Costs of Irish unification.

murphaph · 03-01-2018 09:02AM

road_high wrote: »

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.

Erm...and you think the average PAYE taxpayer in the south feels differently?!

Jawgap · 03-01-2018 09:26AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Nope. I saw it.

The 'if' refers to the methodology for debt dispersion......they could do it on a per capita basis (as he suggests) or they could do it on a proportion of debt basis (NI hoovers up spending so it's debt share could be based on that).

They also, probably, do it by reverse engineering the Barnett formula to derive some idea of the incurred debt for NI.

Personally, as I previously said, I doubt they will. The UK will be delighted to see the back of NI they'll want to make their exit as smooth as possible and get on figuring out where they might spend the stg£10 billion or do they'll be saving.

I also think that if/when reunification happens it should happen quite quickly if discussions are drawn out over several years the place will be in an even bigger mess than is currently the case as the UK government will, doubtless, be paring back spending in anticipation of their departure.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 09:47AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Nope. I saw it.

The 'if' refers to the methodology for debt dispersion

No the 'if' refers to 'if' they are going to disperse the debt at all.

If UK debt were apportioned on a per capita basis

Personally I think the British will incentivise a UI. They will carefully pick a time to acquiesce to a UI referendum.

Jawgap · 03-01-2018 10:16AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No the 'if' refers to 'if' they are going to disperse the debt at all.

Personally I think the British will incentivise a UI. They will carefully pick a time to acquiesce to a UI referendum.

Well I'll leave the semantics to you.

It does suggest, however, that there is a possibility that we might also have to take on some debt.

Ah sure, as the saying goes, a billion here in debt, a billion there in deficit financing......pretty soon you're talking about real money.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 01:34PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I'll leave the semantics to you.

It does suggest, however, that there is a possibility that we might also have to take on some debt.

Ah sure, as the saying goes, a billion here in debt, a billion there in deficit financing......pretty soon you're talking about real money.

I think you just need to accept that it won't be the partitionist voice that will be the loudest.
A majority vote for a UI will be looked on positively by all the major players bar yourselves and the DUP.
And with positivity most things can be solved or worked around.

Charles Babbage · 03-01-2018 02:45PM

murphaph wrote: »

Erm...and you think the average PAYE taxpayer in the south feels differently?!

The problem with the present situation is that England has neither an interest in funding transfers nor in creating some economic activity that would reduce the need for transfers. Which is why the present situation is hopeless.

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 02:48PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The problem with the present situation is that England has neither an interest in funding transfers nor in creating some economic activity that would reduce the need for transfers. Which is why the present situation is hopeless.

When you add to that the fact that the two main parties are squabbling over a language act about two languages (or dialects) that weren't even spoken in the North less than three decades ago. If they were properly interested in the welfare of the people of the North, then they would go into government together and get on with the job of improving the economy.

Jawgap · 03-01-2018 02:51PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you just need to accept that it won't be the partitionist voice that will be the loudest.
A majority vote for a UI will be looked on positively by all the major players bar yourselves and the DUP.
And with positivity most things can be solved or worked around.

I'm not a partitionist by any means. I think there will and should be a UI.

I'm just against paying the kind of money NI costs. We're doing really well, the recovery is ticking along nicely but for all the good things about our economy we cannot - as all the analysis I've posted up shows - afford NI in its current state.

Further, there is no guarantee that even if we did commit to spend billions there that it would yield any improvement. Sort the place out first, then re-unify, would be my argument.

Closing the productivity gap would be a good start.....

Productivity and the Northern Ireland Economy

There are economy wide productivity issues relating to skills and physical capital investment where Northern Ireland has structural challenges to overcome. In addition to tackling sectoral issues, enterprise policy also need to focus on stimulating demand for skills among employers and employees while encouraging a culture of innovation among firms that lack the market incentive to do so.

And you can continue to throw names around all you want, all it does is point to the fact that there is no data that shows NI is anything other than an economic millstone around the neck of which country it is a part of. If you had such data you'd post it instead of looking to label and lump people together in pejorative categories.

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 02:54PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you just need to accept that it won't be the partitionist voice that will be the loudest.
A majority vote for a UI will be looked on positively by all the major players bar yourselves and the DUP.
And with positivity most things can be solved or worked around.

I think the partitionist label is very unfair to many posters. Most of the posters who are lukewarm about unification are very committed Europeans. In many ways their vision can be classified as being broader, more inclusive and welcoming as well as being more forward-looking than those who cling to 19th century ideas of nationhood. It is a European vision they have rather than a tired nationalist view.

Here is one for people to ponder. Say the UK said that it would rejoin the EU so long as the EU worked for even closer economic union and that the ROI gave up any claim to Northern Ireland and accepted partition in perpetuity on the basis that European political union would eliminate borders. Such an eventuality would be clearly in the best interests of the people of this island, but there would be plenty of kneejerk anti-British reactions against it.

At the end of the day, the idea of unification of this island based on a 50% +1 vote in the North, while enshrined in the GFA, is a throwback to an old ideological time.

Jawgap · 03-01-2018 03:05PM

I think, by the sound of it, it's a standard response to throws names around when someone points out the obvious in respect of NI's fiscal position.

For example, this chap, was labelled a "Tory b******" for saying things like this....(Top expert warns Northern Ireland economy is facing meltdown)

For too long, holding onto our block grant from the Treasury has been seen as a ‘sacred cow’ which cannot be touched. However, we will have to realise that the British taxpayer is eventually going to get fed up with giving Northern Ireland about £10bn per annum.

Indeed, as long as we have the financial support at that level there is limited incentive for us to come off this economic crutch. Unfortunately, there are too many people who like the certainty of the block grant crutch rather than the prospect of real economic growth.

There is a culture in Northern Ireland that believes we are entitled to what we get but we do not want to pay for the privilege. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a ‘free lunch’ anymore and we do not have the luxury of taking risk free decisions.

I also think SF know he's correct and therefore the race is on to secure another paymaster before Brexit, weariness etc kick in and the place has to go "cold turkey."

Sam Russell · 03-01-2018 03:09PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Here is one for people to ponder. Say the UK said that it would rejoin the EU so long as the EU worked for even closer economic union and that the ROI gave up any claim to Northern Ireland and accepted partition in perpetuity on the basis that European political union would eliminate borders. Such an eventuality would be clearly in the best interests of the people of this island, but there would be plenty of kneejerk anti-British reactions against it.

I think that the UK has acted in completely the opposite of what you are suggesting. By voting for leaving the EU, with no consideration of the situation that NI would be in demonstrates their complete disdain for NI. They have no interest in NI whatsoever and consider it a millstone and a sink for any funds thrown at it. If they had a referendum in the whole of the UK, they would vote to expel NI from the UK. Mind you, England might vote to expel Scotland too.

Those in GB would wish to be well rid of it and would accept any terms to achieve that. Most people in GB do not consider those in NI other than Irish.

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 03:14PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think that the UK has acted in completely the opposite of what you are suggesting. By voting for leaving the EU, with no consideration of the situation that NI would be in demonstrates their complete disdain for NI. They have no interest in NI whatsoever and consider it a millstone and a sink for any funds thrown at it. If they had a referendum in the whole of the UK, they would vote to expel NI from the UK. Mind you, England might vote to expel Scotland too.

Those in GB would wish to be well rid of it and would accept any terms to achieve that. Most people in GB do not consider those in NI other than Irish.

You are right about how the UK have acted in complete disregard of their own economic interests both in Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland. They have shown disdain for themselves as much as disdain for NI.

As for the second point, they cannot have a referendum to expel NI from the UK. It is one of the nationalist propagandist myths that the rest of the UK wishes to be rid of NI. The rest of the UK willingly signed up to an international agreement that says that as long as Northern Ireland wishes to remain part of the UK, that they are happy to continue on that basis.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 05:09PM

On the subject of the word/name partitionist: I don't use it to be offensive but as a descriptor.
If every word out of your keyboard is to reject and scaremonger the notion of a UI and if you have a track record of blaming what happened on one particular side in the conflict over partition, well then the descriptor fits perfectly in my vocabulary.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 05:12PM

blanch152 wrote: »

You are right about how the UK have acted in complete disregard of their own economic interests both in Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland. They have shown disdain for themselves as much as disdain for NI.

As for the second point, they cannot have a referendum to expel NI from the UK. It is one of the nationalist propagandist myths that the rest of the UK wishes to be rid of NI. The rest of the UK willingly signed up to an international agreement that says that as long as Northern Ireland wishes to remain part of the UK, that they are happy to continue on that basis.

The rest if the UK being the government of the time. The people didn't vote on it.

And I think he was just saying that 'if' there was a referendum. I don't know any nationalist that believes there would be a UK ref on the position of NI. You are projecting stuff on to arguments again.

Chips Lovell · 03-01-2018 05:15PM

I think it's possible to be a partitionist and blame both sides for the Northern conflict. To my mind, holding both sides to account would make you more likely, not less, to reject unification with Northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 05:19PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think it's possible to be a partitionist and blame both sides for the Northern conflict. To my mind, holding both sides to account would make you more likely, not less, to reject unification with Northern Ireland.

Of course it is possible. The point being, you are against a UI on any practical grounds.

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 05:39PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

On the subject of the word/name partitionist: I don't use it to be offensive but as a descriptor.
If every word out of your keyboard is to reject and scaremonger the notion of a UI and if you have a track record of blaming what happened on one particular side in the conflict over partition, well then the descriptor fits perfectly in my vocabulary.

You may not intend to use it to be offensive, but it has been used over many years by nationalists as an abusive term. I doubt that you are unaware of this and it will undoubtedly cause upset and resentment when you use it in the way you do.

To explain, we start from the position that your definition is incorrect. Someone who believes in the eventual unification of Ireland, whether in its own right or under a European political union umbrella, at a time when unification is embraced by all communities in Northern Ireland is by definition not a partitionist. So, when you define someone who holds those views as a partitionist, you are factually incorrect and it appears that you are using it as an abusive or offensive term.

To put it in a different way, consider the following statements:

Rejecting a united Ireland in the near future does not define a partitionist.
Setting out the cost to ordinary people of a unified Ireland does not define a partitionist.
Putting the blame for criminal terrorist acts on those who committed them does not define a partitionist.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 05:43PM

blanch152 wrote: »

You may not intend to use it to be offensive, but it has been used over many years by nationalists as an abusive term. I doubt that you are unaware of this and it will undoubtedly cause upset and resentment when you use it in the way you do.

To explain, we start from the position that your definition is incorrect. Someone who believes in the eventual unification of Ireland, whether in its own right or under a European political union umbrella, at a time when unification is embraced by all communities in Northern Ireland is by definition not a partitionist. So, when you define someone who holds those views as a partitionist, you are factually incorrect and it appears that you are using it as an abusive or offensive term.

To put it in a different way, consider the following statements:

Rejecting a united Ireland in the near future does not define a partitionist.
Setting out the cost to ordinary people of a unified Ireland does not define a partitionist.
Putting the blame for criminal terrorist acts on those who committed them does not define a partitionist.

It's a bit like the term 'shinner' then, is it not?

It can be used in a derogatory way or as a perfectly benign descriptor.

If you take offence then that is your problem to deal with. It is not mean't to be offensive other than I disagree with 'partition'.

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 06:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a bit like the term 'shinner' then, is it not?

It can be used in a derogatory way or as a perfectly benign descriptor.

If you take offence then that is your problem to deal with. It is not mean't to be offensive other than I disagree with 'partition'.

I haven't seen anyone posting on here who doesn't want a united Ireland at some point in the future. The difference is only related to the how, when and under what circumstances.

Labelling anyone as a partitionist in those circumstances is just plainly wrong, leaving aside the offensive/derogatory aspects.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 06:32PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone posting on here who doesn't want a united Ireland at some point in the future. The difference is only related to the how, when and under what circumstances.

Labelling anyone as a partitionist in those circumstances is just plainly wrong, leaving aside the offensive/derogatory aspects.

Yes. But everyone here (including yourself, I suspect) knows that circumstances will never be perfect for a UI.
After a long conflict/war an internationally binding agreement saw the principal players agree that in the event of a majority vote on a UI, then it would happen.

Now we see people stating that a majority vote is not enough. That is favouring the continuation of partition and it doesn't matter what the reasoning/scaremongering for that it. It is 'partitionist' to favour partition even if a majority vote for unification, in the same way as it is 'unionist' to favour the union with GB.

Jawgap · 03-01-2018 07:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course it is possible. The point being, you are against a UI on any practical grounds.

No, pragmatists are against reunification on the grounds as they exist at the moment. I doubt there are more than a very few absolutists when in comes to reunification.

NI's circumstances need to change and the best people to that are those that live there.

The productivity report I posted up highlighted education/qualifications as a key problem.....education something that is a devolved responsibility, is it not?

Beefing up the Province's human capital is an important pre-requisite to closing the productivity gap. And it's something well within the control of Stormont to organise.

The economies need to be on converging trajectories, in my view, before reunification becomes a practical proposition. Halving the deficit would be a good start.

Sam Russell · 03-01-2018 07:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. But everyone here (including yourself, I suspect) knows that circumstances will never be perfect for a UI.
After a long conflict/war an internationally binding agreement saw the principal players agree that in the event of a majority vote on a UI, then it would happen.

Now we see people stating that a majority vote is not enough. That is favouring the continuation of partition and it doesn't matter what the reasoning/scaremongering for that it. It is 'partitionist' to favour partition even if a majority vote for unification, in the same way as it is 'unionist' to favour the union with GB.

You are missing the (political) point. The decision of when a 'majority' exists is not come to because of an opinion poll, or even an election result, or even a succession of election results. It will be a decision by the then Secretary of State for NI. The minister must be satisfied that a 'majority' favours a united Ireland, and that is a political decision. Now, the UK were going to join the Euro 'when the time was right' but it never was. I think there will be much arm wrestling to get a Border Poll, unless it is bleeding obvious that it would be carried because Unionists are calling for it.

It might be unjust, but that is politics.

By the way, I would favour a UI.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 07:10PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, pragmatists are against reunification on the grounds as they exist at the moment. I doubt there are more than a very few absolutists when in comes to reunification.

NI's circumstances need to change and the best people to that are those that live there.

The productivity report I posted up highlighted education/qualifications as a key problem.....education something that is a devolved responsibility, is it not?

Beefing up the Province's human capital is an important pre-requisite to closing the productivity gap. And it's something well within the control of Stormont to organise.

The economies need to be on converging trajectories, in my view, before reunification becomes a practical proposition. Halving the deficit would be a good start.

It's a failed state, that is why it can't and will never be fully done. It failed because partition was and will always be wrong.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 07:24PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are missing the (political) point. The decision of when a 'majority' exists is not come to because of an opinion poll, or even an election result, or even a succession of election results. It will be a decision by the then Secretary of State for NI. The minister must be satisfied that a 'majority' favours a united Ireland, and that is a political decision. Now, the UK were going to join the Euro 'when the time was right' but it never was. I think there will be much arm wrestling to get a Border Poll, unless it is bleeding obvious that it would be carried because Unionists are calling for it.

It might be unjust, but that is politics.

By the way, I would favour a UI.

Politics will decide when a poll is called.
IMO it will be when a SOS sees the stars align - when an Irish government is fully behind it and willing to campaign hard for it. Are we that far off that?

Jawgap · 03-01-2018 07:29PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a failed state, that is why it can't and will never be fully done. It failed because partition was and will always be wrong.

So why should the current generation of Irish taxpayers take on the burden of paying for it?

Not our circus, not our clowns.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 07:43PM

Jawgap wrote: »

So why should the current generation of Irish taxpayers take on the burden of paying for it?

Not our circus, not our clowns.

Because we are not selfish and we believe that a whole island is the best setup for our future prosperity.
Brexit is merely a warning about how fragile peace and stability is.
Those who favour partition or were happy with the status quo and could ignore what was happening to fellow Irish people don't see it that way.

Charles Babbage · 03-01-2018 07:46PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are missing the (political) point. The decision of when a 'majority' exists is not come to because of an opinion poll, or even an election result, or even a succession of election results. It will be a decision by the then Secretary of State for NI. The minister must be satisfied that a 'majority' favours a united Ireland, and that is a political decision. Now, the UK were going to join the Euro 'when the time was right' but it never was. I think there will be much arm wrestling to get a Border Poll, unless it is bleeding obvious that it would be carried because Unionists are calling for it.

It might be unjust, but that is politics.

By the way, I would favour a UI.

If a majority in the Assembly called for a Poll then it would be difficult to deny one. No need for unionists there, and Alliance might agree to call a poll without having a position on how people should vote in it.

Jawgap wrote: »

So why should the current generation of Irish taxpayers take on the burden of paying for it?

Things happen at particular points in time. Why should a public servant in 2010 have a 20% pay cut because get rich merchants he or she didn't know in the private sector overreached themselves?

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2018 07:51PM

Jawgap wrote: »

So why should the current generation of Irish taxpayers take on the burden of paying for it?

Not our circus, not our clowns.

BTW, that is not just partitionist with a small p, it is Partitionist as a political philosophy.

Jawgap · 03-01-2018 08:46PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

.......

Things happen at particular points in time. Why should a public servant in 2010 have a 20% pay cut because get rich merchants he or she didn't know in the private sector overreached themselves?

Because we live in a republic, and the essence of a republic is the election of people to make decisions. We elected them......they made the decisions......we disagreed and voted them out.

I don't ever recall, while living in Ireland, being given a vote in respect of Stormont or Westminster. So how, in any conceivable way, can the Republic's taxpayers and electorate be liable for the zoo that is NI?

James Brown · 03-01-2018 08:46PM

They are our people in our country currently under occupation, despite 'Hello' magazine, the Royals and British PR machine.
We got into generational debt to 'take one for the team'. Reunification transcends economics for some and getting into debt for such a cause is far more worthy than setting up a flawed economic model or bailing out gamblers.
For some there's never enough money in doing the right thing. We should take notes from the Germans.

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments