How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

The costs to reunification will be paid back in multiples for generations

Deos anyone believe the eu were wrong to pour billions into eastern europe during last 15 to 20 years now?

I'll get to that in a minute.

I'm part of the cohort that will not pay for a UI. Can you explain why I would need to "shack up with the belligerents"?

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

you shouldnt shack up with anyone,if yous dont want to??



I know its considered homophobic in free state to say this...but you can sleep or cheat with whomever ya want,once their concenting adults

Do you really think that inventing an association with a group that would be seen in a negative light in the Republic will dissuade people from voting no ??

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you shouldnt shack up with anyone,if yous dont want to??



I know its considered homophobic in free state to say this...but you can sleep or cheat with whomever ya want,once their concenting adults

It hasn't been the free state for over 80 years.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I'll get to that in a minute.

I'm part of the cohort that will not pay for a UI. Can you explain why I would need to "shack up with the belligerents"?

FG have begun the alliance, they have invited the No side (the DUP) to address their party conference, even applauded their suggestion that we once again pay homage to a monarch by re-joining the Commonwealth the present monarch heads.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG have begun the alliance, they have invited the No side (the DUP) to address their party conference, even applauded their suggestion that we once again pay homage to a monarch by re-joining the Commonwealth the present monarch heads.

Paraphrasing here but haven't you previously said that SF don't own unification ie a yes vote. Surely by the same token you don't believe FG own the no vote.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

Never understood this claim. Those that will vote no will mainly be doing so because of the huge cost of unification. This is already reflected in opinion polls with only 30% willing to pay anything.

Other might vote no because of fears of violence from the Unionist community.

Why do either cohort need to "shack up with the Belligerents"?

Is that not obvious. You can come up with any manner of reasons to vote no. But you'll be voting alongside bigotry and belligerence.

Same as those who voted no to marriage equality, sure you might have had your own reasons for wanting your fellow citizens to continue to be second class which don't quite amount to downright hate, but you don't get to whitewash that. You were on the wrong side of morality and history. Own it.

It's exactly how Partitionists will be viewed. And quite rightly. Voting with loyalism... The state of it.

BonnieSituation

bubblypop wrote: »

How do you know how I voted?
Perhaps i.voted against those things.
And it's in no way comparable. A vote on a United Ireland would mean a completely new country for some of the people in the North. Their feelings on who they are and how they express it are very important.
They should not be ignored

Voting to repeal the 8th and for marriage equality was exactly that, voting for a new country. That you can't see the parallels is not surprising.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Paraphrasing here but haven't you previously said that SF don't own unification ie a yes vote. Surely by the same token you don't believe FG own the no vote.

Certainly wasn't suggesting that, just showing how alliances form.

If you are on the NO side, then you have to own it.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Do you really think that inventing an association with a group that would be seen in a negative light in the Republic will dissuade people from voting no ??

I havnt invented any association?

BonnieSituation

bubblypop wrote: »

What makes you think I'm a 'partitionist '?
And presuming to guess how I feel about nationalists in the north?
Very presumptuous of you

Your posts indicate as much.

I don't know about you, but outside of what you write, I don't have much else to go on. Perhaps you can enlighten us if I've misrepresented your views. I'm not in the business of guessing.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

I'll get to that in a minute.

I'm part of the cohort that will not pay for a UI. Can you explain why I would need to "shack up with the belligerents"?

You'll be voting on the same side of bigots and Belligerents. It's quite clear. I don't know why you're getting hung up on it. Own your partitionism.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is that not obvious. You can come up with any manner of reasons to vote no. But you'll be voting alongside bigotry and belligerence.

Same as those who voted no to marriage equality, sure you might have had your own reasons for wanting your fellow citizens to continue to be second class which don't quite amount to downright hate, but you don't get to whitewash that. You were on the wrong side of morality and history. Own it.

It's exactly how Partitionists will be viewed. And quite rightly. Voting with loyalism... The state of it.

They'll still be bigots even if I vote yes only difference is I'm be paying for them. Not a valid point at all.

If unification isn't funded and managed correctly the socio-economic divides in NI will remain. The only change to their lives will be the colour of the flags on the buildings.

The citizens of NI will only benefit if funding is there. A country of 6 million cannot increase to 8 million overnight it's impossible without making things far worse for all.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Paraphrasing here but haven't you previously said that SF don't own unification ie a yes vote. Surely by the same token you don't believe FG own the no vote.

FG position (same as labour,FF,dunno about soc dems tbh) as per their constitution is to seek reunification...if a unity poll was to occur,then they will seek a yes vote (or habe to hold an ard deis/party vote to ammend said constitution)

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is that not obvious. You can come up with any manner of reasons to vote no. But you'll be voting alongside bigotry and belligerence.

Same as those who voted no to marriage equality, sure you might have had your own reasons for wanting your fellow citizens to continue to be second class which don't quite amount to downright hate, but you don't get to whitewash that. You were on the wrong side of morality and history. Own it.

