How can we integrate Unionism into a possible United Ireland?

To add to your point and address the bit of back and forth nonsense about what, 'stock' someone comes from.... My paternal grandfather is from a staunchly Unionist Co. Down background, and my own surname appears on The Ulster Covenant as it was signed by ancestors of mine. I have current family in the Orange Order (though admittedly I remain personally rather ignorant of the ins and outs of Orange culture), a family member married into Free Presbyterianism.....yet my posting history makes it clear that I'm firmly in the Republican camp. Its rather strange that some would have you believe that somehow my ancestry makes a blind bit of difference to the credibility of my current opinions here many moons later!

So with my full, 'credentials' out on the table, and a bit of rusty data modelling on my own resumé (though not in the field of economics), I'd love if the Huber report held any credibility. @blanch152 will tell you that if it did, I certainly would've rubbed his nose in it plenty, but it doesn't.

Now the lack of credibility of the Huber report doesn't inherently provide evidence for those arguing the opposite view, but it does leave us all firmly in the, 'more work needed to answer more questions' stage of things before we can have a realistic economically framed discussion about Unification.

Given that I still have a great deal of family in the North and that I experience a much greater quality of life since relocating to this side of the border, the Constitutional Question is an easy one to answer for me; given the close connections I have there, I'm likely willing to endure more of a financial impact than the average person with few connections in the North.

The, 'would you be willing to pay more tax for _____' question is a stupidly vague one, designed to elicit a certain response.

Ultimately I'd imagine the reality lies somewhere in between; a great number of people would be willing to incur a non-zero tax increase to secure Unification.....as that amount of tax increases, the number willing to make that sacrifice drops. There will be a negligibly low amount that would guarantee practically 100% support from those with purely economic concerns and an insurmountably high amount that would guarantee practically 100% opposition (from those with purely economic concerns). That nuance is entirely lost with such a poorly phrased question.

Arguing that, 'it'll be alright on the night and let's not worry about the financial implications' does Republicanism a great disservice......but pointing to a critically flawed poll question that is about as credible as the Huber report.....well that isn't a pile better.

This is exactly the type of crap I was talking about in the quote you posted, people on here using their self proclaimed economic expertise to discredit an independent study by some of the greatest experts from impartial countries like Canada and Germany who have experience in similar studies on German and Korean unification, this can be seen as little more than a pathetic attempt to drain support for unification. People on here are rambling on about their staunchly Republican roots and saying they would fight to the death before they changed the flag because their ancestors fought for it, yet at the same time they have been advocating against unification for this whole thread.

It seems obvious what's going on here, although in fairness though many of the unionists have admitted what they actually are, many of the Unionists on this thread are still currently masquerading as People from the Republic to spread fear of economic disaster and loyalist violence, in what can be seen as little more than a pathetic attempt to drain support for unification. they're also claiming that "we" the Republic will reject unification and 80% of us will vote against it, some of the same posters have even claimed that we were the aggressors during the war of independence, it's sad really. And God knows how many of these accounts are being controlled by the same person.

Okay. Seriously. Are you on heavy medication? Or using hallucinogenics? If either, then I can understand you making up your quotes and alleging that I said them. Its my experience versus what I suspect is your zero knowledge Harry. I used the term overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland. I think I even used the term both communities, so even the dimmest of readers would know that I meant everybody.

I never used the phrases, 'completely different', 'alien force' or 'incredibly different'. That was ALL YOU.

I never claimed that Protestants are obsessed with the Orange Order and I didn't even use the term, Presbyterian Church. I believe I referred to the Orange Order and formal religion. You have copied my own argument. You have agreed with my argument. Even if you got your quotes entirely wrong, as usual.

THE PURE NONSENSE YOU REFER TO HARRY IS ONLY IN YOUR HEAD. I've never seen anyone who wasn't learning impaired, make mistakes like the ones you just did. So, I say this with all sincerity 'Harry'. Rather than typing away here and learning nothing. You'd be much better off, getting out of the house if you can and mixing with real people. And try hard to listen. No one likes to be lectured to, by someone who doesn't have a grasp of the subject. If you stop talking and listen, you will learn a huge amount. And don't be afraid to check that you understand what someone has said to you. That too, is a normal part of conversation. Stay away from Boards and other forums. Its much healthier and more fun, to interact with real people, face to face.

I thought first that you were a rabid Shinner. Simply reciting the ridiculous party line, because you wanted to belong, or similar.

