United Ireland Poll - please vote

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

It's still part of the UK, but only just by the sounds of it, and I guess if it leaves the UK then you just have Great Britain ... until Scotland leaves?

Then you have England & Wales, although there must be catchier name for that duo.

Point stands...even currently, a UI suits the majority in the UK. If the UK breaks up as a result of that, so be it. Nowt to do with me, as they might say themselves.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There you go...doing exactly what I pointed out. Withering on about something nobody is proposing...i.e. us subsuming NI as is and carrying on.

Ridiculous.

Such nonsense. In the event of Unification it is the Republic paying for NI. No amount of word play changes that.

Increased spending on education to fix the low standards in NI is a cost that only exists in the event of a UI.

Increased spending on infrastructure, social welfare, PS pay and pensions only occurs in the event of unification.

There is no financial return for the Republic we are just fixing the failed statelet.

Fixing the "whole island" narrative is nonsense too. Unification only means we have less money to fix the problems in the Republic. The addition of NI adds no advantage to the Republic.

jh79

Simple question for you Francie,

Originally Posted by FrancieBrady View Post
No doom laden negativity is imaginary.

I want a UI so we can fix things on this island.

If 'things' need fixing, it stands to reason they are currently broken.

You want to hold on tight to what you have got. Own it, selfish partitionism has never changed.

The "things" that need fixing in the Republic, can they be fixed without unification?

I'm assuming you mean things like the health service, housing etc

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Such nonsense. In the event of Unification it is the Republic paying for NI. No amount of word play changes that.

Increased spending on education to fix the low standards in NI is a cost that only exists in the event of a UI.

Increased spending on infrastructure, social welfare, PS pay and pensions only occurs in the event of unification.

There is no financial return for the Republic we are just fixing the failed statelet.

Fixing the "whole island" narrative is nonsense too. Unification only means we have less money to fix the problems in the Republic. The addition of NI adds no advantage to the Republic.

More of it.

There will be no 'us' in a UI jh79...we will be a united island country making and paying our way in the world. All of us.
Whatever is done will be for the benefit of us all.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Simple question for you Francie,

Originally Posted by FrancieBrady View Post
No doom laden negativity is imaginary.

I want a UI so we can fix things on this island.

If 'things' need fixing, it stands to reason they are currently broken.

You want to hold on tight to what you have got. Own it, selfish partitionism has never changed.

The "things" that need fixing in the Republic, can they be fixed without unification?

I'm assuming you mean things like the health service, housing etc

No, I don't believe they can be fixed. We paid a price for partition too, we got the power swap for 100 years which has led us to where we are now.
Fundamental root and branch reform and a political realignment that better represents all of the people is required and on offer in a UI.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I don't believe they can be fixed. We paid a price for partition too, we got the power swap for 100 years which has led us to where we are now.
Fundamental root and branch reform and a political realignment that better represents all of the people is required and on offer in a UI.

Give us an example of something that can't be fixed now if the will is there?

You'd agree we could have an NHS style service if we wanted to for example?

StupidLikeAFox

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Bean-counter partitionists are like those people who buy something in the euro-store having to replace it every couple of years instead of spending the money on something of quality that will stand the test of time. 'Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing' I believe it's known as.

It just seems beyond the imagination of pound-shop-partitionists to see the value in uniting the country and finally ending the disruption of the border and British jurisdiction. This shit with Brexit/NIP will be repalced by some other issue in years to come, and then some other issue, and then another, and so on.

You can use all the playground style name-calling you like, but its not unreasonable (or even anti-United Ireland) to ask how much it would cost and who will pay for it

guy2231

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

You can use all the playground style name-calling you like, but its not unreasonable (or even anti-United Ireland) to ask how much it would cost and who will pay for it

It is when some posters on here are so adamantly against it that those questions are merely a tactic to further their partionist agenda.

Shebean

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Can you explain what the bold bit means - about leaving our fellow Irish people/families means?

There are plenty of emigrated Irish living good lives in GB with no inclination to move back, are we leaving them behind? You might have had a point back in the 1960s but that's not the case these days. Political power is being shared, job/housing discrimination is gone, Catholics have equal opportunities.

***

How is anyone being left behind in the North? What is the actual advantage to unification over what they have currently and will have while they benefit from the dual EU / UK market access?

