HOW WOULD YOU VOTE IN A BORDER POLL?

[Rossfan]

Last sentence is spot on Itchy.
A modern outward looking 21st Century relatively prosperous State would be more attractive to join with than a "failed State "
Uniting the latter with a failed "Statelet" would give us a Western version of Albania.

Now how do we get a work ethic into them lazy 6 Cos crowd?

[Louther]

Clare Byrne the place to be tonight.

Topic - United Ireland.

MM, Leo, Mary Lou, Ian Jnr.

Plus Brolly, Andrew Trimble.

Be some shouting match 

[general_lee]

Just a point of reference: outside of London, ALL statistical regions of the UK, with the exception of two, carry an annual fiscal deficit. NI has been doing so annually since 1966.

I don't think any right-minded Republican is proposing unification to take place overnight, but Lar does make a good point that SF need to provide a detailed plan of how exactly it will take place. Not some 30 page summary of economic aspirations. Quite why he has singled SF out though I am not sure - there are other pro-unity parties that surely should have their skates on?

The SNP commissioned a 650 page paper on "Scotland's Future", perhaps SF are waiting until they are in government north and south before replicating something similar? Who knows. Perhaps a cross-party initiative could be formed to examine the real possibility of getting the ball rolling? We cant pussyfoot around Unionists forever.

I realise that every part of the UK, London excepted, needs a financial bail out to stay solvent but that's not an issue  in the present context. In the event of a unity referendum being carried, the 6 counties will leave the Union and the British taxpayer will no longer boe obliged to bail them (it?) out year after year.
My esteemed opponent claims that Norn Iron only get £5 bn of this bailout but it's what it costs the British taxpayer that's at  issue here. My gripe is that SF are conspicuously silent on this matter. As you say, the SNP in similar circumstances commissioned a lengthy report to cover this and every other issue that would arise if the Scottish referendum was carried.
Yer man claims that there is plenty of evidence "out there" and tells me to look for it myself as it's no concern of his.
I have looked for it  and have found out that it isn't there.
I'd have no problem voting for unity if I know in advance what I am voting for-- and agree with it. SF won't commit itself to anything or at least haven't done so to date.
Why did I single out SF ?
Because, as far as I know, SF is the only party pressing for a referendum.

If we can accept that most of GB is running at a deficit then it stands to reason, NI, a periphery region of the UK was always going to naturally be slightly worse off. So even if the Troubles never happened, the North would have been a fiscal burden to GB regardless. So in a post-conflict NI, where many people want NI to "work", it is patently clear that this objective is unachievable. While NI has quite low unemployment, it has a highly unskilled workforce, less job security, is paid less than rest of UK and has a massive 20% of the workforce not earning a basic living wage.

In terms of the subvention, it really depends who you listen to. Unionists are in the bizarre position of having to argue the cost of the Union. SF are not silent on this, in fact they point to military/defence spending, servicing British debt, overseas spending and pensions which will all come off the reunification bill. The exact cost is impossible to say of course but I'd imagine even the most economic illiterate among us can see that estimates will be nowhere near the higher end of the scale (£15bn??)

I agree/disagree with your singling out of SF - yes they should be getting the finger out but so should plenty of other parties. Especially self-styled Republican ones.

[Snapchap]

The border poll is inevitable, but it won't be in the lifetime of this government so they're not going to waste any time and energy on it and as has been pointed out previously there's no demand from the electorate in the south for them to do anything differently.

SF have been given no indication from either the British or UK government that they intend to call a border poll in the short to medium term so that also accounts for the lack of any planning for a united Ireland

The Irish Government in 2017, produced an 'Ireland 2040' strategy, which was about making contingency plans for the medium term future. It didn't even reference the fact that a border poll in that time frame is a strong probability. Are you seriously suggesting that:
(i) A government is wrong to draw up contingency plans for the well-being of a state if those plans extend beyond the it's term in office?
(ii) That it was sensible/responsible to omit to include any forward planning for a border poll in the 'Ireland 2040' project, given the probability of a border poll within that time frame?

[Snapchap]

SF is calling for UI and want interparty discussions to begin.
So far so good...
But (all?) other parties on the island are reluctant to have such  referendum now as they collectively feel that it would have little chance of success and then there cannot be another referendum for seven years.

You are again persisting with the misrepresentation that SF are demanding a poll to happen now. They have repeatedly said they would like to see on in 5 years. Not now.

[sid waddell]

Oh I did read beyond the headline

Literally nobody says Ireland is remotely near being perfect or anything like it but we are demonstrably a very successful state and one of the best places in the world to live

You claimed that "The UN ranks Ireland second in the world for quality of life" based on a very limited and flawed study.

Ireland did rank second in the UN Human Development Index

But that doesn't satisfy you because apparently you're the expert in how to run a world Human Development Index

Forget the UN one, yours is the real one to trust, even if it's written in the back of a stamp

Oops looks like I hit a nerve. For all our supposed sophistication, a surprising number of our people get ratty when our "best little country in the world" myth gets punctured. If they got half as ratty about our almost-once-a-decade average of serious recessions, or our poor infrastructure and social services, we'd have a much better country.

The only nerve you hit is your own when you decided to deny that Ireland ranked second in the UN Human Development Index, which is a pretty good indicator that we're a good country to live in

Who said we're the best country in the world, nobody I know or have heard of, there's loads wrong with this country, as there is with every country

But the fact we're demonstrably one of the better ones, near enough the top in the world actually, seems to really rankle with some terminally miserable people

Some people even try to claim we're a failed state and those people are head the balls

[seafoid]

Last sentence is spot on Itchy.
A modern outward looking 21st Century relatively prosperous State would be more attractive to join with than a "failed State "
Uniting the latter with a failed "Statelet" would give us a Western version of Albania.

Now how do we get a work ethic into them lazy 6 Cos crowd?

NI had an industrial base
from which non Prods were excluded
Non Prods wer poor
Then the industrial base collapsed
Non Prods got educated
Working class Prods typically  did not.

I think NI has a lot of margin.

[Angelo]

Clare Byrne the place to be tonight.

Topic - United Ireland.

MM, Leo, Mary Lou, Ian Jnr.

Plus Brolly, Andrew Trimble.

Be some shouting match 

Nicely set up for the usual SF bashing RTE show.

Laughable that Naomi Long and Andrew Trimble will probably more for a United Ireland than Martin (who ridiculously claims to be republican when he is staunchly partitionist) would be.

I think of that panel only MLMD and Brolly will advocate for a United Ireland.

[armaghniac]

In terms of the subvention, it really depends who you listen to. Unionists are in the bizarre position of having to argue the cost of the Union. SF are not silent on this, in fact they point to military/defence spending, servicing British debt, overseas spending and pensions which will all come off the reunification bill. The exact cost is impossible to say of course but I'd imagine even the most economic illiterate among us can see that estimates will be nowhere near the higher end of the scale

The point is that when two states separate the norm is for debt and pensions to be split accordingly and this is what is envisaged for Scotland. Now I can think of many reasons why this should not be case for NI leaving the UK, but what model exactly do SF propose?

[Taylor]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56457295#:~:text=Finland%20has%20been%20named%20the%20happiest%20place%20in%20the%20world,Switzerland%2C%20Iceland%20and%20the%20Netherlands.

[dublin7]

The border poll is inevitable, but it won't be in the lifetime of this government so they're not going to waste any time and energy on it and as has been pointed out previously there's no demand from the electorate in the south for them to do anything differently.

SF have been given no indication from either the British or UK government that they intend to call a border poll in the short to medium term so that also accounts for the lack of any planning for a united Ireland

The Irish Government in 2017, produced an 'Ireland 2040' strategy, which was about making contingency plans for the medium term future. It didn't even reference the fact that a border poll in that time frame is a strong probability. Are you seriously suggesting that:
(i) A government is wrong to draw up contingency plans for the well-being of a state if those plans extend beyond the it's term in office?
(ii) That it was sensible/responsible to omit to include any forward planning for a border poll in the 'Ireland 2040' project, given the probability of a border poll within that time frame?

2040 is two decades away. That's when we can start a proper discussion on a border poll that might have a chance of passing.

Pointless holding one in the next few years as it won't pass and it'll be at least 7 years before they can hold another one. I imagine this is why no one is pushing or preparing for a poll at the moment. Again no point planning for something so far away and unguaranteed

[Lar Naparka]

SF is calling for UI and want interparty discussions to begin.
So far so good...
But (all?) other parties on the island are reluctant to have such  referendum now as they collectively feel that it would have little chance of success and then there cannot be another referendum for seven years.

You are again persisting with the misrepresentation that SF are demanding a poll to happen now. They have repeatedly said they would like to see on in 5 years. Not now.

SF want to set a timeline for a poll and want discussions to begin now. That okay with you?
Whether you want it now or in ten years, if you set a definite time limit and you go about discussing the holding of such an election, you are canvassing for the election you want to be held. You are in active election mode.
More moderate parties feel preparing for a poll at present is not advisable and feel it will prove particularly divisive and hasn't a hope of success.  It also means that the chances of a successful result will be delayed by at least seven  more years, according to GFA protocols.

[Itchy]

The border poll is inevitable, but it won't be in the lifetime of this government so they're not going to waste any time and energy on it and as has been pointed out previously there's no demand from the electorate in the south for them to do anything differently.

SF have been given no indication from either the British or UK government that they intend to call a border poll in the short to medium term so that also accounts for the lack of any planning for a united Ireland

The Irish Government in 2017, produced an 'Ireland 2040' strategy, which was about making contingency plans for the medium term future. It didn't even reference the fact that a border poll in that time frame is a strong probability. Are you seriously suggesting that:
(i) A government is wrong to draw up contingency plans for the well-being of a state if those plans extend beyond the it's term in office?
(ii) That it was sensible/responsible to omit to include any forward planning for a border poll in the 'Ireland 2040' project, given the probability of a border poll within that time frame?

2040 is two decades away. That's when we can start a proper discussion on a border poll that might have a chance of passing.

Pointless holding one in the next few years as it won't pass and it'll be at least 7 years before they can hold another one. I imagine this is why no one is pushing or preparing for a poll at the moment. Again no point planning for something so far away and unguaranteed

With Brexit and a likely Scottish break away, the next 5-7 years is exactly the right time.

[Lar Naparka]

Just a point of reference: outside of London, ALL statistical regions of the UK, with the exception of two, carry an annual fiscal deficit. NI has been doing so annually since 1966.

I don't think any right-minded Republican is proposing unification to take place overnight, but Lar does make a good point that SF need to provide a detailed plan of how exactly it will take place. Not some 30 page summary of economic aspirations. Quite why he has singled SF out though I am not sure - there are other pro-unity parties that surely should have their skates on?

The SNP commissioned a 650 page paper on "Scotland's Future", perhaps SF are waiting until they are in government north and south before replicating something similar? Who knows. Perhaps a cross-party initiative could be formed to examine the real possibility of getting the ball rolling? We cant pussyfoot around Unionists forever.

I realise that every part of the UK, London excepted, needs a financial bail out to stay solvent but that's not an issue  in the present context. In the event of a unity referendum being carried, the 6 counties will leave the Union and the British taxpayer will no longer boe obliged to bail them (it?) out year after year.
My esteemed opponent claims that Norn Iron only get £5 bn of this bailout but it's what it costs the British taxpayer that's at  issue here. My gripe is that SF are conspicuously silent on this matter. As you say, the SNP in similar circumstances commissioned a lengthy report to cover this and every other issue that would arise if the Scottish referendum was carried.
Yer man claims that there is plenty of evidence "out there" and tells me to look for it myself as it's no concern of his.
I have looked for it  and have found out that it isn't there.
I'd have no problem voting for unity if I know in advance what I am voting for-- and agree with it. SF won't commit itself to anything or at least haven't done so to date.
Why did I single out SF ?
Because, as far as I know, SF is the only party pressing for a referendum.

If we can accept that most of GB is running at a deficit then it stands to reason, NI, a periphery region of the UK was always going to naturally be slightly worse off. So even if the Troubles never happened, the North would have been a fiscal burden to GB regardless. So in a post-conflict NI, where many people want NI to "work", it is patently clear that this objective is unachievable. While NI has quite low unemployment, it has a highly unskilled workforce, less job security, is paid less than rest of UK and has a massive 20% of the workforce not earning a basic living wage.

In terms of the subvention, it really depends who you listen to. Unionists are in the bizarre position of having to argue the cost of the Union. SF are not silent on this, in fact they point to military/defence spending, servicing British debt, overseas spending and pensions which will all come off the reunification bill. The exact cost is impossible to say of course but I'd imagine even the most economic illiterate among us can see that estimates will be nowhere near the higher end of the scale (£15bn??)

I agree/disagree with your singling out of SF - yes they should be getting the finger out but so should plenty of other parties. Especially self-styled Republican ones.

Again, that's an eminently sensible post. However, no matter who you listen to, the North needs  massive injection of cash every year to stay solvent. If you google for "British annual subvention to Northern Ireland," you will find estimates varying between 8 and 15 billion. Whatever the true figure may be the North will need billions of outside help to survive.
That's the first issue that crosses most peoples' minds when the subject of a border poll crops up.
PS All nationalist parties claim they want to see a united Ireland but don't think that now is a good time to start agitating for one.  In other words, mess this one up and cause sectarian rows and tension that will last for years. Also, an election referendum can only be held if there's a gap of seven years between referenda.
IMO, calling for an election now is inadvisable.

[sid waddell]

If it's going to be 2040 before a border poll has a realistic chance of passing, that's just enough time for the Unionists to set about reversing the outbreeding trend

They'd have to embrace Catholic Church teachings on sex for that, it wasn't that uncommon back in the day for Catholic women in the Republic to have 20 plus kids

Nationalists say "f**k the Union", Unionists could say "f**k for the Union"

The "Breed Like Rabbits" (in the headlights) campaign could catch on, especially given that a lot of Unionists don't seem to have much to do these days except sit around wishing it was 1690