Costs of Irish unification.

fritzelly · 13-12-2017 12:52am

dok_golf wrote: »

What should happen, imo, is a federal republic, where you let the Unionists have their own parliament and then a federal government. It might be no bad thing to run Dublin/greater Dublin separately as well along with two other cantons for the rest of the country.

I don't get how that is any different from now?

I can only see a unification that entails all the problems being moved to the new capital, pretty much everyone I know does not want it primary reason being we cannot afford it and we don't want a country that takes on the "troubles" of a still divided country.

As for another capital what is wrong with any of the other cities in Southern Ireland?

Edit
I'd also worry for the tourism factor as a united Ireland when people look at the single country and read all the crap going on still

jm08 · 13-12-2017 12:54am

blanch152 wrote: »

It all depends on how unification happens.

We all know our health service is completely inefficient, mostly due to overstaffing of nurses and understaffing of doctors, as well as other inefficient work practices protected by unions.

Thats the first time I've heard that one.

Overstaffing of admin staff might be a problem though.

dok_golf · 13-12-2017 1:04am

fritzelly wrote: »

I don't get how that is any different from now?

I can only see a unification that entails all the problems being moved to the new capital, pretty much everyone I know does not want it primary reason being we cannot afford it and we don't want a country that takes on the "troubles" of a still divided country.

As for another capital what is wrong with any of the other cities in Southern Ireland?

Edit
I'd also worry for the tourism factor as a united Ireland when people look at the single country and read all the crap going on still

Tourism is already being promoted on an all Ireland basis.

bobbysands81 · 13-12-2017 1:08am

dok_golf wrote: »

The Unionists would still have ability to retain their British passports. But you raise a valid point, could this be done without bloodshed? That would be an argument that in the case of a referendum, then 50%+1 may not be enough of a mandate.

50%+1 is democracy. It is enough.

A United Ireland won’t be the 6 counties subsumed into the 26, instead it’ll be a new and shared island where the rights of Unionists will be copperfastened and protected. If that doesn’t happen then there’s really no point as creating further divisions on this island benefits nobody, communities and society lose. Unionists need to be made feel welcome and that they belong in this new Ireland. All flags and emblems will change to reflect this.

A United Ireland is inevitable but not for nice romantic ideals but because the grubby paws of Capitalism and economics make it inevitable.

dok_golf · 13-12-2017 1:09am

There is no convincing evidence one way or another whether or not we can afford it. Daly's recent report is about as close to a proper analysis as we have got so far. The majority of economists think it will be mutually beneficial but I don't know tbh, if they are factoring in any return to violence in their projections. It's why, as much as I hate to admit, that a 50%+1 majority in all probability, isn't enough. I reckon money talks and if if Brexit turns out to be the disaster I expect it to be, then heads will definitely turn if our economy ( yes i know the dangers of Brexit for us) remains relatively stable.

brendanwalsh · 13-12-2017 1:27am

I'd have to vote against it. It will bring unmerciful trouble to the south and to the 6 counties. The DUP will never allow peace in NIR if reunification is attempted. They will likely bomb southern cities and force us to stop the process. You'd need 100% to vote in favour of it. Even 10% of northerners saying No is 10% of nasty people who can make our lives hell with bombings etc

Charles Babbage · 13-12-2017 1:42am

One problem with this debate is the large lack of data. If money spent in NI is higher than other places then what exactly is it spent on? There is also some doubt over the revenue figures.

Sand wrote: »

One has to assume the UK will also take the opportunity to ensure Northern Ireland takes a proportion of the UK national debt with it. So not only would there be significant ongoing costs, the 'national' debt of Northern Ireland would have to be absorbed.

Irish taxpayers should not agree to take on UK debt, in the end the Freestate did not, and NI taxpayers make no contribution to the UK debt anyow so the UK's ability to service it is not reduced. Reparations rather than debt are in order. The only problem is London will be looking at Scotland, and might not be rational in this matter. It would be wise of the Irish government to come up with a formula netting off debt and pension liabilities etc in such a way as to let NI off the hook without giving a similar easy passage for Scotland.

Arguably debt should be based on the value of the assets, not GDP which is production. The Irish government should ask for one thirtieth of Buck Palace and the Cayman Islands.

dok_golf · 13-12-2017 1:46am

I would think that if we get to the stage of the north voting for reunification then Scotland will already be at the same stage in their journey to independence. The UK, imo, is well down the road of breaking up, the devolved governments already point to this. Brexit could well be the final straw.

StupidLikeAFox · 13-12-2017 2:04am

Question on this: does it require a referendum in the north only?

Or do the Irish people and the UK also need to vote to get it over the line?

dok_golf · 13-12-2017 2:07am

2 referendums north and south of the border. Both need to pass

Mutant z · 13-12-2017 2:18am

Hopefully this dream wìll one day become a reality.

Mutant z · 13-12-2017 2:24am

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I'd have to vote against it. It will bring unmerciful trouble to the south and to the 6 counties. The DUP will never allow peace in NIR if reunification is attempted. They will likely bomb southern cities and force us to stop the process. You'd need 100% to vote in favour of it. Even 10% of northerners saying No is 10% of nasty people who can make our lives hell with bombings etc

Since when has a referendum needed a 100% approval rating to pass all it needs is for a majority vote in favour so if most vote in favour of a UI the DUP wont be able to do a thing about it, it would be a democratic decision made by the electorate.

con___manx1 · 13-12-2017 2:31am

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I'd have to vote against it. It will bring unmerciful trouble to the south and to the 6 counties. The DUP will never allow peace in NIR if reunification is attempted. They will likely bomb southern cities and force us to stop the process. You'd need 100% to vote in favour of it. Even 10% of northerners saying No is 10% of nasty people who can make our lives hell with bombings etc

What if england turned around tomorrow and said here you can have the north back we dont give a **** anymore. I think this brexit government really doesnt give a **** about it to be honest and if i think that the brits in the north surely do aswell.
Its caused england nothing but harship.

Junkyard Tom · 13-12-2017 3:11am

Has anyone costed partition from both an Irish and British perspective?

Fr Tod Umptious · 13-12-2017 7:18am

Mutant z wrote: »

Since when has a referendum needed a 100% approval rating to pass all it needs is for a majority vote in favour so if most vote in favour of a UI the DUP wont be able to do a thing about it, it would be a democratic decision made by the electorate.

I have no doubt that a unification referendum would pass in the current 26 county Ireland.
The romanticism would beat the economic argument every time.

Bot in the north if you only have a slim majority in favour of reunification then you obviously have a large proportion of the electorate against it.

That is something that has to he taken into consideration when forming the new state, you cannot just say "f you, that's democracy", if you do that then all you are doing is the same as what unionists did 100 years ago.

A slm majority in the north would be a security nightmare for the new state, not that I think the DUP would be advocating violence, I don't think they ever have, but there are plenty of other paramilitary groups that would need watching.

Fr Tod Umptious · 13-12-2017 7:28am

NIMAN wrote: »

Reunification would be very costly, but I would assume that there would be a willingness from many sources around the world to contribute.

I would guess it wouldn't cost the Irish state that much in the early stages.

Who exactly is going to pay for it ?

murphaph · 13-12-2017 8:27am

dok_golf wrote: »

The Unionists would still have ability to retain their British passports. But you raise a valid point, could this be done without bloodshed? That would be an argument that in the case of a referendum, then 50%+1 may not be enough of a mandate.

50% + 1 is a recipe for disaster IMO. The northerners need to learn to live with each other first. My own yardstick would be 50% + 1 of traditional unionists. Then there could be no argument made that unionists were forced into a UI against their will.

If a UI is so attractive it should not be impossible for nationalists to convince just over half the unionists that they'd be better off in a UI (arguably they would be as London doesn't give a toss about them).

Chips Lovell · 13-12-2017 10:04am

At the moment, the UK government subsidises Northern Ireland to the tune of around €10 billion net per year.

How much is that relative to what the Irish government has to spend? Well, next year our entire public spending will be around €71 billion per year. We spend €20 billion a year on social protection, €15 billion on health, €10 billion on education.

However, it's not just the financial cost that should be considered. There will be political costs as well. Lots of people, particularly in Ireland, seem to think yes vote in a Border poll will mean just an expansion of the current Irish state.

What's far more likely is a complete reorganization of the state, with a new constitution. Both communities in the North will want some kind of guaranteed representation, which means something like a greatly devolved Northern Ireland with a continuation of regional government or some kind of national power-sharing arrangement between the three communities, a Stormont for the island of Ireland.

Long story short, no matter who you vote for, you could have the DUP and Sinn Fein with a significant political clout and maybe even guaranteed a position as minority partners in any government and pay €10 billion a year for that privilege.

blanch152 · 13-12-2017 10:15am

jm08 wrote: »

Thats the first time I've heard that one.

Overstaffing of admin staff might be a problem though.

Well you have never looked at the figures then, they are quite shocking in an international context. It is off-topic but I will just post one link:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.NUMW.P3?end=2015&locations=IE-FR-FI-CA-BE-GB-US-AU&start=1991&view=chart

Here are some World Bank figures comparing Ireland, US, UK, Finland, France, Belgium, Canada and Australia. We are at the top by a distance having the most nurses per 1000 population. Those are the facts, we have way too many nurses compared to the rest of the world.

blanch152 · 13-12-2017 10:19am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

50%+1 is democracy. It is enough.

.

Mutant z wrote: »

Since when has a referendum needed a 100% approval rating to pass all it needs is for a majority vote in favour so if most vote in favour of a UI the DUP wont be able to do a thing about it, it would be a democratic decision made by the electorate.

When I see people saying that 50% +1 is enough, I wonder have they ever learned anything from history.

A referendum passing in the North shouldn't lead to a united Ireland the next day. It should lead to an open dialogue about the future of the island leading to a final plan with a new constitution and setting out the taxation, social welfare and government finances implications etc. This final plan should then be put to a second referendum so that people at that point in time are fully aware of what they are voting for.

bobbysands81 · 13-12-2017 11:23am

con___manx1 wrote: »

What if england turned around tomorrow and said here you can have the north back we dont give a **** anymore. I think this brexit government really doesnt give a **** about it to be honest and if i think that the brits in the north surely do aswell.
Its caused england nothing but harship.

Partition has caused IRELAND nothing but hardship.

bobbysands81 · 13-12-2017 11:27am

blanch152 wrote: »

When I see people saying that 50% +1 is enough, I wonder have they ever learned anything from history.

A referendum passing in the North shouldn't lead to a united Ireland the next day. It should lead to an open dialogue about the future of the island leading to a final plan with a new constitution and setting out the taxation, social welfare and government finances implications etc. This final plan should then be put to a second referendum so that people at that point in time are fully aware of what they are voting for.

I’m not sure you get what a referendum actually is. All the info is put before the electorate who then make a decision based on that. The info will include everything you’ve said above. The outcome should also be palatable to the Unionist community even though whenever they are in power they try to administer an apartheid style regime at times.

murphaph · 13-12-2017 11:49am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I’m not sure you get what a referendum actually is. All the info is put before the electorate who then make a decision based on that. The info will include everything you’ve said above. The outcome should also be palatable to the Unionist community even though whenever they are in power they try to administer an apartheid style regime at times.

That's a Brexit style referendum you're talking about.

Blanch is right...first the people should say "yeah we can imagine living in a UI if some description, go ahead and start a civic debate island wide about what this new UI should look like and give us some options in a second referendum".

Brexit has shown us that there are too many variables to come up with a simplified yes/no question. We should openly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a UI and how we could best deal with all eventualities. It should ideally be a slow measured process, possibly involving school debates on the matter (it's a decision that mostly affects future generations, like Brexit, so the younger people should be involved).

alchemist33 · 13-12-2017 11:54am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Yep, I think it's something like 75% of the work force are employed by the state up there.

They would all have to either retain their jobs or get huge payouts.

There would also be massive social infrastructure costs that we don't have in the south.
For every community center you build in one side of town you have to build another one in the other side.

Then there are the security costs, all those "peace lines" are not cheap to maintain.

75% wouldn't be sustainable, even in the north. This says it was 30% in 2008

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%, and also higher than Scotland, the next nearest region at 24%. Overall, the figure for Northern Ireland has fallen. In 1992 the public sector accounted for 37% of the workforce. When measured relative to population, the gap between the Northern Ireland and UK figures reduces to three percentage points.[28]

blanch152 · 13-12-2017 11:55am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I’m not sure you get what a referendum actually is. All the info is put before the electorate who then make a decision based on that. The info will include everything you’ve said above. The outcome should also be palatable to the Unionist community even though whenever they are in power they try to administer an apartheid style regime at times.

The most important thing is to avoid the stupid outcome ala Brexit. The process you envisage would be at least a decade away before a referendum because of a number of issues - importance of finalising Brexit, absence of Stormont etc.

An advisory referendum first, only in the North, that concluded that the North was ready to explore options for unity would then be followed by an intensive two-year process where all of the implications are clearly teased out, including tax increases and social welfare reductions and then the people, both north and south get to vote on it.

bobbysands81 · 13-12-2017 12:03pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The most important thing is to avoid the stupid outcome ala Brexit. The process you envisage would be at least a decade away before a referendum because of a number of issues - importance of finalising Brexit, absence of Stormont etc.

An advisory referendum first, only in the North, that concluded that the North was ready to explore options for unity would then be followed by an intensive two-year process where all of the implications are clearly teased out, including tax increases and social welfare reductions and then the people, both north and south get to vote on it.

Don’t judge us by the failures of Britain in their Brexit referendum.

This is already set out in the GFA, both the 06 and the Republic will vote on the referendum.

I fully back a thorough exploratory process in advance of a referendum as well as a realistic (and possibly lengthy) handover period.

asteroids over berlin · 13-12-2017 12:10pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Don’t judge us by the failures of Britain in their Brexit referendum.

This is already set out in the GFA, both the 06 and the Republic will vote on the referendum.

I fully back a thorough exploratory process in advance of a referendum as well as a realistic (and possibly lengthy) handover period.

Not a problem..
We'll make up the cost selling tickets to "national trust" locations, such as the giants causeway, rope bridge place and taxing the fcuk out of british bushmills whiskey & british rooster potatoe sales

Idbatterim · 13-12-2017 12:14pm

MAybe the uk would Agree to split deficit between uk and the republic. There was a good article on this subject in the Irish times a while back. If the republic was to absorb the costs, we would take a drastic hit to our standard of living...

ancapailldorcha · 13-12-2017 12:37pm

alchemist33 wrote: »

75% wouldn't be sustainable, even in the north. This says it was 30% in 2008

That figure predates the financial crash and Tory austerity though.

jm08 · 13-12-2017 3:05pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well you have never looked at the figures then, they are quite shocking in an international context. It is off-topic but I will just post one link:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.NUMW.P3?end=2015&locations=IE-FR-FI-CA-BE-GB-US-AU&start=1991&view=chart

Here are some World Bank figures comparing Ireland, US, UK, Finland, France, Belgium, Canada and Australia. We are at the top by a distance having the most nurses per 1000 population. Those are the facts, we have way too many nurses compared to the rest of the world.

The latest data for Ireland seems to be 2012. Here are the comparisons of nurses & midwives per 1000.

Finland 14
Ireland 12
Australia 12
Belgium 10
France 10 (2015)
UK 8 (2015)

Since this includes midwives, with Ireland high birthrate, the nursing ratio per 1000 doesn't seem that high.

The NHS could probably do with a few more nurses.

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments