Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Costs of Irish unification.
Options
Comments
-
They gain a billion pounds profit each and every year they don't have to prop up a failed state0
-
Junkyard Tom wrote: »The British would want reunification to work.
Of course they will, it'll mean them saving some several billions per year - but it's wishful thinking to believe that they will provide any money beyond what they are obligated to under legislation, contracts etc.0 -
It's not wishful thinking at all. Right now they already pay more than they are obligated to under legislation or contracts. Or, to put it another way, they only legislate for themselves to pay that which they are willing to pay. This is a political decision. And the extent to which,and ways in which, they support a transition to a united Ireland, if and when that day ever comes, will equally be a political decision.Of course they will, it'll mean them saving some several billions per year - but it's wishful thinking to believe that they will provide any money beyond what they are obligated to under legislation, contracts etc.
They definitely have an interest in a long-term peaceful settlement in Ireland, and if it meant they could get out of Ireland, that's a bonus. So, yes, there might well be a political willingness to put quite a lot of money on the table, if that was gong to smooth they way to a united Ireland by consent.
(Which is a pretty big "if", of course. But this whole discussion is meaningless unless we hypothesise that there will exist political decisions which favour a united Ireland. Unless and until that happens, debates about the economic implications are meaningless.)0 -
I think we're more or less in agreement.BonnieSituation wrote: »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.
The rules have not and will not changed.
It's 50% +1 in each referendum.
The point I've been trying to make is that I personally would not vote for a UI unless I saw significant buy in by traditional unionists. My personal threshold is 50% of that cohort and this assumes at least 50% of nationalists also vote for a UI. We won't know exactly but polling will be intense and we'll have a very good idea of the numbers of traditional unionists opting for a UI.0 -
They'll almost certainly be prepared to pay to get out but I am highly sceptical that the 6 new counties would be in the black within a generation, if ever.Peregrinus wrote: »It's not wishful thinking at all. Right now they already pay more than they are obligated to under legislation or contracts. Or, to put it another way, they only legislate for themselves to pay that which they are willing to pay. This is a political decision. And the extent to which,and ways in which, they support a transition to a united Ireland, if and when that day ever comes, will equally be a political decision.
They definitely have an interest in a long-term peaceful settlement in Ireland, and if it meant they could get out of Ireland, that's a bonus. So, yes, there might well be a political willingness to put quite a lot of money on the table, if that was gong to smooth they way to a united Ireland by consent.
(Which is a pretty big "if", of course. But this whole discussion is meaningless unless we hypothesise that there will exist political decisions which favour a united Ireland. Unless and until that happens, debates about the economic implications are meaningless.)0 -
Advertisement
-
I think what's missing here is an analysis of why the NI economy seeming underperforms so woefully, and what would have to be done to change the situation. There seems no intrinsic reason why NI shouldn't look, in economic terms, a lot like Leinster or Munster; why doesn't it?They'll almost certainly be prepared to pay to get out but I am highly sceptical that the 6 new counties would be in the black within a generation, if ever.
Only when you have an answer to that question can you ask the necessary follow-on; would the reunification of Ireland change matters, and solve any of the underlying economic problems?
I think until you have at least attempted an answer to both those questions, you are not really addressing the issues raised in the title to this thread.
Finally, I would point out that it's not necessarily the case that NI needs to be "in the black" for Irish unity to be possible, or successful. Most functioning states involve cross-subsidy between regions - typically, between metropolitan regions on the one hand and remote and rural regions on the other. I expect a united Ireland will be no different. Northern Ireland's degree of subsidy is particularly anomalous and is not sustainable, but we are not looking at a simple binary in which NI is either subsidized exactly as today, or is "in the black".0 -
I believe the level of cross subsidy from urban to rural is too high in the south.Peregrinus wrote: »I think what's missing here is an analysis of why the NI economy seeming underperforms so woefully, and what would have to be done to change the situation. There seems no intrinsic reason why NI shouldn't look, in economic terms, a lot like Leinster or Munster; why doesn't it?
