United Ireland Poll - please vote

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Email SF?

Any plan/proposal at this stage is just speculation and are essentially ideas. They is a way to go before anyone can produce an accurate one.

I don't care if there is never a plan. Just find it interesting that those claiming to be Republicans are so blasé about SF inaction.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionists throught the UK government will be involved in negotiations on a UI downcow...are you saying they will sulk in a corner and allow their future in a UI to be decided for them?


Would be like something the DUP and belligerent Unionist would do but Doug Beattie moderate Unionism won't.

Haha. To quote you as I promised

“ To what end if there is no agreement?

Why would they waste their time?

You are being ridiculous. ”

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is an unknown when you don't know what a UI will be and what will be contributed to it or not.
You have taken the scary stance - fair enough, but it is a 'stance' not a factual roadmap. Try to remember that.

Part of the scare story is that the electorate won't tolerate a tax rise, but here is the results of a hot off the press poll that shows a majority see their taxes as 'investment' in the running of the country. That is how any government will present a UI - an investment in our future - and that will be the challenge for partitionists to reject. Good luck with it.

Yes people don’t want tax cuts if that means hospitals and Garda etc don’t have the funding to actual provide for the people of Rep of Ireland. People are sick of the government pushing tax cuts for popularity while teh public service suffers, give the HSE a round of applause but stab them
In the back while doing it. The ransomware attack will cost 5 times what it would have cost to invest properly in first place etc etc etc

It has zero relevance to tax increases to take on Northern Ireland.

You keep saying it’s an investment but it’s not really, if it was then every political party would be publishing papers and pushing for a border poll yesterday

Every party knows it’s a black hole and hence why none of them will stick their name to a proprr report on a United Ireland

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

Yes people don’t want tax cuts if that means hospitals and Garda etc don’t have the funding to actual provide for the people of Rep of Ireland

It has zero relevance to tax increases to take on Northern Ireland.

You keep saying it’s an investment but it’s not really, if it was then every political party would be publishing papers and pushing for a border poll yesterday

Every party knows it’s a black hole and hence why none of them will stick their name to a report on a United Ireland

So you think FG FF will be presenting a UI as a 'black hole'?

God bless your wit on that one.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Haha. To quote you as I promised

“ To what end if there is no agreement?

Why would they waste their time?

You are being ridiculous. ”

Downcow, the Bitish will be negotiating a UI wheter you like it or not.
Moderate Unionism, in my opinion, will be involved in that as they have already in The Dàil's all party committee work.
Will belligerent Unionism be left behind again and have to play embarassing catchup like they have had to do on normalisation (rights and flags etc) The GFA and the WA/Protocol...probably.

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you think FG FF will be presenting a UI as a 'black hole'?

God bless your wit on that one.

I don’t think any of them will present anything, Sinn Fein have been shouting about it for years and done nothing

They are all hurlers in teh ditch, waiting for one party to give the bad news and then contradict them

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

I don’t think any of them will present anything, Sinn Fein have been shouting about it for years and done nothing

They are all hurlers in teh ditch, waiting for one party to give the bad news and then contradict them

Well then you needn't concern yourself with the debate here. But you do. That's weird tbh.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Email SF?

Any plan/proposal at this stage is just speculation and are essentially ideas. They is a way to go before anyone can produce an accurate one.

We won't get an accurate number for the subvention until negotiations with the British but as we all know this is the minor part of the cost of unification. The data required for predicting the cost of harmonization gets published yearly for each budget.

The white paper will be just "ideas" too, there is no big reveal to come. It's just the intended policy of the government of the day.

Deputy leader of the SNP pointed this out too.....

"What we will do is what we did last time. We will provide a white paper that gives detailed answers as to what we would propose. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what will happen in an independent Scotland, because who knows who the government will be, but we’ll put out our stall in a white paper, in a much more considered and detailed way than they did for the Brexit referendum.”

"However, he said that there as a caveat in that the current cohort of politicians campaigning for an independent Scotland would not necessarily be those running the country if an independence referendum was won."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-election-results-2021-snp-independence-white-paper-would-not-necessarily-be-how-it-works-in-practice-3229863

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

We won't get an accurate number for the subvention until negotiations with the British but as we all know this is the minor part of the cost of unification. The data required for predicting the cost of harmonization gets published yearly for each budget.