However, I believe, as I've said, that you're intellectually impaired and that's okay. It just means that you have to use different ways to learn. I'm not an expert. So the only thing I've suggested here, is to try to do what I do, when I don't know enough about a subject.

I keep my ears open and my mouth shut. There's one other benefit of keeping your mouth shut more of the time. Others may suspect you don't know much. But, if you keep quiet. You won't confirm it for them. Good luck Harry 😉

Edit: Having read some of your posts on other threads started by you. Its obvious that you are a rabid Shinner and only interested in talking AT others. Not with them. Your victimhood does you a massive disservice.

I'm pretty sure that my grandfather would have wanted compsulory Mass on a Sunday, and had no problm with locking up unmarried mothers in Magdalene laundries; I think that many, if not all, of the problems in N. Ireland can be attributed to people doggedly trying to live their lives in accordance with what long-dead people would have wanted. Thankfully most people these days are able to think for themselves; perhaps yourself and Harry might give it a try.

Look lads, a few things now seem obvious.

1. everyone except Harry is a closet unionist.
2. no one understands the economics of unification, except Harry, whose knowledge is gleaned from the study he quoted.
3. That study is the greatest, and completely impartial.
4. Unification is a foregone conclusion, and anyone who votes against it, even if it is on costs grounds, is a partitionist.
5. All polls that gauge public support for unification are wrong, unless they show that everyone supports unification.
6. The murders carried out by the IRA are terrible, particularly when they occur at times when it is politically inconvenient.
7. Harry knows how to use copy and paste, and he is just the best damn homeland security pilot who never left Dublin.

Did I leave anything out?

Whatever you think in your own head or whatever conspiracies you want to come up with. I've provided numerous links to the study which was reported on by all the major media outlets from the Irish examiner to the Belfast Telegraph to the BBC, none of which feel or felt the need to ever criticise the study, the only criticism of the study any of you have been able to provide to back up your extravagant claims are a single article by the Irish times and another article by a blogger who goes by the name of Slugger O'Toole, both of whom in fairness do admit (unlike the posters on here) that they have absolutely no experience in economics whatsoever.

Here's a link on the study by the Financial Times which goes into more detail about who and how the study was carried out, if anyone is interested and wants to actually judge the study for themselves rather than rely on the self proclaimed economic expertise of some of the posters on here.

As I said before I'm not saying the study is the be all end all, I'm saying it's by far the best study we have on the economic impact of Unification, a study that is constantly being brought up to this day on other articles that discuss a United Ireland, a couple of posters on here have been desperately trying to criticise it because they don't like the conclusion the study came to. Have a look yourself at who the study was carried out by, and how they carried it out and form your own opinion.

The British won't abandon NI. The subvention is a drop in the ocean for them. For us on the other hand, it's significant amount and that's before you factor in harmonization.

In a UI, the North would have to live within its means unlike now.

An IRB man signed the Treaty as the best means to an end, that end is a united Ireland with no British rule.

And with the assistance of SF, we still have British rule in NI.

Since he fought on the pro-treaty side of the civil war, I'd imagine he was less staunchly of that opinion that you might think @Charles Babbage

@Harryd225 even in response to being told you're merely parroting lines from the press release about that study, you continue to parrot them... remarkable... I don't need to claim any economic expertise. One doesn't need to be an expert to see that these "experts" either aren't expert, or the study was disingenuously performed. The study is clear itself: some of the inputs to the models are estimates. The models they cite themselves as using were re-purposed from other studies where they were designed for fundamentally different purposes (US/Canadian border v Irish/Northern Irish).

Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're a Unionist using multiple accounts as part of some conspiracy theory. That's akin to the "Shinnerbot" nonsense you could be so easily tarred with.

A United Ireland is a nice dream. So is a One Nation Planet in my opinion. It doesn't mean it's likely to happen or will be easily afforded if attempted.

No need to plan for it being abandoned on our doorstep. If you are correct and 25% of GDP is a government grant, then the people in the North won't be stupid enough to ever vote for their own impoverishment as we cannot make up that gap. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas because they like the pageantry of it all.

Well we have to understand that people, nations & political parties often / always define themselves as being opposites or different to some other people, nation or party. So Sinn Féin are defined by their opposition to currently the DUP but could be any other unionist group or indeed the Republic if it came to that. Really the politics of NI is a cancer on the island. The last time Ireland was as one - was prior to the Easter Rising, the War of Independence and The Treaty all leading to Partition.

The question is, how do we get back to that time - when Ireland was as one? And then move forward again as one whole independent state? To be achieved peacefully, you need to reverse a lot of the things, merge and then move on as one.