Prime Time special on a United Ireland

alaimacerc

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Given that the costings would have to be done by both sides - Again, I don't see how SF being in power would alter the position of the UK government or the populace of the North?

It would potentially change things in that such a government would have the resources of the DoF available to do the work, and the intergovernmental mechanisms to crowbar detail out of the UK gov. Plus it can use its MPs to ask pointed questions at the PAC in Westmi-- oh, right.

Honestly I'd be more concerned that a Brexit would lead to the break-up of the EU not just the UK . It's a whole other discussion on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.. but no matter what , a collapsing EU would focus the minds totally , a UI would be way down the list of priorities for the overwhelming majority of people.

I think that's overdramatic. Odds-on -- not big odds-on, but odds-on nonetheless -- in two years the UK will have decided "stay", and iScotRef2 wil;l be further down the political agenda. Second favourite is that it's out, Scotland is talking about leaving, the EU is having a "deepening or shallowing?" conversation with itself, and one or two of the other "peripherals" are getting slightly antsy. The EU "core" isn't going anywhere -- and nor are Wales or NI, in that "short-medium" timescale.

It's still worth finding out exactly what's involved at some point , but I don't think it's something that much energy should be expended on right now as I don't think it's viable at present (nor will it be for quite some time yet)

Call me a shameless gradualist, but any time I hear someone talking about all the problems a UI will miraculously solve, I think: maybe quicker to start to solve those now? Stuff like economic justice, women's rights, universal healthcare, constitutional and political reform. And if their instrumentality and that of a UI really are linked, then the one will serve the other that way round, too. And to be 100% clear, I'm talk about addressing them on both sides of the border -- whether through E/W mechanisms, N/S, whatever you're having yourself.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are entitled to your view, but I think a SF in government that did not pursue a UI as part of it's main agenda would quickly lose core support.




I see plenty of costings on both sides and I distrust them all, because they are only partially informed, assume that the higher of the costs will remain or start out with a figure designed and chosen to arrive at a negative. Pointless activity and if not a waste of everyone's time certainly a waste of mine.

It is not just about the question of whether the higher of the costs will remain, it is about hard political choices.

Essentially when you have a situation where two jurisdictions have different systems and benefits at different levels, you essentially have two choices, to level up or level down. If you level up there is additional taxation required (on top of that required to make up the £10bn Westminister subsidy). If you level down, there will be benefits and advantages withdrawn from people.

SF (and their supporters) are afraid of this debate because it clearly demonstrates that somebody in the system will have to pay for a united Ireland and probably pay heavily. That inevitably would reduce the support for a united Ireland which means that SF won't have that debate when support levels are at 13% and 31% even in the short to medium term. You would want support levels close to 70% in both jurisdictions before having the "proper" debate you call for. In the meantime soundbites (which Pearse is very good at) rather than policy detail (which Pearse is very bad at) are the way to go.

From my perspective, the danger for us in the South is that majority support will be harder to achieve in the North so when push comes to shove it will be the South to pick up the tab.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

It is not just about the question of whether the higher of the costs will remain, it is about hard political choices.

Essentially when you have a situation where two jurisdictions have different systems and benefits at different levels, you essentially have two choices, to level up or level down. If you level up there is additional taxation required (on top of that required to make up the £10bn Westminister subsidy). If you level down, there will be benefits and advantages withdrawn from people.

SF (and their supporters) are afraid of this debate because it clearly demonstrates that somebody in the system will have to pay for a united Ireland and probably pay heavily. That inevitably would reduce the support for a united Ireland which means that SF won't have that debate when support levels are at 13% and 31% even in the short to medium term. You would want support levels close to 70% in both jurisdictions before having the "proper" debate you call for. In the meantime soundbites (which Pearse is very good at) rather than policy detail (which Pearse is very bad at) are the way to go.

From my perspective, the danger for us in the South is that majority support will be harder to achieve in the North so when push comes to shove it will be the South to pick up the tab.

The reason why you are suspect as a 'source' on this is that you consistently come out with unbacked up contentions like this 'The reason SF(and their supporters) are afraid of this debate'.

As far as I can see SF are the ones leading the way on the debate holding conventions and debates on it all around the country.
As I have said, you can guess (which is what you are doing) about what the figures might be for x, y, and z, but at the end of the day you cannot arrive at a figure that is expert or in any way trustworthy.
In other words, I distrust your analysis because of your obvious need for it to attack one party's position. You are the person I was referring to when I said, 'choosing a figure specifically designed to arrive at a negative'. If you have any ability to stand back and observe your behaviour and history of posting, you will see this.

Because I see no point in getting diverted into the cul de sac of that here, does not mean I am afraid of anything. You'll just have to respect that.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The reason why you are suspect as a 'source' on this is that you consistently come out with unbacked up contentions like this 'The reason SF(and their supporters) are afraid of this debate'.

As far as I can see SF are the ones leading the way on the debate holding conventions and debates on it all around the country.
As I have said, you can guess (which is what you are doing) about what the figures might be for x, y, and z, but at the end of the day you cannot arrive at a figure that is expert or in any way trustworthy.
In other words, I distrust your analysis because of your obvious need for it to attack one party's position. You are the person I was referring to when I said, choosing figure specifically designed to arrive at a negative. If you have any ability to stand back and observe your behaviour and history of posting, you will see this.

Because I see no point in getting diverted into the cul de sac of that here, does not mean I am afraid of anything. You'll just have to respect that.

I have not guessed in any of my posts (except perhaps the figures on defence which were an educated guess). In all other instances I have set out the policy differences, the current costs in Northern Ireland and the current costs in the South and outlined options, and where possible accurately costed those options. Calling all that work "guess" is an insult.

The thing is, because I referenced all of the work on social welfare, child benefit and higher education in those posts, it is easy to demonstrate where I am wrong (if I am wrong) by referring back to those references. Just saying I must be wrong because I have a certain viewpoint is deflection.

If you think my figures are chosen deliberately to get a negative, produce your own that lead to a positive.

alaimacerc

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are entitled to your view, but I think a SF in government that did not pursue a UI as part of it's main agenda would quickly lose core support.

Obviously it would have to be seen to be "pursuing" it. Just not necessarily -- or, IMO, plausibly -- in that way you've set out. There would have to be the long-mooted Green Paper, but what's in it would be whatever SF deems best fits their narrative, not point-by-point rebuttal of every miscellaneous criticism they've had to absorb.

I see plenty of costings on both sides and I distrust them all, because they are only partially informed, assume that the higher of the costs will remain or start out with a figure designed and chosen to arrive at a negative. Pointless activity and if not a waste of everyone's time certainly a waste of mine.

"Both sides" stipulate a hefty deficit. Just arguing the toss over how hefty. That you'd "distrust" both hardly speaks to an enlightened middle way position as wild optimism that maybe there's some cost-free solution.

Meanwhile, outside in the actual debate, they start with actual budget figures and tax receipts. There's no assumption of the "higher" (of what and what, exactly?), just the actual present cost. To which you'd necessarily have to add transitional costs (think the IW "set up costs" were stiff? just hang on there!). Plus the further costs of SF's "everything will be unimaginably better!" policies, at whatever rate they factor those in.

Happyman42

alaimacerc wrote: »

Obviously it would have to be seen to be "pursuing" it. Just not necessarily -- or, IMO, plausibly -- in that way you've set out. There would have to be the long-mooted Green Paper, but what's in it would be whatever SF deems best fits their narrative, not point-by-point rebuttal of every miscellaneous criticism they've had to absorb.

Far as I know, they are calling for the present government to produce a Green Paper, how they would control the 'narrative' in that escapes me but don't let that stop you suspecting the worst.

"Both sides" stipulate a hefty deficit. Just arguing the toss over how hefty.

Which in the absence of an independent appraisal of the figures is the reason why I distrust and see such arguments as time wasting conjecture. I agree and have said that it will probably cost too btw.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

If you think my figures are chosen deliberately to get a negative, produce your own that lead to a positive.

No.

alaimacerc

Happyman42 wrote: »

Far as I know, they are calling for the present government to produce a Green Paper, how they would control the 'narrative' in that escapes me but don't let that stop you suspecting the worst.

We were discussing what a future SF gov would do. My point is precisely because the current (and indeed next!) gov won't do this. (Not least because it would be a pointless and presumptuous exercise.) If SF is sharing power thereafter, presumably they'd have to seek to do this themselves, having demanded of others that it be done. Assuming, y'know, any degree of consistency whatsoever. (Which is no small assumption of any party, mind you.)

Which in the absence of an independent appraisal of the figures is the reason why I distrust and see such arguments as time wasting conjecture. I agree and have said that it will probably cost too btw.

Grand, your optimism is less wild than I feared! So, we're likely haggling about the difference between slightly less than one USC's worth of cash, and over two. (Not counting any additional costs incurred.)

Obviously the estimates we've had thus far aren't in the least independent -- two of them are ragingly partisan, indeed. But it's not rocket science, either. The biggest discrepancy is a €4bn cost that everyone else attributes to the NI budget, and SF just completely ignores. Not subtle. An "independent" assessment isn't going to just decide "oops, SF were 100% right, everyone else hallucinating the whole thing".

Plus of course we could look forward to the not-at-all independent deliberation as to who'd be "independent" enough to do the assessment, and on what "independent" set of assumptions...

Quin_Dub

alaimacerc wrote: »

It would potentially change things in that such a government would have the resources of the DoF available to do the work, and the intergovernmental mechanisms to crowbar detail out of the UK gov. Plus it can use its MPs to ask pointed questions at the PAC in Westmi-- oh, right.

Perhaps - But to be honest if SF were a junior partner in Government and they demanded that money be spent on UI feasibility studies etc. over the more pressing and mundane expenditures of Health/Education and so on, I don't think that the majority of the Electorate would thank them for it..

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think that's overdramatic. Odds-on -- not big odds-on, but odds-on nonetheless -- in two years the UK will have decided "stay", and iScotRef2 wil;l be further down the political agenda. Second favourite is that it's out, Scotland is talking about leaving, the EU is having a "deepening or shallowing?" conversation with itself, and one or two of the other "peripherals" are getting slightly antsy. The EU "core" isn't going anywhere -- and nor are Wales or NI, in that "short-medium" timescale.

I don't disagree - I do not believe that the UK will leave the EU , many concessions will be obtained and they'll stay as they are. However "if" a Brexit were to occur (however unlikely) my view is that it would precipitate the collapse of the EU , which is exactly why it won't be allowed to happen.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Call me a shameless gradualist, but any time I hear someone talking about all the problems a UI will miraculously solve, I think: maybe quicker to start to solve those now? Stuff like economic justice, women's rights, universal healthcare, constitutional and political reform. And if their instrumentality and that of a UI really are linked, then the one will serve the other that way round, too. And to be 100% clear, I'm talk about addressing them on both sides of the border -- whether through E/W mechanisms, N/S, whatever you're having yourself.

I'd agree here also - Any one claiming "Give us a UI and all the problems will go away" is naive.. If the issues are fixable, then they are fixable now - Waiting for a UI before fixing them makes no sense whatsoever.

Happyman42

alaimacerc wrote: »

We were discussing what a future SF gov would do. My point is precisely because the current (and indeed next!) gov won't do this. (Not least because it would be a pointless and presumptuous exercise.) If SF is sharing power thereafter, presumably they'd have to seek to do this themselves, having demanded of others that it be done. Assuming, y'know, any degree of consistency whatsoever. (Which is no small assumption of any party, mind you.)

Well, is there any point debating here when you just rubbish everything because you believe everything SF say about a UI is suspect or has a sinister element to it? I was merely pointing out/asking the question, 'why wuld a party, intent on 'controlling the narrative' be pushing for a Green Paper now?' Is it possible in your narrow world view that they may actually believe that a UI is a better future for us all?
As far as I can see, SF are very active around the country and particularly in the border region, discussing the ramifications of a UI. Why would they bother if they were not seriously interested? It is not as if it is garnering any wider positive publicity for them.

If you believe they are all bad as a party, and have a sinister goal, then there isn't much point in me discussing anything with you.
You get the same thing on SF's call for a Truth Commission - 'they are only doing it because they know nobody will go for it'.
Tiresome, I'll think I'll leave you to it. We are going nowhere here.

alaimacerc

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Perhaps - But to be honest if SF were a junior partner in Government and they demanded that money be spent on UI feasibility studies etc. over the more pressing and mundane expenditures of Health/Education and so on, I don't think that the majority of the Electorate would thank them for it..

To be fair, unless it's of ludicrously broad scope, it's probably not something with vast cost implications. Not that will necessarily stop people criticising it on those grounds....

I don't disagree - I do not believe that the UK will leave the EU , many concessions will be obtained and they'll stay as they are.

If Newsnight know what they're talking about, they're asking for four moderate enough things, and will on a good day will get two or three of them.

However "if" a Brexit were to occur (however unlikely) my view is that it would precipitate the collapse of the EU , which is exactly why it won't be allowed to happen.

I don't consider it unlikely, just not the most likely outcome. There's only so much the EU partners can do -- ultimately it's up to the UK electorate. I'm not sure copious concessions are the "cohesive" option. Weakening the union by watering down existing provisions risks having cascading instability by causing others either to be resentful of what was given to the UK, or else wanting their own goodies. If the others are relatively content as they are, might be better just to stand fairly firm, let the UK decide to stay or go on near-status-quo terms.

I'd agree here also - Any one claiming "Give us a UI and all the problems will go away" is naive.. If the issues are fixable, then they are fixable now - Waiting for a UI before fixing them makes no sense whatsoever.

No-one quite says this explicitly, of course, but it's implicit in a lot of these "type of UI we'd like to see" narratives.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Crooked Jack, do not post in this thread again.

Resolved after discussion with user. One last chance as discussed...

Jawgap

A QUB Economist doubts the viability of a UI, and Doherty's utterances on the issue.....

United Ireland ‘is economically unviable’

A leading economist has said it could take decades for private sector growth in Northern Ireland to reach a level that would make a united Ireland economically viable.

Graham Brownlow, an economics lecturer at Queens University Belfast and a Northern Ireland economy expert, said he was “very sceptical” about claims made by Pearse Doherty, a Sinn Fein TD, that the North would fare better in an all-Ireland economy than by remaining part of the United Kingdom.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Far as I know, they are calling for the present government to produce a Green Paper,

Why can't SF produce their own figures? They are the only ones with access to figures North and South.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No.

Is that no, you are unable to refute my figures?

Godge

Jawgap wrote: »

A QUB Economist doubts the viability of a UI, and Doherty's utterances on the issue.....

United Ireland ‘is economically unviable’

Interesting, is he independent?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, is there any point debating here when you just rubbish everything because you believe everything SF say about a UI is suspect or has a sinister element to it? .

Happyman42 wrote: »

The reason why you are suspect as a 'source' on this is that you consistently come out with unbacked up contentions like this 'The reason SF(and their supporters) are afraid of this debate'.


In other words, I distrust your analysis because of your obvious need for it to attack one party's position. You are the person I was referring to when I said, 'choosing a figure specifically designed to arrive at a negative'. If you have any ability to stand back and observe your behaviour and history of posting, you will see this.

.

Do you see the problem with the differences between your two posts.

You criticise a poster because they won't trust SF's utterings yet you explicitly mistrust others. SF and their supporters need to learn that the rest of us aren't fools. They can only hide for so long. Produce the proposals for how a united Ireland will work or else accept that it ain't happening for a very very long time.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Happyman banned for backseat moderation and for criticising the entire forum.

Jawgap

The Irish Times analysis of the discussion this week......

Why a united Ireland will not happen anytime soon

I wonder if campaigning for a border poll is that much of a vote-getter?

alaimacerc

Godge wrote: »

Why can't SF produce their own figures? They are the only ones with access to figures North and South.

SF are (in my estimation, given the obvious strategic considerations) looking for cover. They want someone else to produce a plan, so they can then complain that it's not "ambitious" enough. Whereas if they did so themselves, they'd immediately be toasted for playing fantasy handball, with regard to both their timescale and their economics. Plus it's obviously cheaper and easier to complain someone else hasn't done something, than to do it oneself.

Aptness of the colour-coding aside, a Green Paper would be ludicrously premature. A UI ain't happening in the next 20 years; you'd want to be getting quoted good odds if you were betting the house on it happening in 40. It's expressly only happening if the people of NI consent, of which there's no sign. Indeed, every sign of active refusal.

But we'll cook the dinner for you now, and repeatedly nag you to eat it, ever though you've said you're not hungry. And don't even like bacon and cabbage. Repeated microwaving never did anyone any harm! Not annoying and counterproductive at all.

alaimacerc

Jawgap wrote: »

A QUB Economist doubts the viability of a UI, and Doherty's utterances on the issue.....

United Ireland ‘is economically unviable’

Rupertwalled, so I've only read the first couple of paragraph. There's a big gap between "economically unviable" and "not better off in a UI in the short term". Which of these do his numbers... assuming he actually has numbers, right? ... actually support or claim?

ETA:

Godge wrote: »

Interesting, is he independent?

Well, he's not fulsomely agreeing with SF, and he's used the name "Londonderry" in the title of a paper, so I think I know the SF answer to that question...

B17G

jmayo wrote: »

Only one contributor I think really brought up the interesting problem coming down the road very shortly.
What happens if the UK decides to quit the EU ?
The vast majority of people it seems in Northern Ireland and indeed Scotland want to stay in EU.
Could we see another UK union debate on the horizon ?

The following is from that recent ESRI report on a Brexit affecting the South:

Through the Common Travel Area (CTA), Irish and British citizens enjoy a remarkable degree of migratory freedom between the Republic of Ireland and the UK and maintenance of the CTA has been a core feature of Ireland’s policy on migration. Among the tangible benefits of this arrangement with the UK is the absence of a border in practical terms between the Republic and Northern Ireland.

A UK exit from the European Union could potentially have the effect of passport controls being placed on the border with Northern Ireland, a reduction in the ease of movement between the Republic of Ireland and Britain and the removal of the automatic right to work in Britain for Irish people. Such outcomes would clearly be a dramatic departure from current arrangements and for this reason there may be a temptation to believe that any agreement on a UK exit would guarantee continued free movement between Ireland and the UK.

It could also be argued that the imposition of border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic would be avoided so as to protect progress on an enormously sensitive political issue. However, there does not appear to be any certainty on this point.

If the border became an EU external frontier due to a Brexit and the CTA failing to survive as a consequence, would attitudes to the border change?

Jawgap

B17G wrote: »

The following is from that recent ESRI report on a Brexit affecting the South:



If the border became an EU external frontier due to a Brexit and the CTA failing to survive as a consequence, would attitudes to the border change?

No, because in any given year only a tiny proportion of the Republic's population cross the border.

In reality, brexit doesn't mean the UK leaving the EEA. They'll still want to trade with the bloc and if they want it to be as hassle free as possible they'll look to strike equivalency agreements - the easiest way to do that is to follow EU legislation.

In summary, they'll be like Switzerland or Norway who often complain about having to follow EU rules without having any political representation.

B17G

Jawgap wrote: »

No, because in any given year only a tiny proportion of the Republic's population cross the border.

Maybe not if you don't actually cross it. However the ESRI also refers to political sensitivities. Don't you think the border reemerging as a actual physical entity will not have consequences should the CTA disappear?

Jawgap

B17G wrote: »

Maybe not if you don't actually cross it. However the ESRI also refers to political sensitivities. Don't you think the border reemerging as a actual physical entity will not have consequences?

Nope. It's only a border.

It will all come back to economics - do you think people will pay (or run the risk of paying) more taxes for a UI just to spare some political sensitivities?

Plus, if the border does emerge as something more tangible, think of the opportunities that will provide. For a start, customs and immigration will have yo deploy to the border, BIPs (Border Inspection Posts) will have to be built etc.

alaimacerc

B17G wrote: »

If the border became an EU external frontier due to a Brexit and the CTA failing to survive as a consequence, would attitudes to the border change?

But it's not a "consequence". Neither country is in Schengen, neither is at all likely to join, so it's a side issue. It's something that could happen after Brexit. But it could happen at any time anyway: the CTA is just a bilateral treaty.

If the CTA did end, especially if it became a real land border, that might indeed become an issue. (Not so much if air travel simply ceases being "please demonstrate -- by for example showing us your UK or RoI passport -- that you don't need to show us a passport".)

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Jawgap wrote: »

Plus, if the border does emerge as something more tangible, think of the opportunities that will provide. For a start, customs and immigration will have yo deploy to the border, BIPs (Border Inspection Posts) will have to be built etc.

I thought we'd had enough of that on this island

B17G

Jawgap wrote: »

Nope. It's only a border.

In terms of Irish history I think you're being a bit naive here.

Plus, if the border does emerge as something more tangible, think of the opportunities that will provide. For a start, customs and immigration will have yo deploy to the border, BIPs (Border Inspection Posts) will have to be built etc.

I can see these being accepted in South Armagh alright...... Joking aside, I can't see these being very popular moves amongst border communities. Going from the situation we have now (free movement) to that scenario may possibly lead to a reignition of the troubles IMO.

Jawgap

B17G wrote: »

In terms of Irish history I think you're being a bit naive here.



I can see these being accepted in South Armagh alright...... Joking aside, I can't see these being very popular moves amongst border communities. Going from the situation we have now (free movement) to that scenario may possibly lead to a reignition of the troubles IMO.

Again, nope.

People care about what they pay in taxes etc. They're not going to vote for something that risks costing them significant tax hikes for indeterminate periods.

If parties want to campaign using Irish history, they should read the responses to Q13 on the RTE / BBC NI survey.........

......specifically, the don't know figures.

Increasingly, people could care less about history - they'd probably be more agitated about losing the Euro than losing the border.

B17G

Jawgap wrote: »

If parties want to campaign using Irish history, they should read the responses to Q13 on the RTE / BBC NI survey.........

......specifically, the don't know figures.

Well 59% show varying degrees of positivity to the Easter Rising scenario as opposed to 22% don't knows. Interesting stat what with an election coming, plus the year its going to be held in.

Increasingly, people could care less about history - they'd probably be more agitated about losing the Euro than losing the border.

I don't think people are as apathetic to their historical past as you're trying to lead us to believe.

Jawgap

B17G wrote: »

Well 59% show varying degrees of positivity to the Easter Rising scenario as opposed to 22% don't knows. Interesting stat what with an election coming, plus the year its going to be held in.



I don't think people are as apathetic to their historical past as you're trying to lead us to believe.

Yes, as a historian what would I know?

And 22% Don't knows is after 8 years of history in school that most people get.

And if history is made optional, how do you think the figure will be impacted?

Anyway, if history is such a vote winner, Sinn Fein should campaign on it.

B17G

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, as a historian what would I know?

I'm not quizzing what you know or don't know. History is a subjective pursuit. Differing interpretations are a consequence of this.

And 22% Don't knows is after 8 years of history in school that most people get.

So then, 59% are getting something from those 8 years?

alaimacerc

B17G wrote: »

Well 59% show varying degrees of positivity to the Easter Rising scenario as opposed to 22% don't knows. Interesting stat what with an election coming, plus the year its going to be held in.

And someone was claiming that the "would you like to pay more tax for a UI?" was a "too obvious" question. The interesting electoral implications of the "varying degrees of positivity" would be... what, exactly?

timthumbni

Sinn Fein are probably still trying to work out why the landslide pro UI victory in the so called "people's referendum" in Crossmaglen and some village in north Louth in 2013, doesn't seem to have been repeated when you move outside of these uber republican areas.

The fact is if SF really want a genuine debate or have any hope of a United Ireland in the distant future they will have to start playing a bit nicer.

Their connections and links with the IRA, both past and present, actual or just perceived, have and will continue to create a general dislike (hatred even) of SF from just about anyone who is not a SF voter. Now this may not be an issue in normal elections within NI but it's a major, major problem when they are trying to sell a new, untested, potentially dangerous product (UI).

In order to have a hope of succeeding they require the support and help of a fairly big number of those who would normally be hostile to SF. They would have to throw away that large threatening baseball bat and start handing out a loads of carrots to do this and I personally don't believe they have the will or the nerve to try this.

SF for quite a while now in NI has just been preaching and pandering to the already converted. Of course, on the unionist side, the DUP in particular has done the same thing. But on the UI issue, the difference is that SF have to sell something new, whereas the DUP do not.

Things like naming a kids play park after an IRA man may seem funny to SF voters but to the rest it can be disturbing and unsettling. And if SF really want anyone to talk about a UI in the future they need to stop unsettling people. Otherwise the results from a rte/bbc poll in say 10 years time will continue to show the same distinct lack of appetite for a United Ireland as the poll showed last week.

Jawgap

B17G wrote: »

I'm not quizzing what you know or don't know. History is a subjective pursuit. Differing interpretations are a consequence of this.



So then, 59% are getting something from those 8 years?

No 78% are (the 'knows')

And like I said, if Sinn Fein feel it's important they should place it at the heart of their manifesto in the upcoming GE.

But again, I somehow how doubt it's a vote winner.

Or put it this way - if the government thought this was an issue that had traction with the electorate would they have wheeled out Jimmy Deenihan (an MoS and TD for a constituency in the SW) to represent their position? Especially when we're months away from an election?

alaimacerc

Jawgap wrote: »

No 78% are (the 'knows')

Don't disparage the "don't knows", either. I'd rather someone have an honest, informed doubt than just be completely certain of their opinion, while knowing nothing whatsoever about an issue.

And like I said, if Sinn Fein feel it's important they should place it at the heart of their manifesto in the upcoming GE.

But again, I somehow how doubt it's a vote winner.

It'll be in the "things we're notionally in favour of, but are expending no political capital on whatsoever" section of their programme (cf 8th amendment, marriage equality...). Which is, in its own way, the "heart" of their strategy...

Or put it this way - if the government thought this was an issue that had traction with the electorate would they have wheeled out Jimmy Deenihan (an MoS and TD for a constituency in the SW) to represent their position? Especially when we're months away from an election?

I would hesitate to make any assumption that the gov knows what it's doing. In such matters, or otherwise.

tipptom

There can be no proper poll in Ireland until the British government admit that they are going to have to pay for the re-unification of Ireland and reparations for many years after that for a bedding in period.


I don't think that the British government would have any problem doing that to get this monkey of their backs and save themselves billions in the long run.


I also think if this was put in a referendum to the British people that an overwhelming majority of them would vote for this as they would see an injustice being put right.


How do you expect to have any accurate or serious polls if your asking the Irish people to now go and pay for the crimes of Britain in taking over and planting our country ,how stupid would that be?

Jawgap

tipptom wrote: »

There can be no proper poll in Ireland until the British government admit that they are going to have to pay for the re-unification of Ireland and reparations for many years after that for a bedding in period.


I don't think that the British government would have any problem doing that to get this monkey of their backs and save themselves billions in the long run.


I also think if this was put in a referendum to the British people that an overwhelming majority of them would vote for this as they would see an injustice being put right.


How do you expect to have any accurate or serious polls if your asking the Irish people to now go and pay for the crimes of Britain in taking over and planting our country ,how stupid would that be?

Looks like there'll never be a poll then.

How would you even begin to assess 'reparations'? Never mind the cost of unification?

tipptom

Jawgap wrote: »

Looks like there'll never be a poll then.

How would you even begin to assess 'reparations'? Never mind the cost of unification?

The same was as you assess it if we had to pay for it which I am sure you would agree would be ridiculous.

Jawgap

tipptom wrote: »

The same was as you assess it if we had to pay for it which I am sure you would agree would be ridiculous.

There's an annual deficit which Whitehall fund, are you honestly suggesting that in the event of a UI they could continue to provide that subvention for some indeterminate period of tine? How much and for how long?

Personally, I think if NI votes to leave the UK they'll go with Whitehall's blessing, but no subvention (and likely no share of the UK national debt either).

tipptom

Jawgap wrote: »

There's an annual deficit which Whitehall fund, are you honestly suggesting that in the event of a UI they could continue to provide that subvention for some indeterminate period of tine? How much and for how long?

Personally, I think if NI votes to leave the UK they'll go with Whitehall's blessing, but no subvention (and likely no share of the UK national debt either).

No ,im not suggesting that at all but I personally think that when Britain finally admits that they would gladly pay for the reunification it could be easily negotiated between the two government's after people get over the initial shock of how quickly the British government would agree to this.

Jawgap

tipptom wrote: »

No ,im not suggesting that at all but I personally think that when Britain finally admits that they would gladly pay for the reunification it could be easily negotiated between the two government's after people get over the initial shock of how quickly the British government would agree to this.

Give the amounts involved, I doubt it. They'd effectively be doubling their foreign aid budget.

What government would survive sending billions to another country who voted to leave?

tipptom

Jawgap wrote: »

Give the amounts involved, I doubt it. They'd effectively be doubling their foreign aid budget.

What government would survive sending billions to another country who voted to leave?

Ha Ha,foreign aid,nice one.

Jawgap

tipptom wrote: »

Ha Ha,foreign aid,nice one.

