Costs of Irish unification.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 01:05PM

markodaly wrote: »

If you want to connivence the North about a United Ireland, I do not think telling them that half the Public Service will lose their jobs is a good way of going about it.

Self Interests trumps all.

Who said anything about 'half the Public service losing their jobs'.
Did I not outline ways it could be done to minimize that?

You really have to stop misquoting me Mark.

Jawgap · 09-01-2018 01:08PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is a very clear reason why the south moved on after partition. It's called Independence, we are in the middle of a series of commemorations of it.
By ignoring what was happening in the north we were able to build a country.
Is it a republic as envisaged by those who took control....that is a debate for another thread.

Denial of the fact that partition did not have effects that can still be seen today is all very well, but unless that is addressed, politics in northern Ireland is doomed.

It's a route we chose - it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the Republic would prosper, and indeed it didn't for several generations until we got our stuff together and developed a more progressive economic outlook.

36 years after independence Ken Whittaker's "First Programme for Economic Expansion" was published - we're coming up now on 20 years since the Assembly was first elected, and what chance something as groundbreaking as Whittaker's Grey Book might emerge?

No one makes people vote in a particular way. And NI has, if it wants, the economic levers at its disposal that can help transform the place - only thing is they keep voting in people who are not interested in governing for their own dogmatic ends.

It seems people and politicians in NI only want to drive the "NI Car" by looking in the rearview mirror, then are surprised when they crash.

Jawgap · 09-01-2018 01:11PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Could you clarify for me? Can the PS be fixed or not in your opinion?

Absolutely.

You just need to make about 30-40% reductions in headcount (at a rough estimate) through retirement or redundancy and re-deploy as required.

There's only two reasons why a government can't do something - politics and money. NI soaks up more money on a per capita basis than any other region of the UK or the Republic, so money is not the reason why the place seems to be beyond reform.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 01:13PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Absolutely.

You just need to make about 30-40% reductions in headcount (at a rough estimate) through retirement or redundancy and re-deploy as required.

There's only two reasons why a government can't do something - politics and money. NI soaks up more money on a per capita basis than any other region of the UK or the Republic, so money is not the reason why the place seems to be beyond reform.

Entrenchment is why it is beyond reform, is why a Whittaker has not emerged.

'Beyond reform' would be a euphemism for failure in my book by the way.

Jawgap · 09-01-2018 01:26PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Entrenchment is why it is beyond reform, is why a Whittaker has not emerged.

'Beyond reform' would be a euphemism for failure in my book by the way.

No, it's a choice - people can easily vote in or out the idealogues. They choose to vote who they choose to vote.

Deciding to move on is a choice - voting for a party that either wants to keep you helpless or shackled to Whitehall is also a choice.

Leadership is also a choice - Lemass could easily have assumed the office of Taoiseach and continued with Dev's protectionist policies, stuck with the old guard and he probably would've soldiered on for a good few years - instead he decided that things weren't going to change by clinging to what went before and he led.

NI could do worse that consider what Whittaker told Ryan when the latter assumed ministerial office in the Department of Finance:

"Without a sound and progressive economy, political independence would be a crumbling façade," Whitaker wrote. Policies of protectionism were condemning "the people to a lower standard of living than the rest of Europe."

Unless there were new policies, Whitaker continued, "it would be better to make an immediate move towards re-incorporation in the United Kingdom rather than wait until our economic decadence became even more apparent."

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 01:31PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, it's a choice - people can easily vote in or out the idealogues. They choose to vote who they choose to vote.

Deciding to move on is a choice - voting for a party that either wants to keep you helpless or shackled to Whitehall is also a choice.

Leadership is also a choice - Lemass could easily have assumed the office of Taoiseach and continued with Dev's protectionist policies, stuck with the old guard and he probably would've soldiered on for a good few years - instead he decided that things weren't going to change by clinging to what went before and he led.

NI could do worse that consider what Whittaker told Ryan when the latter assumed ministerial office in the Department of Finance:

...and people will not make that choice because they are entrenched.

You cannot 'move on' if you think moving on is going to bring you back to where you were before.

And that is the core problem. People will not trust the other side.

NI does not have a 'leadership' position in the same way as the south does. So your point on that is kinda moot.

Jawgap · 09-01-2018 01:38PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...and people will not make that choice because they are entrenched.

You cannot 'move on' if you think moving on is going to bring you back to where you were before.

And that is the core problem. People will not trust the other side.

NI does not have a 'leadership' position in the same way as the south does. So your point on that is kinda moot.

So, to return to a point I made earlier - not our clowns, not our circus.

If people in NI are not going to help themselves why should we in the Republic pay for the place?

If things are so entrenched - if people are so against moving on - then what prospect is there in a post-UI situation we're not the ones being stung for €10billion each year to keep the place from erupting?

You seem to be suggesting the place is beyond redemption - that being the case why would event try to redeem it with our taxes?

markodaly · 09-01-2018 01:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who said anything about 'half the Public service losing their jobs'.
Did I not outline ways it could be done to minimize that?

You really have to stop misquoting me Mark.

No you didn't actually, you just talked in abstracts about voluntary redundancies .

blanch152 · 09-01-2018 01:48PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is a very clear reason why the south moved on after partition. It's called Independence, we are in the middle of a series of commemorations of it.
By ignoring what was happening in the north we were able to build a country.
Is it a republic as envisaged by those who took control....that is a debate for another thread.

Denial of the fact that partition did not have effects that can still be seen today is all very well, but unless that is addressed, politics in northern Ireland is doomed.

Except that the South didn't move on after partition.

It lagged behind the North right up until the end of the 1960s. Guess what changed? Two things - The South looked outward and changed its economic policiies and the IRA got going in the North.

Up until the IRA started, the North was relatively thriving compared to the rest of Ireland.

James Brown · 09-01-2018 02:01PM

blanch152 wrote: »

It is up to those who wish for a united Ireland to do the persuading. They are the ones who have to promise that it won't cost an arm and a leg, they are the ones who have to explain why there won't be tax rises and social welfare cuts.

We know there is a €9bn cost, we know there are differences in tax, public service pay and welfare costs. We need to know who is going to pay for these or suffer cuts. It is time that the advocates of unification came clean and told us or either admitted that they don't have a clue.

To be fair, anyone raising the issue of cost being a factor not to unify, should do more than throw out a number.
I have still to see any comment where somebody suggests the costs will be low and everything will be roses. or is it a case if neither side can come up with a complete costing we can't discuss it?

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

It would be quite a challenge I think to explain to the voters down south that they cannot have a new hospital / road / their school must close because the north would be expensive for the first couple of years.

According to SJI we have 800,000 living in poverty and 1 million living with deprivation as it is in the south so we are not exactly a stunning success here ourselves without taking a chance on NI.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/almost-800-000-live-in-poverty-despite-improved-economy-think-tank-1.3348396

Yes, I do believe that it could work out very well but Id say it would take at least 20 years to integrate the two sides, and good luck getting the brits to pay. They wont give a f**k.

We would also have to work to avoid incidents like Barry McElduff and his bread though, this sort of thing doesnt help anybody.

Seriously, you say people will be put off if told they can't have this and that, (an affordable roof/hospital bed?) because of the costs involved, then go on to cite the government led shambles we have down south as further reasoning.
The tax payer is use to being shafted for private profits, I think hard times for reunification will be a far easier sell in that they'll see something tangible for their money.

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that the South didn't move on after partition.

It lagged behind the North right up until the end of the 1960s. Guess what changed? Two things - The South looked outward and changed its economic policiies and the IRA got going in the North.

Up until the IRA started, the North was relatively thriving compared to the rest of Ireland.

Maybe if the powers that be cared enough about their economics they would have had a more equitable society and there may have been no support for an IRA.
You make it sound like everyone was as happy as Larry Billy.

blanch152 · 09-01-2018 03:33PM

Jawgap wrote: »

So, to return to a point I made earlier - not our clowns, not our circus.

If people in NI are not going to help themselves why should we in the Republic pay for the place?

If things are so entrenched - if people are so against moving on - then what prospect is there in a post-UI situation we're not the ones being stung for €10billion each year to keep the place from erupting?

You seem to be suggesting the place is beyond redemption - that being the case why would event try to redeem it with our taxes?

In essence, if the people of the North are going to vote in people like McElduff, who wear their sectarianism on their social media pages like a badge of pride, then why should we pollute our democracy with them?

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 03:42PM

blanch152 wrote: »

In essence, if the people of the North are going to vote in people like McElduff, who wear their sectarianism on their social media pages like a badge of pride, then why should we pollute our democracy with them?

I will ignore the political opportunism/sideswipe in that and ask you why you think it is that anyone gets elected for office?
And do you think (as you seem to intimate) that there is a deficiency in the minds of a northern voter that is not present in the mind of a southern voter?

In essence you are claiming some kind of 'otherness' and I am not sure what it is you are pointing to.

murphaph · 09-01-2018 03:42PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is all well and good. But the failure of northern Ireland to deliver a normal society to live in means to me that the state has failed.
The current state of the executive is testament to that.

Meh. Germany is having the greatest difficulty it's had in decades in forming a new government. It hardly makes it a failed state. Countless other examples in Europe (Belgium, Netherlands) of similar problems forming governments.

When I hear "failed state" I think of countries like Pakistan tbh.

murphaph · 09-01-2018 03:46PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Day to day live goes on, but I think stating that politics is 'functional' or normal is a bit of a stretch to be honest.
Deep entrenchment still exists in northern Ireland and shows no sign of diminishing. They may somehow get the executive back up and running but it will collapse again.
The divisions created by partition run too deep.
I used to think they could be fixed but I no longer think that way. The only way you will have normality on this island is to get rid of what caused the division and begin again.

Sorry but the divisions existed before partition. These divisions are the cause of partition, not the other way round!

Remember the Ulster Covenant?

If there had been no division before partition Ireland would not have been partitioned.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 03:56PM

murphaph wrote: »

Meh. Germany is having the greatest difficulty it's had in decades in forming a new government. It hardly makes it a failed state. Countless other examples in Europe (Belgium, Netherlands) of similar problems forming governments.

When I hear "failed state" I think of countries like Pakistan tbh.

What do you think when you hear 'beyond reform'?

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 04:03PM

murphaph wrote: »

Sorry but the divisions existed before partition. These divisions are the cause of partition, not the other way round!

Remember the Ulster Covenant?

If there had been no division before partition Ireland would not have been partitioned.

Yes they did. 'Political' division and that still exists in the south and probably always will.

Partition had the effect of entrenching those divisions resulting in the beyond reform society we have today.

Jawgap · 09-01-2018 04:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes they did. 'Political' division and that still exists in the south and probably always will.

Partition had the effect of entrenching those divisions resulting in the beyond reform society we have today.

Of course there is political division in the Republic - as there is in any healthy democracy.

The difference being we don't let it define us - or at least we stopped letting it define us.

The communities in NI are kind of like the Deep South in the US - they cling desperately to what's familiar (the Bible and guns in their case) and cannot countenance change. The problem is that the politicians are only too willing to take advantage and indeed encourage it so the people remain helpless while the politicians keep their snouts firmly in the trough.

Again, as long as this inertia persists what is the argument for a UI? Why should the Republic step in to fund a society so desperate to cling to the past and to familiar divisions?

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 04:18PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course there is political division in the Republic - as there is in any healthy democracy.

The difference being we don't let it define us - or at least we stopped letting it define us.

The communities in NI are kind of like the Deep South in the US - they cling desperately to what's familiar (the Bible and guns in their case) and cannot countenance change. The problem is that the politicians are only too willing to take advantage and indeed encourage it so the people remain helpless while the politicians keep their snouts firmly in the trough.

Again, as long as this inertia persists what is the argument for a UI? Why should the Republic step in to fund a society so desperate to cling to the past and to familiar divisions?

I said that posts ago, when you have people forced into an unnatural arrangement (partition) they will invariably band closer together in order to protect themselves and that invariably leads to entrenchment, socially and politically.

Remove partition and you remove the entrenchment. I fully understand that unionists will fear this but I do not think they will have anything to fear in a new republic of genuine equals. I think we in the south have come a long way in breaking down the barriers already.

oscarBravo · 09-01-2018 04:43PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said that posts ago, when you have people forced into an unnatural arrangement (partition)...

Ye gods, we're back to bloody "natural" again.

Remove partition and you remove the entrenchment.

Prove it.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 04:50PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ye gods, we're back to bloody "natural" again. Prove it.

I would consider forcing people into a situation where they were suddenly the minority to be an unnatural state.

If you believe that the effects of partition is the core problem then removing it, is likely to remove the problem. I cannot prove it, just as nobody can prove that a UI will destroy both jurisdictions.

blanch152 · 09-01-2018 04:51PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What do you think when you hear 'beyond reform'?

Sinn Fein?

Democratic Unionist Party?

Either?

Both?

blanch152 · 09-01-2018 04:53PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said that posts ago, when you have people forced into an unnatural arrangement (partition) they will invariably band closer together in order to protect themselves and that invariably leads to entrenchment, socially and politically.

Remove partition and you remove the entrenchment. I fully understand that unionists will fear this but I do not think they will have anything to fear in a new republic of genuine equals. I think we in the south have come a long way in breaking down the barriers already.

Based on your argument, it is equally valid to call for the reunification of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

That will remove partition.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 04:54PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Based on your argument, it is equally valid to call for the reunification of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

That will remove partition.

Go ahead. You are entitled to call for what you wish.

Jawgap · 09-01-2018 04:57PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said that posts ago, when you have people forced into an unnatural arrangement (partition) they will invariably band closer together in order to protect themselves and that invariably leads to entrenchment, socially and politically.

Remove partition and you remove the entrenchment. I fully understand that unionists will fear this but I do not think they will have anything to fear in a new republic of genuine equals. I think we in the south have come a long way in breaking down the barriers already.

Again with the post hoc fallacies.

And the issue isn't whether communities will coalesce or not - they already do to a degree especially around the question of funding. The current arrangement of having Whitehall fund NI to the tune of about €10 billion per year suits the political reps of both communities - it keeps NI shackled to London and keeps people from progressing.

There may well be a degree of re-alignment in a post-UI Republic - but it doesn't follow that the society there will express a reduced appetite for public money - except in a UI the taxpayers in the Republic will be on the hook for funding that, largely insatiable, appetite.

If the communities are capable of changing then let's see some tangible examples of them working together to reform their own economy for the betterment of all, rather than hoping we'll arrive to fund their lifestyles.

Jawgap · 09-01-2018 05:01PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Based on your argument, it is equally valid to call for the reunification of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

That will remove partition.

If unification is such a good idea, it makes you wonder why SF are so supportive of partitionist movements in Spain and France (the Basques and the Catalans) - equally if 'better together' is now their mantra, why were they against Europe and the EU for so long? (was the Brexit referendum the first time they campaigned in favour of the EU)

markodaly · 09-01-2018 05:32PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Remove partition and you remove the entrenchment.

The Brexit/Donald Trump type of argument again.

Removing partition will somehow magic away the deep divisions of the North. Are you also selling magic beans?

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2018 05:34PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Again with the post hoc fallacies.

And the issue isn't whether communities will coalesce or not - they already do to a degree especially around the question of funding. The current arrangement of having Whitehall fund NI to the tune of about €10 billion per year suits the political reps of both communities - it keeps NI shackled to London and keeps people from progressing.

There may well be a degree of re-alignment in a post-UI Republic - but it doesn't follow that the society there will express a reduced appetite for public money - except in a UI the taxpayers in the Republic will be on the hook for funding that, largely insatiable, appetite.

If the communities are capable of changing then let's see some tangible examples of them working together to reform their own economy for the betterment of all, rather than hoping we'll arrive to fund their lifestyles.

The 'crocodiles' will be back for more?

It may have escaped your attention here, but you do realise that in a UI, we will all be taxpayers? Any overspend, wasted subsidy will come out of all our pockets.
The 'republic' as we know will be gone.

Everyone is capable of change you just have to remove the shackles. Which is what people are, shackled by the effects of partition.

jm08 · 09-01-2018 05:39PM

Jawgap wrote: »

If unification is such a good idea, it makes you wonder why SF are so supportive of partitionist movements in Spain and France (the Basques and the Catalans) - equally if 'better together' is now their mantra, why were they against Europe and the EU for so long? (was the Brexit referendum the first time they campaigned in favour of the EU)

In Sinn Fein's thinking, I'd imagine that Spain = UK, and the Island of Ireland would = Basques/ Catalans.

Once SF came into the democratic process, they supported the EU. In fact they have a fair few MEPs and from what I've seen of them in the EU (monthly programme on RTE), they look to be good performers.

oscarBravo · 09-01-2018 05:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you believe that the effects of partition is the core problem then removing it, is likely to remove the problem.

At least you've finally admitted it's just a belief.

The problem with basing your worldview on a dogmatically-held belief is that it actively prevents you from accepting other possibilities, which condemns you to only ever considering a subset of possible solutions to the world's problems.

blanch152 · 09-01-2018 05:55PM

jm08 wrote: »

In Sinn Fein's thinking, I'd imagine that Spain = UK, and the Island of Ireland would = Basques/ Catalans.

Once SF came into the democratic process, they supported the EU. In fact they have a fair few MEPs and from what I've seen of them in the EU (monthly programme on RTE), they look to be good performers.

Surely Sinn Fein should be calling for the unification of Spain and Portugal?

We hear a lot (particularly on here where it is repeated ad nauseum) that Ireland is a natural country. Well the Iberian Peninsula is natural as well, so not only should Catalonia remain part of Spain, but Portugal should join them as well.

That is how the logic of a "natural" country works.

Should Norway and Sweden be amalgamated as well to form a natural country?

Costs of Irish unification.

Comments