Opinions on Irish identity

murphaph

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No, we didn't vote on the GFA, we amended our constitution. If we get a vote, it will be to reword some stuff in the constitution. It will be shoehorned through somehow, even if we are made vote again

It just goes to show the hypocritical mentality of some though. For decades shouting about the heinous IRA and telling them to embrace peace and the democratic process to achieve their aims. And when they then attempt to pursue their aims in this manner, the same people then want to turn them away regardless. In effect, pompously pontificating for SF to obtain a democratic majority for a united Ireland in the north, only for those same people to try and ignore it. If you want a party to engage in a process in good faith, then you should also engage in that process in good faith and accept the result of the majority in the north and suck it up. Half the population there did not ask to be partitioned, and it is as much their birthright to live under Irish rule as it is for any other Irish person.

Read the GFA. Both north and south must vote for unification.

You would presumably expect the republic to commit economic suicide for a UI but thankfully most people wouldn't.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Read the GFA. Both north and south must vote for unification.

You would presumably expect the republic to commit economic suicide for a UI but thankfully most people wouldn't.

Unification will be about investment in the future for everyone.
I don't think anyone will have a problem with that.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unification will be about investment in the future for everyone..

What does that mean? Sounds like vague Brexit speak to me.

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

What does that mean? Sounds like vague Brexit speak to me.

We vote to amend our constitution. All parties will be in favour of reunification, as they will have no choice. Instead of talking about the cost of reunification, we will be hearing about the benefits. Or what southern party do you think is going to renegade on support of unification in the build up to a vote, seeing as they signed up to the GFA?

A Little Pony

The Golden Miller wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

What does that mean? Sounds like vague Brexit speak to me.

We vote to amend our constitution. All parties will be in favour of reunification, as they will have no choice. Instead of talking about the cost of reunification, we will be hearing about the benefits. Or what southern party do you think is going to renegade on support of unification in the build up to a vote, seeing as they signed up to the GFA?

Which Irish party could Protestants vote for? It would need to be a conservative Irish party which stands for conservative principles. Sometimes I think the feelings of southerners never gets taken on board, they might enjoy their own country without it being ripped up and a load of us "scumbag" 'prods' intruding on them.

murphaph

The Golden Miller wrote: »

We vote to amend our constitution. All parties will be in favour of reunification, as they will have no choice. Instead of talking about the cost of reunification, we will be hearing about the benefits. Or what southern party do you think is going to renegade on support of unification in the build up to a vote, seeing as they signed up to the GFA?

Ireland is an open democracy and in the wake of the Brexit fiasco the electorate will be expecting a very thorough debate of the matter with real facts and figures being made available for in-depth discussion.

You may want to just wave unification through. The GFA seems to mean something other than you think. The republic's electorate will get an explicit vote on unification should NI ever vote in favour of such.

In the privacy of the ballot box people will vote for what makes sense for their families. If a UI is not in that interest they will vote it down.

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

Ireland is an open democracy and in the wake of the Brexit fiasco the electorate will be expecting a very thorough debate of the matter with real facts and figures being made available for in-depth discussion.

You may want to just wave unification through. The GFA seems to mean something other than you think. The republic's electorate will get an explicit vote on unification should NI ever vote in favour of such.

In the privacy of the ballot box people will vote for what makes sense for their families. If a UI is not in that interest they will vote it down.

When it's apparent that the majority in the north want reunification, what party in the south will openly and actively campaign against reunification in the south by way of amending our constitution?

Jim2007

The Golden Miller wrote: »

When it's apparent that the majority in the north want reunification, what party in the south will openly and actively campaign against reunification in the south by way of amending our constitution?

At the rate that the sense of entitlement is growing, I'd expect it would be hard for a party to push for reunification if it means tax increases... And it will not be reunification, it will be assimilation not reunification, so you may find many conservatives in NI will not want to joint a state with gay marriage etc....

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Ireland is an open democracy and in the wake of the Brexit fiasco the electorate will be expecting a very thorough debate of the matter with real facts and figures being made available for in-depth discussion.

You may want to just wave unification through. The GFA seems to mean something other than you think. The republic's electorate will get an explicit vote on unification should NI ever vote in favour of such.

In the privacy of the ballot box people will vote for what makes sense for their families. If a UI is not in that interest they will vote it down.

I don't agree. If people only voted for whats good for their pocket you would not have an independent Ireland, a reunification of Germany or Brexit.

Just on the voting process - as far as I know, both votes will take place at the same time.

Bishopsback

I think really that if Northern Ireland could stand alone as an independent republic then it would be easier to sell the idea of integration of the whole island as one country.
We here now can barely keep ourselves afloat, our services are really struggling, would we want to compound our problems, I'm not so sure!

James Brown

A Little Pony wrote: »

Which Irish party could Protestants vote for? It would need to be a conservative Irish party which stands for conservative principles. Sometimes I think the feelings of southerners never gets taken on board, they might enjoy their own country without it being ripped up and a load of us "scumbag" 'prods' intruding on them.

If people want to vote on governance, there's choices, (although similarly with the North the two larger parties have a solid supporter base come rain or shine).
There are plenty of differing religions in the South, I don't think people care too much what religion you are and less so as the older generation die off.
I would think that the Unionists might fear being no more or less important than other groups, might be the problem, not discrimination based on religion. No religion at all seems to be the growing trend.

A Little Pony

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Which Irish party could Protestants vote for? It would need to be a conservative Irish party which stands for conservative principles. Sometimes I think the feelings of southerners never gets taken on board, they might enjoy their own country without it being ripped up and a load of us "scumbag" 'prods' intruding on them.

If people want to vote on governance, there's choices, (although similarly with the North the two larger parties have a solid supporter base come rain or shine).
There are plenty of differing religions in the South, I don't think people care too much what religion you are and less so as the older generation die off.
I would think that the Unionists might fear being no more or less important than other groups, might be the problem, not discrimination based on religion. No religion at all seems to be the growing trend.

It's not just religion but our very being, our traditions and institutions.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's not just religion but our very being, our traditions and institutions.

How will the Unionist identity cope with that do you think? (Hypothetically, if you wish)
How would you see it play out if there was a vote for unity?

*I was always of the impression that the north votes first and then us, only if there is a yes vote (to ratify or reject).

James Brown

A Little Pony wrote: »

It's not just religion but our very being, our traditions and institutions.

You specified Religion. We have a Jewish community up the road and they go about their business no problem. Are they pro Israeli? I don't know, it's none of my business.
As long as people don't discriminate against others, be the excuse religion or politics, I don't see why you wouldn't feel welcome. I could see it being an issue 40 or 50 years ago but the Catholic Church are losing power rapidly and less and less people, therefore politicians, have any interest. I would go far as to say, staunch Protestants would probably have a lot in common with staunch conservative Catholics politics wise, (politics not being based on ancient history, but governance in this century).

jm08

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You specified Religion. We have a Jewish community up the road and they go about their business no problem. Are they pro Israeli? I don't know, it's none of my business.
As long as people don't discriminate against others, be the excuse religion or politics, I don't see why you wouldn't feel welcome. I could see it being an issue 40 or 50 years ago but the Catholic Church are losing power rapidly and less and less people, therefore politicians, have any interest. I would go far as to say, staunch Protestants would probably have a lot in common with staunch conservative Catholics politics wise, (politics not being based on ancient history, but governance in this century).

There is a forest in Israel (1966) named after President de Valera to acknowledge the respect and protection shown by the Irish state to the Jewish population in Ireland.

http://www.kkl-jnf.org/about-kkl-jnf/green-israel-news/november-2016/eamon-de-valera-forest-50-years-galilee/

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have never seen any serious indication that the south would reject unity.
The political parties? Not a mission, that would be a recipe for decimation.
The notion they would reject is a dream of partitionists whose ideas are more redundant everyday.
Brexit will hasten that.

I have never seen any serious indication that the south would vote to accept unity.

All polls have asked about unification in some future undefined time or situation, there has never been a real poll.

Sand

blanch152 wrote: »

I have never seen any serious indication that the south would vote to accept unity.

All polls have asked about unification in some future undefined time or situation, there has never been a real poll.

It would depend on how the question is phrased as well. "Do you want to increase your taxes by 11 billion euros per year, with only increased loyalist terrorism to show for it" is never going to fly.

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No, we didn't vote on the GFA, we amended our constitution. If we get a vote, it will be to reword some stuff in the constitution. It will be shoehorned through somehow, even if we are made vote again

It just goes to show the hypocritical mentality of some though. For decades shouting about the heinous IRA and telling them to embrace peace and the democratic process to achieve their aims. And when they then attempt to pursue their aims in this manner, the same people then want to turn them away regardless. In effect, pompously pontificating for SF to obtain a democratic majority for a united Ireland in the north, only for those same people to try and ignore it. If you want a party to engage in a process in good faith, then you should also engage in that process in good faith and accept the result of the majority in the north and suck it up. Half the population there did not ask to be partitioned, and it is as much their birthright to live under Irish rule as it is for any other Irish person.

Are you taking away the democratic right of the people of the South to reject unification?

Seriously?

FrancieBrady

Sand wrote: »

It would depend on how the question is phrased as well. "Do you want to increase your taxes by 11 billion euros per year, with only increased loyalist terrorism to show for it" is never going to fly.

As far as I know it will be a vote in the south to ratify or reject a yes vote in the north.

That would be a different thing entirely.
Unless a major part of the unionist community decide to become undemocratic there will be noi major threat of violence.

A Little Pony might shed some light on that from a British identity POV

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As far as I know it will be a vote in the south to ratify or reject a yes vote in the north.

That would be a different thing entirely.
Unless a major part of the unionist community decide to become undemocratic there will be noi major threat of violence.

A Little Pony might shed some light on that from a British identity POV

I take it that you also agree that if there is a hard Brexit, and a hard border reimposed, that you agree that unless a major part of the republican community decide to become undemocratic, there will be no major threat of violence?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I have never seen any serious indication that the south would vote to accept unity.

All polls have asked about unification in some future undefined time or situation, there has never been a real poll.

July 2016 Red C:

The survey shows that 65pc would vote in favour of a united Ireland if a referendum was held tomorrow. A similar poll conducted by Red C in 2010 for the 'Sunday Times' showed support at 57pc, so there has been an 8pc increase in six years.


However, no questions were asked this time about higher taxation to fund reunification. This often throws up a different result, with lower support.

Support for unity is lower in Dublin at 56pc, but high across most regions and age groups, especially those aged 55-64 and with working-class voters.


I've seen another survey (which I can't find now) reunification was costed at 9bn per annum when taking out the don't knows it was 50/50.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I take it that you also agree that if there is a hard Brexit, and a hard border reimposed, that you agree that unless a major part of the republican community decide to become undemocratic, there will be no major threat of violence?

The problem with a hard border is that it flies in the face of the agreement that was signed up to.

In my opinion those who refuse to see just what McGuiness and Adams were admirably holding together will realise quick enough as another split happens and the cyclical confliuct / war begins again.
There will be a huge amount who will see the deal as broken.

Unionists of course have the same option, but no deal will have been broken. They signed up to unity if the majority vote for it.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

July 2016 Red C:

The survey shows that 65pc would vote in favour of a united Ireland if a referendum was held tomorrow. A similar poll conducted by Red C in 2010 for the 'Sunday Times' showed support at 57pc, so there has been an 8pc increase in six years.


However, no questions were asked this time about higher taxation to fund reunification. This often throws up a different result, with lower support.

Support for unity is lower in Dublin at 56pc, but high across most regions and age groups, especially those aged 55-64 and with working-class voters.


I've seen another survey (which I can't find now) reunification was costed at 9bn per annum when taking out the don't knows it was 50/50.

Again, there was no context to that poll, no serious debate about the costs and benefits of a united Ireland. The truth is that nobody knows what will happen if there is a real referendum.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, there was no context to that poll, no serious debate about the costs and benefits of a united Ireland. The truth is that nobody knows what will happen if there is a real referendum.

Here is some research:

Both Republic and North ‘could benefit from united Ireland’

Research shows reunification could deliver boon to enlarged state worth over €35bn

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/both-republic-and-north-could-benefit-from-united-ireland-1.2823081

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Here is some research:

Both Republic and North ‘could benefit from united Ireland’

Research shows reunification could deliver boon to enlarged state worth over €35bn

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/both-republic-and-north-could-benefit-from-united-ireland-1.2823081

I am more than familiar with that report, it has been debated on here numerous times. I am not surprised that it has been referenced again, it is like a zombie that resurrects itself.


https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/

Ultimately, why wouldn't a report funded by a Sinn Fein offshoot say anything different?

