Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

Peregrinus · 28-05-2021 9:57am

Not to pick nits or anything, but the self-congratulatory tweet of Frost's that you quote is about the UK/EU Trade and Co-Operation Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement, which includes the NI Protocol, was negotiated more than a year previously (also by Frost, but he wasn't a politician at the time but a public servant, so I don't think was tweeting about it).

guy2231 · 28-05-2021 10:01am

Brexit is the greatest example in the last decade of how the people of Ireland are not truly free, we don't have real freedom, we have this halfway freedom where the people of Ireland North or South have\had no say in what happened with the border the British Government decides and decided on that.

Leroy42 · 28-05-2021 10:09am

guy2231 wrote: »

Brexit is the greatest example in the last decade of how the people of Ireland are not truly free, we don't have real freedom, we have this halfway freedom where the people of Ireland North or South have\had no say in what happened with the border the British Government decides and decided on that.

They are as free as any other minority in a democracy. Are Green Party supporters not free?

In many ways the people of NI have more freedom than those in GB and RoI. They can be both and get pretty much the best of both worlds.

Seth Brundle · 28-05-2021 10:20am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not to pick nits or anything, but the self-congratulatory tweet of Frost's that you quote is about the UK/EU Trade and Co-Operation Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement, which includes the NI Protocol, was negotiated more than a year previously (also by Frost, but he wasn't a politician at the time but a public servant, so I don't think was tweeting about it).

I'm aware of that. It's more that the TCA wouldn't have been possible had the NIP not been there.

Peregrinus · 28-05-2021 10:20am

guy2231 wrote: »

Brexit is the greatest example in the last decade of how the people of Ireland are not truly free, we don't have real freedom, we have this halfway freedom where the people of Ireland North or South have\had no say in what happened with the border the British Government decides and decided on that.

If the British government was in a position to decide what is to happen with the border, they wouldn't be in the pickle they're in right now.

guy2231 · 28-05-2021 11:23am

Leroy42 wrote: »

They are as free as any other minority in a democracy. Are Green Party supporters not free?

In many ways the people of NI have more freedom than those in GB and RoI. They can be both and get pretty much the best of both worlds.

I was talking about the people of Ireland as a whole as you can see from my post, the people of Ireland have/had no say in what happens to the border so how can the people of Ireland be free when the English still decide on one of the most important things to keep this island functioning properly?

We may as well rename it the English border of Ireland.

Peregrinus · 28-05-2021 11:37am

guy2231 wrote: »

I was talking about the people of Ireland as a whole as you can see from my post, the people of Ireland have/had no say in what happens to the border so how can the people of Ireland be free when the English still decide on one of the most important things to keep this island functioning properly?

We may as well rename it the English border of Ireland.

It's the UK border in Ireland.

The people in the Republic, at any rate, had a considerable influence over what would be done in relation to the border as a consequence of Brexit. That's we we don't have a hard land border right now.

Fionn1952 · 28-05-2021 11:53am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's the UK border in Ireland.

The people in the Republic, at any rate, had a considerable influence over what would be done in relation to the border as a consequence of Brexit. That's we we don't have a hard land border right now.

Soft vs hard influence there with regards to the border.

Ultimately if the British want to put a hard border on the island, they can. As much as I can be critical of Irish governments, we have leveraged our soft power quite well to prevent it.

While we (backed by the EU) could say, 'well if you do this, we won't give you x', the British still had the choice to say, 'fine, we'll do without x. Enjoy the new border'.

Sam Russell · 28-05-2021 11:59am

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Soft vs hard influence there with regards to the border.

Ultimately if the British want to put a hard border on the island, they can. As much as I can be critical of Irish governments, we have leveraged our soft power quite well to prevent it.

While we (backed by the EU) could say, 'well if you do this, we won't give you x', the British still had the choice to say, 'fine, we'll do without x. Enjoy the new border'.

Except it is now part of the withdrawal agreement which is an international agreement with repercussions for default should the UK choose to go against it.

Fionn1952 · 28-05-2021 1:57pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Except it is now part of the withdrawal agreement which is an international agreement with repercussions for default should the UK choose to go against it.

Aye, 100%. I should've clarified that I was speaking in the context of negotiating the Withdrawal Agreement.

The Golden Miller · 28-05-2021 7:42pm

Behind the fascade, Unionist leaders are loving the NI protocol. Brexit would have been a disaster for the north regardless of how it was implemented. Unionist leaders now never have to admit that, can say they only reason it was bad for NI, was because of the protocol, while drumming up jingoism in the mean time

Leroy42 · 28-05-2021 7:54pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Behind the fascade, Unionist leaders are loving the NI protocol. Brexit would have been a disaster for the north regardless of how it was implemented. Unionist leaders now never have to admit that, can say they only reason it was bad for NI, was because of the protocol, while drumming up jingoism in the mean time

Tbf, the entire UK government and the media are doing exactly the same.

The Golden Miller · 28-05-2021 8:12pm

Unionist leaders are a joke, stand for nothing but hate and division. People are quick to say both sides are as bad as each other but its simply not true. Over the decades the Irish in the north have bettered their position, Unionist communities, despite having all the traditional advantages have gone backwards. They've spent decades trying to obstruct what the Irish side have done, instead of bettering themselves

kowloon · 28-05-2021 10:35pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Unionist leaders are a joke, stand for nothing but hate and division. People are quick to say both sides are as bad as each other but its simply not true. Over the decades the Irish in the north have bettered their position, Unionist communities, despite having all the traditional advantages have gone backwards. They've spent decades trying to obstruct what the Irish side have done, instead of bettering themselves

They're Irish too, they only count as anything other than paddies when Westminster needs them. It must be difficult being a Unionist knowing the British establishment doesn't respect them as equals.

guy2231 · 28-05-2021 10:43pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Unionist leaders are a joke, stand for nothing but hate and division. People are quick to say both sides are as bad as each other but its simply not true. Over the decades the Irish in the north have bettered their position, Unionist communities, despite having all the traditional advantages have gone backwards. They've spent decades trying to obstruct what the Irish side have done, instead of bettering themselves

Exactly,the whole unionism ideology is based on division from everyone else in Ireland, as long as there is a British presence unionism will always exist.

There is no chance of us truly coming together as a people while the British presence remains.

yagan · 29-05-2021 8:51am

guy2231 wrote: »

Exactly,the whole unionism ideology is based on division from everyone else in Ireland, as long as there is a British presence unionism will always exist.

There is no chance of us truly coming together as a people while the British presence remains.

They were pretty willing to switch allegiance to the Kaiser just to reject the Home Rule Bill, so much so that 25.000 guns landed in Larne in 1914 in the wake of Carson's visit to Berlin. A Dutch prince was their hero so switching to another continental royal wasn't an issue.

It is telling that Foster announced she's leaving the DUP entirely having come there from the UUP. It's as if political unionism as it existed for a century is leaving the stage to the rump calvinists that form the hard kernel of that community's core identity.

pixelburp · 29-05-2021 9:08am

guy2231 wrote: »

Exactly,the whole unionism ideology is based on division from everyone else in Ireland, as long as there is a British presence unionism will always exist.

There is no chance of us truly coming together as a people while the British presence remains.

That's a gross reduction of what amounts to a perfectly legitimate culture within our island. The DUP give a lopsided, mutated version of Irish identity, framed against a coequal sense of belonging to a British one (though in their case less Irish, more Scots Presbyterian really). Those identities are perfectly capable of coexisting with each other - you think our Ulster players for the Irish rugby team are all nationalists? - and if we were to have a united Ireland those normal unionists will need to be accommodated and welcomed. Heck that acknowledgement is rooted in the whole ethos of the increasingly popular Alliance party.

I don't subscribe to that identity, and think it a deep shame that a certain cohort of unionism rejects even the notion they ARE Irish, but here we are. These Irish exist and are entitled to do so; if we respect the idea of (say) Afro-Irish then so to must be the British-Irish.

Pretending they're all madcap Poots, wheeling around, preferring to rule in hell than serve in heaven, is neither fair nor true. And ultimately is what drives decisions when Poots turns and says "see? They don't like or want us".

yagan · 29-05-2021 9:42am

pixelburp wrote: »

That's a gross reduction of what amounts to a perfectly legitimate culture within our island. The DUP give a lopsided sense of Irish identity, framed against a coequal sense of belonging to a British one (though in their case less Irish, more Scots Presbyterian really). Those identities are perfectly capable of coexisting with each other - you think our Ulster players for the Irish rugby team are all nationalists? - and if we were to have a united Ireland those normal unionists will need to be accommodated and welcomed. Heck that acknowledgement is rooted in the whole ethos of the increasingly popular Alliance party.

I don't subscribe to that identity, and think it a deep shame that a certain cohort of unionism rejects even the notion they ARE Irish, but here we are. These Irish exist and are entitled to do so; if we respect the idea of (say) Afro-Irish then so to must be the British-Irish.

Pretending they're all madcap Poots, wheeling around, preferring to rule in hell than serve in heaven, is neither fair nor true. And ultimately is what drives decisions when Poots turns and says "see? They don't like or want us".

Even the Irish Presbyterian Church formally voted in 2018 to split from the mother church in Scotland over the latter's toleration of same sex marriage.

Carson may have called himself an Irish Unionist but the nub of their identity was religious exclusivity, be it with the protection of Britain, or Germany as was sought by Carson who went to Berlin to discuss switching allegiance to oppose Home Rule. He obviously succeeded in being heard as 25.000 german guns later landed in Larne.

Look at the community from an outsiders perspective without our allowances of familiarity, and all you're left with is the founder of the DUP denouncing the pope as the antiChrist in the European Parliament chamber. That was a 16th century calvinist ember kept flaming in a far flung corner of Europe by fanatics.

The rise of the alliance party is as much a story of a community evolving beyond its religious tradition just as the EU is an evolution beyond national and imperial rivalries that destroyed Europe with bloody wars for centuries.

Peregrinus · 30-05-2021 1:45am

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Soft vs hard influence there with regards to the border.

Ultimately if the British want to put a hard border on the island, they can. As much as I can be critical of Irish governments, we have leveraged our soft power quite well to prevent it.

While we (backed by the EU) could say, 'well if you do this, we won't give you x', the British still had the choice to say, 'fine, we'll do without x. Enjoy the new border'.

Either side could have done this. That's the point with borders; they are by definition bilateral. A hard border can only be avoided if both sides co-operate to do what has to be done to avoid it; therefore either side can bring about a hard border by simply not doing anything to stop it.

In that sense, the UK had no more power over this than the EU/Ireland had.

But in the wider question of UK/EU relationships, the EU has more power than the UK. Which means that on the specific question of how the border in Ireland would be dealt with, the EU's priorities - very much influenced by Ireland - prevailed over the UK's. The UK could have acted so as to cause a hard border, but the cost to them of doing so would have bee greater than they wanted to bear.

Kermit.de.frog · 30-05-2021 1:24pm

Sunday Independent saying a raft of DUP resignations coming this week. The party is eating itself.

It seems all but certain that SF will be the largest party after the next election and will hold the FM position. That election could be September according to reports as it seems likely the assembly will collapse over things like the Irish language.

Seth Brundle · 30-05-2021 2:05pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Sunday Independent saying a raft of DUP resignations coming this week. The party is eating itself.

It seems all but certain that SF will be the largest party after the next election and will hold the FM position. That election could be September according to reports as it seems likely the assembly will collapse over things like the Irish language.

Hypothetically speaking, if enough members resigned from the DUP and joined the UUP, woukd SF immediately take the FM role in the assembly and UUP take the DFM role or would they need to wait until the next election?

maestroamado · 30-05-2021 2:27pm

I said here earlier on another thread that i seen the EU trade commissioner being interviewed directly opposite Edwin Poots.
I do not follow these things but this is a signifigent step for me.
I do not think i ever seen an NI politician being interviewed opposite someone of this level before...

L1011 · 30-05-2021 9:44pm

Poots must be thinking he's having a nightmare - he becomes leader of the DUP and it turns out that the PM is Catholic!

Or, at least, sort-of Catholic, but its unlikely to be giving him much hope.

Peregrinus · 31-05-2021 2:14am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking, if enough members resigned from the DUP and joined the UUP, woukd SF immediately take the FM role in the assembly and UUP take the DFM role or would they need to wait until the next election?

Unlike the UK Prime Minister and the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, all of whom are formally appointed by the Crown, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of NI are elected by the Assembly. There isn't an election unless there's a vacancy. The DUP ceasing to be the largest party would not in itself cause a vacancy.

If there were to be a vacancy at a time when SF were the largest party, then in the ensuing election the First Minister would be the candidate nominated by SF and the Deputy First Minister the candidate nominated by the largest unionist party (which might still be the DUP).

Would SF try to engineer a vacancy with, e.g., a vote of confidence, forcing the FM and DFM to resign? I think almost certainly not. In the first place, the vote of confidence is not likely to pass. In the second place, it's destabilising. In the third place, the legal role, authority, functions, etc of the FM and the DFM are identical, so even if the strategy succeeded all that would happen is a meaningless swapping of titles. And SF would probably not want to be seen to be destabilising the devolved institutions for such a meaningless bauble.

L1011 · 31-05-2021 7:57am

Well, Arlene is resigning anyway remember. And if the tables were turned I'm fairly sure the DUP would do it - pettiness is the norm for them

Peregrinus · 31-05-2021 8:09am

L1011 wrote: »

Well, Arlene is resigning anyway remember. And if the tables were turned I'm fairly sure the DUP would do it - pettiness is the norm for them

Yes, plus the DUP don't like the GFA and are at best ambivalent about the devolved administration in NI, so the risk of collapsing it would be much less of a deterrent to them than it would to SF.

You're correct that Arlene will e resigning, of course. This will trigger an election. If, before Arlene resigns, enough DUP MLAs have left the party so that SF is by then the largest party in the Assembly, then I think the consequence would be that at that election a First Minister from SF and a Deputy First Minister from the DUP would be elected.

But I don't expect that to happen. If any DUP MLAs are going to leave the party (which so far is only speculation) I don't think they'd want to do it in such a way as to produce that outcome, so they'd wait until after the election of the new First Minister.

maestroamado · 31-05-2021 8:09am

L1011 wrote: »

Well, Arlene is resigning anyway remember. And if the tables were turned I'm fairly sure the DUP would do it - pettiness is the norm for them

Pettiness has always being always part of NI politics, and wanted a permanent solution always someone else caused the problem.
There were a few who really cared and wanted a solution and the rest on both sides blaming the others.
Its beginning to look like a new beginning...

Mr.Nice Guy · 08-06-2021 2:23pm

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1402243260664487939

I mentioned last month I thought he could be in the frame for it, although I didn't expect the convoluted way the DUP have gone about it.

This is the chap that pulled funding of 50k for the Liofa gaeltacht grant several years ago around Christmas time. Can't see him healing any divisions.

Seth Brundle · 08-06-2021 2:29pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Can't see him healing any divisions.

Healing divisions is not in the DUP's DNA

weemcd · 08-06-2021 3:08pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1402243260664487939

I mentioned last month I thought he could be in the frame for it, although I didn't expect the convoluted way the DUP have gone about it.

This is the chap that pulled funding of 50k for the Liofa gaeltacht grant several years ago around Christmas time. Can't see him healing any divisions.

It's clear the direction DUP are doubling down on under Poots. I dare say the DUP are in the situation UUP were in a decade ago, basically on their last legs. The votes they lose likely split between UUP/Alliance/TUV.

Poots is off to an awful, awful start.

Larbre34 · 08-06-2021 6:05pm

I'd be interested in all Politics in these islands, I know the policies and characteristics of a good many political figures in Ireland and the UK as well as the EU, eastern Europe, America, Australia etc.

I'm also well aware of the DUPs long and recent history of ultra conservative agitation against gay rights, women's rights and so. However, I can say with God as my witness that I have never heard the name Paul Givan before today. Or if I have, it didn't make enough impact on me to register in my mind in any way.

Larbre34 · 08-06-2021 6:49pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Sunday Independent saying a raft of DUP resignations coming this week. The party is eating itself.

It seems all but certain that SF will be the largest party after the next election and will hold the FM position. That election could be September according to reports as it seems likely the assembly will collapse over things like the Irish language.

It wouldn't be beyond the whim of Boris Johnson to reimpose direct rule and finalise as much of the long term trading structures as possible from Whitehall, vis-a-vis NI, GB and EU, before sanctioning an election in NI on schedule in May 2022. It'd be just his style.

maestroamado · 09-06-2021 9:10am

Larbre34 wrote: »

It wouldn't be beyond the whim of Boris Johnson to reimpose direct rule and finalise as much of the long term trading structures as possible from Whitehall, vis-a-vis NI, GB and EU, before sanctioning an election in NI on schedule in May 2022. It'd be just his style.

I don't think there is a chance Boris will get any more involved in NI than he has to. He and most UK citizens want rid of it.
I expect he and EU are concocting a plan to appease the unionists...

Sam Russell · 09-06-2021 9:14am

maestroamado wrote: »

I don't think there is a chance Boris will get any more involved in NI than he has to. He and most UK citizens want rid of it.
I expect he and EU are concocting a plan to appease the unionists...

There is talk about the EU preventing medicines from getting to NI.

How do we manage in Ireland in getting medicines? And if we can get medicines without any difficulty, then why can NI not buy from the same source?

I think many of the problems that the DUP point to are invented. They need to get the protocol working and then see the problems and get them sorted.

redcup342 · 09-06-2021 9:24am

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is talk about the EU preventing medicines from getting to NI.

How do we manage in Ireland in getting medicines? And if we can get medicines without any difficulty, then why can NI not buy from the same source?

I think many of the problems that the DUP point to are invented. They need to get the protocol working and then see the problems and get them sorted.

Maybe the Uk Government can use some of that extra money they took back to subsidise companies when they submit for regulatory approval.

Other solution would be just to remove the Border altogether, make the Island one country.

Or just follow the protocol they signed.

The only reasons these problems exist was because people were used to a certain situation and now that its gone they think they are hard done by. It's only going to get worse as Covid calms down.

Leroy42 · 09-06-2021 9:30am

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is talk about the EU preventing medicines from getting to NI.

How do we manage in Ireland in getting medicines? And if we can get medicines without any difficulty, then why can NI not buy from the same source?

I think many of the problems that the DUP point to are invented. They need to get the protocol working and then see the problems and get them sorted.

100%. If there are problems with the sea border then they need to realign their supply chains. The UK and certainly the DUP, want everything to remain as it was, well except for them being in the EU!

The only ideas that the UK have put forward involve the EU compromising even further to facilitate the UK being unwilling to take the necessary action.

I agree that the UK and EU and working on a compromise, but I think it is a folls errend for the EU. Its doesn't matter what they do, there will always be another problem that the UK haven't through of, a consequence of the last decision, and the UK will be back demanding that something must be done to solve it all.

And that is before we even get to the fast approaching problems that are going to impact GB, which have been largely minimised because of Covid. Once they start to kick in, travel visa for eg, then the UK will just be back looking for even more 'compromise' and looking for the EU to stop bullying then and to be pragmatic.

maestroamado · 09-06-2021 9:38am

Leroy42 wrote: »

100%. If there are problems with the sea border then they need to realign their supply chains. The UK and certainly the DUP, want everything to remain as it was, well except for them being in the EU!

The only ideas that the UK have put forward involve the EU compromising even further to facilitate the UK being unwilling to take the necessary action.

I agree that the UK and EU and working on a compromise, but I think it is a folls errend for the EU. Its doesn't matter what they do, there will always be another problem that the UK haven't through of, a consequence of the last decision, and the UK will be back demanding that something must be done to solve it all.

And that is before we even get to the fast approaching problems that are going to impact GB, which have been largely minimised because of Covid. Once they start to kick in, travel visa for eg, then the UK will just be back looking for even more 'compromise' and looking for the EU to stop bullying then and to be pragmatic.

The only real solution is a UI but it will take a bit of time.

Sam Russell · 09-06-2021 9:46am

maestroamado wrote: »

The only real solution is a UI but it will take a bit of time.

Article in the Irish Times pointing out that the UK subvention to NI is irrelevant to the unification argument after items like Trident, defence, pensions, and the like are taken out. His final figure is €2.8 billion, which he reckons is quite manageable.

So we just have to stop the two sides in NI throwing stones (and other missiles) at each other, join the party down here.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uk-subvention-to-north-irrelevant-to-debate-on-irish-unity-1.4587773

ZeroThreat · 09-06-2021 10:04am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Article in the Irish Times pointing out that the UK subvention to NI is irrelevant to the unification argument after items like Trident, defence, pensions, and the like are taken out. His final figure is €2.8 billion, which he reckons is quite manageable.

So we just have to stop the two sides in NI throwing stones (and other missiles) at each other, join the party down here.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uk-subvention-to-north-irrelevant-to-debate-on-irish-unity-1.4587773

Tbh the article just seems to be a rehash of Shinner political propaganda published by Pearse Doherty in the Irish Independent sometime last year.

It does not succeed in settling taxpaying employees in the private sector, many of whom don’t have adequate pensions, many of whom are suffering living costs that near eclipse their wages and who are footing huge (& increasing) tax bills for our bloated 3 duplicate levels of public administration - Local Administration, National Administration and EU Supra-National Administration.
It’s an article that appeals to unambiguous recipients from the public purse:
1) Public sector administrators who could never be employed by the private sector - the vast clerical class. Not nurses, teachers, engineers, doctors, radiologists, Gardai etc.
2) Farmers who couldn’t survive without Irish taxpayer funded CAP subsidies, in order to export milk powder and burgers.
3) Taxpayer funded NGO’s.
4) Long term recipients from our welfare system, who have wilfully opted out of being lifetime contributors to our welfare system.

Sam Russell · 09-06-2021 10:29am

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Tbh the article just seems to be a rehash of Shinner political propaganda published by Pearse Doherty in the Irish Independent sometime last year.

It does not succeed in settling taxpaying employees in the private sector, many of whom don’t have adequate pensions, many of whom are suffering living costs that near eclipse their wages and who are footing huge (& increasing) tax bills for our bloated 3 duplicate levels of public administration - Local Administration, National Administration and EU Supra-National Administration.
It’s an article that appeals to unambiguous recipients from the public purse:
1) Public sector administrators who could never be employed by the private sector - the vast clerical class. Not nurses, teachers, engineers, doctors, radiologists, Gardai etc.
2) Farmers who couldn’t survive without Irish taxpayer funded CAP subsidies, in order to export milk powder and burgers.
3) Taxpayer funded NGO’s.
4) Long term recipients from our welfare system, who have wilfully opted out of being lifetime contributors to our welfare system.

The article deals with the UK subsidy to NI, and the resulting requirement of the Irish Gov to fund what is likely to be required following unification.

Most of the items you mention are underlying problems for the Irish economy whether unification happens or not.

A bigger problem following unification would be aligning the two economies.

maestroamado · 09-06-2021 10:34am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Article in the Irish Times pointing out that the UK subvention to NI is irrelevant to the unification argument after items like Trident, defence, pensions, and the like are taken out. His final figure is €2.8 billion, which he reckons is quite manageable.

So we just have to stop the two sides in NI throwing stones (and other missiles) at each other, join the party down here.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uk-subvention-to-north-irrelevant-to-debate-on-irish-unity-1.4587773

I expect the EU, the USA to help with this for a number of years as we work towards for UI.
A couple of weeks ago i seen Poots and vice president of EU in a debate on the tele.
Our politician will love it...

blanch152 · 09-06-2021 3:34pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Article in the Irish Times pointing out that the UK subvention to NI is irrelevant to the unification argument after items like Trident, defence, pensions, and the like are taken out. His final figure is €2.8 billion, which he reckons is quite manageable.

So we just have to stop the two sides in NI throwing stones (and other missiles) at each other, join the party down here.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uk-subvention-to-north-irrelevant-to-debate-on-irish-unity-1.4587773

The article contains an awful lot of assumptions (including that GB will continue to pay NI pensions) and completely ignores the bigger bill, which is the one of harmonisation of social welfare rates, tax rates and public service pay.

Given the problems this country has, especially in relation to an infrastructure deficit, we would be very foolish to take on any extra burden.

Sam Russell · 09-06-2021 3:48pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The article contains an awful lot of assumptions (including that ne GB will continue to pay NI pensions) and completely ignores the bigger bill, which is the oof harmonisation of social welfare rates, tax rates and public service pay.

Given the problems this country has, especially in relation to an infrastructure deficit, we would be very foolish to take on any extra burden.

GB already pays UK pensions in Ireland for those who are entitled to them.

Earning a UK pension in NI or in GB at the moment is the same. Who is going to differentiate between qualifying contributions between GB and NI prior to the split due to a united Ireland. Say an academic worked in Queen's University for 20 years, and then transferred to a GB university for ten years or maybe the other way round. All contributions qualify for a UK pension, either way round. A UI will not change this.

The future contributions might be an issue, but pensions are seen as sacrosanct, and no Gov wants to undermine them.

Aligning the two economies would be a real issue, but much of that article restricts itself merely to the issue of the NI deficit.

guy2231 · 10-06-2021 7:44am

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40309505.html

This is from yesterday when the reports were first coming out against Sinn Fein.

Mr MacSharry of Fianna Fail added he found it "extremely worrying, and I don't know anybody involved in politics, up to now, who would have engaged in such subversion, in the modern democratic world."
The Sligo Fianna Fáil representative said he couldn't see how it wouldn't constitute Garda involvement.

Absolutely hilarious, I wonder will he still be calling for this garda involvement against his own party and Fine Gael?

Peregrinus · 10-06-2021 8:11am

Sam Russell wrote: »

GB already pays UK pensions in Ireland for those who are entitled to them.

Earning a UK pension in NI or in GB at the moment is the same. Who is going to differentiate between qualifying contributions between GB and NI prior to the split due to a united Ireland. Say an academic worked in Queen's University for 20 years, and then transferred to a GB university for ten years or maybe the other way round. All contributions qualify for a UK pension, either way round. A UI will not change this.

The future contributions might be an issue, but pensions are seen as sacrosanct, and no Gov wants to undermine them.

Gotta point out that when this issue arose in real life, in 1922, the Free State did take on the existing liability for old age pensions (both those already in payment, and those which would come into payment based on national insurance contributions already paid), despite the fact that the national insurance contributions that secured those pensions had gone to the UK exchequer.

SFAIK the division of liabilities was based simply on where the pensioner was resident in 1922 or later retirement, and took no account at all of where the pension had lived or worked while paying contributions.

Of course, that's not a precedent that would necessarily be followed if the question arises again. But it does mean that we can't glibly assume that the UK would automatically retain a large pension liability to NI people who had paid national insurance contributions to the UK exchequer. This would be one of the many, many matters that would have to be negotiated and agreed at the time.

Sam Russell · 10-06-2021 8:28am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Gotta point out that when this issue arose in real life, in 1922, the Free State did take on the existing liability for old age pensions (both those already in payment, and those which would come into payment based on national insurance contributions already paid), despite the fact that the national insurance contributions that secured those pensions had gone to the UK exchequer.

SFAIK the division of liabilities was based simply on where the pensioner was resident in 1922 or later retirement, and took no account at all of where the pension had lived or worked while paying contributions.

Of course, that's not a precedent that would necessarily be followed if the question arises again. But it does mean that we can't glibly assume that the UK would automatically retain a large pension liability to NI people who had paid national insurance contributions to the UK exchequer. This would be one of the many, many matters that would have to be negotiated and agreed at the time.

So those loyal members of the RUC, NI prison officers, members of the PSNI, would have their loyal service repaid by the UK Government they served, risking their lives, would be rewarded by having their pensions cut off on the formation of a UI.

What happened a hundred years ago, under insurrection and rebellion, is hardly relevant in the modern era. People have rights.

Currently, the UK Gov pays pensions to those who have earned those pensions by contributing to the UK Gov, wherever they live. I do not see that changing - there are too many special cases and exceptions to be swept away.

However, it would be a deliberate ploy for the UK Gov to try to sway the vote by repudiating those pension rights.

[Edit: If the UK Gov were to repudiate those pension rights, they would have to hand over all the work records of those affected. Would they do that?]

Peregrinus · 10-06-2021 8:47am

Sam Russell wrote: »

So those loyal members of the RUC, NI prison officers, members of the PSNI, would have their loyal service repaid by the UK Government they served, risking their lives, would be rewarded by having their pensions cut off on the formation of a UI.

What happened a hundred years ago, under insurrection and rebellion, is hardly relevant in the modern era. People have rights.

Currently, the UK Gov pays pensions to those who have earned those pensions by contributing to the UK Gov, wherever they live. I do not see that changing - there are too many special cases and exceptions to be swept away.

However, it would be a deliberate ploy for the UK Gov to try to sway the vote by repudiating those pension rights.

[Edit: If the UK Gov were to repudiate those pension rights, they would have to hand over all the work records of those affected. Would they do that?]

No, hold on. We're in danger of confusing two separate issues here:

• Occupational pensions for present and former UK public servants in NI.

• National insurance old-age pensions for residents of NI.

For what it's worth, in '22 the UK continued to pay RIC, army pensions, etc. But it didn't continue to pay old age pensions; they were taken on by the Free State.

In the event of NI leaving the UK, decisions about both of these things would have to be made. But they would be made separately; different considerations arise in both cases. I agree that, in both cases, the situation today is very different from what it was in 1922 (not least because pension liabilities are much, much bigger) and the 1922 precedent is in no way binding. But it does illustrate that there isn't a single, simple, inevitable solution to this.

Those issues would also arise, of course, if Scotland leaves the UK, and in preparation for the 2014 Indyref the Scottish government did some thinking about how they might be addressed, and published some proposals. There was no response from Westminster - none was expected - but this do at least represent some thinking about the issue that reflects modern conditions. If you're interests in how the problems of public sector and national insurance pension obligations could be addressed if the UK breaks up, a look at that discussion is probably as good a place to start as any.

maestroamado · 10-06-2021 8:47am

blanch152 wrote: »

The article contains an awful lot of assumptions (including that GB will continue to pay NI pensions) and completely ignores the bigger bill, which is the one of harmonisation of social welfare rates, tax rates and public service pay.

Given the problems this country has, especially in relation to an infrastructure deficit, we would be very foolish to take on any extra burden.

I expect if we do end up having a UI all of the Country North and South will be looked after for a number of years, money has a way of getting difficult situations resolved.
There would likely have to be complete political and judicial reform and we likely would end up with a great little Country....

Sam Russell · 10-06-2021 8:58am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, hold on. We're in danger of confusing two separate issues here:

• Occupational pensions for present and former UK public servants in NI.

• National insurance old-age pensions for residents of NI.

For what it's worth, in '22 the UK continued to pay RIC, army pensions, etc. But it didn't continue to pay old age pensions; they were taken on by the Free State.

In the event of NI leaving the UK, decisions about both of these things would have to be made. But they would be made separately; different considerations arise in both cases. I agree that, in both cases, the situation today is very different from what it was in 1922 (not least because pension liabilities are much, much bigger) and the 1922 precedent is in no way binding. But it does illustrate that there isn't a single, simple, inevitable solution to this.

Those issues would also arise, of course, if Scotland leaves the UK, and in preparation for the 2014 Indyref the Scottish government did some thinking about how they might be addressed, and published some proposals. There was no response from Westminster - none was expected - but this do at least represent some thinking about the issue that reflects modern conditions. If you're interests in how the problems of public sector and national insurance pension obligations could be addressed if the UK breaks up, a look at that discussion is probably as good a place to start as any.

Yes. I accept that point, but it is likely that the UK Gov would follow the precedent set by Brexit, where the UK Gov pays their share of UK recipients of EU pensions, with an actuarial estimate of the longer term liabilities. Now the UK as a member of the EU was liable for those pensions and continued to be liable after Brexit, so Nigel's pension will be paid for by the UK exchequer.

Now for NI, the UK would be liable for all state pensions whether social welfare or occupational as they got the contributions, and the liabilities. There are clear rules in place covering this.

However, would you trust the perfidious actors now in charge?

maestroamado · 10-06-2021 9:06am

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes. I accept that point, but it is likely that the UK Gov would follow the precedent set by Brexit, where the UK Gov pays their share of UK recipients of EU pensions, with an actuarial estimate of the longer term liabilities. Now the UK as a member of the EU was liable for those pensions and continued to be liable after Brexit, so Nigel's pension will be paid for by the UK exchequer.

Now for NI, the UK would be liable for all state pensions whether social welfare or occupational as they got the contributions, and the liabilities. There are clear rules in place covering this.

However, would you trust the perfidious actors now in charge?

I don't think the principle actor is the fool alot of people like to think he is...

Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

Comments