downcow wrote: » Dont really understand this. Would you be annoyed if i talked about NI rejoining Ireland - same thing i think. And i am not sure what you mean about us 'taking to it' ? we wanted it so obviously we would take to it but it seems many of those who didn't want it have passed that down 4 generations, hence my comment that I am unsure whether my grandchildren would accept it - i guess some of them would reluctantly and others would not. Would you agree?
briany wrote: » I agree that a UI could be a successful project in the long term, but this is also what one of Brexit's leading advocates, Jacob Rees Mogg, has said about Brexit, that the actual benefits of leaving the EU may not be seen for years. By his opposition on the matter, that's not taken as an admission to inspire confidence. So, it comes down to whether one is willing to make fairly definite sacrifices now in order to possibly reap a benefit in the future, and how you convince people it's a trade-off worth making.
blanch152 wrote: » There is a clear linkage in thinking there. Brexit is a good thing. Irish unity is a good thing. Cost and risks don't matter in either case. Unity has the potential to be Ireland's Brexit whereby we do something on the basis of a nationalistic impulse that ignores or downplays the economic realities.
cgcsb wrote: » The NI public service would be a whole lot smaller in a UI, those of a certain age would be made redundant. Multinationals would be free to set up shop in Belfast, in comparatively dirt cheap office buildings and cherry pick dirt cheap labour off the NI public service, down goes the vast NI public service. East Germany was a more extreme version of NI, and it changed.
Imreoir2 wrote: » If Ireland were to ignore or downplay the economic realities then yes, but you ignore the possibility that we do something on the basis of a nationalistic impulse while being fully aware of the economic realities and put the plans in place to deal with that. I would never suggest that unification will be easy or an instant economic bonanza, but I do believe that it is managable and that a united Ireland can be a successful country, like Ireland has been despite partition.
cgcsb wrote: » Sure, no problem, here's some links from the UK and USA for example: Financial Times:https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0dhttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hard-brexit-could-cost-island-of-ireland-42-5-billion-over-seven-years-1.3689807https://prcg.com/modeling-irish-unification/report.pdfhttps://senatormarkdaly.org/2018/07/23/northern-irelands-income-and-expenditure-in-a-reunification-scenario/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/16/united-ireland-brexit-irish-unification-back-on-agenda The department has delayed their report on unification in line with the Irish government's Brexit policy, which is quite telling.https://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-costings-4144760-Jul2018/
blanch152 wrote: » Why would anyone want to leave the NI public service when the prospect of being paid the same as your counterparts in the South was in touching distance, let alone the prospect of an enhanced pension in retirement while at the same time, your work would be halved? And do you really think there is any chance of compulsory redundancy?
blanch152 wrote: » https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/ That report has been debunked on here many many times, slugger o'toole destroys it as well. Another characteristic shared by Brexit and by advocates of Irish unity is lies and mistruths around the economic benefits.
jm08 wrote: » Many would possibly want to remain within the British Civil Service and move to Scotland, Wales or England. To those who consider themselves to be British - it would be like moving from Cork to Dublin. As it is, most of those who go to university in Scotland and England are not coming back to Northern Ireland, so there is a brain drain already.
jm08 wrote: » Thats from 2015. Everything has changed with Brexit.
blanch152 wrote: » And Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg keep telling us that while a no-deal Brexit won't be easy or an instant economic bonanza, but it is manageable and a UK outside the EU can be a successful country. I don't believe them and, to be frank, I don't believe you. Why? Because the economics don't add up in either case and wishful thinking overrides cold analysis.
blanch152 wrote: » Why would they want to move their families and stay on the same low pay rate, when staying with a big payrise and big pension gain was an available option?
I can't help it that that is the report that those who think unity costs nothing are relying on. That report made some very very optimistic assumptions both about the future of our economy and the future of the North's economy. The Fitzgerald report I linked to earlier took into account the effect of Brexit and predicted a 15% cut in living standards in the South to pay for unity.
Cryptopagan wrote: » Why do you imagine that a united Ireland would automatically take on all these Northern Irish civil servants? Would it be up to Dublin to take on the burden of a bloated public administration that developed under London's watch? A lot of public servants would either have to be pensioned off by the UK, or transferred elsewhere within it. This would all be subject to negotiation, of course, but working for a branch of the UK civil service in Northern Ireland wouldn't guarantee anyone a public job in a new united Ireland. If their prospects were as rosy as you suggest, they'd be the biggest advocates of unity on the island.
jm08 wrote: » They could move because they consider themselves to be British and want to remain within the British system. I did say 'many', not all. Since the British Civil Service is a lot bigger than the Irish one, they would have more opportunities for promotion. Their pension up to now, would be a liability of the British Government, so they would be paying out the 'big' pensions.
jm08 wrote: » 15% cut in living standards is only if nothing changes and NI continues to be a basket case economy.
Matt Barrett wrote: » There would need be a period of adjustment for the civil service. Would Northern unions still have binding contracts after reunification?
