Border Poll discussion

Dytalus wrote: »

I was unaware it had been debunked, though I'd not be surprised. I'd question how it could be debunked 'repeatedly' in the course of four months. It also was commissioned by KRB Inc, not the Friends of Sinn Fein (although KRB Inc are mentioned as being sympathetic towards SF). I can't find any concrete info on KRB Inc though, which casts aspersions on the whole thing.

I still wouldn't write it off completely without seeing some of the debunking documents/reports/whatever myself, but I agree it doesn't look the most concrete.

It would be ridiculous to assume the Thurmann report would remain unpublished if a Border Poll was being talked about in any kind of serious capacity. It would be incredibly unethical, not to mention political suicide for the government if they withheld it with a vote on the matter around the corner. I agree that we can't make any decision based on snippets which have come out, but as you'll recall from my post:

The problem is we don't know enough yet. We don't know how much of the subvention cost we'll actually have to pay, we don't know how much NI will be restructured, we don't know how much support we'll get from the EU (I'd wager quite a lot, because NI qualifies as a transition region so it would qualify for a substantial amount of EU structural funding compared to the rest of Ireland - whether it would be enough we'll only know when the EU budget for that time period is done). Hell, we don't even know if Stormont will stick around, or if NI will be ruled directly from Dublin - which IMO is a significantly bigger sticking point than the economic cost, because that's the sticking point with the larger risk of violence if we get it wrong.

We don't know. Anyone saying otherwise ("We know it's a bad/good idea") in this thread, one way or the other with any kind of concrete statement, is probably doing so based on a whole load of their own personal beliefs and opinions.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/

This will tell you who krb are.

The rest of your post is inherently contradictory.

On the one hand, you are lauding "independent" reports (one written by a FF TD, the other by KRB) as saying that unification will lead to the land of milk and honey, on the other hand, you are saying that we don't know how much it will cost.

There are huge flaws in every single study that shows unification will bring economic benefits.

There is only one report worth putting any credence in, that is the one written by economists from the ESRI and DCU who actually understand the Irish economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/united-ireland-would-see-living-standards-in-republic-fall-by-15-1.3629748

"Irish reunification would come at a high price for the Republic, reducing income and living standards by as much as 15 per cent, a new study has found."

Unlike the other reports, nobody has been able to debunk anything written in that one.

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's not up to us to prove a negative. It's up to those proposing the notion, to set out how it would be paid for without recourse to money-trees, tax-da-rich rhetoric or pie-in-the-sky, Shinner-funded reports.

Until, and if that that day ever arrives, there should be no proposed changes to the current arrangement.

I disagree, discussing the merits of the current arrangement over a proposed alternative do not equate to proving a negative.

No one can tell you anything about a supposed kettle orbiting Pluto (one common example of proving a negative) and as such we can't concretly disprove it's existance other than by recourse to occam's razor. However, omeone could tell you a hell of a lot about the current state of the Irish economey, the northern Irish economey and the policies implemented on both sides of the border, and someone could cite examples from other juristictions such as Germany. As such it is possible to specualte on the reletive merits of unification vs partition without getting into space going teawear territory.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's not up to us to prove a negative. It's up to those proposing the notion, to set out how it would be paid for without recourse to money-trees, tax-da-rich rhetoric or pie-in-the-sky, Shinner-funded reports.

Until, and if that that day ever arrives, there should be no proposed changes to the current arrangement.

This is all assumed.
I do not need proof how much it will make or cost me. This does not mean we enter blindly, but no figure either way would dissuade me from voting to push forward with it.
Sinn Fein do not own this idea. They don't represent individual people wanting to see it happen, Enda Kenny being one for example. I doubt he's an avid Wolfe Tone listener.
It's a matter of working out any financial fallout so we can prepare for it, not a deciding factor on whether we proceed with it.
Anyone deciding based on the finances is probably not bothered about it anyway.

blanch152 wrote: »

There is only one report worth putting any credence in, that is the one written by economists from the ESRI and DCU who actually understand the Irish economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/united-ireland-would-see-living-standards-in-republic-fall-by-15-1.3629748

"Irish reunification would come at a high price for the Republic, reducing income and living standards by as much as 15 per cent, a new study has found."

