The level of subvention, which refers to the gap between government spending and tax revenue in Northern Ireland, is often focused on as a measure of this cost. Subvention in 2014 was £9.16 billion. However, when items of expenditure not directly related to the running of Northern Ireland are subtracted, for example its contribution to UK defence spending or UK government debt, potential subvention levels could fall by about 25 per cent. The level falls further when account is taken of UK public-sector pensions and contribution-based old-age pensions, both of which would remain a UK liability following unification. Negotiations on Northern Ireland’s share of UK assets may also impact the figure in the event of unification. Nevertheless, it is Northern Ireland’s low productivity levels that create a need for subvention payments in the first place, and the ultimate cost (or benefit) to the Irish taxpayer would depend on the success of policy reforms aimed at addressing this problem.
Any credible assessment of the cost of unification should incorporate reasonable assumptions around all of these unknown factors under various scenarios. There is little to be achieved through a static analysis of Irish unification whereby the estimated current costs of administering Northern Ireland, which are themselves highly debatable, are simply superimposed on the current tax and welfare systems of the Republic. Such a scenario would never seriously be proposed, or ratified, in any border poll. Responsible debate on the economics of Irish unification should be based on facts that have been established through rigorous research that fully accounts for the likely dynamics associated with any unification process. What we must avoid at all costs is a repeat of the UK Brexit referendum, which is best characterised as a scenario of spurious claims and counterclaims that led, ultimately, to sustained political and economic stalemate.
dogbert27 wrote: » What does the 12 billion cover? Is it: NHS costs Civil servant salaries Pensions Community projects Roads and Infrastructure Just wondering what it is as it is always described as a lump sum figure.
yagan wrote: » I'd query that on a per head of population. Most of Ireland's large pharmas and medical supply companies which have cushions us during Covid are outside Dublin and considering the decades of development gone into plants like Merck near Clonmel I think it's more accurate to say that they generate wealth locally and nationally. I think there's way too much of a naivety in Dublin about its own importance.
Fionn1952 wrote: » With most first world countries, the area around the economic capital would benefit from cutting off everywhere else, be that the UK's Greater London area, The Pale area of Ireland or the Industrial Triangle of Italy. The vast majority of Ireland outside the Pale are net economic receivers.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Emotionally attached to partition! Hahaha! Good one. I equally can't help but wonder how many of those armchair republicans advocating a United Ireland are blinded by nationalistic fantasy and simply refuse to contemplate economic pragmatism or the opinions of a million Unionists. Or, to put it another way, reality.
PeadarCo wrote: » https://www.dublinchamber.ie/business-agenda/economic-profile-of-dublin See the link above. Some key points Dublin contributes over half of Irelands income tax reciepts at 51% and has just below 32% of Irelands working age population. There was a post done up a good few years ago at this stage by a previous mod called Scofflaw that showed that Dublin and to a lesser degree Cork City financed the rest of the country. In terms of the impact Brexit will have on Northern Ireland, it will make London poorer long term and adversely impact the UK services economy in general. This in conjunction with no more EU grants will reduce the ability of the UK to support poorer areas of the UK such as Northern Ireland. That has the potential to increase support for unification particularly with people who are unaligned and don't subscribe to the traditional nationalist unionist political duopoly in the North.
beggars_bush wrote: » Not true. Prove otherwise
Mr.Nice Guy wrote: » I think it was David McWilliams who made the point that the UK's subvention figure involves over a billion on defence spending. I find it quite depressing to hear Irish people putting a price on their fellow citizens north of the border. If I were told, as a Dubliner, that I stood to make savings if several Munster counties in the ROI broke away, I wouldn't be in favour as I would rather have my country intact. I suspect most people would feel the same way, which is why I can't help but wonder how many of those advocating economic pragmatism regarding NI are actually emotionally attached to partition...
View wrote: » The £12bn isn’t a “big scary headline”. It’s grim reality and nothing to do with any supposed “agenda”. Ignoring isn’t going to make it go away. The old economists’ joke about a country being an economy with a flag stuck on it may be an oversimplification but there is a huge amount of truth in it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, and it is after that discussion takes place that polls that are relevant can be taken. People arriving into the debate with big scary headline figures of 12 billion and 'bills' show their agendas immediately imo. Open discussion probably won't change their minds. The economic aspect of a UI is not the primary reason for a UI for me anyhow. I think a UI will end the cyclical conflict (Violent and otherwise) partition will cause here and that is why I think it is important we work for it. The point about the EEC was about the principle of it...had risks not been taken we would probably be in the same place we were in the 60's...a regressive, insular society with a stunted economy, A UI will be a challenge but a worthwhile one in my opinion.
PeadarCo wrote: » So project fear. There are genuine questions about how Northern Ireland can be financed by the Republic. The reason the UK is in such a mess is because hard questions were ignored. Obvious questions like Northern Ireland were ignored and waved away. What Brexit showed is that's its relatively easy to win a referendum but that implementing the result can be very difficult. The same lesson should be taken for Northern Ireland. A vote for unification is the easy bit. What comes after is the hard bit. Waving away hard questions ie calling people who highlight issues names or scaremongering is exactly the tactics Brexiters use. You'd hope that the biggest impact that Brexit has on Northern Ireland is that it highlights the need for an open discussion on the implications of unification and plan for them. Brexit shows nationalistic fervour can only carry you so far and won't address hard economic realities.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Negativity and scaremongering if it had been responded to would have seen us left out, is the answer to that, We are the perfect example of what happens when investment is made. We are now net contributors to the EU in my lifetime..
yagan wrote: » What evidence was there for accepting poor non industrial Ireland into the EEC?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » What is this based on? What evidence or even projections are there which show that incorporating the north would benefit the Republic and/or NI?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I didn't raise the question of a UI. It's what was being discussed when I clicked on this thread. Vaguely alluding to unknown studies isn't an argument. You'll be convincing very few people with that kind of logic. But maybe UI is getting a bit off topic so I'll be leaving things there.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nonsense...this isn't a thread on a UI. As I said, plenty of studies out there with the areas where benefits can occur are listed and gone into. You are free to agree or disagree, those areas remain the same. I have read them. My research is done and doesn't require scrutiny from you. If it does, I will ask for it.
When offering an opinion, please state so. Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flaming and a poster/moderator may demand further evidence. When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Not good enough. I have no intention of researching your argument for you. Frankly, this is exactly the sort of insipid nationalism that brought us Brexit.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Stands to reason. Invest and reap the rewards. It now suits the UK, It now suits Ireland, It now suits the rest of the EU for a UI to be successful, stands to reason there will be plenty wanting to invest. It would be then in our own interests to make it work. Plenty of studies out there where you can find the areas for growth and potential. They are constants even if you don't think it would work. I cannot see why they wouldn't. And I am not suggesting it will be some happy ever after nirvana.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It contributes and enhances as the south. east and west does.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Such as?
