Border Poll discussion

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those three words again 'I had no idea'.


Willie Frazer has been connected with loyalist paramilitaries several times.

You have not provided a shred of evidence about him being an paramilitary. Indeed I find the unsubstantiated allegations a bit concerning.
A bit of hearsay may be enough for you but I have learnt not to trust hearsay.
It is interesting that you use this bit of hearsay to try and justify the blocking of a victims parade in Dublin.
Can you not just say Dublin is not quite as open and accepting as you would like it to be and would there struggle to accept northern unionists into its fold.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You have not provided a shred of evidence about him being an paramilitary. Indeed I find the unsubstantiated allegations a bit concerning.
A bit of hearsay may be enough for you but I have learnt not to trust hearsay.
It is interesting that you use this bit of hearsay to try and justify the blocking of a victims parade in Dublin.
Can you not just say Dublin is not quite as open and accepting as you would like it to be and would there struggle to accept northern unionists into its fold.

I didn't say he was a paramilitary, I said he was 'connected with paramilitaries'. By a member of the Gardai in sworn testimony and when he was refused a private weapon licence by a chief inspector of the RUC.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

I've said before that absent Brexit I'd need serious convincing about the merits of a UI. With a hard Brexit the story changes radically for me as I voted for the GFA and a hard border is anathema to that, but I wonder how low the threshold is for the posters who would be more in favour of unification right now.

Would you accept say 5k a year less in your pocket? Would you be happy to push that burden on others who may not be so financially comfortable?

What is your top price you'd be willing to pay for a UI personally? Everyone has their price. You can't live on fresh air.

No takers from the non-partitionists? :P

What would be too expensive a price for you or your friends/family to bear?

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

No takers from the non-partitionists? :P

What would be too expensive a price for you or your friends/family to bear?

I'm not convinced that this is a very meaningful or realistic question. What price are you prepared to pay to achieve any desirable social or political outcome? What price are you currently actually paying to acheive some goal and, given the choice, would you choose not to pay it? What's the cost, for example, of keeping Connacht in the Republic of Ireland with the same tax, benefit, spending, etc rules that apply in the rest of the country? What price are you paying, and what increased price would you be prepared to pay, to protect vulnerable children? To provide care to the frail and infirm? To provide social and economic inclusion to people affected by disablity? What price, for that matter, would you pay, or are you actually paying, to sustain partition? Would you pay more? How much more?

These questions all have financial implications that need to be addressed, but ultimately they are all about justice and solidarity, and they can't be reduced to commercial transactions. Attempts to do so just trivialise them in ways that are quite disparaging of those affected by the issues involved.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not convinced that this is a very meaningful or realistic question. What price are you prepared to pay to achieve any desirable social or political outcome? What price are you currently actually paying to acheive some goal and, given the choice, would you choose not to pay it? What's the cost, for example, of keeping Connacht in the Republic of Ireland with the same tax, benefit, spending, etc rules that apply in the rest of the country? What price are you paying, and what increased price would you be prepared to pay, to protect vulnerable children? To provide care to the frail and infirm? To provide social and economic inclusion to people affected by disablity? What price, for that matter, would you pay, or are you actually paying, to sustain partition? Would you pay more? How much more?

These questions all have financial implications that need to be addressed, but ultimately they are all about justice and solidarity, and they can't be reduced to commercial transactions. Attempts to do so just trivialise them in ways that are quite disparaging of those affected by the issues involved.

Spot on.
What will win a border poll will not be the back and forth on 'price' but ultimately minds will be made up on the basis of other reasons. In the south, I don't think people will abandon the people of the north when asked especially when a majority vote for it. And especially if the DUP and the Tories lead them out of the EU against their will, the perfect scenario for The UK and fundamentalist unionism to do what they want again.

Avatar MIA

murphaph wrote: »

No takers from the non-partitionists? :P

5k is complete bollox. Why entertain dribble?

downcow

murphaph wrote: »

No takers from the non-partitionists? :P

What would be too expensive a price for you or your friends/family to bear?

Its a good question, but don't hold your breath for answers from the Pro-UI lobby. They will duck and dive on this one.
I see the procrastinations rolling in already, ironically many from the same people who have been saying UK will chuck NI because its costing too much, and how could you support Brexit when you don't know what it will cost, etc, etc. And naming figures may be rediculous to some posters here on UI issue but same folk have no problem with figures bandying about on No-deal Brexit.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I can't understand how SF are getting away with calling for a border poll without telling us how we will all be impacted and what are rights will be etc. I suppose they could always send a big red bus aroung Ireland in the weeks leading up to a poll!

Avatar MIA

downcow wrote: »

Its a good question, but don't hold your breath for answers from the Pro-UI lobby. They will duck and dive on this one.
I see the procrastinations rolling in already, ironically many from the same people who have been saying UK will chuck NI because its costing too much, and how could you support Brexit when you don't know what it will cost, etc, etc. And naming figures may be rediculous to some posters here on UI issue but same folk have no problem with figures bandying about on No-deal Brexit.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I can't understand how SF are getting away with calling for a border poll without telling us how we will all be impacted and what are rights will be etc. I suppose they could always send a big red bus aroung Ireland in the weeks leading up to a poll!

As discussed previously the £10b per annum figure has been discredited and I don't mean by SF (and you know that, but would be happy to reference just to continue to muddy the waters).

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Its a good question, but don't hold your breath for answers from the Pro-UI lobby. They will duck and dive on this one.
I see the procrastinations rolling in already, ironically many from the same people who have been saying UK will chuck NI because its costing too much, and how could you support Brexit when you don't know what it will cost, etc, etc. And naming figures may be rediculous to some posters here on UI issue but same folk have no problem with figures bandying about on No-deal Brexit.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I can't understand how SF are getting away with calling for a border poll without telling us how we will all be impacted and what are rights will be etc. I suppose they could always send a big red bus aroung Ireland in the weeks leading up to a poll!

Well for me, the biggest negative impact of Brexit has always been what it will do to society.

The UK is riven apart by it and may not even survive. While the break-up of the UK doesn't particularly bother me, the people caught in the middle and unable to protect themselves in the social unrest and austerity will be the worst affected. A bit like those in the north, dominated for decades by religious discrimination and sectarian social policies in housing and education.

FrancieBrady

Avatar MIA wrote: »

As discussed previously the £10b per annum figure has been discredited and I don't mean by SF (and you know that, but would be happy to reference just to continue to muddy the waters).

Wait until the rest of the UK start asking Unionists what price is too high for them to stay in the UK?
That question, if not being asked already (the DUP taking the billion from Theresa has focused attention on the cost of the north to the UK taxpayer) will certainly come into sharp focus after Brexit or a partial brexit or whatever they can salvage from this.
The statement today by the north's top civil servant shows how much more the north is going to cost the UK taxpayer if Brexit happens.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0305/1034536-brexit-warning/

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not convinced that this is a very meaningful or realistic question. What price are you prepared to pay to achieve any desirable social or political outcome? What price are you currently actually paying to acheive some goal and, given the choice, would you choose not to pay it? What's the cost, for example, of keeping Connacht in the Republic of Ireland with the same tax, benefit, spending, etc rules that apply in the rest of the country? What price are you paying, and what increased price would you be prepared to pay, to protect vulnerable children? To provide care to the frail and infirm? To provide social and economic inclusion to people affected by disablity? What price, for that matter, would you pay, or are you actually paying, to sustain partition? Would you pay more? How much more?

These questions all have financial implications that need to be addressed, but ultimately they are all about justice and solidarity, and they can't be reduced to commercial transactions. Attempts to do so just trivialise them in ways that are quite disparaging of those affected by the issues involved.

I have to disagree with your analysis. Children living in poverty can't be compared with NI remaining in the UK. The border for me and the vast majority of citizens both in Ireland and Northern Ireland poses no problem worth spending billions on. Hard Brexit is a different matter but assuming the border remains as it is you really can't assign equivalence to child poverty and unification.

Connaught is already part of the state. It's not an option to remove it but it is an option for NI to continue with its existing constitutional position, for me at least.

A hard Brexit is a different kettle of fish.

murphaph

Avatar MIA wrote: »

5k is complete bollox. Why entertain dribble?

I take it from your rather ignorant answer that 5k would be too expensive for you.

Sam Russell

The NI budget (GB£17 billion) passed in an empty chamber with little debate.

Class quote from DUP.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-47462764

The DUP MP Jim Shannon used his speech to talk about the lack of devolution.

"The people of Northern Ireland have had the bare minimum for too long," said the Strangford representative.

Perhaps the DUP might do something about it.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I have to disagree with your analysis. Children living in poverty can't be compared with NI remaining in the UK. The border for me and the vast majority of citizens both in Ireland and Northern Ireland poses no problem worth spending billions on. Hard Brexit is a different matter but assuming the border remains as it is you really can't assign equivalence to child poverty and unification.

Connaught is already part of the state. It's not an option to remove it but it is an option for NI to continue with its existing constitutional position, for me at least.

A hard Brexit is a different kettle of fish.

I think you are being disingenuous here. The point was that we absorb all sorts of expense and cost in our daily lives because we have a sense of duty and care for everyone on the island. We are programmed that way, as if we weren't nobody would pay for anything and we would be just individuals looking after number one.
The fact is we are not, we see ourselves as a homogeneous group called the 'Irish' and we are willing to pay for that and of course benefit from it too.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you are being disingenuous here. The point was that we absorb all sorts of expense and cost in our daily lives because we have a sense of duty and care for everyone on the island. We are programmed that way, as if we weren't nobody would pay for anything and we would be just individuals looking after number one.
The fact is we are not, we see ourselves as a homogeneous group called the 'Irish' and we are willing to pay for that and of course benefit from it too.

YOU are perhaps willing to pay 5k a year more for some nebulous benefit. I'm not being disingenuous. I wouldn't pay that much for a UI when there are actual social issues in Ireland that could benefit in real terms from such spending. Removing a line on a map between two EU member states is simply not as important to me as having a world class health service or whatever.

It's actually a sh!tty thing that you did there Francie. You are trying in a not so subtle way to make out that I don't give a sh!t about fellow citizens. I do, but my priorities are different to yours.

Dytalus

downcow wrote: »

Its a good question, but don't hold your breath for answers from the Pro-UI lobby. They will duck and dive on this one.
I see the procrastinations rolling in already, ironically many from the same people who have been saying UK will chuck NI because its costing too much, and how could you support Brexit when you don't know what it will cost, etc, etc. And naming figures may be rediculous to some posters here on UI issue but same folk have no problem with figures bandying about on No-deal Brexit.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I can't understand how SF are getting away with calling for a border poll without telling us how we will all be impacted and what are rights will be etc. I suppose they could always send a big red bus aroung Ireland in the weeks leading up to a poll!

It's not so much 'ducking and diving' as 'difficult to answer'.

Speaking for myself: As with a lot of things to do with the State and taxes, it's a balancing act. Would I be happy with paying a higher tax for reunification? Certainly, depending on the circumstances. At the height of the recession we didn't have some drastic 5% tax increase, so I don't see why we'd have the same for re-unification. But 1-2% I could deal with...depending on the circumstances (personally I think there are better ways to increase our tax intake, but that's a wholly other topic).

Is there a plan in place similar to Ireland 2040 for development of NI with a view to improving its economy? Is there a Hard Border? Is there violence, and is there reason to believe that re-unification would bring it to an end (or at least lessen it)? Did a very large majority of the population vote for it in NI, or did it squeeze through by the skin of its teeth? What are the costs of partition vs unification? Would any tax hike (or spending cut) in the Republic have a defined end point or is it indefinite? How much would it effect our EU Funding (I'd imagine the net effect would make us net beneficiaries again, but I'd want to know for certain)?

I'd be perfectly happy to take a lifestyle hit, and I definitely don't have tons of cash to throw around. But it depends on a huge variety of factors on how much I'd be willing to stomach (if any at all). Re-unification that passed by a 2% margin, with no plan for reformation of the NI economy and public sector, in a brexit that leaves the border exactly as it is now? Probably wouldn't go for it. Shift any of those things towards the opposite end of the spectrum and my willingness would increase with them.

Avatar MIA

murphaph wrote: »

I take it from your rather ignorant answer that 5k would be too expensive for you.

Don't worry about me I could personally afford it. But, it would not be affordable for the majority of the people, but luckily the 5k per annum figure is bogus.

Where does it even come from - 10b divided by 2m workers?

Now, where do you get the 10b from? Can you substantiate the make up of this figure? If not, leave the debate to the grown ups.

Dytalus

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Don't worry about me I could personally afford it. But, it would not be affordable for the majority of the people, but luckily the 5k per annum figure is bogus.

Where does it even come from - 10b divided by 2m workers?

Now, where do you get the 10b from? Can you substantiate the make up of this figure? If not, leave the debate to the grown ups.

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant an 'average' of 5k per personworker. Our taxes are progressive so it would be kind of obtuse to assume it would be a flat 5k per person. I could just about handle it, and I live pretty frugaly without much in the way of expenses outside of rent and food. It'd be rather silly of the government to impose it on people earning less than I am.

Avatar MIA

Dytalus wrote: »

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant an 'average' of 5k per person. Our taxes are progressive so it would be kind of obtuse to assume it would be a flat 5k per person. I could just about handle it, and I live pretty frugaly without much in the way of expenses outside of rent and food. It'd be rather silly of the government to impose it on people earning less than I am.

I'm assuming he means €5k per worker. If it was €5k per person it'd be well over €20b per year. But, shur, that figure is just as plausible.

Dytalus

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I'm assuming he means €5k per worker. If it was €5k per person it'd be well over €20b per year. But, shur, that figure is just as plausible.

Yes...that is what I meant to write, but I am an idiot. ._.

Thanks for pointing it out, post edited. I do think the full €10b is...unlikely, but I understand where they're coming from. There's no hard evidence we won't be paying all of it (and there probably won't be until a border poll is called for), so it's natural to assume we will. As unlikely as it is, in these kind of scenarios there is a certain kind of sense to assuming (and preparing for) the worst.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Avatar MIA wrote: »

5k is complete bollox. Why entertain dribble?

murphaph wrote: »

I take it from your rather ignorant answer that 5k would be too expensive for you.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

If not, leave the debate to the grown ups.

Hi folks. Let's keep it civil.

Thank you

Avatar MIA

Dytalus wrote: »

Thanks for pointing it out, post edited. I do think the full €10b is...unlikely, but I understand where they're coming from. There's no hard evidence we won't be paying all of it (and there probably won't be until a border poll is called for), so it's natural to assume we will. As unlikely as it is, in these kind of scenarios there is a certain kind of sense to assuming (and preparing for) the worst.

We paid €20b in Income Tax in 2017. So based on the €10b figure each worker would need to pay an extra 50%. Assuming no other indirect taxes were increased (unlikely).

However, to get to the 10b figure, are we going to continue to pay for Trident? Is the UI going to invade Afghanistan? The 10b figure is made up of NI's share of a lot of things a UI would not engage in. As for the pensions - as is the case currently pensions will continue to be paid to those citizens that paid into them.

Eventually, a 7m population will be more economically beneficial than 5m.

Sam Russell

Dytalus wrote: »

Yes...that is what I meant to write, but I am an idiot. ._.

Thanks for pointing it out, post edited. I do think the full €10b is...unlikely, but I understand where they're coming from. There's no hard evidence we won't be paying all of it (and there probably won't be until a border poll is called for), so it's natural to assume we will. As unlikely as it is, in these kind of scenarios there is a certain kind of sense to assuming (and preparing for) the worst.

The question of pensions is important.

Anyone who retires in the UK get a state pension (social welfare) if they qualify - and that is paid irrespective of where they live. I know someone who has lived in Ireland for 40 years and gets a UK pension. His wife who has never ever worked in the UK also gets a UK pension in her own right. Why would that change for UK residents that still happen to live in NI after UI? What happens if they worked in NI and retired to the UK? Clearly the UK would continue o pay all SW pensions for anyone who qualifies for a UK pension, whether they qualified through NI or GB.

Now pensions that arise from employment by the UK Gov may be different, but I do not see why. The fact pensions are paid out of current funding is irrelevant. It is a bit like one family having a Christmas fund and a holiday fund, while their next door neighbour just pays everything from their everyday funding. What is the difference? Prudence.

Now the question arises for those about to retire. That needs to be decided by negotiation. I cannot see the UK saying that - 'hmm, you all voted for it - byeeee!' There would be a withdrawal agreement that would see the UK contributions taper off over, say, a decade, and that would be able to solve the pension funding issue. Irish Lights were fully funded by the UK Gov since the foundation of the state until Margaret Thatcher stopped in the 80s.

The cost to the Irish state of a UI would be the same as the cost to the Irish state of 'Rural Ireland' whatever that is. There are regions of this state that have, or perceive themselves to have been, left behind. Providing rural transport and broadband for isolated bungalow bliss houses is a political issue, but a cost to the state.

If there is a vote for a UI, then these issues will sort themselves out, or they will be sorted out by political solutions. A UI will not come about by a conflicted, divisive campaign like the Brexit one.

Perifect

What happened when Hong Kong was released? Won't the British state be bound to assist the handover? They have some loyalty to what they see as their people don't they? A United Ireland will not cause much difficulty in any shape or form. The scaremongers will tell many tall tales but none of them will have any truth to them. A United Ireland will be beneficial to all Irish people.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

YOU are perhaps willing to pay 5k a year more for some nebulous benefit. I'm not being disingenuous. I wouldn't pay that much for a UI when there are actual social issues in Ireland that could benefit in real terms from such spending. Removing a line on a map between two EU member states is simply not as important to me as having a world class health service or whatever.

It's actually a sh!tty thing that you did there Francie. You are trying in a not so subtle way to make out that I don't give a sh!t about fellow citizens. I do, but my priorities are different to yours.

Well the reality is, you don't care about some citizens,- once the money goes so high.

What other opinion am I supposed to have here? I know you are probably gonna tell me that you care first about x, y, z, but it doesn't negate the fact that you are casting aside some.

downcow

How would people feel about an independent NI being helped by both UK and ROI?
You get Britain out of Ireland and it doesn't cost you as much - a win win

Sam Russell

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well the reality is, you don't care about some citizens,- once the money goes so high.

What other opinion am I supposed to have here? I know you are probably gonna tell me that you care first about x, y, z, but it doesn't negate the fact that you are casting aside some.

How money is to be spent by the Gov is a political issue decided by the electorate and the politicians they vote into power.

Dytalus

downcow wrote: »

How would people feel about an independent NI being helped by both UK and ROI?
You get Britain out of Ireland and it doesn't cost you as much - a win win

...why?

At the moment the NI budget shortfall is shored up by Westminster because it's part of the UK. A United Ireland would see it helped by Ireland because...well it'd be part of Ireland.

If it was part of neither, why would either be obliged to help out? The UK, potentially, due current commitments it might decide to carry on for a transition period. But why would the Republic help shore up a foreign state? We're not doing so now, after all.

RobMc59

downcow wrote: »

How would people feel about an independent NI being helped by both UK and ROI?
You get Britain out of Ireland and it doesn't cost you as much - a win win

How about a UI but what was formerly NI governs itself like Scotland does now?

jm08

downcow wrote: »

How would people feel about an independent NI being helped by both UK and ROI?
You get Britain out of Ireland and it doesn't cost you as much - a win win

We've had some versions of that over the last 100 years (Stormont Gov., and Power Sharing) and the subvention just gets bigger and bigger. Why do you think this would work now? The problem with NI is that society is completely divided and those elected representatives are incapable of governing NI for all its people.