Unification?

Crooked Jack

SpaceTime wrote: »

Doubt they'd find much kinship in the conservative southern political niche as it's shrinking rapidly and staunchly catholic and tends to be somewhat socialist economically...

Not really sure there's any niche left like that.

When I say sailed off in different directions, I mean that decades of sectarian politics in the North and the very hardliner religious extreme views taken by the DUP in particular would be pretty alien / frightening to a lot of people in the south.

It's like an aspect of NI became so fixated with the politics around nationalism vs unionism and warped that into left vs right.

The aspect of the DUP I'd have severe difficult with is the ultra right, socially conservative, anti modernity aspect.
I can 100% respect the UUP and moderate mainstream unionism much the same way as I can the Tory party. Doesn't mean I agree with them but they're logical and reasonable.

It's this highly religious stuff that just leaves me very cold and I feel like they've more in common with the US religious right than anything in the Republic or Britian too!

I just think that aspect of NI politics would be incredibly difficult to cohabit with in a new state.

Can you just imagine the DUP's likely contributions to a debate on same sex marriage for example?!

So to Hell with the rest of us because of the DUP???

maccored

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The notion that if SF were in charge the border would be thrown open tomorrow with Dublin covering all the costs and hordes of loyalists marching down the M1 to burn the Dail is total partitionist fear mongering and fantasy. And fair play to them, it's working, cause I'm getting sick of every day having to explain on this thing that their vision of reunification is not the one that republicans are working towards.

I hear ye - though I think many just find it easier to come out with the usual 'we can't afford the north' crap, rather than actually thinking about what a UI would entail - cus you know, that might involve having to think.

SpaceTime

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So to Hell with the rest of us because of the DUP???

Not saying that, I'm just saying they would be extremely awkward and they're a very sizable representative organisation of a big chunk of the NI community.

Like them or not, they're very much part of the NI landscape and they'd have to be accommodated somehow or you'd just be creating another unbelievable mess.

That's why I think for the foreseeable future I think NI is going to just have to exist between two identities.

You've got a situation that's like the irresistible force and the immovable object. The only solution seems to be stalemate - for now anyway.

It needs a period of transition where you can have dual identities.

It's not perfect but I think the only way forward on this is little by little and the very biggest key factor is getting the island to work as a single economic unit.

The Belfast-Dublin-Cork corridor should really be what we're looking at as well as reintegration of Derry with Donegal's economy and plenty of other things too.

It's not a binary issue. We actually need to be able to somehow fuse the two histories into some kind of successful future because neither one will just suddenly switch views.

A huge dose of pragmatism is needed.

katydid

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So to Hell with the rest of us because of the DUP???

The DUP aren't the only bigots in NI. Just the worst.

Crooked Jack

katydid wrote: »

The DUP aren't the only bigots in NI. Just the worst.

course not, there's the TUV, the UUP, UKIP, fleggers, The Orange Order and their various marching bands

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

I hear ye - though I think many just find it easier to come out with the usual 'we can't afford the north' crap, rather than actually thinking about what a UI would entail - cus you know, that might involve having to think.

It would be nice if you let us know what you thought a UI would entail instead of just throwing insults at anyone who has a different view than you.

And by the way don't bother saying what needs to be done - we all know that - but how would you go about doing it.

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

It would be nice if you let us know what you thought a UI would entail instead of just throwing insults at anyone who has a different view than you.

And by the way don't bother saying what needs to be done - we all know that - but how would you go about doing it.

Well, like I said it's a huge project that doest belong to one party or opinion, so obviously no one person or group has all the answers.
Personally however, I would imagine what we will see is a noramlising of politics in the north as a new generation of voters emerge, who are less concerned with the constitutional issue. They will simply want the best system for them. Meanwhile, cross border links will become gradually stronger and stronger, we'll see more cooperation between the likes of emergency services, for example, and the north/south links strengthen the east/west ones will become less and less relevant.
So what's to b done in the meantime. Preserving Irish culture and strengthening north south bodies would be a start. I'd be wary of attempts to manipulate education to force some bullsh!t "northern" Irish identity on children.
As reunification happens restructuring the public sector will be a huge task but ultimately one that will work for the benefit of everyone as we reduce duplication and spread services more evenly.

I mean, the Scots had an 18 month national debate on this, what do you really expect me to write in a post apart from general musings

marienbad

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well, like I said it's a huge project that doest belong to one party or opinion, so obviously no one person or group has all the answers.
Personally however, I would imagine what we will see is a noramlising of politics in the north as a new generation of voters emerge, who are less concerned with the constitutional issue. They will simply want the best system for them. Meanwhile, cross border links will become gradually stronger and stronger, we'll see more cooperation between the likes of emergency services, for example, and the north/south links strengthen the east/west ones will become less and less relevant.
So what's to b done in the meantime. Preserving Irish culture and strengthening north south bodies would be a start. I'd be wary of attempts to manipulate education to force some bullsh!t "northern" Irish identity on children.
As reunification happens restructuring the public sector will be a huge task but ultimately one that will work for the benefit of everyone as we reduce duplication and spread services more evenly.

I mean, the Scots had an 18 month national debate on this, what do you really expect me to write in a post apart from general musings

I don't mind your general musing at all, what I do find objectionable is when you and others get insulting and dismissive about the 'general musings' of those that don't quite see it your way .

Godge

maccored wrote: »

I hear ye - though I think many just find it easier to come out with the usual 'we can't afford the north' crap, rather than actually thinking about what a UI would entail - cus you know, that might involve having to think.

You see, it is up to those who advocate a United Ireland to explain in simple terms how much it will cost and who will pay for it.

The rest of us aren't too bothered, it can happen when they explain to us how it will be paid for and when they can convince us that the unionist majority are happy with it. Until then you can have your unrealistic dreams.

Mr. J

Godge wrote: »

You see, it is up to those who advocate a United Ireland to explain in simple terms how much it will cost and who will pay for it.

Simple terms you say... It will cost plenty. Billions I'm sure. I would imagine everyone would pay for it. So yeah...

Iwasfrozen

K-9 wrote: »

More integration means more respect for different religions/traditions. More and better education leads to a better understanding of "the other side".

That doesn't necessarily mean automatic unification in 20 years time! But it helps make N.I. a more normal society with less conflict and division. When things are less tribal unification, staying with the UK or independence, whatever the options, can be discussed from a more neutral and objective point of view. Less automatic, knee jerk emotional thinking and factions about.

Surely that would instill a respect for all ethnicities and creeds within the United Kingdom though? Rather than promoting narrow nationalism?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You see, it is up to those who advocate a United Ireland to explain in simple terms how much it will cost and who will pay for it.

The rest of us aren't too bothered, it can happen when they explain to us how it will be paid for and when they can convince us that the unionist majority are happy with it. Until then you can have your unrealistic dreams.

It is an investment in the future, a better future in more ways than economic. Because, while you are happy to allow others to live in imperfect circumstances not all of us are.
A United Ireland, a new way of governing and a new republic will pay dividends.

And by the way, massive costs to southern Ireland have not been proven either, no matter how much scaremongering you wish to indulge in.
Nobody is advocating an unstructured process of unification.

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

It would be nice if you let us know what you thought a UI would entail instead of just throwing insults at anyone who has a different view than you.

And by the way don't bother saying what needs to be done - we all know that - but how would you go about doing it.

It would be nice if you bothered reading the posts I've already made (numerous times) outlining my view of a UI.

maccored

Godge wrote: »

You see, it is up to those who advocate a United Ireland to explain in simple terms how much it will cost and who will pay for it.

The rest of us aren't too bothered, it can happen when they explain to us how it will be paid for and when they can convince us that the unionist majority are happy with it. Until then you can have your unrealistic dreams.

a united ireland isnt something that is simple. nor is there a simple explanation of how its paid for. its something that will take generations and a lot of planning and not something that will happen in the morning. I believe though its a complete waste of time bothering to try and explain that.

DarkyHughes

Godge wrote: »

You see, it is up to those who advocate a United Ireland to explain in simple terms how much it will cost and who will pay for it.

The rest of us aren't too bothered, it can happen when they explain to us how it will be paid for and when they can convince us that the unionist majority are happy with it. Until then you can have your unrealistic dreams.

So they just have to be convinced? . I taught they had to be overtaken by nationalists who wanted a UI & expressed that wish in the ballot box.

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

I don't mind your general musing at all, what I do find objectionable is when you and others get insulting and dismissive about the 'general musings' of those that don't quite see it your way .

It's difficult not to be dismissive when what others are saying is a total strawman, such as those i outlined. partitionists on here love attacking this view of a reunified Ireland that is not the republican one

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

You see, it is up to those who advocate a United Ireland to explain in simple terms how much it will cost and who will pay for it.

The rest of us aren't too bothered, it can happen when they explain to us how it will be paid for and when they can convince us that the unionist majority are happy with it. Until then you can have your unrealistic dreams.

No, this is drivel, what is needed is a national debate and discussion, such as scotland had. Not one side trying to convince the other, which is combative and would only entrench positions.
I could just as easily argue that partitionists, who are the minority across Ireland, should be the ones to explain why their system, which has demonstrably and catastrophically failed, should remain intact against the wishes of the majority. But where would that get us? Just more flaming.
We need a national debate and discussion and green papers from parties and businesses putting their opinions, concerns and plans forward

Happyman42

Crooked Jack wrote: »

We need a national debate and discussion and green papers from parties and businesses putting their opinions, concerns and plans forward

This is how it will happen ^ followed by a debate in which the 'themens and Usones' mentalities of Godge and Katydid will be redundant.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No, this is drivel, what is needed is a national debate and discussion, such as scotland had. Not one side trying to convince the other, which is combative and would only entrench positions.
I could just as easily argue that partitionists, who are the minority across Ireland, should be the ones to explain why their system, which has demonstrably and catastrophically failed, should remain intact against the wishes of the majority. But where would that get us? Just more flaming.
We need a national debate and discussion and green papers from parties and businesses putting their opinions, concerns and plans forward

Sounds expensive. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Let republicans convince the turkeys at their own expense. The state should be neutral.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sounds expensive. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Let republicans convince the turkeys at their own expense. The state should be neutral.

as I said earlier - its a waste of time trying to talk of a UI when people just want the easy answer. The above quote backs that up.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Surely that would instill a respect for all ethnicities and creeds within the United Kingdom though? Rather than promoting narrow nationalism?

Well, that's a huge step from what we currently have. You agree?

I'm not focused on Unification as such, though I'd have a natural inclination towards it because of where I live and other things.

For me, there will be no Unification or indeed closer ties to the UK as N.I. stands now. Its impossible because it's far too divided.

A more inclusive education system and an improving economy improves every bodies lives, leading to a more objective and less knee jerk reaction to the future for N.I. Whether that is a United Ireland I don't know, but it has more chance than it currently has.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No, this is drivel

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is how it will happen ^ followed by a debate in which the 'themens and Usones' mentalities of Godge and Katydid will be redundant.

Mod:

Just a gentle reminder to focus on the content of posts, and not attacking others personally.

Nobody has to reply to opinions you feel objectionable, not replying is preferable to just posting for the sake of it, to get a dig or the last word in. Thank you.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is an investment in the future, a better future in more ways than economic. Because, while you are happy to allow others to live in imperfect circumstances not all of us are.
A United Ireland, a new way of governing and a new republic will pay dividends.

And by the way, massive costs to southern Ireland have not been proven either, no matter how much scaremongering you wish to indulge in.
Nobody is advocating an unstructured process of unification.

maccored wrote: »

a united ireland isnt something that is simple. nor is there a simple explanation of how its paid for. its something that will take generations and a lot of planning and not something that will happen in the morning. I believe though its a complete waste of time bothering to try and explain that.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

So they just have to be convinced? . I taught they had to be overtaken by nationalists who wanted a UI & expressed that wish in the ballot box.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No, this is drivel, what is needed is a national debate and discussion, such as scotland had. Not one side trying to convince the other, which is combative and would only entrench positions.
I could just as easily argue that partitionists, who are the minority across Ireland, should be the ones to explain why their system, which has demonstrably and catastrophically failed, should remain intact against the wishes of the majority. But where would that get us? Just more flaming.
We need a national debate and discussion and green papers from parties and businesses putting their opinions, concerns and plans forward

I asked a simple question as to how the economics of a united Ireland would work and how the South would be persuaded to pay for it.

The answers roughly fall into two camps:

(1) motherhood and apple pie
(2) I am a "partitionist".

As I have said already, if a United Ireland happens, fine, but people like me in the South are not going to vote for a pig in a poke and pay 10% extra income tax as a result. If the numbers don't add up, it won't work.

Wouldn't it be better if a party like SF, who most strongly advocate a united Ireland, included the costing in a discussion paper as part of their election manifesto in the next general election? Or would that cost them votes?

I believe the reason SF haven't produced anything of the sort is because of my last question. A united Ireland where the South pays for it is a vote-loser in the South.

maccored

Godge wrote: »

I asked a simple question as to how the economics of a united Ireland would work and how the South would be persuaded to pay for it.

The answers roughly fall into two camps:

(1) motherhood and apple pie
(2) I am a "partitionist".

As I have said already, if a United Ireland happens, fine, but people like me in the South are not going to vote for a pig in a poke and pay 10% extra income tax as a result. If the numbers don't add up, it won't work.

Wouldn't it be better if a party like SF, who most strongly advocate a united Ireland, included the costing in a discussion paper as part of their election manifesto in the next general election? Or would that cost them votes?

I believe the reason SF haven't produced anything of the sort is because of my last question. A united Ireland where the South pays for it is a vote-loser in the South.

My answer to your question was that there was no simple answer. I see you didnt bother including that response in your reply. You also didnt read SFs discussion paper on a UI then obviously either.

Iwasfrozen

maccored wrote: »

My answer to your question was that there was no simple answer. I see you didnt bother including that response in your reply. You also didnt read SFs discussion paper on a UI then obviously either.

Grand so let's put it off for another 60 years. See how we're feeling then.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Grand so let's put it off for another 60 years. See how we're feeling then.

and you got that from my words how? oh sorry, youre busy making a strawman .. my apologies.

Iwasfrozen

maccored wrote: »

and you got that from my words how? oh sorry, youre busy making a strawman .. my apologies.

That's... not what a strawman is.

But I got it from here "its something that will take generations"

A generation is generally considered to be 25 years, I picked 60 as a nice round number. I intend to be dead in 60 years, less likely in 50.

BTW your apology is accepted.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's... not what a strawman is.

But I got it from here "its something that will take generations"

A generation is generally considered to be 25 years, I picked 60 as a nice round number. I intend to be dead in 60 years, less likely in 50.

BTW your apology is accepted.

so if something will take generations, you interpret that as meaning dont do anything for 60 years. as i say, busy making up a strawman argument as the point is it would take generations to COMPLETE, not to start.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's... not what a strawman is.

its no wonder you come up with so many strawman arguments considering you dont actually understand what it means. Heres a definition for you:

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

I asked a simple question as to how the economics of a united Ireland would work and how the South would be persuaded to pay for it.

The answers roughly fall into two camps:

(1) motherhood and apple pie
(2) I am a "partitionist".

This is a lie, I clearly outlined that such a massive undertaking is not the job of one person or party but also added a number of my own personal thoughts and suggestions which had nothing to do with motherhood or apple pie. You clearly are a partitionist, you support partition.

Godge wrote: »

As I have said already, if a United Ireland happens, fine, but people like me in the South are not going to vote for a pig in a poke and pay 10% extra income tax as a result. If the numbers don't add up, it won't work.

Actually the most recent poll carried out on this suggest that most people would in fact be happy to accept a tax increase in order to achieve a united Ireland, though as I also pointed out a tax increase is not inevitable.

Godge wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better if a party like SF, who most strongly advocate a united Ireland, included the costing in a discussion paper as part of their election manifesto in the next general election? Or would that cost them votes?

Sinn Fein have numerous times called on both the British and southern governments to release figures on the projected costs of reunification so that they could be examined and such a paper produced. Both governments refused to do so. Here, however, is Conor Murphy outlining some of the economic benefits of reunification and rubbishing some of the "we cant afford it" claims you hear on Boards so much.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/27774

Godge wrote: »

I believe the reason SF haven't produced anything of the sort is because of my last question. A united Ireland where the South pays for it is a vote-loser in the South.

And there you go again, railing against an argument that nobody is making. For the millionth time, nobody is suggesting the south just takes over the role of the british government, i know that fantasy makes it easy for you to dismiss reunification but it is just that, a fantasy.

Iwasfrozen

maccored wrote: »

so if something will take generations, you interpret that as meaning dont do anything for 60 years. as i say, busy making up a strawman argument as the point is it would take generations to COMPLETE, not to start.

Seems all anyone wants to do is keep the aspiration alive.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Seems all anyone wants to do is keep the aspiration alive.

seems what who? who wants to keep what aspiration alive?

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

It would be nice if you bothered reading the posts I've already made (numerous times) outlining my view of a UI.

I have read every post and carefully, and all you are offering are generalised 'musings' , nothing really concrete at all .

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

I have read every post and carefully, and all you are offering are generalised 'musings' , nothing really concrete at all .

You haven't otherwise you would see I clearly stated that a UI would entail a complete rebuilding of the country north and south. Dont be lazy.

marienbad

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It's difficult not to be dismissive when what others are saying is a total strawman, such as those i outlined. partitionists on here love attacking this view of a reunified Ireland that is not the republican one

You see this is just more dismissive thoughtlessness . What for argument sake if the people decided to go for a united Ireland ,but not a Republic .

Or is a republic a precondition ?

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

I have read every post and carefully, and all you are offering are generalised 'musings' , nothing really concrete at all .

This is a huge issue that requires the cooperation of all parties, a detailed study of the economic challenges it would bring, a breakdown of current and projected costs and the careful planning and co-operation of two governments.
What is it exactly that you want one person to write in a Boards post?

Godge

maccored wrote: »

My answer to your question was that there was no simple answer. I see you didnt bother including that response in your reply. You also didnt read SFs discussion paper on a UI then obviously either.

My apologies.

I had just assumed that your reference to it being a complete waste of time trying to explain how much it costs was a similar reference to calling me a partitionist.

Again, apologies for my mistake.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Sinn Fein have numerous times called on both the British and southern governments to release figures on the projected costs of reunification so that they could be examined and such a paper produced. Both governments refused to do so. Here, however, is Conor Murphy outlining some of the economic benefits of reunification and rubbishing some of the "we cant afford it" claims you hear on Boards so much.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/27774

I read the article he doesn't actually rubbish anything. He makes a lot of claims but doesn't have the figures to back them up.

What are Conor's qualifications btw? Apparently he's SF's economic spokesman and he according to wiki he went to Queens's but it doesn't give his qualifications.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is a huge issue that requires the cooperation of all parties, a detailed study of the economic challenges it would bring, a breakdown of current and projected costs and the careful planning and co-operation of two governments.
What is it exactly that you want one person to write in a Boards post?

This is the kind of arguement he hear from socialists on boards.

If the idea isn't substantiated then we can't have a real discussion, we're wasting time here.

maccored

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is a huge issue that requires the cooperation of all parties, a detailed study of the economic challenges it would bring, a breakdown of current and projected costs and the careful planning and co-operation of two governments.
What is it exactly that you want one person to write in a Boards post?

I think that like others, marienbad expects the answers on a plate without any negotiation, talk or discussion.

maccored

Godge wrote: »

My apologies.

I had just assumed that your reference to it being a complete waste of time trying to explain how much it costs was a similar reference to calling me a partitionist.

Again, apologies for my mistake.

when did I call you a partitionist? Its true though theres no point in discussing the idea as - like marienbad - you seem to expect the answers before any discussion. Apology accepted of course (as this is just the internet after all)

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

You haven't otherwise you would see I clearly stated that a UI would entail a complete rebuilding of the country north and south. Dont be lazy.

That is just another truism . Is that the best you have ? Then God help us .

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

That is just another truism . Is that the best you have ? Then God help us .

yeah, god help us indeed. with replies like that you really have debated the issue. :rolleyes: If its a truism (ie a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning), how come its one you seem to be very blind to considering how anyone with an opposing view is being 'dismissive'? Do you therefore agree that a UI is something that isnt a case of just the north joining the south?

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

You see this is just more dismissive thoughtlessness . What for argument sake if the people decided to go for a united Ireland ,but not a Republic .

Or is a republic a precondition ?

Well, given all the parties in the south claim to be republican and the biggest party north and south is republican do you expect that there would be huge demand for a reunified Ireland to be a monarchy or dictatorship?
Perhaps you're talking about some sort of federal relationship with England, Scotland and Wales, again, something nobody is seriously suggesting but if it gained momentum it could certainly form part of the debate, which is why we need exactly what ive said about a dozen times now, a national debate and discussion much like Scotland's, so that all voices can be heard and everyone can have their input. That is the sensible thing to do, not this combative nonsense Godge and Frozen are doing going "convince me, I dare you" with their minds already well made up.
People need to bring their ideas forward and we can discuss and debate all of them, which includes partitionists having to explain why they feel the catastrophe of partition should remain against the wishes of the majority of people despite its demonstrable failure

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I read the article he doesn't actually rubbish anything. He makes a lot of claims but doesn't have the figures to back them up.

His central argument is that the British government wont release the figures. Nice little bow they've got on that isn't it.
"A united Ireland would be too costly."
"Ok, show us the figures."
"No"
Suits you down to the ground. Of course these people claiming reunification would be too costly arent so quick to tally up the things partition has and continues to cost us.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What are Conor's qualifications btw? Apparently he's SF's economic spokesman and he according to wiki he went to Queens's but it doesn't give his qualifications.

