Whatcar212 wrote: » What's you're question here? I don't condone any of the violence. I'm pointing out that we have people on here who call the PIRA terrorists but praise the IRA of the war of independence. I'm not praising one or the other (nor the new IRA for Lyra McKee), I'm just pointing out the obvious (oblivious?) hypocrisy of some posters.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Expect the one I pointed out just a few posts ago that you blithely waved away in order to continue the now trenchant negativity while also increasing the personal invective. An integrated Ireland would create economies of scale and therefore a more competitive economy which would be much more attractive for our own entrepreneurs and foreign investment. Also remember that for me 'us' includes all the people of the island.
jh79 wrote: » . *Can't see any advantage with regards FDI purely from the Republic perspective. NI would see a big increase but can't see any reason why levels would increase in the Republic.
Whatcar212 wrote: » But it would be one country... so a big increase in the NI region would be an increase for the whole country...
jh79 wrote: » Remember too, I asked what the advantages were for the Republic... *Economies of Scale I can see an advantage but not to any great extent. I will have a look at Hubner and Fitzgerald to see what they say. *Home-grown entrepreneurs much the same as above. *Can't see any advantage with regards FDI purely from the Republic perspective. NI would see a big increase but can't see any reason why levels would increase in the Republic. With regards personal invectives. You're no angel either and I'd say it comes more from your side than mine.
jh79 wrote: » Yes but a massive drop from current levels in the Republic as it is. A GDP of 335 bn for 6 million becomes 370bn for 8 million people. That is a massive drop and would take decades to recover from.
Hamsterchops wrote: » Ten out of ten for your graphics & attachments (well done), they're always very good, as is your Avatar. On the negative side may I say that you overuse several words including Empire, Colonial and apologist. I do understand where you're coming from, but times have changed, the empire has long gone, and GB is not an imminent threat :eek:No seriously, GB is not a threat even though you keep suggesting that it is, presumably in some kind of Empire conquest capacity? Talking of fetishes, I guess the old Provos have ditched the dark glasses, black berets, Doc Martins etc ...
Whatcar212 wrote: » That assume the NI region will contribute 0 though? Would this big increase in FDI not help towards that? Realistically there is no way of knowing how much NI will cost until such time that negations happen with the UK. Will the UK be liable for pensions like they were for the EU? What will NI's deficit be once re-adjusted to account for these pensions & the removal of the shared military cost? Removal of NHS & bloat civil service costs? There is no way of knowing how much it will cost, but it is equally unfair to assume they will contribute 0. Therefore what can be discussed is the potential for growth, investment & expansion. That potential (or lack there of) is the true indicator to the success of a UI
jh79 wrote: » C'mon Francie, nothing has been pointed out several times. Just saying "An All Ireland" economy repeatedly is not an answer. You have not been able to offer one single example of this benefit. The disadvantages are the dramatic tax increases required to fix NI with no guarantee that it will work. The day after unification our economy returns to the levels of the last crash due to the huge increase in population with little increase in GDP.
jh79 wrote: » Look, the subvention is not the cost of unification it's the massive investment required to fix NI that is the issue. NI is decades behind with practically no FDI. According to SF we would have to redirect all budget surplus (where will they come from?) for 8 years and pay welfare and PS pay in NI at the Republics levels just to gain 35bn over 8 years or 1.3% per capita!! Are you honestly going to suggest the net effect of paying for all that and only getting a 1.3% increase will be a profit?
downcow wrote: » Yeah and I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who condone much of what the provos done but condemn all that the Lyra killers done.
Shebean wrote: » Why? The markets are fickle indeed. Good will and a sense of possibility could easily cause an upturn. I would expect investment from companies still weary of the stuck in the past north. Do you believe Ireland won't see another financial crash made worse by austerity and cronyism within the next decade or sooner? We seem to allow a few to get greedy and party and put the burden on the tax payer as part of our financial and economic model.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There isn't technically a 'cost' after we become a UI. There will just be the cost of running the country as we have now.
Whatcar212 wrote: » So are you trying to say that after 8 years there will be no additional benefit? I read that as it will take 8 years to get to a position of growth and it will only improve from there? In terms of a country, 8 years is extremely short term thinking.
jh79 wrote: » Why? Because our GDP becomes diluted to recession era levels due to the sudden increase in population.
Shebean wrote: » You believe. No point in throwing up potential problems like they are fact. You might be right, you might be wrong. Certainly things will be unstable for a period.
revelman wrote: » How on earth is GB our biggest threat?
jh79 wrote: » I believe? GDP gets published with every budget and we know the population from the census. Bizarre comment.
mehico wrote: » Could be wrong but was assuming the poster was referring to you relying on a report you acknowledge to be flawed to illustrate the quoted figures.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Expect the one I pointed out just a few posts ago that you blithely waved away in order to continue the now trenchant negativity while also increasing the personal invective.An integrated Ireland would create economies of scale and therefore a more competitive economy which would be much more attractive for our own entrepreneurs and foreign investment. Also remember that for me 'us' includes all the people of the island.
blanch152 wrote: » Ah come on, we still appear to be at the stage of United Ireland ??????? Profit!!!! An integrated Ireland won't create economies of scale. It didn't work that way in Germany, it won't in Ireland either. Fantasy stuff again.
FrancieBrady wrote: » East Germany and NI are similar? Ah come on! Fantasy. Same tactics from both you and jh...anyone makes a positive commenr -- denigrate and call fantasy. G-A-S!
jh79 wrote: » Maybe, but I purposely picked the SF approved report as it's less likely to be dismissed as biased without justification. There has been an attempt to create a narrative that the NI economy is a mystery that can only be revealed once a border poll is called. Silly really considering all the necessary data gets published with each budget.
Shebean wrote: » You claim the nation will suffer like the last crash due to a united Ireland because of GDP. That's a stretch. Putting aside the last crash was nothing to do with a U.I., and it will likely come around again. If only those in charge of our economics were so fearful of repeating themselves.