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; } } }

United Ireland Poll - please vote

bonzothedog

Simple question - if there was a poll for a United Ireland would you vote yes or no - or yes but it would have to happen within 10 years.

Assumptions - there is economic sense to it and that Ireland can afford it.

The majority of the north want it and opinion polls are showing this. The background work has been done and the unionists though far from happy have reluctantly agreed with accepting the vote's result.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

FileNotFound

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

*Cough* Danny Healey-Rae *Cough*

Many hold the same mindset as saddler now.

Be interesting as many here have pointed out and probably accurately that it's hard to see who would lead the No vote campaign down south.

Would probably be an independent group made up of a mix of everyone.

Shebean

FileNotFound wrote: »

Many hold the same mindset as saddler now.

Be interesting as many here have pointed out and probably accurately that it's hard to see who would lead the No vote campaign down south.

Would probably be an independent group made up of a mix of everyone.

A few odd ball right wingers on the fringes looking to raise their profile. Fine Gael won't break a sweat campaigning for it but they'll all be arm in arm singing 'The Fields of Athenry' if it carries.

Hard to argue against based on finances when we've such a record for waste.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Your memory must be faulty then. There are two possibilities - increase taxes or cut child benefit.

I don't engage with unicorn and rainbow solutions for a land of milk and honey, it would be akin to joining a Flat Earth Society. If you have a concrete solution to two social welfare systems, spit it out, or get off the pulpit.

We'll revisit state functions and institutions and start again...as we seen at our last GE - nearly 100 years on, the power swap have managed and created complete disasters in our key institutions.

Who is for a better run and fairer child benefit system? I know I am.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think you are the one still living in the world of the 1980s when FF/FG had 86% of the vote and we had a constitutional imperative to unite the country. All we have now is a watered-down aspiration to united the people, and if a more watered-down version was put to the electorate, I would put money on it passing.

Is this one of your legendary 'SF have reached their ceiling' predictions?

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We'll revisit state functions and institutions and start again...as we seen at our last GE - nearly 100 years on, the power swap have managed and created complete disasters in our key institutions.

Who is for a better run and fairer child benefit system? I know I am.

What would constitute fairer? Not actually arguing I would love a change in this system.

Those who pay more get less? or those who pay less get less?

Fair is always riddled with perspective and position in life

bobbysands81

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is this one of your legendary 'SF have reached their ceiling' predictions?

A far cry from blanch telling us recently that FG haven’t lost any support over last 30 years.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We'll revisit state functions and institutions and start again...as we seen at our last GE - nearly 100 years on, the power swap have managed and created complete disasters in our key institutions.

Who is for a better run and fairer child benefit system? I know I am.

Grand so, you are telling people that their child benefit will be cut. Glad that's cleared up.

Oh wait, or is it just a soundbite with no meaning?

Spell it out. The costs of harmonising social welfare run into the billions. Who is going to pay for that, or who is going to see their social welfare cut? Or are you proposing a partitionist system that sees lower rates continue in the North?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is this one of your legendary 'SF have reached their ceiling' predictions?

No, Francie, this is reality.

In the 1980s, we had a claim on the territory of Northern Ireland. Now we no longer do, we have a vague aspiration that someday the people of this island will be united.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Grand so, you are telling people that their child benefit will be cut. Glad that's cleared up.

Oh wait, or is it just a soundbite with no meaning?

Spell it out. The costs of harmonising social welfare run into the billions. Who is going to pay for that, or who is going to see their social welfare cut? Or are you proposing a partitionist system that sees lower rates continue in the North?

The country will pay for itself in the way that countries do blanch.

Do you go around with a hump on you because you feel you are paying for Munster or Connacht?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The country will pay for itself in the way that countries do blanch.

Do you go around with a hump on you because you feel you are paying for Munster or Connacht?

Yes, countries pay for themselves in the way that countries do. So when we raise social welfare rates, we either run a deficit or we increase taxes. As we have run huge deficits to get through the pandemic, there is no more room for such deficits this side of 2035. Therefore, in the unlikely event of a united Ireland, if we increase social welfare rates in the North to match the South, we have to increase taxes in the way that countries do, or we have to cut social welfare rates in the South to match our income.

So, which one is it? Pretending that unicorns and rainbows will solve everything in the future land of milk and honey of a united Ireland is a complete cop-out.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, countries pay for themselves in the way that countries do. So when we raise social welfare rates, we either run a deficit or we increase taxes. As we have run huge deficits to get through the pandemic, there is no more room for such deficits this side of 2035. Therefore, in the unlikely event of a united Ireland, if we increase social welfare rates in the North to match the South, we have to increase taxes in the way that countries do, or we have to cut social welfare rates in the South to match our income.

So, which one is it? Pretending that unicorns and rainbows will solve everything in the future land of milk and honey of a united Ireland is a complete cop-out.

Who is doing this?

The people will pay their taxes and the country will be run on those taxes.

The same 'proposals' are made at every general election. The electorate weigh up what option is better and vote accordingly.

Same will happen here...people will be asked to vote on a package. Scary figures/do you want to pay more tax tactics might work when there is no 'plan' but IMO, give people a plan with pro's and con's etc and they will assess it as an investment.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

[/B]

The same 'proposals' are made at every general election. The electorate weigh up what option is better and vote accordingly.

Not like this. The last time our economy suffered a similar downgrade was the recent bust.

FileNotFound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

[/B]

Who is doing this?

The people will pay their taxes and the country will be run on those taxes.

The same 'proposals' are made at every general election. The electorate weigh up what option is better and vote accordingly.

Same will happen here...people will be asked to vote on a package. Scary figures/do you want to pay more tax tactics might work when there is no 'plan' but IMO, give people a plan with pro's and con's etc and they will assess it as an investment.

How is a factual statement scary tactics?

Does NI run a year on year deficit? Yes
Will NI Businesses need huge supports in a UI situation? Yes
How will this be paid for? Tax

If its a scary thought then the facts are scary. It's not a tactic just a realistic situation.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

[/B]

Who is doing this?

The people will pay their taxes and the country will be run on those taxes.

The same 'proposals' are made at every general election. The electorate weigh up what option is better and vote accordingly.

Same will happen here...people will be asked to vote on a package. Scary figures/do you want to pay more tax tactics might work when there is no 'plan' but IMO, give people a plan with pro's and con's etc and they will assess it as an investment.

What scary tactics?

Social Welfare rates are far lower in the North. Harmonising them will cost billions. It is not a scary tactic to ask the legitimate question as to whether taxes will rise to pay for it or whether social welfare will be cut in the South to harmonise? It is merely planning in a factual way for a united Ireland, something which you repeatedly call for, but run away from, when the discussion gets tough.

FrancieBrady

FileNotFound wrote: »

How is a factual statement scary tactics?

Does NI run a year on year deficit? Yes
Will NI Businesses need huge supports in a UI situation? Yes
How will this be paid for? Tax

If its a scary thought then the facts are scary. It's not a tactic just a realistic situation.

Like any GE, people will be presented with a 'package or plan'.

DUP/UUP and partitionists will have to present an alternative (NO, will not travel far as a campaign)

Best of luck with that if it is going to be based on scare tactics/ negative campaigning.

Whatcar212

blanch152 wrote: »

What scary tactics?

Social Welfare rates are far lower in the North. Harmonising them will cost billions. It is not a scary tactic to ask the legitimate question as to whether taxes will rise to pay for it or whether social welfare will be cut in the South to harmonise? It is merely planning in a factual way for a united Ireland, something which you repeatedly call for, but run away from, when the discussion gets tough.

The only option is to increase the benefits in the north to match the south. Napkin math puts that at around 3bn per year cost.

If 3bn is enough to stop a united Ireland then there was never any hope for it.

The bigger issue is civil servants and nhs costs. They need to be sorted.
(again these should be brought in line with what currently exists in the south imo)

[Deleted User]

Whatcar212 wrote: »

The only option is to increase the benefits in the north to match the south. Napkin math puts that at around 3bn per year cost.

If 3bn is enough to stop a united Ireland then there was never any hope for it.

The bigger issue is civil servants and nhs costs. They need to be sorted.
(again these should be brought in line with what currently exists in the south imo)

Our % spend per GDP , % deficit per GDP and all the other markers get diluted with the massive increase in population with little gain in GDP. That 3bn becomes a 20/30 bn budget adjustment to get these markers back to the required levels.

Whatcar212

jh79 wrote: »

Our % spend per GDP , % deficit per GDP and all the other markers get diluted with the massive increase in population with little gain in GDP. That 3bn becomes a 20/30 bn budget adjustment to get these markers back to the required levels.

Interesting. Now I don't know how these things work but 20/30bn seems extreme given that the PUP has cost over 6bn, yet the budget adjustment for social protection has only increase by around 3bn from 2019 until now.

Fair enough the pandemic is short term pain compared to permanent welfare but your figures still seem 10x too much.

Could you elaborate and help me understand why the budget would need cuts of 30bn to cover and extra 3bn cost? Is it just to balance GDP % (I thought GDP is a bad marker to go by?)

blanch152

Whatcar212 wrote: »

The only option is to increase the benefits in the north to match the south. Napkin math puts that at around 3bn per year cost.

If 3bn is enough to stop a united Ireland then there was never any hope for it.

The bigger issue is civil servants and nhs costs. They need to be sorted.
(again these should be brought in line with what currently exists in the south imo)

That is €3 billion a year (assuming you are correct). We could build one children's hospital every year with that, so what's the issue with the overspend on that?

[Deleted User]

Whatcar212 wrote: »

Interesting. Now I don't know how these things work but 20/30bn seems extreme given that the PUP has cost over 6bn, yet the budget adjustment for social protection has only increase by around 3bn from 2019 until now.

Fair enough the pandemic is short term pain compared to permanent welfare but your figures still seem 10x too much.

Could you elaborate and help me understand why the budget would need cuts of 30bn to cover and extra 3bn cost? Is it just to balance GDP % (I thought GDP is a bad marker to go by?)

Fitzgerald, an economist for the ESRI, took the various per capita financial markers that we would have after unification, compared them to previous budgets and predicted that adjustment.

We only gain 35bn in GDP from NI but a 1.9 million increase in population.

Regarding the PUP, didn't we spend our 6bn Brexit reserve on it?

In a unification scenario proposed by SF, we wouldn't have any surpluses to save for a rainy day. All money would have to be used to finance an UI to achieve 1.3% increase in GDP per capita over 8 years!

Pearce D promoted this on twitter, he was smart enough to change it to 35bn over 8 years rather than the % per capita. But even 35bn isn't impressive considering we generate 335 bn per year as we are.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Fitzgerald, an economist for the ESRI, took the various per capita financial markers that we would have after unification, compared them to previous budgets and predicted that adjustment.

We only gain 35bn in GDP from NI but a 1.9 million increase in population.

Regarding the PUP, didn't we spend our 6bn Brexit reserve on it?

In a unification scenario proposed by SF, we wouldn't have any surpluses to save for a rainy day. All money would have to be used to finance an UI to achieve 1.3% increase in GDP per capita over 8 years!

Pearce D promoted this on twitter, he was smart enough to change it to 35bn over 8 years rather than the % per capita. But even 35bn isn't impressive considering we generate 335 bn per year as we are.

Has Fitzgerald always been correct in his predictions? = Nope.

Has Pearse always been correct in his predictions? = Nope.

blanch152

Whatcar212 wrote: »

Interesting. Now I don't know how these things work but 20/30bn seems extreme given that the PUP has cost over 6bn, yet the budget adjustment for social protection has only increase by around 3bn from 2019 until now.

Fair enough the pandemic is short term pain compared to permanent welfare but your figures still seem 10x too much.

Could you elaborate and help me understand why the budget would need cuts of 30bn to cover and extra 3bn cost? Is it just to balance GDP % (I thought GDP is a bad marker to go by?)

We spend €70bn as is, per year.

We are looking at c €10bn to replace the UK subvention. In addition to that, we have the €3 bn increase in social welfare, the €3 bn required to bring our health service up to NHS standards, and around €2 bn to harmonise public service pay. There is another heap of money required to harmonise pupil-teacher ratios, raise standards in higher education etc., but let's just call it a round €20 bn per year for a united Ireland.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/corporation-tax-shock-could-leave-6bn-hole-in-public-finances-1.4044417

Let us also assume that the Irish Times is wrong, and we only t-take a €3 bn hit on corporation tax over the next 2 years. Add in long-term Covid hangover costs of €2 bn a year for the next decade. Adding it all up leaves us with a €25 bn hole in our public finances if we had a united Ireland in 2022.

So what about the US rushing to our aid? Well, in 2019, the US spent a total of €34 bn on foreign aid, with most of that directed to defence expenditure i.e. paying friendly foreign nations to buy US weapons, well that won't feed the child in West Belfast.

So, we will have to do it ourselves. Corporation tax won't provide the answer as the Irish Times article shows. What about income tax?

https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-ireland.pdf

Oh dear, we took about €23 bn in 2019 in income tax, that has dropped a bit because of Covid, but not hugely. We are also above average in the OECD for income taxation. All in all, we are looking at doubling income tax in order to pay for a united Ireland. Hope its worth it, lads.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Has Fitzgerald always been correct in his predictions? = Nope.

Has Pearse always been correct in his predictions? = Nope.

We know what the relevant markers would be after unification because all the relevant financial data is reported every single budget.

We know what the rules are for EU states on these various markers are, we know what Moodys etc expect when we borrow money.

It's not the big unknow you are trying to portray. Fitzgerald might not be right but he won't be far off.

One thing we can be certain about, there is no financial risk in staying the way we are and the gamble doesn't involve any returns for those in the Republic.

Whatcar212

jh79 wrote: »

Fitzgerald, an economist for the ESRI, took the various per capita financial markers that we would have after unification, compared them to previous budgets and predicted that adjustment.

We only gain 35bn in GDP from NI but a 1.9 million increase in population.

Regarding the PUP, didn't we spend our 6bn Brexit reserve on it?

In a unification scenario proposed by SF, we wouldn't have any surpluses to save for a rainy day. All money would have to be used to finance an UI to achieve 1.3% increase in GDP per capita over 8 years!

Pearce D promoted this on twitter, he was smart enough to change it to 35bn over 8 years rather than the % per capita. But even 35bn isn't impressive considering we generate 335 bn per year as we are.

Ok so he is saying its 20/30bn adjustment as a whole cost of a united Ireland, not just to cover the 3bn welfare I mentioned? That makes a lot more sense.

"we wouldn't have any surpluses to save for a rainy day"

Is the financial impact of a united Ireland not the exact rainy day scenario to save for though? Or is it only for recessions?

[Deleted User]

Whatcar212 wrote: »

Ok so he is saying its 20/30bn adjustment as a whole cost of a united Ireland, not just to cover the 3bn welfare I mentioned? That makes a lot more sense.

"we wouldn't have any surpluses to save for a rainy day"

Is the financial impact of a united Ireland not the exact rainy day scenario to save for though? Or is it only for recessions?

His 20/30bn is only to cover NI deficit without making any changes in either country. The cheapest option where NI remains economically partitioned.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/09/17/news/united-ireland-would-cost-up-to-30-billion-a-year-and-collapse-north-s-economy--1714127/

Whatcar212

blanch152 wrote: »

All in all, we are looking at doubling income tax in order to pay for a united Ireland. Hope its worth it, lads.

No need. Legalise medicinal and recreational Marijuana and tax it. easy.

[Deleted User]

jh79 wrote: »

His 20/30bn is only to cover NI deficit without making any changes in either country. The cheapest option where NI remains economically partitioned.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/09/17/news/united-ireland-would-cost-up-to-30-billion-a-year-and-collapse-north-s-economy--1714127/

Not trying to dismiss the link you provided to back up your point but the article also makes reference to contradictory views held by other economists on the economic benefits or disadvantages of a UI.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

We know what the relevant markers would be after unification because all the relevant financial data is reported every single budget.

We know what the rules are for EU states on these various markers are, we know what Moodys etc expect when we borrow money.

It's not the big unknow you are trying to portray. Fitzgerald might not be right but he won't be far off.

One thing we can be certain about, there is no financial risk in staying the way we are and the gamble doesn't involve any returns for those in the Republic.

What has the EU said about a UI...have they said it is against rules?

The point is jh...ways are found to run country's...we could take your negative attitude to most things we invest in in this country and just not do them.

A UI will not be looked at as you would a business. Because it isn't just about a financial bottom line.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What has the EU said about a UI...have they said it is against rules?

The point is jh...ways are found to run country's...we could take your negative attitude to most things we invest in in this country and just not do them.

A UI will not be looked at as you would a business. Because it isn't just about a financial bottom line.

There are financial rules for being a member of the EU. Interest rates depend on our ability to pay. Unification takes our GDP and spreads it across 7 million instead of 5.

It doesn't have to be about a financial bottom line but the reality is that people will see significant drops in their take home pay because of it. Will they be willing to take the hit? I don't think so especially given the opinion polls.

Junkyard Tom

BBC News

Ireland's Central Statistics Office (CSO) figures show the value of goods exports from Northern Ireland (NI) to the Republic of Ireland rose by 62% from 176m euros to 285m euros.

bbc.com/news

Unfortunately for partitionists/unionists we're heading towards a point where a UI will be, initially, just the Brits handing over the keys.