Costs of Irish unification.

murphaph · 31-12-2017 08:37AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would never allow the threat of violence deter me from doing something for the greater good.
You and a small band of southeners have had and have an acceptable level of violence it seems as violence is still happening as a result of partition.
I want to remove all causes of it from this island. That is the greater good.

Feel free to just use straight language. Would you accept some bombings in Dublin as the price of unification?

murphaph · 31-12-2017 08:47AM

jm08 wrote: »

If you are living in Berlin, how do you know what has happened. As for Fianna Fail - they have been keeping their heads down for the last couple of years. Come the next general election, I'd imagine the old Fianna Fail will emerge.

I think the Brexit vote would suggest that the economy doesn't always come first. The economy of Germany wasn't put first in the reunification of Germany.

One thing I think we have learned after the last recession, nothing lasts for ever and we have a great ability as a nation to roll our sleeves up and dig ourselves out of a hole.

It doesn't matter when you were last in a church - most Irish people are cultural catholics (as opposed to Moslem, Methodist, Quaker etc). As for the Irish language - most people would have spent 12-14 years learning the language, so its hardly just about knowing the national anthem.

How do you know what's going on in the Dail? Do you go there and sit in the public gallery or watch the news like me in Berlin? I'm not living on Mars lol.

Brexit is already being regretted. If the vote was held again tomorrow it would be 60/40 against.

A cultural Catholic lol. I was baptised Catholic, made my communion and was conferred like most but I have not been to a normal mass in 30 years. I'm not Catholic. In Germany you pay church tax if you want to avail of church facilities so I answered truthfully that I have no religion when I originally moved here. I wonder in Ireland what the actual figure would be if the census form question reduced your tax bill by a couple of percent if you ticked "no confession" ;-)

By the way Germans in the West didn't get a vote on unification. The German basic law always allowed for this. It's not at all certain that West Germany back then would have voted for unification!

The Irish constitution used to too but since the GFA a referendum is required in the south.

murphaph · 31-12-2017 08:53AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Accusations of selfishness would not arise if you yourself did not state that you did not give a damn.

Would you also accept some bombings in Dublin as the price of unification if it came to that? Is unification worth some bloodshed or none at all?

murphaph · 31-12-2017 09:03AM

dok_golf wrote: »

Just to play devil's advocate, what happens if there is a 50% +1 majority in the north for a UI and reunification process doesn't start?? You reckon the nationalist community will sit back and allow their democratic rights to be over ridden??

If there's a 50% +1 referendum in the north then a referendum will be held in the south as per the terms of the GFA.

Personally I'd vote against it as the NI result would clearly show that nowhere near half of protestants were in favour and I wouldn't want to import that into my country.

You seem to be under some misapprehension here. There have to be 2 referendums, one north, one south. The southern electorate are not here to rubber stamp the decision of the northern electorate. The south gets the final say on unification.

I fully expect the terms of the GFA to be lived up to. I would consider two referendums that barely scrape over the line to be a big mistake akin to Brexit but if that happens there will be a UI of course, come hell or high taxes.

murphaph · 31-12-2017 09:06AM

Sidey wrote: »

But partition has, and continues, to cause huge problems across vast swathes of the south. You appear to be willfully ignorant of the economic and social damage caused to southern border counties like Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan, Louth over the last 100 years, Donegal in particular. That's hundreds of thousands of southern citizens who have spent generations negatively impacted by the border. You don't care about them, you don't care about northerners of any stripe. Is there anyone on this island you actually care about, do you have any sense of civic responsibility and communal belonging whatsoever, or is it all entirely about what you can get for yourself?

Some of that damage in the border region has been lessened over the last 20 years of an open border and peace. That's why southern border communities were furious about the British ham-fisted bollxology threatening a hard border a few weeks back, to the point that even FG woke up and realised they needed to fight for an open border.

All your posts are entirely about (wildly overblown) potential negatives. You just assume the north is going to cost bazillions a week forever. You just assume all Nordies are mad killers just itching to slaughter one another again. You refuse to accept that the north costs the UK because it has been appallingly badly run. You refuse to accept the benefits for the north, and the southern border regions, from removing the distorting trade and currency effects of the border. You refuse to accept the potential for economic development for the north once the IDA can get in there and do what they do best (and worse you refuse to accept that because you insist no FDA will want to set up in the north because all Nordies are mad killers). You refuse to accept the points made that the subvention figures that get bandied about are at best inaccurate for many reasons - taxes paid by large Britain-based companies like Tescos are not included, NI's contribution to UK-wide expenditure like the militaryand the Royals is included, just for starters. You insist that the costs now will always be the costs in perpetuity and will even rise without a shred of evidence and in defiance of all logic - it'll be a completely different set-up, instead of being run as a neglected unwanted off-shoot colony it'll be an integral part of the UI administration. You dismiss the whole concept that a UI will be a process with a transitional period of probably 5 or so years as tax, welfare, education and health systems etc are harmonised. And that's a huge opportunity for the entire island as we can take the best bits of both existing systems and make fundamental reforms in all sorts of areas.

You claim you would vote for a UI if it meant more money in your pocket. Frankly I don't believe you. You have an extremely negative apocalyptic, indeed almost racist, view of all northerners and anything to do with the north. I don't think you would vote for a UI if it was guaranteed to lead to world peace, a chicken in every pot and a fluffy puppy for every child.

You have put an awful lot of words in my mouth in this post.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 10:03AM

murphaph wrote: »

If there's a 50% +1 referendum in the north then a referendum will be held in the south as per the terms of the GFA.

Personally I'd vote against it as the NI result would clearly show that nowhere near half of protestants were in favour and I wouldn't want to import that into my country.

You seem to be under some misapprehension here. There have to be 2 referendums, one north, one south. The southern electorate are not here to rubber stamp the decision of the northern electorate. The south gets the final say on unification.

I fully expect the terms of the GFA to be lived up to. I would consider two referendums that barely scrape over the line to be a big mistake akin to Brexit but if that happens there will be a UI of course, come hell or high taxes.

The vast majority of those people are democrats who have simply lost a vote.
Democrats get on with it when they lose a vote.

There will be elements who will react violently no matter how the vote goes probably.

How do you feel about being responsible for nationalist violence. by voting against a UI?

That is the recurring cyclical problem. Partition was the mistake.

tomwaterford · 31-12-2017 10:09AM

blanch152 wrote: »

So because we coped with a population increase of 1.3m in a time-period of 25 years, we have no problem coping with an increase of 2 million over 20 years. Strange logic that, yet you call other posts nonsensical?

This <2 million live in ireland already....it's not infrastructure has to be built for them

You appear to think they are going to abandon the 6 counties and immediately move south upon reunification. :pac: :pac:

It's not a population increase when they live in ireland already

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 10:32AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

Do you not grasp that it was eu membership swong that referendum....once it become clear they weren't gaurenteed eu membership in independance it was toast

Whereas the north will be back in the eu upon reunification....your being a bit obtuse and not comparing like with like??....

in fact there's every much as reason to believe any gaurentees and offers by the eu in weeks leading to such a referendum could cause the swing in favour of reunification??

Jawgap wrote: »

Really? Have you anything to back that up?

I only ask because the post-IndyRef Ashcroft focus groups suggested that EU membership was the lowest ranked issue for both Yes and No voters (12% and 15% respectively).

The three top issues for the No voters were the NHS, Sterling and pensions - fourth was concerns about public spending. Yes, people were concerned about the risk and uncertainty around continuing EU membership, but in the end nothing the EU could've done/said would've affected concerns around the NHS, Sterling and pensions. Is there any reason to think NI would not similarly rate these issues as critical?

But if you have other data showing "it was eu membership swong that referendum" perhaps you could post it?

Assuming that the reason no answer has been provided for this question is because the original statement was incorrect?

So it seems we either pony up the money (and grasp the various political nettles) necessary to make the HSE more like the NHS......and underwrite the value of people's pensions and mortgages (to buffer any impact changing from Sterling might have).......as well as take up the burden of paying most of the current fiscal transfer that keeps NI viable......in other words, we'd be writing a blank cheque to guarantee a UI would be economically acceptable to the NI electorate!!

What utter madness that would be......tossing away our hard won prosperity on such a project.

tomwaterford · 31-12-2017 10:35AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Assuming that the reason no answer has been provided for this question is because the original statement was incorrect?

So it seems we either pony up the money (and grasp the various political nettles) necessary to make the HSE more like the NHS......and underwrite the value of people's pensions and mortgages (to buffer any impact changing from Sterling might have).......as well as take up the burden of paying most of the current fiscal transfer that keeps NI viable......in other words, we'd be writing a blank cheque to guarantee a UI would be economically acceptable to the NI electorate!!

What utter madness that would be......tossing away our hard won prosperity on such a project.

Lolz....chill kid.....didn't see that

Why would we underwrite British pensions??

My grandmother had a pension from.being a nurse in England and its not underwritten.....yous are looking for issues where there are none tbh

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 10:39AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Assuming that the reason no answer has been provided for this question is because the original statement was incorrect?

So it seems we either pony up the money (and grasp the various political nettles) necessary to make the HSE more like the NHS......and underwrite the value of people's pensions and mortgages (to buffer any impact changing from Sterling might have).......as well as take up the burden of paying most of the current fiscal transfer that keeps NI viable......in other words, we'd be writing a blank cheque to guarantee a UI would be economically acceptable to the NI electorate!!

What utter madness that would be......tossing away our hard won prosperity on such a project.

So the terms have been decided have they? Must have missed that one.

I would expect that in a situation where you have a rational, frank and transparent debate (we don't know the exact expense of running northern Ireland as yet.) an orderly and comprehensive referendum, that there would be an orderly and rational transfer if the electorate say yes to a UI.
Terms like harmonisation of the two jurisdictions will then come to the fore.
Because it will be in the interests of Britain and Ireland that the result is successful then a rational conversation about costs and mitigation of those costs can be held.
And of course, what partitionists never want to talk about, the benefits of unification will also need looking at. Takes a bit of positivity and investment to get there, but there will be benefits.

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 10:51AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

Lolz....chill kid.....didn't see that

Why would we underwrite British pensions??

My grandmother had a pension from.being a nurse in England and its not underwritten.....yous are looking for issues where there are none tbh

Ok.....people in NI currently get their pensions in Sterling and pay for stuff in Sterling......a UI presumably means them adopting the Euro......brilliant if Sterling is strong, not so brilliant if Sterling is weak and you still have yo buy stuff in Euros.

So why vote for a UI?

And yes your gran's pension (along with various pensions paid to my family) are paid in Sterling, but here's the kicker......they chose to relocate here knowing full well nothing was going to be done as regards their pensions.

Why would someone living in NI, with no intention (or possibility of moving) vote for something that introduces serious uncertainty into their fixed income? Presumably, they'd want some incentive to vote in favour, such as a guarantee that the value of their pensions would be maintained......and who might be expected to give such a blanket guarantee? Can't see the Brits going for something unqusntifiable and open-ended as that......which leaves the Republic's taxpayers on the hook......again.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 10:54AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Ok.....people in NI currently get their pensions in Sterling and pay for stuff in Sterling......a UI presumably means them adopting the Euro......brilliant if Sterling is strong, not so brilliant if Sterling is weak and you still have yo buy stuff in Euros.

So why vote for a UI?

And yes your gran's pension (along with various pensions paid to my family) are paid in Sterling, but here's the kicker......they chose to relocate here knowing full well nothing was going to be done as regards their pensions.

Why would someone living in NI, with no intention (or possibility of moving) vote for something that introduces serious uncertainty into their fixed income? Presumably, they'd want some incentive to vote in favour, such as a guarantee that the value of their pensions would be maintained......and who might be expected to give such a blanket guarantee? Can't see the Brits going for something unqusntifiable and open-ended as that......which leaves the Republic's taxpayers on the hook......again.

Maybe if you looked at why they voted for Brexit you might find the answer? Sometimes it isn't just about the economy.

tomwaterford · 31-12-2017 10:55AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Ok.....people in NI currently get their pensions in Sterling and pay for stuff in Sterling......a UI presumably means them adopting the Euro......brilliant if Sterling is strong, not so brilliant if Sterling is weak and you still have yo buy stuff in Euros.

So why vote for a UI?

And yes your gran's pension (along with various pensions paid to my family) are paid in Sterling, but here's the kicker......they chose to relocate here knowing full well nothing was going to be done as regards their pension

And people voting in a united Ireland won't be choosing to rejoin with the free state

Sterling by its nature with brexit is going to be weaker anyways....otherwise how is it to trade globally exporting?? (Including into the eu)

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 10:57AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the terms have been decided have they? Must have missed that one.

I would expect that in a situation where you have a rational, frank and transparent debate (we don't know the exact expense of running northern Ireland as yet.) an orderly and comprehensive referendum, that there would be an orderly and rational transfer if the electorate say yes to a UI.
Terms like harmonisation of the two jurisdictions will then come to the fore.
Because it will be in the interests of Britain and Ireland that the result is successful then a rational conversation about costs and mitigation of those costs can be held.
And of course, what partitionists never want to talk about, the benefits of unification will also need looking at. Takes a bit of positivity and investment to get there, but there will be benefits.

Rational and NI are not two words that go together......seriously, look at Stormont! Or the "Marching Season" or the row over flegs......or even the visitor panels at the Giant's Causeway!

And we know the details of the fiscal transfer so we know, at least in ball park terms, that the place will cost us billions each year even assuming some reduction in services and a benign security situation. Even if it's "only" €2billion, there's a lot better and more worthwhile things to spend it on in 26 counties than there are in six.

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 10:59AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe if you looked at why they voted for Brexit you might find the answer? Sometimes it isn't just about the economy.

Well I used the IndyRef data because it's a lot more developed, but you feel free to use Brexit data.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 11:01AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Rational and NI are not two words that go together......seriously, look at Stormont! Or the "Marching Season" or the row over flegs......or even the visitor panels at the Giant's Causeway!

And we know the details of the fiscal transfer so we know, at least in ball park terms, that the place will cost us billions each year even assuming some reduction in services and a benign security situation. Even if it's "only" €2billion, there's a lot better and more worthwhile things to spend it on in 26 counties than there are in six.

And a unified country will have significant benefits, socially and economically in the medium to long term. Unless you think partition of a small island was a rational and sensible thing to do (the British didn't even believe that at the time)
Do you believe that by the way?

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 11:04AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

And people voting in a united Ireland won't be choosing to rejoin with the free state

Sterling by its nature with brexit is going to be weaker anyways....otherwise how is it to trade globally exporting?? (Including into the eu)

Indeed, so why would someone on a fixed income vote themselves out of the Sterling zone into the Eurozone? At a stroke they'd wreck their spending power (which often marginal anyway).

.....and come to think of it, if a weakened Sterling drives an export-led economic expansion why would anyone vote themselves out of that into the turmoil and uncertainty of a unification process and the business costs it would bring?

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 11:04AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I used the IndyRef data because it's a lot more developed, but you feel free to use Brexit data.

You were the one looking to make sense of why people would make a decdision that would negatively impact them economically.

We had a prominent poster here from the Unionist community trenchantly stating that they didn't mind a period of austerity after Brexit.

People don't always vote because of their pockets. That is as true for Ireland as it is anywhere else.

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 11:05AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And a unified country will have significant benefits, socially and economically in the medium to long term. Unless you think partition of a small island was a rational and sensible thing to do (the British didn't even believe that at the time)
Do you believe that by the way?

Such as??

and have you anything to back that up? (As you'd say yourself)

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 11:07AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Such as??

and have you anything to back that up? (As you'd say yourself)

Well once again i will refer you to Brexit and the impact of two jurisdictions on one small island and the consequences of that.
You would have to have been asleep to have missed the fear that caused.

tomwaterford · 31-12-2017 11:08AM

Jawgap wrote: »

....and come to think of it, if a weakened Sterling drives an export-led economic expansion why would anyone vote themselves out of that into the turmoil and uncertainty of a unification process and the business costs it would bring?

Unrestricrted Access to the eu??

(Of which the 6 counties didn't vote to leave)....come to think of it....havnt the brits just voted for a period of uncertainty and turmoil

Heres a hint The sterling lead economic expansion isn't going to come close to what the brexiter promised

.....and hopefully lead to break up and away of the rest of the countries in the uk

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 11:28AM

tomwaterford wrote: »

Unrestricrted Access to the eu??
(Of which the 6 counties didn't vote to leave)....come to think of it....havnt the brits just voted for a period of uncertainty and turmoil

Heres a hint The sterling lead economic expansion isn't going to come close to what the brexiter promised .....and hopefully lead to break up and away of the rest of the countries in the uk

You must not be involved in business, otherwise you'd understand the importance of market proximity.

Anyway, the bulk of the NI economy rests on public funding in one form or another, therefore the currency risk associated with UI cannot be discounted and it's one the Republic would have to carry.

And yes, we're on course for even greater economic divergence (currently the Republic's economy is forecast to grow at about 3 times the rate of NI's) - so why would even vote to bring NI into the Republic? It'd be like driving a Ferrari but then using it to tow a one-wheeled trailer!

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 11:42AM

Jawgap wrote: »

You must not be involved in business, otherwise you'd understand the importance of market proximity.

Anyway, the bulk of the NI economy rests on public funding in one form or another, therefore the currency risk associated with UI cannot be discounted and it's one the Republic would have to carry.

And yes, we're on course for even greater economic divergence (currently the Republic's economy is forecast to grow at about 3 times the rate of NI's) - so why would even vote to bring NI into the Republic? It'd be like driving a Ferrari but then using it to tow a one-wheeled trailer!

Looking at this from a solely economic point of view (when it is clear that people don't always do that) is like driving a Ferrari and ignoring all the other people using the road.

murphaph · 31-12-2017 12:36PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The vast majority of those people are democrats who have simply lost a vote.
Democrats get on with it when they lose a vote.

There will be elements who will react violently no matter how the vote goes probably.

How do you feel about being responsible for nationalist violence. by voting against a UI?

That is the recurring cyclical problem. Partition was the mistake.

I thought nationalists fully accepted the terms of the GFA? They supported it in far greater numbers than unionists.

Now you're telling me I better vote for a UI or Gerry will be off buying guns again?

Who will they bomb though? Constituencies in the south that voted no?

Lol.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 12:39PM

murphaph wrote: »

I thought nationalists fully accepted the terms of the GFA? They supported it in far greater numbers than unionists.

Now you're telling me I better vote for a UI or Gerry will be off buying guns again?

Who will they bomb though? Constituencies in the south that voted no?

Lol.

No, ALL nationalists did not accept the GFA. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of what happened on this island since the GFA would know that there is a fairly sizeable dissident nationalist community.

So the question remains. How do you feel about unleashing nationalist violence?

CelticRambler · 31-12-2017 01:40PM

Jawgap wrote: »

the turmoil and uncertainty of a unification process

:pac::pac::pac: What turmoil and uncertainty? You mean like UK's leap into a "strong and stable" Brexit? :rolleyes: Unification is already underway, whether the die-hards like it or not. In case you missed it, there are currently 142 areas of cross-border agreement that have to be accommodated in any Brexit scenario. Please point to the "turmoil and uncertainty" that this has created since the GFA, and explain why further re-unification would be so much worse.

Jawgap wrote: »

Anyway, the bulk of the NI economy rests on public funding in one form or another, therefore the currency risk associated with UI cannot be discounted and it's one the Republic would have to carry.

Same old argument "NI in UK is a mess because NI is a mess and if we clean up the mess by taking it out of UK it'll still be a mess because ... uhhhh, because ... it's a mess?"

Anyone who's ever had any dealings with public funding knows that the demand for subventions expands to meet the funds likely to be given. Take away that "revenue stream" and you inevitably see more innovation and better productivity.

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 02:03PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac: What turmoil and uncertainty? You mean like UK's leap into a "strong and stable" Brexit? :rolleyes: Unification is already underway, whether the die-hards like it or not. In case you missed it, there are currently 142 areas of cross-border agreement that have to be accommodated in any Brexit scenario. Please point to the "turmoil and uncertainty" that this has created since the GFA, and explain why further re-unification would be so much worse.

Same old argument "NI in UK is a mess because NI is a mess and if we clean up the mess by taking it out of UK it'll still be a mess because ... uhhhh, because ... it's a mess?"
Anyone who's ever had any dealings with public funding knows that the demand for subventions expands to meet the funds likely to be given. Take away that "revenue stream" and you inevitably see more innovation and better productivity.

Even if everything was hunky-dory, and the economic, social and political landscapes were benign, there would still be huge disruption. For example, the cost of converting accounting, payment and banking systems over to the Euro.....real costs for any and everyone and every organisation, SME, etc involved in handling or processing cash.

NI is a mess because of the people who live there.......if they want to persist they in voting tribally then they shouldn't be that surprised when tribal politics dominates and governance breaks down over issues as trivial as language acts, flegs and who gets to march where and when.

I'd say they need to sort themselves out, wean there selves off the public teat and get their society on a converging path with the Republic if they want a UI, rather than simply expecting us to pick up the tab once Whitehall have, no doubt gladly, washed their hands of the place.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 02:09PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Even if everything was hunky-dory, and the economic, social and political landscapes were benign, there would still be huge disruption. For example, the cost of converting accounting, payment and banking systems over to the Euro.....real costs for any and everyone and every organisation, SME, etc involved in handling or processing cash.

NI is a mess because of the people who live there.......if they want to persist they in voting tribally then they shouldn't be that surprised when tribal politics dominates and governance breaks down over issues as trivial as language acts, flegs and who gets to march where and when.

I'd say they need to sort themselves out, wean there selves off the public teat and get their society on a converging path with the Republic if they want a UI, rather than simply expecting us to pick up the tab once Whitehall have, no doubt gladly, washed their hands of the place.

Northern Ireland is not a mess, to the extent that it is all that different from elsewhere. It runs on a daily basis everything that we have here.

And that is what 'harmonisation' would do. Solve all the issues you are talking about.
Nobody is talking about or advocating for a chaotic process. All these things can be achieved by two governments who want the outcome of a successful UI.
And those two governments exist. There is no evidence that the British want anything other than an orderly handover in the event of a majority vote.
The GFA achieved that. 'No outside impediments' etc etc.

jm08 · 31-12-2017 02:22PM

psinno wrote: »

Democracy is all about imposition.

Or as Oscar Wilde put it:
''Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.''

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 02:23PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern Ireland is not a mess, to the extent that it is all that different from elsewhere. It runs on a daily basis everything that we have here.

And that is what 'harmonisation' would do. Solve all the issues you are talking about.
Nobody is talking about or advocating for a chaotic process. All these things can be achieved by two governments who want the outcome of a successful UI.
And those two governments exist. There is no evidence that the British want anything other than an orderly handover in the event of a majority vote.
The GFA achieved that. 'No outside impediments' etc etc.

Harmonisation simply means Merrion Street taking over from Whitehall or the provider of welfare support.

And yes, it is a mess......EY in their recent report forecast that there'd be 144000 jobs created on the island of Ireland in 2018.......139000 in the Republic. (EDIT: correction, those figures cover 2018 and 2019, not just 2018).

They also discussed how the absence of a functioning government was stymieing economic growth. Why? Because NI is so reliant on public funding the absence of a functioning assembly was restricting the flow of money into the economy to the extent that it was strangling economic growth potential.

We're working away back to a decent level of economic performance why would we want to shackle ourselves to such a delinquent entity as NI and carry the funding responsibilities that would entail?

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments