Reunification Question

alaimacerc

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

"More" and "significantly more" are indeed both entirely uselessly vague.

The most naive calculation would be to say, take the estimated €10bn net NI "costs" Westminster, and average that across the RoI population. Of course, no-one is going to agree on the actual costs, much less how it would be apportioned. If you're an optimist, you'll look that number turning out to be lower, decreasing from N/S synergies, getting a huge bung from the UK out of the goodness of their heart, and falling entirely on the better off. If you're a pessimist, you'd wonder how sustainable it is for worse-off parts of RoI to cross-subsidise NI just to keep them in the style to which they've been accustomed, especially if you're not going to raise public services to that level in "Rest of Ireland". Whereas if you are: bigger bill again.

Jawgap

alaimacerc wrote: »

"More" and "significantly more" are indeed both entirely uselessly vague.

The most naive calculation would be to say, take the estimated €10bn net NI "costs" Westminster, and average that across the RoI population. Of course, no-one is going to agree on the actual costs, much less how it would be apportioned. If you're an optimist, you'll look that number turning out to be lower, decreasing from N/S synergies, getting a huge bung from the UK out of the goodness of their heart, and falling entirely on the better off. If you're a pessimist, you'd wonder how sustainable it is for worse-off parts of RoI to cross-subsidise NI just to keep them in the style to which they've been accustomed, especially if you're not going to raise public services to that level in "Rest of Ireland". Whereas if you are: bigger bill again.

I think there is something to be learned from the Scottish referendum. In the wake of that result a lot of effort went in to understanding why people voted the way they did.

A poll by Lord Ashcroft's organisation found that the main reason people (47%) voted 'no' was "The risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices."

OK, the EU Membership thing shouldn't be an issue, but unless Sterling takes a tumble for the worse then concerns over currency are likely to feature. Maybe the economy will feature as an issue, maybe it won't, depending on how our economy is performing relative to NI's, which will feed or minimise concerns about prices and jobs.

Participants were also asked in the same poll to identify "the two or three most important issues in deciding how you ultimately voted?"

For the 'no' voters it was the Pound (57%); pensions (37%); the NHS (36%); tax and public spending (32%); and, defence and security (29%). 'Jobs' were important for 21% of 'No' participants.

The percentages might vary, but if "a welder from Glasgow has more in common with a docker in Liverpool," then it's likely the same topics (but in different proportions) would figure on any list of reservations expressed by people living in NI, regardless of their political affiliations.

Summary data from the poll can be found at......
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Lord-Ashcroft-Polls-Referendum-day-poll-summary-1409191.pdf

Ren2k7

Remember when someone claimed The Journal was becoming Shinner central? Yeah about that:

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/opinion-northern-ireland-reunited-jeremy-corbyn-labour-election-2233215-Jul2015/

Basically the Nordies would want to be mad to walk away from the utopian British state and their free 'elf, monarchy and nukes! What, does that mean WE should return to the mothership? :rolleyes:

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

I think there is something to be learned from the Scottish referendum. In the wake of that result a lot of effort went in to understanding why people voted the way they did.

A poll by Lord Ashcroft's organisation found that the main reason people (47%) voted 'no' was "The risks of becoming independent looked too great when it came to things like the currency, EU membership, the economy, jobs and prices."

OK, the EU Membership thing shouldn't be an issue, but unless Sterling takes a tumble for the worse then concerns over currency are likely to feature. Maybe the economy will feature as an issue, maybe it won't, depending on how our economy is performing relative to NI's, which will feed or minimise concerns about prices and jobs.

Participants were also asked in the same poll to identify "the two or three most important issues in deciding how you ultimately voted?"

For the 'no' voters it was the Pound (57%); pensions (37%); the NHS (36%); tax and public spending (32%); and, defence and security (29%). 'Jobs' were important for 21% of 'No' participants.

The percentages might vary, but if "a welder from Glasgow has more in common with a docker in Liverpool," then it's likely the same topics (but in different proportions) would figure on any list of reservations expressed by people living in NI, regardless of their political affiliations.

Summary data from the poll can be found at......
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Lord-Ashcroft-Polls-Referendum-day-poll-summary-1409191.pdf

You could make the argument that a dock worker at Rosslare has more in common with a lorry driver from Luton than with a middle class professional from Rathmines but no one in their right mind would argue we be in the same country as the working class from England! Well, apart from the Workers Party, Socialists and neo-Unionists perhaps.

johnnyskeleton

DarkyHughes wrote: »

What? Who was I questioning.

Mod note:

Me!

I told you not to accuse other posters of hypocracy and you replied "but it is hypocracy". I deleted that comment to give you a chance with a further on thread warning not to question moderation wih a warning that you could be banned if you persisted.

You persisted, so you get a ban. Please take this time to reflect and consider whether you want to be a substantive contributor or whether you just want to insult other posters.

katydid

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

CW parties?

Jawgap

katydid wrote: »

CW parties?

Civil War?

FG & FF?

katydid

Jawgap wrote: »

Civil War?

FG & FF?

Ah...

For flip sake, that was nearly a hundred years ago. Some people never let go..

alaimacerc

katydid wrote: »

For flip sake, that was nearly a hundred years ago. Some people never let go..

Like the people voting for them, most notably.

I'd like to think people in the 2070s won't be voting SF and DUP on the basis of them being The Troubles Parties, but I wouldn't bet against it, either.

alaimacerc

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Basically the Nordies would want to be mad to walk away from the utopian British state and their free 'elf, monarchy and nukes!

Your contention being what? That a UI will be able to maintain the same levels of public services as NI has present? Or just scoffing at people for whom that may actually prove more important in practice?

Ren2k7

alaimacerc wrote: »

Your contention being what? That a UI will be able to maintain the same levels of public services as NI has present? Or just scoffing at people for whom that may actually prove more important in practice?

Of course it could. In some respects we already have better public services than in the North. Our roads are better, schools too. There's quite a few who seems to think the North is some marvellous welfare state that easily beats the South. Well if that were true you'd see many from here emigrating to the North. But you don't and the reason is clear, the Republic is many times better in terms of quality of life, living standards and employment opportunities than the North.

Yes there will be an increase in overall spending in a UI but that will be balanced out by the increase in population. But then I don't care about the money aspect of unification. The 6C are an integral part of Ireland, period!

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Of course it could. In some respects we already have better public services than in the North. Our roads are better, schools too. There's quite a few who seems to think the North is some marvellous welfare state that easily beats the South. Well if that were true you'd see many from here emigrating to the North. But you don't and the reason is clear, the Republic is many times better in terms of quality of life, living standards and employment opportunities than the North.

Yes there will be an increase in overall spending in a UI but that will be balanced out by the increase in population. But then I don't care about the money aspect of unification. The 6C are an integral part of Ireland, period!

A corollary of your statement above would be if services are so much better in the Republic, how come people don't move southwards?

How come border towns aren't boom towns with 'colonies' of Nordies commuting daily to jobs in NI?

Not only would they benefit from these supposed better services, they wouldn't have to put up with all the garbage that goes on every summer with parades and commemorations.

The six counties are an integral part of the island of Ireland to be sure, but if they drifted off tomorrow would the Republic be affected in any way? Doubtful.

That would suggest they are not an integral part of the Republic.

Happyman42

Jawgap wrote: »

A corollary of your statement above would be if services are so much better in the Republic, how come people don't move southwards?

How come border towns aren't boom towns with 'colonies' of Nordies commuting daily to jobs in NI?

Not only would they benefit from these supposed better services, they wouldn't have to put up with all the garbage that goes on every summer with parades and commemorations.

The six counties are an integral part of the island of Ireland to be sure, but if they drifted off tomorrow would the Republic be affected in any way? Doubtful.

That would suggest they are not an integral part of the Republic.

I'm not sure why the towns would be 'boom towns' and I am not sure you understand the problems for a communities economic life that are presented by a 'border'. There is always a fluctuation or movement of money one way or another depending on currency rates.

I am not aware of any data for the border regions as a whole, but I can tell you that in the border community I live in, more people from the North's work force live here and commute across, than the other way around.
I am sure it isn't unique.

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm not sure why the towns would be 'boom towns' and I am not sure you understand the problems for a communities economic life that are presented by a 'border'. There is always a fluctuation or movement of money one way or another depending on currency rates.

I am not aware of any data for the border regions as a whole, but I can tell you that in the border community I live in, more people from the North's work force live here and commute across, than the other way around.
I am sure it isn't unique.

I wasn't offering a commentary on life in border towns; I was simply responding to the idea that......

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Of course it could. In some respects we already have better public services than in the North. Our roads are better, schools too. There's quite a few who seems to think the North is some marvellous welfare state that easily beats the South. Well if that were true you'd see many from here emigrating to the North. But you don't and the reason is clear, the Republic is many times better in terms of quality of life, living standards and employment opportunities than the North.

Yes there will be an increase in overall spending in a UI but that will be balanced out by the increase in population. But then I don't care about the money aspect of unification. The 6C are an integral part of Ireland, period!

It was suggested that if things were good in NI, people would be moving from the Republic to there.

However, the first part of the statement seems to suggest that in relative terms public services in the Republic are better than in NI - presumably this is being stated to indirectly justify the notion that the costs of a UI are not as great as people make out, and the burden of closing any deficit will not be significant as it is the public services directed at the smaller population in NI that will need consolidating, rather than those provided to the greater bulk of the island's population in the Republic?

If the statement - that services in the Republic are relatively better - has a foundation in truth I was simply suggesting that the internal migration patterns would be NI

---

> Republic.

The fact they are not, to me, suggests that services in NI are relatively better - and significantly better considering some of the other issues people put up with to live there. The example I cited was the tensions that peak during the summer marching and commemoration season.

As for data, it's readily available from the census etc. For example - Measuring Mobility in a Changing Island.......

A sample of 64 organisations located within 30km on each side of the border, who between them account for almost 30% of employees within the North-West region, was examined. It is estimated that within the North-West there exists 5,500 cross-border commuters with a stronger flow of commuters from South to North.

There are almost twice as many Republic of Ireland residents employed in Northern Ireland (8.53% South to North) compared to Northern residents employed in the Republic of Ireland (4.56% North to South).

Extrapolating our data across the entire border region, we would estimate a total 23,481 cross-border commuters exist.

Happyman42

Jawgap wrote: »

As for data, it's readily available from the census etc. For example - Measuring Mobility in a Changing Island.......

That 'data' and report highlights it's own limitations and measures only an area of the North West.

It is beyond the scope of this study to estimate precisely the magnitude of the Northern Ireland/ Republic of Ireland cross-border flows given its fluidity, complexity, and evolution

As I have said the flow, one way or the other in people and finances, is in constant flux.

What we need as part of a debate on unification is a proper study of the impacts of that.

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

That 'data' and report highlights it's own limitations and measures only an area of the North West.


As I have said the flow, one way or the other in people and finances, is in constant flux.

What we need as part of a debate on unification is a proper study of the impacts of that.

.....true, it's not a total census, but I just posted it as a riposte to the anecdotal notion that

Happyman42 wrote: »

......more people from the North's work force live here and commute across, than the other way around.
I am sure it isn't unique.

...given it suggested that the ratio of S-N workers to N-S was almost 2:1, I thought you'd have welcomed it?

...but as you correctly say all such sampling exercises have their limitations.

Maybe the CSO POWSCAR database would have more info, but I doubt we could get access.

katydid

alaimacerc wrote: »

Like the people voting for them, most notably.

.

I doubt if there is more than a handful of people who give even a fleeting thought about the Civil War when deciding in the 21st century who to vote for. They vote on the basis of what the parties have to offer for them, not on what side they supported a century ago. Total nonsense.

Happyman42

Jawgap wrote: »

.....true, it's not a total census, but I just posted it as a riposte to the anecdotal notion that



...given it suggested that the ratio of S-N workers to N-S was almost 2:1, I thought you'd have welcomed it?

...but as you correctly say all such sampling exercises have their limitations.

Maybe the CSO POWSCAR database would have more info, but I doubt we could get access.

I'd welcome a proper and full look at it.

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'd welcome a proper and full look at it.

Feel free to apply

http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011placeofworkschoolorcollege-censusofanonymisedrecordspowscar/

Unfortunately, I can't use data from it here because of the restrictions placed on it by CSO - and they tend to view, very dimly, any breach of their conditions. So even if you do get approval to access the data, you won't be able to publish here - or rather you could publish here, but that would be the end of any access you might have to database!

riffmongous

katydid wrote: »

I doubt if there is more than a handful of people who give even a fleeting thought about the Civil War when deciding in the 21st century who to vote for. They vote on the basis of what the parties have to offer for them, not on what side they supported a century ago. Total nonsense.

I know of lots of older people who vote for the party their parents voted for and will never stop voting for them, certainly nothing to do with what parties have to offer or their track record

katydid

riffmongous wrote: »

I know of lots of older people who vote for the party their parents voted for and will never stop voting for them, certainly nothing to do with what parties have to offer or their track record

They might do, but they aren't thinking of the Civil War.

These people are a dying breed, anyway

alaimacerc

katydid wrote: »

They might do, but they aren't thinking of the Civil War.

Ah. So the parties may have been founded on the basis of Civil War divisions, have no meaningful ideological or policy differences, still get a large part of their vote on sheer tribalism dating back to then, and often be referred to as "the Civil War parties". But it'd be wrong to do so, unless their supporters are directly thinking about the CW at the precise moment they vote? Gotcha.

These people are a dying breed, anyway

All people are a dying breed. The Gift of Men, etc. They're also still a breeding breed, though. If they're dying faster than replacement rate, it's rather slowly.

alaimacerc

Jawgap wrote: »

The six counties are an integral part of the island of Ireland to be sure, but if they drifted off tomorrow would the Republic be affected in any way? Doubtful.

Caution, some settling of contents may occur?

It would presumably make something of a difference politically. SF only really make sense as a political phenomenon in the context of the North being... not drifted off. Likewise the FF/FG distinction (per the above). The distinction are much more mood music than any actual policy differences, but it still has a bearing on how people think of them, and how they vote.

alaimacerc

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Of course it could. In some respects we already have better public services than in the North. Our roads are better, schools too.

The schools are "better" in what sense? Times league tables? I certainly don't see the "voluntary contribution" as being better. Nor the system of predominantly religious patronage. Nor the disclaiming of employers' responsibilities by the state.

In any event, essentially the same question remains: precisely how will you improve -- or indeed even maintain -- the condition of the North's by spending less money?

Yes there will be an increase in overall spending in a UI but that will be balanced out by the increase in population.

No, it won't. When people say there's a €10bn deficit in the North's budget, they're not somehow forgetting about the north's population. That's including the tax they currently pay.

But then I don't care about the money aspect of unification.

If you don't care about the economics of a UI, or the social justice implications, or the politics of it, then in practice you don't care about actual unification at all.

Any scheme for reunification is going to have to address the gap in public spending between the two jurisdictions. Either it has to have structures to maintain it in line with the present disparity. Or it has to raise more money in the present south to raise levels generally. Or it has has to cut spending in the North.

katydid

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah. So the parties may have been founded on the basis of Civil War divisions, have no meaningful ideological or policy differences, still get a large part of their vote on sheer tribalism dating back to then, and often be referred to as "the Civil War parties". But it'd be wrong to do so, unless their supporters are directly thinking about the CW at the precise moment they vote? Gotcha.


All people are a dying breed. The Gift of Men, etc. They're also still a breeding breed, though. If they're dying faster than replacement rate, it's rather slowly.

The majority of FG or FF voters vote for those parties based on their policies and/or personalities. Some older voters may vote because they are a FF or a FG family, but that kind of thing IS dying out, no matter what you say. And for those that do, if they vote on the basis that it's what their family always vote, no, it has nothing to do with Civil War politics.

So given those two factors - that it is a minority that vote for them based on family allegiance and the majority don't, it is simply wrong to label them "Civil War Parties".

It's not like calling SF a "republican" party, in the abused sense of the word, as it clearly supports a certain nationalist agenda involving violence, which the word "republican" has been hijacked to describe. SF have not left their raison d'etre behind. Both FG and FF accept the state in which they both operate, they have left behind the issues that divided them a century ago.

fartingforfun

Lets be honest , London government don't want the north, but pretend that they do, the Dublin government don't want the north, but pretend that they do.
As long as some kind of peace exists in the north and violence don't spread to the UK main land or the Republic of Ireland, no one out side of the north cares.

end of the road

fartingforfun wrote: »

Lets be honest , London government don't want the north, but pretend that they do, the Dublin government don't want the north, but pretend that they do.
As long as some kind of peace exists in the north and violence don't spread to the UK main land or the Republic of Ireland, no one out side of the north cares.

they will if britain decides it has enough of supporting it and tells dublin "your having it"

Jawgap

fartingforfun wrote: »

Lets be honest , London government don't want the north, but pretend that they do, the Dublin government don't want the north, but pretend that they do.
As long as some kind of peace exists in the north and violence don't spread to the UK main land or the Republic of Ireland, no one out side of the north cares.

I think it's a bit different. London would be happy to see NI go - it relieves them of a persistent political and financial headache.

Dublin wants it in theory but knows it can't really afford it so makes soothing noises.

Most people in the Republic want a UI but I suspect once confronted with the cost would hesitate to vote for it.

Happyman42

I don't think most people would have a problem with 'costs' if they can be convinced that it will be better for all of us socially and economically one the initial costs are met.
I still hae not seen any convincing 'costs' yet and that debate needs to be had.

Jawgap

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't think most people would have a problem with 'costs' if they can be convinced that it will be better for all of us socially and economically one the initial costs are met.
I still hae not seen any convincing 'costs' yet and that debate needs to be had.

The NI subsidy represents the equivalent of our entire PAYE income tax take. The costs are obvious from the NIE budgetary documents - Dublin would replace Westminster as the funder.

But I'm sure Pearse can make the economic argument