How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

_blaaz wrote: »

The GFA allows for no further strententhing of the union between uk and ni


And it allows further and further integration and cross border cooperation with the free state....it might be painfully slow and destained to failure (dissidents are building up.serious capabilities and stormont is finished imo)....but by letter of law and any interpetation its a road map to ui as it sets out whats required


Its only 32 pages ffs....have you not red it yet

The GFA is a road map to a Border Poll. And the train is approaching that station now.
It is not my ideal time for a Border Poll, but if NI insists on leaving the EU then one has to take place.

_blaaz

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here we go again...we cannot come up with an argument...let's focus on Francie. :D:D

I can see it now in the debates on a UI, a pro UI politician in full flow when he is interrupted with...'BUT FRANCIE HAS 20,000 POSTS, He's a SHINNER BOT. Vote No Vote No! It's a conspiracy!'.

Tbf same people want to block.utd ireland because unionists would have a voice and say in government post reunification (a truely nasty outlook to have imo).....but scream shinnerbot and bigot at everyone else :pac:




At least noone can deny the conversation is taking place anyway

FrancieBrady

_blaaz wrote: »

Tbf same people want to block.utd ireland because unionists would have a voice and say in government post reunification (a truely nasty outlook to have imo).....but scream shinnerbot and bigot at everyone else :pac:




At least noone can deny the conversation is taking place anyway

The two blocs against a UI are emerging...bedfellows in their goals if not reasons.

Belligerent Unionism and Partitionists.

Everybody else will work for it if there is a majority vote: Unionism and all other political parties in the north and south will engage and democratically accept it. Unless I am missing something.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

This obviously isn't laid out in any great detail, numbers haven't been run etc etc, I'm just asking as a hypothetical towards those who favour partition.

We all agree that the 'unification' process is pretty poorly defined, and likely to be a gradual thing rather than waking up over night and going on a mad run to change road signs and currency overnight.

I would imagine this process would have to be defined in advance of any referenda on the matter, so let us imagine it was defined as follows, and all relevant actors have agreed to the roles needed therein.

1) Upon a successful vote for unification, a gradual process over quite a few years will begin. This will initially start things off basically as they are with Stormont (in this hypothetical, it's back up and running as normally as could be expected) acting as it should, but Westminster input being replaced with a co-operative effort between Dublin and Westminster, with Dublin gradually taking more responsibility over time.

2) Part of this process involves recognising the economic mess that is the North. A financial plan is put in place to gradually reduce the subvention paid into the North through various reforms, with the objective of taking the North off the tit of the British government by the time the unification process concludes. This could initially be coupled with some investment from UK/IRE/EU in non day-to-day things, but solely that which is required to make the North attractive to investment- be it infrastructure type projects or the likes. Ultimately these investments would be those which return a profit in the long term, not a financial drain.

3) Efforts are made (and legislated for) to protect the identity and culture of the Unionist community of the North/those from an Ulster Scots background. The exact nature of these efforts are planned in tandem with the Unionist community, focused around what part of their culture they see as vulnerable as part of Ireland.


Obviously, as I mentioned, short on detail. Also, maybe not achievable, but put aside objections of that nature for now, and treat it as if it is possible, how would you vote in a referendum on unification under those parameters? Feel free to call it fairyland nonsense and wishful thinking afterwards, but at least answer the hypothetical scenario before doing so!

facehugger99

I would not vote for unification if it meant;

• Any requirement to increases taxation or cut services.
• Any increased security issues in the Republic due to loyalist dissidents.
• Any influx of hard-line political parties and candidates into Dail Eireann - we've enough fcuking idiot politicians representing us without the Nordie-variety entering the legislature down here.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I would not vote for unification if it meant;

• Any requirement to increases taxation or cut services.
• Any increased security issues in the Republic due to loyalist dissidents.
• Any influx of hard-line political parties and candidates into Dail Eireann - we've enough fcuking idiot politicians representing us without the Nordie-variety entering the legislature down here.

If there is a majority vote for a UI, would you accept it, pay your taxes, and accept the mandate of any democratic elected representative?

Fionn1952

15-20 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

I would not vote for unification

You could've just left it at that, Facehugger. I'm fully aware what you think (you've ranted on about it an awful lot for someone who doesn't care). I was hoping to hear from.....well pretty much anyone but you.

Dammo

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This obviously isn't laid out in any great detail, numbers haven't been run etc etc, I'm just asking as a hypothetical towards those who favour partition.

We all agree that the 'unification' process is pretty poorly defined, and likely to be a gradual thing rather than waking up over night and going on a mad run to change road signs and currency overnight.

I would imagine this process would have to be defined in advance of any referenda on the matter, so let us imagine it was defined as follows, and all relevant actors have agreed to the roles needed therein.

1) Upon a successful vote for unification, a gradual process over quite a few years will begin. This will initially start things off basically as they are with Stormont (in this hypothetical, it's back up and running as normally as could be expected) acting as it should, but Westminster input being replaced with a co-operative effort between Dublin and Westminster, with Dublin gradually taking more responsibility over time.

2) Part of this process involves recognising the economic mess that is the North. A financial plan is put in place to gradually reduce the subvention paid into the North through various reforms, with the objective of taking the North off the tit of the British government by the time the unification process concludes. This could initially be coupled with some investment from UK/IRE/EU in non day-to-day things, but solely that which is required to make the North attractive to investment- be it infrastructure type projects or the likes. Ultimately these investments would be those which return a profit in the long term, not a financial drain.

3) Efforts are made (and legislated for) to protect the identity and culture of the Unionist community of the North/those from an Ulster Scots background. The exact nature of these efforts are planned in tandem with the Unionist community, focused around what part of their culture they see as vulnerable as part of Ireland.


Obviously, as I mentioned, short on detail. Also, maybe not achievable, but put aside objections of that nature for now, and treat it as if it is possible, how would you vote in a referendum on unification under those parameters? Feel free to call it fairyland nonsense and wishful thinking afterwards, but at least answer the hypothetical scenario before doing so!

I know that this is a discussion on an Internet forum but why is there so little detail from parties that want a UI regarding what it might look like?

Why hasn’t any pro-UI party put together a document outlining its proposals on a range of matters like the proposed new police force (armed or unarmed, name, etc. ), currency, flag, national emblem, anthem, income tax rates, national holidays, etc.

Give the unionist community an idea of the kind of country they could expect to live in. There are plenty of people from the Protestant community who have complete freedom of worship, and who have prospered financially, socially and culturally in the 26 counties. Why could a more complete vision of this not be made available to northern members of the Protestant faith?

FrancieBrady

Dammo wrote: »

I know that this is a discussion on an Internet forum but why is there so little detail from parties that want a UI regarding what it might look like?

Why hasn’t any pro-UI party put together a document outlining its proposals on a range of matters like the proposed new police force (armed or unarmed, name, etc. ), currency, flag, national emblem, anthem, income tax rates, national holidays, etc.

Give the unionist community an idea of the kind of country they could expect to live in. There are plenty of people from the Protestant community who have complete freedom of worship, and who have prospered financially, socially and culturally in the 26 counties. Why could a more complete vision of this not be made available to northern members of the Protestant faith?

There has been work done on it. What is required now is transparency from the British on the subvention and the true costs.

Brexit and the Future of Ireland
Uniting Ireland & Its People in Peace & Prosperity

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_the_implementation_of_the_good_friday_agreement/reports/2017/2017-08-02_brexit-and-the-future-of-ireland-uniting-ireland-and-its-people-in-peace-and-prosperity_en.pdf

BTW. There is Unionist input to the above if you look for it.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This obviously isn't laid out in any great detail, numbers haven't been run etc etc, I'm just asking as a hypothetical towards those who favour partition.

We all agree that the 'unification' process is pretty poorly defined, and likely to be a gradual thing rather than waking up over night and going on a mad run to change road signs and currency overnight.

I would imagine this process would have to be defined in advance of any referenda on the matter, so let us imagine it was defined as follows, and all relevant actors have agreed to the roles needed therein.

1) Upon a successful vote for unification, a gradual process over quite a few years will begin. This will initially start things off basically as they are with Stormont (in this hypothetical, it's back up and running as normally as could be expected) acting as it should, but Westminster input being replaced with a co-operative effort between Dublin and Westminster, with Dublin gradually taking more responsibility over time.

2) Part of this process involves recognising the economic mess that is the North. A financial plan is put in place to gradually reduce the subvention paid into the North through various reforms, with the objective of taking the North off the tit of the British government by the time the unification process concludes. This could initially be coupled with some investment from UK/IRE/EU in non day-to-day things, but solely that which is required to make the North attractive to investment- be it infrastructure type projects or the likes. Ultimately these investments would be those which return a profit in the long term, not a financial drain.

3) Efforts are made (and legislated for) to protect the identity and culture of the Unionist community of the North/those from an Ulster Scots background. The exact nature of these efforts are planned in tandem with the Unionist community, focused around what part of their culture they see as vulnerable as part of Ireland.


Obviously, as I mentioned, short on detail. Also, maybe not achievable, but put aside objections of that nature for now, and treat it as if it is possible, how would you vote in a referendum on unification under those parameters? Feel free to call it fairyland nonsense and wishful thinking afterwards, but at least answer the hypothetical scenario before doing so!

There is insufficient detail in that to allow me to vote yes.

Unity will cost the Irish taxpayers an awful lot of money and will mean freezing social welfare and cutting services. Can’t vote for it in those circumstances

Fionn1952

15-20 years

Dammo wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This obviously isn't laid out in any great detail, numbers haven't been run etc etc, I'm just asking as a hypothetical towards those who favour partition.

We all agree that the 'unification' process is pretty poorly defined, and likely to be a gradual thing rather than waking up over night and going on a mad run to change road signs and currency overnight.

I would imagine this process would have to be defined in advance of any referenda on the matter, so let us imagine it was defined as follows, and all relevant actors have agreed to the roles needed therein.

1) Upon a successful vote for unification, a gradual process over quite a few years will begin. This will initially start things off basically as they are with Stormont (in this hypothetical, it's back up and running as normally as could be expected) acting as it should, but Westminster input being replaced with a co-operative effort between Dublin and Westminster, with Dublin gradually taking more responsibility over time.

2) Part of this process involves recognising the economic mess that is the North. A financial plan is put in place to gradually reduce the subvention paid into the North through various reforms, with the objective of taking the North off the tit of the British government by the time the unification process concludes. This could initially be coupled with some investment from UK/IRE/EU in non day-to-day things, but solely that which is required to make the North attractive to investment- be it infrastructure type projects or the likes. Ultimately these investments would be those which return a profit in the long term, not a financial drain.

3) Efforts are made (and legislated for) to protect the identity and culture of the Unionist community of the North/those from an Ulster Scots background. The exact nature of these efforts are planned in tandem with the Unionist community, focused around what part of their culture they see as vulnerable as part of Ireland.


Obviously, as I mentioned, short on detail. Also, maybe not achievable, but put aside objections of that nature for now, and treat it as if it is possible, how would you vote in a referendum on unification under those parameters? Feel free to call it fairyland nonsense and wishful thinking afterwards, but at least answer the hypothetical scenario before doing so!

I know that this is a discussion on an Internet forum but why is there so little detail from parties that want a UI regarding what it might look like?

Why hasn’t any pro-UI party put together a document outlining its proposals on a range of matters like the proposed new police force (armed or unarmed, name, etc. ), currency, flag, national emblem, anthem, income tax rates, national holidays, etc.

Give the unionist community an idea of the kind of country they could expect to live in. There are plenty of people from the Protestant community who have complete freedom of worship, and who have prospered financially, socially and culturally in the 26 counties. Why could a more complete vision of this not be made available to northern members of the Protestant faith?

I'd agree with you on that 100%.

I suspect there are a multitude of reasons at present - the first being that it's easy to talk unification when you keep it nebulous and free of any consequences on one side.

Secondly, at present I'm unaware of very many Unionists with significant political clout willing to engage in discussion around what they would like unification to look like (if we don't discuss it, it isnt real mentality).

Finally, as a border poll isnt likely on the immediate horizon, for those who wish to sell the idea may wish to keep the proverbial powder dry, so that their plans/ideas etc are fresher in the mind for maximum impact closer to voting time.

Just a few ideas off the head from me, there are many more I'm sure.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This obviously isn't laid out in any great detail, numbers haven't been run etc etc, I'm just asking as a hypothetical towards those who favour partition.

We all agree that the 'unification' process is pretty poorly defined, and likely to be a gradual thing rather than waking up over night and going on a mad run to change road signs and currency overnight.

I would imagine this process would have to be defined in advance of any referenda on the matter, so let us imagine it was defined as follows, and all relevant actors have agreed to the roles needed therein.

1) Upon a successful vote for unification, a gradual process over quite a few years will begin. This will initially start things off basically as they are with Stormont (in this hypothetical, it's back up and running as normally as could be expected) acting as it should, but Westminster input being replaced with a co-operative effort between Dublin and Westminster, with Dublin gradually taking more responsibility over time.

2) Part of this process involves recognising the economic mess that is the North. A financial plan is put in place to gradually reduce the subvention paid into the North through various reforms, with the objective of taking the North off the tit of the British government by the time the unification process concludes. This could initially be coupled with some investment from UK/IRE/EU in non day-to-day things, but solely that which is required to make the North attractive to investment- be it infrastructure type projects or the likes. Ultimately these investments would be those which return a profit in the long term, not a financial drain.

3) Efforts are made (and legislated for) to protect the identity and culture of the Unionist community of the North/those from an Ulster Scots background. The exact nature of these efforts are planned in tandem with the Unionist community, focused around what part of their culture they see as vulnerable as part of Ireland.


Obviously, as I mentioned, short on detail. Also, maybe not achievable, but put aside objections of that nature for now, and treat it as if it is possible, how would you vote in a referendum on unification under those parameters? Feel free to call it fairyland nonsense and wishful thinking afterwards, but at least answer the hypothetical scenario before doing so!

There is insufficient detail in that to allow me to vote yes.

Unity will cost the Irish taxpayers an awful lot of money and will mean freezing social welfare and cutting services. Can’t vote for it in those circumstances

Can we have your breakdown of how much it will cost, and what freezes and service cuts will be required, Blanch? To say it's an awful lot implies you have some accurate numbers behind you.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Can we have your breakdown of how much it will cost, and what freezes and service cuts will be required, Blanch? To say it's an awful lot implies you have some accurate numbers behind you.

How long it will pertain for would be good to know too. Factoring in, investment in the north and that paying dividends as it starts to pay it's way.

The UI project will be an investment.

Dammo

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

I suspect that your ‘keeping their powder dry’ suggestion may well be close to the truth. I also suspect that a fair amount of ‘borrowing’ ideas from other parties may be rife among the less imaginative.

Were such visions of a united island available to see and be debated though, it would at least serve to lessen fears of a cold house for unionists, a fear most people in the 26 counties would see as unfounded.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There has been work done on it. What is required now is transparency from the British on the subvention and the true costs.

Brexit and the Future of Ireland
Uniting Ireland & Its People in Peace & Prosperity

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_the_implementation_of_the_good_friday_agreement/reports/2017/2017-08-02_brexit-and-the-future-of-ireland-uniting-ireland-and-its-people-in-peace-and-prosperity_en.pdf

BTW. There is Unionist input to the above if you look for it.

That report didn’t add anything to the total sum of knowledge, rehashing submissions and old reports

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Can we have your breakdown of how much it will cost, and what freezes and service cuts will be required, Blanch? To say it's an awful lot implies you have some accurate numbers behind you.

I have provided coatings before on a number of areas e.g. the cost of harmonising child benefit using the different rates, the population size and the number of births.

The figures weren’t challenged because the usual UI fantasists can only spout rhetoric. The post in now probably buried under an avalanche of posts ranting about partitionists.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There has been work done on it. What is required now is transparency from the British on the subvention and the true costs.

Brexit and the Future of Ireland
Uniting Ireland & Its People in Peace & Prosperity

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_the_implementation_of_the_good_friday_agreement/reports/2017/2017-08-02_brexit-and-the-future-of-ireland-uniting-ireland-and-its-people-in-peace-and-prosperity_en.pdf

BTW. There is Unionist input to the above if you look for it.

That report didn’t add anything to the total sum of knowledge, rehashing submissions and old reports

I haven't had a read through beyond beyond cursory glance, certainly not enough to assess sources, but the term you'd be looking for, based on your description would be a meta study Blanch?

The connotations you place on a meta study sell your bias. Meta analysis is a very useful tool in research.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How long it will pertain for would be good to know too. Factoring in, investment in the north and that paying dividends as it starts to pay it's way.

The UI project will be an investment.

The costs go up over time as more people retire on higher than predicted pensions and more kids that are born get higher than expected child benefit.

Voodoorasher2

How many opportunist migrants will we have taken in 15 yrs time. No point for unification then.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The costs go up over time as more people retire on higher than predicted pensions and more kids that are born get higher than expected child benefit.

And a NI standing on it's own two feet contributing to the state?

facehugger99

Dammo wrote: »

I know that this is a discussion on an Internet forum but why is there so little detail from parties that want a UI regarding what it might look like?

The two main reasons are it doesn't make any kind of sense economically. Any party making a serious pro-unification argument would immediately torpedo their own idea by actually costing it out.

It's why you have parties like SF and posters like Francie that are big on the fanciful notions but can provide no actual data.

The second reason is linked to the first, there is no likelihood of a serious discussion on unification occurring in the next few decades, so why would people waste their time working out costs for a scenario that will never happen.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The two main reasons are it doesn't make any kind of sense economically. Any party making a serious pro-unification argument would immediately torpedo their own idea by actually costing it out.

It's why you have parties like SF and posters like Francie that are big on the fanciful notions but can provide no actual data.

The second reason is linked to the first, there is no likelihood of a serious discussion on unification occurring in the next few decades, so why would people waste their time working out costs for a scenario that will never happen.

There is a strong strong whiff of fear from all your denial postings.

A UI is on the agenda and it will not go away no matter how much you declaim.

I have no fear of sitting down with a man like this to discuss our future as an island. The likes of Arlene will abandon her constituents if there is a majority vote, the like of this man won't.
I also have no fear of parties like SF being at the table. There is nothing to show that they won't also be open to honest discussion of the future.

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/on-the-record-with-gavan-reilly/mike-nebitt-unionism-united-ireland

facehugger99

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I was hoping to hear from.....well pretty much anyone but you.

As much as I hate to ruin the acoustics of the echo-chamber you were obviously hoping for, this isn't your personnel safe-space nor do you get to control the conversation through some passive-aggressive backseat modding.

I would suggest if the idea of contrary opinions gives you the willies, there's probably some protected area of the internet, where like-minded pan-nationalists gather to reassure each other how close to unification we really are (about 20 years is it?).

Otherwise you're just going to have to tough it out on Boards I'm afraid.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I was hoping to hear from.....well pretty much anyone but you.

As much as I hate to ruin the acoustics of the echo-chamber you were obviously hoping for, this isn't your personnel safe-space nor do you get to control the conversation through some passive-aggressive backseat modding.

I would suggest if the idea of contrary opinions gives you the willies, there's probably some protected area of the internet, where like-minded pan-nationalists gather to reassure each other how close to unification we really are (about 20 years is it?).

Otherwise you're just going to have to tough it out on Boards I'm afraid.

Nah, no need for an echo chamber, bud. I was, in fact specifically asking for opinions contrary to my own - I'm greatly interested in hearing others opinions, just not yours.

Backseat modding? I didnt suggest you COULDN'T reply, merely stated that I had hoped to hear from anyone except you - that would be an opinion, not an instruction.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no fear of sitting down with a man like this to discuss our future as an island.

Can't imagine they'll be asking you to.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Can't imagine they'll be asking you to.

Isn't it amazing that a Unionist is more willing (if not more relaistic) than you to discuss it?

People like you will be outside the discussion, ranting and sulking, as I said earlier, like belligerent Unionism. You are two of a kind. I would genuinely hate to be either tbh.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Isn't it amazing that a Unionist is more willing (if not more relaistic) than you to discuss it?

Why are you amazed?- Unionists won't be picking up the tab.

It's taxpayers like me that will make the decision, not auld lads like the two of ye used to sucking the State's tit.



.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Why are you amazed?- Unionists won't be picking up the tab.

It's taxpayers like me that will make the decision, not auld lads like the two of ye used to sucking the State's tit.



.

One gets very suspicious the more you say this.

As any real taxpayer knows NI has cost them a lot of money over the year's, as it is. And is about to cost us again because of partition.

Water John

A major public service redunancy package in NI, would be the best way of reducing the cost. Any pensions already in place and attached to the redundancy package, would be responsibility of the UK Govn't.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As any real taxpayer knows NI has cost them a lot of money over the year's, as it is.

Well, as a real taxpayer Francie, perhaps you can supply us with the figure it's costing us?

No bluff, no bluster - just give us a figure for the last 20 years say - round it to the nearest €100k .

I'll make a wager right now - you aren't able to do this.

You're spoofing again and have been caught.

Come on Francie - prove me wrong - give us the figure.