Is the end of the Union in sight? (It may well be but then again…)

[Oraisteach]

First, I'm more and more convinced, EG, that your full-time employment is as PRO for SNIB (Saving Northern Ireland's Britishness).  Your fecundity is greater than that of a rabid/rabbit Papist.  Is there a Ms./Mrs./Mr. Genius?  If so, he or she must be doing time or be a Carmelite nun to tolerate such devotion to the cause.  Just like the rest of unionism, even the old "No Surrender" is getting a facelift, I suppose.  And a good thing too.

OK, I accused you of using an "ad hom" because instead of simply addressing my argument, you poisoned the well at the outset by suggesting that I was either thick or sneaky.  Either constitutes a personal attack rather than a rhetorical one, hence "ad hom."

Ok, dead horse flagellation time.  You are irritated by what you perceive to be my indifference to the feelings of the majority in one part of the island—again, a wonderfully Orwellian notion—only in N. Ireland could a minority be considered a majority.  Recall, once more, that that majority was actually outvoted significantly by a real majority, but in the spirit of democracy that characterized later unionists in power (crap, there I go again) anticipated the words of eminent philosopher Bob Geldof , "I'm all right, Jack, lookin' after number one." 

So, then I contest what you describe as the crux of the argument—the drawing of boundaries.  You are a democrat, perhaps a latter-day one, and as such, in my view, you ought to be decrying the existence of a place formed on wholly anti-democratic principles.  The argument, at least as it pertains to NI, is not at all about the drawing of boundaries but about their removal.

On the stagnation question, I don't know that things are as you characterize them, not being a full-time employee of SNIB, with the time to do the necessary excavation, but I have no reason to doubt you.  I think now that a UI is farther off than I had hoped, not having a very strong faith in the commitment to it of so-called Nats on either side of the border.  I do agree with you that economics will determine when or if a UI occurs.  Damn that gluttonous Celtic Tiger.  A colossal if, but had the southern economy continued to thrive as it was, mutual economic benefit would have disintegrated Derry's walls making a UI an inevitable and imminent by-product.  That is now on hold, for the time being, but over time cross-border economic inter-dependency, not tinged with the bias of hue, will necessitate a UI, providing formality to what will be its de facto existence.

You also berate me for bringing up the ghosts of the past, over whose actions you have no control.  But that isn't entirely true.  We've both acknowledged that the violence of the IRA was awful, and you even accept unionism's role in its creation, but from time to time you can be a tad ghostly yourself.  For example, your systematic assaults on SF and the GAA suggest the ghosts of Paisley Past.  In the spirit of the GFA, you ought to be ecstatic that the IRA has renounced the bullet and instead entered the democratic political arena, but what I read are little pot shots, reminiscent of the DUP insisting on the label Sinn Fein-IRA, or your own hybrid version, the Donagh-Ulick tic.

Further, rather than extolling the actions of the GAA to make Ireland a warmer house for unionists, you focus on a handful of county reps. who declined peacefully mind you, to pay homage to the embodiment of an empire and system, wholly irrelevant and inappropriate in the twenty-first century, an entity for which you admit a quaint affection, despite the ardor with which you wave the NI flag.

Finally, once more into the breach of "The Merchant of Venice."  You do recall, don't you, that the merchant in the play is Antonio, not Shylock, who endures excruciating hardship and the unyielding no-surrenderdom of Shylock, saved in the end by Portia, not DeLorean.  And you'll recall too, that all seems lost for Antonio, like a UI in your perspective, but at last, in time, some of Antonio's ships do in fact make it.  So, in short, all's well that ends well.

[Evil Genius]

OK, I accused you of using an "ad hom" because instead of simply addressing my argument, you poisoned the well at the outset by suggesting that I was either thick or sneaky.  Either constitutes a personal attack rather than a rhetorical one, hence "ad hom."

