United Ireland Poll - please vote

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, before Brexit and before anyone has proposed a UI as an investment in a better future for all. Which is how it will be proposed by the government and all the opposition.
Brexit alone has thrown the votes of many Unionists in to doubt such a gamecharger is it. If the UK insist, as they seem to be, on diverging further from the EU that makes the case for a UI back in the EU even stronger as further divergence will cost the Irish taxpayer.

Honey and milk time again.

A UI is an investment in a better future for all? Fantasy economics at play again.

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Im just talking about another similar opinion poll to gauge where people are at, its been 6 years and like you pointed out Brexit has upended everything so before any discussion is had i think we need to know where peoples concerns are so answers to those concerns can be given and then discussed further.

Nobdy is going to answer positively to a negative question, (a leading question?)
'Would you be willing to pay more tax'. As if that was the only consideration.

In that sense opinion polls are useless.

Why the fear of a proper discussion as provided for in the GFA and a vote?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobdy is going to answer positively to a negative question, (a leading question?)
'Would you be willing to pay more tax'. As if that was the only consideration.

In that sense opinion polls are useless.

Why the fear of a proper discussion as provided for in the GFA and a vote?

The GFA doesn't provide for a proper discussion on a united Ireland.

tom1ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobdy is going to answer positively to a negative question, (a leading question?)
'Would you be willing to pay more tax'. As if that was the only consideration.

In that sense opinion polls are useless.

Why the fear of a proper discussion as provided for in the GFA and a vote?

Paying more tax and possible service cuts make up a massive part of that discussion though francie.

jh79

Seathrun66 wrote: »

The small poll (1,000) from a pre-Brexit 2015?

And yet polls consistently show a strong vote in the Republic for reunification. Are you saying that voters are unaware of the ramifications of a UI and give their preference in ignorance?

A poll of 1,000 gives a margin of error of 3%, perfectly normal sample size for this sort of thing. Doubling it to 2000 would only bring the margin of error to 2%, 8000 would be needed to get it down to 1%.

https://theconversation.com/a-survey-needs-to-involve-how-many-people-before-im-convinced-96470

Considering support for a UI drops from 70 to 30%, a sample size with a margin of error of 3% isn't an issue.

Given the deficit we are running due to COVID, I'd say a future poll would show even less wiling to accept extra taxes.

Monkey arris

tom1ie wrote: »

Paying more tax and possible service cuts make up a massive part of that discussion though francie.

Happens every decade or so just to get us back where we started so we can do it all again.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobdy is going to answer positively to a negative question, (a leading question?)
'Would you be willing to pay more tax'. As if that was the only consideration.

In that sense opinion polls are useless.

Why the fear of a proper discussion as provided for in the GFA and a vote?

Really think the average person is that stupid?

How is it a loaded question? General taxation is an obvious choice to increase revenue.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Honey and milk time again.

A UI is an investment in a better future for all? Fantasy economics at play again.

The 'economics' of it would be well down my list when assessing if a UI was better for all.

Peace, social cohesion, equality, parity of esteem of all the people would be my test before the economics of it came into play.

If you don't have those things prosperity is pretty pointless, would you not agree?
I understand that certain people will tolerate social dysfunction if they are economically better off though. But I don't think the majority here think like that.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

A poll of 1,000 gives a margin of error of 3%, perfectly normal sample size for this sort of thing. Doubling it to 2000 would only bring the margin of error to 2%, 8000 would be needed to get it down to 1%.

https://theconversation.com/a-survey-needs-to-involve-how-many-people-before-im-convinced-96470

Considering support for a UI drops from 70 to 30%, a sample size with a margin of error of 3% isn't an issue.

Given the deficit we are running due to COVID, I'd say a future poll would show even less wiling to accept extra taxes.

And what percentage would accept an increase in National Debt (obviously some degree of this would be necessary rather than funding it purely through increasing taxes/cutting services)? Being much less visible, I'd imagine the number would be higher than those who would accept an increase in tax.

How many would be willing to take a short term hit for long term benefit (one would presume those who say Yes to the first question but no to it if there was a tax increase see some benefit in the concept of Unification, otherwise they wouldn't have said yes should there be no increase in taxes)?

It is a pretty poor polling question in fairness, so it is of quite limited value. I suspect with a similarly loaded question carrying the opposing bias, we could easily see those numbers flipped. We're very lucky that our Referendum Commission would never allow such a loaded question to appear on an actual referendum either way.

BonnieSituation

tom1ie wrote: »

This pretty much confirms what I’m saying.
Maybe bonnie could educate himself/ herself on this subject or maybe he/she is just ill equipped to understand this point?

You're a gas man.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'economics' of it would be well down my list when assessing if a UI was better for all.

Peace, social cohesion, equality, parity of esteem of all the people would be my test before the economics of it came into play.

If you don't have those things prosperity is pretty pointless, would you not agree?
I understand that certain people will tolerate social dysfunction if they are economically better off though. But I don't think the majority here think like that.

We in the South have all that, pretty much better than 95% of countries in the world. So we are right to look at the prosperity and economic angle according to you.

BonnieSituation

tom1ie wrote: »

Something that possibly makes sense other than your nonsense magic money tree.
Your tone is very insulting. Change it please.

I can't help if you are insulted by the merest tension caused to your ego by mild questioning of you and your posts.

Your absurd obsession with the minutia and subtleties of taxation in relation to a UI is frustrating to say the least.

You could at least have the courtesy to develop your points or engage i a more constructive manner.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Really think the average person is that stupid?

How is it a loaded question? General taxation is an obvious choice to increase revenue.

It is the same type of question as 'Would you vote for a UI tomorrow'.

It is designed to get as negative an answer as possible.

The questioner knows the person is likely to say Yes, so adds something that will elicit a negative. I wouldn't vote for a UI if it just meant more tax and I would not vote for it tomorrow.
I would be willing to pay for a benefit later on though, just as the people of this state invested (by shock horror, paying more tax) in all the infrastructural and building an economy measures we took since independence and I would be willing to vote for a UI after a proper discussion and plan is produced which won't be tomorrow.

See what I mean?

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

And what percentage would accept an increase in National Debt (obviously some degree of this would be necessary rather than funding it purely through increasing taxes/cutting services)? Being much less visible, I'd imagine the number would be higher than those who would accept an increase in tax.

How many would be willing to take a short term hit for long term benefit (one would presume those who say Yes to the first question but no to it if there was a tax increase see some benefit in the concept of Unification, otherwise they wouldn't have said yes should there be no increase in taxes)?

It is a pretty poor polling question in fairness, so it is of quite limited value. I suspect with a similarly loaded question carrying the opposing bias, we could easily see those numbers flipped. We're very lucky that our Referendum Commission would never allow such a loaded question to appear on an actual referendum either way.

Up until the pandemic, an argument could have been made that there was enough flexibility and spare capacity to allow national debt to increase to provide for payment for the early years of a united Ireland. However, the deficits run over the last 18 months, together with the investment required over the next half-decade means it will be close to 20 years before we have that spare capacity again, if ever.

In short, increasing the national debt is no longer an option to pay for a united Ireland, especially when we have one of the highest debts per capita in the EU, all done for a good cause, to give free money to people hurt by the pandemic.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

Really think the average person is that stupid?

How is it a loaded question? General taxation is an obvious choice to increase revenue.

Very few people are completely immune to biasing, it isn't stupidity to be influenced by the phrasing of a question.

Think of polling for a simple question like, 'should we bring back the death penalty' and the sort of numbers you'd expect to see in response to that.

Now take the same sample size and demographics and ask, 'Should someone convicted of multiple cases of rape and murder on minors be considered for Capital Punishment rather than a jail sentence'.

One would infer that everyone who answers no to the first question would also answer no to the second question; we've established they're against the death penalty, so the specific incident shouldn't matter, but I guarantee the second question returns a significantly higher portion of people saying yes. Not stupidity, just the human condition.

Obviously a highly exaggerated example to highlight the point, and I'm in no way suggesting any comparison beyond a demonstration of how phrasing can reflect in polling responses.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

We in the South have all that, pretty much better than 95% of countries in the world. So we are right to look at the prosperity and economic angle according to you.

There's that famous selfish Partitionism we hear so much about.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Up until the pandemic, an argument could have been made that there was enough flexibility and spare capacity to allow national debt to increase to provide for payment for the early years of a united Ireland. However, the deficits run over the last 18 months, together with the investment required over the next half-decade means it will be close to 20 years before we have that spare capacity again, if ever.

In short, increasing the national debt is no longer an option to pay for a united Ireland, especially when we have one of the highest debts per capita in the EU, all done for a good cause, to give free money to people hurt by the pandemic.

Wait 'til we tell you about the clandestine group called the NTMA.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Up until the pandemic, an argument could have been made that there was enough flexibility and spare capacity to allow national debt to increase to provide for payment for the early years of a united Ireland. However, the deficits run over the last 18 months, together with the investment required over the next half-decade means it will be close to 20 years before we have that spare capacity again, if ever.

In short, increasing the national debt is no longer an option to pay for a united Ireland, especially when we have one of the highest debts per capita in the EU, all done for a good cause, to give free money to people hurt by the pandemic.

Blanch, weren't you calling it out as unaffordable before the pandemic? The debt loading was too heavy a burden in your eyes then too, but we found it when needed for the pandemic. No matter the economic prosperity we're experiencing, I suspect you'll always have something you'll point to or prefer to invest that money into the rainy day fund, as is your prerogative as a tax payer and a voter, but let's not cod eachother that it is anything but what it is.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

There's that famous selfish Partitionism we hear so much about.

The GFA gave everyone the right to have a say. That is what it said.

Imagine if the PIRA got moving again, and actually bombed unionists out of Northern Ireland, forcing them out of their homes and onto boats, and then a border poll showed a majority wanting a united Ireland in the North, well we would be mad in the South to vote for that.

So when I say I want real peace and integration between the communities in Northern Ireland before I vote for a united Ireland, that doesn't make me a partitionist, it just means I have higher standards for unification than you.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

The GFA gave everyone the right to have a say. That is what it said.

Imagine if the PIRA got moving again, and actually bombed unionists out of Northern Ireland, forcing them out of their homes and onto boats, and then a border poll showed a majority wanting a united Ireland in the North, well we would be mad in the South to vote for that.

So when I say I want real peace and integration between the communities in Northern Ireland before I vote for a united Ireland, that doesn't make me a partitionist, it just means I have higher standards for unification than you.

As pointed out by Fionn, those lofty standards you have are so unobtainable that even when we achieve them you'll find something else to bemoan.

That you keep fighting back about this "Partitionist" label is telling.

Your solution to Partition is Partition. How can you not see how daft that is as a solution?

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobdy is going to answer positively to a negative question, (a leading question?)
'Would you be willing to pay more tax'. As if that was the only consideration.

In that sense opinion polls are useless.

Why the fear of a proper discussion as provided for in the GFA and a vote?

Jesus did you even read my post? Im not saying we base decisions off the poll but polling will shows where peoples concerns are and if one of them is tax and cost then that's where politicians need to start answering questions on.


You are the one seemingly afraid of the proper discussion also as others pointed out the GFA doesn't legally guarantee any discussion which sorely needs to be had on a national level on both sides of the border before any border poll is had or we will end up in the same situation brexit did.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Blanch, weren't you calling it out as unaffordable before the pandemic? The debt loading was too heavy a burden in your eyes then too, but we found it when needed for the pandemic. No matter the economic prosperity we're experiencing, I suspect you'll always have something you'll point to or prefer to invest that money into the rainy day fund, as is your prerogative as a tax payer and a voter, but let's not cod eachother that it is anything but what it is.

Read my post again, I said an argument could be made before the pandemic, I didn't say that I accepted that argument or that the argument had merit.

However, whatever merit it had, however small, there is none now.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As pointed out by Fionn, those lofty standards you have are so unobtainable that even when we achieve them you'll find something else to bemoan.

That you keep fighting back about this "Partitionist" label is telling.

Your solution to Partition is Partition. How can you not see how daft that is as a solution?

Partition isn't a problem requiring a solution.

The problem is people on both sides in Northern Ireland refusing to find a way to live with one another. As long as some of them keep blaming some arbitrary line on the map as the problem, that will continue. Changing the line on the map won't do anything to change the mindset of both sides in Northern Ireland.

hometruths

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As pointed out by Fionn, those lofty standards you have are so unobtainable that even when we achieve them you'll find something else to bemoan.

That you keep fighting back about this "Partitionist" label is telling.

Your solution to Partition is Partition. How can you not see how daft that is as a solution?

I would vote for a United Ireland if it meant that the country was united - i.e the six counties and all its inhabitants enjoy equal status, rights, responsibilities and representation as the rest of the country.

If I am asked to change our flag, our anthem, our system of government, our culture etc to accommodate the wishes of a minority of would be citizens I would vote against it.

Does that make me a Partitionist?

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Jesus did you even read my post? Im not saying we base decisions off the poll but polling will shows where peoples concerns are and if one of them is tax and cost then that's where politicians need to start answering questions on.

I have made a case against the type of answers we get from opinion polls. They are easily skewed either way by the type of question.
I would think people are perennially concerned about cost as part of a decision...just a guess.:) So politicians should address that without the need for a poll to tell them, common sense should be enough.
Hold another opinion poll and protagonists of either side will be waving it about as validation for their view and we'll be no further on.

You are the one seemingly afraid of the proper discussion also as others pointed out the GFA doesn't legally guarantee any discussion which sorely needs to be had on a national level before any border poll is had or we will end up in the same situation brexit did.

Sorry, don't understand that.

My understanding is that any poll will be preceded by a full discussion of the issues. Like all our referenda.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Partition isn't a problem requiring a solution.

The problem is people on both sides in Northern Ireland refusing to find a way to live with one another. As long as some of them keep blaming some arbitrary line on the map as the problem, that will continue. Changing the line on the map won't do anything to change the mindset of both sides in Northern Ireland.

Arbitrary line? At least we're getting somewhere.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Partition isn't a problem requiring a solution.

The problem is people on both sides in Northern Ireland refusing to find a way to live with one another. As long as some of them keep blaming some arbitrary line on the map as the problem, that will continue. Changing the line on the map won't do anything to change the mindset of both sides in Northern Ireland.

What is the 'mindset' that is unique to NI and what has caused and deepened it?

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Arbitrary line? At least we're getting somewhere.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Arbitrary line? At least we're getting somewhere.

All states were created with arbitrary lines on maps. The border on this island is actually one of the oldest in Europe, making it one of the most long-lasting.

VinLieger

schmittel wrote: »

I would vote for a United Ireland if it meant that the country was united - i.e the six counties and all its inhabitants enjoy equal status, rights, responsibilities and representation as the rest of the country.

If I am asked to change our flag, our anthem, our system of government, our culture etc to accommodate the wishes of a minority of would be citizens I would vote against it.

Does that make me a Partitionist?

Im of the same opinion and i find it ironic that in a way it makes me more of a nationalist than those wanting to give all those things away who would consider themselves nationalists but yet are also willing to literally give away much of their nation in favor of creating a completely new one.