Border Poll discussion

James Brown

Look partition was at best a flawed stop gap to placate Unionists. From the Irish perspective it was unwelcome by some, grudgingly accepted by others. You can't take a chunk out of a country and expect anyone to seriously accept that as a normal state of being. The fact that Ulster is split because of it makes it all the more farcical to be defending it like it makes sense not to mention redrawing borders to win 'democratic' favour.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Before the British, we were a disorganised rabble of separate "kingdoms".

You mean the island of Saints and Scholars?

facehugger99

Irish people (in the Republic) might play lip service to a general aspirational hankering for unification, but as an electorate, we have consistently resisted the notion of paying additional taxes.

The first mention of a 'Unification Tax' and the idea will be quietly parked (probably for 20 years).

While it might be something that people want, they certainly don't want it enough to have to pay for it or anything. Any support for the notion, is, has been and will continue to be super-soft.

The truth is that the current arrangement suits us perfectly. Let the Brits deal with policing and paying for the dysfunctional headache of NI.

Imreoir2

facehugger99 wrote: »

Irish people (in the Republic) might play lip service to a general aspirational hankering for unification, but as an electorate, we have consistently resisted the notion of paying additional taxes.

The first mention of a 'Unification Tax' and the idea will be quietly parked (probably for 20 years).

While it might be something that people want, they certainly don't want it enough to have to pay for it or anything. Any support for the notion, is, has been and will continue to be super-soft.

The truth is that the current arrangement suits us perfectly. Let the Brits deal with policing and paying for the dysfunctional headache of NI.

Who will be "parking" the idea? Will the government of the day walk out on its obligations under the GFA and refuse to hold a referendum or do you think the people will park it by rejecting unification in the referendum?

Imreoir2

Berserker wrote: »

Not correct. Think you'll find that a certain vote occurred on the matter. It's often skipped in Irish history lessons. Doesn't fit in with the victim sob story, I suppose.

A vote by who? If I move into your house and vote to join it to my house, and by the way you don't get a vote, does that mean your house choose to join my house?

NI doesn't cost us 9-10-11-12 billion at the moment. As I said above, taking it on would cost more. That's just the base cost. I'm not including policing etc in that. I see that the UK is going to buy Brazilian beef after Brexit. The first of many blows to the Irish economy. Will be interesting to see how the EU digs you guys out of that hole. That's 50% of Irish exports that need a new home.

How would taking on NI cost Ireland more than it costs the UK now, please explain. And while you are at it, you might explain how would policing which is already accounted for in the cost to the UK somehow be a seperate additional cost after unification? Brexit will indeed be a blow to our economey, but while it will send the UK into recession for years, it will mearly slow our growth. Why would 50% of our exports need to find a new home? Only 11% of our exports go to the UK at present. The value of the growth in our total exports in one year from 2017 to 2018 was the nearly same as the total we exported to the UK in 2017. If we loose the UK market entirely we have only lost one years worth of growth in our exports.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Irish people (in the Republic) might play lip service to a general aspirational hankering for unification, but as an electorate, we have consistently resisted the notion of paying additional taxes.

The first mention of a 'Unification Tax' and the idea will be quietly parked (probably for 20 years).

While it might be something that people want, they certainly don't want it enough to have to pay for it or anything. Any support for the notion, is, has been and will continue to be super-soft.

The truth is that the current arrangement suits us perfectly. Let the Brits deal with policing and paying for the dysfunctional headache of NI.

The current arrangement suits the cynical me feiners.
Tax won't even be an issue for the vast majority. As I said, if we were forced to take worse for private concerns we'll take markedly less for the greater good of the island and Irish nationality and deal with what comes of it. You don't cancel on family because the bill might be inconvenient. We could imagine a Fine Gael minister made a financial gaffe, which he or she isn't responsible for, and write any costs off. 'Unification cost a small fortune, my bad'. And give him/her full confidence

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The current arrangement suits the cynical me feiners.
Tax won't even be an issue for the vast majority. As I said, if we were forced to take worse for private concerns we'll take markedly less for the greater good of the island and Irish nationality and deal with what comes of it. You don't cancel on family because the bill might be inconvenient. We could imagine a Fine Gael minister made a financial gaffe, which he or she isn't responsible for, and write any costs off. 'Unification cost a small fortune, my bad'. And give him/her full confidence

The UK cancelled on the EU family for 350k a week for the NHS.

It would be naive to think people on this island are any different.

christy c

blanch152 wrote: »

The UK cancelled on the EU family for 350k a week for the NHS.

It would be naive to think people on this island are any different.

While of course it's possible, I don't think that will happen here. There were many other nonsensical factors in the UK like "decisions being made by unelected bureaucrats", immigration, etc. Whereas we have the opposite here with taking back the North mostly painted in a positive light despite the obvious financial drawbacks already outlined.

Personally the heart would rule the head in any vote and I would vote for reunification. However it would be nice to see what the expected cost is and realistic plans of how it would be paid for, not "tax the rich" type waffle or projections based on volatile corporation tax receipts

DonegalBay

Berserker wrote: »

It was never put upon them. Ireland opted to join the UK and the RoI decided to break away from the rest of the UK after that.

Haha, that is too funny. By Ireland, you of course mean the Protestant Ascendancy who were the minority in the Country but dominated the Irish Parliament.

Ironically, quite a few Northern Protestants voted against the Union, because the PM William Pitt was using the carrot of Catholic emancipation to try and
coerce the handful of Catholics MPs to back the Union. It worked as well as I think Daniel O'Connell was the only one who voted against it.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The current arrangement suits the cynical me feiners.
Tax won't even be an issue for the vast majority. As I said, if we were forced to take worse for private concerns we'll take markedly less for the greater good of the island and Irish nationality and deal with what comes of it. You don't cancel on family because the bill might be inconvenient. We could imagine a Fine Gael minister made a financial gaffe, which he or she isn't responsible for, and write any costs off. 'Unification cost a small fortune, my bad'. And give him/her full confidence

We won't choose to.

Not a chance.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

We won't choose to.

Not a chance.

It will be way down any list for people. Thanks to inept governance people are use to paying tax for poor quality. Unlike the bailouts and 'taking one for the team' there is something tangible to be obtained. That'll go much further than warnings of doom and gloom lest we bail out Gay Byrne and chums.

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

Irish people (in the Republic) might play lip service to a general aspirational hankering for unification, but as an electorate, we have consistently resisted the notion of paying additional taxes . . . .

blanch152 wrote: »

The UK cancelled on the EU family for 350k a week for the NHS.

It would be naive to think people on this island are any different.

We are different. We consistently whinge about higher taxes, but we consistently vote for the parties that impose them, which is why we have taxes that are higher than in the UK.

We do this for the very good reason that, though we dislike high taxes, there are other things we dislike even more.

By their deeds ye shall know them. This notino that we will automatically reject any policy that will cost taxpayers money is simply not borne out by the easily-observed evidence.

350m, not 350k.

Mehapoy

Surely, after the brexit headaches of the last few years and ongoing into the future, the last thing ireland/uk 'these islands' needs is a divisive and destabilising unification vote. By all means create a 'new ireland forum 2.0' -unionists will boycott, to discuss a framework for the next 50 years but its not going to be something that will come up in the next 10 years at least.

Peregrinus

Mehapoy wrote: »

Surely, after the brexit headaches of the last few years and ongoing into the future, the last thing ireland/uk 'these islands' needs is a divisive and destabilising unification vote. By all means create a 'new ireland forum 2.0' -unionists will boycott, to discuss a framework for the next 50 years but its not going to be something that will come up in the next 10 years at least.

This is the kind of thing that's in the remote future for a long time, and then when it happens it happens quite fast. Less than three years passed between Reagan's "tear down this wall!" speech in Berlin in 1988, at which point nobody envisaged German reunification as imminent, and actual reunion. What changed, of course, was the external context - glasnost, perestroika, the Soviet coup, the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We don't envisage similarly dramatic changes in the context that effects Northern Ireland but, then, we wouldn't, would we? It's in the nature of surprising developments that they take you by surprise. But if a crash-out Brexit does lead to the splintering of the UK, which is not impossible, then, yeah, NI's future will be very much in play all of a sudden, and things could move quite fast.

facehugger99

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is the kind of thing that's in the remote future for a long time, and then when it happens it happens quite fast. Less than three years passed between Reagan's "tear down this wall!" speech in Berlin in 1988, at which point nobody envisaged German reunification as imminent, and actual reunion. What changed, of course, was the external context - glasnost, perestroika, the Soviet coup, the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We don't envisage similarly dramatic changes in the context that effects Northern Ireland but, then, we wouldn't, would we? It's in the nature of surprising developments that they take you by surprise. But if a crash-out Brexit does lead to the splintering of the UK, which is not impossible, then, yeah, NI's future will be very much in play all of a sudden, and things could move quite fast.

German reunification was nothing like the situation in UI.



They're also still paying for it 30 years later FYI.;)

Reunification tax? - No thanks.

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

German reunification was nothing like the situation in UI.

Oh, sure. Nothing is quite like the situation in NI.

My point is not that the two situations are the same; it's that political changes aren't always slow developments over years or decades. A common pattern is years of minimal change, followed by huge shifts in quite short periods. Rhe fact that Irish unification has seemed a remote prospect for a long time and still seems remote doesn't mean that it might not seem a much more immediate prospect in a few years time.

facehugger99 wrote: »

They're also still paying for it 30 years later FYI.;)

Thirty years? Pfft! We paid for partition for at least 70 years.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Reunification tax? - No thanks.

I see where you're coming from, but the approach is a bit simplistic, maybe. As just pointed out, partition has its costs too, and these are about to rise with Brexit (and will rise sharply if there's a crash-out Brexit). You might wish there to be a cost-free option, but it doesn't necessarily follow that there will be. That's Brexiter thinking!

FrancieBrady

Unification has been slowly happening since the GFA. We are approaching the engame for a stupid and never feasible partition.
That is how history will see this period imo.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

We are different. We consistently whinge about higher taxes, but we consistently vote for the parties that impose them, which is why we have taxes that are higher than in the UK.

We do this for the very good reason that, though we dislike high taxes, there are other things we dislike even more.

By their deeds ye shall know them. This notino that we will automatically reject any policy that will cost taxpayers money is simply not borne out by the easily-observed evidence.

In the scale of things, we don't vote for the parties that will raise taxes the most - the likes of PBP and the other fringe left never get significant votes.

You may well be right, a lot of turkeys vote for Christmas, but that doesn't mean it is the best choice.

James Brown

Mehapoy wrote: »

Surely, after the brexit headaches of the last few years and ongoing into the future, the last thing ireland/uk 'these islands' needs is a divisive and destabilising unification vote. By all means create a 'new ireland forum 2.0' -unionists will boycott, to discuss a framework for the next 50 years but its not going to be something that will come up in the next 10 years at least.

Destabilise the North? Have you been keeping track? If anything a united Ireland would stabilise the north in the long term. It's pretty much in political limbo. Northern Ireland isn't an island. It's an artificial, poorly acted out fracture in this island. The DUP are selfish, we know this. They cannot hold back progress forever.

murphaph

blanch152 wrote: »

In the scale of things, we don't vote for the parties that will raise taxes the most - the likes of PBP and the other fringe left never get significant votes.

You may well be right, a lot of turkeys vote for Christmas, but that doesn't mean it is the best choice.

We all agreed to the GFA in good faith. I would have been happy for things to stay as they are indefinitely. I had no beef with a part of the UK being on the islandof Ireland, so long as the majority in NI supported that. I would have needed some convincing to vote for a UI for sure.

Brexit changes the calculations.

A hard, visible border is doing the nationalists in the north out of their bit of the the GFA. It's hard to pretend the border isn't there when it's in your face any time you cross it. So, out of fairness I would support a UI to remove that visible border. The unionists are the ones who voted for this stupid Brexit in NI. They did not consider their nationalist neighbours when doing so, which is wrong.

A hard border makes business across the island less efficient. Sure, there would be a hit for perhaps several years, perhaps a generation, while NI was coaxed up to the level of economic activity that comparable parts of the island enjoy. That would mean some tax increases and or service reductions.

The major benefit would be getting the crazy UK out of our hair. They have gone quite mad. I think it's better if we don't share a land border with them if we can avoid it.

oscarBravo

I have no objection to a united Ireland in principle. What worries me is the prospect of rushing into a UI in a Brexit-like fashion - "it will be wonderful, and anyone saying otherwise is just peddling Project Fear".

The point has been well-made on this forum that we are better at referendums than the UK, because we have a deliberative process by which we work out the details of how something will work before we seek the permission of the people to implement it. We need to keep doing that.

I don't want to see competing slogans shouting that it will cost us money, or that it will save us money. I want to see a costed plan. Will we pay Irish social welfare rates to Northern Ireland residents? Will we achieve cost savings by firing most of the existing civil service up north? These and hundreds of similar questions need to be answered before we're asked to vote.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have no objection to a united Ireland in principle. What worries me is the prospect of rushing into a UI in a Brexit-like fashion - "it will be wonderful, and anyone saying otherwise is just peddling Project Fear".

The point has been well-made on this forum that we are better at referendums than the UK, because we have a deliberative process by which we work out the details of how something will work before we seek the permission of the people to implement it. We need to keep doing that.

I don't want to see competing slogans shouting that it will cost us money, or that it will save us money. I want to see a costed plan. Will we pay Irish social welfare rates to Northern Ireland residents? Will we achieve cost savings by firing most of the existing civil service up north? These and hundreds of similar questions need to be answered before we're asked to vote.

Totally agree. As much as possible should be cleared up well in advance of going to the polls. There should be as few surprises as humanly possible.

facehugger99

Peregrinus wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but the approach is a bit simplistic, maybe. As just pointed out, partition has its costs too, and these are about to rise with Brexit (and will rise sharply if there's a crash-out Brexit). You might wish there to be a cost-free option, but it doesn't necessarily follow that there will be. That's Brexiter thinking!

That's nonsensical argument.

The 'cost' of Brexit to the Republic (which is an unknown) would be €10 billion a year worse if we're trying to fund reunification at the same time.

Brexit and the cost of same, is an argument against reunification, not for it.

Dytalus

facehugger99 wrote: »

That's nonsensical argument.

The 'cost' of Brexit to the Republic (which is an unknown) would be €10 billion a year worse if we're trying to fund reunification at the same time.

Brexit and the cost of same, is an argument against reunification, not for it.

A recently released report indicates that hard brexit could cost us to the tune of €42.5 billion over 7 years. That same report shows that over that same 7 years, unification would result in significantly better results than either a hard or soft brexit.

Another report (yet to be released fully by the DFA - they're probably holding off to avoid impacting Brexit negotiations, but there's been no statement yet) indicates the cost of NI subvention wouldn't be as high as it currently is. A lot of its expenses wouldn't need to be taken up by the Republic, as they're based on NI being part of the UK.

"Taking the above adjustments and savings into account the cumulative figure is £8.5 billion. With the reported deficit for Northern Ireland is at £9.2 billion therefore the current income and expenditure figure for Northern Ireland, the report concludes comes near a balanced budget in a reunification scenario. This is of course, before taking into account the likely potential for growth in Northern Ireland following unification as happened in East Germany following its reunification"

There's no clear view of what the true cost of a unified Ireland would be just yet, and the most recent publically available report I can find seems to indicate that after a rocky start, re-unification would be a net benefit to the island of Ireland economically. Obviously, though, we'd need consensus and hard numbers before ever putting forward a referendum (the Republic tends to be pretty good at getting all the details in order before putting them to the public).

Will Ireland take up the costs of public sector pensions, or would they still fall under the purview of the UK who is currently paying them? Until that's decided, we can't know how much savings would be made on pensions. Until an agreement is made on what will happen to NI's enormous amount of public sector workers (which account for 11.4% of the working population, compared with Ireland's 8.4%), and whether Stormont will remain or be merged with the Dáil we can't know the cost of that either - will it be higher or lower or unchanged?

There's too much possible variance in outcomes, so it's impossible to say with certainty which option is better just yet. Outright saying "no" is just as shortsighted as outright saying "yes".

blanch152

Dytalus wrote: »

A recently released report indicates that hard brexit could cost us to the tune of €42.5 billion over 7 years. That same report shows that over that same 7 years, unification would result in significantly better results than either a hard or soft brexit.

Another report (yet to be released fully by the DFA - they're probably holding off to avoid impacting Brexit negotiations, but there's been no statement yet) indicates the cost of NI subvention wouldn't be as high as it currently is. A lot of its expenses wouldn't need to be taken up by the Republic, as they're based on NI being part of the UK.



There's no clear view of what the true cost of a unified Ireland would be just yet, and the most recent publically available report I can find seems to indicate that after a rocky start, re-unification would be a net benefit to the island of Ireland economically. Obviously, though, we'd need consensus and hard numbers before ever putting forward a referendum (the Republic tends to be pretty good at getting all the details in order before putting them to the public).

Will Ireland take up the costs of public sector pensions, or would they still fall under the purview of the UK who is currently paying them? Until that's decided, we can't know how much savings would be made on pensions. Until an agreement is made on what will happen to NI's enormous amount of public sector workers (which account for 11.4% of the working population, compared with Ireland's 8.4%), and whether Stormont will remain or be merged with the Dáil we can't know the cost of that either - will it be higher or lower or unchanged?

There's too much possible variance in outcomes, so it's impossible to say with certainty which option is better just yet. Outright saying "no" is just as shortsighted as outright saying "yes".

The KLC Consultants report is the one paid for by the Friends of Sinn Fein which has been repeatedly debunked.

The Thurmann report is unpublished. Selective extracts that promise savings while apparently hiding behind large scale redundancies don't wash in reality. If that is the plan, it won't pass in the North.

murphaph

blanch152 wrote: »

The KLC Consultants report is the one paid for by the Friends of Sinn Fein which has been repeatedly debunked.

The Thurmann report is unpublished. Selective extracts that promise savings while apparently hiding behind large scale redundancies don't wash in reality. If that is the plan, it won't pass in the North.

My assumptions are based on a hard Brexit which would presumably damage the UK economy to such an extent that Molly coddling NI will drop in the list of priorities, thus inflicting such redundancies in advance. If the standard of living in NI doesn't actually drop then there will be no border poll.

Dytalus

blanch152 wrote: »

The KLC Consultants report is the one paid for by the Friends of Sinn Fein which has been repeatedly debunked.

I was unaware it had been debunked, though I'd not be surprised. I'd question how it could be debunked 'repeatedly' in the course of four months. It also was commissioned by KRB Inc, not the Friends of Sinn Fein (although KRB Inc are mentioned as being sympathetic towards SF). I can't find any concrete info on KRB Inc though, which casts aspersions on the whole thing.

I still wouldn't write it off completely without seeing some of the debunking documents/reports/whatever myself, but I agree it doesn't look the most concrete.

blanch152 wrote: »

The Thurmann report is unpublished. Selective extracts that promise savings while apparently hiding behind large scale redundancies don't wash in reality. If that is the plan, it won't pass in the North.

It would be ridiculous to assume the Thurmann report would remain unpublished if a Border Poll was being talked about in any kind of serious capacity. It would be incredibly unethical, not to mention political suicide for the government if they withheld it with a vote on the matter around the corner. I agree that we can't make any decision based on snippets which have come out, but as you'll recall from my post:

Will Ireland take up the costs of public sector pensions, or would they still fall under the purview of the UK who is currently paying them? Until that's decided, we can't know how much savings would be made on pensions. Until an agreement is made on what will happen to NI's enormous amount of public sector workers (which account for 11.4% of the working population, compared with Ireland's 8.4%), and whether Stormont will remain or be merged with the Dáil we can't know the cost of that either - will it be higher or lower or unchanged?

There's too much possible variance in outcomes, so it's impossible to say with certainty which option is better just yet. Outright saying "no" is just as shortsighted as outright saying "yes".

The problem is we don't know enough yet. We don't know how much of the subvention cost we'll actually have to pay, we don't know how much NI will be restructured, we don't know how much support we'll get from the EU (I'd wager quite a lot, because NI qualifies as a transition region so it would qualify for a substantial amount of EU structural funding compared to the rest of Ireland - whether it would be enough we'll only know when the EU budget for that time period is done). Hell, we don't even know if Stormont will stick around, or if NI will be ruled directly from Dublin - which IMO is a significantly bigger sticking point than the economic cost, because that's the sticking point with the larger risk of violence if we get it wrong.

We don't know. Anyone saying otherwise ("We know it's a bad/good idea") in this thread, one way or the other with any kind of concrete statement, is probably doing so based on a whole load of their own personal beliefs and opinions.

Imreoir2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have no objection to a united Ireland in principle. What worries me is the prospect of rushing into a UI in a Brexit-like fashion - "it will be wonderful, and anyone saying otherwise is just peddling Project Fear".

The point has been well-made on this forum that we are better at referendums than the UK, because we have a deliberative process by which we work out the details of how something will work before we seek the permission of the people to implement it. We need to keep doing that.

I don't want to see competing slogans shouting that it will cost us money, or that it will save us money. I want to see a costed plan. Will we pay Irish social welfare rates to Northern Ireland residents? Will we achieve cost savings by firing most of the existing civil service up north? These and hundreds of similar questions need to be answered before we're asked to vote.

I fully agree, but I think you will find that it is not the proponants of a United Ireland that you will have to convince on that point. There is a tendency to dismiss any suggestion that plans should be prepared as somehow devisive or irrisponsible. Hopefully, despite public pronouncements from government, civil servants are working on plans for unification so that when the time comes we will not have to start from scratch.

While it is understandable that there would be a certain reluctance on this side of the border to raise the issue publicly right now, for fear of increasing concerns that the backstop is some sort of trojan horse or threat to the constitutional qestion in NI, should no-deal happen it would be negligent of our government not to activly prepare plans for Unification.

We in the south cannot stop NI from voting for unification, and while we can vote against it ourselves, it would be rather poor form if we found ourselves forced to vote against it for our own good for lack of a plan.

facehugger99

Dytalus wrote: »

We don't know. Anyone saying otherwise ("We know it's a bad/good idea") in this thread, one way or the other with any kind of concrete statement, is probably doing so based on a whole load of their own personal beliefs and opinions.

It's not up to us to prove a negative. It's up to those proposing the notion, to set out how it would be paid for without recourse to money-trees, tax-da-rich rhetoric or pie-in-the-sky, Shinner-funded reports.

Until, and if that that day ever arrives, there should be no proposed changes to the current arrangement.