Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Reunification Question
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 13695
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
MOD NOTE:
Could you not have posted the link without insulting other posters? Please be civil from now on0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »MOD NOTE:
Could you not have posted the link without insulting other posters? Please be civil from now on
Ah Johnny, if he wants to be rude, let him. He's only showing himself up.0 -
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.
The polls in the Scottish indo referendum were largely accurate:
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.
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.
Well, that's why I made it clear I was offering an opinion.
Interesting, though, that the data published would suggest that the 'don't knows' when it came yo polling day broke in favour of the 'no' side.
Again, I accept that the polls are, in all probability, correct in that people would be willing to pay more for a UI, but in my opinion, they percentage willing to pay would vary inversely with the amount payable.
Further, that amount would likely be significant - stg£6 billion is not much for an economy the size of the UK's, but it's a not insignificant burden for the Republic, and that money, or a decent chunk of it would have to come from somewhere.0 -
Well, that's why I made it clear I was offering an opinion.
Interesting, though, that the data published would suggest that the 'don't knows' when it came yo polling day broke in favour of the 'no' side.
Again, I accept that the polls are, in all probability, correct in that people would be willing to pay more for a UI, but in my opinion, they percentage willing to pay would vary inversely with the amount payable.
Further, that amount would likely be significant - stg£6 billion is not much for an economy the size of the UK's, but it's a not insignificant burden for the Republic, and that money, or a decent chunk of it would have to come from somewhere.
There would be no block grant to the six counties in a UI. There would be just local authorities treated the same way as every other part of Ireland and in fact would likely see a situation where Antrim and Down are net contributors to the central exchequer while Derry, Donegal and, say, Kerry are net receivers from state revenue.
Remember Dublin subsidises Connacht and yet there's no talk of offloading them or forcing those to improve their budgetary situation. Fiscal transfers between rich and poor parts of a country are not unique after all.0 -
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..
Ok so first you claimed to know the will of the people of Ireland and said:
"It's all academic anyway, since the people of the Republic won't vote to take that dysfunctional place on board."
Then you were shown polls that showed in fact that the majority of people did want unification.
So you changed your stance to saying well thats only an aspiration or an ideal so it's not valid until:
"When the North has sorted out its problems."
Then again when your shown evidence that the majority of Irish people favour unification you change your stance to:
"would vote for a united Ireland NOW"
Nobody is or has ever suggested that I know of that you would move to unification directly upon a vote in favour. Clearly this is a major change and would require much in the way of negotations and would not be something that would happen overnight. I could even see a phased in approach been used with unification.0 -
There would be no block grant to the six counties in a UI. There would be just local authorities treated the same way as every other part of Ireland and in fact would likely see a situation where Antrim and Down are net contributors to the central exchequer while Derry, Donegal and, say, Kerry are net receivers from state revenue.
Remember Dublin subsidises Connacht and yet there's no talk of offloading them or forcing those to improve their budgetary situation. Fiscal transfers between rich and poor parts of a country are not unique after all.
The NIE budget docs make it clear that NI gets roughly stg£6 billion pa to cover the shortfall between tax and spending. If we take on NI then either we pick up the bill or services are cut.
If it's the former, then taxes have to rise and consequently in my opinion the probability of the Republic voting in favour wanes. If it's the latter, the probability of NI voting for it drops.
No, there is no talk of Dublin making a UDI, but just because people aren't looking to detach themselves from parts of the country that are not self sufficient, it doesn't follow they'll automatically vote to take on another part of the island to support.0 -
Ok so first you claimed to know the will of the people of Ireland and said:
"It's all academic anyway, since the people of the Republic won't vote to take that dysfunctional place on board."
Then you were shown polls that showed in fact that the majority of people did want unification.
So you changed your stance to saying well thats only an aspiration or an ideal so it's not valid until:
"When the North has sorted out its problems."
Then when your shown evidence that the majority of Irish people favour unification you change your stance to:
"would vote for a united Ireland NOW"
Nobody is or has every suggested that I know of you would move to unification directly upon a vote in favour. Clearly this is a major change and would require much in the way of negotations and would not be something that would happen overnight. I could even see a phased in approach been used with unification.0 -
The NIE budget docs make it clear that NI gets roughly stg£6 billion pa to cover the shortfall between tax and spending. If we take on NI then either we pick up the bill or services are cut.
If it's the former, then taxes have to rise and consequently in my opinion the probability of the Republic voting in favour wanes. If it's the latter, the probability of NI voting for it drops.
No, there is no talk of Dublin making a UDI, but just because people aren't looking to detach themselves from parts of the country that are not self sufficient, it doesn't follow they'll automatically vote to take on another part of the island to support.
Well......they will actually. I've provided proof and TBH I feel like this is turning into a rather circular argument. I provide polls showing most support increased taxes to pay for a UI, you respond claiming actually, the polls are wrong and people won't vote to financially burden themselves to support the former NI in a new 32 county Republic.0 -
I'll repeat the question; where in the article you cited does it prove that the people of this state would vote for unification now?
and I will repeat my response to your refusal to accept what you don't want to hear that the majority of Irish people do favour Irish unification. You as shown below just keep changing your stance and it seems to be that its all about unification "now". Clearly a major change like unification is, is not something that will happen overnight. It will need to be negotiated in terms of implementation and very likely could be phased in rather then all happening overnight.
Originally Posted by eire4
Ok so first you claimed to know the will of the people of Ireland and said:
"It's all academic anyway, since the people of the Republic won't vote to take that dysfunctional place on board."
Then you were shown polls that showed in fact that the majority of people did want unification.
So you changed your stance to saying well thats only an aspiration or an ideal so it's not valid until:
"When the North has sorted out its problems."
Then when your shown evidence that the majority of Irish people favour unification you change your stance to:
"would vote for a united Ireland NOW"
Nobody is or has every suggested that I know of you would move to unification directly upon a vote in favour. Clearly this is a major change and would require much in the way of negotations and would not be something that would happen overnight. I could even see a phased in approach been used with unification.
0 -
Well......they will actually. I've provided proof and TBH I feel like this is turning into a rather circular argument. I provide polls showing most support increased taxes to pay for a UI, you respond claiming actually, the polls are wrong and people won't vote to financially burden themselves to support the former NI in a new 32 county Republic.
Yes, it's one thing to say "I'll pay more taxes" as part of a poll - quite another to vote for something that will increase fiscal spending by about 20%. We'll get the taxes from NI, but it's pretty clear they don't cover the running of the place - and I doubt people would stand or vote for the 30% or so cut in budget they'd to implement to balance the books, if we don't go for increased taxes.
Even if you go for 15% in cuts and a 10% increase in spending, it would be a very tough sell.0 -
Advertisement
-
A more recent poll than the one referenced in the IT
Eilis O'Hanlon: Few would be willing to pay more tax for a united IrelandThose polled were asked a very simple and direct question: Would you be willing to pay higher taxes in return for a united Ireland? When sentiment clashes with pocket, the results are bound to disappoint idealists. A measly 11 per cent of us are willing to pay higher taxes for unity, with 67 per cent saying no and a further 14 per cent who weren't ruling it out entirely but presumably wanted to see the nitty gritty.
More Sinn Fein supporters are willing to pay extra to fulfil the republican dream, but only just (15 per cent, against 65 per cent who aren't about to cough up "one red cent", as Gerry might put it) – and they're still trailing behind the 16 per cent of Fianna Fail supporters who are prepared to dig deep for unity.
Which only proves how fickle polls can be.
Edit:As for which of us is least keen on paying extra taxes to put the national question to bed once and for all, that would be farmers. A whopping eight in 10 of them are less than thrilled by the idea of chipping in to the cost of getting the Brits out.
Difficult to get anything through in this country without farming support.0 -
and I will repeat my response to your refusal to accept what you don't want to hear that the majority of Irish people do favour Irish unification. You as shown below just keep changing your stance and it seems to be that its all about unification "now". Clearly a major change like unification is, is not something that will happen overnight. It will need to be negotiated in terms of implementation and very likely could be phased in rather then all happening overnight.
Originally Posted by eire4
Ok so first you claimed to know the will of the people of Ireland and said:
"It's all academic anyway, since the people of the Republic won't vote to take that dysfunctional place on board."
Then you were shown polls that showed in fact that the majority of people did want unification.
So you changed your stance to saying well thats only an aspiration or an ideal so it's not valid until:
"When the North has sorted out its problems."
Then when your shown evidence that the majority of Irish people favour unification you change your stance to:
"would vote for a united Ireland NOW"
Nobody is or has every suggested that I know of you would move to unification directly upon a vote in favour. Clearly this is a major change and would require much in the way of negotations and would not be something that would happen overnight. I could even see a phased in approach been used with unification.0 -
Yes, it's one thing to say "I'll pay more taxes" as part of a poll - quite another to vote for something that will increase fiscal spending by about 20%. We'll get the taxes from NI, but it's pretty clear they don't cover the running of the place - and I doubt people would stand or vote for the 30% or so cut in budget they'd to implement to balance the books, if we don't go for increased taxes.
Even if you go for 15% in cuts and a 10% increase in spending, it would be a very tough sell.
