United Ireland Poll - please vote

bobbysands81 wrote: »

What is the cost of this UI? I hear this all the time but it’s never backed up with figures. Any chance you could back your assertion up with some specific figures instead of generalising?

Both Fitzgerald and Hubner have research papers that have already been linked to on the thread. Easy find on Google, only a handful of papers on the subject.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

What is the cost of this UI? I hear this all the time but it’s never backed up with figures. Any chance you could back your assertion up with some specific figures instead of generalising?

Extensive calculations and information has been provided by a number of posters earlier in the thread. If you want to challenge the information provided, please feel free to do so, with calculations of your own.

blanch152 wrote: »

Extensive calculations and information has been provided by a number of posters earlier in the thread. If you want to challenge the information provided, please feel free to do so, with calculations of your own.

The only calculations the partitionists are interested in (and this again is evidence of their terminal negativity) are those that are scary or show deficits.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only calculations the partitionists are interested in (and this again is evidence of their terminal negativity) are those that are scary or show deficits.

Show us the ones that are not scary? I'm interested in those too.

jh79 wrote: »

Show us the ones that are not scary? I'm interested in those too.

You even managed in your negativity to turn SF's own report into a prophecy of doom.

WHY oh WHY would I waste my time trying to convince guys like you? Nobody will waste time doing that, you'll just be let suffer the delusion that there are many of you because people are asked leading question (Would you like to pay more tax) in the absence of any plan.

bobbysands81

blanch152 wrote: »

Extensive calculations and information has been provided by a number of posters earlier in the thread. If you want to challenge the information provided, please feel free to do so, with calculations of your own.

You’re the one saying we can’t afford it yet you won’t provide the figures and are telling me to do your research for you!!!

Now, if you’re going to make such a statement then back it up.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You even managed in your negativity to turn SF's own report into a prophecy of doom.

WHY oh WHY would I waste my time trying to convince guys like you? Nobody will waste time doing that, you'll just be let suffer the delusion that there are many of you because people are asked leading question (Would you like to pay more tax) in the absence of any plan.

I'm not asking you to convince me, you said I'm only interested in the scary reports. All I want is a link to the ones I'm supposedly not interested in so I can have a read.

bobbysands81 wrote: »
You’re the one saying we can’t afford it yet you won’t provide the figures and are telling me to do your research for you!!!

Now, if you’re going to make such a statement then back it up.

It is on this thread, we have already discussed it at length. I am not repeating myself, and I am sure others will not either. Pretty much the unchallenged position is that this will mean significant cuts to living standards for people in the South.

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not asking you to convince me, you said I'm only interested in the scary reports. All I want is a link to the ones I'm supposedly not interested in so I can have a read.

I said 'calculations'...not 'reports'.

bobbysands81 wrote: »
You’re the one saying we can’t afford it yet you won’t provide the figures and are telling me to do your research for you!!!

Now, if you’re going to make such a statement then back it up.

Here they are;

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/TEP/2019/tep0619.pdf

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/unification/hubner_2015-08.pdf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said 'calculations'...not 'reports'.

Sorry, my mistake but I'm interested in those too.

jh79 wrote: »

Here they are;

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/TEP/2019/tep0619.pdf

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/unification/hubner_2015-08.pdf

Conclusion
In 2016 the Northern Ireland deficit, which was funded by a subvention from the UK central government, amounted to £9.3 billion (€11.4 billion). However, as indicated above, a more appropriate attribution of UK corporation tax revenue would have reduced this to around £8.8 billion (€10.8 billion).
On the basis of the 2016 figures, in a united Ireland, if Northern Ireland did not take on a share of the UK’s existing net liabilities, the total Northern Ireland deficit would have amounted to around £6.9 billion or around €8.4 billion. If, instead they did take on a share of the UK’s net liabilities the deficit would be £8 billion (€9.8 billion).

Two lessons for an Irish unification can be drawn. First, uniting two separated economies requires careful and reflective public policies that deal with fall-outs on the one side and foster adjustments on the other. Second, securing and strongly improving the skill levels of the workforce and providing a complementary industrial policy will not only reduce the fiscal cost
of unification but also will also potentially attract genuine FDI and reduce the opportunity cost.Our modeling exercise points to strong positive unification effects driven by successful currency devaluation and a policy dependent industrial turn-around. While these effects occur in a static global economic environment, under ideal political conditions, they underline the potential of
political and economic unification when it is supported by smart economic policy.

The two conclusions are all the evidence you need to show you how much all of this is based on whatever slant you want to give.

You pays your money...

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You even managed in your negativity to turn SF's own report into a prophecy of doom.

Did I misrepresent the SF report in any way?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The two conclusions are all the evidence you need to show you how much all of this is based on whatever slant you want to give.

You pays your money...

What are you on about? Those are two conclusions on completely different aspects of unification!

jh79 wrote: »

What are you on about? Those are two conclusions on completely different aspects of unification!

Exactly. And those who will be promoting unification will focus on the positive aspects while those against it will speak of the negative aspects. Same as it ever was in any election/referendum there ever was.

What partitionists are up against is that 67% WANT unification before anyone even comes up with a plan.

Because the Pymdependent asks a leading question, designed to elicit a negative response, doesn't get away from that.

drdidlittle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The two conclusions are all the evidence you need to show you how much all of this is based on whatever slant you want to give.

You pays your money...

So are you agreeing to the 8 to 9 Billion as per the last 2 lines of your first extract from the report? Good starting point. Progress being made.

