when the UK pulls a lot of their Governmental departments out of NI, as its no longer part of the uk?

North Ireland is better off in the UK. They receive a ton of money from the UK, which Ireland cant afford to give them. The republic cant give NI a ton of pseudo jobs like UK gives them.

See, this is exactly the problem with the reunification debate, we end up debating two different things. Reunification does not mean the south taking over the north, it is not a 32 county free state, it's an opportunity for a brand new country, a second republic if you will (or a first real republic might be more accurate.) It would involve a national discussion and debate about what we can do better and how, north, south, east and west. It does not belong to one particular section of the community or one particular party.

Regarding the second part of your post, this is exactly what the north needs. To stop relying on handouts and sinecures and begin stimulating a real indigenous economy.
I do not have all the answers to the best way to do this, no one party or group does, that's why it has to be a national discussion.
What I can tell you is that it will not simply involve the extension of the current system to six more counties

marienbad

Richard wrote: »

No was ahead in almost every poll, although it was closer than expected.



It's possible that anyone could renege on pledges, not least those advocating unity because, unlike a general election result, a referendum result isn't overturned 5 years later. As for Cameron supposedly reneging on pledges this time, despite what some of his political opponents might say, he hasn't had time to renege yet - commitments take parliamentary time to come about.

I stand corrected then ,but it doesn't change the substance though. As for Cameron -did I not read that he has already watered down the devolution powers he is bringing before parliament ?

Happyman42

Crooked Jack wrote: »

See, this is exactly the problem with the reunification debate, we end up debating two different things. Reunification does not mean the south taking over the north, it is not a 32 county free state, it's an opportunity for a brand new country, a second republic if you will (or a first real republic might be more accurate.) It would involve a national discussion and debate about what we can do better and how, north, south, east and west. It does not belong to one particular section of the community or one particular party.

Regarding the second part of your post, this is exactly what the north needs. To stop relying on handouts and sinecures and begin stimulating a real indigenous economy.
I do not have all the answers to the best way to do this, no one party or group does, that's why it has to be a national discussion.
What I can tell you is that it will not simply involve the extension of the current system to six more counties

Well said...it is quite clear that there are those who want to continue to live, and allow other Irish people to live, in brittle and fragile circumstances.
They want to do this because to do anything else might require them to climb down of the high moral ground for a while. The 'I'm alright Jack and f*** you' brigade who have always been a blight on this island's progress.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well said...it is quite clear that there are those who want to continue to live, and allow other Irish people to live, in brittle and fragile circumstances.
They want to do this because to do anything else might require them to climb down of the high moral ground for a while. The 'I'm alright Jack and f*** you' brigade who have always been a blight on this island's progress.

A bit more respect is called for Happyman, particularly if you want to convince them to vote your way .

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

A bit more respect is called for Happyman, particularly if you want to convince them to vote your way .

Have you read the views of some on here of those who were abandoned by the 'I'm alright Jack new Irish state?, if you haven't, review some of Katydid's posts.
I'm open and clear about what I'm prepared to concede to make a better new republic. That includes, the flag, anthem and the enshrinement of all identities within a new state.
Those I have absolutely no respect for are those who won't even countenance a debate on very real issues, preferring instead to mask their bigotry with generalisms. I deal with Unionists every day of the week without any 'respect' deficiencies on either side. There are none more bigoted and disrespectful than the southern Irish Partitionist in my experience.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

abandoned by the 'I'm alright Jack new Irish state?,

What do you mean by this ?

As for that poster you mentioned ,have you seen the reaction on every other thread they are involved in ? Impossible and atypical

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

What do you mean by this ?

I hold the Irish state equally responsible for what happened in NI. Effectively they abandoned Irish people to their fates and shored up British aggression towards them and to communities living south of the border too.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

I hold the Irish state equally responsible for what happened in NI. Effectively they abandoned Irish people to their fates and shored up British aggression towards them and to communities living south of the border too.

What do you suggest they should have done? How could they interfere in the affairs of an other jurisdiction?

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

At the end of the day, people vote with their pockets.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

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.

Just because the balance of the majority may shift a few percentages doesn't mean that the unionist population is going to be decimated. Between those who describe themselves as Unionist and those, an ever increasing number, who see themselves as Northern Irish, you will still have a very large number of people who have no wish whatsoever to be part of this republic.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

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.

What the rest of Britain thinks is neither here nor there. The only people that matter are the people on BOTH sides of the border.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

At the end of the day, people vote with their pockets.

Some selfish few do, many others are prepared to see the big picture and think of the future.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Some selfish few do, many others are prepared to see the big picture and think of the future.

Yes, and a future where we would bring a violent and sectarian part of this island into our state, which would also cost us a shedload of money, is a future well worth voting for!

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

Yes, and a future where we would bring a violent and sectarian part of this island into our state, which would also cost us a shedload of money, is a future well worth voting for!

You're a bigoted partitionist.
Go and reconcile that with your claim to be Irish.

K-9

The Golden Miller wrote: »

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

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?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93917302

Well in relation to katydim I feel it is relevant, because she continually falls back on implying it's all down to the IRA, which started the discussion to begin with. Hard to debate with ignorance though I guess

That's enough of that thank you. Deliberately calling other posters dim is trolling. Banned.

DeJa VooDoo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Some selfish few do, many others are prepared to see the big picture and think of the future.

The partitionists on here are happy with the status quo as it is.
Vote tweedledee and then vote tweedledum, don't upset the gravy train...ooops applecart.....at any cost.

It'll be interesting, if we're still here in 50 years or so, to look back at the frightfully ignorant and short sighted mindset of these people.

To be fair though, and thankfully, they are a dying breed.

Younger people are far more clued in and forward thinking than these dinosaurs who are stuck, wallowing, in the past and who yearn for a return of murder and mayhem to secure their positions as they are.

maccored

katydid wrote: »

and also don't have any wish to take on a dysfunctional society.

thats a pretty weird view about a united ireland. no-one would be taking on anything, since the whole place would have to be rebuilt top to bottom, from north to south. unless of course you are one of those with the sad simplistic view that its just a matter of the south staying as it is and trying to absorb the north. that of course would be absurd.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I hold the Irish state equally responsible for what happened in NI. Effectively they abandoned Irish people to their fates and shored up British aggression towards them and to communities living south of the border too.

was there a choice ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

was there a choice ?

Yes there was. They chose to defend the British right to occupy when our constitution made a claim on that territory. They assisted in oppressing Irish people in border communities and set them against the forces of this state (eg. The Heavy Squad etc) and they were less than vocal enough about abuses of human rights by the british, preferring instead to stay silent or to blame others.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes there was. They chose to defend the British right to occupy when our constitution made a claim on that territory. They assisted in oppressing Irish people in border communities and set them against the forces of this state (eg. The Heavy Squad etc) and they were less than vocal enough about abuses of human rights by the british, preferring instead to stay silent or to blame others.

Even if I was to agree to that reading of history ,it really is not answering my question . What was your alternative to what happened at the time of partition ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Even if I was to agree to that reading of history ,it really is not answering my question . What was your alternative to what happened at the time of partition ?

We could argue ad infinitum about what could have been done and what should have been done and get nowhere.
What we are now presented with is a mechanism to end forever the cyclical violence and disruption on this island. By building a new republic which is truly a republic for all.

Karl Stein

katydid wrote: »

What the rest of Britain

'The rest of the UK' I'm sure you mean't to say. The north isn't in Britain (a geographic island consisting of Wales, Scotland and England).

katydid wrote: »

What the rest of Britain thinks is neither here nor there.

That's where you're very wrong. What Britain thinks/does is crucial. The British conceded they'd no selfish or strategic interest in the north. What that means is they have no commercial or military use for the north which was basically a nod that when the time comes they will not stand in the way of a UI. I believe the British would help bring it about in respect of the long term economic and security interests of both islands.

Happyman42

Karl Stein wrote: »

'The rest of the UK' I'm sure you mean't to say. The north isn't in Britain (a geographic island consisting of Wales, Scotland and England).



That's where you're very wrong. What Britain thinks/does is crucial. The British conceded they'd no selfish or strategic interest in the north. What that means is they have no commercial or military use for the north which was basically a nod that when the time comes they will not stand in the way of a UI. I believe the British would help bring it about in respect of the long term economic and security interests of both islands.

It's more than a 'nod' Karl. They are bound by an international agreement to implement and aid it when a majority vote for it.
That is the 'withdrawal' that Unionists have yet to publicly come to terms with even though I believe their political masters (eg Peter Robinson etc) know this very well.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

'The rest of the UK' I'm sure you mean't to say. The north isn't in Britain (a geographic island consisting of Wales, Scotland and England).



That's where you're very wrong. What Britain thinks/does is crucial. The British conceded they'd no selfish or strategic interest in the north. What that means is they have no commercial or military use for the north which was basically a nod that when the time comes they will not stand in the way of a UI. I believe the British would help bring it about in respect of the long term economic and security interests of both islands.

If the British were to leave the North to its own devices tomorrow morning, it wouldn't make one whit of difference to us in the Republic. We'd just be dealing with the North as a different political entity, not one united to Britain. It wouldn't change the minds of the people who consider themselves Unionists and would be hankering back to the connection with Britain, or of the growing number of people who see themselves as Northern Irish and would be more than happy to live in an independent state which would still be supported by Britain (it couldn't abandon it wholesale, there would have to be a period where financial support cushioned the blow).

But it sure as hell wouldn't improve the chances of us down here taking on the North, if its financial outlook looked bleak. We can barely afford to support ourselves.

katydid

maccored wrote: »

thats a pretty weird view about a united ireland. no-one would be taking on anything, since the whole place would have to be rebuilt top to bottom, from north to south. unless of course you are one of those with the sad simplistic view that its just a matter of the south staying as it is and trying to absorb the north. that of course would be absurd.

You think it's weird that a relatively normal society, albeit with the normal problems of any modern society, would be reluctant to take responsibility for almost two million people from a society where bigotry and sectarian hatred are rife, and where up to half of those people had no wish to be part of the new arrangement?
Seriously?

Don't you think we've enough on our plate without adding all that to the mix?

I don't want my state to be rebuilt. It has its faults, but it's fine the way it is. If others want to join us, they can do it on our terms.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

I don't want my state to be rebuilt. It has its faults, but it's fine the way it is. If others want to join us, they can do it on our terms.

You are placing yourself in a minority if that is the case. The need to entirely change how we do things is growing at a very fast rate. You really do need to take your head out of the sand. Bigotry and sectarianism is not 'rife' in NI, which you would know if you knew anything real about it. It is a very confined and disappearing thing.

Karl Stein

katydid wrote: »

If the British were to leave the North to its own devices tomorrow morning....

Has anyone on the thread advocated Britain cuts the north loose overnight?

No.

You're conjuring 'horribles' and then arguing for/against certain actions based on them. It's gets boring having to point this out and it amounts to little more than arguing with oneself.

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

The partitionists on here are happy with the status quo as it is.
Vote tweedledee and then vote tweedledum, don't upset the gravy train...ooops applecart.....at any cost.

It'll be interesting, if we're still here in 50 years or so, to look back at the frightfully ignorant and short sighted mindset of these people.

To be fair though, and thankfully, they are a dying breed.

Younger people are far more clued in and forward thinking than these dinosaurs who are stuck, wallowing, in the past and who yearn for a return of murder and mayhem to secure their positions as they are.

Younger people in the South have no interest in Northern Ireland and less interest in a united Ireland.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Younger people in the South have no interest in Northern Ireland and less interest in a united Ireland.

Your down with the youfs too Godge?

We'll see how things are after 2016 and the other commemorations coming up. They generally increase interest in the issues, just like the WW1 commemorations have.

eire4

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...

Right of course because I do not agree with you I am not a normal person.


No I do not think that Ireland would be worse off. As for religion we have plenty of our own issues given the sheer evil described in the Ryan and McAleese reports never mind what is still to come from future reports.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

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

Says the person who wrote this about me :


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


because I happen to disagree with her and believe that unification would be a good thing.

eire4

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

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

Based on the 2011 census the population is about 1.8m.
It is estimated that about 48% are protestant who tend to be almost all unionist and about 45% are catholic who tend to be almost all nationalist.

eire4

marienbad wrote: »

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.

To be fair I don't think you can place the result of the Scottish referendum only on the economy. There was never a clear argument made by either side that Scotland would clearly be better off independant or better of within the union.
The late pledge of increased devolved powers also had a significant effect in that result.

eire4

marienbad wrote: »

I stand corrected then ,but it doesn't change the substance though. As for Cameron -did I not read that he has already watered down the devolution powers he is bringing before parliament ?

Yes and the Labour leader was back tracking on the level of devolved powers also. The SNP has seen a surge in support since. In fact in terms of membership it is now the third biggest party in Britain. The Labour party which holds most of the Scottish seats in westminister is going to have a very hard time maintaining that situation in this years British election.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

That is a totally different scenario. The Scots don't have independence. We do.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

At the end of the day, people vote with their pockets.

Some do some don't. If people always voted according to what was in their best interests economically then the kind of parties that tend to pander to the wealthy at the expense of others in society would rarely win elections yet that is not the case as we recently saw in the US.

marienbad

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair I don't think you can place the result of the Scottish referendum only on the economy. There was never a clear argument made by either side that Scotland would clearly be better off independant or better of within the union.
The late pledge of increased devolved powers also had a significant effect in that result.

Indeed those late pledges had a huge effect , but because people believed they would increase their economic well being not because of a conversion to an independence aspiration per se .

I believe there will be another referendum within 10 years at the very most and this time it will pass easily enough and because those economic voters will switch over.

katydid

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

The facts state that there's not 1,000,000 unionists in the 6 counties.
You made up the 1,000,000 figure.

There are 1.8 million people in NI. 48% of them are Unionist. That's 871,000 of them. Add the 529,200 who identify as Northern Ireland, and you have well over a million who don't want to be citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

eire4

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed those late pledges had a huge effect , but because people believed they would increase their economic well being not because of a conversion to an independence aspiration per se .

I believe there will be another referendum within 10 years at the very most and this time it will pass easily enough and because those economic voters will switch over.

I tend to agree with you that another Scottish referendum is on the cards. There is the British election this year and it will be interesting to see what increase in seats the SNP get. Currently they only hold 6 of the 59 seats. The vast majority are Labour held currently. Then next year is the next Scottish Assembly elections. Interesting times indeed.

DeJa VooDoo

katydid wrote: »

There are 1.8 million people in NI. 48% of them are Unionist. That's 871,000 of them. Add the 529,200 who identify as Northern Ireland, and you have well over a million who don't want to be citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

Being 'Northern Irish' isn't the same as being a unionist though, is it?
If it was, they would have replied 'British' in the census.
Spin away though.

Karl Stein

katydid wrote: »

Add the 529,200 who identify as Northern Ireland

The 'Northern Irish' identifier doesn't say anything about support, or otherwise. for a UI. It's not at all clear what a person means when they tick a box that says 'Northern Irish'.

marienbad

Karl Stein wrote: »

The 'Northern Irish' identifier doesn't say anything about support, or otherwise. for a UI. It's not at all clear what a person means when they tick a box that says 'Northern Irish'.

But still enough would vote for the union though to tip it over the million ,but for the life of me I don't know why they are arguing over it, 800 k or a million what difference does it make ? The number it is still a huge one and that is what counts.

katydid

Karl Stein wrote: »

The 'Northern Irish' identifier doesn't say anything about support, or otherwise. for a UI. It's not at all clear what a person means when they tick a box that says 'Northern Irish'.

Something tells me that someone who identifies as Northern Irish would turn around and start identifying as a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.

Karl Stein

katydid wrote: »

Something tells me that someone who identifies as Northern Irish would turn around and start identifying as a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.

Who is making that argument and who knows whether that would be true or not? The reality is that they're not born citizens of the ROI because of jurisdictional realities but are entitled to be by law.

Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland

Why do you keep quoting people and then ignore what they've said in favour of going off on tangents?

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are placing yourself in a minority if that is the case. The need to entirely change how we do things is growing at a very fast rate. You really do need to take your head out of the sand. Bigotry and sectarianism is not 'rife' in NI, which you would know if you knew anything real about it. It is a very confined and disappearing thing.

How do YOU know I'm in a minority?

I know that bigotry and sectarianism is rife in the North. Maybe not as much as in the past, but still more than in a normal society. I know from friends on both sides of the divide, who live in the Republic, that they can't mix with people from other Christian denominations with the same ease as they can here. A friend of mine, who is from the North and Church of Ireland, speaks of the appalling way his relatives speak of Roman Catholics, and I know of someone who was RC and became a member of the CofI who was rejected by his family and friends and told he was a traitor. We do not have that sort of crap here.