Costs of Irish unification.

Carlos Orange · 31-12-2017 06:25PM

jm08 wrote: »

The 10 bn is just a guess. It doesn't take into account for the contributions that NI make to the UK budget (such as Military, Monachy etc which would not apply in a united Ireland.

I think the monarchy costs about a pound per person. UK military spending is about 1000 times higher. 10 billion is 5500 pound per person.

Ireland does have an army btw just a much less expensive one.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 08:34PM

blanch152 wrote: »

This is simply nonsense with the "tax pool" being the latest incarnation of the magic money tree.

There is a €9 billion subvention to Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK that has to be replaced.

Public service salaries, social welfare rates etc. in the North are lower and will have to be increased. That could be another few billion.

There is no "tax pool" to pay for this, the money will have to be found from Southern taxpayers or Northern taxpayers and from cuts to public service pay and social welfare rates in the South. This is simple maths and simple economics. This will mean that most people in this country will have to make a financial sacrifice for Irish unity.

You spectacularly misread the post there.

I never said that it will come out of the 'existing' tax pool. There will indeed have to be a bigger tax pool.

When we find out the breakdown of what is in the 9bn - 10bn (and did we hear 12bn fund in the scaremongering), we will know what can be written down in that figure and what NI actually generates.
We also need to know what a unified island can create fiscally not to mention the removal for all time of what has caused division and conflict on that island.

It will be quite a hard argument to win by scaremongering alone...gird thy loins lads and lassies and Happy New Year.

FrancieBrady · 31-12-2017 08:50PM

noodler wrote: »

Wishy washy hopeful nonsense.

What is 'wishy washy' about pointing out what you do not know?
You have no idea what that 9-10-11ty-70bn is made up of or what NI generates.

It really will be a fault line in the anti UI argument if you cannot come up with better than scaring people or trying to.

Jawgap · 31-12-2017 09:10PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

What mediaeval village do you live in?

All banking and payment processing is done by computers these days, and at most the cost for a small business will be buried in their next software upgrade. I had my own business in the south-eastern UK when the exchange rates for Euro/legacy currencies were fixed. It took one phone call to my software provider to upgrade our till interface so as to be able to accept payments in any Euro-legacy cash that my clients wanted to dispose of.

Every account in NI already has an IBAN, so payments will move on Day UI+1 exactly as they did on UI-1.

Every aspect of re-unification/conversion/harmonisation has already taken place somewhere in Europe in the last twenty or thirty years - many of them in Ireland - so there are plenty of examples upon which to base a transition. And many changes will fit into periodic maintenance and/or review cycles in any case, e.g. changing road-signs to km/h.

... and again and again and again: the same wacky justification "NI as part of the UK is an economic mess, so if we dramatically change that situation by taking it out of the UK, nothing will change because ... just because."

Why are you so convinced that the Republic's agencies, whose job-creation efforts are so successful compared to those in other EU countries, will look at six "new counties" post-UI and say "Nah, feck 'em, let's stick with Leitrim"

Funny thing is I worked with a firm involved in Punt/Euro transition projects......we made a fortune carrying out audits and other due diligence activities. Unfortunately I'm not involved with that line of work any more, but my own experience was that costs were not insignificant, even if at the client interface things seemed seamless.

31-12-2017 10:36PM

murphaph wrote: »

I don't believe a UI is for the greater good. It just never bothered me all that much.

You can be honest though (like you give me credit for) and state for the record that you would still vote for a UI even if you believed there would be a bombing or two in Dublin over it. Can you do that?

I think this is an important point, and probably worth a thread of it's own.

How much does an UI bother the normal person in the republic ?

I don't think there is much feeling of guilt from people in the republic about the perception that nationalis were left behind in 1921.

Obviously they were treated as second class citizens until very recently but I think the GFA has allowed many of us in the south to just ignore NI.

So I'm not sure if a few bombs for the sake of a UI would be in any way acceptable in the south

Sidey · 31-12-2017 11:32PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think this is an important point, and probably worth a thread of it's own.

How much does an UI bother the normal person in the republic ?

Don't we pretty much have a good guess at that from the poll? Ya know the one an entire four days ago?
When asked if they were in favour of a UI even if it cost 9bn euros a year the results were

47% in favour
32% against
22% don't know

I think we can probably fairly safely assume the 22% Don't Knows are the people who simply genuinely don't give a damn about the subject - in marked contrast to some of the posters here who loudly, endlessly, claim to not care, yet spend endless hours fulminating against the very idea

. The likely answer to the question "how many people genuinely don't care about a UI at all" is actually "very few, and most of those don't really care about anything"

Of course there's also the obvious point that on any political subject you are going to get 20-30% of the population who know little and care less about anything. The kind of people who never bother voting, no matter what the issues of the day are. In fact no Constitutional Referendum in the last 20 years has got more than 59% turnout, including major/controversial ones like the GFA, Same Sex Marriage and Citizenship referendums.

The real question is not "who cares" but rather, of the 79% who expressed a definite opinion in that poll, just how entrenched are their views (on both sides), how many can be persuaded by rational argument to switch sides, and how many of them are actually likely to bother voting on the day - because as pointed out the history of referenda suggests maybe 19% of those 79% won't actually bother voting on the day.

We're just coming out of a period where the whole issue of the north and the border was the primary focus of the entire Government because of the potentially disastrous consequences of the Brexit nonsense, yet we still have people loudly shouting that "nobody cares and it's nothing to do with us" :ermm:

eire4 · 31-12-2017 11:54PM

Certainly Belfast currently runs at a large deficit subsidized by London at least for now although I suspect that one of the side effects of brexit will be a gradual shrinking of that subsidy from London.
Certainly there will have to be some very careful work done financially in terms of Irish unification. But I really do not see us being left out on a limb on this one all alone having to pay and figure it all out ourselves. I think the EU for sure will be willing to help in the short term to get things stabilized. On top of that there certainly would be savings in the elimination of various tasks that are currently duplicated but obviously would not need to be at various different levels of government.

blanch152 · 01-01-2018 08:38PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You spectacularly misread the post there.

I never said that it will come out of the 'existing' tax pool. There will indeed have to be a bigger tax pool.

When we find out the breakdown of what is in the 9bn - 10bn (and did we hear 12bn fund in the scaremongering), we will know what can be written down in that figure and what NI actually generates.
We also need to know what a unified island can create fiscally not to mention the removal for all time of what has caused division and conflict on that island.

It will be quite a hard argument to win by scaremongering alone...gird thy loins lads and lassies and Happy New Year.

Not necessarily a bigger tax pool, social welfare cuts could pay for it.

A unified island will not necessarily create anything fiscally, other than a black hole that costs more.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 09:59AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Not necessarily a bigger tax pool, social welfare cuts could pay for it.

A unified island will not necessarily create anything fiscally, other than a black hole that costs more.

How would there not be a bigger tax pool?

Is your stance that NI raises no taxes?

Of course there will be a bigger tax pool, there will also be bigger bills, but as yet we don't know what they will be and how much they will cost.

Jawgap · 02-01-2018 10:18AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How would there not be a bigger tax pool?

Is your stance that NI raises no taxes?

Of course there will be a bigger tax pool, there will also be bigger bills, but as yet we don't know what they will be and how much they will cost.

NI doesn't wash its face - the taxes raised don't cover the cost of the services provided. But don't take my word for it, according to the NI Assembly Research and Information Service

Northern Ireland (NI) receives a sizeable fiscal transfer from the United Kingdom (UK) Government. In other words, considerably more is spent on public services than is raised in revenue. NI therefore relies on taxpayers elsewhere in the UK. Fiscal transfers from national government to sub-national regions are commonplace; they are intended to help redress variances in local economic performance.

.....if it relies on other UK taxpayers picking up their tab, it's reasonable to assume that in a UI we, the Republic's taxpayers, will have to pick up the bill......and there's a lot fewer of us compared to the UK.

Incidentally, ARIS also notes

....the estimated level of fiscal transfer from the UK Government to NI. In total it was estimated at £9.2 billion in 2013-14 – equivalent to £5,000 more spent on services than was raised in revenue for every person in NI

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 10:27AM

Jawgap wrote: »

NI doesn't wash its face - the taxes raised don't cover the cost of the services provided. But don't take my word for it, according to the NI Assembly Research and Information Service

.....if it relies on other UK taxpayers picking up their tab, it's reasonable to assume that in a UI we, the Republic's taxpayers, will have to pick up the bill......and there's a lot fewer of us compared to the UK.

Incidentally, ARIS also notes

We know that and it wasn't the point I was making.

NI raises taxes, when they are added to taxes in the south the tax pool gets bigger.

What we need to know is how much it costs to actually run northern Ireland. What savings can be made and what the unified whole has the potential to do.

You, no more than I, have no idea what the totals are in that and how much extra will have to be raised.

Simple as that and that is why the 'scaremongering' is already undermining your arguments.

Sam Russell · 02-01-2018 10:34AM

If NI joins so that we have a united Ireland, will there be any cost savings as a result? For example, will the VAT system or the income tax or corporation tax collection be more efficient so that savings will occur? Will the health system be more efficient, so that the cost to run it will be less?

Will there be economic benefits as NI purchasing gets diverted to suppliers south of the (current) border? Will the IDA get FDI to go north?

It is these matters that will make a success of a UI not whether the UK continues to pony up.

I would imagine Donegal and Leitrim are both significant net recipients of funds from the Irish Gov, but that is not a major issue politically. If Belfast gets a huge raft of FDI that causes it to become a major player on the island, then the figures will change.

Jawgap · 02-01-2018 10:35AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We know that and it wasn't the point I was making.

NI raises taxes, when they are added to taxes in the south the tax pool gets bigger.

What we need to know is how much it costs to actually run northern Ireland. What savings can be made and what the unified whole has the potential to do.

You, no more than I, have no idea what the totals are in that and how much extra will have to be raised.

Simple as that and that is why the 'scaremongering' is already undermining your arguments.

NI is not tax generative (and hasn't been since the 1930s), hence my quoting of the per capita cost.

They may bring in more taxes, but they also bring in greater funding liabilities, thus they'd be a significant drag on our economy as we're smaller then the UK one.

Northern Ireland public spending highest in UK - £14,020 per head

Ulster University's Esmond Birnie said: "Tuesday's figures from the ONS confirm this. Northern Ireland has a relatively high level of public spending and also a relatively low level of tax raised.

"By implication there is a gap which can only be made up by a substantial fiscal transfer from the Exchequer, about £10bn annually over each of the last three years according to the ONS data.

"We should not underestimate how important this fiscal transfer is to the Northern Ireland economy - it has always dwarfed any net transfer of EU funds into the region and if the transfer was not available there would be a massive slump in both private and public sector activity.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 10:37AM

Jawgap wrote: »

NI is not tax generative (and hasn't been since the 1930s), hence my quoting of the per capita cost.

They may bring in more taxes, but they also bring in greater funding liabilities, thus they'd be a significant drag on our economy as we're smaller then the UK one.

Northern Ireland public spending highest in UK - £14,020 per head

And that would have a negative impact if we were to drive up the M1 and take it all over tomorrow. That is not what is going to happen though and can you quit the silly scaremongering about a sudden swamping of the exchequer.

Carlos Orange · 02-01-2018 10:42AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Will the health system be more efficient, so that the cost to run it will be less?

The NI health system will presumably get less efficient as it wont have the bulk purchasing power of the NHS.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 10:44AM

psinno wrote: »

The NI health system will presumably get less efficient as it wont have the bulk purchasing power of the NHS.

Surely those who envy the NHS would be glad to have so many experienced in operating it coming into our system. That would be a good thing, no?

Jawgap · 02-01-2018 10:59AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And that would have a negative impact if we were to drive up the M1 and take it all over tomorrow. That is not what is going to happen though and can you quit the silly scaremongering about a sudden swamping of the exchequer.

Indeed it would.....so let's say the cost of unification is going to be met by a combination of savings and tax rises.

Even if you get 20% as 'free savings' and some kind of unification dividend, that still leaves an stg£8 billion hole to be plugged - through us paying more taxes and NI accepting serious cuts to services......

Sustaining Northern standard of living is a costly exercise

United Ireland not possible if South has to pick up bill for subsidised Northern economy

Digging a bit deeper into the data, it becomes clear that this difference in living standards does not arise from differences in household consumption – Ireland and Northern Ireland are at similar levels.

It is in the sphere of public services, such as health and education, that there is a striking difference between Northern Ireland and the Republic. In Northern Ireland expenditure on public services is much more generous than in the UK as a whole. Compared to the Republic, spending on public services in the North per head is more than 50 per cent more generous, notwithstanding that social welfare benefits are typically lower per head.

While some of this is accounted for by substantially higher expenditure on security, and having parallel state and denominational educational systems, it still reflects a much more generous provision of public goods than in Ireland, but also than in the rest of the UK. The National Health Service is one of the most visible differences compared to the South.

This elevated standard of living in Northern Ireland is funded by a very large transfer from government in London. In 2013-14 this transfer amounted to more than a quarter of Northern Ireland’s GDP.

blanch152 · 02-01-2018 11:04AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We know that and it wasn't the point I was making.

NI raises taxes, when they are added to taxes in the south the tax pool gets bigger.

What we need to know is how much it costs to actually run northern Ireland. What savings can be made and what the unified whole has the potential to do.

You, no more than I, have no idea what the totals are in that and how much extra will have to be raised.

Simple as that and that is why the 'scaremongering' is already undermining your arguments.

Wait a minute, you don't understand. Everyone who has written about this accepts that there is at least a €9 billion subsidy hole to be filled - even the opinion poll being trumpeted around here postulated that.

What that means is that the taxes raised in Northern Ireland are less than the expenditure in Northern Ireland by €9 billion.

There is absolutely no way that a unified Ireland will result in savings, that just won't happen unless you are prepared to say that there will be public service pay cuts or cuts in social welfare rates. There are currently different rates in both of those, most of the ones in the North are below those in the South, and these will have to be equalised after unification. Equalising downwards means cuts and savings, equalising upwards means increased taxation and that the €9 billion is only a starting point.

We all know that there won't be cuts so the unknown question is how much more than the €9 billion will unification cost. That isn't scaremongering, it is simply realpolitik and simple maths.

We haven't even got on to how much extra the NHS arrangements cost in the North. Will we all get free GP care in the South? Or will people in the North have to pay for their GP? Cuts or costs?

It is up to those who favour unity to actually come clean on these choices and explain them to people. Claiming that the magic money tax pool tree will pay for it all or that there will be savings from unification just won't wash in a referendum campaign. People will see through the bluster.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 11:05AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Indeed it would.....so let's say the cost of unification is going to be met by a combination of savings and tax rises.

Even if you get 20% as 'free savings' and some kind of unification dividend, that still leaves an stg£8 billion hole to be plugged - through us paying more taxes and NI accepting serious cuts to services......

Sustaining Northern standard of living is a costly exercise

Still with the scaremongering.

You do not have a clue what the final bill will be or what can be done to lessen it by two governments working together to make a success of unification for a number of years.

You can stop trying to scare me and others, it patently is not working.

blanch152 · 02-01-2018 11:08AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Indeed it would.....so let's say the cost of unification is going to be met by a combination of savings and tax rises.

Even if you get 20% as 'free savings' and some kind of unification dividend, that still leaves an stg£8 billion hole to be plugged - through us paying more taxes and NI accepting serious cuts to services......

Sustaining Northern standard of living is a costly exercise

What is even more scary from that article - and it is written by an independent Irish economic expert, not a hired SF gun - is that it shows the true cost.

"However, somewhat bizarrely, a central assumption of the study was that “unification would require that this deficit be financed and assumed by the Republic of Ireland”. Such a blithe assumption takes no account of the sheer magnitude of the funding gap in Northern Ireland – in 2013-14 it amounted to the equivalent of about 8 per cent of GNP in the Republic.

For Ireland to fund such a deficit through raising taxes would require a repeat of the austerity of the past seven years, reducing Irish GNP by at least 6 per cent and household consumption in the Republic by almost 15 per cent.

These sacrifices would be required to maintain the standard of living in Northern Ireland, which is already higher than in the Republic. Such an imposition on the population of the Republic would not be possible politically or economically.

The alternative scenario, where Northern Ireland would balance its own budget, would require dramatically greater cuts in the standard of living in Northern Ireland, something that would cause massive pain for the people who chose to stay there."

This is the binary hard choice I keep referring to, and which advocates of unity repeatedly avoid.

Jawgap · 02-01-2018 11:19AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still with the scaremongering.

You do not have a clue what the final bill will be or what can be done to lessen it by two governments working together to make a success of unification for a number of years.

You can stop trying to scare me and others, it patently is not working.

Scaremongering? I'm just quoting sources but if you want to identify ARIS, QUB, and the ESRI as scaremongerers, then go ahead.

Fact is NI runs a serious budget deficit of about 30% which led to its economy being described, using PWC data, as "....one of the least productive in the developed world."

As Fitzgerald pointed out in the linked article above......

For Ireland to fund such a deficit through raising taxes would require a repeat of the austerity of the past seven years, reducing Irish GNP by at least 6 per cent and household consumption in the Republic by almost 15 per cent.

These sacrifices would be required to maintain the standard of living in Northern Ireland, which is already higher than in the Republic. Such an imposition on the population of the Republic would not be possible politically or economically.

The alternative scenario, where Northern Ireland would balance its own budget, would require dramatically greater cuts in the standard of living in Northern Ireland, something that would cause massive pain for the people who chose to stay there.

People might like the idea of a UI (I certainly do) but in either jurisdiction are they going to vote back voluntary austerity?

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 11:23AM

blanch152 wrote: »

What is even more scary from that article - and it is written by an independent Irish economic expert, not a hired SF gun - is that it shows the true cost.

"However, somewhat bizarrely, a central assumption of the study was that “unification would require that this deficit be financed and assumed by the Republic of Ireland”. Such a blithe assumption takes no account of the sheer magnitude of the funding gap in Northern Ireland – in 2013-14 it amounted to the equivalent of about 8 per cent of GNP in the Republic.

For Ireland to fund such a deficit through raising taxes would require a repeat of the austerity of the past seven years, reducing Irish GNP by at least 6 per cent and household consumption in the Republic by almost 15 per cent.

These sacrifices would be required to maintain the standard of living in Northern Ireland, which is already higher than in the Republic. Such an imposition on the population of the Republic would not be possible politically or economically.

The alternative scenario, where Northern Ireland would balance its own budget, would require dramatically greater cuts in the standard of living in Northern Ireland, something that would cause massive pain for the people who chose to stay there."

This is the binary hard choice I keep referring to, and which advocates of unity repeatedly avoid.

FG allegedly turned a broken southern economy around in 7 years, what if that was the time period for a transition to a UI and TWO governments worked to turn around the northern Irish economy...before a hand over?

Maybe what that 'independent Irish economic expert' said in another of his articles could be achieved?

The scale of continuing transfers from London represented a major opportunity for the new devolved administration when it took office. With the end of the Troubles facilitating the possibility of real growth in private-sector employment, much of this funding could have been used to rapidly develop the Northern economy, rendering it less dependent on London.

I.E. These problems can be overcome. And everybody is aware it may require some pain to do it.
But who doesn't experience some pain when you are investing?

Jawgap · 02-01-2018 11:30AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG allegedly turned a broken southern economy around in 7 years, what if that was the time period for a transition to a UI and TWO governments worked to turn around the northern Irish economy...before a hand over?

Maybe what that 'independent Irish economic expert' said in another of his articles could be achieved?

I.E. These problems can be overcome. And everybody is aware it may require some pain to do it.
But who doesn't experience some pain when you are investing?

Seriously?

Your formula for funding unification involves repeating the last 7 years of austerity!!!! Can't wait to the slogan for that, maybe something along the lines of "It wasn't as bad as you remember."

NI's problems are serious and systemic......they don't even have a functioning government and even when they do it lapses into dysfunction far too often. Put it this way NI makes Greece look like sober, mature fiscal conservatives......

Deficit-Comparison-630x324.png?resize=630%2C324

Deficit-Comparison-630x324.png?resize=630%2C324

Carlos Orange · 02-01-2018 11:30AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG allegedly turned a broken southern economy around in 7 years, what if that was the time period for a transition to a UI and TWO governments worked to turn around the northern Irish economy...before a hand over?

Good idea. Lets hold the referendum after the NI economy is fixed. Should only take a few months.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe what that 'independent Irish economic expert' said in another of his articles could be achieved?

'
The scale of continuing transfers from London represented a major opportunity for the new devolved administration when it took office. With the end of the Troubles facilitating the possibility of real growth in private-sector employment, much of this funding could have been used to rapidly develop the Northern economy, rendering it less dependent on London'

I.E. These problems can be overcome. And everybody is aware it may require some pain to do it.
But who doesn't experience some pain when you are investing?

The subsidy was much lower during the troubles. It seems rather than receiving a piece dividend peace has required massive subsidies to maintain.

http://www.factcheckni.org/facts/how-dependent-is-stormont-on-westminster-subvention/

Carlos Orange · 02-01-2018 11:36AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I.E. These problems can be overcome. And everybody is aware it may require some pain to do it.
But who doesn't experience some pain when you are investing?

Just for context the pain would be roughly equivalent to changing the standard rate of vat to 40%.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 11:38AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously?

Your formula for funding unification involves repeating the last 7 years of austerity!!!! Can't wait to the slogan for that, maybe something along the lines of "It wasn't as bad as you remember."

NI's problems are serious and systemic......they don't even have a functioning government and even when they do it lapses into dysfunction far too often. Put it this way NI makes Greece look like sober, mature fiscal conservatives......

Economies can be fixed Jawgap. Nobody said anything about repeating the last 7 years of anything. Please take your foot off the scare pedal.

An open transparent debate on this with the experts (which aren't random people on the internet plucking random figures of google for selective purposes) will tell us the scale of the problems and I am confident there is enough expertise and will to solve them.

As to the routine collapse of political governance in northern Ireland. That problem would be resolved practically overnight come a UI. A win for everybody but those who want to cling to power and deny equal rights for their own bigoted suprematist reasons.

Jawgap · 02-01-2018 11:38AM

psinno wrote: »

Good idea. Lets hold the referendum after the NI economy is fixed. Should only take a few months.

The subsidy was much lower during the troubles. It seems rather than receiving a piece dividend peace has required massive subsidies to maintain.

http://www.factcheckni.org/facts/how-dependent-is-stormont-on-westminster-subvention/

Indeed, if SF want a UI they should get back into government and start the serious process of economic reform......get their deficit down to something approaching ours, then agitate for a border poll. That would negate any economic argument.

But just as the Unionists want to keep NI firmly latched on Whitehall's teat, SF want to keep people down because a burgeoning middle class won't vote for them. So none of the main parties are in anyway incentivised to anything to improve the economic lot of NI.

blanch152 · 02-01-2018 11:46AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Economies can be fixed Jawgap. Nobody said anything about repeating the last 7 years of anything. Please take your foot off the scare pedal.

An open transparent debate on this with the experts (which aren't random people on the internet plucking random figures of google for selective purposes) will tell us the scale of the problems and I am confident there is enough expertise and will to solve them.

As to the routine collapse of political governance in northern Ireland. That problem would be resolved practically overnight come a UI. A win for everybody but those who want to cling to power and deny equal rights for their own bigoted suprematist reasons.

Fine Gael fixed the Irish economy with the most severe austerity we have ever seen. Fixing unification requires a repeat on the same scale - just ask the Germans about what they went true, and that was without a black hole of an outside subvention from London.

None of this is scaremongering, it is simply the truth about the real cost of unification. It is very important that this is out in the open so that when we have something like social wefare solidarity levies and a new USC, people understand that this is what they voted for.

oscarBravo · 02-01-2018 12:08PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Please take your foot off the scare pedal.

Dismissing other people's rational concerns as scaremongering - where have we heard that before?

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 12:08PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Fine Gael fixed the Irish economy with the most severe austerity we have ever seen. Fixing unification requires a repeat on the same scale - just ask the Germans about what they went true, and that was without a black hole of an outside subvention from London.

None of this is scaremongering, it is simply the truth about the real cost of unification. It is very important that this is out in the open so that when we have something like social wefare solidarity levies and a new USC, people understand that this is what they voted for.

Imagine if somebody had said to FG,
'we are going to take measures to fix the economy by doing X, Y, Z, but at no point will there need to be kneejerk, socially disruptive measures because we have time here.
We will take increasing amounts of the subvention already paid and we will invest it in areas that will need to be bolstered and functioning properly when we hand over to you,(What your 'economic expert pointed out was the failure) because we need a UI to be a success, the last thing we need is a political and social failure in northern Ireland again'?

Britain, in other words, gets the finger out, fixes the problems that everyone knows exists and it doesn't cost them anymore than the subvention that already is being lost?
We have already seen that FG are capable of 'fixing' economies, so i am sure they will have loads of advise and expertise to offer.

That would be the investment attraction for the British - that one day there would be no need for a subvention at all. What is not attractive about that?

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments