Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

MrMusician18

Xterminator wrote: »

A discussion would have to be had about public service employees. "As of December 2008 the public sector in Northern Ireland accounted for 30.8% of the total workforce. This is significantly higher than the overall UK figure of 19.5%"

presumably there would be a lot of synergies in civil service, tourism, agriculture etc. But t the end of the day NI would be voting to lose large chunks of its public sector jobs, and lose the annual subvention of approx 10-11 billion per annum by the UK taxpayer to fund it.

Also the NHS is far from perfect, but I would not vote to change NHS for our version of healthcare.

So before we propose unity, perhaps someone could put forward a proposal that can explain what happens to the public servants, the funding and the health service.

Unification would obviously be a 10 to 15 year project where NI is slowly transitioned to Irish public sector norms. The real question would be who would manage and pay for the transition, i.e. did sovereignty transfer at the beginning middle or end of transition.

Del.Monte

Wilhelm III wrote: »

A moderate... Protestant then, somebody who is traditionally Unionist - but sees and accepts that the 'mainland' does not give one single sh*t about them, and thinks to themselves 'well, do you know what - what the hell do we have to lose?'.

More red-top bs. It's like saying people in Cornwall don't give a ****e about Northumberland or any other part of the UK. Most people are parochial when it comes down to it and have no time to think about things outside of their immediate community - the bigger political picture - as they are intent on surviving or bettering their own lot.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Joining a UI does not mean (necessarily) renouncing their unionism - just changing its thrust. Remember (not literally) that 100 years ago, Unionist dropped their opposition to Home Rule when it became Home Rule by Belfast rather than Home Rule by Dublin.

Some things need sorting, eg NHS vs HSE, PSNI vs Gardai, car prices and taxes, social welfare rates, public sector employment, etc etc. If they aer asked, they might come up with answers they may like, and are acceptable generally.

Unionists would be more concerned with the level of autonomy they will have.

At that point (likely from the 2022 election on) the NI assembly will be dominated by nationalist parties so not sure what the point of 'autonomy' would be from a unionist perspective. At that point they'd probably prefer Dublin rule to Belfast rule, given that local nationalists may be harboring just a little grudge. There's no way 'power-sharing' would continue in a regional assembly in a UI, far too much conflict with the constitution.

cgcsb

Del.Monte wrote: »

Another tired old Republican cliche.

Recent events with the DUP at Westminster are testament to the accuracy of this statement though.

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

More red-top bs. It's like saying people in Cornwall don't give a ****e about Northumberland or any other part of the UK. Most people are parochial when it comes down to it and have no time to think about things outside of their immediate community - the bigger political picture - as they are intent on surviving or bettering their own lot.

Scotland is miles away from Cornwall too but you see a difference when Scotland leaving is discussed vs Northern Ireland. They would generally be sorry to see Scotland go. Its just not the same with Northern Ireland. They are not a valued part of the union like Scotland or Wales is.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Few posts deleted. Anymore talk about communities being "battered" or needing to "f**k off across the water" will result in a sanction.

Also bear in mind that posts solely or mostly consisting of pictures, memes, links, or videos are against the charter. This is a discussion forum.

Thanks

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Scotland is miles away from Cornwall too but you see a difference when Scotland leaving is discussed vs Northern Ireland. They would generally be sorry to see Scotland go. Its just not the same with Northern Ireland. They are not a valued part of the union like Scotland or Wales is.

I also think guilt figures a lot in British thinking. I have some busiess contacts in Luton, classic Union Jack towel at the swimming pool couple, always posting Brexit stuff to Facebook who constantly apologise for what happened in Ireland. They know it wasn't their finest hour and have a wish to put it right. There is a lot of that across Britain and finds voice in some parliamenterians too.

breezy1985

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I also think guilt figures a lot in British thinking. I have some busiess contacts in Luton, classic Union Jack towel at the swimming pool couple, always posting Brexit stuff to Facebook who constantly apologise for what happened in Ireland. They know it wasn't their finest hour and have a wish to put it right. There is a lot of that across Britain and finds voice in some parliamenterians too.

Not the experience I had. Anyone I worked with or knew didnt have a clue what the troubles were or what NI was. All of them came running to me asking what Dup was after the election and any time I mentioned that parts of the UK did not allow gay marraige all I ever got back was that I was wrong, "whats NI" or "thats not really the UK"


All were 35 or under so maybe that plays a part but these people also thought they were very politically active

FrancieBrady

breezy1985 wrote: »

Not the experience I had. Anyone I worked with or knew didnt have a clue what the troubles were or what NI was. All of them came running to me asking what Dup was after the election and any time I mentioned that parts of the UK did not allow gay marraige all I ever got back was that I was wrong, "whats NI" or "thats not really the UK"


All were 35 or under so maybe that plays a part but these people also thought they were very politically active

I wasn't saying that all that isn't there too. I was just pointing out the presence of guilt with some.

My most common experience would be the same as yours...total ignorance of the history and geography.

Sam Russell

breezy1985 wrote: »

Not the experience I had. Anyone I worked with or knew didnt have a clue what the troubles were or what NI was. All of them came running to me asking what Dup was after the election and any time I mentioned that parts of the UK did not allow gay marraige all I ever got back was that I was wrong, "whats NI" or "thats not really the UK"


All were 35 or under so maybe that plays a part but these people also thought they were very politically active

When Harold Wilson was trying to dissuade Ian Smith from declaring UDI in Rhodesia and establish 'One man - One vote' (as the indigenous population did not automatically get a vote) Ian Smith replied that you do not even have one man one vote in the UK. Wilson replied that that was not true - but Ian Smith pointed out that in NI some voters got as many as six votes while other got one, giving rise to Unionist majorities that should not have existed.

Wilson admitted that he was not aware of this, but checked and found it to be true. Punctured his belief in UK democracy a bit. So an English Labour PM was not aware of a lack of democracy in NI - what a surprise. I wonder if he cared enough about it to do anything.

Ian Smith did declare UDI - and now, following a bit of aggro, the name of the former Rhodesia is Zimbabwe.

Bishop of hope

A poll by lord Ashcroft found the English were apathetic either way on NI and Scottish independence, more or less saying leave it to themselves to decide.
My own experience of living in London for most of my working life was that irish/Northern Irish were more or less all regarded as Irish rather the British or Irish, even unionist ones.
You were identified by your accent mostly.


https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/35-of-english-public-want-northern-ireland-to-remain-in-uk-and-many-think-irish-politics-complicated-and-mysterious-poll-suggests-38615340.html

onrail

Outside the hardline 10-15% on either side, all people are loyal to in the North are their secure, well pensioned, publicly funded jobs.

Either denomination will toe the party line in public - but once it comes to a ballot, unless their jobs and pensions can be guaranteed they'll vote for the status quo.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

Remember, Loyalists are loyal to the Crown, but more so to the half-crown.

Money talks, and Brexit will mean money missing from NI, while a UI will mean money and FDI coming to NI - from Dublin, GB, USA, and the EU.

If it is obvious that following a vote for UI that the economy will boom, then UI might become unstoppable.

You're being overly simplistic IMO. Unionism and Loyalism comprise a core element of these people's identities. They won't just flip on the basis of an economic argument. This is the lesson from the failed Remain campaign of 2016.

That said, I can't see how a UI won't happen but it's be a gradual, painstaking process a referendum on which will only begin. Unionist support won't materialise IMO but they'll be too small demographically to prevent a unification vote.

banie01

We all know that for a significant portion of N.I's population, the UK matters far more to them, than them to the UK.

Reunification is coming, it's an economic and growing political certainty.

We need to ensure that we can offer a coherent and overarching strategy to embrace it when it comes.
Be it the obvious ones like ensuring Unionist tradition is respected, that parity of esteem means just that.
Or the not so immediately obvious ones such as Healthcare integration. Should we in the Republic use the hope of impending unification to build a better Health Service?
To out NHS the NHS?

What happens with the pensions burden, how do we ensure that a net receiver of UK funds, walks away with something to add to the states pot other than dependents when they leave?

The constitution makes clear what numbers of representatives will accrue to N.I should they join the Republic, but how do we ensure that doesn't result in an embattled minority mindset?
What further amendments to the constitution are needed to keep transition smooth?

blanch152

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're being overly simplistic IMO. Unionism and Loyalism comprise a core element of these people's identities. They won't just flip on the basis of an economic argument. This is the lesson from the failed Remain campaign of 2016.

That said, I can't see how a UI won't happen but it's be a gradual, painstaking process a referendum on which will only begin. Unionist support won't materialise IMO but they'll be too small demographically to prevent a unification vote.

At best support for a United Ireland has been static over the last decade.

Analysing poll returns shows that the share of the vote garnered by SF and SDLP is declining over time. Arguably, it is being replaced by a younger demographic who vote more for the likes of the Alliance Party, Green Party and PBP, non-sectarian alternatives to the traditional parties.

Where this is going is a matter for debate, but some of the academic work talks about the emergence of a Northern Irish identity, which, while apathetic to the union, has no real interest in a united Ireland which would erode some of that Northern Irish identity which has been heavily influenced by the UK. The situation is a lot more complicated and nuanced than many believe.

FrancieBrady

Sam Russell wrote: »

When Harold Wilson was trying to dissuade Ian Smith from declaring UDI in Rhodesia and establish 'One man - One vote' (as the indigenous population did not automatically get a vote) Ian Smith replied that you do not even have one man one vote in the UK. Wilson replied that that was not true - but Ian Smith pointed out that in NI some voters got as many as six votes while other got one, giving rise to Unionist majorities that should not have existed.

Wilson admitted that he was not aware of this, but checked and found it to be true. Punctured his belief in UK democracy a bit. So an English Labour PM was not aware of a lack of democracy in NI - what a surprise. I wonder if he cared enough about it to do anything.

Ian Smith did declare UDI - and now, following a bit of aggro, the name of the former Rhodesia is Zimbabwe.

They basically turned a blind eye to Unionists changing the voting system in the North after partition and the rest, as they say, is tragic history.
Never knew that Wilson story.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

At best support for a United Ireland has been static over the last decade.

Analysing poll returns shows that the share of the vote garnered by SF and SDLP is declining over time. Arguably, it is being replaced by a younger demographic who vote more for the likes of the Alliance Party, Green Party and PBP, non-sectarian alternatives to the traditional parties.

Where this is going is a matter for debate, but some of the academic work talks about the emergence of a Northern Irish identity, which, while apathetic to the union, has no real interest in a united Ireland which would erode some of that Northern Irish identity which has been heavily influenced by the UK. The situation is a lot more complicated and nuanced than many believe.

This 'Northern Irish' identity is actually two different identities if you look into it. And isn't really going to coalesce.

cgcsb

onrail wrote: »

Outside the hardline 10-15% on either side, all people are loyal to in the North are their secure, well pensioned, publicly funded jobs.

Either denomination will toe the party line in public - but once it comes to a ballot, unless their jobs and pensions can be guaranteed they'll vote for the status quo.

Would be completely different if NI had 12.5% corporation tax and the euro currency though. FDI would make the low public service salaries unattractive quite quickly.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Would be completely different if NI had 12.5% corporation tax and the euro currency though. FDI would make the low public service salaries unattractive quite quickly.

Also, we could do with a few more public servants that could make our current lot a bit more efficient. Well, move some Dublin based functions to NI, and reduce the pressure on Dublin housing.

A UI, would cause a huge rise in house prices in NI, I would guess.

A UI might allow some PNSI personnel to transfer to the Gardai - we have had one already.

A UI might generate a move to more decision power to be moved to local authorities, but that would require a reform of LAs in this side as well as NI. The EU believes in subsidiarity, but the Irish Government does not. Mind you, the current calibre of LA political personnel might be some justification for that. [Who is going to feed the gondolas?]

A UI might, in the longer term, cause the emergence of a Left/Right political system instead of Civil War politics. [I would include the division in NI in that Civil War politics process].

A UI might lead to greater peace and prosperity for all on this Ireland. I think it would undoubtedly make Ireland a better place in which to live and work - we just have to assure the Unionist that that in fact that would be true and their place in a UI would be fully respected, and they would be expected to fully respect a UI.

It will be a long road - we are already 100 years into it.

blanch152

cgcsb wrote: »

Would be completely different if NI had 12.5% corporation tax and the euro currency though. FDI would make the low public service salaries unattractive quite quickly.

It took 30 years for FDI to increase prosperity in the South, why would it happen quicker in the North?

cgcsb

blanch152 wrote: »

It took 30 years for FDI to increase prosperity in the South, why would it happen quicker in the North?

No it didn't. Ireland's 12.5% headline rate was phased in from 1996 to 2003. And yes in a modern globalised world things move faster.

Chips Lovell

I may be mad thinking this, but I suspect we could reach a point where a border poll could be easier to pass in Northern Ireland than in Ireland. I can see voters' attitudes changing when the prospect of a union moves from being a remote, romantic notion to an immediate and expensive possibility.

Given the immense pressure the government is under regarding housing and health, it's hard to imagine taxpayers opting to lump it with another expensive burden.

blanch152

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I may be mad thinking this, but I suspect we could reach a point where a border poll could be easier to pass in Northern Ireland than in Ireland. I can see voters' attitudes changing when the prospect of a union moves from being a remote, romantic notion to an immediate and expensive possibility.

Given the immense pressure the government is under regarding housing and health, it's hard to imagine taxpayers opting to lump it with another expensive burden.

That is a remote possibility. However, public service pay rates are lower in the North and social welfare payments are lower there too.

If unification was to mean increasing those to the levels of the South, and imposing that burden on the taxpayer in the South (there is no way EU or UK would pay for such measures), then that would be a small possibility. However, that small possibility would increase dramatically if the proposal involved cutting teachers and nurses pay in the South, halving most social welfare payments and abolishing child benefit. Harmonisation and how it will be done or paid for is the big elephant in the room that republicans refuse to even contemplate let alone talk about. The best you will get is that it will happen over time and FDI will save the day - this at a time when FDI is getting more difficult to obtain for the South.

Here is one to consider. All primary teachers in Ireland must be competent in Irish and it is taught at primary level. How can that continue in a united Ireland that respects all traditions? Where are we left with the teaching of religion? Will third-level students pay fees in the North? What time of year will the A-Levels/Leaving Certificate take place and how will they be equated? Those questions are only in education, replicate them across the whole of the public service and you see the questions that need answering.

Germany only split for the guts of 40 years and has had great difficulty re-integrating even now, another 30 years on it hasn't been done. We have had two systems for 100 years, possibly the most stable land border in Europe, the task is so much greater.

ancapailldorcha

blanch152 wrote: »

At best support for a United Ireland has been static over the last decade.

Analysing poll returns shows that the share of the vote garnered by SF and SDLP is declining over time. Arguably, it is being replaced by a younger demographic who vote more for the likes of the Alliance Party, Green Party and PBP, non-sectarian alternatives to the traditional parties.

Where this is going is a matter for debate, but some of the academic work talks about the emergence of a Northern Irish identity, which, while apathetic to the union, has no real interest in a united Ireland which would erode some of that Northern Irish identity which has been heavily influenced by the UK. The situation is a lot more complicated and nuanced than many believe.

According to this, 51% want a border poll within 5 years.

I'm not familiar with NI's voting patterns so I'll defer to you there but ultimately the country is having it's democratic will overridden by English nationalists. Unionists have been shown yet another time that the English care not one whit about them.

There's no real reason for NI to follow the UK into artificial irrelevance. That said, I don't know how a border poll can happen without consent from London which won't be before 2024 at the very, very earliest. Even Dublin may be reluctant as Chips Lovell points out.

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I may be mad thinking this, but I suspect we could reach a point where a border poll could be easier to pass in Northern Ireland than in Ireland. I can see voters' attitudes changing when the prospect of a union moves from being a remote, romantic notion to an immediate and expensive possibility.

Given the immense pressure the government is under regarding housing and health, it's hard to imagine taxpayers opting to lump it with another expensive burden.

I don't think you're mad. I think you're looking at the one player who tends to get overlooked in these debates.

My knowledge of Irish affairs is certainly lacking. The question is whether or not the Irish people want to accept such a financial burden on top of the crises in housing and the HSE and whether or not they'll allow romantic nationalism to cloud their judgement.

cgcsb

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a remote possibility. However, public service pay rates are lower in the North and social welfare payments are lower there too.

If unification was to mean increasing those to the levels of the South, and imposing that burden on the taxpayer in the South (there is no way EU or UK would pay for such measures), then that would be a small possibility. However, that small possibility would increase dramatically if the proposal involved cutting teachers and nurses pay in the South, halving most social welfare payments and abolishing child benefit. Harmonisation and how it will be done or paid for is the big elephant in the room that republicans refuse to even contemplate let alone talk about. The best you will get is that it will happen over time and FDI will save the day - this at a time when FDI is getting more difficult to obtain for the South.

Here is one to consider. All primary teachers in Ireland must be competent in Irish and it is taught at primary level. How can that continue in a united Ireland that respects all traditions? Where are we left with the teaching of religion? Will third-level students pay fees in the North? What time of year will the A-Levels/Leaving Certificate take place and how will they be equated? Those questions are only in education, replicate them across the whole of the public service and you see the questions that need answering.

Germany only split for the guts of 40 years and has had great difficulty re-integrating even now, another 30 years on it hasn't been done. We have had two systems for 100 years, possibly the most stable land border in Europe, the task is so much greater.

I think the UK would be happy to pay the barnett formula for 30 years if it meant permanently off loading the region. The EU is likely to provide buckets of infrastructure money. Germany is our friend here after we supported their unification campaign, France will still support anything that they perceive as brit bashing. The USA under a democrat would also be keen to pitch in. You must have forgotten that the new free state in 1921 hadn't a pot to piss in.
Germany's unification was a much more complicated process, one was a planned communist economy and one was the free market, apples and oranges. The structural economic difference between NI and the RoI is really nothing that can't be solved by FDI and improved infrastructure.

onrail

cgcsb wrote: »

Would be completely different if NI had 12.5% corporation tax and the euro currency though. FDI would make the low public service salaries unattractive quite quickly.

'A bird in the hand.. etc etc...'

By ROI terms, public sector positions are modestly paid, but once you factor in pension contributions (around 23% for new entrants, more previously) and the low price of housing/living up there, public sector employees are generally quite comfortable.

It'll take much more than promises of a possible FDI increase to change attitudes.

Sam Russell

Maybe we should copy Bevan's solution to setting up the NHS. He asked the private sector doctors what they wanted to set up the NHS, and they said - money. So he gave it to them - he filled their mouths with money in his words.

Sinn Fein will never bring about a UI, they are seen as the devil incarnate by the DUP and Loyalists, and whatever they propose, the DUP/L are against it - Free milk for school kids - Never, Never, Never.

No, ask the Unionist side what they would need, and see if we can do that.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I also think guilt figures a lot in British thinking. I have some busiess contacts in Luton, classic Union Jack towel at the swimming pool couple, always posting Brexit stuff to Facebook who constantly apologise for what happened in Ireland. They know it wasn't their finest hour and have a wish to put it right. There is a lot of that across Britain and finds voice in some parliamenterians too.

I have literally never heard of one single English person ever having any guilt over NI.
at that includes me living there until 11 and all my (Irish) family that still live there!

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to this, 51% want a border poll within 5 years.

I'm not familiar with NI's voting patterns so I'll defer to you there but ultimately the country is having it's democratic will overridden by English nationalists. Unionists have been shown yet another time that the English care not one whit about them.

There's no real reason for NI to follow the UK into artificial irrelevance. That said, I don't know how a border poll can happen without consent from London which won't be before 2024 at the very, very earliest. Even Dublin may be reluctant as Chips Lovell points out.



I don't think you're mad. I think you're looking at the one player who tends to get overlooked in these debates.

My knowledge of Irish affairs is certainly lacking. The question is whether or not the Irish people want to accept such a financial burden on top of the crises in housing and the HSE and whether or not they'll allow romantic nationalism to cloud their judgement.

2024 would be fine. The last thing you want is a 'quick' Border Poll. There has to be time for a proper structured discussion of the issues and changes neccessary for it to suceed. Those who think that we will just transfer the PS and other systems to the Southern model are deluded and are missing the point. It will be and should be a time to renew and fix all the broken dysfunctional systems o both sides.

Chips Lovell

blanch152 wrote: »

...there is no way EU or UK would pay for such measures...

cgcsb wrote: »

I think the UK would be happy to pay the barnett formula for 30 years if it meant permanently off loading the region.

I'd agree with cgcsb here. I think the UK would probably be willing to pay us to take Northern Ireland off their hands. But that would beg the question among voters here of why they were so eager to get rid of it.

blanch152 wrote: »

Here is one to consider. All primary teachers in Ireland must be competent in Irish and it is taught at primary level. How can that continue in a united Ireland that respects all traditions?

It won't. Any settlement is likely to require a completely new state with a new constitution that guarantees the rights and the traditions of the two Northern communities.

Sam Russell wrote: »

No, ask the Unionist side what they would need, and see if we can do that.

I'd imagine that (in addition to money and jobs) they'd probably ask that we rejoin the Commonwealth with the Queen as Head of State?