Unlike the other reports, nobody has been able to debunk anything written in that one.

If you feel that this report is worth putting creedence in, then surely the premiss that it is based upon must be accepted also? It is not credible to accept the results while ignoring it's premiss.

We have one report that looks at one policy choice the Irish state could make when it comes to unification. It is not even slightly credible to suggest that the findings of that report would hold true in all cases no matter the policy choice the state makes, especially when the policy choice in question is for the Irish State to make no atempt to intgerate NI and reform its economey.

If people propose that unification should take the form of NI being preserved as is, with no atempt to integrate it and reform its economey to bring it into line with the republics, then by all means feel free to cite this report showing the negative impact such a choice would have, but please don't pretend that the finidings of this report will hold true no matter what the state does. If that is your position, then you don't really believe in that report, you just believe in partititon.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If you feel that this report is worth putting creedence in, then surely the premiss that it is based upon must be accepted also? It is not credible to accept the results while ignoring it's premiss.

We have one report that looks at one policy choice the Irish state could make when it comes to unification. It is not even slightly credible to suggest that the findings of that report would hold true in all cases no matter the policy choice the state makes, especially when the policy choice in question is for the Irish State to make no atempt to intgerate NI and reform its economey.

If people propose that unification should take the form of NI being preserved as is, with no atempt to integrate it and reform its economey to bring it into line with the republics, then by all means feel free to cite this report showing the negative impact such a choice would have, but please don't pretend that the finidings of this report will hold true no matter what the state does. If that is your position, then you don't really believe in that report, you just believe in partititon.

I said before the report posted is like something cobbled together on a Sunday night by a hungover student, such is it's lack of depth. Vague sentences like 'The North had a good run since WW2 to 1969'...I mean seriously??? :eek:

I don't think we have come near a proper analysis of the cost of Unification and we won't until we have all the stakeholders sitting down and discussing it.

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I do not need proof how much it will make or cost me. This does not mean we enter blindly, but no figure either way would dissuade me from voting to push forward with it.

This is exactly the sort of rhetoric that needs to be killed off as a matter of urgency, and it's precisely what I meant about a blinkered Brexitesque approach to the issue.

Those who would advocate for unity with the sort of blind fervour that says that the consequences are irrelevant need to be sidelined by anyone who's serious about actually making it happen.

Dytalus

blanch152 wrote: »

https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/

This will tell you who krb are.

That's a pretty well put together post. So I'll concede this point, although I had already conceded that it was somewhat spurious in my last one. This is considerably more damning.

The rest of your post is inherently contradictory.

On the one hand, you are lauding "independent" reports (one written by a FF TD, the other by KRB) as saying that unification will lead to the land of milk and honey, on the other hand, you are saying that we don't know how much it will cost.

I have lauded no reports. I've presented reports that exist and are relevant to the discussion, I don't recall making any comments that qualify as 'lauding'. And the Thumann report was co-written by a FF TD, alongside a senior IMF economist from during german reunification. Let's not ignore the other author of that report who is in a position to know what he's talking about.

There are huge flaws in every single study that shows unification will bring economic benefits.

You have yet to present evidence of such flaws. If the reports are flawed (likely in the case of the first, given who funded it and how they hid their connection to its funding), then counter the claims within them. It should be simple enough if the reports are as compromised by those who sponsored them as you seem to suspect.

For the record, while I'm not enough of an expert in economic stuff to debunk the KRB report I do note that they do only seem to look at the better outcomes (EU provides sufficient ESIF funding, Ireland reforms NI's public sector, merges government to reduce Stormont overhead). I'd have wanted an equivalent focus on worst-case scenarios too to balance it out, but at least they're open about their premises.

I can't find a full copy of the Thumann report - if you're able to find one (and provide an analysis pointing out the flaws you think it contains) I'd greatly appreciate it.

There is only one report worth putting any credence in, that is the one written by economists from the ESRI and DCU who actually understand the Irish economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/united-ireland-would-see-living-standards-in-republic-fall-by-15-1.3629748

"Irish reunification would come at a high price for the Republic, reducing income and living standards by as much as 15 per cent, a new study has found."

Unlike the other reports, nobody has been able to debunk anything written in that one.

As raised previously, the report makes no mention of potential fixes that might come in place over the course of reunification. It assumes we will continue to pay the €10b a year and not seek to change anything. If that was the actual plan, then well...unification would be a huge mistake. I'd be in agreement with you.

And that €10billion figure is disputed in the first place. For example here and here.

But I think it's a bit naive to assume Ireland would just allow NI to continue business as usual. Though I would also have thought the same of Westminster and yet....here we are - NI's economy is still a mess and they don't seem to have done anything to try fix it. Always a chance our politicians would be just as apathetic towards NI.

German unification has cost what was West Germany a lot of money, but I'd wager most Germans see it as having been worth it. Northern Ireland and Ireland have a bigger disparity between them now than East & West Germany did, so it'll be a harder issue to resolve. It's up to personal opinion as to whether the economic impact balances with the emotional (huzzah, one island, one Ireland and all that blathering) or the diplomatic (might it resolve any hard border issues faced with a hard Brexit? Might it make them worse?).

Personally, I think the economic debate is the lesser one - a United Ireland might well become a net beneficiary of EU funding again thanks to NI dragging us down, and knowing how ESIF funding works I trust the EU to help out with it. The potential for violence is what will decide it for me. A hard Brexit will almost certainly lead to violence, and if we're going to take an economic hit to potentially solve that problem it's a price I'm willing to pay.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/united-ireland-would-see-living-standards-in-republic-fall-by-15-1.3629748

"Irish reunification would come at a high price for the Republic, reducing income and living standards by as much as 15 per cent, a new study has found."

Unlike the other reports, nobody has been able to debunk anything written in that one.

That report is based on Ireland continue the €11 billion subvention (which includes NI share towards the Royal Family, British Army, Trident etc).

However, this would pose a number of economic challenges, not least how the Republic would accommodate the €11 billion subvention Northern Ireland receives annually from the UK, which equates to 25 per cent of its national income.

“Taking on such a bill would reduce permanently the standard of living in this part of the island by 15 per cent,” Prof FitzGerald told the annual conference of the Dublin Economics Workshop in Co Wexford, where he presented the study’s findings.

Military spend is £50 a head for N.I. or just shy of £94m total a year.
Source

N.I. has an annual net cost to the exchequer of on average £7bn, so it's hardly any significant saving.

In fact, here's the NI budget, you can see for yourself that there's very little that could be cut/streamlined/saved.

Peregrinus

Yeah, but you have to consider whether NI would be such a parlous condition, and requiring such a huge permanent subvention, if it were not for the deleterious effects of partition. An analysis which starts from the assumption that NI's economic situation would not be altered in the event of reunification is kind of begging some important questions.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, but you have to consider whether NI would be such a parlous condition, and requiring such a huge permanent subvention, if it were not for the deleterious effects of partition. An analysis which starts from the assumption that NI's economic situation would not be altered in the event of reunification is kind of begging some important questions.

I've gone through the budget (posted in previous post) and there is very little, if any, scope for savings. In fact, I think in terms of the disparity between social welfare rates and the NHS/HSE divide, there would be some increases. Outside of the budget, your position incorrectly assumes that the NI economy could increase its output by 62.6% by ending partition (which would be required simply to end subvention deficit as things stand) - I'd suggest there is very little if any economic evidence that would support this.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

I've gone through the budget (posted in previous post) and there is very little, if any, scope for savings. In fact, I think in terms of the disparity between social welfare rates and the NHS/HSE divide, there would be some increases. Outside of the budget, your position incorrectly assumes that the NI economy could increase its output by 62.6% by ending partition (which would be required simply to end subvention deficit as things stand) - I'd suggest there is very little if any economic evidence that would support this.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect that NI will be entirely self sufficient within a united Ireland, that however does not mean that the all island economey as a whole will not be better off, don't forget that partition has a negative effect on both sides of the border, not only in NI.

There are plenty of counties in the republic in which more is spent than raised in taxes, but that is not a good argument for kicking them out, try it and you would find that the economey of the republic as a whole would be worse off even if the greater Dublin area had more to spend on itself.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think it is reasonable to expect that NI will be entirely self sufficient within a united Ireland, that however does not mean that the all island economey as a whole will not be better off, don't forget that partition has a negative effect on both sides of the border, not only in NI.

There are plenty of counties in the republic in which more is spent than raised in taxes, but that is not a good argument for kicking them out, try it and you would find that the economey of the republic as a whole would be worse off even if the greater Dublin area had more to spend on itself.

This is all well and good in theory and to an extent I agree with it, but I've yet to see anything resembling evidence to support this claim. The fact was pointed out that the €11bn subvention would in fact decrease standard of living in a UI, which was countered by saying that there would also be savings - I agree that there would be very minimal savings, but unless the net benefit is more than £7.6bn (€8.8bn) then it will be a significant subvention.

Those are simply the facts and I think as much as I would want a United Ireland, we need to be clear on the actual sums and potential impacts. Surely nobody is seriously of the belief that UI would have an economic boost to increase NI output by 62.6%?

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think it is reasonable to expect that NI will be entirely self sufficient within a united Ireland, that however does not mean that the all island economey as a whole will not be better off, don't forget that partition has a negative effect on both sides of the border, not only in NI.

There are plenty of counties in the republic in which more is spent than raised in taxes, but that is not a good argument for kicking them out, try it and you would find that the economey of the republic as a whole would be worse off even if the greater Dublin area had more to spend on itself.

There is a jump there. You cannot say that the all-island economy will be better off. The fiscal drag from the subvention together with the increases in taxation to pay for higher social welfare rates and higher public service pay in the North could be enough to send the whole island into recession without considering the secondary effects on FDI of the higher taxation. That is without counting any effect from a single loyalist attack on a MNC in the South, the obvious target to create real economic damage.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

This is all well and good in theory and to an extent I agree with it, but I've yet to see anything resembling evidence to support this claim. The fact was pointed out that the €11bn subvention would in fact decrease standard of living in a UI, which was countered by saying that there would also be savings - I agree that there would be very minimal savings, but unless the net benefit is more than £7.6bn (€8.8bn) then it will be a significant subvention.

Those are simply the facts and I think as much as I would want a United Ireland, we need to be clear on the actual sums and potential impacts. Surely nobody is seriously of the belief that UI would have an economic boost to increase NI output by 62.6%?

I think that we are all in agreement that there needs to be much more robust economic analsys of the various options open to a newly united Ireland.

I don't think there is any escaping the fact that there will be a significant initial cost to unification and that a period of transition and reform will be needed to integrate NI into the united state and that this will require significant investment from the republic.

This is just my opinion but I think it is reasonable to propose that there could be savings through the amalgamation of the Republic's and NI's civil service. We all know that the NI civil service is bloated and that staffing levels could be reduced without seriously compromising the delivery of services. Beyond that there are natural savings to be made due to economies of scale and reducing the levels of duplication inherent in mainting two seperate public administrations.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that there are savings to be made, but if done properly would take time to realise. I don't think anyone would want to engage in a slash and burn approch to reducing the cost of the public sector in NI. Rather, through a period of transition, the necessary changes can be implemented in a gradual way through voluntary redundancies and not replacing staff who reach retirement age.

At the same time, there would have to be a thorough reform of the NI economey. It is vastly behind the republic and again I think it is reasonable to suggest that investment in the NI economey after unification would over time yeild results, especially as that was the experiance in Garmany after their unification process. Again, this would take time to implement and for results to be seen. There is no question in my opinion but that unification would have a significant short term cost.

Feel free to question the reasonablness of these opinions, but I have yet to see any thorough analsys that shows that these are unrealistic expectations.

Charles Babbage

Like so many things the devil is in the detail. Why exactly is revenue less in the NI than in the ROI? On which things, exactly, is expenditure higher. These aggregate figures conceal more than they reveal.

And I do not think that North and South in Ireland have a bigger gap than East and West Germany, which had a huge difference in economic structure. Large parts of the East German economy just disappeared when market prices were introduced, NI already operates a market economy.

People can debate the merits of the issue, but obfuscation of the facts is no help.

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a jump there. You cannot say that the all-island economy will be better off.

I did not claim that the all-island economey would be better off, I was simply making the point that NI continuing to have a higher spend than tax take in and of itself does not mean that the present day 26 counties would be worse off economicly as a result of unification. Such a claim is too simplistic and does not take into account the potential benefit of ending partition on the other side of the border.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think that we are all in agreement that there needs to be much more robust economic analsys of the various options open to a newly united Ireland.

I don't think there is any escaping the fact that there will be a significant initial cost to unification and that a period of transition and reform will be needed to integrate NI into the united state and that this will require significant investment from the republic.

This is just my opinion but I think it is reasonable to propose that there could be savings through the amalgamation of the Republic's and NI's civil service. We all know that the NI civil service is bloated and that staffing levels could be reduced without seriously compromising the delivery of services. Beyond that there are natural savings to be made due to economies of scale and reducing the levels of duplication inherent in mainting two seperate public administrations.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that there are savings to be made, but if done properly would take time to realise. I don't think anyone would want to engage in a slash and burn approch to reducing the cost of the public sector in NI. Rather, through a period of transition, the necessary changes can be implemented in a gradual way through voluntary redundancies and not replacing staff who reach retirement age.

At the same time, there would have to be a thorough reform of the NI economey. It is vastly behind the republic and again I think it is reasonable to suggest that investment in the NI economey after unification would over time yeild results, especially as that was the experiance in Garmany after their unification process. Again, this would take time to implement and for results to be seen. There is no question in my opinion but that unification would have a significant short term cost.

Feel free to question the reasonablness of these opinions, but I have yet to see any thorough analsys that shows that these are unrealistic expectations.

I posted the budget - I was going to go through it in detail, but in the end I found so little potential savings that I would have been saving time and space by just posting the two potential areas where savings are likely. I don't see a significant admin expenditure in NI when compared to Ireland either.

I think, when you look at the budget, there is very little scope for cuts and savings and, in fact, you'd be increasing the social welfare budget quite significantly which would probably negate any nominal savings.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think that we are all in agreement that there needs to be much more robust economic analsys of the various options open to a newly united Ireland.

I don't think there is any escaping the fact that there will be a significant initial cost to unification and that a period of transition and reform will be needed to integrate NI into the united state and that this will require significant investment from the republic.

This is just my opinion but I think it is reasonable to propose that there could be savings through the amalgamation of the Republic's and NI's civil service. We all know that the NI civil service is bloated and that staffing levels could be reduced without seriously compromising the delivery of services. Beyond that there are natural savings to be made due to economies of scale and reducing the levels of duplication inherent in mainting two seperate public administrations.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that there are savings to be made, but if done properly would take time to realise. I don't think anyone would want to engage in a slash and burn approch to reducing the cost of the public sector in NI. Rather, through a period of transition, the necessary changes can be implemented in a gradual way through voluntary redundancies and not replacing staff who reach retirement age.

At the same time, there would have to be a thorough reform of the NI economey. It is vastly behind the republic and again I think it is reasonable to suggest that investment in the NI economey after unification would over time yeild results, especially as that was the experiance in Garmany after their unification process. Again, this would take time to implement and for results to be seen. There is no question in my opinion but that unification would have a significant short term cost.

Feel free to question the reasonablness of these opinions, but I have yet to see any thorough analsys that shows that these are unrealistic expectations.

Well, somebody can look up more recent figures, but anything I find tends to be in German, one language I don't know. However, this is interesting reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/02/german-division-berlin-wall-reunification-war-anniversaries

"a closer look at the figures showed that GDP in the east was still only 67% of that in the west – roughly the same as 10 years ago."

"While Germany as a whole had become more economically productive, the gap between east and west had stayed the same. The report also ignores the latest ministry of work figures, which show that while unemployment in the west is as low as 5.8%, it is 9.5% in the east."

It is an inaccurate assumption that all went well with German unification, even 25 years later. 25 years didn't fix it for the economic powerhouse of Germany. Ireland, struggling with the economic challenge of Brexit, would take a longer time. So how anyone can suggest that the cost is only short-term is beyond me. A fairer conclusion is that if unification happened tomorrow it is likely to take the working life of those leaving college today before Ireland sees a long-term benefit from unification.

Looking at some of the detail of your proposals, are you aware of any recent successful large-scale redundancy programme or downsizing for an Irish or British civil service? If that is worked out in advance, why would any Northern Irish civil servant vote for unity and possibly losing their job? That would be sufficient to ensure it never passes.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I did not claim that the all-island economey would be better off, I was simply making the point that NI continuing to have a higher spend than tax take in and of itself does not mean that the present day 26 counties would be worse off economicly as a result of unification. Such a claim is too simplistic and does not take into account the potential benefit of ending partition on the other side of the border.

No matter how many times people say the "potential benefit" of ending partition, I keep asking how and why they expect this potential benefit, and the answer is milk and honey.

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, somebody can look up more recent figures, but anything I find tends to be in German, one language I don't know. However, this is interesting reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/02/german-division-berlin-wall-reunification-war-anniversaries

"a closer look at the figures showed that GDP in the east was still only 67% of that in the west – roughly the same as 10 years ago."

"While Germany as a whole had become more economically productive, the gap between east and west had stayed the same. The report also ignores the latest ministry of work figures, which show that while unemployment in the west is as low as 5.8%, it is 9.5% in the east."

It is an inaccurate assumption that all went well with German unification, even 25 years later. 25 years didn't fix it for the economic powerhouse of Germany. Ireland, struggling with the economic challenge of Brexit, would take a longer time. So how anyone can suggest that the cost is only short-term is beyond me. A fairer conclusion is that if unification happened tomorrow it is likely to take the working life of those leaving college today before Ireland sees a long-term benefit from unification.

That is your opinion, I would suggest that east Germany managing to keep pace with one of the strongest economies in Europe after Unification is no small achievement. That there has not been continued convergance between east and west over the last ten years does not mean that there was no convergance in the first 15, that is a crucial piece of information that you have ommitted. That the all-German economey continued to increase in productivity after unification, and that both parts of the country while not at the same level have nonetheless kept pace with each other does not suggest to me that unification was a mistake.

Looking at some of the detail of your proposals, are you aware of any recent successful large-scale redundancy programme or downsizing for an Irish or British civil service? If that is worked out in advance, why would any Northern Irish civil servant vote for unity and possibly losing their job? That would be sufficient to ensure it never passes.

No I am not, but nor has there been a pressing need for such a program in Britain or Ireland in recent years. There would be post unification. It is possible that if a slash and burn plan which featured large scale forced redundancies was proposed prior to a referendum, that it would be rejected by the electorate. It is also possible that a more gradual plan, featuring volountary redundency and allowing for a natural reduction through not replacing staff who reach retirement age as part of a process of restructuring over time, would not cause much opposition at all from the electorate. It is certainly a question that needs more research. Dispite your confident assertions, I don't think you can say definitivly at this point what the outcome will be.

blanch152 wrote: »

No matter how many times people say the "potential benefit" of ending partition, I keep asking how and why they expect this potential benefit, and the answer is milk and honey.

Partition did not happen in the first place because it would be of benefit to the all-island economy to devide the country, nor has it been maintained for 100 years because of the economic benefits.

You are welcome to propose that partition has accedentally had a beneficial impact on the all-island economey, but that is a case for you to make, I don't think it is acceptable to insist that we take it as an article of faith.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

No matter how many times people say the "potential benefit" of ending partition, I keep asking how and why they expect this potential benefit, and the answer is milk and honey.

There are a couple of things which suggest that NI can catch up with the ROI. First of all, NI's traditional industrial base will not have to compete with the ROI. At the moment, it is competing with Glasgow, North of England, South Wales (eg, Nissan, Airbus, etc). When push comes shove with companies like Boeing, the British Gov. will sacrifice NI jobs to retain the English vote. They don't care if the DUP lose votes as its only rarely they will need them to support them in Government.

Secondly, with the same taxing system as ROI, NI will actually be able to compete now for FDI. It makes no sense for a company investing in Ireland to choose NI over the ROI at the moment.

Thirdly, the governing of NI - do you seriously think that an Irish Gov. could only do as well as SF/DUP managing NI's economy?

At the moment, they have no global marketing and more or less try and jump on the tails of Irish agencies promoting Ireland overseas (an example of this is how NI milk is being made into baby formula and sold in China).

There is also a serious brain drain in NI that needs to be fixed. At the moment young protestants (mainly) go to university in GB and are not returning when they get their degree. That is not good for the future of NI.

murphaph

I think one major difference between the former East Germany (where my house is by the way) and NI is that the German economy as a whole is built upon the Mittelstand companies, indigenous SMEs. There is (relative to Ireland) very little FDI in Germany. A UI would be in a position to direct FDI to NI to perhaps more quickly bootstrap the private sector.

It's also physically easier for most of NI to access the south, compared to East Germany where the distances are much greater.

I know it would still pose a very significant cost in the early years, even with generous assistance from the EU and a UK happy to be shot of the place.

Dyr

I think I made the point at the start of this threas that you will find various posters who will ignore any evidence that does not support their position and signal boost anything that does as the only valid study etc. That's all this thread will be endless cycle of the same routine.

I do however, admire the chap who asserted that he's looked over the books and there's no savings to be made. That takes this carry on a different level.

jm08 wrote: »

There are a couple of things which suggest that NI can catch up with the ROI. First of all, NI's traditional industrial base will not have to compete with the ROI. At the moment, it is competing with Glasgow, North of England, South Wales (eg, Nissan, Airbus, etc). When push comes shove with companies like Boeing, the British Gov. will sacrifice NI jobs to retain the English vote. They don't care if the DUP lose votes as its only rarely they will need them to support them in Government.

I've always wondered why those big multi-national manufacturing jobs aren't interested in Ireland, particularly Airbus? Does anyone have real insight on why we're not jumping down the throats of these companies leaving the UK?

Secondly, with the same taxing system as ROI, NI will actually be able to compete now for FDI. It makes no sense for a company investing in Ireland to choose NI over the ROI at the moment.

We aren't even succeeding to a large extent in getting FDI in Cork... I'd hate to imagine what would happen to Cork if Belfast was thrown into the mix. Same with Galway/Derry.

At the moment, they have no global marketing and more or less try and jump on the tails of Irish agencies promoting Ireland overseas (an example of this is how NI milk is being made into baby formula and sold in China).

That's not correct, there is a large presence internationally and a significant cooperation with Ireland on this.

Bambi wrote: »

I think I made the point at the start of this threas that you will find various posters who will ignore any evidence that does not support their position and signal boost anything that does as the only valid study etc. That's all this thread will be endless cycle of the same routine.

I do however, admire the chap who asserted that he's looked over the books and there's no savings to be made. That takes this carry on a different level.

Have you bothered to look yourself and show where the savings are apparent?

Seem like you're the one caught signal-boosting your own unsupported claims.

EDIT: By the way, I did not say "there's no savings to be made", this is an absolute fabrication / misrepresentation of what I said. I said that there are not significant apparent savings resulting from NI leaving the UK (claim was that savings from military, trident (also military so idk why separated) and paying for the royal family would be a saving) - I said that there is no apparent saving in the budget that would close the £7bn+ shortfall between output and expenditure in NI and there's zero chance of a 60%+ increase in output.

facehugger99

jm08 wrote: »

Secondly, with the same taxing system as ROI, NI will actually be able to compete now for FDI. It makes no sense for a company investing in Ireland to choose NI over the ROI at the moment.

Great, so it will be competing with us for FDI?

Sounds fantastic.

jm08 wrote: »

There is also a serious brain drain in NI that needs to be fixed. At the moment young protestants (mainly) go to university in GB and are not returning when they get their degree. That is not good for the future of NI.

Are you seriously suggesting that ending partition will fix the problem of those with a British identity wanting to live in the rest of Britain?