Costs of Irish unification.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 3:23pm

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. 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?

I was wondering what Sinn Fein did/would do and sure enough...

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?

It's not business as usual? Well Bertie would have been clever enough not to downplay the homeless crisis. Varadkars conceit often gets the better of him.

With worsening societal crises and no quick or long fix in the works, some might say the same about the last six or seven years. massive borrowings to improve the credit ratings of the people who assisted in the melt down.
Personally, I would happily get into generational debt to reunify the country. To bail out chancers and appease the money cartels, while tax payers can't afford a roof? Not so much.

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 at all we've plenty of Protestants/Church of Ireland, Jewish and Muslim communities here, free to practice their religion and follow any facets of their culture that do not flout the law. They can even drive drunk if they know the right Garda. The same would be true of any British/Ulster Scots etc. We already use English so apart from them having their marches what? Put King Billy on a stamp? Sure, go nuts.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 3:28pm

Sand wrote: »

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.

Ulster Scots is as valid as Dublin slang. Get outta dat garden I say

Actually, I would love the rest of the planet to see the humiliation cast upon anyone taking that "language" seriously. As long as it's not attributed to other communities, I say go for it.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 3:35pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

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.

I think it's only right we overhaul the system and create a new all inclusive one. Does anyone have any sentimental ties to generations of our effort at governance? I don't think so. It's less about giving ground and more about the country as a whole. It's bigger than Sinn Fein, the DUP, PBP and the rest. It might be the kick up the ar*e the electorate need to rid us of the usual cowboys. At any rate it would no longer be a case of one or other party slipping back into the old network of cronyism. Even the Garda might get a shake up.

blanch152 · 13-12-2017 4:29pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think it's only right we overhaul the system and create a new all inclusive one. Does anyone have any sentimental ties to generations of our effort at governance? I don't think so. It's less about giving ground and more about the country as a whole. It's bigger than Sinn Fein, the DUP, PBP and the rest. It might be the kick up the ar*e the electorate need to rid us of the usual cowboys. At any rate it would no longer be a case of one or other party slipping back into the old network of cronyism. Even the Garda might get a shake up.

I think people have more than sentimental ties to generations of our efforts at governance. Think child benefit, and think attempts to reduce it. Think medical cards and think attempts to reduce numbers entitled to them. Think lone parents allowance and think attempts to cap it at certain ages. All of those cuts would have to come on the table in a united Ireland scenario.

Irish people mightn't have a sentimental tie to generations of our efforts at governance, but they sure do have a cold hard cash attachment to it.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 4:50pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I think people have more than sentimental ties to generations of our efforts at governance. Think child benefit, and think attempts to reduce it. Think medical cards and think attempts to reduce numbers entitled to them. Think lone parents allowance and think attempts to cap it at certain ages. All of those cuts would have to come on the table in a united Ireland scenario.

Irish people mightn't have a sentimental tie to generations of our efforts at governance, but they sure do have a cold hard cash attachment to it.

The minority who prosper will endeavour to scare the rest of the country. I'm reminded of Haughey and the tightening of belts and Kenny with his promises to change things. We're use to being told things will be tough and watching our handlers prosper.
I think after generations of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, people aren't use to value for money. Telling the public times are tough and preceding to invoke austerity upon the general populace just to get us back to where we started, albeit with worsening societal crises, wears thin. If you said to people look, this reunification deal will cost us a fortune, the response will be 'what's new?' but we'll have a whole country at the end of it not merely record breaking numbers in [insert crisis].
For the monetary scaremongering to have a real effect, people would need to be use to things beside economic numbers picking up. If you're working but can't afford a roof, it means little or nothing. In short the economic fears, while likely justified, is something we've become accustomed to suffering, with little to show. In this scenario we'd have a united Ireland not questionable NAMA deals or bailed out private gamblers for example.

A new all inclusive governmental system would be refreshing quiet frankly. Too many 'that's the way it is' 'sure what can you do?' merchants leaving us with the health, justice system etc. Maybe the DUP might keep the FF/FG in check and vice versa?

Red_Wake · 13-12-2017 5:48pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sand wrote: »

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.

Ulster Scots is as valid as Dublin slang. Get outta dat garden I say Actually, I would love the rest of the planet to see the humiliation cast upon anyone taking that "language" seriously. As long as it's not attributed to other communities, I say go for it.

How do you square this belief with your desire for an inclusive approach to unification?

Or is it a classic case of the societal for any societal foibles between nationalism and unionism, is that unionism should be eliminated?

blanch152 · 13-12-2017 5:57pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The minority who prosper will endeavour to scare the rest of the country. I'm reminded of Haughey and the tightening of belts and Kenny with his promises to change things. We're use to being told things will be tough and watching our handlers prosper.
I think after generations of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, people aren't use to value for money. Telling the public times are tough and preceding to invoke austerity upon the general populace just to get us back to where we started, albeit with worsening societal crises, wears thin. If you said to people look, this reunification deal will cost us a fortune, the response will be 'what's new?' but we'll have a whole country at the end of it not merely record breaking numbers in [insert crisis].
For the monetary scaremongering to have a real effect, people would need to be use to things beside economic numbers picking up. If you're working but can't afford a roof, it means little or nothing. In short the economic fears, while likely justified, is something we've become accustomed to suffering, with little to show. In this scenario we'd have a united Ireland not questionable NAMA deals or bailed out private gamblers for example.

A new all inclusive governmental system would be refreshing quiet frankly. Too many 'that's the way it is' 'sure what can you do?' merchants leaving us with the health, justice system etc. Maybe the DUP might keep the FF/FG in check and vice versa?

Your prediction is exactly what happened in the UK with Brexit.

The Brexiteers promised £350m a week for the NHS, they promised the golden land of free trade agreements, they promised everything will be all right on the night and that a glorious future awaits the UK free from Europe. That is what the United Irelanders are promising, don't worry about the costs. Just remember the following:

1. United Ireland
2. ??????
3. Prosperity

The Remainers were like me. They pointed to the cold hard reality that Brexit, like a united Ireland will cost money, and cost standards of living. They were ignored by the majority.

So you may well be right, Ireland may well vote for unity, but we will be as foolish as the Brexiteers.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 5:57pm

Red_Wake wrote: »

How do you square this belief with your desire for an inclusive approach to unification?

Or is it a classic case of the societal for any societal foibles between nationalism and unionism, is that unionism should be eliminated?

I believe Ulster Scots to be a slang 'language' being used as a gimmick to stick it to Sinn Fein. We can debate what constitutes a language of course. At best Ulster Scots is phonetically sounded out, English.
We openly speak the Queen's English and have it on signage.

I suppose 'I cud dae wi a bit mair lairnin!'

Unionism will be whatever Unionists wish it to be. They celebrate a Dutch King and hold allegiance to the British. I don't see those changing or a reason why they should. I'm sure we've many members of the population with loyalties elsewhere, (Fine Gael and Fianna Fail followers etc.). As long as they pay tax and don't break the law I don't see an issue.

blanch152 · 13-12-2017 5:58pm

Red_Wake wrote: »

How do you square this belief with your desire for an inclusive approach to unification?

Or is it a classic case of the societal for any societal foibles between nationalism and unionism, is that unionism should be eliminated?

An inclusive approach to unification means that English should replace Irish as the first language in the Constitution. Ulster Scots and Irish should have similar protections as minority languages.

That is the bridge that most "inclusive" nationalists refuse to cross.

Red_Wake · 13-12-2017 6:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

How do you square this belief with your desire for an inclusive approach to unification?

Or is it a classic case of the societal for any societal foibles between nationalism and unionism, is that unionism should be eliminated?

I believe Ulster Scots to be a slang 'language' being used as a gimmick to stick it to Sinn Fein. We can debate what constitutes a language of course. At best Ulster Scots is phonetically sounded out, English.
We openly speak the Queen's English and have it on signage.

I suppose 'I cud dae wi a bit mair lairnin!'

Unionism will be whatever Unionists wish it to be. They celebrate a Dutch King and hold allegiance to the British. I don't see those changing or a reason why they should. I'm sure we've many members of the population with loyalties elsewhere. As long as they pay tax and don't break the law I don't see an issue.

Considering the militant nationalists historically claimed allegiance to the Irish, I'd view this is as a future problem in the making.

Native populations who view themselves as beholden to groups outside their political jurisdiction are a recipe for disaster.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 6:13pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Your prediction is exactly what happened in the UK with Brexit.

The Brexiteers promised £350m a week for the NHS, they promised the golden land of free trade agreements, they promised everything will be all right on the night and that a glorious future awaits the UK free from Europe. That is what the United Irelanders are promising, don't worry about the costs. Just remember the following:

1. United Ireland
2. ??????
3. Prosperity

The Remainers were like me. They pointed to the cold hard reality that Brexit, like a united Ireland will cost money, and cost standards of living. They were ignored by the majority.

So you may well be right, Ireland may well vote for unity, but we will be as foolish as the Brexiteers.

Your post is complete nonsense. You're trying to shoe horn in something I never eluded to. You seem to have created the response you want so you can wax on.
We are all in agreement it will cost us big financially. If you read my comments you'd see my whole point is, in essence, the Irish tax payer is use to not getting value for money, use to being screwed at great cost to them. The difference is we'd have reunification in this scenario. Something to show over and above a repeat of the last economic hi-jinks and record breaking societal crises.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 6:17pm

Red_Wake wrote: »

Considering the militant nationalists historically claimed allegiance to the Irish, I'd view this is as a future problem in the making.

Native populations who view themselves as beholden to groups outside their political jurisdiction are a recipe for disaster.

Doesn't stop the DUP, Orangemen, Loyalists. Granted it's played it's part in the troubles and beyond but we've many communities here from Chinese to Indian. I honestly would have no problem with members of our nation having ties to foreign entities. Jurisdictions can be gerrymandered if they don't suit vested interests anyway...

blanch152 · 13-12-2017 6:20pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your post is complete nonsense. You're trying to shoe horn in something I never eluded to. You seem to have created the response you want so you can wax on.
We are all in agreement it will cost us big financially. If you read my comments you'd see my whole point is, in essence, the Irish tax payer is use to not getting value for money, use to being screwed at great cost to them. The difference is we'd have reunification in this scenario. Something to show over and above a repeat of the last economic hi-jinks and record breaking societal crises.

Your post is only repeating itself.

1. Reunification at great cost
2. ??????
3. Freedom, prosperity and happiness in one bound!

James Brown · 13-12-2017 6:24pm

blanch152 wrote: »

An inclusive approach to unification means that English should replace Irish as the first language in the Constitution. Ulster Scots and Irish should have similar protections as minority languages.

That is the bridge that most "inclusive" nationalists refuse to cross.

I don't believe ulster scots is a language, specifically not on par with Irish or English. Have you looked at it's make up? It's sounded out spelling of English words ffs. It's closer to cockney rhyming slang or the 'language' of Princess Caraboo.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 6:26pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Your post is only repeating itself.

1. Reunification at great cost
2. ??????
3. Freedom, prosperity and happiness in one bound!

Because you seemed to be imagineering your own version.
You are making this up. You are the one suggesting this vision.

dok_golf · 13-12-2017 6:30pm

Those who say reunification will entail us having to bear a huge financial cost. Not questioning your opinions, just wondering on what they are based?

blanch152 · 13-12-2017 6:34pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't believe ulster scots is a language, specifically not on par with Irish or English. Have you looked at it's make up? It's sounded out spelling of English words ffs. It's closer to cockney rhyming slang or the 'language' of Princess Caraboo.

It doesn't matter what you believe (or I believe), it is a question of parity of esteem for what they believe.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 7:18pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you believe (or I believe), it is a question of parity of esteem for what they believe.

Agreed. Also it's not an either or situation, although it's played as that. The Irish language can stand on it's own merits. So too should Ulster Scots. Although I believe it's dictionary is a work in progress. If people want to send their wee bayns to an Ulster Scots school fir lairnin that's cula bula with me. But some may find it racist?

jm08 · 13-12-2017 7:33pm

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you believe (or I believe), it is a question of parity of esteem for what they believe.

As far as I know, Ulster Scots get funding from the Dept. of Culture (or whatever it is now). I remember there was a bit of a ho ha because Lord Baird who was their head honcho at the time used to claim expenses for getting a taxi from Belfast to Dublin as he couldn't take the train down because he got a bit of slagging for wearing his kilt!

Personally, I'd be happy to see the Orangemen parading down O'Connell Street every 12th July if it made them feel more at home.

bobbysands81 · 13-12-2017 7:46pm

blanch152 wrote: »

An inclusive approach to unification means that English should replace Irish as the first language in the Constitution. Ulster Scots and Irish should have similar protections as minority languages.

That is the bridge that most "inclusive" nationalists refuse to cross.

Equating the Irish language with a dialect like Ulster Scots is ridiculous. Ulster Scots is not a language and should not be treated as one.

There’s also a revival of the Irish language in Unionist areas of the 06.

murphaph · 13-12-2017 8:08pm

blanch152 wrote: »

An inclusive approach to unification means that English should replace Irish as the first language in the Constitution. Ulster Scots and Irish should have similar protections as minority languages.

That is the bridge that most "inclusive" nationalists refuse to cross.

Seems totally fair. If people are serious about reaching out to unionists this should be a no brainer.

murphaph · 13-12-2017 8:33pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Equating the Irish language with a dialect like Ulster Scots is ridiculous. Ulster Scots is not a language and should not be treated as one.

There’s also a revival of the Irish language in Unionist areas of the 06.

Ulster Scots is obviously a dialect of English but that's not the point. The point would be to make a meaningful gesture to a million people to say "your culture is as valid as ours". If people think a UI will come about without major gestures towards unionism they are mistaken.

James Brown · 13-12-2017 8:45pm

murphaph wrote: »

Ulster Scots is obviously a dialect of English but that's not the point. The point would be to make a meaningful gesture to a million people to say "your culture is as valid as ours". If people think a UI will come about without major gestures towards unionism they are mistaken.

They are welcome to their culture. We've recognised Travelers. I can see Unionists as a similar ethnic grouping. Irish citizens with all those rights and additions based on culture. Like the Irish language it has it's detractors. I would suggest a fair and democratic referendum for any proposed changes in regard to signage etc. The whole tit for tat method is what gave rise to this language issue currently up north. Bribes shouldn't come into it.
Should we disregard the rights of same sex couples and lean towards creationism?

bobbysands81 · 13-12-2017 10:16pm

murphaph wrote: »

Ulster Scots is obviously a dialect of English but that's not the point. The point would be to make a meaningful gesture to a million people to say "your culture is as valid as ours". If people think a UI will come about without major gestures towards unionism they are mistaken.

Look at all my previous posts in relation to this, I agree we need to reach out to Unionists but pretending that Ulster Scots deserves to be treated equally with Irish is laughable. It’s not a language but tit-for-tat crap from Unionists. Irish is their language too.

murphaph · 13-12-2017 11:32pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Look at all my previous posts in relation to this, I agree we need to reach out to Unionists but pretending that Ulster Scots deserves to be treated equally with Irish is laughable. It’s not a language but tit-for-tat crap from Unionists. Irish is their language too.

I know it's not a real language but I also know that Irish is absolutely not their language. Heck, I've the most Irish surname of them all but I don't feel for a second that Irish is my language though I'm guessing you'll tell me it is.

You deride them but expect them to be our fellow citizens. It won't work like that. Triumphalism will fail like it failed when unionists did it. Consensus is the only path forward.

jm08 · 14-12-2017 12:46am

Just checked the funding for Ulster Scots.

The Ulster-Scots Agency is co-funded on the basis of 25% from Department of Culture, Heritage & Gaeltacht and 75% from Dept of Communities (NI) – an overall budget provision of £2,342,933 (€3,347,048) was approved by the North South Ministerial Council for 2016.

https://www.chg.gov.ie/gaeltacht/the-irish-language/an-foras-teanga/funding/

jm08 · 14-12-2017 12:55am

murphaph wrote: »

I know it's not a real language but I also know that Irish is absolutely not their language. Heck, I've the most Irish surname of them all but I don't feel for a second that Irish is my language though I'm guessing you'll tell me it is.

You deride them but expect them to be our fellow citizens. It won't work like that. Triumphalism will fail like it failed when unionists did it. Consensus is the only path forward.

I think we have bent over backwards to facilitate Unionists. For example, building the Boyne interpretative centre to celebrate King Billy beating the crap out of Irish catholics, then the Irish Government have been funding Orange Order halls and Ulster Scots. Triumphalism is part of unionist culture and one of their favoured Orange 12th July parades happens to be held in Donegal and it seems to go off very well.

Junkyard Tom · 14-12-2017 1:32am

murphaph wrote: »

50% + 1 is a recipe for disaster IMO.

Not respecting a majority vote would be a recipe for disaster.

The northerners need to learn to live with each other first.

They already do.

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.

That's just silly, arbitrary, meaningless and most importantly stating that you believe a Unionist vote is worth x 2 a Nationalist/other vote. Forget it. We've been there before with Unionist privilege and we sure-as-hell won't be going back.

There will always be a rump of Unionism who'd be utterly opposed to a UI, let's say a hardcore of 10%. The rest would just get on with it.

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).

You have it kinda arseways. It's up to unionists to convince the majority that they're better-off remaining under British jurisdiction. And guess what? Unionists are doing a truly superb job of demonstrating why it isn't.

You can forget your unionist appeasement white-paper, that kinda thing stopped a long time ago and won't be coming back, ever.

Charles Babbage · 14-12-2017 1:44am

murphaph wrote: »

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.

This is the usual unionists are more important than Irish people nonsense that sustains the British Empire. If you come on to boards and claim that black people or women should have less rights, then you'd be banned, but Irish people living in the 6 couinties are fair game.

murphaph · 14-12-2017 9:43am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not respecting a majority vote would be a recipe for disaster.

They already do.

That's just silly, arbitrary, meaningless and most importantly stating that you believe a Unionist vote is worth x 2 a Nationalist/other vote. Forget it. We've been there before with Unionist privilege and we sure-as-hell won't be going back.

There will always be a rump of Unionism who'd be utterly opposed to a UI, let's say a hardcore of 10%. The rest would just get on with it.

You have it kinda arseways. It's up to unionists to convince the majority that they're better-off remaining under British jurisdiction. And guess what? Unionists are doing a truly superb job of demonstrating why it isn't.

You can forget your unionist appeasement white-paper, that kinda thing stopped a long time ago and won't be coming back, ever.

Ultimately you need to convince a southern electorate that a UI won't be a shambles like Brexit.

"Dragging" 99% of unionists into a UI is a recipe for disaster that the southern electorate will see.

Please don't insult my intelligence by telling me northerners live happily amongst each other. The peace lines are still there. The hatred is alive and well.

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments