Social Welfare Reform Bill

donegaLroad

sorry if there already is a thread on this subject in another forum... I cant find it if there is.

I looked up the Social Welfare Reform Bill last night in an attempt to find a breakdown of figures and what the reforms will mean to the average person. The amount that is being cut from Northern Ireland's budget sounded extremely large considering the small population, and there is very little word about it either in the news or on the street. I live over the border in Donegal so businesses here will most likely be affected by these cuts. Not to mention how people's lives will be affected by the cuts in Northern Ireland.

I had a flick through a paper that was written on the reform bill, and some of the statistics make for worrying reading. The NW will be hit the hardest, as it has the largest number of people claiming benefits.

Why is Northern Ireland being hit so hard?

SeanW

Why it's happening is very simple - Northern Ireland used to get a big block grant from Westminster every year.

But the London government is cutting out these transfers, and Northern Ireland has to adjust.

Karl Stein

SeanW wrote: »

the London government is cutting out these transfers, and Northern Ireland has to adjust.

Interesting that you describe it as a 'London Government' and not the UK or British gov.

I've often wondered if there are plans in place to cut the north loose. The gradual withdrawal of the dependency subvention and the opportunity to grant the north a lower rate of corporation tax are are clear signs that the British were serious when they stated that they had no selfish or strategic interest in the north.

donegaLroad

Karl Stein wrote: »

Interesting that you describe it as a 'London Government' and not the UK or British gov.

I've often wondered if there are plans in place to cut the north loose. The gradual withdrawal of the dependency subvention and the opportunity to grant the north a lower rate of corporation tax are are clear signs that the British were serious when they stated that they had no selfish or strategic interest in the north.

And Stormount wss green yesterday...!

The Corinthian

Karl Stein wrote: »

I've often wondered if there are plans in place to cut the north loose.

Yup. British public opinion would dump NI in a heartbeat. I expect what we're seeing is a very slow removal of the safety wheels so as to bring NI to the point that it could either unite with the Republic or become an independent state at some stage in the future.

A good few years ago, I remember discussing it with an English conservative party MP and he noted that Westminster probably regrets partition a lot more than the Dail.

Karl Stein

The Corinthian wrote: »

A good few years ago, I remember discussing it with an English conservative party MP and he noted that Westminster probably regrets partition a lot more than the Dail.

Afaia the border was drawn with the intention of the balance tipping at some point in the future* (TV programme so can't reference). If the British had wanted an insurmountable majority the border would have been drawn considerably further into Ulster towards the north east of the island.

*Ignoring that a lot of Nationalists aren't all that bothered with a UI currently.

Godge

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yup. British public opinion would dump NI in a heartbeat. I expect what we're seeing is a very slow removal of the safety wheels so as to bring NI to the point that it could either unite with the Republic or become an independent state at some stage in the future.

A good few years ago, I remember discussing it with an English conservative party MP and he noted that Westminster probably regrets partition a lot more than the Dail.

don't underestimate the attachment to the Empire, with the Falklands and Northern Ireland being some of the few remaining bits.

Karl Stein

Godge wrote: »

don't underestimate the attachment to the Empire, with the Falklands and Northern Ireland being some of the few remaining bits.

Whose attachment?

The BGov explicitly said they have 'no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland'. Do you understand what that means?

So attached the British were that they 'threatened to pull the plug' according to Ian Paisley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pumM9jcVTqM

jank

It is interesting that historically both Ireland and the UK fought over NI and now it seems no one wants it anymore. NI is too small and too reliant on subvention to be independent and viable as a state so it has to either be with the UK or with Ireland. I don't think Irish people will do a Germany on it and sacrifice their own pockets for 10 years in order to unite the two economically. Never-mind that Ireland would need a new constitution which would devolve some power to the provinces in order to appease the Unionists somewhat.

The Corinthian

Godge wrote: »

don't underestimate the attachment to the Empire, with the Falklands and Northern Ireland being some of the few remaining bits.

Not sure if that really plays a part. Ireland, and now NI, were not strictly speaking part of 'the Empire', but of the United Kingdom (ironically the Irish Free State was as it had dominion status).

The impression I get is that British identity is as much a question of convenience or of not being part of the Republic as anything else for the loyalist community.

Full Marx

Karl Stein wrote: »

Whose attachment?

The BGov explicitly said they have 'no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland'. Do you understand what that means?

So attached the British were that they 'threatened to pull the plug' according to Ian Paisley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pumM9jcVTqM

It is not widely known but when drafting that statement the British government refused republican requests to insert a comma after selfish - quite significant as to the meaning and sentiment of the statement I'm sure you will agree.

The British have long term strategic interests in maintaining a presence in Ireland - they have had for hundreds of years, why would this change?

The north has long been a headache for London but so has every overseas colony or territory throughout the history of the British Empire, they are experts at managing these headaches.

As to the social welfare bill - all this is is more evidence of DUP duplicity. It was agreed at the talks that current and future claimants - the most vulnerable in society - would be fully protected. The DUP backed out of this and dodged meetings with SF (including Robinson not showing up to a scheduled meeting between himself and Martin McGuinness) forcing SF to block the Bill, putting the institutions on the brink of collapse.

The reaction from southern politicians and hacks has been amusing. First of all SF were accused of implementing austerity and betraying their voters, now that they have took steps to defend those very people by holding the DUP to their word they are not fit to govern. laughable.

The Corinthian

Full Marx wrote: »

The British have long term strategic interests in maintaining a presence in Ireland - they have had for hundreds of years, why would this change?

Secret deposits of coal for their fleet of imperial ironclads?

Full Marx

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secret deposits of coal for their fleet of imperial ironclads?

No need to be glib!

In the second world war the north was of vital strategic importance to Britain. At the beginning of the troubles those in power were largely WW2 veterans and had not forgotten this, hence they took steps to protect their interest. It would be naive in the extreme to believe that all of Britain's efforts to quell unrest were down to respect for some quasi form of democracy - especially when we remember that they showed no regard for democracy either in setting up NI or happily ignoring abuses by their installed Unionist govt for decades. Or as Lord Birkenhead put it, partition was "protecting English interests with an economy of English lives"

Essentially Britian's enduring interest in Ireland is about protecting its Western flank, militarily as well as economically by ensuring Ireland did not become volatile (like a certain island off the coast of Florida). Even today Ireland remains of high importance to Britain for these reasons and well as to Nato and the Americans - Ireland is well placed, with tensions rising once again with Russia this is especially the case. So while Britains strategic interest may not be (in their eyes) selfish, they have interests none the less. The bulk of their concern comes down to a series of potential "what ifs". While Britain has a stake in Ireland they can exert a great degree of control over it. If they did not they would be vulnerable to the "what ifs".

Or do you think they hold on to the north for the craic? FWIW every country has strategic interests, it is not necessarily a malevolent thing, with Generals and Cameron cackling over a map of Ireland in Whitehall. It's just that not every country has the power to protect their interests. And when such a country does just that, the natives suffer. The history of Ireland is testament to that.

The Corinthian

Full Marx wrote: »

No need to be glib!

I'm questioning your use of the present tense. That a foothold in Ireland was of strategic importance 70 years ago, I won't deny, but that importance has also undeniably decreased to the point that it's cost easily outweighs any value on today's geopolitical stage.

Or do you think they hold on to the north for the craic?

No, I think they hold on to the north because they're basically stuck with it. Politically they need a viable pretext to pull out, and that is simply not there at present.

Full Marx

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm questioning your use of the present tense. That a foothold in Ireland was of strategic importance 70 years ago, I won't deny, but that importance has also undeniably decreased to the point that it's cost easily outweighs any value on today's geopolitical stage.

No, I think they hold on to the north because they're basically stuck with it. Politically they need a viable pretext to pull out, and that is simply not there at present.

Why do you think it stopped being strategically important? Why do you think it was strategically important in the first place? You don't think it was during the cold war?

If they wanted a pretext for something they would manufacture one... as we have seen infinite times over the years, especially in the middle east.

The Corinthian

Full Marx wrote: »

Why do you think it stopped being strategically important? Why do you think it was strategically important in the first place? You don't think it was during the cold war?

Ireland was important in the past in scenarios where a threat of invasion to Britain was an issue. NI held importance because of it's ship building industry, which is no longer what it was.

And Ireland in general was not particularly important during the cold war - from what I gather, it's where both the CIA and KGB sent all their useless assets. Indeed, if so strategically important, how come there was little or no cold war activity in Ireland?

That's not to say that if you think very hard, you won't come up with some strategic benefit to Britain to retain NI, but it's not worth the hassle or cost.

If they wanted a pretext for something they would manufacture one... as we have seen infinite times over the years, especially in the middle east.

OK then, what manufactured pretext, that has not come out of a fantasy island script, might you suggest the British invent so as to let them dump NI without a mother load of political fallout?