How long before Irish reunification?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I will resist once again getting into cherrypicked modelling of the future with some random guy on the internet who is infamous for his partitionist views that align closely with the DUP's stance.

Just to ask this, why if you guys (partitionists and the DUP/UUP/TUV) are so cock sure of all this, has it not been you that is leading the charge for a border poll?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So partitionist/Unionist strategy is to wait until it's obvious to all that a border poll will pass?

Brilliant. That kind of muddled thinking would be par for the course in Unionist strategy anyhow.

*Had to laugh at the 'potentially divisive' comment too Taking NI out of the EU would never be considered 'divisive'...no, not at all.

Ideally I am in favour of a united Ireland, pragmatically I accept that it is not a practical proposition for at least 20 years, and by then, other options may be on the table. So less of the partitionist jibes please. Labelling those you disagree with is a clear sign of dehumanising differences, the sort of approach favoured by racists and homophobes, so be careful you don't go down the same path.

As I said in my post, there is a desperate rush on the likes of SF, who neither of us support, to get a border poll, because they feel that the chance may slip away. You didn't dispute that analysis yet you ask why unionists are resisting a poll? I have set out the logic of why a border poll now is a desire of SF - they hope for the triumph of dreams over reality ala Brexit. If it is not now, then with the Sinn Fein vote continuing to fall, when will it be?

Finally, I wouldn't say that people are waiting for a poll until it's obvious it will pass, but not far short of that. The GFA requires that it is likely to pass, without saying how likely, or how that should be decided. A majority share of the vote held by nationalist parties would be a good measure, and we are a long long way from that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Ideally I am in favour of a united Ireland, pragmatically I accept that it is not a practical proposition for at least 20 years, and by then, other options may be on the table. So less of the partitionist jibes please. Labelling those you disagree with is a clear sign of dehumanising differences, the sort of approach favoured by racists and homophobes, so be careful you don't go down the same path.

As I said in my post, there is a desperate rush on the likes of SF, who neither of us support, to get a border poll, because they feel that the chance may slip away. You didn't dispute that analysis yet you ask why unionists are resisting a poll? I have set out the logic of why a border poll now is a desire of SF - they hope for the triumph of dreams over reality ala Brexit. If it is not now, then with the Sinn Fein vote continuing to fall, when will it be?

Finally, I wouldn't say that people are waiting for a poll until it's obvious it will pass, but not far short of that. The GFA requires that it is likely to pass, without saying how likely, or how that should be decided. A majority share of the vote held by nationalist parties would be a good measure, and we are a long long way from that.

Where is this 'desperate rush' by anyone. Just heard a SF candidate Chris Hazard on Sky debate there re-iterate that this election is not about a 'border poll' but Brexit.

I don't think 'now' is the right time either. A hard or soft Brexit, give it a few years and then people are entitled to choose where they want to be.

markodaly

blanch152 wrote: »

On the other side, as we have seen with Brexit, people (Brexiteers) can be stupid enough to vote for something without realising the consequences. Voting for a united Ireland anytime in the next 40 years would be as stupid as voting for Brexit. The only way it can happen is for the North to sort out its education system, sort out its industrial development and become self-sustaining and move towards convergence before unity is discussed. The problem with that for the united Irelanders is that if Northern Ireland becomes self-sufficient, and the current trend of the emergence of a Northern Irish identity continues, then why would they united with anyone, they are bigger than many existing EU states, why not go independent at that stage?

This is the nub of it. This is a 50-year project, not some pipe-dream like a Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson Brexit whim made up on the back of an envelope.

Education is key. Personally I think all schools in NI should be non-sectarian as of tomorrow. That would be a start, but it would be deeply unpopular with the Green/Orange realpolitik that think are running the place.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

This is the nub of it. This is a 50-year project, not some pipe-dream like a Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson Brexit whim made up on the back of an envelope.

Education is key. Personally I think all schools in NI should be non-sectarian as of tomorrow. That would be a start, but it would be deeply unpopular with the Green/Orange realpolitik that think are running the place.

Before you start looking down your nose, maybe we should achieve that here first?

I don't think it is wise tbh to propose that, religious controlled schools can function in normal society and indeed do.

I think investment in 'choice' would be a better way to go.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

This is the nub of it. This is a 50-year project, not some pipe-dream like a Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson Brexit whim made up on the back of an envelope.

Education is key. Personally I think all schools in NI should be non-sectarian as of tomorrow. That would be a start, but it would be deeply unpopular with the Green/Orange realpolitik that think are running the place.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Before you start looking down your nose, maybe we should achieve that here first?

I don't think it is wise tbh to propose that, religious controlled schools can function in normal society and indeed do.

I think investment in 'choice' would be a better way to go.

Bingo, that didn't take long.

Sectarianism starts in the religious controlled schools on both sides. For all the comedy, Derry Girls hits that nail on the head. Anyone defending religious controlled schools in the North, is, in my opinion, a proponent of the maintenance of a sectarian divide.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Bingo, that didn't take long.

Sectarianism starts in the religious controlled schools on both sides. For all the comedy, Derry Girls hits that nail on the head. Anyone defending religious controlled schools in the North, is, in my opinion, a proponent of the maintenance of a sectarian divide.

You think schools are teaching people to hate/ be sectarian?

Have you any evidence for that?

Willie Frazer thought the same about Catholic schools but never produced much evidence even though he thought he had 'em with the flag he mistook for the Tricolour.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Before you start looking down your nose, maybe we should achieve that here first?

I don't think it is wise tbh to propose that, religious controlled schools can function in normal society and indeed do.

I think investment in 'choice' would be a better way to go.

We are not a divided sectarian community in the south. The north, by contrast, is, which is why non-sectarian education should be the law.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You think schools are teaching people to hate/ be sectarian?

Have you any evidence for that?

Willie Frazer thought the same about Catholic schools but never produced much evidence even though he thought he had 'em with the flag he mistook for the Tricolour.

They don't have to teach it. The mere fact of segregation, as we saw in South Africa and previously in the Deep South of America fosters differences and promotes hatred. Learned behaviour isn't always taught. Schools are where sectarianism starts in Northern Ireland.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Why always the defensive stuff? Always defend, defend, defend, never a single piece of critical analysis.

facehugger99

blanch152 wrote: »

They don't have to teach it. The mere fact of segregation, as we saw in South Africa and previously in the Deep South of America fosters differences and promotes hatred. Learned behaviour isn't always taught. Schools are where sectarianism starts in Northern Ireland.

I think this gets to the heart of it really.

Until the 2 communities up there learn to live with each other, talks of unification with the ROI is preposterous.

Breaking down segregation in schools would be a good first step along that path.

Would have though even Francie would be able to get behind that, but he rarely fails to disappoint.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

They don't have to teach it. The mere fact of segregation, as we saw in South Africa and previously in the Deep South of America fosters differences and promotes hatred. Learned behaviour isn't always taught. Schools are where sectarianism starts in Northern Ireland.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Why always the defensive stuff? Always defend, defend, defend, never a single piece of critical analysis.

Yeh...the it 'starts in school' simplistic nonsense again. Children are 'segregated' long before they get to school blanch and long after they leave it.

Getting rid of religiously run schools is shifting chairs while the ship sinks.

What education needs is 'choice' and those parents who want the choice begin the shift away in an organic natural way. 'Change' is natural then.
Force closure or change and you will make the problem worse.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You think schools are teaching people to hate/ be sectarian?

Have you any evidence for that?

There is actually clear evidence that the high level of segregation in NI schools contributes to the sectarian nature of NI.

In all, 90 per cent of children in Northern Ireland still go to separate faith schools.[2] The consequence is, as one commentator has put it, that "the overwhelming majority of Ulster's children can go from four to 18 without having a serious conversation with a member of a rival creed."[3] The prevalence of segregated education has been cited as a major factor in maintaining endogamy (marriage within one's own group)

The academic John H. Whyte argued that "the two factors which do most to divide Protestants as a whole from Catholics as a whole are endogamy and separate education

If NI is every going to drop its historical sectarian shackles, then dropping educational segregation is a must.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

There is actually clear evidence that the high level of segregation in NI schools contributes to the sectarian nature of NI.





If NI is every going to drop its historical sectarian shackles, then dropping educational segregation is a must.

SO...you give people the CHOICE.

You don't force them, you allow them the space to change and they will. Like here in the south, that move away from religiously run schools is still in process...there is also a fall in religiously controlled citizens and church control.

It's not rocket science.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh...the it 'starts in school' simplistic nonsense again. Children are 'segregated' long before they get to school blanch and long after they leave it.

Fortunately, or yet again, you are wrong.

Tell me Francie, do you think it was wrong to desegregate the schools in America?

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SO...you give people the CHOICE.

Did they give people in the US a choice to attend white-only schools after Brown vs Board of Education?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

Idbatterim

right, this is a country where everyone is perpetually offended! Even by the most ridiculous things! One bomb on an empty bus etc is all it would take, you think that spineless snake varadkar would be banging on about reunification then? LOL! LOL!

the next time it could be on luas packed with 500 people or a dart, get real! You see what the north means to some people, you think the hard line loyalists up there, would just say "ah shure leave them have it"? Delusion isnt the word!

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SO...you give people the CHOICE.

Nope, fcuk them.

You force them to start integrating their children.

Within a few generations you'll have probably bred out a significant amount of sectarianism.

Your suggestion will take decades longer.

Having to share a land border with a sectarian basket case is hardly ideal for us - we should be pushing for them to change their approach

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Did they give people in the US a choice to attend white-only schools after Brown vs Board of Education?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

How would you characterise race relations in the US now? Perfect or in need of huge work still?


Francie's politics is a bit like losing weight...Force is BAD outcome, CHOICE and natural CHANGE = GOOD outcome that can sustain itself.

Dytalus

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

The €12 billion is a significant underestimate, it doesn't include the cost of harmonising social welfare and public service pay. It also doesn't include the cost of rolling out the NHS across the South, neither does it include the costs of harmonising the funding of education. All of these costs are a multiple of €12 billion and will have to be paid.

This I agree with - I'd not, generally, be in favour of a United Ireland without significant plans for public service restructuring in Northern Ireland. An economy shouldn't be sustained by public service spending. But, I do recognise that such a restructuring isn't going to happen overnight (barring some catastrophe like the UK just cutting NI loose when the poll comes in and shutting everything down and doing a runner) and could sustain a hit for a short-to-medium period of time if I was convinced there was a plan. As I've mentioned before, I'm below average in earnings but live frugally enough I could sustain 2-3% extra income tax for a couple of years - we didn't have a 5% tax hike during the recession, I don't see it being that disastrous post-unification either.

blanch152 wrote: »

The conundrum at the heart of a united Ireland is that you have to harmonise upwards i.e. adopt the best system for every public service, otherwise people won't like it (who in the South would vote to reduce disability benefit to NI levels?)

To be cynical, probably a good deal of people who are not, or are not caring for, disabled people. But I see your point. I know Sláintecare is supposed to bring us towards an NHS-like system, and Northern Ireland's NHS access/results is among the worst in the UK so the gap may not be as massive as it could be. Still a hurdle, and my understanding that loss of free at point of care healthcare is one of the main things Nationalists bring up about why they might vote against a united Ireland.

blanch152 wrote: »

However, that means huge increases in taxes, and people won't like that either, so they would vote against a united Ireland. Once you spell out what a united Ireland means in practice rather than the touchy feely wouldn't it be nice approach to date, then you cause a significant number of people to turn against it.

Ideally, in my opinion, it'd result in a sizable restructuring of our tax system. I've been in favour of that for a while, maybe a UI would be the kick in the rear we need. We are, by the OECD's metrics, the lowest taxed EU nation due to our large number of tax breaks, tax credits, and the high threshold before people pay income tax (excluding USC, which lets' face it is pretty much income tax regardless of whatever they call it). We also have our highest tax threshold kick in below the average wage (and our median too, I think, but finding our median for recent years is difficult) which leaves little in the way of increasing taxes on those who can most afford to pay them - you'd be raising taxes on average people and middle class workers too, not just those making obscene amounts every year.

All hypotheticals to say nothing of our over reliance on like...ten companies to fund a huge chunk of our budget. But now we're straying off topic. Let me summarise by saying that I do not think it's a hurdle that cannot be overcome, but I would need to see the plan before I voted. What extra expenses will we be taking on, where do we plan on making changes to save money, and how will we finance what needs financing. Given how top-notch our referendum commission is, I'd wager we'll see these answers before any vote - how it sways voters is going to depend hugely on where the burden falls.

blanch152 wrote: »

On the other side, as we have seen with Brexit, people (Brexiteers) can be stupid enough to vote for something without realising the consequences. Voting for a united Ireland anytime in the next 40 years would be as stupid as voting for Brexit.

40 years is a pretty long time, but in principle I agree. But, at least in the Republic, I don't hugely worry about that. We have a robust Referendum Commission and a pretty well educated population - I trust us to weigh up the pros and cons and make a decision. I don't fault people who put either national/cultural/personal identity or ideology ahead of pure economics. It's not my place to decide what is important to someone or not - nor is it yours, or Francie's or anyones. I can disagree of course. My problem with Brexit has largely been with the way it was conducted - as much as I disagree with the pro-Brexit arguments (the 'take back control' and what not), my actual issue with it is how it was handled. Even if I disagreed with the UI-vote result, I'd only actually be calling for it to be re-run/cancelled if there were serious questions about how it was run, and the trustworthiness of the information made available (akin to the Leave campaign finance violations, or the £350m a week lie, for example).

blanch152 wrote: »

The only way it can happen is for the North to sort out its education system, sort out its industrial development and become self-sustaining and move towards convergence before unity is discussed. The problem with that for the united Irelanders is that if Northern Ireland becomes self-sufficient, and the current trend of the emergence of a Northern Irish identity continues, then why would they united with anyone, they are bigger than many existing EU states, why not go independent at that stage?

My main reason for voting in favour of a UI is the feeling that the people of NI are treated...pretty poorly by Westminster. Whether they identify as Irish or British. If they started to develop well, and no longer looked like they were being treated as the unwanted child of the Union, my main motivation for being pro-UI would start to disappear. My big concern, however, is that so long as NI is part of the UK that is never going to happen - certainly now that they are leaving the EU and the associated investment from the ESIFunds which were legally obligated to be spent in NI. The UK has had decades to address the decline in Northern Ireland's economy following the reduction in industry as an economic mainline, and hasn't.

As for why not independent, mainly because nobody in NI seems to want it. If it was what they wanted I'd be in full support - just as I am with Scotland (if the Scots show it's what they want).

blanch152 wrote: »

All of the above taken together explains the big push for unification at the moment. If we wait too long, the chance will be gone as the Northern Irish identity will emerge - this can be seen in the falling vote for Sinn Fein in the North which I fully expect to continue in the forthcoming general election. If we explain it too much, people will also be against it because of the practicalities. Seize the opportunity created by worries about Brexit and we will get there.

I think this is a tad cynical, but not necessarily incorrect. While some individuals are using Brexit as a tool to push for rapid unification, there are some (myself included) who don't so much see Brexit as a tool to push for it, but rather a serious stumbling block in Northern Ireland's peace process. As a result, talking about unification naturally crops up - the border and partition being such major components of the Nationalist's side of the NI conflict, and arguably a major economic detraction from both NI and the RoI.

I'm very against SF's call for a border poll immediately following a hard Brexit, for example - I think it's fixing the problem of a hard border (assuming it passed) at the expense of any kind of successful unification, and it's opportunism at its worst. I don't think talking about unification in the wake of Brexit is a terrible idea, because it is one of the major items in Ireland/Northern Ireland/Britain's relations and will naturally be effected by Brexit.

blanch152 wrote: »

The biggest fear of the united Irelanders is a soft Brexit that makes little difference to the North, the scaremongering won't have any effect. Secretly, they are all Boris supporters.

Nah, you'd have to be pretty cynical to truly believe that. The biggest fear is that the violence kicks off again in the wake of a hard Brexit with a border. Some of the more..er...motivated Nationalists probably see Brexit as the best thing to happen to them, but honestly most of the talk of seen has been more focused on "Brexit is gonna be awful, how can we make it less so".

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Nope, fcuk them.

You force them to start integrating their children.

Okie doke! :rolleyes:



*everyone moves away from FH, quietly.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SO...you give people the CHOICE.

You don't force them, you allow them the space to change and they will. Like here in the south, that move away from religiously run schools is still in process...there is also a fall in religiously controlled citizens and church control.

It's not rocket science.

You have peddled a line for a very long time that the North is a failed entity, a failed society. Now, when it suits, you come along and tell us it is like here in the South.

Where I do agree with you is that Northern Ireland is a very different place to the rest of us in Ireland. That means it needs different solutions. The practically complete absence of sectarianism in the South (apart from the reflected views of extreme Republicans) means that we don't need to rush the move away from religiously controlled schools.

However, it is very different in the North. On two sides, we have bitterly divided communities, with political leaders on both sides who engage in rabble-rousing (remember Gerry Adams with his "break these bastards" speech in 2014). These communities then have segregated schools where the language of the playground and religious education helps to foster and maintain the divide. All of that makes the desegregation of schools in the North an urgent necessity.

However, if you are a sectarian vote-counter who on one side wants to inch towards the 50% plus one you think will bring change or who on the other side wants to defend the status quo to the last Protestant, then any change that might dilute the people and bring understanding has to be resisted.

facehugger99

Idbatterim wrote: »

right, this is a country where everyone is perpetually offended! Even by the most ridiculous things! One bomb on an empty bus etc is all it would take, you think that spineless snake varadkar would be banging on about reunification then? LOL! LOL!

Unfortunately I think it's even more potentially precarious.

A few bomb threats into Facebook or Google HQ would really make FDI's reconsider their investment strategy in the ROI. As an economy, we are uniquely dependent on attracting and retaining these businesses. As a consequence, we're extremely vulnerable.

Part of our attractiveness to FDIs stems from our relatively stable political landscape. Throw a number of disgruntled Loyalists nut-jobs into the mix and the equation changes significantly.

Of course, these potential issues (and their devastating economic repercussions) are never discussed by unification proponents.

If we were to factor in the potential losses of corposation tax returns, what are the costs of unification. €20bn per annum? €25bn? €30bn?

Sobering to consider.

FrancieBrady

It's funny how the little sidebar conversations like this one on education, uncovers who the 'dictators' really are.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Then what’s with the ‘conservative and Unionist’ party branding now?

Tories/conservatives don’t Run in NI do they?

The official name of the Tories is the "Conservative and Unionist Party".

They have a NI branch, called NI Conservatives. These have nothing to do with the DUP or UUP.

As I stated already, in days gone the UUP acted like the Tories in NI, but the AI Agreement put paid to that.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's funny how the little sidebar conversations like this one on education, uncovers who the 'dictators' really are.

I find it more interesting in exposing the contradictions inherent in any unification discussions.

Your augments revolve around some simplistic thinking
'NI is a failed state therefore we need to unify with them'.

You are unwilling to consider steps to reduce sectarianism because improving conditions in NI weakens your arguments against the need for unification.

As with so much else, your outlook aligns perfectly with SF's - you should really look into becoming a party member.

The irony of your position is lost on you. NI will never be accepted as a candidate for unification in its current state. It will need to be completely overhauled both socially and economically before any unification conversation can even commence.

You and your ilk are unification's worst enemies.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I find it more interesting in exposing the contradictions inherent in any unification discussions.

Your augments revolve around some simplistic thinking
'NI is a failed state therefore we need to unify with them'.

You are unwilling to consider steps to reduce sectarianism because improving conditions in NI weakens your arguments against the need for unification.

As with so much else, your outlook aligns perfectly with SF's - you should really look into becoming a party member.

The irony of your position is lost on you. NI will never be accepted as a candidate for unification in its current state. It will need to be completely overhauled both socially and economically before any unification conversation can even commence.

You and your ilk are unification's worst enemies.

You are the only one talking about force here.

facehugger wrote:

Nope, fcuk them.

You force them to start integrating their children.

100 years of partition and the problems it caused and YOU have learned 'zilch'.

'CHOICE' is where it is at FH.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are the only one talking about force here.


100 years of partition and the problems it caused and YOU have learned 'zilch'.

'CHOICE' is where it is at FH.

The parents have already been sectaranised. They are not in a position to make sensible choices. The choice needs to be taken out of their hands.

Forced integration is the only sensible solution to break the cycle of mutual hatred and suspicion prevalent in NI.

Anyone against such proposals has ulterior motives, centered around maintaining the current segregated society.

I guess we know which of the political parties that favours right?

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The parents have already been sectaranised. They are not in a position to make sensible choices. The choice needs to be taken out of their hands.

Forced integration is the only sensible solution to break the cycle of mutual hatred and suspicion prevalent in NI.

Ooh dear...I think we all know from history where this is going. And it's not good.

Amazing how a page or two can reveal a lot about people. The mask drops eventually.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ooh dear...I think we all know from history where this is going. And it's not good.

The USA in the 1950's.
South Africa in the 1990's

It's surprising and disturbing to see you oppose such policies and describe them as "not good".

I really think you need to clarify your position. Are you in favour of segregation along racial and/or religious grounds?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ooh dear...I think we all know from history where this is going. And it's not good.

Amazing how a page or two can reveal a lot about people. The mask drops eventually.

Francie, I never had you picked out as a supporter of apartheid and segregation. You are right about how the mask drops.

Keep the status quo to maintain the divide and hope the demographic numbers achieve the change. Resist any modernisation in case it dilutes the us and them mentality.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

TimeUp wrote: »

The ones quoted on the Wikipedia page on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland

The last one gives the yes to a United Ireland a slim 46 to 45% majority.

And then under "Public opinion" it even looks as if the option of reunifying Ireland seemed less and less attractive to the surveyed, according to the graph.

Wikipedia. Seriously?

I’ll take actual poll results from established companies thanks. Wikipedia doesn’t cut it.