Reunification Question

Jim2007

eire4 wrote: »

According to a Red C/Sunday Times poll the margin in favour of unification in the Republic Of Ireland was 57-21.

To put it into perspective, this poll was taken in 2010 and in response to the question "Do you favour a united Ireland?": 57% answered yes, 22% answered no and 21% said they did not know.

That is a long way from where we are today and given the state of the country right now and in particular the debt levels, I would not be at all confident that a similar outcome would be likely if the same poll was undertaken right now.

eire4

Jim2007 wrote: »

To put it into perspective, this poll was taken in 2010 and in response to the question "Do you favour a united Ireland?": 57% answered yes, 22% answered no and 21% said they did not know.

That is a long way from where we are today and given the state of the country right now and in particular the debt levels, I would not be at all confident that a similar outcome would be likely if the same poll was undertaken right now.

Jim you are correct the poll was taken in 2010. Giving a clear majority in favour of unification.
If you are to talk about the state of the Irish economy having an impact on that majority in favour of unification I have no idea if it would either increase or lower the majority in favour of unification. But given the vote was taken in 2010 we economically in 2015 are much improved since then.

mfceiling

It's a bit of a moot point.

I would hazard a guess that...

ROI wouldn't want NI

England/UK wouldn't want NI

NI wouldn't want to leave England/UK

Jim2007

eire4 wrote: »

But given the vote was taken in 2010 we economically in 2015 are much improved since then.

From a numbers point of view I would agree with you, but from a perception point a few there are a lot out there that would not agree. So telling people that the country would take on additional debt and higher taxes, would not fly in my opinion.

We have to realise that any kind of union would be required to take on a portion of the UK national debt as we did in 1922.

Ren2k7

Jim2007 wrote: »

To put it into perspective, this poll was taken in 2010 and in response to the question "Do you favour a united Ireland?": 57% answered yes, 22% answered no and 21% said they did not know.

That is a long way from where we are today and given the state of the country right now and in particular the debt levels, I would not be at all confident that a similar outcome would be likely if the same poll was undertaken right now.

Until someone else comes along with a new opinion poll in the Republic on the issue of reunification existing polls from 2010 will remain a valid endorsement of the Irish people's desire to see a United Ireland. Though that won't stop those opposed to a UI claiming a "silent majority" agrees with them and a 32 county Ireland isn't supported by the majority of this state.

mfceiling wrote: »

ROI wouldn't want NI

Like I said, lack of proof never seems to stop some claiming the Irish people don't want a UI. We did back in 1918 and we do still want a single Irish republic in 2015.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Until someone else comes along with a new opinion poll in the Republic on the issue of reunification existing polls from 2010 will remain a valid endorsement of the Irish people's desire to see a United Ireland. Though that won't stop those opposed to a UI claiming a "silent majority" agrees with them and a 32 county Ireland isn't supported by the majority of this state.



Like I said, lack of proof never seems to stop some claiming the Irish people don't want a UI. We did back in 1918 and we do still want a single Irish republic in 2015.

I don't doubt that a significant majority of Irish want a UI, just like the bulk of the Scots want independence.

Just because the aspiration exists, it doesn't mean people will vote for it, especially once the costs are laid out. NI is a moneypit, and one we'd struggle to afford, and that's before you factor in increased defence & security spending.

There'd need to be a lot more economic convergence before unification becomes politically possible.

Berserker

Ren2k7 wrote: »

And you know this HOW?

Well, I haven't seen or heard of any mass desire for a vote on the matter, have you? There is an appetite for another referendum on abortion, for example but I can't say that I have come across any significant desire for a vote on a UI.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

We did back in 1918.

Are you really trying to compare Ireland in 1918 to Ireland in 2015? Ireland in 1988 is a million miles away from Ireland today, let alone Ireland in 1918. 2015 is a far more tolerant an open-minded society and I do not see any want from the vast majority of the people to fulfil some "land grab" political ideology that belongs in 1918.

mfceiling wrote: »

NI wouldn't want to leave England/UK

It's funny you say that. A lad (early 30s) started work with us from N.I., south Armagh. He got his first pay slip last Friday and his jaw dropped when he saw all the deductions. He was stunned at the cost of rent in Meath prior to that. At lunch on Friday, he commented on how costly life is down here compared to NI. He has decided that he is not going to change his car from an NI registration to a RoI one due to the cost of tax, insurance and re-registering the car down here. We took that opportunity to remind him that it would be a good idea to get some private health insurance too, if he plans to stay here long term!

I think that many of the people in NI would have a similar reaction to the RoI when they sit back and take a look at the cost of living down here and they will realise how good they have things as part of the UK. The RoI would never be able to be the public ATM that London is for N.I..

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't doubt that a significant majority of Irish want a UI, just like the bulk of the Scots want independence.

Just because the aspiration exists, it doesn't mean people will vote for it, especially once the costs are laid out. NI is a moneypit, and one we'd struggle to afford, and that's before you factor in increased defence & security spending.

There'd need to be a lot more economic convergence before unification becomes politically possible.

It'll still be many years before unification is a serious prospect so this should provide ample time and opportunity to reform Northern Ireland's massively dysfunctional economy.

In any case the economic argument by those opposed to a UI is a total red herring. No one suggests we dump Connemara or the West in general because it is massively subsidised by Leinster.

Ren2k7

Berserker wrote: »

Well, I haven't seen or heard of any mass desire for a vote on the matter, have you? There is an appetite for another referendum on abortion, for example but I can't say that I have come across any significant desire for a vote on a UI.

It's not an issue because every political party supports reunification but because this is dependent on the North wanting to join with us there's not much else we can do to force the issue. Although I accept successive Irish govts have done little to promote or advance the cause of unity. But that doesn't mean most Irish people don't support reunification. We do, as proved in every opinion poll.

Berserker wrote: »

Are you really trying to compare Ireland in 1918 to Ireland in 2015? Ireland in 1988 is a million miles away from Ireland today, let alone Ireland in 1918. 2015 is a far more tolerant an open-minded society and I do not see any want from the vast majority of the people to fulfil some "land grab" political ideology that belongs in 1918.

Maybe YOU don't want a UI but don't try and claim the rest of the Irish nation doesn't want unification with their fellow Irish in the occupied six.

Berserker wrote: »

It's funny you say that. A lad (early 30s) started work with us from N.I., south Armagh. He got his first pay slip last Friday and his jaw dropped when he saw all the deductions. He was stunned at the cost of rent in Meath prior to that. At lunch on Friday, he commented on how costly life is down here compared to NI. He has decided that he is not going to change his car from an NI registration to a RoI one due to the cost of tax, insurance and re-registering the car down here. We took that opportunity to remind him that it would be a good idea to get some private health insurance too, if he plans to stay here long term!

I think that many of the people in NI would have a similar reaction to the RoI when they sit back and take a look at the cost of living down here and they will realise how good they have things as part of the UK. The RoI would never be able to be the public ATM that London is for N.I..

That's says more about the utterly decrepit state of our republic than anything else in fairness.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It'll still be many years before unification is a serious prospect so this should provide ample time and opportunity to reform Northern Ireland's massively dysfunctional economy.

In any case the economic argument by those opposed to a UI is a total red herring. No one suggests we dump Connemara or the West in general because it is massively subsidised by Leinster.

Unfortunately it's not a red herring. You can't wish the economics of unifying the island away.

The Scottish referendum showed us how hard reality very quickly cuts through misty eyed sentimentality.

For example, I wonder how many nationalists in NI would be in favour of their mortgage being in pounds, but their salaries in euros? Or how many would be happy about future pension benefits in a UI?

Likewise, how many in the Republic would be in favour of taking on those pension liabilities?

Also other questions - would the NHS or HSE go? What about education - properly free or free as it is in the Reoublic?

Policing - will the Guards be armed or will the PSNI disarm?

Household charges - will we have to take on their level of property taxes, and them take on our level of water charges?

Etc

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not a red herring. You can't wish the economics of unifying the island away.

If we took that attitude we would never have broken free of England's rule.

Jawgap wrote: »

The Scottish referendum showed us how hard reality very quickly cuts through misty eyed sentimentality.

The Scottish are a dour, miserable people who took English money over national self determination. Again we should be thankful such arguments were ignored in Ireland.

Jawgap wrote: »

For example, I wonder how many nationalists in NI would be in favour of their mortgage being in pounds, but their salaries in euros? Or how many would be happy about future pension benefits in a UI?

Why would mortgages be in the currency of a foreign country?

Jawgap wrote: »

Likewise, how many in the Republic would be in favour of taking on those pension liabilities?

We'd have an expanded workforce to pay for more seniors.

Jawgap wrote: »

Also other questions - would the NHS or HSE go? What about education - properly free or free as it is in the Reoublic?

Massive top down bureaucracies don't work so hopefully we'd see the elimination of both.

Jawgap wrote: »

Policing - will the Guards be armed or will the PSNI disarm?

There would be no PSNI in a UI.

Jawgap wrote: »

Household charges - will we have to take on their level of property taxes, and them take on our level of water charges?

Etc

Property taxes will have to go up in the Republic anyway. And the North pays for its water through rates.

Anyway, all penny pinching rubbish. National self-determination is seldom based on economics, if it was we'd still be part of the UK.

Berserker

Ren2k7 wrote: »

That's says more about the utterly decrepit state of our republic than anything else in fairness.

If the RoI is in an "utterly decrepit state" then I can only imagine what words you would use to describe N.I.. I await your response to Jawgap's questions with bated breath.

Also, can you give an indication on how you would handle the anthem and the flag. I'm sure you would agree that the AnF and the tri-colour are not suitable in such a context.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Property taxes will have to go up in the Republic anyway.

That sounds like a winner with the RoI electorate alright.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

If we took that attitude we would never have broken free of England's rule.

No, there were clear economic, social and political rationales for us reaching for our freedom, not the least of which was completing the land reforms.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The Scottish are a dour, miserable people who took English money over national self determination. Again we should be thankful such arguments were ignored in Ireland.

OK :rolleyes:

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Why would mortgages be in the currency of a foreign country?

.....because the banks issued the mortgages in sterling and there's no way they'll take on the uncertainty of re-denominating them in Euros. If you want to see what happens when you're mortgage is one currency, but your salary is in a different one - have a look at what happening in Poland with the Swiss Franc mortgages.

Any mortgages after unification will likely (almost certainly be in Euros) but for the first few years there'll be a lot of households paying off sterling mortgages in Yoyos.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

We'd have an expanded workforce to pay for more seniors.

won't we have more seniors

the median age of NI's population is 37, % under 16 is 21% and % over 65 is 15% - those figures are from the 2011 census and all increased since the 2001 census, with the exception of the under 16 figure which declined - in other words their population is ageing.

Our 2011 figures are 21% under 14, 12% over 65 and median age 35.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Massive top down bureaucracies don't work so hopefully we'd see the elimination of both.

We don't have a massive top down bureaucracy in this country - in fact we've one of leanest public administrations in the OECD - in contrast to the UK - are we going to keep paying for that? Or do we take the hit and pay them off with redundancies?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

There would be no PSNI in a UI.

I didn't say there would - I asked if the new police force would be armed or not?

But you raise an interesting point - will the PSNI be absorbed into AGS?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Property taxes will have to go up in the Republic anyway. And the North pays for its water through rates.

So will property taxes in a UI increase to NI levels and the water charge will go?

Increasing taxes? That'll get the electorate to vote for unification!

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Anyway, all penny pinching rubbish. National self-determination is seldom based on economics, if it was we'd still be part of the UK.

Maybe, but this isn't the early 20th century - we're now a property owning democracy and if those simple questions can't be answered, good luck getting people to vote for a UI on either side of the border.

Ren2k7

Berserker wrote: »

If the RoI is in an "utterly decrepit state" then I can only imagine what words you would use to describe N.I.. I await your response to Jawgap's questions with bated breath.

I provided answer's above.

Berserker wrote: »

Also, can you give an indication on how you would handle the anthem and the flag. I'm sure you would agree that the AnF and the tri-colour are not suitable in such a context.

So? The British community will NEVER accept a UI so if, or rather when the border question is approved in the North it will be because the Irish community has reached a majority in the statelet. The "tricolour" (or flag of Ireland to normal people) and national anthem are entirely suitable and don't need changing.

Berserker wrote: »

That sounds like a winner with the RoI electorate alright.

The Irish people seem to want a Nordic style welfare state without Nordic levels of taxation. Something is going to have to give but one thign is for sure, an American style private health "market" is no longer acceptable in this country and we are going to have to introduce some sort of government sponsored universal health insurance if we are to mature as a nation. Same with education provision, child care, third level access, pensions, etc.

Jawgap

Berserker wrote: »

If the RoI is in an "utterly decrepit state" then I can only imagine what words you would use to describe N.I.. I await your response to Jawgap's questions with bated breath.

Also, can you give an indication on how you would handle the anthem and the flag. I'm sure you would agree that the AnF and the tri-colour are not suitable in such a context.



That sounds like a winner with the RoI electorate alright.

According to the NI rates calculator a bill for a similar house to the one I own at the moment, in the Belfast area, would be stg£2140 or just over €3000.....

That's about triple what I pay in LPT and water charges!

Sounds like a winner alright

Berserker

Ren2k7 wrote: »

So? The British community will NEVER accept a UI so if, or rather when the border question is approved in the North it will be because the Irish community has reached a majority in the statelet.

So, just because you have a majority, you are going to suppress the minority and their values? I'm getting a sense of "deja vu" here at the moment for some reason.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I provided answer's above.



So? The British community will NEVER accept a UI so if, or rather when the border question is approved in the North it will be because the Irish community has reached a majority in the statelet. The "tricolour" (or flag of Ireland to normal people) and national anthem are entirely suitable and don't need changing.



The Irish people seem to want a Nordic style welfare state without Nordic levels of taxation. Something is going to have to give but one thign is for sure, an American style private health "market" is no longer acceptable in this country and we are going to have to introduce some sort of government sponsored universal health insurance if we are to mature as a nation. Same with education provision, child care, third level access, pensions, etc.

Actually, the Ulster Life survey run by the BT showed that even in the nationalist community only 55% would vote for a UI - it would be a mistake to suggest that all nationalists would automatically vote for a UI -

The people of Northern Ireland want a border poll referendum (left) - but there is still no significant appetite for a united Ireland (right). *Total excludes no opinion/no vote

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

No, there were clear economic, social and political rationales for us reaching for our freedom, not the least of which was completing the land reforms.

The argument was frequently made that staying in the UK would have been better economically for Ireland, especially when you consider how much of an economic basketcase the Republic was right up until the early 90's.

Jawgap wrote: »

.....because the banks issued the mortgages in sterling and there's no way they'll take on the uncertainty of re-denominating them in Euros. If you want to see what happens when you're mortgage is one currency, but your salary is in a different one - have a look at what happening in Poland with the Swiss Franc mortgages.

Any mortgages after unification will likely (almost certainly be in Euros) but for the first few years there'll be a lot of households paying off sterling mortgages in Yoyos.

Are people still paying off mortgages in Punts?

Jawgap wrote: »

won't we have more seniors the median age of NI's population is 37, % under 16 is 21% and % over 65 is 15% - those figures are from the 2011 census and all increased since the 2001 census, with the exception of the under 16 figure which declined - in other words their population is ageing.

Our 2011 figures are 21% under 14, 12% over 65 and median age 35.

Ireland as a whole has one of the youngest population's in Europe so paying for retired pensioners won't be a problem.

Jawgap wrote: »

We don't have a massive top down bureaucracy in this country - in fact we've one of leanest public administrations in the OECD - in contrast to the UK - are we going to keep paying for that? Or do we take the hit and pay them off with redundancies?

Good god, really? The HSE is a massive, bloated inefficient organisation that suffers from chronic mismanagement and ballooning costs; which is why FG were originally committed to abolishing the super quango. The NHS is considered sacred in Britain but remember, it doesn't exist in the North, instead called Health and Social Care and administrated by five separate health boards, similar to the Republic's health system before the merger of the health boards into the HSE behemoth.

Also you should be aware that the Tories are committed to slashing public spending and services across the UK, including Northern Ireland, as well as seeking the elimination of the Barnet Formula. So whatever Stormont receives in taxes will be what it spends, ie, no top ups from Whitehall. By the time a UI is supported in the North they will have a much more leaner public service.

Jawgap wrote: »

I didn't say there would - I asked if the new police force would be armed or not?

Why would it need to be? The Troubles are over and apart from dissos and a few loyalist headbangers crime and violence in the North is no worse than the Republic or Britain.

Jawgap wrote: »

But you raise an interesting point - will the PSNI be absorbed into AGS?

Most likely unless there is some sort of federalisation that is part of a UI. But given the small size of Ireland it wouldn't make much sense to have two distinct police forces.

Jawgap wrote: »

So will property taxes in a UI increase to NI levels and the water charge will go?

Maybe. It depends on what state the public services in Northern Ireland will be compared to the rest of Ireland. Personally I would support increased tax raising powers for local authorities. So if Co. Antrim in a UI wished to maintain existing levels of public services they could opt to maintain higher property taxes compared to other counties in Ireland.

Jawgap wrote: »

Increasing taxes? That'll get the electorate to vote for unification!

Unless the unification treaty was incredibly one sided, overly favourable to the Northern six counties joining the Republic and imposed massive increased taxes on the other 26 counties it's extremely unlikely we'd reject unification.

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe, but this isn't the early 20th century - we're now a property owning democracy and if those simple questions can't be answered, good luck getting people to vote for a UI on either side of the border.

Well it's kind of hard to answer hypothetical questions on what a UI would look like when successive Irish Governments have flatly refused to engage in any meaningful debate on the subject.

SF led governments in Dublin and Belfast would see much more discussion and awareness of what a UI would entail. FFGLAB, while not opposed to a UI in theory, simply don't care enough to push the case for it either.

Ren2k7

Berserker wrote: »

So, just because you have a majority, you are going to suppress the minority and their values? I'm getting a sense of "deja vu" here at the moment for some reason.

Excuse me but WHERE have I ever stated I want to see the suppression of the British community in Ireland?

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, the Ulster Life survey run by the BT showed that even in the nationalist community only 55% would vote for a UI - it would be a mistake to suggest that all nationalists would automatically vote for a UI -

That pie chart would appear to prove the opposite where 40% of respondents would vote for a UI either now or at some point in the future. This matches up nearly perfectly with the Nationalist community in the North. The Irish community in the North aren't one monolithic bloc who would 100% support a UI but they are certainly more open and sympathetic to the notion. And if a detailed and comprehensive proposal for a UI is proposed that can demonstrate how better off the people of NI would be in a unified Ireland then you would see quite strong support for a UI from the Irish community.

Nobody is expecting a UI to take place any time soon so these next few years will provide ample opportunity for governments on both sides of the border to increasingly harmonise and align laws, regulations and practice's with each other so that when UI is eventually supported by a majority in the North it can be implemented as smoothly as possible. But as long as Uber West Brits like FG/LAB are allowed to remain in power a united Ireland remains as far away as ever.

katydid

Ren2k7 wrote: »

40% of respondents would vote for a UI either now or at some point in the future...
But as long as Uber West Brits like FG/LAB are allowed to remain in power a united Ireland remains as far away as ever.

"some point in the future" being the operative phrase. Most people are all for a united Ireland sometime. When the North has sorted out its problems.

FG and Labour are voted for by large swathes of Irish citizens. If you call them "uber West Brits", you are saying that all these Irish citizens are the same. How about just accepting that your idea of what Irish citizens feel about the North is not the same as the one you see wearing your emerald tinted glasses?

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The argument was frequently made that staying in the UK would have been better economically for Ireland, especially when you consider how much of an economic basketcase the Republic was right up until the early 90's.

Really, by whom?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Are people still paying off mortgages in Punts?

eh, no - because the punt was replaced by the Euro - after unification, both Sterling and the Euro will still exist - are you seriously suggesting that banks will re-denominate NI mortgages into Euros? Would the FSA even let them take on that risk?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Ireland as a whole has one of the youngest population's in Europe so paying for retired pensioners won't be a problem.

True, so why should we pay for someone else's pensioners? And even if you think we should how will you sell that to the electorate here, bearing in mind that pensioners (and the older age groups) are the ones who vote in the greatest numbers. They won't want to see their benefits potentially eroded by more coming into the system?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Good god, really? The HSE is a massive, bloated inefficient organisation that suffers from chronic mismanagement and ballooning costs; which is why FG were originally committed to abolishing the super quango. The NHS is considered sacred in Britain but remember, it doesn't exist in the North, instead called Health and Social Care and administrated by five separate health boards, similar to the Republic's health system before the merger of the health boards into the HSE behemoth.

I agree with you on the HSE, and you can call it what you want in NI, but people still regard it as the NHS and get NHS benefits- will we get similar benefits or will NI have to give up theirs and take our benefits?

And if it's the former how will it be paid for?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Also you should be aware that the Tories are committed to slashing public spending and services across the UK, including Northern Ireland, as well as seeking the elimination of the Barnet Formula. So whatever Stormont receives in taxes will be what it spends, ie, no top ups from Whitehall. By the time a UI is supported in the North they will have a much more leaner public service.

Yeah, not going to happen - the stg£6 billion that NI needs to keep going will still be provided - if they had to be self-sufficient, they'd be Greece without the sunshine

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Why would it need to be? The Troubles are over and apart from dissos and a few loyalist headbangers crime and violence in the North is no worse than the Republic or Britain.

Well if it' suggest a benign security environment, why don't the PSNI give up their weapons?

Also nothing like the 12th happens in other countries - do we really want responsibility for that?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Most likely unless there is some sort of federalisation that is part of a UI. But given the small size of Ireland it wouldn't make much sense to have two distinct police forces.

Indeed it wouldn't - so will AGS be extended into the North? Will the PSNI give up their guns or will AGS be armed? Will the High Court in Belfast go? How about laws?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Maybe. It depends on what state the public services in Northern Ireland will be compared to the rest of Ireland. Personally I would support increased tax raising powers for local authorities. So if Co. Antrim in a UI wished to maintain existing levels of public services they could opt to maintain higher property taxes compared to other counties in Ireland.

Definite vote winner - giving LAs more power to vary property taxes. No doubt in metropolitan areas local taxes would decline (because of scale and population densities) while in rural areas they would climb, thus reinforcing the urban rural divide - another vote winner?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Unless the unification treaty was incredibly one sided, overly favourable to the Northern six counties joining the Republic and imposed massive increased taxes on the other 26 counties it's extremely unlikely we'd reject unification.

Well there will be massive tax increases - NI currently costs the UK exchequer stg£6 billion per year - in Euro equivalent that represents the PAYE tax take in the Republic. How do we fund that obligation if we take it on? Increased taxes (both in NI and the Republic) or increased borrowing (which is really just deferred taxation)?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Well it's kind of hard to answer hypothetical questions on what a UI would look like when successive Irish Governments have flatly refused to engage in any meaningful debate on the subject.

There's nothing hypothetical about it - the first question that will come up is 'how much will it cost?' Like it or not the figure of stg£6 billion will get bandied about - which raises the next question 'can we afford it?' and if so 'how?' - and that's even before you start down the road of talking about health, education, pensions, transport, policing etc etc

Ren2k7 wrote: »

SF led governments in Dublin and Belfast would see much more discussion and awareness of what a UI would entail. FFGLAB, while not opposed to a UI in theory, simply don't care enough to push the case for it either.

Because other than an emotional case there is not case to push. Nobody has shown there is any economic benefit to be derived from unification - SF talk about it in the abstract and posit it as axiomatic that there will be economic benefits without explaining what those benefits might be and by what mechanisms they might come about, other than to say that the market will be larger!?!?

They seem to forget that as members of the Eurozone we measure our market in tens of millions of people - an extra 1.8 million is a very small pebble into a very large well.

katydid

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Why would it need to be? The Troubles are over and apart from dissos and a few loyalist headbangers crime and violence in the North is no worse than the Republic or Britain.


Unless the unification treaty was incredibly one sided, overly favourable to the Northern six counties joining the Republic and imposed massive increased taxes on the other 26 counties it's extremely unlikely we'd reject unification.



Well it's kind of hard to answer hypothetical questions on what a UI would look like when successive Irish Governments have flatly refused to engage in any meaningful debate on the subject.

SF led governments in Dublin and Belfast would see much more discussion and awareness of what a UI would entail. FFGLAB, while not opposed to a UI in theory, simply don't care enough to push the case for it either.

The Troubles may be over, but NI is still a basket case. Look at the riots over the flag, and the ****e that goes on every July with parades and the like. It's actually very easy to answer the hypothetical question as to what Ireland would look like; it would mean OUR government and OUR police and army trying to deal with the nut jobs in the North. No thanks. WE have enough problems of our own.

A SF led government in this state would be a disaster. Apart from their support for child abuse and terrorism, they are living in lala land when it comes to real political issues that don't involve spouting "republican" rhetoric. If they had been in power when the financial crisis came about they would have, according to themselves, told the Troika to get lost - where would we be now? Not in recovery, that's for sure. We'd be Greece times 100

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

That pie chart would appear to prove the opposite where 40% of respondents would vote for a UI either now or at some point in the future. This matches up nearly perfectly with the Nationalist community in the North. The Irish community in the North aren't one monolithic bloc who would 100% support a UI but they are certainly more open and sympathetic to the notion. And if a detailed and comprehensive proposal for a UI is proposed that can demonstrate how better off the people of NI would be in a unified Ireland then you would see quite strong support for a UI from the Irish community.

Nobody is expecting a UI to take place any time soon so these next few years will provide ample opportunity for governments on both sides of the border to increasingly harmonise and align laws, regulations and practice's with each other so that when UI is eventually supported by a majority in the North it can be implemented as smoothly as possible. But as long as Uber West Brits like FG/LAB are allowed to remain in power a united Ireland remains as far away as ever.

40% ain't a majority......

Northern Ireland says 'yes' to a border poll... but a firm 'no' to united Ireland

Yet Irish unity appears as far off as ever because an even larger majority say they would vote against removing the border, given the opportunity.

The pro-Union majority includes one in five Catholics (20.7%). Sinn Fein is currently calling for a border poll to be held. They are backed in this by 81% of Catholics and 24% of Protestants, giving a majority of 59% once don't knows (DKs) are excluded.

Ren2k7

katydid wrote: »

"some point in the future" being the operative phrase. Most people are all for a united Ireland sometime. When the North has sorted out its problems.

The same could be said of our own dysfunctional public administration; a country that refuses to allow expats the right to vote in elections, a state where there is still no universal health coverage, where parents have to pay hundreds each year in schooling costs for their children. Perhaps when WE sort ourselves out will Northerners show more interest in joining us. Because the way others see it it is the Republic that is more of a mess than the North. And that's quite a damning view!

katydid wrote: »

FG and Labour are voted for by large swathes of Irish citizens. If you call them "uber West Brits", you are saying that all these Irish citizens are the same. How about just accepting that your idea of what Irish citizens feel about the North is not the same as the one you see wearing your emerald tinted glasses?

FG and Labour ARE West Brits but refusing to have anything to do with the North while continuously sucking up to Britain. Why haven't successive Irish governments refused to properly investigate the Dublin and Monaghan terror attacks? Why did a former Labour minister in the 70's support the so called " Heavy Gang", a Garda unit that used torture and violence to extract "confessions" from alleged Republicans and later stood as a unionist candidate in Assembly elections? Or a former FG Taoiseach who claimed the Easter Rising was a mistake?

And stop claiming the Irish people don't support a UI. Polls continuously show most Irish people support unification.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The same could be said of our own dysfunctional public administration; a country that refuses to allow expats the right to vote in elections, a state where there is still no universal health coverage, where parents have to pay hundreds each year in schooling costs for their children. Perhaps when WE sort ourselves out will Northerners show more interest in joining us. Because the way others see it it is the Republic that is more of a mess than the North. And that's quite a damning view!

where is the evidence our public administration is dysfunctional? there are instances of it failing, but the whole system dysfunctional?

....and what country allows ex-pats to vote that doesn't also require them to pay taxes, even if resident abroad? We may not let the ex-pats vote in parliamentary elections, but neither do we insist on them paying taxes here, the way the US does with their citizens.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

FG and Labour ARE West Brits but refusing to have anything to do with the North while continuously sucking up to Britain. Why haven't successive Irish governments refused to properly investigate the Dublin and Monaghan terror attacks? Why did a former Labour minister in the 70's support the so called " Heavy Gang", a Garda unit that used torture and violence to extract "confessions" from alleged Republicans and later stood as a unionist candidate in Assembly elections? Or a former FG Taoiseach who claimed the Easter Rising was a mistake?

And stop claiming the Irish people don't support a UI. Polls continuously show most Irish people support unification.

How does that make them 'west Brits'?

Can you provide an example of these polls (that show most Irish people support unification)?

Ren2k7

@Jawgap: I've dealt with your questions in great detail so stop asking questions you already know the answer to. We get it, you don't want a UI. But stop trying to claim the Irish people are also opposed to a UI when polls consistently show they overwhelmingly back unification. And if increased taxes are needed to successfully integrate the North into the Republic then the people of Ireland will support that as well.

Crooked Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, the Ulster Life survey run by the BT showed that even in the nationalist community only 55% would vote for a UI - it would be a mistake to suggest that all nationalists would automatically vote for a UI -

Thats actually pretty encouraging. Prior to the 18 month long national debate support for scottish independence stood at well below 30% rising to 45 by polling day when actual plans were laid out and discussions had. According to that we'd be starting off with 40% leaning towards reunification right off the bat. Whatever the outcome, it certainly wouldnt be the resounding no predicted by some here.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

@Jawgap: I've dealt with your questions in great detail so stop asking questions you already know the answer to. We get it, you don't want a UI. But stop trying to claim the Irish people are also opposed to a UI when polls consistently show they overwhelmingly back unification. And if increased taxes are needed to successfully integrate the North into the Republic then the people of Ireland will support that as well.

I only asked for an example of these polls?

Also when you said....

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The argument was frequently made that staying in the UK would have been better economically for Ireland, especially when you consider how much of an economic basketcase the Republic was right up until the early 90's.

......I asked who made that argument and you've yet to answer.

In both cases if examples exist, is it possible to provide a link to them?

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

where is the evidence our public administration is dysfunctional? there are instances of it failing, but the whole system dysfunctional?

....and what country allows ex-pats to vote that doesn't also require them to pay taxes, even if resident abroad? We may not let the ex-pats vote in parliamentary elections, but neither do we insist on them paying taxes here, the way the US does with their citizens.



How does that make them 'west Brits'?

Can you provide an example of these polls (that show most Irish people support unification)?

France allows expats to elect representatives to its parliament.

And.....

Given the large number with no opinion on the subject it is interesting to note that 69 per cent of people say they would still favour a united Ireland even if they had to pay more in taxation to support it. Just 20 per cent said they would not favour unity in those circumstances while 11 per cent had no opinion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/republic-takes-more-relaxed-approach-to-dual-identity-across-the-border-1.557219

Whoops! I, and most other Irish people support a UI, even if it means paying more taxes. You lost.

Jawgap

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Thats actually pretty encouraging. Prior to the 18 month long national debate support for scottish independence stood at well below 30% rising to 45 by polling day when actual plans were laid out and discussions had. According to that we'd be starting off with 40% leaning towards reunification right off the bat. Whatever the outcome, it certainly wouldnt be the resounding no predicted by some here.

that's in the north - plus the uncertainties that undermined the pro-independence campaign in Scotland are magnified here by the currency questions and the differences in health and education systems.

it would be interesting to compare it with polling data from the Republic.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

France allows expats to elect representatives to its parliament.

And.....



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/republic-takes-more-relaxed-approach-to-dual-identity-across-the-border-1.557219

Whoops! I, and most other Irish people support a UI, even if it means paying more taxes. You lost.

Thanks, I don't see it as winning or losing.

The tax thing is interesting - I wonder how soft the figure is? As in, once figures start getting bandied about how will it be affected? It would be interesting to find out.

I'd also be interested in seeing who made the economic argument for us staying in the UK - being a bit of a student of economic history

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

Thanks, I don't see it as winning or losing.

The tax thing is interesting - I wonder how soft the figure is? As in, once figures start getting bandied about how will it be affected? It would be interesting to find out.

I'd also be interested in seeing who made the economic argument for us staying in the UK - being a bit of a student of economic history

Unionists made that argument. And considering the higher standards of living between the Republic and North for years it could reasonably be said that the 26 counties should have stayed put given all the decades of minimal growth and large scale emigration.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Unionists made that argument. And considering the higher standards of living between the Republic and North for years it could reasonably be said that the 26 counties should have stayed put given all the decades of minimal growth and large scale emigration.

Yes, I was just wondering if you had a source?

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I was just wondering if you had a source?

A bit rich coming from someone who claimed the Irish people would vote down unification if it meant tax rises. :rolleyes:

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

A bit rich coming from someone who claimed the Irish people would vote down unification if it meant tax rises. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but does that mean you don't have a source or you do have a source for your statement.....

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The argument was frequently made that staying in the UK would have been better economically for Ireland, especially when you consider how much of an economic basketcase the Republic was right up until the early 90's.

......

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

A bit rich coming from someone who claimed the Irish people would vote down unification if it meant tax rises. :rolleyes:

Yes, I think they would - once the quantum becomes apparent.

I'd pay increased taxes to fund a better education system, but I wouldn't pay more than about a 5% increase on my income tax.

katydid

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The same could be said of our own dysfunctional public administration; a country that refuses to allow expats the right to vote in elections, a state where there is still no universal health coverage, where parents have to pay hundreds each year in schooling costs for their children. Perhaps when WE sort ourselves out will Northerners show more interest in joining us. Because the way others see it it is the Republic that is more of a mess than the North. And that's quite a damning view!



FG and Labour ARE West Brits but refusing to have anything to do with the North while continuously sucking up to Britain. Why haven't successive Irish governments refused to properly investigate the Dublin and Monaghan terror attacks? Why did a former Labour minister in the 70's support the so called " Heavy Gang", a Garda unit that used torture and violence to extract "confessions" from alleged Republicans and later stood as a unionist candidate in Assembly elections? Or a former FG Taoiseach who claimed the Easter Rising was a mistake?

And stop claiming the Irish people don't support a UI. Polls continuously show most Irish people support unification.

There's plenty wrong with our state as it is; that's the point. Without adding more problems to it. That's why NI can only join us if and when they sort out their issues and become something close to a normal society.

So fine, you think that a very large proportion of Irish people are "West Brits" because they don't follow your particular brand of Irish nationalism. The politicians in this country deal with the affairs of this country. As for your allegations of torture, collusion etc., they are just the waffle of someone living in cloud cuckoo land, who can't accept this state the way it is, instead of the way you want it to be.

As for polls, let me repeat for, I think it is, the third time; most Irish people certainly do support a united Ireland - in the vague sense - and this is reflected in polls. Show me a poll that shows a majority in this state would vote for a united Ireland today...

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I think they would - once the quantum becomes apparent.

I'd pay increased taxes to fund a better education system, but I wouldn't pay more than about a 5% increase on my income tax.

katydid wrote: »

There's plenty wrong with our state as it is; that's the point. Without adding more problems to it. That's why NI can only join us if and when they sort out their issues and become something close to a normal society.

So fine, you think that a very large proportion of Irish people are "West Brits" because they don't follow your particular brand of Irish nationalism. The politicians in this country deal with the affairs of this country. As for your allegations of torture, collusion etc., they are just the waffle of someone living in cloud cuckoo land, who can't accept this state the way it is, instead of the way you want it to be.

As for polls, let me repeat for, I think it is, the third time; most Irish people certainly do support a united Ireland - in the vague sense - and this is reflected in polls. Show me a poll that shows a majority in this state would vote for a united Ireland today...

Are you two both being deliberately thick?

it is interesting to note that 69 per cent of people say they would still favour a united Ireland even if they had to pay more in taxation to support it. Just 20 per cent said they would not favour unity in those circumstances while 11 per cent had no opinion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/republic-takes-more-relaxed-approach-to-dual-identity-across-the-border-1.557219

katydid

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Are you two both being deliberately thick

There's no need to be insulting. If you have a problem with what someone says to you, how about explaining what the problem is...

Since I never mentioned taxation, I don't see what your problem is with my post..

I'm not sure what the point of your citing the Irish Times article was, since it shows very vague support for anything more than an aspiration to unity at some time.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Are you two both being deliberately thick?



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/republic-takes-more-relaxed-approach-to-dual-identity-across-the-border-1.557219

I don't think anyone is being intentionally or unintentionally thick, it's simply a case that asking someone if they'd pay extra in taxes and them answering in the affirmative doesn't mean they'd pay any amount in extra taxes.

I'm sure there's a curve - nearly everyone who answered yes would probably pay an extra 1%, fewer would pay 10% extra! and even fewer 20%.

Likewise, some might be ok with laying extra income taxes, but would balk at VAT or CGT going up by any thing more than a nominal amount.

Ren2k7

katydid wrote: »

There's no need to be insulting. If you have a problem with what someone says to you, how about explaining what the problem is...

Since I never mentioned taxation, I don't see what your problem is with my post..

I'm not sure what the point of your citing the Irish Times article was, since it shows very vague support for anything more than an aspiration to unity at some time.

You asked for proof that the Irish people would vote for a UI. I provided such proof and now you shift thee goalposts yet again. The poll comprehensively destroys the myth peddled by a small minority of Deefers that the Irish public dosn't want a UI. They do, and in fact are willing to pay more in taxation to see this brought about. That is SOLID support for a United Ireland, NOT "vague" as you like to claim.

The argument is done, finished. As much as you might like to claim otherwise the Irish nation is firmly behind reunification. :cool:

katydid

Ren2k7 wrote: »

You asked for proof that the Irish people would vote for a UI. I provided such proof and now you shift thee goalposts yet again. The poll comprehensively destroys the myth peddled by a small minority of Deefers that the Irish public dosn't want a UI. They do, and in fact are willing to pay more in taxation to see this brought about. That is SOLID support for a United Ireland, NOT "vague" as you like to claim.

The argument is done, finished. As much as you might like to claim otherwise the Irish nation is firmly behind reunification. :cool:

Nope, you didn't read my question; I asked for proof that they would vote for a united Ireland NOW. The article you cited does not provide that proof.

No one is questioning whether the Irish nation is behind unification (not re-unification, it has never been unified except under the British). We are questioning whether or not that aspiration, but whether or not they would vote for it under any circumstances. That is by no means certain.

Please try to read what is written, it would help a lot.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

You asked for proof that the Irish people would vote for a UI. I provided such proof and now you shift thee goalposts yet again. The poll comprehensively destroys the myth peddled by a small minority of Deefers that the Irish public dosn't want a UI. They do, and in fact are willing to pay more in taxation to see this brought about. That is SOLID support for a United Ireland, NOT "vague" as you like to claim.

The argument is done, finished. As much as you might like to claim otherwise the Irish nation is firmly behind reunification. :cool:

Polls are polls - as the Scottish Referendum showed us (and more recently the UK GE) they can sometimes be way off.

.....and a poll about an aspiration is proof of nothing other than, in this case, a majority of the population would like a UI, and are willing to pay some level of extra taxation to see it happen.

My own opinion, is that they would not be willing to pay a lot more in extra taxes, plus given we're already taxed at a higher rate than the UK any suggestion we'd be nudging taxes up here will likely have a counter-productive effect in NI.

eire4

Jim2007 wrote: »

From a numbers point of view I would agree with you, but from a perception point a few there are a lot out there that would not agree. So telling people that the country would take on additional debt and higher taxes, would not fly in my opinion.

We have to realise that any kind of union would be required to take on a portion of the UK national debt as we did in 1922.

Maybe we would maybe not. That would all be part of the negoatiations. Britain has to heavily subsidize Stormont to keep it afloat so they have every incentive financially to make a generous deal on Irish unification.

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think anyone is being intentionally or unintentionally thick, it's simply a case that asking someone if they'd pay extra in taxes and them answering in the affirmative doesn't mean they'd pay any amount in extra taxes.

I'm sure there's a curve - nearly everyone who answered yes would probably pay an extra 1%, fewer would pay 10% extra! and even fewer 20%.

Likewise, some might be ok with laying extra income taxes, but would balk at VAT or CGT going up by any thing more than a nominal amount.

MORE shifting goalposts. You initially claimed the Irish people wouldn't accept unification if it meant increased taxes. Now that such a claim has been proven to be WRONG you now insist that actually it's only CERTAIN taxes the public would support being increased. You don't know what the Irish people would and wouldn't support in the event of a UI. But what we DO know is that Ireland as a whole is willing to pay more if it means a 32 county republic, and if a poll was held here tomorrow a huge majority in favour would be delivered.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

MORE shifting goalposts. You initially claimed the Irish people wouldn't accept unification if it meant increased taxes. Now that such a claim has been proven to be WRONG you now insist that actually it's only CERTAIN taxes the public would support being increased. You don't know what the Irish people would and wouldn't support in the event of a UI. But what we DO know is that Ireland as a whole is willing to pay more if it means a 32 county republic, and if a poll was held here tomorrow a huge majority in favour would be delivered.

Yes, and I still believe that - if uniting the island involves anything more than nominal increases in taxes then people will not vote for it.

And yes, I don't know how people will vote when we have the referendum, but I do know people rarely vote for things that lead to increases in taxes.

And again, as the Scottish referendum showed, people are concerned by such practical issues. And if there was referendum tomorrow, NI would vote it down immediately and by a huge majority, in my opinion.

Why?

Well, after the last 6 or so months would anyone vote themselves out of Sterling and into the Euro?

Doubt it.

Ren2k7

katydid wrote: »

Nope, you didn't read my question; I asked for proof that they would vote for a united Ireland NOW. The article you cited does not provide that proof.

No one is questioning whether the Irish nation is behind unification (not re-unification, it has never been unified except under the British). We are questioning whether or not that aspiration, but whether or not they would vote for it under any circumstances. That is by no means certain.

Please try to read what is written, it would help a lot.

I've provided proof but it would seem you are incapable (or perhaps merely unwilling) to read the words right in front of you. I can't help you until you're willing to help yourself.

Jawgap wrote: »

Polls are polls - as the Scottish Referendum showed us (and more recently the UK GE) they can sometimes be way off.

The polls in the Scottish indo referendum were largely accurate:

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and a poll about an aspiration is proof of nothing other than, in this case, a majority of the population would like a UI, and are willing to pay some level of extra taxation to see it happen.

Polls are the ONLY proof we have to indicate public opinion on this matter. If you have EVIDENCE that shows the Irish people may not support a UI then please, offer forth this new information.

Jawgap wrote: »

My own opinion, is that they would not be willing to pay a lot more in extra taxes, plus given we're already taxed at a higher rate than the UK any suggestion we'd be nudging taxes up here will likely have a counter-productive effect in NI.

And such an opinion would be entirely wrong and inaccurate. It's been proven that the Irish people would actually pay more in taxes.

I hope this is the last time I have to school you.

eire4

Jawgap wrote: »

where is the evidence our public administration is dysfunctional? there are instances of it failing, but the whole system dysfunctional?

....and what country allows ex-pats to vote that doesn't also require them to pay taxes, even if resident abroad? We may not let the ex-pats vote in parliamentary elections, but neither do we insist on them paying taxes here, the way the US does with their citizens.



How does that make them 'west Brits'?

Can you provide an example of these polls (that show most Irish people support unification)?

In regards to voting rights Ireland is very much an outlier and has started to feel some heat from the EU about the continual refusal to allow Irish born citizens living abroad the right to vote. Over 100 countries have systems to allow voting rights to its emigrants.
Your example of the US emigrants having to pay taxes is also an outlier. Firstly a US emigrant only pays taxes on income after the $90,000 mark or so. Secondly the US is the only developed nation that does this. Beyond this paying income tax is not a requirement to be allowed vote. If this was the case there are many people living in Ireland right now who would have to be kicked off the voting rolls. Or what about those who receive more in benefits then they pay in taxes would they be denied the vote also?

katydid

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I've provided proof but it would seem you are incapable (or perhaps merely unwilling) to read the words right in front of you. I can't help you until you're willing to help yourself.

I've read through the whole article, and I see nothing that says that a majority of the citizenry of this state would vote NOW for a united Ireland. You should have read the article thoroughly before making a fool of yourself posting non-existent "proof".

But of course, feel free to prove me wrong..