United Ireland Poll - please vote

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think that is the real lesson from the last couple of weeks of violence. Until the people of Northern Ireland learn to live with one another, there is no way we should contemplate a united Ireland. Put a border poll on the long finger until cross-community relations dramatically improve in the North.

Those supporting the violence and protest say they will not stop until the 'border' goes where it is supposed to be.

The violence is not therefore 'between' two communities. It is one community orchestrating and largely conducting it.

i.e. Nationalists cannot solve the issue for the other side.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

I think that is the real lesson from the last couple of weeks of violence. Until the people of Northern Ireland learn to live with one another, there is no way we should contemplate a united Ireland. Put a border poll on the long finger until cross-community relations dramatically improve in the North.

Unfortunately as much as you'd like it Blanch, your control of the time scale on calling a border poll is pretty minimal. The decision on whether to put it on the long finger or not will be made by the SoS for NI, and it does us no good to bury heads in the sand or put it on the long finger ourselves and fail to prepare for any potential outcomes.

Your suggestion also ignores how much responsibility partition holds in the first place for the inability of a (relatively small) number of the populace to live with eachother. The vast majority get on just fine. Much like I wouldn't make blanket statements about the people of Ireland based on an analysis of the deaths and criminality caused by the Hutch/Kinehan feud, I also wouldn't make blanket statements about the people of NI based on a handful of misguided toerags riled up by another handful of jumped up drug dealers.

mehico

blanch152 wrote: »

I think that is the real lesson from the last couple of weeks of violence. Until the people of Northern Ireland learn to live with one another, there is no way we should contemplate a united Ireland. Put a border poll on the long finger until cross-community relations dramatically improve in the North.

I can understand your point of view but would argue that the events of the past week or so has really just reinforced the theory that partition has failed.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I said that there was no evidence that the EU would pick up the bill for a united Ireland. I also outlined the reality that poorer countries would not vote for such a package.

You are telling us something is there, let's call it a pink unicorn (i.e. EU funding for a united Ireland). I can't see it, nobody else can see it, yet you are asking us to provide evidence that pink unicorn's don't exist. Really? We have to prove pink unicorns don't exist?

I have only said that a successful UI is in the rest of the EU's interests and in the interests of Britain. Therefore an investment in that is not unlikely.

Not everyone thinks in simplistic I'm alright Jack cost terms. Nothing in this country or the world would get done if they did.

You have NO idea what funding will be available. Until you do, you are just dogmatically bluffing.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Unfortunately as much as you'd like it Blanch, your control of the time scale on calling a border poll is pretty minimal. The decision on whether to put it on the long finger or not will be made by the SoS for NI, and it does us no good to bury heads in the sand or put it on the long finger ourselves and fail to prepare for any potential outcomes.

Your suggestion also ignores how much responsibility partition holds in the first place for the inability of a (relatively small) number of the populace to live with eachother. The vast majority get on just fine. Much like I wouldn't make blanket statements about the people of Ireland based on an analysis of the deaths and criminality caused by the Hutch/Kinehan feud, I also wouldn't make blanket statements about the people of NI based on a handful of misguided toerags riled up by another handful of jumped up drug dealers.

Exactly, a tiny diminishing proportion of belligerents are the cause here.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have only said that a successful UI is in the rest of the EU's interests and in the interests of Britain. Therefore an investment in that is not unlikely.

Not everyone thinks in simplistic I'm alright Jack cost terms. Nothing in this country or the world would get done if they did.

You have NO idea what funding will be available. Until you do, you are just dogmatically bluffing.

The bit in bold is conjecture, not even reasoned opinion, and there is no evidence to support it.

Of course I have no idea what funding will be available, because there is zero funding in place, there is zero funding committed, there is zero evidence of any funding. The logical conclusion is that there is no funding.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

To invest you need money. There is no magic money tree to invest.

We've been through this.

You need to move onto some other discussion point. How many has that you've abandoned now?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The bit in bold is conjecture, not even reasoned opinion, and there is no evidence to support it.

Of course I have no idea what funding will be available, because there is zero funding in place, there is zero funding committed, there is zero evidence of any funding. The logical conclusion is that there is no funding.

Of course it is conjecture.
But it is based on this and the fact that the EU 'invests'. It is what it is there for and why we became members.

https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/about-us/impact-of-EU-membership-on-Ireland_en

You are dogmatically proclaiming and cannot back it up. Revert to conjecture please, you actually don't have a baldy notion.

normanbond

blanch152 wrote: »

To invest you need money. There is no magic money tree to invest.

There has to be a magic tree, Sinn Féin’s economic policies are built around the ‘magic tree’ idea! ....... lol

mehico

blanch152 wrote: »

I said that there was no evidence that the EU would pick up the bill for a united Ireland. I also outlined the reality that poorer countries would not vote for such a package.

You are telling us something is there, let's call it a pink unicorn (i.e. EU funding for a united Ireland). I can't see it, nobody else can see it, yet you are asking us to provide evidence that pink unicorn's don't exist. Really? We have to prove pink unicorns don't exist?

I don't think anyone believes the EU would pick up the bill in a future UI.

However, access to increased EU funding would be plausible if it was necessary in this scenario. To go back to the example of the EU Cohesion Policy, its objective of "economic and social cohesion by reducing disparities in the level of development between regions" would seem to support this observation. In a future UI if it looked like the country was in economic difficulty due to unification it would be creditable to think Ireland would be successful in applying for increased EU funds and that this would also be supported by other member states until such point the economy moves to recovery (all hypothetical, I know).

The "we can't afford it" mantra is a little bit lazy at this point and the "basket case" slogan often applied to NI a bit of an insult.

It is natural and fair that people have concerns about how a UI economy would operate but perhaps we should try to look at any opportunities a UI may create instead for a change.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't want a United Ireland if it means more taxes.

Fair enough. You'll have your vote and it'll be clearer pre-poll what the costs are likely to be.

jh79

mehico wrote: »

The "we can't afford it" mantra is a little bit lazy at this point and the "basket case" slogan often applied to NI a bit of an insult.

NI has about 40% of the population of the Republic but only 10% of the Republics GDP and still needs a subvention of 12bn!

Seems like a basket case to me.

mehico

jh79 wrote: »

NI has about 40% of the population of the Republic but only 10% of the Republics GDP and still needs a subvention of 12bn!

Seems like a basket case to me.

Very easy to attach slogans but not give any thought to why this is the case.

jh79

mehico wrote: »

Very easy to attach slogans but not give any thought to why this is the case.

It's irrelevant if you haven't the means to fix it.

blanch152

mehico wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes the EU would pick up the bill in a future UI.

However, access to increased EU funding would be plausible if it was necessary in this scenario. To go back to the example of the EU Cohesion Policy, its objective of "economic and social cohesion by reducing disparities in the level of development between regions" would seem to support this observation. In a future UI if it looked like the country was in economic difficulty due to unification it would be creditable to think Ireland would be successful in applying for increased EU funds and that this would also be supported by other member states until such point the economy moves to recovery (all hypothetical, I know).

The "we can't afford it" mantra is a little bit lazy at this point and the "basket case" slogan often applied to NI a bit of an insult.

It is natural and fair that people have concerns about how a UI economy would operate but perhaps we should try to look at any opportunities a UI may create instead for a change.

Even if a United Ireland would be in economic difficulty due to unification, it would still be a better state overall than places like Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia etc. The EU has to look after them first.

A UI does not create any opportunities that the South cannot create for itself.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We've been through this.

You need to move onto some other discussion point. How many has that you've abandoned now?

It is a discussion point without any answer.

Bland slogans like seize the opportunity, or view it as an investment are nothing more than lies told to hide the reality that NI would be a drag on a UI for at least half a century. The evidence of a unified Germany is sufficient to tell you that.

jimmycrackcorm

mehico wrote:

I can understand your point of view but would argue that the events of the past week or so has really just reinforced the theory that partition has failed.

Yes partition is a failure. But it doesn't hold the corollary that everything will be hunky dory if we had a UI tomorrow.

The effects of last week are a preview also of future events in a UI.

Seathrun66

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a discussion point without any answer.

Bland slogans like seize the opportunity, or view it as an investment are nothing more than lies told to hide the reality that NI would be a drag on a UI for at least half a century. The evidence of a unified Germany is sufficient to tell you that.

German reunification was in 1990. East Germany was decades behind the West in economic development. NI is much closer to the ROI.

Taxes diverted from the church to the German unification process have since stopped. A short-term measure.

And are you also telling us that the economic powerhouse of Europe has not been a success? This I have to hear.

mehico

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Yes partition is a failure. But it doesn't hold the corollary that everything will be hunky dory if we had a UI tomorrow.

The effects of last week are a preview also of future events in a UI.

I agree with you, a UI tomorrow would not make matters better but I was disagreeing with the previous post to just leave things as they are now.

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

A UI does not create any opportunities that the South cannot create for itself.

It creates big opportunities for NI with a 12.5% corperatation tax.

The whole of Ireland ran a defcit of 3% of its GDP in 2019 which is by no means excessive. A UI is by no means unaffordable.

FrancieBrady

mehico wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes the EU would pick up the bill in a future UI.

