Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

no-one would even organise a pissup without discussion, yet here we are all talking about a UI with any proper discussion at all (though one fella thought people talking about it on boards was a 'nationwide discussion')

Nobody is pretending "these things did'nt happen". Humans being humans, of course they happened, especially when you consider there were hundreds of thousands of people involved. As collusion happened between the Gardai and IRA for example ( as proven in the Smithwick tribunal) , what about the collusion between the Irish government / politicians and IRA ( arms trial, Haughey, Blaney etc)??

There is a whole raft of information required from the British exchequer - how exactly the subvention breaks down - what they intend/propose about pensions etc - what their vision of the transition period would be.

Same goes for the rest of the EU, US etc.

Most important is opinion on the isaland as to the way forward.

This is stuff you can guess at, but it would only be that - a guess.

Sure economics is really an educated guess anyways. There is no absolute correct answer to the cost of unity. We'll only find out after the fact.

Just seem like excuses to me. Take your example of the pension. In NI its 164 euro and in Ireland its 265. So we either have to pay 265 euro x number who receive it NI or 100 euro ie the difference, by the same factor. Now the pension is more complicated than that but the point is that the data is available now. Experts can calculate many of the costs under different scenarios right now.

More than likely we won't have that info for a Citizen Assembly either. The logical thing is to map out all scenarios. What it might cost and how it will be payed for would be separate strands in my opinion.

100 ordinary people - like the audience on the late late for example - would not agree on anything if they were from all parts of Ireland, all social classes etc. The rich / highly skilled / successful from some parts of Ireland would certainly boycott it because they would have more to do with their time than argue politics with those from the other end of the spectrum. Let us be realistic.

FFS if you need to spend a fortune to gather 100 people together "to gauge the widest range of opinion available" as you say, you must have been living on a different planet all your life. I'd say mostly shinners would turn up, most other people would feel intimidated not to, for a start. I would not turn up anyway, so how could it "gauge the widest range of opinion available"? And believe it or not, I am not an extremist, I always condemned the paramilitaries on both sides.

I think talk of a UI hides an underlying insecurity of the fact that

a) most people don't care for it

b) most people certainly don't want to pay for it

c) most people have more pressing issues in their day to day

If you need a CA to let you know what to think on the issue, then I fear a UI will be even longer away than I thought, and I felt a UI would be 40-50 years away.

In the referendum of '73, everyone in N.I. was invited to turn up in a free and fair referendum on the future of NI. ( to stay in the UK or to go in to a UI) : but then you disagree with your own statement "if you don't turn up' when invited, then like your vote if you don't turn up to use it, you have given tacit approval to whatever happens, as it clearly doesn't matter enough to you."

The majority of the electorate did urn up. The majority of the electorate did vote to remain part of the UK. But you side with those who did not turn up and you condoned the minority who resorted to violence in a effort to obtain the minority position in the referendum.

The last referendum is the last referendum.

Lots of people will see the last referendum as relevant when / if it comes to discussing the next one.

Why do you side with those who did not turn up, especially when you condoned the minority who resorted to violence in a effort to obtain the minority position in the referendum. You cannot have it both ways.

I don't see any relevance with the previous referendum but it was valid because the majority voted for it and the boycott would of made no difference anyways.

Referendums can't be judged as valid or not just because you don't like the outcome.

SF can get away with stuff in opposition but dare I say in government if they are pushing this along with the country having to deal with issues, the electorate won't thank them.

I think its safe to say in 18-24 months' time, talk of a border poll will be put on the back burner.

Is there any point asking you to back up this statement?

You only have 688 posts, shouldn't be hard to find the post where I made this bizarre claim.

With the hunting around for multiple vetos and ways to winkle out of the GFA, while all the while their combined vote falls, it certainly seems like something is dying alright.