Unification?

gavkeegan

I read in the Irish Times today that going out to the pub costs about 20% less up North, on average.

Iwasfrozen

eire4 wrote: »

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?

It it didn't cost us anything I'd be neutral to it.

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

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

isnt that the bit were intensive discussion and negotiation is meant to take place? Or do you expect me to post the answer to a UI off the cuff on boards.ie? Thats a bit of a silly expectation.

eire4

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It it didn't cost us anything I'd be neutral to it.

I did state the question was hypothetical and that there were no obstacles to unification involved.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

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

The anti UI argument is also so vague it goes along the lines of 'oh jaysus, that'd be expensive'.

A UI will be a completely new entity, it cannot be properly costed until all parties sit down and cost it out. And that includes the 2 governments.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The anti UI argument is also so vague it goes along the lines of 'oh jaysus, that'd be expensive'.

A UI will be a completely new entity, it cannot be properly costed until all parties sit down and cost it out. And that includes the 2 governments.

When it becomes a realistic prospect they will. Probably after two successful referendums.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

isnt that the bit were intensive discussion and negotiation is meant to take place? Or do you expect me to post the answer to a UI off the cuff on boards.ie? Thats a bit of a silly expectation.

Not silly at all, after decades of thinking and reading about it surely we have some idea of what is in store.

Somewhere in between saying a UI is an inevitable conclusion and a detailed outline of why it is such and a roadmap of how it will come about .

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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.

You are right, they are not making the argument that the South will pay for it, they are making the argument that it will be all right on the night.

At least the first argument is honest.

As for the Conor Murphy analysis, long on aspiration, short, very short on specifics.

Mr. J

Money, money, money! What about the costs? I want my money! I don't want a strong and happy, peaceful, united, colourful, happy, little country!! I want my extra couple of percent money!! Me want money because money buy things for me!!!

DarkyHughes

It's not really up to us or the UK. If the US want a United Ireland tehn we'll be forced to have one & if we dont do it peacefully then the Americans will land ground forces in Ireland & make it happen by force.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

You are right, they are not making the argument that the South will pay for it, they are making the argument that it will be all right on the night.

At least the first argument is honest.

As for the Conor Murphy analysis, long on aspiration, short, very short on specifics.

Lets see your 'costed' objections then and any other obstacles you see. Please supply sources for your figures (I would be particularly interested in how much the British are spending in total propping up NI and how much you reckon the lack of a need for security apparatus and defence structure would be, going forward)
Put it all down on a list, for discussion. Can you add to that and tell us in this list what you figure the cost of setting up of a new united country will be, who will contribute, the extra earning power of a united country, etc etc etc etc.
I await with baited breath your exhaustive figures.
Yours
Douglas Hyde V!

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

Not silly at all, after decades of thinking and reading about it surely we have some idea of what is in store.

Somewhere in between saying a UI is an inevitable conclusion and a detailed outline of why it is such and a roadmap of how it will come about .

thinking and reading is one thing but wheres the discussion and debate? How do you expect something as massive as a UI to happen without such things?

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

thinking and reading is one thing but wheres the discussion and debate? How do you expect something as massive as a UI to happen without such things?

I don't, which is why I am continually surprised at the shortage of detail on those changes .

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

I don't, which is why I am continually surprised at the shortage of detail on those changes .

you dont expect change to come without discussion and debate, yet without discussion and debate (which the likes of SF are calling for and the idea of which you obviously dont support), you are surprised theres no details.

that doesnt make a lick of sense.

Iwasfrozen

Mr. J wrote: »

Money, money, money! What about the costs? I want my money! I don't want a strong and happy, peaceful, united, colourful, happy, little country!! I want my extra couple of percent money!! Me want money because money buy things for me!!!

Nail on head. If a United Ireland will cost us money then I don't want a United Ireland.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Lets see your 'costed' objections then and any other obstacles you see. Please supply sources for your figures (I would be particularly interested in how much the British are spending in total propping up NI and how much you reckon the lack of a need for security apparatus and defence structure would be, going forward)
Put it all down on a list, for discussion. Can you add to that and tell us in this list what you figure the cost of setting up of a new united country will be, who will contribute, the extra earning power of a united country, etc etc etc etc.
I await with baited breath your exhaustive figures.
Yours
Douglas Hyde V!

The burden of proofs lies on the person who wants change. That's you.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The burden of proofs lies on the person who wants change. That's you.

What do I have to prove?
Stop hiding, if you have costed objections, let us hear them. Or maybe like costing a UI it is impossible until we know exactly what the current set-up costs and what the pluses and minuses of a new entity will be.
The point is, there needs to be a serious and organised debate first, among all the stakeholders, and that will happen.
And contrary to what the Nay-sayers on here believe, I am open to be persuaded that it may not be the right option.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

What do I have to prove?
Stop hiding, if you have costed objections, let us hear them. Or maybe like costing a UI it is impossible until we know exactly what the current set-up costs and what the pluses and minuses of a new entity will be.
The point is, there needs to be a serious and organised debate first, among all the stakeholders, and that will happen.
And contrary to what the Nay-sayers on here believe, I am open to be persuaded that it may not be the right option.

The burden of proof lies of the person making the claim. It's up to the person who wants change to show that change is better than the status quo. That's you.

If you can't show a united Ireand would be financially beneficial to the south then why should I listen to you?

Sheldons Brain

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The burden of proof lies of the person making the claim. It's up to the person who wants change to show that change is better than the status quo. That's you.

A person that argues for the continuation of a colony is so devoid of moral framework that it is difficult for a reasonable person to argue with you.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The burden of proof lies of the person making the claim. It's up to the person who wants change to show that change is better than the status quo. That's you.

If you can't show a united Ireand would be financially beneficial to the south then why should I listen to you?

And where did I claim that 'the cost' would be financially beneficial to the south?
The 'north' is not being acquired by the 'south'. The continued holding on to that bit of nonsense is getting stupid at this stage.

Iwasfrozen

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

A person that argues for the continuation of a colony is so devoid of moral framework that it is difficult for a reasonable person to argue with you.

There is so much wrong with that sentence I don't know where to begin.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

And where did I claim that 'the cost' would be financially beneficial to the south?
The 'north' is not being acquired by the 'south'. The continued holding on to that bit of nonsense is getting stupid at this stage.

Completely side stepped my point. The burden of proving a United Ireland would be beneficial to the South is on those who favor it.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Completely side stepped my point. The burden of proving a United Ireland would be beneficial to the South is on those who favor it.

I can sense the fear in your posts. That argument won't prevent the inevitable debate.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Completely side stepped my point. The burden of proving a United Ireland would be beneficial to the South is on those who favor it.

what a cop out. there is no burden of proof in this case, as the proof will only come from debate and discussion - as most people in democracies do.

Happyman42

maccored wrote: »

what a cop out. there is no burden of proof in this case, as the proof will only come from debate and discussion - as most people in democracies do.

And there will be no way anybody will be able to say with cetainty how it will pan out. But then we are painfully aware of how things can pan out in this country.
The decision will and should be made on the basis of 'what offers all round security and prosperity for everyone on the island'. Britain will also make it's judgement on what offers them security and prosperity. Not having cyclical attacks from a partitioned neighbour and not having to deal with belligerent Unionism will and IS very attractive to the current British mindset imo. That will be key to the inevitability of a focussed debate on this issue.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can sense the fear in your posts. That argument won't prevent the inevitable debate.

You're confusing fear with condescension. You don't know what you're fighting for. You can't even tell me how taking on Northern Ireland will be financially beneficial to the South! So why should I vote for it? You'd be a great man to send out canvassing.

maccored wrote: »

what a cop out. there is no burden of proof in this case, as the proof will only come from debate and discussion - as most people in democracies do.

The burden of proof always rests on the person making the proposition. It's no different in this case. If you can't provide the proof then this conversation is pointless. Let's leave the debate until you can.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

you dont expect change to come without discussion and debate, yet without discussion and debate (which the likes of SF are calling for and the idea of which you obviously dont support), you are surprised theres no details.

that doesnt make a lick of sense.

Is there any point in having a discussion with you ? So many mistakes and misinterpretations in such a short paragraph !

- no one expects change without debate and discussion
- you have no idea what I support.
- I have asked in loads of posts for your ideas on the future only to be given the we must have 'discussion and debate ' non answer .I am asking you for discussion and debate !
- I am very surprised there are no details from you.

maccored

marienbad wrote: »

Is there any point in having a discussion with you ? So many mistakes and misinterpretations in such a short paragraph !

- no one expects change without debate and discussion
- you have no idea what I support.
- I have asked in loads of posts for your ideas on the future only to be given the we must have 'discussion and debate ' non answer .I am asking you for discussion and debate !
- I am very surprised there are no details from you.

I think you are right. Lets not bother.

maccored

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're confusing fear with condescension. You don't know what you're fighting for. You can't even tell me how taking on Northern Ireland will be financially beneficial to the South! So why should I vote for it? You'd be a great man to send out canvassing.


The burden of proof always rests on the person making the proposition. It's no different in this case. If you can't provide the proof then this conversation is pointless. Let's leave the debate until you can.

jaysus this thread is full of waffle. you want the proof (like marienbad) that a UI is viable, but you want the proof now (like marienbad), before there is widespread debate. Nice one.

Iwasfrozen

maccored wrote: »

jaysus this thread is full of waffle. you want the proof (like marienbad) that a UI is viable, but you want the proof now (like marienbad), before there is widespread debate. Nice one.

So let's have the debate! Go. Show me how taking on Northern Ireland will benefit the South financially.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're confusing fear with condescension. You don't know what you're fighting for. You can't even tell me how taking on Northern Ireland will be financially beneficial to the South! So why should I vote for it? You'd be a great man to send out canvassing.

.

Because we won't be 'taking them on'?? :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because we won't be 'taking them on'?? :rolleyes:

So NI would be financially independent within a federation? I'm liking this idea better.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So NI would be financially independent within a federation? I'm liking this idea better.

Define 'financially independent' in a European context?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Define 'financially independent' in a European context?

devo max.

btw, you haven't answered my question.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

I think you are right. Lets not bother.

yet another non answer .

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

jaysus this thread is full of waffle. you want the proof (like marienbad) that a UI is viable, but you want the proof now (like marienbad), before there is widespread debate. Nice one.

Please don't mis-interpret , at no stage have I asked for anything like proof , just some idea of where you thing we should be going ?

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

devo max.

What?

btw, you haven't answered my question.

What question?
I have the answer to the Irish question (just as the British have now) but you aren't listening, as usual.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have the answer to the Irish question (just as the British have now) but you aren't listening, as usual.

What's your answer to this question.

"How will taking on Northern Ireland be financially beneficial to the South?"

I'd like an answer to this question. If you can't get past "taking on" then replace with "unifying with" to ease yourself. Also it goes without saying you have to substantiate any claims.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's your answer to this question.

"How will taking on Northern Ireland be financially beneficial to the South?"

I'd like an answer to this question. If you can't get past "taking on" then replace with "unifying with" to ease yourself. Also it goes without saying you have to substantiate any claims.

Because long term a unified island offers more stability, economically & culturally than we currently have in the south, which lurches from one financial crisis to the next, usually paid for by those marginalised by a faulty political system which will be renewed and redirected in the new unified entity.

I expect that a 'new entity' will be welcomed across the board and would see massive incentives and investment from the EU, Britain and also have the goodwill of the US and others. That would help in the difficult teething era.

The promises a united Ireland holds far outweigh scaremongering about economic doom, which would not be allowed happen imo. As a southerner, anything is preferable to the current status and political system we have.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

As a southerner, anything is preferable to the current status and political system we have.

Anything ,really ?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because long term a unified island offers more stability, economically & culturally than we currently have in the south, which lurches from one financial crisis to the next, usually paid for by those marginalised by a faulty political system which will be renewed and redirected in the new unified entity.

A unified Ireland will still be subject to the business cycle. We will still go from crash to boom and crash again.

I expect that a 'new entity' will be welcomed across the board and would see massive incentives and investment from the EU, Britain and also have the goodwill of the US and others. That would help in the difficult teething era.

Why?

The promises a united Ireland holds far outweigh scaremongering about economic doom, which would not be allowed happen imo. As a southerner, anything is preferable to the current status and political system we have.

No one is claiming economic doom. I'm just not buying into your (unsubstantiated) naive optimism because you haven't shown me why I should.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A unified Ireland will still be subject to the business cycle. We will still go from crash to boom and crash again.

Well then, if no change, what is the problem, we will be better of from a security point of view, culturally and societally.

Why?

I am basing that on the reactions to any positive developments on the island in the past. EG. The Ireland Fund, Peace 1 2 3 programmes and 4 soon to come etc.
A solution to our cyclical problems would be greeted similarly and with huge incentives.

No one is claiming economic doom. I'm just not buying into your (unsubstantiated) naive optimism because you haven't shown me why I should.

And you have shown 'substantiated' what exactly?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well then, if no change, what is the problem, we will be better of from a security point of view, culturally and societally.

Better from a security point of view is debateable to say the least. I don't know how we're supposed to afford the increased police bill but let's leave that aside because I want to concentrate on the financial side of things.

You agree that the business cycle will still in theory apply to a unified Ireland. So that's not a benefit.

I am basing that on the reactions to any positive developments on the island in the past. EG. The Ireland Fund, Peace 1 2 3 programmes and 4 soon to come etc.
A solution to our cyclical problems would be greeted similarly and with huge incentives.

How much money has been invested in Ireland by these programmes?

And you have shown 'substantiated' what exactly?

Again the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. So far you still haven't shown me how the South would benefit financially from taking on Northern Ireland.

Mr. J

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nail on head. If a United Ireland will cost us money then I don't want a United Ireland.

Humbly, I was being super sarcastic to make a point. My point is I suppose, is that I cannot see how money should make a difference. I'm personally happy if I have food in my stomach and a bed to sleep in. I humbly suggest you don't waste your time replying to me (although please be my guest), I'm quite inarticulate and do not fully know what I'm talking about.

I just imagine that if our country was united, in harmony & sh*t, we would eventually become a super-strong little country. No borders, just a grand little island country full of grand little people.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Better from a security point of view is debateable to say the least. I don't know how we're supposed to afford the increased police bill but let's leave that aside because I want to concentrate on the financial side of things.

So the security issue needs 'debating' but the economic one doesn't...it is set in stone according to anti-unity 'debaters'. :rolleyes:

You agree that the business cycle will still in theory apply to a unified Ireland. So that's not a benefit.

Of course it will remain, but how insulated we are here from it is the question.
Are you happy and accepting of what happened here in the last 20 years???

How much money has been invested in Ireland by these programmes?

I don't know and it is hardly relevant, the point made was that there will be goodwill, investment and incentives if stability on the island is perceived to be attainable from unity.

Again the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. So far you still haven't shown me how the South would benefit financially from taking on Northern Ireland.

You are looking for a 'proof' that will not and never will be there or given. Just as the nay-sayers are unable to substaniate anything they say, there will remain an element of the unified case that will be unprovable because nobody can predict the future.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

So the security issue needs 'debating' but the economic one doesn't...it is set in stone according to anti-unity 'debaters'. :rolleyes:

Nothing is set in stone. That's not how the world works.

Of course it will remain, but how insulated we are here from it is the question.
Are you happy and accepting of what happened here in the last 20 years???

No. But I see no reason to suggest things would have been different in a unified Ireland. This isn't an argument for unification.

I don't know and it is hardly relevant, the point made was that there will be goodwill, investment and incentives if stability on the island is perceived to be attainable from unity.

It's relevant because you claimed investment from the EU UK and US would help US through post unification turbulence. Naturally my follow up question is how much would it help us?

You are looking for a 'proof' that will not and never will be there or given. Just as the nay-sayers are unable to substaniate anything they say, there will remain an element of the unified case that will be unprovable because nobody can predict the future.

If it can't be proven then we're wasting our time here. I'm not going to vote to send my country into the abyss without concrete objective proof it will be beneficial.

Godge

eire4 wrote: »

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?

I have been called a "partitionist" on here so I presume you are expecting a reply from the likes of me.

I would be happy to see a United Ireland.

However, I believe that it should not happen until the unionist community are happy with the idea and that there is no cost to the taxpayers of the South (including in the longer term).

That is why I believe it will not happen in my lifetime. It is also why I believe it is up to advocates of a united Ireland in a shorter timeframe to develop the arguments and ideas that will persuade me. Given what I have read on here, I don't believe there are many equipped to do so.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

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?

The problem is, who from the Republic is against Irish unification? I haven't seen anyone here who is. Some people are against Irish unification in certain circumstances, which is a whole different question.

eire4

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The burden of proof lies of the person making the claim. It's up to the person who wants change to show that change is better than the status quo. That's you.

If you can't show a united Ireand would be financially beneficial to the south then why should I listen to you?

You have already stated that all things been sorted and no obstacles to unifcation that your still not in favour only neutral to that happening. So in short you have said your not in favour of unification so why would he waste his time having that conversation when you have made you position very clear.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

The problem is, who from the Republic is against Irish unification? I haven't seen anyone here who is. Some people are against Irish unification in certain circumstances, which is a whole different question.

Can you possibly answer the question that was asked or chose not to reply at all your choice? It was as stated completely a hypothetical question.