Only when you have an answer to that question can you ask the necessary follow-on; would the reunification of Ireland change matters, and solve any of the underlying economic problems?
I think until you have at least attempted an answer to both those questions, you are not really addressing the issues raised in the title to this thread.
Finally, I would point out that it's not necessarily the case that NI needs to be "in the black" for Irish unity to be possible, or successful. Most functioning states involve cross-subsidy between regions - typically, between metropolitan regions on the one hand and remote and rural regions on the other. I expect a united Ireland will be no different. Northern Ireland's degree of subsidy is particularly anomalous and is not sustainable, but we are not looking at a simple binary in which NI is either subsidized exactly as today, or is "in the black".
The north has exactly the same dispersed low density one off housing problems that the republic has. Indeed it was an intentional lack of planning control to not stir up resentment during the troubles. It's why NI looks like the south in terms of one-off housing and not like most other places in GB where the green belt has been protected.
I would argue that in Munster you're only looking at County Cork as a net contributor. In Connaught no county is a net contributor. In Leinster there are also plenty of net recipient counties. It's really just the east of the province that contributes net.
I think west of the Bann is more likely to replicate Connaught than anywhere else. East of the Bann has to pull its economic weight.
It should also be remembered that inward investment going to Belfast means it won't be going to Limerick etc, which it might have done otherwise. So we have to factor in the loss of inward investment in the old 26 that goes to the new 6 instead.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »It's not wishful thinking at all. Right now they already pay more than they are obligated to under legislation or contracts. Or, to put it another way, they only legislate for themselves to pay that which they are willing to pay. This is a political decision. And the extent to which,and ways in which, they support a transition to a united Ireland, if and when that day ever comes, will equally be a political decision.
They definitely have an interest in a long-term peaceful settlement in Ireland, and if it meant they could get out of Ireland, that's a bonus. So, yes, there might well be a political willingness to put quite a lot of money on the table, if that was gong to smooth they way to a united Ireland by consent.
(Which is a pretty big "if", of course. But this whole discussion is meaningless unless we hypothesise that there will exist political decisions which favour a united Ireland. Unless and until that happens, debates about the economic implications are meaningless.)
You're right in the sense that it is very much a political decision - and how politically acceptable might it be for Whitehall administrations, subsequent to a UI, sending billions out of the country, to a region that has already had billions poured into it, while education, the NHS etc requires funding in Britain?
They'll pay what they're required to. They may also, on a one-off basis, chuck a few billion into some fund or other to help with unification, but the idea that they'd continue making payments in respect of NI beyond what is legally required is a bit fanciful.
They may also offer to transfer to us a good chunk of National Insurance contributions if we agree to take on the pension liabilities for Northern Ireland.0 -
They'll almost certainly be prepared to pay to get out but I am highly sceptical that the 6 new counties would be in the black within a generation, if ever.
I don't think anyone realistically expects the six counties of NI to pay for themselves (especially west of the Bann) ever, but I think it's reasonable to expect that they'd require no greater a fiscal transfer than other regions in the Republic.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »It's not wishful thinking at all. Right now they already pay more than they are obligated to under legislation or contracts. Or, to put it another way, they only legislate for themselves to pay that which they are willing to pay. This is a political decision. And the extent to which,and ways in which, they support a transition to a united Ireland, if and when that day ever comes, will equally be a political decision.
They definitely have an interest in a long-term peaceful settlement in Ireland, and if it meant they could get out of Ireland, that's a bonus. So, yes, there might well be a political willingness to put quite a lot of money on the table, if that was gong to smooth they way to a united Ireland by consent.
(Which is a pretty big "if", of course. But this whole discussion is meaningless unless we hypothesise that there will exist political decisions which favour a united Ireland. Unless and until that happens, debates about the economic implications are meaningless.)
I think there will be a huge political imperative to get out of Ireland and to get out of Ireland without, as was their wont in days of end of empire, leaving it in a bloody mess.
That would be a huge embarrassment to a nation only begining to come to general awareness of their colonial past and responsibilities.0 -
Advertisement
-
"What is legally required" will depend on the terms of the treaty which provide for a united Ireland which, of course, has yet to be negotiated or drafted. Which underlines the point; what is legally required depends on what is found to be politically expedient when the time comes. And we can speculate freely and fancifully about what might or might not be politically expedient in these circumstances. If the UK thinks its worth their while to through large amounts of money at the problem, then they will sign a treat and, lo, they will be legally obliged to through large amounts of money at the problem.You're right in the sense that it is very much a political decision - and how politically acceptable might it be for Whitehall administrations, subsequent to a UI, sending billions out of the country, to a region that has already had billions poured into it, while education, the NHS etc requires funding in Britain?
They'll pay what they're required to. They may also, on a one-off basis, chuck a few billion into some fund or other to help with unification, but the idea that they'd continue making payments in respect of NI beyond what is legally required is a bit fanciful.
Or they could just retain liability for national insurance obligations towards NI residents.They may also offer to transfer to us a good chunk of National Insurance contributions if we agree to take on the pension liabilities for Northern Ireland.
Which underlines the point; it's not simply a question of Merrion St stepping into the shoes currently filled by HM Treasury with respect to NI. I think we can confidently say that, if we hope for a united Ireland, it's unlikely simply to be the existing Republic of Ireland with six added counties. We need to be open to new and creative ways of constructing a viable united Ireland which also address the concerns and interests of the British-Irish, and accommodate a continuing relationship between them and Great Britain. There'll be a million or so British citizens in Ireland who will have a recognised status as such, and almost certainly structures and institutions to recognise and protect their status in Ireland and their continuing connection with Great Britain. And that provides a continuing political context which may affect the climate when financial affairs are considered.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »"What is legally required" will depend on the terms of the treaty which provide for a united Ireland which, of course, has yet to be negotiated or drafted. Which underlines the point; what is legally required depends on what is found to be politically expedient when the time comes. And we can speculate freely and fancifully about what might or might not be politically expedient in these circumstances. If the UK thinks its worth their while to through large amounts of money at the problem, then they will sign a treat and, lo, they will be legally obliged to through large amounts of money at the problem.
Indeed, but if there is a vote in both jurisdictions for a UI are the governments going to block the transfer? In negotiating terms, the "best alternative to no agreement" is simply that NI transfers and contracts and existing legalities aside, no additional commitments are entered into. Whitehall would simply point to the fact that NI voted to leave, the Republic voted to accept them, so why do they need to sweeten the pot?
Or put it this way, if they tell us to go whistle for any extra cash, what are we going to do? refuse to accept the outcome of the respective votes? hand the place back?Peregrinus wrote: »Or they could just retain liability for national insurance obligations towards NI residents.
they certainly could - and given that they already pay pensions to people living here that would be the simplest option - but if they want to put as much daylight between them and NI they might be minded to cut as many ties as possible.Peregrinus wrote: »Which underlines the point; it's not simply a question of Merrion St stepping into the shoes currently filled by HM Treasury with respect to NI. I think we can confidently say that, if we hope for a united Ireland, it's unlikely simply to be the existing Republic of Ireland with six added counties. We need to be open to new and creative ways of constructing a viable united Ireland which also address the concerns and interests of the British-Irish, and accommodate a continuing relationship between them and Great Britain. There'll be a million or so British citizens in Ireland who will have a recognised status as such, and almost certainly structures and institutions to recognise and protect their status in Ireland and their continuing connection with Great Britain. And that provides a continuing political context which may affect the climate when financial affairs are considered.
I don't disagree with any of that - indeed, the current model of the Republic would likely have to change significantly - in this thread I'm only questioning the cost, the affordability and why we should pay for any of it?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I think what's missing here is an analysis of why the NI economy seeming underperforms so woefully, and what would have to be done to change the situation. There seems no intrinsic reason why NI shouldn't look, in economic terms, a lot like Leinster or Munster; why doesn't it?
Only when you have an answer to that question can you ask the necessary follow-on; would the reunification of Ireland change matters, and solve any of the underlying economic problems?
I think until you have at least attempted an answer to both those questions, you are not really addressing the issues raised in the title to this thread.
Finally, I would point out that it's not necessarily the case that NI needs to be "in the black" for Irish unity to be possible, or successful. Most functioning states involve cross-subsidy between regions - typically, between metropolitan regions on the one hand and remote and rural regions on the other. I expect a united Ireland will be no different. Northern Ireland's degree of subsidy is particularly anomalous and is not sustainable, but we are not looking at a simple binary in which NI is either subsidized exactly as today, or is "in the black".
ah come on? How many reports have I linked to discussing the competitiveness and productivity issues issues in NI?
To be honest, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest no analysis has been done on underperformance in the NI economy - there's truckloads of the stuff.
What there isn't, is analysis that shows NI isn't as bad as it is made out to be by the official figures, the academic analysis and the non-affiliated commentary. All that has been offered is a report funded by a body well inclined towards a UI.......and even that report noted some level of subvention would be required for NI in a post-UI world!
As I said, the problems are well understood, what's lacking is a willingness to tackle them because, unsurprisingly, that would mean people accepting some level of economic pain - as we did during the downturn. But sooner or later the tap of funding from Whitehall will have the flow reduced, so it would be better to start now, and make the changes on their own terms, rather than have them imposed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the former is going to happen any time soon, increasing the probability of the latter.0 -
I don't this is a very likely scenario, to be honest. If a united Ireland comes about, it won't be like this.Indeed, but if there is a vote in both jurisdictions for a UI are the governments going to block the transfer? In negotiating terms, the "best alternative to no agreement" is simply that NI transfers and contracts and existing legalities aside, no additional commitments are entered into. Whitehall would simply point to the fact that NI voted to leave, the Republic voted to accept them, so why do they need to sweeten the pot?
Or put it this way, if they tell us to go whistle for any extra cash, what are we going to do? refuse to accept the outcome of the respective votes? hand the place back?
Which underlines the point I'm making all along. The financial aspects of united Ireland will flow from the political context. We can easily hypothesize a political context which will deliver any particular financial consequence (whether that's "it will be easy!" or "it will be impossible!") but that has no bearing on how history will in fact unfold.
I've agreed with you all along that the financial aspects are very significant, and very challenging, but they are not something that exist independently of current models of the Republic, of the UK and of NI. Nor are they fixed, immutable, a given. The current financial/economic situation of NI is not an inevitability.I don't disagree with any of that - indeed, the current model of the Republic would likely have to change significantly - in this thread I'm only questioning the cost, the affordability and why we should pay for any of it?
As for "why we should pay for any of it?", you might with equal or more justice ask why the British should pay for any of it - and yet they do. If you want a united Ireland, then these are your fellow countrymen, and our fortunes and finances are interlinked whether we want them to be or not. There is no point in seeking a united Ireland which treats Ireland as two distinct parts to be run and paid for separately; it would be more honest simply to say that you don't want a united Ireland.
One of the principle objections to the Irish border is that it makes no social or economic sense whatsoever, and costs both sides money. This has been less true since the advent of the single market, but still true to some extent. It's now likely to become more true. The notion that we'd attain a united Ireland, but still keep the border as some kind of fiscal condom to prevent the transmission of budgetary disease makes no sense at all.0 -
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I accept that there is loads of research and data showing NI's economic underperformance. But what we need to get a handle on is why NI performs so badly. Did it have to be like this? Was it always like this? What changed in the past? What could be changed for the future? To what extent is the problem attributable to political instability or to communal division, and to what extent to other factors?ah come on? How many reports have I linked to discussing the competitiveness and productivity issues issues in NI?
To be honest, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest no analysis has been done on underperformance in the NI economy - there's truckloads of the stuff . . .
For example, NI is a very remote part of the UK - a long way from the metropolitan South East, separated from the rest of the country by sea, the only part of the UK not to have a land border with England (or indeed with any other part). It's much less marginal in the context of the all-Ireland economy - the second largest city in the country, a two-hour drive from the largest and capital city. It's also politically marginal and alienated; NI has about 3% of the MPs at Westminster, and is permanently frozen out of the national government; this certainly wouldn't apply in a united Ireland. It's reasonable at least to ask the extent to which factors like this might partly account for NI's dismal performance.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Sorry, I should have been clearer. I accept that there is loads of research and data showing NI's economic underperformance. But what we need to get a handle on is why NI performs so badly. Did it have to be like this? Was it always like this? What changed in the past? What could be changed for the future? To what extent is the problem attributable to political instability or to communal division, and to what extent to other factors?
For example, NI is a very remote part of the UK - a long way from the metropolitan South East, separated from the rest of the country by sea, the only part of the UK not to have a land border with England (or indeed with any other part). It's much less marginal in the context of the all-Ireland economy - the second largest city in the country, a two-hour drive from the largest and capital city. It's also politically marginal and alienated; NI has about 3% of the MPs at Westminster, and is permanently frozen out of the national government; this certainly wouldn't apply in a united Ireland. It's reasonable at least to ask the extent to which factors like this might partly account for NI's dismal performance.
Again - ah come on! The productivity reports drill down in some detail as why productivity lags in NI - for one thing, the three different educational systems impose huge drags on public funds and in consequence they don't benefit from scale economies in their operations, and are therefore limited in the quals they can offer.
The governance issue is also pointed out as a huge issue in terms of productivity - and let's be honest, people can change that at the next election but they choose to keep voting in the same characters. They could vote in more conciliatory individuals - genuine leaders, rather than populist ones - but they choose not to, then wonder why nothing changes!
And it's difficult to argue that currently NI MPs are frozen out at Westminster, although it has always generally been the case that they have been marginalised.......but given the level of spending in NI, relative to the rest of the UK, you'd have to wonder if that marginalisation has really impacted spending there.
Also NI may be peripheral to the UK, but it has completely unfettered access to a market of 60 million (give or take) - they may be less peripheral in Ireland but we're only a market of 5 million (give or take) and even though the cry of "the EU, the EU" will go up - if they're peripheral to the UK they're definitely peripheral to the EU - so either peripherality is an issue or it isn't......it can be an issue in the context of the UK, but not the EU.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »......
I've agreed with you all along that the financial aspects are very significant, and very challenging, but they are not something that exist independently of current models of the Republic, of the UK and of NI. Nor are they fixed, immutable, a given. The current financial/economic situation of NI is not an inevitability.
On this point, the costs are pretty much fixed - 'x' amount in taxes is available from NI, 'y' amount has to be spent on public services where most of your costs are salaries - so whatever way it gets sliced the costs are staying. The model isn't going to change that - you are still going to have people who need paying.Peregrinus wrote: »As for "why we should pay for any of it?", you might with equal or more justice ask why the British should pay for any of it - and yet they do. If you want a united Ireland, then these are your fellow countrymen, and our fortunes and finances are interlinked whether we want them to be or not. There is no point in seeking a united Ireland which treats Ireland as two distinct parts to be run and paid for separately; it would be more honest simply to say that you don't want a united Ireland.
One of the principle objections to the Irish border is that it makes no social or economic sense whatsoever, and costs both sides money. This has been less true since the advent of the single market, but still true to some extent. It's now likely to become more true. The notion that we'd attain a united Ireland, but still keep the border as some kind of fiscal condom to prevent the transmission of budgetary disease makes no sense at all.
Well the Brits should pay for it because NI is, currently, under their jurisdiction (leaving aside the argument that they created the mess in the first place).
As for wanting a UI - yes, I do, but not so much that I'm willing to risk living in never ending austerity to pay for it, or put up with its current form of politics infecting our own political establishment and holding it to ransom (its bad enough as it is!)0 -
I don't expect west of the Bann is remotely capable of paying for itself ever but I would expect that Belfast should be in a position to provide the subsidy required west of the Bann, otherwise we are looking at a permanent cost of living reduction in the old 26 relative to what it would have been in a no UI scenario.I don't think anyone realistically expects the six counties of NI to pay for themselves (especially west of the Bann) ever, but I think it's reasonable to expect that they'd require no greater a fiscal transfer than other regions in the Republic.0 -
Sorry but the UK is already a laughing stock thanks to Brexit. Their reputation is in tatters as it is.FrancieBrady wrote: »I think there will be a huge political imperative to get out of Ireland and to get out of Ireland without, as was their wont in days of end of empire, leaving it in a bloody mess.
That would be a huge embarrassment to a nation only begining to come to general awareness of their colonial past and responsibilities.0 -
An election such as this if it were ever to have would need more than 50% + 1. We see how contentious Brexit is after the fact. As has been mentioned, you will need more than that to make the thing a success. No point trying to squeak it past the line.0
-
Advertisement
-
An election such as this if it were ever to have would need more than 50% + 1. We see how contentious Brexit is after the fact. As has been mentioned, you will need more than that to make the thing a success. No point trying to squeak it past the line.
You'll need to acomplish the small matter of rewriting the GFA.0 -
I believe the level of cross subsidy from urban to rural is too high in the south.
You keep making this claim. Have you got any figures for this?The north has exactly the same dispersed low density one off housing problems that the republic has. Indeed it was an intentional lack of planning control to not stir up resentment during the troubles. It's why NI looks like the south in terms of one-off housing and not like most other places in GB where the green belt has been protected.
Ireland is an agricultural, low density country - completely different to the UK. Bear in mind that the population of Ireland was 8 million before the famine and is now about 5 ml. England was 12 million and is now about 50 million with a very high density.I would argue that in Munster you're only looking at County Cork as a net contributor. In Connaught no county is a net contributor. In Leinster there are also plenty of net recipient counties. It's really just the east of the province that contributes net.
Interesting to see that Cork GDP is the highest in the State at 105,000 per person. Dublin is second at 95,000 per person.
I think west of the Bann is more likely to replicate Connaught than anywhere else. East of the Bann has to pull its economic weight.
What I don't understand is why the ROI has the third highest GDP of the EU per person (and the UK isn't in the Top 3). Why is this? What is the ROI doing different to NI?It should also be remembered that inward investment going to Belfast means it won't be going to Limerick etc, which it might have done otherwise. So we have to factor in the loss of inward investment in the old 26 that goes to the new 6 instead.
Limerick is one of the 4 wealthiest counties in Ireland (Dublin, Kildare, Cork & Limerick). Limerick city has a blackspot (like all cities), but there is plenty of money in that region.
I don't actually see NI competing with the rest of Ireland for inward investment with its manufacturing/engineering base. What the likes of Bombardier/Shorts need are contracts and should be looking to Asia to sell their expertise. NI are fairly good at scientific research - how about concentrating on developing that (as England will be losing a lot of EU research grants now that it is out of the EU).
Edit: Just seen this elsewhere with regard to Sports Grants:The analysis shows that applicants from Dublin received an average grant of €61,365, or 95 per cent of their requested funding, compared with €28,371, or 46 per cent, on average in the rest of the country.0 -
The CSO figures for social transfers are online. They've been debated at length on boards many times. I'm on a phone right now so please google them.
I don't for one second accept that Ireland being "agricultural" is the reason we have people working in West Dublin industrial estates living in one off houses in Cavan! The vast majority of people not living in villages are not actually working the land or associated trades and could just as easily live in the next village. Ireland developed its bungalow blitz with the advent of the affordable motor car and cheap oil. There's no historical basis for it. But it's a side issue that tends to divert the conversation because so many people feel strongly about it. Suffice to say our development patterns lead to an increase cost of service provision, even crappy services.
I actually agree with you that in a UI scenario we would have to try to create a (mechanical) engineering hub around Belfast. How successful that would be I don't know. It would be worth a shot presumably.0 -
What I don't understand is why the ROI has the third highest GDP of the EU per person (and the UK isn't in the Top 3). Why is this? What is the ROI doing different to NI?
Why indeed? That is an interesting question.
There are a few multinationals doing all kinds of tax tricks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-gdp-figures-why-26-economic-growth-is-a-problem-1.27221700 -
I don't for one second accept that Ireland being "agricultural" is the reason we have people working in West Dublin industrial estates living in one off houses in Cavan! The vast majority of people not living in villages are not actually working the land or associated trades and could just as easily live in the next village.
I agree, this is basically quite a few of my family and friends at home.
The M3 motorway has made it possible to work in Dublin and still have the large one off house in the country.0 -
The CSO figures for social transfers are online. They've been debated at length on boards many times. I'm on a phone right now so please google them.
I did google it, but I can't find anywhere where it said that there are transfers to Co. Mayo or Kerry.I don't for one second accept that Ireland being "agricultural" is the reason we have people working in West Dublin industrial estates living in one off houses in Cavan!
I doubt very much if anyone working in West Dublin is living in a one off house in Cavan (though I imagine the 900 who work for Kerry Foods (HQ Tralee) in Nass have to live somewhere.
While they maybe living in Cavan, it will be in ghost estates though on the edge of a village because they cannot afford a house in Dublin.
You won't get planning permission for a one off house in the country unless you have family there nowadays. From experience, I can tell you what is happening (I come from a country area) is that family members build houses on their parents land. Nowadays, instead of a one off house, you will get a cluster of 3 or 4 houses around the former family home.The vast majority of people not living in villages are not actually working the land or associated trades and could just as easily live in the next village.
You need to pay a visit to the west of Ireland where you will see long abandoned houses in remote areas.Ireland developed its bungalow blitz with the advent of the affordable motor car and cheap oil. There's no historical basis for it.]But it's a side issue that tends to divert the conversation because so many people feel strongly about it. Suffice to say our development patterns lead to an increase cost of service provision, even crappy services.
I actually agree with you that in a UI scenario we would have to try to create a (mechanical) engineering hub around Belfast. How successful that would be I don't know. It would be worth a shot presumably.[/QUOTE]0 -
I actually agree with you that in a UI scenario we would have to try to create a (mechanical) engineering hub around Belfast. How successful that would be I don't know. It would be worth a shot presumably.
Here is something that Belfast could be looking at:
Dublin Aerospace considering base in regional airport
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/dublin-aerospace-considering-base-in-regional-airport-36487781.html
They actually mention Donegal as a possible base.0 -
Topgear on Dave wrote: »Why indeed? That is an interesting question.
There are a few multinationals doing all kinds of tax tricks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-gdp-figures-why-26-economic-growth-is-a-problem-1.2722170
And there are companies like Kerry Foods, HQed in Kerry, employing 24,000 people worldwide with an annual turnover of about 6bn or Kingspan (3 bn) HQed in Cavan or CRH (28 bn turnover with 86K employees worldwide).0 -
I doubt very much if anyone working in West Dublin is living in a one off house in Cavan (though I imagine the 900 who work for Kerry Foods (HQ Tralee) in Nass have to live somewhere.
While they maybe living in Cavan, it will be in ghost estates though on the edge of a village because they cannot afford a house in Dublin.
You won't get planning permission for a one off house in the country unless you have family there nowadays. From experience, I can tell you what is happening (I come from a country area) is that family members build houses on their parents land. Nowadays, instead of a one off house, you will get a cluster of 3 or 4 houses around the former family home.
You need to pay a visit to the west of Ireland where you will see long abandoned houses in remote areas.
I know a lot of people who have purchased those one-off houses in Cavan from the people who built them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement