United Ireland Poll - please vote

landofthetree

sebdavis wrote: »

Very few will vote for that. Proves why nobody is willing to actually discuss the numbers behind it.

Nor the tens of thousands of soft jobs that were created in the public sector in NI. All those people would have to be made redundant.

jh79

landofthetree wrote: »

Nor the tens of thousands of soft jobs that were created in the public sector in NI. All those people would have to be made redundant.

And they would have to hope FDI gets them a job. A switch from a secure pensionable job to the private sector.

StupidLikeAFox

Bambi wrote: »

Lets put it in Fine Gael terms:

We paid 40 billion to bail out our banks

Our Covid lockdown for locals is going to cost us 30 billion

Seems a little odd to get excercised over 2 bn when we're already paying so much more.

Well im not a fine gael supporter but you could argue that both of those were necessary to keep the economy from crashing.

Why would we voluntarily take on an annual subvention for a united ireland. Cant see a compelling case for a united ireland yet other than "its what my great grandfather would have wanted"

FrancieBrady

landofthetree wrote: »

Nor the tens of thousands of soft jobs that were created in the public sector in NI. All those people would have to be made redundant.

I suspect that a transition period will be proposed to rationalise on both sides to ready us for unification.

Imagine offering people a 'start again' for our major problem areas such as the Health service? Who's not going to support that?

sebdavis

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No accident that anti-UI's and partitionists want to focus on big scary numbers with no eyes for the pay off or other social benefits to offset the costs. No accident either that the question is always phrased to elicit a negative response...'Do you want to pay more tax'.

Phrase a question 'would you be willing to pay if you receive x,y,z, and you will elicit an entirely different response.

So what will we receive? Sorry but x,y,z won’t pay my mortgage or feed my family

Just a couple of examples of the benefit to someone struggling to pay a mortgage and put children through school, while already working two jobs and paying taxes in every direction

Dyr

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Well im not a fine gael supporter but you could argue that both of those were necessary to keep the economy from crashing.

You could make that argument, after all they were both Fine Gaels position.

FrancieBrady

sebdavis wrote: »

So what will we receive? Sorry but x,y,z won’t pay my mortgage or feed my family

Just a couple of examples of the benefit to someone struggling to pay a mortgage and put children through school, while already working two jobs and paying taxes in every direction

Well if you can't work out the advantages of an integrated island structure, bigger tax pool, bigger investment prospect, economy of scale advantages, the massive social benefits etc etc then I wonder would you ever be persuadable like our belligerent Unionists? There are a cohort of partitionists/anti-UIers/belligerent Unionists who would never be persuaded to invest out of pure spite and fear. That's something we have lived with and will have to continue to live with. It would be another 'advantage' of a UI that their negativity and blocking of reform would be somewhat silenced and negated.

sebdavis

Bambi wrote: »

Lets put it in Fine Gael terms:

We paid 40 billion to bail out our banks

Our Covid lockdown for locals is going to cost us 30 billion

Seems a little odd to get excercised over 2 bn when we're already paying so much more.

Nobody voted for a banking crash, or to prop up the Banks
Nobody voted to decide if ireland got hit or didn’t get hit with the pandemic
So not sure why you are trying to compare?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well if you can't work out the advantages of an integrated island structure, bigger tax pool, bigger investment prospect, economy of scale advantages, the massive social benefits etc etc then I wonder would you ever be persuadable like our belligerent Unionists? There are a cohort of partitionists/anti-UIers/belligerent Unionists who would never be persuaded to invest out of pure spite and fear. That's something we will have lived with and will have to continue to live with. It would be another 'advantage' of a UI that their negativity and blocking of reform would be somewhat silenced and negated.

Hubner already has, a measly 1.2% increase in GDP per capita but with no suggestions on where the money for "Scenario 3" will come from!

Friends of SF really shot themselves in the foot with that one.

FrancieBrady

sebdavis wrote: »

No I can’t work it out, so please give me examples! For the person I described what advantage would a United ireland be?

Thanks

I'm not trying to persuade you. Better things to be at. Do your own research maybe?

FrancieBrady

sebdavis wrote: »

No I can’t work it out, so please give me examples! For the person I described what advantage would a United ireland be?

Thanks

No need to start going off ranting about unionist, based on the poll I seen people from all sides of the community both north and south would vote no. You want a United ireland but in the middle of it are trying to stick everyone into an us v them.

'People' have said No to an unknown.

The numbers for a UI are phenomenal given there is no plan/proposal. The majority want a border poll - therefore the majorities want to see a plan/proposal.

sebdavis

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'People' have said No to an unknown.

