Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

blanch152

ELM327 wrote: »

Not as if there's any precedent for the EU paying, or anything of course

There is a precedent - the PHARE programme which helped 10 of the poorest countries join the EU.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/briefings/33a3_en.htm#9

At its height, it was paying €3.3 billion a year to the 10 countries. A similar programme for Northern Ireland would yield €300m, a drop in the ocean of the huge costs.

Money from the EU is still a concern in the Baltic States:

https://www.baltictimes.com/eu_leaders_are_moving_towards_cutting_recovery_fund__postpone_negotiations_until_evening/

"Currently, Baltic farmers receive the lowest direct payments from the EU, standing at around 170 euros per ha, compared to the EU average exceeding 250 euros."

Ireland is now one of the richest countries in the EU, in the 1970s, it was the poorest. Why would the poorer countries like Estonia etc. agree to give us money?

downcow

bocaman wrote: »

Northern Ireland has been a complete and utter failure. A sectarian state based on a raw headcount on religious belief. Personally I believe a United Ireland by peaceful means is the only way forward. Consent being the operative word. The input of the unionist population into this United Ireland will only be positive. If changing the flag and national anthem are required then so be. If people wish to keep their British identity then so be it. Of course not everyone will wish to stay and some unionists will move to mainland Britain. Their loss. The British dont want them and will forever regard them as Irish.

This is nonsense or bigotry I can’t work out which.
You could apply exactly the same words about maintaining the UK and nationalists could leave if they wish.
What is the difference.
Too many live in some delusion that there once was a United ireland and one can be again. Both of which are a stretch.
Northern Ireland has been British longer that white people have been in the states or Australia

ELM327

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a precedent - the PHARE programme which helped 10 of the poorest countries join the EU.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/briefings/33a3_en.htm#9

At its height, it was paying €3.3 billion a year to the 10 countries. A similar programme for Northern Ireland would yield €300m, a drop in the ocean of the huge costs.

Money from the EU is still a concern in the Baltic States:

https://www.baltictimes.com/eu_leaders_are_moving_towards_cutting_recovery_fund__postpone_negotiations_until_evening/

"Currently, Baltic farmers receive the lowest direct payments from the EU, standing at around 170 euros per ha, compared to the EU average exceeding 250 euros."

Ireland is now one of the richest countries in the EU, in the 1970s, it was the poorest. Why would the poorer countries like Estonia etc. agree to give us money?

For clarity, I was being sarcastic.
Northern Ireland has already been recognized as a special region and is treated as such by Europe.


They need subvention, and I cant see the EU not funding at least some of it, along with the UK on a declining YoY basis as part of a transitory agreement.


AFAIK the EU already provides some funding to the central UK pot to cover NI - but I do stand to be corrected on that one.

ELM327

downcow wrote: »

This is nonsense or bigotry I can’t work out which.
You could apply exactly the same words about maintaining the UK and nationalists could leave if they wish.
What is the difference.
Too many live in some delusion that there once was a United ireland and one can be again. Both of which are a stretch.
Northern Ireland has been British longer that white people have been in the states or Australia

Northern Ireland has never been British. Britain refers to the landmass encompassing England, Scotland and Wales.


"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" vs Britain are two different things.

blanch152

ELM327 wrote: »

For clarity, I was being sarcastic.
Northern Ireland has already been recognized as a special region and is treated as such by Europe.


They need subvention, and I cant see the EU not funding at least some of it, along with the UK on a declining YoY basis as part of a transitory agreement.


AFAIK the EU already provides some funding to the central UK pot to cover NI - but I do stand to be corrected on that one.

As I point out, yes they will, but it is nowhere near the scale needed.

A €12 billion subsidy from Westminister replaced by a €300m time-limited handout from Brussels is a drop in the ocean before you count the cost of social welfare harmonisation and public pay harmonisation.

downcow

pixelburp wrote: »

Isn't there a chicken & egg element to this entire train of thought? Seems like no party or power structure is going to call for a Border Poll until there's some semblance of belief it could be successful. But if and when that happens, presumably the question of taxation or "the cost" of unification would become less relevant or uncomfortable - be that because of the emotional sway of the prospect, or any other black magic that can inform a country's desires. You'd imagine there'll be paper produced outlining the costs, be they true or fudged.

What I've not seen, and do maintain scepticism towards would be: what do unionists get? Let's say in 30 years the demographics swing to an extent whereby soft Unionism constitutes (say) 20% of the Northern Irish population. Obviously, they'll vote against unification but then where do they fit into this new country? They'll still be new citizens of a country they didn't wish to be in, but fairness and empathy dictate some leeway is given towards their status. What would be the best way to do this? Simply going "like or lump it" will only extend the possibility of violence - which would be on everyone's minds the moment NI merged with the REpublic.

I reckon there would be a range of reaction from unionists. Some but very very few may buy into this new creation.
A significant number will try to wreck the new project in the way republicans are trying to wreck NI
The majority I believe will push for as much devolution and autonomy as possible , with the ultimate aim of ending their stateless position and getting a new country back. That may be as unlikely as republicans getting a united island, but it doesn’t stop republicans trying

ELM327

blanch152 wrote: »

As I point out, yes they will, but it is nowhere near the scale needed.

A €12 billion subsidy from Westminister replaced by a €300m time-limited handout from Brussels is a drop in the ocean before you count the cost of social welfare harmonisation and public pay harmonisation.

I'd counter that a change like this won't happen overnight. As I said earlier in the thread there's going to be a transitory period of probably years. Enough time to allow natural attrition through retirement for the bloated PS.


The social welfare gap is noted as there is a significant delta between the reasonable amount paid in NI vs the ridiculous amounts paid here. This would of course be problematic

downcow

ELM327 wrote: »

Northern Ireland has never been British. Britain refers to the landmass encompassing England, Scotland and Wales.


"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" vs Britain are two different things.

I didn’t say it was Britain. I said it is british.

The international borders are on my side. Unfortunately for you I could make a much better claim that Co Down is not Irish. But you call it what you like.

UK v Roi

ELM327

downcow wrote: »

I reckon there would be a range of reaction from unionists. Some but very very few may buy into this new creation.
A significant number will try to wreck the new project in the way republicans are trying to wreck NI
The majority I believe will push for as much devolution and autonomy as possible , with the ultimate aim of ending their stateless position and getting a new country back. That may be as unlikely as republicans getting a united island, but it doesn’t stop republicans trying

A significant portion of unionists are considering this, for similar reasons that wealthy irish folks accepted the act of union in 1801. Money.


If I was a well off unionist in the North, I'd be looking to remain in the EU to safeguard my business interests and that would be more important to me than wanting to remain in a union where the major stakeholder (England) recently polled over 50% of voters don't want the North anyway.

FrancieBrady

Speaking in the Parliament on the financial implications of German re-unification Peter Schmidhuber, the Member of the Commission responsible for budgets and financial control, said,

"On the whole, we can already say that the enlargement of the Community
will involve less expenditure than the accession of similar-sized States
in the past. In the longer term, the advantages which the Community will
derive from this enlargement far outweigh the burden of extra
expenditure,"

A successful UI is an advantage to the EUas it secures it's borders and the ntegrity of the Single Market from a state that cannot be trusted. So I would not make any comparisons to structural funds given to other states, like those for German re-unification, these funds will be accounted for in a different way.

ELM327

downcow wrote: »

I didn’t say it was Britain. I said it is british.

The international borders are on my side. Unfortunately for you I could make a much better claim that Co Down is not Irish. But you call it what you like.

UK v Roi

ROI vs Ireland, again two different terms.
Co Down is Irish. It is not part of the (british created) Republic of Ireland entity. Nor is it part of Britain. It is Irish but part of the united kingdom.


FYI: This back and forth shows the importance of symbolism as part of this wider debate. Both sides need to be accounted for. This is why I think a united ireland as part of the commonwealth for example, with the queen as head of state, is a more likely outcome than simply the six counties being subsumed into the existing ROI

pixelburp

downcow wrote: »

I reckon there would be a range of reaction from unionists. Some but very very few may buy into this new creation.
A significant number will try to wreck the new project in the way republicans are trying to wreck NI
The majority I believe will push for as much devolution and autonomy as possible , with the ultimate aim of ending their stateless position and getting a new country back. That may be as unlikely as republicans getting a united island, but it doesn’t stop republicans trying

Unification wouldn't be a one-way process: it's entirely possible there'd be a cultural conversation among Unionism about what their identity means in a situation whereby there is no longer any actual union to belong of. My personal wish would be said unionists would pivot towards the idea that their cultural heritage and identity is as much forged by neighbours on this island as the intangible, abstract identity defined by Great Britain, an entity Unionists don't literally belong to. Ulster's heritage can't be delineated easily.

Nor would Unification be an isolated, political happening in any case: many social or cultural institutions would require merging, and things like Sport would be important here: we already have a template for this via the IRish rugby team, where Ulster identities are perfectly capable of existing within an all-Ireland structure; there'd be a hope that the 32 counties could find common ground within these amended outlets. I agree that a certain degree of autonomy would be the best approach, but that would also need a rethink about all local government across the island. Giving Belfast council more powers than (say) Cork would be a recipe for disaster so the new Dublin government would have to look at that carefully.

FrancieBrady

ELM327 wrote: »

ROI vs Ireland, again two different terms.
Co Down is Irish. It is not part of the (british created) Republic of Ireland entity. Nor is it part of Britain. It is Irish but part of the united kingdom.


FYI: This back and forth shows the importance of symbolism as part of this wider debate. Both sides need to be accounted for. This is why I think a united ireland as part of the commonwealth for example, with the queen as head of state, is a more likely outcome than simply the six counties being subsumed into the existing ROI

Interesting...the majority would switch from being a republic to a monarchy?

blanch152

ELM327 wrote: »

I'd counter that a change like this won't happen overnight. As I said earlier in the thread there's going to be a transitory period of probably years. Enough time to allow natural attrition through retirement for the bloated PS.


The social welfare gap is noted as there is a significant delta between the reasonable amount paid in NI vs the ridiculous amounts paid here. This would of course be problematic

So a difference in child benefit rates will be allowed to continue? Will people from Derry have their babies in Letterkenny to qualify for the higher rates? Will people claim disability in the South on the more generous rates and conditions?

There won't be a transition for such things. Bang overnight, a huge bill for the taxpayer.

ELM327

blanch152 wrote: »

So a difference in child benefit rates will be allowed to continue? Will people from Derry have their babies in Letterkenny to qualify for the higher rates? Will people claim disability in the South on the more generous rates and conditions?

There won't be a transition for such things. Bang overnight, a huge bill for the taxpayer.

Do those things happen now?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Interesting...the majority would switch from being a republic to a monarchy?

Similarly to Australia, Canada etc. I don't think it's that big of an ask. The queen and commonwealth has no real role but it's symbolic of respect for unionists. I'd prefer that to the current partition.

BonnieSituation

ELM327 wrote: »

ROI vs Ireland, again two different terms.
Co Down is Irish. It is not part of the (british created) Republic of Ireland entity. Nor is it part of Britain. It is Irish but part of the united kingdom.


FYI: This back and forth shows the importance of symbolism as part of this wider debate. Both sides need to be accounted for. This is why I think a united ireland as part of the commonwealth for example, with the queen as head of state, is a more likely outcome than simply the six counties being subsumed into the existing ROI

Why would we ever want to cease being a republic? Who would want the noise of an unelected head of state?

Bizarre. And you've been very reasoned with most else you've written.

Compromise is a two way street. Being tied to a commonwealth of nothingness and having a monarch isn't going to happen.

Let's stick to the "tax implications" of reunification.

Because it certainly proves the raison d'être of this thread.

BonnieSituation

ELM327 wrote: »

Similarly to Australia, Canada etc. I don't think it's that big of an ask. The queen and commonwealth has no real role but it's symbolic of respect for unionists. I'd prefer that to the current partition.

It's a MASSIVE ask. How dare you.

This "respect for Unionists" garbage always ignores the "respect for everyone else" aspect.

pixelburp

Floating a return to the commonwealth would kill unification faster than any number of logistical sops that would be offered to the Uniionist community. It'd be madness to ask a Republic to countenance returning to underneath the umbrella of a nominal monarchial set-up. It doesn't matter how symbolic and toothless the Commonwealth is, it'd be an inherently regressive move by any sovereign Republic, let alone ours. You might as well ask if France might want to dig out a blood relative and restore the monarchy, insofar as you'd get the same response - both politically and in terms of public disorder.

ELM327

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why would we ever want to cease being a republic? Who would want the noise of an unelected head of state?

Bizarre. And you've been very reasoned with most else you've written.

Compromise is a two way street. Being tied to a commonwealth of nothingness and having a monarch isn't going to happen.

Let's stick to the "tax implications" of reunification.

Because it certainly proves the raison d'être of this thread.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's a MASSIVE ask. How dare you.

This "respect for Unionists" garbage always ignores the "respect for everyone else aspect".

Listen folks, I'm a seasoned republican. My family and my partners family were directly shot at by british soldiers - "make them dance" etc in the 70's. I rmember the garvaghy road, the cvnts attacking children walking to school. The hunger strikers were a recent thing when I was young too.
Also, I remember Omagh, the bombings in the late 80's and early 90's, etc.


I'm not a unionist, nor am I middle of the road. But I'm a realist, and expecting to railroad a 32 county socialist (I also despise socialism but play the analogy for a second) republic that Larkin et al sang about in the 1900s , is quite frankly ridiculous. ~50% of the population of the North are likely to be varying degrees of fervently opposed to this.


We're better than that, we want a united ireland but I for one think it should be a UI where all citizens are treated equally (unlike the North and the unionist gerrymandering etc) and are happy.


I appreciate it's an emotive issue - and it is for me too - but trying to detach from the emotion is the only way forward. Following on from the GFA, we all need to work together. We may need to allow that LOL parade in Dublin. We may need to allow dual citizenship arrangements with GB for those that want them. We may need a public holiday on the 12th.


I think if you take a step or two back, you'll see where I'm coming from.

grayzer75

ELM327 wrote: »

I appreciate it's an emotive issue - and it is for me too - but trying to detach from the emotion is the only way forward. Following on from the GFA, we all need to work together. We may need to allow that LOL parade in Dublin. We may need to allow dual citizenship arrangements with GB for those that want them. We may need a public holiday on the 12th.


I think if you take a step or two back, you'll see where I'm coming from.

There should be no more parading anywhere from either side, it's 2020 ffs.

The citizenship is a can of worms which has recently been opened by the Brits with regards to the GFA so it's gonna be messy.

Why a holiday on the 12th - the battle of the boyne happened on the 1st, it was Aughrim that happened on the 12th.

Fionn1952

ELM327 wrote: »

Listen folks, I'm a seasoned republican. My family and my partners family were directly shot at by british soldiers - "make them dance" etc in the 70's. I rmember the garvaghy road, the cvnts attacking children walking to school. The hunger strikers were a recent thing when I was young too.
Also, I remember Omagh, the bombings in the late 80's and early 90's, etc.


I'm not a unionist, nor am I middle of the road. But I'm a realist, and expecting to railroad a 32 county socialist (I also despise socialism but play the analogy for a second) republic that Larkin et al sang about in the 1900s , is quite frankly ridiculous. ~50% of the population of the North are likely to be varying degrees of fervently opposed to this.


We're better than that, we want a united ireland but I for one think it should be a UI where all citizens are treated equally (unlike the North and the unionist gerrymandering etc) and are happy.


I appreciate it's an emotive issue - and it is for me too - but trying to detach from the emotion is the only way forward. Following on from the GFA, we all need to work together. We may need to allow that LOL parade in Dublin. We may need to allow dual citizenship arrangements with GB for those that want them. We may need a public holiday on the 12th.


I think if you take a step or two back, you'll see where I'm coming from.

There are a whole heap of intermediate steps between 32 County Socialist Republic and, 'reunited under the Queen', Elm.

I think even Downcow would acknowledge that I've been quite open on quite a few areas I'd be open to compromise on, but tying unification to reinstalling the Queen as even a figurehead Monarch for Ireland would be absolutely beyond countenance for me.

12th as a holiday? Go for it. New flags and anthem? No bother. Dual Citizenship isn't within Ireland's power to give, that would be down to Britain to decide. Orange Order marches in Dublin? If they were akin to Rossnowlagh I might even pop along for a look myself!

But Ireland is a Republic, a hard earned one, and that is more than just symbolic.

pixelburp

Commonwealth membership would be the ultimate in token nods; just purely from a pragmatic point of view I can't see what it would offer the disenfranchised Unionists beyond what amounted to a cultural pat on the head - while potentially enraging huge swathes of the Republic's own demographics. And with Brexit around the corner, it's not like the Commonwealth is going to offer some kind of superior trade or geopolitical clout to Ireland. Were that true the RoI would have joined years ago.

Instead, seems like a good start would be to reform local governance in this "new" Ireland, such that the 6 Counties would have some degree of autonomy in their affairs. Something of a Federal-lite Ireland. That feels a more useful item to offer disgruntled Unionists than some regressive symbolic gesture, and a reform of local / county councils is something often floated within the Republic's politics anyway.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why would we ever want to cease being a republic? Who would want the noise of an unelected head of state?

Bizarre. .............

Indeed.

pixelburp wrote: »

.............. It'd be madness to ask a Republic to countenance returning to underneath the umbrella of a nominal monarchial set-up. .............

The idea that a return to the commonwealth is a valid route for a united ireland to me suggests how unrealistic a united ireland is.

Once it's realised that a united ireland is not the ROI of 26 counties being enlarged by 6 the concept will have less then 10% support IMO. A united ireland might be an option from 2120 ish ........ Brexit makes it less likely in the near term I reckon due to €€€€€€€€s

FrancieBrady

ELM327 wrote: »

Do those things happen now?






Similarly to Australia, Canada etc. I don't think it's that big of an ask. The queen and commonwealth has no real role but it's symbolic of respect for unionists. I'd prefer that to the current partition.

No, it would be appeasing Unionists for sake of it and would cause division down the line IMO.

It would have to be the democratic decision of all the people for that reason.

FrancieBrady

ELM327 wrote: »

Listen folks, I'm a seasoned republican. My family and my partners family were directly shot at by british soldiers - "make them dance" etc in the 70's. I rmember the garvaghy road, the cvnts attacking children walking to school. The hunger strikers were a recent thing when I was young too.
Also, I remember Omagh, the bombings in the late 80's and early 90's, etc.


I'm not a unionist, nor am I middle of the road. But I'm a realist, and expecting to railroad a 32 county socialist (I also despise socialism but play the analogy for a second) republic that Larkin et al sang about in the 1900s , is quite frankly ridiculous. ~50% of the population of the North are likely to be varying degrees of fervently opposed to this.


We're better than that, we want a united ireland but I for one think it should be a UI where all citizens are treated equally (unlike the North and the unionist gerrymandering etc) and are happy.


I appreciate it's an emotive issue - and it is for me too - but trying to detach from the emotion is the only way forward. Following on from the GFA, we all need to work together. We may need to allow that LOL parade in Dublin. We may need to allow dual citizenship arrangements with GB for those that want them. We may need a public holiday on the 12th.


I think if you take a step or two back, you'll see where I'm coming from.

It would be a step backwards into the last century.

I doubt the monarchy will last much longer after the present head goes and I doubt they'd be up for such a divisive idea.
The Tories floated the idea of developing the Commonwealth as a competitive trading alliance to the EU, laughable as that is, it is not something a member state f the EU could be involved in anyhow.

blanch152

grayzer75 wrote: »

There should be no more parading anywhere from either side, it's 2020 ffs.

The citizenship is a can of worms which has recently been opened by the Brits with regards to the GFA so it's gonna be messy.

Why a holiday on the 12th - the battle of the boyne happened on the 1st, it was Aughrim that happened on the 12th.

Are you cancelling the St. Patrick's Day Parades?

grayzer75

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you cancelling the St. Patrick's Day Parades?

Yeah, they're sh!te.

ELM327

I can see that my conceptual ideas have been derided, arguably rightly so given that this is a predominantly ROI based forum, but I think the point is proven that it's not a simple migration to a UI.

pixelburp

ELM327 wrote: »

I can see that my conceptual ideas have been derided, arguably rightly so given that this is a predominantly ROI based forum, but I think the point is proven that it's not a simple migration to a UI.

Your concept depends upon the idea that symbolism would be important to the Unionist community in the even of unification. It's debatable if something so brazenly token would be what they even want out of any arrangement. Money talks: Commonwealth membership adds nothing that some degree of autonomy wouldn't allow. Recognition of the crown would be a needlessly hostile, antagonistic and reductive decision

Heck if political linkage with the UK is needed, then surely a more useful option might be something like a ceremonial position within the Dail or Senate, taken from a nominated member of Westminister. An ambassadorial role with a little more clout.

FrancieBrady

ELM327 wrote: »

I can see that my conceptual ideas have been derided, arguably rightly so given that this is a predominantly ROI based forum, but I think the point is proven that it's not a simple migration to a UI.

It's not simple, it will be democratic though. And anything that is done will be done with the consent of a majority. Unionism or Nationalism does not have a 'veto' on that process.

It's been mentioned quite a few times that Unionism needs to begin convincing people why they should stay in the UK instead of vetoing any move towards a proper discussion of it.

If a border poll passes in NI, we can take it they have failed to convince a majority to remain in the commonwealth or to have a monarch as the head of state.