United Ireland Poll - please vote

thund3rbird_

downcow wrote: »

Absolutely. He spent precious little time in the country now known as Ireland. The vast majority of his time was spent in ni and gb Now why does that remind me of many of your international footballers lol

to the best of my knowledge partition of this island happened in 1921 and not in the 5th century

therefore he would have spent the vast majority of his life in Ireland (or Hibernia if you wish)

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For years on here the scare mongers were spouting about the scary billions of the subvention. SF said for years it was not the headline figure of 10/12/13 billions touted here and elsewhere. Trinity professor confirms it is much much lower, the scaremongers switch to the scary running costs.

So not spoofing on that and provided the figures years ago to anyone who cared to listen.

Loads of other stuff too. But I am not trying to convince you- you have to make your own mind up. Don't worry, there will be others along soon to convince you if Leo isn't spoofing. I'm looking forward to it.

I want a United ireland, I’m just pointing out none of the parties have a breeze how to get it.

What you described above to me sounds like Sinn Fein are the spoofers in this situation, it’s like one of those Facebook videos and they roll out a person claiming to be an expert. “Hi Dr Nick”

How can a professor in Trinity proclaim any number unless he was given full access by all the governments? Which I expect he wasn’t provided with?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FFs JH79 - I never said they produced a proposal Read what is being said please.

Far as I can see, SF want to have discussions on a UI before any 'proposal' is made.
They have made many comments on what they would like to see, what needs to be resolved, what compromises might need to be made and have commissioned reports on it.

Just think it's the wrong move personally. The cost being discussed closer to the vote will have a bigger impact in my opinion.

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

I want a United ireland, I’m just pointing out none of the parties have a breeze how to get it.

What you described above to me sounds like Sinn Fein are the spoofers in this situation, it’s like one of those Facebook videos and they roll out a person claiming to be an expert. “Hi Dr Nick”

How can a professor in Trinity proclaim any number unless he was given full access by all the governments? Which I expect he wasn’t provided with?

Now you want me to do your research. His report is online, google is your friend.

Who do you think will be doing the expert work on this stuff by the way? Not exactly a field for random posters on the internet or somebody who is qualified as a mechanic.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For years on here the scare mongers were spouting about the scary billions of the subvention. SF said for years it was not the headline figure of 10/12/13 billions touted here and elsewhere. Trinity professor confirms it is much much lower, the scaremongers switch to the scary running costs.

So not spoofing on that and provided the figures years ago to anyone who cared to listen.

Loads of other stuff too. But I am not trying to convince you- you have to make your own mind up. Don't worry, there will be others along soon to convince you if Leo isn't spoofing. I'm looking forward to it.

The trinity lad is Fitzgerald and has it a bit higher, Doyle is from DCU.

As pointed out at the time while Doyle puts the figure at 2.5bn with a 5% increase in the standard rate of tax to fund it.

He also says its not the real cost of unification and the true cost is much higher.

Is Professor Doyle scaremongering too?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The trinity lad is Fitzgerald and has it a bit higher, Doyle is from DCU.

As pointed out at the time while Doyle puts the figure at 2.5bn with a 5% increase in the standard rate of tax to fund it.

He also says its not the real cost if unification and the true cost is much higher.

Is Professor Doyle scaremongering too?

I don't know tbh jh79.

What I do know is that it set certain posters scrambling for a new angle not to mention the Paulian conversion of FG. .

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know tbh jh79.

What I do know is that it set certain posters scrambling for a new angle not to mention the Paulian conversion of FG. .

I followed him on Twitter like you suggested and have to say don't think he's a partitionist and seems quite keen on unification.

He says that the the 5% tax increase isn't the significant part of the cost. Fitzgerald has it much higher.

How is it scaremongering repeating the evidence of two different experts especially if one on the surface seems to be an advocate for a UI?

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now you want me to do your research. His report is online, google is your friend.

Who do you think will be doing the expert work on this stuff by the way? Not exactly a field for random posters on the internet or somebody who is qualified as a mechanic.

You raised the professor as "proof" then throw your toys out of the pram when someone asks about it.

Sorry Im not qualified as a mechanic

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I followed him on Twitter like you suggested and have to say don't think he's a partitionist and seems quite keen on unification.

He says that the the 5% tax increase isn't the significant part of the cost. Fitzgerald has it much higher.

How is it scaremongering repeating the evidence of two different experts especially if one on the surface seems to be an advocate for a UI?

When I incurred the biggest 'cost' of life, buying my home, I could have looked at the cost as 'scary'. Or been convinced by somebody not to do it because it was a scary figure.

I didn't look at it that way, I looked at how to manage the cost because ultimately it is an investment in all my family.

Granted the scaremongers harping on about the cost have some convinced, but I can guarantee you that like SF, come the day FF and FG will be talking in future investment terms. Those harping on about the scary costs will sound very negative and run out of road very quickly if they refuse to countenance the benefits.

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

You raised the professor as "proof" then throw your toys out of the pram when someone asks about it.

Sorry Im not qualified as a mechanic

Where did I throw the toys out?

I'm not trying to convince you or 'prove' anything...these reports are all mentioned and discussed on the thread.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When I incurred the biggest 'cost' of life, buying my home, I could have looked at the cost as 'scary'. Or been convinced by somebody not to do it because it was a scary figure.

I didn't look at it that way, I looked at how to manage the cost because ultimately it is an investment in all my family.

Granted the scaremongers harping on about the cost have some convinced, but I can guarantee you that like SF, come the day FF and FG will be talking in future investment terms. Those harping on about the scary costs will sound very negative and run out of road very quickly if they refuse to countenance the benefits.

But the numbers are based on known facts , the costs while difficult to predict shouldn't be too far off. How is it scaremongering to repeat what the experts say?

If the figures are wrong then debunk them if not how do you know it's scaremongering if you do not know of an alternative as fir comparison?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But the numbers are based on known facts , the costs while difficult to predict shouldn't be too far off. How is it scaremongering to repeat what the experts say?

If the figures are wrong then debunk them if not how do you know it's scaremongering if you do not know of an alternative as fir comparison?

Every investment has a cost. Sick saying this. If all you do is point to the cost, that is scaremongering IMO.

Shebean

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Every investment has a cost. Sick saying this. If all you do is point to the cost, that is scaremongering IMO.

If the people are asked a straight question, 'do you want a united Ireland, Yes or No?' after a 'yes' win, then would be the time to hash out the logistics. Would it be phased in, would there be a lieu period? and so on.
We can't know costs until these issues are discussed in detail. Nobody will bother their barney until there's a 'yes' vote. Up until then it's ball park figures.
Deciding to sell the idea that it will cost billions under a facade of concern is just waffle.
Varadkar becoming a Nationalist is an odd one. I don't think he cares either way to be honest. Likely he sees some form of advantage for himself. He either knows something we don't know or he's, as is most likely, just making a fool of himself, again. He certainly damaged the future merger with the DUP.

Junkyard Tom

Shebean wrote: »

He certainly damaged the future merger with the DUP.

The DUP would be a lunatic fringe party nobody would seek to work with in a United Ireland. The only reason DUP have any footprint in the north is because of the factionalism that is downstream from partition.

I would predict a pro-British/GB/UK party in a United Ireland that would be a home to unionists and others. They could work on keeping Ireland close to Britain in civil, political, and cultural, matters and would experience generosity from other parties.

Hamsterchops

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I would predict a pro-British/GB/UK party in a United Ireland that would be a home to unionists and others. They could work on keeping Ireland close to Britain in civil, political, and cultural, matters and would experience generosity from other parties.

Huh :eek:

Do my eyes deceive me, can you really be suggesting this? I mean I thought the whole gist of your argument (along with Francie & others) has always been removal of anything even remotely British or connected to the rest of these islands!

What's going on, have you been hypnotised by Her Maj, or aroused by Camilla's latest summer frock

Downcow will be stunned (in a good way).

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Huh :eek:

Do my eyes deceive me, can you really be suggesting this? I mean I thought the whole gist of your argument (along with Francie & others) has always been removal of anything even remotely British or connected to the rest of these islands!

What's going on, have you been hypnotised by Her Maj, or aroused by Camilla's latest summer frock

Downcow will be stunned (in a good way).

What utter rubbish and mis-representation.
The result of other posters talking about exclusionary nationalism and you swallowing it.

Not once have I ever advocated the 'removal of anything remotely British'.

Utter lies now.

Junkyard Tom

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Huh :eek:

Do my eyes deceive me, can you really be suggesting this? I mean I thought the whole gist of your argument (along with Francie & others) has always been removal of anything even remotely British or connected to the rest of these islands!

What's going on, have you been hypnotised by Her Maj, or aroused by Camilla's latest summer frock

Downcow will be stunned (in a good way).

There's a big island called Britain next to us with enormous influence on us and a complex intertwined history, anyone who denies this is a dope.

We need to keep relations good with our nearest neighbour and our people happy and that would include those with British/N. Irish identity in a United Ireland, and yes that would include hosting the British Monarchy that unionists are emotionally and culturally invested in.

I don't think this is in any way controversial, where else on Earth could a British person feel more at home than Ireland? Nowhere.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There's a big island called Britain next to us with enormous influence on us and a complex intertwined history, anyone who denies this is a dope.

We need to keep relations good with our nearest neighbour and our people happy and that would include those with British/N. Irish identity in a United Ireland, and yes that would include hosting the British Monarchy that unionists are emotionally and culturally invested in.

I don't think this is in any way controversial, where else on Earth could a British person feel more at home than Ireland? Nowhere.

The only people who have difficulty with accommodation are partitionists here in the south and dissidents and belligerent Unionists in the north.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only people who have difficulty with accommodation are partitionists here in the south and dissidents and belligerent Unionists in the north.

I don’t think so. For example, I (one you have mislabelled partitionist) would have no issue with retaining the name Londonderry in the event of a united Ireland, or committing that there is no need for Irish language signs in the six counties given the absence of any real Gealtachts there.

However, I doubt that yourself and the other exclusionary nationalists would be so accommodating.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know tbh.

. .

Pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FFs JH79 - I never said they produced a proposal Read what is being said please.

Far as I can see, SF want to have discussions on a UI before any 'proposal' is made.
They have made many comments on what they would like to see, what needs to be resolved, what compromises might need to be made and have commissioned reports on it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF have produced detailed views and reports on the matter. You may no agree with them, but you cannot say they haven't a breeze.

Let FG now come up with their proposal.


*I didn't see the interview but I think SF's view on the flag is that it needs to be discussed and other views need to be heard before a decision is made on it.

This is getting funny. SF haven’t produced a proposal, but they have produced detailed views and reports which aren’t a proposal, but the onus is now on FG to produce a proposal.

And all in your own words.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

This is getting funny. SF haven’t produced a proposal, but they have produced detailed views and reports which aren’t a proposal, but the onus is now on FG to produce a proposal.

And all in your own words.

One would expect Opposition parties to opine and government parties to make proposals, no?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I don’t think so. For example, I (one you have mislabelled partitionist) would have no issue with retaining the name Londonderry in the event of a united Ireland, or committing that there is no need for Irish language signs in the six counties given the absence of any real Gealtachts there.

However, I doubt that yourself and the other exclusionary nationalists would be so accommodating.

Why would appease cultural exclusion blanch This is a real example of exclusion not one of your fantasy ones.

You would appease bigotry and wanton destruction of our cultural heritage...for what?

Seeking equality and parity of esteem is NOT exclusion, it's INCLUSION. You need to immerse yourself in studying these terms you are using.

*Capitals for emphasis

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This is getting funny. SF haven’t produced a proposal, but they have produced detailed views and reports which aren’t a proposal, but the onus is now on FG to produce a proposal.

And all in your own words.

No 'onus'. Leo wants a United Ireland so do SF. SF have done work on it...Leo's and FG's turn now. Is he just gonna waffle about it when it suits and do nothing?

Junkyard Tom

Some laugh a person that repeats bot-like 'exclusionary nationalism' accompanied by a never-ending phobic crusade to exclude nationalists in the north from forming a United Ireland with their countrymen in the south.

It really is quite unhinged posting.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Some laugh a person that repeats bot-like 'exclusionary nationalism' accompanied by a never-ending phobic crusade to exclude nationalists in the north from forming a United Ireland with their countrymen in the south.

It really is quite unhinged posting.

The same poster who once suggested that the alternative for Nationalists was to sit meekly enduring their lot and wait until Unionists and The British became democrats and give them their rights.

The very definition of 'excluding'.

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

I don’t think so. For example, I (one you have mislabelled partitionist) would have no issue with retaining the name Londonderry in the event of a united Ireland, or committing that there is no need for Irish language signs in the six counties given the absence of any real Gealtachts there.

However, I doubt that yourself and the other exclusionary nationalists would be so accommodating.

In a UI, it is up to the people of the jurisdiction whether we have Irish signs throughout it.

If a certain part of a UI dont want Irish signs then why cant certain parts of NI that want Irish signs have them? Basically you want sectrerism to still exist in a UI and a gerrymandered part of a UI to suppress the Irish nation.

Btw majority of the inhabitants of Derry want Derry to be its official name... so according to your logic of letting people decide, you should want the city to be called Derry as that is what they want. Can you confirm this.....there is holes everywhere in your arguments.

FrancieBrady

ittakestwo wrote: »

In a UI, it is up to the people of the jurisdiction whether we have Irish signs throughout it.

If a certain part of a UI dont want Irish signs then why cant certain parts of NI that want Irish signs have them? Basically you want sectrerism to still exist in a UI and a gerrymandered part of a UI to suppress the Irish nation.

Btw majority of the inhabitants of Derry want Derry to be its official name... so according to your logic of letting people decide, you should want the city to be called Derry as that is what they want. Can you confirm this.....there is holes everywhere in your arguments.

Basically, he wants Unionist veto's all over the shop. If a Unionist wants x, they get it, regardless of how a majority feel. John Bruton on speed.

ILoveYourVibes

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The DUP would be a lunatic fringe party nobody would seek to work with in a United Ireland. The only reason DUP have any footprint in the north is because of the factionalism that is downstream from partition.

I would predict a pro-British/GB/UK party in a United Ireland that would be a home to unionists and others. They could work on keeping Ireland close to Britain in civil, political, and cultural, matters and would experience generosity from other parties.

There are a lot of irish people dumb enough to vote for a fringe loony far right party though.

ineedeuro

Fionn1952 wrote: »

One would expect Opposition parties to opine and government parties to make proposals, no?

No
I do agree that’s all some political parties do, wait for someone to come up with an idea and then tell everyone how terrible it is
But they should be bringing their own proposals, idea etc. Independent TD as well....