The white paper will be just "ideas" too, there is no big reveal to come. It's just the intended policy of the government of the day.

Deputy leader of the SNP pointed this out too.....

"What we will do is what we did last time. We will provide a white paper that gives detailed answers as to what we would propose. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what will happen in an independent Scotland, because who knows who the government will be, but we’ll put out our stall in a white paper, in a much more considered and detailed way than they did for the Brexit referendum.”

"However, he said that there as a caveat in that the current cohort of politicians campaigning for an independent Scotland would not necessarily be those running the country if an independence referendum was won."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-election-results-2021-snp-independence-white-paper-would-not-necessarily-be-how-it-works-in-practice-3229863

This is where Scotland and Ireland diverge and are not similar.
Because of the conflict/war and the division...there will need to much immutable stuff in any transfer of power.
Rights and guarantees and constitutional change built into the agreement that cannot be changed on the whim of who might be in government.

You need to think stuff through jh79 before rushing to the keyboard.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Email SF?

Any plan/proposal at this stage is just speculation and are essentially ideas. They is a way to go before anyone can produce an accurate one.

Glad you agree that a united Ireland is as far away as always.

If we are still in the speculation place, that could mean anything, in fact we are free to speculate that a united Ireland may not happen, and that an independent Northern Ireland in the EU and the Commonwealth is more likely in the long run.

Either you get off the pot and produce some realistic proposals, or you accept that a united Ireland is just talk.

BigLoser

Nah leave it, there would be even more troubles!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Glad you agree that a united Ireland is as far away as always.

If we are still in the speculation place, that could mean anything, in fact we are free to speculate that a united Ireland may not happen, and that an independent Northern Ireland in the EU and the Commonwealth is more likely in the long run.

Either you get off the pot and produce some realistic proposals, or you accept that a united Ireland is just talk.

Who said you were not 'free to speculate blanch?'

From Brexit my speculation always said within 20 years from the UK leaving the EU.

A while to go yet before you start saying I am wrong.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is where Scotland and Ireland diverge and are not similar.
Because of the conflict/war and the division...there will need to much immutable stuff in any transfer of power.
Rights and guarantees and constitutional change built into the agreement that cannot be changed on the whim of who might be in government.

You need to think stuff through jh79 before rushing to the keyboard.

Francie, you know well I'm specifically talking about the financial side of it.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, you know well I'm specifically talking about the financial side of it.

And you know well that governments are free to do things differently economically and nothing will be 'set in stone' on that front because that would be suicidal.
If it emerged that a road taken was wrong and they were tied to it that would be a ridiculous scenario.

So stating the obvious also doesn't move the debate on much.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you know well that governments are free to do things differently economically and nothing will be 'set in stone' on that front because that would be suicidal.
If it emerged that a road taken was wrong and they were tied to it that would be a ridiculous scenario.

So stating the obvious also doesn't move the debate on much.

What! I've being saying this all along. You are the one pushing the ridiculous narrative that there is to be a big reveal and that up to that point it's only speculation. It's all guess work no matter whether it's the government of the day white paper or the opposition's alternative version.

So can we stop the nonsense that SF or any other party can't provide policy on how they would deal with the financial logistics regarding PS pay, welfare, inward investment etc?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

What! I've being saying this all along. You are the one pushing the ridiculous narrative that there is to be a big reveal and that up to that point it's only speculation. It's all guess work no matter whether it's the government of the day white paper or the opposition's alternative version.

So can we stop the nonsense that SF or any other party can't provide policy on how they would deal with the financial logistics regarding PS pay, welfare, inward investment etc?

Where did I say there would be a 'big reveal'?


All I have said is that we don't have a plan/proposal yet from the proposer. The Irish government.
And I have said why that cannot happen at this stage as there are details/needs etc to be worked out.

There is no onus on any single political party to come up with 'policy'. I wouldn't expect any of them FF FG DUP UUP SF ALLIANCE SDLP etc to waste time and resources doing it. There are still too many unknowns to commit to a 'policy' IMO.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did I say there would be a 'big reveal'?


All I have said is that we don't have a plan/proposal yet from the proposer. The Irish government.
And I have said why that cannot happen at this stage as there are details/needs etc to be worked out.

There is no onus on any single political party to come up with 'policy'. I wouldn't expect any of them FF FG DUP UUP SF ALLIANCE SDLP etc to waste time and resources doing it. There are still too many unknowns to commit to a 'policy' IMO.

What "unknowns" are you talking about?

Pearse put out a document on what he thinks the subvention truly is even though there are gaps in the data only the British can answer.

What excuse is there for not predicting the cost of harmonization as required by the SF approved Hubner report given all the data is readily available?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

What "unknowns" are you talking about?

Pearse put out a document on what he thinks the subvention truly is even though there are gaps in the data only the British can answer.

What excuse is there for not predicting the cost of harmonization as required by the SF approved Hubner report given all the data is readily available?

As I told you before - email SF.

Just like the Hubner report, I wouldn't put a lot of store or confidence in it.

If it is a set cost as you claim what is your problem? That's the issue settled for you.

Seems to me though that none of the 'costs' are set in stone. Only a wet week ago we were being adamantly told the 'cost' would be 10 billion +

You can try and pretend that wasn't the case but you would be pretending.

There is much water to flow yet on costs and how a UI will be set up.

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

What! I've being saying this all along. You are the one pushing the ridiculous narrative that there is to be a big reveal and that up to that point it's only speculation. It's all guess work no matter whether it's the government of the day white paper or the opposition's alternative version.

So can we stop the nonsense that SF or any other party can't provide policy on how they would deal with the financial logistics regarding PS pay, welfare, inward investment etc?

There are only a small number of reasons why those who support a united Ireland are refusing to set out the costs of harmonisation.

(1) They don't have a clue (I suspect that some of the posters on here fall into this category)

(2) They know it will cost a lot of money, and will scare people off a united Ireland (I suspect SF might fall into this category)

(3) They know that a united Ireland at best is decades away, and might never happen so aren't bothered doing the work (I suspect FF/FG fall into this category).

Other than those three reasons, I can't see why any person who supports a united Ireland can't set out in detail how, why and how much harmonisation will cost. I did an exercise a while back on child benefit and the hundreds of millions it will cost to harmonise, didn't take longer than a few google searches and some calculations. It is not beyond anyone who spends their waking hours arguing for a united Ireland to do a much more comprehensive exercise.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There are only a small number of reasons why those who support a united Ireland are refusing to set out the costs of harmonisation.

(1) They don't have a clue (I suspect that some of the posters on here fall into this category)

(2) They know it will cost a lot of money, and will scare people off a united Ireland (I suspect SF might fall into this category)

(3) They know that a united Ireland at best is decades away, and might never happen so aren't bothered doing the work (I suspect FF/FG fall into this category).

Other than those three reasons, I can't see why any person who supports a united Ireland can't set out in detail how, why and how much harmonisation will cost. I did an exercise a while back on child benefit and the hundreds of millions it will cost to harmonise, didn't take longer than a few google searches and some calculations. It is not beyond anyone who spends their waking hours arguing for a united Ireland to do a much more comprehensive exercise.

Child benefit and welfare in any country can be made a 'scary' figure if you look at such provision for society in that way.

Harmonisation will cost what it costs. A running cost of a united country.

Like we do here, we offset the benefits living here against the costs of living here. It will be no different in a united Ireland.

You are one of the most ardent scaremongers here. We have seen as the conversation grows around a UI and as more and more become vocal and clamber onto the UI wagon that negativity is counter productive.

This constant scaremongering gives the lie to your protestations that you are in favour of a UI.

mehico

Groups such as Ireland's Future are calling for the establishment of a Citizens Assembly. This may help inform government policy on issues such as a new welfare system.

Similarly, one of the aims of the New Ireland Commission that was recently launched by SDLP was to create public dialogue around the practical details of constitutional change. This could help address some of these questions including areas such as welfare and the wider society in general.

FrancieBrady

mehico wrote: »

Groups such as Ireland's Future are calling for the establishment of a Citizens Assembly. This may help inform government policy on issues such as a new welfare system.

Similarly, one of the aims of the New Ireland Commission that was recently launched by SDLP was to create public dialogue around the practical details of constitutional change. This could help address some of these questions including areas such as welfare and the wider society in general.

I think that will be the next stage actually. Watch Leo suggest it too.

