Costs of Irish unification.

breatheme · 27-12-2017 04:18PM

Those Unionists may just have to pack up and move to the rUK. A UI will have to be won without their support and they can either stay and help build it or use their British nationality and move to the UK.

Jawgap · 27-12-2017 04:31PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Given the result of the Good Friday agreement was hugely in favour, I would think a similar result for a UI. Of course it depends on the terms, both financial and political.

If the Republic was to have to continue to support the North financially without any assistance from the UK or the EU, that would be a difficult sell, but if reasonable terms were given, such that NI came without debt, plus the promise of current levels of subsidy for, say, ten years, and say the EU would increase regional funds to help with the reconstruction of the northern and border economies, well maybe that might be easier.

The real problem lies north of the border. How do northern Unionists and northern loyalists modify their views to find a UI acceptable? What does it take for them to accept that a UI is in their interests, both financially and culturally? Would Stormant becoming the centre of Government be enough? A transition where the Assembly could continue with the same powers as now (with obvious changes) sugar the pill?

It will be a long time before this even becomes an issue, unless Brexit is a total disaster, leading to a deep depression where social welfare is cut to the bone, and the health service sees massive cuts, and unemployment gets above 25%.

No UK government is going to subsidise NI in a post-UI scenario. Politically it would be completely unacceptable.

Also people forget how we'd have to grow our budgets - at the moment we spend about 1% GDP on defence and security - any violent reaction to a UI probably means doubling or even trebling our spending in that area, combined with significant increases in the policing budget.

We've a great country - not without it's problems for sure, but we don't need the baggage absorbing the tribal politics of NI would bring.

end of the road · 27-12-2017 05:30PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Also people forget how we'd have to grow our budgets - at the moment we spend about 1% GDP on defence and security - any violent reaction to a UI probably means doubling or even trebling our spending in that area, combined with significant increases in the policing budget.

we need to do all that anyway, so any trouble from extreme loyalists wouldn't make that issue more pressing. any violent reaction from loyalists will easily be dealt with, they won't have the support of the british government and british military so they won't be able to sustain a campaign for very long. they actually would be unlikely to be able to mount one in the first place.

Tayschren · 27-12-2017 05:42PM

breatheme wrote: »

Those Unionists may just have to pack up and move to the rUK. A UI will have to be won without their support and they can either stay and help build it or use their British nationality and move to the UK.

The sheer stupidity of this comment is astounding.

This is why there will never be a united Ireland. Nationalistic rhetoric smothered in xenophobic celtic Jersey wearing gob****ism

Jawgap · 27-12-2017 07:02PM

end of the road wrote: »

we need to do all that anyway, so any trouble from extreme loyalists wouldn't make that issue more pressing. any violent reaction from loyalists will easily be dealt with, they won't have the support of the british government and british military so they won't be able to sustain a campaign for very long. they actually would be unlikely to be able to mount one in the first place.

No, we don't. The threats faced by this country at the moment are minimal.

A reactionary loyalist response will never be an existential threat to the country but it would require us to significantly increase defence and security spending.

The highlighted bit made be lol:D I'm sure the Brits, with all their experience of the "Retreat from Empire" and the fact they'd a decent sized army with recent successful counter-insurgency experience thought the same thing when the 'RA kicked off

Plus, the Loyalists don't need to do anything other than turn the sh1te that goes on around the 12th into a permanent, year long, always on "festival."

Sam Russell · 27-12-2017 07:37PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No UK government is going to subsidise NI in a post-UI scenario. Politically it would be completely unacceptable.

You mean it would be politically acceptable for the UK to abandon the British citizens left behind in NI with no support?

I do not think that would be the terms agreed by a UK Government - they would have to support them to some extent. I would expect those that wanted to be repatriated (or patriated) to the UK would need to be accepted, as would serving UK military personnel, and perhaps some Civil Servants. I would also expect some long term commitments to be continued.

It may not be acceptable to those readers of the Daily Mail, Express, and Telegraph, but there are others in the UK who have a more generous outlook. There are those who would think of the £350 million a week (Well more like £200 million a week).

FrancieBrady · 27-12-2017 07:46PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No UK government is going to subsidise NI in a post-UI scenario. Politically it would be completely unacceptable.

Can you back this up in any way?
I remember people saying the same about the exit bill from the EU and look what they have agreed to do about that.

There will be a responsibility on the British here too, to make sure a UI is acceptable. And if we are in the realm of making stuff up about 'political acceptability' they I think there would just as likely be a desire that unification would work.

Jawgap · 27-12-2017 08:43PM

You only have to look at the row going in over the Brexit divorce bill......and if anyone thinks the Brits are going to hand us billions while the NHS struggles for funding they're deluded.....and they haven't even felt the full effects of Brexit on their economy and the effect the QE carriers and the Dreadnought building programme.

Actually, maybe people aren't deluded, they are just far more optimistic about the Brits' prospects than circumstances would suggest are justified.

end of the road · 27-12-2017 09:05PM

Jawgap wrote: »

if anyone thinks the Brits are going to hand us billions while the NHS struggles for funding they're deluded.....

no as the nhs will be sold off/privatized by the time NI reunification happens.

Jawgap · 27-12-2017 09:51PM

end of the road wrote: »

no as the nhs will be sold off/privatized by the time NI reunification happens.

Nah, bit off topic but Corbyn will never stand over that

Anyway, if we do go for a UI the result for the Republic's taxpayers will not be good.

end of the road · 27-12-2017 10:29PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Nah, bit off topic but Corbyn will never stand over that

Anyway, if we do go for a UI the result for the Republic's taxpayers will not be good.

it won't be as bad as made out. reunification will make us a better more attractive country however. it will be worth the small difficulties that may come at first.

Jawgap · 27-12-2017 10:53PM

end of the road wrote: »

it won't be as bad as made out. reunification will make us a better more attractive country however. it will be worth the small difficulties that may come at first.

And your basis for that is?

NERI's analysis was that

...security costs might be higher than might otherwise be the case were there an absence of near universal enthusiasm for a united Ireland among both communities in Northern Ireland (a simple voting majority within Northern Ireland would not be enough to ensure enduring political stability and near universal buy-in by sides of the community).

They also note the potential need for us to pay some form of additional, solidarity tax to digest NI

That part of the net fiscal transfer from London to Belfast which relates to ‘identifiable’ spending (approximately £5 billion or €6 billion) would be required to maintain Northern Ireland public services at the current 2015 levels. But, the story does not end there. Living standards (and social transfer payments) in the Republic are significantly higher than they are in Northern Ireland so that there would have to be a process of adjustment over a number of years to bring the north up to the standards of the south. This would be analogous to the post-reunification German solidarity tax of 5-7% on all incomes (the size of an Irish unity solidarity tax may not be as big as that).

Realistically, it'll probably require a combination of some tax rises and some spending cuts to fund unification......historically, neither of those options have ever been vote-getters, I'm guessing both in combination, would be even less so.

It'll be interesting to see how quickly the real-politik of Unification trumps the sentimental nonsense.

Junkyard Tom · 28-12-2017 12:04AM

Jawgap wrote: »

A reactionary loyalist response

To what ends?

Independence? Forget it.
To force the British back? Forget it.
To re-partition the northeast? Forget it.
For UVF controlled enclaves? They'd be welcome to them.

Jawgap wrote: »

No UK government is going to subsidise NI in a post-UI scenario. Politically it would be completely unacceptable.

Let me explain to you why they would. If the parents of a disabled child get divorced the principal earner (PE) must pay child maintenance for the entire life of the child.

Now if this PE was offered a deal where they get to reduce their maintenance payments over a period of ten years until they were essentially zero they'd jump at the chance.

The British would be delighted to get the monkey off their back once-and-for-all.

TheQuietFella · 28-12-2017 12:37AM

Who in their right mind would vote to join the Republic?
When you look at the cost of living here in Ireland against that of the UK it wouldn't make sense. How would a government deal with disparities across areas such as health, travel, taxation?

Junkyard Tom · 28-12-2017 12:43AM

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Who in their right mind would vote to join the Republic?

Nationalists, people being denied equality by the DUP/UUP, disillusioned liberal former Unionists, Irish speakers, ambitious people, those who want to retain their EU rights and so on.

Also, Ireland ranks 8th on the UN Human Development Index. If the north was a country it would rank 44th on the UNHDI and that's before Brexit.

Quite simply, the union has been an economic disaster for all the people of Northern Ireland. Everyone has been impoverished by the union and this shows no sign of letting up ... The Republic's economy is now four times that of the North, even though the labour force is not even two-and-a-half times bigger.

In terms of income per head, the Republic is now almost twice as rich per person as the North. The average income per head in the Republic is £39,873, while it languishes at £23,700 up North.

David McWilliams

FrancieBrady · 28-12-2017 12:59AM

Jawgap wrote: »

You only have to look at the row going in over the Brexit divorce bill......and if anyone thinks the Brits are going to hand us billions while the NHS struggles for funding they're deluded.....and they haven't even felt the full effects of Brexit on their economy and the effect the QE carriers and the Dreadnought building programme.

Actually, maybe people aren't deluded, they are just far more optimistic about the Brits' prospects than circumstances would suggest are justified.

What is going on about the divorce bill? They have completely given into paying it.
Your opinion is not a fact.

Jawgap · 28-12-2017 08:39AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is going on about the divorce bill? They have completely given into paying it.
Your opinion is not a fact.

Yes, they've consented to pay, but do you really think that's the end of it.......that the Tories are not going to pay a political price when each year they have to make a staged payment and it reduces the money they can spend elsewhere or is linked to revenue raising measures?

And if/when Labour get in do you really think their Chancellor isn't going to use the divorce bill settlement agreed by the Tories as a shibboleth for every spending cut and tax increase he/she might have to make?

Agreeing the bill wasn't the end of the matter, it's barely the beginning of it!

And by paying it they hope to get something in return (a decent trade deal) and they - what's the incentive for them to pay anything to get NI off their hands if people vote to leave the UK? What are we going to offer in return? If anything Whitehall will be delighted to get that sinkhole off their books and spend the billions they normally transfer to there elsewhere.

Plus, they are only paying what's due under the Multiannual Financial Framework and to cover other liabilities. I expect the Brits would honour any legal liabilities or commitments but given general spending is set annually they'll likely hand that off to the Republic and cite the Brexit deal as a precedent!

murphaph · 28-12-2017 08:41AM

end of the road wrote: »

it won't be as bad as made out. reunification will make us a better more attractive country however. it will be worth the small difficulties that may come at first.

Brexiteers say the very same sort of stuff about Brexit.

If a UI brings political instability it will have serious repercussions on inward investment.

I think given some specific set of circumstances a UI could work but waving serious and well founded concerns away as some sort of project fear is the start of the road to ruin.

Jawgap · 28-12-2017 09:00AM

murphaph wrote: »

Brexiteers say the very same sort of stuff about Brexit.

If a UI brings political instability it will have serious repercussions on inward investment.

I think given some specific set of circumstances a UI could work but waving serious and well founded concerns away as some sort of project fear is the start of the road to ruin.

Indeed, if Stormont has taught us one thing it's how toxic and dysfunctional politics are in NI - do we really want to import that to the Oireachtas?

Not just economically, but also politically and socially, there'd need to be much greater convergence before a UI could work.

FrancieBrady · 28-12-2017 10:55AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, they've consented to pay, but do you really think that's the end of it.......that the Tories are not going to pay a political price when each year they have to make a staged payment and it reduces the money they can spend elsewhere or is linked to revenue raising measures?

And if/when Labour get in do you really think their Chancellor isn't going to use the divorce bill settlement agreed by the Tories as a shibboleth for every spending cut and tax increase he/she might have to make?

Agreeing the bill wasn't the end of the matter, it's barely the beginning of it!

And by paying it they hope to get something in return (a decent trade deal) and they - what's the incentive for them to pay anything to get NI off their hands if people vote to leave the UK? What are we going to offer in return? If anything Whitehall will be delighted to get that sinkhole off their books and spend the billions they normally transfer to there elsewhere.

Plus, they are only paying what's due under the Multiannual Financial Framework and to cover other liabilities. I expect the Brits would honour any legal liabilities or commitments but given general spending is set annually they'll likely hand that off to the Republic and cite the Brexit deal as a precedent!

The point is the bill will be paid.
Why? Because they know that they owe it and that they won't get what they want if they don't pay it... a deal.

What is also a fact is that you are guessing and do not have any facts to back up the original claim you made.

FrancieBrady · 28-12-2017 10:57AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Indeed, if Stormont has taught us one thing it's how toxic and dysfunctional politics are in NI - do we really want to import that to the Oireachtas?

Not just economically, but also politically and socially, there'd need to be much greater convergence before a UI could work.

That is what the British will do and be asked to do. Aid harmonisation and convergence to ensure success.

The British IMO will want this to work more than anyone. So will the EU and the rest of the world.

Fr Tod Umptious · 28-12-2017 12:03PM

breatheme wrote: »

Those Unionists may just have to pack up and move to the rUK. A UI will have to be won without their support and they can either stay and help build it or use their British nationality and move to the UK.

It's this attitude that makes even moderate unionists fear a UI, especially one where SF may have a big say in.

The "fcuk off back to where your ancestors came from 400 years ago" policy will never work.

FrancieBrady · 28-12-2017 12:08PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's this attitude that makes even moderate unionists fear a UI, especially one where SF may have a big say in.

The "fcuk off back to where your ancestors came from 400 years ago" policy will never work.

When have SF ever said anything along those lines?
It's a bit like saying Willie Frazer is indicative of all Unionists. Any rational person knows that isn't true.

Fr Tod Umptious · 28-12-2017 12:28PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When have SF ever said anything along those lines?
It's a bit like saying Willie Frazer is indicative of all Unionists. Any rational person knows that isn't true.

Of course SF have never said anything along those lines, they are too smart for that.

But do you not think that unionists would fear retribution in a UI ?

I personally fear SF becoming the lead party in government in the republic, it would be enough for me to consider leaving.

A leader that has lasted over 30 years even with numerous scandals surrounding him, including the huge one of being a terrorist.
Kangaroo courts like the Cahill abuse scandal.
No contest for the leader in NI.
Multiple resignations at grass roots level over bullying and the handling of bullying.

What would SF do if they had the reins of power, what little changes would they make bit by bit to consolidate that power ?

And look at that from a unionists POV.
Time to reposess that land folks, time for you to go back to where your 10 times great grandfather came from.

FrancieBrady · 28-12-2017 12:35PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Of course SF have never said anything along those lines, they are too smart for that.

But do you not think that unionists would fear retribution in a UI ?

I personally fear SF becoming the lead party in government in the republic, it would be enough for me to consider leaving.

A leader that has lasted over 30 years even with numerous scandals surrounding him, including the huge one of being a terrorist.
Kangaroo courts like the Cahill abuse scandal.
No contest for the leader in NI.
Multiple resignations at grass roots level over bullying and the handling of bullying.

What would SF do if they had the reins of power, what little changes would they make bit by bit to consolidate that power ?

And look at that from a unionists POV.
Time to reposess that land folks, time for you to go back to where your 10 times great grandfather came from.

Look at where they have been in power maybe?

Who in that partnership would you rationally fear with regard to your rights?

Who has stood firm on equal rights for all?

dok_golf · 28-12-2017 01:17PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Of course SF have never said anything along those lines, they are too smart for that.

But do you not think that unionists would fear retribution in a UI ?

I personally fear SF becoming the lead party in government in the republic, it would be enough for me to consider leaving.

A leader that has lasted over 30 years even with numerous scandals surrounding him, including the huge one of being a terrorist.
Kangaroo courts like the Cahill abuse scandal.
No contest for the leader in NI.
Multiple resignations at grass roots level over bullying and the handling of bullying.

What would SF do if they had the reins of power, what little changes would they make bit by bit to consolidate that power ?

And look at that from a unionists POV.
Time to reposess that land folks, time for you to go back to where your 10 times great grandfather came from.

By the same argument, you could well see the Unionists combine with e.g. FF to keep SF out of power. I would think that SF, after an initial bounce will settle roughly at the level they now occupy. Once a UI comes about, their raison d'etre is much diminished.

FrancieBrady · 28-12-2017 01:31PM

dok_golf wrote: »

By the same argument, you could well see the Unionists combine with e.g. FF to keep SF out of power. I would think that SF, after an initial bounce will settle roughly at the level they now occupy. Once a UI comes about, their raison d'etre is much diminished.

There is a fantasy that some in this country are very comfortable indulging.
That if SF ever got into power that 'democracy' would somehow disappear.

What will happen realistically is, that SF will be like every other political party since time began. They will rule for a period and then be replaced by somebody else. They will be subject to the same arrogance of power that any other party is. Power will corrupt them like it has all other party's.
That is the reality.

It's time for people to let go of the 'fantasy' stuff tbh.

Jawgap · 28-12-2017 02:15PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The point is the bill will be paid.
Why? Because they know that they owe it and that they won't get what they want if they don't pay it... a deal.

What is also a fact is that you are guessing and do not have any facts to back up the original claim you made.

Of course it'll be paid because the EU will close off their market to the Brits if it isn't - that's called having power.

Even if the Brits did promise to make some kind of payments what power would we have to compel any promised payment from them? Threaten them with another Mrs Brown's Boys Christmas Special?

And yes, I'm guessing, but it's an informed guess and it's better than the wishful thinking that seems to animate SF's thinking on the matter.

FrancieBrady · 28-12-2017 02:24PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course it'll be paid because the EU will close off their market to the Brits if it isn't - that's called having power.

Even if the Brits did promise to make some kind of payments what power would we have to compel any promised payment from them? Threaten them with another Mrs Brown's Boys Christmas Special?

And yes, I'm guessing, but it's an informed guess and it's better than the wishful thinking that seems to animate SF's thinking on the matter.

I was giving my opinion.
I don't remember SF saying anything 'on the matter'. Can you back up this 'animated thinking' by SF on this?
My suspicion is that you are guessing again.

Jawgap · 28-12-2017 02:26PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look at where they have been in power maybe?

Who in that partnership would you rationally fear with regard to your rights?

Who has stood firm on equal rights for all?

I thought SF was only interested in equality insofar as it gave them an electoral advantage......Didn't Adams say.....

The point is to actually break these bastards - that’s the point. And what’s going to break them is equality. That’s what’s going to break them - equality. Who could be afraid of equality? Who could be afraid of treating somebody the way you want to be treated. That’s what we need to keep the focus on - that’s the trojan horse of the entire republican strategy – is to reach out to people on the basis of equality.

Kind of leaves you wondering that if something less salubrious came along that offered greater advantage they wouldn't trump for that in a heartbeat even if it meant abandoning equality.

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments