Costs of Irish unification.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I said, I don't have issue with honest objections, I do have issues with some who say they would like a UI but will scaremonger and argue against it on the basis of things that cannot be fixed until partition is gone.

There is nothing wrong with Northern Ireland that cannot be fixed while partition is in place. I have never seen such a defeatist attitude.

Brexit is a setback, but not a fatal one.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It does and did. Because partition has cost this state vast sums of money. But ignore that if you will. It's like trying to claim the housing crisis doesn't affect me here because there are no homeless people in my particular place. It's an essentially selfish world view you have.

Can you link us to research that shows partition has cost this state vast sums of money?

We know that the disatorous economic policies of the first few governments of the independent state cost us, but there is no evidence this was because of partition.

Vexorg

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It does and did. Because partition has cost this state vast sums of money. But ignore that if you will. It's like trying to claim the housing crisis doesn't affect me here because there are no homeless people in my particular place. It's an essentially selfish world view you have.

This is something I was unaware of and quite surprised by, what is the current cost to the state? And what is the money being spent on?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, the timing has to right.

Then you do have certain preconditions to a UI. What on earth have you been arguing about all this time?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Then you do have certain preconditions to a UI. What on earth have you been arguing about all this time?

You haven't been listening.

FrancieBrady

Vexorg wrote: »

This is something I was unaware of and quite surprised by, what is the current cost to the state? And what is the money being spent on?

Customs and security. Still there, maintaining a border from Donegal to Louth.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with Northern Ireland that cannot be fixed while partition is in place. I have never seen such a defeatist attitude.

Brexit is a setback, but not a fatal one.

We have spent a 100 years kicking the can down the road.

Schumi7

murphaph wrote: »

Nationalists have the biggest role to play. If they can't convince at least half the traditional unionists and the nominally nationalist public servants who would be unemployed in a UI that a UI could actually work for them too then I'd reject it myself.

Simply waiting for demographics to change enough is a bad strategy.

This again displays an ignorance of the dynamic that exists in NI, but in this instance it is shared by many Irish people in the North itself. On reflection I'll not use the word ignorance as it may come across as dismissive. Instead I'll describe it as well intentioned naivety. Like you it's also my desire for as many people as possible in the North to vote for unity if and when a referendum on it comes about.

However this hope must be tempered with extreme realism as the idea that a hefty proportion of the unionist population are ready and willing to be convinced of Irish unity is a nonsense.* The well intentioned naivety I mentioned above relates to how this would be achieved - namely because of the common enough view that unionists aren't really British at all and simply labour under some sort of false consciousness; that sooner or later they'll realise their error and see the light, and so on so forth. The geographical justification that they're not from Britain itself will be brought out in support of it, usually followed by the 'actual British people themselves don't consider you British' line demonstrating that their love of union is very much unrequited. In as much as my experience points to the truth of the latter and that most Unionists, or certainly Loyalists, are loyal to a Britain that no longer exists...in the end - it doesn't matter.

What many nationalists don't get is that Ulster unionism is, in essence, a form of British nationalism and that the vast majority of unionists will never vote for reunification even if it was proven that they'd be financially better off in such a scenario. The union, or, more to the point, identity, is about more than just economics. Irish unity and unionism are opposites and Irish unity kills unionism, or at least political unionism, off. In a 'united Ireland' unionism will exist in a purely cultural form. Their British identity and citizenship will remain (as the GFA states) but their cherished union is gone forever.

murphaph wrote: »

I'll be basing my vote on cold hard reality. If I think a UI is going to damage the country I grew up in I'll reject it.

If your vote is based wholly on cold hard reality then that means that the stateless status that would be inflicted on me and the vast majority of Irish people in the North matters little or not a jot to you. Therefore, the obvious explanation is that you regard the North/Northern Ireland and the Irish people who reside there as foreign.

murphaph wrote: »

At the moment I would definitely reject it. The bickering alone between orange and green would be enough to put me off the idea completely.

Believe it or not most people up here aren't too hot on the 'green & orange' impasses either.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Customs and security. Still there, maintaining a border from Donegal to Louth.

Not since the Good Friday agreement. For someone so passionate about a topic, you seem to have lack basic knowledge on many aspects of it.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Not since the Good Friday agreement. For someone so passionate about a topic, you seem to have lack basic knowledge on many aspects of it.

There are no custom officers stationed in my town or a massive depot and office?

Must be impostors. :rolleyes:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Customs and security. Still there, maintaining a border from Donegal to Louth.

How would eliminating customs and security have saved this state money?

When there is a border between countries, both sides can lose out, both sides can profit economically or one or other side can benefit at the expense of the other. It all comes down to other economic issues rather than the border or the small costs of policing it.

So to go back to my original question, please explain to me clearly, and with evidence, how has partition cost this state vast sums of money?

A glib answer without any economic rationale doesn't cut the mustard.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have spent a 100 years kicking the can down the road.

That has been an awful waste of 100 years. People could have been a lot more productive forgetting about partition and doing other things rather than wasting their time kicking a can.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are no custom officers stationed in my town or a massive depot and office?

Must be impostors. :rolleyes:

Oh, there are customers officers alright however, there is no customs border which is what you said. A UI would not get rid of custom officers.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

How would eliminating customs and security have saved this state money?

When there is a border between countries, both sides can lose out, both sides can profit economically or one or other side can benefit at the expense of the other. It all comes down to other economic issues rather than the border or the small costs of policing it.

So to go back to my original question, please explain to me clearly, and with evidence, how has partition cost this state vast sums of money? A glib answer without any economic rationale doesn't cut the mustard.

I think a review of the implications of the return of a hard border and the panic that caused should be enough. I don't have proper access to google on this device atm here is one article on the subject.

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21725012-nobody-wants-hard-border-which-might-include-passport-and-customs-controls-yet-there-no

The border also devastated communities on either side. But they don't seem to matter because they are away far from other places. (apologies if that is glib, but it is what has been said earlier)

That has been an awful waste of 100 years. People could have been a lot more productive forgetting about partition and doing other things rather than wasting their time kicking a can.

Sure why not do a little bit more patronising.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, there are customers officers alright however, there is no customs border which is what you said. A UI would not get rid of custom officers.

From Donegal to Louth? What would they be doing? In fact, what have they been doing since the GFA??? If not maintaining border customs.
There is still a border btw. Try bringing a car in from the north without dealing with the customs sometime.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

From Donegal to Louth? What would they be doing? In fact, what have they been doing since the GFA??? If not maintaining border customs.
There is still a border btw. Try bringing a car in from the north without dealing with the customs sometime.

There is NO custom border between the Republic and the South, none what so ever. I think you know this, but want to argue about it anyway.

They maintain customs and excise law for the UK, just if a UI were to happen they would do the same for an Irish government.

Again, basic details you have no clue about.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

There is NO custom border between the Republic and the South, none what so ever. I think you know this, but want to argue about it anyway.

They maintain customs and excise law for the UK, just if a UI were to happen they would do the same for an Irish government.

Again, basic details you have no clue about.

So the customs officers here in my town are doing nothing, they don't have offices to maintain, depots for seized goods etc, vehicles ranging from trucks to cars?

There is still a 'border' it is a soft border since the GFA and it is still illegal to bring certain goods over it if you haven't gone through the proper procedures and paperwork. That COSTS the Irish taxpayer and that border is there due to partition.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the customs officers here in my town are doing nothing, they don't have offices to maintain, depots for seized goods etc, vehicles ranging from trucks to cars?

You can repeat that as often as you want but there is NO customs border between the North and the republic, none what so ever. Now, do you want to move on to your next spurious argument?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You can repeat that as often as you want but there is NO customs border between the North and the republic, none what so ever. Now, do you want to move on to your next spurious argument?

So tell us what the customs officers are doing, in their offices, in their cars, vans and trucks?

Does the diesel laundering fraternity know that they are doing nothing?
And you neglected to tell us what would happen if you took a car across this 'non existent' customs border without following procedures. (not to mention other items)

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So tell us what the customs officers are doing, in their offices, in their cars, vans and trucks?

Not manning a custom border anyway. There is NO custom border, no matter how much you want to pretend there is one.

Does the diesel laundering fraternity know that they are doing nothing?
And you neglected to tell us what would happen if you took a car across this 'non existent' customs border without following procedures. (not to mention other items

You are expected to present yourself to revenue within 72 hours of bringing a car over if you bought it outside the state. The same thing you do if you bought it in England, France or Belfast.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the customs officers here in my town are doing nothing, they don't have offices to maintain, depots for seized goods etc, vehicles ranging from trucks to cars?

There is still a 'border' it is a soft border since the GFA and it is still illegal to bring certain goods over it if you haven't gone through the proper procedures and paperwork. That COSTS the Irish taxpayer and that border is there due to partition.

It costs a small amount of money relative to the total budget. You said it costs the state a fortune, which it does not. You accuse me and others of scaremongering when using a known figure (the Westminster subsidy to NI) as a baseline for what Ireland might be expected to pony up in a UI scenario but carry on like this when trying to convince us all that the border is the real problem. You are massively exaggerating this cost. You can see the double standard I'm sure.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So tell us what the customs officers are doing, in their offices, in their cars, vans and trucks?

Does the diesel laundering fraternity know that they are doing nothing?
And you neglected to tell us what would happen if you took a car across this 'non existent' customs border without following procedures. (not to mention other items)

The customs officers would still be employed post UI but they would move north to Belfast and Larne ports and would need more staff probably.

You are aware that when you import a vehicle from anywhere you typically need to take it to a local VRT office and pay the duty? I have bought vehicles in England and paid the duty in the Swords office. There's no border in Swords. The offices are scattered across the country and a UI would require more of them. Take a look at a map...

https://www.ncts.ie/vehicle-registration/vrtlocations/

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Not manning a custom border anyway. There is NO custom border, no matter how much you want to pretend there is one.

Yes there is, just because it is soft does not mean it doesn't exist.

You are expected to present yourself to revenue within 72 hours of bringing a car over if you bought it outside the state. The same thing you do if you bought it in England, France or Belfast.

Thank you, although an apology for wasting time might be apt.
There is a border between us and NI.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

It costs a small amount of money relative to the total budget. You said it costs the state a fortune, which it does not. You accuse me and others of scaremongering when using a known figure (the Westminster subsidy to NI) as a baseline for what Ireland might be expected to pony up in a UI scenario but carry on like this when trying to convince us all that the border is the real problem. You are massively exaggerating this cost. You can see the double standard I'm sure.

NO I said it HAS cost ...

Francie Brady wrote:

Because partition has cost this state vast sums of money

It has just recently been shown that it could COST us a great deal in the future too. So much that in the opinion of no less than FG, it may be more economical and less economically damaging to unite the island.

murphaph wrote: »

The customs officers would still be employed post UI but they would move north to Belfast and Larne ports and would need more staff probably.

You are aware that when you import a vehicle from anywhere you typically need to take it to a local VRT office and pay the duty? I have bought vehicles in England and paid the duty in the Swords office. There's no border in Swords. The offices are scattered across the country and a UI would require more of them. Take a look at a map...

https://www.ncts.ie/vehicle-registration/vrtlocations/

No amount of unnecessary explaining will explain the posters uninformed gaff of trying to claim that there is no customs border from Donegal to Louth.
It is still there and as we have seen can be a harder border with more social and economic implications at any time.

Vexorg

FrancieBrady wrote: »

NO I said it HAS cost ...

It has just recently been shown that it could COST us a great deal in the future too. So much that in the opinion of no less than FG, it may be more economical and less economically damaging to unite the island.

You are being disingenuous here, you left out a bit:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It does and did. Because partition has cost this state vast sums of money.

What is the current cost of customs and security and what will those costs be post UI. If you feel that discussion of the potential cost of a united ireland is scaremongering you must be in a position to back up the above statement.

Customs currently patrol the entire island of Ireland, are there more customs and security people patroling from Louth to Donegal than other counties?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

NO I said it HAS cost ...

It has just recently been shown that it could COST us a great deal in the future too. So much that in the opinion of no less than FG, it may be more economical and less economically damaging to unite the island.




No amount of unnecessary explaining will explain the posters uninformed gaff of trying to claim that there is no customs border from Donegal to Louth.
It is still there and as we have seen can be a harder border with more social and economic implications at any time.

Stop trying to deflect from the substantive point that you made, which was that partition costs Ireland a fortune in customs officers. This is clearly untrue as the border is open. Yes there are some customs officers stationed along the border but there are customs officers stationed nationwide. There probably are more per head in Donegal than Kerry but the costs are still negligible and would not reduce in a UI scenario because we'd have to have customs officers in the six new counties. It's simply not an issue. I'm amazed you try to blow these costs out of all proportion but go ballistic when anyone mentions a known figure for the current UK subsidy to NI. It's an appalling double standard.

FrancieBrady

Vexorg wrote: »

You are being disingenuous here, you left out a bit:

They are two separate sentences.

What is the current cost of customs and security and what will those costs be post UI. If you feel that discussion of the potential cost of a united ireland is scaremongering you must be in a position to back up the above statement.

Customs currently patrol the entire island of Ireland, are there more customs and security people patroling from Louth to Donegal than other counties?

When the state has to come up with strategies to secure a border then it stands to reason that that costs money.
A border also creates a need for customs and excise monitoring and trade security of it's own.
The monitoring of animal movement also costs money.
Overlapping of services and the above also wastes money.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are two separate sentences.



When the state has to come up with strategies to secure a border then it stands to reason that that costs money.
A border also creates a need for customs and excise monitoring and trade security of it's own.
The monitoring of animal movement also costs money.
Overlapping of services and the above also wastes money.

All small (tiny) amounts relative to the national budget. But you keep going on about them as if they were vast sums and at the same time handwave away any concerns about the known multi billion pound subsidy that NI currently relies on as "scaremongering".

tomwaterford

murphaph wrote: »

when anyone mentions a known figure for the current UK subsidy to NI. It's an appalling double standard.

Is this figure not a result of a formula though (IIRC?)....which gives a proportion based on what England receives in government spending? ?


.which is flawed by nature by failing to take into account geographical positioning etc on the ground
(Hence why ni has exceptionally good roads as they have to spend it somewhere?)


Edit AFAIK this formula may have been drawn up when UK was being run by the imf in the 70s and not updated since...but don't quote me on that :O

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

All small (tiny) amounts relative to the national budget. But you keep going on about them as if they were vast sums and at the same time handwave away any concerns about the known multi billion pound subsidy that NI currently relies on as "scaremongering".

I am talking about money that HAS been spent. I love the way you always want to downplay this stuff. As if money and people don't matter because of the amount and the distance away from the problem. 'I'm alright jack' politics never washed with me.

People talking about amounts of money they are plucking out of the air can be identified as scaremongering.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am talking about money that HAS been spent. I love the way you always want to downplay this stuff. As if money and people don't matter because of the amount and the distance away from the problem. 'I'm alright jack' politics never washed with me.

People talking about amounts of money they are plucking out of the air can be identified as scaremongering.

Incredible. Another blatant attempt to deflect from what you said, which you are now trying to backtrack on. If the state doesn't spend much at all on customs officers due to the border then why bring it up? Do you think we'll get a refund from someone for the costs endured during the troubles? (remember the security forces engaged in terrorism related policing in the republic were almost exclusively kept busy by your republican friends! It was the military wing of SF that cost the state that money back then)

The current subsidy NI requires is not plucked out of thin air.

Your unknown but undoubtedly exaggerated costs of customs controls along an open border meanwhile you don't consider scaremongering at all.