Costs of Irish unification.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your analogy is nonsense because it is not what I am saying.

If you agree that it can be fixed then it is 'likely' that it can be done by two willing governments during a transition period. Why wouldn't they, neither wants a failure for different reasons, too obvious to not foresee.

You keep erecting roadblocks, even though your primary(10bn, who is gonna pay that) one is looking a bit like that 'crashed' car.

Maybe we should just end our speculation and see if anyone can look at the costs of Unification from a more realistic point of view and with some positivity, even if it is notional.
In other words, just stop with the constant shouting down.

I'm not doubting it can be fixed - I questioning how much it will cost and why we should be liable for any of it?

I'm also happy to concede that stg£10 billion is the upper limit of the esttimate of the deficit NI runs, based on a calculation run using one methodology and that other estimates exist - I'm not looking for anyone to demonstrate we've the space to carry a stg£10 billion liability, I only asked

......maybe you'd be good enough to point out where the 'fiscal space' exists that shows we can take on an extra €2.5 billion requirement even in the short term, without borrowing?

.....essentially, where is the evidence that shows that the Republic can afford even 50% of the most optimistic estimate of NI's deficit?

.....and the reason the government here might obfuscate on the point is because, curiously enough, they like getting re-elected - and 'fessing up to wanting to implement a policy that runs a significant risk of plunging the country into another round of austerity is not the way you get elected.

Of course, maybe you know a different way the government can cover those billions without borrowing, without taxing and without cutting services?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not doubting it can be fixed - I questioning how much it will cost and why we should be liable for any of it?

I'm also happy to concede that stg£10 billion is the upper limit of the esttimate of the deficit NI runs, based on a calculation run using one methodology and that other estimates exist - I'm not looking for anyone to demonstrate we've the space to carry a stg£10 billion liability, I only asked



.....essentially, where is the evidence that shows that the Republic can afford even 50% of the most optimistic estimate of NI's deficit?

.....and the reason the government here might obfuscate on the point is because, curiously enough, they like getting re-elected - and 'fessing up to wanting to implement a policy that runs a significant risk of plunging the country into another round of austerity is not the way you get elected.

Of course, maybe you know a different way the government can cover those billions without borrowing, without taxing and without cutting services?

I know that it is not just the republic that will be involved Jawgap.

It will be in nobody's interest that a UI fails, not even unionists.

So together, the south, northern Ireland, the UK and the EU and indeed others can do an awful lot to make a transition as painless as possible.

Yes there are 'realities' there, I am not romanticising it, there will be costs but there is no evidence that they will be a massive burden on what you seem to insist is the only side on the hook...the south.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know that it is not just the republic that will be involved Jawgap.

It will be in nobody's interest that a UI fails, not even unionists.

So together, the south, northern Ireland, the UK and the EU and indeed others can do an awful lot to make a transition as painless as possible.

Yes there are 'realities' there, I am not romanticising it, there will be costs but there is no evidence that they will be a massive burden on what you seem to insist is the only side on the hook...the south.

Jaysus, last time I saw this much dancing around something was at ceili in Ring in the 1980s......

.....I don't doubt we'll be involved - I'm questioning why we should pay for or fund any reform or change measures. Now, you can paint such questions any way you wish as me being obstructionist, partitionist or whatever "....ist" is the mot du jour but the fact remains our fiscal position does not allow us to take on a multi-billion Euro liability like NI without increasing our PSBR/EBR beyond what it is expected to increase by anyway between now and 2021.

Our debt pile is still growing and forecasted to do so for the next couple of years - it's only GDP growth that's keeping it manageable - why would we want to retard that growth by taking on an anchor like NI?

I'm also guessing that the repeated attempts to dodge, obfuscate and deflect suggest you have no evidence that we can support an extra €2.5 billion of spending in the short to medium term without borrowing it.

As an aside, it's great that SF are now expressing so much confidence in the EU, considering they campaigned against it for so long, despite being more than willing to take their shilling.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you agree that it can be fixed then it is 'likely' that it can be done by two willing governments during a transition period. Why wouldn't they, neither wants a failure for different reasons, too obvious to not foresee.

No government wants economically blighted regions but they exist all across the developed world. You talk as if the two governments just need to want them to vanish and it will happen. Sorry, that's not how the world works. If government could just magic away economic problems the likes of Liverpool and the Welsh Valleys wouldn't be the deprived places they are.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Jaysus, last time I saw this much dancing around something was at ceili in Ring in the 1980s......

.....I don't doubt we'll be involved - I'm questioning why we should pay for or fund any reform or change measures. Now, you can paint such questions any way you wish as me being obstructionist, partitionist or whatever "....ist" is the mot du jour but the fact remains our fiscal position does not allow us to take on a multi-billion Euro liability like NI without increasing our PSBR/EBR beyond what it is expected to increase by anyway between now and 2021.

Our debt pile is still growing and forecasted to do so for the next couple of years - it's only GDP growth that's keeping it manageable - why would we want to retard that growth by taking on an anchor like NI?

I'm also guessing that the repeated attempts to dodge, obfuscate and deflect suggest you have no evidence that we can support an extra €2.5 billion of spending in the short to medium term without borrowing it.

As an aside, it's great that SF are now expressing so much confidence in the EU, considering they campaigned against it for so long, despite being more than willing to take their shilling.

I personally was always passionately pro-EU, even though I am not always happy with EU rules and policy. You will have to ask/mock/deride somebody who is a member of SF.

We do not know the weight of the anchor yet. Overnight, after pages and pages of it being a certain 9-10bn it has dropped to 2.5bn.

Borrowing, as Perigrinus points out is not always a bad thing. It is when it cannot be repaid.

We need the full figures, we need to see what others will accept liability for, we need projected growth figures(if any, I admit that) and we need to know what the EU can do. Then we can make a decision, an informed one.

You can keep raising roadblocks that may not be there.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

No government wants economically blighted regions but they exist all across the developed world. You talk as if the two governments just need to want them to vanish and it will happen. Sorry, that's not how the world works. If government could just magic away economic problems the likes of Liverpool and the Welsh Valleys wouldn't be the deprived places they are.

Blighted areas have been turned around before. Are you saying that once blighted that is it for all time?

*Apologies: this post has a smiley face that I have no idea how to remove as it shouldn't be there.

Jawgap

murphaph wrote: »

No government wants economically blighted regions but they exist all across the developed world. You talk as if the two governments just need to want them to vanish and it will happen. Sorry, that's not how the world works. If government could just magic away economic problems the likes of Liverpool and the Welsh Valleys wouldn't be the deprived places they are.

As governments through the years have conclusively proven - anything, pretty much, can be accomplished if the will to do it exists and the will to bear the costs, likewise, exists - it doesn't mean you won't effectively trash the economy in achieving your objective as many have found out

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Blighted areas have been turned around before. Are you saying that once blighted that is it for all time?

*Apologies: this post has a smiley face that I have no idea how to remove as it shouldn't be there.

Name one area that has been turned around without significant spending being thrown at it?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I personally was always passionately pro-EU, even though I am not always happy with EU rules and policy. You will have to ask/mock/deride somebody who is a member of SF.

We do not know the weight of the anchor yet. Overnight, after pages and pages of it being a certain 9-10bn it has dropped to 2.5bn.

Borrowing, as Perigrinus points out is not always a bad thing. It is when it cannot be repaid.

We need the full figures, we need to see what others will accept liability for, we need projected growth figures(if any, I admit that) and we need to know what the EU can do. Then we can make a decision, an informed one.

You can keep raising roadblocks that may not be there.

No, I'm still reasonably happy that the actual figure is closer to 10 than 5 - I conceded the lower level figure just to demonstrate that even if we're optimistic beyond what even the most ridiculous biased analysis suggests the figure should be, the financials still don't stack up.

Borrowing at the wrong phase of the economic cycle, for the wrong items (for example, to support non-capital deficit spending) is positively reckless - there's a reason why countries don't just borrow willy-nilly - and repayment is not really the issue, servicing the debt pile is what matters.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'm still reasonably happy that the actual figure is closer to 10 than 5 - I conceded the lower level figure just to demonstrate that even if we're optimistic beyond what even the most ridiculous biased analysis suggests the figure should be, the financials still don't stack up.

I.E. You don't know & I don't know what the figure is, as pointed out in the Oireachtas report I posted and you rubbished.

Borrowing at the wrong phase of the economic cycle, for the wrong items (for example, to support non-capital deficit spending) is positively reckless - there's a reason why countries don't just borrow willy-nilly - and repayment is not really the issue, servicing the debt pile is what matters.

Again, you have no idea what phase the 'economic cycle' will be at when it comes to borrowing. Or what effect the indicators for a UI will have on the cost of that borrowing or the cost of servicing the debt.


I'm out of this conversation until somebody has something new to discuss. We are going around in circles.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I.E. You don't know & I don't know what the figure is, as pointed out in the Oireachtas report I posted and you rubbished.



Again, you have no idea what phase the 'economic cycle' will be at when it comes to borrowing. Or what effect the indicators for a UI will have on the cost of that borrowing or the cost of servicing the debt.


I'm out of this conversation until somebody has something new to discuss. We are going around in circles.

Well, I'm happy to go with the figures as suggested by QUB, UU, ESRI, etc etc etc - for the purposes of highlighting the ridiculousness of the counter argument, I'm happy to accept a fraction of the reduced figure - if the figures don't stack up at €2.5 billion, they sure as hell don't at €10 billion!

The only indicator that matters is NI's deficit - as long as it has one, it's a liability and as long as it's a liability it will drive up our cost of borrowing, which will, ultimately, drive up taxes for us - and when that liability is priced in to the expected yield we'll need to attach to any bond issue it a post UI world it will be treated adversely by the raters.

Probably best you do bail as despite me posting up figures and links to the documents that contain those figures you seem unwilling to engage with that material.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your analogy is nonsense because it is not what I am saying.

If you agree that it can be fixed then it is 'likely' that it can be done by two willing governments during a transition period. Why wouldn't they, neither wants a failure for different reasons, too obvious to not foresee.

You keep erecting roadblocks, even though your primary(10bn, who is gonna pay that) one is looking a bit like that 'crashed' car.

Maybe we should just end our speculation and see if anyone can look at the costs of Unification from a more realistic point of view and with some positivity, even if it is notional.
In other words, just stop with the constant shouting down.

Any economy can be fixed, even Greece's.

It is what is required to fix it that is in question. Pretending that a magic money tax pool tree will do the trick as implemented by two willing governments doesn't cut it.

There will be cuts required to social welfare. There will be income tax increases required. There will be cuts to the NHS. There will be increases in the pupil-teacher ratio. There will be capital projects postponed.

It is not surprising that Sinn Fein want the two governments to do the heavy lifting because by their actions in government in the North they have shown they don't have the capacity to make the hard decisions.

A simple question to the proponents of Irish unification. Do you believe that unemployment benefit in the North should increase to match the unemployment benefit in the South? If so, who should be taxed to pay for it? If not, does that mean unemployment benefit in the South should be cut?

Ditto the non-contributory pension.

These are simple questions.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I.E. You don't know & I don't know what the figure is, as pointed out in the Oireachtas report I posted and you rubbished.



Again, you have no idea what phase the 'economic cycle' will be at when it comes to borrowing. Or what effect the indicators for a UI will have on the cost of that borrowing or the cost of servicing the debt.


I'm out of this conversation until somebody has something new to discuss. We are going around in circles.

There has been plenty of information posted on the fiscal space, the costs of unification, the deficit in the North, etc.

None of it has been refuted. If I was to summarise the thread at this stage I would say:

There has been significant evidence presented that unification will cost somewhere between €6 billion and €16 billion a year. Not a single poster has been able to indicate realistically how this will be financed.

That is a fair and accurate summary of the current state of the thread.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Not a single poster has been able to indicate realistically how this will be financed

Because not a single poster has a crystal ball. In the event of a UI there'd be three main actors, the British, the Irish and the EU.

If we say the north costs £10bn a year the three main actors would pick up the bill for a set period of time with a view to reducing it to zero, say ten years, while the northeast's economy was brought in line with the rest of the country.

Carlos Orange

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because not a single poster has a crystal ball. In the event of a UI there'd be three main actors, the British, the Irish and the EU.

If we say the north costs £10bn a year the three main actors would pick up the bill for a set period of time with a view to reducing it to zero, say ten years, while the northeast's economy was brought in line with the rest of the country.

Has a state giving up territory ever agreed to fund that territory after it changes sovereignty?

Jawgap

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because not a single poster has a crystal ball. In the event of a UI there'd be three main actors, the British, the Irish and the EU.

If we say the north costs £10bn a year the three main actors would pick up the bill for a set period of time with a view to reducing it to zero, say ten years, while the northeast's economy was brought in line with the rest of the country.

You're right no one has a crystal ball, but some understand economics and have a passing familiarity with fiscal studies.

Votewatch.eu estimate that

......London and Brussels largely keep the province afloat, and together provide 38% of the region’s funds.

.....the EU has provided cohesion funds and will continue to do so, but as I asked earlier, can you name one MS where the EU has provided funds for non-capital health, education and social welfare spending?

The fiscal deficit isn't going to be magicked away on reunification.....it's like all deficits, it has a persistent quality.

And again, do you think the EU are going to greatly expand their support fore Ireland as long as we persist with our low Corporate Tax rates?

Also worth remembering that the EU is obliged to run a balanced budget, so extra money to us means taking it from somewhere else and someone else, you think every other MS is going to remain passive while spending is skewed towards us for anything other than a few years?

Again, it's great to see that SF have such faith in the EU having denigrated it for so long.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because not a single poster has a crystal ball. In the event of a UI there'd be three main actors, the British, the Irish and the EU.

If we say the north costs £10bn a year the three main actors would pick up the bill for a set period of time with a view to reducing it to zero, say ten years, while the northeast's economy was brought in line with the rest of the country.

The rest of the country mostly requires ongoing subsidy from east Leinster and Cork. It's fantasy to believe that Mayo or Tipperary would need subsidies while Tyrone or Fermanagh would not.

The only way the north could be integrated without it costing more to southern taxpayers (long term) is if Belfast (and Derry but there I'd be less optimistic) stimulated economically to such a degree that it can subsidise the rest of the 6 new counties. How realistic is that?

If it was a case that every county in the south was generating more wealth than it consumed then it would be fair enough to say that with a bit of inward investment the 6 new counties could do the same but that does not reflect reality. Most southern counties generate less wealth than they consume and adding the north would exacerbate this.

FrancieBrady

Maybe we should try to move this conversation from endless and circular speculation about the cost of a UI and speculate for a while about what the pro's and cons would be going forward from a handover.

There is a handy list of headings in this blog/article under which it could be considered.

Personally the phrase 'Focused and suitable economic policy' stands out for me in terms of cost.

Surely the lack of the above is why the subvention is now so high.

http://endgameinulster.blogspot.ie/2013/03/united-ireland-top-10-benefits.html

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe we should try to move this conversation from endless and circular speculation about the cost of a UI and speculate for a while about what the pro's and cons would be going forward from a handover.

There is a handy list of headings in this blog/article under which it could be considered.

Personally the phrase 'Focused and suitable economic policy' stands out for me in terms of cost.

Surely the lack of the above is why the subvention is now so high.

http://endgameinulster.blogspot.ie/2013/03/united-ireland-top-10-benefits.html

Speculating about the cost of a UI in a thread titled "Costs of Irish Unification"?

Shocked that such a thing would happen.

I'm glad you admit the subvention is high......it's high because NI doesn't generate enough taxes.....it doesn't generate enough taxes because it's not productive......it's not productive because those trusted with governing prefer the status quo to driving change, and in this they've been enabled by repeated British governments unwilling to turn down the tap. Inevitably it means when the correction comes it will be short, nasty and brutish.....and as usual it will be everyone's fault bar the political reps who show no interest in managing the required change over a longer, more convenient time frame.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Speculating about the cost of a UI in a thread titled "Costs of Irish Unification"?

Shocked that such a thing would happen.

I'm glad you admit the subvention is high......it's high because NI doesn't generate enough taxes.....it doesn't generate enough taxes because it's not productive......it's not productive because those trusted with governing prefer the status quo to driving change, and in this they've been enabled by repeated British governments unwilling to turn down the tap. Inevitably it means when the correction comes it will be short, nasty and brutish.....and as usual it will be everyone's fault bar the political reps who show no interest in managing the required change over a longer, more convenient time frame.

As has been pointed out before, if you have a hive mind approach to all of this then you are part of the problem not a part of the solution.

There is a reason why ALL political representatives in NI cannot and probably never will reach a concensus on how to come up with 'focused and suitable' economic policy.
You don't wish to go back to the core of what that reason is, which is fine, as I said that is 'part' of the problem.
It has been my contention that if you don't address that (and the GFA was the beginning of addressing that) that you are consigning generations to living in what is to any casual observer a 'failed state' given that that it cannot be run by the people who populate it - requires cost and the not insubstantial effort/energy of the southern government and a massive subvention as well as substantial effort from the British government. Not to mention reactionary and remedial funding from the EU that costs everyone.

If we are going to investigate the Cost and whether it is worth it, then surely a look at the potential 'pay off or not' of that investment is worth a look?

Maybe a mod might offer an opinion here.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As has been pointed out before, if you have a hive mind approach to all of this then you are part of the problem not a part of the solution.

There is a reason why ALL political representatives in NI cannot and probably never will reach a concensus on how to come up with 'focused and suitable' economic policy.
You don't wish to go back to the core of what that reason is, which is fine, as I said that is 'part' of the problem.
It has been my contention that if you don't address that (and the GFA was the beginning of addressing that) that you are consigning generations to living in what is to any casual observer a 'failed state' given that that it cannot be run by the people who populate it - requires cost and the not insubstantial effort/energy of the southern government and a massive subvention as well as substantial effort from the British government. Not to mention reactionary and remedial funding from the EU that costs everyone.

If we are going to investigate the Cost and whether it is worth it, then surely a look at the potential 'pay off or not' of that investment is worth a look?

Maybe a mod might offer an opinion here.

I'd say the way to investigate the costs is to look at the budgets of both jurisdictions - I've posted links to both and posed the question as where there is enough headroom in the Republic's budget to indicate it could afford a fraction of the fiscal deficit various academic and non-affiliated commentators have suggested that NI needs.

I've also posted up links to various economic commentary and the only thing that has been posted in response is the partisan KLR report.

I'm guessing that means that there is no counter-analysis suggesting that NI requires billions in subvention and/or explaining the processes by which unification might address this need for external support?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd say the way to investigate the costs is to look at the budgets of both jurisdictions - I've posted links to both and posed the question as where there is enough headroom in the Republic's budget to indicate it could afford a fraction of the fiscal deficit various academic and non-affiliated commentators have suggested that NI needs.

I've also posted up links to various economic commentary and the only thing that has been posted in response is the partisan KLR report.

I'm guessing that means that there is no counter-analysis suggesting that NI requires billions in subvention and/or explaining the processes by which unification might address this need for external support?

It has been addressed. That unification is not going to happen overnight. It has been agreed by you that the need for a high subvention CAN be fixed.

What is needed therefore is a look at the actual costs (something that you insisted for pages was a fixed figure and then rowed back on) which we do not have full access to.

So let's park that and look at the future and potential for a payback on whatever investment has to be made. Because regardless of your view some people (usually the forward looking and risk taking ones) will look at 'costs' as an investment. Just as solid a basis as fiscal conservatism.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It has been addressed. That unification is not going to happen overnight. It has been agreed by you that the need for a high subvention CAN be fixed.

What is needed therefore is a look at the actual costs (something that you insisted for pages was a fixed figure and then rowed back on) which we do not have full access to.

So let's park that and look at the future and potential for a payback on whatever investment has to be made. Because regardless of your view some people (usually the forward looking and risk taking ones) will look at 'costs' as an investment. Just as solid a basis as fiscal conservatism.

Yes, I know it can be fixed.....now, we need two things for that to happen:
1. The money - redunancies, early retirements, redeployments, closures etc etc are going to cost not just money, but cash - why should the Republic's taxpayers have to pay a single cent to re-configure an economy they had no hand or act in and have not directly benefitted from? We already run a trade deficit with NI (according to InterTrade Ireland) so why should be ponying up even more?

2. Political willingness - now there's something that is in rare suply. FactCheckNI show that NI's subvention has done nothing except grow like Topsy......



....they go back as far as the 1960s - so for 50 years NI has done nothing except run a deficit - and after 50 years, or 60 years (whenever a UI happens) you really expect that we're going to believe that things are going to change even over a reasonable timeframe such as 12 years (approx 2 economic cycles)......if the place was capable of changing how come it hasn't before this, in the last 20 years since the GFA? Maybe, as my grandad - a fine Belfast man - used to say, "it's a lot easier to say hello with someone else's hat."

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I know it can be fixed.....now, we need two things for that to happen:
1. The money - redunancies, early retirements, redeployments, closures etc etc are going to cost not just money, but cash - why should the Republic's taxpayers have to pay a single cent to re-configure an economy they had no hand or act in and have not directly benefitted from? We already run a trade deficit with NI (according to InterTrade Ireland) so why should be ponying up even more?

2. Political willingness - now there's something that is in rare suply. FactCheckNI show that NI's subvention has done nothing except grow like Topsy......



....they go back as far as the 1960s - so for 50 years NI has done nothing except run a deficit - and after 50 years, or 60 years (whenever a UI happens) you really expect that we're going to believe that things are going to change even over a reasonable timeframe such as 12 years (approx 2 economic cycles)......if the place was capable of changing how come it hasn't before this, in the last 20 years since the GFA? Maybe, as my grandad - a fine Belfast man - used to say, "it's a lot easier to say hello with someone else's hat."

Em, nobody is 'asking' you to do anything but allow the conversation move in another direction for a while.
We get your point that you seem to be insisting on making ad nauseum.
There are other views.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Em, nobody is 'asking' you to do anything but allow the conversation move in another direction for a while.
We get your point that you seem to be insisting on making ad nauseum.
There are other views.

Can I suggest then that either another thread is started to look at the non-economic aspect of re-unfication or that the title of this thread is amended.

I would've thought the easiest way to take the discussion in a different direction would be to toss up some analysis that counters what has been posted or some economic or other data that indicates that the idea of multi-billion pound deficit is questionable?

......or some examples of unification/re-unificaition that didn't drive significant costs into an economy (we can then see how relevant those examples are to NI and extrapolate from there)

....or some discussion on the mechanisms by which unification operates to lift all boats, as it were.

...or maybe on a simpler level, point out a few examples of sectors in NI that have defied expectation and been reformed and are now performing at or above average?

In summary, what, in the make-up and history of NI, would give one cause for optimism that in the wake of a UI they could be weaned off the currently huge deficit they currently run down to something more usual for a region of Ireland?

Let's start with something more specific......the EU estimates that the Regional GDP for the BMW region (in 2014) was €24,300 per capita - for NI (despite being more urbanised), it's €22,600......what in the economic performance and history of NI might lead one to conclude that NI can bump it's productivity so that the 7.5% between it and the BMW region can be closed?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It has been addressed. That unification is not going to happen overnight. It has been agreed by you that the need for a high subvention CAN be fixed.

What is needed therefore is a look at the actual costs (something that you insisted for pages was a fixed figure and then rowed back on) which we do not have full access to.

So let's park that and look at the future and potential for a payback on whatever investment has to be made. Because regardless of your view some people (usually the forward looking and risk taking ones) will look at 'costs' as an investment. Just as solid a basis as fiscal conservatism.

Personally I don't believe the north is likely to stop requiring a subvention at all and if it does it'd be a generation away at least. The west of the north is simply too similar to the Midlands and west of Ireland that already requires subvention.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

C

Let's start with something more specific......the EU estimates that the Regional GDP for the BMW region (in 2014) was €24,300 per capita - for NI (despite being more urbanised), it's €22,600......what in the economic performance and history of NI might lead one to conclude that NI can bump it's productivity so that the 7.5% between it and the BMW region can be closed?

The inability of their political leaders (because of the long ranging effects of partition) to come up with 'focused and suitable economic policy'?

We keep coming back to core problems that are costing and affecting more than the citizens of NI.

*Point of correction again: In a UI it will not be 'we' who are paying for 'them' we will all be paying for us all. Can you stop doing that because it really makes no sense.

ancapailldorcha

Cut out the backseat modding. Use the report function if you have a problem.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The inability of their political leaders (because of the long ranging effects of partition) to come up with 'focused and suitable economic policy'?

We keep coming back to core problems that are costing and affecting more than the citizens of NI.

*Point of correction again: In a UI it will not be 'we' who are paying for 'them' we will all be paying for us all. Can you stop doing that because it really makes no sense.

Here's an idea.....if a group of leaders lack the will or imagination to change things, maybe the people should vote them out?

Electing the same people, or more extreme examples of them, and then being surprised when things don't change is pretty dysfunctional. And if the people are not going to vote out that type of party apparatchik that currently populates Stormont, why should we believe they'll vote for change after a UI has been secured?

Can you perhaps point to one area of devolved power where Stormont initiated a successful programme of modernisation and reform?

The Republic had Lemass, Fitzgerald etc, the Yanks had Johnson, even Thatcher as a (decisive) figure was change driven - who, in the devolved administration tries to operate as the "Great Reformer"?

murphaph

Jawgap wrote: »

Here's an idea.....if a group of leaders lack the will or imagination to change things, maybe the people should vote them out?

Electing the same people, or more extreme examples of them, and then being surprised when things don't change is pretty dysfunctional. And if the people are not going to vote out that type of party apparatchik that currently populates Stormont, why should we believe they'll vote for change after a UI has been secured?

Can you perhaps point to one area of devolved power where Stormont initiated a successful programme of modernisation and reform?

The Republic had Lemass, Fitzgerald etc, the Yanks had Johnson, even Thatcher as a (decisive) figure was change driven - who, in the devolved administration tries to operate as the "Great Reformer"?

...and would you trust the northern electorate to stop electing these characters in a UI? Imagine if they gained the balance of power in the Dáil!