Thursday 7 January 2010

Fair's fair

This blog has, over the past couple of months, carried a number of stories that demonstrated that the south was not the sort of poor third-world banana-republic that unionists used to claim. In fact, as this blog pointed out, in terms of direct British-Irish comparison the south is:
These comparisons were made not in order to crow – this blog would like all of Ireland's people to enjoy long, happy, healthy and wealthy lives – but in order to remove from the debate some of the misconceptions that muddy the discussion of Irish reunification. In a nutshell, if there are fewer rational reasons to object to Irish reunification then the debate must focus on what is left – the irrational reasons. If unionism cannot use issues of wealth or public service provision to defend its border, then its border becomes less and less defensible.

Today, though, in a spirit of honesty and openness, this blog must make reference to a new survey – the 2010 Quality of Life Index, published by International Living magazine.

The Index 'ranks and rates 194 countries to come up with a list of the places that offer the best quality of life'. To produce the annual Index International Living considers nine categories: Cost of Living, Culture and Leisure, Economy, Environment, Freedom, Health, Infrastructure, Safety and Risk, and Climate. They take data from the following sources to compile the Quality of Life Index:

UNESCO Statistical Yearbook; Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties; United States Department of Commerce; U.S. State Department; The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention; The Freedom House Survey; Statistical Abstract of the United States; The World Factbook; The World Almanac and Book of Facts; U.S. Department of State Indexes of Living Costs Abroad, Quarters Allowances, and Hardship Differentials; The World Health Organization; The Economist World in Figures. And they ask their editors from around the world to comment on their official findings to give a more realistic view of the numbers.

The full methodology, including the weightings used, is provided on their website.

The bad news, from this blog's perspective, is that Ireland scores slightly lower than Britain: 41st place against Britain's 25th place. Neither place is, of course, very good – both are beaten by countries like Belgium, Lithuania, Portugal and Hungary!

10% of the Index's weight is given on the basis of climate, which is not something that anyone can do much about, so the slightly higher score given to Britain than to Ireland seems unfair. If the true comparison is between the north and the south of Ireland, of course, the climate score should be adjusted to reflect the reality that both parts enjoy an equally poor climate.

The 2010 Quality of Life Index can easily be criticised – it is a rather unscientific compilation made by a commercial magazine publisher –what it includes, or excludes, and the weightings given to the factors included are open to question. Dramatic changes in scores given to slow-evolving issues (health, environment, etc) from 2009 to 2010 call the whole thing into question. Nonetheless, in a spirit of fairness this blog would simply like to record that in this one unscientific example, the UK has come out higher than the south of Ireland.

50 comments:

Garza said...

Horseman.

Out of interest if Northern Ireland becomes a better place to live than down south would you abandon your desire for a United Ireland?

If not all these argument about better living in the South are moot as it does not matter if Northern Ireland becomes the richest place on earth and ROI becomes a hellhole you would still desire a United Ireland.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I was going to ask the same question. The reality is that living standards across borders tend to swing this way and that. If this discussion was taking place fifty years ago, I presume Horseman would be advocating The ROI beg to be readmitted to The UK. National identity has little to do with living standards.

Nordie Northsider said...

Horseman wrote: ...the climate score should be adjusted to reflect the reality that both parts enjoy an equally poor climate

In the wake of floods (and in the middle of a new mini-Ice Age), it may be a spectacularly bad time to praise the Irish climate -but it's not really so bad you know. Many parched nations (Spain, Greece, parts of France and Italy) will increasingly envy us all that lovely rain and the crisis brought on by this cold spell just reinforces the fact that we do not have really awful winters as a rule. These temperatures are par for the course in winter over much of central, eastern and northern europe.

Garza raises an interesting point about living standards and their influence on constitutional preferences. I remember hearing Sammy Wilson say that he didn't care if the Republic was richer or not; the two state solution for him was more a question of identity. So it is with Nationalists too, I suppose. For much of the post-partition period an united Ireland would probably have meant a drop a living standards for Northern nationalists but that was a sacrifice they were willing to make. Just goes to show politics can't always be reduced to bread and butter issues.

Anonymous said...

That's why most of the issues raised on this blog, whether they are real or just one sided versions of reality, will have absolutely no effect on contemporary Unionist thinking. Even without IRA violence, Unionists quite simply have no interest in giving up their UK identity. If any of them aspire to a higher standard of living, they could always move to part of The Mainland, they don't need a United Ireland for that. In fact many do - as do many Northern Catholics (and indeed those from The Republic).

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 16.33: spot on.

I'm a Catholic who moved to England in search of a better life myself.

I think the "Irish Question" is only about economics for the very wealthy; so industrialists in Ulster were dead against Home Rule a century ago and southern businessmen wanted Home Rule, both because they thought their particular political arrangement would enrich them. Not to come across like some student trot, but he average Joes in the street that did the fighting and dying stood to gain very little either way. Always the way I suppose.

Ironically nowadays wealthy northern businessmen are probably for the most part quite happy with closer links between NI and RoI, and southern businessmen celebrate the rapprochement with GB. With us all in the EU we're all going to have a decent standard of living no matter what the arrangement is in these islands.

But ordinary taigs and huns cling to their old ideology with almost religious fervour. Myself included I have to admit. It's difficult to see a way around it.

Horseman said...

Anonymous at 7 January 2010 16:33,

If you think that this blog is trying to have an "effect on contemporary Unionist thinking" then I think that you misunderstand it.

One of the purposes of this blog is simply to demonstrate that, regardless of unonist thinking, a Catholic majority, followed by a nationalist majority (as you admit, identity is fairly inflexible) is a virtual inevitability. Irish reunification will then follow.

If unionists are addressed at all in this blog it is in the form of gentle suggestion that they might (but only might) improve their situation by ditching their sectarianism, and that they will certainly improve their future situation by adjusting to the reality of a united Ireland. And, as the blog tries to show, that future UI could be a pretty good place for all of us.

Garza said...

"If unionists are addressed at all in this blog it is in the form of gentle suggestion that they might (but only might) improve their situation by ditching their sectarianism."

How is wanting to stay in the Union sectarianism exactly?

"that future UI could be a pretty good place for all of us."

The future in being in the UK could be a pretty place for us all as well.

Anonymous said...

Horseman said:

"If you think that this blog is trying to have an "effect on contemporary Unionist thinking" then I think that you misunderstand it."

Well, it's good to have that cleared up and I welcome your candour.

"One of the purposes of this blog is simply to demonstrate that, regardless of unonist thinking, a Catholic majority, followed by a nationalist majority (as you admit, identity is fairly inflexible) is a virtual inevitability. Irish reunification will then follow."

Well, I agree that Protestant opinion is pretty inflexible and is almost totally Unionist in outlook. Catholic thinking is much more vague, as plenty of opinion polls show. A Catholic majority is not certain and a Nationalist majority even less so. As for a United Ireland, well there's plenty of reasons why that won't happen beyond simple demographics. The ROI couldn't afford it for one. Secondly, no Irish government will take on a million Unionists containing thousands of potential gun men/bombers - that just won't happen. In the long term (over twenty years from now), I suspect there'll be three groups in NI, all about the same size - Unionists, Nationalists and others. A border poll will depend on the feelings of the 'others' at the time it's called. I suspect a majority of them will vote for the status quo - why would they do otherwise? That's assuming The UK State calls any border poll - after all, it's under no obligation to do so.

"If unionists are addressed at all in this blog it is in the form of gentle suggestion that they might (but only might) improve their situation by ditching their sectarianism, and that they will certainly improve their future situation by adjusting to the reality of a united Ireland. And, as the blog tries to show, that future UI could be a pretty good place for all of us."

How would Unionists adjusting their attitudes now help them in any future United Ireland? Specifically?

hoboroad said...

http://www.advantage-ni.com/site/NewsItem.aspx?newsid=263&catid=7&id=108

hoboroad said...

http://www.castlereagh.gov.uk/newsitem.asp?id=110

Horseman said...

Garza,

Wanting to stay in the UK is not sectarian, any more than wanting to leave it. But it happens that there is a close correlation between anti-Catholic bigotry and unionism. You, I, and the dogs in the street know that. My point is that the removal of such bigotry can only be in the interests of both groups, Catholics and Protestants.

The UK could be a good place, and frequently is. So are all western countries (I've lived in a few, and visited most others). Unfortunately for unionists, though, the persistence of anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigotry amongst NI unionists tends to sour the image of the UK. Essentially many non-unionists or non-Protestants see the bigots and say 'if that's Britishness, then sod it'. Hence the value for unionists of ditching the bigotry - marches, flags, nay-saying, and all of it. Unionists may think 'their' country is all Notting Hill and the Home Counties, but until they adopt the attitudes that accompany those concepts, then NI can never be 'that' UK. On the other hand, natonalists see a liberal democracy to the south that they can feel comfortable with. Do you see the point here?

