47.9% of NI would back a United Ireland in the event of a 'hard Brexit'

Avatar MIA

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I guess what I mean is that it could take decades for full normalisation to bed in rather than decades to harmonise the country institutionally/bureaucratically.

For sure, but arguably NI never achieved that normalisation.

Jayop

Avatar MIA wrote: »

For sure, but arguably NI never achieved that normalisation.

For good reason. British occupation and an armed struggle as a result.

murphaph

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I would hope it would be a lot shorter. It would be in the UK's and the EU's interest for it to work out, and a lot sooner than that.

German unification is still a work in progress 30 years after the wall fell. The former East still suffers from persistently high unemployment and lives from subsidies from the west. Pension entitlements and minimum wages are lower in the East still.

Remember that this is all following the largest transfer of wealth in human history.

Avatar MIA

murphaph wrote: »

German unification is still a work in progress 30 years after the wall fell. The former East still suffers from persistently high unemployment and lives from subsidies from the west. Pension entitlements and minimum wages are lower in the East still.

Remember that this is all following the largest transfer of wealth in human history.

NI is nowhere near as deprived as communist East Germany, nor is there such a great a disparity between the ROI and NI.

The comparison is frankly embarrassing.

murphaph

Avatar MIA wrote: »

NI is nowhere near as deprived as communist East Germany, nor is there such a great a disparity between the ROI and NI.

The comparison is frankly embarrassing.

But the former East Germany has significantly better infrastructure than Northern Ireland today and still lags way behind the West in economic output. Also I wouldn't be so sure that the GDR wasn't actually as productive as NI! Both states certainly suffer(ed) from a total over reliance on the public sector and subsidies from outside (from the Soviet Union in the case of the GDR in later years).

It has much more to do with the mentality.

(Peace)Mauer im Kopf.

Avatar MIA

murphaph wrote: »

It has much more to do with the mentality.

The mentality from being subjugated by decades of communist rule where people risked their lives to evacuate from? This was no mental wall, it was an actual wall. This is comparison you're making to constituent part of the UK?

Are you having a laugh?

Jayop

It's a fair comparison to make and even fairer to dismiss. I don't mind people making such comparisons as they're easily argued down. It's an honest enough question to ask and the answer is readily available.

murphaph

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The mentality from being subjugated by decades of communist rule where people risked their lives to evacuate from? This was no mental wall, it was an actual wall. This is comparison you're making to constituent part of the UK?

Are you having a laugh?

Are you?

The physical wall separating east from West is gone and has been replaced by a mental wall, the so called Mauer im Kopf. The physical walls separating Catholic from Protestant still exist and when they fall they will be replaced by a mental wall as well, which will also take decades to fade.

Avatar MIA

murphaph wrote: »

Are you?

The physical wall separating east from West is gone and has been replaced by a mental wall, the so called Mauer im Kopf. The physical walls separating Catholic from Protestant still exist and when they fall they will be replaced by a mental wall as well, which will also take decades to fade.

There is no doubt that there remains a mental block between the East and West of Germany. One came from a Brutal regime where their rulers extracted sever retribution for the war, and continued to brutally suppress them through a communist regime. The other part of Germany benefited from a largely benign occupation and the Marshall plan. They were then given their independence. The two Germany's were obviously very different.

To compare NI/ROI to E&W Germany only serves to contrast how different the situations are.

murphaph

Avatar MIA wrote: »

There is no doubt that there remains a mental block between the East and West of Germany. One came from a Brutal regime where their rulers extracted sever retribution for the war, and continued to brutally suppress them through a communist regime. The other part of Germany benefited from a largely benign occupation and the Marshall plan. They were then given their independence. The two Germany's were obviously very different.

To compare NI/ROI to E&W Germany only serves to contrast how different the situations are.

And there's no mental wall (as well as the physical ones) separating Catholic and Protestant in NI?

Avatar MIA

murphaph wrote: »

And there's no mental wall (as well as the physical ones) separating Catholic and Protestant in NI?

There is currently and there would be in a UI.

However the unionist/Protestant side are coming from a not an inch/No surrender attitude. Whereas, there would have to be concessions to Unionist/Protestants from the get go under a UI.

Jayop

murphaph wrote: »

And there's no mental wall (as well as the physical ones) separating Catholic and Protestant in NI?

Murph dude I don't know you and I don't know where you're from but I'm from the north and I can tell you that the situation is incomparable. The mental wall in Germany is totally different because now in the north the traditionally oppressed catholic is now better educated and has more prospects.

Blazer

blanch152 wrote: »

So the taxpayer in the South will pay with increased taxation rates, glad that was cleared up.

And that's why it will never fly.
As usual the middle working class will subsidize everyone else.
If it came to a vote on Unification most of the PAYE workers will vote No.

Sidey

Blazer wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

So the taxpayer in the South will pay with increased taxation rates, glad that was cleared up.

And that's why it will never fly.
As usual the middle working class will subsidize everyone else.
If it came to a vote on Unification most of the PAYE works will vote No.

Despite repeated polls for decades saying otherwise, and despite a poll just a few days ago showing a large majority in the south in favour even if it costs 9bn a year.

There's a hardcore of rabid anti-republican partitionists online, but out in the really real world views like yours are only shared by a small minority. You can argue against a UI all you like, indeed most of us welcome it because almost all the anti-UI arguments are easily debunked. Just stop projecting your own prejudices onto everyone else and claiming to speak for the majority of your fellow citizens when you have no evidence to back that up.

murphaph

Jayop wrote: »

Murph dude I don't know you and I don't know where you're from but I'm from the north and I can tell you that the situation is incomparable. The mental wall in Germany is totally different because now in the north the traditionally oppressed catholic is now better educated and has more prospects.

The education system in the former East was never particularly poor (arguably it was better in some respects). Eastern Germans are not discriminated against with respect to employment.

You won't find any situation bring entirely comparable with NI but comparisons can still be drawn with the few examples of unification which we have.

The technical financial issues need to be openly discussed. How do NI mortgage holders feel about redenominating their mortgages to Euro? The Euro itself is not universally liked. What exactly will happen to tax rates in the south? What planned infrastructure in the south will be shelved to divert funds to the new six counties etc. etc.

Those who think unification will be done and dusted in a few years are deluding themselves. It will take a generation at the very least for NI to become a normal part of the country. The sh1t's been going on for 400 years after all.

murphaph

Sidey wrote: »

Despite repeated polls for decades saying otherwise, and despite a poll just a few days ago showing a large majority in the south in favour even if it costs 9bn a year.

There's a hardcore of rabid anti-republican partitionists online, but out in the really real world views like yours are only shared by a small minority. You can argue against a UI all you like, indeed most of us welcome it because almost all the anti-UI arguments are easily debunked. Just stop projecting your own prejudices onto everyone else and claiming to speak for the majority of your fellow citizens when you have no evidence to back that up.

Don't tell him/her what to say.

I feel the polls are deeply unreliable because quite simply many people feel pressured into declaring their über-Irishness when asked such questions by pollsters or even the census form (nobody believes the figures of Irish speakers or Catholics matches the reality) so they just say they'd vote for a UI.

Have an open debate and tell them how much infrastructural investment will be diverted from their area to NI and how much they can expect to pay in a Solidarity Tax (still paid by workers in Germany today) and let them cast their secret ballot and the race will be much much closer than recent polls suggest.

Most people care about their own pocket, especially in Ireland. It's why tax cuts are more popular than infrastructure. Also Ireland has a significant number of new citizens who have no Irish ancestry and absolutely no romantic ideas about unification.

That's why NI needs to be attractive and not seen as a millstone as it is currently.

FrancieBrady

What is uber-Irishness when it is at home?

oscarBravo

Sidey wrote: »

Despite repeated polls for decades saying otherwise, and despite a poll just a few days ago showing a large majority in the south in favour even if it costs 9bn a year.

I can see that that's going to be the talking point of choice for some time to come.

Irish people have no problem whatsoever with large amounts of money being spent on things, as long as it's someone else's money. 9 billion? No problem, just raise someone else's taxes. We saw that in the thread about homelessness, where people were passionately arguing that the government should throw endless amounts of money at the problem - as long as it wasn't their money being thrown at it.

If the question were asked again, and if it were framed in terms of how much their income tax would increase, or how much the health or education budget would have to be cut, are you confident that the large majority would hold firm?

tomwaterford

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the question were asked again, and if it were framed in terms of how much their income tax would increase, or how much the health or education budget would have to be cut, are you confident that the large majority would hold firm?

Yes??

Because it'll be like all irish referendums and be just rerun and rerun until they pass......

There is also a massive unknown of a nationlists campaign of violence afross the free state....if it's passed in North and rejected in the south??


The 2nd referendum in such a scenario would be effectively a vote for peace










>>for perpetually offended this deosnt mean I support said campaign of violence

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can see that that's going to be the talking point of choice for some time to come.

Irish people have no problem whatsoever with large amounts of money being spent on things, as long as it's someone else's money. 9 billion? No problem, just raise someone else's taxes. We saw that in the thread about homelessness, where people were passionately arguing that the government should throw endless amounts of money at the problem - as long as it wasn't their money being thrown at it.

If the question were asked again, and if it were framed in terms of how much their income tax would increase, or how much the health or education budget would have to be cut, are you confident that the large majority would hold firm?

The everyone else is 'stupid/hoodwinked/operating the magic money tree' response?

The problem people have with money being spent on homelessness, would mostly centre around it being spent wrongly and inefficiently mostly from what i can see.
Of course there are those who object to their money being spent, you have that selfishness at both ends of the spectrum...in every economy in the world. No different here than anywhere else.
Most people know that money needs to be spent and invested.

oscarBravo

tomwaterford wrote: »

There is also a massive unknown of a nationlists campaign of violence afross the free state....if it's passed in North and rejected in the south??

The 2nd referendum in such a scenario would be effectively a vote for peace

...and we're back to the argument that loyalists will peacefully accept the destruction of their entire raison d'etre without fuss, while nationalists will immediately launch into a campaign of terrorism as soon as democracy lets them down.

>>for perpetually offended this deosnt mean I support said campaign of violence

Of course not. You're just happy to hold out the threat of it as leverage.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The everyone else is 'stupid/hoodwinked/operating the magic money tree' response?

No, the "experience clearly shows that Irish people are only happy spending other people's money" response.

The rest of your reply is just the usual "of course people will be happy to pay sharp increases in taxation to fund something that I hold dear, and anyone who doesn't is a selfish bastard" handwaving.

We won't know until that's the actual question that's asked. In the meantime, keep repeating the "nine billion" mantra as if it means anything.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and we're back to the argument that loyalists will peacefully accept the destruction of their entire raison d'etre without fuss, while nationalists will immediately launch into a campaign of terrorism as soon as democracy lets them down. Of course not. You're just happy to hold out the threat of it as leverage.

No, the "experience clearly shows that Irish people are only happy spending other people's money" response.

The rest of your reply is just the usual "of course people will be happy to pay sharp increases in taxation to fund something that I hold dear, and anyone who doesn't is a selfish bastard" handwaving.

We won't know until that's the actual question that's asked. In the meantime, keep repeating the "nine billion" mantra as if it means anything.

Is it not you being the prime proponent of 'you can't spend my money' on that project? Because you don't like the project?
If the Irish people decide that a UI is project worth investing in, what is the problem exactly?

tomwaterford

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course not. You're just happy to hold out the threat of it as leverage.

All I've said is it hasn't been discussed atal in this thread and numbers of Irish nationlists across the free state are in much higher numbers than loyalists in the 6 counties




Loyalists like I've said are still protesting at Drumcree every Sunday. ..over 20 years later....still protesting about the flag. (Of which I fully support people right to protest)....I've seen nothing to suggest they can mount anything approaching a sustained campaign of insurrection....they needed mi5 to provide them with virtually all there info in tge troubles



Unless you think mi5 is going to assist loyalist paramilitaries in a united Ireland (for what ends?). ...in such a scentrio we should be looking at ejecting the British embassy

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it not you being the prime proponent of 'you can't spend my money' on that project? Because you don't like the project?
If the Irish people decide that a UI is project worth investing in, what is the problem exactly?

If the Irish people decide that, then fine. But I was talking about the confident assertion that the Irish people will agree to hikes in their own taxes or cuts to their own services, because they weren't asked about that: they were asked would they support it at a cost of 9bn.

When they're asked whether they'd support it at a personal cost to themselves, come back to me with your confident prediction that such an opinion poll will translate into an actual vote.

oscarBravo

tomwaterford wrote: »

All I've said is it hasn't been discussed atal in this thread and numbers of Irish nationlists across the free state are in much higher numbers than loyalists in the 6 counties

You've said that nationalists will turn to terrorism if they can't get their way democratically, while loyalists won't.

You can squirm and wriggle all you want, but it's not me who has said that nationalists are more violent than loyalists; it's you. You can claim you didn't say that, but it's the clear implication of your words.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the Irish people decide that, then fine. But I was talking about the confident assertion that the Irish people will agree to hikes in their own taxes or cuts to their own services, because they weren't asked about that: they were asked would they support it at a cost of 9bn.

When they're asked whether they'd support it at a personal cost to themselves, come back to me with your confident prediction that such an opinion poll will translate into an actual vote.

But your assertion is that those asked are not aware that the 9bn has to come from somewhere, is it not?
Are you saying they are too stupid/blinkered/delusional to figure out that the cost will be to them?
What are you saying?

tomwaterford

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've said that nationalists will turn to terrorism if they can't get their way democratically, while loyalists won't.
.

I havnt....I said the possibilty of it hasn't been investigated.....perhaps you need brush up on comprehension

Edit:I havnt said nationlists are more violent...just greater in number


People are wailing and raving about loyalist violense (which needs mi5 assistance to be credible)......all the while saying nationlists should accept people of the north should be cut off and left to deal with loyalist violence alone
(This worked out well last time )

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But your assertion is that those asked are not aware that the 9bn has to come from somewhere, is it not?
Are you saying they are too stupid/blinkered/delusional to figure out that the cost will be to them?
What are you saying?

I've made my point. You disagree with it, because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. That's fine. If you choose to believe that Irish people will volunteer for increased personal taxation and/or reduced public services as the cost of unification, that's fine too. I'll believe it when that's the actual question they're asked.

oscarBravo

tomwaterford wrote: »

I havnt....I said the possibilty of it hasn't been investigated.....perhaps you need brush up on comprehension

Edit:I havnt said nationlists are more violent...just greater in number

Fine. I'll ask the question directly: do you think that nationalist terrorism is more likely in response to a rejection of unification than loyalist terrorism would be in response to an acceptance of unification?

People are wailing and raving about loyalist violense (which needs mi5 assistance to be credible)......all the while saying nationlists should accept people of the north should be cut off and left to deal with loyalist violence alone
(This worked out well last time )

Why would there be loyalist violence in the event of no vote for unification? You're not making sense.

As for the whole "loyalists need MI5 assistance to be terrorists, while nationalists are capable of being terrorists all by themselves", you're not doing much to dispel the idea that nationalists are more inherently violent than loyalists.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've made my point. You disagree with it, because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. That's fine. If you choose to believe that Irish people will volunteer for increased personal taxation and/or reduced public services as the cost of unification, that's fine too. I'll believe it when that's the actual question they're asked.

But you didn't clarify what you meant.

What do you think the people who were asked 'Would they vote for a UI if it cost 9bn a year' were thinking?

Were they all thinking someone else would pay this cost? Is that your point here?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you didn't clarify what you meant.

What do you think the people who were asked 'Would they vote for a UI if it cost 9bn a year' were thinking?

Were they all thinking someone else would pay this cost? Is that your point here?

My point, which is obvious to anyone not wilfully attempting to misunderstand it, is that at least some of them would assume that someone else would pay it.

It suits you to believe that most or all people would be willing to pay increased taxes or accept reduced services in return for unification. Again: that's fine, I can't help what you choose to accept as an article of faith. Once again, I'll believe it when that's the actual question that's asked.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

My point, which is obvious to anyone not wilfully attempting to misunderstand it, is that at least some of them would assume that someone else would pay it.

Why would they? It seems like an obvious enough question. 'Would you still want an apple if it cost 20 euro?'

What about that question tells you that somebody else would be paying for it?

It suits you to believe that most or all people would be willing to pay increased taxes or accept reduced services in return for unification. Again: that's fine, I can't help what you choose to accept as an article of faith. Once again, I'll believe it when that's the actual question that's asked.

Says the person that believes that a significant amount of people have assumed that somebody else is picking up the 9bn tab.

'Articles of faith' indeed!

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would they? It seems like an obvious enough question. 'Would you still want an apple if it cost 20 euro?'

What about that question tells you that somebody else would be paying for it?



Says the person that believes that a significant amount of people have assumed that somebody else is picking up the 9bn tab.

'Articles of faith' indeed!

Not everyone is paying for their own apples. Welfare recipients see no income tax deductions on their pay slips. It's all magic money to most of them.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is uber-Irishness when it is at home?

When you start answering my questions I'll answer yours.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

When you start answering my questions I'll answer yours.

What questions?
The 'have you stopped beating your wife' style ones? I already have.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Not everyone is paying for their own apples. Welfare recipients see no income tax deductions on their pay slips. It's all magic money to most of them.

And we know how many of these 'welfare recipients' took part in the poll, how exactly? Or did we just 'assume' because we don't like the findings?

Blazer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And we know how many of these 'welfare recipients' took part in the poll, how exactly? Or did we just 'assume' because we don't like the findings?

What they should ask is would you support the cost of Unification if it meant that VAT was doubled, welfare payments were taxed, PAYE was increased and everyone earning a wage paid USC.
And this would be for at least a decade.
Because no matter what Gerry says there is no magic fix to requiring over 10 billion to support NI. At least not for a decade.
I’m pretty sure the SF supporters wouldn’t be long dropping their votes once they realized they affected them.
And besides even if both sides both for it how would we keep the peace up there?
I don’t want it to go back to the 80’s etc.

Avatar MIA

Blazer wrote: »

Because no matter what Gerry says there is no magic fix to requiring over 10 billion to support NI.

Fair play for providing a figure. Where are you getting this from?

Avatar MIA

Back in 1997 the subvention to NI by the UK was only £3.3 billion and now is over £9b. (inflation not taken into account). Why the large increase?

But these are the bare figures. What amount is paid on services that would cease such as military spending.

It's interesting that NI was a net contributor to the UK until the the 1930s.

The make up of the £9b needs to be looked into in detail.

Blazer

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Fair play for providing a figure. Where are you getting this from?

There’s a few being bandied around but all are around 8-10 billion required to support it.
I imagine we could offset 1-2 billion from EU support and maybe we could swing a few billion or so for a decade from the UK in support of it but that still leaves a significant amount. Also I imagine welfare would have to realign so I’m guessing theirs would increase in line with ours to keep the peace.
Also their infrastructure is bad so that would require some investment also so again we are looking at a significant amount.
Would Irish people accept that or would they prefer we spent that additional money on addressing the housing crisis, or investing more into the HSE or maybe to hell with them all and don’t touch my money?

Whatever happens we would need the parties on all sides to post plans on how they plan to support it financially and the implications for every citizen.


https://www.google.ie/amp/www.newstalk.com/AMP/How-much-money-does-Northern-Ireland-really-get-from-the-EU

Avatar MIA

Just spent a few minutes looking at the 2016/2017 NI budget and I've knocked £1.9B off the annual bill already.

That's the amount the Executive pay in pensions. That would need to be funded by the UK going forward as they received the funds to begin with to cover these costs (they need to do something similar for EU pensions because of Brexit). That took 10 minutes, and we're already down to £7b. :pac:

Blazer

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Just spent a few minutes looking at the 2016/2017 NI budget and I've knocked £1.9B off the annual bill already.

That's the amount the Executive pay in pensions. That would need to be funded by the UK going forward as they received the funds to begin with to cover these costs (they need to do something similar for EU pensions because of Brexit). That took 10 minutes, and we're already down to £7b. :pac:

Congrats. Now we can use that money towards enforcing customs borders between the EU ie us and the UK.
But that’s what we need. Detailed breakdown of the costs etc and how we can balance them etc

FrancieBrady

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Just spent a few minutes looking at the 2016/2017 NI budget and I've knocked £1.9B off the annual bill already.

That's the amount the Executive pay in pensions. That would need to be funded by the UK going forward as they received the funds to begin with to cover these costs (they need to do something similar for EU pensions because of Brexit). That took 10 minutes, and we're already down to £7b. :pac:

People like Blazer don't get it. We cannot come to a reliable figure until all of this is discussed.

What we do know is that 60% seem to have no problem opting for a UI even at a cost of 9bn a year, presumably because it would pay a dividend in the long term in more than economic terms.
That is something that needs to be seriously looked at. And it cannot be done by some random people doing the internet equivalent of toting up the totals on the back of a fag packet. Or plucking selective deficits out of the air to illustrate a point.

Avatar MIA

Blazer wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.newstalk.com/AMP/How-much-money-does-Northern-Ireland-really-get-from-the-EU

A couple of things.

The above suggests that NI as part of the UK pretty much breaks even on the EU funding. Whereas in a UI it would definitely receive funding being a poor region.

Would the NE need investment, Yes. But that's considered exactly that - an investment, with a net gain eventually.

Found another €30m in the budget. RHI. That'd be phased out quick smart.

Blazer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People like Blazer don't get it. We cannot come to a reliable figure until all of this is discussed.

What we do know is that 60% seem to have no problem opting for a UI even at a cost of 9bn a year, presumably because it would pay a dividend in the long term in more than economic terms.
That is something that needs to be seriously looked at. And it cannot be done by some random people doing the internet equivalent of toting up the totals on the back of a fag packet. Or plucking selective deficits out of the air to illustrate a point.

No that wasn’t the poll question which you are now trying to change to suit your agenda.
The question was simply, would you support it.
It’s people like you who don’t get it.
I already said we need a detailed breakdown on what it would cost and no bull**** fairy numbers based on tourism etc which can be easily manufactured

Avatar MIA

Blazer wrote: »

Congrats. Now we can use that money towards enforcing customs borders between the EU ie us and the UK.

There's going to be a soft brexit, and the UK coming back into the EU in time once a Labour government gets a chance to go back to the people in a referendum once the penny (or pound more like) drops.

FrancieBrady

Blazer wrote: »

No that wasn’t the poll question which you are now trying to change to suit your agenda.
The question was simply, would you support it.
It’s people like you who don’t get it.
I already said we need a detailed breakdown on what it would cost and no bull**** fairy numbers based on tourism etc which can be easily manufactured

Tourism is 'bull****'?
Deficit figures can be manufactured to suit agendas too you know.

* 'Opting for' would be the same thing to me as 'support' btw

Blazer

Avatar MIA wrote: »

There's going to be a soft brexit, and the UK coming back into the EU in time once a Labour government gets a chance to go back to the people in a referendum once the penny (or pound more like) drops.

They should.
The whole thing has been a disaster since Day 1 and Cameron has screwed the country over for his own personal gain.
May should take the hit and say "we're going to have another referendum and this time each party must verify their facts before spouting nonsense."
She'd probably get fired but history would reflect kindly on her as opposed to Cameron.
That's of course if the youth actually get off their holes and vote rather than sitting on their asses at home and then complaining when the vote didn't go their way.
It would also leave the UK in a strong position with the EU to renegotiate certain terms and conditions.
A lot of EU countries are not happy with the hardline stance being taken against the UK as it will directly affect them too.

Blazer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Tourism is 'bull****'?
Deficit figures can be manufactured to suit agendas too you know.

* 'Opting for' would be the same thing to me as 'support' btw

I mean as in using so called projected figures to go from eg
5 million people visit Ireland and NI every year. With Unification we expect 10 million to visit.
Those type of projections I talk about where Unification will magically conjure an extra 5 million visitors a year etc.

Avatar MIA

Blazer wrote: »

5 million people visit Ireland and NI every year. With Unification we expect 10 million to visit.

Failte Ireland for 2016 said 8.74 million foreign visitors visited the ROI and 1.36m visited NI. That's 10.1m already.