United Ireland Poll - please vote

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.

Here's one.

Why do we need to wait for an "accurate one".

Plenty more like that but that from yesterday.

jh79 wrote: »

Here's one.

Why do we need to wait for an "accurate one".

Plenty more like that but that from yesterday.

Here's 'one' what?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Speculation. You have no way of knowing what form or results will come from the negotiations. You are looking at them from a partitionist wishing well.

There will be aspirational stuff from all parties, the government's white paper or proposal will map out what will be done to mitigate any costs that accrue. That cannot be done until negotiations begin and we know what the British intend to do and what the Unionist majority want and indeed a whole raft of opportunities to reform and fix are investigated.
There will never be anyone committing to an absolute cost.

That is why there is no plan/proposal and further that is why people- including SF are lobbying for the preparations to begin.

Here is a blatant one. Outside of the minor cost of the subvention what unknowns are there preventing SF/FG/FF from outlining the costs of their vision for a UI?

ineedeuro

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.

Why can't the Northern Ireland assembly come up with a plan/proposal? after all they would be the ones moving from the United Kingdom. They would have better access and knowledge of Northern Ireland so should be able to fill in the blanks.

jh79 wrote: »

Here is a blatant one. Outside of the minor cost of the subvention what unknowns are there preventing SF/FG/FF from outlining the costs of their vision for a UI?

Jesus, are you listening at all?

I don't know about FF or FG but I suspect their positions to be the same. They do not wish to make proposals on what a UI would look like until discussions are held with the stakeholders and all their views are taken on board re: cost, flags, anthems, infrastructure, commonwealth etc etc.

All you want is for people to commit to positions so you can attack it with negativity...we get it. But you won't get that and I think that is correct from ALL parties reticent about doing it.

There are views and opinions that need to be taken on board at this stage. That's the next stage in my opinion.

ineedeuro wrote: »

Why can't the Northern Ireland assembly come up with a plan/proposal? after all they would be the ones moving from the United Kingdom. They would have better access and knowledge of Northern Ireland so should be able to fill in the blanks.

Why are you asking me that?

I am expressing my opinion here. I am not a spokesperson for SF or the NIA

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus, are you listening at all?

I don't know about FF or FG but I suspect their positions to be the same. They do not wish to make proposals on what a UI would look like until discussions are held with the stakeholders and all their views are taken on board re: cost, flags, anthems, infrastructure, commonwealth etc etc.

All you want is for people to commit to positions so you can attack it with negativity...we get it. But you won't get that and I think that is correct from ALL parties reticent about doing it.

There are views and opinions that need to be taken on board at this stage. That's the next stage in my opinion.

Francie, you were consistently saying they couldn't do it now it's a case of they don't want to yet.

But i agree with you they are choosing not to produce a plan. SF were happy enough with guestimates around the subvention but so far have hid from the big ticket items. In my opinion they fear the negative effect it could have in the polls and the numbers aren't great as it is.

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, you were consistently saying they couldn't do it now it's a case of they don't want to yet.

They can't do it because that would pre-empt other opinions/needs, and in the case of the expressed opinion of SF (linked to in Mary Lou's interview) they don't want to. So it is a case of both jh79.

But i agree with you they are choosing not to produce a plan. SF were happy enough with guestimates around the subvention but so far have hid from the big ticket items. In my opinion they fear the negative effect it could have in the polls and the numbers aren't great as it is.

I agree they have 'fears' but they are necessarily fears of negative effects. I am sure SF are aware that there are those waiting in the long grass to call them fascists etc if hey make any adamant claims on what a UI should look like, in that respect, with partitionists and Unionists/Loyalists they cannot win.

Ho hum, as it ever was.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They can't do it because that would pre-empt other opinions/needs, and in the case of the expressed opinion of SF (linked to in Mary Lou's interview) they don't want to. So it is a case of both jh79.

I agree they have 'fears' but they are necessarily fears of negative effects. I am sure SF are aware that there are those waiting in the long grass to call them fascists etc if hey make any adamant claims on what a UI should look like, in that respect, with partitionists and Unionists/Loyalists they cannot win.

Ho hum, as it ever was.

No idea what the last paragraph has to do with financial harmonization.

SF have already said they wouldn't make anyone redundant in the PS. What's preventing them from costing that? Especially given they have British public servants in their ranks. Surely MON and C Murphy would be able to tell them PS numbers in NI etc. Sure i could get them from google.

jh79 wrote: »

No idea what the last paragraph has to do with financial harmonization.

SF have already said they wouldn't make anyone redundant in the PS. What's preventing them from costing that? Especially given they have British public servants in their ranks. Surely MON and C Murphy would be able to tell them PS numbers in NI etc. Sure i could get them from google.

We are back in the realms of 'emailing SF' for answers to your questions.

Personally I would think anything involving the PS in the north cannot be pronounced on until detailed conversations are had with the primary stakeholder there, the British government.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are back in the realms of 'emailing SF' for answers to your questions.

Personally I would think anything involving the PS in the north cannot be pronounced on until detailed conversations are had with the primary stakeholder there, the British government.

Why? I'm not talking about pensions just the salary bill for what would be our larger public employment levels.

jh79 wrote: »

Why? I'm not talking about pensions just the salary bill for what would be our larger public employment levels.

Because there may be things that can be done to ensure there is no neccessity for job losses.

like a transition period of x years to rationalise and prepare the PS for transition, redeployments, early retirement, embargoes on recruitment. All sorts of things that require the engagement of the British.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus, are you listening at all?

I don't know about FF or FG but I suspect their positions to be the same. They do not wish to make proposals on what a UI would look like until discussions are held with the stakeholders and all their views are taken on board re: cost, flags, anthems, infrastructure, commonwealth etc etc.

All you want is for people to commit to positions so you can attack it with negativity...we get it. But you won't get that and I think that is correct from ALL parties reticent about doing it.

There are views and opinions that need to be taken on board at this stage. That's the next stage in my opinion.

Ironic post of the day!!!

People want to be honest and realistic, but you are the one attacking them with negativity.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

Old figures from 2016 https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/07/22/would-a-united-ireland-be-affordable/

NI is 2% of the UK economy. Realistically Trident and HS2 will each cost north of £100bn , that's £4bn a UI wouldn't have to pay to the UK coffers.

UK spends 2% of GDP on defence, Ireland spends a quarter of that, there's a about a billion there.

Lots of NI civil servants are retiring so the wage bill will go down.

A UI won't be cheap. But it will be a lot more expensive later. The economic disparity between here and the north has only gone one way since partition. It's gone from Germany vs East Germany to Korea vs North Korea and getting worse.

A UI won't be cheap, but would pay for itself once levels of investment match other parts of the island. And the EU would chip in a few euro.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because there may be things that can be done to ensure there is no neccessity for job losses.

like a transition period of x years to rationalise and prepare the PS for transition, redeployments, early retirement, embargoes on recruitment. All sorts of things that require the engagement of the British.

Explain to me how a transition period of x years works? What does it mean for those in employment? How can you address the fear of pay-cuts and/or the fear of redeployments? Why should the next generation be denied a career in the public service because of embargoes on recruitment? Why should a person be forced into early retirement because of a united Ireland?

All of your proposed solutions have a real actual human cost. I know that doesn't concern Sinn Fein who could support a terrorist campaign with a real actual human cost, so the difficulties of some public servants won't bother them, but as you are the one putting these things forward, explain to us why a public servant, either North or South, would then vote for a united Ireland.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Old figures from 2016 https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/07/22/would-a-united-ireland-be-affordable/

NI is 2% of the UK economy. Realistically Trident and HS2 will each cost north of £100bn , that's £4bn a UI wouldn't have to pay to the UK coffers.

UK spends 2% of GDP on defence, Ireland spends a quarter of that, there's a about a billion there.

Lots of NI civil servants are retiring so the wage bill will go down.

A UI won't be cheap. But it will be a lot more expensive later. The economic disparity between here and the north has only gone one way since partition. It's gone from Germany vs East Germany to Korea vs North Korea and getting worse.

A UI won't be cheap, but would pay for itself once levels of investment match other parts of the island. And the EU would chip in a few euro.

(1) Those figures from Slugger O'Toole only relate to the cost of the subvention.

(2) It has gone up since then.

(3) A united Ireland would not necessarily save money on defence. In fact, it is quite likely that joining NATO would be a condition of the EU and the UK supporting a united Ireland, as they don't want a neutral country on their western edge. Having the UK in the North allowed the South to luxuriate in their neutrality, but it won't be an option in a united Ireland situation. It is likely therefore that defence expenditure will have to go up rather than down.

(4) If NI civil servants retire, and are not replaced, the quality of public services will go down. Is that a price that people are willing to pay for a united Ireland?

(5) We will be lucky to get a few million Euro from the EU, whatever they give will be tiny in the grand scale of things.

(6) The Germans are still paying for a united Germany, and you think we are more like the Koreans every day. God help the taxpayer.

(7) Levels of investment???? Have you seen the projections for the revenue from corporation tax? The gravy train is ending, only adding to the problems.

ineedeuro

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Old figures from 2016 https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/07/22/would-a-united-ireland-be-affordable/

NI is 2% of the UK economy. Realistically Trident and HS2 will each cost north of £100bn , that's £4bn a UI wouldn't have to pay to the UK coffers.

UK spends 2% of GDP on defence, Ireland spends a quarter of that, there's a about a billion there.

Lots of NI civil servants are retiring so the wage bill will go down.

A UI won't be cheap. But it will be a lot more expensive later. The economic disparity between here and the north has only gone one way since partition. It's gone from Germany vs East Germany to Korea vs North Korea and getting worse.

A UI won't be cheap, but would pay for itself once levels of investment match other parts of the island. And the EU would chip in a few euro.

Why would it get more expensive? even with all the bickering between the parties in Assembly the north is now in its most stable peace. It is still part of the UK and wages are significantly cheaper than other parts of UK. With Brexit and ith easy access to Europe you would expect NI could become a ideal spot for some companies.

blanch152 wrote: »

Explain to me how a transition period of x years works? What does it mean for those in employment? How can you address the fear of pay-cuts and/or the fear of redeployments? Why should the next generation be denied a career in the public service because of embargoes on recruitment? Why should a person be forced into early retirement because of a united Ireland?

All of your proposed solutions have a real actual human cost. I know that doesn't concern Sinn Fein who could support a terrorist campaign with a real actual human cost, so the difficulties of some public servants won't bother them, but as you are the one putting these things forward, explain to us why a public servant, either North or South, would then vote for a united Ireland.

A 'transition period' would work in the way it was negotiated.

So once again with this latest block you show you are not in favour of a UI nor never will be.
You have no interest in making the place better and are only interested in preserving and consolidating the status quo.

I think we are all in agreement that the north has failed economically. One of the reasons for this is a bloated PS and no real effort to attract investment, because NI itself has not the ability to govern itself and Westminster doesn't care about it.

Like any government action people will have to be convinced that a more economically balanced society is better for all. That means fixing the bloated PS. The sort of the stuff FG and FF have been doing to usher in their various policies since the foundation of the state, I reckon.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because there may be things that can be done to ensure there is no neccessity for job losses.

like a transition period of x years to rationalise and prepare the PS for transition, redeployments, early retirement, embargoes on recruitment. All sorts of things that require the engagement of the British.

Unless you are expecting some sort of purge of the NI PS that is just stuff that affects the subvention which Doyle has said is irrelevant to the debate on Irish Unity. Maybe have a read of his paper again.

After the British are gone, these workers should get the same wages and benefits as those in the Republic in similar roles. No reason why SF can't cost this. Even without a head count, all parties will have an idea on what % of the work force they believe should be in the PS. If the % is maintained in the new Ireland this is the cost, if we increase it to x% it will cost this much etc.

Nothing is standing in the way of costing whatever vision any of the parties have.

jh79 wrote: »

Unless you are expecting some sort of purge of the NI PS that is just stuff that affects the subvention which Doyle has said is irrelevant to the debate on Irish Unity. Maybe have a read of his paper again.

After the British are gone, these workers should get the same wages and benefits as those in the Republic in similar roles. No reason why SF can't cost this. Even without a head count, all parties will have an idea on what % of the work force they believe should be in the PS. If the % is maintained in the new Ireland this is the cost, if we increase it to x% it will cost this much etc.

Nothing is standing in the way of costing whatever vision any of the parties have.

SF are not costing it. You need to take that issue up with SF.

I think all parties are right to not cost it at this stage.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'transition period' would work in the way it was negotiated.

So once again with this latest block you show you are not in favour of a UI nor never will be.
You have no interest in making the place better and are only interested in preserving and consolidating the status quo.

I think we are all in agreement that the north has failed economically. One of the reasons for this is a bloated PS and no real effort to attract investment, because NI itself has not the ability to govern itself and Westminster doesn't care about it.

Like any government action people will have to be convinced that a more economically balanced society is better for all. That means fixing the bloated PS. The sort of the stuff FG and FF have been doing to usher in their various policies since the foundation of the state, I reckon.

You are running from the debate as quick as you can, afraid to engage, telling people to email SF if they want answers that you admit are there as there is no secret information.

Honesty is all we are asking for. If a united Ireland is to mean a 10% increase in tax rates, be honest and own it. This gombeen-style approach of keeping people in the dark as to the cost is old hat, worse is the pretence that it is an "investment" in the future.

blanch152 wrote: »

You are running from the debate as quick as you can, afraid to engage, telling people to email SF if they want answers that you admit are there as there is no secret information.

Honesty is all we are asking for. If a united Ireland is to mean a 10% increase in tax rates, be honest and own it. This gombeen-style approach of keeping people in the dark as to the cost is old hat, worse is the pretence that it is an "investment" in the future.

You were one of the people who was wrong about the subvention.
You were one of the ones who wouldn't listen to the viewpoints that said they were probably much lower. In short, you jumped the gun, based on too little information and too keen an appetite to scaremonger.

I think it is wrong for any single party to be projecting figures at this stage. You will have to live with that opinion.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it is wrong for any single party to be projecting figures at this stage. You will have to live with that opinion.

Again why not? If you are not pushing a "big reveal" narrative what reason have you for saying now isn't the right time?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were one of the people who was wrong about the subvention.
You were one of the ones who wouldn't listen to the viewpoints that said they were probably much lower. In short, you jumped the gun, based on too little information and too keen an appetite to scaremonger.

I think it is wrong for any single party to be projecting figures at this stage. You will have to live with that opinion.

I haven't been wrong about the subvention. You are telling lies again. There is still no accurate figure on the subvention. I have already explained why the alleged saving on the defence issue probably won't materialise. I have also previously pointed to the naivety of the thinking on the pensions issue.

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF are not costing it. You need to take that issue up with SF.

I think all parties are right to not cost it at this stage.

So as I said a few days ago Sinn Fein like others have done diddly squat which you took offence to. Now you are agreeing with me. Thanks

ineedeuro wrote: »

So as I said a few days ago Sinn Fein like others have done diddly squat which you took offence to. Now you are agreeing with me. Thanks

Clutching at straws to get a win. :rolleyes:

jh79 wrote: »

Again why not? If you are not pushing a "big reveal" narrative what reason have you for saying now isn't the right time?

Again, where am I pushing a 'big reveal'?

I am saying clearly that nothing is decideable until all the stakeholders give their views and ideas.

Jaysus, getting ridiculous.

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't been wrong about the subvention.

You were claiming it was 11 billion earlier this year. Chancer.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

(3) A united Ireland would not necessarily save money on defence. In fact, it is quite likely that joining NATO would be a condition of the EU and the UK supporting a united Ireland, as they don't want a neutral country on their western edge. Having the UK in the North allowed the South to luxuriate in their neutrality, but it won't be an option in a united Ireland situation. It is likely therefore that defence expenditure will have to go up rather than down.

Why would Ireland be forced to join NATO? Ireland is far more useful as a neutral friendly nation to EU and US than being a member of NATO, just like Sweden is (both countries now on UN security Council which they probably would not be as members of NATO. The EU had to give opt outs to ireland for EU army (which the EU is more interested in than having to be the lapdog of the US).

(4) If NI civil servants retire, and are not replaced, the quality of public services will go down. Is that a price that people are willing to pay for a united Ireland?[/QUOTE]
Why should the quality of service go down because of retirements? Retirements have been happening since time began. I don't think from what I hear that the health service is any better in NI due to there been a bigger percentage of public servants working in it.

(5) We will be lucky to get a few million Euro from the EU, whatever they give will be tiny in the grand scale of things. [/QUOTE]The big gain will be in that our EU contributions will be lower and the investment from that will be going directly into Northern Ireland.

(6) The Germans are still paying for a united Germany, and you think we are more like the Koreans every day. God help the taxpayer. [/quote] So Germans are still paying for for Germans! Do you resent Irish people paying for Irish people (I.e. tax income generated in the east/South of Ireland paying g for infrastructure in Mayo/Donegal?

[/QUOTE](7) Levels of investment???? Have you seen the projections for the revenue from corporation tax? The gravy train is ending, only adding to the problems.[/QUOTE]
Corporation tax isn't the big worry, digital tax is.