gaaboard.com

https://www.change.org/p/enda-kenny-michael-d-higgins-david-cameron-mp-queen-elizabeth-ii-create-a-united-ireland?recruiter=74995585&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

Please sign

The Good Friday Agreement sets out the template.
Queens,Presidents etc have no say.
When I saw Tiocfaidh ár lá at the end of  it I smelled SF.
Trying to deflect attention from the inevitable cuts coming in Stormont??

Serious question: Are there those in the south who would be dead against a United Ireland?

Quote from: ck on July 22, 2015, 02:02:00 PM
Serious question: Are there those in the south who would be dead against a United Ireland?

Not that I know of

Quote from: ck on July 22, 2015, 02:02:00 PM
Serious question: Are there those in the south who would be dead against a United Ireland?

A referendum would pass very comfortably in the south.

The difficulty would be assuming you only need a 51% Catholic majority in the north, as there'd be more of those voting No than there would be Protestants voting Yes for a United Ireland.

Quote from: ck on July 22, 2015, 02:02:00 PM
Serious question: Are there those in the south who would be dead against a United Ireland?

No. In fairness most of rural Ireland (rural Ireland is mainly outside Dublin) are caught up in just trying to make a living/surviving to even think about the question. I'd say Catholics in the North would not be to keen to get lumped in with our mess and rightly so.

Quote from: From the Bunker on July 22, 2015, 02:26:54 PM

Quote from: ck on July 22, 2015, 02:02:00 PM
Serious question: Are there those in the south who would be dead against a United Ireland?

No. In fairness most of rural Ireland (rural Ireland is mainly outside Dublin) are caught up in just trying to make a living/surviving to even think about the question. I'd say Catholics in the North would not be to keen to get lumped in with our mess and rightly so.

In fairness our mess seems a damn sight better than their mess..

Quote from: Syferus on July 22, 2015, 02:28:37 PM

Quote from: From the Bunker on July 22, 2015, 02:26:54 PM

Quote from: ck on July 22, 2015, 02:02:00 PM
Serious question: Are there those in the south who would be dead against a United Ireland?

No. In fairness most of rural Ireland (rural Ireland is mainly outside Dublin) are caught up in just trying to make a living/surviving to even think about the question. I'd say Catholics in the North would not be to keen to get lumped in with our mess and rightly so.

In fairness our mess seems a damn sight better than their mess..

Are you sure about that?!!

Quote from: screenexile on July 22, 2015, 02:30:12 PM

Quote from: Syferus on July 22, 2015, 02:28:37 PM

Quote from: From the Bunker on July 22, 2015, 02:26:54 PM

Quote from: ck on July 22, 2015, 02:02:00 PM
Serious question: Are there those in the south who would be dead against a United Ireland?

No. In fairness most of rural Ireland (rural Ireland is mainly outside Dublin) are caught up in just trying to make a living/surviving to even think about the question. I'd say Catholics in the North would not be to keen to get lumped in with our mess and rightly so.

In fairness our mess seems a damn sight better than their mess..

Are you sure about that?!!

Well the population isn't split tribally down the middle at least.
After that, I'd imagine anyone would prefer bits of what the other has and bits of what they have already.

Quote from: ck on July 22, 2015, 02:02:00 PM
Serious question: Are there those in the south who would be dead against a United Ireland?

I'd imagine that there would be a serious amount in the Republic opposed to the idea of the United Ireland, if it ever became a serious possibility any time soon.

Once the populace in the South became aware of what the burden of taking on the North's economy would do to to the Republic's economy I'd imagine a lot of folk would become a lot less keen very quickly.

Also I'd imagine that a fair chunk of people would be a lot less keener when they realise that the unionists would be coming soon.

I'd imagine that a lot of anti-Sinn Fein folk would vote against it in a referendum just on basis of not wanting to give Sinn Fein a win.

Referendum for a UI would pass very easily down south. Don't ever confuse the opinions of contrarian newspaper journos and opinion piece writers as being the common view.

65% to 35% I would say, with the 35% descendants of those by and large disgusted with the creation of the Free State all those years ago.

There would be serious scaremongering before such a referendum .

A long long way away in any event.

New flag, new anthem, new rules, new society, put the package down on paper and see how many would vote for it, most older people would,  younger people would not, get rid of flags and religion and its sorted, wont happen in this century, a united Europe will diminish most  borders, remember the words of Kris Kristofisen "freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose"  people protect their pockets at all costs, people only ask how will this effect me now, never think of the next generation, two totally different society's with very little tolerance of one another, just look at some of the posts on this forum. Now close this thread and lets get back to fantasy land where we can talk about sport insult our neighbours, have a laugh at each other and forget about the real world troubles for a little while at least.

Ah but for now United Ireland is a fantasy land

Lets reunite Roscommon first, give ballagh back ;D

Quote from: giveballaghback on July 22, 2015, 09:46:07 PM
Lets reunite Roscommon first, give ballagh back ;D

We're keeping Andy! 😂

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 22, 2015, 09:53:46 PM

Quote from: giveballaghback on July 22, 2015, 09:46:07 PM
Lets reunite Roscommon first, give ballagh back ;D

We're keeping Andy! 😂

Ah sure ye can have Andy. We'll take Akram and have first dibs on the Hanleys if they return. Done deal.

Quote from: Syferus on July 22, 2015, 09:56:52 PM

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 22, 2015, 09:53:46 PM

Quote from: giveballaghback on July 22, 2015, 09:46:07 PM
Lets reunite Roscommon first, give ballagh back ;D

We're keeping Andy! 😂

Ah sure ye can have Andy. We'll take Akram and have first dibs on the Hanleys if they return. Done deal.

Well keep Akram too 😂

Thats more like it lads, all out keyboard wars.

We'll give yiz a few sheep for the lot

Aye, because an online petition will get you an United Ireland.

Northern Ireland subsists today on a subvention from westminster.
People in the north are not going to trade a united ireland for that subvention. Therefore to vote for it they will need a guarantee that those monies, euro for euro will be provided from Dublin. So you are basically asking the southern taxpayer to vote for a new arrangement where they will pay more tax so that it can be taken out of the south and spent in the north on a level of state provision that they don't get themselves. Its dellusional to think that a majority of people will vote for that.

There will no doubt be some freakonomics quoted about the dividend from the removal of the border. I would want to examine those claims very closely. Similarly serious consideration would need to be given to the likely spike in the security budget as any constitutional change in northern ireland will trigger a reaction from hardcore loyalsim (to which there will be a reaction that will also need policed). There will still be a marching season. There will still be an equivalent to the parades commision. Every decision that goes against the loyal orders will blamed on Dublin rule. There will be serious violence and will not stop at the erased border,

Its all a bit of a mess up here and who would want to buy into that. And be assured, it would have to be bought at some considerable financial cost.   

Quote from: LCohen on July 22, 2015, 10:31:49 PM
Northern Ireland subsists today on a subvention from westminster.
People in the north are not going to trade a united ireland for that subvention. Therefore to vote for it they will need a guarantee that those monies, euro for euro will be provided from Dublin. So you are basically asking the southern taxpayer to vote for a new arrangement where they will pay more tax so that it can be taken out of the south and spent in the north on a level of state provision that they don't get themselves. Its dellusional to think that a majority of people will vote for that.

There will no doubt be some freakonomics quoted about the dividend from the removal of the border. I would want to examine those claims very closely. Similarly serious consideration would need to be given to the likely spike in the security budget as any constitutional change in northern ireland will trigger a reaction from hardcore loyalsim (to which there will be a reaction that will also need policed). There will still be a marching season. There will still be an equivalent to the parades commision. Every decision that goes against the loyal orders will blamed on Dublin rule. There will be serious violence and will not stop at the erased border,

Its all a bit of a mess up here and who would want to buy into that. And be assured, it would have to be bought at some considerable financial cost.

Tiocfaidh ar lá

There can be no doubt that in the North we have a few eejits.  But in the South there are a lot. 

What do ye think of James McClean the last day

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 22, 2015, 11:46:11 PM
What do ye think of James McClean the last day

Poor James! I'm sure he bought the Sun or the Mirror growing up and wouldn't know
a United Ireland wasn't something the same as Man United or Leeds United.

I've great respect for the lad for doing it

There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

As for James McClean, I have respect for his position on the poppy but not for showing a lack of respect to the national anthem.

I agree with him on both, because, I wouldn't even spit in the direction of the Union Jack... people saying he should just turn around, respect it, blah blah blah so forth etc etc etc. When you consider things like the Loughinisland massacre how could that be expected?

If I was a footballer in the premier league (which I plan on being) I would (will) get into deep shit over my comments and actions about the UK

Which you plan on being eh? ;D What age are you? 9/10?

Fair play James McLean. There's not many prem footballers who would be willing to take a stand for anything they believe in, in fact they probably believe in very little.
Why was there a national anthem before a club game anyway?

Quote from: ck on July 23, 2015, 09:02:31 AM
Fair play James McLean. There's not many prem footballers who would be willing to take a stand for anything they believe in, in fact they probably believe in very little.
Why was there a national anthem before a club game anyway?

Yanks...they play the Star-Spangled Banner before 5 asides sure..Merica...fcuk yeah..

Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 23, 2015, 08:09:46 AM
Which you plan on being eh? ;D What age are you? 9/10?

Nope

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

Honestly I couldn't give a f**k what they want, the British took what was ours and they'll f**king give it back

Deport them all of to the UK to f**k

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 23, 2015, 11:47:11 AM
Deport them all of to the UK to f**k

Have you ever considered a career in the diplomatic service Mayo?

I think the government has missed a trick in not having you as our ambassador in London ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

Incorrect. It's a simple majority required.

Who would I have to pay to make this happen?

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

Are you not mistaking that for the fact that the elected representatives need to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or "Other' when they are first elected to Stormont rather than voters saying which they are. Voting for a united Ireland would make you a nationalist and voting against it would make you a unionist anyway.

Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 23, 2015, 02:32:21 PM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

Are you not mistaking that for the fact that the elected representatives need to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or "Other' when they are first elected to Stormont rather than voters saying which they are. Voting for a united Ireland would make you a nationalist and voting against it would make you a unionist anyway.

Your right there Ogra. Some things in Stormont have to get a majority of Unionists and Nationalists to pass.
Just had a read of the GFA and it's whatever the majority in North(East)ern Ireland decide as regards staying with  GB or joining the rest of Ireland. If the Sec of State feels that a majority would vote for change must hold a Referendum.

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 02:53:52 PM

Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 23, 2015, 02:32:21 PM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

Are you not mistaking that for the fact that the elected representatives need to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or "Other' when they are first elected to Stormont rather than voters saying which they are. Voting for a united Ireland would make you a nationalist and voting against it would make you a unionist anyway.

Your right there Ogra. Some things in Stormont have to get a majority of Unionists and Nationalists to pass.
Just had a read of the GFA and it's whatever the majority in North(East)ern Ireland decide as regards staying with  GB or joining the rest of Ireland. If the Sec of State feels that a majority would vote for change must hold a Referendum.

This is the last remaining undemocratic choke that the establishment have in terms of restricting the North rejoining the rest of Ireland. I wonder is it laid out in the GFA upon what criteria the Sec of State might judge that the majority of the people want a referendum for change?

Also, while we are on the subject; In such an event, would the South have to vote too? Or is it only a matter of reaching a majority in the North?

Two sides in a wedding have to say " I do".
Anyway read the GFA yourself and see what it says :)

Quote from: Keyboard Warrior on July 23, 2015, 04:21:22 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 02:53:52 PM

Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 23, 2015, 02:32:21 PM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

Are you not mistaking that for the fact that the elected representatives need to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or "Other' when they are first elected to Stormont rather than voters saying which they are. Voting for a united Ireland would make you a nationalist and voting against it would make you a unionist anyway.

Your right there Ogra. Some things in Stormont have to get a majority of Unionists and Nationalists to pass.
Just had a read of the GFA and it's whatever the majority in North(East)ern Ireland decide as regards staying with  GB or joining the rest of Ireland. If the Sec of State feels that a majority would vote for change must hold a Referendum.

This is the last remaining undemocratic choke that the establishment have in terms of restricting the North rejoining the rest of Ireland. I wonder is it laid out in the GFA upon what criteria the Sec of State might judge that the majority of the people want a referendum for change?

Also, while we are on the subject; In such an event, would the South have to vote too? Or is it only a matter of reaching a majority in the North?

  you would think it'd be an all Ireland vote but politicalians tend to be absolute tools

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

How in the hell would a majority of unionists want a united Irish jurisdiction? If even one unionist wanted that, then they wouldn't be a unionist.

Think about it!

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 22, 2015, 10:42:24 PM

Quote from: LCohen on July 22, 2015, 10:31:49 PM
Northern Ireland subsists today on a subvention from westminster.
People in the north are not going to trade a united ireland for that subvention. Therefore to vote for it they will need a guarantee that those monies, euro for euro will be provided from Dublin. So you are basically asking the southern taxpayer to vote for a new arrangement where they will pay more tax so that it can be taken out of the south and spent in the north on a level of state provision that they don't get themselves. Its dellusional to think that a majority of people will vote for that.

There will no doubt be some freakonomics quoted about the dividend from the removal of the border. I would want to examine those claims very closely. Similarly serious consideration would need to be given to the likely spike in the security budget as any constitutional change in northern ireland will trigger a reaction from hardcore loyalsim (to which there will be a reaction that will also need policed). There will still be a marching season. There will still be an equivalent to the parades commision. Every decision that goes against the loyal orders will blamed on Dublin rule. There will be serious violence and will not stop at the erased border,

Its all a bit of a mess up here and who would want to buy into that. And be assured, it would have to be bought at some considerable financial cost.

Tiocfaidh ar lá

But absolutely fcuk all to back it up. Keep dreaming lad

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 22, 2015, 11:46:11 PM
What do ye think of James McClean the last day

Lacks basic manners.

If he objects to the english anthem being played for english teams he should reconsider where he collects his wages. If he is principled that is

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 23, 2015, 04:56:48 PM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

How in the hell would a majority of unionists want a united Irish jurisdiction? If even one unionist wanted that, then they wouldn't be a unionist.

Think about it!

I think that's the point as far as the unionists are concerned.

Not in our lifetime.

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 23, 2015, 12:06:33 AM
I agree with him on both, because, I wouldn't even spit in the direction of the Union Jack... people saying he should just turn around, respect it, blah blah blah so forth etc etc etc. When you consider things like the Loughinisland massacre how could that be expected?

So anyone in the world that objects to any of the litany of attrocities committed in the name of irish republicanism should disrespect Amhran na bhFian?? Just trying to establish the logic and consistency in your line or argument

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 23, 2015, 11:46:13 AM
Honestly I couldn't give a f**k what they want, the British took what was ours and they'll f**king give it back

So what is your recommendation?

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 06:31:19 PM

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 23, 2015, 12:06:33 AM
I agree with him on both, because, I wouldn't even spit in the direction of the Union Jack... people saying he should just turn around, respect it, blah blah blah so forth etc etc etc. When you consider things like the Loughinisland massacre how could that be expected?

So anyone in the world that objects to any of the litany of attrocities committed in the name of irish republicanism should disrespect Amhran na bhFian?? Just trying to establish the logic and consistency in your line or argument

The difference is that those acts were not carried out by the Irish state, in the same way that the gorillas in the EDL do not carry out acts as directed by the British/English state. The Paras did and do.


Fairly sure Mayo4Sam is on a wind up anyway, most twelve year olds could come across more mature in their points than what has been written by that poster.

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 23, 2015, 04:45:57 PM

Quote from: Keyboard Warrior on July 23, 2015, 04:21:22 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 02:53:52 PM

Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 23, 2015, 02:32:21 PM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

Are you not mistaking that for the fact that the elected representatives need to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or "Other' when they are first elected to Stormont rather than voters saying which they are. Voting for a united Ireland would make you a nationalist and voting against it would make you a unionist anyway.

Your right there Ogra. Some things in Stormont have to get a majority of Unionists and Nationalists to pass.
Just had a read of the GFA and it's whatever the majority in North(East)ern Ireland decide as regards staying with  GB or joining the rest of Ireland. If the Sec of State feels that a majority would vote for change must hold a Referendum.

This is the last remaining undemocratic choke that the establishment have in terms of restricting the North rejoining the rest of Ireland. I wonder is it laid out in the GFA upon what criteria the Sec of State might judge that the majority of the people want a referendum for change?

Also, while we are on the subject; In such an event, would the South have to vote too? Or is it only a matter of reaching a majority in the North?

  you would think it'd be an all Ireland vote but politicalians tend to be absolute tools

I'd say there is probably a good reason why nobody credible is saying that there should be a united ireland without there firstly being a majority inside the north in favour of a united ireland

Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 23, 2015, 06:34:10 PM

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 06:31:19 PM

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 23, 2015, 12:06:33 AM
I agree with him on both, because, I wouldn't even spit in the direction of the Union Jack... people saying he should just turn around, respect it, blah blah blah so forth etc etc etc. When you consider things like the Loughinisland massacre how could that be expected?

So anyone in the world that objects to any of the litany of attrocities committed in the name of irish republicanism should disrespect Amhran na bhFian?? Just trying to establish the logic and consistency in your line or argument

The difference is that those acts were not carried out by the Irish state, in the same way that the gorillas in the EDL do not carry out acts as directed by the British/English state. The Paras did and do.


Fairly sure Mayo4Sam is on a wind up anyway, most twelve year olds could come across more mature in their points than what has been written by that poster.

He is totally on the wind up but i still feel the need to point out the inanity of his posts. A bit like Tony Fearon on {INSERT NAME OF ANY THTREAD}.

Anyway the point was about Loughinisland. What did the paras do there?

And did the Ireland not send lads to Spain to fight for a facist dictator? And them blue shirts are running the show today

Dig up Diarmaid Mac Murchadha, sure and we'll shoot the b**tard.

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 06:41:03 PM

Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 23, 2015, 06:34:10 PM

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 06:31:19 PM

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 23, 2015, 12:06:33 AM
I agree with him on both, because, I wouldn't even spit in the direction of the Union Jack... people saying he should just turn around, respect it, blah blah blah so forth etc etc etc. When you consider things like the Loughinisland massacre how could that be expected?

So anyone in the world that objects to any of the litany of attrocities committed in the name of irish republicanism should disrespect Amhran na bhFian?? Just trying to establish the logic and consistency in your line or argument

The difference is that those acts were not carried out by the Irish state, in the same way that the gorillas in the EDL do not carry out acts as directed by the British/English state. The Paras did and do.


Fairly sure Mayo4Sam is on a wind up anyway, most twelve year olds could come across more mature in their points than what has been written by that poster.

He is totally on the wind up but i still feel the need to point out the inanity of his posts. A bit like Tony Fearon on {INSERT NAME OF ANY THTREAD}.

Anyway the point was about Loughinisland. What did the paras do there?

And did the Ireland not send lads to Spain to fight for a facist dictator? And them blue shirts are running the show today

Fair enough re: Loughinisland (although you could use the argument if collusion there as an act directed by the British state), however I mentioned the Paras because McClean has previously stated he won't wear the poppy because of Bloody Sunday, I presume his argument for not facing the union flag is the same.

As regards the Spanish Civil War, I'm no expert and am happy enough to be contradicted here but I don't think the state sent the blueshirts to fight for Franco. Dev was in power for starters and it was Eoin O'Duffy with the backing of the Church in some cases that 'blessed the Blueshirts as they sailed beneath the Swastika to Spain' to quote Christy Moore. Ireland sent men to both sides of the Spanish Civil War - some fighting what they perceived as a threat to Catholicism and others to fight Fascism.

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 06:24:30 PM

Quote from: Mayo4Sam14 on July 22, 2015, 10:42:24 PM

Quote from: LCohen on July 22, 2015, 10:31:49 PM
Northern Ireland subsists today on a subvention from westminster.
People in the north are not going to trade a united ireland for that subvention. Therefore to vote for it they will need a guarantee that those monies, euro for euro will be provided from Dublin. So you are basically asking the southern taxpayer to vote for a new arrangement where they will pay more tax so that it can be taken out of the south and spent in the north on a level of state provision that they don't get themselves. Its dellusional to think that a majority of people will vote for that.

There will no doubt be some freakonomics quoted about the dividend from the removal of the border. I would want to examine those claims very closely. Similarly serious consideration would need to be given to the likely spike in the security budget as any constitutional change in northern ireland will trigger a reaction from hardcore loyalsim (to which there will be a reaction that will also need policed). There will still be a marching season. There will still be an equivalent to the parades commision. Every decision that goes against the loyal orders will blamed on Dublin rule. There will be serious violence and will not stop at the erased border,

Its all a bit of a mess up here and who would want to buy into that. And be assured, it would have to be bought at some considerable financial cost.

Tiocfaidh ar lá

But absolutely fcuk all to back it up. Keep dreaming lad

You make a serious of assumptions to arrive at your conclusion. Firstly, that NI exists as a Subvention form Westminster. But lets examine that...

For example NI taxes are contributing to an inflated military budget and royal family, we could strike those off straight away.  Then there are things like the London economy benefiting from financial services to NI companies, NI pensions & investments etc. There is no doubt countless other things that you could go into but Im no expert on economics.
But my point is that to talk about a quick like for like economic exchange is ludicrous and there is so many things not even considered and many more immeasurable affects as you alluded to yourself.

Also what is to say that it will continue in that way, highly unlikely considering the Mid Lothian question, EVAL, etc the writing looks on the wall for that status quo.


Next assumption you make is that in the unlikely scenario the status quo continues NI will not trade that subvention for a united Irish jurisdiction. Do people always vote with their pockets? Did it happen in 1918? Economics has never had a major influence in the voting trends of NI so why would you think that it would suddenly come to the fore and be the major factor in a referendum on the sovereignty issue? A rise of mob nationalism (of the type demonstrated by the above poster) and an increase in nationalist demographics would see a referendum pass regardless of economic consequences.

You also assume that there would be no effort made to have concessions to the unionist community and parading, which there undoubtedly would, appeasing a majority of unionists more than likely. Also perhaps Nationalist neighborhoods wouldn't care anymore since they live in a united jurisdiction. Perhaps the Orange Order would fade away since the Union was lost.  All likely scenarios but you assume them away. Also remember the apocalyptic predictions for political violence in post apartheid SA? They didn't materialise, although admittedly economic driven violence did, but we do not the same level of wealth disparity that was driving that violence.

So to predict what would happen you have to make a serious of assumptions that may or may not be likely to transpire. The truth is no one knows how and what will happen and what the consequences will be. So predicting the future is somewhat futile. Although if its your reasoning for not wanting a united jurisdiction then that's fine, flawed but its your opinion and at least you put some thought into it, unlike most who just accept nationalism as the way it is.


Lastly I would also say (and this is not necessarily directed at you LC) is that a country is its people, not land or jurisdictions, so if you want a united Ireland you should be working to unite the people.

I used to encounter this back in the day going to college way down the country.
Always by young niave lost bored buckeens who never had even once set foot in the north.
No understanding of politics, economics or reality.
Billions is pumped annualy into Northern Ireland by the British government,Is the Irish government going to do this?

Every Catholic in N Ireland knows the economic reality of joining the republic - it's pretty obvious.

And theres this mindset that every Unionist/protestant will just be miraculously  put on a boat and relocated somewhere on the west of England or whatever - balls.com

Mayo4Sam14 you're an idiot.
Visit the North sometime spend a day their and come back to us with your masterplan

In Enda we trust.

Omaghjoe
Nerthern Ireland exists as a subvention. Your attempts to explain this away never rise above the level of laughable. The NI economy has never amounted to more that 2% of UK GDP in the post-war priod (the only records I have). The tax take from NI is sub par. We could have a separate debate on the reasons for this.

GB military spending (due to politcal stupidity) hovers at 2% of GDP. The idea that a major part of NI tax take is funding UK military expenditure is a nonsense.

The royal familiy (and I ain't justifying them or the principle of monarchy) are self funding and have been since the late '80s.

Which NI companies have major pensions with the city of london and what percentage of funds under management do they constitute? Reality is if NI company pensions left the city of london nobody would miss them (and  would they actually go in a UI scenario?? If so, why?)

I don't know where you get the idea that I believe that there would be no effort made to have concessions to the community. I actually believe the complete opposite. It is a simplifation but in essence whilst NI remains in the UK there will always will be a role for Dublin. Unionist have to get use to that (Most have but another percentage never will). Likewise should a majority vote for a united ireland then there would be a continue role for London. In that sense the united ireland that the unthinking dream off will never actually arrive - even if a majority voted for a UI.

Talk to people in the north and the south. Economics will play a big part in this. Both look like losers in a UI situation.

Any public proponents of a UI who don't have robust economic reassurances for the people north and south is doomed for failure.

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 10:34:16 PM



The royal familiy (and I ain't justifying them or the principle of monarchy) are self funding and have been since the late '80s.

They actually cost taxpayers £35.7m last year. Some sources claim its closer to £300m.

Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 23, 2015, 10:46:52 PM

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 10:34:16 PM



The royal familiy (and I ain't justifying them or the principle of monarchy) are self funding and have been since the late '80s.

They actually cost taxpayers £35.7m last year. Some sources claim its closer to £300m.

That is the sovereign grant (what used to be the civil list). That is not the "cost" of the royal family. The cost of the royal family to the UK economy is the sovereign grant less the tax paid by the monarch, family and enterourage (on all their income not just the sovereign grant income) and the revenues generated form their tourism and trade activities. They are net benefit (in economic terms) to the UK.

There is should not be a monarchy. The idea of a monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy is preposterous but the reason for getting rid of them is not cost

North is now an alien culture to the South (and vice versa) and that's talking just about nationalist strands! Much to the chagrin of the British,Irish unity is not desired by the South or by a majority in either communities in the North.

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 10:34:16 PM
Omaghjoe
Nerthern Ireland exists as a subvention. Your attempts to explain this away never rise above the level of laughable. The NI economy has never amounted to more that 2% of UK GDP in the post-war priod (the only records I have). The tax take from NI is sub par. We could have a separate debate on the reasons for this.

GB military spending (due to politcal stupidity) hovers at 2% of GDP. The idea that a major part of NI tax take is funding UK military expenditure is a nonsense.

The royal familiy (and I ain't justifying them or the principle of monarchy) are self funding and have been since the late '80s.

Which NI companies have major pensions with the city of london and what percentage of funds under management do they constitute? Reality is if NI company pensions left the city of london nobody would miss them (and  would they actually go in a UI scenario?? If so, why?)

I don't know where you get the idea that I believe that there would be no effort made to have concessions to the community. I actually believe the complete opposite. It is a simplifation but in essence whilst NI remains in the UK there will always will be a role for Dublin. Unionist have to get use to that (Most have but another percentage never will). Likewise should a majority vote for a united ireland then there would be a continue role for London. In that sense the united ireland that the unthinking dream off will never actually arrive - even if a majority voted for a UI.

Talk to people in the north and the south. Economics will play a big part in this. Both look like losers in a UI situation.

Any public proponents of a UI who don't have robust economic reassurances for the people north and south is doomed for failure.

Well glad I entertained you but I wasnt trying to explain away the NI deficit. I was just trying to investigate the figures more fully. For example we often told that the public sector is outstripping the private. So as an example lets say the economy is 60%public v 40%private, what is thrown into those figures for public spending? You would have to assume that all public spending as a percentage of the population is which would include military spending. So you say it 2% of GDP which would leave it at 4% of spending (for arguments sake) of that 60%. So in a restructured economy with virtually zero military spending in the Irish Republic you could knock that off leaving the split 57.5-42.5. I admit this is a very crude example However what I am trying to do is demonstrate that the figure may not be as simple as they are made out to be especially when a new scenario of a new sovereign state is applied. Another area that you could explore would be transportation.

Please note I am not necessarily saying that the NI economy is in a position to support itself just that the current quoted figure cannot be considered black and white and interchangeable in a new scenario. I am also not saying that unification would be without economic pain, look at Germany for the first 15years after reunification, but then look at it now, 25 years down the line.

Anyway moving on to the Royal Family, the amount that they are funded is not likely to make a huge difference to the NI economy I was only using it as an example of something that would not be relevant to the NI economy in an AI scenario. Also on a side note they most certainly do not fund themselves the oft quoted rubbish about tourism is nonsense. Do you think that tourists would not go to the palaces etc if they werent there? You dont have to look any further than France, where they give their royals the chop and make a tidy profit of their old palaces.

An old company of mine was also a client of my cousin, who no doubt makes a healthy living of their profits as an investment banker in the city of London. That company's pensions were all run by an London based company and invested mostly through mostly LSE. All public companies float on the LSE and most UK pensions I believe are run by London based companies. Now would my old company shift if the jurisdiction changed to Dublin based financial services? I dont know, they'd probably do what other companies in the south do and I am not not sure what that is, I am sure someone could enlighten us on this. I am not saying theyd pull all investment from London but I am sure that more business would be done with Irish based financial services. Would it make an iota of difference to the London economy? Of course not I wasnt suggesting anything of the sort.

I agree that Westminster will have her shoe in the door in any all-Ireland scenario where there is a healthy portion of Unionists hence the need for a real united Ireland. To be fair the most likely scenario is joint sovereignty. But believe this, a united jurisdiction could be achieved quite easily by getting the blood up in a majority Nationalist community with scant regard for economies etc. Take a look at Scotland.... all of sudden they are lurching towards independence out of nowhere without any consideration for economic consequences. Ireland has a much longer tradition mixing nationalism and emotion into a patriotic cocktail than the frugal Scots.

On a side note regarding the British defence budget.. do you think they empty that amount of money into the military for nothing? A modern global military is the biggest bargaining chip they have diplomatically and has huge knock on affect economically. Countries like Ireland get a free ride off it and long may it last.

It's easy for the Royal family to be self sustaining when you consider their vast property portfolio. It would make an Arabian sheikh blush.

All this b.s. about tourism  ::)

I say strip them of their assets, let them keep their titles and make them work like proper citizens.

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 24, 2015, 07:49:10 AM

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 10:34:16 PM
Omaghjoe
Nerthern Ireland exists as a subvention. Your attempts to explain this away never rise above the level of laughable. The NI economy has never amounted to more that 2% of UK GDP in the post-war priod (the only records I have). The tax take from NI is sub par. We could have a separate debate on the reasons for this.

GB military spending (due to politcal stupidity) hovers at 2% of GDP. The idea that a major part of NI tax take is funding UK military expenditure is a nonsense.

The royal familiy (and I ain't justifying them or the principle of monarchy) are self funding and have been since the late '80s.

Which NI companies have major pensions with the city of london and what percentage of funds under management do they constitute? Reality is if NI company pensions left the city of london nobody would miss them (and  would they actually go in a UI scenario?? If so, why?)

I don't know where you get the idea that I believe that there would be no effort made to have concessions to the community. I actually believe the complete opposite. It is a simplifation but in essence whilst NI remains in the UK there will always will be a role for Dublin. Unionist have to get use to that (Most have but another percentage never will). Likewise should a majority vote for a united ireland then there would be a continue role for London. In that sense the united ireland that the unthinking dream off will never actually arrive - even if a majority voted for a UI.

Talk to people in the north and the south. Economics will play a big part in this. Both look like losers in a UI situation.

Any public proponents of a UI who don't have robust economic reassurances for the people north and south is doomed for failure.

Well glad I entertained you but I wasnt trying to explain away the NI deficit. I was just trying to investigate the figures more fully. For example we often told that the public sector is outstripping the private. So as an example lets say the economy is 60%public v 40%private, what is thrown into those figures for public spending? You would have to assume that all public spending as a percentage of the population is which would include military spending. So you say it 2% of GDP which would leave it at 4% of spending (for arguments sake) of that 60%. So in a restructured economy with virtually zero military spending in the Irish Republic you could knock that off leaving the split 57.5-42.5. I admit this is a very crude example However what I am trying to do is demonstrate that the figure may not be as simple as they are made out to be especially when a new scenario of a new sovereign state is applied. Another area that you could explore would be transportation.

Please note I am not necessarily saying that the NI economy is in a position to support itself just that the current quoted figure cannot be considered black and white and interchangeable in a new scenario. I am also not saying that unification would be without economic pain, look at Germany for the first 15years after reunification, but then look at it now, 25 years down the line.

Anyway moving on to the Royal Family, the amount that they are funded is not likely to make a huge difference to the NI economy I was only using it as an example of something that would not be relevant to the NI economy in an AI scenario. Also on a side note they most certainly do not fund themselves the oft quoted rubbish about tourism is nonsense. Do you think that tourists would not go to the palaces etc if they werent there? You dont have to look any further than France, where they give their royals the chop and make a tidy profit of their old palaces.

An old company of mine was also a client of my cousin, who no doubt makes a healthy living of their profits as an investment banker in the city of London. That company's pensions were all run by an London based company and invested mostly through mostly LSE. All public companies float on the LSE and most UK pensions I believe are run by London based companies. Now would my old company shift if the jurisdiction changed to Dublin based financial services? I dont know, they'd probably do what other companies in the south do and I am not not sure what that is, I am sure someone could enlighten us on this. I am not saying theyd pull all investment from London but I am sure that more business would be done with Irish based financial services. Would it make an iota of difference to the London economy? Of course not I wasnt suggesting anything of the sort.

I agree that Westminster will have her shoe in the door in any all-Ireland scenario where there is a healthy portion of Unionists hence the need for a real united Ireland. To be fair the most likely scenario is joint sovereignty. But believe this, a united jurisdiction could be achieved quite easily by getting the blood up in a majority Nationalist community with scant regard for economies etc. Take a look at Scotland.... all of sudden they are lurching towards independence out of nowhere without any consideration for economic consequences. Ireland has a much longer tradition mixing nationalism and emotion into a patriotic cocktail than the frugal Scots.

On a side note regarding the British defence budget.. do you think they empty that amount of money into the military for nothing? A modern global military is the biggest bargaining chip they have diplomatically and has huge knock on affect economically. Countries like Ireland get a free ride off it and long may it last.

Sorry man but the block grant given to NI is spent in NI. Its not given to NI to take back to fund the military, the royals or anything else. Your example is crude by your own admission but its crude to the point of being illogical.

We agree that the royals are a non-issue in this debate but I reiterate that the cost angle is a red herring in that debate. The tourism thing is real. The royals jet arround the word on their official jollies but who do you think decides where they go and who they meet?

Even the queen's last visit to NI was stage managed by the tourism board. The cameras follow the royals and the royals are told where to go. Yes the french make a fortune out of their standing castles and the tourism revenues in UK would not end if the monarchy ened by they are bolstered to levels that the french can only dream of by the showpieces around the living royals. £100m+ from the last royal wedding. That pays for the soverign grant for nearly 3 years. The 2 baptisms since have rolled a few quid in.

I'm not a republican in the "irish republican" sense but I am a republican and have been involved in debates and organisations that try to progress this line of thought/outright principle. Too oftern the debate wonders into the isue of cost and I will repeat here what I have said elsewhere - to focus the debate on cost is to agree to fight the battle on terms that you cannot win. Monarchy and the hereditory principle is unjustifiable even if it does pay for itself. Focus on that.

I have little positive to say about the City of London but pensions funds will stay there in a united ireland scenario. The irish stock exchange is effectively dead since the collapse of any equity in the 2 main banks. Key companies have delisted in Dublin and re-floated in London. They ain't coming back

This place would still be a hopeless mess in a united Hibernia, as a 23 year old I have no future here and will have to move away to get full time work, the only options are Scotland, USA and Australia. England and rep.of Ireland are out of the question due to the peoples anti Ulster Gael sentiment, it is well known.

Not every person in the 26 is anti-Ulster gaels.

Quote from: LCohen on July 25, 2015, 09:48:12 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 24, 2015, 07:49:10 AM

Quote from: LCohen on July 23, 2015, 10:34:16 PM
Omaghjoe
Nerthern Ireland exists as a subvention. Your attempts to explain this away never rise above the level of laughable. The NI economy has never amounted to more that 2% of UK GDP in the post-war priod (the only records I have). The tax take from NI is sub par. We could have a separate debate on the reasons for this.

GB military spending (due to politcal stupidity) hovers at 2% of GDP. The idea that a major part of NI tax take is funding UK military expenditure is a nonsense.

The royal familiy (and I ain't justifying them or the principle of monarchy) are self funding and have been since the late '80s.

Which NI companies have major pensions with the city of london and what percentage of funds under management do they constitute? Reality is if NI company pensions left the city of london nobody would miss them (and  would they actually go in a UI scenario?? If so, why?)

I don't know where you get the idea that I believe that there would be no effort made to have concessions to the community. I actually believe the complete opposite. It is a simplifation but in essence whilst NI remains in the UK there will always will be a role for Dublin. Unionist have to get use to that (Most have but another percentage never will). Likewise should a majority vote for a united ireland then there would be a continue role for London. In that sense the united ireland that the unthinking dream off will never actually arrive - even if a majority voted for a UI.

Talk to people in the north and the south. Economics will play a big part in this. Both look like losers in a UI situation.

Any public proponents of a UI who don't have robust economic reassurances for the people north and south is doomed for failure.

Well glad I entertained you but I wasnt trying to explain away the NI deficit. I was just trying to investigate the figures more fully. For example we often told that the public sector is outstripping the private. So as an example lets say the economy is 60%public v 40%private, what is thrown into those figures for public spending? You would have to assume that all public spending as a percentage of the population is which would include military spending. So you say it 2% of GDP which would leave it at 4% of spending (for arguments sake) of that 60%. So in a restructured economy with virtually zero military spending in the Irish Republic you could knock that off leaving the split 57.5-42.5. I admit this is a very crude example However what I am trying to do is demonstrate that the figure may not be as simple as they are made out to be especially when a new scenario of a new sovereign state is applied. Another area that you could explore would be transportation.

Please note I am not necessarily saying that the NI economy is in a position to support itself just that the current quoted figure cannot be considered black and white and interchangeable in a new scenario. I am also not saying that unification would be without economic pain, look at Germany for the first 15years after reunification, but then look at it now, 25 years down the line.

Anyway moving on to the Royal Family, the amount that they are funded is not likely to make a huge difference to the NI economy I was only using it as an example of something that would not be relevant to the NI economy in an AI scenario. Also on a side note they most certainly do not fund themselves the oft quoted rubbish about tourism is nonsense. Do you think that tourists would not go to the palaces etc if they werent there? You dont have to look any further than France, where they give their royals the chop and make a tidy profit of their old palaces.

An old company of mine was also a client of my cousin, who no doubt makes a healthy living of their profits as an investment banker in the city of London. That company's pensions were all run by an London based company and invested mostly through mostly LSE. All public companies float on the LSE and most UK pensions I believe are run by London based companies. Now would my old company shift if the jurisdiction changed to Dublin based financial services? I dont know, they'd probably do what other companies in the south do and I am not not sure what that is, I am sure someone could enlighten us on this. I am not saying theyd pull all investment from London but I am sure that more business would be done with Irish based financial services. Would it make an iota of difference to the London economy? Of course not I wasnt suggesting anything of the sort.

I agree that Westminster will have her shoe in the door in any all-Ireland scenario where there is a healthy portion of Unionists hence the need for a real united Ireland. To be fair the most likely scenario is joint sovereignty. But believe this, a united jurisdiction could be achieved quite easily by getting the blood up in a majority Nationalist community with scant regard for economies etc. Take a look at Scotland.... all of sudden they are lurching towards independence out of nowhere without any consideration for economic consequences. Ireland has a much longer tradition mixing nationalism and emotion into a patriotic cocktail than the frugal Scots.

On a side note regarding the British defence budget.. do you think they empty that amount of money into the military for nothing? A modern global military is the biggest bargaining chip they have diplomatically and has huge knock on affect economically. Countries like Ireland get a free ride off it and long may it last.

Sorry man but the block grant given to NI is spent in NI. Its not given to NI to take back to fund the military, the royals or anything else. Your example is crude by your own admission but its crude to the point of being illogical.

We agree that the royals are a non-issue in this debate but I reiterate that the cost angle is a red herring in that debate. The tourism thing is real. The royals jet arround the word on their official jollies but who do you think decides where they go and who they meet?

Even the queen's last visit to NI was stage managed by the tourism board. The cameras follow the royals and the royals are told where to go. Yes the french make a fortune out of their standing castles and the tourism revenues in UK would not end if the monarchy ened by they are bolstered to levels that the french can only dream of by the showpieces around the living royals. £100m+ from the last royal wedding. That pays for the soverign grant for nearly 3 years. The 2 baptisms since have rolled a few quid in.

I'm not a republican in the "irish republican" sense but I am a republican and have been involved in debates and organisations that try to progress this line of thought/outright principle. Too oftern the debate wonders into the isue of cost and I will repeat here what I have said elsewhere - to focus the debate on cost is to agree to fight the battle on terms that you cannot win. Monarchy and the hereditory principle is unjustifiable even if it does pay for itself. Focus on that.

I have little positive to say about the City of London but pensions funds will stay there in a united ireland scenario. The irish stock exchange is effectively dead since the collapse of any equity in the 2 main banks. Key companies have delisted in Dublin and re-floated in London. They ain't coming back

Lenoard if there is something you dont understand or need clarifaction on ask me rather than settling for the whole thing being illogical.

Isn't the block grant calculated from the Barnett formula? Which uses proportion of population v public spending in England. I am fairly sure none of those calculations we see are a ratio of the block grant v contributions to the exchequer. This would likely to be even wider than 60:40 (is it even 60:40? I dont know?). As direct tax contributions to the exchequer would likely be even smaller if measured directly like that.
In any case Barnett I believe uses identifiable regional spending to calculate its ratio for NIs block grant, they dont include things like defence budget and diplomatic expenses in the ratio. Therefore if you were trying to identify the ratio for public spending v private in NI you would not be using solely the block grant to calculate it, if you would even be using it at all, otherwise it would be grossly inaccurate.
I presuming that those ratios have at least foreseen that to do so would be incredibly inaccurate and have used  something like the NI grant plus the proportion of state spending v population against the size of the private economy. Thereby including all public spending including defence therefore my crude little example would stand. BTW I am asking as much as I am telling, do you know how they generate those public v private ratios? If you do and it is as you suggested and they are only using the Block Grant then its terribly flawed.

However the truth is tax contributions and the size of the economy is also so intertwined so it would be very difficult to give an accurate measurement. The same company I mentioned above had a place in England as well, however the England address was used for tax and also much of money generated in their NI address was transferred to England making the NI address look like it was just ticking over so that they could generate more money from investNI etc. That accounting jiggery pokery would influence the reported figures in making things looking worse in NI than they actually were. I dont know how much of that is goin on but I seen it first hand so it does go on. Another demonstration of how intertwined and complicated those public v private figure are.

In any case I find this to be a little misleading in  terms using it as an argument of a united jurisdiction of Ireland as it would suggest that you want that unbalanced public v private economy to continue. Even if you did, its irrelevant as more than likely it will not be continuing for much longer in either case.

I am not talking about where companies are listed on the stock exchange nor am I saying that pension funds would not be floated on the LSE. However the finical services ie pension brokers who provide for things like that would more than likely be based in Dublin and paying tax to the Dail instead of based in London and paying tax to Westminster.

Are you a British Republican then? Like Cromwell? Come to think of it was he first Irish Republican? :D
Your not a shiner I get it

But what does it matter either way you dont like the Royals? Actually France generates more money from tourism than Britain. With the old royal residences of the Versailles and the Lourve being among their most visited, way beyond anything in Britain. The Royals residences are a bleedin gold mine and feck all tourists are allowed in! As for their trade generation that is also misleading, are you trying to tell me that a normal diplomat couldn't do the same thing for a fraction of the cost (and it could actually be accounted for) and actually know what they are doing? Also the royal wedding and births? No.1 Its was attended by Brits therefore giving the already inflated economy of London other boost at the expense of the regions. And No.2 the public frenzy was generated by the media, you could make the same argument for Andy Murray's wedding in Dublane or any other celebrity, however they don't get paid by the taxpayer. The royals could well fund themselves with their farms and estates if they still wanted to be head of state they could funded tranparently for solely that and let the whole thing be transparent, instead of a whole bunch of them doing jobs they aren't qualified for.  As for those debates dont let them BS you, if you got your figures right for those debates you could blow their little myth outta the water!

The block grant is based on the Barnett Formula. No argument that I have made hinges on how the block grant is calculated.

The simple facts is that year on year the difference between tax take and spending in NI is roughtly £10bn per year over the past 5 years. The block grant only accounts for half of this. If NI left the UK we would be left with an annual short fall of £10bn. If you want to deduct from that contributions from NI to UK military and royalty then go right ahead. The shortfall to the nearets billion will still remain £10bn p.a.

The options are:
Cut public services by that amount in NI and get people to vote for it.
Manitain public services in NI by raising  £10bn of extra tax from NI each year to pay for it and get people to vote for it and manage the economic consequences.
Raise taxes by £10bn p.a from RoI and redirect it to NI and get people in the south to vote for it.
Raise taxes across the island of ireland to generate £10bn p.a. but only spend it in NI and get people in the south to vote for it

There would also have to a plan to pay off the element of UK debt that NI would have to take (probably £32bn if they are left with 2% of the £1.6tn national debt).

I still don't understand why the exixtence of a united ireland would result in any pension fund investing in the ISEQ rather in the city of london. Can you explain?

Also any UK company makes a tax return in UK. They don't make a tax return in NI and a separate one in GB. If they have been advised to do so they might want to consider legal action against their advisors.

The fact that France generates more tourism revenue than the UK is hardly a surprise although associating revenue from the Lourve with its royal history has the whiff of willful opportunism.

It is paid officials not the royals who present and negotiate at trade visits. The royals are dangled in front of the international audience as (for some strange reason) they lap the stuff up. It opens doors and creates opportunities.

Dismissing the royal events as being attended only by brits is again made up. International visitors (the media and the clinically insane presumably) do attend but they also watch on the TVs and magazines. Its a massive promotion of the nation, the royal history and the tourism potential. This can only be compared with the Murray wedding if  youstruggle with the difference between a big thing and a little thing. Anyway Murray exhibits talent and hard graft. There is no link between him and the royals.

Leonard its not a simple fact at all, its a very complicated fact. Where did you get your 10billion figure from? Some news source probably the same as myself... Where did they get their information from... Some consultant no doubt.... How did they calculate that figure... God knows! That's what I am really after here rather than just accepting it as simple fact. To calculate it properly a very indepth study would have to be performed which I doubt has. Also as I am previously mentioned I am not saying that the NI economy is not unbalanced I just want to see the criteria that this 10billion or 60:40 ratios use to come up with those figures.

Also as I said b4, to use this a reason for opposing reunification would suggest that you want that imbalanced economy to continue and that it will always remain like that.

It wont of course but none of your options for change will happen as you know of course. But the change will happen, most likely through cuts from Westminster and a cut in corporation tax. In fact you could argue it has already begun.

If NI contributions are made directly to the UK exchequer then how can they tell whats generated in NI?

As I said previously pension services would most likely be run by an Irish based company, I would presume they would have to be actually. Same as other finical services like accounting. Of course they would continue to use LSE for investment growth as I am sure Irish pension providers do at the moment. Maybe someone else would be able to give us some clarification here, although I doubt it  everyone else likely switched of and we are on our own :-*

The Lourve is a centuries old French Royal Palace and the art collection within was a royal collection that has been added to by the French Republic. Not sure how that has the whiff of Willfull Opportunism?
If the same was done with the British Royal Palaces and their collections for example right in the centre of London is Kensington and Buckingham palaces. If you turfed the Nazis out, turn them into a gallery like the Lourve and start charging in. It would make a complete fortune, as I understand the British government would be well within their rights to do it, as the actually own it don't they?

Are you trying to tell me that those attending the Royal wedding were not in the vast Majority Brits? Course they were. I am sure there was some foreigners who traveled specifically for it but the vast majority that were there, would have been by luck. The laughable notion that the British media present that the rest of the world are interested in the Royals is a load of nonsense, the rest of the world think that they are bonkers. Same goes for their "trade" visits. Seriously think about it what business would be influenced in anyway by that BS, bottom line is all that really matters in business? Unless they were offering membership to the Bank of England of course ;) Its nothing more than pure speculation that the "Royal thing" raises money from trade and tourism.  Besides back to the main point that 100m or whatever  the royal wedding supposedly generated (..again how did they come up with that?) it wasnt for NI we dont benefit one iota from the weirdness.

However getting back to the main discussion, a united jurisdiction could quite easily happen through the demographic time bomb finally exploding and a  rise in nationalism. Although I think that the unionists will finally gain some proper leadership before we arrive at that point and there will be joint sovereignty. Maybe a generation or two but you never know what will happen in the meantime. For example we could be province of a Federal Europe who wouldn't allow merging of other provinces, or a wealthy tax free Chinese colony that is used as a stragetic military and trading post between Europe and America.  Also of course the Scots thing could make it interesting... if they take the plunge in the meantime and the English decide they dont want us anymore. Or more than likely the same situation that it is at the moment..a mix of apathy and extremism.

Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 25, 2015, 11:57:55 AM
Not every person in the 26 is anti-Ulster gaels.

Ah now in fairness a lot of us are.

I don't agree wholly agree with Tony on the differences aspect. Yes there are some but also there are many similarities. But there are differences between Dublin and Cork, NI and Wales, these are regional. We are all currently influenced by British and American culture...you see it in the language we use and particularly our kids language. On the economic aspect there has never been a proper economic assessment done to show the net cost/value of the NI economy in UK terms. One thing is clear though this current British Government is driving policies that will change the UK system on health and welfare to a model more closely reflective of the American system and not unlike the current system in the South...the UK can't afford the current system without incurring debt. The big problem as I see it is the benefits culture in the north and an over reliance on public sector jobs.

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 27, 2015, 05:27:15 AM
Leonard its not a simple fact at all, its a very complicated fact. Where did you get your 10billion figure from? Some news source probably the same as myself... Where did they get their information from... Some consultant no doubt.... How did they calculate that figure... God knows! That's what I am really after here rather than just accepting it as simple fact. To calculate it properly a very indepth study would have to be performed which I doubt has. Also as I am previously mentioned I am not saying that the NI economy is not unbalanced I just want to see the criteria that this 10billion or 60:40 ratios use to come up with those figures.

Also as I said b4, to use this a reason for opposing reunification would suggest that you want that imbalanced economy to continue and that it will always remain like that.

It wont of course but none of your options for change will happen as you know of course. But the change will happen, most likely through cuts from Westminster and a cut in corporation tax. In fact you could argue it has already begun.

If NI contributions are made directly to the UK exchequer then how can they tell whats generated in NI?

As I said previously pension services would most likely be run by an Irish based company, I would presume they would have to be actually. Same as other finical services like accounting. Of course they would continue to use LSE for investment growth as I am sure Irish pension providers do at the moment. Maybe someone else would be able to give us some clarification here, although I doubt it  everyone else likely switched of and we are on our own :-*
The Lourve is a centuries old French Royal Palace and the art collection within was a royal collection that has been added to by the French Republic. Not sure how that has the whiff of Willfull Opportunism?
If the same was done with the British Royal Palaces and their collections for example right in the centre of London is Kensington and Buckingham palaces. If you turfed the Nazis out, turn them into a gallery like the Lourve and start charging in. It would make a complete fortune, as I understand the British government would be well within their rights to do it, as the actually own it don't they?

Are you trying to tell me that those attending the Royal wedding were not in the vast Majority Brits? Course they were. I am sure there was some foreigners who traveled specifically for it but the vast majority that were there, would have been by luck. The laughable notion that the British media present that the rest of the world are interested in the Royals is a load of nonsense, the rest of the world think that they are bonkers. Same goes for their "trade" visits. Seriously think about it what business would be influenced in anyway by that BS, bottom line is all that really matters in business? Unless they were offering membership to the Bank of England of course ;) Its nothing more than pure speculation that the "Royal thing" raises money from trade and tourism.  Besides back to the main point that 100m or whatever  the royal wedding supposedly generated (..again how did they come up with that?) it wasnt for NI we dont benefit one iota from the weirdness.

However getting back to the main discussion, a united jurisdiction could quite easily happen through the demographic time bomb finally exploding and a  rise in nationalism. Although I think that the unionists will finally gain some proper leadership before we arrive at that point and there will be joint sovereignty. Maybe a generation or two but you never know what will happen in the meantime. For example we could be province of a Federal Europe who wouldn't allow merging of other provinces, or a wealthy tax free Chinese colony that is used as a stragetic military and trading post between Europe and America.  Also of course the Scots thing could make it interesting... if they take the plunge in the meantime and the English decide they dont want us anymore. Or more than likely the same situation that it is at the moment..a mix of apathy and extremism.

It's entirely down to the fund manager. They decide if they want to invest in UK equities, govt. bonds, emerging economies or what ever makes them money.

Ah good man...thanks Mike...you could maybe help us out a little further and let us know where the pension services would be provided from...generally speaking from within the state that the company and workers are based or outside of it? Are they legally bound to be based within that jurisdiction?

And generally speaking for investment purposes does the pension company have its own investment arm or is that provided by some type of investment company and and if so where would they likely be based?

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 27, 2015, 05:39:18 PM
Ah good man...thanks Mike...you could maybe help us out a little further and let us know where the pension services would be provided from...generally speaking from within the state that the company and workers are based or outside of it? Are they legally bound to be based within that jurisdiction?

And generally speaking for investment purposes does the pension company have its own investment arm or is that provided by some type of investment company and and if so where would they likely be based?

Considering the raid on Irish private pensions by Noonan, while leaving his own intact, I am amazed they haven't been moved offshore. I am guessing there is a legal barrier to that.

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 27, 2015, 05:27:15 AM
Leonard its not a simple fact at all, its a very complicated fact. Where did you get your 10billion figure from? Some news source probably the same as myself... Where did they get their information from... Some consultant no doubt.... How did they calculate that figure... God knows! That's what I am really after here rather than just accepting it as simple fact. To calculate it properly a very indepth study would have to be performed which I doubt has. Also as I am previously mentioned I am not saying that the NI economy is not unbalanced I just want to see the criteria that this 10billion or 60:40 ratios use to come up with those figures.

Also as I said b4, to use this a reason for opposing reunification would suggest that you want that imbalanced economy to continue and that it will always remain like that.

It wont of course but none of your options for change will happen as you know of course. But the change will happen, most likely through cuts from Westminster and a cut in corporation tax. In fact you could argue it has already begun.

If NI contributions are made directly to the UK exchequer then how can they tell whats generated in NI?

As I said previously pension services would most likely be run by an Irish based company, I would presume they would have to be actually. Same as other finical services like accounting. Of course they would continue to use LSE for investment growth as I am sure Irish pension providers do at the moment. Maybe someone else would be able to give us some clarification here, although I doubt it  everyone else likely switched of and we are on our own :-*

The Lourve is a centuries old French Royal Palace and the art collection within was a royal collection that has been added to by the French Republic. Not sure how that has the whiff of Willfull Opportunism?
If the same was done with the British Royal Palaces and their collections for example right in the centre of London is Kensington and Buckingham palaces. If you turfed the Nazis out, turn them into a gallery like the Lourve and start charging in. It would make a complete fortune, as I understand the British government would be well within their rights to do it, as the actually own it don't they?

Are you trying to tell me that those attending the Royal wedding were not in the vast Majority Brits? Course they were. I am sure there was some foreigners who traveled specifically for it but the vast majority that were there, would have been by luck. The laughable notion that the British media present that the rest of the world are interested in the Royals is a load of nonsense, the rest of the world think that they are bonkers. Same goes for their "trade" visits. Seriously think about it what business would be influenced in anyway by that BS, bottom line is all that really matters in business? Unless they were offering membership to the Bank of England of course ;) Its nothing more than pure speculation that the "Royal thing" raises money from trade and tourism.  Besides back to the main point that 100m or whatever  the royal wedding supposedly generated (..again how did they come up with that?) it wasnt for NI we dont benefit one iota from the weirdness.

However getting back to the main discussion, a united jurisdiction could quite easily happen through the demographic time bomb finally exploding and a  rise in nationalism. Although I think that the unionists will finally gain some proper leadership before we arrive at that point and there will be joint sovereignty. Maybe a generation or two but you never know what will happen in the meantime. For example we could be province of a Federal Europe who wouldn't allow merging of other provinces, or a wealthy tax free Chinese colony that is used as a stragetic military and trading post between Europe and America.  Also of course the Scots thing could make it interesting... if they take the plunge in the meantime and the English decide they dont want us anymore. Or more than likely the same situation that it is at the moment..a mix of apathy and extremism.

By all means have that indepth study and it is impossible to see the united ireland debate getting much traction without such a study and the results being poured over. It will influence votes. There will be people who aspire to a UI but won't vote for it ant any cost. They will need assurances.

The £10bn is the actual difference between the monies collected in NI (incluing VAT and duties on goods consumed in NI e.g. booze, fags and fuel) and the monies paid out by the public sector. Offical DFP figures. This is before the block grant.

Nobody is arguing for the structure and inadequacies of the NI economy to be maintained (there is no evidence to support yoru made up assertion that I want such imbalances to be maintained but upou keep on making these assertions - they build a credibility of sorts) but they cannot be wished away either. To remove the source of the funds that plugs the £10bn annual deficit will cause monumental social pain. Therefore to even consider doing so you need to have concrete assurances of how that pain will be averted. To date we have heard of moneis to be saved from Uk military and royals whilst at the same time we hear admissions from the same sources that these figures (at a NI level) are insignificant. You need to deal in the realities of finding an alternative source for the £10bn per annum or a means of managing with out it. What are your proposals for these major problems?

Tax payers have addresses and the HMRC use this to see where tax comes from. HMT use the same data in their modelling.

Can you explain why you repeatedly claim that in a UI scenario that NI companies would switch to using a Irish fund managers or to invest in the limited range of ISEQ shares? If there is no evidence to support your clainm then just admit so and stop repeating your claim.

Why do you think Bord Failte advertise in Ireland? By your logic if Irish people spent money in Ireland this would contribute nothing to the Irish economy? Maybe you want to reconsider your stance on that one. It won't take long to work it out.

It is opportunism to use the royal history of the Lourve to claim it current visitor numbers/revenues as being derived from that royal history. Strip the Lourve back to the original royal collection and see how many visitors you get. The finist collection in Paris is in a former train station. Are you claiming that people go there do so because of its monorail history? Or are you relying on an inconsistency in your line or argument?

Its completely true that the UK government own the royal palaces. They would have to sell a few of them if they were stock one of them with a Lourve style collection though.

I must apologise to you. I had thought that whilst on my travels and seeing international coverage of the british royals that the international media where doing this for commercial reasons and that their audience was interested in the material as presented. I now, due to your kind intervention, see that that I didn't witness this at all and the whole thing was cooked up by the british media.

The major royals bring with them publicity. Many foreign companies want that publicity. As I said all along the royals don't do a dam thing to negotiate foreign trade but they do make it easier for those who do. It is a growing concern to the commonwealth countries that continue the practice of using the Queen as their head of state. She delivers nothing for them. Time for them to do what some have already done and get their own head of state even if they stay in the commonwealth.

Anyway you continue to use well founded claims like "the rest of the world think that they are bonkers" (in no way speculation on your part), "the laughable notion that the British media present that the rest of the world are interested in the Royals is a load of nonsense" (totally supported by the researched and objective facts you have provided) add them to the other red herrings like royal and militarty spoending that you have had to climb down from. You continue to ask others to provide proof of their claims. No doubt you have some evidence to show where somebody claimed that NI benefits from the royal wedding. You have spent enough energy rubbishing the claim so I hope for your sake someone has actually made the claim (a bit like the 60:40 split in the NI economy).

In the meantime the real issues of the £10bn per annum shortfall and the c£32bn of national debt that comes with NI. What are your practical solutions?

Quote from: LCohen on July 28, 2015, 06:49:44 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 27, 2015, 05:27:15 AM
Leonard its not a simple fact at all, its a very complicated fact. Where did you get your 10billion figure from? Some news source probably the same as myself... Where did they get their information from... Some consultant no doubt.... How did they calculate that figure... God knows! That's what I am really after here rather than just accepting it as simple fact. To calculate it properly a very indepth study would have to be performed which I doubt has. Also as I am previously mentioned I am not saying that the NI economy is not unbalanced I just want to see the criteria that this 10billion or 60:40 ratios use to come up with those figures.

Also as I said b4, to use this a reason for opposing reunification would suggest that you want that imbalanced economy to continue and that it will always remain like that.

It wont of course but none of your options for change will happen as you know of course. But the change will happen, most likely through cuts from Westminster and a cut in corporation tax. In fact you could argue it has already begun.

If NI contributions are made directly to the UK exchequer then how can they tell whats generated in NI?

As I said previously pension services would most likely be run by an Irish based company, I would presume they would have to be actually. Same as other finical services like accounting. Of course they would continue to use LSE for investment growth as I am sure Irish pension providers do at the moment. Maybe someone else would be able to give us some clarification here, although I doubt it  everyone else likely switched of and we are on our own :-*

The Lourve is a centuries old French Royal Palace and the art collection within was a royal collection that has been added to by the French Republic. Not sure how that has the whiff of Willfull Opportunism?
If the same was done with the British Royal Palaces and their collections for example right in the centre of London is Kensington and Buckingham palaces. If you turfed the Nazis out, turn them into a gallery like the Lourve and start charging in. It would make a complete fortune, as I understand the British government would be well within their rights to do it, as the actually own it don't they?

Are you trying to tell me that those attending the Royal wedding were not in the vast Majority Brits? Course they were. I am sure there was some foreigners who traveled specifically for it but the vast majority that were there, would have been by luck. The laughable notion that the British media present that the rest of the world are interested in the Royals is a load of nonsense, the rest of the world think that they are bonkers. Same goes for their "trade" visits. Seriously think about it what business would be influenced in anyway by that BS, bottom line is all that really matters in business? Unless they were offering membership to the Bank of England of course ;) Its nothing more than pure speculation that the "Royal thing" raises money from trade and tourism.  Besides back to the main point that 100m or whatever  the royal wedding supposedly generated (..again how did they come up with that?) it wasnt for NI we dont benefit one iota from the weirdness.

However getting back to the main discussion, a united jurisdiction could quite easily happen through the demographic time bomb finally exploding and a  rise in nationalism. Although I think that the unionists will finally gain some proper leadership before we arrive at that point and there will be joint sovereignty. Maybe a generation or two but you never know what will happen in the meantime. For example we could be province of a Federal Europe who wouldn't allow merging of other provinces, or a wealthy tax free Chinese colony that is used as a stragetic military and trading post between Europe and America.  Also of course the Scots thing could make it interesting... if they take the plunge in the meantime and the English decide they dont want us anymore. Or more than likely the same situation that it is at the moment..a mix of apathy and extremism.

By all means have that indepth study and it is impossible to see the united ireland debate getting much traction without such a study and the results being poured over. It will influence votes. There will be people who aspire to a UI but won't vote for it ant any cost. They will need assurances.

The £10bn is the actual difference between the monies collected in NI (incluing VAT and duties on goods consumed in NI e.g. booze, fags and fuel) and the monies paid out by the public sector. Offical DFP figures. This is before the block grant.

Nobody is arguing for the structure and inadequacies of the NI economy to be maintained (there is no evidence to support yoru made up assertion that I want such imbalances to be maintained but upou keep on making these assertions - they build a credibility of sorts) but they cannot be wished away either. To remove the source of the funds that plugs the £10bn annual deficit will cause monumental social pain. Therefore to even consider doing so you need to have concrete assurances of how that pain will be averted. To date we have heard of moneis to be saved from Uk military and royals whilst at the same time we hear admissions from the same sources that these figures (at a NI level) are insignificant. You need to deal in the realities of finding an alternative source for the £10bn per annum or a means of managing with out it. What are your proposals for these major problems?

Tax payers have addresses and the HMRC use this to see where tax comes from. HMT use the same data in their modelling.

Can you explain why you repeatedly claim that in a UI scenario that NI companies would switch to using a Irish fund managers or to invest in the limited range of ISEQ shares? If there is no evidence to support your clainm then just admit so and stop repeating your claim.

Why do you think Bord Failte advertise in Ireland? By your logic if Irish people spent money in Ireland this would contribute nothing to the Irish economy? Maybe you want to reconsider your stance on that one. It won't take long to work it out.

It is opportunism to use the royal history of the Lourve to claim it current visitor numbers/revenues as being derived from that royal history. Strip the Lourve back to the original royal collection and see how many visitors you get. The finist collection in Paris is in a former train station. Are you claiming that people go there do so because of its monorail history? Or are you relying on an inconsistency in your line or argument?

Its completely true that the UK government own the royal palaces. They would have to sell a few of them if they were stock one of them with a Lourve style collection though.

I must apologise to you. I had thought that whilst on my travels and seeing international coverage of the british royals that the international media where doing this for commercial reasons and that their audience was interested in the material as presented. I now, due to your kind intervention, see that that I didn't witness this at all and the whole thing was cooked up by the british media.

The major royals bring with them publicity. Many foreign companies want that publicity. As I said all along the royals don't do a dam thing to negotiate foreign trade but they do make it easier for those who do. It is a growing concern to the commonwealth countries that continue the practice of using the Queen as their head of state. She delivers nothing for them. Time for them to do what some have already done and get their own head of state even if they stay in the commonwealth.

Anyway you continue to use well founded claims like "the rest of the world think that they are bonkers" (in no way speculation on your part), "the laughable notion that the British media present that the rest of the world are interested in the Royals is a load of nonsense" (totally supported by the researched and objective facts you have provided) add them to the other red herrings like royal and militarty spoending that you have had to climb down from. You continue to ask others to provide proof of their claims. No doubt you have some evidence to show where somebody claimed that NI benefits from the royal wedding. You have spent enough energy rubbishing the claim so I hope for your sake someone has actually made the claim (a bit like the 60:40 split in the NI economy).

In the meantime the real issues of the £10bn per annum shortfall and the c£32bn of national debt that comes with NI. What are your practical solutions?

>:( >:(

Feck me Leonard your touchy brute when someone questions your POV arent ye? You should welcome it as a fresh perspective instead of rigidly sticking with it. A product of your NI environment no doubt ;)

Well since you and I were both fumbling in the dark I found this blog that sorts it all out.

http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2014/11/15/things-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-public-fina/

Gives a decent break down and verifies alot of what you and I have both being saying.
I take note of the 10billion figure, which I might add I didn't dispute directly just queried it accuracy. And I am sure you will also see his comments about when non identifiable spending is excluded gives a considerably bigger chuck than of that 10b than you stated. Granted it includes debt payments so lets cut it in half again it leaves us with 7.5b with defense excluded..its quite a chunk off the 10b. But granted 7.5b is still a large amount of money that has to come from somewhere.

I have already pointed out how that shortfall will soon likely be tightened up, there is no other way. Expand the economy, create jobs and reduce the welfare budget. What then? Would it be ok to unify then in your opinion? Or do you consider the purpose of states/ government etc to be purely jurisdictional and irrelevant to nationalism?

As far as the pension thing goes I don't know, that's why I am asking people who might. But think about it... a pension provider is highly regulated as are most financial services, regulated by laws, laws that are made by a state. So most likely they have to be based within the state that they are providing for. Similar to insurance or banking for instance. There is no doubt that a joint jurisdiction would gain extra business that is currently going to England especially in the field of financial services if not pensions then at least accounting.

Let me rephrase the query of tax contributions and location. Same company/business two location one in NI and one in England. If they make the same tax contribution to the exchequer, then how could there be an accurate understanding of NI tax contributions/ the size of the economy? I presume that in the case of a plc and ltd it is all reported to the bureau of statistics or whoever. The company I worked for creatively but completely legally made things look like most of the profit was being generated by the English location, for improved investment grant opportunities in NI. In reality tho the NI location was the real revenue creator. That revenue was not credited to NI tax contributions or GDP but England. I dont know how much of that goes on but I seen it first hand.

Your "Whiff of willful opportunism" quip is interesting, but even more interesting was your attempt to defend it with an irrelevant comparison.
The Lourve is a former royal Palace and within it holds a former royal collection of art that was accrued over centuries. Its was build and started by the French Royals, it wouldn't exist without them. It has been over 200 years since they were around, if they still around the collection would likely be even larger. Any attempt to decouple the Lourve and its collection from its association from french royalty smacks of an attempt to rewrite history. BTW Orsay v Lourve, there aint any real comparison in terms of art quantity or quality.

In any case are you trying to tell me that if a similar thing was done with the British Royal collection and their property that Britain wouldn't make more money from it than unquantifiable things like the Royal wedding?

Apology accepted Leonard. But did u ever talk to anyone when you were in those countries about the Royals? The media that covers them in the main is tabloid media, same as the Kardashains and whats most people's opinion on them? Except the Ks use that publicity to make money, the Royal family use that publicity to claim they are generating revenue even tho they don't, and therefore justify getting paid by the British taxpayer.
But anyway your right that they do generate that publicity but its use is not quantifiable, companies cant use them in the same way as the Kardashians.
But that's the problem with the royals isnt it? None of this income they generate is actually quantifiable so  relating this back to your debates perhaps thats the start point you should have, the money they generate is not directly quantifiable there is nothing to say that the revenue they claim to generate would not be generated anyway, its speculation.

At the risk of going over old ground.. actually what am I talking about.... this is a meadow in March that has wintered a herd of suck cows. Anyway as I mentioned if the money generated by the Royal wedding is used to justify their grant, paid for by all taxpayers in the UK, then it is perfectly reasonable to question how it benefited NI.

But I think we have exhausted the Royals, and as it irrelevant to this debate back to our main subject.

Hmm... we have exhausted that too as to conclude I can only repeat my previous conclusion
As I have said b4 the demographic time bomb going off plus a rise in nationalism is likely all that will be needed to push us into a united jurisdiction. Short term economic arguments are generally overpowered by emotional arguments in politics and whats more, when have voters in NI ever considered economics as part of their vote? Never, its always been the sovereignty question. Do you really think that they would start to consider economics when the sovereignty issue is the only question on the ballot sheet?

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 27, 2015, 05:39:18 PM
Ah good man...thanks Mike...you could maybe help us out a little further and let us know where the pension services would be provided from...generally speaking from within the state that the company and workers are based or outside of it? Are they legally bound to be based within that jurisdiction?

And generally speaking for investment purposes does the pension company have its own investment arm or is that provided by some type of investment company and and if so where would they likely be based?

The trustee's of the scheme will decide on the pension provider and make the choice of who should manage the pension. As far as i'm aware there is no legal barrier. So a Dublin based company could have it's pension managed and invested by Standard Life or another pensions provider based in the UK and vice versa.

Usually most companies would stay within their own currency so it's easier to match their liabilities and they wouldn't have to worry about fluctating currency rates. The same goes with their choice of investment but usually they would invest a small portion, say 6% or less, in foreign markets but again there is no legal requirement. They could invest 100% in a foreign market but the currency exchange would  complicate matters and add another layer of risk. These rules would all be set out in a 'Statement of Investment Principles'.

Yes generally most pension providers have their own investment arms, Standard Life, Scottish Widows, Firends Life, Aviva, Aegon etc all have an invesment management companies which are seperate legal entities but still part of their parent group and generally based in the same building.

Thanks again Mike

At the risk of teaching my granny to suck eggs, as you obviously know what your talking about...

Would tax relief also not be  major consideration and would a foreign based pension be eligible for it?

Quote from: OgraAnDun on July 23, 2015, 02:32:21 PM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on July 23, 2015, 11:14:07 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on July 23, 2015, 12:03:02 AM
There will be no United Ireland until a majority of the Unionist population agree, so that's that for the foreseeable future.

The GFA says a majority of the people of 6 Cos. ;)
Why should the 44.8% (and rising) of the people not have their votes counted?
After all by the very fact of being Unionists they are against the concept of an Independent all Ireland State.

I don't think you're right there Rossfan.

My memory of the vote on the GFA was that voters in the North identified themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist on the ballot paper &
a majority of both camps had to be in favour for the status quo to change.

The unionists would never have agreed to the GFA on a simple headcount as they could see the way demographics were going.

Are you not mistaking that for the fact that the elected representatives need to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or "Other' when they are first elected to Stormont rather than voters saying which they are. Voting for a united Ireland would make you a nationalist and voting against it would make you a unionist anyway.

Yes, voters having to state their allegiance on a ballot paper would surely be open to massive abuse and tactics!

Where the f*ck are the thread police? Or is this topic suddenly GAA-related?

Quote from: macdanger2 on July 29, 2015, 07:00:42 PM
Where the f*ck are the thread police? Or is this topic suddenly GAA-related?

Well the GAA do operate on a United Ireland basis to be fair to them...

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 29, 2015, 08:04:11 AM
Feck me Leonard your touchy brute when someone questions your POV arent ye? You should welcome it as a fresh perspective instead of rigidly sticking with it. A product of your NI environment no doubt ;)

Well since you and I were both fumbling in the dark I found this blog that sorts it all out.

http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2014/11/15/things-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-public-fina/

Gives a decent break down and verifies alot of what you and I have both being saying.
I take note of the 10billion figure, which I might add I didn't dispute directly just queried it accuracy. And I am sure you will also see his comments about when non identifiable spending is excluded gives a considerably bigger chuck than of that 10b than you stated. Granted it includes debt payments so lets cut it in half again it leaves us with 7.5b with defense excluded..its quite a chunk off the 10b. But granted 7.5b is still a large amount of money that has to come from somewhere.

I have already pointed out how that shortfall will soon likely be tightened up, there is no other way. Expand the economy, create jobs and reduce the welfare budget. What then? Would it be ok to unify then in your opinion? Or do you consider the purpose of states/ government etc to be purely jurisdictional and irrelevant to nationalism?

As far as the pension thing goes I don't know, that's why I am asking people who might. But think about it... a pension provider is highly regulated as are most financial services, regulated by laws, laws that are made by a state. So most likely they have to be based within the state that they are providing for. Similar to insurance or banking for instance. There is no doubt that a joint jurisdiction would gain extra business that is currently going to England especially in the field of financial services if not pensions then at least accounting.

Let me rephrase the query of tax contributions and location. Same company/business two location one in NI and one in England. If they make the same tax contribution to the exchequer, then how could there be an accurate understanding of NI tax contributions/ the size of the economy? I presume that in the case of a plc and ltd it is all reported to the bureau of statistics or whoever. The company I worked for creatively but completely legally made things look like most of the profit was being generated by the English location, for improved investment grant opportunities in NI. In reality tho the NI location was the real revenue creator. That revenue was not credited to NI tax contributions or GDP but England. I dont know how much of that goes on but I seen it first hand.

Your "Whiff of willful opportunism" quip is interesting, but even more interesting was your attempt to defend it with an irrelevant comparison.
The Lourve is a former royal Palace and within it holds a former royal collection of art that was accrued over centuries. Its was build and started by the French Royals, it wouldn't exist without them. It has been over 200 years since they were around, if they still around the collection would likely be even larger. Any attempt to decouple the Lourve and its collection from its association from french royalty smacks of an attempt to rewrite history. BTW Orsay v Lourve, there aint any real comparison in terms of art quantity or quality.

In any case are you trying to tell me that if a similar thing was done with the British Royal collection and their property that Britain wouldn't make more money from it than unquantifiable things like the Royal wedding?

Apology accepted Leonard. But did u ever talk to anyone when you were in those countries about the Royals? The media that covers them in the main is tabloid media, same as the Kardashains and whats most people's opinion on them? Except the Ks use that publicity to make money, the Royal family use that publicity to claim they are generating revenue even tho they don't, and therefore justify getting paid by the British taxpayer.
But anyway your right that they do generate that publicity but its use is not quantifiable, companies cant use them in the same way as the Kardashians.
But that's the problem with the royals isnt it? None of this income they generate is actually quantifiable so  relating this back to your debates perhaps thats the start point you should have, the money they generate is not directly quantifiable there is nothing to say that the revenue they claim to generate would not be generated anyway, its speculation.

At the risk of going over old ground.. actually what am I talking about.... this is a meadow in March that has wintered a herd of suck cows. Anyway as I mentioned if the money generated by the Royal wedding is used to justify their grant, paid for by all taxpayers in the UK, then it is perfectly reasonable to question how it benefited NI.

But I think we have exhausted the Royals, and as it irrelevant to this debate back to our main subject.

Hmm... we have exhausted that too as to conclude I can only repeat my previous conclusion
As I have said b4 the demographic time bomb going off plus a rise in nationalism is likely all that will be needed to push us into a united jurisdiction. Short term economic arguments are generally overpowered by emotional arguments in politics and whats more, when have voters in NI ever considered economics as part of their vote? Never, its always been the sovereignty question. Do you really think that they would start to consider economics when the sovereignty issue is the only question on the ballot sheet?

why exclude non-identifiable expenditure?

I am open to a united ireland anytime. I'm a democrat. If a majority in NI want it today, then I'm all for having it. I merely pointed out that economics will play a huge part in this and right now the economic realities mean there is little chance of their being a yes vote either side of the border. The figures here are massive relative to the sizes of the respective economies north and south and they are not going to go away in the forseeable future. Don't forget that share of the UK national debt that NI will be faced with. I have not heard anyone ever come up with a single proposal for how this could be dealt with. Maybe you could help here?

"Do you consider the purpose of states/ government etc to be purely jurisdictional and irrelevant to nationalism?" is a fine and dandy question but given what I have already said about the shared role of Dublin and London in the affairs of NI now, and into any version of the future that you might wish to postulate, I cannot think why you are asking the question of me.

It would be illegal for any EU state to legislate that pensions must be invested in the state in which the employer was "registered". Therefore your pension musing can probably end right here.

I simply cannot see any sensible meaning in your references to insurance and banking. You say  "there is no doubt that a joint jurisdiction would gain extra business that is currently going to England especially in the field of financial services if not pensions then at least accounting". Can you back this up? Like any evidence at all?

Your tax example betrays a lack of grasp of the subject matter. If a business has 2 outlets/offices (1 in NI and 1 in GB) they still have only one registration (if they are incorporated) or address (if they are unincorporated). The fact that a NI business has an office in Crewe or Budleigh Salterton it doesn't stop it being a NI business. There is a single rate of tax and only one tax collecting body in UK. To report profit through the "english office" is laughable. Firstly because there is only one rate of tax therefore there would be NO POINT IN DOING IT. Secondly because there is only tax return for the business and therefore no matter how much you might think/claim it happened, IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

I havnt tried to decouple the Lourve and its royal history. The fact is that people do not visit the Lourve because of the its royal history. They visit it because of the collection. By volume the original royal collection represents a tiny percentage of the current collection. By "attraction" then yes the Mona Lisa is a massive draw for vistors and revenue but move that to the Orsay and are people suddenly disinterested in royal palaces and newly interested in train stations? Don't start the relative merits. One is full of japenese tourists and the Musee D'orsay is one of the top 3 galleries on the world.

As a republican I think there is huge scope to continue to make serious revenue from royal heritage in a post royal world - if done right. I have never argued otherwise. I simply argued that the royals are not a net financial drain and this is not the basis of a successful argument to remove them (Hopefully the House of Lords debate over the coming months will revisit the hereditory principle but then again "Call me Dave Condom-Head" will probably muster the intelligence to scupper that).

You seem to have a very confused approach to popular culture. I think the Kardashians are a disease. I think the concept of royalty is disgusting. But it would be quite mad of me to think that Kim and Kloe are struggling to make ends meet. Why? because international media mop them up. The international audience crave their output/image. Brand owners crave them for a share of this. You don't have to like the Kardashians/Royals as individuals to see the benefit to brand owners from sharing the frame with them. Its not about liking them. Its very simple stuff.

Talk of a demographic time bomb in NI is premature. It is 100% contingent upon those who idenify themselves as "catholic or from a catholic backround" in a decadal census actually voting for a UI. What is the evidence of the "rise in nationalism" being in the offing? Living in NI I see a huge apathy for a UI. Not a fear and (outside hardcore loyalism) not a loathing. But no great appetite either. The economics will be key. And its long term assurances that wil be required. If the vote took plce during 2006 I still think that a lot of "catholics" would have voted No. A huge part of the referendum vote will hinge on the vote of people who don't regulary vote in elections. They don't have a meaningful choice in elections - they dont turn up. They will in a constitutional referendum - they will turn up. They did before in the GFA referendum.  Look at the turn out of the otherwise disaffected in the RoI marriage equality referendum. Give people a proper or important choice and they wake up

Super stuff there from Jinxy.

Classic Irish parrochialism there.

Cork Examiner headline "Thousands dead in Peru eartquake: Cork nun saved". Its a venerable tradition

Quote from: Farrandeelin on July 29, 2015, 10:02:46 PM

Quote from: macdanger2 on July 29, 2015, 07:00:42 PM
Where the f*ck are the thread police? Or is this topic suddenly GAA-related?

Well the GAA do operate on a United Ireland basis to be fair to them...

On a united ireland basis? Or an all-ireland basis?

Quote from: LCohen on July 29, 2015, 10:24:27 PM

why exclude non-identifiable expenditure?

Because defence is included in it, which wouldn't be part of the budget in an all-ireland jurisdiction.

Quote
I am open to a united ireland anytime. I'm a democrat. If a majority in NI want it today, then I'm all for having it. I merely pointed out that economics will play a huge part in this and right now the economic realities mean there is little chance of their being a yes vote either side of the border. The figures here are massive relative to the sizes of the respective economies north and south and they are not going to go away in the forseeable future.

So in the hypothetical situation where it was economically feasible for a joint jurisdiction you would only open to an All-Ireland if the majority are were for it. So how would you know how to vote? Would you base it on polls? Because by the time you'd actually know how to vote... you couldn't vote.

Quote
Don't forget that share of the UK national debt that NI will be faced with. I have not heard anyone ever come up with a single proposal for how this could be dealt with. Maybe you could help here?

The interest payment are included in the non-id expendure so its included in the 10b. It would be a burden of course but not additional, it would also lessen the debt/head of the south as I mentioned previously.

Quote
"Do you consider the purpose of states/ government etc to be purely jurisdictional and irrelevant to nationalism?" is a fine and dandy question but given what I have already said about the shared role of Dublin and London in the affairs of NI now, and into any version of the future that you might wish to postulate, I cannot think why you are asking the question of me.

I asked you that question because your only reasoning for a united jurisdiction seemed to be about finances. You haven't considered culture or values, which is the reason that people identify around nationalism and the reason that nation states come around in the first place, in Europe at least. The subsequent finances of those countries didn't form the concept of those nations in the first place.

Quote
It would be illegal for any EU state to legislate that pensions must be invested in the state in which the employer was "registered". Therefore your pension musing can probably end right here.

I simply cannot see any sensible meaning in your references to insurance and banking. You say  "there is no doubt that a joint jurisdiction would gain extra business that is currently going to England especially in the field of financial services if not pensions then at least accounting". Can you back this up? Like any evidence at all?

Pensions - see Iron Mike's post, also lets see what he comes back with my latest query
Accounting - Illegal, probably not, but impracticable no doubt when it comes to reporting to a foreign exchequer.

Quote
Your tax example betrays a lack of grasp of the subject matter. If a business has 2 outlets/offices (1 in NI and 1 in GB) they still have only one registration (if they are incorporated) or address (if they are unincorporated). The fact that a NI business has an office in Crewe or Budleigh Salterton it doesn't stop it being a NI business. There is a single rate of tax and only one tax collecting body in UK. To report profit through the "english office" is laughable. Firstly because there is only one rate of tax therefore there would be NO POINT IN DOING IT. Secondly because there is only tax return for the business and therefore no matter how much you might think/claim it happened, IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Hmm you really have me in a pickle here Leonard :D..... Your simplistic understanding of business reporting is not incorrect but is simply not valid for complex multinational plcs with a fragmented structure. I take it you've never heard of strategic business units, subsidiaries and separate legal entities then? Have a wee read about those. BTW writing in CAPITALs does not make it true. Watch... THE EARTH IS FLAT. In fact it makes you look silly and makes me question anything else you have said

Quote
I havnt tried to decouple the Lourve and its royal history. The fact is that people do not visit the Lourve because of the its royal history. They visit it because of the collection. By volume the original royal collection represents a tiny percentage of the current collection. By "attraction" then yes the Mona Lisa is a massive draw for vistors and revenue but move that to the Orsay and are people suddenly disinterested in royal palaces and newly interested in train stations? Don't start the relative merits. One is full of japenese tourists and the Musee D'orsay is one of the top 3 galleries on the world.

People are visiting for the collection of course but the collection  was begun and maintained by the French Royals. If they hadn't started it or hadn't got the chop those visitors would be sitting at home. Your comments on the Lourve are hilarious tho. I visited it maybe 4/5 times and probably haven't seen a quarter of, there maybe a alot of tourist in it, but it certainly aint full of tourists. A truly amazing place.

Quote
As a republican

Up the Shinners :D

Quote
I think there is huge scope to continue to make serious revenue from royal heritage in a post royal world - if done right. I have never argued otherwise. I simply argued that the royals are not a net financial drain and this is not the basis of a successful argument to remove them (Hopefully the House of Lords debate over the coming months will revisit the hereditory principle but then again "Call me Dave Condom-Head" will probably muster the intelligence to scupper that).

Except to the exchequer they are, their income is not quantifiable and you dont have to remove them, just stop giving them the tax payers money.

Quote
You seem to have a very confused approach to popular culture. I think the Kardashians are a disease. I think the concept of royalty is disgusting. But it would be quite mad of me to think that Kim and Kloe are struggling to make ends meet. Why? because international media mop them up. The international audience crave their output/image. Brand owners crave them for a share of this. You don't have to like the Kardashians/Royals as individuals to see the benefit to brand owners from sharing the frame with them. Its not about liking them. Its very simple stuff.

Don't completely disagree with you but the point I was making is that the Ks harness their celebrity for their bread and butter, the Royals don't, they use it as a reason to justify receiving taxpayers money for travelling the world. I will say it again their economic benefit is not quantifiable.

Quote
Talk of a demographic time bomb in NI is premature. It is 100% contingent upon those who idenify themselves as "catholic or from a catholic backround" in a decadal census actually voting for a UI. What is the evidence of the "rise in nationalism" being in the offing? Living in NI I see a huge apathy for a UI. Not a fear and (outside hardcore loyalism) not a loathing. But no great appetite either. The economics will be key. And its long term assurances that wil be required. If the vote took plce during 2006 I still think that a lot of "catholics" would have voted No. A huge part of the referendum vote will hinge on the vote of people who don't regulary vote in elections. They don't have a meaningful choice in elections - they dont turn up. They will in a constitutional referendum - they will turn up. They did before in the GFA referendum.  Look at the turn out of the otherwise disaffected in the RoI marriage equality referendum. Give people a proper or important choice and they wake up.

The later part of your conclusion is  happening in Scotland right now in the same way in split the union - "take a leap of faith for the good of Scotland" and the disaffected have jumped on board and are all gunning for it. All from nowhere, nationalism is a powerful force in politics. We are both speculating of course, however nationalism ebbs and flows throughout history and is at a low ebb the minute in Ireland, the sovereignty issue aint helped by its supporters of course and many want to distance themselves from it because of that association.

"McKenna's column makes the same fundamental mistake when considering the outworkings of Irish unity as almost every partitionist since our country was first divided by an artificial border – either by laziness or lack of imagination they can only consider a united Ireland to mean an extension of the current 26 county southern state.
That is not what proponents of change are seeking. The type of nation building and island-wide reconciliation that Sinn Féin, for example, is working towards is not about grafting the north onto the current political, cultural and economic status quo of the south."

Indeed!

Matt Carthy Riposte (http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/arguments-against-irish-unity-matt-carthy-sinn-fein-2240579-Jul2015/)

The 26 Co State will be liquidated if SF get into power with their populist nonsense of abolishing taxes while improving public services.
FF tried that back in 1977 and it took 20 years with massive recession and emigration to get over it.

Quote from: omaghjoe on July 30, 2015, 07:19:15 AM

Quote from: LCohen on July 29, 2015, 10:24:27 PM

why exclude non-identifiable expenditure?

Because defence is included in it, which wouldn't be part of the budget in an all-ireland jurisdiction.

Quote
I am open to a united ireland anytime. I'm a democrat. If a majority in NI want it today, then I'm all for having it. I merely pointed out that economics will play a huge part in this and right now the economic realities mean there is little chance of their being a yes vote either side of the border. The figures here are massive relative to the sizes of the respective economies north and south and they are not going to go away in the forseeable future.

So in the hypothetical situation where it was economically feasible for a joint jurisdiction you would only open to an All-Ireland if the majority are were for it. So how would you know how to vote? Would you base it on polls? Because by the time you'd actually know how to vote... you couldn't vote.

Quote
Don't forget that share of the UK national debt that NI will be faced with. I have not heard anyone ever come up with a single proposal for how this could be dealt with. Maybe you could help here?

The interest payment are included in the non-id expendure so its included in the 10b. It would be a burden of course but not additional, it would also lessen the debt/head of the south as I mentioned previously.

Quote
"Do you consider the purpose of states/ government etc to be purely jurisdictional and irrelevant to nationalism?" is a fine and dandy question but given what I have already said about the shared role of Dublin and London in the affairs of NI now, and into any version of the future that you might wish to postulate, I cannot think why you are asking the question of me.

I asked you that question because your only reasoning for a united jurisdiction seemed to be about finances. You haven't considered culture or values, which is the reason that people identify around nationalism and the reason that nation states come around in the first place, in Europe at least. The subsequent finances of those countries didn't form the concept of those nations in the first place.

Quote
It would be illegal for any EU state to legislate that pensions must be invested in the state in which the employer was "registered". Therefore your pension musing can probably end right here.

I simply cannot see any sensible meaning in your references to insurance and banking. You say  "there is no doubt that a joint jurisdiction would gain extra business that is currently going to England especially in the field of financial services if not pensions then at least accounting". Can you back this up? Like any evidence at all?

Pensions - see Iron Mike's post, also lets see what he comes back with my latest query
Accounting - Illegal, probably not, but impracticable no doubt when it comes to reporting to a foreign exchequer.

Quote
Your tax example betrays a lack of grasp of the subject matter. If a business has 2 outlets/offices (1 in NI and 1 in GB) they still have only one registration (if they are incorporated) or address (if they are unincorporated). The fact that a NI business has an office in Crewe or Budleigh Salterton it doesn't stop it being a NI business. There is a single rate of tax and only one tax collecting body in UK. To report profit through the "english office" is laughable. Firstly because there is only one rate of tax therefore there would be NO POINT IN DOING IT. Secondly because there is only tax return for the business and therefore no matter how much you might think/claim it happened, IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

Hmm you really have me in a pickle here Leonard :D..... Your simplistic understanding of business reporting is not incorrect but is simply not valid for complex multinational plcs with a fragmented structure. I take it you've never heard of strategic business units, subsidiaries and separate legal entities then? Have a wee read about those. BTW writing in CAPITALs does not make it true. Watch... THE EARTH IS FLAT. In fact it makes you look silly and makes me question anything else you have said

Quote
I havnt tried to decouple the Lourve and its royal history. The fact is that people do not visit the Lourve because of the its royal history. They visit it because of the collection. By volume the original royal collection represents a tiny percentage of the current collection. By "attraction" then yes the Mona Lisa is a massive draw for vistors and revenue but move that to the Orsay and are people suddenly disinterested in royal palaces and newly interested in train stations? Don't start the relative merits. One is full of japenese tourists and the Musee D'orsay is one of the top 3 galleries on the world.

People are visiting for the collection of course but the collection  was begun and maintained by the French Royals. If they hadn't started it or hadn't got the chop those visitors would be sitting at home. Your comments on the Lourve are hilarious tho. I visited it maybe 4/5 times and probably haven't seen a quarter of, there maybe a alot of tourist in it, but it certainly aint full of tourists. A truly amazing place.

Quote
As a republican

Up the Shinners :D

Quote
I think there is huge scope to continue to make serious revenue from royal heritage in a post royal world - if done right. I have never argued otherwise. I simply argued that the royals are not a net financial drain and this is not the basis of a successful argument to remove them (Hopefully the House of Lords debate over the coming months will revisit the hereditory principle but then again "Call me Dave Condom-Head" will probably muster the intelligence to scupper that).

Except to the exchequer they are, their income is not quantifiable and you dont have to remove them, just stop giving them the tax payers money.

Quote
You seem to have a very confused approach to popular culture. I think the Kardashians are a disease. I think the concept of royalty is disgusting. But it would be quite mad of me to think that Kim and Kloe are struggling to make ends meet. Why? because international media mop them up. The international audience crave their output/image. Brand owners crave them for a share of this. You don't have to like the Kardashians/Royals as individuals to see the benefit to brand owners from sharing the frame with them. Its not about liking them. Its very simple stuff.

Don't completely disagree with you but the point I was making is that the Ks harness their celebrity for their bread and butter, the Royals don't, they use it as a reason to justify receiving taxpayers money for travelling the world. I will say it again their economic benefit is not quantifiable.

Quote
Talk of a demographic time bomb in NI is premature. It is 100% contingent upon those who idenify themselves as "catholic or from a catholic backround" in a decadal census actually voting for a UI. What is the evidence of the "rise in nationalism" being in the offing? Living in NI I see a huge apathy for a UI. Not a fear and (outside hardcore loyalism) not a loathing. But no great appetite either. The economics will be key. And its long term assurances that wil be required. If the vote took plce during 2006 I still think that a lot of "catholics" would have voted No. A huge part of the referendum vote will hinge on the vote of people who don't regulary vote in elections. They don't have a meaningful choice in elections - they dont turn up. They will in a constitutional referendum - they will turn up. They did before in the GFA referendum.  Look at the turn out of the otherwise disaffected in the RoI marriage equality referendum. Give people a proper or important choice and they wake up.

The later part of your conclusion is  happening in Scotland right now in the same way in split the union - "take a leap of faith for the good of Scotland" and the disaffected have jumped on board and are all gunning for it. All from nowhere, nationalism is a powerful force in politics. We are both speculating of course, however nationalism ebbs and flows throughout history and is at a low ebb the minute in Ireland, the sovereignty issue aint helped by its supporters of course and many want to distance themselves from it because of that association.

You are arguing that non-identifiable expenditure should be excluded because it includes military spending.
The exact same logic would lead me to conclude that the entirety of last weeks shopping bill in our house does not apply to me becasue in it included a bottle of pastis and I don't drink pastis. If you are happy for your line of thought to rest on that sort of logic don't let me deter you.
You argue that the royals cost the UK money because the cost (soverign grant) is greater than the income. Yet you call that income "unquantifiable". How can you know if the income is more or less than the soverign grant if you don't know what is? Your contention seems to be baseless.
You are arguing that the national debt of NI should never be repaid (as it would not represent an additional burden as interest is already being met). Are you happy that generation after generation pay interest on dead money? Where does this fit in the rebalancing of the economy that you are so fond of? Have you cleared this non-repayment with the creditors?
In what way is it "impracticable" for an accountant to file a financial return in another country? Or have you concluded that there is actually no reason at all for NI businesses to change their pensions policy, choice of bank, choice of accountant etc in a UI scenario?
You have used an example that a business with offices in NI and GB switch profit from one office to the other for tax purposes. You are now moving the goalposts by saying they were 2 related businesses. OK we are now into the relam of 2 different tax returns but at a single rate of tax. So I am asking you did they move profit from one business to another to save one business tax but to pay the same amount in another business? Are you really certain this happened?
Earlier you reworked the example to say it was actually grant funding that they were after. What type of grant funding are we talking about here that hinges on reduced reported profit?
Your destinction between the royals and the Kardashians is immaterial. The Kardashians hoor themselves around the place and the money from brands rolls into them directly. The royals get paid to hoor themselves around the funds flow to someone else and the Royals in turn get paid.
You seem to conculde that if the financial dividend to the nation from the royals is unquantifiable but it must be zero. This laughably stupid.
My only argument for/against a UI is not economic. I merely argue that people will not vote for/against a UN at any cost. Finance will play a big part. If it was economically viable then a reasonable and reasoning voter will give it consideration. Today, when it is not feasible for either the north or the south it will not be given much consideration by a critical section of the vote

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 30, 2015, 12:31:10 PM
"McKenna's column makes the same fundamental mistake when considering the outworkings of Irish unity as almost every partitionist since our country was first divided by an artificial border – either by laziness or lack of imagination they can only consider a united Ireland to mean an extension of the current 26 county southern state.
That is not what proponents of change are seeking. The type of nation building and island-wide reconciliation that Sinn Féin, for example, is working towards is not about grafting the north onto the current political, cultural and economic status quo of the south."

Indeed!

Matt Carthy Riposte (http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/arguments-against-irish-unity-matt-carthy-sinn-fein-2240579-Jul2015/)

Now I understand why some people think a vote for a 32 county Ireland might not be carried in the South. If the only proposal is Sinn Fein 'nation building' then it could easily fail. You would have to question the sincerity of SF's desire for unity if they are going down that road. The last thing anyone wants is another leftist experiment state.

Especially after the spectacular failure of the neo liberal rightist McCreevyPD State.

Quote from: LCohen on August 01, 2015, 09:34:16 AM
You are arguing that non-identifiable expenditure should be excluded because it includes military spending.

No just the military spending and whatever else would not be applicable to AI economy

Quote
The exact same logic would lead me to conclude that the entirety of last weeks shopping bill in our house does not apply to me becasue in it included a bottle of pastis and I don't drink pastis. If you are happy for your line of thought to rest on that sort of logic don't let me deter you.

Not sure how that's applicable prehaps you could enlighten me?

Quote
You argue that the royals cost the UK money because the cost (soverign grant) is greater than the income. Yet you call that income "unquantifiable". How can you know if the income is more or less than the soverign grant if you don't know what is? Your contention seems to be baseless.

So by that logic any argument is defunct then including the theory that the Royals make money. Which is acutally weaker since it only show money out.

Quote
You are arguing that the national debt of NI should never be repaid (as it would not represent an additional burden as interest is already being met). Are you happy that generation after generation pay interest on dead money? Where does this fit in the rebalancing of the economy that you are so fond of? Have you cleared this non-repayment with the creditors?

No never argued that it should not be paid. But your right it should be repaid however it is highly unlikely it will be like virtaully every economy in the world.

Quote
In what way is it "impracticable" for an accountant to file a financial return in another country? Or have you concluded that there is actually no reason at all for NI businesses to change their pensions policy, choice of bank, choice of accountant etc in a UI scenario?

Because the accountant would have to know about a foreign tax system and be registered for that country
As far as pensions goes...I refer you again to Iron Mike's post, plus the tax relief would most likely be lost as Muppet mentioned earlier but can't get confirmation either way from Iron Mike.

Quote
You have used an example that a business with offices in NI and GB switch profit from one office to the other for tax purposes. You are now moving the goalposts by saying they were 2 related businesses. OK we are now into the relam of 2 different tax returns but at a single rate of tax. So I am asking you did they move profit from one business to another to save one business tax but to pay the same amount in another business? Are you really certain this happened?

Earlier you reworked the example to say it was actually grant funding that they were after. What type of grant funding are we talking about here that hinges on reduced reported profit?

No, not moving the goalposts, its the same company and no, I didnt say they switch profits, just income. Lets just put it like this, say the company recieves an order, however the company has 2 legal entites, one manufacturing, one for receiving and dispatching orders (this company has dozens in the chain but lets not get into the complexities). The entity were the order is placed receives the money from the customer and gives a set rate based on costs to the 2nd entity for manufacturing the order. First entity has minimal operation costs and shows a large profit on the balance sheet, 2nd entity is limited in how much it makes to what it manufactures so only shows a residual profit. I dont know why they done this, it may have been for ease of reporting within the company structure, it may have been for sales bonuses, but I was told by a director that it was for better access to grants from InvestNI. I dont know what grants would be available, perhaps someone from Invest NI could enlighten us? Maybe he was BSing me... but regardless of the reason one thing is for sure and that is the way the way the company divided and reported and it affects the revenue and GDP figures for NI. I don't know how much further down this road do you really want to go? Maybe we could get some plc executives on here to explain why the company was structured like that. Or prehaps you should start your own consultancy as they were very obviously doing the whole thing wrong. Or maybe if its easier for you, just don't believe me and leave it at that.
However many companies are structures like this and many arent. Those that arent mostly report their taxes from their English bases...supermarkets are a good example. The parts of these companies that are based in NI is not included in any NI tax revenue or  GDP figures for NI so the figures that are used are ultimately flawed. Mr Healy blog alluded to that but you either didnt read that or chose to ignore it.

Quote
Your distinction between the royals and the Kardashians is immaterial. The Kardashians hoor themselves around the place and the money from brands rolls into them directly. The royals get paid to hoor themselves around the funds flow to someone else and the Royals in turn get paid.
You seem to conculde that if the financial dividend to the nation from the royals is unquantifiable but it must be zero. This laughably stupid.

Unquantifiable as I mentioned earlier means that no one can prove a thing. The basis of it being unquantifaible is that that there is nothing to say the income that is attributed to the monarchy would not come in anyway. So the question really becomes what are we trying to prove? Is it that the Royals produce a net profit for the economy or prove that they dont. The argument is the former, therefore since any income they produce is unquantifiable, that argument cannot be proved.

Quote
My only argument for/against a UI is not economic. I merely argue that people will not vote for/against a UN at any cost. Finance will play a big part. If it was economically viable then a reasonable and reasoning voter will give it consideration. Today, when it is not feasible for either the north or the south it will not be given much consideration by a critical section of the vote

Whats your other arguments then? You haven't really made any? Just that that the majority are against it so you would be too. Do you always just go with the majority when it comes to voting? I am intrigued at how you decide how to vote, is it from previous voting patterns polls or do you just ask around. Would you vote for the Shinners if you lived in Andytown or if you lived up the Antrim Rd vote for the DUP? Tories if you lived in Middlesex?

Also I have mostly resisted (your Lourve comments aside) in getting embroiled in your mud slinging by trying to counter my argument by calling what I am saying laughable or stupid makes yourself look precisely like that. Making stuff up that I said makes you look even worse

As noted above, I am not sure why this is in the GAA section and some of the comments have been on similar threads before, including mine.

One of those comments is that a UI can be brought into play, while not ignoring other issues, if the economic issues can be clarified. One problem has been that the main nationalist party in the North is anti economic in orientation and incapable of putting forward an economic analysis that any thoughtful person would believe in. However, it is beginning to dawn on some people, at least, that the economic stuff is a major issue and so there is at least some welcome debate on the issue.

One important change in recent years is that the Scots have ensured that there will be much greater transparency in the economic condition of the various bits of the UK in the future. This have several impications, one is that some sort of plausible calculation of NIs situation will emerge allowing for head offices and so on. But the other is that NI cannot really expect handouts from London on a totally different basis from Wales and Scotland, unless they have a well argued case. Combined with a UK government that has been overspending and a Conservativie administration that does not favour handouts generally, there will be signficant reductions in the NI munifence.

The other change is in the 26 counties. 8 years ago in the height of the hubris period the impression was given that the a money tree had been found and that they'd just buy NI. Then we had gloom and doom period when some would have you believe, including some here, that it was like the 1950s when NI had something and the 26 counties nothing. A more realistic picture is now emerging, the ROI is growing at 5%+, twice the UK rate and while an excessive boom should not result, imrpovements will be obvious.

In a few years time, NI will notice that their services are not improving. With limited flows of public money the standard of living will be 10-15% less than Britain, while the 26 counties will have comparable living standards to Britain. Anyone, unionist or nationalist, should ask their public representativies why the union is delivering an inferior standard of living to both the South and  Britain and perhaps some sort of debate will begin. but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Truth be told, very few people really give a shite about a United Ireland.

Harsh but true.

Joe
Your earlier calculation removed all of the unidentifiable spending. You now say you are against this. So is your earlier calculation wrong? Find a position and stick to it on this one
You are the one that uses the term "unquantifiable" and then omits any income. It is you who treats "unquantifiable" and "zero" as the same. It might be difficult to establish the margin for error in your argument but it is clear that due your erroneous starting postion that your conclusions are guaranteed to be wrong.
You argued that because interest was being met on the UK national debt that a carve out for NI would not constitute any increased burden on NI. Where within that is NI repaying the outstanding debt? Find a position and stick to it on this one also
Why would it be difficult for an accountant to know tax rules in UK and RoI? Does this not happen already?
On the pensions side you seem to reaching out to Mike a lot. Have any of his responses to date assisted your argument?
OK so its a single company but with multiple legal entities. Right I working on the basis that is your definitive position and you are going to stick to it. Now please give me one example anywhere in the world where one company has 2 legal entities but not 2 companies? It doesn't have to be the company your were talking about. We will keep them anonymous but name another so we can see how this might work.
I and everyone who has a vote will weigh up a range of factors in thier vote. Economics will be key but there is also issues of national idenity, cultural similarities and differences, the type of society that you thnk Ireland and UK are and what sort of society you want to live in.
All I have said to date is that ecomonis are key and the balance of the economic argument falls so conclusively on one side of the argument that there reslly isn't any chance of the argument getting any traction right now. All that stuff about me voting with the majority is just stuff that you have made up. Why you made it up is of no interest to me

Quote from: LCohen on August 02, 2015, 06:14:57 PM

Joe
Your earlier calculation removed all of the unidentifiable spending. You now say you are against this. So is your earlier calculation wrong? Find a position and stick to it on this one

No I didn't, read my post. Mr Healy excluded it leaving it at 5b. I added half of the unidentifiable spending back on to account for interest payments (a rough estimate most likely less) to leave it at 7.5b

Quote
You are the one that uses the term "unquantifiable" and then omits any income. It is you who treats "unquantifiable" and "zero" as the same. It might be difficult to establish the margin for error in your argument but it is clear that due your erroneous starting postion that your conclusions are guaranteed to be wrong.

Thats exactly the point, I may be wrong but so too are the arguments for proving that the Royals produce any money for state, which is what is trying to be proved not the reverse, Im just casting enough doubt on that argument to be proved not to disprove it. That is unless there is direct Income from that is produced from the Soverign Grant that I am not aware of? If there is I will stand corrected and scratch my head as to why these Royal lovers trot out the same old speculative stuff about trade and tourism when they could flat out create a balance sheet in black and white to show us.

Quote
You argued that because interest was being met on the UK national debt that a carve out for NI would not constitute any increased burden on NI. Where within that is NI repaying the outstanding debt? Find a position and stick to it on this one also

???I haven't changed my position, your changing yours, now you want debt repayment included that is not happening at the moment.
Are we talking about a hypothetical merger (however ludicrous that is) based on the current economic data, or a future nice to have in a joint AI economy? I presumed it was the former so we cant talk about debt repayment regarding the current economies because its not happening.
Any future plan to repay would depend on a future economic plan to do so, if you want a plan drawn up for that that then Im cool with that, but Im probably not your man. However it will be irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote
Why would it be difficult for an accountant to know tax rules in UK and RoI? Does this not happen already?

Its not hard for them to know, but the chances of an English based firm having accountants who know or are willing to learn foreign based tax systems and become a registered accountant would be slim. The cost of doing this would soon prove to be unbeneficial as it would be for a tiny ratio of the firms customers and the cost would eventually be passed on to the client. Who would then start looking elsewhere for their auditing, and the most competitive would surely be within their state they reside where there would competitive expertise.

Quote
On the pensions side you seem to reaching out to Mike a lot. Have any of his responses to date assisted your argument?

Yes he said that pension company like to keep it in the same currency to negate exchange loses. But the real reason is likely the one raised by Muppet, tax relief on offshore based pensions would most likely not happen. Mike seems like he knows the business so I was asking him for confirmation on this, but as it stands I am 95% sure that tax relief wouldn't be happening.. Think about it, the exchequer gives tax relief on pensions because it not strictly income for now, but they know they are not gonna get to tax it when the pension is paid out. So why would any exchequer give tax relief on money that is leaving the state and potentially may never return? If there is a potential loophole as regards NI, it would most likely be closed very quickly.

Quote
OK so its a single company but with multiple legal entities. Right I working on the basis that is your definitive position and you are going to stick to it. Now please give me one example anywhere in the world where one company has 2 legal entities but not 2 companies? It doesn't have to be the company your were talking about. We will keep them anonymous but name another so we can see how this might work.

If you want to start spliting hairs over terminology then strictly speaking in the eyes of the law they would be considered two separate companies, however in the world of business they are not. Separate entities does not mean that they operate separately, their command structure is the same one and the directors of the legal entity are middle managers who take their orders from regional managers who in turn take it from the plc execs. Many companies are set up like this, Caterpillar is one if you want an example. Although in comparison to my former company I believe they are alot more fragmented. It depends on the company. Anyway this is all fine and well and interesting aside at best, you could pass it off as a misunderstanding in terminology. But it does not change the fact that the structure of companies in the UK skews reporting of tax and GDP for NI, which would also reduce that 10b, 7.5b or 5b (whatever it is!) figure.

Actually while I am thinking about I know or a retail business who pulls moves to avail of the corporation tax in the South. The NI end of the company is a sole trader where it does most of the business but most of the profits are reported through the ltd in the South. More skewing of those figures away from NI. But I am pretty sure its illegal right enuff so don't want to go anymore into it. So you can put it in BLOCK CAPITALs that it doesn't happen if you want. ;)

Quote
I and everyone who has a vote will weigh up a range of factors in thier vote. Economics will be key but there is also issues of national idenity, cultural similarities and differences, the type of society that you thnk Ireland and UK are and what sort of society you want to live in.

Purely speculative (for us both of course.) However I am passing my predictions on demographic trends and current and past voting considerations of pretty much every election in NI and the historical eb and flow of Irish nationalism. Your basing yours on that there is a whole bunch of people out there who think the same way as you do. Fact is most disaffected people who don't vote live in impoverished areas and dont vote because they dont know that the election is on, where or even how to vote. and if forced to vote would vote along the most simplistic lines (ie tribal nationalism). 

Quote
All I have said to date is that ecomonis are key and the balance of the economic argument falls so conclusively on one side of the argument that there really isn't any chance of the argument getting any traction right now.

But its not as I have pointed out the economics are not accurate so there is no way to know that conclusively. IN any case its a short term economic argument doesnt really consider the long term the senario where there would be an all island economy with a joint economic outlook. The reunification of Germany is a good example of short term pain v long term gain

Quote
All that stuff about me voting with the majority is just stuff that you have made up. Why you made it up is of no interest to me

:D
Again Leonard thats not true and not that it really matters but listen I asked you the question about your opinion of a united Ireland in a scenario where there is economic equilibrium and this is what you replied....

Quote from: LCohen on July 29, 2015, 10:24:27 PM
I am open to a united ireland anytime. I'm a democrat. If a majority in NI want it today, then I'm all for having it.

I know you were trying to avoid answering the question so I decided to have a bit of craic with it, lighten up man this is an anonymous message board.

Quote from: muppet on August 01, 2015, 04:42:08 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 30, 2015, 12:31:10 PM
"McKenna's column makes the same fundamental mistake when considering the outworkings of Irish unity as almost every partitionist since our country was first divided by an artificial border – either by laziness or lack of imagination they can only consider a united Ireland to mean an extension of the current 26 county southern state.
That is not what proponents of change are seeking. The type of nation building and island-wide reconciliation that Sinn Féin, for example, is working towards is not about grafting the north onto the current political, cultural and economic status quo of the south."

Indeed!

Matt Carthy Riposte (http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/arguments-against-irish-unity-matt-carthy-sinn-fein-2240579-Jul2015/)

Now I understand why some people think a vote for a 32 county Ireland might not be carried in the South. If the only proposal is Sinn Fein 'nation building' then it could easily fail. You would have to question the sincerity of SF's desire for unity if they are going down that road. The last thing anyone wants is another leftist experiment state.

It would be an expression of 32 County democracy; I take it, ergo, you'd be against such an expression of wish were it to be left hued? 

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 03, 2015, 06:20:06 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 01, 2015, 04:42:08 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on July 30, 2015, 12:31:10 PM
"McKenna's column makes the same fundamental mistake when considering the outworkings of Irish unity as almost every partitionist since our country was first divided by an artificial border – either by laziness or lack of imagination they can only consider a united Ireland to mean an extension of the current 26 county southern state.
That is not what proponents of change are seeking. The type of nation building and island-wide reconciliation that Sinn Féin, for example, is working towards is not about grafting the north onto the current political, cultural and economic status quo of the south."

Indeed!

Matt Carthy Riposte (http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/arguments-against-irish-unity-matt-carthy-sinn-fein-2240579-Jul2015/)

Now I understand why some people think a vote for a 32 county Ireland might not be carried in the South. If the only proposal is Sinn Fein 'nation building' then it could easily fail. You would have to question the sincerity of SF's desire for unity if they are going down that road. The last thing anyone wants is another leftist experiment state.

It would be an expression of 32 County democracy; I take it, ergo, you'd be against such an expression of wish were it to be left hued?

I would treat it with the same utter contempt that I would treat a DUP, FF, FG or Labour vision for a new state.

But my view is irrelevant. What could be relevant is that I reckon most of the voters in the south would reject it, which would set the cause back decades. So why would SF be wasting their time with this 'vision'?

Quote from: muppet on August 04, 2015, 10:31:29 PM
I would treat it with the same utter contempt that I would treat a DUP, FF, FG or Labour vision for a new state.

But my view is irrelevant. What could be relevant is that I reckon most of the voters in the south would reject it, which would set the cause back decades. So why would SF be wasting their time with this 'vision'?

Concerning themselves seriously with a vision for a reunited Ireland, to the benefit of all, would not be seen as 'wasting their time'; quite the diametric opposite in reality.

As you say, your individual view may be irrelevant, and your faith in the rest of the electorate has yet to be demonstrated; suffice it to say, not everyone shares your contentedness with the current (hard) right-wing structures of this state.

Slightly offbeat persepective
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2015/08/03/united-ireland-may-not-be-as-remote-as-it-seems

Personally I think there will be a United ireland before Mayo wins Sam.

Quote from: armaghniac on August 05, 2015, 12:22:42 AM
Slightly offbeat persepective
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2015/08/03/united-ireland-may-not-be-as-remote-as-it-seems

Personally I think there will be a United ireland before Mayo wins Sam.

Setting a low threshold armaghniac! :D

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 04, 2015, 11:59:46 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 04, 2015, 10:31:29 PM
I would treat it with the same utter contempt that I would treat a DUP, FF, FG or Labour vision for a new state.

But my view is irrelevant. What could be relevant is that I reckon most of the voters in the south would reject it, which would set the cause back decades. So why would SF be wasting their time with this 'vision'?

Concerning themselves seriously with a vision for a reunited Ireland, to the benefit of all, would not be seen as 'wasting their time'; quite the diametric opposite in reality.

As you say, your individual view may be irrelevant, and your faith in the rest of the electorate has yet to be demonstrated; suffice it to say, not everyone shares your contentedness with the current (hard) right-wing structures of this state.

The chances of SF getting their left wing nation up and running are nil. Even if every single one of us  voted for it, it wouldn't get off the ground as the EU/IMF/US etc would all pull their considerable plugs. We have one of the most open economies in the world, for better or for worse, but it would close up very quickly if we veer hard left. Ask Greece.

It is merely populist vote getting, but not remotely realistic. Sadly there are many who don't know the difference.

Quote from: muppet on August 05, 2015, 01:30:21 AM
The chances of SF getting their left wing nation up and running are nil. Even if every single one of us  voted for it, it wouldn't get off the ground as the EU/IMF/US etc would all pull their considerable plugs. We have one of the most open economies in the world, for better or for worse, but it would close up very quickly if we veer hard left. Ask Greece.

It is merely populist vote getting, but not remotely realistic. Sadly there are many who don't know the difference.

And this current government's pre-election bribes aren't 'populist vote getting'? And the blanket bank guarantee wasn't the biggest 'experiment' ever inflicted on this state?

I wouldn't be talking about 'hard left' either, but so poisonous has the political axis and debate become that anything remotely centrist these days is construed as 'hard left' -- it's the extreme right (as currently ensconced) that a lot of folk have problems with.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 04, 2015, 11:59:46 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 04, 2015, 10:31:29 PM
I would treat it with the same utter contempt that I would treat a DUP, FF, FG or Labour vision for a new state.

But my view is irrelevant. What could be relevant is that I reckon most of the voters in the south would reject it, which would set the cause back decades. So why would SF be wasting their time with this 'vision'?

Concerning themselves seriously with a vision for a reunited Ireland, to the benefit of all, would not be seen as 'wasting their time'; quite the diametric opposite in reality.

The notion that Sinn Fein have a vision for Ireland that will be to the "benefit of all" is a delusion.

Sinn Fein, like the DUP FF FG, are politicians & are therefore, by definition, only interested in themselves & acquiring power.

Once this basic principle is understood we can examine "visions" until then.......

Quote from: BluestackBoy on August 05, 2015, 09:58:53 AM
The notion that Sinn Fein have a vision for Ireland that will be to the "benefit of all" is a delusion.

Sinn Fein, like the DUP FF FG, are politicians & are therefore, by definition, only interested in themselves & acquiring power.

Once this basic principle is understood we can examine "visions" until then.......

In your opinion... you forgot that addendum. Of course all politicians seek power, what's the point otherwise? Let me know when they've racked up a venality count approximating any of the others you've cited (and no one's claiming them to be whiter than white either).

So Sinn Féin are going to do away with a whole lot of taxes, are going to improve public services and give us a perfect public Health Service.
I hope all air routes over Ireland will be closed as all those flying pigs will cause mayhem.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 05, 2015, 10:08:53 AM

Quote from: BluestackBoy on August 05, 2015, 09:58:53 AM
The notion that Sinn Fein have a vision for Ireland that will be to the "benefit of all" is a delusion.

Sinn Fein, like the DUP FF FG, are politicians & are therefore, by definition, only interested in themselves & acquiring power.

Once this basic principle is understood we can examine "visions" until then.......

In your opinion... you forgot that addendum. Of course all politicians seek power, what's the point otherwise? Let me know when they've racked up a venality count approximating any of the others you've cited (and no one's claiming them to be whiter than white either).

I wouldn't want to get into a tit for tat scoring exercise about venality, there wouldn't be enough room on all the servers in the world to keep up ;D ;D ;D

My basic point is that when I hear any political party maintaining that their "vision" will be for the benefit of all, I get a twitch below my left eye & an urge to get the double barrell shotgun out & point it at the fecker responsible for said twitch.

Quote from: BluestackBoy on August 05, 2015, 11:16:02 AM
I wouldn't want to get into a tit for tat scoring exercise about venality, there wouldn't be enough room on all the servers in the world to keep up ;D ;D ;D

My basic point is that when I hear any political party maintaining that their "vision" will be for the benefit of all, I get a twitch below my left eye & an urge to get the double barrell shotgun out & point it at the fecker responsible for said twitch.

OK, 'benefit for all' is probably an overstatement on my part, let's put it like this, for the benefit of the vast majority, ie, those who aren't already creaming the system, the obnoxious elite.

As for 'getting rid of all the taxes' -- where the feck did they that Rossfan? Are you getting mixed up between fair and progressive taxation and no taxation at all? Understandable I suppose if you're coming from far right field.  :P

SF like most opposition parties will trot out populist nonsense and dress it up as policy, when they actually are in government it will be a different prospect.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 05, 2015, 09:50:35 AM

Quote from: muppet on August 05, 2015, 01:30:21 AM
The chances of SF getting their left wing nation up and running are nil. Even if every single one of us  voted for it, it wouldn't get off the ground as the EU/IMF/US etc would all pull their considerable plugs. We have one of the most open economies in the world, for better or for worse, but it would close up very quickly if we veer hard left. Ask Greece.

It is merely populist vote getting, but not remotely realistic. Sadly there are many who don't know the difference.

And this current government's pre-election bribes aren't 'populist vote getting'? And the blanket bank guarantee wasn't the biggest 'experiment' ever inflicted on this state?

I wouldn't be talking about 'hard left' either, but so poisonous has the political axis and debate become that anything remotely centrist these days is construed as 'hard left' -- it's the extreme right (as currently ensconced) that a lot of folk have problems with.

There is no extreme right in Ireland.

There is barely anything right of centre in Ireland since the demise of the PDs (who I couldn't vote for BTW).

There is FG who claim to be slightly to the right but jump into bed with Labour at every opportunity. There is FF who are left right and centre or whatever you are having today.

Then you have SF, who are obviously left wing whose greatest current fear is beoing outflanked by Joe Higgins, Paul Murphy and co. This is the 'centrist' party that supports Tspiras.   ;D

There is no 'right' in Irish politics, unless you are standing with nothing to your left.

But back to your dig at me regarding democracy. How does a party, who would be despised by 50% in the 6 counties while in the 26 probably 70% will never go near them, get to design a new state for all of us?

Quote from: muppet on August 05, 2015, 12:45:10 PM
There is no extreme right in Ireland.

There is barely anything right of centre in Ireland since the demise of the PDs (who I couldn't vote for BTW).

There is FG who claim to be slightly to the right but jump into bed with Labour at every opportunity. There is FF who are left right and centre or whatever you are having today.

Then you have SF, who are obviously left wing whose greatest current fear is beoing outflanked by Joe Higgins, Paul Murphy and co. This is the 'centrist' party that supports Tspiras.   ;D

There is no 'right' in Irish politics, unless you are standing with nothing to your left.

But back to your dig at me regarding democracy. How does a party, who would be despised by 50% in the 6 counties while in the 26 probably 70% will never go near them, get to design a new state for all of us?

Wow, you really are blind to the reality of politics in this state, though your assertion that "There is barely anything right of centre in Ireland since the demise of the PDs" really is risible! :)

Slashing the carers' allowance; removing community grants (despite the relative pittance they cost the state, and even though such an action will do nothing more than to fill the jails earlier with social dropouts -- short termism at its worst); bailing out private institutions by taxing the ordinary taxpayer; trying (and miserably failing) to set up a water utility to be hived off to private enterprise at the earliest opportunity to enrich the already affluent elite; The Economic Management Council (straight out of Pinochet's handbook, where a cabal of the inner cabinet plus a civil servant or two bypass the Dáil completely); Noonan now talking about raising the ceiling for Inheritance tax (Capital Acquisitions Tax) liability in the budget to come -- that'd be really to the benefit of the many, and not the few, yeah? etc., etc. And apparently "There is no 'right' in Irish politics..." :D

You gave a dig to yourself for your expression of non-recognition of the democratic wish across this island, should that eventuality ever arise -- you don't need any assistance from this quarter. Things are not set in stone, and should Britain, for example, vote to secede from the EU then the dynamic would rapidly alter across these islands.

First thing first before this goes too far...

Would we get a new fleg?

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 05, 2015, 01:23:41 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 05, 2015, 12:45:10 PM
There is no extreme right in Ireland.

There is barely anything right of centre in Ireland since the demise of the PDs (who I couldn't vote for BTW).

There is FG who claim to be slightly to the right but jump into bed with Labour at every opportunity. There is FF who are left right and centre or whatever you are having today.

Then you have SF, who are obviously left wing whose greatest current fear is beoing outflanked by Joe Higgins, Paul Murphy and co. This is the 'centrist' party that supports Tspiras.   ;D

There is no 'right' in Irish politics, unless you are standing with nothing to your left.

But back to your dig at me regarding democracy. How does a party, who would be despised by 50% in the 6 counties while in the 26 probably 70% will never go near them, get to design a new state for all of us?

Wow, you really are blind to the reality of politics in this state, though your assertion that "There is barely anything right of centre in Ireland since the demise of the PDs" really is risible! :)

Slashing the carers' allowance; removing community grants (despite the relative pittance they cost the state, and even though such an action will do nothing more than to fill the jails earlier with social dropouts -- short termism at its worst); bailing out private institutions by taxing the ordinary taxpayer; trying (and miserably failing) to set up a water utility to be hived off to private enterprise at the earliest opportunity to enrich the already affluent elite; The Economic Management Council (straight out of Pinochet's handbook, where a cabal of the inner cabinet plus a civil servant or two bypass the Dáil completely); Noonan now talking about raising the ceiling for Inheritance tax (Capital Acquisitions Tax) liability in the budget to come -- that'd be really to the benefit of the many, and not the few, yeah? etc., etc. And apparently "There is no 'right' in Irish politics..." :D

You gave a dig to yourself for your expression of non-recognition of the democratic wish across this island, should that eventuality ever arise -- you don't need any assistance from this quarter. Things are not set in stone, and should Britain, for example, vote to secede from the EU then the dynamic would rapidly alter across these islands.

I'm sure he's talking on an absolute scale. Ireland is very much a left of centre country, a national health service, big social welfare net, high minimum wages (and about to get higher). Socially we're clearly left of centre too, the gay marriage referendum being the most forceful and recent indication of that.
That we're able to be friendly to big business and have a left of centre ideology means we've been striking close to the best compromise possible.

Quote from: Syferus on August 05, 2015, 01:31:02 PM
I'm sure he's talking on an absolute scale. Ireland is very much a left of centre country, a national health service, big social welfare net, high minimum wages (and about to get higher). Socially we're clearly left of centre too, the gay marriage referendum being the most forceful and recent indication of that.
That we're able to be friendly to big business and have a left of centre ideology means we've been striking close to the best compromise possible.

There is no 'national' health service, don't be obtuse, it's a combination of public and private health care sectors, where it's more comfortable to be a private patient: that does not constitute a 'national' health service, and I did not say that everything was right of centre. What I did say that there's too much on the right, and this will be an acid test of where this government's priorities lie on the political spectrum, and it won't get much more stark than this:

O'Toole on free education versus Inheritance Tax reductions (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-here-s-a-hard-choice-for-politicians-with-backbone-1.2305671)

Has any party in the '26/south/Free State/Republic' ever set out a United Ireland agenda? It beggars belief that SF who are an all island party haven't put one to the people (i.e their vision) to see what they would do. Has FF ever done it? FG? Any party at all? If the day ever comes that there is a Unionist minority in the North, would we be guaranteed that the Secretary of State in NI would give the go ahead to a referendum on Irish unity? Why does the decision rest with that one person alone? Surely the Sec of State won't want to be seen to 'let go of Ulster' or would they?

Maguire posted the SDLP policy a few months ago.
The rest including the SF "visionaries" don't seem to have anything at all.
I would imagine that when Nationalist parties get more votes than the Unionist ones there will be a major clamour for the Sec of State to organise the Referendum.

Even if there was a nationalist majority in the morning, it would not necessarily mean a united Ireland. reunification if it happens will be a complex affair, I have not heard either nationalist party in the North articulate coherently what this would entail, how would they accommodate the wider unionist family and probably more importantly the PUL community as they are now known. A UI in the morning is likely to result in another 30 years of war unless this is thought through. Given the crap in North Antrim over flegs in Ballycastle and our Ruthie's attendance at a UDA parade not even drawing a mention from Unionists I can't see that being an easy circle to square.

Where Ireland falls on the political spectrum is all dependant what your reference point is. Im just wondering what this absolute scale is?

If  America is the reference point then we are well left of centre. But in comparison to pretty much every other European country, Ireland is at least centre right.
To me FG are the archetypal conservative party, pro law and order, stability, and generally taking sensible safe economic options but they have been held in check by having to jump in bed with Labour.
However the policies of FF have been far more influential in the general political position of the state, they are completely populist and as a result all over the political spectrum but generally speaking pro business and pro nationalist which would be considered more to the right than the left.

Even socially speaking its the same thing. If we use our recent past as a reference point, Ireland is very "liberal". However in comparison to other Western countries (inc America,) Ireland is pretty conservative. Ireland was most certainly not in the vanguard, they jumped on the bandwagon of gay marriage. Church influence and attendance tho on the wane is still very high. Abortion is illegal. Even things like divorce tho legal would still be considered to an extent a failure or embarrassment, whereas in other countries its just the way it is.Immigration and the rights of immigrants is low despite what it might appear.
Generally speaking going against the consensus is frowned upon, the tabloid mock outrage syndrome that we suffer from at every turn around, is illustrative of that. In fact the only things that we led the world in were banning plastic bags and smoking. Hardly groundbreaking and which if you think about it is actually being conservative - limiting choice and freedoms for the greater good of all.

Even tho things have changed alot when compared to our past, which is really what most Irish people are using as their reference point. In comparison to other countries things are pretty conservative/to the right both socially and politically.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 05, 2015, 01:23:41 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 05, 2015, 12:45:10 PM
There is no extreme right in Ireland.

There is barely anything right of centre in Ireland since the demise of the PDs (who I couldn't vote for BTW).

There is FG who claim to be slightly to the right but jump into bed with Labour at every opportunity. There is FF who are left right and centre or whatever you are having today.

Then you have SF, who are obviously left wing whose greatest current fear is beoing outflanked by Joe Higgins, Paul Murphy and co. This is the 'centrist' party that supports Tspiras.   ;D

There is no 'right' in Irish politics, unless you are standing with nothing to your left.

But back to your dig at me regarding democracy. How does a party, who would be despised by 50% in the 6 counties while in the 26 probably 70% will never go near them, get to design a new state for all of us?

Wow, you really are blind to the reality of politics in this state, though your assertion that "There is barely anything right of centre in Ireland since the demise of the PDs" really is risible! :)

Slashing the carers' allowance; removing community grants (despite the relative pittance they cost the state, and even though such an action will do nothing more than to fill the jails earlier with social dropouts -- short termism at its worst); bailing out private institutions by taxing the ordinary taxpayer; trying (and miserably failing) to set up a water utility to be hived off to private enterprise at the earliest opportunity to enrich the already affluent elite; The Economic Management Council (straight out of Pinochet's handbook, where a cabal of the inner cabinet plus a civil servant or two bypass the Dáil completely); Noonan now talking about raising the ceiling for Inheritance tax (Capital Acquisitions Tax) liability in the budget to come -- that'd be really to the benefit of the many, and not the few, yeah? etc., etc. And apparently "There is no 'right' in Irish politics..." :D

You gave a dig to yourself for your expression of non-recognition of the democratic wish across this island, should that eventuality ever arise -- you don't need any assistance from this quarter. Things are not set in stone, and should Britain, for example, vote to secede from the EU then the dynamic would rapidly alter across these islands.

You don't seem to have the foggiest idea of who is running the country. You seem to think it is politicians, and Irish ones at that.

But then you insist on hiding behind the charade that all of the political parties are playing. The Troika introduced all of the above, to undo the far left ideology of previous governments which left us with a massive deficit after the property boom and  subsequent crash. Inheritance tax changes are irrelevant to the vast majority of us, and if that is the only right wing policy you can point to, well have a think about it. Most people's inheritance will go towards paying for health care for our parents.

How about a 5% wealth tax on any assets a la SF a few years ago? Is that centrist?

As for your last paragraph, what on earth are you talking about? What 'democratic wish' am I not recognising? SF does not represent more than 70% of us.

Quote from: muppet on August 05, 2015, 06:15:06 PM
You don't seem to have the foggiest idea of who is running the country. You seem to think it is politicians, and Irish ones at that.

But then you insist on hiding behind the charade that all of the political parties are playing. The Troika introduced all of the above, to undo the far left ideology of previous governments which left us with a massive deficit after the property boom and  subsequent crash. Inheritance tax changes are irrelevant to the vast majority of us, and if that is the only right wing policy you can point to, well have a think about it. Most people's inheritance will go towards paying for health care for our parents.

How about a 5% wealth tax on any assets a la SF a few years ago? Is that centrist?

As for your last paragraph, what on earth are you talking about? What 'democratic wish' am I not recognising? SF does not represent more than 70% of us.

No, the Troika did not introduce all of those, the Irish 'Government' had options, but due to the lack of a backbone they went for the easiest targets instead of hitting those who could best afford it -- that's why the wealth gap has widened significantly during the current watch: Ireland reaching US Levels of Income Inequality (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ireland-at-risk-of-reaching-us-levels-of-income-inequality-says-study-1.2105125), and that is as good a measure as any about how right-wing any particular administration may be.

FFS they were NOT even compelled to introduce water charges, since an opt-out had been secured by FF previously, so plain wrong on that too -- EU rules did not compel Ireland to bring in water charges - our politicians chose to do it (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/eu-rules-did-not-compel-ireland-to-bring-in-water-charges-our-politicians-chose-to-do-it-31425023.html)

"Most people's inheritance will go towards paying for health care for our parents"... really, and you have figures to back that up? Dream on, this is another measure to line the pockets of the already very well off, nothing less. Par for the Blueshirts' course.

Robbing individuals to cover private institutions' debts can never be 'far-left', you're confusing the socialisation of debts with socialism!

Regarding that last paragraph, you said if ever the like of SF had a 32-County majority you'd hold that expression of democratic wish in contempt. Hardly the sentiments of a democrat.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 05, 2015, 06:33:42 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 05, 2015, 06:15:06 PM
You don't seem to have the foggiest idea of who is running the country. You seem to think it is politicians, and Irish ones at that.

But then you insist on hiding behind the charade that all of the political parties are playing. The Troika introduced all of the above, to undo the far left ideology of previous governments which left us with a massive deficit after the property boom and  subsequent crash. Inheritance tax changes are irrelevant to the vast majority of us, and if that is the only right wing policy you can point to, well have a think about it. Most people's inheritance will go towards paying for health care for our parents.

How about a 5% wealth tax on any assets a la SF a few years ago? Is that centrist?

As for your last paragraph, what on earth are you talking about? What 'democratic wish' am I not recognising? SF does not represent more than 70% of us.

No, the Troika did not introduce all of those, the Irish 'Government' had options, but due to the lack of a backbone they went for the easiest targets instead of hitting those who could best afford it -- that's why the wealth gap has widened significantly during the current watch: Ireland reaching US Levels of Income Inequality (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ireland-at-risk-of-reaching-us-levels-of-income-inequality-says-study-1.2105125), and that is as good a measure as any about how right-wing any particular administration may be.

FFS they were NOT even compelled to introduce water charges, since an opt-out had been secured by FF previously, so plain wrong on that too -- EU rules did not compel Ireland to bring in water charges - our politicians chose to do it (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/eu-rules-did-not-compel-ireland-to-bring-in-water-charges-our-politicians-chose-to-do-it-31425023.html)

"Most people's inheritance will go towards paying for health care for our parents"... really, and you have figures to back that up? Dream on, this is another measure to line the pockets of the already very well off, nothing less. Par for the Blueshirts' course.

Robbing individuals to cover private institutions' debts can never be 'far-left', you're confusing the socialisation of debts with socialism!

Regarding that last paragraph, you said if ever the like of SF had a 32-County majority you'd hold that expression of democratic wish in contempt. Hardly the sentiments of a democrat.

From your link:

"A compromise package on the legislation was agreed giving Ireland a derogation from a requirement to meter water. The directive allows member states to opt out of this obligation if it conflicts with national practice."

From the memorandum of understand with the Troika:

https://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2010/irl/120310.pdf (https://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2010/irl/120310.pdf)

In advance of the introduction of water charges
- The government will have undertaken an independent assessment of transfer of responsibility for water services provision from local authorities to a water utility, and prepare proposals for implementation, as appropriate with a view to start charging in 2012/2013.

And I am no blueshift. But of course you know that already and are merely doing the usual SF stuff.

QuoteRobbing individuals to cover private institutions' debts can never be 'far-left', you're confusing the socialisation of debts with socialism!

Who are you arguing with on this?

I never said any of this, or anything like it. Are you posting on multiple forums, and confusing yourself?

Quoteyou said if ever the like of SF had a 32-County majority you'd hold that expression of democratic wish in contempt. Hardly the sentiments of a democrat.

Absolutely incredible deviation from reality. Post that quote up.

Why are you making shit up? I said that I would be against their 'vision' the same as I would be against a DUP/FG/FF etc 'vision' for a new state'. I then said that I reckoned that it would be rejected in any vote in the south. How does that twist into 'if ever the like of SF had a 32-County majority you'd hold that expression of democratic wish in contempt'?

"Incredible deviation from reality", really?...

Quote from: muppet on August 04, 2015, 10:31:29 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 03, 2015, 06:20:06 PM
It would be an expression of 32 County democracy; I take it, ergo, you'd be against such an expression of wish were it to be left hued?

I would treat it with the same utter contempt that I would treat a DUP, FF, FG or Labour vision for a new state.

But my view is irrelevant. What could be relevant is that I reckon most of the voters in the south would reject it, which would set the cause back decades. So why would SF be wasting their time with this 'vision'?

That was your answer when I posited the (remote) possibility of a 32-County democratic left-centred wish.  So "utter contempt" were you words.

Yes, the Troika Memorandum of Understanding, like I said, no backbone, as supine then as they've proved to be since -- they could have invoked the opt-out, the 'derogation' actually remains in place.

You said the previous incumbents to the current in the Dáil invoked 'far-left' policies (check back, it's on this page), and I was merely pointing up how ridiculous an assertion that was, since the socialisation of debts, for example, was most certainly not left in any sense. Do keep up!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pensioner-crushed-under-tractor-waited-more-than-two-hours-for-ambulance-to-reach-him-31431058.html

Maybe proper health services in border areas?

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 05, 2015, 07:23:22 PM
"Incredible deviation from reality", really?...

Quote from: muppet on August 04, 2015, 10:31:29 PM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 03, 2015, 06:20:06 PM
It would be an expression of 32 County democracy; I take it, ergo, you'd be against such an expression of wish were it to be left hued?

I would treat it with the same utter contempt that I would treat a DUP, FF, FG or Labour vision for a new state.

But my view is irrelevant. What could be relevant is that I reckon most of the voters in the south would reject it, which would set the cause back decades. So why would SF be wasting their time with this 'vision'?

That was your answer when I posited the (remote) possibility of a 32-County democratic left-centred wish.  So "utter contempt" were you words.

Yes, the Troika Memorandum of Understanding, like I said, no backbone, as supine then as they've proved to be since -- they could have invoked the opt-out, the 'derogation' actually remains in place.

You said the previous incumbents to the current in the Dáil invoked 'far-left' policies (check back, it's on this page), and I was merely pointing up how ridiculous an assertion that was, since the socialisation of debts, for example, was most certainly not left in any sense. Do keep up!

Post the full conversation. I was clearly talking about the 'vision' of the various parties and that is what I would treat with contempt. The sentence clearly states that. I have no idea what your 'hue' even means.

I have read this all again.

Criticism of a SF policy 'vision' on a future United Ireland is attacked for being anti-democratic. This happened in the context of suggesting such a vision would be unlikely to get a yes vote in the south.

This of course to SF is 'anti-democratic'.

Then I am labelled a blue shirt, despite venting my anger repeatedly here, at FG and Noonan in particular Noonan, for example for raiding privately funded pensions while leaving his own publicly funded pension alone.

Quote from: muppet on August 06, 2015, 03:09:28 PM
Post the full conversation. I was clearly talking about the 'vision' of the various parties and that is what I would treat with contempt. The sentence clearly states that. I have no idea what your 'hue' even means.

It's fairly clear, I postulated the future possibility of a 32 county democratic vote, and you expressed "utter contempt" for such a scenario if that involved a reimagining of what 'Ireland' might actually be about. It's not complicated, and you were not being criticised for expressing criticism of SF's vision, I was referring of your "utter contempt" for what would be, though at this juncture purely academic (and unlikely in the immediate future), a democratic expression of wish.

Hue means colour or shade, so left-hued should be fairly obvious (at least if it isn't to you, why did you not seek clarification at the time), instead of this endless poring over repeated points.

Incidentally, I was not referring to you specifically as a Blueshirt, just attempting to illustrate a point to rebut your assertion that "There is barely anything right of centre in Ireland...". 

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 06, 2015, 05:45:39 PM

Quote from: muppet on August 06, 2015, 03:09:28 PM
Post the full conversation. I was clearly talking about the 'vision' of the various parties and that is what I would treat with contempt. The sentence clearly states that. I have no idea what your 'hue' even means.

It's fairly clear, I postulated the future possibility of a 32 county democratic vote, and you expressed "utter contempt" for such a scenario if that involved a reimagining of what 'Ireland' might actually be about. It's not complicated, and you were not being criticised for expressing criticism of SF's vision, I was referring of your "utter contempt" for what would be, though at this juncture purely academic (and unlikely in the immediate future), a democratic expression of wish.

Hue means colour or shade, so left-hued should be fairly obvious (at least if it isn't to you, why did you not seek clarification at the time), instead of this endless poring over repeated points.

Incidentally, I was not referring to you specifically as a Blueshirt, just attempting to illustrate a point to rebut your assertion that "There is barely anything right of centre in Ireland...".

There is obviously a misunderstanding.

I dismissed a SF vision, as I did a DUP/FG/FF etc vision. I don't want any party's vision. I want consensus, or as close as possible to consensus as can be achieved.

Then, and only then, should be thinking of a vote.

I then said I believed the SF vision wouldn't get past a vote in the south. I don't know where you jumped to talking about a post referendum scenario, with the SF vision passed, but there you go. We are obviously talking about two different things.

I think we can probably leave that as it is.

As for the Irish political axis. I don't think there is likely to be agreement here, but any objective analysis would see only FG as a right wing party, and they are centre-right at that. Witness how easily they get into bed with the centre-left Labour. FF are all things to all people so if you argue that they are right of centre I would agree, on the condition that you accept that they equally can be left wing whenever it suits them.

Renua seems to be right wing but are also irrelevant at the moment.

But everything else is undoubtedly left wing.

Yep, we can leave it there, but would take issue with your categorisation of Labour as 'centre-left' -- they've long ago forfeited any claim to be left I'd say, and FG hardly moved an inch (leftwards) to accommodate the coalition arrangement!  ;)

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 06, 2015, 11:23:58 PM
Yep, we can leave it there, but would take issue with your categorisation of Labour as 'centre-left' -- they've long ago forfeited any claim to be left I'd say, and FG hardly moved an inch (leftwards) to accommodate the coalition arrangement!  ;)

If you want to see what real right wing politics looks like, check out last night's Republican debate.

Makes our guys look like Stalinists!!

Quote from: BluestackBoy on August 07, 2015, 09:46:45 AM

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 06, 2015, 11:23:58 PM
Yep, we can leave it there, but would take issue with your categorisation of Labour as 'centre-left' -- they've long ago forfeited any claim to be left I'd say, and FG hardly moved an inch (leftwards) to accommodate the coalition arrangement!  ;)

If you want to see what real right wing politics looks like, check out last night's Republican debate.

Makes our guys look like Stalinists!!

But that's the problem, they're increasingly used as a yardstick in respect of the political spectrum, which is ALL wrong! The (rapidly) widening wealth gap (increasing income inequality) tells me all I need to know about the political complexions in this state, an arrangement that Labour has enthusiastically facilitated in concert with the Blueshirts.

so what's the Fear ón Sraith solution to income inequality?
A Maximum wage that no one can be paid more than? Minimum wage/social welfare of say €600 per week?
Everyone that can't get a job in the Commercial economy be given a Public Job?
Do enlighten us oul' pal ......

Quote from: Rossfan on August 07, 2015, 11:16:04 AM
so what's the Fear ón Sraith solution to income inequality?
A Maximum wage that no one can be paid more than? Minimum wage/social welfare of say €600 per week?
Everyone that can't get a job in the Commercial economy be given a Public Job?
Do enlighten us oul' pal ......

That's the politicians' job, though I can tell you what it doesn't involve, and that's successive budgets that exacerbate the gap by hitting the worst off hardest. This crew have been very good at that.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 07, 2015, 11:31:18 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on August 07, 2015, 11:16:04 AM
so what's the Fear ón Sraith solution to income inequality?
A Maximum wage that no one can be paid more than? Minimum wage/social welfare of say €600 per week?
Everyone that can't get a job in the Commercial economy be given a Public Job?
Do enlighten us oul' pal ......

That's the politicians' job, though I can tell you what it doesn't involve, and that's successive budgets that exacerbate the gap by hitting the worst off hardest. This crew have been very good at that.

What country on Earth is it better to be poor in than Ireland? We have an unreal depth of safety nets here. At worst we'd be one of the best.

You're lacking a serious amount of perspective.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 07, 2015, 11:31:18 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on August 07, 2015, 11:16:04 AM
so what's the Fear ón Sraith solution to income inequality?
A Maximum wage that no one can be paid more than? Minimum wage/social welfare of say €600 per week?
Everyone that can't get a job in the Commercial economy be given a Public Job?
Do enlighten us oul' pal ......

That's the politicians' job, though I can tell you what it doesn't involve, and that's successive budgets that exacerbate the gap by hitting the worst off hardest. This crew have been very good at that.

I'll take that as a NO then.

Quote from: Rossfan on August 07, 2015, 02:43:00 PM
I'll take that as a NO then.

Only if you're totally devoid of cop-on: don't give the well-off tax breaks and penalise the poor with each budget.

Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2015, 02:35:38 PM
What country on Earth is it better to be poor in than Ireland? We have an unreal depth of safety nets here. At worst we'd be one of the best.

You're lacking a serious amount of perspective.

I see your 'safety net' perspective every day, some perspective all right.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 07, 2015, 03:54:46 PM

Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2015, 02:35:38 PM
What country on Earth is it better to be poor in than Ireland? We have an unreal depth of safety nets here. At worst we'd be one of the best.

You're lacking a serious amount of perspective.

I see your 'safety net' perspective every day, some perspective all right.

In how many countries is our regular Dole rate of €188 many multiples of either the average wage in a country or what an unemployed person in another Western country can expect to recieve? And this is after all these 'dastardly cuts'.

I have a suspicion that the same people in the north getting up their arses about a United Ireland really don't understand what life is actually like in the south. Just because SF and Joe Hoggins shot about inequality doesn't mean we aren't one of the most equal countries in the world.

Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2015, 04:05:30 PM
I have a suspicion that the same people in the north getting up their arses about a United Ireland really don't understand what life is actually like in the south. Just because SF and Joe Hoggins shot about inequality doesn't mean we aren't one of the most equal countries in the world.

This is like pulling teeth: so approaching the US's level of income inequality is being "one of the most equal countries in the world"?

Widening Irish wealth gap (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ireland-at-risk-of-reaching-us-levels-of-income-inequality-says-study-1.2105125)

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 07, 2015, 04:14:21 PM

Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2015, 04:05:30 PM
I have a suspicion that the same people in the north getting up their arses about a United Ireland really don't understand what life is actually like in the south. Just because SF and Joe Hoggins shot about inequality doesn't mean we aren't one of the most equal countries in the world.

This is like pulling teeth: so approaching the US's level of income inequality is being "one of the most equal countries in the world"?

Widening Irish wealth gap (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ireland-at-risk-of-reaching-us-levels-of-income-inequality-says-study-1.2105125)

How rich the rich are matters little to the quality of life that's possible at the other end of the spectrum. If you think being jobless and poor is even comparable between Ireland and the U.S. I don't know what to say.

Quote from: Syferus on August 07, 2015, 04:22:44 PM
How rich the rich are matters little to the quality of life that's possible at the other end of the spectrum. If you think being jobless and poor is even comparable between Ireland and the U.S. I don't know what to say.

You just don't know, period, I'd say, in your ivory tower.

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 07, 2015, 11:31:18 AM

Quote from: Rossfan on August 07, 2015, 11:16:04 AM
so what's the Fear ón Sraith solution to income inequality?
A Maximum wage that no one can be paid more than? Minimum wage/social welfare of say €600 per week?
Everyone that can't get a job in the Commercial economy be given a Public Job?
Do enlighten us oul' pal ......

That's the politicians' job, though I can tell you what it doesn't involve, and that's successive budgets that exacerbate the gap by hitting the worst off hardest. This crew have been very good at that.

Seriously, if you can't provide the solution, then how do we know there is one, never mind a feasible one?

Quote from: Maguire01 on August 07, 2015, 05:38:57 PM

QuoteThat's the politicians' job[/b], though I can tell you what it doesn't involve, and that's successive budgets that exacerbate the gap by hitting the worst off hardest. This crew have been very good at that.

Seriously, if you can't provide the solution, then how do we know there is one, never mind a feasible one?

I've already answered that, do pay attention!  :P

Anyway, enough of this nonsense with austerity junkies, suffering from Troika munchausen syndrome by proxy, I've a football game to occupy me!  :D

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 07, 2015, 03:50:37 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on August 07, 2015, 02:43:00 PM
I'll take that as a NO then.

Only if you're totally devoid of cop-on: don't give the well-off tax breaks and penalise the poor with each budget.

Fear, the taxpayer is paying for the bank crash, private debt, which I think all of us agree, is outrageous.

But are you arguing that, in the event of any future spare capacity, that the taxpayer should continue to carry the same burden while any spare capacity is distributed to those who never contributed anything financially?

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on August 07, 2015, 05:43:00 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on August 07, 2015, 05:38:57 PM

QuoteThat's the politicians' job[/b], though I can tell you what it doesn't involve, and that's successive budgets that exacerbate the gap by hitting the worst off hardest. This crew have been very good at that.

Seriously, if you can't provide the solution, then how do we know there is one, never mind a feasible one?

I've already answered that, do pay attention!  :P

Anyway, enough of this nonsense with austerity junkies, suffering from Troika munchausen syndrome by proxy, I've a football game to occupy me!  :D

Sure you'll have loads of time after tomorrow to come up with costed solutions - no more football to distract you.  :P