Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[michaelg]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

There in is the problem ... Unionists will not be subjective, they will not partake in sensible reasoning discussions, they will gladly walk off a cliff edge rather than prosper in a UI ... sad, but true.  Entering into discussions ref. a UI means they've already lost the argument, for them, it is the union with the UK that matters, and nothing else.  Still, that should not prevent the discussion taking place, whether unionists want to be part of those discussions or not.

How can you guarantee that 'they' will prosper in a UI?

[balladmaker]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

There in is the problem ... Unionists will not be subjective, they will not partake in sensible reasoning discussions, they will gladly walk off a cliff edge rather than prosper in a UI ... sad, but true.  Entering into discussions ref. a UI means they've already lost the argument, for them, it is the union with the UK that matters, and nothing else.  Still, that should not prevent the discussion taking place, whether unionists want to be part of those discussions or not.

How can you guarantee that 'they' will prosper in a UI?

I can't, but I do suggest that they have more chance of prospering in a UI than in a statelet needing subvention and propped up on public service jobs. My point is whether they prosper or not is irrelevant and does not come into 'their' thinking.

Tell me where an Intel Fab. is based in the north, or IBM, or HP, Google, Facebook, or Apple etc. etc.

[Silver hill]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

There in is the problem ... Unionists will not be subjective, they will not partake in sensible reasoning discussions, they will gladly walk off a cliff edge rather than prosper in a UI ... sad, but true.  Entering into discussions ref. a UI means they've already lost the argument, for them, it is the union with the UK that matters, and nothing else.  Still, that should not prevent the discussion taking place, whether unionists want to be part of those discussions or not.

How can you guarantee that 'they' will prosper in a UI?

I can't, but I do suggest that they have more chance of prospering in a UI than in a statelet needing subvention and propped up on public service jobs. My point is whether they prosper or not is irrelevant and does not come into 'their' thinking.

Tell me where an Intel Fab. is based in the north, or IBM, or HP, Google, Facebook, or Apple etc. etc.

Northern unionists / Protestants just need to speak to or hear from southern Protestants living there about their experiences. I may be completely wrong but anecdotally, they are not victims of intolerance or persecuted because of ethnicity. The new Ireland that I see now seems to be one of the most progressive and tolerant in Europe (apart from racism which seems to be taking longer to remove). Northern unionists moving into The south will a block vote of c1m voters would leave them in a very strong position in any coilition government.
The fear needs to be removed, they need to be courted and gently reassured.

[6th sam]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

You been on the pop, big lad?

😂 so asking unionists to contemplate a  position similar to what  nationalists are expected to endure in the North, means that I'm on the sauce. I always respect and enjoy your perspective michaelg, but even as a reasonable unionist you maybe have more in common with DUP than you would admit- in showing little empathy for the position of nationalists in the North, and indeed all in these islands who have been stifled by Northern conflict . In my opinion, This "dog in a manger" unionism remains the biggest barrier to resolving the conflict here .
The other factor which many throw up , is that "the south couldn't afford us" . The UK will be happy to part  finance any new arrangements , to resolve the Irish conflict , and offload a "country" which many Brits view as requiring much financial and political resource, for little return . These are the realities unionists have to be realistic about .

[tonto1888]

And Armagh. Pupils in England used to try to mimick it all the time

When I was at school the French teacher was introducing the word "car" (because) and said it should be pronounced in a South Armagh manner. She then asked one of my compatriots how Cross people said car and he replied "yoke", which rather spoiled her point.

This made me laugh

[BennyCake]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

There in is the problem ... Unionists will not be subjective, they will not partake in sensible reasoning discussions, they will gladly walk off a cliff edge rather than prosper in a UI ... sad, but true.  Entering into discussions ref. a UI means they've already lost the argument, for them, it is the union with the UK that matters, and nothing else.  Still, that should not prevent the discussion taking place, whether unionists want to be part of those discussions or not.

I absolutely agree with you, but can it considered a new, inclusive Ireland if Unionists haven't been involved in the discussions/planning?

[BennyCake]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

There in is the problem ... Unionists will not be subjective, they will not partake in sensible reasoning discussions, they will gladly walk off a cliff edge rather than prosper in a UI ... sad, but true.  Entering into discussions ref. a UI means they've already lost the argument, for them, it is the union with the UK that matters, and nothing else.  Still, that should not prevent the discussion taking place, whether unionists want to be part of those discussions or not.

How can you guarantee that 'they' will prosper in a UI?

I can't, but I do suggest that they have more chance of prospering in a UI than in a statelet needing subvention and propped up on public service jobs. My point is whether they prosper or not is irrelevant and does not come into 'their' thinking.

Tell me where an Intel Fab. is based in the north, or IBM, or HP, Google, Facebook, or Apple etc. etc.

The north has been neglected, under-funded, screwed, f**ked over by successive British governments. The South has been screwed and f**ked over by successive governments, the EU and the IMF.

There is no guarantee anyone will prosper in a UI. Not with these vultures circling overhead.

[6th sam]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

There in is the problem ... Unionists will not be subjective, they will not partake in sensible reasoning discussions, they will gladly walk off a cliff edge rather than prosper in a UI ... sad, but true.  Entering into discussions ref. a UI means they've already lost the argument, for them, it is the union with the UK that matters, and nothing else.  Still, that should not prevent the discussion taking place, whether unionists want to be part of those discussions or not.

I absolutely agree with you, but can it considered a new, inclusive Ireland if Unionists haven't been involved in the discussions/planning?

Unionists are as welcome as anyone else in the discussions. However their reluctance to look at any other solution other than an extension of woefully failed status quo, adopting a "dog in the manger" stance , should not prevent others from exploring options. Obviously  leaving the door open for unionists to join in the discussions at any time , with every option on the table ( even the status quo despite its failure)

[6th sam]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

There in is the problem ... Unionists will not be subjective, they will not partake in sensible reasoning discussions, they will gladly walk off a cliff edge rather than prosper in a UI ... sad, but true.  Entering into discussions ref. a UI means they've already lost the argument, for them, it is the union with the UK that matters, and nothing else.  Still, that should not prevent the discussion taking place, whether unionists want to be part of those discussions or not.

How can you guarantee that 'they' will prosper in a UI?

I can't, but I do suggest that they have more chance of prospering in a UI than in a statelet needing subvention and propped up on public service jobs. My point is whether they prosper or not is irrelevant and does not come into 'their' thinking.

Tell me where an Intel Fab. is based in the north, or IBM, or HP, Google, Facebook, or Apple etc. etc.

The north has been neglected, under-funded, screwed, f**ked over by successive British governments. The South has been screwed and f**ked over by successive governments, the EU and the IMF.

There is no guarantee anyone will prosper in a UI. Not with these vultures circling overhead.

A simple glance at Wikipedia shows :" At nearly £5,000 per capita, Northern Ireland's is the highest, followed by a £4,300 per capita fiscal deficit in Wales and £4,100 in North East England. ... The subsidy paid to Northern Ireland is larger than the net amount of £8.9 billion that the United Kingdom paid to the European Union annually before Brexit."

You can say alot about the "Brits " but it's hard to argue that they underfund NI . In fact if they had offloaded NI, they could have effectively enjoyed EU membership for free🤦🏻‍♂️. It's not quite as simple as that but interesting that since Uk held onto NI and the vast majority of the GDP of the island in 1921, they have presided over a regressive economic basket case, that's costing them a fortune. Any Objective Uk government would see it as sensible to promote and significantly part-fund new constitutional arrangements on this island. The status quo doesn't appear to be a realistic option.

[delgany]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

There in is the problem ... Unionists will not be subjective, they will not partake in sensible reasoning discussions, they will gladly walk off a cliff edge rather than prosper in a UI ... sad, but true.  Entering into discussions ref. a UI means they've already lost the argument, for them, it is the union with the UK that matters, and nothing else.  Still, that should not prevent the discussion taking place, whether unionists want to be part of those discussions or not.

How can you guarantee that 'they' will prosper in a UI?

I can't, but I do suggest that they have more chance of prospering in a UI than in a statelet needing subvention and propped up on public service jobs. My point is whether they prosper or not is irrelevant and does not come into 'their' thinking.

Tell me where an Intel Fab. is based in the north, or IBM, or HP, Google, Facebook, or Apple etc. etc.

The north has been neglected, under-funded, screwed, f**ked over by successive British governments. The South has been screwed and f**ked over by successive governments, the EU and the IMF.

There is no guarantee anyone will prosper in a UI. Not with these vultures circling overhead.

A simple glance at Wikipedia shows :" At nearly £5,000 per capita, Northern Ireland's is the highest, followed by a £4,300 per capita fiscal deficit in Wales and £4,100 in North East England. ... The subsidy paid to Northern Ireland is larger than the net amount of £8.9 billion that the United Kingdom paid to the European Union annually before Brexit."

You can say alot about the "Brits " but it's hard to argue that they underfund NI . In fact if they had offloaded NI, they could have effectively enjoyed EU membership for free🤦🏻‍♂️. It's not quite as simple as that but interesting that since Uk held onto NI and the vast majority of the GDP of the island in 1921, they have presided over a regressive economic basket case, that's costing them a fortune. Any Objective Uk government would see it as sensible to promote and significantly part-fund new constitutional arrangements on this island. The status quo doesn't appear to be a realistic option.

You need to put the subvention in context, £13 Billion is just over 2% of the  direct income & Nat.Ins. taxation, HMRC collected £584.3 billion in taxes in 2020 to 2021. So is funding the biggest issue....

[BennyCake]

Granted, I'm no expert on SF's politics in Northern Ireland but I was under the impression that the Shinners were demanding a UI referendum right now. Listening to Michelle last night,it seems they are looking for negotiations to begin which is a different matter. I mean iif there is going to be a UI at sometime in the future, discussions have to begin sometime and if that all SF are looking for, I am alll for it.

Agree . I think an all-island solution would leave the island in a much better place. We already punch above our weight in many things and as a people are liked and respected worldwide. Take the conflict out of it and we can realise our potential . The South has done well in many aspects particularly in recent years but the "northern question" continues to hold us all back . MON has shown remarkable pragmatism and resilience in maintaining in government with the DUP . The GFA of its time was a success because DUP had to buy in to arrangements they didn't like (albeit kicking and screaming ).
Similarly with all-island constitutional change. Northern republicans had to swallow  living under British jurisdiction because their irishness was supposed to be equally respected . Why should unionists who were happy for republicans to do that post GFA , not be by prepared to accept the same in new arrangements . Look at the French  in Canada,  or Belgian arrangements,  as well as GFA for precedent.

There in is the problem ... Unionists will not be subjective, they will not partake in sensible reasoning discussions, they will gladly walk off a cliff edge rather than prosper in a UI ... sad, but true.  Entering into discussions ref. a UI means they've already lost the argument, for them, it is the union with the UK that matters, and nothing else.  Still, that should not prevent the discussion taking place, whether unionists want to be part of those discussions or not.

I absolutely agree with you, but can it considered a new, inclusive Ireland if Unionists haven't been involved in the discussions/planning?

Unionists are as welcome as anyone else in the discussions. However their reluctance to look at any other solution other than an extension of woefully failed status quo, adopting a "dog in the manger" stance , should not prevent others from exploring options. Obviously  leaving the door open for unionists to join in the discussions at any time , with every option on the table ( even the status quo despite its failure)

So, if the planning/discussions on a united Ireland proved it to be economically unviable, would Nat/Rep parties still doggedly push ahead with it?

Would that not be the same as Unionists remaining firm on their support for the north to remain in the UK, even if that makes no economic sense either (especially post-Brexit)?

[pbat]

I brought the prospect of a UI up with with two protestant colleagues recently, both early 40's, educated with small families. Both said they voted unionist and would in general be pro staying in the union. But both want to see the numbers, see the pro's and con's, both travel from Portadown area to work in Dublin daily for the better wages. These are the people the argument needs to be made too. Forget Arlene, Campbell and Jamie Bin Bryson they don't want to engage so I wouldn't even waste energy on them.

Why not have a citizen's forum, the Rev Karen Sethuraman has argued for a long time for one, I am sure Ian Marshall would sit on it. Publish a live working document, start the real conversation.

The problem is FFG fear a border poll more than Unionists. 

[armaghniac]

The problem here is that SF have zero credibility on economic issues. Someone said that there was no Google in NI, but SF's plan for unity probably involves taxing the bajaysus out of Google so that there will be no Google anywhere, or at a minimum they are unlikely to expand. London spends a great deal in NI and it doesn't make sense for them to play hardball on  the deal. However, the problem here is that they do not want Scotland to leave and do not want them to get a soft deal. Now you could have a rasonable formula that gives a different answer for NI and Scotland but I don't see much work going into this matter.

[Rossfan]

"pbat" was going well with a very sensible post but let's himself down with the "FFG" botism

[Angelo]

The problem here is that SF have zero credibility on economic issues. Someone said that there was no Google in NI, but SF's plan for unity probably involves taxing the bajaysus out of Google so that there will be no Google anywhere, or at a minimum they are unlikely to expand. London spends a great deal in NI and it doesn't make sense for them to play hardball on  the deal. However, the problem here is that they do not want Scotland to leave and do not want them to get a soft deal. Now you could have a rasonable formula that gives a different answer for NI and Scotland but I don't see much work going into this matter.

What parties have economic credibility on this island? The two establishment parties down south have less economic credibility than SF.