It's exactly how Partitionists will be viewed. And quite rightly. Voting with loyalism... The state of it.

I don't like the idea of abortion, but that was put aside in order to ensure that rights were given to women in this country, which I want to be a true democracy.

Protestations like, 'what's in it for ME' or 'what good is this to my wife and I in Dublin' are just expressions of selfishness that need to be owned by those indulging in them.
When voting for constitutional change it cannot be 'all about you'.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

They'll still be bigots even if I vote yes only difference is I'm be paying for them. Not a valid point at all.

The difference being is that you voted for a different outcome and didn't stand beside the bigots and Belligerents.
I know it's hard for you, but take your band from your pocket for a minute and think about what you write.

If unification isn't funded and managed correctly the socio-economic divides in NI will remain.

Cool. So let's not do this thing cos we haven't got a plan for this thing.

It's almost like we should discuss this plan with a wide group of stakeholders.

Perhaps, we should move that part forward and stop worrying about what the bigots and Partitionists think?

The only change to their lives will be the colour of the flags on the buildings.

Really?

The citizens of NI will only benefit if funding is there.

Cool. And where do we get money from for anything?

Why is increasingly eh tax base a negative?

A country of 6 million cannot increase to 8 million overnight it's impossible without making things far worse for all.

Ignoring your incredibly loose relationship with the population figures. I mean, you nail people for "£10bn subvention" on the reg... Perhaps What's good for the goose...

That's quite an assertion. Can you show me how you came to that conclusion please? The basic workings will do.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You'll be voting on the same side of bigots and Belligerents. It's quite clear. I don't know why you're getting hung up on it. Own your partitionism.

I think partitionist is a moot term now SF have officially come out as a partitionist party with the donation of 4 million.

Otherwise, I comfortable with my position that we can't afford it and will vote no unless there is a decent plan in place. I see it as akin to getting a mortgage. Celtic Tiger showed us what happens when you borrow recklessly.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Voting to repeal the 8th and for marriage equality was exactly that, voting for a new country. That you can't see the parallels is not surprising.

Indeed it was not.
If we voted to rejoin the UK, that may be comparable

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

They'll still be bigots even if I vote yes only difference is I'm be paying for them. Not a valid point at all.

If unification isn't funded and managed correctly the socio-economic divides in NI will remain. The only change to their lives will be the colour of the flags on the buildings.

The citizens of NI will only benefit if funding is there. A country of 6 million cannot increase to 8 million overnight it's impossible without making things far worse for all.

Has anyone suggested unification should occur overnight with no funding?!

Funny that, everyone I've ever heard discuss it has been of the opinion it would be a planned transition from NI being part of the UK, with investment in the short/mid term to make it viable.

Could you point me to any of those people arguing that we should go from border poll to unified overnight, and then just let NI plod along as is?

Your vote will count the same as mine, so you don't have to justify why you favour continued partition, but I'd question why when you do try to justify it, you're so insecure as to have to result to outright lies?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Protestations like, 'what's in it for ME' or 'what good is this to my wife and I in Dublin' are just expressions of selfishness that need to be owned by those indulging in them.
When voting for constitutional change it cannot be 'all about you'.

Too simplistic in this case, the scale here is huge and therefore the consequences could be too.

It isn't a case that I might not be able to afford some luxury item because a small tax increase. It could be a disaster for the economy. For example if money originally meant for inward investment had to be diverted to prop up NI.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

I think partitionist is a moot term now SF have officially come out as a partitionist party with the donation of 4 million.

Otherwise, I comfortable with my position that we can't afford it and will vote no unless there is a decent plan in place. I see it as akin to getting a mortgage. Celtic Tiger showed us what happens when you borrow recklessly.

Grand yeah. So that's the end of that debate I guess.

Record time in avoiding "buh Sinn Féin".

You don't seem very comfortable tbh. But if it helps you get up in the morning...

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Too simplistic in this case, the scale here is huge and therefore the consequences could be too.

It isn't a case that I might not be able to afford some luxury item because a small tax increase. It could be a disaster for the economy. For example if money originally meant for inward investment had to be diverted to prop up NI.

And it could be a massive success.

YOU have decided that you don't want to pay for it. You have taken a selfish position because you see no benefit for YOU.
No country nor no general prosperity was ever built on the backs of people like you.
We wouldn't have built the country we have had people been so personally selfish in outlook.

I am happy that we are pumping money into NI as it is - a partitioned part of the island. Because I know that it benefits all of us on this island.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Your posts indicate as much.

I don't know about you, but outside of what you write, I don't have much else to go on. Perhaps you can enlighten us if I've misrepresented your views. I'm not in the business of guessing.

Nope. My posts indicate that I would prefer to live in a country where everyone and their beliefs are respected.
Where there is no underlying tensions that could break out at any time.
I grew up in a small border town, not far I imagine from francie, going by his posts. I know the troubles well, I know people involved, I know people living and working on both sides of the border. I know how much better everything is now, compared to how it was when I was growing up.
The only thing I want is harmony and an inclusive society.

