Nuances of a re-united Ireland

sean1

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
104
Website
www.gaelport.com
smiffy said:
I questioned your assumptions about the economic benefits to those in NI.

I look forward to your learned and 'nuanced' response.
I already gave you two reasons:

1) We could market Ireland cohesively as a united Ireland, without any borders, for tourists if we were re-united.

2) Harmonisation across the economy, and the other sectors of the the island, would make it simpler to attract investment into the country.
 


badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
sean1 said:
1) We could market Ireland cohesively as a united Ireland, without any borders, for tourists if we were re-united.
Do you believe the increase in tourist interest in Ireland as a result of it not having a border will off-set the decrease in tourist interest in Ireland as a result of it becoming less distinctly Irish (i.e. re-entering the Commonwealth, etc)?
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
badinage said:
sean1 said:
1) We could market Ireland cohesively as a united Ireland, without any borders, for tourists if we were re-united.
Do you believe the increase in tourist interest in Ireland as a result of it not having a border will off-set the decrease in tourist interest in Ireland as a result of it becoming less distinctly Irish (i.e. re-entering the Commonwealth, etc)?
Do you think tourism is going to finance extra expenditure the Dublin Govt will have to incur on Police, Army, social welfare, health and education?
Plus the likelyhood of Loyalist terrorism as a result of unification will see tourist figures plummet.
 

Risteard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
456
badinage said:
(i.e. re-entering the Commonwealth, etc)?
A free Ireland will not be in the British Commonwealth of Nations (the British Empire).

The National Flag does not need changed - neither does Amhrán na bhFiann.
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
Risteard said:
badinage said:
(i.e. re-entering the Commonwealth, etc)?
A free Ireland will not be in the British Commonwealth of Nations (the British Empire).

The National Flag does not need changed - neither does Amhrán na bhFiann.
Reality check Risteard. Life is not as simple as that. What inducements will we need to give Unionists in order to help pass a vote, and to reduce the chance of Loyalist terrorism?
We are looking at all the above three changes at a minimum
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
meriwether said:
badinage said:
sean1 said:
1) We could market Ireland cohesively as a united Ireland, without any borders, for tourists if we were re-united.
Do you believe the increase in tourist interest in Ireland as a result of it not having a border will off-set the decrease in tourist interest in Ireland as a result of it becoming less distinctly Irish (i.e. re-entering the Commonwealth, etc)?
Do you think tourism is going to finance extra expenditure the Dublin Govt will have to incur on Police, Army, social welfare, health and education?
Plus the likelyhood of Loyalist terrorism as a result of unification will see tourist figures plummet.
I think the latter is overplayed. It didn't happen in Algeria when the French left - though it did from their settlers when they remained beforehand.

Regarding the costs, I think that as we become richer, and as economic reforms take root in the North e.g. subsidy cuts, privatisations, then I think yes, we will be able to afford reunification. It doesn't have to go belly-up like German unification. Unlike them, we have decades to plan for this, whereas the West Germans just assumed it wouldn't happen and then rushed into it without planning when it became a possibility. I think that the prophets of doom are wrong. We don't see Loyalist riots in Donegal for example.

I think border areas would actually benefit economically in a UI. It is no coincidence that Donegal has 17% unemployment compared to 4.4% nationally. When you erect a border, people/businesses who used to shop/trade over the border don't do so as much, and business expansion over the border is complicated by red-tape. This will go with a UI and jobs will be created.

I will vote yes for reunification as Mother Ireland would expect no less after her centuries of captivity, starvation, and violence from her forced marriage to John Bull, her divorce from whom has taken far too long and she wants an ending to the marriage once and for all.
 

Risteard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
456
meriwether said:
What inducements will we need to give Unionists in order to help pass a vote
National self-determination cannot be voted upon. It is inalienable, non-renunciable and non-judicable.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
Risteard said:
badinage said:
(i.e. re-entering the Commonwealth, etc)?
A free Ireland will not be in the British Commonwealth of Nations (the British Empire).

The National Flag does not need changed - neither does Amhrán na bhFiann.
well it won't be your concern anymore Risteard. Once the Brits have withdrawn and the PSNI, Gardai and Irish Army have been smashed by the IRA, and once the IRA has held elections for the long-overdue Third Dail, a government will be freely elected and can hold a referendum on a constitution for the 32-county state, including re-entering the Commonwealth, a new flag, new national anthem, new armed forces (disbanding the National Army/CIRA) if it chooses.
 

Risteard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
456
badinage said:
Irish Army have been smashed by the IRA
The IRA is the Irish Army (hence Irish Republican Army). Why would they smash themselves?

And the National Army can't be disbanded.
 

jjacollins

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
64
Smiffy wrote, Okay sean, if you've given such thought to the 'nuances', what do you think the main practical changes will be in the lives of the people of Ireland, North and South, resulting from this 're-unification'?
why are you always looking at the issue of a United Ireland and trying to find flaws and upsets for Unionists as a cop out??

Why not look at the positives?

A proper all Ireland national development plan.

All Irish Citizens in Ireland being ruled by their own Government.

Proper democracy being introduced to the Six Counties, where all there can benifit from having direct contact with their own National Government, a Government that will act in their interets instead of a foreign countries interests(Britain).

Give the young a chance to be a part of a solid State with an internationally recognised national identity instead of the political Grey no mans land that they come from at the moment.

No more mention of "Where do you come from? Answer Ireland, "Is that Norht or South?

Just Ireland will suffice.

We must not loose sight of the fact that Unionists are just British Citizens who live with us in Ireland, they wont be given any special advantage, Ask yourself why they should be??

And if you think they should be, then at the back of it is Loyalist terrorism.

I wont be bowing to Loyalist terrorist demands and I'm sure the Government wont either.

When it comes time for Unity, the British community of the North East will be a smaller minority than they are already and so it should only be a matter of painting the post boxes Green.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
Risteard said:
And the National Army can't be disbanded.
Oh I know. Having won a great and wonderous victory, against all odds, over the British Army, PSNI, Gardai and so-called "Irish Defence Forces", the National Army will tragically go back to being a tiny handful of lone heroes, bideing their time on the internet awaiting the moment when it is right to strike and destroy the new 32-county police force and army and hold elections to the Fourth Dail... What glories await them! We cannot but envy
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
jjacollins said:
Smiffy wrote, Okay sean, if you've given such thought to the 'nuances', what do you think the main practical changes will be in the lives of the people of Ireland, North and South, resulting from this 're-unification'?
why are you always looking at the issue of a United Ireland and trying to find flaws and upsets for Unionists as a cop out??
Because I'm not a deluded idiot like you and sean1.

Look back at the first couple of posts in this thread. sean1's whole argument is premised on the assumption that virtually every 'nationalist' voter would vote for a United Ireland if the choice was given to them. While many people would happily support 're-unification' in theory, I think the numbers mightn't be quite so high if there were actual negative economic consequences to such a change. I tried to get sean1 to think about what kind of practical consequences 're-unification' might have for the people of Northern Ireland (as without their support, there's going to no 're-unification' anyway). Given that he started this thread on 'nuances', you would think he might be open to such a discussion. Unfortunately not, though; he prefers to spout off the same, tired old vagueness about things like an all-Ireland economy without considering that actual, practical impact of change.
 

Worldbystorm

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
321
Really Risteard I'd have thought you'd realise that county council areas are administrative areas that don't necessarily have to follow lines on a pre-existing map - Fingal anyone?

As for the main thread, I find it interesting that meriwether and hbap seem to have the practicalities of a UI much better sussed than others. At a minimum we'll be looking at a radically different entity than the traditional Republic of Risteards aspirations. The idea that the 6 will be subsumed into the 26 in a simple absorption is ludicrous. It's hard to envisage that it won't require a wholesale reworking of symbolism, etc etc, and surely that's what a Republic is about, trying to express at least in part aspects of a general identity.

Unionism is simply not going to go into a UI without some sort of links with the UK. That opens another can of worms. I could see a situation where the South voted no because of say, links to the Commonwealth or a complete change in the nature of the state. And the point is that if PIRA through the armed struggle had an effective veto on the British govt, imagine how much more powerful loyalism would be in terms of vetoing change in the direction of a UI they didn't buy into.

I'm not utterly convinced that the current state of NI, with massive public sector employment, can easily be changed. At the least it would take a decade or so to wean them off that particular dependency, and that is in complete isolation from global economic events. I see no reason why the health service here could not be improved to the point where it would be the equal of the NHS, but, and people aren't going to like this, surely certain economies of scale exist with our nearest neighbour as well.

Having said all that if we can move away from the traditional model of a UI, essentially take over of the 6 counties by the South, we might be into something very interesting where economies of scale and all-island dynamics mixed with east west links contribute to a new and dynamic state. Incidentally to my mind Éire Nua was a move away, probably in the wrong direction - but a move nonetheless, from a traditional UI.
 

Risteard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
456
Worldbystorm said:
Really Risteard I'd have thought you'd realise that county council areas are administrative areas that don't necessarily have to follow lines on a pre-existing map - Fingal anyone?
It styles itself "Fingal County Council" - this does not mean that it is, in fact, a county council. There is no County of Fingal. The same applies to Tipperary North and South "Ridings" (which aren't actually ridings, as there are only two and not three).
 

ON THE ONE ROAD

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
4,611
smiffy said:
sean1 said:
Give or take a couple of per cent, the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland is about 41%.

If it were to go up to 45% within a few years, for example, then we would obviously have to start planning on a practical basis how a re-united Ireland could be implemented in the distant future.
How do you know that everyone who votes for a nationalist/republican party (I assume that's where you're getting the 41% from, as it would be very foolish to base this simply on numbers of Catholics in the six counties) would also vote for a United Ireland?
while i agree it's impossible that any group is 100% homogonous in what it whats. but wouldn't the fact that politics in the six counties is devided on the national question, isn't it resinable to presume that that 41% who vote for parties that what to change the constitutional nature of the 6 counties is the nearest thing to a guide of predicting future political trends on the constitutional issue in the six counties. and while i agree your right that it would be nieve to believe that because 41% now vote for nationalist republician parties that a ui is invevitable but is it not resionable to say that because of such a large vote for N/R parties it's nieve to rule it out aswell.
 

Worldbystorm

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
321
Risteard said:
Worldbystorm said:
Really Risteard I'd have thought you'd realise that county council areas are administrative areas that don't necessarily have to follow lines on a pre-existing map - Fingal anyone?
It styles itself "Fingal County Council" - this does not mean that it is, in fact, a county council. There is no County of Fingal. The same applies to Tipperary North and South "Ridings" (which aren't actually ridings, as there are only two and not three).
No, surely not?

And how does that change anything one way or another?
 

sean1

Active member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
104
Website
www.gaelport.com
smiffy said:
Look back at the first couple of posts in this thread. sean1's whole argument is premised on the assumption that virtually every 'nationalist' voter would vote for a United Ireland if the choice was given to them.
Show me one post where I said that.

smiffy said:
I tried to get sean1 to think about what kind of practical consequences 're-unification' might have for the people of Northern Ireland
smiffy said:
Given that he started this thread on 'nuances', you would think he might be open to such a discussion. Unfortunately not, though; he prefers to spout off the same, tired old vagueness about things like an all-Ireland economy without considering that actual, practical impact of change.
I just told you. It comes down to you disagreeing that a re-united Ireland (sorry a 're-united' Ireland :roll:) will have practical benefits for the people living there, or that the benefits of staying within the UK would be better for the people living there. To suggest that I have not argued that there are practical benefits is raiméis, although I don't find such crap surprising coming from you. I've gotten used to your shi*te, you prat.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
sean1 said:
smiffy said:
Look back at the first couple of posts in this thread. sean1's whole argument is premised on the assumption that virtually every 'nationalist' voter would vote for a United Ireland if the choice was given to them.
Show me one post where I said that.
sean1 said:
Given that they are Nationalist parties, I would presume that they would vote for a re-united Ireland.
;)

sean1 said:
I just told you. It comes down to you disagreeing that a re-united Ireland (sorry a 're-united' Ireland :roll:) will have practical benefits for the people living there, or that the benefits of staying within the UK would be better for the people living there. To suggest that I have not argued that there are practical benefits is raiméis, although I don't find such crap surprising coming from you. I've gotten used to your shi*te, you prat.
That's not what I said. I've been asking you to think about what the practical choices people might be faced with are. Stuff like dental charges, social welfare benefits, access to health services, public housing etc. Those are the kinds of things that will be high priorities for a lot of people if and when the actual choice is put to them, not the advantages of having an all-Ireland tourist board. Now, if you don't want to deal with them, that's fine. I don't really expect you to. But you might want to actually read what I'm saying before you reply again.

There are also the kinds of issues that people like meriweather, hbap and others are talking about (Commonwealth membership, changes to national emblems etc). The reason I've been ignoring those is because I've been concentrating on possible objections on the part of NI residents. However, as Libero said, the acceptance of 're-unification' by the residents of the Republic shouldn't be taken for granted either.
 

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,247
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
Frankly, having sold us out before, the 26 counties has no moral position to reject unification. It owes at least as much to the people of the six counties, especially in light of the appalling abuses we suffered as a result.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
JCSkinner said:
Frankly, having sold us out before, the 26 counties has no moral position to reject unification. It owes at least as much to the people of the six counties, especially in light of the appalling abuses we suffered as a result.
That may well be true (although I'm sure there's an argument in there somewhere), but people don't always vote on the basis of their moral obligations.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top