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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
blanch152 wrote: » There is a jump there. You cannot say that the all-island economy will be better off.
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%?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dytalus wrote: » 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.
oscarBravo wrote: » I have no objection to a united Ireland in principle. What worries me is the prospect of rushing into a UI in a Brexit-like fashion - "it will be wonderful, and anyone saying otherwise is just peddling Project Fear". The point has been well-made on this forum that we are better at referendums than the UK, because we have a deliberative process by which we work out the details of how something will work before we seek the permission of the people to implement it. We need to keep doing that. I don't want to see competing slogans shouting that it will cost us money, or that it will save us money. I want to see a costed plan. Will we pay Irish social welfare rates to Northern Ireland residents? Will we achieve cost savings by firing most of the existing civil service up north? These and hundreds of similar questions need to be answered before we're asked to vote.
blanch152 wrote: » The KLC Consultants report is the one paid for by the Friends of Sinn Fein which has been repeatedly debunked.
blanch152 wrote: » The Thurmann report is unpublished. Selective extracts that promise savings while apparently hiding behind large scale redundancies don't wash in reality. If that is the plan, it won't pass in the North.
Will Ireland take up the costs of public sector pensions, or would they still fall under the purview of the UK who is currently paying them? Until that's decided, we can't know how much savings would be made on pensions. Until an agreement is made on what will happen to NI's enormous amount of public sector workers (which account for 11.4% of the working population, compared with Ireland's 8.4%), and whether Stormont will remain or be merged with the Dáil we can't know the cost of that either - will it be higher or lower or unchanged? There's too much possible variance in outcomes, so it's impossible to say with certainty which option is better just yet. Outright saying "no" is just as shortsighted as outright saying "yes".
blanch152 wrote: » The KLC Consultants report is the one paid for by the Friends of Sinn Fein which has been repeatedly debunked. The Thurmann report is unpublished. Selective extracts that promise savings while apparently hiding behind large scale redundancies don't wash in reality. If that is the plan, it won't pass in the North.
Dytalus wrote: » A recently released report indicates that hard brexit could cost us to the tune of €42.5 billion over 7 years. That same report shows that over that same 7 years, unification would result in significantly better results than either a hard or soft brexit.Another report (yet to be released fully by the DFA - they're probably holding off to avoid impacting Brexit negotiations, but there's been no statement yet) indicates the cost of NI subvention wouldn't be as high as it currently is. A lot of its expenses wouldn't need to be taken up by the Republic, as they're based on NI being part of the UK. There's no clear view of what the true cost of a unified Ireland would be just yet, and the most recent publically available report I can find seems to indicate that after a rocky start, re-unification would be a net benefit to the island of Ireland economically. Obviously, though, we'd need consensus and hard numbers before ever putting forward a referendum (the Republic tends to be pretty good at getting all the details in order before putting them to the public). Will Ireland take up the costs of public sector pensions, or would they still fall under the purview of the UK who is currently paying them? Until that's decided, we can't know how much savings would be made on pensions. Until an agreement is made on what will happen to NI's enormous amount of public sector workers (which account for 11.4% of the working population, compared with Ireland's 8.4%), and whether Stormont will remain or be merged with the Dáil we can't know the cost of that either - will it be higher or lower or unchanged? There's too much possible variance in outcomes, so it's impossible to say with certainty which option is better just yet. Outright saying "no" is just as shortsighted as outright saying "yes".
facehugger99 wrote: » That's nonsensical argument. The 'cost' of Brexit to the Republic (which is an unknown) would be €10 billion a year worse if we're trying to fund reunification at the same time. Brexit and the cost of same, is an argument against reunification, not for it.
"Taking the above adjustments and savings into account the cumulative figure is £8.5 billion. With the reported deficit for Northern Ireland is at £9.2 billion therefore the current income and expenditure figure for Northern Ireland, the report concludes comes near a balanced budget in a reunification scenario. This is of course, before taking into account the likely potential for growth in Northern Ireland following unification as happened in East Germany following its reunification"
Peregrinus wrote: » I see where you're coming from, but the approach is a bit simplistic, maybe. As just pointed out, partition has its costs too, and these are about to rise with Brexit (and will rise sharply if there's a crash-out Brexit). You might wish there to be a cost-free option, but it doesn't necessarily follow that there will be. That's Brexiter thinking!
