Author Topic: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.  (Read 158289 times)

illdecide

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7207
  • Quit your Jibba Jabbing Fool
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #135 on: November 23, 2015, 12:45:26 PM »
Apparently we're good and turning Red & Green Diesel clear... :P

On a sensible note we're the one Island and I'd be pretty sure we have the same industries or similar North & South
I can swim a little but i can't fly an inch

muppet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25089
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #136 on: November 23, 2015, 01:02:32 PM »
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

Let me get his right.

You think because you call someone a treacherous coward, it is a 'fact'?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

MWWSI 2017

Franko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #137 on: November 23, 2015, 01:43:50 PM »
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

Let me get his right.

You think because you call someone a treacherous coward, it is a 'fact'?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

The facts are not in dispute.  That's how they behaved.  It may be unpalatable for you but it doesn't change what happened.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 01:56:42 PM by Franko »

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3600
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #138 on: November 23, 2015, 04:30:51 PM »
The facts are what happened.

What you, I or anyone else think of those facts is opinion.

Rossfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15199
  • Ballaghaderreen CO ROSCOMMON
    • View Profile
    • Roscommon County Board official website
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #139 on: November 23, 2015, 04:34:46 PM »
The facts are what happened.

What you, I or anyone else think of those facts is opinion.
+1.
1 BIG CUP and 1 Cupeen so far....

Franko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #140 on: November 23, 2015, 04:41:36 PM »
The facts are what happened.

What you, I or anyone else think of those facts is opinion.

If it looks like a duck...

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3600
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #141 on: November 23, 2015, 05:11:27 PM »
The facts are what happened.

What you, I or anyone else think of those facts is opinion.

If it looks like a duck...

Ah well your delving into philosophy now, and deviating from the standard of what has become generally accepted.

Which Im cool with BTW, anything and everything is possible as far as I am concerned.... Muppet might not like it tho

Franko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #142 on: November 23, 2015, 07:19:23 PM »
And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole::) ::)  Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

So in the choice of "an immediate and terrible war" or the "freedom to win freedom" you would have chosen war?

No. 1
That phrase was never used.  The man who Lloyd George was supposed to have said that to has confined this and his negotiation notes do not record it.

No. 2
The 'freedom to win freedom'.  Don't make me laugh! That turned out well for the people of the North didn't it?

Even taking those two statements at face value, I most certainly would have voted no.  1 year previously the British had created a deliberately gerrymandered parliament in the north to ensure that the pro-British people would always have a ruling majority over their Nationalist neighbours.  If their actions over the previous few centuries wasn't already enough, would this not have made it clear to you what their intentions were towards the 6 counties?  They ensured that 'freedom to win freedom' would only ever be a pipe dream. The blueshirts knew this full well, but still they sold it to the people.

Rossfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15199
  • Ballaghaderreen CO ROSCOMMON
    • View Profile
    • Roscommon County Board official website
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #143 on: November 23, 2015, 07:51:00 PM »
Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?
1 BIG CUP and 1 Cupeen so far....

smelmoth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #144 on: November 23, 2015, 10:46:57 PM »
Surprised no one has picked-up on this, though I don't suppose it fits with the standard that we can't afford it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505

Unification of Ireland ‘could bring in €36.5bn in eight years’


New study claims unification could lead to a significant boost in GDP for the island

Political and economic unification of Ireland could potentially deliver a €35.6 billion boost in GDP for the island in the first eight years, according to a US study of reunification by two prominent academics.

The economic research, launched in New York, suggests economic unification could possibly deliver a more sizeable boost in economic output and incomes in the North, with a predicted 4-7.5 per cent long-term improvement in GDP.

The study, which involved a number of researchers led by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia, also highlighted that the Republic would see a more modest boost of between 0.7 to 1.2 per cent in GDP per capita.

Economic models
The Modelling Irish Unification study, launched at the Harvard Club in Manhattan, examines three unification scenarios, using economic models developed by Dr Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop, a professor of economics at ETH Zürich.

These models assume five key scenarios which would play out as a result of unification.

First was the harmonisation of the tax systems across the island with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the Republic, which the researchers said would encourage more foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland.

The second assumption was that unification would reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs between the North, the Republic and other euro zone countries.

The model also presumed Northern Ireland would adopt the euro, a move which it said would in the short term boost economic output because of the strength of sterling.

