United Ireland Poll - please vote

guy2231

downcow wrote: »

Nonsense on a number of points.
Do you believe if there had been an agreement that said if the people of Roi ever self determined to rejoin the U.K. then it would be facilitiated - do you think that would make rejoining inevitable? If not then the gfa does not make UI inevitable

Also what do you mean by a ‘united ireland’? The people will be at war with each other (metaphorically speaking, at least). There would be significant devolution and there would be an ongoing campaign for a homeland for a nationless people.
A complete and utter mess!

You must be having us on

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Saying that Ireland needs rebuilding is ridiculous and disrespects those that live in countries with real problems.

What did Fitzgerald say in 2007/2008?

No offense to you Francie but I'll pay more heed to work of Fitzgerald, Doyle and Hubner than yourself.

I said some state institutions need rebuilding.

No we get to the stage where you have to misrepresent/lie to make a feeble point.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said some state institutions need rebuilding.

No we get to the stage where you have to misrepresent/lie to make a feeble point.

The bit i don't get is why if true that makes a UI a better proposition? We could fix those institutions now if the will was there.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The bit i don't get is why if true that makes a UI a better proposition? We could fix those institutions now if the will was there.

They'll never be fixed under the power swap.
Partition facilitated selfish pilitical and religious interests to take over the state.
I lost faith in them creating a proper republic finally in 2016.
I actually welcome what moderate unionists will offer a new state. They'd be a balancing force.
Partition destroyed any prospect of balance after all.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

there would be an ongoing campaign for a homeland for a nationless people.

Where would this 'Orange Free State', as it were, be?

ittakestwo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Where would this 'Orange Free State', as it were, be?

On the island of Britain? I dont get how people who identify as being from the island of Britain (British) and live in a place that isn't Britain think they are nationless. Is every foreigner nationless? Are the thousands of Irish who moved and live on Britain nationless? no. It is just they're Irish but not living in Ireland. That is how the staunch unionists who dont admit they're Irish will be in a UI. They can always go back to their island/country like the way Irish in Britain can do now.

FrancieBrady

ittakestwo wrote: »

On the island of Britain? I dont get how people who identify as being from the island of Britain (British) and live in a place that isn't Britain think they are nationless. Is every foreigner nationless? Are the thousands of Irish who moved and live on Britain nationless? no. It is just they're Irish but not living in Ireland. That is how the staunch unionists who dont admit they're Irish will be in a UI. They can always go back to their island/country like the way Irish in Britain can do now.

What downcow is suggesting means the Irish in Britain can at some point make a claim to form a break away nation. The Poles if they are here long enough can as for a piece to set up their own state.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The ERSI are working on the subsume theory.

I see unification happening after a period of transition where both jurisdictions are readied for full unification.

The scary stories won't work for long jh79. As I said, maybe convinvcing people partition has been a good thing and will continue to be, might be a better plans.

Partitionists come out and be honest, in other words.

The alternatives to a subsume theory are two:

(1) Reduce social welfare rates in the South - good luck with that.
(2) Maintain different social welfare rates in the North to the South - a partitionist approach


You can tell us which you prefer. I would guess that you have no issue with partitionism per se, it is partitionism under British rule you object to, under Irish rule, you will happily accept it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The alternatives to a subsume theory are two:

(1) Reduce social welfare rates in the South - good luck with that.
(2) Maintain different social welfare rates in the North to the South - a partitionist approach


You can tell us which you prefer. I would guess that you have no issue with partitionism per se, it is partitionism under British rule you object to, under Irish rule, you will happily accept it.

There won't be a north or a south (jurisdiction wise) in a UI.

Just partitionists with a bitter selfish/jealous (enter either where applicable) outlook. I'd imagine Unionists will be quicker to get on with it than them.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There won't be a north or a south (jurisdiction wise) in a UI.

Just partitionists with a bitter selfish/jealous (enter either where applicable) outlook. I'd imagine Unionists will be quicker to get on with it than them.

You didn't answer the question, just deflected with insults.

Have you reached the end of the road on this one? You are unable to challenge the 8% tax increase concluded by the ESRI and offer an alternative. When offered alternatives to choose from, you demur.

If this is an example of the paralysed thinking of those who support a united Ireland, there isn't a hope in hell of a border poll ever passing in the South, as those who don't have answers get quickly found out in referenda campaigns. Back to the drawing board for another twenty to thirty years would be my advice while the great brains of the republican movement try to figure out how it might work.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You didn't answer the question, just deflected with insults.

Have you reached the end of the road on this one? You are unable to challenge the 8% tax increase concluded by the ESRI and offer an alternative. When offered alternatives to choose from, you demur.

If this is an example of the paralysed thinking of those who support a united Ireland, there isn't a hope in hell of a border poll ever passing in the South, as those who don't have answers get quickly found out in referenda campaigns. Back to the drawing board for another twenty to thirty years would be my advice while the great brains of the republican movement try to figure out how it might work.

I answered it umpteen times. It will be a welfare rate for everyone on the island.

mehico

blanch152 wrote: »

Have you reached the end of the road on this one? You are unable to challenge the 8% tax increase concluded by the ESRI and offer an alternative. When offered alternatives to choose from, you demur.

I could be mistaken but didn't the ESRI also suggest that in the event of reunification that there would be a transition period in which fiscal responsibilities would be transferred from UK to Ireland on a gradual basis.

Seems like a prudent way to achieve harmonisation of the rates if planned for in this way.

blanch152

mehico wrote: »

I could be mistaken but didn't the ESRI also suggest that in the event of reunification that there would be a transition period in which fiscal responsibilities would be transferred from UK to Ireland on a gradual basis.

Seems like a prudent way to achieve harmonisation of the rates if planned for in this way.

Eh no, that was in relation to the subvention.

This issue relates to the even bigger issue of harmonisation. That has nothing to do with the UK, it is all on us as grown-ups to deal with.

drdidlittle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I answered it umpteen times. It will be a welfare rate for everyone on the island.

Yes of course..... But at what rate?

Shebean

downcow wrote: »

Nonsense on a number of points.
Do you believe if there had been an agreement that said if the people of Roi ever self determined to rejoin the U.K. then it would be facilitiated - do you think that would make rejoining inevitable? If not then the gfa does not make UI inevitable

Also what do you mean by a ‘united ireland’? The people will be at war with each other (metaphorically speaking, at least). There would be significant devolution and there would be an ongoing campaign for a homeland for a nationless people.
A complete and utter mess!

It's about natural states. While I expect you'll disagree but a section of an Irish province being essentially led and dictated to by Westminster based on the hang over from an undemocratic occupation is not a natural state.
Instead of advocating a bloody revolution or ousting we are looking to engage democratically to remove this state.
Why on Earth would Ireland, France, Spain want to come under Westminster rule? The whole U.K. thing is a left over from the Empire. The concept is outdated and built on murder and theft.
We can and do have a strong relationship with the U.K. We have family and extended family there. Anyone looking to identify as British can do so. I would suggest the U.K. allow dual citizenship for anyone in N.I. wants it after a U.I.. A British taxpaying subject due a state pension will and rightly still receive it even after a U.I.. Unionists won't lose any rights that I can see. The fear is no longer being top dog and getting it their way, well that ship has left port anyway.

blanch152

Shebean wrote: »

It's about natural states. While I expect you'll disagree but a section of an Irish province being essentially led and dictated to by Westminster based on the hang over from an undemocratic occupation is not a natural state.
Instead of advocating a bloody revolution or ousting we are looking to engage democratically to remove this state.
Why on Earth would Ireland, France, Spain want to come under Westminster rule? The whole U.K. thing is a left over from the Empire. The concept is outdated and built on murder and theft.
We can and do have a strong relationship with the U.K. We have family and extended family there. Anyone looking to identify as British can do so. I would suggest the U.K. allow dual citizenship for anyone in N.I. wants it after a U.I.. A British taxpaying subject due a state pension will and rightly still receive it even after a U.I.. Unionists won't lose any rights that I can see. The fear is no longer being top dog and getting it their way, well that ship has left port anyway.

If it's about natural states, there is nothing natural about humans organising themselves into national states with attendant flags and anthems and bunting.

blanch152

drdidlittle wrote: »

Yes of course..... But at what rate?

Don't expect an answer other than the traditional dancing at the crossroads one where everything will be milk and honey in the sunny uplands of a united Ireland filled with unicorns and rainbows.

Shebean

blanch152 wrote: »

If it's about natural states, there is nothing natural about humans organising themselves into national states with attendant flags and anthems and bunting.

So we should be all roaming the planet in the nude settling disputes with a game of conkers?
I think you are bypassing the context of the discussion. It's regarding Ireland rejoining the U.K. as it relates to a U.I. and the reality of humanity.

blanch152

Shebean wrote: »

So we should be all roaming the planet in the nude settling disputes with a game of conkers?
I think you are bypassing the context of the discussion. It's regarding Ireland rejoining the U.K. as it relates to a U.I. and the reality of humanity.

My point is that it is time to leave the ideology of exclusionary nationalism with its adherence to the importance of territoriality to the dustbin of history and move on.

I am a Dubliner, and Irishman and a European in no particular order (I won't add my other more local identities) and will be, no matter where I am or who lives next door or whether the government is someone else.

The reality is that the two sectarian parties in the North - SF and DUP - cling to their tribalism like a child's blanket, for comfort and all need to step away from it. You see it with the fake macho comments on threads like this - "the fear is no longer being top dog and getting it their way" - the discussion needs to move beyond that kind of tribalism.

mehico

blanch152 wrote: »

Eh no, that was in relation to the subvention.

This issue relates to the even bigger issue of harmonisation. That has nothing to do with the UK, it is all on us as grown-ups to deal with.

I stand corrected, I think the ESRI comments in respect of the transition period I was referring to earlier were in relation to the subvention.

FrancieBrady

drdidlittle wrote: »

Yes of course..... But at what rate?

eh...the rate which it is deemed possible to pay?

Jesus lads...people know that change will happen and it will be a slings and arrows/give and take scenario.


Nobody buys the big emotional scary headlines anymore.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

My point is that it is time to leave the ideology of exclusionary nationalism with its adherence to the importance of territoriality to the dustbin of history and move on.

I am a Dubliner, and Irishman and a European in no particular order (I won't add my other more local identities) and will be, no matter where I am or who lives next door or whether the government is someone else.

The reality is that the two sectarian parties in the North - SF and DUP - cling to their tribalism like a child's blanket, for comfort and all need to step away from it. You see it with the fake macho comments on threads like this - "the fear is no longer being top dog and getting it their way" - the discussion needs to move beyond that kind of tribalism.

Says poster who runs in fear of a significant number (50+1) of the population 'getting their way'.

You are as hidebound on the issue as a DUPer is on the issue of the Union.

Shebean

blanch152 wrote: »

My point is that it is time to leave the ideology of exclusionary nationalism with its adherence to the importance of territoriality to the dustbin of history and move on.

I am a Dubliner, and Irishman and a European in no particular order (I won't add my other more local identities) and will be, no matter where I am or who lives next door or whether the government is someone else.

The reality is that the two sectarian parties in the North - SF and DUP - cling to their tribalism like a child's blanket, for comfort and all need to step away from it. You see it with the fake macho comments on threads like this - "the fear is no longer being top dog and getting it their way" - the discussion needs to move beyond that kind of tribalism.

That ignores human nature and other realities. Not every government or nation treats their subjects or neighbours equally.
If nationalists and catholics were treated as equals there would likely have been a much more reduced conflict. if any. N.I. was set up to maintain inequality and ensure it couldn't be easily changed by the democratic process.
The 'tribalism' relates to generations of inequality. After years of struggles and sacrifices from both sides there is almost a working equality. Both sides are defending their idea of fair and equal rights. In my opinion losing power is as big a driver for some Unionists as the tag 'British'. Although they are one in the same.
Back to the context, it would be strange for a newly united Ireland to add a possibility of joining the U.K. at a later date. Talk about your outdated tribalism. Self government and access to the EU would be my areas of interest if I lived up there.

FullyComp

mehico wrote: »

I could be mistaken but didn't the ESRI also suggest that in the event of reunification that there would be a transition period in which fiscal responsibilities would be transferred from UK to Ireland on a gradual basis.

Seems like a prudent way to achieve harmonisation of the rates if planned for in this way.

If you were a British voter, unhappy with the breakup of the Union would you be delighted to pay for a break up too? That's how the English government would see it, there's no Queen's shilling in a UI, as there shouldn't be. If it happens we're on the hook

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said some state institutions need rebuilding.

Which institutions need rebuilding. I would think that the Health system does but good luck trying that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

eh...the rate which it is deemed possible to pay?


Nobody buys the big emotional scary headlines anymore.

Do you really think a lot of voters are going to be very positive when they find out that SW rates have to be cut to facilitate integration?

The sunny uplands arguments for unification aren't going to pass the muster once the serious debates get going and we start to find out the actual details.
It's very apparent in this thread how SF and its supporters like to gloss over the details. Suggestions that the money to pay for unification is an "investment" in a new Ireland without any actual details of the actual cost/benefits. Or even these apparent promises that magically we will have some rebuilt but undefined state institutions.

It's all a copy of the Brexiteer playbook. Unicorns in exchange for sovereignty. "Remoaner" is the equally childish "partitionist".

jimmycrackcorm

FullyComp wrote: »

If you were a British voter, unhappy with the breakup of the Union would you be delighted to pay for a break up too? That's how the English government would see it, there's no Queen's shilling in a UI, as there shouldn't be. If it happens we're on the hook

There would be an obligation for the UK to still cover some liabilities just as they have to pay to the EU post-Brexit. E.g. they would still be obliged to pay for pensions as these are acquired by people contributing to social insurance.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

eh...the rate which it is deemed possible to pay?

Jesus lads...people know that change will happen and it will be a slings and arrows/give and take scenario.


Nobody buys the big emotional scary headlines anymore.

Why anymore? Nothings changed the ERSI only told the Dail committee it would need dramatic tax increases 2 weeks ago.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is the max % the public would pay?

Do you think the 8% increase in the standard rate suggested by the ERSI just to cover the subvention would win a border poll? Not asking if you believe the figure just a what if.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Why anymore? Nothings changed the ERSI only told the Dail committee it would need dramatic tax increases 2 weeks ago.

Out of curiosity, what do you think is the max % the public would pay?

Do you think the 8% increase in the standard rate suggested by the ERSI just to cover the subvention would win a border poll? Not asking if you believe the figure just a what if.

The ESRI are working off us taking over what is there, I don't believe for a second that is how it will happen. There will be no 'take over' nor will it happen overnight without adjustments and preparations being made.

You guys have to have the scary scenarios front and centre and will not countenance any positivity.

A doomed doom strategy.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The ESRI are working off us taking over what is there, I don't believe for a second that is how it will happen. There will be no 'take over' nor will it happen overnight without adjustments and preparations being made.

You guys have to have the scary scenarios front and centre and will not countenance any positivity.

A doomed doom strategy.

Whatever way it is done there will be an affect on people's income. I'm just curious what do yo think would be an acceptable starting point. Let's say the ERSI are way off and it ends up being 4% , do you think that would pass?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Whatever way it is done there will be an affect on people's income. I'm just curious what do yo think would be an acceptable starting point. Let's say the ERSI are way off and it ends up being 4% , do you think that would pass?

I think people will look at it in all it's aspects, not just the economic impacts. The same thing that keeps most of us in this country. People who think only of their walle (and they do exist) generally leave to where they can make money.

We will be running a country...there won't be anyone (except bitter partitionists) keeping a tab and pointing at 'themuns, costing me a fortune'.