BonnieSituation

bubblypop wrote: »

Indeed it was not.
If we voted to rejoin the UK, that may be comparable

Right...

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

Too simplistic in this case, the scale here is huge and therefore the consequences could be too.

It isn't a case that I might not be able to afford some luxury item because a small tax increase. It could be a disaster for the economy. For example if money originally meant for inward investment had to be diverted to prop up NI.

Jesus, reunification is now a luxury?

Have you ever been north of Julianstown? Mother of Christ.

Mad_maxx

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A simple numeric majority is required not some bizarre renegotiation of the GFA that requires charming the minority Unionist population of the north into a United Ireland.

SF voters seem to believe that only their idea of a United Ireland should be considered , hence the 50+1 majority and thats all that is needed line

I am absolutely in favour of a United Ireland and would vote for one today as i believe it would benefit the whole island economically , never mind anything else , Markets hate borders , Ireland has a lot of friends internationally in a corporate sense and Northern Ireland can offer much to big business in terms of investment .

I dont believe that its unaffordable , quite the contrary , i see it as a great economic opportunity , Northern Ireland is never on the radar of any budding tory or Labour government from an economic standpoint as the votes of Northern Ireland citizens are rarely ever needed , as such its economic blackspot status can be safely taken for granted along with its votes

I would honestly however vote for the Ulster Unionists in a post United Ireland state ahead of SF as the idea of a socialist republic sends shivers down my spine , il probably get labelled a " West Brit " for saying that but to reiterate my opening point

SF voters think they have a monopoly of ideas on the prospect - plan for a United Ireland , they need to get over that idea quick

BonnieSituation

bubblypop wrote: »

Nope. My posts indicate that I would prefer to live in a country where everyone and their beliefs are respected.
Where there is no underlying tensions that could break out at any time.
I grew up in a small border town, not far I imagine from francie, going by his posts. I know the troubles well, I know people involved, I know people living and working on both sides of the border. I know how much better everything is now, compared to how it was when I was growing up.
The only thing I want is harmony and an inclusive society.

Right, so your idea of inclusivity is to grease the squeaky hinge and ignore Nationalists?

Rightio

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Right, so your idea of inclusivity is to grease the squeaky hinge and ignore Nationalists?

Rightio

Clearly you're the belligerent one in here if that's what you take from my post.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Nope. My posts indicate that I would prefer to live in a country where everyone and their beliefs are respected.
Where there is no underlying tensions that could break out at any time.
I grew up in a small border town, not far I imagine from francie, going by his posts. I know the troubles well, I know people involved, I know people living and working on both sides of the border. I know how much better everything is now, compared to how it was when I was growing up.
The only thing I want is harmony and an inclusive society.

Things are 'different' now. There is no violence on the scale of before. But partition is still having a massive negative and destabilising effect. It is now affecting profoundly, us, those who identify as British, the British themselves and the rest of those in the EU.

And it will continue to, as we move to a vote every four years on the Protocol. And, (I realise this is speculative) as the negative effects of Brexit take hold in Britain.

BonnieSituation

Mad_maxx wrote: »

SF voters seem to believe that only their idea of a United Ireland should be considered , hence the 50+1 majority and thats all that is needed line

I am absolutely in favour of a United Ireland and would vote for one today as i believe it would benefit the whole island economically , never mind anything else , Markets hate borders , Ireland has a lot of friends internationally in a corporate sense and Northern Ireland can offer much to big business in terms of investment .

I dont believe that its unaffordable , quite the contrary , i see it as a great economic opportunity , Northern Ireland is never on the radar of any budding tory or Labour government from an economic standpoint as the votes of Northern Ireland citizens are rarely ever needed , as such its economic blackspot status can be safely taken for granted along with its votes

I would honestly however vote for the Ulster Unionists in a post United Ireland state ahead of SF as the idea of a socialist republic sends shivers down my spine , il probably get labelled a " West Brit " for saying that but to reiterate my opening point

SF voters think they have a monopoly of ideas on the prospect - plan for a United Ireland , they need to get over that idea quick

I don't know why you think we'll turn into a 2 party system in the event of a UI, but sure look...

As regards the apparent monopoly on a UI that you think SF supporters think they have; well, as someone who isn't an SF supporter, I'm gonna politely call shít on that.

Of other parties don't engage in UI discussions, it can hardly be the fault of a party who do.

The clamour at the end of those shouting "we were never consulted" will be deafening!

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

What informs your position we cant afford it,this is same british propaganda that was bombarded at malta when it sought indepdence......a utd ireland is a better ireland

GDP of Ireland is 335 bn approx for 6 million
GDP of NI is 53 bn for approx 2 million!

NI should have a GDP of approx 110 bn give or take.

I think Ireland invests 20% of GDP to stimulate the economy. 20% of what NI should be is 22bn.

Obviously this is done over time and scaled up but it illustrates the scale of the required investment. And then you have to match the subvention until it gets to the desirable productivity.

Any economists on here? Would love to hear a professional opinion.