Reunification Question

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Cameron and Osbourne have both stated that as regions are handed greater tax raising powers a corresponding reduction in the block grant will occur. Eventually the Barnett Formula will disappear, and too right given it's a grossly unfair and ill thought out mechanism for disbursal of state money to regions.

Can you provide an example where they said that?

As for being unfair, from my own experience of working there and dealing with it, I know how unfair it is to the English regions, but it is hardly unfair to NI and Scotland who receive more on a per capita basis than Wales and England

The figures vary slightly every year, but in 2012-2013 Northern Ireland got the most - £10,876 per head.

Scotland got £10,152 per head and Wales, despite being much poorer, got £9,709. England received £8,529.

The UK average was £8,788.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

And another poll shows nearly 70% of the population would support tax rises if it meant a UI. But for some reason those polls are rejected by you.

In fact what is this obsession you have with taxation? I have no problem paying more taxes to fund reunification so I don't get this Teahadist like attitude towards taxation.

I'm not rejecting the IT poll, if that's the one you are referring to, I just rebutted with a more recent poll which seems to prove my point that people may be willing to pay more taxes for a UI, but they won't suffer more than a nominal increase.

It's not an obsession with taxes, it's just reality - people rarely vote for parties who indicate they will increase taxes (they usually punish those that do) and given that, I think that in any UI referendum campaign that will be a significant issue - people will need to be persuaded that their taxes wil not rise.

And that's before you to persuade people on issues like health, education, mortgages, pensions, security etc

Crooked Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

Polls are polls - as the Scottish Referendum showed us (and more recently the UK GE) they can sometimes be way off.

Yeah people, the Boards rules of polls are simple.

If SF go down theyre infallible.

If SF go up theyre flawed and unreliable and only a snapshot and only a protest and people will change their mind once they get into a polling booth.

I mean it's fairly basic stuff folks

Jawgap

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yeah people, the Boards rules of polls are simple.

If SF go down theyre infallible.

If SF go up theyre flawed and unreliable and only a snapshot and only a protest and people will change their mind once they get into a polling booth.

I mean it's fairly basic stuff folks

Not really. The polling data I posted up is there to be analysed / critiqued.

I'd say that combining the data from both suggests that people in the Republic are willing to pay increased taxes to secure a UI.

However, they are not willing to pay 'significant' taxes - as such there is a question as to what would be a 'signficiant' increase. In my own opinion, I'd say it would be quite low, somewhere around 5% - others may differ.

In all probability, in the even of both jurisdictions voting for a UI, the process would likely be funded by a combination of efficiency savings, cuts and tax increases phased in over an extended period.

Or maybe there'd be a federal model - but would such a model be viable in a country the size of Ireland? It might even be 'centripetal' - encouraging other regions (for example Munster which has a 'GDP' not too far off NI) seeking a similar arrangement.

Ren2k7

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yeah people, the Boards rules of polls are simple.

If SF go down theyre infallible.

If SF go up theyre flawed and unreliable and only a snapshot and only a protest and people will change their mind once they get into a polling booth.

I mean it's fairly basic stuff folks

Apparently no one in the Republic wants a UI and even if polls says otherwise they're incorrect. Because the Deefer classes know what's right for Ireland and unification with those God awful Nordies would be ruinous for us. Can't be letting those uncultured lot into our Dáil, it might end the cosy cartel of the three main parties that has brought ruin and misery onto this state since 1922.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Apparently no one in the Republic wants a UI and even if polls says otherwise they're incorrect. Because the Deefer classes know what's right for Ireland and unification with those God awful Nordies would be ruinous for us. Can't be letting those uncultured lot into our Dáil, it might end the cosy cartel of the three main parties that has brought ruin and misery onto this state since 1922.

Again the polls would suggest that people are certainly disposed towards a UI, but that the cost they are willing to bear is not significant.

By 'Deefer' - I take it you are referring to Dublin 4 (D4)? Just to clarify that I'm D1, born and bred.

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

Again the polls would suggest that people are certainly disposed towards a UI, but that the cost they are willing to bear is not significant.

