Costs of Irish unification.

mickmac76

While browsing the Brexit thread I came across a post that mentioned some people are against Irish unification because of the costs involved. I have to say that I never considered that point of view.

So if say Brexit goes ahead as planned and the six counties held a referendum and decided to join the South what exactly would it cost the rest of us. I suppose there would be one off costs like changing the economy over to the euro. But doesn't northern Ireland also cost the UK government a fair bit of money every year. The thing is I have no idea apart from security what it's spent on.

How much would it cost the average tax payer in the 26 counties to bring about unification and could we afford it or would the potential costs put off people in the south from unifying.

NI has a huge civil service so that would be one thing. Would we have to hire them too?

James Brown

Karsini wrote: »

NI has a huge civil service so that would be one thing. Would we have to hire them too?

I would assume the mechanics/state departments would be taken as is and changed over time to be compatible (with the good ol' boys in the south) with our 'system'?

Fr Tod Umptious

Karsini wrote: »

NI has a huge civil service so that would be one thing. Would we have to hire them too?

Yep, I think it's something like 75% of the work force are employed by the state up there.

They would all have to either retain their jobs or get huge payouts.

There would also be massive social infrastructure costs that we don't have in the south.
For every community center you build in one side of town you have to build another one in the other side.

Then there are the security costs, all those "peace lines" are not cheap to maintain.

Obvious Otter

Northern Ireland has been a bit of a sinkweight on the UK for some time. I would be against re-unification as I don’t think we’d be able to pay for it. NI is also in dire need of major infrastructure development, which we wouldn’t be able to afford considering our own infrastructure issues.

dok_golf

A guy called Kevin Meagher wrote a book called https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/a-united-ireland " A United Ireland, Why it is inevitable and how it will come about". This man was under secretary to the last Labour secretary of state, whose name escapes me. In the book, Mr. Meaghar says that the UK is obliged to keep the funding going on an annually decreasing basis for quite a few years. Also, the EU is willing and ready to pump billions into the region. There is, admittedly, a huge dependence on public service jobs there. Indeed this could amount to 50% of jobs, either directly or indirectly. Not withstanding this, I, for one, would not abandon ( as they were in 1921 ) Irish men and women, just because it may impinge financially on this country.

James Brown

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Northern Ireland has been a bit of a sinkweight on the UK for some time. I would be against re-unification as I don’t think we’d be able to pay for it. NI is also in dire need of major infrastructure development, which we wouldn’t be able to afford considering our own infrastructure issues.

I appreciate that concern, but it's how you view it. As we were in the process of borrowing billions during the most recent crash, cost wasn't an issue. The powers that be decided on a figure, we borrowed it and went back to business as usual. It's possible that we may or may not be heading in mostly the same direction, domestically anyway, but some people give reunification a lot my leeway and regard than was given to propping up our economic circus.
In short, if we can get ourselves into generational debt to set up the same bowling pins, why not do so, if that's actually the case, to reunify the country? It's about your priorities. Bail out failed economic cartels/reunify the country. One is certainly more appealing than the other, depending on your view.

NIMAN

Reunification would be very costly, but I would assume that there would be a willingness from many sources around the world to contribute.

I would guess it wouldn't cost the Irish state that much in the early stages.

blanch152

It all depends on how unification happens.

We all know our health service is completely inefficient, mostly due to overstaffing of nurses and understaffing of doctors, as well as other inefficient work practices protected by unions. However, in the North, healthcare is free, while around half of us (those not on medical cards) pay for GP and the A&E charge. So if we adopt the Northern Ireland system of payment and import into Northern Ireland our inefficient work practices, the cost of health services will boom and the tax rates will go up.

However, if we make people pay in the North, and bring our work practices in line with the North, it would cost less. The chances of that are zero though.

Social welfare rates in the North are far below those in the South. Even the Journal admit this:

http://www.thejournal.ie/jobseekers-payments-northern-ireland-republic-comparison-3019455-Oct2016/

Do you seriously believe that we will cut the rates in the South? Eh, no, that means that will have another bill for taxpayers attached to it.

Of course, SF will tell us that the magic money tree or the 1% or Apple will pay for all this, but there is no doubt that someone will suffer be that the southern taxpayer, the Northern patient or the Southern social welfare recipient. My money is on the ordinary taxpayer in the South, they are the quietest and in the minority.

On top of all this, HMG gives Northern Ireland €10bn a year and May promised another €1bn to keep the DUP happy. Where are we going to find the money for that?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I appreciate that concern, but it's how you view it. As we were in the process of borrowing billions during the most recent crash, cost wasn't an issue. The powers that be decided on a figure, we borrowed it and went back to business as usual.

That is a very strange account of our recent economic history. It simply isn't true. In fact that recent economic history is why we can't afford the North.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's possible that we may or may not be heading in mostly the same direction, domestically anyway, but some people give reunification a lot my leeway and regard than was given to propping up our economic circus.
In short, if we can get ourselves into generational debt to set up the same bowling pins, why not do so, if that's actually the case, to reunify the country? It's about your priorities. Bail out failed economic cartels/reunify the country. One is certainly more appealing than the other, depending on your view.

Why pay a lot of money for reunification just for a symbol, just for an abstract concept of nationalism?

Sand

One has to assume the UK will also take the opportunity to ensure Northern Ireland takes a proportion of the UK national debt with it. So not only would there be significant ongoing costs, the 'national' debt of Northern Ireland would have to be absorbed.

Plus there would likely be significant concessions to 'British' identity in Northern Ireland, which some nationalists might find very difficult to swallow.

blanch152

Sand wrote: »

One has to assume the UK will also take the opportunity to ensure Northern Ireland takes a proportion of the UK national debt with it. So not only would there be significant ongoing costs, the 'national' debt of Northern Ireland would have to be absorbed.

Plus there would likely be significant concessions to 'British' identity in Northern Ireland, which some nationalists might find very difficult to swallow.

Significant and costly concessions to British identity, and they would not be limited to Northern Ireland as we would have to show welcome by doing the same. The repeal of the Irish Languages Act would be the first thing on the agenda.

Sand

blanch152 wrote: »

Significant and costly concessions to British identity, and they would not be limited to Northern Ireland as we would have to show welcome by doing the same. The repeal of the Irish Languages Act would be the first thing on the agenda.

Not necessarily the repeal of the act. That would be overreach (though a price I would be happy to pay for a United Ireland). I think it could instead be a demand for equal status for Ulster Scots under the law: so the translation of all documents into Ulster Scots, all placename signs being in Ulster Scots and the requirement for all services to be available in Ulster Scots. Hugely expensive, and yet utterly reasonable under parity of esteem.

K3v

Wasn't there a study a few years ago called 'Modelling Irish Unification', which showed the economy of island of Ireland would benefit to the tune of €30-40 billion over the 1st 8-10 years. Don't know if any further study has been undertaken since.

dok_golf

K3v wrote: »

Wasn't there a study a few years ago called 'Modelling Irish Unification', which showed the economy of island of Ireland would benefit to the tune of €30-40 billion over the 1st 8-10 years. Don't know if any further study has been undertaken since.

several studies undertaken
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505

https://senatormarkdaly.org/uniting-ireland-in-peace-prosperity/

dok_golf

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a very strange account of our recent economic history. It simply isn't true. In fact that recent economic history is why we can't afford the North.




Why pay a lot of money for reunification just for a symbol, just for an abstract concept of nationalism?

by the same argument, why not hand the country back to the queen and apologise for the balls we have made of it? It's just a symbol whether we have the tricolour or union jack flying high

dok_golf

Sand wrote: »

One has to assume the UK will also take the opportunity to ensure Northern Ireland takes a proportion of the UK national debt with it. So not only would there be significant ongoing costs, the 'national' debt of Northern Ireland would have to be absorbed.

Plus there would likely be significant concessions to 'British' identity in Northern Ireland, which some nationalists might find very difficult to swallow.

Part 1. Not in probability. the north's share of UK debt would be @ 35 billion. This represents 3 years subvention. The UK will factor this into the continued bursary over the decade following reunification

Part 2. It would make inescapable sense to rewrite our constitution as parts of it are outdated to say the least. What should happen, imo, is a federal republic, where you let the Unionists have their own parliament and then a federal government. It might be no bad thing to run Dublin/greater Dublin separately as well along with two other cantons for the rest of the country.

blanch152

dok_golf wrote: »

several studies undertaken
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505

https://senatormarkdaly.org/uniting-ireland-in-peace-prosperity/

That study mentioned in the Irish Times has been torn apart several times on here. It has laughable assumptions.

mickmac76

Thanks for all the replies. I hadn't realized that so many people worked in the public sector in the North. Apart from the security side of things it's hard to imagine what they all do. I had heard before that the welfare system up there is a lot less generous than or own so equalizing them would be costly. Also trying to equalize the pay across the two public sectors would be an enormous headache with the unions looking not just for equal pay but similar holidays and terms of employment. Am I right in thinking that personal tax levels in the UK are lower than ours? If that's the case trying to adjust the tax people pay in the north could be a problem with workers in the private sector looking for significant rises or giving up work for the more generous social welfare payments. Does anyone know how bad is the black economy in the North compared to the Republic?

OttoPilot

I think long term the benefits would far outweigh the costs. NI's economy is not unfixable and getting off the tit of the British taxpayer would be a good thing long term. Ireland is crying out for a second city to invest in at the moment as Dublin is attracting way too much business/investment. Belfast could benefit greatly.

breatheme

dok_golf wrote: »

Sand wrote: »

One has to assume the UK will also take the opportunity to ensure Northern Ireland takes a proportion of the UK national debt with it. So not only would there be significant ongoing costs, the 'national' debt of Northern Ireland would have to be absorbed.

Plus there would likely be significant concessions to 'British' identity in Northern Ireland, which some nationalists might find very difficult to swallow.

Part 1. Not in probability. the north's share of UK debt would be @ 35 billion. This represents 3 years subvention. The UK will factor this into the continued bursary over the decade following reunification

Part 2. It would make inescapable sense to rewrite our constitution as parts of it are outdated to say the least. What should happen, imo, is a federal republic, where you let the Unionists have their own parliament and then a federal government. It might be no bad thing to run Dublin/greater Dublin separately as well along with two other cantons for the rest of the country.

Or the historical provinces... or provinces + Dublin/Greater Dublin. A lot of models worth exploring.

dok_golf

blanch152 wrote: »

That study mentioned in the Irish Times has been torn apart several times on here. It has laughable assumptions.

Yep. Wasn't trying to link either one as "gospel"

dok_golf

mickmac76 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I hadn't realized that so many people worked in the public sector in the North. Apart from the security side of things it's hard to imagine what they all do. I had heard before that the welfare system up there is a lot less generous than or own so equalizing them would be costly. Also trying to equalize the pay across the two public sectors would be an enormous headache with the unions looking not just for equal pay but similar holidays and terms of employment. Am I right in thinking that personal tax levels in the UK are lower than ours? If that's the case trying to adjust the tax people pay in the north could be a problem with workers in the private sector looking for significant rises or giving up work for the more generous social welfare payments. Does anyone know how bad is the black economy in the North compared to the Republic?

Some of the quotes regarding the amount of people working in public service there might be a little misleading. It is generally accepted that @50% give or take, are either directly employed in public service or dependent on public service for employment. That could include the cafe inside the RV hospital.

dok_golf

Having worked in the north, it goes without saying that the black economy is quite large. In fact, I know people in south Armagh, who consider it their patriotic duty "not to fill Lizzie's purse"

Sand

dok_golf wrote: »

Part 1. Not in probability. the north's share of UK debt would be @ 35 billion. This represents 3 years subvention. The UK will factor this into the continued bursary over the decade following reunification

Definitely in probability. If Northern Ireland was permitted to exit with no debt share to go with it, it sends a message to Scottish nationalists who will then equally claim a debt free independence.

Plus I don't see how your figures work out. Per capita, the NI share of the UK debt is roughly 56 billion sterling. That would increase Ireland's debt from roughly 73% of GDP to 103% of GDP. And of course the UK could decide that a net recipient of UK spending actually has a much greater share of UK national debt than per capita measures would imply. Again, given the Scotland case the UK has little reason to be generous. They will know the Irish government wont be in any position to turn down any vaguely reasonable terms should referendums on both sides of the border call for a United Ireland.

dok_golf

I'm taking 1.75 trillion as UK national debt with a pop. of @ 66 million. 1.5 million in the north. ( Sorry did maths in my head first time ) = 39.77billion.

dok_golf

The north wouldn't be leaving without it's share of the debt. The continuation of the bursary would be adjusted to account for this

david75

In bodies or money?
With any luck those determined to be British would leave and return to their homeland. As if that will happen.
Paisley jnr already invoking his pals in balaclavas with recent comments.

Could be brilliant if we had a unified Ireland it would take an entire generation to settle down though and that time would not be a peaceful one I dont think.

blanch152

OttoPilot wrote: »

I think long term the benefits would far outweigh the costs. NI's economy is not unfixable and getting off the tit of the British taxpayer would be a good thing long term. Ireland is crying out for a second city to invest in at the moment as Dublin is attracting way too much business/investment. Belfast could benefit greatly.

That is exactly the arguments that those in favour of Brexit used.

Some feelgood aspirational stuff with no substance to back it up. We would be as mad as the British voting for Brexit if we voted for unification in current circumstances.

dok_golf

The Unionists would still have ability to retain their British passports. But you raise a valid point, could this be done without bloodshed? That would be an argument that in the case of a referendum, then 50%+1 may not be enough of a mandate.

jm08

mickmac76 wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I hadn't realized that so many people worked in the public sector in the North.

The public service is about 30%, not 75%. The rest of the UK averages out at about 20%.

Republic is 19.5%.

fritzelly

dok_golf wrote: »

What should happen, imo, is a federal republic, where you let the Unionists have their own parliament and then a federal government. It might be no bad thing to run Dublin/greater Dublin separately as well along with two other cantons for the rest of the country.

I don't get how that is any different from now?

I can only see a unification that entails all the problems being moved to the new capital, pretty much everyone I know does not want it primary reason being we cannot afford it and we don't want a country that takes on the "troubles" of a still divided country.

As for another capital what is wrong with any of the other cities in Southern Ireland?

Edit
I'd also worry for the tourism factor as a united Ireland when people look at the single country and read all the crap going on still

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

It all depends on how unification happens.

We all know our health service is completely inefficient, mostly due to overstaffing of nurses and understaffing of doctors, as well as other inefficient work practices protected by unions.

Thats the first time I've heard that one.

Overstaffing of admin staff might be a problem though.

dok_golf

fritzelly wrote: »

I don't get how that is any different from now?

I can only see a unification that entails all the problems being moved to the new capital, pretty much everyone I know does not want it primary reason being we cannot afford it and we don't want a country that takes on the "troubles" of a still divided country.

As for another capital what is wrong with any of the other cities in Southern Ireland?

Edit
I'd also worry for the tourism factor as a united Ireland when people look at the single country and read all the crap going on still

Tourism is already being promoted on an all Ireland basis.

bobbysands81

dok_golf wrote: »

The Unionists would still have ability to retain their British passports. But you raise a valid point, could this be done without bloodshed? That would be an argument that in the case of a referendum, then 50%+1 may not be enough of a mandate.

50%+1 is democracy. It is enough.

A United Ireland won’t be the 6 counties subsumed into the 26, instead it’ll be a new and shared island where the rights of Unionists will be copperfastened and protected. If that doesn’t happen then there’s really no point as creating further divisions on this island benefits nobody, communities and society lose. Unionists need to be made feel welcome and that they belong in this new Ireland. All flags and emblems will change to reflect this.

A United Ireland is inevitable but not for nice romantic ideals but because the grubby paws of Capitalism and economics make it inevitable.

dok_golf

There is no convincing evidence one way or another whether or not we can afford it. Daly's recent report is about as close to a proper analysis as we have got so far. The majority of economists think it will be mutually beneficial but I don't know tbh, if they are factoring in any return to violence in their projections. It's why, as much as I hate to admit, that a 50%+1 majority in all probability, isn't enough. I reckon money talks and if if Brexit turns out to be the disaster I expect it to be, then heads will definitely turn if our economy ( yes i know the dangers of Brexit for us) remains relatively stable.

brendanwalsh

I'd have to vote against it. It will bring unmerciful trouble to the south and to the 6 counties. The DUP will never allow peace in NIR if reunification is attempted. They will likely bomb southern cities and force us to stop the process. You'd need 100% to vote in favour of it. Even 10% of northerners saying No is 10% of nasty people who can make our lives hell with bombings etc

Charles Babbage

One problem with this debate is the large lack of data. If money spent in NI is higher than other places then what exactly is it spent on? There is also some doubt over the revenue figures.

Sand wrote: »

One has to assume the UK will also take the opportunity to ensure Northern Ireland takes a proportion of the UK national debt with it. So not only would there be significant ongoing costs, the 'national' debt of Northern Ireland would have to be absorbed.

Irish taxpayers should not agree to take on UK debt, in the end the Freestate did not, and NI taxpayers make no contribution to the UK debt anyow so the UK's ability to service it is not reduced. Reparations rather than debt are in order. The only problem is London will be looking at Scotland, and might not be rational in this matter. It would be wise of the Irish government to come up with a formula netting off debt and pension liabilities etc in such a way as to let NI off the hook without giving a similar easy passage for Scotland.

Arguably debt should be based on the value of the assets, not GDP which is production. The Irish government should ask for one thirtieth of Buck Palace and the Cayman Islands.

dok_golf

I would think that if we get to the stage of the north voting for reunification then Scotland will already be at the same stage in their journey to independence. The UK, imo, is well down the road of breaking up, the devolved governments already point to this. Brexit could well be the final straw.

StupidLikeAFox

Question on this: does it require a referendum in the north only?

Or do the Irish people and the UK also need to vote to get it over the line?

dok_golf

2 referendums north and south of the border. Both need to pass

Mutant z

Hopefully this dream wìll one day become a reality.

Mutant z

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I'd have to vote against it. It will bring unmerciful trouble to the south and to the 6 counties. The DUP will never allow peace in NIR if reunification is attempted. They will likely bomb southern cities and force us to stop the process. You'd need 100% to vote in favour of it. Even 10% of northerners saying No is 10% of nasty people who can make our lives hell with bombings etc

Since when has a referendum needed a 100% approval rating to pass all it needs is for a majority vote in favour so if most vote in favour of a UI the DUP wont be able to do a thing about it, it would be a democratic decision made by the electorate.

con___manx1

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I'd have to vote against it. It will bring unmerciful trouble to the south and to the 6 counties. The DUP will never allow peace in NIR if reunification is attempted. They will likely bomb southern cities and force us to stop the process. You'd need 100% to vote in favour of it. Even 10% of northerners saying No is 10% of nasty people who can make our lives hell with bombings etc

What if england turned around tomorrow and said here you can have the north back we dont give a **** anymore. I think this brexit government really doesnt give a **** about it to be honest and if i think that the brits in the north surely do aswell.
Its caused england nothing but harship.

Junkyard Tom

Has anyone costed partition from both an Irish and British perspective?

Fr Tod Umptious

Mutant z wrote: »

Since when has a referendum needed a 100% approval rating to pass all it needs is for a majority vote in favour so if most vote in favour of a UI the DUP wont be able to do a thing about it, it would be a democratic decision made by the electorate.

I have no doubt that a unification referendum would pass in the current 26 county Ireland.
The romanticism would beat the economic argument every time.

Bot in the north if you only have a slim majority in favour of reunification then you obviously have a large proportion of the electorate against it.

That is something that has to he taken into consideration when forming the new state, you cannot just say "f you, that's democracy", if you do that then all you are doing is the same as what unionists did 100 years ago.

A slm majority in the north would be a security nightmare for the new state, not that I think the DUP would be advocating violence, I don't think they ever have, but there are plenty of other paramilitary groups that would need watching.

Fr Tod Umptious

NIMAN wrote: »

Reunification would be very costly, but I would assume that there would be a willingness from many sources around the world to contribute.

I would guess it wouldn't cost the Irish state that much in the early stages.

Who exactly is going to pay for it ?

murphaph

dok_golf wrote: »

The Unionists would still have ability to retain their British passports. But you raise a valid point, could this be done without bloodshed? That would be an argument that in the case of a referendum, then 50%+1 may not be enough of a mandate.

50% + 1 is a recipe for disaster IMO. The northerners need to learn to live with each other first. My own yardstick would be 50% + 1 of traditional unionists. Then there could be no argument made that unionists were forced into a UI against their will.

If a UI is so attractive it should not be impossible for nationalists to convince just over half the unionists that they'd be better off in a UI (arguably they would be as London doesn't give a toss about them).

Chips Lovell

At the moment, the UK government subsidises Northern Ireland to the tune of around €10 billion net per year.

How much is that relative to what the Irish government has to spend? Well, next year our entire public spending will be around €71 billion per year. We spend €20 billion a year on social protection, €15 billion on health, €10 billion on education.

However, it's not just the financial cost that should be considered. There will be political costs as well. Lots of people, particularly in Ireland, seem to think yes vote in a Border poll will mean just an expansion of the current Irish state.

What's far more likely is a complete reorganization of the state, with a new constitution. Both communities in the North will want some kind of guaranteed representation, which means something like a greatly devolved Northern Ireland with a continuation of regional government or some kind of national power-sharing arrangement between the three communities, a Stormont for the island of Ireland.

Long story short, no matter who you vote for, you could have the DUP and Sinn Fein with a significant political clout and maybe even guaranteed a position as minority partners in any government and pay €10 billion a year for that privilege.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Thats the first time I've heard that one.

Overstaffing of admin staff might be a problem though.

Well you have never looked at the figures then, they are quite shocking in an international context. It is off-topic but I will just post one link:


https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.NUMW.P3?end=2015&locations=IE-FR-FI-CA-BE-GB-US-AU&start=1991&view=chart


Here are some World Bank figures comparing Ireland, US, UK, Finland, France, Belgium, Canada and Australia. We are at the top by a distance having the most nurses per 1000 population. Those are the facts, we have way too many nurses compared to the rest of the world.

blanch152

bobbysands81 wrote: »

50%+1 is democracy. It is enough.

.

Mutant z wrote: »

Since when has a referendum needed a 100% approval rating to pass all it needs is for a majority vote in favour so if most vote in favour of a UI the DUP wont be able to do a thing about it, it would be a democratic decision made by the electorate.

When I see people saying that 50% +1 is enough, I wonder have they ever learned anything from history.

A referendum passing in the North shouldn't lead to a united Ireland the next day. It should lead to an open dialogue about the future of the island leading to a final plan with a new constitution and setting out the taxation, social welfare and government finances implications etc. This final plan should then be put to a second referendum so that people at that point in time are fully aware of what they are voting for.