Reunification Question

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Are you two both being deliberately thick?



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/republic-takes-more-relaxed-approach-to-dual-identity-across-the-border-1.557219

I don't think anyone is being intentionally or unintentionally thick, it's simply a case that asking someone if they'd pay extra in taxes and them answering in the affirmative doesn't mean they'd pay any amount in extra taxes.

I'm sure there's a curve - nearly everyone who answered yes would probably pay an extra 1%, fewer would pay 10% extra! and even fewer 20%.

Likewise, some might be ok with laying extra income taxes, but would balk at VAT or CGT going up by any thing more than a nominal amount.

Ren2k7

katydid wrote: »

There's no need to be insulting. If you have a problem with what someone says to you, how about explaining what the problem is...

Since I never mentioned taxation, I don't see what your problem is with my post..

I'm not sure what the point of your citing the Irish Times article was, since it shows very vague support for anything more than an aspiration to unity at some time.

You asked for proof that the Irish people would vote for a UI. I provided such proof and now you shift thee goalposts yet again. The poll comprehensively destroys the myth peddled by a small minority of Deefers that the Irish public dosn't want a UI. They do, and in fact are willing to pay more in taxation to see this brought about. That is SOLID support for a United Ireland, NOT "vague" as you like to claim.

The argument is done, finished. As much as you might like to claim otherwise the Irish nation is firmly behind reunification. :cool:

katydid

Ren2k7 wrote: »

You asked for proof that the Irish people would vote for a UI. I provided such proof and now you shift thee goalposts yet again. The poll comprehensively destroys the myth peddled by a small minority of Deefers that the Irish public dosn't want a UI. They do, and in fact are willing to pay more in taxation to see this brought about. That is SOLID support for a United Ireland, NOT "vague" as you like to claim.

The argument is done, finished. As much as you might like to claim otherwise the Irish nation is firmly behind reunification. :cool:

Nope, you didn't read my question; I asked for proof that they would vote for a united Ireland NOW. The article you cited does not provide that proof.

No one is questioning whether the Irish nation is behind unification (not re-unification, it has never been unified except under the British). We are questioning whether or not that aspiration, but whether or not they would vote for it under any circumstances. That is by no means certain.

Please try to read what is written, it would help a lot.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

You asked for proof that the Irish people would vote for a UI. I provided such proof and now you shift thee goalposts yet again. The poll comprehensively destroys the myth peddled by a small minority of Deefers that the Irish public dosn't want a UI. They do, and in fact are willing to pay more in taxation to see this brought about. That is SOLID support for a United Ireland, NOT "vague" as you like to claim.

The argument is done, finished. As much as you might like to claim otherwise the Irish nation is firmly behind reunification. :cool:

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

.....and a poll about an aspiration is proof of nothing other than, in this case, a majority of the population would like a UI, and are willing to pay some level of extra taxation to see it happen.

My own opinion, is that they would not be willing to pay a lot more in extra taxes, plus given we're already taxed at a higher rate than the UK any suggestion we'd be nudging taxes up here will likely have a counter-productive effect in NI.

eire4

Jim2007 wrote: »

From a numbers point of view I would agree with you, but from a perception point a few there are a lot out there that would not agree. So telling people that the country would take on additional debt and higher taxes, would not fly in my opinion.

We have to realise that any kind of union would be required to take on a portion of the UK national debt as we did in 1922.

Maybe we would maybe not. That would all be part of the negoatiations. Britain has to heavily subsidize Stormont to keep it afloat so they have every incentive financially to make a generous deal on Irish unification.

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't think anyone is being intentionally or unintentionally thick, it's simply a case that asking someone if they'd pay extra in taxes and them answering in the affirmative doesn't mean they'd pay any amount in extra taxes.

I'm sure there's a curve - nearly everyone who answered yes would probably pay an extra 1%, fewer would pay 10% extra! and even fewer 20%.

Likewise, some might be ok with laying extra income taxes, but would balk at VAT or CGT going up by any thing more than a nominal amount.

MORE shifting goalposts. You initially claimed the Irish people wouldn't accept unification if it meant increased taxes. Now that such a claim has been proven to be WRONG you now insist that actually it's only CERTAIN taxes the public would support being increased. You don't know what the Irish people would and wouldn't support in the event of a UI. But what we DO know is that Ireland as a whole is willing to pay more if it means a 32 county republic, and if a poll was held here tomorrow a huge majority in favour would be delivered.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

MORE shifting goalposts. You initially claimed the Irish people wouldn't accept unification if it meant increased taxes. Now that such a claim has been proven to be WRONG you now insist that actually it's only CERTAIN taxes the public would support being increased. You don't know what the Irish people would and wouldn't support in the event of a UI. But what we DO know is that Ireland as a whole is willing to pay more if it means a 32 county republic, and if a poll was held here tomorrow a huge majority in favour would be delivered.

Yes, and I still believe that - if uniting the island involves anything more than nominal increases in taxes then people will not vote for it.

And yes, I don't know how people will vote when we have the referendum, but I do know people rarely vote for things that lead to increases in taxes.

And again, as the Scottish referendum showed, people are concerned by such practical issues. And if there was referendum tomorrow, NI would vote it down immediately and by a huge majority, in my opinion.

Why?

Well, after the last 6 or so months would anyone vote themselves out of Sterling and into the Euro?

Doubt it.

Ren2k7

katydid wrote: »

Nope, you didn't read my question; I asked for proof that they would vote for a united Ireland NOW. The article you cited does not provide that proof.

No one is questioning whether the Irish nation is behind unification (not re-unification, it has never been unified except under the British). We are questioning whether or not that aspiration, but whether or not they would vote for it under any circumstances. That is by no means certain.

Please try to read what is written, it would help a lot.

I've provided proof but it would seem you are incapable (or perhaps merely unwilling) to read the words right in front of you. I can't help you until you're willing to help yourself.

Jawgap wrote: »

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

The polls in the Scottish indo referendum were largely accurate:

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and a poll about an aspiration is proof of nothing other than, in this case, a majority of the population would like a UI, and are willing to pay some level of extra taxation to see it happen.

Polls are the ONLY proof we have to indicate public opinion on this matter. If you have EVIDENCE that shows the Irish people may not support a UI then please, offer forth this new information.

Jawgap wrote: »

My own opinion, is that they would not be willing to pay a lot more in extra taxes, plus given we're already taxed at a higher rate than the UK any suggestion we'd be nudging taxes up here will likely have a counter-productive effect in NI.

And such an opinion would be entirely wrong and inaccurate. It's been proven that the Irish people would actually pay more in taxes.

I hope this is the last time I have to school you.

eire4

Jawgap wrote: »

where is the evidence our public administration is dysfunctional? there are instances of it failing, but the whole system dysfunctional?

....and what country allows ex-pats to vote that doesn't also require them to pay taxes, even if resident abroad? We may not let the ex-pats vote in parliamentary elections, but neither do we insist on them paying taxes here, the way the US does with their citizens.



How does that make them 'west Brits'?

Can you provide an example of these polls (that show most Irish people support unification)?

In regards to voting rights Ireland is very much an outlier and has started to feel some heat from the EU about the continual refusal to allow Irish born citizens living abroad the right to vote. Over 100 countries have systems to allow voting rights to its emigrants.
Your example of the US emigrants having to pay taxes is also an outlier. Firstly a US emigrant only pays taxes on income after the $90,000 mark or so. Secondly the US is the only developed nation that does this. Beyond this paying income tax is not a requirement to be allowed vote. If this was the case there are many people living in Ireland right now who would have to be kicked off the voting rolls. Or what about those who receive more in benefits then they pay in taxes would they be denied the vote also?

katydid

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I've provided proof but it would seem you are incapable (or perhaps merely unwilling) to read the words right in front of you. I can't help you until you're willing to help yourself.

I've read through the whole article, and I see nothing that says that a majority of the citizenry of this state would vote NOW for a united Ireland. You should have read the article thoroughly before making a fool of yourself posting non-existent "proof".

But of course, feel free to prove me wrong..

johnnyskeleton

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Are you two both being deliberately thick?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/republic-takes-more-relaxed-approach-to-dual-identity-across-the-border-1.557219

MOD NOTE:

Could you not have posted the link without insulting other posters? Please be civil from now on

katydid

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

Could you not have posted the link without insulting other posters? Please be civil from now on

Ah Johnny, if he wants to be rude, let him. He's only showing himself up.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I've provided proof but it would seem you are incapable (or perhaps merely unwilling) to read the words right in front of you. I can't help you until you're willing to help yourself.



The polls in the Scottish indo referendum were largely accurate:





Polls are the ONLY proof we have to indicate public opinion on this matter. If you have EVIDENCE that shows the Irish people may not support a UI then please, offer forth this new information.



And such an opinion would be entirely wrong and inaccurate. It's been proven that the Irish people would actually pay more in taxes.

I hope this is the last time I have to school you.

Well, that's why I made it clear I was offering an opinion.

Interesting, though, that the data published would suggest that the 'don't knows' when it came yo polling day broke in favour of the 'no' side.

Again, I accept that the polls are, in all probability, correct in that people would be willing to pay more for a UI, but in my opinion, they percentage willing to pay would vary inversely with the amount payable.

Further, that amount would likely be significant - stg£6 billion is not much for an economy the size of the UK's, but it's a not insignificant burden for the Republic, and that money, or a decent chunk of it would have to come from somewhere.

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, that's why I made it clear I was offering an opinion.

Interesting, though, that the data published would suggest that the 'don't knows' when it came yo polling day broke in favour of the 'no' side.

Again, I accept that the polls are, in all probability, correct in that people would be willing to pay more for a UI, but in my opinion, they percentage willing to pay would vary inversely with the amount payable.

Further, that amount would likely be significant - stg£6 billion is not much for an economy the size of the UK's, but it's a not insignificant burden for the Republic, and that money, or a decent chunk of it would have to come from somewhere.

There would be no block grant to the six counties in a UI. There would be just local authorities treated the same way as every other part of Ireland and in fact would likely see a situation where Antrim and Down are net contributors to the central exchequer while Derry, Donegal and, say, Kerry are net receivers from state revenue.

Remember Dublin subsidises Connacht and yet there's no talk of offloading them or forcing those to improve their budgetary situation. Fiscal transfers between rich and poor parts of a country are not unique after all.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

I've read through the whole article, and I see nothing that says that a majority of the citizenry of this state would vote NOW for a united Ireland. You should have read the article thoroughly before making a fool of yourself posting non-existent "proof".

But of course, feel free to prove me wrong..

Ok so first you claimed to know the will of the people of Ireland and said:


"It's all academic anyway, since the people of the Republic won't vote to take that dysfunctional place on board."




Then you were shown polls that showed in fact that the majority of people did want unification.


So you changed your stance to saying well thats only an aspiration or an ideal so it's not valid until:
"When the North has sorted out its problems."


Then again when your shown evidence that the majority of Irish people favour unification you change your stance to:
"would vote for a united Ireland NOW"


Nobody is or has ever suggested that I know of that you would move to unification directly upon a vote in favour. Clearly this is a major change and would require much in the way of negotations and would not be something that would happen overnight. I could even see a phased in approach been used with unification.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

There would be no block grant to the six counties in a UI. There would be just local authorities treated the same way as every other part of Ireland and in fact would likely see a situation where Antrim and Down are net contributors to the central exchequer while Derry, Donegal and, say, Kerry are net receivers from state revenue.

Remember Dublin subsidises Connacht and yet there's no talk of offloading them or forcing those to improve their budgetary situation. Fiscal transfers between rich and poor parts of a country are not unique after all.

The NIE budget docs make it clear that NI gets roughly stg£6 billion pa to cover the shortfall between tax and spending. If we take on NI then either we pick up the bill or services are cut.

If it's the former, then taxes have to rise and consequently in my opinion the probability of the Republic voting in favour wanes. If it's the latter, the probability of NI voting for it drops.

No, there is no talk of Dublin making a UDI, but just because people aren't looking to detach themselves from parts of the country that are not self sufficient, it doesn't follow they'll automatically vote to take on another part of the island to support.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

Ok so first you claimed to know the will of the people of Ireland and said:


"It's all academic anyway, since the people of the Republic won't vote to take that dysfunctional place on board."




Then you were shown polls that showed in fact that the majority of people did want unification.


So you changed your stance to saying well thats only an aspiration or an ideal so it's not valid until:
"When the North has sorted out its problems."


Then when your shown evidence that the majority of Irish people favour unification you change your stance to:
"would vote for a united Ireland NOW"


Nobody is or has every suggested that I know of you would move to unification directly upon a vote in favour. Clearly this is a major change and would require much in the way of negotations and would not be something that would happen overnight. I could even see a phased in approach been used with unification.

I'll repeat the question; where in the article you cited does it prove that the people of this state would vote for unification now?

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

The NIE budget docs make it clear that NI gets roughly stg£6 billion pa to cover the shortfall between tax and spending. If we take on NI then either we pick up the bill or services are cut.

If it's the former, then taxes have to rise and consequently in my opinion the probability of the Republic voting in favour wanes. If it's the latter, the probability of NI voting for it drops.

No, there is no talk of Dublin making a UDI, but just because people aren't looking to detach themselves from parts of the country that are not self sufficient, it doesn't follow they'll automatically vote to take on another part of the island to support.

Well......they will actually. I've provided proof and TBH I feel like this is turning into a rather circular argument. I provide polls showing most support increased taxes to pay for a UI, you respond claiming actually, the polls are wrong and people won't vote to financially burden themselves to support the former NI in a new 32 county Republic.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

I'll repeat the question; where in the article you cited does it prove that the people of this state would vote for unification now?

and I will repeat my response to your refusal to accept what you don't want to hear that the majority of Irish people do favour Irish unification. You as shown below just keep changing your stance and it seems to be that its all about unification "now". Clearly a major change like unification is, is not something that will happen overnight. It will need to be negotiated in terms of implementation and very likely could be phased in rather then all happening overnight.


Originally Posted by eire4
Ok so first you claimed to know the will of the people of Ireland and said:


"It's all academic anyway, since the people of the Republic won't vote to take that dysfunctional place on board."




Then you were shown polls that showed in fact that the majority of people did want unification.


So you changed your stance to saying well thats only an aspiration or an ideal so it's not valid until:
"When the North has sorted out its problems."


Then when your shown evidence that the majority of Irish people favour unification you change your stance to:
"would vote for a united Ireland NOW"


Nobody is or has every suggested that I know of you would move to unification directly upon a vote in favour. Clearly this is a major change and would require much in the way of negotations and would not be something that would happen overnight. I could even see a phased in approach been used with unification.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Well......they will actually. I've provided proof and TBH I feel like this is turning into a rather circular argument. I provide polls showing most support increased taxes to pay for a UI, you respond claiming actually, the polls are wrong and people won't vote to financially burden themselves to support the former NI in a new 32 county Republic.

Yes, it's one thing to say "I'll pay more taxes" as part of a poll - quite another to vote for something that will increase fiscal spending by about 20%. We'll get the taxes from NI, but it's pretty clear they don't cover the running of the place - and I doubt people would stand or vote for the 30% or so cut in budget they'd to implement to balance the books, if we don't go for increased taxes.

Even if you go for 15% in cuts and a 10% increase in spending, it would be a very tough sell.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/republic-takes-more-relaxed-approach-to-dual-identity-across-the-border-1.557219

A more recent poll than the one referenced in the IT

Eilis O'Hanlon: Few would be willing to pay more tax for a united Ireland

Those polled were asked a very simple and direct question: Would you be willing to pay higher taxes in return for a united Ireland? When sentiment clashes with pocket, the results are bound to disappoint idealists. A measly 11 per cent of us are willing to pay higher taxes for unity, with 67 per cent saying no and a further 14 per cent who weren't ruling it out entirely but presumably wanted to see the nitty gritty.

More Sinn Fein supporters are willing to pay extra to fulfil the republican dream, but only just (15 per cent, against 65 per cent who aren't about to cough up "one red cent", as Gerry might put it) – and they're still trailing behind the 16 per cent of Fianna Fail supporters who are prepared to dig deep for unity.

Which only proves how fickle polls can be.

Edit:

As for which of us is least keen on paying extra taxes to put the national question to bed once and for all, that would be farmers. A whopping eight in 10 of them are less than thrilled by the idea of chipping in to the cost of getting the Brits out.

Difficult to get anything through in this country without farming support.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

and I will repeat my response to your refusal to accept what you don't want to hear that the majority of Irish people do favour Irish unification. You as shown below just keep changing your stance and it seems to be that its all about unification "now". Clearly a major change like unification is, is not something that will happen overnight. It will need to be negotiated in terms of implementation and very likely could be phased in rather then all happening overnight.


Originally Posted by eire4
Ok so first you claimed to know the will of the people of Ireland and said:


"It's all academic anyway, since the people of the Republic won't vote to take that dysfunctional place on board."




Then you were shown polls that showed in fact that the majority of people did want unification.


So you changed your stance to saying well thats only an aspiration or an ideal so it's not valid until:
"When the North has sorted out its problems."


Then when your shown evidence that the majority of Irish people favour unification you change your stance to:
"would vote for a united Ireland NOW"


Nobody is or has every suggested that I know of you would move to unification directly upon a vote in favour. Clearly this is a major change and would require much in the way of negotations and would not be something that would happen overnight. I could even see a phased in approach been used with unification.

So you have no proof. Gotcha.

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, it's one thing to say "I'll pay more taxes" as part of a poll - quite another to vote for something that will increase fiscal spending by about 20%. We'll get the taxes from NI, but it's pretty clear they don't cover the running of the place - and I doubt people would stand or vote for the 30% or so cut in budget they'd to implement to balance the books, if we don't go for increased taxes.

Even if you go for 15% in cuts and a 10% increase in spending, it would be a very tough sell.

The subvention numbers above are frequently cited by opponents of a UI but fail to grasp a few key points. Firstly the Tory cuts WILL result in an overall decrease in Westminster subsidies to NI. Osborne wants to overhaul the Barnet Formula so that whatever devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and NI provide in taxes to the central govt is what they'll get back in both the block grant and direct central government expenditure.

And speaking of the block grant this too will be eliminated in time as devolved governments gain taxation powers of their own while at the same time receiving less from HM Treasury.

Finally there will be NO Northern Ireland in a unified Ireland. This should go without saying but it would appear it needs to be repeated to those who keep spouting that 6 billion figure without any context. So while some parts of the former Northern Ireland may receive more central govt spending than what they contribute to the state exchequer other parts will be net contributors, likely Antrim and Down. And in fact it may the case that of a list of all 32 counties on whether they are net contributors or otherwise some of the newly added northern counties are less of a drain on resources than other more established parts, like Mayo, Leitrim and Kerry.

eire4

Jawgap wrote: »

A more recent poll than the one referenced in the IT

Eilis O'Hanlon: Few would be willing to pay more tax for a united Ireland




Which only proves how fickle polls can be.

Edit:



Difficult to get anything through in this country without farming support.

Interesting poll again showing a majority in favour of unification but this time showing less willing to pay extra taxes for it.


Of course we do not know that unification would mean having to pay more in tax. Irish unification and its details would have to be negotiated and part of that could very well be an EU aid package to ease the transition to unification never mind the potential of aid to again ease the transition to unification from the US.
Now do I know aid packages from the EU and or US wold be part of any unification deal of course I do not. But I do believe that we have a lot of potential along those lines and unification meaning also tax increases is something that is equally not know nor a certain thing.

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

A more recent poll than the one referenced in the IT

Eilis O'Hanlon: Few would be willing to pay more tax for a united Ireland




Which only proves how fickle polls can be.

Edit:



Difficult to get anything through in this country without farming support.

That's a rather curious, and laughable, attempt by leading Scumdo columnist Eilis O'Hanlon to claim unification isn't inevitable. Christ, what is it about that rag and their constant attempts to deny Irish self determination? The day INM are declared bankrupt and their comics finished should be declared a national holiday in Ireland.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The subvention numbers above are frequently cited by opponents of a UI but fail to grasp a few key points. Firstly the Tory cuts WILL result in an overall decrease in Westminster subsidies to NI. Osborne wants to overhaul the Barnet Formula so that whatever devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and NI provide in taxes to the central govt is what they'll get back in both the block grant and direct central government expenditure.

And speaking of the block grant this too will be eliminated in time as devolved governments gain taxation powers of their own while at the same time receiving less from HM Treasury.

Finally there will be NO Northern Ireland in a unified Ireland. This should go without saying but it would appear it needs to be repeated to those who keep spouting that 6 billion figure without any context. So while some parts of the former Northern Ireland may receive more central govt spending than what they contribute to the state exchequer other parts will be net contributors, likely Antrim and Down. And in fact it may the case that of a list of all 32 counties on whether they are net contributors or otherwise some of the newly added northern counties are less of a drain on resources than other more established parts, like Mayo, Leitrim and Kerry.

You keep saying the Barnett Formula is going, have you anything to back that up?

Scrap Barnett formula and Wales Office, say experts

The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law's report says the Barnett formula does not ensure "equity" across the UK.

The document also recommends the Wales Office should be abolished.

The review suggests rolling it into a UK government department "for the Union", along with the Scotland and Northern Ireland Offices.

Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged to maintain the Barnett formula, which is more generous to Scotland, but has also vowed to ensure "fair funding" for Wales.

They may vary it if tax raising powers are devolved to Stormont.

Jawgap

Ren2k7 wrote: »

That's a rather curious, and laughable, attempt by leading Scumdo columnist Eilis O'Hanlon to claim unification isn't inevitable. Christ, what is it about that rag and their constant attempts to deny Irish self determination? The day INM are declared bankrupt and their comics finished should be declared a national holiday in Ireland.

Well I'm less interested in her opinion than the Millward Brown data she cites.

Here's the polling data, minus her commentary.....

http://www.millwardbrownlansdowne.ie/downloads/Sunday%20Independent%2017th%20February%202013.pdf

Pg 15, Q10 "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?"

67% said 'No'

eire4

katydid wrote: »

So you have no proof. Gotcha.

The only thing you have is a continual change of your position from starting with you knowing the will of the Irish people to be against unification which isn't true to your lastest position that well they are against it "now". Nobody that I am aware of and certainly I have never been saying unification would happen "now". It is clear a major change like this will take time to negotiate and then implement.

Ren2k7

Jawgap wrote: »

You keep saying the Barnett Formula is going, have you anything to back that up?

Scrap Barnett formula and Wales Office, say experts



They may vary it if tax raising powers are devolved to Stormont.

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.

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I'm less interested in her opinion than the Millward Brown data she cites.

Here's the polling data, minus her commentary.....

http://www.millwardbrownlansdowne.ie/downloads/Sunday%20Independent%2017th%20February%202013.pdf

Pg 15, Q10 "Would you be willing to pay significantly higher taxes if it helped secure a United Ireland or not?"

67% said 'No'

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.

alaimacerc

Ren2k7 wrote: »

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.

Can someone direct me to the Politics (General) version of this thread? Because this one seems to have gone very Politics Cafe.

Firstly, can we distinguish between your own personal attitude towards reunification (at all costs, or otherwise), and what seems psephologically feasible?

And secondly, can we have some precision about what amount of "funding (re)unification" is being assumed? Maintaining present levels of public services in NI -- but not elsewhere? Funding them on an all-Ireland basis? Or not actually bothering a tap to do either?