nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

United Ireland Poll - please vote

Simple question - if there was a poll for a United Ireland would you vote yes or no - or yes but it would have to happen within 10 years.

Assumptions - there is economic sense to it and that Ireland can afford it.

The majority of the north want it and opinion polls are showing this. The background work has been done and the unionists though far from happy have reluctantly agreed with accepting the vote's result.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

jh79 wrote: »

C'mon Francie, nothing is decideable? That's just ridiculous.

You go ahead and decide jh79...knock yourself out.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You go ahead and decide jh79...knock yourself out.

While you hide behind the subvention and promote this idea that nothing can be estimated now for no apparent reason the likes of Doyle / Fitzgerald and the ESRI will do what SF are hiding from.

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.

As a supporter of a UI, which one do you fall into?

You did leave out those opposed who pluck figures from the air or orifices in an effort to dispense with a discussion on it.
Nobody is arguing for a UI. People are talking about what form it will take and how it might come about. The only people arguing are those set on scaremongering to avoid talking about these things, which will need to be discussed at every level.

I don't know what the cost will be and I'm very confident nobody else does. Throwing up cost as a roadblock to discussing a UI is self defeating to any genuine talk. Everyone is in agreement it will happen at some point, so let's discuss that reality.

People will need discuss public services, public representation and the like. What will merge and in what form and so on. Then you can begin to look at realistic costs.

jh79 wrote: »

While you hide behind the subvention and promote this idea that nothing can be estimated now for no apparent reason the likes of Doyle / Fitzgerald and the ESRI will do what SF are hiding from.

You can fill your day 'estimating', but that is what it is an 'estimate'. Which could be affected by many things that happen on the way. Business people know this simple fact of life when pricing work. Only a foolish one does not take contingencies into account and without all the stakeholders giving their views then there are many many contingencies possible in all sectors.
I use the former absolutism about the subvention on these forums as a case in point. I am not hiding behind anything.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can fill your day 'estimating', but that is what it is an 'estimate'. Which could be affected by many things that happen on the way. Business people know this simple fact of life when pricing work. Only a foolish one does not take contingencies into account and without all the stakeholders giving their views then there are many many contingencies possible in all sectors.
I use the former absolutism about the subvention on these forums as a case in point. I am not hiding behind anything.

That's why I said they could map out various scenarios as they do in business! If the British pay x,y or z we'll increase taxes by these amounts. You have just rebranded your "big reveal" narrative again. There is no document on the way that will accurately predict the cost beyond the subvention. The info is already in the budgets for the Republic and NI.

By the way there was no absolutism about the subvention. Must be nearly a year since i posted this;

https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/false-the-cost-of-irish-reunification-2-7-billion-pounds/

jh79 wrote: »

That's why I said they could map out various scenarios as they do in business! If the British pay x,y or z we'll increase taxes by these amounts. You have just rebranded your "big reveal" narrative again. There is no document on the way that will accurately predict the cost beyond the subvention. The info is already in the budgets for the Republic and NI.

By the way there was no absolutism about the subvention. Must be nearly a year since i posted this;

https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/false-the-cost-of-irish-reunification-2-7-billion-pounds/

You since referenced the DCU prof who stated around €3b. Which can easily be funded at zero or even negative interest rates. As I said the UK can help with this, they created the 800 year mess in the first place. The ROI thrived outside the London centric economy, so can NI once unshackled.

jh79 wrote: »

That's why I said they could map out various scenarios as they do in business! If the British pay x,y or z we'll increase taxes by these amounts. You have just rebranded your "big reveal" narrative again. There is no document on the way that will accurately predict the cost beyond the subvention. The info is already in the budgets for the Republic and NI.

By the way there was no absolutism about the subvention. Must be nearly a year since i posted this;

https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/false-the-cost-of-irish-reunification-2-7-billion-pounds/

The subvention was touted for years as the block to a UI. Please stop.

You can campaign on the 'costs' jh79. My point is, those proposing a UI - The Irish Government - will be proposing it as an investment.

