Why the north outside EU changes everything for the island

Stupify

zapitastas wrote: »

You are 100% wrong in the claim that a united Ireland would need to reapply. This has already been settled

It doesn't change any of his other points though.

Most FDI that Northern Ireland would gain from joining a United Ireland would have already been going into the current Republic anyway, there is no gain to be had there.

zapitastas

Stupify wrote: »

It doesn't change any of his other points though.

Most FDI that Northern Ireland would gain from joining a United Ireland would have already been going into the current Republic anyway, there is no gain to be had there.

I didn't say it changed any of his other points but he is making stuff up

lawred2

Berserker wrote: »

To the detriment of the rest of the country though. You can't have the same job in two locations. Also, not sure where the FDI is coming from. Can't see it coming from the US, given the current administration and any new operation setting up in this part of the world would be better served moving to somewhere else in Europe with cheaper operating costs.

Administrations come and go. Multi nationals tend to outlast them. Belfast would be a cheaper location than Dublin but would bring many of the benefits of locating in Dublin.

Berserker wrote: »

Finally, a UI wouldn't be part of the EU. It'd need to re-apply to for membership.

That is not true. Where did you get that from?

Berserker wrote: »

As you hinted above, Belfast is heavily reliant on public sector jobs. I used to work up there and they are very public sector orientated in how they work. Working in the private sector is a completely different ball game. We've taken on a few from NI and they've really struggled with the change in working culture, expectations etc.

That's short termism.

Sure the Republic has had to reinvent its economy and workforce away from unskilled manufacturing to a highly skilled service economy. It takes time but that's no reason to not do it.

J Mysterio

Berserker wrote: »

Can you expand of that? If we take a look at jobs, for example. Are you planning on taking public sector jobs out of Dublin and making Belfast the public sector hub of a UI? Your only other option would be to transform the private sector in Belfast, which would require a significant cultural shift for people in NI but you'd have to promote Belfast to the detriment to the rest of the island and Dublin in particular. That would lead to countless problems for people in Dublin in terms of day to day living. No need for me to list them for you.



The RoI is one of the wealthiest countries in the OECD at 4th, iirc, in the OECD-28 rankings.

Ireland needs decentralisation, it is far too dublin centric as things stand.

Peregrinus

Berserker wrote: »

The RoI is one of the wealthiest countries in the OECD at 4th, iirc, in the OECD-28 rankings.

And that situation has largely come about since the hard border was eliminated in the early 90s by the completion of the Single Market. This is not a coincidence, Beserker.

Berserker wrote: »

People here are playing up on the hard border because of the physical barrier. It'd make no difference to a huge majority of people in the RoI. Keeping the common travel area and having a free trade zone are infinitely more important. If you conducted a poll in Dublin city centre today, I'm confident that most people would be far more concerned about that later than some border which is only going to inconvenience people travelling down from NI or vice versa.

We had a common travel area, a customs union and a free trade zone all in place from 1973, and yet the 70s and 80s were a profoundly depressed time. It's the single market that's the key to this. And the concern about a hard border is not inconvenience to travellers - there won't be any inconvenience to travellers - but the disruption to cross-border business, which will be devastating.

J Mysterio

Berserker wrote: »

To the detriment of the rest of the country though. You can't have the same job in two locations. Also, not sure where the FDI is coming from. Can't see it coming from the US, given the current administration and any new operation setting up in this part of the world would be better served moving to somewhere else in Europe with cheaper operating costs.

US multinationals like Ireland because pf low operating costs, low tax etc. They also like an educated populace with good graduates, they like the common culture and intergenrational links, they like it being the first stop across the Atlantic, they like it being an English speaking country in the EU - soon to be the only English speaking country in the EU.

Berserker wrote: »

Finally, a UI wouldn't be part of the EU. It'd need to re-apply to for membership.

Not the case. A UI entails North being subsumed by Ireland ('the Republic of').

The idea of Belfast being a counterweight to Dublin would serve Ireland well - as would the idea of Galway, Waterford, Limerick, Cork, Derry & Athlone being a counterweight to Dublin.

Far too much of Ireland's economy is now in Dublin and the only winners are property owners in Dublin (and even many of them are losers who won't know it until the next bust). Many, many companies are losing prospective employees because of property costs, countless people are forced to live in substandard accommodation here and families with children who pay their rent on time can still be easily evicted under Irish law for sham excuses such as the house is needed for a relative.

So, yes, anything that can spread the population and economic activity of Ireland will have heaps and heaps of positive consequences for this entire country from Ballycastle to Tralee. So many of those urban areas of rural Ireland could get a new lease of life. We have an Electoral Commission whose job it is to decide on electoral boundaries and it is well respected as being impartial. Why can't we have a similarly impartial Decentralisation Commission as part of a reunified Ireland? The potential of unification to reinvigorate all of Ireland beyond the Pale could be huge if we keep the grubby little parochial political mé féiners out of the decisions.

Finally, I don't think people really realise how weak the NI economy is - although the number of people from the Six working in Dublin should be a very good indicator. An enormous 31% of the workforce in the North is employed in the public service - in the Republic it is 18.4% and over in Britain it is 20% (all 2014 statistics, taken from here). And in the latest boom in the UK NI has actually fallen even further behind. With EU funds now being removed (and rural, farming areas and deprived urban areas where inter-communal conflict is most prevalent suffering far more because of this removal) and Britain almost certainly unable to subsidise NI to anything like the same extent, the economic picture is looking staggering unattractive even in the event of another bust in Dublin (which will, of course, happen).

Stupify

Deleted User wrote: »

The idea of Belfast being a counterweight to Dublin would serve Ireland well - as would the idea of Galway, Waterford, Limerick, Cork, Derry & Athlone being a counterweight to Dublin.

Far too much of Ireland's economy is now in Dublin and the only winners are property owners in Dublin (and even many of them are losers who won't know it until the next bust). Many, many companies are losing prospective employees because of property costs, countless people are forced to live in substandard accommodation here and families with children who pay their rent on time can still be easily evicted under Irish law for sham excuses such as the house is needed for a relative.

So, yes, anything that can spread the population and economic activity of Ireland will have heaps and heaps of positive consequences for this entire country from Ballycastle to Tralee. So many of those urban areas of rural Ireland could get a new lease of life. We have an Electoral Commission whose job it is to decide on electoral boundaries and it is well respected as being impartial. Why can't we have a similarly impartial Decentralisation Commission as part of a reunified Ireland? The potential of unification to reinvigorate all of Ireland beyond the Pale could be huge if we keep the grubby little parochial political mé féiners out of the decisions.

Finally, I don't think people really realise how weak the NI economy is - although the number of people from the Six working in Dublin should be a very good indicator. An enormous 31% of the workforce in the North is employed in the public service - in the Republic it is 18.4% and over in Britain it is 20% (all 2014 statistics, taken from here). And in the latest boom in the UK NI has actually fallen even further behind. With EU funds now being removed (and rural, farming areas and deprived urban areas where inter-communal conflict is most prevalent suffering far more because of this removal) and Britain almost certainly unable to subsidise NI to anything like the same extent, the economic picture is looking staggering unattractive even in the event of another bust in Dublin (which will, of course, happen).

I agree with almost all of that, but think the investment in a second city makes more sense for Cork or maybe at a stretch Limerick.

J Mysterio

Stupify wrote: »

I agree with almost all of that, but think the investment in a second city makes more sense for Cork or maybe at a stretch Limerick.

Limerick is a perfect place for this.

Shannon airport is 20 minutes from the city. At plassey/ National Technology Park, you have plenty of space and there are a number of big multinationals there already - these already have links to R&D and Science and Tech in the University which is situated there also.

You also have the Regional Hospital which is now University Hospital Limerick.

I would like to see a Luas in Limerick, linking the University/ National Technology Park to to the City and then out to Raheen/Dooradoyle and the University Hospital.

We need to invest in that type of infrastrutucre to grow and develop the city and surrounds.

PeaQueue

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Stupify wrote: »

Do any of us even really want a UI at this stage? The north would be a leech on our economy. I actually wouldn't mind a hard border at this stage, it won't hurt us too much in the long run.

The big difference is the North isn't attracting much foreign investment.

I can remember when the roads up there were so much better than ours.

Derry is a little bigger than Galway. But we've got the M6 and the M17/M18. And they've got a higher population density.

The UK is talking about upgrading parts of the A6 to dual carriageway

With more investment they could catch up to us, in time. At partition the three north east counties had 90% of the island's industrial output. Now it's very different.

The infrastructure issue in and around Derry in particular isn't the fault of the people of Derry. Derry like most places west of the Bann river in the North has had barely any infrastructure investment over the years due to the fact that it is mainly nationalist area and the purse strings were held by unionists both in government and in the civil service prior to the more recent incarnation of Stormont. Mismanagement of investment, as opposed to the lack of investment, is the main thing holding derry back. This is starting to quietly change on the ground with some major employers in Belfast expanding their operations West as well as the cross border traffic to the many jobs in Letterkenny.
Remember too that the same thing could be said about the south (taking out the political reasoning) about the Dublin-centric foreign investment both in roads and jobs. It's only fairly recently that those motorways around the likes of Galway (great that they are) have sprung up but the likes of Letterkenny which expanded at explosive pace (has a sizeable workforce as well as sizable amount of foreign investment in the form of Pramerica, SITA and United Healthcare) doesn't actually have a motorway serving it. Infact the only section of dual carraigeway is about 3 or 4 miles long and is the main access from Derry and Strabane/Lifford.
All that said, the A6 upgrades are under way and will provide a faster direct route to Belfast as well as the upgrades to the A5 which will route traffic from Derry, Letterkenny and the wider northwest to Dublin. Its hoped that this work will form part of a wider initiative to expand the motorway to Letterkenny from Dublin.

Berserker

zapitastas wrote: »

You are 100% wrong in the claim that a united Ireland would need to reapply. This has already been settled

Not correct. That was settled when the UK was part of the EU. Whilst I like the concept of the EU personally, I don't trust the powers that be and it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to make Ireland re-join under a different set of conditions in the event of a UI.

lawred2 wrote: »

That's short termism.

Yes but people here live in the short term. They vote for politicians based on the state of the economy, health service etc, as of now.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ireland needs decentralisation, it is far too dublin centric as things stand.

Agree totally but we tried that before under a previous administration and it failed. Not sure why you or people think it would succeed in Belfast. Is it just some romantic vision of a UI?

Peregrinus

Berserker wrote: »

Not correct. That was settled when the UK was part of the EU.

This is not correct; the issue has been considered and decided specifically in the context of Brexit. On 29 April 2017, in a European Council meeting specifically convened to respond to the Art 50 notice served by the UK, the Council declared:

"The European Council acknowledges that the Good Friday Agreement expressly provides for an agreed mechanism whereby a united Ireland may be brought about through peaceful and democratic means; and, in this regard, the European Council acknowledges that, in accordance with international law, the entire territory of such a united Ireland would thus be part of the European Union."

It couldn't be clearer.

lawred2

Berserker wrote: »

Yes but people here live in the short term. They vote for politicians based on the state of the economy, health service etc, as of now.

Well when what's on the table is only the mundane short term stuff then yes people vote on short term issues

But on long term life changing issues people have repeatedly shown that they are capable of making decisions not based on short termism..

breatheme

Berserker wrote: »

Not correct. That was settled when the UK was part of the EU. Whilst I like the concept of the EU personally, I don't trust the powers that be and it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to make Ireland re-join under a different set of conditions in the event of a UI.

Not true. When Germany reunified it kept its EU membership. This is because The Republic of Germany was the state before and after unification. If the successor state to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland, then there's no need to reapply.

breatheme

breatheme wrote: »

Not true. When Germany reunified it kept its EU membership. This is because The Republic of Germany was the state before and after unification. If the successor state to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland, then there's no need to reapply.

Didn’t France threaten to block it though, unless Germany supported the euro?

breatheme

No. Thatcher is the one who was opposed, while I would say Mitterrand was hesitant but nowhere near the levels of mistrust that Thatcher had. However, there was nothing either of those countries could do to block it.

breatheme

breatheme wrote: »

No. Thatcher is the one who was opposed, while I would say Mitterrand was hesitant but nowhere near the levels of mistrust that Thatcher had. However, there was nothing either of those countries could do to block it.

it looks like it was both

Very interesting collection of articles actually

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-price-of-unity-was-the-deutsche-mark-sacrificed-for-reunification-a-719940.html

breatheme

Fascinating read! Although the article itself maintains that is a bit of speculation. I do maintain that there were no legal mechanisms whereby the British or French could block German reunification, however I do see the point of the Germans accepting the Euro and France's timetable in order to gain their support and not face a rocky diplomatic road.

prinzeugen

breatheme wrote: »

Not true. When Germany reunified it kept its EU membership. This is because The Republic of Germany was the state before and after unification. If the successor state to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland, then there's no need to reapply.

Its not that simple. The Government of West Germany was recognised as the legitimate "heir" to the Nazi government and they assumed all responsibility for Nazi actions.

The government of the DDR was not recognised as a legitimate government and was always regarded as a satellite state of the USSR.

On reunification, West Germany took over the East.

Ireland is different and you cannot compare the two.

NI is part of the UK. An internationally recognised country. NI, in theory, would need to declare independence from the UK, and then vote to unite with the ROI to retain EU membership.

Its not as simple as having a referendum on both sides of the border and getting a yes to reunification.

J Mysterio

prinzeugen wrote: »

Its not as simple as having a referendum on both sides of the border and getting a yes to reunification.

Yes, yes it is. It's in the GFA.

prinzeugen

J Mysterio wrote: »

Yes, yes it is. It's in the GFA.

But EU membership is not on the table.. The SNP have the same delusions.

£11 million to africa while Scotland is on its knees.

Illegal.

Peregrinus

breatheme wrote: »

Not true. When Germany reunified it kept its EU membership. This is because The Republic of Germany was the state before and after unification. If the successor state to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland, then there's no need to reapply.

Aegir wrote: »

Didn’t France threaten to block it though, unless Germany supported the euro?

breatheme wrote: »

No. Thatcher is the one who was opposed, while I would say Mitterrand was hesitant but nowhere near the levels of mistrust that Thatcher had. However, there was nothing either of those countries could do to block it.

Perhaps more relevantly, Ireland held the presidency of the Council at the time, and was strongly supportive of the German position that upon reunification East Germany would seamlessly become part of EU territory. The role played by Ireland at that time has not been forgotten in the German Foreign Office (and, in case it had been, we took care to remind them of it). At the time, the German case rested on the EU accepting the effect of certain provisions of Germany's Basic Law, which facilitated reunification. The EU (with, unsurprisingly, German encouragement) has now taken a similar view with respect to the relevant provisions of the GFA.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

But EU membership is not on the table.

Yes it is. EU membership for the whole island is an automatic consequence of reunification under the mechanisms provided by the GFA, The European Council has said exactly that. The statement is quoted in post #403 in this thread.

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes it is. EU membership for the whole island is an automatic consequence of reunification under the mechanisms provided by the GFA, The European Council has said exactly that. The statement is quoted in post #403 in this thread.

Just remind me.. Last time I looked, NI was UK government NOT EU!

The EU has feck all controls (allegedly) in domestic affairs. (Allegedly).

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

Just remind me.. Last time I looked, NI was UK government NOT EU!

The EU has feck all controls (allegedly) in domestic affairs. (Allegedly).

Whether and on what terms a reunified Ireland would be a member of the EU is absolutely not a domestic affair of the UK. Post-brexit, in fact, it would be no business of the UK's at all, on any level. Brexit means brexit, after all.

breatheme

prinzeugen wrote: »

Just remind me.. Last time I looked, NI was UK government NOT EU!

The EU has feck all controls (allegedly) in domestic affairs. (Allegedly).

Yes but after reunification, NI will be under the Irish government, and thus, the EU.

lawred2

prinzeugen wrote: »

But EU membership is not on the table.. The SNP have the same delusions.

£11 million to africa while Scotland is on its knees.

Illegal.

Scotland and NI are two different cases.

Fact of the matter is that the GFA allows for Ireland subsuming Northern Ireland if a majority votes for it in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland is in the EU.

That's pretty much it.

Scotland has no such agreement to be subsumed into another EU country. Scotland would be an independent country.

Fairly basic stuff.

breatheme

lawred2 wrote: »

Scotland and NI are two different cases.

Fact of the matter is that the GFA allows for Ireland subsuming Northern Ireland if a majority votes for it in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland is in the EU.

That's pretty much it.

Scotland has no such agreement to be subsumed into another EU country. Scotland would be an independent country.

Fairly basic stuff.

Exactly. The UK (without Scotland) being the continuing state would've retained EU membership and Scotland, as a successor state, would've had to reapply.

In the event of NI voting to unify with Ireland, the continuing state would be Ireland (and there would be no successor state).

ZeroThreat

lawred2 wrote: »

Scotland and NI are two different cases.

Fact of the matter is that the GFA allows for Ireland subsuming Northern Ireland if a majority votes for it in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland is in the EU.

That's pretty much it.

Scotland has no such agreement to be subsumed into another EU country. Scotland would be an independent country.

Fairly basic stuff.

Isn't all this assuming that reunification simply results in a slightly larger RoI?
From the opinions I read on dedicated political sites (such as Slugger O'Toole) to these issues, extreme compromises may need to be taken in future to ensure peaceful unionist acceptance on a unitary state which may involve radical change of flag, anthem, constitution, legal & parliamentary structures, not to mention possible having to abolish office of president to be replaced by British monarch as head of state.

A united Ireland may require the creation of an entirely new state in every respect.

FrancieBrady

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Isn't all this assuming that reunification simply results in a slightly larger RoI?
From the opinions I read on dedicated political sites (such as Slugger O'Toole) to these issues, extreme compromises may need to be taken in future to ensure peaceful unionist acceptance on a unitary state which may involve radical change of flag, anthem, constitution, legal & parliamentary structures, not to mention possible having to abolish office of president to be replaced by British monarch as head of state.

A united Ireland may require the creation of an entirely new state in every respect.

Stop reading or accepting as holy writ unionist centric sites like Slugger maybe?

Any one who thinks we are going to hitch ourselves to the entity at the core of the problem in this island is delusional.

No problem recognizing a unionist identity and culture. What modern state is going to place a 'monarch' at it's head? We might as well listen to those in the south who would have the pope as head of state. :rolleyes: