Enzokk wrote: » But correct me if I am wrong the purpose of SF is for a United Ireland. By voting for a border and cutting off the access to Ireland would run contrary to their stated aim and purpose as a political party.It would take some devious genius level of thinking of SF voting against the backstop and then ruining the NI economy to get their aim of a United Ireland. That would just not work in the real world.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Unfortunately this school of thought has gained traction both within Sinn Fein and elsewhere. People hoping the NI economy will be so badly ruined that northerners in the majority would look to unite with the south. By that stage our own economy wouldn't be in great shape and hardly able to cope with the extra cost of subsidising the North.
prawnsambo wrote: » As a 'school of thought' it's only been expressed in terms of the DUP actively shooting themselves in the foot by pushing for such a scenario. It takes some mental gymnastics to suggest that nationalists and/or people in Ireland would actively push such an option for that purpose. Nobody suggests that we wouldn't have economic issues with a UI. But it's not as expensive as you are making out. David McWilliams looked into this in some depth a while ago. Possibly in the FT, but not 100% sure. As for the damage to our economy; it's going to affect growth, not start a recession.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » I've heard figures of 10-15 billion a year to pay for it.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Why would the Irish economy be in poor shape?
But he said the impact of a disorderly, no-deal scenario would “have very severe and immediate disruptive effects with consequences for almost all areas of economic activity”. “Compared to a situation where the UK remains a EU member, our estimates suggest that a disorderly Brexit would result in a substantial and permanent loss of output,” he told an Oireachtas committee. Mr Cassidy added: “We think that the disorderly, no-deal scenario could knock about four percentage points off economic growth in the first year alone. 6% The percentage it is estimated output would be lowered by compared to a no-deal scenario over the medium-term Central Bank “To put that in context, we’re expecting economic growth of 4.25% this year, 3.5% next year. “So we would still expect some modest positive growth in a no-deal scenario but essentially it would knock almost all of the growth off in the first couple of years.” Over the medium-term, Mr Cassidy said he believed output would be lowered by over 6% compared to a no-deal scenario. “We think there would be 110,000 fewer jobs compared to a situation where there had been no Brexit, so the effects are immediate,” he concluded.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » I've heard figures of 10-15 billion a year to pay for it. Hard enough at the best of times, but very difficult if we are also struggling economically. Most if not all of that 10-15 billion would have to be borrowed annually for years to come. Sinn Fein will hopefully support a backstop if it comes to a vote.
Enzokk wrote: » But correct me if I am wrong the purpose of SF is for a United Ireland. By voting for a border and cutting off the access to Ireland would run contrary to their stated aim and purpose as a political party. It would take some devious genius level of thinking of SF voting against the backstop and then ruining the NI economy to get their aim of a United Ireland. That would just not work in the real world.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Another problem with the proposal is that if Stormont doesn't exist and then the decision is transferred to Westminster. You could see a UK government being propped up by unionists forcing the issue one way. Remember, there is only one rule really in the UK, Parliament is sovereign.
prawnsambo wrote: » The UK pay about £9-10 billion a year to Ni in the form of subventions, decentralised administrative functions and other grants. You'd need to look at McWilliams' article for the actual breakdown, but he contends that almost half of that would be unnecessary in a UI situation.
prawnsambo wrote: » I doubt that possibility would pass anyone by if it came down to drawing up a legal text to legislate for it. A backstop for the backstop would have to be envisaged in the event that Stormont was not sitting.
MrMusician18 wrote: » The alternative would be a regional referendum on it, which would no doubt be turned into a sectarian headcount/proxy unity referendum.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » You are unlikely to accept my opinion, but hopefully you accept the opinion of the Central Bank who have studied it in detail.https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/central-bank-warns-of-110000-fewer-jobs-in-event-of-no-deal-brexit-931774.html
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Leo just addressed it in the Dáil. I wonderhttps://twitter.com/sicarswell/status/1181907467627880454?s=21
quokula wrote: » Not sure it would as the majority of moderate unionists are in favour of the backstop as far as I'm aware - pretty much every trade and industrial body up there have been out supporting it.
The situation remains fluid. What is known is that, over the next two weeks, circumstances will inevitably change. If 19 October comes and goes without either of the two conditions in the 2019 Act having been satisfied and in the absence of the letter which the Prime Minister would then be required to send, the petitioners would be entitled to return to court and seek an order ordaining the PM to comply with the terms of the 2019 Act within a prescribed, and possibly very short, period. It is only once that period has expired without the order being obtempered that the court would consider authorising an official to sign the letter which the PM may have failed to do.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Looks like the UK's simplified process for importing goods is in place...https://twitter.com/ballantine70/status/1181864495569920000
Seth Brundle wrote: » In fairness, there's a massive difference between the CB predicting a reduction in growth (which will still remain positive growth!) and you saying that our "economy wouldn't be in great shape and hardly able to cope with the extra cost of subsidising the North"
“Alliance’s preference is for Northern Ireland and indeed the wider UK to remain with the EU. However, if Brexit has to happen, Northern Ireland needs to have special arrangements to protect our unique circumstances. “But while these reports are not necessarily true, effectively giving a veto to either unionists or nationalists over that is unacceptable. Any issues of consent by the Assembly will be inherently loaded, based upon what is the assigned status quo and turned into a de facto debate on the constitutional question, instead of addressing the point
gooch2k9 wrote: » It's weird seeing "Brexit" on actual government documents like that. You'd expect "...for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union." I suppose that's where we are now though!
NIMAN wrote: » Re: medicine supply to Ireland. I have heard regularly that we would suffer a medicine supply problem in the event of a NDB. Why could we not just get our supply through Europe instead? Are all the drugs made in the UK?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)