By 'Deefer' - I take it you are referring to Dublin 4 (D4)? Just to clarify that I'm D1, born and bred.

Still maintaining that line eh? Just ignore the fact one poll (that you're choosing to sidestep) makes it clear the public don't mind paying more in taxes for a UI. This obsession with taxation needs to stop.

And not calling YOU a Deefer, merely referring to a social class that is nationwide but largely concentrated in the D4 part of Dublin who seek to constantly denigrate and run down Irish nationalism and Republicanism. These loons have existed in Ireland for centuries and sought to keep Ireland under the thumb of mother England. Even today they promote an extremist Anglophile agenda. The column inches of the Indo (and to a lesser extent Times) are rife with such West Brit propaganda.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Cameron and Osbourne have both stated that as regions are handed greater tax raising powers a corresponding reduction in the block grant will occur. Eventually the Barnett Formula will disappear, and too right given it's a grossly unfair and ill thought out mechanism for disbursal of state money to regions.

.......

Anyway, Barnett Formula - any sign of that link supporting your statement above?

As far as I can see the Barnett Formula is not going anywhere.

Under it NI gets the equivalent of about €15,000 per capita to spend on public services (that excludes defence and spending on debt and associated interest). By my calculation NI gets per capita funding at 123% the UK per capita average (source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29477233) - or put it another way the UK average is about 81% of the amount received by NI.

Ireland's per capita public service spend is about 95% of the UK average (source: OECD)

Whatever way you slice it, NI gets a truckload more money pumped into it from Westminster / Whitehall than we could probably afford - meaning we have to grow our economy significantly (and the NI remain stagnant) or people will have to be prepared to accept significant tax increases (something the MBL poll suggests about two thirds are unwilling to do) coupled with cuts to services.

It will certainly be an interesting campaign!

K-9

Mod:

Discuss the topic civilly, not like rutting stags, and the thread will remain open. Otherwise it's going nowhere and will be closed.

Thanks.

alaimacerc

Jawgap wrote: »

Ireland's per capita public service spend is about 95% of the UK average (source: OECD)

Whatever way you slice it, NI gets a truckload more money pumped into it from Westminster / Whitehall than we could probably afford - meaning we have to grow our economy significantly (and the NI remain stagnant) or people will have to be prepared to accept significant tax increases (something the MBL poll suggests about two thirds are unwilling to do) coupled with cuts to services.

I don't think one can say the RoI couldn't afford it. But it's certainly very questionable there's the actual political will to do the above. Either you spend a lot more money on NI than on the rest of the (new, unified) country, which is both expensive, and iniquitous... Or you improve public services across the board, which is a lot, lot, lot more money. And which the electorate has shown absolutely no interest in doing for its own sake, when repeatedly offered the opportunity.

alaimacerc

Jawgap wrote: »

Or maybe there'd be a federal model - but would such a model be viable in a country the size of Ireland? It might even be 'centripetal' - encouraging other regions (for example Munster which has a 'GDP' not too far off NI) seeking a similar arrangement.

I think there's a fairly strong case for a federal model of some sort, at least with respect to NI and continuation of GFA-like institutional arrangements. There was quite a bit of discussion (if more heat than light) of this earlier in the thread. As for size and viability, compare with similar-sized countries with three levels of government, somewhat larger ones with four (or more, like Germany). If anything, the likes of Ireland and the UK are anomalously over-centralised by international standards.

But... institutional devolution is one thing. Hugely skewed public spending is very much another.

Jawgap

alaimacerc wrote: »

I don't think one can say the RoI couldn't afford it. But it's certainly very questionable there's the actual political will to do the above. Either you spend a lot more money on NI than on the rest of the (new, unified) country, which is both expensive, and iniquitous... Or you improve public services across the board, which is a lot, lot, lot more money. And which the electorate has shown absolutely no interest in doing for its own sake, when repeatedly offered the opportunity.

Yes, I think we can absorb the cost, but only at huge expense - and politically I think when the time comes for a referendum there'll be a lot of fudging around how any unification process will be funded and how quickly any convergence process will take place.

I also think that during any referendum campaign in the Republic, the 'noisy neighbours' will get even noisier - meaning that certain Unionist / Loyalist groups will look to make NI practically ungovernable, leaving us to wonder if we really want to vote them in?

Between that, and uncertainties around the day-to-day concerns for most people such as mortgages, health, education and pensions, I think people will vote as they always do when there's uncertainty - for the status quo.

Jawgap

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think there's a fairly strong case for a federal model of some sort, at least with respect to NI and continuation of GFA-like institutional arrangements. There was quite a bit of discussion (if more heat than light) of this earlier in the thread. As for size and viability, compare with similar-sized countries with three levels of government, somewhat larger ones with four (or more, like Germany). If anything, the likes of Ireland and the UK are anomalously over-centralised by international standards.

But... institutional devolution is one thing. Hugely skewed public spending is very much another.

I'd agree - I can't see NI simply becoming six extra counties appended and absorbed into the Republic. For a small country we've a lot of government going on, and while politically a federal model may be required it'll add more inefficiency. I would expect there to be a massive battle over the balance of powers between the Dail, Stormont and any proposed federal assembly - presumably the Dail and Stormont would be given parity in any such system?

Plus, unless things change radically in NI, Dublin would just replace London as NI's benefactor. Over the short term people might willing to accept that as the price of unification, but I'd say give it one election cycle before it wears off.

As an aside, does anyone know the order of voting? Is our referendum triggered by NI's (assuming a result in favour of unification) or can we just go whenever we want (I assume we can, but we'd probably have to do a re-run unless NI's vote was soon after)?

alaimacerc

Jawgap wrote: »

As an aside, does anyone know the order of voting? Is our referendum triggered by NI's (assuming a result in favour of unification) or can we just go whenever we want (I assume we can, but we'd probably have to do a re-run unless NI's vote was soon after)?

I don't think it's officially defined anywhere. The theory I've heard is that the NI referendum would occur first, then there would follow a period of negotiations, then a further two referenda, one in each jurisdiction, to affirm those arrangements.

I think all you can say for certain, though, is that the GFA envisages a referendum in NI, and a referendum would also be required in the RoI to make some sort of constitutional provision for this. In theory the RoI could maybe come first, but that would seem to require some 'subtlety' in how one would word that.

DarkyHughes

Godge wrote: »

They have no right to join this country. The changes to Articles 2 and 3 after the GFA removed the territorial claim and put the South in a neutral position about a united Ireland - i.e. the people down here get to vote on it - whereas before the old Articles 2 and 3 would have required us to accept them, even if they were only a breakaway county.

Similarly, by signing the GFA, SF recognised and accepted the Unionist veto on change in Northern Ireland so long as the majority up there want to keep that veto.

I probably phrased it wrong not to join this but to reunify the country they do. They have every right to struggle for the reunification of their country that love just as much as you or me or just as much as anybody in the Free State has a right to struggle to secede from the Free State.

West brits need to take your head out of your arse and actually acknowledge two simple things - 1) The freedom you enjoy in the "Republic" has been denied to the people of the 6 counties, and, because the government down here sold them out so the British & Unionists wouldn't have to deal with boundary commission b) If it wasn't for the pre-split IRA you'd still be British. Fortunately a lot of people in the Free State or "Republic" suffer Slave Mentality & even some in the 6 counties do. If it wasn't for the IRA who fought the RIC, Tans, Army & Auxies you probably would have been running around Dublin(if lived there) as a child barefoot & queuing in soup kitchens like 1000,s of kids were backing in the early 1900's.

So to sum up you benefited from IRA violence & you criticize people who use the same methods you benefit from. That makes you a hypocrite.

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

I think people will vote as they always do when there's uncertainty - for the status quo.

We've already established this is incorrect and you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it any truer. The Irish people want a UI and are willing to pay more in taxes to achieve it. FACT!

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

We've already established this is incorrect and you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it any truer. The Irish people want a UI and are willing to pay more in taxes to achieve it. FACT!

Sorry, but the polling data doesn't support that assertion.

First, the Irish people are not a homogeneous group.

Second, and the IPSOS/MRBI poll taken in 2012 supports the idea that people are in favour of a UI and will suffer some increased level of taxation to see it come about.

Third, the more recent MBL poll (February 2013) further supports the idea that a majority are in favour of a UI but when asked "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?" - 67% of respondents answered 'No' - therefore there is a threshold above which people will not pay for a UI.

Fourth, the unreliability of polls can best be illustrated by the same IPSOS/MRBI poll being relied on to suggest the Republic's taxpayers are happy to write a blank cheque to fund unification.

In that same poll, 55% of respondents were in favour of abolishing the Seanad - the referendum result ended up 51.73% in favour of retaining the upper house.

Likewise, the question on same sex marriage suggested 53% were in favour (6 years previously a similar poll suggested it was about 33%) - when the referendum was held the result was 62%.

Polls are like NCTs - they're snapshots, not shibboleths. If they were reliable we wouldn't need elections or referendums we could just poll a few thousand respondents at a few dozen locations and save ourselves millions.

Btw, the same IPSOS/MRBI poll also found that when people in the Republic were asked if they regarded the people of Northern Ireland to be Irish, British, both or neither – 46% said both, 30% said Irish, 9% said British, 4% said neither and 10% had no opinion.

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

the polling data doesn't support that assertion.

Jawgap wrote: »

the IPSOS/MRBI poll taken in 2012 supports the idea that people are in favour of a UI

I can't be bothered engaging with you any more as you're impossible to follow. So long.

johnnyskeleton

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I probably phrased it wrong not to join this but to reunify the country they do. They have every right to struggle for the reunification of their country that love just as much as you or me or just as much as anybody in the Free State has a right to struggle to secede from the Free State.

West brits need to take your head out of your arse and actually acknowledge two simple things - 1) The freedom you enjoy in the "Republic" has been denied to the people of the 6 counties, and, because the government down here sold them out so the British & Unionists wouldn't have to deal with boundary commission b) If it wasn't for the pre-split IRA you'd still be British. Fortunately a lot of people in the Free State or "Republic" suffer Slave Mentality & even some in the 6 counties do. If it wasn't for the IRA who fought the RIC, Tans, Army & Auxies you probably would have been running around Dublin(if lived there) as a child barefoot & queuing in soup kitchens like 1000,s of kids were backing in the early 1900's.

So to sum up you benefited from IRA violence & you criticize people who use the same methods you benefit from. That makes you a hypocrite.

Mod note:

Lets keep it clean and not make personal allegations of hypocracy etc. While it is not personal abuse to yse the phrase "west brit" per se, please dont make such accusations towards other posters[/b]

K-9

Ren2k7 wrote: »

We've already established this is incorrect and you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it any truer. The Irish people want a UI and are willing to pay more in taxes to achieve it. FACT!

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I can't be bothered engaging with you any more as you're impossible to follow. So long.

Mod:

We are getting close to soapboxing territory here.

Second, and the IPSOS/MRBI poll taken in 2012 supports the idea that people are in favour of a UI and will suffer some increased level of taxation to see it come about.

Third, the more recent MBL poll (February 2013) further supports the idea that a majority are in favour of a UI but when asked "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?" - 67% of respondents answered 'No' - therefore there is a threshold above which people will not pay for a UI.

The point the poster is making is pretty clear and simple.

If you don't want to entertain it fine, just don't respond, rather than childishly saying FACT and sticking your fingers in your ears.

DarkyHughes

Ren2k7 wrote: »

There's no point being made here. Polls clearly state the Irish public would support a UI even if it meant more taxes. When this is pointed out to Jawgap he states the Irish people WON'T support a UI. It's the same circular argument despite all evidence pointing to a majority of the public supporting a UI, increased taxes included.

Yeah I wouldn't mind paying more taxes to see United Ireland.

Ren2k7

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Yeah I wouldn't mind paying more taxes to see United Ireland.

Neither would I, nor would most Irish people for that matter.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Questioning moderation on thread - are you two guys trying to get banned? Any more nonsense from Ren2k7 or DarkyHughes and there will be bans.

Ren2k7

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Questioning moderation on thread - are you two guys trying to get banned? Any more nonsense from Ren2k7 or DarkyHughes and there will be bans.

I wasn't questioning K-9's moderation on this thread which I accept has been a rather positive thing. instead I was responding to the second part of his post....

K-9 wrote: »

The point the poster is making is pretty clear and simple.

If you don't want to entertain it fine, just don't respond, rather than childishly saying FACT and sticking your fingers in your ears.

...which I understood to be a normal comment worthy of replying.

K-9

Ok, I can see where the confusion arose.

The point is, both sides agree the polls say a majority support a United Ireland with some rise in taxes, i.e. the 2012 IT poll.

The other poll in 2013 suggests a majority would not support paying significantly more.

Stands to sense as I doubt even Ren2k7 would be so altruistic as to pay 99% of their income in taxes for a U.I.!

The second poll question makes sense based on the findings of the first poll. The next question should be, what level of rises are people prepared to pay to get a U.I.?

Jawgap

K-9 wrote: »

Ok, I can see where the confusion arose.

The point is, both sides agree the polls say a majority support a United Ireland with some rise in taxes, i.e. the 2012 IT poll.

The other poll in 2013 suggests a majority would not support paying significantly more.

Stands to sense as I doubt even Ren2k7 would be so altruistic as to pay 99% of their income in taxes for a U.I.!

The second poll question makes sense based on the findings of the first poll. The next question should be, what level of rises are people prepared to pay to get a U.I.?

That was pretty much my point above......

Jawgap wrote: »

......
Third, the more recent MBL poll (February 2013) further supports the idea that a majority are in favour of a UI but when asked "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?" - 67% of respondents answered 'No' - therefore there is a threshold above which people will not pay for a UI.

.......

The idea of significant tax rises sounds like, to me anyway, something that would put people off. I do, however, accept that 'significantly higher' can mean different things to different people, and some may be willing to pay a lot more than others if it meant a UI.

Ren2k7

K-9 wrote: »

Ok, I can see where the confusion arose.

The point is, both sides agree the polls say a majority support a United Ireland with some rise in taxes, i.e. the 2012 IT poll.

The other poll in 2013 suggests a majority would not support paying significantly more.

Stands to sense as I doubt even Ren2k7 would be so altruistic as to pay 99% of their income in taxes for a U.I.!

The second poll question makes sense based on the findings of the first poll. The next question should be, what level of rises are people prepared to pay to get a U.I.?

Lol, no of course not. Not even I love the North that much.

But I do think it's something worth beginning a debate about amongst Irish society. A UI tends to be something mostly spoken about in Northern Ireland itself but little attention is given in the Republic; which perhaps gives the impression we don't want to join with them in a new state. The truth is we honestly don't know what exactly a united Ireland will look like, the exact structure of the central government, the role of local government and the powers it has. Nor is there any real idea of WHO will be responsible for negotiating the unification treaty and/or new constitution.

When the two Germany's united that was brought about because the East and West German government's sat down and hammered out an agreement making it possible to reunify. Right now this is impossible as the Northern Ireland institutions aren't willing or able to enter into a dialogue on what a united Ireland will entail. I have my own guesses of what is most likely to happen in a post 'yes' vote for unification but they are just that, guesses.

What I would really like to see happen is for political parties and civic groups, north and south, to come together under the aegis and direction of north-south bodies like the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association to come up with possible scenarios for a UI and bring in the opinions of Irish people across the island. Such all Ireland agencies could become the embyronic institutions of a future UI where increased harmonisation of laws and tax codes north and south are agreed to at these forums.

But right now, apart from SF and to a lesser extent the SDLP no party has any interest to be part of such a debate , especially unionist parties. The likes of FG, FF and Labour are certainly willing to sit on these panels but as long as they don't show much interest in their work or proposals then the likes of the North-South bodies will be nothing more than talking shops. It's not that the three main parties don't want a UI it's simply that they don't care enough to push for it. And until we start electing politicians and parties who genuinely care for the cause of a UI we'll never achieve one.

DarkyHughes

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Questioning moderation on thread - are you two guys trying to get banned? Any more nonsense from Ren2k7 or DarkyHughes and there will be bans.

What? Who was I questioning.

katydid

Ren2k7 wrote: »

When the two Germany's united that was brought about because the East and West German government's sat down and hammered out an agreement making it possible to reunify.

Germany is always quoted as an example, but it's a totally different situation. It was one country until 1945, and even after that, it was several years before the reality of the split became evident in people's minds. The generation born in the fifties were still relatively young when RE unification took place, and although they had grown up thinking of themselves as East German rather than German, they very quickly adapted to the new idea. And the older generation just accepted that things went back to the way they were before. Support for the socialist regime was not very strong, and there was a strong desire to get the benefits the West had to offer.(My husband grew up in East Germany so I've heard all this from his friends and relatives)

Northern Ireland is a totally different situation; there is a majority there (even if it's a minority in the greater scheme of things) who have a totally different cultural and political outlook which is firmly rooted for almost 400 years. Their political wish to remain with the UK is totally at odds with the idea of being part of a united Irish republic.

Yes, the Germans sat down and thrashed it out. But there wasn't much to trash out, as the political will was there on both sides. And even that unification hasn't been a roaring success; there is still a lot of resentment on both sides. In the West, there's resentment because so much money was spend on the "Ossies", and in the East, there's resentment because not enough money was spent, and the place is dying on its feet in some areas. And a creeping nostalgia for the days of free healthcare, free childcare, cheap rents and beer...

alaimacerc

Ren2k7 wrote: »

A UI tends to be something mostly spoken about in Northern Ireland itself but little attention is given in the Republic; which perhaps gives the impression we don't want to join with them in a new state.

I think the thinking in the RoI has barely moved on from the GFA, in any real way. Before Articles 2 and 3 were changed, it was assumed -- or pretended to be assumed, perhaps -- that no "new state" would be required; NI would just be "absorbed". I think that's implicitly the model in most minds (though of course, some will very loudly and pointedly -- if decidedly vaguely -- say otherwise).

Right now this is impossible as the Northern Ireland institutions aren't willing or able to enter into a dialogue on what a united Ireland will entail. I have my own guesses of what is most likely to happen in a post 'yes' vote for unification but they are just that, guesses.

I think no-one will have any realistic idea unless and until they know -- or at least have a good guess at -- the timescale and circumstances. In 20 years, with a radicalised 51% C/N/R community, and 49% P/U/L kicking and screaming? Or in 80 years, in a detoxified post-conflict environment after significant convergence of the two jurisdictions?

The likes of FG, FF and Labour are certainly willing to sit on these panels but as long as they don't show much interest in their work or proposals then the likes of the North-South bodies will be nothing more than talking shops. It's not that the three main parties don't want a UI it's simply that they don't care enough to push for it. And until we start electing politicians and parties who genuinely care for the cause of a UI we'll never achieve one.

I think in the foreseeable future, just the opposite is true. The people who claim to most "genuinely care" about a UI are the very people making it a more distant prospect. In theory, politicians who are "disinterested persuaders" could do this, though. Who'll make the positive case for unification to NI in terms of economics and civic nationalism, and look to move policy in RoI in directions that make sense in the light of that as an endpoint. Not people who tell the P/U/L community their culture is repugnant, their state is illegitimate, and that what they have to look forward to in a UI is majoritarian ethnic bullying. More emotionally satisfying as the second option may be.

To take concrete examples: do we imagine UI would have universal health care? An inclusive educational system? Meaningful decentralisation of decision-making? Integrated public transport? If so, better to get cracking on them sooner, rather than later. Steps towards normalisation in the NI context aren't hard to find, either -- I imagine we could go on all night.

alaimacerc

katydid wrote: »

In the West, there's resentment because so much money was spend on the "Ossies", and in the East, there's resentment because not enough money was spent, and the place is dying on its feet in some areas. And a creeping nostalgia for the days of free healthcare, free childcare, cheap rents and beer...

I imagine if I were a "Nordie" (of either community) I might feel similar nostalgia for NI public services if a future UI were simply to be the present RoI as run by the CW parties, on their track record to this point. Ironically, the exceptions to that would seem to be the more Thatcherite elements of the DUP, if they were able to ignore it being largely done by people who (don't) go to the wrong type of church.