FG and FF vying to be the leaders of a UI push was always going to happen. I genuinely believe they have been given the nod through back channels to the UK government that the SoS is intending to make a move on a referendum soon. That, was always going to be the way a referendum happened also...by behind the scenes agreement between the two governments on the timing.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I told you before - email SF.

Just like the Hubner report, I wouldn't put a lot of store or confidence in it.

If it is a set cost as you claim what is your problem? That's the issue settled for you.

Seems to me though that none of the 'costs' are set in stone. Only a wet week ago we were being adamantly told the 'cost' would be 10 billion +

You can try and pretend that wasn't the case but you would be pretending.

There is much water to flow yet on costs and how a UI will be set up.

Hilarious, never said it was set in stone and repeatedly said the cost would change with each government.

Issue here is there is no excuse for SF or the rest for their inaction.

They have all the data required to predict the cost of keeping PS numbers and wages at the Republic levels or whatever level they want. Same for welfare. Same for 3rd level investment, roads etc.

You labelled MM a partitionist due to the slow pace of the unity unit or whatever it is called but not a bit of critisim for SF complete inaction on this.

What's even weirder is you claim the lack of a plan is the reason for poor showings in the polls yet don't actually want a plan produced.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Child benefit and welfare in any country can be made a 'scary' figure if you look at such provision for society in that way.

Harmonisation will cost what it costs. A running cost of a united country.

Like we do here, we offset the benefits living here against the costs of living here. It will be no different in a united Ireland.

You are one of the most ardent scaremongers here. We have seen as the conversation grows around a UI and as more and more become vocal and clamber onto the UI wagon that negativity is counter productive.

This constant scaremongering gives the lie to your protestations that you are in favour of a UI.

So why do you fear the plan so much?

The figures are readily available yet you are trying to push a nonsense narrative that there is secret info that will only be revealed once a border poll is called.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Hilarious, never said it was set in stone and repeatedly said the cost would change with each government.

Issue here is there is no excuse for SF or the rest for their inaction.

They have all the data required to predict the cost of keeping PS numbers and wages at the Republic levels or whatever level they want. Same for welfare. Same for 3rd level investment, roads etc.

You labelled MM a partitionist due to the slow pace of the unity unit or whatever it is called but not a bit of critisim for SF complete inaction on this.

What's even weirder is you claim the lack of a plan is the reason for poor showings in the polls yet don't actually want a plan produced.

We get it jh79...you are critical of the Shinners. So what?

What has that to do with my opinion?

I have said several times, I don't expect any single political party to create policy at this stage. Just as I don't think there is an onus on them (single parties) to propose a plan.
I presume all of them will contribute in the Dáil to the proposal the government makes when moving the referendum.

I believe MM is a partitionist and make no apology for that belief. He makes the familiar soundings on 'wanting a UI' though.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So why do you fear the plan so much?

The figures are readily available yet you are trying to push a nonsense narrative that there is secret info that will only be revealed once a border poll is called.

Where have I said anything about 'secret information'?


Stop telling lies jh.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where have I said anything about 'secret information'?


Stop telling lies jh.

What's stopping you then, other than ignorance or fear, from producing an estimate of the costs of harmonisation?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where have I said anything about 'secret information'?


Stop telling lies jh.

So you agree all the info is there to predict the cost of harmonization and the unknowns only apply to the lesser subvention cost?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What's stopping you then, other than ignorance or fear, from producing an estimate of the costs of harmonisation?

I've seen people here over the years pontificating about the bullions and bullions of the subvention.

I wouldn't want to embarrass myself in the same way. I'm also not arrogant enough to believe that I would be expert enough to consider all the factors like some random internet people are.

Once again, here is my view: the costs of running a UI are the costs. Same as the costs of running the country now are the costs.

I view a UI as an investment in our futures. Getting rid of the toxicity created by partition will be of far greater benefit than any transitory cost. I see no reason whatsoever that after a transition period why NI cannot contribute like any other part of the country.

I think any plan emanating from government will pitch a UI as an investment therefore and that will have a huge effect on polling. The naysayers negativity will have it's work cut out for it IMO. Hence why there is no partitionist political representation of any note yet. I don't think it will emerge either.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So you agree all the info is there to predict the cost of harmonization and the unknowns only apply to the lesser subvention cost?

You were going to show where I said anything about 'secret information' where you not?