Hang on a minute.
I posted the following (# 219): "It seems to me that, like our Strabane friend, you either don't understand, or wilfully ignore, the real crux of this dispute, which is what should be the boundary within which the majority is counted."
From that you conclude that I was suggesting you are "thick" or "sneaky".
Moreover, despite my clarifying in post #225 that: "There are one or two other posters who seem to me to be, how shall I put it, 'a bit thick', but you certainly aren't one of them. Rather, it's precisely because I don't  consider you stupid that I conclude your reluctance to address, or sometimes even acknowledge what I post, denotes evasiveness", you still  come back to this point.
If something so relatively mild as this constitutes "poisoning the well", I don't know how this forum survives, since just about every thread has much more robust comment as a matter of routine. (Oh, and it wasn't "from the outset" -  my first exchange with you was post #214)
Therefore I can only conclude that as members of this sort of forum go, you are unusually "touchy".
Which will probably set you off again... 

And I am also amused that you open your post with:
"First, I'm more and more convinced, EG, that your full-time employment is as PRO for SNIB (Saving Northern Ireland's Britishness).  Your fecundity is greater than that of a rabid/rabbit Papist.  Is there a Ms./Mrs./Mr. Genius?  If so, he or she must be doing time or be a Carmelite nun to tolerate such devotion to the cause.  Just like the rest of unionism, even the old "No Surrender" is getting a facelift, I suppose.  And a good thing too."
Now so that there be no misunderstanding, I should say that I do not take any offence at 'knockabout' stuff like that, but the fact that you could then follow with a repetition of your complaint about me being ad hominem towards you etc, suggests to me that not only are you "a tad precious", but you also lack a sense of irony. 
Which will also  probably set you off once more...

Ok, dead horse flagellation time.  You are irritated by what you perceive to be my indifference to the feelings of the majority in one part of the island—again, a wonderfully Orwellian notion—only in N. Ireland could a minority be considered a majority.  Recall, once more, that that majority was actually outvoted significantly by a real majority, but in the spirit of democracy that characterized later unionists in power (crap, there I go again) anticipated the words of eminent philosopher Bob Geldof , "I'm all right, Jack, lookin' after number one." 

So, then I contest what you describe as the crux of the argument—the drawing of boundaries.  You are a democrat, perhaps a latter-day one, and as such, in my view, you ought to be decrying the existence of a place formed on wholly anti-democratic principles.  The argument, at least as it pertains to NI, is not at all about the drawing of boundaries but about their removal.

It's quite simple.
I believe that Partition was the best (or least-worst) response to the crisis in Ireland in 1921, you don't. Fine. Consequently there is no way we can agree on the "Democracy/Majority" issue which follows from that.
But if you feel that you have "won" this particular point, go ahead, I'm not bothered. 

On the stagnation question, I don't know that things are as you characterize them, not being a full-time employee of SNIB, with the time to do the necessary excavation, but I have no reason to doubt you.  I think now that a UI is farther off than I had hoped, not having a very strong faith in the commitment to it of so-called Nats on either side of the border.  I do agree with you that economics will determine when or if a UI occurs.  Damn that gluttonous Celtic Tiger.  A colossal if, but had the southern economy continued to thrive as it was, mutual economic benefit would have disintegrated Derry's walls making a UI an inevitable and imminent by-product.  That is now on hold, for the time being, but over time cross-border economic inter-dependency not tinged with the bias of hue, will necessitate a UI, providing formality to what will be its de facto existence.

Regarding the point [in bold], I do not see why economic interdependency between NI and ROI must inevitably necessitate a political union.
Under EU Law, we already have extensive cross-border free trade, Northerners may eg fly abroad from Dublin Airport or Southerners may do their Christmas shopping in Newry etc, pretty much without let or hindrance.
Of course, there remain complicating issues such as differing Corporation Tax Rates, or the £/€ Exchange Rate etc, but exactly the same issues complicate relations between other EU states whose economies are also heavily interdependent, but nobody is suggesting that eg Denmark and Germany, or Spain and Portugal, should merge.
Indeed, as one of the younger posters (from Derry?) remarked on another thread, since the GFA now means he can be as "Irish" as he likes, the Border isn't really an issue for him politically, never mind economically. 

You also berate me for bringing up the ghosts of the past, over whose actions you have no control.  But that isn't entirely true.  We've both acknowledged that the violence of the IRA was awful, and you even accept unionism's role in its creation, but from time to time you can be a tad ghostly yourself.  For example, your systematic assaults on SF and the GAA suggest the ghosts of Paisley Past.  In the spirit of the GFA, you ought to be ecstatic that the IRA has renounced the bullet and instead entered the democratic political arena, but what I read are little pot shots, reminiscent of the DUP insisting on the label Sinn Fein-IRA, or your own hybrid version, the Donagh-Ulick tic.

I was merely making the point that whatever one thinks of the old Stormont etc, it is now long dead, and with it its architests and movers. Moreover, we are not going back there, so I simply do not see the point of "raking over the coals".
As for my "systematic assaults" on SF, they are still very much an active player in the present set-up, so must be entirely fair-game for criticism.

Further, rather than extolling the actions of the GAA to make Ireland a warmer house for unionists, you focus on a handful of county reps. who declined peacefully mind you, to pay homage to the embodiment of an empire and system, wholly irrelevant and inappropriate in the twenty-first century, an entity for which you admit a quaint affection, despite the ardor with which you wave the NI flag.

My view on the GAA is quite simple.

It is not for me, a non-member, to tell the GAA what sort of organisation it must be - only its members may do that. Therefore if it wants to remain both a (Nationalist) political organisation, as well as a sporting and cultural one, then notwithstanding my own instinctive dislike for the unnecessary mixing of sport and politics, it may do so.
However, one of the consequences of retaining its Nationalist ethos must inevitably be that it remains "off-limits" to Unionists.
Which is where my chief criticism comes in, namely that they (GAA) cannot "ride both horses at the same time".

Of course, there are efforts being made by many (no-doubt sincere and committed) individuals to bring GAA sports to the Unionist community (schools initiatives and the like) and I both acknowledge and welcome these. However, when you consider the actual record, with abject actual participation levels of Unionists eg in any of the Ulster County teams, all ages, on any weekend of the season, it seems to me that those efforts must amount to little more than a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Which causes me to ask why those efforts are failing. Personally I can think of two major barriers to Unionist participation. The first was summed up for me by 'Applesisapples' on another thread, when he posted:
"EG you have hit the nail on the head because to many GAA members in Ulster its is of no real consequence whether Unionists wish to engage or not and that is sad. The GAA is an organisation founded to promote Nationalist ethos and Irish culture..."

And the second seems to me to be even more invidious than indifference, in that in some quarters of the GAA, there is active opposition to any removal or diminution of the Nationalist ethos. Sadly, that opposition is most entrenched in the very counties where it does most harm i.e. Ulster. Worse, whatever the views of the ordinary members on the ground (and I am sure most are only interested in playing sport and having a bit of crack etc), it seems that this opposition has a particular hold in the people who control the counties, hence the recent snub to the Queen.

Of course, i expect the above to provoke a spate of replies accusing me of begrudgery etc, and berating me for refusing to acknowledge the movement which has taken place etc.

But ultimately the proof of the pudding must be in the eating. And despite the GAA publicly proclaiming, for as long as I can remember, that they want Unionists to be involved in their organisation, participation rates are and have been pitiful. I see no sign that this will change significantly in the future.

That's it, really.

Finally, once more into the breach of "The Merchant of Venice."  You do recall, don't you, that the merchant in the play is Antonio, not Shylock, who endures excruciating hardship and the unyielding no-surrenderdom of Shylock, saved in the end by Portia, not DeLorean.  And you'll recall too, that all seems lost for Antonio, like a UI in your perspective, but at last, in time, some of Antonio's ships do in fact make it.  So, in short, all's well that ends well.

This metaphor has been stretched beyond breaking point.
Time to let it rest, I'd say.

[lynchbhoy]

evil f (dont want to have to say that a lot of your last post was lovely prose but carried very little point...but )
you have been put right on here by many who have outlined that the GAA is not political.
However last weeks meeting with the queen of england would imo have been a political event !
but other than this we are not a political organisation - no matter how much you want to try and make it out to be.

You and others will never agree that GAA are making any efforts to 'reach' unionism. We believe we are, and it would appear to be way
more effective than the soccer for all initiative in the north that has done a bit but falls well short for most
nationalist/catholic/Irish etc.

It has also been discussed on here regarding the 'token' mention of 'nationalist ethos' - there is no 'poliitcal' drive in this, it is
imo and the opinion of many others a reference to the old mantra but the modern day ideal is that we are an organisation for the
Country of Ireland - as this was an island nation, and I believe will be again for many reasons - reasons you disagre with but its
all about opinions.

I also dont think your explanation of why the undemocratic of the partition of Ireland back then , and the requirement for
democratic reunification are 'different' - makes any sense. there can be no possible way to square that!
However the reality is, it will be referendum, consent and finally the economy (I see you finally are in agreement with my
long time held views and statements that this is going to be a big factor when the time comes).
Finally - one aspect that was not mentioned previously - people in the north of Ireland would have their wages increased
to match those in the south by reunification. That lure of more money heavly influenced unionists/loyalists to drop
their long held 'principles' (never neve never cross the border or deal with southerners/Dublin) before- and I would expect it
will do so again !

[LeoMc]

evil f (dont want to have to say that a lot of your last post was lovely prose but carried very little point...but )
you have been put right on here by many who have outlined that the GAA is not political.
However last weeks meeting with the queen of england would imo have been a political event !
but other than this we are not a political organisation - no matter how much you want to try and make it out to be.

You and others will never agree that GAA are making any efforts to 'reach' unionism. We believe we are, and it would appear to be way
more effective than the soccer for all initiative in the north that has done a bit but falls well short for most
nationalist/catholic/Irish etc.

It has also been discussed on here regarding the 'token' mention of 'nationalist ethos' - there is no 'poliitcal' drive in this, it is
imo and the opinion of many others a reference to the old mantra but the modern day ideal is that we are an organisation for the
Country of Ireland - as this was an island nation, and I believe will be again for many reasons - reasons you disagre with but its
all about opinions.

I also dont think your explanation of why the undemocratic of the partition of Ireland back then , and the requirement for
democratic reunification are 'different' - makes any sense. there can be no possible way to square that!
However the reality is, it will be referendum, consent and finally the economy (I see you finally are in agreement with my
long time held views and statements that this is going to be a big factor when the time comes).
Finally - one aspect that was not mentioned previously - people in the north of Ireland would have their wages increased
to match those in the south by reunification. That lure of more money heavly influenced unionists/loyalists to drop
their long held 'principles' (never neve never cross the border or deal with southerners/Dublin) before- and I would expect it
will do so again !

There is after all so much in the pot to go round. 
I hope we are not depending on playing the mythical "The UK will pay to be rid of NI" card!
When the Government of Ireland act passed the bill went the other way with the fledgling Free state having to pick up the aditional costs, a bill quietly forgotton about providing a blind eye was turned to the border commission.
It is more likely a drop in wages and benefits aross the board to fit the financial realities.

[saffron sam2]

evil f (dont want to have to say that a lot of your last post was lovely prose but carried very little point...but )
you have been put right on here by many who have outlined that the GAA is not political.
However last weeks meeting with the queen of england would imo have been a political event !
but other than this we are not a political organisation - no matter how much you want to try and make it out to be.

You and others will never agree that GAA are making any efforts to 'reach' unionism. We believe we are, and it would appear to be way
more effective than the soccer for all initiative in the north that has done a bit but falls well short for most
nationalist/catholic/Irish etc.

It has also been discussed on here regarding the 'token' mention of 'nationalist ethos' - there is no 'poliitcal' drive in this, it is
imo and the opinion of many others a reference to the old mantra but the modern day ideal is that we are an organisation for the
Country of Ireland - as this was an island nation, and I believe will be again for many reasons - reasons you disagre with but its
all about opinions.

I also dont think your explanation of why the undemocratic of the partition of Ireland back then , and the requirement for
democratic reunification are 'different' - makes any sense. there can be no possible way to square that!
However the reality is, it will be referendum, consent and finally the economy (I see you finally are in agreement with my
long time held views and statements that this is going to be a big factor when the time comes).
Finally - one aspect that was not mentioned previously - people in the north of Ireland would have their wages increasedto match those in the south by reunification. That lure of more money heavly influenced unionists/loyalists to drop
their long held 'principles' (never neve never cross the border or deal with southerners/Dublin) before- and I would expect it
will do so again !

Aye, but the feckers would then start charging us a fiver for a pint.

[lynchbhoy]

evil f (dont want to have to say that a lot of your last post was lovely prose but carried very little point...but )
you have been put right on here by many who have outlined that the GAA is not political.
However last weeks meeting with the queen of england would imo have been a political event !
but other than this we are not a political organisation - no matter how much you want to try and make it out to be.

You and others will never agree that GAA are making any efforts to 'reach' unionism. We believe we are, and it would appear to be way
more effective than the soccer for all initiative in the north that has done a bit but falls well short for most
nationalist/catholic/Irish etc.

It has also been discussed on here regarding the 'token' mention of 'nationalist ethos' - there is no 'poliitcal' drive in this, it is
imo and the opinion of many others a reference to the old mantra but the modern day ideal is that we are an organisation for the
Country of Ireland - as this was an island nation, and I believe will be again for many reasons - reasons you disagre with but its
all about opinions.

I also dont think your explanation of why the undemocratic of the partition of Ireland back then , and the requirement for
democratic reunification are 'different' - makes any sense. there can be no possible way to square that!
However the reality is, it will be referendum, consent and finally the economy (I see you finally are in agreement with my
long time held views and statements that this is going to be a big factor when the time comes).
Finally - one aspect that was not mentioned previously - people in the north of Ireland would have their wages increased
to match those in the south by reunification. That lure of more money heavly influenced unionists/loyalists to drop
their long held 'principles' (never neve never cross the border or deal with southerners/Dublin) before- and I would expect it
will do so again !

There is after all so much in the pot to go round. 
I hope we are not depending on playing the mythical "The UK will pay to be rid of NI" card!
When the Government of Ireland act passed the bill went the other way with the fledgling Free state having to pick up the aditional costs, a bill quietly forgotton about providing a blind eye was turned to the border commission.
It is more likely a drop in wages and benefits aross the board to fit the financial realities.

forgot tomention above that in that referendum , the southern voters were told that by getting rid of articles 2 and 3, we would pave the way for an easier integration of the reunification.

you and a few others hold the concept of the british gov wanting to get rid of the money/jobs pit that is the north of Ireland, but this is very real. Blair said it somewhere, plus it has been an increasing mantra ever since the time of thatchers government and even before perhaps (though I cant really remember too much about things prior to then).

Ireland inc are hamstrung by th ebanks. Our services and companies, expeors etc are booming. We would be exceding celtic tiger (minus property rubbish) if we had not been handcuffed by our gov to bail out the gamblers !

companies that have offices in the north are being hit on a near daily bsis for wage increases because 'the contemporaries in the Dublin office are getting x% more !
Whil ethe companies are making money, do you think that with reunification, the wages will be revised DOWNWARDS!! CFO's might love that, but in reality that wont happen.
Rem the majority of the people are in the south !
Majority rules - something you will hear more of in the future !!
Pity it wasnt used too much around 1914 - 1922

but yes, there will also be a payoff to Irish gov for taking on the people in the north, but thismoney will go towards changing healthcare system etc.
Wages are expected to be funded by the private companies - thats how commerce and business works i'd have thought !!

[lynchbhoy]

Aye, but the feckers would then start charging us a fiver for a pint.

yes - but you prob dont realise how much the costs of stuff up there has actually gradually increased- thats why there are not so many people heading north of the border these days to shop - let alone drink!
last time I was up and ordered booze, I recall thinking to myself that there wasnt much difference in the price of the drink these days once you convert the currency.
Also , in general the quality of your food and drink in th enorth is inferior to what we get down here !
in the past 6 months, your egg farm producers have changed their quality standards and gor rid of the British standard to come in under the higher quality Irish standard - Acronym I cannot recall.
Anyhow, ours are a lot more stringent. I'd still be cautious about buying eggs, meat and dairy in the north - even though the eggs should be nearly our standards now. the meat and dairy I woudlnt touch.
False economy SS2 !! 

[armaghniac]

In the early part of the 20th century, there were a number of concerns about Irish independence.

Firstly people did not know what was ahead, there wasn't a model then.
While a UI will not be just the ROI, it will probably be between NI and ROI models.

Protestants may have had concerns on religious grounds and pretty much ensured that those concerns would arise to some extent by associating non Catholics with colonialism.
There is no concern about this sort of thing anymore.

People in the industrialised North had concerns about tariffs etc and that the less industrialised South would pursue tax policies re agriculture and industry that wouldn't suit them.
There aren't those difference between the economies now and the EU model ensures that trade with Britain or elsewhere wouldn't be affected one way or the other.

People in the North worried about being associated with a less prosperous South, and that taxes would divert money from North to South.
Now, of course, Ulster enterprise is gone and the North sees itself as needing money to keep it going.

Finally unionists had been giving it for hundreds of years, they may have wondered if the shoe was going to be on the other foot now.
The GFA models have sorted this one.

Those proposing a UI were always potentially on the hind foot in the 20th century as the ROI was less prosperous than the UK, this is no longer the case and will no longer be the case.

Unionism has a choice, it can cling to a sectarian 17th century colonial vision which Britain has now basically apologised for. It can stay in a union where the other partner couldn't care less and even despises their regressive political philosophy. It can continue in the present, rather sad, situation where any sign of economic progress North or South is unwelcome as it might undermine the good Union.  Or people of British heritage can make their way in 21st century Ireland just as people from Poland, China, Brazil and Nigeria do.

[Eamonnca1]

In the early part of the 20th century, there were a number of concerns about Irish independence.

Firstly people did not know what was ahead, there wasn't a model then.
While a UI will not be just the ROI, it will probably be between NI and ROI models.

Protestants may have had concerns on religious grounds and pretty much ensured that those concerns would arise to some extent by associating non Catholics with colonialism.
There is no concern about this sort of thing anymore.

People in the industrialised North had concerns about tariffs etc and that the less industrialised South would pursue tax policies re agriculture and industry that wouldn't suit them.
There aren't those difference between the economies now and the EU model ensures that trade with Britain or elsewhere wouldn't be affected one way or the other.

People in the North worried about being associated with a less prosperous South, and that taxes would divert money from North to South.
Now, of course, Ulster enterprise is gone and the North sees itself as needing money to keep it going.

Finally unionists had been giving it for hundreds of years, they may have wondered if the show was going to be on the other foot now.
The GFA models have sorted this one.

Those proposing a UI were always potentially on the hind foot in the 20th century as the ROI was less prosperous than the UK, this is no longer the case and will no longer be the case.

Unionism has a choice, it can cling to a sectarian 17th century colonial vision which Britain has now basically apologised for. It can stay in a union where the other partner couldn't care less and even despises their regressive political philosophy. It can continue in the present, rather sad, situation where any sign of economic progress North or South is unwelcome as it might undermine the good Union.  Or people of British heritage can make their way in 21st century Ireland just as people from Poland, China, Brazil and Nigeria do.

+1

[LeoMc]

In the early part of the 20th century, there were a number of concerns about Irish independence.

Firstly people did not know what was ahead, there wasn't a model then.
While a UI will not be just the ROI, it will probably be between NI and ROI models.

Protestants may have had concerns on religious grounds and pretty much ensured that those concerns would arise to some extent by associating non Catholics with colonialism.
There is no concern about this sort of thing anymore.

People in the industrialised North had concerns about tariffs etc and that the less industrialised South would pursue tax policies re agriculture and industry that wouldn't suit them.
There aren't those difference between the economies now and the EU model ensures that trade with Britain or elsewhere wouldn't be affected one way or the other.

People in the North worried about being associated with a less prosperous South, and that taxes would divert money from North to South.
Now, of course, Ulster enterprise is gone and the North sees itself as needing money to keep it going.

Finally unionists had been giving it for hundreds of years, they may have wondered if the shoe was going to be on the other foot now.
The GFA models have sorted this one.

Those proposing a UI were always potentially on the hind foot in the 20th century as the ROI was less prosperous than the UK, this is no longer the case and will no longer be the case.

Unionism has a choice, it can cling to a sectarian 17th century colonial vision which Britain has now basically apologised for. It can stay in a union where the other partner couldn't care less and even despises their regressive political philosophy. It can continue in the present, rather sad, situation where any sign of economic progress North or South is unwelcome as it might undermine the good Union.  Or people of British heritage can make their way in 21st century Ireland just as people from Poland, China, Brazil and Nigeria do.

I think the reverse may now be the bigger barrier.
To quote Lynchboy
"Ireland inc are hamstrung by th ebanks. Our services and companies, expeors etc are booming. We would be exceding celtic tiger (minus property rubbish) if we had not been handcuffed by our gov to bail out the gamblers !"
The people of Ireland will be paying these gambling debts for a generation. With 15% unemployment why would the Taxpayers of Ireland want to take on an additional 1.8m people and an economy with a 60% reliance on state funded "jobs" and minimal private sector where the GDP is only 70% of the rest of Ireland?
IMO the majority of people North and South are apathetic towards a UI, a roof over the head and food on the table is a bigger sway than the romantic notion of the Irish nation.
At the end of the day it comes down to who you pay your taxes to, the warmongers in Westminister or the gombeens / gamblers in the Dail, I would not trust either to run an u-14 blitz without either invading another club for streategic access to their nets or selling the pitch from under my feet to a develoer.

[thebigfella]

Aye, but the feckers would then start charging us a fiver for a pint.

yes - but you prob dont realise how much the costs of stuff up there has actually gradually increased- thats why there are not so many people heading north of the border these days to shop - let alone drink!
last time I was up and ordered booze, I recall thinking to myself that there wasnt much difference in the price of the drink these days once you convert the currency.
Also , in general the quality of your food and drink in th enorth is inferior to what we get down here !
in the past 6 months, your egg farm producers have changed their quality standards and gor rid of the British standard to come in under the higher quality Irish standard - Acronym I cannot recall.
Anyhow, ours are a lot more stringent. I'd still be cautious about buying eggs, meat and dairy in the north - even though the eggs should be nearly our standards now. the meat and dairy I woudlnt touch.
False economy SS2 !! 

Pure drivel, it's the exact same as most likely it from all the same suppliers. Without going into it or knowing much about it, I'd assume the suppliers need to have the Irish Standard in order to supply to the south. Simple economics. Do you think people where keeling over dead 30/40 years ago without these standards? Christ some people take the whole nostalgic bullshi1t with Ireland too seriously.

If you knew anything about the dodgy food practices/cover ups in food industry in Ireland over the last 30/40 years, you'd soon change your tune. It's only really in the last 10 or 15 years it's started to become properly regulated, before that the regulators were as useful as the banking regulators.

I know a few people at one of the big processors in Ireland and the UK and they all say the same, their UK operations are far superior and at the cutting edge of technologies than their Irish  operations. In fact the best beef they buy is from south America and lately north America. The quality of Irish produce is myth.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

In fact the best beef they buy is from south America and lately north America. The quality of Irish produce is myth.

Grain fed cattle from the Americas? No way on earth is that superior to grass fed cattle, not a prayer.

[lynchbhoy]

I think the reverse may now be the bigger barrier. To quote Lynchboy
"Ireland inc are hamstrung by th ebanks. Our services and companies, expeors etc are booming. We would be exceding celtic tiger (minus property rubbish) if we had not been handcuffed by our gov to bail out the gamblers !"
The people of Ireland will be paying these gambling debts for a generation. With 15% unemployment why would the Taxpayers of Ireland want to take on an additional 1.8m people and an economy with a 60% reliance on state funded "jobs" and minimal private sector where the GDP is only 70% of the rest of Ireland?
IMO the majority of people North and South are apathetic towards a UI, a roof over the head and food on the table is a bigger sway than the romantic notion of the Irish nation.
At the end of the day it comes down to who you pay your taxes to, the warmongers in Westminister or the gombeens / gamblers in the Dail, I would not trust either to run an u-14 blitz without either invading another club for streategic access to their nets or selling the pitch from under my feet to a develoer.

there would be more potential investment from US & EU after reunification - companies are still wary of locating in the north - despite the massive investNI funds) which would ease this 'problem' very quickly!

cant see too many governments covering themselves in glory these days so ours and the british are no worse really ! sadly!

Would completely agree with Armaghaniac's great post !

[lynchbhoy]

Aye, but the feckers would then start charging us a fiver for a pint.

yes - but you prob dont realise how much the costs of stuff up there has actually gradually increased- thats why there are not so many people heading north of the border these days to shop - let alone drink!
last time I was up and ordered booze, I recall thinking to myself that there wasnt much difference in the price of the drink these days once you convert the currency.
Also , in general the quality of your food and drink in th enorth is inferior to what we get down here !
in the past 6 months, your egg farm producers have changed their quality standards and gor rid of the British standard to come in under the higher quality Irish standard - Acronym I cannot recall.
Anyhow, ours are a lot more stringent. I'd still be cautious about buying eggs, meat and dairy in the north - even though the eggs should be nearly our standards now. the meat and dairy I woudlnt touch.
False economy SS2 !! 

Pure drivel, it's the exact same as most likely it from all the same suppliers. Without going into it or knowing much about it, I'd assume the suppliers need to have the Irish Standard in order to supply to the south. Simple economics. Do you think people where keeling over dead 30/40 years ago without these standards? Christ some people take the whole nostalgic bullshi1t with Ireland too seriously.

If you knew anything about the dodgy food practices/cover ups in food industry in Ireland over the last 30/40 years, you'd soon change your tune. It's only really in the last 10 or 15 years it's started to become properly regulated, before that the regulators were as useful as the banking regulators.

I know a few people at one of the big processors in Ireland and the UK and they all say the same, their UK operations are far superior and at the cutting edge of technologies than their Irish  operations. In fact the best beef they buy is from south America and lately north America. The quality of Irish produce is myth.

i'd agree that its a bit rich to say the above when its only in the past 20 years that Ireland have brought up their standards to become a high level - when we were pretty poor before that.

however what I say is  imo pretty correct, check out the example of the switching of standards authorities by the egg producers in the north !
south american beef is no better than our top quality produced beef in Ireland.
Irish beef - if you watch the foodie programmes - is venerated by top London and Parisien & Roman restaurants.
Grain used to be the cheaper , quicker fattening way to feed livestock.
Grass is always much better as FOSB says - or so taught to us in my agricultural science lessons for leaving cert !!

[lynchbhoy]

so better food, higher wages, more options for jobs (non civil service) - as well as undoing an illegal undemocratic partition- theres a few answers for Hardy as to why the alaskans are better off in a reunification !!