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Here is some research:

Both Republic and North ‘could benefit from united Ireland’

Research shows reunification could deliver boon to enlarged state worth over €35bn

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/both-republic-and-north-could-benefit-from-united-ireland-1.2823081

While its findings are disputed what it shows is that the issue is not as simple as the partitionist, 'nobody will pay the extra tax'.

Too many people afraid of a proper discussion of all this with the various experts not to mention the fear of a poll.

Junkyard Tom

The idea that economic responsibility would shift to Dublin overnight is either hilariously bad forethought or blatant scaremongering.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The problem with a hard border is that it flies in the face of the agreement that was signed up to.

In my opinion those who refuse to see just what McGuiness and Adams were admirably holding together will realise quick enough as another split happens and the cyclical confliuct / war begins again.
There will be a huge amount who will see the deal as broken.

Unionists of course have the same option, but no deal will have been broken. They signed up to unity if the majority vote for it.

So if the unionists reject a democratic vote for a united Ireland and resort to violence, it is unacceptable.

However, if republicans reject a democratic vote for Brexit and resort to violence, that is acceptable.

Yup, we get it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

While its findings are disputed what it shows is that the issue is not as simple as the partitionist, 'nobody will pay the extra tax'.

Too many people afraid of a proper discussion of all this with the various experts not to mention the fear of a poll.

Its findings are disputed? It is a complete con job by Sinn Fein fundraising groups based in the US.

That study is laughable and has no credibility.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So if the unionists reject a democratic vote for a united Ireland and resort to violence, it is unacceptable.

However, if republicans reject a democratic vote for Brexit and resort to violence, that is acceptable.

Yup, we get it.

Depends on your view of what a hard border implies.


Either way, it's a **** storm your condemnation won't solve.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Its findings are disputed? It is a complete con job by Sinn Fein fundraising groups based in the US.

That study is laughable and has no credibility.

I've heard people disputing it for that exact predictable reason.

It isn't by any means definitive but its a start and more in depth than random guys on the internet can do.

Those who have their minds made up won't be convinced by anything.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Depends on your view of what a hard border implies.

Just to be clear, are you condoning potential republican violence (dead people) in some circumstances?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I've heard people disputing it for that exact predictable reason.

It isn't by any means definitive but its a start and more in depth than random guys on the internet can do.

Those who have their minds made up won't be convinced by anything.

Wrong wrong wrong. I'm open to a UI in the right circumstances. I see potential benefits long term.

I would need convincing that the circumstances were right and that no economic damage would be done south of the border to achieve it.

You would accept economic damage and the resultant drop in living standards (eg fewer beds in a children's hospital) to achieve a UI, correct?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Wrong wrong wrong. I'm open to a UI in the right circumstances. I see potential benefits long term.

I would need convincing that the circumstances were right and that no economic damage would be done south of the border to achieve it.

You would accept economic damage and the resultant drop in living standards (eg fewer beds in a children's hospital) to achieve a UI, correct?

I would be investing in the future.

Socially, culturally and economically, the proposal makes complete sense to my identity.
I think Tom is right, this needn't hurt all that much if it is planned and orderly. I think we would get tremendous co-operation from the British and the EU, not to mention the rest of the world.

Most people do not think in purely economic terms if there is a dividend.
And there would be imo.

(Nice to bring the 'childeren' scaremongering into it)

Bishopsback

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would be investing in the future.

Socially, culturally and economically, the proposal makes complete sense to my identity.
I think Tom is right, this needn't hurt all that much if it is planned and orderly. I think we would get tremendous co-operation from the British and the EU, not to mention the rest of the world.

Most people do not think in purely economic terms if there is a dividend.
And there would be imo.

(Nice to bring the 'childeren' scaremongering into it)

That's fair enough, but you and Tom both admit that the economics of it are a big issue, probably the deciding issue.
I think if that end could be sorted with little hurt on the republican side, then it could well be a runner.
Northern Ireland as it is puts a big dent in UK spending, the republics budget couldn't handle that, it would probably bankrupt the country.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would be investing in the future.

Socially, culturally and economically, the proposal makes complete sense to my identity.
I think Tom is right, this needn't hurt all that much if it is planned and orderly. I think we would get tremendous co-operation from the British and the EU, not to mention the rest of the world.

Most people do not think in purely economic terms if there is a dividend.
And there would be imo.

(Nice to bring the 'childeren' scaremongering into it)

Sounds like aspirational Brexit speak, even the old scaremongering thrown in! The children's hospitals and all our other services need money to run. They don't run on fresh air.

I accept that there would likely be assistance provided by the UK and EU in the event of a UI but I very much doubt it would happen without the republic putting its hand deep in its pocket.

You didn't answer the question as asked so I'll ask it again:
Would you accept some economic damage and consequent fall in living standards in the republic to attain a UI?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Depends on your view of what a hard border implies.


Either way, it's a **** storm your condemnation won't solve.

This was my statement:

blanch152 wrote: »

So if the unionists reject a democratic vote for a united Ireland and resort to violence, it is unacceptable.

However, if republicans reject a democratic vote for Brexit and resort to violence, that is acceptable.

Yup, we get it.

In your answer you have clearly stated that depending on what is involved in a hard Brexit (which is one possible outcome of a democratic process) that violence is acceptable.

I really thought we had left that mindset behind. To be clear on the position can you answer the following question. Given that the people of the UK have democratically voted for Brexit, and that their democratically elected leaders have been tasked with securing the terms of that Brexit, is a violent response to the outcome (no matter what that outcome is) acceptable?

So if the eventual outcome is a united Ireland that violence is unacceptable, but that if the eventual outcome is a hard border with security controls, that violence is acceptable. Not even Sinn Fein are taking that stance.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I've heard people disputing it for that exact predictable reason.

It isn't by any means definitive but its a start and more in depth than random guys on the internet can do.

Those who have their minds made up won't be convinced by anything.

I actually think given the standards of that economic report that random guys or gals on the internet could do a far better job. I could actually name about twenty posters on here whose understanding of economics and particularly how biased assumptions leads to biased results means they could do a better job. That is how poor the report is and why it was demolished a number of times on other threads over the last few years.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Sounds like aspirational Brexit speak, even the old scaremongering thrown in! The children's hospitals and all our other services need money to run. They don't run on fresh air.

I accept that there would likely be assistance provided by the UK and EU in the event of a UI but I very much doubt it would happen without the republic putting its hand deep in its pocket.

You didn't answer the question as asked so I'll ask it again:
Would you accept some economic damage and consequent fall in living standards in the republic to attain a UI?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes, I most certainly would.
To keep this on topic an away from the usual SF bad stuff- part of my identity believes there cannot be lasting peace, normality, and consequently prosperity in life rather than just pocket, without removing partition.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Its findings are disputed? It is a complete con job by Sinn Fein fundraising groups based in the US.

That study is laughable and has no credibility.

Who are the findings disputed by and why? If every bit of research was cast aside by reason only of whoever commissioned it having a vested interest, nothing would be believable. I think the people (a German) who did the research are credible.

I wonder why anyone hasn't done any proper research as to why a united Ireland isn't viable or maybe they have and they buried it.

Its also worth noting that Northern Ireland were intending to harmonise their corporate tax rate with the Republic. I wonder why that was?

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Who are the findings disputed by and why? If every bit of research was cast aside by reason only of whoever commissioned it having a vested interest, nothing would be believable. I think the people (a German) who did the research are credible.

I wonder why anyone hasn't done any proper research as to why a united Ireland isn't viable or maybe they have and they buried it.

Its also worth noting that Northern Ireland were intending to harmonise their corporate tax rate with the Republic. I wonder why that was?

I take it that you also believe that research paid for by the cigarette companies that said smoking is good for you.

There is nothing credible about that report.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Who are the findings disputed by and why? If every bit of research was cast aside by reason only of whoever commissioned it having a vested interest, nothing would be believable. I think the people (a German) who did the research are credible.

I wonder why anyone hasn't done any proper research as to why a united Ireland isn't viable or maybe they have and they buried it.

Its also worth noting that Northern Ireland were intending to harmonise their corporate tax rate with the Republic. I wonder why that was?

There are many on both sides of the border who are petrified about allowing the debate to properly begin.
The report was speculative, was never afaik pitched as definitive and has value at this stage of you take the caveats into account.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are many on both sides of the border who are petrified about allowing the debate to properly begin.
The report was speculative, was never afaik pitched as definitive and has value at this stage of you take the caveats into account.

To be fair, you have at least acknowledged the speculative nature of the report. It can be filed in between a report on the practicialities of interstellar travel and an instruction manual on the 5 easy steps to World Peace.


https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/


Have you looked at any of the assumptions and considered even one. How about this:

"1. Harmonization of the tax systems across the Island, with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the south. This harmonization of taxes would involve both changes in adoption of activity taxes as well as taxes on imports, commodities, and institutional taxes. These changes would likely foster greater FDI in the north and contribute to economic growth."


This would be a great income boost to the people of Northern Ireland earning lower wages as they would see lower income taxes, but there would an increased income tax burden on higher earners. Overall, there would be a significant loss to the Exchequer which would mean a general increase in taxation for everyone in the South would be required. The report also says nothing about the costs of social welfare harmonisation.

Just one small fairytale assumption there. When you add up the rest of the fairytale assumptions, the report lacks credibility.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

To be fair, you have at least acknowledged the speculative nature of the report. It can be filed in between a report on the practicialities of interstellar travel and an instruction manual on the 5 easy steps to World Peace.


https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/


Have you looked at any of the assumptions and considered even one. How about this:

"1. Harmonization of the tax systems across the Island, with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the south. This harmonization of taxes would involve both changes in adoption of activity taxes as well as taxes on imports, commodities, and institutional taxes. These changes would likely foster greater FDI in the north and contribute to economic growth."


This would be a great income boost to the people of Northern Ireland earning lower wages as they would see lower income taxes, but there would an increased income tax burden on higher earners. Overall, there would be a significant loss to the Exchequer which would mean a general increase in taxation for everyone in the South would be required. The report also says nothing about the costs of social welfare harmonisation.

Just one small fairytale assumption there. When you add up the rest of the fairytale assumptions, the report lacks credibility.

There will be many arguments from different economic standpoints.

This was just one.
Like every speculative assessment it will be possible for the opposing point of view to squeal ' not credible'
A bit like polls that don't confirm your bias.
'

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I most certainly would.
To keep this on topic an away from the usual SF bad stuff- part of my identity believes there cannot be lasting peace, normality, and consequently prosperity in life rather than just pocket, without removing partition.

Fine. So you would accept cuts to children's hospitals and other services to pay for a UI. At least you're honest about it.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Fine. So you would accept cuts to children's hospitals and other services to pay for a UI. At least you're honest about it.

Well, if funding the arts can be seen as depriving the childer, yes, you have it in one. 😔

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There will be many arguments from different economic standpoints.

This was just one.
Like every speculative assessment it will be possible for the opposing point of view to squeal ' not credible'
A bit like polls that don't confirm your bias.
'

I will give you an example from science to explain more clearly.

Imagine a scientific study concluded that explosions make no noise. You would rightly query the conclusions, wouldn't you? Even common sense would tell you there is something wrong with the conclusions. Well, if you went back and read the study, you might find that the authors assumed that there was a vacuum and the observer was in the vacuum when the explosion took place. Well, the study would be perfectly valid (as there is no noise in a vacuum, but the observer would also be dead) but would have no real meaning in real life.

Well, this economic study is the same thing. It starts from a position where it imagines and assumes some fantastical things that just will never happen. From there, the study may well be accurate or valid in processing what happens but it is doomed by the fantastical assumptions equivalent to the example above. In fact, as Slugger O'Toole put it - "perhaps the most surprising thing about the study is that the forecasted growth is not more significant" as the basic assumptions are not just fantastical but also predisposed towards ensuring a favourable outcome. It does beg the question as to how bad the economic effect would be if the study had been based on realistic assumptions about the cost of unification.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I take it that you also believe that research paid for by the cigarette companies that said smoking is good for you.

There is nothing credible about that report.

What has cigarette companies got to do with an Economic evaluation of the consequences of a united Ireland? From what I can see the research team are fairly reputable and I doubt if they would produce a study if they could not stand over their research.

There is nothing credible about your stance of the research.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

What has cigarette companies got to do with an Economic evaluation of the consequences of a united Ireland? From what I can see the research team are fairly reputable and I doubt if they would produce a study if they could not stand over their research.

There is nothing credible about your stance of the research.

As I said earlier there is an Irish identity which publicly says it favours unity but will contort itself to put obstacle after obstacle in the way. (It's prevalent within FG. John Bruton etc)
There will never be an economic best time to unite.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said earlier there is an Irish identity which publicly says it favours unity but will contort itself to put obstacle after obstacle in the way. (It's prevalent within FG. John Bruton etc)
There will never be an economic best time to unite.

Then perhaps we shouldn't unite.