Why I'll say no to a united ireland

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122174617#Comment_122174617

He left more than emotion out of it:

the authors have presented “a static” analysis on the size of the Northern subvention that is unrealistic in terms of the way unity would unfold.

and yes, ignoring  “fundamental facts” is 'unprofessional'.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122174617#Comment_122174617

Fitzgerald's analysis was the most complete and the most comprehensive. Generally, he took a middle ground. Yes, a poster could come along and say that the US or the EU will pay for it all so there is no problem, but they are the dreamers, the land of rainbow unicorns types, etc.

You could make a case that he underestimated the cost, you could make a case that he overestimated the cost, the problem is, that given the stature of his work and his reputation, those who criticise his work have a lot more to do than providing an out-of-context unattributed quote as rebuttal which is what one poster tried to do.

If I recall correctly, on a previous occasion, Fitzgerald was criticised because of who his father was. A real case of playing the man, not the ball. His work was commissioned by an independent group, it wasn't a front for a political party, as previous studies have been, and he is one the most renowned academic economists expert on this country.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122174749#Comment_122174749

So Fitzgerald = good ESRi

McGuinness = bad ESRI

If somebody omits  'fundamental facts' they are immediately unprofessional and you'd be the first to call them out for that.
If you present a 'static analysis' to purposely show a negative then you are slanting the analysis

that given the stature of his work and his reputation,

What's to say he won't in the future apologise and say this report was a 'big mistake' as he did after failing to do his job in the run-up to the 2008 crash?

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122174767#Comment_122174767

Fitzgerald is taking "a middle ground" (as another poster correctly says) this time, not an overly optimistic stance.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122174807#Comment_122174807

Fitzgerald took a slant and manipulated to come up with a figure.
Some more of the current ESRI had to say:

“The estimate of €20 billion assumes that [a] border poll takes place on a Friday, everything transfers on a Monday,” McGuinness said. 

He said it’s “not a realistic set of assumptions”, adding: “What happens in terms of any major constitutional reform, there will be a transition period and there needs to be a planning for  a transition period.” 

McGuinness said subvention is “not something that is set in stone that can’t be changed by policy”. 

He said the cost of €20 billion “would only be possible if there was no planning for reunification and the Irish Government agreed to hold a border poll with absolutely no planning for a post-reunification scenario”. 

Fitzgerald is no more credible than Hubner.

blanch152

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0404/1441589-united-ireland/

We have had some really disingenuous posting here about McGuinness from the ESRI. This link will tell you a lot:

(1) He was making personal comments in April about the IIEA study, they were not official ESRI statements. I cannot find a link to his comments on the official ESRI website

(2) They were only comments, and not based on any significant research on the financial gap, in fact, in his most recent statement to the Oireachtas (this week), he admits that his research isn't in the same area as Fitzgerald's "Specially, our research has focussed on identifying the factors that give rise to the situation whereby the UK government must support Northern Ireland to the degree reflected in the scale of the subvention estimates" So there it is, he isn't denying the subvention, he isn't recalculating it, he is just saying that there are policy failures that caused it.

(3) McGuinness doesn't contradict Fitzgerald's work "Professor Seamus McGuinness, Research Area Co-ordinator for Labour Market Research at the ESRI, said subvention, the amount the Irish Government would have to pay to help support a united Ireland, is difficult to speculate on. "We've seen estimates from the perspective of analysts varying from around Stg£3 billion to up to £11bn in today's analysis," he said." He doesn't know which one to pick!!!!

(4) He didn't say there wouldn't be tax rises. In fact he said in the RTE Report "there was also an argument that tax-take would go up, if the Irish tax code was applied in Northern Ireland." So, tax rises in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland. Is that really going to get people up there to vote for it???? And he is the economist of the month in the world of the little Irelanders!!!!!

(5) In his statement to the Oireachtas today, have a look at it on the ESRI website, he says in his final conclusion "To the extent that the subvention to Northern Ireland from the UK reflects poor economic outcomes which in turn are related to sub-optimal policy, a reduction in the subvention can be achieved (and should be) through improved policy". What does that mean? Fix the education system in the North, something that Sinn Fein have repeatedly failed to do. Education is a policy devolved to Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein have done nothing to improve it.

https://www.esri.ie/sites/default/files/media/file-uploads/2024-05/Opening%20Statement_Joint%20Committee%20on%20the%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Good%20Friday%20Agreement_McGuinness_Bergin.pdf

(6) To sum-up, McGuinness has admitted he doesn't know which estimate to pick, he does say that there are policy choices to make that would improve the situation, those policy choices are internal to Northern Ireland around education.

Once again, a situation where a poster uses a comment outside of its full context, without providing the link, is caught out again.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122174835#Comment_122174835

Fitzgerald also did not take in to account the massive costs implicated in my post no. 9481. 20 billion a year is middle ground, although I personally looking at the costs in posts 9481 would be of the opinion it could be an awful lot higher.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122174855#Comment_122174855

Was McGuinness correct in his 'personal' comments?
Did the report use a 'static analysis' = Yes.
Did the report omit 'fundamental facts' = Yes.

Here is somebody else's take on it, wearing his professional hat and I'll bet, like most professionals that it is also his personal opinion:

The contention for advocates of unity is that if Northern Ireland's productivity performance converged even partially then worries about the subvention would start to go away.

Prof John Doyle, a political scientist at Dublin City University, said the analysis by Fitzgerald and Morgenroth only considers this in a superficial way.

"The report mentions the possibility of economic change, but the headline figures assume no change at all. The UK is a highly-centralised economy, with only London producing a fiscal surplus.

There is no trajectory of 'catching up' for Northern Ireland or indeed other UK regions.

"There is no reason to believe that with the same tax and policy model as the south that Northern Ireland would remain such a weak economy, compared to say Cork and Kerry.

"If they reached that level no subvention would be required, and productivity, wages and living standards would improve."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-68743937

Here is the SDLP take:

In a social media post, the SDLP's Stormont leader, Matthew O'Toole, said it is important that those who favour Irish unity should not present "blithely optimistic pictures" nor should "self-evidently motivated, even jaundiced, political and diplomatic assumptions be bolted onto what purports to be an economic analysis".

His point being that when considering a post-referendum negotiation on the terms on which Northern Ireland would leave the UK the study "appears designed to present the most pessimistic case".

Suffice to say that the nicest thing you can say about Fitzgerald's report is that it has been rubbished and is far from an accurate analysis. Except maybe for Unionists and partitionists.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122174868#Comment_122174868

Fitzgerald took a middle ground, unlike the previous studies.

McGuinness is suggesting taxes will rise in Northern Ireland, so the subvention won't be as big. That means we don't even have to worry about it, because nobody in Northern Ireland will vote for higher taxes.

He criticises Fitzgerald's analysis as being a static one, and claims that if productivity rises, the gap will close. How does he know productivity will rise? Answer is he doesn't. In fact, if there is civil unrest, productivity would be likely to fall, making the gap bigger, and lowering living standards in the South. There is no rationale other than hope to the claim that productivity will rise in the North, post-unity.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175039#Comment_122175039

How do you know or Fitzgerald know productivity won't rise?
If you are a 'professional' or honest you would model for both.

See the problem blanch that you cannot winkle out of here.

He manipulated the report to give a negative.

No better than Hubner who YOU lambasted for manipulating to give a positive.

Absolutely spinning is what you are doing here.

blanch152

Fitzgerald took the status quo position. He did not assume that productivity would rise post-unity, and he did not assume that productivity would fall post-unity. Both are possible. His assumptions were thereby neither positive nor negative, neither optimistic nor pessimistic. McGuinness' faux criticism of the assumptions being static demonstrate this.

McGuinness assumes that the factors that increase productivity would be imported into the North, that is an optimistic position, and for which zero evidence has been advanced. The evidence from elsewhere would not support him. For example, decades after German unity, the opposite has held true, with productivity in east Germany still far below west Germany.

The risks to current productivity are also there - civil unrest, lack of reform in Northern Ireland, import of poor practices to the South - but Fitzgerald did not model for these pessimistic outcomes.

He modelled, as McGuinness admits for the static position. Therefore, there is no answer other than Fitzgerald's figures are the middle ground.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175128#Comment_122175128

He took a static position and called it a forecast.

 McGuinness' faux criticism

He and Doyle are more qualified than some random interneter hellbent on there not being a UI and who rubbishes anything positive about it.

I notice in your spin you didn't address his omission of 'fundamental facts' either, something you lambast other for doing. Here are some of the glaring ones:

A recent IIEA report stated that the initial costs of a United Ireland would be €20b pa over 20
years.

This is wildly inaccurate as the report contains significant errors and is based on entirely
unreasonable assumptions. Consequently, the figures in the report are not even a worst-case
scenario they are just wrong. The following are the main reasons that explain why.
1. The IIEA report adds over €4.2 billion euros pa to the cost of unity, by increasing public
sector wages to Southern levels, but making no allowance for the taxes (which would be
overwhelmingly at the higher rate of 40%), PRSI (4%) and pension contributions (typically
around 10%) to be paid on that increase. Correcting this error reduces the real cost of
salary increases by €2.2b pa.
2. The IIEA report assumed that public service salaries in Northern Ireland would be
immediately increased to Southern levels in year one. This is unrealistic and
unnecessary, as the cost of living in Northern Ireland would not change immediately.
Convergence will happen over time and will involve negotiations with public sector trade
unions. Merging salary levels over 15 years – half the time taken by Germany, would mean
a cost of approximately €133m in year one, rising on average by that amount each year.
3. The IIEA report includes an annual cost of €3.8b to bring average pensions in NI up to
average rates in the Republic. There are at present 320,700 people on State Pensions in
Northern Ireland and 69,700 on Pension Credit (equivalent to a non-contributory pension
in the Republic). The cost set out in the IIEA report is therefore equivalent to an increase
of €10,000 per person per annum. This payment assumes that the state would cover the
entire cost of such an increase to those on private and employment-based pensions, and
would do so regardless of the other income received by the person. Such a political
decision is highly unlikely.
Also as with salaries, the IIEA make no allowance for taxes to be paid on such pensions
by those on higher incomes. To increase the state pension and pension credit to the
higher contributory and non-contributory pension rates in the Republic, would cost
approximately €400m pa, rather than the IIEA’s €3.8b.
4. The IIEA report uncritically uses the published UK Government subvention figure of £10b
as the starting point for the fiscal balance of a united Ireland. It completely ignores recent
research on this issue. For example, it includes the full cost of both state debt and
pensions, currently paid by the UK, and which are part of the UK subvention figure. It is
impossible in reality, that after negotiations between the Irish and British Governments,
and where the British side abandon all responsibility for paying pensions to those who
have paid national insurance or employer-based public sector pension contributions,
that the Irish side would then volunteer to pay a pro-rate share of UK state debt, for which
they have no legal liability. This is not a question of the debt being ‘waived’, as the IIEA
Report suggests. The state debt is owed by the UK and not by Ireland or Northern Ireland.
It is not believable that the Government of a united Ireland would agree to be is left with
liability for both debt and pensions.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/33/joint_committee_on_the_implementation_of_the_good_friday_agreement/submissions/2024/2024-05-23_opening-statement-professor-john-doyle-vice-president-of-research-dublin-city-university_en.pdf

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122168069#Comment_122168069

I have already said That I believe every government needs to run Agents at certain times, to infiltrate dangerous violent organisations, and for the better good of all. If that is the question then yes I think it is acceptable.
If you think that the British government have committed war crimes, then you should put your energy into getting them to The Hague.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122168125#Comment_122168125

I am simply being realistic and don’t live in the utopia you do

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122168160#Comment_122168160

well let’s test you on that. Just take one little post and give us an insight into the wrongs that you think your government done on the unionist community on this island?

I’m guessing you will be this one

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122170907#Comment_122170907

I wouldn’t get so carried away. The current first minister in Northern Ireland justifies the most horrendous atrocities, and a few on here seem too worried about it

downcow

You are confusing yourself. You are referring to British ethnic unionists.
Those who are ethnically British (if such a thing exists?) contains many of the Catholic families in Ireland.
If you are talking about unionists, then I think you should check your stats again and you will find that every election and every poll demonstrates that there are more unionists than nationalists in Northern Ireland

Your surname suggest you are actually ethnically British yourself 🤣🤣

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175518#Comment_122175518

More dis-ingenuous debating.
You said ‘misdemeanours of your government’

Now you are looking for something to bolster your victimhood again.

The modern Irish government’s have bent over backwards for the Unionist community and got death threats and an actual attempt to harm a minister for that.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175560#Comment_122175560

well surprise surprise. Francie dodged the question.

it was you said that you never ignore the misdemeanours of your own government and you post about them. And I just asked for one tiny little Post outlining some of the things your government done on the unionist Community.
You remind me of the Jehovah witnesses. When I get them to my door, I always ask them, can they point out a few faults in their own church. And of course they never do, because it’s a cult.
Francie, be careful you’re not in a cult.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175588#Comment_122175588

And you avoid again.
What did the Irish government get for reaching out to Unionists again and again? The lead Unionist party insinuating that they needed to look to their safety and that they should keep their noses out. I.E. belligerence.

I absolutely criticised them for not taking a tougher stance on that belligerence.

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175537#Comment_122175537

And a poster on your side of the debate has essentially argued that the British Army were totally justified in shooting children in their beds like Patrick Rooney because some kids threw stones at them without a word from you. You've tried to paint the British armed forces, the RUC and the UDR as totally justified yourself...…maybe you could take the plank out of your own eye first, Downcow.

You have absolutely zero moral highground over the worst Provo apologists, you're just as happy to justify violence, happy to handwave atrocities away with, 'they had no choice', happy to find excuses for, 'us uns' while condemning, 'themmuns'. You're the absolute worst kind of hypocrite.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122172148#Comment_122172148

maybe you could link me to that quote you are claiming I said? Resorting to porkies again.

downcow

You haven’t told us how you would have eg prevented the orangemen from parading down the Garvaghy Road without the 100s of plastic bullets fired daily at them?

downcow

Disgusting racism. I take you would send everyone else ‘home’.
tell me. How would I identify these Irish? If I cut them open would it be written through them like rock?

Again, your name suggests you are not one of the chosen few, so will we send you home?

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175614#Comment_122175614

still waiting for your examples

downcow

You don’t get it.
the Ira spent their planning and active service trying to kill people. The army spent their planning and active service trying to save lives.
of course mistakes were made and there were even a few bad apples, but there is zero comparison - day and night

Suckler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175537#Comment_122175537

So you're content with it…

I await your usual "I only post on here with honesty" nonsense with bated breath and I'll remind you of what you are supporting.

The fact a simpleton has cornered themselves on defending/justifying it and has doubled down on it hasn't dissuaded you no?

Suckler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175948#Comment_122175948

You don’t get it.

The idiotic irony.

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122175874#Comment_122175874

Though I flit in and out of this thread occasionally, I don’t remember coming across posts like that, if you are going to call out a poster’s morality based on those type of posts, it is only fair to ask for examples.

Can you link to any supporting posts?

Fionn1952

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122176417#Comment_122176417

Not quite sure why you expect me to demonstrate absolutely anything to you when I'm addressing Downcow, who is entirely aware of their own posting history and feelings on the RUC, UDR and British Army. I would be incredibly surprised if Downcow even remotely disagrees with my assertion that they believe the RUC, UDR and British Army were totally justified.

Take the countless attempts to muddy the waters around Bloody Sunday, several pages of defending the wrongdoings of the British Army with, 'sure every Army engages in a bit of state sponsored terrorism' as a starting point.

You haven't looked very hard, there have been multiple posts across the last few pages alone defending British Army actions with such blatant whataboutery. Go back to two/three pages back in this thread and there is a whole series of posts from Downcow handwaving away the actions of the British Army with, 'well everyone else was doing it'. For some examples;

On page 314 (on mobile) in response to British Army crimes being covered up and those soldiers receiving awards and promotions instead of justice;

and maybe you could give me a few examples of governments who have not done cover-ups

On the same page, in response to a poster who stated, "The B specials, the UDR and the British army all benefit from the sale of poppies. All of them committed acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland."

could you tell me of a force anywhere in the world that members have not committed crimes

the first post on page 315:

at least I am being a realist. I am simply accepting that all governments and army’s in the world run agents, step outside the law, etc, etc.

As for not calling it out from the other side....literally one page back on this thread, we have everyone's favourite copy/pasting machine FrancisMcM defending the British Army killing children:

"There were many thousands of children ( people aged under 18 ) who threw petrol bombs and other lethal missiles at police during riots : how do you propose the police should have defended themselves? As suckler says, they had no alternative but to defend themselves"

No alternative indeed. Sure Patrick Rooney was a huge threat to them lying asleep in his bed, they had no alternative but to defend themselves against such dangerous threats as sleeping 9 year olds. 14 year old Julie Livingstone was such a threat walking back from the shop that they had no alternative but to shoot her in the head with a rubber bullet, and of course the British Government had no choice but to close the files on her death until 2064.

Not a word about it when the same poster insinuated that British Army murdering children was totally justified.....because maybe they planted bombs?

Did those children plant any bombs, asks you, referring to the 19,000 bombs during the troubles? Who knows, the IRA were not very good at keeping records, were they?

So aye, I fully stand behind absolutely everything I said in that post. That poster is happy to handwave away and accept wrongdoings from the British side with excuses and whataboutery that they would be foaming at the mouth over reading as justification for the PIRA; note their repeated raging at Michelle O'Neill stating there was no alternative at the time.

For the record, I fully disagree with Michelle O'Neill's comment. Since I'm not an apologist for violence from either side I don't have to twist myself in circles to try hide my hypocrisy when I criticise her.