Horseman said...

Anonymous at 7 January 2010 19:44,

You're entitled to your views on the demographic and democratic prognosis. I have mine, and this blog reflects them. If you think your views are right, then develop them at length (as I do), and put them out for scrutiny. I'll happily discuss them with you, but your list of categorical 'facts' without any supporting data is pointless. And your veiled threats of men with guns and bombs are contemptible.

"How would Unionists adjusting their attitudes now help them in any future United Ireland?"

Specifically, by adjusting their warped views (some, not all) about the south, about Catholicism, and about nationalism. I have no doubt that you have read some of the more idiotic comments that this site attracts - all racism and innuendo about priests! The kind of unionist that thinks like that is going to find life in a UI very hard to take. But the unionists (and they are a quiet but large number) who know the south, and are comfortable there will have little trouble 'adjusting', because they know that at the end of the day we're all pretty similar.

Anonymous said...

Then there's no problem is there. Two nations of similar people (The ROI and The UK) living side by side in prosperity and peace.

Wonderful.

The only thing that would upset that reality is any attempt to coerce Unionism as a whole into an independent United Ireland. Unfortunately that would indeed play into the hands of the 'contemptible' men of violence, probably armed by groups within The UK State itself. That's not a threat Horseman, merely my analysis.

Horseman said...

"Two nations of similar people (The ROI and The UK) living side by side in prosperity and peace.
"


And therein, Anonymous, lies the point of this blog. Once the number of Catholics (and then nationalists) in NI exceeds that of Protestants (and then unionists), the two nations will each have their own island. The ROI will be a 32 county entity, and assuming your men of violence are put down, we will indeed all live in peace and prosperity.

Soon, I hope.

Anonymous said...

Who'll put them down? It took 40 000 well trained and well armed UK soldiers and policemen twenty five years to finally break PIRA and bring us to where we are. PIRA were drawn from a community of half a million, Unionism is a community of a million. I look forward to your answer.

Soon, I hope.

Anonymous said...

PIRA had millions of dollars, weapons, and political support from the USA.

PIRA had tons of explosives, RPG's, and machine guns coming from Libia.

PIRA had links to numerous other groups exchanging training and expertize.

The only thing going for loyalist groups during the troubles was that they had the indirect backing of the security forces. Even then the only thing they were good at was going around shooting civilians.

Where would support for loyalists come from?

How would they manage when they have the security forces working against them instead of along side them?

Anonymous said...

The unionists don't have the support either in Britain or the the rest of the world to do anything remotely similar to the PIRA campaign.

I doubt the PIRA would have been as successful in a post 9/11 environment with banking laws and drones.

No doubt there would be trouble if unification ever happened, but it would be confined to the loyalist ghetto areas and would sizzle out when they realize that they have absolutely no support.

You need a real reason for large scale resistance to take place. The resistance to the civil rights movement was the only reason that the PIRA was ever able to gain the support of the people.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"PIRA had millions of dollars, weapons, and political support from the USA.

PIRA had tons of explosives, RPG's, and machine guns coming from Libia.

PIRA had links to numerous other groups exchanging training and expertize.

The only thing going for loyalist groups during the troubles was that they had the indirect backing of the security forces. Even then the only thing they were good at was going around shooting civilians.

Where would support for loyalists come from?

How would they manage when they have the security forces working against them instead of along side them?"

The only security forces they'd have working against them would be The Irish. I don't think I need to expand on that...

Killing civilians worked - it was one of the main reasons PIRA called off their campaign. I know, brutal wasn't it?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"The unionists don't have the support either in Britain or the the rest of the world to do anything remotely similar to the PIRA campaign."

The support, or lack off, in 'the rest of the world' would be completely irrelevant. As for support in Britain, it certainly exists and in all sections of society. Try not to believe your own propaganda. The views of millions of UK immigrants who can hardly spell their own name will have no relevance in any future conflict. UK opinion polls mean sweet FA.

"I doubt the PIRA would have been as successful in a post 9/11 environment with banking laws and drones."

Again, absolute rubbish. PIRA would have been almost completely unaffected by 9/11 had they chosen to continue their campaign. What matters is to have a steady stream of willing volunteers. With that anything can be achieved. Remember PIRA were fighting a liberal democracy, not The SS. The same would apply to Loyalists in any future conflict with The ROI.

"No doubt there would be trouble if unification ever happened, but it would be confined to the loyalist ghetto areas and would sizzle out when they realize that they have absolutely no support."

Well, we'd certainly see wouldn't we? Dublin's only a car ride away, as are all other ROI population centres.

"You need a real reason for large scale resistance to take place. The resistance to the civil rights movement was the only reason that the PIRA was ever able to gain the support of the people."

Nonsense. Civil rights certainly gave PIRA an opportunity, but ultimately, once the violence was begun, it was self-perpetuating. It was based upon the ancient tribal divide between The Irish and The Ulster British - a divide that would still exist in any future attempt to incorporate The Ulster British into a United Ireland.

Anonymous said...

The hardline loyalists here have less confidence in their own community than I do.

Most Catholics got on with life in the UK even if they weren't satisfied with the arrangement. They're still in the UK, still unhappy enough to be voting for Sinn Fein in large numbers, but the place is for the most part peaceful, and they're content to try to change things democratically.

Most Protestants would be the same if the people of NI voted for a United Ireland.

Anonymous said...

McCann said:

"Well, we'd certainly see wouldn't we? Dublin's only a car ride away, as are all other ROI population centres. "

You are bloody pathetic you clown. Just use your real name if you're going to make threats. How do I know it's you? You've left about three of your signature calling cards in your post. One of them is your insistence on the term "Ulster British", which hardly anyone else but you uses.

I'm not going to tell you the rest. It'll only help you hide yourself you coward. Incidentally, did you get much involved in the troubles while it was raging? Dublin's a bit harder to reach from Yorkshire.

Anonymous said...

Andrew loves to embarrass unionism with his bluster. His threats are such a lot of hot air, and thankfully most unionists are nothing like him.

On his use of racist language on A Tangled Web: "If 'nigger' is good enough for Agatha Christie and Joseph Conrad, it's good enough for me."

To which a Loyalist poster responded:



"Andrew,

Jaun was not thumb sucking - he had a very relevant point. You are sometimes a major embarrasment to Unionists.

You are, at times, Racist, crass, crudely anti-Irish - playing up to the untrue streotype that Unionists think they are superior.

While many of us are grateful that you would stand by the Unionist cause, you are, at this point an embarrasment.

Please Stop."

Anonymous said...

The two guys above are the ultimate 'thick micks' - they think every Unionist poster is the same person.

No wonder they lost.

Anonymous said...

Lol

I know mate - thick as champ. I wonder are they from Ulster, or just bar stool Irish, or even plastic paddies from else where?

McCann probably spent his formative years sucking priest's cocks - and I suspect is still at it!

Probably rents his kids out!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The two guys above are the ultimate 'thick micks' - they think every Unionist poster is the same person.

You don't get it do you Andy? Unionists- REAL Unionists that live in Ulster, very very rarely refer to their opposition as "micks" and "paddies". And rarely is being generous; I have never in my life heard them say that. Nationalists, yes. Republicans, of course. Catholics, sometimes. Fenian/taig- on the street, aye. But not paddy. The only people that call us paddies are people from abroad.

How many rabid English Unionists do you think are here apart from you? You're embarrassing yourself lad.

Anonymous said...

Lol

Thicko's back. The phrase 'Mick' is used all the time in Ulster - perhaps Thicko doesn't know as much as thinks.

Lol

Thick paddy!

Anonymous said...

Ye mate,

The thick paddy doesn't realise that 'REAL Unionists' live all over The UK!

Thick Irish Cunt!

LOL

Anonymous said...

You know you really should attempt to try to change your writing style if you are trying to make yourself appear to be two people.

22:37
22:34

Ivan said...

McCann,
The Free State government in 1922,using state terror, crushed the anti-Treatyites in less than a year. The anti-Treatyites controlled large swathes of territory, were militarily experienced, well-armed, and had the support of about 40% of the population.
In comparison dealing with unionist irreconcilables in the aftermath of a pro-UI vote would be like swatting a fly.
One thing that turns my stomach is someone threatening car bombs or whatever and then trying to deviously allow just a sliver of 'deniablity' wriggle room by presenting it as an analysis-based forecast rather than a threat.

Anonymous said...

"Again, absolute rubbish. PIRA would have been almost completely unaffected by 9/11"


What a load of crap. Their main source of funding would have dried up. Overnight the US went from never having experienced any large scale terrorist attack from a foreign source to having large passenger jets crashing into skyscrapers.

The USA would have sold out any favoritism towards the IRA for the support of the British government in the War on Terror.

Pro-unification politicians like Ted Kennedy or Peter King changed beliefs.

What was the murder of Robert McCartney so tragic that Ted Kennedy finally turned against Sinn Fein?

After all, its not like the IRA had bombed and killed prior to that.....

Peter King wasn't so pro-IRA after they didn't support the continuation of the War on Terror in Iraq.

Libya shit their pants after the invasion of Iraq and decided to come into the world community.

So how exactly would the IRA have been unaffected by 9/11 if the two main sources of funding and weapons turned on them??????

Anonymous said...

Ivan The Moron said:

"McCann,
The Free State government in 1922,using state terror, crushed the anti-Treatyites in less than a year. The anti-Treatyites controlled large swathes of territory, were militarily experienced, well-armed, and had the support of about 40% of the population.
In comparison dealing with unionist irreconcilables in the aftermath of a pro-UI vote would be like swatting a fly."

What a giggle. The ROI would be subject to exactly the same scrutiny as The UK was when dealing with PIRA - no 'flies' would be swatted, or else perhaps Ivan The Moron could explain why the massive power of The UK state found it so difficult to swat The PIRA 'fly'? PIRA only had at most the support of 35% of NI's population. Poor Ivan - LOL...

"One thing that turns my stomach is someone threatening car bombs or whatever and then trying to deviously allow just a sliver of 'deniablity' wriggle room by presenting it as an analysis-based forecast rather than a threat."

Well, it doesn't really matter either way does it? I think that any attempt to impose a UI on Ulster's Unionists would deliver hell on earth to The Republic's population - but perhaps I'm wrong? One thing's for sure, no future Irish Government will want to find out.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"What a load of crap. Their main source of funding would have dried up. Overnight the US went from never having experienced any large scale terrorist attack from a foreign source to having large passenger jets crashing into skyscrapers."

SF needed legal funding - PIRA did not. If it needed cash it could easily have stolen it (as indeed it did!).

"The USA would have sold out any favoritism towards the IRA for the support of the British government in the War on Terror."

Mind blowing. The US STATE had no favouritism towards The IRA - only a hand full of plastic paddies, whose military worth was very high in the '70s, but was minuscule following that.

"Pro-unification politicians like Ted Kennedy or Peter King changed beliefs."

Of minor interest to PIRA.

"What was the murder of Robert McCartney so tragic that Ted Kennedy finally turned against Sinn Fein?"

If PIRA had continued their commitment to violence, McCartney's death would have been irrelevant. They killed plenty of RC civilians during the conflict you know.

"Libya shit their pants after the invasion of Iraq and decided to come into the world community."

The problem was PIRA already had the arms and explosives to continue their campaign indefinitely, IF THEY COULD FIND THE VOLUNTEERS. Several tonnes of SEMTEX, I believe.

"So how exactly would the IRA have been unaffected by 9/11 if the two main sources of funding and weapons turned on them??????"

As I've explained already, if they wanted cash they could steal it and they already had the arms and munitions to carry out an indefinite campaign. PIRA killed most prolifically in the early '70s without Libya and with minimal support from The States. VOLUNTEERS are key, everything is obtainable.

Of course, all this pre-supposes you are fighting a liberal democracy like The UK or The ROI. The SS would have just exterminated PIRA in a matter of months.

Anonymous said...

Andy the armchair general.

Ivan said...

''Andy the armchair general.''
Well said. In my experience guys like Andy who spew forth blood and thunder actually scurry for cover the moment any shooting starts.

Anonymous said...

You're not talking to 'Andy'. And even if you are, it makes no difference whether 'Andy' is a coward or if I'm a coward - the analysis remains accurate.

You see boys, there was a war and your side lost. Too bad. Get on with your lives.

Ivan said...

Well, it doesn't really matter either way does it? I think that any attempt to impose a UI on Ulster's Unionists would deliver hell on earth to The Republic's population - but perhaps I'm wrong? One thing's for sure, no future Irish Government will want to find out.
If a majority in the north were to vote for a UI any attempt to subvert their wishes would unleash bedlam. Perhaps dissidents in tha scenario would be treated with kid gloves by the ROI. I don't think they would ''want to find out''.

Ivan said...

You see boys, there was a war and your side lost. Too bad. Get on with your lives.
I presume by 'your side' you mean SFIRA. Let us leave aside the complex issue of whether or not their agenda was advanced by the 'war'.
This is a whopping great nonsequitur. Not everyone who speaks out against McCannist moronicity is/was an SFIRA supporter

Anonymous said...

Ivan said:

"If a majority in the north were to vote for a UI any attempt to subvert their wishes would unleash bedlam. Perhaps dissidents in tha scenario would be treated with kid gloves by the ROI. I don't think they would ''want to find out''."

I've no doubt that in the scenario we speak of that violence would be wide spread and not limited to one source. However, it would be unlikely in the extreme that militant Republicans would target The Irish Government or the people of The Republic - PIRA didn't. It would be Loyalist violence that The Irish State would fear.

Anonymous said...

Ivan said:

"I presume by 'your side' you mean SFIRA. Let us leave aside the complex issue of whether or not their agenda was advanced by the 'war'.
This is a whopping great nonsequitur. Not everyone who speaks out against McCannist moronicity is/was an SFIRA supporter"

Well, I can't speak for your friend 'Andy', but you seem to be suggesting that his venom is reserved for SF/IRA and their supporters? Fair enough. I on the other hand saw the enemy as the entire Pan Nationalist Front and still do so. Anyone who wishes to destroy The UK or attack it's people would be my enemies. I'm reasonably happy with things as they are and see a future with NI firmly within The Union. Nationalists who live in Northern Ireland are free to feel Irish and practice their culture as they see fit, providing they do not threaten the position of The Ulster British within The UK. Now, I can't say fairer than that can I?

Anonymous said...

"Well, I can't speak for your friend 'Andy'"

I got this far and stopped.

Anonymous said...

We have been here before with this idiot preaching from his pulpit. He is English living on John Bull`s island and casting a cold and caustic eye upon the emerald isle. His personal experiences of Ireland seem to be confined to when he was amongst us as a member of the parachute regiment. Need I say more about his rants of abuse, name calling and those veiled threats. Democracy and its potential consequences abhor and frighten him.
Personally, I wonder why. Actually, no I dont, go away Andy and concider the many ills of your own country and stop making an idiot of yourself pretending to understand Ireland and the Irish. You have nothing constructive to add to this blog --BEGONE--

MPG .....

Ivan said...

Now, I can't say fairer than that can I?
If at any stage there is a failure
to respect a pro-UI outcome in a referendum the wrath from nationalist Ireland will be righteous and terrible.

Anonymous said...

The wrath you speak of will in all practical levels be limited to Northern Ireland. I don't recall those in The ROI rallying to the colors during the troubles - far from it. The Irish are full of piss and wind. In any case there is more chance of an Irish Priest turning down a naked school boy than of a UI referendum ever being called.

Dream on paddies, that's all your good at.

Ivan said...

Ouch, I detect a raw nerve being tickled!
The only 'dream' is McCann's thunder of hooves from Catholic unionists which is being made all the more ephemeral by his pathological priest references. Incidentally reading through the lines of McCann's fulminations there are oblique signs that demographic realities are penetrating.

Anonymous said...

Ulster Catholics wouldn't be voting on the basis of how Unionist's see their religion - they'll be voting their pocket book, same as the bog hoppers in The South. Only one outcome I'm afraid.

Ivan said...

McCann,
You are educationally subnormal. Your knowledge of economics is as pathetic as your grasp of history , politics etc.

Anonymous said...

It all depends on HOW you define quality of life. HOW do you place a value on culture? If it could be shown that bringing 20 million Chinese into Ireland would raise the standard of living by 25% would it be worth it? The Irish would be a small minority in their own country and their culture and customs would die out.

paul said...

u ask horseman would he want a united ireland if the north was richer. the answer is probably yes, and why, well its in the interest of fairness. the brits are in the north unfairly and they have historically and matter a factly taken the lives of millions of the ppl of my nation. unfairness you see, has a tendency to rag at you. horseman's want for a united Ireland comes natural, because Ireland is ireland, not england. the english in an historical sense, were happy for us to die and have a pathetic existence, because they fought it just MIGHT have made their lives a tiny bit better. its called selfish bullying, with no honour. u see that rags normal ppl, always has. have u ever noticed unionists never want anything, they just dont want nationalist to have anything. wierd no-identity spoil sports. genuinely sickening

Anonymous said...

Bull - The English aren't Irish Nationalism's main problem, The Ulster British are. Are you really suggesting that if everyone in NI voted Nationalist, that 'The English' would hold NI by force?

paul said...

point missed