FrancieBrady wrote: » Email SF? Any plan/proposal at this stage is just speculation and are essentially ideas. They is a way to go before anyone can produce an accurate one.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Unionists throught the UK government will be involved in negotiations on a UI downcow...are you saying they will sulk in a corner and allow their future in a UI to be decided for them? Would be like something the DUP and belligerent Unionist would do but Doug Beattie moderate Unionism won't.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It is an unknown when you don't know what a UI will be and what will be contributed to it or not. You have taken the scary stance - fair enough, but it is a 'stance' not a factual roadmap. Try to remember that. Part of the scare story is that the electorate won't tolerate a tax rise, but here is the results of a hot off the press poll that shows a majority see their taxes as 'investment' in the running of the country. That is how any government will present a UI - an investment in our future - and that will be the challenge for partitionists to reject. Good luck with it.
ineedeuro wrote: » Yes people don’t want tax cuts if that means hospitals and Garda etc don’t have the funding to actual provide for the people of Rep of Ireland It has zero relevance to tax increases to take on Northern Ireland. You keep saying it’s an investment but it’s not really, if it was then every political party would be publishing papers and pushing for a border poll yesterday Every party knows it’s a black hole and hence why none of them will stick their name to a report on a United Ireland
downcow wrote: » Haha. To quote you as I promised “ To what end if there is no agreement? Why would they waste their time? You are being ridiculous. ”
FrancieBrady wrote: » So you think FG FF will be presenting a UI as a 'black hole'? God bless your wit on that one.
ineedeuro wrote: » I don’t think any of them will present anything, Sinn Fein have been shouting about it for years and done nothing They are all hurlers in teh ditch, waiting for one party to give the bad news and then contradict them
jh79 wrote: » We won't get an accurate number for the subvention until negotiations with the British but as we all know this is the minor part of the cost of unification. The data required for predicting the cost of harmonization gets published yearly for each budget. The white paper will be just "ideas" too, there is no big reveal to come. It's just the intended policy of the government of the day. Deputy leader of the SNP pointed this out too....."What we will do is what we did last time. We will provide a white paper that gives detailed answers as to what we would propose. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what will happen in an independent Scotland, because who knows who the government will be, but we’ll put out our stall in a white paper, in a much more considered and detailed way than they did for the Brexit referendum.”"However, he said that there as a caveat in that the current cohort of politicians campaigning for an independent Scotland would not necessarily be those running the country if an independence referendum was won."https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-election-results-2021-snp-independence-white-paper-would-not-necessarily-be-how-it-works-in-practice-3229863
blanch152 wrote: » Glad you agree that a united Ireland is as far away as always. If we are still in the speculation place, that could mean anything, in fact we are free to speculate that a united Ireland may not happen, and that an independent Northern Ireland in the EU and the Commonwealth is more likely in the long run. Either you get off the pot and produce some realistic proposals, or you accept that a united Ireland is just talk.
FrancieBrady wrote: » This is where Scotland and Ireland diverge and are not similar. Because of the conflict/war and the division...there will need to much immutable stuff in any transfer of power. Rights and guarantees and constitutional change built into the agreement that cannot be changed on the whim of who might be in government. You need to think stuff through jh79 before rushing to the keyboard.
jh79 wrote: » Francie, you know well I'm specifically talking about the financial side of it.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And you know well that governments are free to do things differently economically and nothing will be 'set in stone' on that front because that would be suicidal. If it emerged that a road taken was wrong and they were tied to it that would be a ridiculous scenario. So stating the obvious also doesn't move the debate on much.
jh79 wrote: » What! I've being saying this all along. You are the one pushing the ridiculous narrative that there is to be a big reveal and that up to that point it's only speculation. It's all guess work no matter whether it's the government of the day white paper or the opposition's alternative version. So can we stop the nonsense that SF or any other party can't provide policy on how they would deal with the financial logistics regarding PS pay, welfare, inward investment etc?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where did I say there would be a 'big reveal'? All I have said is that we don't have a plan/proposal yet from the proposer. The Irish government. And I have said why that cannot happen at this stage as there are details/needs etc to be worked out. There is no onus on any single political party to come up with 'policy'. I wouldn't expect any of them FF FG DUP UUP SF ALLIANCE SDLP etc to waste time and resources doing it. There are still too many unknowns to commit to a 'policy' IMO.
jh79 wrote: » What "unknowns" are you talking about? Pearse put out a document on what he thinks the subvention truly is even though there are gaps in the data only the British can answer. What excuse is there for not predicting the cost of harmonization as required by the SF approved Hubner report given all the data is readily available?
blanch152 wrote: » There are only a small number of reasons why those who support a united Ireland are refusing to set out the costs of harmonisation. (1) They don't have a clue (I suspect that some of the posters on here fall into this category) (2) They know it will cost a lot of money, and will scare people off a united Ireland (I suspect SF might fall into this category) (3) They know that a united Ireland at best is decades away, and might never happen so aren't bothered doing the work (I suspect FF/FG fall into this category). Other than those three reasons, I can't see why any person who supports a united Ireland can't set out in detail how, why and how much harmonisation will cost. I did an exercise a while back on child benefit and the hundreds of millions it will cost to harmonise, didn't take longer than a few google searches and some calculations. It is not beyond anyone who spends their waking hours arguing for a united Ireland to do a much more comprehensive exercise.
mehico wrote: » Groups such as Ireland's Future are calling for the establishment of a Citizens Assembly. This may help inform government policy on issues such as a new welfare system. Similarly, one of the aims of the New Ireland Commission that was recently launched by SDLP was to create public dialogue around the practical details of constitutional change. This could help address some of these questions including areas such as welfare and the wider society in general.
FrancieBrady wrote: » As I told you before - email SF. Just like the Hubner report, I wouldn't put a lot of store or confidence in it. If it is a set cost as you claim what is your problem? That's the issue settled for you. Seems to me though that none of the 'costs' are set in stone. Only a wet week ago we were being adamantly told the 'cost' would be 10 billion + You can try and pretend that wasn't the case but you would be pretending. There is much water to flow yet on costs and how a UI will be set up.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Child benefit and welfare in any country can be made a 'scary' figure if you look at such provision for society in that way. Harmonisation will cost what it costs. A running cost of a united country. Like we do here, we offset the benefits living here against the costs of living here. It will be no different in a united Ireland. You are one of the most ardent scaremongers here. We have seen as the conversation grows around a UI and as more and more become vocal and clamber onto the UI wagon that negativity is counter productive. This constant scaremongering gives the lie to your protestations that you are in favour of a UI.
jh79 wrote: » Hilarious, never said it was set in stone and repeatedly said the cost would change with each government. Issue here is there is no excuse for SF or the rest for their inaction. They have all the data required to predict the cost of keeping PS numbers and wages at the Republic levels or whatever level they want. Same for welfare. Same for 3rd level investment, roads etc. You labelled MM a partitionist due to the slow pace of the unity unit or whatever it is called but not a bit of critisim for SF complete inaction on this. What's even weirder is you claim the lack of a plan is the reason for poor showings in the polls yet don't actually want a plan produced.
jh79 wrote: » So why do you fear the plan so much?The figures are readily available yet you are trying to push a nonsense narrative that there is secret info that will only be revealed once a border poll is called.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where have I said anything about 'secret information'? Stop telling lies jh.
blanch152 wrote: » What's stopping you then, other than ignorance or fear, from producing an estimate of the costs of harmonisation?
jh79 wrote: » So you agree all the info is there to predict the cost of harmonization and the unknowns only apply to the lesser subvention cost?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/40cd2c7cc45c017341a2e78709e5b61f.svg)