Costs of Irish unification.

TenLeftFingers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think a new flag would be the easy way to handle it.

Nobody has a problem with foreign flags, but flying them on the seat of government or on the Aras to appease some 'sensitivities' would be cringeworthy.

Our flag is already one third orange to represent the protestants/orange order in the North. And even though they are a minority, the orange is equal in area to the green side. It would be silly to take it further. I actually think the orange should be reduced on the flag to be symbolic without creating the illusion that unionism is that widespread in Irish tradition.

FrancieBrady

TenLeftFingers wrote: »

Our flag is already one third orange to represent the protestants/orange order in the North. And even though they are a minority, the orange is equal in area to the green side. It would be silly to take it further. I actually think the orange should be reduced on the flag to be symbolic without creating the illusion that unionism is that widespread in Irish tradition.

I think a new flag gets over all the association problems in one easy way. 'Unionism' (the NI version) will be redundant btw.

TenLeftFingers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think a new flag gets over all the association problems in one easy way. 'Unionism' (the NI version) will be redundant btw.

I sincerely doubt that. While technically true, the DUP and their following aren't going to give up their identity overnight or agree to being unrepresented in a UI.

FrancieBrady

TenLeftFingers wrote: »

I sincerely doubt that. While technically true, the DUP and their following aren't going to give up their identity overnight or agree to being unrepresented in a UI.

Why would they be 'unrepresented'?

murphaph

TenLeftFingers wrote: »

Our flag is already one third orange to represent the protestants/orange order in the North. And even though they are a minority, the orange is equal in area to the green side. It would be silly to take it further. I actually think the orange should be reduced on the flag to be symbolic without creating the illusion that unionism is that widespread in Irish tradition.

Stuff like a new flag would be bare minimum superficial changes you'd need in the event of a UI. The changes would go much deeper.

Mr.H

First of all on cost. I think northern Ireland pay a huge amount toward the British military which is a huge factor in 'cost to run the north'. Obviously that cost wouldn't exist any more. While a lot of jobs May be state funded it means eventually those jobs wouldn't exist as we would be joining both governments and standardising the way the whole new country is run. This means that state jobs up there would no longer exist. New jobs would have to replace them of course.

New tourists possibilities will open up for Ireland as a brand rather than northern or the republic of.

We need to also consider we will not be giving stuff up for the Northern's and they won't be giving stuff up for us. If the united Ireland dream ever happened then both northern Ireland and republic of Ireland cease to exist. The republic will no longer be a thing just as much as the north. It will be a brand new country. The tricolor will no longer be valid. Instead the founding year of this state will be the year we become a united Ireland.

People seem to not understand it's not about us taking them in. It's about both countries becoming one.

If we can sell it in that regard o think we have a better chance of success. A new Ireland a new hope. New government with new police services. A place where all religions can live together and people can co exist. Except for the silly religions of course like Jedi and Catholics haha

Mr.H

BloodBath wrote:

I personally would not take the North back without shipping all those twats out of there.

Can we ship people with your attitude out as well?

Junkyard Tom

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd disagree. The nationalism you allude to seems to be in no way incompatible with unionism. They do seem to be genuinely concerned for the union. David Cameron even went so far as to campaign for remain in Scotland in 2014. Then there is the fact that nobody even suggests ditching Northern Ireland despite it being a net drain on British coffers.

You're confusing the desire to maintain all island integrity in Britain with Unionism. If the DUP didn't have the Tories by the balls the Irish government would be more-or-less deciding the north's future Brexit arrangements.

LoughNeagh2017

I think we Ulster Gaels (I view that as my national identity) are caught between a rock and a hard place, the United Kingdom and then Varadkars republic, I haven't been outside province of Ulster in 10 years so maybe I'm a bit backward. I would say 60% of the free state as it is referred to here would vote no even if the streets were paved with gold, they don't like us as a collective people.

I wonder are there any other examples of people like us, caught between two bad situations?

bobbysands81

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I think we Ulster Gaels (I view that as my national identity) are caught between a rock and a hard place, the United Kingdom and then Varadkars republic, I haven't been outside province of Ulster in 10 years so maybe I'm a bit backward. I would say 60% of the free state as it is referred to here would vote no even if the streets were paved with gold, they don't like us as a collective people.

I wonder are there any other examples of people like us, caught between two bad situations?

You couldn’t be more wrong.

A comfortable majority as it stands would vote in favour of a UI.

With a proper debate that number will only increase.

Every major political party will be backing unity.

LoughNeagh2017

I dont believe that, on seconds thoughts maybe slightly over 50% would vote yes but us still leaves a large amount of people who view us as foreigners. I dont think Michael Martin and his cronies would want a unified Ireland.

Hannibal

Mr.H wrote: »

First of all on cost. I think northern Ireland pay a huge amount toward the British military which is a huge factor in 'cost to run the north'. Obviously that cost wouldn't exist any more. While a lot of jobs May be state funded it means eventually those jobs wouldn't exist as we would be joining both governments and standardising the way the whole new country is run. This means that state jobs up there would no longer exist. New jobs would have to replace them of course.

New tourists possibilities will open up for Ireland as a brand rather than northern or the republic of.

We need to also consider we will not be giving stuff up for the Northern's and they won't be giving stuff up for us. If the united Ireland dream ever happened then both northern Ireland and republic of Ireland cease to exist. The republic will no longer be a thing just as much as the north. It will be a brand new country. The tricolor will no longer be valid. Instead the founding year of this state will be the year we become a united Ireland.

People seem to not understand it's not about us taking them in. It's about both countries becoming one.

If we can sell it in that regard o think we have a better chance of success. A new Ireland a new hope. New government with new police services. A place where all religions can live together and people can co exist. Except for the silly religions of course like Jedi and Catholics haha

You're correct about the military but what is also deducted from the block grand is costs associated with the upkeep of the English royal family, their palaces, grounds, benefits and wages of their servants etc. There is also the funding of museums and public buildings. The funding of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq etc all ate into that.

The cost of partition to the six counties can be summed up by continued Tory austerity measures.

One thing that is rarely mentioned is the benefit reunification would have on Donegal which is starved of services because it's so far from Dublin and population density is low. It's economic centre is Derry city which would no doubt become a regional centre for the whole north west. That would transform that whole part of Ireland in regards to not only jobs but also access to healthcare and the potential to expand Magee college into a regional university.

Derry is the fourth largest city in Ireland but not serviced by a motorway within 50km. The benefits a motorway and wider infrastructure would have on Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Leitrim and Donegal would be unbelievable.

The English ran the northern economy into the ground since partition and left it overly geared and reliant on state jobs. The economy up north is not operating at anywhere near potential. The voices against reunification raise the block grant as us not being able to afford it. The report that put it at £12bn was issued by a department then controlled by Sammy Wilson, I've seen independent estimates at £6bn. Belfast city apart the whole nine counties of Ulster are on their knees because of partition.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're confusing the desire to maintain all island integrity in Britain with Unionism. If the DUP didn't have the Tories by the balls the Irish government would be more-or-less deciding the north's future Brexit arrangements.

Perhaps I was under-selling Irish influence in these negotiations: twitter.com

James Brown

It's in a temporary state. The island of Ireland includes Ulster always has, always will.
There's nothing PC about respecting the politics of your fellow countrymen. It's a right, even if those among their number have tried their damnedest to take that from the other communities.

Sand

bobbysands81 wrote: »

You couldn’t be more wrong.

A comfortable majority as it stands would vote in favour of a UI.

With a proper debate that number will only increase.

Every major political party will be backing unity.

Every major political party in the UK was against Brexit.

Charles Babbage

Sand wrote: »

Every major political party in the UK was against Brexit.

This isn't a useful example, the Brexit vote was a nationalist one.

Junkyard Tom

Has anyone ever tried to do the numbers on the cost of partition?

markodaly

The cost doesnt really matter as its being paid for by Westminister. A UI would shift that cost to Dublin, at least in the medium and short term. We cant even get people to pay for water, do you think people will pull on the green jersey hand over a few grand a year to the north?

Fr Tod Umptious

On the point of the 50%+1 outcome of a referendum, I don't think that will even be allowed happen.

The British Government, and I think it's them who have the final say, will only be willing to let a vote go ahead in NI if they already know the outcome, i.e. everything pointing to a clear majority for a united Ireland.