Lets assume 8 billion into 7 million population of Eirenua. Works out at 1140 euro per head per year.
Manageable for sure

How much more will we need to add in for
Intregration of systems
Solical welfare intregration
Redundancies from reform of public jobs
Security
Urban regeneration

Lets see what plans are in place for these items and figures put on cost to add to the 1140.

BTW. 1140 is 20 euro per head per week. I'll take that hit if every other person takes it in unity. 20 off dole..... 20 off child allowance etc.

drdidlittle wrote: »

So are you agreeing to the 8 to 9 Billion as per the last 2 lines of your first extract from the report?

No, I'm not. Sorry you wasted your time typing the rest.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly. And those who will be promoting unification will focus on the positive aspects while those against it will speak of the negative aspects. Same as it ever was in any election/referendum there ever was.

That makes no sense. They are different because they are about different things. It doesn't prove anything. Both are costs to the exchequer and both need to be paid for.

FullyComp

9 billion euro is roughly 15% of normal total ROI government revenue (where the budget is just about balanced - maybe slightly in deficit).

That means that per the TCD report just to keep the lights on you need to increase government revenue by 15% at the very minimum. Given you won't get the 15% off increasing rates on some things (e.g. if you raise VAT people but less stuff so the amount you collect stays the same), you're likely looking at a pretty substantial income tax jump. Also this is before unification of the welfare rates (NI would need to go from 60 GBP to 200 EUR dole for example) and God help us if there is any sort of crash.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The two conclusions are all the evidence you need to show you how much all of this is based on whatever slant you want to give.

You pays your money...

Explain again to us how a currency devaluation works in the context of a united Ireland. That is fantasy economics.

jh79 wrote: »

That makes no sense. They are different because they are about different things. It doesn't prove anything. Both are costs to the exchequer and both need to be paid for.

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. Just making the point that you can chose to focus on the positive or the negative. Those promoting a UI, which will be the Irish government of the day, will be focusing on the positive.
67% are positively inclined to a UI even before a plan has been formulated.

The uphill battle will be for those promoting the negative.

blanch152 wrote: »

Explain again to us how a currency devaluation works in the context of a united Ireland. That is fantasy economics.

Why would I have to 'explain' something I am not promoting?

Email the report writers.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. Just making the point that you can chose to focus on the positive or the negative. Those promoting a UI, which will be the Irish government of the day, will be focusing on the positive.
67% are positively inclined to a UI even before a plan has been formulated.

The uphill battle will be for those promoting the negative.

I previously specifically focused on the "positives" as presented in the Hubner report as it is the one SF promoted on social media and their own website.

The positive is a 35bn increase in GDP over 8 years or 1.3% per capita.

That's the "positive" you have to focus on. The flipside of that is the dramatic tax increases required to fund Scenario 3 in the same report to achieve the 1.3%.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. Just making the point that you can chose to focus on the positive or the negative. Those promoting a UI, which will be the Irish government of the day, will be focusing on the positive.
67% are positively inclined to a UI even before a plan has been formulated.

The uphill battle will be for those promoting the negative.

78% are negatively inclined to a UI if they have to pay more tax for it.

In all honesty, I don't think we will ever get to a border poll, unless Northern Ireland can sort itself out first. No government will go into a referendum campaign unless they can promise it will improve lives. That isn't possible in the South due to the huge burden of financing Northern Ireland.

Sure, continued lip service will be paid, with the creation of a Shared Island Unit, but don't kid yourself. FF aren't doing that because they truly believe in a united Ireland, but because they are protecting their flank from Sinn Fein.

Similarly, Sinn Fein are scared sh!tless about going into government without one of the two big parties as going in with lesser parties would mean they had no excuse when they couldn't deliver on a border poll. For example, if SF do spend time in government with FF, they will spend the following GE complaining about FF stopping a border poll.

In many ways I feel sorry for dedicated souls like yourself who despite its old-fashioned outdated notions, still passionately believe in a territorial-type exclusionary nationalism, as you are never going to achieve your goal.

jh79 wrote: »

I previously specifically focused on the "positives" as presented in the Hubner report as it is the one SF promoted on social media and their own website.

The positive is a 35bn increase in GDP over 8 years or 1.3% per capita.

That's the "positive" you have to focus on. The flipside of that is the dramatic tax increases required to fund Scenario 3 in the same report to achieve the 1.3%.

Nonsense.

I will be focusing on the 'positives' presented when a plan/white paper is put forward by those proposing a UI - the Irish government of the day.

blanch152 wrote: »

78% are negatively inclined to a UI if they have to pay more tax for it.

78% say they don't want to pay more tax.

I don't 'want' to pay any tax at all, but I do, because there is a type of society I want.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

you are never going to achieve your goal.

It's good to read this from you because it means we will very likely be adding it to the long list of spectacularly wrong predictions you've made.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense.

I will be focusing on the 'positives' presented when a plan/white paper is put forward by those proposing a UI - the Irish government of the day.

Seeing as SF will be the next government and pushing for a border poll, are you concerned with their support of the Hubner paper?

jh79 wrote: »

Seeing as SF will be the next government and pushing for a border poll, are you concerned with their support of the Hubner paper?

I have always made the case that a 'UI' does not belong to SF.

I think for you guys, to continue labouring under the delusion that it will be SF only, promoting it, is strategically stupid as the DUP Brexit strategy.

Pay attention to the headline figures in the last poll, 67% want a UI and majorities in both jurisdictions want a border poll. Without so much as a plan 37% are FOR a UI in the north and only 43% are against it.
If you don't, and continue to set up the negative strawmen, your campaign will be doomed from the start.