Costs of Irish unification.

blanch152

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.

.

Finally, something to agree on.

There is a hive mind mentality out there about unification. It is a dream-like belief that everything will be all right once the 32 counties are united for the first time.

Unfortunately, it ignores the economic realities, it ignores the reality of the unionist community, it ignores the social cost etc.

If only people could step away from the dream and look at the reality of what is likely to happen, we could then have a realistic debate as to whether unification is worth the cost.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Finally, something to agree on.

There is a hive mind mentality out there about unification. It is a dream-like belief that everything will be all right once the 32 counties are united for the first time.

Unfortunately, it ignores the economic realities, it ignores the reality of the unionist community, it ignores the social cost etc.

If only people could step away from the dream and look at the reality of what is likely to happen, we could then have a realistic debate as to whether unification is worth the cost.

As this thread shows in spades, there are those who, despite being found out on the inaccuracy of their figures, will construct roadblocks to a discussion of all aspects of this.
They do this in the full knowledge that there are those closer to the levers of power, SF, the Irish government etc who are already convinced that a UI is a credible option for the future.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As this thread shows in spades, there are those who, despite being found out on the inaccuracy of their figures, will construct roadblocks to a discussion of all aspects of this.
They do this in the full knowledge that there are those closer to the levers of power, SF, the Irish government etc who are already convinced that a UI is a credible option for the future.

There's nothing inaccurate about the figures.

Here is the Competiveness Report for the Republic for 2016.

And here is the Competitiveness Report for NI for 2016

Truck loads of data, across 130 socio-economic indicators that starkly illustrate the chasm between our economy and NI's. Anyone thinking such a gap can be bridged without incurring significant costs is either naive or ignorant.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As this thread shows in spades, there are those who, despite being found out on the inaccuracy of their figures, will construct roadblocks to a discussion of all aspects of this.
They do this in the full knowledge that there are those closer to the levers of power, SF, the Irish government etc who are already convinced that a UI is a credible option for the future.

Nobody has been found out or do you have an accurate figure now? You latch on to anything that suggests the subvention the south (actually mostly just east Leinster and Cork) would pay would be less than the headline 10bn UK subsidy but steadfastly refuse to engage in debate about what current NI costs would actually likely increase after unification, such as welfare and the cost of running the health service up there.

murphaph

Jawgap wrote: »

There's nothing inaccurate about the figures.

Here is the Competiveness Report for the Republic for 2016.

And here is the Competitiveness Report for NI for 2016

Truck loads of data, across 130 socio-economic indicators that starkly illustrate the chasm between our economy and NI's. Anyone thinking such a gap can be bridged without incurring significant costs is either naive or ignorant.

And there are those who are neither of these things but don't have a problem with these costs being incurred by the south's taxpayers.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

There's nothing inaccurate about the figures.

Here is the Competiveness Report for the Republic for 2016.

And here is the Competitiveness Report for NI for 2016

Truck loads of data, across 130 socio-economic indicators that starkly illustrate the chasm between our economy and NI's. Anyone thinking such a gap can be bridged without incurring significant costs is either naive or ignorant.

Nobody denied that there will be costs. What you seem to continually want to do is ignore that all these costs can be reduced, struck out altogether, rationalised and mitigated.

What is left after that process will be the true cost. And that is also a figure we don't know yet.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As this thread shows in spades, there are those who, despite being found out on the inaccuracy of their figures, will construct roadblocks to a discussion of all aspects of this.

Can you explain to me which figures have been found to be inaccurate.

What I have seen is that the cost of unification has been demonstrated to be somewhere between €6 billion and €15 billion a year and that nobody has been able to produce a figure that shows it costs less than €6 billion.

A lot of posters are happy to discuss the various options - pay cuts, tax rises, social welfare cuts, expenditure cuts etc. - to fill the gap, so I don't really understand your point about them constructing roadblocks.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They do this in the full knowledge that there are those closer to the levers of power, SF, the Irish government etc who are already convinced that a UI is a credible option for the future.

Being friendly with a local FF or FG TD puts anyone closer to the levers of power than SF.

They have rejected the chance to be in government in Dublin.
They have rejected the chance to be in government in Belfast.
They have rejected the chance to even be in parliament in London.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody denied that there will be costs. What you seem to continually want to do is ignore that all these costs can be reduced, struck out altogether, rationalised and mitigated.

What is left after that process will be the true cost. And that is also a figure we don't know yet.

Can you give us a practical realistic example of how those costs can be reduced, struck out altogether, rationalist or mitigated?

If it is tax rises or expenditure cuts, please tell me which ones you favour.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody denied that there will be costs. What you seem to continually want to do is ignore that all these costs can be reduced, struck out altogether, rationalised and mitigated.

What is left after that process will be the true cost. And that is also a figure we don't know yet.

How? And how much will it cost to reduce those costs?

I've spent about a third of my working life in roles in the public services of four different countries, and even now most of my work involves projects in public sector bodies here, the UK and in different parts of the EU.......and I've a fair idea of the costs involved in "spending to save" initiatives.

So, how, in your view, will, the gap between the economies be closed? And if savings of those magnitudes were readily available why haven't they been pursued thus far?

And, I'll ask again my previous questions......if you can't answer them it's ok to admit as much and I'll say no more about them.....

......are there any 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)?

....what are the mechanisms by which unification operates to lift all boats, as it were?

...are there any examples of sectors in NI that have defied expectation and been reformed and are now performing at or above average?

....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?

......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% gap between its per capita GDP and the BMW region per capita GDP can be closed in a reasonable time frame (say 12 years)?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As this thread shows in spades, there are those who, despite being found out on the inaccuracy of their figures, will construct roadblocks to a discussion of all aspects of this.
They do this in the full knowledge that there are those closer to the levers of power, SF, the Irish government etc who are already convinced that a UI is a credible option for the future.

They're politicians. They'll say/not say what they think they need to to get re-elected.

There's no votes in de-crying a UI.

By way of example of the type of stuff they do come out with in the pursuit of votes, remember when a certain FG politician suggested we could host an Olympics in Dublin

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

They're politicians. They'll say/not say what they think they need to to get re-elected.

There's no votes in de-crying a UI.

By way of example of the type of stuff they do come out with in the pursuit of votes, remember when a certain FG politician suggested we could host an Olympics in Dublin

So being in favour of a UI is the popular position and gets you votes? Even when it is clear as day that NI is running at a huge loss?

How much more popular an idea would it be if it can be so easily shown that the subvention is not as high as Unionists and those opposed to a UI have scaremongered about for years now and for pages on this thread.
How much more easily will minds be swayed when someone comes up with a plan to rationalise and merge the two PS's? You after all (vociferously anti UI) agree that it can be fixed.
And that under every heading in this blog there is scope for expansion and growth? https://endgameinulster.blogspot.ie/2013/03/united-ireland-top-10-benefits.html

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So being in favour of a UI is the popular position and gets you votes? Even when it is clear as day that NI is running at a huge loss?

How much more popular an idea would it be if it can be so easily shown that the subvention is not as high as Unionists and those opposed to a UI have scaremongered about for years now and for pages on this thread.
How much more easily will minds be swayed when someone comes up with a plan to rationalise and merge the two PS's? You after all (vociferously anti UI) agree that it can be fixed.
And that under every heading in this blog there is scope for expansion and growth? https://endgameinulster.blogspot.ie/2013/03/united-ireland-top-10-benefits.html

Now how did I know you'd skip over the questions and settle on this post.....

Yes, a bit like being in favour of building roads and motorways that have no chance of generating a positive return?

Btw, who is "endgameinulster"? Nearly every link I've posted has been transparent as regards the authors and their credentials - who is this person, what are theirs?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Now how did I know you'd skip over the questions and settle on this post.....

Yes, a bit like being in favour of building roads and motorways that have no chance of generating a positive return?

Btw, who is "endgameinulster"? Nearly every link I've posted has been transparent as regards the authors and their credentials - who is this person, what are theirs?

I have said it before Jawgap, I don't know the answer to your questions, but your questions are moot ahead of a full debate on all of this.
We know that NI is operating at a huge loss at the moment and we know what the south generates.

What we don't know is, how much the NI economy can be modified, what supports for a UI will be in place and how quickly and to what extent the advantages, if any of a UI will become manifest or if it will indeed sink into poverty and impossible decline.

I have no idea who the blogger is, I just thought the bullet points where handy for this discussion.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have said it before Jawgap, I don't know the answer to your questions, but your questions are moot ahead of a full debate on all of this.
We know that NI is operating at a huge loss at the moment and we know what the south generates.

What we don't know is, how much the NI economy can be modified, what supports for a UI will be in place and how quickly and to what extent the advantages, if any of a UI will become manifest or if it will indeed sink into poverty and impossible decline.

I have no idea who the blogger is, I just thought the bullet points where handy for this discussion.

They're not moot - they're quite real. NI has a serious competitiveness problem in comparison to the Republic and there neither sign nor indication that anything is being done about it. So while we continue to develop and become more prosperous there is nothing to show that NI will need anything other that continued external funding for the long term foreseeable future.

If the UK are going to provide the billions, we're going to have to provide them.....and nothing you have posted suggests otherwise.

jm08

Robert Power wrote: »

Deleted post

With regard to public servants - offer redundancy and / or a transfer to UK Civil Service, who will have to do a major recruitment drive now that they are leaving the EU.

Shorts is owned by Bombardier, a Canadian company and more than likely will want to keep a foot in the EU (as they have plants in the UK) so that they will be able to compete for the new EU Army contracts.

I also wonder would Boeing/US Gov. be as proactive to put an Irish based company out of business, bearing in mind their biggest customers (and potential customers) are based in Ireland (Ryanair and most of the airline leasing companies)!

Not to sure what you are saying about the police (PSNI?) but I don't think they are anything like you depict.

Jawgap

jm08 wrote: »

With regard to public servants - offer redundancy and / or a transfer to UK Civil Service, who will have to do a major recruitment drive now that they are leaving the EU.

Shorts is owned by Bombardier, a Canadian company and more than likely will want to keep a foot in the EU (as they have plants in the UK) so that they will be able to compete for the new EU Army contracts.

I also wonder would Boeing/US Gov. be as proactive to put an Irish based company out of business, bearing in mind their biggest customers (and potential customers) are based in Ireland (Ryanair and most of the airline leasing companies)!

Not to sure what you are saying about the police (PSNI?) but I don't think they are anything like you depict.

The issue over public servants is an interesting one. Grade for grade the Republic's public servants are paid more, generally, than their counterparts in the UK. So in the wake of a UI it's quite likely the public servants in NI would expect parity within a reasonable timeframe. That leaves you with two options to reduce the salary bill.......reduce pay (as we did in downturn) or reduce headcount (the more usual approach in the UK).

I doubt the unions here will put up with wage reductions here, which really only leaves a massive redundancy and redeployment programme as the only option.

I wonder if NI's public servants will be minded to vote themselves into a UI when that logic begins to hit home?

......and interestingly, those areas probably considered to be the most Nationalist have the greater reliance on public sector jobs. According to NERI......

Public Sector jobs account for 31% of overall employment across Northern Ireland..... there is a wide geographical spread. Breaking it down into parliamentary constituencies, five areas have above average public sector employment. In descending order these are West Belfast, Foyle, South Belfast, West Tyrone and East Belfast. Of these West Belfast would be the most vulnerable constituency with over 45% of total employment in the public sector.

murphaph

Jawgap wrote: »

The issue over public servants is an interesting one. Grade for grade the Republic's public servants are paid more, generally, than their counterparts in the UK. So in the wake of a UI it's quite likely the public servants in NI would expect parity within a reasonable timeframe. That leaves you with two options to reduce the salary bill.......reduce pay (as we did in downturn) or reduce headcount (the more usual approach in the UK).

I doubt the unions here will put up with wage reductions here, which really only leaves a massive redundancy and redeployment programme as the only option.

I wonder if NI's public servants will be minded to vote themselves into a UI when that logic begins to hit home?

......and interestingly, those areas probably considered to be the most Nationalist have the greater reliance on public sector jobs. According to NERI......

Yep. The biggest hurdle to a UI remains the Catholic public servants who would be loathe to vote their jobs away. None of them would know which of them would survive the cull.

BonnieSituation

I thought the biggest hurdle was the "insurmountable" costs that we keep being told that "us down south" will have to shoulder?

Jawgap

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I thought the biggest hurdle was the "insurmountable" costs that we keep being told that "us down south" will have to shoulder?

There's are no insurmountable costs......a redundancy/redeployment programme can be developed to reduce the bloated public sector in NI......salaries can be equalised.....the education reforms necessary to bridge the competitiveness gaps can be funded.....etc

But someone has to pay for it. If we pay for it we'll have to borrow billions each year for a very long time......and raise taxes to pay those debts off eventually.

Unless someone else can explain a different credible mechanism by which NI's deficit can be funded?

MayoSalmon

Jawgap wrote:

But someone has to pay for it. If we pay for it we'll have to borrow billions each year for a very long time......and raise taxes to pay those debts off eventually.

Or just cut spending. Is that even an option nowadays or are you just branded as austerity and sure we can't be having any of that now.

Jawgap

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Or just cut spending. Is that even an option nowadays or are you just branded as austerity and sure we can't be having any of that now.

Likelihood is that when it comes to re-unification it will be a combination of cuts and tax rises - I think the trick will be to manage that kind of transition without plunging us into another longer, and deeper recession that the one we've just come out of.

MayoSalmon

Jawgap wrote:

Likelihood is that when it comes to re-unification it will be a combination of cuts and tax rises - I think the trick will be to manage that kind of transition without plunging us into another longer, and deeper recession that the one we've just come out of.

I would love if the ballot of reunification said United Ireland will cost xyz and to cover this cost the citizens of Ireland will have to pay x% over x numbers of years to cover.

That referendum would fail and fail miserably.

BonnieSituation

MayoSalmon wrote: »

I would love if the ballot of reunification said United Ireland will cost xyz and to cover this cost the citizens of Ireland will have to pay x% over x numbers of years to cover.

That referendum would fail and fail miserably.

So you're not in favour of reunification then?

The ballot will be a simple question thankfully with no qualifiers.

Robert Power

BonnieSituation wrote: »

MayoSalmon wrote: »

I would love if the ballot of reunification said United Ireland will cost xyz and to cover this cost the citizens of Ireland will have to pay x% over x numbers of years to cover.

That referendum would fail and fail miserably.

So you're not in favour of reunification then?

The ballot will be a simple question thankfully with no qualifiers.

The bigger issue will be what's a majority, 50%+1 is the republican mindset, 60%+ will be the unionist mindset

BonnieSituation

A majority as per the GFA is 50% + 1. AS part of the constructive ambiguity I don't think it's defined in the agreement but that's been the assumption since 1998.
Anyway, it's the assumption that Nationalist have been going with for 2 decades!

If a ballot passes in the North it will be because there was a significant shift from Unionists. If we start placating those people who don't want reunifications to make it 2/3 or 60% thresholds etc you will see outrage and boycotts.

How can you play a game for 20 years only for the rules to change just as you think you're getting your turn?

If a significant shift from Unionists (and it's only this that can possibly bring it victory imo) occurs we will see a decent victory for Reunification in the North. I think it's a moot argument and only something talked about by those who don't want a vote or reunification and can see the tide turning.

MayoSalmon

BonnieSituation wrote:

The ballot will be a simple question thankfully with no qualifiers.

Brexit was also a simple question and you can now see what simple questions can sometimes entail.

BonnieSituation

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Brexit was also a simple question and you can now see what simple questions can sometimes entail.

Brexit was also an advisory referendum... like all UK referenda. I'm not inclined to use UK referenda as examples for us here. Especially seeing as we have way more of them than they do and have slightly more experience of them and the associate information campaigns as such.

---

It's like you all think a vote for reunification will take place in a vacuum. It's mind boggling.

Junkyard Tom

Jawgap wrote: »

Unless someone else can explain a different credible mechanism by which NI's deficit can be funded?

The British would want reunification to work.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The British would want reunification to work.

Why? They gain nothing either way.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Why? They gain nothing either way.

Are you quite sure about that?

The North is such a drain on finances I thought? Surely that's something worth being rid of. No?