Costs of Irish unification.

murphaph · 02-01-2018 02:40PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you will agree (you can hardly backtrack after that glowing report on us) that 'investment' can work?

And I think that is how the majority of Irish people will see a UI - an 'investment' that will pay off later. Just like the other member states in the EU saw us.

Heck, with us in the EU together (the south and the north) they may even 'invest' again to make it a success.

You're massively overstating the importance of EU structural funds to Ireland's economic success. The most important reason by far for that success was simply the access to the single market. NI had that too, for exactly the same amount of time.

NI has been pumped full of money, much more money than Ireland, for decades and still it's an economic basket case.

Sam Russell · 02-01-2018 02:53PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Lines on a map don't change economics. Just as partition didn't cause an economic collapse in Northern Ireland, neither will unification magic away the fiscal deficit in the North.

That is simply not true.

If I have to cross a border that I do not want to cross, the I do not cross it. If the line on a map denotes a change in currency or changes in tax, then I will keep my side to reduce any problems that are created by the different currency or a different tax rate.

It is noticeable that NI buys considerably less from ROI than the ROI buys from NI. That may be choice or it might be price. If it is choice, then that would go in a UI, and price differences would tend to equalise.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 03:44PM

murphaph wrote: »

You're massively overstating the importance of EU structural funds to Ireland's economic success. The most important reason by far for that success was simply the access to the single market. NI had that too, for exactly the same amount of time.

NI has been pumped full of money, much more money than Ireland, for decades and still it's an economic basket case.

Yes, if you pump money into a failed statelet then why would you be suprised that it fails to have any effect?

As the 'expert' du jour, McWilliams says it is just throwing more money into the junkie's pram.

We are fast approaching a crossroads in regard to a UI and FG and FF, SF and all of the other parties in the south will be fully behind ways of making a UI work and so will Britain and the EU.
That will be a massive combined force.
The only people against it will be The DUP and people like yourself.

murphaph · 02-01-2018 05:27PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, if you pump money into a failed statelet then why would you be suprised that it fails to have any effect?

As the 'expert' du jour, McWilliams says it is just throwing more money into the junkie's pram.

We are fast approaching a crossroads in regard to a UI and FG and FF, SF and all of the other parties in the south will be fully behind ways of making a UI work and so will Britain and the EU.
That will be a massive combined force.
The only people against it will be The DUP and people like yourself.

So you accept that NI is a junkie that needs weaning off the cash drug. That's hard austerity you're advocating, right?

If there is easy public money available there is no incentive to grow the private sector. You need to use the stick of austerity.

As another poster said, why not let the UK do that before unification?

Jawgap · 02-01-2018 06:37PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

If a UI comes about as a result of a border poll under the GFA, then no UK debt comes with it. Under the terms, as I understand it, the UI will not carry debt from the UK. There is no provision for it.

Also, I would expect that the UK will be happy to continue the current level of subvention for a limited period of 5 to 10 years, in the hope of getting rid of it in the longer term.

Now Scotland is another case altogether.

Well you probably need to have a word with Edgar Morgenroth at the ESRI because he seems to regard as enough of a possibility as to be worthy of including in his analysis.....

A united Ireland would be worse off than the Republic

If UK debt were apportioned on a per capita basis, then this would add over €64 billion to the Irish debt.

However, as the UK per capita debt is lower than that of Ireland, the per capita debt of a united Ireland would be lower than that of Ireland.

Of course, Whitehall might argue that Northern Ireland, where public expenditure far exceeds tax revenue, has been responsible for a disproportionate share of UK debt, and would therefore push for a larger share of this liability to be transferred to a united Ireland.

In this respect there are a lot of similarities with German reunification, where East Germany was economically less developed than West Germany, and thus needed significant subsidies from West Germany.

Therefore, in a united Ireland, per capita GDP would be 11 per cent lower than the current national average in Ireland.

Sounds like a great idea, economically speaking, for us to take on NI, or as he observes......

A united Ireland is largely a political issue, but one with serious economic implications.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 06:39PM

murphaph wrote: »

So you accept that NI is a junkie that needs weaning off the cash drug. That's hard austerity you're advocating, right?

If there is easy public money available there is no incentive to grow the private sector. You need to use the stick of austerity.

As another poster said, why not let the UK do that before unification?

It was me that said let the two governments make the changes necessary. There will be no pressure on them to do that, and no extra costs to the British. Highly attractive politically for them.
Ten years to sort out a bloated public service wouldn't be that difficult while encouraging the private sector and rationalising and streamlining all the services.
There doesn't need to be painful austerity to ring the changes. Contrary to the pessimistic, or is it, partitionist view.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 06:41PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well you probably need to have a word with Edgar Morgenroth at the ESRI because he seems to regard as enough of a possibility as to be worthy of including in his analysis.....

A united Ireland would be worse off than the Republic

Sounds like a great idea, economically speaking, for us to take on NI, or as he observes......

Did you miss the 'if' at the start of that?

Sam Russell · 02-01-2018 06:45PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well you probably need to have a word with Edgar Morgenroth at the ESRI because he seems to regard as enough of a possibility as to be worthy of including in his analysis.....

A united Ireland would be worse off than the Republic

Sounds like a great idea, economically speaking, for us to take on NI, or as he observes......

There is no provision for transferring the UK national debt to Ireland via a border poll held under the GFA.

What happened in 1922? Did the Free State take on any debt in 1922? Did the Republic of Ireland take on any debt in 1948?

You quote does not state that we would have to take on any UK National Debt, he says that if we had to then .....

I think it is a non starter. Why would Britain not want to get rid of a huge hole in their finances? The amount involved would be quite small in the overall picture.

Jawgap · 02-01-2018 07:06PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is no provision for transferring the UK national debt to Ireland via a border poll held under the GFA.

What happened in 1922? Did the Free State take on any debt in 1922? Did the Republic of Ireland take on any debt in 1948?

You quote does not state that we would have to take on any UK National Debt, he says that if we had to then .....

I think it is a non starter. Why would Britain not want to get rid of a huge hole in their finances? The amount involved would be quite small in the overall picture.

Hey, I'm just quoting sources. If you have an issue with the analysis take it up with Dr. Morgenroth.

Personally, I think the rest of the UK will be glad to see the back of NI and at the current rate of subvention, five years of not paying it should cover any debt that might have otherwise transferred with them.

Without them having to fund NI there'll be more for the other regions.....

Carlos Orange · 02-01-2018 07:15PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is no provision for transferring the UK national debt to Ireland via a border poll held under the GFA.

What happened in 1922? Did the Free State take on any debt in 1922? Did the Republic of Ireland take on any debt in 1948?

Ireland took on a share of the debt. There was a scuffle about some stuff latter on and a trade war so I'm not sure if it was paid off. The way national debt works I wouldn't be surprised if we're were still paying it off.

"The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof and towards the payment of War Pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claim on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire"

blanch152 · 02-01-2018 09:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was me that said let the two governments make the changes necessary. There will be no pressure on them to do that, and no extra costs to the British. Highly attractive politically for them.
Ten years to sort out a bloated public service wouldn't be that difficult while encouraging the private sector and rationalising and streamlining all the services.
There doesn't need to be painful austerity to ring the changes. Contrary to the pessimistic, or is it, partitionist view.

No, let the nationalist majority in the Assembly when it comes around make the unpopular decisions. Show that they can govern properly and that the people of Northern Ireland can accept the austerity necessary to unite the country.

No free pass on that one.

murphaph · 02-01-2018 09:14PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was me that said let the two governments make the changes necessary. There will be no pressure on them to do that, and no extra costs to the British. Highly attractive politically for them.
Ten years to sort out a bloated public service wouldn't be that difficult while encouraging the private sector and rationalising and streamlining all the services.
There doesn't need to be painful austerity to ring the changes. Contrary to the pessimistic, or is it, partitionist view.

And how do you sort out a bloated public sector without cutting jobs in it?

Sam Russell · 02-01-2018 09:45PM

psinno wrote: »

Ireland took on a share of the debt. There was a scuffle about some stuff latter on and a trade war so I'm not sure if it was paid off. The way national debt works I wouldn't be surprised if we're were still paying it off.

"The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof and towards the payment of War Pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claim on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire"

Thanks for that.

I know that the UK Gov continued to claim the annuities from the land acts but it was Dev that disputed that claim and it was that which led to the economic war, which lasted until Britain needed the beef which by then had been culled.

However, Britain continued to pay for Irish Lights until Maggie Thatcher stopped paying for them.

I think the idea of NI coming with a share of national debt is risible. They would be glad to be rid, and even pay to be so rid.

noodler · 02-01-2018 10:06PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I know that the UK Gov continued to claim the annuities from the land acts but it was Dev that disputed that claim and it was that which led to the economic war, which lasted until Britain needed the beef which by then had been culled.

However, Britain continued to pay for Irish Lights until Maggie Thatcher stopped paying for them.

I think the idea of NI coming with a share of national debt is risible. They would be glad to be rid, and even pay to be so rid.

Whereas I think it's the most naive thing in the world to argue the UK would let NI leave without taking ANY of the debt they have accumulated over the years.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 10:37PM

noodler wrote: »

Whereas I think it's the most naive thing in the world to argue the UK would let NI leave without taking ANY of the debt they have accumulated over the years.

It will be a negotiation. In any negotiation it will be about what they want and what we want the most.
Many would have considered it naive that the British would agree to pay the Brexit exit bill in principle.

02-01-2018 10:40PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It will be a negotiation. In any negotiation it will be about what they want and what we want the most.
Many would have considered it naive that the British would agree to pay the Brexit exit bill in principle.

The negotiation :pac:
Brits: What do ye want?
Us: Northern Ireland
Brits: Its gonna cost ya.

The EU have the upper hand in the brexit negotiations because they are far far larger than the brits.

jm08 · 02-01-2018 10:46PM

noodler wrote: »

Whereas I think it's the most naive thing in the world to argue the UK would let NI leave without taking ANY of the debt they have accumulated over the years.

They also would have a share of the assets (such as all those buildings owned by the National Trust, the Crown Estates, Military Equipment etc).

As for the public service in NI - I'm sure a lot could be pensioned off with a similar deal to how EU/UK pensions liabilities are being dealt with.

Sam Russell · 02-01-2018 10:47PM

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The negotiation :pac:
Brits: What do ye want?
Us: Northern Ireland
Brits: Its gonna cost ya.

The EU have the upper hand in the brexit negotiations because they are far far larger than the brits.

I think it is the other way.

Brits: We want rid of NI.
Us: It's gonna cost ya!

NI is a very large mill stone to the British Gov - it costs more than the EU did. Can you see the big red bus - 'Let's save £10 billion a year - think what we could do with that kind of money!'.

It has no long term interest in NI, well not for the last 20 years. There is no way they can get shot of it without continuing the subvention for at least 5 years, and hoping we do not notice how much it will cost us. The national debt is not worth trying to recoup because they will not be repaying it anytime soon, if ever.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 10:48PM

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The negotiation :pac:
Brits: What do ye want?
Us: Northern Ireland
Brits: Its gonna cost ya.

The EU have the upper hand in the brexit negotiations because they are far far larger than the brits.

If a majority are in favour the British have to deliver a UI as per an internationally binding agreement.

'How much will you give us to take it off your hands', is as credible a scenario. :pac:

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 10:50PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think it is the other way.

Brits: We want rid of NI.
Us: It's gonna cost ya!

NI is a very large mill stone to the British Gov - it costs more than the EU did. Can you see the big red bus - 'Let's save £10 billion a year - think what we could do with that kind of money!'.

It has no long term interest in NI, well not for the last 20 years. There is no way they can get shot of it without continuing the subvention for at least 5 years, and hoping we do not notice how much it will cost us. The national debt is not worth trying to recoup because they will not be repaying it anytime soon, if ever.

I think the British knew exactly what they were doing signing the GFA. They can get rid and say they were just following an agreement you made to the likes of the Unionist community. Democracy.

road_high · 02-01-2018 10:52PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think it is the other way.

Brits: We want rid of NI.
Us: It's gonna cost ya!

NI is a very large mill stone to the British Gov - it costs more than the EU did. Can you see the big red bus - 'Let's save £10 billion a year - think what we could do with that kind of money!'.

It has no long term interest in NI, well not for the last 20 years. There is no way they can get shot of it without continuing the subvention for at least 5 years, and hoping we do not notice how much it will cost us. The national debt is not worth trying to recoup because they will not be repaying it anytime soon, if ever.

Have to say the silence from the Tories and May surrounding NI has been deafening...not once have I heard any bona fide "NI is an integral part of the UK..." spiel during this whole Brexit episode. It's just a pointless headache for the English especially, Brexit was all about mainland Britain and protecting its borders. NI fits like a square peg into this vision.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 10:58PM

road_high wrote: »

Have to say the silence from the Tories and May surrounding NI has been deafening...not once have I heard any bona fide "NI is an integral part of the UK..." spiel during this whole Brexit episode. It's just a pointless headache for the English especially, Brexit was all about mainland Britain and protecting its borders. NI fits like a square peg into this vision.

May did say it and they will continue to say it until it changes to 'BUT look they voted for a UI and we have to comply...sorry folks'.

blanch152 · 02-01-2018 11:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If a majority are in favour the British have to deliver a UI as per an internationally binding agreement.

'How much will you give us to take it off your hands', is as credible a scenario. :pac:

No, the British don't. Read the clause.

"(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;"

Firstly, it is an obligation on both Governments to introduce and support legislation. Take our current Dail. The Government there can introduce and support any legislation it wishes but it won't get passed without the support of the opposition. So it is not a done thing.

Secondly, the Agreement has nothing to say about the terms of the unification agreement.

Thirdly, we are obliged to take it, bill and all, so long as we pass a referendum. There should be no referendum in the South until the bill is known.

road_high · 02-01-2018 11:03PM

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The negotiation :pac:
Brits: What do ye want?
Us: Northern Ireland
Brits: Its gonna cost ya.

The EU have the upper hand in the brexit negotiations because they are far far larger than the brits.

They'll gladly pay to be shot of it...NI is an economic blackhole, really dreadful economic parameters when scrutinized in isolation from the UK. Jaw dropping levels of public service % levels, very weak exports, very low productivity etc etc.
Terrible infrastructure which needs tens of billions to bring it up to European or even Republic standards. The English appear to have zero interest in funding any of this from what I can see.

Sam Russell · 02-01-2018 11:03PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the British knew exactly what they were doing signing the GFA. They can get rid and say they were just following an agreement you made to the likes of the Unionist community. Democracy.

If there is to be a border poll, it will be decided by the then Secretary of State for NI, not by negotiation or by consensus - just the Minister. Obviously, he will not make such a momentous decision after a walking holiday in the Brecon Beacons.

He would look foolish if it was not carried by a large enough majority, say 60/40 or better) so he will pick the time well, and will try to sweeten the deal. Now he is not trying to keep his own constituency in Little Wallop happy, nor is he worried about the cost to the UK taxpayer, because once the deal is done, it will be soon forgotten. So a generous deal for both NI and Ireland would help carry it and that will be that.

Even after the Suez debacle in 1956, the Tories were still re-elected in 1959 by a huge majority. Voters soon forget. Look at all the withdrawals from Empire; from the withdrawal from India in 1948, and Africa in the 1960s and the withdrawal from Hong Kong. No one asks about the costs or the deals done.

Not much reaction to the divorce bill agreement from the EU to get into phase 2 - was it £40 billion, or €60 billion - who knows, and who cares?

road_high · 02-01-2018 11:05PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

May did say it and they will continue to say it until it changes to 'BUT look they voted for a UI and we have to comply...sorry folks'.

It didn't sound any way credible though, like going through the motions. I didn't hear her say we are going to invest tens of billions in NI, just a little lip service to pacify the Unionist mob.

blanch152 · 02-01-2018 11:05PM

road_high wrote: »

Have to say the silence from the Tories and May surrounding NI has been deafening...not once have I heard any bona fide "NI is an integral part of the UK..." spiel during this whole Brexit episode. It's just a pointless headache for the English especially, Brexit was all about mainland Britain and protecting its borders. NI fits like a square peg into this vision.

You must not have been paying attention:

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/theresa-may-pledges-to-protect-constitutional-integrity-of-uk-amid-irish-border-deal-deadlock-36384591.html

"Theresa May has pledged to protect the "constitutional integrity" of the UK in the negotiations to break the deadlock in the Brexit talks over the Irish border."

Sam Russell · 02-01-2018 11:12PM

blanch152 wrote: »

You must not have been paying attention:

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/theresa-may-pledges-to-protect-constitutional-integrity-of-uk-amid-irish-border-deal-deadlock-36384591.html

"Theresa May has pledged to protect the "constitutional integrity" of the UK in the negotiations to break the deadlock in the Brexit talks over the Irish border."

She was not so keen on the "constitutional integrity" of the UK when she fought the High Court and the Supreme Court over the need for a Parliamentary Vote on Brexit.

If there is a vote for a UI, then it carries more weight than the Brexit referendum, and is fully covered by the "constitutional integrity" of the UK.

FrancieBrady · 02-01-2018 11:16PM

blanch152 wrote: »

You must not have been paying attention:

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/theresa-may-pledges-to-protect-constitutional-integrity-of-uk-amid-irish-border-deal-deadlock-36384591.html

"Theresa May has pledged to protect the "constitutional integrity" of the UK in the negotiations to break the deadlock in the Brexit talks over the Irish border."

Theresa said more than her prayers about what she was going to do with Brexit in fairness.

Charles Babbage · 03-01-2018 12:18AM

murphaph wrote: »

Donegal, Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan, Kerry etc. all run at deficits. Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone and Armagh would almost certainly run at deficits too. It would all be on the Belfast area to bring something, anything to the table. A UI in reality would just add more counties that require social transfers from most of Leinster and Cork.

Of course the starting position of NI counties is not very favourable. But in the ROI places like Cork, Limerick, Galway support significant economic activity and had Ireland not been partitioned then Derry city would be likewise with the benefits to neighbouring areas of Donegal. Much of Armagh and Down lie on the Dublin Belfast axis and would support themselves, as Louth can do. The problem is the present regime in NI, not the regional distribution.

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments