Does opposing a United Ireland automatically make you unpatriotic?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, let's say we have a timescale of 10 years until a UI happens. Do you think dramatic changes could be made to a public service in 10 years with a minimum of pain?

with a minimum of pain? no, i dont. make people unemployed in an economy as bad as northern irelands is just condemning them to a life on the dole or emigration.

ohnonotgmail

maryishere wrote: »

Whataboutery. At least other MPs, TDs and elected politicians do not wear silly things / slogans on their head on the anniversary of loyalist atrocities eg Greysteele.

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein need to take a lead on this.

They are all talk about reconciliation and opening up to the other community but protecting McElduff after what he did gives a lie to this sentiment. Pure hypocrisy again from the party most adept at it.

they are still trying to imply that it was just a coincidence. they think people are pure thick.

FrancieBrady

Discodog wrote: »

SF could do this now & show a lead. Lead by example.

Well, they have done more than most. They have condemned and apologised for what he did. And they took immediate action to suspend him.

I know people want blood, but in my opinion there is nothing to suggest what he did was malicious. He has a record of this silly carry on and fully admits that this one backfired and hurt victims.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

with a minimum of pain? no, i dont. make people unemployed in an economy as bad as northern irelands is just condemning them to a life on the dole or emigration.

Well, I think, given time, any company can be rationalised without causing massive undue pain. The public service is no different.
And if time needs to be given, so be it.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, I think, given time, any company can be rationalised without causing massive undue pain. The public service is no different.
And if time needs to be given, so be it.

the public service is very different from a regular company. to think otherwise is just wishful thinking. why dont we give it 40 years? I'll probably be dead by then. or beyond caring if i'm not .

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the public service is very different from a regular company. to think otherwise is just wishful thinking. why dont we give it 40 years? I'll probably be dead by then. or beyond caring if i'm not .

I could be persuaded to wait that long if the transition would be smoother but we need a decision on it soon, before NI descends further.
I wouldn't be as selfish as you, I care about what the future holds for my offspring.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, I think, given time, any company can be rationalised without causing massive undue pain. The public service is no different.
And if time needs to be given, so be it.

What a joke......

Have a look again at this graph......



You really think that the Republic didn't endure any pain to get from the peak in 2010 to where we are now?

And NI would be starting from a higher and more persistent level of deficit.

Just when you think Shinnernomics has plumbed the absolute depths of fantasy, something like this comes up - that you can somehow plug a deficit equivalent of 25% of GDP in an economy almost 50% dependent on public spending without causing pain :D:D:D

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I could be persuaded to wait that long if the transition would be smoother but we need a decision on it soon, before NI descends further.
I wouldn't be as selfish as you, I care about what the future holds for my offspring.

so we need to unite now with the north before it becomes a bigger basket case? you're really selling it.

ohnonotgmail

Jawgap wrote: »

What a joke......

Have a look again at this graph......



You really think that the Republic didn't endure any pain to get from the peak in 2010 to where we are now?

And NI would be starting from a higher and more persistent level of deficit.

Just when you think Shinnernomics has plumbed the absolute depths of fantasy, something like this comes up - that you can somehow plug a deficit equivalent of 25% of GDP in an economy almost 50% dependent on public spending without causing pain :D:D:D

they can just punitively tax the rich. rich being defined as anybody who earns more than SF think is right.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

What a joke......

Have a look again at this graph......



You really think that the Republic didn't endure any pain to get from the peak in 2010 to where we are now?

And NI would be starting from a higher and more persistent level of deficit.

Just when you think Shinnernomics has plumbed the absolute depths of fantasy, something like this comes up - that you can somehow plug a deficit equivalent of 25% of GDP in an economy almost 50% dependent on public spending without causing pain :D:D:D

Where did I say that the south's problems were fixed without pain???

What I said was,(why do I have to keep doing this) the public service in NI could be (it has to be) fixed, given time, over a given period of time. (decide for yourself how long it would take) with a MINIMUM of pain.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not an economist, expert or amateur, but shouldn't the figure being bandied about(we have seen 8bn 9bn 10bn and 12 bn mentioned here. Why 11bn wasn't, I am not sure, maybe it doesn't sound scary enough) not be the figure arrived at when you subtract contributions to central UK expenditure?

What is the breakdown of that figure, what is not needed?
What can be achieved by streamlining/rationalising NI's public service.
Why is it that the subvention has risen dramatically since the GFA, almost 4bn I think since the mid 90's.

So many things that cannot be answered or supplied here. Can you explain that dramatic rise in the subvention since the mid 90's?

That is the figure less the contributions - it is a fiscal deficit, not a notional one.

From the NI Assembly's Research and Information Sevice

......the Budget describes the NI fiscal deficit as follows:
The taxes generated within Northern Ireland are considerably less than the level of funding received from HM Treasury.

This shortfall is known as the fiscal deficit and in 2011-12 it was estimated to be £9.6 billion.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so we need to unite now with the north before it becomes a bigger basket case? you're really selling it.

Eh?

In the event of a vote, are you under the delusion that a UI will happen overnight? More scare stuff. Of course it won't, a timescale will have to be arrived at.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did I say that the south's problems were fixed without pain???

What I said was,(why do I have to keep doing this) the public service in NI could be (it has to be) fixed, given time, over a given period of time. (decide for yourself how long it would take) with a MINIMUM of pain.

how could they do this? you have thought this through then?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

That is the figure less the contributions - it is a fiscal deficit, not a notional one.

From the NI Assembly's Research and Information Sevice

As I said, we need much much more detail than a graph.

As a matter of interest, why the massive rise since the GFA? Do you know?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Eh?

In the event of a vote, are you under the delusion that a UI will happen overnight? More scare stuff. Of course it won't, a timescale will have to be arrived at.

go and fix the problems in the north and then talk about a united ireland. a united ireland will not fix those problems. until then the discussion is nonsense.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did I say that the south's problems were fixed without pain???

What I said was,(why do I have to keep doing this) the public service in NI could be (it has to be) fixed, given time, over a given period of time. (decide for yourself how long it would take) with a MINIMUM of pain.

So, how much to make 50% of public servants redundant - to bring public numbers into line with the Republic?

Plus, we don't need to wait for a UI for this to happen - Stormont could start now. It could put its big boy pants on, start cutting the deficit - which would reduce the block grant by the half billion or so required to get control of Corporation Tax - slash the rate of tax then reap some benefit from the growth that will bring......you don't need a UI to do that, just politicians interested in governing instead of grandstanding.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, we need much much more detail than a graph.

As a matter of interest, why the massive rise since the GFA? Do you know?

yes.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how could they do this? you have thought this through then?

Early retirement incentives, no new recruitment, moving people who wish to go. And also, unfortunately, redundancies, which are going to happen anyway.
On top of that there is no particular reason that NI cannot become more productive, in agriculture and manufacturing. Investment and incentives will bring changes too.

The system has to change, we all agree on that. These things need to be done anyway if NI is not to get worse.

gozunda

Does opposing a United Ireland automatically make you unpatriotic?

Would that be a political question?

Bridge93

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they can just punitively tax the rich. rich being defined as anybody who earns more than SF think is right.

This is the problem. In one sense they may be right. Our super rich could potentially be higher taxed as they pay less than a lot of countries.

The issue is Sinn Fein seem deluded as to how many people actually exist in this wealth bracket and the money they will contribute. Taxing them more won't fill any shortage they feel there is and may drive them off these shores.

They won't do it as it's the majority of their vote but if Sinn Fein want to increase government revenue to fund projects like this they need to be looking at the other end of the income ladder. We've one of the narrowest tax bases in the world. An enormous amount of working people pay no income tax at all.

This squeezes the middle and high earners hard and creates an entitlement among some low earners that the govt need provide everything for them while they contribute next to nothing. We hear a lot of complaints about equality in Irish society but that's not fair either. In most other countries everyone contributes no matter how small the amount is.

We don't have the money to support a unification until either the North sorts its house out or we start generating huge amounts of new revenue to pump in

FrancieBrady

I am out of the economic discussion here by the way. Totally off topic. There is a thread in Politics discussing this already.

suicide_circus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Early retirement incentives, no new recruitment, moving people who wish to go. And also, unfortunately, redundancies, which are going to happen anyway.
On top of that there is no particular reason that NI cannot become more productive, in agriculture and manufacturing. Investment and incentives will bring changes too.

The system has to change, we all agree on that. These things need to be done anyway if NI is not to get worse.

Do you think the Irish government can achieve any of the above? Really? Look at the HSE for an example of a civil bureaucracy in the republic that is in desperate need of change. It is in a permanent state of chaos. Numbers of administrative staff rise as the number of frontline staff falls. It is a basket case which no one has the first clue how to fix. Youre talking about removing all funding from the entire NI public service, transitioning to funding from the republic (show me the money!) while also managing monumental systematic changes including mass redundancies. Are you completely off your rocker???!

Bridge93

Another thing I'd like to see if this was to go to a vote is an absolute resolution not just a vote for simple majority. This is too devisive and has too many potential social ramifications to be simply 50.1%. Again Brexit would show us what can happen but the ill feeling could be ten times worse here.

I've no idea if that's actually possible though or whether simple majority is the only allowable method

suicide_circus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am out of the economic discussion here by the way. Totally off topic. There is a thread in Politics discussing this already.

Good move.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Early retirement incentives, no new recruitment, moving people who wish to go. And also, unfortunately, redundancies, which are going to happen anyway.
On top of that there is no particular reason that NI cannot become more productive, in agriculture and manufacturing. Investment and incentives will bring changes too.

The system has to change, we all agree on that. These things need to be done anyway if NI is not to get worse.

Tesco vouchers? or would that cost real money to pay people off then pay their pensions?

Moving people who wish to go? Moving them where?

Redundancies? Won't there be redundancy payments in the Shinner UI or will people just be happy to leave for the sake of the country?

Investment? Who is going to fund it? Do we borrow or fund from any surpluses? And what about opportunity costs - what are we going to forego to pay for NI's economic re-structuring?

......and why can't all that be done before there is any vote on a UI? Why can't that process start tomorrow?

markodaly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is unpatriotic about opposing something that would destroy your country. You sound like a brexiteer.

The more I see this topic being debated, the more convinced I am that those advocating for a United Ireland draw from the same gene pool as idiotic Brexiteers.

Brexit was essentialy a draw to populism and nationalism in the romantic nostalgic setting.

See the talk about re-uniting Ireland, when Ireland was never united in the first place under Irish rule.
See the talk about being unpatriotic if you go against an aim in the Constitution.
See the lack of data for the economic argument, just like Brexit random figures are banded about.

Just like Brexit, we are faced with an argument that states we will sort it all out after a vote, not to worry at all.

Thankfully we see a trial run with that sort of thinking. We are seeing how hard Brexit negotiations are in the real world. Nevermind seeing how the UK economy will react to it over the next 10.

So, Shinnerbots can spout away, as they can be easily ignored.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

The more I see this topic being debated, the more convinced I am that those advocating for a United Ireland draw from the same gene pool as idiotic Brexiteers.

Brexit was essentialy a draw to populism and nationalism in the romantic nostalgic setting.

See the talk about re-uniting Ireland, when Ireland was never united in the first place under Irish rule.
See the talk about being unpatriotic if you go against an aim in the Constitution.
See the lack of data for the economic argument, just like Brexit random figures are banded about.

Just like Brexit, we are faced with an argument that states we will sort it all out after a vote, not to worry at all.

Thankfully we see a trial run with that sort of thinking. We are seeing how hard Brexit negotiations are in the real world. Nevermind seeing how the UK economy will react to it over the next 10.

So, Shinnerbots can spout away, as they can be easily ignored.

What absolute rubbish>

Ireland was always an island of homogeneous people until it was invaded and planted in order to subdue the natives.
The Irish were not allowed to rule it for themselves from that point. That doesn't remove the fact that they were one island and one people.

Maybe a bit of knowledge and respect for your own history would be appropiate here.

Regarding Brexit, is the lesson there that you cannot partition something away from it's lifeline without destroying it?
Because that is what the partition of this island did, destroyed northern Ireland, socially and economically. Or will you try and deny that too or blame the Shinners. :rolleyes:

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What absolute rubbish>

Ireland was always an island of homogeneous people until it was invaded and planted in order to subdue the natives.
The Irish were not allowed to rule it for themselves from that point. That doesn't remove the fact that they were one island and one people.

Maybe a bit of knowledge and respect for your own history would be appropiate here.

Regarding Brexit, is the lesson there that you cannot partition something away from it's lifeline without destroying it?
Because that is what the partition of this island did, destroyed northern Ireland, socially and economically. Or will you try and deny that too or blame the Shinners. :rolleyes:

Exhibit A:

A call to a romantic nostalgic non-historical and non-factual view on the history of Ireland.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Exhibit A:

A call to a romantic nostalgic non-historical and non-factual view on the history of Ireland.

What is not factual and non historical?

baylah17

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What absolute rubbish>

Ireland was always an island of homogeneous people until it was invaded and planted in order to subdue the natives. NOT TRUE, it was loose association of kingdoms and clans.
The Irish were not allowed to rule it for themselves from that point. That doesn't remove the fact that they were one island and one people.

Maybe a bit of knowledge and respect for your own history would be appropiate here. You should try that yourself

:rolleyes:

FFS with the made up history.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is not factual and non historical?

The romantic narrative about down trodden Ireland fighting against foreign invaders. Ireland was never a homogenous entity, never.

baylah17

markodaly wrote: »

The romantic narrative about down trodden Ireland fighting against foreign invaders. Ireland was never a homogenous entity, never.

But but but what about the four green fields ...
ah for the love of Finn McKool ya cant be forgettin the four green fields
lol

maccored

Does opposing a United Ireland automatically make you unpatriotic?

i can't see how it could. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

The romantic narrative about down trodden Ireland fighting against foreign invaders. Ireland was never a homogenous entity, never.

isn't it more about making the country more profitable in reality? Its nothing to do with romantic narratives

markodaly

maccored wrote: »

isn't it more about making the country more profitable in reality? Its nothing to do with romantic narratives

Perhaps, in the long run. But how do we get there, no one seems to have an answer for that.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

The romantic narrative about down trodden Ireland fighting against foreign invaders. Ireland was never a homogenous entity, never.

I didn't say anything about that. You are a serial mis-quoter at this stage.

We were as homogeneous as any island people anywhere.

What were the differences among us if we were not? Was there a different race living in Clare than there was in Wicklow or Tyrone?

jimmycrackcorm

markodaly wrote:

See the talk about re-uniting Ireland, when Ireland was never united in the first place under Irish rule. See the talk about being unpatriotic if you go against an aim in the Constitution. See the lack of data for the economic argument, just like Brexit random figures are banded about.

Works you argue that Scotland or Wales themselves are not united at present? If Scotland have another independence referendum, is there a part of it that could or should stay in the UK?

Discodog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, they have done more than most. They have condemned and apologised for what he did. And they took immediate action to suspend him.

I know people want blood, but in my opinion there is nothing to suggest what he did was malicious. He has a record of this silly carry on and fully admits that this one backfired and hurt victims.

You pulled one line of of my post & ignored the rest which isn't above board. You should quote the whole post & highlight the point.

Have they taken down flags, murals etc ? Have they totally & utterly condemned the actions of the IRA ? No because they can't. Real Peacemakers lead & take chances.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We were as homogeneous as any island people anywhere.

I have Viking blood in me, as well as French Norman blood. Our patron saint is Brit for crying out loud. Homogenous we weren't and aren't.

The onus is on you to prove it otherwise, preferably backed by some evidence not just your own words.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

I have Viking blood in me, as well as French Norman blood. Our patron saint is Brit for crying out loud. Homogenous we weren't and aren't.

The onus is on you to prove it otherwise, preferably backed by some evidence not just your own words.

So the people living here were a collection of individuals? Righty ho, we'll leave it there.

maccored

markodaly wrote: »

Perhaps, in the long run. But how do we get there, no one seems to have an answer for that.

we cant get there without discussion. SF had a green paper on this and tried to get discussions going on it. People prefer to waffle on about how much its going to cost - without having an idea of a plan

ohnonotgmail

maccored wrote: »

we cant get there without discussion. SF had a green paper on this and tried to get discussions going on it. People prefer to waffle on about how much its going to cost - without having an idea of a plan

did the sinn fein green paper have a plan? an actually costed plan?

FrancieBrady

Discodog wrote: »

You pulled one line of of my post & ignored the rest which isn't above board. You should quote the whole post & highlight the point.

Eh? I quoted the entire post.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105780164&postcount=398

Have they taken down flags, murals etc ? Have they totally & utterly condemned the actions of the IRA ? No because they can't. Real Peacemakers lead & take chances.

SF haven't worked for the peace that NI currently enjoys? Adams and McGuinness didn't take risks?
I think in all honesty, that is one of the most unfair assessments I have read on here tbh.
The IRA went away when a deal was reached. And those two worked hard to achieve that and to maintain the peace in very difficult times.
They are not perfect but they cannot be accused of standing still.

There is great work going on on the mural projects by the way, to remove their inflammatory and triumphalist natures.
The flying of flags issue has been tackled too, to make it inline with normal practice elsewhere.

Bridge93

The more I look at it, at the current state of play, anyone who is anti Brexit and pro unification of Ireland is contradicting themselves. Some might even call it hypocritical

Boulevardier

I strongly support Irish unification, but in way that is likely to have me branded in some quarters as not only unpatriotic, but also treasonable.

I believe the best way to unite Ireland would be to ditch republicanism and to re-constitute Ireland as a self-governing dominion within the Commonwealth.

That way, the British identity of the unionist community would be not only recognised, but incorporated in the new Ireland. And we would be united and independent.

However the nationalist majority won't have it. They demand the full panoply of tribal republicanism, however long it puts off unity. They will eventually get their way by out-breeding the Protestants, which for them is unity enough.

FrancieBrady

Boulevardier wrote: »

I strongly support Irish unification, but in way that is likely to have me branded in some quarters as not only unpatriotic, but also treasonable.

I believe the best way to unite Ireland would be to ditch republicanism and to re-constitute Ireland as a self-governing dominion within the Commonwealth.

That way, the British identity of the unionist community would be not only recognised, but incorporated in the new Ireland. And we would be united and independent.

However the nationalist majority won't have it. They demand the full panoply of tribal republicanism, however long it puts off unity. They will eventually get their way by out-breeding the Protestants, which for them is unity enough.

I think nationalists are asking for the corollary of your proposal.
I see nothing in the south for Unionist identity to fear.

Interesting though that you expect nationalists to ditch their identities to appease unionists who you say are becoming a minority.

Bridge93

The last thing I ever want to see is Ireland go back under the commonwealth that has more blood and dirt on its hands than any empire in history. To give those 'Little England' **** who in part voted for brexit what they want would be unforgivable to those in charge at the time.

As a country we're doing better than we ever did as part of the commonwealth. We should never return to being some provincial backwater of the empire. Reinstall a monarchy that abused and humiliated this country as our head of state? No thanks

Apart from appeasing a group of people who make up about 1/7 of the population of the island there are no benefits to rejoining the commonwealth.

Discodog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think nationalists are asking for the corollary of your proposal.
I see nothing in the south for Unionist identity to fear.

Interesting though that you expect nationalists to ditch their identities to appease unionists who you say are becoming a minority.

NHS for one.

Boulevardier

Yes, we nationalists would ditch part of our identity, but for a very great prize, a united and independent Ireland.

Arthur Griffith stood for something like I describe.

The alternative, as preferred by Bridge93, is to remain pure, unsullied and partitioned.

FrancieBrady

Discodog wrote: »

NHS for one.

Only Unionists use the NHS?. The NHS is part of your identity????