FileNotFound wrote: » In fairness, silly as it sounds the like of a potential social welfare cut (not sure it would be the reality but initially money will have to come from somewhere) will have a direct impact on a percentage of the voter base so could potentially be an influence. Much like reduction in hospital funding for the existing infrastructure. Additional taxation for the average worker. All the above would heavily depend on economic circumstances at the time I guess.
blanch152 wrote: » Where do I make any assumption? "They may" and "we could" are not assumptions.
blanch152 wrote: » The point that is repeatedly ignored by the exclusionary nationalists is that the circle has to be squared somehow, either through tax increases or service cuts, so that we can fund Northern Ireland to the same levels as Ireland. The current €10bn subvention from Westminister only funds it to lower levels of social welfare and public service pay. The refusal to address this issue is eye-opening.
BonnieSituation wrote: » But the likes of blanch haven't got the imagination to think that perhaps there's more than one way to solve this conundrum. Again, this will all be part of a massive undertaking by this State to work out how this will work in the lead up to any poll. But of course, that is anathema to Partitionists. Like their belligerent friends in loyalism any progress in any department can't be welcomed as that would mean a UI can be achieved.
blanch152 wrote: » There are two ways - increase taxes or cut services.
gourcuff wrote: » alot of these discussions assume no economic growth in n.i as part of a united ireland, no benefit from our corporation tax rate etc. If english mismanagement and neglect of n.i is removed, surely there will be a boost?. Belfast is a great city with huge potential, it can be a powerhouse to drive growth in n.i. Static assumptions about the economy in n.i are flawed imo...
FileNotFound wrote: » Indeed I imagine that there will be plenty of discussion on this topic, however given the states history when faced with fiscal challenges, increased taxation in line with decreased spending on public services is the most likely option. I don't think the people on this thread are against the state looking at solutions to the challenges they have highlighted. I think its the lack of any even proposed alternative that must leave then skeptical. I suppose as this thread has no answers or even propositions the discussion might as well die until the government have done what you outline above.
blanch152 wrote: » Even the most optimistic SF scenario only sees a small amount of economic growth, and very far from the amount necessary for harmonisation. The downside risks at the moment are far far higher than the potential for growth.
gourcuff wrote: » Really? what scenarios are you referring to?https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/arid-20388959.html “GDP in the Republic could rise by €30m to €152m in the year of policy implementation. In total, Irish unification could boost all- island GDP in the first eight years by as much as €35.6bn,” the report concluded.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There won't be a north or a south (jurisdiction wise) in a UI.
dam099 wrote: » I wouldn't have thought that was pre-determined. The model for a UI would need to be decided as part of the unification process and one option might be some form of federal arrangement with some level of devolved government North and South (not saying its the likely outcome but would have thought its something to be considered).
FrancieBrady wrote: » I wouldn't see it as a runner tbh. The people would have just voted by majority to end 100 years of partition, where would the enthusiasm to enable a re-partition come from?
mehico wrote: » This is not confined to SF and their supporters though, most political parties on the island have an aspiration to a UI.
BonnieSituation wrote: » But the likes of blanch haven't got the imagination to think that perhaps there's more than one way to solve this conundrum.
Fionn1952 wrote: » It wouldn't be my chosen outcome personally, but unlike the nonsensical NI Independence talk that was doing the rounds a while back, there's nothing in the GFA which would actually prevent this. As part of a wholesale root and branch reform and federalisation of Ireland I could see how it could work hypothetically.... Just keeping the current NI setup and trading Westminster for Dublin, not so much.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Partitionist discussions around a UI can only work in a vacuum. It suits their simplistic analysis of all situations. I mean, blanch has yet again told us that we can only cut services or raise taxes as if this is some sort of epiphany that the rest of us can't quite grasp. You do have to admire their tenacity though. Repeating the same simplistic partitionist mantras would vore me senseless.
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » The difference is that you want a united ireland at any cost, regardless of the impact on future generations or the current standard of living, which is your prerogative of course
FrancieBrady wrote: » I want one because of the impact on past generations and 'future generations'. Partition has been a tragic and abject failure for this entire island. That will factor into many people's decision, as will economic considerations.
blanch152 wrote: » Past generations no longer care, why should we? Future generations have more to be worried about than a united Ireland, in fact they will be wondering why so much energy was wasted on the concept.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » Only SF are in a hurry to rush it before its time though. The reason is obvious in that if people in NI are content in their lives as has largely been the scenario since the GFA, they will be loathed to lose benefits such as the NHS. Imagination... That was the calling card of the Brexiteers to imagine how great GB would be outside the EU. If these benefits accrue from joining the republic, then how come we don't see this Economic equivalent in Donegal, Mayo, the southwest. Belfast is more likely to become the northern equivalent of Limerick with its social problems. Given NI's current position having access to both EU and UJ markets, surely economic growth is best served to keep its current status?
Hamsterchops wrote: » All this talk of a United Ireland is great fun, but we're now 3206 pages into this thread going round and around in circles, offering up the same solutions to the same problems, but the fact remains that there are still one million (approx) people up North who do NOT want to become one with this state, they just don't want it. Leave them alone untill they want it, then invite them in.
gourcuff wrote: » Because cities are drivers of economic growth, innovation and are focal points for job growth - rural areas like mayo are not equivalent to a city in economic impact. belfast is the 12th-largest city in the United Kingdom and the second-largest in Ireland - limerick is not a good comparison. Belfast supports a broad region stretching to tyrone in n.i. With cost of living/cost of doing business differentials and dublin dropping down the liveable city rankings as it is its not inconceivable to see firms swap dublin for belfast in a UI.
FullyComp wrote: » So people in the republic could actively lose their jobs in this new utopia. Vote for a UI and lose your country, screw up your children's future and as a bonus, lose your job! What a great idea, I'll be voting yes!
