47.9% of NI would back a United Ireland in the event of a 'hard Brexit'

Avatar MIA

feargale wrote: »

Yes, let the facts speak for themselves, unless of course you want to advocate a military solution. What do you suggest should be done?

A strange idea like promoting the benefits of a UI (no reason why the six counties cannot be as successful as the 26) and dispel some myths like the benefits of the NHS.

feargale

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The result is in line with the October Lucid Talk poll, however.

Lucid Talk poll 26th October 2017 (per Irish News):


"JUST a third of people in Northern Ireland would vote for Irish unityif there was a referendum tomorrow, a new opinion poll suggests.

But the same survey found that a majority want a border poll, with nearly half believing it should happen within the next five years.

Almost one in five respondents to the latest LucidTalk Tracker Poll said there should never be a referendum on the border.

More than half of unionists questioned completely rejected the notion of a referendum on the north's constitutional position but 80 per cent of nationalists want a border poll within five years."

Wanting a poll is not the same as wanting UI. Decades ago a border poll was wanted by everybody except Nationalists who boycotted it. Needless to say an overwhelming majority voted for the status quo.

feargale

Avatar MIA wrote: »

A strange idea like promoting the benefits of a UI (no reason why the six counties cannot be as successful as the 26) and dispel some myths like the benefits of the NHS.

Your reference to "strange idea" leaves it unclear as to whether you are accusing others of having a strange idea or whether you are being ironic. I will assume the latter.
Do you really think Unionists are so stupid as not to be able to weigh things up for themselves, that they need you to tell them? Part of the problem in the early 1900s was the fact that Ulster industry was so bound up with Britain, especially shipbuilding, and Nationalists made no attempt to address those concerns.
Irish Nationalism has always been afflicted by a considerable degree of self-delusion. Just one example was Collins' (and others') belief that Northern Ireland would not be viable, over one million people twenty kilometres from the neighbouring island. Did these people never hear of Gibraltar or the Falklands?

Del.Monte

Or the Isle of Man....

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

That must be the most ironic post I have ever read on boards.

You don't understand irony.

"Those that want respect, give respect", just the following sentence after disrespecting the entire Unionist community. You couldn't make this up.

First of all I focused my ire on the DUP - look at this bunch of idiots taking childish pleasure in the disrespect of 'them'uns'.

Nationalists are never going to persuade Unionists into a joint future on this island until that kind of attitude to the Unionists is put aside for ever

I, and I suspect many more, are well past giving a hoot about trying to convince Unionists of the sort above of anything. Unionists have no veto on a referendum.

feargale

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I, and I suspect many more, are well past giving a hoot about trying to convince Unionists of the sort above of anything. Unionists have no veto on a referendum.

A referendum will be held when the Secretary of State for NI deems it desirable, and that will be when it is clear that NI wants a change. That means that as of now the people who call themselves unionists, being in the majority, effectively have a veto. If you want a UI above all else it would pay you to be nice to some if not all of them.
Are you proposing an alternative, and if so what?

Junkyard Tom

feargale wrote: »

That means that as of now the people who call themselves unionists, being in the majority, effectively have a veto.

They're not a majority any more.

If you want a UI above all else

I don't want a UI above all else. I felt strongly that a pro-Brexit vote and hard brexit strategy would bring forward the date of a UI but it would do so with a possible cost of destabilising Ireland. I would have much preferred a remain vote and for a UI to come about by osmosis. The DUP want a hard Brexit for exactly the opposite reason in my latter point above.

it would pay you to be nice to some if not all of them.

I'll be nice to people who are nice to me. I have no desire to try to woo people like Ian Paisley, Gregory Campbell and Arlene Foster.

Are you proposing an alternative?

Nope. Follow the yellow-brick road-map laid out in the GFA.

murphaph

The yellow brick road has forks in it. Some lead to NI remaining in the UK. Brexit will decide things for a lot of people in the coming decades.

Avatar MIA

feargale wrote: »

Your reference to "strange idea" leaves it unclear as to whether you are accusing others of having a strange idea or whether you are being ironic. I will assume the latter.
Do you really think Unionists are so stupid as not to be able to weigh things up for themselves, that they need you to tell them? Part of the problem in the early 1900s was the fact that Ulster industry was so bound up with Britain, especially shipbuilding, and Nationalists made no attempt to address those concerns.

I have a significant interest in NI, and go out of my way to keep in touch. But, it doesn't take much interaction to realise there remains, at best, a significant disconnect between unionists and the ROI. Some are very proud of never "stepping foot" down there. So, you may be very much enlightened, but it's not the norm.

Therefore, it's only right to "market" a UI. How else is one going to bring about a UI?!?

Those that campaigned for Brexit, should they not have put forward their case.

I just don't get your thinking. As it stands the people of NI (a large number of nationalists included) do not want to join with the ROI. Part of the reasons for not wanting it are misguided, imnsho.

Jayop

Unionists as always show double standards. They never shut up about the union and the links with Britain, but how dare anyone voice their equally legitimate desire for a united Ireland. It's amazing.

An Ciarraioch

Finally, some unionist criticism of the DUP:

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/the-dup-needs-to-be-talking-to-varadkar-not-putting-the-boot-into-him-1-8295077/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Jayop

Some critique but coming from a leave supporter it rings a bit hollow. What on earth did he expect to happen in the event of a leave vote passing?

Avatar MIA

Jayop wrote: »

Some critique but coming from a leave supporter it rings a bit hollow. What on earth did he expect to happen in the event of a leave vote passing?

As he pointed out, agitating and wanting are two separate things. Although, in Kane's case (not a politician) he probably genuinely wanted it.

Jayop

Avatar MIA wrote: »

As he pointed out, agitating and wanting are two separate things. Although, in Kane's case (not a politician) he probably genuinely wanted it.

That's what I mean. I have no doubt that most of the DUP leadership didn't want it to pass, but someone like Kane I think would have done. What would he have had to gain from it otherwise?

It was an idiotic short sighted position for them to take.


The only fly in that ointment was the ads they took out in the London free papers calling for Brexit. Can't understand that move if they genuinely didn't want it to pass, unless they simply couldn't resist the chance to see themselves as influential in a British stage.

Avatar MIA

Jayop wrote: »

The only fly in that ointment was the ads they took out in the London free papers calling for Brexit. Can't understand that move if they genuinely didn't want it to pass, unless they simply couldn't resist the chance to see themselves as influential in a British stage.

I think, could be wrong, they got cash from a donor specifically for that purpose, but might have dreamed that

Jayop

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I think, could be wrong, they got cash from a donor specifically for that purpose, but might have dreamed that

Oh absolutely, and illegally too and it's another thing they're now trying to cover up. But even so, why risk accepting an illegal donation and campaigning hard for Brexit where it won't benefit them Vs SF/UUP etc if they really didn't want Brexit to go through?

jm08

feargale wrote: »

Your reference to "strange idea" leaves it unclear as to whether you are accusing others of having a strange idea or whether you are being ironic. I will assume the latter.
Do you really think Unionists are so stupid as not to be able to weigh things up for themselves, that they need you to tell them? Part of the problem in the early 1900s was the fact that Ulster industry was so bound up with Britain, especially shipbuilding, and Nationalists made no attempt to address those concerns.
Irish Nationalism has always been afflicted by a considerable degree of self-delusion. Just one example was Collins' (and others') belief that Northern Ireland would not be viable, over one million people twenty kilometres from the neighbouring island. Did these people never hear of Gibraltar or the Falklands?

All they were seeking in the early 1900s was Home Rule (some like they had before the Act of Union).

As for Gibraltar, Falklands and Isle of Man - two of them are geographically strategic and the other is a tax haven.

Del.Monte

jm08 wrote: »

All they were seeking in the early 1900s was Home Rule (some like they had before the Act of Union).

As for Gibraltar, Falklands and Isle of Man - two of them are geographically strategic and the other is a tax haven.

Off topic but Ireland with its IFSC is as much a tax haven as the Isle of Man. As for the DUP supporting Brexit it was genetics over reason. I would have voted leave even with the risk to the break-up of the UK not to mention all the other issues such as the border.

AnGaelach

Del.Monte wrote: »

Off topic but Ireland with its IFSC is as much a tax haven as the Isle of Man. As for the DUP supporting Brexit it was genetics over reason. I would have voted leave even with the risk to the break-up of the UK not to mention all the other issues such as the border.

The IFSC isn't tax haven... Every major European city has a financial centre.

Del.Monte

AnGaelach wrote: »

The IFSC isn't tax haven... Every major European city has a financial centre.

Okay it's a laundry for cash - will that definition do?

Jayop

Del.Monte wrote: »

As for the DUP supporting Brexit it was genetics over reason. I would have voted leave even with the risk to the break-up of the UK not to mention all the other issues such as the border.

I don't get any of this TBH.

An Ciarraioch

Yes, if genetics were the reason, he'd have followed the Scots, and voted Remain.

jm08

Del.Monte wrote: »

Off topic but Ireland with its IFSC is as much a tax haven as the Isle of Man. As for the DUP supporting Brexit it was genetics over reason. I would have voted leave even with the risk to the break-up of the UK not to mention all the other issues such as the border.

I wouldn't agree. Corporate tax rate is 0% in Isle of Man and there very low income tax rates.

An Ciarraioch

So, rather than Direct Rule, the Intergovernmental Conference would kick in if Stormont is suspended - didn't realise it had met before, let alone 18 times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British–Irish_Intergovernmental_Conference

recedite

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So, rather than Direct Rule, the Intergovernmental Conference would kick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British–Irish_Intergovernmental_Conference

Presumably it would still be called "direct rule" though, albeit with a RoI flavour.
Those previous meetings were held during the last period of suspension of Stormont (14 October 2002 – 7 May 2007)

Remind me again, why isn't Stormont suspended right now?
Its coming up to a year now since the executive collapsed, is there a time limit?

An Ciarraioch

recedite wrote: »

Presumably it would still be called "direct rule" though, albeit with a RoI flavour.
Those previous meetings were held during the last period of suspension of Stormont (14 October 2002 – 7 May 2007)

Remind me again, why isn't Stormont suspended right now?
Its coming up to a year now since the executive collapsed, is there a time limit?

Technically, they can keep talking until the term runs out, but judging by Coveney's comments on The Week In Politics, both governments are running out of patience.

feargale

Del.Monte wrote: »

As for the DUP supporting Brexit it was genetics over reason. I would have voted leave even with the risk to the break-up of the UK not to mention all the other issues such as the border.

Oh yes, no doubt a substantial number of DUP supporters voted Brexit simply to copperfasten a hard border. Talk of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face!

Sidey

Jayop wrote: »

The only fly in that ointment was the ads they took out in the London free papers calling for Brexit. Can't understand that move if they genuinely didn't want it to pass, unless they simply couldn't resist the chance to see themselves as influential in a British stage.

And they (and the Tories) sure seem desperate to cover up the source of that cash, eh? And on the flip side too, seeing as most of it seems to have been spent with Cambridge Analytica...which then links onwards to Kushner, Trump and the 2016 Russian meddling in the US election.
You have to wonder what the fallout would be if the DUP turned out to be (witting or unwitting) accomplices in laundering Russian money to interfere in the Brexit vote...

Sidey

recedite wrote: »

Remind me again, why isn't Stormont suspended right now?
Its coming up to a year now since the executive collapsed, is there a time limit?

Most of the other parties seem content to wait until the outcome of the enquiry into the Cash For Ash scandal at this stage in the hope it might soften the DUP's cough a bit. Also very little point in London hosting talks on resuming Stormont pretending to be neutral as usual - except this time their Govt is being explicitly propped up and kept in office by the DUP. It'll take a Westminster election to clear that problem. And of course the various parties probably need some sort of clarity on what the final shape of Brexit will be before they decide how urgent getting Stormont up again actually is.
So that's three very strong reasons for everybody else to sit back and leave it mothballed for now. The only ones looking bad for it not currently functioning, for Norn voters, are the DUP. Let them stew in a mess of their own making.

GalwayMark

Sidey wrote: »

And they (and the Tories) sure seem desperate to cover up the source of that cash, eh? And on the flip side too, seeing as most of it seems to have been spent with Cambridge Analytica...which then links onwards to Kushner, Trump and the 2016 Russian meddling in the US election.
You have to wonder what the fallout would be if the DUP turned out to be (witting or unwitting) accomplices in laundering Russian money to interfere in the Brexit vote...

Proof that Putin's misbehaviour has reached Irish shores and yer one in Fianna Fail calling for a hard border when Conor 'Kebabs' Lenihan has links to the FSB aka russian intelligence possibly influencing others in taking the position on the crossings knowing well it could help the dissos who also happen to be linked with the Russian state through the AGM (Anti Globalization Movement). The russian ambassador should be expelled immmediately if any of this information becomes actual fact.

An Ciarraioch

As the comments below this article state, calls for a "civic unionism" have been around since the Terence O'Neill era, and it's highly unlikely that the DUP would ever move in that direction:

http://eamonnmallie.com/2017/12/lifting-siege-new-unionism-new-northern-ireland-philip-smith-ulster-unionist/

AnGaelach

Has anyone the slightest clue what Leo means by Dublin wanting a meaningful role in the North if Stormont isn't back up and running? I find it quite unlikely that the Conservatives will give any ground to us on northern issues. Fine Gael has definitely replaced SF/FF as the main proponents of Irish interests north and south of the border in this.

An Ciarraioch

AnGaelach wrote: »

Has anyone the slightest clue what Leo means by Dublin wanting a meaningful role in the North if Stormont isn't back up and running? I find it quite unlikely that the Conservatives will give any ground to us on northern issues. Fine Gael has definitely replaced SF/FF as the main proponents of Irish interests north and south of the border in this.

Mostly the Intergovernmental Conference - far from joint authority, more civil servants from both countries administering a limited range of issues, and fully GFA-compliant.

An Ciarraioch

60% of Southerners would back unity even with a €9b annual cost:

https://www.irelandthinks.ie/single-post/2017/12/28/Support-for-a-united-Ireland-dramatically-increases

tomwaterford

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

60% of Southerners would back unity even with a €9b annual cost:

https://www.irelandthinks.ie/single-post/2017/12/28/Support-for-a-united-Ireland-dramatically-increases

40% of southerners would still abandon our fellow countrymen and women in the 6 counties



I wonder how the next poll will show for the north.....a similar result and included the population of nationlists displaced living in the Republic and it'll be damn close to the 50%+1

All will be needed is to like brexit have the remain vote be lazy/not bothered vote and they could damn nearly pull this off.....if stormont reelection are to be held (which technically afaik they should),

SF should push for a border poll in the negotiations in event of a election rerun for stormont.....let brexit worry about itself

Del.Monte

^^^^^^ And we'll all live happily ever after. :rolleyes:

tomwaterford

Del.Monte wrote: »

^^^^^^ And we'll all live happily ever after. :rolleyes:

Reunification has worked out well for Germany



Come to think of it....has reunification worked out badly long term anywhere?

ancapailldorcha

Del.Monte wrote: »

^^^^^^ And we'll all live happily ever after. :rolleyes:

Serious discussion only please.

An Ciarraioch

tomwaterford wrote: »

Reunification has worked out well for Germany



Come to think of it....has reunification worked out badly long term anywhere?

That said, given that 40% of the vote in the former GDR went to either the far-left or the far-right in September, we should hope that the Southern parties would be established in NI somewhat more quickly!

AnGaelach

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

That said, given that 40% of the vote in the former GDR went to either the far-left or the far-right in September, we should hope that the Southern parties would be established in NI somewhat more quickly!

Hardly any worse than 65% of the votes in the North currently going to Provos or Loyalists tbf.

blanch152

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

60% of Southerners would back unity even with a €9b annual cost:

https://www.irelandthinks.ie/single-post/2017/12/28/Support-for-a-united-Ireland-dramatically-increases

Doesn't bode well for unity, as that is before it is explained who will pay - social welfare cuts, taxpayers, public service pay cuts etc.

Once those numbers are clear, the 60% will drop below 40% very quickly.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

who will pay

The British made an utter balls of the north so they're going to help pay to fix it and I would imagine it would become a pet-project of the EU.

Also, you should familiarise yourself with the 'Parade of Horribles' rhetorical device which explains just about every post you make when it comes to your vehement opposition to Irish unification.

We'll be bankrupt.
Unionists will nuke Dublin.
They'll want to parade through your house in Kerry every weekend.
The crops will fail.
The black plague will return,
... and so on.

Jayop

blanch152 wrote: »

Doesn't bode well for unity, as that is before it is explained who will pay - social welfare cuts, taxpayers, public service pay cuts etc.

Once those numbers are clear, the 60% will drop below 40% very quickly.

Lol dream on sun shine. I love how you just decide something is so contrary to all evidence because it suits your twisted logic.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The British made an utter balls of the north so they're going to help pay to fix it and I would imagine it would become a pet-project of the EU.

Also, you should familiarise yourself with the 'Parade of Horribles' rhetorical device which explains just about every post you make when it comes to your vehement opposition to Irish unification.

We'll be bankrupt.
Unionists will nuke Dublin.
They'll want to parade through your house in Kerry every weekend.
The crops will fail.
The black plague will return,
... and so on.

Jayop wrote: »

Lol dream on sun shine. I love how you just decide something is so contrary to all evidence because it suits your twisted logic.

It would be nice if someone would explain to me sometimes how much the social welfare rates will be cut in the South to match the rates in the North, or how much extra the taxpayer in the South is going to have to pay to increase the social welfare rates in the North.

It is simple maths, one or the other, or a combination of both, say 50% of the cost in cuts to Southern social welfare rates and 50% to increases in taxation for Southern taxpayers.

When that question is satisfactorily answered (and not by fantasy economic studies commissioned by Friends of Sinn Fein), then I can be accused of saying the sky is falling down.

Avatar MIA

blanch152 wrote: »

It would be nice if someone would explain to me sometimes how much the social welfare rates will be cut in the South to match the rates in the North, or how much extra the taxpayer in the South is going to have to pay to increase the social welfare rates in the North.

It is simple maths, one or the other, or a combination of both, say 50% of the cost in cuts to Southern social welfare rates and 50% to increases in taxation for Southern taxpayers.

When that question is satisfactorily answered (and not by fantasy economic studies commissioned by Friends of Sinn Fein), then I can be accused of saying the sky is falling down.

First of all those on SW don't tend to vote, and so won't matter much from a constitutional decision POV.

However, I would say those in the North East would have to come up to same level as the rest of the country. This may be phased, as the integration of the NE as a whole may be.

blanch152

Avatar MIA wrote: »

First of all those on SW don't tend to vote, and so won't matter much from a constitutional decision POV.

However, I would say those in the North East would have to come up to same level as the rest of the country. This may be phased, as the integration of the NE as a whole may be.

So the taxpayer in the South will pay with increased taxation rates, glad that was cleared up.

Avatar MIA

blanch152 wrote: »

So the taxpayer in the South will pay with increased taxation rates, glad that was cleared up.

You've jumped to conclusions, but it's one possibility.

You're ruling out that over time (I mentioned a phasing) NI's economy could be turned around and made productive. As it stands there's a huge brain drain from NI. Do you concede this?

Do you think it's possible that there's huge potential in the NE?

Junkyard Tom

Avatar MIA wrote: »

You're ruling out that over time (I mentioned a phasing) NI's economy could be turned around and made productive.

As I would see it the NE would remain largely as is save for a change of currency to euro, harmonisation of personal taxes, VAT, corporate tax and so on.

When the NE's economy grew to alignment with the the rest of the country we could look at a harmonisation/hybridisation of services except for perhaps the PSNI which we could leave under devolved-from-Dublin control to keep Unionists happy.

One thing is for sure a UI wouldn't be an overnight assimilation, it could take decades to complete.

Avatar MIA

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

it could take decades to complete.

I would hope it would be a lot shorter. It would be in the UK's and the EU's interest for it to work out, and a lot sooner than that.

Junkyard Tom

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I would hope it would be a lot shorter. It would be in the UK's and the EU's interest for it to work out, and a lot sooner than that.

I guess what I mean is that it could take decades for full normalisation to bed in rather than decades to harmonise the country institutionally/bureaucratically.