United Ireland

[LCohen]

why exclude non-identifiable expenditure?

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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 ..... 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

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.

As a republican

Up the Shinners

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.

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.

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

[muppet]

"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

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.

[Rossfan]

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

[omaghjoe]

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[armaghniac]

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.

[BluestackBoy]

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

Harsh but true.

[LCohen]

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

[omaghjoe]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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). 

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

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

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....

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.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

"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

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? 

[muppet]

"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

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'?

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

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.

[armaghniac]

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.

[Rossfan]

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!

[muppet]

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.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

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.