facehugger99 wrote: » I'm pretty sure that even the most fervent believers in the money-trees aren't claiming it would cost nothing, so I fail to see the relevance of the question.
Peregrinus wrote: » I'm not saying there will be an easy or simply solution to the financial and economic challenges of reunification. But I am saying that to frame those challenges in terms of the current subvention from Westminister to Stormont is absurdly reductive, and treats the current subvention as an immutable law of nature rather than as the chance outcome of a number of contingent and transient circumstances. You need to look beyond the current subvention at the real issues, and at how they will be changed by the very fact of reunification,.
Avatar MIA wrote: » I can go one better. Eventually it would make Ireland (Great Ireland TM) more prosperous. Economies of Scale.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Saying we don't know what the costs might be isn't ignoring them. Neither is not accepting at best hypothetical costs being sold as ball park fact. I think saying we can't afford it with no hard facts or figures is just burying your head in the sand. It's a mater of looking at what might happen and preparing as best we can. The only relation I can see with hard line brexiteers is those saying 'It'll never happen so why bother talking about it'. Very close to the remainers attitude too.
blanch152 wrote: » Equally, saying that we should accept unification no matter the cost is not just burying your head in the sand, it is willfully diving into quicksand.
Havockk wrote: » No one is making that point. You will have your chance to cast your vote like the rest of us, even campaign for your desired outcome. If teh vote asses, then yes you will be asked to accept it.
blanch152 wrote: » There have been a number of posters who have loudly proclaimed that a united Ireland is worth it, no matter the cost.
facehugger99 wrote: » Oh, there's been a few. I'm presuming that you're not one of those though - so what is the maximum cost per annum that you would accept for unification? - to the nearest billion say.
Havockk wrote: » I'm a Northerner first off. And why is it so important for you for me to mention a fixed amount?
RobMc59 wrote: » For a UI vote to happen would Northern Ireland vote 1st then Ireland? I imagine there would have to be intense negotiations for at least a year before it even got to that stage.
facehugger99 wrote: » If you're from NI, then it's not important. David McWilliams is widely regarded as a buffoon BTW.
jmayo wrote: » And remind us again who will pay the salaries of all those PSNI officers ? Remind us again who is going to have to pay for all the new Land Rovers with armour plating ? Or will you just run the old inherited ones into the ground.
Who is the ones paying for the new firearms and the bullets used in training a highly armed police force ?
Shure isn't Arlene going to leave.
Yes, but who will pay their wages ? Who will pay for all the special surveillance ?
Fook sake the delusion. NI's industrial past is exactly that, the past. Harry Ferguson left long ago. Maybe they can open a new shipyard to compete with the Koreans and build another super ship that famously sinks. Problem solved. :rolleyes:
facehugger99 wrote: » David McWilliams is widely regarded as a buffoon BTW.
Havockk wrote: » That's nice.
Havockk wrote: » I imagine it would be after any border poll in the North, and if it is successful the South would get vote to ratify. but I could be wrong on that.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The scaremongering is designed to dissuade any such move or even discussion on the matter being taken seriously. The reality is the question of when is never going away. We're not sure when, we're not sure about the cost. Deciding it'll be too expensive and dismissing any conversation is akin to King Canute, in the least the issue isn't going anywhere and for anyone to try dismiss it is burying their head in the sand.
Havockk wrote: » I'm a Northerner first off. And why is it so important for you for me to mention a fixed amount? I'll leave that to the likes of David McWilliams or Paul Gosling who make the relevant points about the benefits of unification and the economy and understand it better than you, or I.
blanch152 wrote: » There have been one or two posters asking those concerned about costs whether they would support a united Ireland if there was no cost. I don't think any of them have shirked answering. It is legitimate to ask those proclaiming the merits of a united Ireland whether there is a cost that they would baulk at, whether that cost is in lives lost to unionist resistance or whether it is financial and economic cost at a societal or individual level or some other cost such as the flag or the anthem. The replies on the financial issue have been non-existent, some of the other replies have been quite revealing.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I don't think that it is scaremongering to suggest that the road to a United Ireland will be anything but easy.
Havockk wrote: » You simply ignore any economic figures or arguments that are presented which don;t match your own preconceived notions. You are completely intransigent, never accepting a single point. That, or your cohorts on that side of the debate simply label those economists 'buffoons'. (I thought that was a highlight tbh).
blanch152 wrote: » Did I label any economist a buffoon? Don't recall, but then again I wouldn't classify David McWilliams as an economist. After all, his last big idea was to advise Brian Lenihan to introduce the bank bailout and we know how all that panned out. He wrote a number of newspaper articles about Lenihan sitting at his kitchen table having the conversation. I don't ignore economic figures or arguments, I dismantle them, usually with references to works by others. Sometimes I don't have to say anything. For example, there is no need for me to to say anything about the unification reports commissioned indirectly by Sinn Fein through organisations like the KRB as the Slugger O'Toole website has completely demolished those reports and I can just highlight the relevant bits. You could call my position "preconceived notions". Alternatively, you could label it as logically supported arguments. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween, but in my opinion more towards the logical end.
Havockk wrote: » You would think the Unionist population of the North are neanderthals just waiting to pounce in murderous violence should they not get their way. Completely disparaging in its own right. Does anyone else remember the arguments about the hand over of power in SA some time back? If that can be negotiated then why cannot the North?
Havockk wrote: » I've never once on my time on boards seen you dismantle anything. I'll give you this, you are consistant in your arguments. which is what i wrote.
blanch152 wrote: » An interesting comparison.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_assassinations_in_post-apartheid_South_AfricaIf you think that widespread political assassination is a useful outcome, then we could certainly follow the South African example. We could also look to Zimbabwe for another example of successful handover of power.
blanch152 wrote: » Here is one example: It is a good example of looking at an argument and using facts to dismantle it.
Havockk wrote: » You would think the Unionist population of the North are neanderthals just waiting to pounce in murderous violence should they not get their way.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » When did I say this?
