FrancieBrady wrote: » We don't know what NI costs. You think you do, but you don't. You CAN DO what SF have done and speculate on a cost and offset it against the benefits as they have done. You might and are quite entitled to argue with them on that. I am sure there will be many figures bandied about.
mattser wrote: » Same awful performance on Drivetime this evening. All over the shop.
blanch152 wrote: » Did anyone see Mary-Lou make a complete fool of herself on the Six-One news. One minute she was calling for an all-island approach, the next she was saying there was no need to cancel the Leaving Cert just because the A-Levels had been cancelled!!!!!! So much for the all-island approach. One sentence nearly immediately after the other! Is she anything but anti-whatever-the-other-person-says?
RandomViewer wrote: » Funny how the poster thinks we get a choice in paying for things, fleet of Audis for Irish Water, hybrid buses for Dublinbus, National broadband plan that will make Soviet era telecoms look modern, nobody gave us a choice on paying for these useless things
FrancieBrady wrote: » You relax with whatever poll you want. Why are you so bothered if it so cut and dried IYO?
jh79 wrote: » Park that so. Shouldn't a Republican party have the ground work done on possible costs of unification and have them discussed in public in anticipation of a border poll?
blanch152 wrote: » Epic fail in that post. The whole reason the cost issue comes up is that support for a united Ireland plummets to less than 30% if people have to pay extra taxes to implement it. If that 30% is the cohort that pay no tax but get pensions, disability and social welfare, if they have to be cut, then it will drop further. The thing which posters on here don't get, the case for a united Ireland is immediately undermined unless these issues are addressed well in advance of any decision to hold a referendum and it is incumbent on those who want a united Ireland to do the explaining. On here, all they are doing is running away from the discussion.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So no evidence form you of them avoiding questions on costs either...just more of your boogeymen and women stuff.
jh79 wrote: » The lack of any document from them outlining the possible costs of unification is evidence enough they are running away from the topic. Francie this is SF practically a single issue party that being unification yet nothing on one of the most important aspects of it. They could aleays revert to type and say don't worry someone else will pay for it. If something is better in NI should we be brought up to that standard or should standards be dropped to match ? How much each scenario might cost ? Do you not think these details are important enough?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I would like to see some 'evidence' of them refusing/being afraid to discuss the costs. Any interviews where they wouldn't answer a question etc? That would be a start. Doubt I am going to get it at this stage tbh.
Bowie wrote: » Not addressing specific queries in that document is hardly 'afraid to discuss the cost'. I'd do a bit of research before I made such a claim. I guarantee you you'll see a much bigger wave of good feeling and support for a UI than any other referendum. Cost won't be a factor for many. Especially any scare mongered guestimates. A UI is bigger than SF or any FG/Tory party. IMO, a lot of dismissing or talking it down is more about keeping the shinners in check than a UI, which is sad.
jh79 wrote: » Refused in the sense of never having attempted to address one of the most important aspects of their raison d'etre. Scared would be a another fair description. Should i expect a post looking for a evidence of a raised heart beat from Mary Lou Jaysus Francie it's not a court of law. Are you expecting a sworn affidavit from SF saying they will not discuss it? You really don't like this topic. Wonder why?
FrancieBrady wrote: » And.... 'Where have SF refused to discuss the costs?' You have not demonstrated that yet. Was it bull****?
jh79 wrote: » They addressed the low hanging fruit in the subvention and the fanciful document on the benefits but nothing on the costs required while hoping the benefits become a reality.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Asked you demonstrate this before...you seem to be avoiding it. Where have SF refused to discuss the costs?
jh79 wrote: » Won't they need to know too? Not going to get a blank cheque. Wouldn't it be a good idea for SF or any other party wishing for a UI to estimate it and start looking for this help?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Back at you...you cannot predict the future either. May very well be the case that with all the supports and structures/preparation that it is cost neutral. Who knows until the work starts.
jh79 wrote: » That document was about possible benefits. A document on the full costs of unifications is what you and SF are afraid of. Whose going to take cuts in welfare / PS pay or will we have economic partition with different pay rates for the same job in NI. That kind of thing.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where did this happen? A few moments ago you weren't aware of any documents? It wasn't 'my' document by the way. Not up to me to defend it.
jh79 wrote: » Firstly, you can't predict the future so the question would be "might pay a divdend". Secondly, people are not that stupid. Fair enough it might not necessarily be tax increases but they could hardly list all other likely scenarios such as cuts to PS pay or welfare.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No...the b&A poll asked 'would you be prepared to pay more taxes' most people will answer no to paying more tax. If you ask people are you willing to invest in something that will in time pay a dividend then the answer would be very different.
jh79 wrote: » Regular posting stopped and no willingness to defend the document.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 'Went into hiding'? Please explain or demonstrate. Email SF if you have questions, would be my advice on the rest of what you say.
jh79 wrote: » Well the B&A opinion poll had only 30 odd % in favour if there is a cost involved. So obviously a major factor fir the 1000 randomly selected people for that poll.
jh79 wrote: » Francie you and others here went into hiding when the benefits if unification document was released. So no documents from SF outlining the costs and investments required to integrate NI? If not, why are SF ignoring this particular aspect of unification?
Bowie wrote: » Cost won't be a factor for many. Especially any scare mongered guestimates.
FrancieBrady wrote: » In other words...I want to address my biased no win scenario's and anyone who won't engage with me is scared. Up the yard as they say blanch. Nobody is afraid. Found out again.
Bowie wrote: » Not read these. Quick Google: Not 'afraid to discuss it' anyway. The arguments against are no more or less valid than any arguments against a spend. It's down to how much you think it's worth and how much you feel it should cost.
blanch152 wrote: » Those documents don't address any of the issues. In fact, the most scary thing about them is the childish nature of the economic analysis and the lack of deep consideration of the costs of unification. If the party considered to be most in favour of unification has done so little work on the costs, what hope is there?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
