Costs of Irish unification.

murphaph

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So what's the problem? Should we consider jettisoning Mayo? It seems more an issue with bad state management than a case against a united Ireland. The north deserves the same as any other Irish counties. Indisputable after a United Ireland.
I take it if gold is discovered in the six counties a teary eyed open arms will appear for them?
It's a case of when will it happen and addressing any financials during the process. Saying, hold on a minute while we consider the tab, is a deplorable view to have imo.

I wouldn't jettison Mayo no (obviously not possible anyway).

Do you have a problem with me pointing out the obvious that most of NI is guaranteed to require a subsidy at least as high as the southern counties that currently do?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure it does - but that wasn't the point.

Investing and getting a return of X is one thing, but it's money foregone if you could have invested the same amount for a greater return.

By your logic any amount of spending can be justified as long as their is some return - personally, I prefer to see investments made on the basis of a reasonable rate of return, otherwise the payback period is excessive.

Maybe there are more "fluid" ideas when it comes to an internal rate of return on NI projects - which might go a long way to explaining why the place soaks up so much cash.

That is the question that is being asked and until we know the answer, pronouncements that a UI is unfeasible due to cost are totally wrong and premature.

As I posted above even the Irish gov and all it's agencies are complaining about the difficulty of obtaining any reliable figures right up to and including the 'scary' subvention.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was the NIAO not just simply wrong about it?

Am I missing something here, is the venture losing money, failing to meet targets, failing to return it's investment?

You tell us.

You were the one who said.....

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Might be a side point, but isn't the Titanic showing signs of paying back the investment in spades?

Is it therefore not a monument to the possible?

Assuming you've seen those signs, what are they? How much, for example, did the operator of the site remit back to the owner of Titanic (Titanic Foundation) either as a 'franchise fee' for operating the site or as a surplus?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the question that is being asked and until we know the answer, pronouncements that a UI is unfeasible due to cost are totally wrong and premature.

As I posted above even the Irish gov and all it's agencies are complaining about the difficulty of obtaining any reliable figures right up to and including the 'scary' subvention.

The reasons are somewhat academic - if the Republic hikes taxes to pay for a UI no one is going to feel warm and fuzzy about it just because we know the detail of the reasons.

If there is a reason - let the NI government explore it and sort it out - kicking it down the road to a post-UI future is no solution......sure where would be the incentive then for fixing it after a referendum? The paymaster would simply have changed and this is one referendum we definitely won't get a chance to change our minds on.

jm08

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure it does - but that wasn't the point.

Investing and getting a return of X is one thing, but it's money foregone if you could have invested the same amount for a greater return.

By your logic any amount of spending can be justified as long as their is some return - personally, I prefer to see investments made on the basis of a reasonable rate of return, otherwise the payback period is excessive.

Maybe there are more "fluid" ideas when it comes to an internal rate of return on NI projects - which might go a long way to explaining why the place soaks up so much cash.

I'd imagine that is why we have Governments and organisations like the EU who fund long term investments such as the Luas, motorways, a Ferry Port, the Atlantic Way, etc. etc. You won't get an immediate return on those but long term, they will be.

Jawgap

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf it's loyalism only claim to history (other than marching)...

.build a ship,claim.it unsinkable and geos down on its first journey

As I said.....a good metaphor for NI's economy.......casting off and left to plough it's own course, it ran straight into an ice-berg, shipped unfeasibly large quantities of cash water and left everyone feeling pretty miserable in the end, regardless of where they were on the boat.....all the while expecting other ships to drive into treacherous waters at flank speed to pull their arses out of a situation very much of their own making that they'd been previously and repeatedly warned about.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

You tell us.

You were the one who said.....



Assuming you've seen those signs, what are they? How much, for example, did the operator of the site remit back to the owner of Titanic (Titanic Foundation) either as a 'franchise fee' for operating the site or as a surplus?

I think it would be safe to say that an operation that it is estimated to have brought 105m over 3 years into the local economy and that has tripled it's projected visitor numbers is doing ok for all it's investors.
I cannot find how much it has remitted to the Foundation, but I cannot find any complaints from them either.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

The reasons are somewhat academic - if the Republic hikes taxes to pay for a UI no one is going to feel warm and fuzzy about it just because we know the detail of the reasons.

If there is a reason - let the NI government explore it and sort it out - kicking it down the road to a post-UI future is no solution......sure where would be the incentive then for fixing it after a referendum? The paymaster would simply have changed and this is one referendum we definitely won't get a chance to change our minds on.

'Warm and fuzzy' is just another term to disparge Jawgap.

I don't think your case for not having a close look at all of this via a UI debate with all the stakeholders will hold much water tbh.

Nobody at any time has advocated a UI under the current circumstances, there will be a transition period of at least 10 years imo.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it would be safe to say that an operation that it is estimated to have brought 105m over 3 years into the local economy and that has tripled it's visitor numbers is doing ok for all it's investors.
I cannot find how much it has remitted to the Foundation, but I cannot find any complaints from them either.

Why?

If you don't know the return on the capital employed how can you suggest that ".....the Titanic showing signs of paying back the investment in spades"

Plenty of operations turn over decent amounts and Harcourt's accounts certainly show that it's a bit of cash cow for them - but where does it indicate the investment is paying off for the asset's owner?

In summary, I could open a cash-rich business (for example an amusement arcade) - it could enjoy a heavy footfall, yield prodigious quantities of cash, and turn a decent operating profit, but if it cost me millions (many multiples of turnover) to establish, it would be a poor investment.

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

I wouldn't jettison Mayo no (obviously not possible anyway).

Do you have a problem with me pointing out the obvious that most of NI is guaranteed to require a subsidy at least as high as the southern counties that currently do?

Of course not. It helps to dispel the bogeyman by showing some other counties in the south need a tax dig out. So why the shock and awe should the six need same? Your post is as much about bad governing than an argument about potential costs of a united Ireland.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Warm and fuzzy' is just another term to disparge Jawgap.

I don't think your case for not having a close look at all of this via a UI debate with all the stakeholders will hold much water tbh.

Nobody at any time has advocated a UI under the current circumstances, there will be a transition period of at least 10 years imo.

So NI is going to cut it's reliance on Westminster funding?

I'll not hold my breath waiting for that to start any time soon.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

So NI is going to cut it's reliance on Westminster funding?

I'll not hold my breath waiting for that to start any time soon.

Westminster is showing signs of doing that.

The question you refuse to acknowledge is a 'question' of just how much of a reliance that is.

Do you disagree with the government assessment about the difficulty of accurately identifying the costs and what happens with the subvention?

Schumi7

jm08 wrote: »

One way to tackle the problems of Northern Ireland would be to have joint authority by Irish and British Gov. for a certain number of years - say 10/15 years. I'd abolish Storment (nothing happens there anyway), have elections, continue to be represented in Westminister (I think there are 18 NI seats there) and have a similar number of seats for the Dail. After 10/15 years there could be a review and decide then whether to continue as is or go for a referendum on a UI.

Whilst a kind of intuitive logic may attach itself to that idea, it would be putting the cart before the horse.

The only scenario in which a form of Joint Authority would be acceptable is after any successful referendum on unity. It would be a period of managed transition conducted by both the Irish and British governments with probable EU input and possible oversight.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Westminster is showing signs of doing that.

The question you refuse to acknowledge is a 'question' of just how much of a reliance that is.

Do you disagree with the government assessment about the difficulty of accurately identifying the costs and what happens with the subvention?

We know how much the reliance is:

http://www.factcheckni.org/

Northern Ireland Annual Fiscal Deficit (£m)

Year Nominal Adjusted(2014£)

2008-09 £8,718 £10,113
2009-10 £10,291 £11,547
2010-11 £9,956 £10,673
2011-12 £9,634 £10,029
2012-13 £9,459 £9,601
2013-14 £9,160 £9,160

....or between 25 & 30% of GDP.

There may be some debate to be had on where exactly the money goes, but there seems little doubt that:
(a) it goes
(b) its billions

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

We know how much the reliance is:



....or between 25 & 30% of GDP.

There may be some debate to be had on where exactly the money goes, but there seems little doubt that:
(a) it goes
(b) its billions

And how much of it would not be required in a UI, and how much can be saved and how much can be cut?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And how much of it would not be required in a UI, and how much can be saved and how much can be cut?

Eh?

Are kids going to go untaught, pensioners unpensioned, the sick untreated, welfare recipients unpaid?

Again, the public services account for nearly 50% of NI's GDP (almost twice what they cost in the Republic)......in the vast, vast majority of public services staff costs (salaries, pensions etc) account for 80 to 90% of the spending - do you not understand that?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the question that is being asked and until we know the answer, pronouncements that a UI is unfeasible due to cost are totally wrong and premature.

As I posted above even the Irish gov and all it's agencies are complaining about the difficulty of obtaining any reliable figures right up to and including the 'scary' subvention.

The question is being asked the completely wrong way.

We know the North costs a vast sum of money every year in subsidies between €6 and €10 billion. We know this is money spent on public services. We know the South cannot afford to pay for this. Not a single poster on this thread has been able to successfuly challenge or cast doubt over these facts.

As these things are clear, the default position is that a UI is financially unfeasible.

If that default is to change, the requirement is to show what changes can be made to how the North is financed, operates etc. or what taxes, social welfare and other public services need to be cut or raised North and South of the border in order to make a UI feasible.

Otherwise the economic argument will win every time at the ballot box in the last week.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The question is being asked the completely wrong way.

We know the North costs a vast sum of money every year in subsidies between €6 and €10 billion. We know this is money spent on public services. We know the South cannot afford to pay for this. Not a single poster on this thread has been able to successfuly challenge or cast doubt over these facts.

As these things are clear, the default position is that a UI is financially unfeasible.

If that default is to change, the requirement is to show what changes can be made to how the North is financed, operates etc. or what taxes, social welfare and other public services need to be cut or raised North and South of the border in order to make a UI feasible.

Otherwise the economic argument will win every time at the ballot box in the last week.

Can you show where anyone has attempted to state otherwise? It's been agreed there will be a costs associated. The finer details are up in the air.
One thing for certain there will be changes in how the six counties operate during and after. Feasibility, from a purely financial perspective is unlikely to be reached. How many bring such concerns to the ballot box will be the deciding factor. It will be interesting to see how any willing parties try raise that in the run up.
Which will try sell, 'I'd love to see a united Ireland, but we can't afford it'. With our economic history, it'll be amusing to say the least.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And how much of it would not be required in a UI, and how much can be saved and how much can be cut?

...and which areas are run more efficiently already in NI and would become more expensive in a UI? (eg welfare rates would presumably go up significantly or do you favour the north's citizens receiving less, the NHS costs would presumably go up as the HSE is less efficient, due to high wage costs).

You don't get to cherry pick the costs that might go down in a UI without also discussing those that would actually go up!

BonnieSituation

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can you show where anyone has attempted to state otherwise? It's been agreed there will be a costs associated. The finer details are up in the air.
One thing for certain there will be changes in how the six counties operate during and after. Feasibility, from a purely financial perspective is unlikely to be reached. How many bring such concerns to the ballot box will be the deciding factor. It will be interesting to see how any willing parties try raise that in the run up.
Which will try sell, 'I'd love to see a united Ireland, but we can't afford it'. With our economic history, it'll be amusing to say the least.

Bar some old school PD's or Renua folk coming out of the wood work I can't see a single political party or politician coming out against a UI. It would take some gall to do so.

Chips Lovell

No, it'll be dressed up as "now is not the right time" or "we don't agree with the terms of the unification deal".

In short, "I've nothing against a United Ireland, but..."

murphaph

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Bar some old school PD's or Renua folk coming out of the wood work I can't see a single political party or politician coming out against a UI. It would take some gall to do so.

The only parties in Westminster to back Brexit had like 10 MPs from over 600. Brexit still won. The south's electorate has on several occasions in referendums voted AGAINST the main parties, eg treaties of Nice and Lisbon!!

Irish unity will be discussed in excruciating detail before anyone ever goes to the polls and that's if a referendum in NI is even successful (if Brexit is canned or soft, the north won't change the status quo while I'm alive I bet). The figures will be broken down to the last cent and the southern electorate will know very well what tax rises will be expected and what service cuts.

BonnieSituation

murphaph wrote: »

The only parties in Westminster to back Brexit had like 10 MPs from over 600. Brexit still won. The south's electorate has on several occasions in referendums voted AGAINST the main parties, eg treaties of Nice and Lisbon!!

Irish unity will be discussed in excruciating detail before anyone ever goes to the polls and that's if a referendum in NI is even successful (if Brexit is canned or soft, the north won't change the status quo while I'm alive I bet). The figures will be broken down to the last cent and the southern electorate will know very well what tax rises will be expected and what service cuts.

But Brexit hasn't been a stated aspiration of the UK for nearly 100 years.

A UI has been has been an aspiration for Ireland since partition.

And you are spouting in here that we need to know "the facts or else", when quite simply most will end up voting for a UI on romance and aspiration and desire. Just like Brexit. :P

So which is it then for you guys? Cold hard analytical Teutonic decision making? Or airy fairy Nationalism?

---

There is going to be so much discussion over the next decade leading to the referendum in the north that I'm sure the bean-counters in here will be more than happy that the analysis is being done so that they can vote with their wallet and conscience.

Be grand.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

...and which areas are run more efficiently already in NI and would become more expensive in a UI? (eg welfare rates would presumably go up significantly or do you favour the north's citizens receiving less, the NHS costs would presumably go up as the HSE is less efficient, due to high wage costs).

You don't get to cherry pick the costs that might go down in a UI without also discussing those that would actually go up!

I am not setting any redlines or parameters here.

I want all the info first and the expert analysis of that info. Then a plan presented from both sides in the referendum on which we the people of the island can vote.

It was interesting an revealing to have that discussion with Jawgap on the Titantic centre.
It is clear that some people are fiscally conservative and that others are willing to take risks.

A UI will be a risk, it was always going to be. The job of those proposing it is to minimise that risk. And you can't do that without all the info.

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

The only parties in Westminster to back Brexit had like 10 MPs from over 600. Brexit still won. The south's electorate has on several occasions in referendums voted AGAINST the main parties, eg treaties of Nice and Lisbon!!

Irish unity will be discussed in excruciating detail before anyone ever goes to the polls and that's if a referendum in NI is even successful (if Brexit is canned or soft, the north won't change the status quo while I'm alive I bet). The figures will be broken down to the last cent and the southern electorate will know very well what tax rises will be expected and what service cuts.

Depends on who is in favour and in power at the time. Our politicians can blag and railroad through anything if they want it enough. Nice twice wasn't it?
When the referendum goes through I can't see any party being able to deter, what I expect would be massive public support.
Imagine a united Ireland on the table, looking like it will happen. Cost will be discussed but unlikely to sway the majority.

Chips Lovell

Anyone who assumes a referendum on the Irish side of the border would be a foregone conclusion should consider that romantic nationalism sometimes doesn't survive contact with reality.

For example, Cyprus in 2004. You'd assume, given the Turkish invasion of 1974 and the creation of a breakaway state in the Northern part of the Ireland, that the Greek Cypriot community would enthusiastically endorse reunification and that it would be the Turkish side of the island that would be the hard sell.

Instead, the opposite happened. The Turkish Cypriots voted Yes. The Greek Cypriots voted No, largely down to their feeling that the UN-brokered deal favoured the other side more.

Aspirations are all very well, but creating a deal that satisfies all three communities will be the acid test.

BonnieSituation

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Anyone who assumes a referendum on the Irish side of the border would be a foregone conclusion should consider that romantic nationalism sometimes doesn't survive contact with reality.

For example, Cyprus in 2004. You'd assume, given the Turkish invasion of 1974 and the creation of a breakaway state in the Northern part of the Ireland, that the Greek Cypriot community would enthusiastically endorse reunification and that it would be the Turkish side of the island that would be the hard sell.

Instead, the opposite happened. The Turkish Cypriots voted Yes. The Greek Cypriots voted No, largely down to their feeling that the UN-brokered deal favoured the other side more.

Aspirations are all very well, but creating a deal that satisfies all three communities will be the acid test.

They are hardly comparable.

They would be comparable if say, it was 100% unionist in the north and they decided to go all in with their southern brethern and we down here then went "fupp that noise".

The romantic longing in Ireland is a long held entrenched view that will take some shifting.

There is a noticeable cohort (younger than me [I'm 33]) that really don't care a jot (Eg. my 23yo brother). But there's a pile of young uns that are more engaged below them (Eg. my 16 yo brother) that seem to be in tune with the positivity of a UI.

It would be a shock of serious proportions for it to be defeated down here. I mean a serious shock. Something that cannot be countenanced tbh.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can you show where anyone has attempted to state otherwise? It's been agreed there will be a costs associated. The finer details are up in the air.
One thing for certain there will be changes in how the six counties operate during and after. Feasibility, from a purely financial perspective is unlikely to be reached. How many bring such concerns to the ballot box will be the deciding factor. It will be interesting to see how any willing parties try raise that in the run up.
Which will try sell, 'I'd love to see a united Ireland, but we can't afford it'. With our economic history, it'll be amusing to say the least.

I keep hearing that there will be changes in how the North operates and how the bill will be reduced but nobody is able to outline a single credible idea on how this works.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I keep hearing that there will be changes in how the North operates and how the bill will be reduced but nobody is able to outline a single credible idea on how this works.

Two sovereign governments on the same page during a transition period working to make the handover as successful as possible.

We agree that NI has to sort itself and we agree that it can be done.
The subvention figure is probably (I am guessing like everyone else) around the 5bn mark when all centralised funding is subtracted.
During that period also tackling the PS and encouraging all sorts of business, tourist initiatives and attracting investment.
Streamlining all the overlap.

Negotiating with the EU a support structure and grace periods to allow for stability after a UI happens.

Lots and lots of work and challenge but all perfectly doable.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I keep hearing that there will be changes in how the North operates and how the bill will be reduced but nobody is able to outline a single credible idea on how this works.

That's for sure. I mean welfare rates will certainly change as will money spent on health etc. I would imagine there will be a long period of adjustment.