Productivity
The fourth scenario predicted that unification would deliver productivity improvements – researchers pointed out that there is currently a sizeable productivity gap between the North and the Republic which they say is mainly to blame in the difference between the industrial structures of the two economies.

Finally, the model also looked at current fiscal transfers and noted that Northern Ireland’s current fiscal deficit – more than £9 billion – would have to be financed by the Republic.

However, it also notes that unification would create just one government structure and associated savings could in the long term be reinvested in the private economy or public projects.

According to Dr Hübner, the results show that the Northern Ireland economy would enjoy significant long-term improvements from unification.

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 01:00

The article and the study do precisely zero to challenge the my view that a united ireland is not currently viable

Fixed that for ye
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.

armaghniac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #145 on: November 23, 2015, 10:52:33 PM »
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.

But, as threads in here show, the present debate on the matter is incredibly fact free and immature and any attempt at organising the issues into some sort of rational form can only help.

It would particularly help if the biggest so called "nationalist" party in NI realised that they need to increase private economic activity and reduce public expenditure and waste if there is ever to be a UI. Ireland won't be united this year or next, building work is needed and this must be done.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

Kidder81

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #146 on: November 23, 2015, 10:53:29 PM »
Turns out it was basically a SF commissioned "study"

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3600
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #147 on: November 23, 2015, 11:08:56 PM »
Turns out it was basically a SF commissioned "study"

So does that mean its decommissioned?

I'll get me coat

muppet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25089
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #148 on: November 24, 2015, 01:44:04 AM »
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.

But, as threads in here show, the present debate on the matter is incredibly fact free and immature and any attempt at organising the issues into some sort of rational form can only help.

It would particularly help if the biggest so called "nationalist" party in NI realised that they need to increase private economic activity and reduce public expenditure and waste if there is ever to be a UI. Ireland won't be united this year or next, building work is needed and this must be done.

Nail on the head.
MWWSI 2017

Eamonnca1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5733
  • Catching the world in my headlights of justice
    • View Profile
Re: A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.
« Reply #149 on: November 24, 2015, 03:43:38 AM »
Surprised no one has picked-up on this, though I don't suppose it fits with the standard that we can't afford it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505

Unification of Ireland ‘could bring in €36.5bn in eight years’


New study claims unification could lead to a significant boost in GDP for the island

Political and economic unification of Ireland could potentially deliver a €35.6 billion boost in GDP for the island in the first eight years, according to a US study of reunification by two prominent academics.

The economic research, launched in New York, suggests economic unification could possibly deliver a more sizeable boost in economic output and incomes in the North, with a predicted 4-7.5 per cent long-term improvement in GDP.

The study, which involved a number of researchers led by Dr Kurt Hübner, director of the Institute for European Studies at the University of British Columbia, also highlighted that the Republic would see a more modest boost of between 0.7 to 1.2 per cent in GDP per capita.

Economic models
The Modelling Irish Unification study, launched at the Harvard Club in Manhattan, examines three unification scenarios, using economic models developed by Dr Renger Herman van Nieuwkoop, a professor of economics at ETH Zürich.

These models assume five key scenarios which would play out as a result of unification.

First was the harmonisation of the tax systems across the island with the North adopting the tax rates and regulations of the Republic, which the researchers said would encourage more foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland.

The second assumption was that unification would reduce trade barriers and cut transport and currency transaction costs between the North, the Republic and other euro zone countries.

The model also presumed Northern Ireland would adopt the euro, a move which it said would in the short term boost economic output because of the strength of sterling.

Productivity
The fourth scenario predicted that unification would deliver productivity improvements – researchers pointed out that there is currently a sizeable productivity gap between the North and the Republic which they say is mainly to blame in the difference between the industrial structures of the two economies.

Finally, the model also looked at current fiscal transfers and noted that Northern Ireland’s current fiscal deficit – more than £9 billion – would have to be financed by the Republic.

However, it also notes that unification would create just one government structure and associated savings could in the long term be reinvested in the private economy or public projects.

According to Dr Hübner, the results show that the Northern Ireland economy would enjoy significant long-term improvements from unification.

“While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.”

Thu, Nov 19, 2015, 01:00

The article and the study do precisely zero to challenge the my view that a united ireland is not currently viable

Fixed that for ye
Aye but seriously the article doesn't even try to argue that a united ireland is viable.

What the study "tries" to do is shed some light on the viability or otherwise of Irish unity, and it seems to be a resounding yes.