The problem with Brexit was that it was just thrown out there to get the UKIP off the Tories back, and it backfired big time.

murphaph

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

On the point of the 50%+1 outcome of a referendum, I don't think that will even be allowed happen.

The British Government, and I think it's them who have the final say, will only be willing to let a vote go ahead in NI if they already know the outcome, i.e. everything pointing to a clear majority for a united Ireland.

The problem with Brexit was that it was just thrown out there to get the UKIP off the Tories back, and it backfired big time.

The GFA requires the secretary of state for Northern Ireland to hold a border poll if he believes it will pass. This is a bit vague but it'll be hard to deny a border poll if nationalists achieve over half the votes in an assembly or Westminster election.

Hannibal

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Has anyone ever tried to do the numbers on the cost of partition?

The deficit is around £9bn but it is hard to do the true numbers because a lot of companies and some very big ones pay their taxes through their HQ's in England so we don't know how much is raised by them in terms of revenue, VAT, corporation taxes etc.
I would imagine there is alot of money wasted as there is a duplication in terms of health, education, agriculture, legal etc.
Dr Kurt Hubner reckons reunification could bring in around £36bn within 8 years from a study he conducted. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505

blanch152

Hannibal wrote: »

The deficit is around £9bn but it is hard to do the true numbers because a lot of companies and some very big ones pay their taxes through their HQ's in England so we don't know how much is raised by them in terms of revenue, VAT, corporation taxes etc.
I would imagine there is alot of money wasted as there is a duplication in terms of health, education, agriculture, legal etc.
Dr Kurt Hubner reckons reunification could bring in around £36bn within 8 years from a study he conducted. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505

Is that the study conducted by a front for the Friends of Sinn Fein that used fantastical assumptions?

If not, a link to the actual study would be welcome.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

The cost doesnt really matter as its being paid for by Westminister. A UI would shift that cost to Dublin, at least in the medium and short term. We cant even get people to pay for water, do you think people will pull on the green jersey hand over a few grand a year to the north?

People wouldn't pay for a 'we look after own own' con; water we already do.

As covered, it's likely a people use to little value for money, who suffered austerity for private debt made public, who if guilty of anything, was taking advantage of free flowing credit and government telling them 'the boom would get boomier', might say, 'what's new?' if told reunification will cost them. Except we'll have a whole country to show for the spend. Maybe Varadkar will say, 'Sure East and West Germany did okay' you know, to downplay the cost if it suits his agenda?

It will likely cost the country a lot, but if we can get into generational debt to bail out a not fit for purpose economic model which is arguably heading in that direction again, personally I'm happy to pay towards the reunification of the country. It's money better spent. Fine Gael might extend 'looking after our own' to the six counties?

Jawgap

Hannibal wrote: »

The deficit is around £9bn but it is hard to do the true numbers because a lot of companies and some very big ones pay their taxes through their HQ's in England so we don't know how much is raised by them in terms of revenue, VAT, corporation taxes etc.
I would imagine there is alot of money wasted as there is a duplication in terms of health, education, agriculture, legal etc.
Dr Kurt Hubner reckons reunification could bring in around £36bn within 8 years from a study he conducted. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unification-of-ireland-could-bring-in-36-5bn-in-eight-years-1.2435505

blanch152 wrote: »

Is that the study conducted by a front for the Friends of Sinn Fein that used fantastical assumptions?

If not, a link to the actual study would be welcome.

The very same - http://www.klconsult.ca/irish-unification-modeling-.pdf

And worth noting the report/model assumes "....all scenarios and components in the model are run under the assumption that the ROI funds entirely the fiscal transfer to NI, paid by GB prior to 2018. Again, given model architecture, this changes the ROI’s deficit but not the ROI’s investment level, the extra funding required to fund investment is sourced from the net foreign borrowings." (@pg31)

blanch152

Jawgap wrote: »

The very same - http://www.klconsult.ca/irish-unification-modeling-.pdf

And worth noting the report/model assumes "....all scenarios and components in the model are run under the assumption that the ROI funds entirely the fiscal transfer to NI, paid by GB prior to 2018. Again, given model architecture, this changes the ROI’s deficit but not the ROI’s investment level, the extra funding required to fund investment is sourced from the net foreign borrowings." (@pg31)

So if we blow the fiscal rules out of the water, their model works. Simply fantastical left-wing nonsense.

dok_golf

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I dont believe that, on seconds thoughts maybe slightly over 50% would vote yes but us still leaves a large amount of people who view us as foreigners. I dont think Michael Martin and his cronies would want a unified Ireland.

I would be shocked if A ref was called tomorrow it wouldn't get a 2:1 majority. Martin would be turfed out by FF grassroots if he didn't actively support it. Even the new younger generation of Fine Gaelers are now asserting their UI aspirations, a party long known for appeasing unionist worries

Fred_Johnson

dok_golf wrote: »

I would be shocked if A ref was called tomorrow it wouldn't get a 2:1 majority. Martin would be turfed out by FF grassroots if he didn't actively support it. Even the new younger generation of Fine Gaelers are now asserting their UI aspirations, a party long known for appeasing unionist worries

What are you basing that on? When told their taxes might need to rise, support for a UI in the ROI drops to as low as 30%. That's before we talk about the sectarian troubles that would follow.

In my opinion, a UI referendum in the ROI would be more difficult to win over the long term than in NI. Especially as the ROI economy continues to surge forward.

Sam Russell

Fred_Johnson wrote: »

In my opinion, a UI referendum in the ROI would be more difficult to win over the long term than in NI. Especially as the ROI economy continues to surge forward.

Given the result of the Good Friday agreement was hugely in favour, I would think a similar result for a UI. Of course it depends on the terms, both financial and political.

If the Republic was to have to continue to support the North financially without any assistance from the UK or the EU, that would be a difficult sell, but if reasonable terms were given, such that NI came without debt, plus the promise of current levels of subsidy for, say, ten years, and say the EU would increase regional funds to help with the reconstruction of the northern and border economies, well maybe that might be easier.

The real problem lies north of the border. How do northern Unionists and northern loyalists modify their views to find a UI acceptable? What does it take for them to accept that a UI is in their interests, both financially and culturally? Would Stormant becoming the centre of Government be enough? A transition where the Assembly could continue with the same powers as now (with obvious changes) sugar the pill?

It will be a long time before this even becomes an issue, unless Brexit is a total disaster, leading to a deep depression where social welfare is cut to the bone, and the health service sees massive cuts, and unemployment gets above 25%.

Fred_Johnson

Sam Russell wrote: »

How do northern Unionists and northern loyalists modify their views to find a UI acceptable?

They won't, ever, modify their views. You will only find a very small minority of middle class Unionists (people who consider themselves European or citizens of the world) who would be open to it. The rest, the vast majority, would rather be dirt poor than part of a UI. They are as likely to accept a UI as we in the ROI would accept becoming part of the UK again. It has very little to do with money.

AS for the ROI, I don't think it's correct to map the support for the GFA onto potential support for a UI. They are not the same thing. I voted for the GFA, but would not vote for a UI. The more you really understand NI, the more you understand how utterly economically broken it is, the more you question the romanticism. Just what would be the point in fusing the two entities together. Geographic closeness? Why not fuse US and Mexico together in that case.

Sam Russell

Fred_Johnson wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

How do northern Unionists and northern loyalists modify their views to find a UI acceptable?

They won't, ever, modify their views. You will only find a very small minority of middle class Unionists (people who consider themselves European or citizens of the world) who would be open to it. The rest, the vast majority, would rather be dirt poor than part of a UI. They are as likely to accept a UI as we in the ROI would accept becoming part of the UK again. It has very little to do with money.

AS for the ROI, I don't think it's correct to map the support for the GFA onto potential support for a UI. They are not the same thing. I voted for the GFA, but would not vote for a UI. The more you really understand NI, the more you understand how utterly economically broken it is, the more you question the romanticism. Just what would be the point in fusing the two entities together. Geographic closeness? Why not fuse US and Mexico together in that case.

I agree it will be difficult and probably impossible for the likes of Arlene Foster to embrace any form of a UI. However, it would take a significant effort for most unionists to even contemplate what it would take for them to join a UI. Many will not even visit the south - for any reason.

It is only by making the culture the main plank of a UI rather then economic that might win the argument. After all, Carson was a Dubliner.