Matt Barrett wrote: » What would happen with pensions? I'd assume the remainder of the UK would be obliged to cover pensions paid in to or accrued up to the date of reunification.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Would our civil service take on some members leaving them to oversee transition?
Matt Barrett wrote: » One thing that's guaranteed is that we'll organise a number of highly paid committees and consultants to ponder such things. This is were we'll see a lot of waste.
blanch152 wrote: » So let me see. Before a referendum takes place, you tell all the public sector workers and their families that: (1) You are not going to get paid as well as your Southern counterparts (2) You will be pensioned off or sent to the rest of the UK, like it or not (3) There is no guarantee of a job after the referendum These are the people you are trying to persuade to vote for a united Ireland. It will make for an interesting campaign all right.
Imreoir2 wrote: » We are over two years on from the Brexit referendum, and the climbdown by the people you mention was a revelation, not their initial position. The Brexit arguement at the time was based on the assertion that it would be an easy, only upside, instant economic success. I did not believe them at the time of the referendum because it was clearly an arguement based on lies. Had they made the case that leaving the EU is the best course for the UK in non-economic terms and that while challenging in the short to medium term economically that there may be an economic benefit in the long term, then I could not find much fault with their argument. I still would not agree with it, but at that point it is a question of values and priorities, not one of lies and misinformation on the economic side of it. The problem with Brexit is that the population voter for a seriously challenging economic option under a false promise of immediate economic benefit. If you want to believe that partition on this island has a positive economic impact on either part, you go right ahead, but good luck finding a credible argument to back it up. The disruption of change would have a negative impact should both parts unify in the short term, but I can't see much by way of an argument that in the long run unification would not be better. The usual argument is that the short term economic hit would be too great to bear, but I have yet to find someone even trying to argue that should the short term hit be bearable that a unified Ireland could not be a successful country in the long term.
Cryptopagan wrote: » I amn't trying to persuade anyone, and nor, in the event of a referendum, will the Irish government, which I expect will officially be neutral on the question. Nevertheless, that is a political rather than an economic point you are now making. My hunch is that support for unification would be very low among the Northern Irish civil service anyhow. We could of course work out what a united Ireland would look like before ever holding a border poll - including what, if any, obligations Dublin will have towards NI civil servants, but unionists would fiercely oppose that kind of contingency planning as presupposing the outcome. But to return to the original point, Northern Ireland's civil servants are employees of the UK, and the cost of maintaining a different government's administrative staff cannot be presumed to fall on Dublin in the event of reunification.
blanch152 wrote: » Again, that is the attitude of the Brexiteers at the time of the referendum. It will be all right on the night, we will be better off and those that are asking what will happen and how much it will cost are engaging in Project Fear. The parallels are uncanny.
Cryptopagan wrote: » Hardly. As I hint at above, I think we ought to work all this out before even holding a poll. But unionists won't want to do that, for obvious reasons. So if we do have a border poll, and if unity wins, we'll have to figure it out then. I think most people would acknowledge it would be an enormous challenge, but where membership of the EU has been a huge benefit to the UK, partition has been a damaging one for Ireland, leaving part of the country scarred by bitter sectarian conflict, economic stagnation, and stifling social conservatism.
blanch152 wrote: » Many? You are suggesting that they will uproot their spouses from their job, take their children out of school, sell their cheap house in Belfast and buy an expensive one in London, commute an extra ten hours a week etc.
Did nobody learn anything from the disastrous decentralisation project proposed by Charlie McCreevy. Most of those never happened. Those that did required local hires because civil servants wouldn't move.
Tell me this, where are the thousands of people who have moved South in the last few years because they consider themselves Irish? Why would British people move because they consider themselves British.
Losing access to the UK market makes NI even more of a basket case economy than it is today. Brexit is bad for Northern Ireland, full stop. It doesn't matter whether it is the softest Brexit with the UK staying in the SM and CU, a hard Brexit with a border on this island or a hard border down the Irish Sea. All of those options are bad news for Northern Ireland and it will become even more of a basket case economy.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Pensions are finite things like mortgages. And after repaying a mortgage you are significantly better off. If the numbers (which cannot be calculated by an overly pessimistic or optimistic poster on the internet) show that unification is a long term investment that will pay off then why would it not be an attractive proposition. 'Brexit' was shown to be an unattractive proposition as soon as the lies were stripped away.
blanch152 wrote: » Until somebody can produce credible evidence that unification is a long term investment that will pay off, those peddling unification look an awful lot like those peddling Brexit.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well you don't seem to be able to do that - properly balance the positives and benefits with the negatives which was the inherent problem with Brexiteerism, which is why it has hit a brick wall and looks like it won't happen or will be much diluted if it does. Seems to me all or most of the negatives of a UI are finite problems which are to be expected and have been experienced elsewhere. What has to be added to the conversation now if the UK does crash out is the toxic effect on Ireland solely because of an absurd partition. Even FG now realise this and the absurdity of the problem we find ourselves in because of that partition.
Imreoir2 wrote: » This assumes that your only concern is an economic one, again I am not going to try to convince anyone here that the reason to support a UI is to put a few extra euros in your pocket.
