Border Poll discussion

Imreoir2

murphaph wrote: »

In fairness it's obvious he's just stating his opinion because it's a future possible event. It's impossible to prove one way or the other.

Impossible to prove, yes, but it is not impossible to present your opinions as what they are and not as facts. It is definatly not impossible to substantiate why you hold an opinion rather than simply stating them and repating as necessary.

RobMc59

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's emotional rhetoric. 'Everything will be terrible if we take this course of action'.

But isn't that part of the problem with even discussing this subject?
There are people who have been brought up to believe what is right and they won't change their opinion under any circumstances and challenging people's beliefs will cause an emotional response.

facehugger99

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Your assertions are opinion masquerading as fact. You assert that once the cost of unification is known that the Irish tax payer will reject it in the referendum, this is your opinion, you have not backed it up.

Well doh!

I'm pretty sure, based on past events, there are loyalist terrorists in NI.

I'm also pretty sure, based on past events, that those terrorists will take violent actions if they perceive the Union to be as risk.

It's not a terrible big leap to propose a likelihood of bombs in Dublin in the run-up to a border polls.

I'd be more worried that anyone would think it not likely TBH.

The Irish electorate have consistently rejected Parties that have increased taxations and rewarded those who increase spending - a Unification tax will be roundly rejected based on past experience.

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

But isn't that part of the problem with even discussing this subject?
There are people who have been brought up to believe what is right and they won't change their opinion under any circumstances and challenging people's beliefs will cause an emotional response.

Opinions are personal but you can back them up based on your preferences. They are not necessarily wrong, but you need own them and be able to explain why, if you feel a particular way and judge if it's fair or practical and if it's not, why you don't care that it's not.

Junkyard Tom

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are people who have been brought up to believe what is right and they won't change their opinion under any circumstances and challenging people's beliefs will cause an emotional response.

That's not debate though - that's what was described correctly earlier in the thread as 'signal boosting'. Unification won't be painless but it won't be end-times either.

facehugger99

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Unification won't be painless but it won't be end-times either.

Won't be happening at all I'd imagine.

Avatar MIA

facehugger99 wrote: »

Well doh!

I'm pretty sure, based on past events, there are loyalist terrorists in NI.

I'm also pretty sure, based on past events, that those terrorists will take violent actions if they perceive the Union to be as risk.

It's not a terrible big leap to propose a likelihood of bombs in Dublin in the run-up to a border polls.

I'd be more worried that anyone would think it not likely TBH.

The Irish electorate have consistently rejected Parties that have increased taxations and rewarded those who increase spending - a Unification tax will be roundly rejected based on past experience.

Ask any unionist ever if the scum that bombed Warrington, Birmingham or Omagh swayed them they will say no. Why would loyalist atrocities in the Republic be any different?

Junkyard Tom

facehugger99 wrote: »

Won't be happening at all I'd imagine.

'At all' is a very very long time. The whole United Ireland thing isn't going away.

BonnieSituation

facehugger99 wrote: »

Won't be happening at all I'd imagine.

Well then you've nothing to be worrying about

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Well doh!

I'm pretty sure, based on past events, there are loyalist terrorists in NI.

I'm also pretty sure, based on past events, that those terrorists will take violent actions if they perceive the Union to be as risk.

It's not a terrible big leap to propose a likelihood of bombs in Dublin in the run-up to a border polls.

I'd be more worried that anyone would think it not likely TBH.

The Irish electorate have consistently rejected Parties that have increased taxations and rewarded those who increase spending - a Unification tax will be roundly rejected based on past experience.

When is the last time a 'unification tax' was asked for?

It will be a pretty novel event - the unification of the island.

If, as I believe, people are persuaded that a unification tax is an investment that will pay an economic and social benefit, I think it will be a no brainer for the responsible people in this country. Those who think investment in the future is something we should be doing all the time.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When is the last time a 'unification tax' was asked for?

It will be a pretty novel event - the unification of the island.

If, as I believe, people are persuaded that a unification tax is an investment that will pay an economic and social benefit, I think it will be a no brainer for the responsible people in this country. Those who think investment in the future is something we should be doing all the time.

Good you've come around to the realisation that a Unification Tax would be unavoidable Francie - baby steps.

You completely over-estimate how invested the Irish electorate are in unification - it's not something they'll be willing to put up with if it means less money in their pockets - option polls have attested to this.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Good you've come around to the realisation that a Unification Tax would be unavoidable Francie - baby steps.

You completely over-estimate how invested the Irish electorate are in unification - it's not something they'll be willing to put up with if it means less money in their pockets - option polls have attested to this.

Yet we took one for 'the team' and bailed out private gamblers, for more of the same governance, so go figure.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Good you've come around to the realisation that a Unification Tax would be unavoidable Francie - baby steps.

You completely over-estimate how invested the Irish electorate are in unification - it's not something they'll be willing to put up with if it means less money in their pockets - option polls have attested to this.

I have never said anything about a 'unification tax', good bad or indifferent but go ahead and invent opinions for me.

I don't over estimate anything. People understand 'investment' and they understand when there is only one way to fix something.

Junkyard Tom

facehugger99 wrote: »

Good you've come around to the realisation that a Unification Tax would be unavoidable Francie - baby steps.

Belfast is more than capable of becoming a Dublin 2.0. There's huge potential to have a fairly powerful economic corridor on the east coast which would also mean people in the north were invested in the UI economy.

A hard Brexit has the potential to fast-track a UI yet SF, and Republicans in general, are against it. Why do you think that is?

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Belfast is more than capable of becoming a Dublin 2.0. There's huge potential to have a fairly powerful economic corridor on the east coast which would also mean people in the north were invested in the UI economy.

A hard Brexit has the potential to fast-track a UI yet SF, and Republicans in general, are against it. Why do you think that is?

This is something I'd hope for in the event of a UI but I'm from Dublin. I doubt too many voters on the western seaboard would like to see the east coast dominate the economy further still?

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

I doubt too many voters on the western seaboard would like to see the east coast dominate the economy further still?

It'd be fairly hard to slow down the east coast economic inertia at this stage. There are three million people living between Dublin and Belfast.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have never said anything about a 'unification tax', good bad or indifferent but go ahead and invent opinions for me.

short-term memory :pac:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If, as I believe, people are persuaded that a unification tax is an investment that will pay an economic and social benefit, I think it will be a no brainer for the responsible people in this country.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It'd be fairly hard to slow down the east coast economic inertia at this stage. There are three million people living between Dublin and Belfast.

A UI would absolutely need this corridor to succeed because the reality is that everything west of the Bann will be a net recipient of social transfers indefinitely like most of the 26 counties are today and will remain. If Belfast didn't pull its weight economically it would sink the country into a quagmire of debt. It's not a nice to have, it would be essential IMO.

But whether or not the good denizens of Cork would be in favour of this remains to be seen.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

short-term memory :pac:

Nice try. That was in reply to your post, in which you sensationally claimed that 'I had come around'.
Can you find that post where I mentioned a 'unification tax' position that I have come around from?

Take your time.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

A UI would absolutely need this corridor to succeed because the reality is that everything west of the Bann will be a net recipient of social transfers indefinitely like most of the 26 counties are today and will remain. If Belfast didn't pull its weight economically it would sink the country into a quagmire of debt. It's not a nice to have, it would be essential IMO.

But whether or not the good denizens of Cork would be in favour of this remains to be seen.

Would they be the same Cork denizens who have the 3rd highest GDP in the EU (ahead of Dublin)?

Residents of Cork, Limerick and Waterford are living in the third-richest region across the European Union, according to a new report from Eurostat.

This puts them behind the residents of part of London and Luxembourg but ahead of those in Dublin, which ranked in fifth place

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/southern-part-of-ireland-third-richest-in-eu-but-west-lags-behind-1.3811364

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

Well doh!

I'm pretty sure, based on past events, there are loyalist terrorists in NI.

I'm also pretty sure, based on past events, that those terrorists will take violent actions if they perceive the Union to be as risk.

It's not a terrible big leap to propose a likelihood of bombs in Dublin in the run-up to a border polls.

I'd be more worried that anyone would think it not likely TBH.

The Irish electorate have consistently rejected Parties that have increased taxations and rewarded those who increase spending - a Unification tax will be roundly rejected based on past experience.

I can only imagine the terrorism campaign.

Bomb the Republic to make Britain re-invade, and re-establish rule in the north, by a ln extremely small number of cohorts, who had a rather amateurish campaign previously, heavily reliant on collusion with the govt security forces.

I don't foresee it being a very long running campaign myself.

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I can only imagine the terrorism campaign.

Bomb the Republic to make Britain re-invade, and re-establish rule in the north, by a ln extremely small number of cohorts, who had a rather amateurish campaign previously, heavily reliant on collusion with the govt security forces.

I don't foresee it being a very long running campaign myself.

Exactly. The evidence very clearly indicates that there is no capacity to mount a campaign outside their own area. And furthermore, the evidence points to unionism in the main being pragmatic mostly. Plenty of shouting but eventually they get on with it.

downcow

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I can only imagine the terrorism campaign.

Bomb the Republic to make Britain re-invade, and re-establish rule in the north, by a ln extremely small number of cohorts, who had a rather amateurish campaign previously, heavily reliant on collusion with the govt security forces.

I don't foresee it being a very long-running campaign myself.

I would agree that the main unionist community never had much stomach for attacking their neighbours.
The problem is that terrorism by its very nature is often more effective the more reckless it is. The IRA had £millions and significant community and international support and a fairly developed terrorist machine, yet on the wake of the IRA Shankill sectarian bomb the loyalists went on a fairly indiscriminate sectarian rampage which shifted things and had the nationalist community wanting an end to the trouble and thereby the cessation of violence from the IRA.
Terrorism is the art of terrorising and the more indiscriminate the more effective.

And yes i agree there would not be a widespread campaign and may even be no actual terrorism - i would foresee more community strife rather than a terrorist campaign - but who knows

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly. The evidence very clearly indicates that there is no capacity to mount a campaign outside their own area. And furthermore, the evidence points to unionism in the main being pragmatic mostly. Plenty of shouting but eventually they get on with it.

Yes I would agree evidence shows its more a defensive, batten down the hatches, siege mentality. but thats not pleasant for the rest of the island to work with and police

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Yes I would agree evidence shows its more a defensive, batten down the hatches, siege mentality. but thats not pleasant for the rest of the island to work with and police

The actual evidence suggests the unionist tradition is oppressive if it has military might behind it. It will subjugate if it can.
Don't mean to be rude, but that is what the factual present and historical evidence tells us. Even now, the DUP have power behind them now and are attempting to take the people of northern Ireland out of something they do not want to leave. Because they have a veto, they deny ordinary common rights to their people as well.

That wouldn't happen in a UI, the 'might' (the British military machine) would not be there anymore.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The actual evidence suggests the unionist tradition is oppressive if it has military might behind it. It will subjugate if it can.
Don't mean to be rude, but that is what the factual present and historical evidence tells us. Even now, the DUP have power behind them now and are attempting to take the people of northern Ireland out of something they do not want to leave. Because they have a veto, they deny ordinary common rights to their people as well.

That wouldn't happen in a UI, the 'might' (the British military machine) would not be there anymore.

Thats nonsense. What do you think the DUP should do? They campaigned for Brexit, the vast majority of their voters are in favour of Brexit and they increased their vote in the last election to the highest it has ever been on a promise that they would work to make Brexit happen.
So are you really saying they should go against all that and now work against Brexit? You have a strange way of looking at things

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Thats nonsense. What do you think the DUP should do? They campaigned for Brexit, the vast majority of their voters are in favour of Brexit and they increased their vote in the last election to the highest it has ever been on a promise that they would work to make Brexit happen.
So are you really saying they should go against all that and now work against Brexit? You have a strange way of looking at things

Sure they did.




Note how the leader of the DUP begs the UK Government's support, asking they don't allow Brexit become "an impediment to the movement of people, goods or services" across the border.
Note how she outlines how the North relies on "their competitiveness" and that they need to "retain as far as possible the ease with which [they] currently trade with EU member states and, also retain access to labour".
Note how she outlines the importance of free and easy movement across the border, expressing a concern over the loss of EU funding, and concerns over exporting to countries after they exit the EU.

What is her position at the moment now she has the 'might' of the British government behind her?

I rest my case.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly. The evidence very clearly indicates that there is no capacity to mount a campaign outside their own area. And furthermore, the evidence points to unionism in the main being pragmatic mostly. Plenty of shouting but eventually they get on with it.

Hmmmm. That was also being said about the remnants of the IRA as well.

We have learned differently in the last day or so.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I can only imagine the terrorism campaign.

Bomb the Republic to make Britain re-invade, and re-establish rule in the north, by a ln extremely small number of cohorts, who had a rather amateurish campaign previously, heavily reliant on collusion with the govt security forces.

I don't foresee it being a very long running campaign myself.

It doesn't take too many sick idiots to start a terrorist campaign. We have learned that in the past.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't take too many sick idiots to start a terrorist campaign. We have learned that in the past.

Define terrorist campaign..... We live in a state with its foundations built on an uprising after all.