The numbers for a UI are phenomenal given there is no plan/proposal. The majority want a border poll - therefore the majorities want to see a plan/proposal.

The numbers say 78%, wasn’t it?, wouldn’t go for United ireland, phenomenal I agree

FrancieBrady

sebdavis wrote: »

The numbers say 78%, wasn’t it?, wouldn’t go for United ireland, phenomenal I agree

No, 69% want a UI here.
78% do not want to pay more tax. Amazed there wasn't a 100% answer to that question.
As you say yourself, NOBODY wants to pay more tax.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'People' have said No to an unknown.

The numbers for a UI are phenomenal given there is no plan/proposal. The majority want a border poll - therefore the majorities want to see a plan/proposal.

I'm sure plenty have seen the Hubner paper as SF shared it on social media. Papers by Fitzgerald and Doyle covered by the national papers.

Hardly an unknown. Even if we get a benefactor to pay for it all, the Republic will only benefit by 1.2% in GDP per capita!

sebdavis

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, 69% want a UI here.
78% do not want to pay more tax. Amazed there wasn't a 100% answer to that question.
As you say yourself, NOBODY wants to pay more tax.

You will find the 22% are people who won’t have to pay extra taxes, unemployed etc.
A United ireland won’t happen without more taxes so that is the only relevant poll and it says 78% don’t want it. Spin it all you want but that’s the answer

Plus the majority in the north don’t want it

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I'm sure plenty have seen the Hubner paper as SF shared it on social media. Papers by Fitzgerald and Doyle covered by the national papers.

Hardly an unknown. Even if we get a benefactor to pay for it all, the Republic will only benefit by 1.2% in GDP per capita!

It will be a UI, not the 'Republic'.

1.2% with a host of other problems a thing of the past, health and agri security, the entire island back in the EU, etc. seems a plus to me.

jh79

Year GDP Per Capita (US $) Annual Growth Rate (%)
2019 $78,661 0.05%
2018 $78,621 12.60%
2017 $69,822 10.48%

For a bit of context on the "benefits" of a UI, a 1.2% increase over 8 years!

FrancieBrady

sebdavis wrote: »

come back in 20 years

Quite simply, no.

Irish people are not going to be ignored again and consigned to put up with a partition that has tragically failed for the 100 years of it's existence.
This is on the agenda and is not going away, no matter how much you wish it to.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite simply, no.

Irish people are not going to be ignored again and consigned to put up with a partition that has tragically failed for the 100 years of it's existence.
This is on the agenda and is not going away, no matter how much you wish it to.

If only you can convince a majority up North to vote for it, that's the thing. Currently they won't.

Our NI Breatheren are happy to be part of the UK.

...for now.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well if you can't work out the advantages of an integrated island structure, bigger tax pool, bigger investment prospect, economy of scale advantages, the massive social benefits etc etc then I wonder would you ever be persuadable like our belligerent Unionists? There are a cohort of partitionists/anti-UIers/belligerent Unionists who would never be persuaded to invest out of pure spite and fear. That's something we have lived with and will have to continue to live with. It would be another 'advantage' of a UI that their negativity and blocking of reform would be somewhat silenced and negated.

Yes, we have heard all that moonbeams, unicorns and rainbows stuff before, but what does it mean for Sarah in Clontarf? Will she pay more taxes, Joe, will her children's allowance be cut?

Your characterisation of belligerent unionists is so utterly devoid of self-reflection that it is farcical. It was belligerent nationalists who engaged in a self-defeating terrorist campaign for over 30 years.

blanch152

sebdavis wrote: »

You will find the 22% are people who won’t have to pay extra taxes, unemployed etc.
A United ireland won’t happen without more taxes so that is the only relevant poll and it says 78% don’t want it. Spin it all you want but that’s the answer

Plus the majority in the north don’t want it

Correct, for all the spin and bluster, that is peaking around the anniversary, those are the hard cold facts. The acknowledgement by many in the North of the emergence of the third identity - those who are Northern Irish - is the other factor that pushes a united Ireland into the far distance, if ever.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

If only you can convince a majority up North to vote for it, that's the thing. Currently they won't.

Our NI Breatheren are happy to be part of the UK.

...for now.

Because there is no proposal.

Compare it to were Scottish independence was when it's referendum was called and what happened during the campaign and where they got to before a slurry of false promises from a desperate Westminster skewed the final result. .

That is why you have belligerent Unionism and partitionists fighting tooth and nail against a campaign even getting going.

'We will win, we will win, but dammed if we are gonna risk letting the discussion start' is the cry.

But the discussion has started and will continue and grow apace.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because there is no proposal.

Compare it to were Scottish independence was when it's referendum was called and what happened during the campaign and where they got to before a slurry of false promises from a desperate Westminster skewed the final result. .

That is why you have belligerent Unionism and partitionists fighting tooth and nail against a campaign even getting going.

'We will win, we will win, but dammed if we are gonna risk letting the discussion start' is the cry.

But the discussion has started and will continue and grow apace.

Hold on a minute, a border poll can only be called when it is likely to pass. All of the indications at the moment show that it is unlikely to pass. The opinion polls in the North are showing a decline in support year by year for a united Ireland.

Those calling for a border poll now are the belligerent ones, they are the ones rejecting the GFA. The GFA allows for the permanent presence on this island of the UK if that is what the people of Northern Ireland want. All of the indications to date are that this is so.

landofthetree

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite simply, no.

Irish people are not going to be ignored again and consigned to put up with a partition that has tragically failed for the 100 years of it's existence.
This is on the agenda and is not going away, no matter how much you wish it to.

At the last elections in NI what percentage voted for parties that want a UI?

It was around 40%.

Till UI parties get 50% there is no need for a poll.

Of course you could try to persuade the Alliance party to support a UI poll instead of sending your army of trolls after them and bombarding them with personal insults. Then you would be over the 50%.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because there is no proposal.

Compare it to were Scottish independence was when it's referendum was called and what happened during the campaign and where they got to before a slurry of false promises from a desperate Westminster skewed the final result. .

That is why you have belligerent Unionism and partitionists fighting tooth and nail against a campaign even getting going.

'We will win, we will win, but dammed if we are gonna risk letting the discussion start' is the cry.

But the discussion has started and will continue and grow apace.

If a party as biased towards a UI as SF can only get a research paper commissioned showing a "benefit" of 1.3% over 8 years I wouldn't be holding out too much hope that this proposal will reverse the massive lack of support for paying for a UI.

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It will be a UI, not the 'Republic'.

1.2% with a host of other problems a thing of the past, health and agri security, the entire island back in the EU, etc. seems a plus to me.

You've mentioned health a few times. Perhaps you'd like to explain how you think we'll have such a wonderful health system in a UI that we can't currently have here currently.

The fact that we aren't able to have the equivalent of the NHS here just means it would become even more impossible with the costs required to subvent an incorporated NI.

jh79

Fitzgerald presenting to an Oireacthas committee today on the cost of a UI.

“But at the moment the rise in taxes or cuts in expenditure just to fund the subvention [for the Republic] would be very substantial,” Prof FitzGerald told the committee.

He also noted that if there was an equalisation of welfare rates and pay rates, the financial to cost the Republic would be “dramatic”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-unity-would-trigger-financial-shock-in-republic-committee-hears-1.4554930?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Fitzgerald presenting to an Oireacthas committee today on the cost of a UI.

“But at the moment the rise in taxes or cuts in expenditure just to fund the subvention [for the Republic] would be very substantial,” Prof FitzGerald told the committee.

He also noted that if there was an equalisation of welfare rates and pay rates, the financial to cost the Republic would be “dramatic”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-unity-would-trigger-financial-shock-in-republic-committee-hears-1.4554930?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"Irish reunification would cause a financial shock in the Republic, requiring either a major hike in taxes or a significant reduction in public spending, according to Trinity College Dublin (TCD) economist John FitzGerald.

This is likely to trigger a drop in living standards, he said"

This is pretty much what I have been saying on this thread and others for months and years. People will suffer if there is a united Ireland.

John Fitzgerald is the expert on this. On other threads, we have posters complaining every single time the government doesn't follow every single word of NPHET advice. Will they be as vocal accepting the expert when it comes to the cost of Irish unity?

mehico

It is fairly clear what question will be asked on a future border poll in NI.

What is not really clear is what will ROI voters be asked. As there is already an aspiration for Unity in the ROI constitution, will the vote be based instead on the confirmation of the changes required to facilitate a UI ( or maybe a series of referenda will be required)?

FrancieBrady

mehico wrote: »

It is fairly clear what question will be asked on a future border poll in NI.

What is not really clear is what will ROI voters be asked. As there is already an aspiration for Unity in the ROI constitution, will the vote be based instead on the confirmation of the changes required to facilitate a UI ( or maybe a series of referenda will be required)?

I'd imagine so. The GFA (Yay or Nay) question was phrased as a change to the constitution.