nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

[Deleted User]

Is there another way of looking at it?
It’s still very, very divided, and actually seems to be getting more polarized over the last five years. It’s economy is woeful, very heavily dependent on the public sector.
Unionists are making plans to celebrate its centenary, but there seems to be very little to be happy with, certainly far less than the Republic or the rest of the UK.
No point in arguing about a border poll on this thread, but is there any possible way of looking at NI as a social, political and economic failure?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

maccored

tom1ie wrote: »

So where does the expense of running NI go?

the expense of running a 6 county statelet that was never designed to exist on its own? Are you really asking that question?

The money will be needed to create ONE ireland, with one government and one system nor th and south. the 6 county statelet and its security costs won't exist.

It will cost money all the same to create a UI - but again, this is why the first step is a countrywide discussion. Dont put the cart before the horse.

Personally, I expect Britain to pay a substantial fee for creating NI in the first place. And are you telling me you wont get investment into the new country Ireland would become? Nevermind fundraising in the US.

those are quick thoughts off the top of my head. Imagine what resources could be put together if people actually discussed the idea.

With your attitude we would all still be living in caves as everything would have been impossible or too expensive to consider doing.

Fionn1952

tom1ie wrote: »

So you reckon we can reform NI.
As I said previous how long will this take?
What happens to the PS workers that leave the PS? Dole? Again who pays for this?
It will take years to reform NI, years where we pick up the tab via higher taxes or reduced services.

You reckon it is impossible to reform NI? I'd imagine it would take quite some time, but yes I reckon it is feasible. The people from the North aren't some sort of neanderthal-esque group incapable of contributing to an economy given appropriate opportunity you know?

Again, we're back to your over simplified attempts to treat an economy like a household budget.

Let's put aside our disagreement on whether it is possible to reform the NI economy (I can't quite work out how you square your notion that the NI economy can't be changed with the fact that it was previously economically more significant than Dublin, but we'll park that), if we hypothetically say that it could be reformed to return to being an economic contributer to our budget, would it make sense to pay for it with national debt while money is cheap and allow future generations to enjoy the payoff on that investment?

tom1ie

AngeloArgue wrote: »

Imagine viewing your fellow people as economic burdens.

Jonathan Swift made a mockery of such a callous attitude 300 years ago.

What about the burden that will befall my fellow citizens south of the current border to pay for this of which you might be one?
It’s not callous it’s a common sense approach.

Fionn1952

ittakestwo wrote: »

Can't find this €5bn annual figure for NI. The deficit from below link is about €10bn annually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_fiscal_deficit#:~:text=Although%20the%20absolute%20size%20of,year%20from%201970%20to%202000.

The UK government have yet to break down the full cost of the subvention, which would include for example military costs and pensions etc which would remain a UK responsibility, some would be taken up servicing the UK's own national debt, our liability there is currently unknown. We would also potentially have the costs of aligning benefits in the red column. Ultimately at present, anyone putting a number on the current cost is guessing, let alone projecting future costs.

tom1ie

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Yes, if we continue with your grossly simplified approach where we don't make any changes and just continue with NI remaining exactly the same except with Ireland footing the bill, it would certainly be a disaster.

Just a quick question for you....in this strange, world you live in, where nothing changes and we treat global economies like a household budget.....how exactly did the North East of the country go from being the economic powerhouse of this island to an absolute sh*tshow?!

So you reckon we can reform NI.
As I said previous how long will this take?
What happens to the PS workers that leave the PS? Dole? Again who pays for this?
It will take years to reform NI, years where we pick up the tab via higher taxes or reduced services.

ittakestwo

Can't find this €5bn annual figure for NI. The deficit from below link is about €10bn annually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_fiscal_deficit#:~:text=Although%20the%20absolute%20size%20of,year%20from%201970%20to%202000.

AngeloArgue

Imagine viewing your fellow people as economic burdens.

Jonathan Swift made a mockery of such a callous attitude 300 years ago.

Fann Linn

West Germany had a similar problem with the old East Germany and they managed with help from the EU family. We'll get favourable assistance should the need arise.

tom1ie

maccored wrote: »

the issue of money raises its head in reorganising the country to run as one. NI wouldnt exist and there wouldnt be a '5 billion yearly charge'

you keep on keeping on there. if you think a UI is basically the Republic + NI = UI then you are so far off the mark you arent worth debating with

So where does the expense of running NI go?

maccored

tom1ie wrote: »

No.
They have common sense.
Explain to me who pays the 5 billion yearly recurring charge?

the issue of money raises its head in reorganising the country to run as one. NI wouldnt exist and there wouldnt be a '5 billion yearly charge'

you keep on keeping on there. if you think a UI is basically the Republic + NI = UI then you are so far off the mark you arent worth debating with

Fionn1952

tom1ie wrote: »

So keep lumping on sovereign debt for years to come. Great plan sure nothing can go wrong.

Yes, if we continue with your grossly simplified approach where we don't make any changes and just continue with NI remaining exactly the same except with Ireland footing the bill, it would certainly be a disaster.

Just a quick question for you....in this strange, world you live in, where nothing changes and we treat global economies like a household budget.....how exactly did the North East of the country go from being the economic powerhouse of this island to an absolute sh*tshow?!

tom1ie

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Okay, I'm done with mr clueless. The rest of ye can pander to him if you like. Best to let their posts make them look economically illiterate.

Reported.

FrancieBrady

tom1ie wrote: »

At least 5 billion and the cost of running NI occurs every year.

Can you verify this?

tom1ie

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If we take the grossly simplified view of treating a country's economy like your household budget, your constantly repeated position on the matter makes perfect sense.

So keep lumping on sovereign debt for years to come. Great plan sure nothing can go wrong.

tom1ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

5 billion. And the idea that it is recurrig

At least 5 billion and the cost of running NI occurs every year.

Fionn1952

tom1ie wrote: »

To pay for a 5b recurring charge we’d have to balance the books in the other direction. That’s either lower costs or raise income (taxes). Basic accounting.

If we take the grossly simplified view of treating a country's economy like your household budget, your constantly repeated position on the matter makes perfect sense.

tom1ie

It’s in threads like these I can see how the country got itself into the financial crisis.
Ah sure what’s another 350k house sure keep buying them nothing can go wrong!!!!

Lol! You do know debt has to be paid down.
One off debt is one thing, but recurring debt is a disaster.

FrancieBrady

tom1ie wrote: »

What figure?

5 billion. And the idea that it is recurrig

[Deleted User]

tom1ie wrote: »

We pay a certain amount of tax to pay for what we have now.
If we take on 5b extra taxes go up or services go down. That’s not including the cost of the initial investment. Are you willing to accept that? I’m not tbh.

Okay, I'm done with mr clueless. The rest of ye can pander to him if you like. Best to let their posts make them look economically illiterate.

Beltby

tom1ie wrote: »

We pay a certain amount of tax to pay for what we have now.
If we take on 5b extra taxes go up or services go down. That’s not including the cost of the initial investment. Are you willing to accept that? I’m not tbh.

So when the time comes, don't vote for it. But if its voted in, you will pay more tax anyway whether you like it or not.

Its in all of our interests to come up with solutions. It's coming.

tom1ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are guessing at a figure.

What figure?

FrancieBrady

ittakestwo wrote: »

Why will it be €5bn to support NI when it costs the UK €10bn?

Also if 30% of the workforce in NI are in the public service. And pay in the ROI public service is on average 40% higher than that of the UK. Surly if there was a UI the €10bn would balloon up not down.

It isn't 10 billion when contributions to UK is subtracted.

tom1ie

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sure why not.

You think there's gonna be a €5bn annual charge to reunify. So why not just take your cash, it makes as much sense as the argument you're trying to make.

Tom1ie: Prove to me how we pay for this thing I've just made up?

You're saying we CAN'T afford it. I think you should show us how we can't afford an extra €5bn a year.

To pay for a 5b recurring charge we’d have to balance the books in the other direction. That’s either lower costs or raise income (taxes). Basic accounting.

FrancieBrady

tom1ie wrote: »

We pay a certain amount of tax to pay for what we have now.
If we take on 5b extra taxes go up or services go down. That’s not including the cost of the initial investment. Are you willing to accept that? I’m not tbh.

You are guessing at a figure.

ittakestwo

Beltby wrote: »

5 billion now. A lot less once reforms are introduced. Do you think the North will have 30% of its workforce working in the public sector forever, for example, in the event of a UI?

Why will it be €5bn to support NI when it costs the UK €10bn?

Also if 30% of the workforce in NI are in the public service. And pay in the ROI public service is on average 40% higher than that of the UK. Surly if there was a UI the €10bn would balloon up not down.

tom1ie

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's hard to show you when your grasp of economics ends with '£5b cost bad.'

How is it good?

tom1ie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We pay for it like we pay for everything else.
The public service could be reduced in the transitin period by an embargo on recruitment, early retirement packages, natural retirement, redeployment etc etc.

There will be a transition period, there will be investment and aid.

That 'cost' figure isn't a recurring one, it can be reduced.

We pay a certain amount of tax to pay for what we have now.
If we take on 5b extra taxes go up or services go down. That’s not including the cost of the initial investment. Are you willing to accept that? I’m not tbh.

BonnieSituation

tom1ie wrote: »

Is that a serious answer yeah? Is that the sum of your argument?

Sure why not.

You think there's gonna be a €5bn annual charge to reunify. So why not just take your cash, it makes as much sense as the argument you're trying to make.

Tom1ie: Prove to me how we pay for this thing I've just made up?

You're saying we CAN'T afford it. I think you should show us how we can't afford an extra €5bn a year.

Beltby

tom1ie wrote: »

How long will it take to get that 5bill yearly cost down?
What is our track record like in reducing civil service jobs in our own area?
If we reduce civil service jobs in the north what does these people do then if there are not enough private sector jobs available? Go on the dole? Who pays for that?

Stabilise the place first, attract investment, create jobs, then reduce public service employment. Offer re training where necessary.

That's just off the top of my head. Instead of looking for obstacles, you should be looking for solutions. It's coming.

FrancieBrady

tom1ie wrote: »

What haven’t I answered. I am all for a unified Ireland if someone can show me how we pay for it.

We pay for it like we pay for everything else.
The public service could be reduced in the transitin period by an embargo on recruitment, early retirement packages, natural retirement, redeployment etc etc.

There will be a transition period, there will be investment and aid.

That 'cost' figure isn't a recurring one, it can be reduced.