The subvention numbers above are frequently cited by opponents of a UI but fail to grasp a few key points. Firstly the Tory cuts WILL result in an overall decrease in Westminster subsidies to NI. Osborne wants to overhaul the Barnet Formula so that whatever devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and NI provide in taxes to the central govt is what they'll get back in both the block grant and direct central government expenditure.
And speaking of the block grant this too will be eliminated in time as devolved governments gain taxation powers of their own while at the same time receiving less from HM Treasury.
Finally there will be NO Northern Ireland in a unified Ireland. This should go without saying but it would appear it needs to be repeated to those who keep spouting that 6 billion figure without any context. So while some parts of the former Northern Ireland may receive more central govt spending than what they contribute to the state exchequer other parts will be net contributors, likely Antrim and Down. And in fact it may the case that of a list of all 32 counties on whether they are net contributors or otherwise some of the newly added northern counties are less of a drain on resources than other more established parts, like Mayo, Leitrim and Kerry.0 -
A more recent poll than the one referenced in the IT
Eilis O'Hanlon: Few would be willing to pay more tax for a united Ireland
Which only proves how fickle polls can be.
Edit:
Difficult to get anything through in this country without farming support.
Interesting poll again showing a majority in favour of unification but this time showing less willing to pay extra taxes for it.
Of course we do not know that unification would mean having to pay more in tax. Irish unification and its details would have to be negotiated and part of that could very well be an EU aid package to ease the transition to unification never mind the potential of aid to again ease the transition to unification from the US.
Now do I know aid packages from the EU and or US wold be part of any unification deal of course I do not. But I do believe that we have a lot of potential along those lines and unification meaning also tax increases is something that is equally not know nor a certain thing.0 -
A more recent poll than the one referenced in the IT
Eilis O'Hanlon: Few would be willing to pay more tax for a united Ireland
Which only proves how fickle polls can be.
Edit:
Difficult to get anything through in this country without farming support.
That's a rather curious, and laughable, attempt by leading Scumdo columnist Eilis O'Hanlon to claim unification isn't inevitable. Christ, what is it about that rag and their constant attempts to deny Irish self determination? The day INM are declared bankrupt and their comics finished should be declared a national holiday in Ireland.0 -
The subvention numbers above are frequently cited by opponents of a UI but fail to grasp a few key points. Firstly the Tory cuts WILL result in an overall decrease in Westminster subsidies to NI. Osborne wants to overhaul the Barnet Formula so that whatever devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and NI provide in taxes to the central govt is what they'll get back in both the block grant and direct central government expenditure.
And speaking of the block grant this too will be eliminated in time as devolved governments gain taxation powers of their own while at the same time receiving less from HM Treasury.
Finally there will be NO Northern Ireland in a unified Ireland. This should go without saying but it would appear it needs to be repeated to those who keep spouting that 6 billion figure without any context. So while some parts of the former Northern Ireland may receive more central govt spending than what they contribute to the state exchequer other parts will be net contributors, likely Antrim and Down. And in fact it may the case that of a list of all 32 counties on whether they are net contributors or otherwise some of the newly added northern counties are less of a drain on resources than other more established parts, like Mayo, Leitrim and Kerry.
You keep saying the Barnett Formula is going, have you anything to back that up?
Scrap Barnett formula and Wales Office, say expertsThe Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law's report says the Barnett formula does not ensure "equity" across the UK.
The document also recommends the Wales Office should be abolished.
The review suggests rolling it into a UK government department "for the Union", along with the Scotland and Northern Ireland Offices.
Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged to maintain the Barnett formula, which is more generous to Scotland, but has also vowed to ensure "fair funding" for Wales.
They may vary it if tax raising powers are devolved to Stormont.0 -
That's a rather curious, and laughable, attempt by leading Scumdo columnist Eilis O'Hanlon to claim unification isn't inevitable. Christ, what is it about that rag and their constant attempts to deny Irish self determination? The day INM are declared bankrupt and their comics finished should be declared a national holiday in Ireland.
Well I'm less interested in her opinion than the Millward Brown data she cites.
Here's the polling data, minus her commentary.....
http://www.millwardbrownlansdowne.ie/downloads/Sunday%20Independent%2017th%20February%202013.pdf
Pg 15, Q10 "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?"
67% said 'No'0 -
So you have no proof. Gotcha.
The only thing you have is a continual change of your position from starting with you knowing the will of the Irish people to be against unification which isn't true to your lastest position that well they are against it "now". Nobody that I am aware of and certainly I have never been saying unification would happen "now". It is clear a major change like this will take time to negotiate and then implement.0 -
You keep saying the Barnett Formula is going, have you anything to back that up?
Scrap Barnett formula and Wales Office, say experts
They may vary it if tax raising powers are devolved to Stormont.
Cameron and Osbourne have both stated that as regions are handed greater tax raising powers a corresponding reduction in the block grant will occur. Eventually the Barnett Formula will disappear, and too right given it's a grossly unfair and ill thought out mechanism for disbursal of state money to regions.Well I'm less interested in her opinion than the Millward Brown data she cites.
Here's the polling data, minus her commentary.....
http://www.millwardbrownlansdowne.ie/downloads/Sunday%20Independent%2017th%20February%202013.pdf
Pg 15, Q10 "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?"
67% said 'No'
And another poll shows nearly 70% of the population would support tax rises if it meant a UI. But for some reason those polls are rejected by you.
In fact what is this obsession you have with taxation? I have no problem paying more taxes to fund reunification so I don't get this Teahadist like attitude towards taxation.0 -
Advertisement
-
In fact what is this obsession you have with taxation? I have no problem paying more taxes to fund reunification so I don't get this Teahadist like attitude towards taxation.
Firstly, can we distinguish between your own personal attitude towards reunification (at all costs, or otherwise), and what seems psephologically feasible?
And secondly, can we have some precision about what amount of "funding (re)unification" is being assumed? Maintaining present levels of public services in NI -- but not elsewhere? Funding them on an all-Ireland basis? Or not actually bothering a tap to do either?0 -
Cameron and Osbourne have both stated that as regions are handed greater tax raising powers a corresponding reduction in the block grant will occur. Eventually the Barnett Formula will disappear, and too right given it's a grossly unfair and ill thought out mechanism for disbursal of state money to regions.
Can you provide an example where they said that?
As for being unfair, from my own experience of working there and dealing with it, I know how unfair it is to the English regions, but it is hardly unfair to NI and Scotland who receive more on a per capita basis than Wales and EnglandThe figures vary slightly every year, but in 2012-2013 Northern Ireland got the most - £10,876 per head.
Scotland got £10,152 per head and Wales, despite being much poorer, got £9,709. England received £8,529.
The UK average was £8,788.And another poll shows nearly 70% of the population would support tax rises if it meant a UI. But for some reason those polls are rejected by you.
In fact what is this obsession you have with taxation? I have no problem paying more taxes to fund reunification so I don't get this Teahadist like attitude towards taxation.
I'm not rejecting the IT poll, if that's the one you are referring to, I just rebutted with a more recent poll which seems to prove my point that people may be willing to pay more taxes for a UI, but they won't suffer more than a nominal increase.
It's not an obsession with taxes, it's just reality - people rarely vote for parties who indicate they will increase taxes (they usually punish those that do) and given that, I think that in any UI referendum campaign that will be a significant issue - people will need to be persuaded that their taxes wil not rise.
And that's before you to persuade people on issues like health, education, mortgages, pensions, security etc0 -
Polls are polls - as the Scottish Referendum showed us (and more recently the UK GE) they can sometimes be way off.
Yeah people, the Boards rules of polls are simple.
If SF go down theyre infallible.
If SF go up theyre flawed and unreliable and only a snapshot and only a protest and people will change their mind once they get into a polling booth.
I mean it's fairly basic stuff folks0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Yeah people, the Boards rules of polls are simple.
If SF go down theyre infallible.
If SF go up theyre flawed and unreliable and only a snapshot and only a protest and people will change their mind once they get into a polling booth.
I mean it's fairly basic stuff folks
Not really. The polling data I posted up is there to be analysed / critiqued.
I'd say that combining the data from both suggests that people in the Republic are willing to pay increased taxes to secure a UI.
However, they are not willing to pay 'significant' taxes - as such there is a question as to what would be a 'signficiant' increase. In my own opinion, I'd say it would be quite low, somewhere around 5% - others may differ.
In all probability, in the even of both jurisdictions voting for a UI, the process would likely be funded by a combination of efficiency savings, cuts and tax increases phased in over an extended period.
Or maybe there'd be a federal model - but would such a model be viable in a country the size of Ireland? It might even be 'centripetal' - encouraging other regions (for example Munster which has a 'GDP' not too far off NI) seeking a similar arrangement.0 -
Crooked Jack wrote: »Yeah people, the Boards rules of polls are simple.
If SF go down theyre infallible.
If SF go up theyre flawed and unreliable and only a snapshot and only a protest and people will change their mind once they get into a polling booth.
I mean it's fairly basic stuff folks
Apparently no one in the Republic wants a UI and even if polls says otherwise they're incorrect. Because the Deefer classes know what's right for Ireland and unification with those God awful Nordies would be ruinous for us. Can't be letting those uncultured lot into our Dáil, it might end the cosy cartel of the three main parties that has brought ruin and misery onto this state since 1922.0 -
Apparently no one in the Republic wants a UI and even if polls says otherwise they're incorrect. Because the Deefer classes know what's right for Ireland and unification with those God awful Nordies would be ruinous for us. Can't be letting those uncultured lot into our Dáil, it might end the cosy cartel of the three main parties that has brought ruin and misery onto this state since 1922.
Again the polls would suggest that people are certainly disposed towards a UI, but that the cost they are willing to bear is not significant.
By 'Deefer' - I take it you are referring to Dublin 4 (D4)? Just to clarify that I'm D1, born and bred.0 -
Advertisement
-
Again the polls would suggest that people are certainly disposed towards a UI, but that the cost they are willing to bear is not significant.
By 'Deefer' - I take it you are referring to Dublin 4 (D4)? Just to clarify that I'm D1, born and bred.
Still maintaining that line eh? Just ignore the fact one poll (that you're choosing to sidestep) makes it clear the public don't mind paying more in taxes for a UI. This obsession with taxation needs to stop.
And not calling YOU a Deefer, merely referring to a social class that is nationwide but largely concentrated in the D4 part of Dublin who seek to constantly denigrate and run down Irish nationalism and Republicanism. These loons have existed in Ireland for centuries and sought to keep Ireland under the thumb of mother England. Even today they promote an extremist Anglophile agenda. The column inches of the Indo (and to a lesser extent Times) are rife with such West Brit propaganda.0 -
Cameron and Osbourne have both stated that as regions are handed greater tax raising powers a corresponding reduction in the block grant will occur. Eventually the Barnett Formula will disappear, and too right given it's a grossly unfair and ill thought out mechanism for disbursal of state money to regions.
.......
Anyway, Barnett Formula - any sign of that link supporting your statement above?
As far as I can see the Barnett Formula is not going anywhere.
Under it NI gets the equivalent of about €15,000 per capita to spend on public services (that excludes defence and spending on debt and associated interest). By my calculation NI gets per capita funding at 123% the UK per capita average (source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29477233) - or put it another way the UK average is about 81% of the amount received by NI.
Ireland's per capita public service spend is about 95% of the UK average (source: OECD)
Whatever way you slice it, NI gets a truckload more money pumped into it from Westminster / Whitehall than we could probably afford - meaning we have to grow our economy significantly (and the NI remain stagnant) or people will have to be prepared to accept significant tax increases (something the MBL poll suggests about two thirds are unwilling to do) coupled with cuts to services.
It will certainly be an interesting campaign!0 -
Mod:
Discuss the topic civilly, not like rutting stags, and the thread will remain open. Otherwise it's going nowhere and will be closed.
Thanks.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Ireland's per capita public service spend is about 95% of the UK average (source: OECD)
Whatever way you slice it, NI gets a truckload more money pumped into it from Westminster / Whitehall than we could probably afford - meaning we have to grow our economy significantly (and the NI remain stagnant) or people will have to be prepared to accept significant tax increases (something the MBL poll suggests about two thirds are unwilling to do) coupled with cuts to services.0 -
Or maybe there'd be a federal model - but would such a model be viable in a country the size of Ireland? It might even be 'centripetal' - encouraging other regions (for example Munster which has a 'GDP' not too far off NI) seeking a similar arrangement.
I think there's a fairly strong case for a federal model of some sort, at least with respect to NI and continuation of GFA-like institutional arrangements. There was quite a bit of discussion (if more heat than light) of this earlier in the thread. As for size and viability, compare with similar-sized countries with three levels of government, somewhat larger ones with four (or more, like Germany). If anything, the likes of Ireland and the UK are anomalously over-centralised by international standards.
But... institutional devolution is one thing. Hugely skewed public spending is very much another.0 -
Advertisement
-
alaimacerc wrote: »I don't think one can say the RoI couldn't afford it. But it's certainly very questionable there's the actual political will to do the above. Either you spend a lot more money on NI than on the rest of the (new, unified) country, which is both expensive, and iniquitous... Or you improve public services across the board, which is a lot, lot, lot more money. And which the electorate has shown absolutely no interest in doing for its own sake, when repeatedly offered the opportunity.
Yes, I think we can absorb the cost, but only at huge expense - and politically I think when the time comes for a referendum there'll be a lot of fudging around how any unification process will be funded and how quickly any convergence process will take place.
I also think that during any referendum campaign in the Republic, the 'noisy neighbours' will get even noisier - meaning that certain Unionist / Loyalist groups will look to make NI practically ungovernable, leaving us to wonder if we really want to vote them in?
Between that, and uncertainties around the day-to-day concerns for most people such as mortgages, health, education and pensions, I think people will vote as they always do when there's uncertainty - for the status quo.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I think there's a fairly strong case for a federal model of some sort, at least with respect to NI and continuation of GFA-like institutional arrangements. There was quite a bit of discussion (if more heat than light) of this earlier in the thread. As for size and viability, compare with similar-sized countries with three levels of government, somewhat larger ones with four (or more, like Germany). If anything, the likes of Ireland and the UK are anomalously over-centralised by international standards.
But... institutional devolution is one thing. Hugely skewed public spending is very much another.
I'd agree - I can't see NI simply becoming six extra counties appended and absorbed into the Republic. For a small country we've a lot of government going on, and while politically a federal model may be required it'll add more inefficiency. I would expect there to be a massive battle over the balance of powers between the Dail, Stormont and any proposed federal assembly - presumably the Dail and Stormont would be given parity in any such system?
Plus, unless things change radically in NI, Dublin would just replace London as NI's benefactor. Over the short term people might willing to accept that as the price of unification, but I'd say give it one election cycle before it wears off.
As an aside, does anyone know the order of voting? Is our referendum triggered by NI's (assuming a result in favour of unification) or can we just go whenever we want (I assume we can, but we'd probably have to do a re-run unless NI's vote was soon after)?0 -
As an aside, does anyone know the order of voting? Is our referendum triggered by NI's (assuming a result in favour of unification) or can we just go whenever we want (I assume we can, but we'd probably have to do a re-run unless NI's vote was soon after)?
I think all you can say for certain, though, is that the GFA envisages a referendum in NI, and a referendum would also be required in the RoI to make some sort of constitutional provision for this. In theory the RoI could maybe come first, but that would seem to require some 'subtlety' in how one would word that.0 -
They have no right to join this country. The changes to Articles 2 and 3 after the GFA removed the territorial claim and put the South in a neutral position about a united Ireland - i.e. the people down here get to vote on it - whereas before the old Articles 2 and 3 would have required us to accept them, even if they were only a breakaway county.
Similarly, by signing the GFA, SF recognised and accepted the Unionist veto on change in Northern Ireland so long as the majority up there want to keep that veto.
I probably phrased it wrong not to join this but to reunify the country they do. They have every right to struggle for the reunification of their country that love just as much as you or me or just as much as anybody in the Free State has a right to struggle to secede from the Free State.
West brits need to take your head out of your arse and actually acknowledge two simple things - 1) The freedom you enjoy in the "Republic" has been denied to the people of the 6 counties, and, because the government down here sold them out so the British & Unionists wouldn't have to deal with boundary commission b) If it wasn't for the pre-split IRA you'd still be British. Fortunately a lot of people in the Free State or "Republic" suffer Slave Mentality & even some in the 6 counties do. If it wasn't for the IRA who fought the RIC, Tans, Army & Auxies you probably would have been running around Dublin(if lived there) as a child barefoot & queuing in soup kitchens like 1000,s of kids were backing in the early 1900's.
So to sum up you benefited from IRA violence & you criticize people who use the same methods you benefit from. That makes you a hypocrite.0 -
-
We've already established this is incorrect and you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it any truer. The Irish people want a UI and are willing to pay more in taxes to achieve it. FACT!
Sorry, but the polling data doesn't support that assertion.
First, the Irish people are not a homogeneous group.
Second, and the IPSOS/MRBI poll taken in 2012 supports the idea that people are in favour of a UI and will suffer some increased level of taxation to see it come about.
Third, the more recent MBL poll (February 2013) further supports the idea that a majority are in favour of a UI but when asked "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?" - 67% of respondents answered 'No' - therefore there is a threshold above which people will not pay for a UI.
Fourth, the unreliability of polls can best be illustrated by the same IPSOS/MRBI poll being relied on to suggest the Republic's taxpayers are happy to write a blank cheque to fund unification.
In that same poll, 55% of respondents were in favour of abolishing the Seanad - the referendum result ended up 51.73% in favour of retaining the upper house.
Likewise, the question on same sex marriage suggested 53% were in favour (6 years previously a similar poll suggested it was about 33%) - when the referendum was held the result was 62%.
Polls are like NCTs - they're snapshots, not shibboleths. If they were reliable we wouldn't need elections or referendums we could just poll a few thousand respondents at a few dozen locations and save ourselves millions.
Btw, the same IPSOS/MRBI poll also found that when people in the Republic were asked if they regarded the people of Northern Ireland to be Irish, British, both or neither – 46% said both, 30% said Irish, 9% said British, 4% said neither and 10% had no opinion.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 13695
DarkyHughes wrote: »I probably phrased it wrong not to join this but to reunify the country they do. They have every right to struggle for the reunification of their country that love just as much as you or me or just as much as anybody in the Free State has a right to struggle to secede from the Free State.
West brits need to take your head out of your arse and actually acknowledge two simple things - 1) The freedom you enjoy in the "Republic" has been denied to the people of the 6 counties, and, because the government down here sold them out so the British & Unionists wouldn't have to deal with boundary commission b) If it wasn't for the pre-split IRA you'd still be British. Fortunately a lot of people in the Free State or "Republic" suffer Slave Mentality & even some in the 6 counties do. If it wasn't for the IRA who fought the RIC, Tans, Army & Auxies you probably would have been running around Dublin(if lived there) as a child barefoot & queuing in soup kitchens like 1000,s of kids were backing in the early 1900's.
So to sum up you benefited from IRA violence & you criticize people who use the same methods you benefit from. That makes you a hypocrite.
Mod note:
Lets keep it clean and not make personal allegations of hypocracy etc. While it is not personal abuse to yse the phrase "west brit" per se, please dont make such accusations towards other posters[/b]0 -
We've already established this is incorrect and you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it any truer. The Irish people want a UI and are willing to pay more in taxes to achieve it. FACT!I can't be bothered engaging with you any more as you're impossible to follow. So long.
Mod:
We are getting close to soapboxing territory here.Second, and the IPSOS/MRBI poll taken in 2012 supports the idea that people are in favour of a UI and will suffer some increased level of taxation to see it come about.
Third, the more recent MBL poll (February 2013) further supports the idea that a majority are in favour of a UI but when asked "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?" - 67% of respondents answered 'No' - therefore there is a threshold above which people will not pay for a UI.
The point the poster is making is pretty clear and simple.
If you don't want to entertain it fine, just don't respond, rather than childishly saying FACT and sticking your fingers in your ears.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
There's no point being made here. Polls clearly state the Irish public would support a UI even if it meant more taxes. When this is pointed out to Jawgap he states the Irish people WON'T support a UI. It's the same circular argument despite all evidence pointing to a majority of the public supporting a UI, increased taxes included.
Yeah I wouldn't mind paying more taxes to see United Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
DarkyHughes wrote: »Yeah I wouldn't mind paying more taxes to see United Ireland.
Neither would I, nor would most Irish people for that matter.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13695
Mod note:
Questioning moderation on thread - are you two guys trying to get banned? Any more nonsense from Ren2k7 or DarkyHughes and there will be bans.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Mod note:
Questioning moderation on thread - are you two guys trying to get banned? Any more nonsense from Ren2k7 or DarkyHughes and there will be bans.
I wasn't questioning K-9's moderation on this thread which I accept has been a rather positive thing. instead I was responding to the second part of his post....The point the poster is making is pretty clear and simple.
If you don't want to entertain it fine, just don't respond, rather than childishly saying FACT and sticking your fingers in your ears.
...which I understood to be a normal comment worthy of replying.0 -
Ok, I can see where the confusion arose.
The point is, both sides agree the polls say a majority support a United Ireland with some rise in taxes, i.e. the 2012 IT poll.
The other poll in 2013 suggests a majority would not support paying significantly more.
Stands to sense as I doubt even Ren2k7 would be so altruistic as to pay 99% of their income in taxes for a U.I.!
The second poll question makes sense based on the findings of the first poll. The next question should be, what level of rises are people prepared to pay to get a U.I.?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Ok, I can see where the confusion arose.
The point is, both sides agree the polls say a majority support a United Ireland with some rise in taxes, i.e. the 2012 IT poll.
The other poll in 2013 suggests a majority would not support paying significantly more.
Stands to sense as I doubt even Ren2k7 would be so altruistic as to pay 99% of their income in taxes for a U.I.!
The second poll question makes sense based on the findings of the first poll. The next question should be, what level of rises are people prepared to pay to get a U.I.?
That was pretty much my point above............
Third, the more recent MBL poll (February 2013) further supports the idea that a majority are in favour of a UI but when asked "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?" - 67% of respondents answered 'No' - therefore there is a threshold above which people will not pay for a UI.
.......
The idea of significant tax rises sounds like, to me anyway, something that would put people off. I do, however, accept that 'significantly higher' can mean different things to different people, and some may be willing to pay a lot more than others if it meant a UI.0 -
Ok, I can see where the confusion arose.
The point is, both sides agree the polls say a majority support a United Ireland with some rise in taxes, i.e. the 2012 IT poll.
The other poll in 2013 suggests a majority would not support paying significantly more.
Stands to sense as I doubt even Ren2k7 would be so altruistic as to pay 99% of their income in taxes for a U.I.!
The second poll question makes sense based on the findings of the first poll. The next question should be, what level of rises are people prepared to pay to get a U.I.?