However, access to increased EU funding would be plausible if it was necessary in this scenario. To go back to the example of the EU Cohesion Policy, its objective of "economic and social cohesion by reducing disparities in the level of development between regions" would seem to support this observation. In a future UI if it looked like the country was in economic difficulty due to unification it would be creditable to think Ireland would be successful in applying for increased EU funds and that this would also be supported by other member states until such point the economy moves to recovery (all hypothetical, I know).

The "we can't afford it" mantra is a little bit lazy at this point and the "basket case" slogan often applied to NI a bit of an insult.

It is natural and fair that people have concerns about how a UI economy would operate but perhaps we should try to look at any opportunities a UI may create instead for a change.

This is what the anti UIers do. They slip in a misrepresentation then argue on that basis...this one being, 'that the EU will pay for a UI'.

It's done with all the subtly of a sledgehammer and is a joke at this stage. Impossible to debate with people like that and their pivoting and negativity will be found out very soon into border poll debate.

For the record, as the GFA agreement negotiations drew to a close large uncertainties remained about support for the fragile social structures that had been created.
Donor agencies quickly came on board, not least the EU...why? Because it was, like a UI will be, in everyone's interests that a UI works.

tom1ie

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Happy to pay more tax to ensure reunification is done properly. May not have to but if required.....

Lol! I’ve heard it all now.
What about SW cuts. Are ya happy with that..........

FrancieBrady

tom1ie wrote: »

Lol! I’ve heard it all now.
What about SW cuts. Are ya happy with that..........

Can you point to backup for social welfare 'cuts'?

jimmycrackcorm

ittakestwo wrote: »

It creates big opportunities for NI with a 12.5% corperatation tax.

The whole of Ireland ran a defcit of 3% of its GDP in 2019 which is by no means excessive. A UI is by no means unaffordable.

The west of Ireland is hardly thriving despite having a 12.5% tax rate, why would NI do better - unless it gets that rate as a region within the UK?

NI is being subsidized by ten billion pounds annually. Suggesting that gap is affordable in a UI is the same as saying the post 08 crash years were affordable here.

There would have to be significant tax hikes to contribute, without a doubt. But the Sinn Fein supporters I personally know aren't in the group who would be paying.

Seathrun66

tom1ie wrote: »

Lol! I’ve heard it all now.
What about SW cuts. Are ya happy with that..........

Extra tax means no SW cuts. It ain't difficult.

tom1ie

mehico wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes the EU would pick up the bill in a future UI.

However, access to increased EU funding would be plausible if it was necessary in this scenario. To go back to the example of the EU Cohesion Policy, its objective of "economic and social cohesion by reducing disparities in the level of development between regions" would seem to support this observation. In a future UI if it looked like the country was in economic difficulty due to unification it would be creditable to think Ireland would be successful in applying for increased EU funds and that this would also be supported by other member states until such point the economy moves to recovery (all hypothetical, I know).

The "we can't afford it" mantra is a little bit lazy at this point and the "basket case" slogan often applied to NI a bit of an insult.

It is natural and fair that people have concerns about how a UI economy would operate but perhaps we should try to look at any opportunities a UI may create instead for a change.

Would the increased Eu funding not be better spent on getting rid of Portacabins out of kids schools, reducing class numbers, building a metro system in dublin, Luas in cork and Galway, new primary health care centres, cutting carbon emissions etc etc.
I could go on. All would be better uses of money we would theoretically get from the Eu to attempt to cobble together a UI.

tom1ie

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Extra tax means no SW cuts. It ain't difficult.

I think it may be for you.

The question was no tax increase but cuts to services to fund UI. Would you be happy with that?

FrancieBrady

tom1ie wrote: »

Would the increased Eu funding not be better spent on getting rid of Portacabins out of kids schools, reducing class numbers, building a metro system in dublin, Luas in cork and Galway, new primary health care centres, cutting carbon emissions etc etc.
I could go. All would be better uses of money we would theoretically get from the Eu to attempt to cobble together a UI.

Would you not be critical of a government that has squandered the funding we have received to fix these issues.
The EU will be contributing to a UI, not to save the blushes of those who squandered what was given already.

Seathrun66

tom1ie wrote: »

I think it may be for you.

The question was no tax increase but cuts to services to fund UI. Would you be happy with that?

As before I'm happy with paying extra tax to fund reunification if required. Thus no need for cuts to services.

tom1ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would you not be critical of a government that has squandered the funding we have received to fix these issues.
The EU will be contributing to a UI, not to save the blushes of those who squandered what was given already.

So you agree the government has squandered the tax money we pay already, yet you are willing to take on a further liability and pay MORE tax so we can say we live in a UI?!
Nuts.