Call it something else if you like, but it sounds like you're expecting HM Government to transfer several billion in Sterling outside their jurisdiction to facilitate discretionary spending by another sovereign government.

Call it what you want, but there ain't no votes in it

tipptom

Jawgap wrote: »

Call it something else if you like, but it sounds like you're expecting HM Government to transfer several billion in Sterling outside their jurisdiction to facilitate discretionary spending by another sovereign government.

Call it what you want, but there ain't no votes in it

They have been transferring billions down a black hole there for years and is short term pain for long term gain and finally gets rid of the embarrassment of their involvement in NI.
Maybe they can tap up the EU as part of their negotiation's when Brussels are begging them to stay in Europe.

Jawgap

tipptom wrote: »

They have been transferring billions down a black hole there for years and is short term pain for long term gain and finally gets rid of the embarrassment of their involvement in NI.
Maybe they can tap up the EU as part of their negotiation's when Brussels are begging them to stay in Europe.

Exactly, and if NI votes to leave the UK and we vote to accept them, they are not going to continue to pay.

There'll be some legacy costs to cover, but they won't be transferring billions. What in any of their rhetoric would leave you to believe they would?

As for EU money, I doubt there'd be more than a few hundred million in cohesion funds - other EU states aren't going to vote a bonanza for one of our regions, nor are they going to do anything that looks remotely like rewarding secession for fear it would encourage the Catalans, the Basques, Flanders, the Lega Nord etc.

tipptom

Jawgap wrote: »

Exactly, and if NI votes to leave the UK and we vote to accept them, they are not going to continue to pay.

There'll be some legacy costs to cover, but they won't be transferring billions. What in any of their rhetoric would leave you to believe they would?

As for EU money, I doubt there'd be more than a few hundred million in cohesion funds - other EU states aren't going to vote a bonanza for one of our regions, nor are they going to do anything that looks remotely like rewarding secession for fear it would encourage the Catalans, the Basques, Flanders, the Lega Nord etc.

There is a big difference between the breakaway states you mention and NI.
This should be put before the British people and their sense of fair play with an agreed costings and the savings in to the future and only then can be put to a real and proper poll.
There would be a massive amount of good will in the EU and around the world to this because it sure as hell isn't working the way it is and never has.

alaimacerc

tipptom wrote: »

There can be no proper poll in Ireland until the British government admit that they are going to have to pay for the re-unification of Ireland and reparations for many years after that for a bedding in period.

So, according to this theory, Republicans -- notable for calling for "border poll now", staging their own, etc -- are going to give the UK an effective veto over a UI, or even any "proper" referendum on one, by the simple expedient to not writing a cheque for a few hundred billion in "reparations"?

Strategic genius, that is!

Jawgap

tipptom wrote: »

There is a big difference between the breakaway states you mention and NI.
This should be put before the British people and their sense of fair play with an agreed costings and the savings in to the future and only then can be put to a real and proper poll.
There would be a massive amount of good will in the EU and around the world to this because it sure as hell isn't working the way it is and never has.

Again, this is just Sinn Fein wishful thinking. No amount of fair play is going to lead to a country just handing over the equivalent of about 1% of it's GDP to another country - the amount they pump into NI is marginally less than their EU contribution - think they're going to give us a shade less than they have to give to the EU?

Oh, and as for goodwill, I think you'll find beyond this island and certain parts of the east coast of the States, most people really don't care about what happens here. Even the 'RA, with the rise of IS etc are now regarded as quaint.

alaimacerc

Jawgap wrote: »

There's an annual deficit which Whitehall fund [...]

That SF rhetorically "magics away" this deficit, recall. I can only imagine how they'll magic it back up again when it comes to asking for it to be paid for "many, many years".

tipptom

alaimacerc wrote: »

So, according to this theory, Republicans -- notable for calling for "border poll now", staging their own, etc -- are going to give the UK an effective veto over a UI, or even any "proper" referendum on one, by the simple expedient to not writing a cheque for a few hundred billion in "reparations"?

Strategic genius, that is!

The British have an effective veto over NI if they don't pay for re unification of Ireland and no one is seriously going to vote for reunification until the British admit that they must pay for this.


Don't think you have to be a genius to work out that the Irish people are not going to pay for British crimes in Ireland.Britain should do that and I personally believe that they would be happy to do that to be rid of it once and for all.