Lol, no of course not. Not even I love the North that much.
But I do think it's something worth beginning a debate about amongst Irish society. A UI tends to be something mostly spoken about in Northern Ireland itself but little attention is given in the Republic; which perhaps gives the impression we don't want to join with them in a new state. The truth is we honestly don't know what exactly a united Ireland will look like, the exact structure of the central government, the role of local government and the powers it has. Nor is there any real idea of WHO will be responsible for negotiating the unification treaty and/or new constitution.
When the two Germany's united that was brought about because the East and West German government's sat down and hammered out an agreement making it possible to reunify. Right now this is impossible as the Northern Ireland institutions aren't willing or able to enter into a dialogue on what a united Ireland will entail. I have my own guesses of what is most likely to happen in a post 'yes' vote for unification but they are just that, guesses.
What I would really like to see happen is for political parties and civic groups, north and south, to come together under the aegis and direction of north-south bodies like the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association to come up with possible scenarios for a UI and bring in the opinions of Irish people across the island. Such all Ireland agencies could become the embyronic institutions of a future UI where increased harmonisation of laws and tax codes north and south are agreed to at these forums.
But right now, apart from SF and to a lesser extent the SDLP no party has any interest to be part of such a debate , especially unionist parties. The likes of FG, FF and Labour are certainly willing to sit on these panels but as long as they don't show much interest in their work or proposals then the likes of the North-South bodies will be nothing more than talking shops. It's not that the three main parties don't want a UI it's simply that they don't care enough to push for it. And until we start electing politicians and parties who genuinely care for the cause of a UI we'll never achieve one.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Mod note:
Questioning moderation on thread - are you two guys trying to get banned? Any more nonsense from Ren2k7 or DarkyHughes and there will be bans.
What? Who was I questioning.0 -
When the two Germany's united that was brought about because the East and West German government's sat down and hammered out an agreement making it possible to reunify.
Germany is always quoted as an example, but it's a totally different situation. It was one country until 1945, and even after that, it was several years before the reality of the split became evident in people's minds. The generation born in the fifties were still relatively young when RE unification took place, and although they had grown up thinking of themselves as East German rather than German, they very quickly adapted to the new idea. And the older generation just accepted that things went back to the way they were before. Support for the socialist regime was not very strong, and there was a strong desire to get the benefits the West had to offer.(My husband grew up in East Germany so I've heard all this from his friends and relatives)
Northern Ireland is a totally different situation; there is a majority there (even if it's a minority in the greater scheme of things) who have a totally different cultural and political outlook which is firmly rooted for almost 400 years. Their political wish to remain with the UK is totally at odds with the idea of being part of a united Irish republic.
Yes, the Germans sat down and thrashed it out. But there wasn't much to trash out, as the political will was there on both sides. And even that unification hasn't been a roaring success; there is still a lot of resentment on both sides. In the West, there's resentment because so much money was spend on the "Ossies", and in the East, there's resentment because not enough money was spent, and the place is dying on its feet in some areas. And a creeping nostalgia for the days of free healthcare, free childcare, cheap rents and beer...0 -
A UI tends to be something mostly spoken about in Northern Ireland itself but little attention is given in the Republic; which perhaps gives the impression we don't want to join with them in a new state.Right now this is impossible as the Northern Ireland institutions aren't willing or able to enter into a dialogue on what a united Ireland will entail. I have my own guesses of what is most likely to happen in a post 'yes' vote for unification but they are just that, guesses.The likes of FG, FF and Labour are certainly willing to sit on these panels but as long as they don't show much interest in their work or proposals then the likes of the North-South bodies will be nothing more than talking shops. It's not that the three main parties don't want a UI it's simply that they don't care enough to push for it. And until we start electing politicians and parties who genuinely care for the cause of a UI we'll never achieve one.
To take concrete examples: do we imagine UI would have universal health care? An inclusive educational system? Meaningful decentralisation of decision-making? Integrated public transport? If so, better to get cracking on them sooner, rather than later. Steps towards normalisation in the NI context aren't hard to find, either -- I imagine we could go on all night.0 -
Advertisement
-
In the West, there's resentment because so much money was spend on the "Ossies", and in the East, there's resentment because not enough money was spent, and the place is dying on its feet in some areas. And a creeping nostalgia for the days of free healthcare, free childcare, cheap rents and beer...
I imagine if I were a "Nordie" (of either community) I might feel similar nostalgia for NI public services if a future UI were simply to be the present RoI as run by the CW parties, on their track record to this point. Ironically, the exceptions to that would seem to be the more Thatcherite elements of the DUP, if they were able to ignore it being largely done by people who (don't) go to the wrong type of church.0
Advertisement