United Ireland Poll - please vote

tom1ie

Seathrun66 wrote: »

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

That extra tax could be spent on more needy projects.
Serious question and don’t take this the wrong way but do you pay income tax?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Social welfare rates in the North (under a SF government) are far below those in the South (under a FF/FG/Green government. Are we going to pay more tax for those in the North, or cut rates for those in the South?

Some honesty of response on this would be welcome from supporters of a UI.

FrancieBrady

tom1ie wrote: »

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.

I think a UI will fundamentally change how we do politics here.

blanch152

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 North already has the freedom to set a 12.5% corporation tax rate, but Sinn Fein have blocked it.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think a UI will fundamentally change how we do politics here.

In what way?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Social welfare rates in the North (under a SF government) are far below those in the South (under a FF/FG/Green government. Are we going to pay more tax for those in the North, or cut rates for those in the South?

Some honesty of response on this would be welcome from supporters of a UI.

Once again....THERE IS NO SF government in the north. Sensationalism mixed with a wilful ignorance of how the failed state operates is no excuse at this stage.

tom1ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think a UI will fundamentally change how we do politics here.

....meaning?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU will be contributing to a UI.

No they won't, not a single shred of evidence has been presented that the would, could or will contribute a single cent.

Some vague aspirational notions of Cohesion Funds etc that are there already means nothing.

I would be in favour of cutting SW in the ROI to pay for a United Ireland.

I would not be in favour of raising taxes to achieve the same goal.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

In what way?

I think you will see something closer to a real republic where a 'power swap' between two similar, if not the same parties is not dividing the spoils among itself.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you will see something closer to a real republic where a 'power swap' between two similar, if not the same parties is not dividing the spoils among itself.

A real republic?

What is a real republic?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No they won't, not a single shred of evidence has been presented that the would, could or will contribute a single cent.

Some vague aspirational notions of Cohesion Funds etc that are there already means nothing.

Something more convincing than what you have offered as evidence blanch - 'history'.

The EU has committed to funding the peace here on an on going basis. No reason to suspect that they will not continue to fund a UI - the ultimate peace project and NOW politically advantageous to the EU from a Single Market point of view.

drdidlittle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

All Ireland unity. If its not going to cost a lot SW cuts will be small. But for a starting point for discussion..... how about a 20 euro per head tempory tax. 20 off SW, 20 off Child allowance and 20 euro tax increase..... In place until finance of UI sorted. All feel the pain and something to work towards.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Something more convincing than what you have offered as evidence blanch - 'history'.

The EU has committed to funding the peace here on an on going basis. No reason to suspect that they will not continue to fund a UI - the ultimate peace project and NOW politically advantageous to the EU from a Single Market point of view.

So there is no evidence that the EU will fund a future UI. You can dress it up as many ways as you want but that is the case.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A real republic?

What is a real republic?

Somewhere where the majority rule but the rights, parity of esteem and welfare of minorities is important.
Where power isn't swapped between to parties that are basically the same.

tom1ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

If there’s no tax increase how do we pay for UI?
The reason I ask is people who don’t pay tax might not care if there’s a tax increase.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somewhere where the majority rule but the rights, parity of esteem and welfare of minorities is important.
Where power isn't swapped between to parties that are basically the same.

So let the people vote, except if they give the result that you don't want. Sounds like a real republic all right.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So there is no evidence that the EU will fund a future UI. You can dress it up as many ways as you want but that is the case.

Yes...I said that before. There is no evidence, all we have to go on is very strong historical precedents.

What have you got only dogmatic proclamations from a partitionist stance?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes...I said that before. There is no evidence, all we have to go on is very strong historical precedents.

What have you got only?

They are historical precedents from the 1980s when the EU was very different and have zero currency or relevance to today. I have explained that many times.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So let the people vote, except if they give the result that you don't want. Sounds like a real republic all right.

Well, take the last election here for an example...both power sawap parties more or less told the electorate they would not coalesce with the otheror that coalescing would be like re-installing John Delaney etc etc.


Look what happened when the electorate voted on that basis?

cheezums

no way of doing it without a huge increase in violence. it's a selfish fantasy for people that don't have to live there.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, take the last election here for an example...both power sawap parties more or less told the electorate they would not coalesce with the otheror that coalescing would be like re-installing John Delaney etc etc.


Look what happened when the electorate voted on that basis?

The electorate voted, and in line with all representative democracies, we got the government we voted for.

If some people want to waste their vote and vote for a party that nobody else will share power with, even under extenuating circumstances, well that's their entitlement.

ittakestwo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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.

No. In the post years of the crash the ROI was running defcits of 10%+ of GDP. Ireland (ROI +NI) in 2019 ran a defcit of 3%. By no means this would be the same situation. It is scaremongering. Also overall debt as percentage of GDP will be initially lower in a UI compared to the ROI as NI will presumably will be handed over with little or no debt of the UK.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The electorate voted, and in line with all representative democracies, we got the government we voted for.

If some people want to waste their vote and vote for a party that nobody else will share power with, even under extenuating circumstances, well that's their entitlement.

I disagree. You must be too used to the power swap.
They lied through their teeth to the electorate and did the deal regardless. Cynical and archaic politics. They have been forced to practically merge now, it's in it's death throes thankfully. Vote share down from a heady, unhealthy 86% to just over 40%.

Perfect timing for a UI really.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

So there is no evidence that the EU will fund a future UI. You can dress it up as many ways as you want but that is the case.

There's no evidence that nationalists will miss Sainsbury's, but you'd no problem throwing that nonsense out there.

The EU has committed billions to Ireland north and south since the 70s. PEACE reconciliation funding is a cornerstone of their efforts here. The EU is ostensibly a peace project, they will support a member state. We don't cease to be a member state on reunification.

Why you think there's gonna be no funding for a member state of the EU is beyond me. It's almost like a bad faith argument, some might say.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

There's no evidence that nationalists will miss Sainsbury's, but you'd no problem throwing that nonsense out there.

The EU has committed billions to Ireland north and south since the 70s. PEACE reconciliation funding is a cornerstone of their efforts here. The EU is ostensibly a peace project, they will support a member state. We don't cease to be a member state on reunification.

Why you think there's gonna be no funding for a member state of the EU is beyond me. It's almost like a bad faith argument, some might say.

Unionists and partitionists know 99% of their argument goes out the window if a financial package is put together. You can tell from the dogmatic ruling out.

mehico

blanch152 wrote: »

No they won't, not a single shred of evidence has been presented that the would, could or will contribute a single cent.

Some vague aspirational notions of Cohesion Funds etc that are there already means nothing.

The notion of Ireland accessing increased funds through the EU Cohesion Fund in a future UI was just an example of a fund that could be accessed in the event it was needed to address regional imbalances. This hypothetical application for funding (if required) would be credible and in accordance with the actual EU policy of this programme.

It was not being suggested that this is the EU paying for a UI.

tom1ie

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?

Any chance of an answer?

BonnieSituation

tom1ie wrote: »

Any chance of an answer?

Do you query the minutia of every cent that leaves your vast wage packet every month?

You seem to have such a concern for the cost of everything I'm surprised that you're not out on the streets most days complaining about this, that and the other.

It's quite clear you have no idea how taxation or capital funding works.

tom1ie

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Do you query the minutia of every cent that leaves your vast wage packet every month?

You seem to have such a concern for the cost of everything I'm surprised that you're not out on the streets most days complaining about this, that and the other.

It's quite clear you have no idea how taxation or capital funding works.

Lol! Who rattled your cage!
How do you know I have a “vast wage packet” which really is none of your concern.
Maybe I’ll get some sort of answer from you (I doubt it tbh),but how will we pay for UI if people don’t want a tax increase which they don’t.
Would you be in favour of service cuts to cover the cost?