Oh well if it doesn't say it on Wiki.
Jesus Christ!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is the kind of arguement he hear from socialists on boards.

If the idea isn't substantiated then we can't have a real discussion, we're wasting time here.

THe only impediment to a real discussion on this is people like you who can't even accept what is being proposed and instead invent some doomsday scenario where the border is thrown open one day without thought and rail against that rather than actually discuss what is written in front of them

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

His central argument is that the British government wont release the figures. Nice little bow they've got on that isn't it.
"A united Ireland would be too costly."
"Ok, show us the figures."
"No"
Suits you down to the ground. Of course these people claiming reunification would be too costly arent so quick to tally up the things partition has and continues to cost us.

Regardless from what information we do have we know Northern Ireland is not a net contributor to the UK.

Oh well if it doesn't say it on Wiki.
Jesus Christ!

You didn't answer my question, what are his qualifications? Why should we listen to him?

THe only impediment to a real discussion on this is people like you who can't even accept what is being proposed and instead invent some doomsday scenario where the border is thrown open one day without thought and rail against that rather than actually discuss what is written in front of them

I don't assume any such thing. I've stated my position before is that I would accept unification if it didn't cost the South any money.

And I literally mean any money.

ardmacha

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Grand so let's put it off for another 60 years. See how we're feeling then.

60 years is excessive. 20 years, about the period form the legalisation of homosexuality to the referendum on gay marriage, is more realistic.

Iwasfrozen

ardmacha wrote: »

60 years is excessive. 20 years, about the period form the legalisation of homosexuality to the referendum on gay marriage, is more realistic.

Please don't compare the two issues. They have nothing in common.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Regardless from what information we do have we know Northern Ireland is not a net contributor to the UK.

So you demand exact figures for someone else's arguments but generalisations are fine for yours.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You didn't answer my question, what are his qualifications? Why should we listen to him?

What am I, his mother? I dunno what he did in uni. It's hardly relevant anyway, it's not just him saying it, it's clearly SF policy developed after whatever information and research was available, you said it yourself he's the economic spokesman. What an idiotic argument. Coveney was never in the Army, is he qualified to be Defence Minister? Did Reilly do Children and Youth Affairs studies in Uni? What qualifies Humphreys to captain arts, heritage and gaeltacht?
Talk about grasping at straws.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't assume any such thing. I've stated my position before is that I would accept unification if it didn't cost the South any money.

And I literally mean any money.

The costs cant be established without a proper national discussion and debate.
The costs of partition need to be examined.
The costs and gains are much more than just financial.
Seriously, for someone demanding specifics you're very vague

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So you demand exact figures for someone else's arguments but generalisations are fine for yours.

We know that Northern Ireland is not a net contributor to the United Kingdom. There is every reason to fear Northern Ireland will not be a net contributor to a unified Ireland.

What am I, his mother? I dunno what he did in uni. It's hardly relevant anyway, it's not just him saying it, it's clearly SF policy developed after whatever information and research was available, you said it yourself he's the economic spokesman. What an idiotic argument. Coveney was never in the Army, is he qualified to be Defence Minister? Did Reilly do Children and Youth Affairs studies in Uni? What qualifies Humphreys to captain arts, heritage and gaeltacht?
Talk about grasping at straws.

Ok you don't know that's fine.

It's hugely relevant, when Conor says Northern Ireland won't cost us money I think of two things.

1. How, in the absence of figures (which he rants about in the article) can he make such claims and
2. With what degree of authority is he speaking on the matter? What is his expertise, why should I listen to him or take his opinion in high stead?

The costs cant be established without a proper national discussion and debate.
The costs of partition need to be examined.
The costs and gains are much more than just financial.
Seriously, for someone demanding specifics you're very vague

Granted, I'm putting it out there that I will not support taking on Northern Ireland if they turn out to be a burden burden or cost the South any amount of money.

It would probably even be wise to keep separate budgets for the first ten years of so. So we can be certain that Northern Ireland can be financially stable before we join with them.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

yeah, god help us indeed. with replies like that you really have debated the issue. :rolleyes: If its a truism (ie a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning), how come its one you seem to be very blind to considering how anyone with an opposing view is being 'dismissive'? Do you therefore agree that a UI is something that isnt a case of just the north joining the south?

I do agree indeed , Now care to outline how we go about it . And that SF link is just more platitudes .

eire4

I have a question for those against Irish unification. Its hypothetical so keep that in mind.


If there were no obstacles to unification are you in favour of Irish unification?