Very straightforward, partition. Followed by decades of giving lip service but little else to ending it. Had everyone in the north voted for and merrily accepted it I'd agree with you.
Ulster isn't a far off formerly Irish colony. If it were Munster can you see yourself having the same view?
You say "Political power is being shared, job/housing discrimination is gone, Catholics have equal opportunities" like it didn't require bloodshed and international intervention over decades. I would add that Unionists and their Orange associates main concern is holding on to power concerned they might be treated the way they treated Catholics and Nationalists. In short I don't think it's a level playing field for all parties just yet.


The advantage of unification is everyone on the island have the same democratic voice and their representatives not being answerable to Westminister and an often disinterested government.
I think a united Ireland would flourish and N.I.'s lot would vastly improve.

jh79

guy2231 wrote: »

It is when some posters on here are so adamantly against it that those questions are merely a tactic to further their partionist agenda.

That poster never takes part in the discussion. Just vague but laughable threats of consequences if Unification is rejected and misty jingoism about 1916 etc.

I generally ignore it but it was hilarious over the weekend when the consequences were revealed to be...
The flag and national anthem would no longer be appropriate

Shebean

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

You can use all the playground style name-calling you like, but its not unreasonable (or even anti-United Ireland) to ask how much it would cost and who will pay for it

It's a loaded question.


Generally nobody wants to pay more tax. Especially when we see how it's mismanaged and wasted.


Here's one:

An average of almost 40% said they would be willing to pay an extra 2% of their own income in taxes for better healthcare and pensions.
https://www.newstalk.com/news/irish-likely-pay-higher-taxes-better-healthcare-oecd-841947

While 40% is a decent figure, pensions and health directly effect all of us yet less than half are willing to pay more tax for them.
Does that mean 60% would refuse or don't want better health service and pensions?

jh79

No word from Francie on something that is broken in the Republic that can only be fixed with unfication.

Anybody care to make an attempt?

Shebean

jh79 wrote: »

No word from Francie on something that is broken in the Republic that can only be fixed with unfication.

Anybody care to make an attempt?

The HSE.

jh79

Shebean wrote: »

The HSE.

Why do we need to wait for unfication to fix the HSE?

Varik

jh79 wrote: »

Why do we need to wait for unfication to fix the HSE?

The HSE could be scrapped to make way for a new UI version that "might" not be as bloated or wasteful as it is now, and in the event of a UI the drive for a change might be more forceful than the resistance within the HSE to any change.

But chances are we'd just have the current HSE grow, more bloat, more waste, less money to go around.

jh79

Varik wrote: »

The HSE could be scrapped to make way for a new UI version that "might" not be as bloated or wasteful as it is now, and in the event of a UI the drive for a change might be more forceful than the resistance within the HSE to any change.

But chances are we'd just have the current HSE grow, more bloat, more waste, less money to go around.

Granted it might be the impetus for change but the change itself isn't dependent on a UI.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't dismissed anything jh79.

The 67% in favour should tell you that there are other considerations in a UI than the amount of money left in your wallet.

The reason why you have NO political support for partitionism lies in the above. You should consider it very seriously before adopting a negative campaign.

There has been no real discussion at all about what unification would actually entail. Sinn Fein is very keen to gloss over the details in case people start to ask detailed questions. The devil is in the detail and when it comes to a point that a border poll looks likely, there will be no getting away from that.

I don't think we Irish are as gullible as Brexiteers are in believing in the sunny uplands of reunification.

There is no political support for partitionism because that term only exists in this thread. Otherwise to define partitionism is to recognize that the electorate accepted that when voting in the constitutional referendum in 1998.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, you cannot even say that.

I pay taxes I am not in favour of, because I know I have to. As 'democrats' we do things we aren't in favour of all the time, that's the deal.

It is a nonsense question. We have no idea how many would or wouldn't pay tax, just the number who would not be in favour of it. How many would not be 'in favour' of property tax, but still pay it? Etc etc etc.

When we don't want to pay water charges, despite it being the norm across Europe, even for socialist countries, what makes you think we would accept additional taxes to cover NI?

Shebean

Shebean wrote: »

It's a loaded question.


Generally nobody wants to pay more tax. Especially when we see how it's mismanaged and wasted.


Here's one:





While 40% is a decent figure, pensions and health directly effect all of us yet less than half are willing to pay more tax for them.
Does that mean 60% would refuse or don't want better health service and pensions?

They don’t believe the 2% would make any difference.

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

When we don't want to pay water charges, despite it being the norm across Europe, even for socialist countries, what makes you think we would accept additional taxes to cover NI?

We didn't want to pay for water because of the unholy mess they made of it.

The 'power swap' that has made messes of our health service and housing etc.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Bean-counter partitionists are like those people who buy something in the euro-store having to replace it every couple of years instead of spending the money on something of quality that will stand the test of time. 'Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing' I believe it's known as.

It just seems beyond the imagination of pound-shop-partitionists to see the value in uniting the country and finally ending the disruption of the border and British jurisdiction. This shit with Brexit/NIP will be repalced by some other issue in years to come, and then some other issue, and then another, and so on.

You have been talking for weeks about unknown "consequences" if a united Ireland is rejected, yet you dismiss the known implications of a united Ireland - the huge fiscal burden to be bourne by ordinary Irish people.

Now you are also talking about a mythical "value" in uniting the country. Care to elaborate this time, or is it the value from criminal thugs stopping being criminal thugs?

Shebean

jh79 wrote: »

Why do we need to wait for unfication to fix the HSE?

Because FF and FG either can't or don't want to. Unification will force such institutions be revisited and reassessed.

blanch152 wrote: »

You have been talking for weeks about unknown "consequences" if a united Ireland is rejected, yet you dismiss the known implications of a united Ireland - the huge fiscal burden to be bourne by ordinary Irish people.

Now you are also talking about a mythical "value" in uniting the country. Care to elaborate this time, or is it the value from criminal thugs stopping being criminal thugs?

41 Billion of national debt is a pretty big fiscal burden and that's just to finance us returning to where we were, including enriching many of those responsible.
We have a gangland drug feud in the country not related to 'the troubles'. It's going on years and not looking like stopping. We won't be avoiding criminal thugs either way. Two Garda shot there recently.

Varik

jh79 wrote: »

Granted it might be the impetus for change but the change itself isn't dependent on a UI.

Don't think it'd happen anyway, they'd still get a mass of resistance from the HSE to any change so it'd be easier to fold NI's NHS into the HSE.

Or it'd remain separate even with a UI, I doubt anyone in NI is looking on at the HSE with envy.

Whatcar212

Varik wrote: »

Don't think it'd happen anyway, they'd still get a mass of resistance from the HSE to any change so it'd be easier to fold NI's NHS into the HSE.

Or it'd remain separate even with a UI, I doubt anyone in NI is looking on at the HSE with envy.

Honestly I have found the HSE to provide a much better service than the NHS.

My wife and I both have chronic conditions, and we have lived in the north, scotland and england before moving back here and hands down the hse is the better service.

And this is mainly due to it charging fees. The main problem with the NHS system is it is full with people who are not sick and don't need to see a doctor but go anyway because it is free.

With the NHS system it was an average of a 2 week wait just for a gp appointment (if you use drop in centre its a 10min appoint max, then out even if you are not finished), and the doctors and consultants were very hesitant to use the more expensive medications.

But once we moved back here it was instant gp appointments and I personally was placed on a biological drug within 2 months. (for reference my sister has the same condition for years longer than me and she has still not been placed on these type of treatments by the nhs).

sure we have to pay, and the gp should be €25 not €50. But my experience with the nhs has been a disaster due to the bloat of free healthcare abusers and the pressure its doctors are under to save money.

(I would like the nhs prescription style though, its a pain forking out €120 a month on medication)

guy2231

Whatcar212 wrote: »

The troubles is the name given to it by the UK government to downplay the fact that they had an internal civil war. In any other country it would be referred to as a civil war, simple as that. Do you refer to the current Israel/Palestine conflict as 'troubles'

SF/IRA are no different to UVF/DUP yet there seems to be complete absolution of the DUP and unionist terrorists. Lets not forget that the first murders of the civil war 'troubles' was by the ruc and uvf not the ira.

Too many people in this thread do a great job of calling out sf and the ira (which is deserved) but refused to acknowledge all the murder caused by the british state and terrorists.

The job of a united Ireland is to move on the those issues and build a new future that is better for everyone. That will be hard to do when for its whole existence the north has thrived of division and conflict.

And its made more difficult by southern partitionists who are so removed from the horror that people in the north lived through that all they care about is the money in their pocket. Compassion and empathy for their fellow humans is less important than being able to go to the pub or buy new things.

Not true at all, there was no civil war.

They were using that word to hide the fact that they had an insurgency in the early days of the troubles and then a guerilla war for the rest of it.

The overwhelming majority of IRA killings were against the security forces mainly the British army, the IRA couldn't care less about loyalist paramilitaries.

The troubles were the Provisional IRA waging a war against the state.

The Loyalist paramilitaries were little more than proxy gangs used to kill by the British state for the benefit of the British state in their war against the IRA.

During the Steven inquiry set up by the British government after being forced by the EU to investigate collusion Stevens arrested 270 top Loyalists all but two of them were agents working for the state, Stevens had his offices burnt down and all his files removed by MI5 "in the interest of national security" so it's no surprise Stevens didn't come back with much results.

This is an average day in parts of Northern Ireland in the early 70s no deaths on this day https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kK3Ff4ivkJA

Whatcar212

guy2231 wrote: »

Not true at all, there was no civil war.

The troubles were the Provisional IRA waging a war against the state.

We define a civil war as a politically organized, large-scale, sustained, physically
violent conflict that occurs within a country principally among large/numerically
important groups of its inhabitants or citizens over the monopoly of physical force within the country. Civil wars usually have incumbent governments that control
the state and have a monopoly of force before the civil war and challengers.

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21428/wbro_28_2_159.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

blanch152

Varik wrote: »

The HSE could be scrapped to make way for a new UI version that "might" not be as bloated or wasteful as it is now, and in the event of a UI the drive for a change might be more forceful than the resistance within the HSE to any change.

But chances are we'd just have the current HSE grow, more bloat, more waste, less money to go around.

And how will we have time and money for that when we are trying to integrate so many more aspects of life?

Some of the things that people are claiming a united Ireland would bring are fantastical in the extreme.

blanch152

Whatcar212 wrote: »

We define a civil war as a politically organized, large-scale, sustained, physically
violent conflict that occurs within a country principally among large/numerically
important groups of its inhabitants or citizens over the monopoly of physical force within the country. Civil wars usually have incumbent governments that control
the state and have a monopoly of force before the civil war and challengers.

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21428/wbro_28_2_159.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Thanks for that. It confirms that there was no civil war in Northern Ireland, as the terrorist campaign doesn't meet that definition. It was physically violent in the way that criminal thugs and mafioso are physically violent, but it fails the other criteria.

eire4

Shebean wrote: »

Because FF and FG either can't or don't want to. Unification will force such institutions be revisited and reassessed.




41 Billion of national debt is a pretty big fiscal burden and that's just to finance us returning to where we were, including enriching many of those responsible.
We have a gangland drug feud in the country not related to 'the troubles'. It's going on years and not looking like stopping. We won't be avoiding criminal thugs either way. Two Garda shot there recently.

High time ( pun intended) that we fully legalized, regulated and taxed Cannabis and decriminalised all illegal drugs IMHO.

guy2231

blanch152 wrote: »

Thanks for that. It confirms that there was no civil war in Northern Ireland, as the terrorist campaign doesn't meet that definition. It was physically violent in the way that criminal thugs and mafioso are physically violent, but it fails the other criteria.

The most militarized zone on the whole planet, a guerilla army known as one of the most sophisticated and best in the world seems to meet that criteria.

The Battle of Newry Road was a running gun battle between British Army helicopters and Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) armed trucks, fought along the lanes east of Crossmaglen, County Armagh, on 23 September 1993. The engagement began when an IRA motorized team from the South Armagh Brigade attempted to ambush three helicopters lifting off from the British Army base at Crossmaglen.

Doesn't sound like a mafioso or criminal attack to me when you have attacks like that, gun battles lasting hours between the IRA and army, country roads riddled with landmines like Afghanistan and army bases and police stations under constant attack, sounds like guerilla war to me.