You can either be negative or positive about that. Choose your horse wisely.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The subvention was touted for years as the block to a UI. Please stop.

You can campaign on the 'costs' jh79. My point is, those proposing a UI - The Irish Government - will be proposing it as an investment.

You can either be negative or positive about that. Choose your horse wisely.

To be fair Francie before Brexit a UI was never really talked about in the Republic so most probably didn't looked beyond the headline figure.

At least now we know it's the cost of PS pay and welfare and inward investment that could block it.

I'll try and use the word investment from now on.

For reasons only the parties can explain, none have produced anything on how much of an increase in general taxation would be required for this investment. There are no obstacles in their way so no excuses for their inaction.

I'm pretty cautious with my own finances so will need a bit of convincing.

jh79 wrote: »

To be fair Francie before Brexit a UI was never really talked about in the Republic so most probably didn't looked beyond the headline figure.

At least now we know it's the cost of PS pay and welfare and inward investment that could block it.

I'll try and use the word investment from now on.

For reasons only the parties can explain, none have produced anything on how much of an increase in general taxation would be required for this investment. There are no obstacles in their way so no excuses for their inaction.

I'm pretty cautious with my own finances so will need a bit of convincing.

The absolutism about the subvention carried on long after Brexit. As I said before search the site and you will find adamant claims that it was 11 billion and beyond...by posters still here, now arguing that there is no precise figure.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The absolutism about the subvention carried on long after Brexit. As I said before search the site and you will find adamant claims that it was 11 billion and beyond...by posters still here, now arguing that there is no precise figure.

As i said previously, most probably didn't give it much thought beyond the headline figure as a UI was never a serious consideration in the Republic prior to Brexit.

Doesn't have any relevance to inaction on the other more significant costs though.

Was thinking though is a bit of word play in calling the cost an "investment" a good idea?

We were told to invest in Eircom and property by the political classes. Might be a tainted term for those of us of a certain vintage.

jh79 wrote: »

As i said previously, most probably didn't give it much thought beyond the headline figure as a UI was never a serious consideration in the Republic prior to Brexit.

Doesn't have any relevance to inaction on the other more significant costs though.

Was thinking though is a bit of word play in calling the cost an "investment" a good idea?

We were told to invest in Eircom and property by the political classes. Might be a tainted term for those of us of a certain vintage.

There were many hotly contested debates on here before and after Brexit.

You just don't like it being called out.

Call it whatever you want, I suspect you are only willing to take the negatives on board.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There were many hotly contested debates on here before and after Brexit.

You just don't like it being called out.

Call it whatever you want, I suspect you are only willing to take the negatives on board.

In fairness, i read the Hubner report and just didn't see 35bn over 8 years as impressive or worth the risk.Hubner is all we have so far on the benefits.

As they say in the ads "the value of your investment can go up or down". A badly run UI has the potential to make all on the Island worse off too.

jh79 wrote: »

In fairness, i read the Hubner report and just didn't see 35bn over 8 years as impressive or worth the risk.Hubner is all we have so far on the benefits.

As they say in the ads "the value of your investment can go up or down". A badly run UI has the potential to make all on the Island worse off too.

Maybe investments aren't for you then. Keep it under the mattress, it's basically your position. 'What I have I will hold'.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe investments aren't for you then. Keep it under the mattress, it's basically your position. 'What I have I will hold'.

Good ones are Francie, hard to argue 35bn as a good return over 8 years considering the risk.

GFA hasn't had a positive effect on the economy unfortunately. Subvention has increased every year since. All stakeholders are to blame for that. Used to suit SF but probably is a bigger advantage to Unionists now.

jh79 wrote: »

Good ones are Francie, hard to argue 35bn as a good return over 8 years considering the risk.

GFA hasn't had a positive effect on the economy unfortunately. Subvention has increased every year since. All stakeholders are to blame for that. Used to suit SF but probably is a bigger advantage to Unionists now.

Well if you have an agreement but one of the main party's to it, don't sign up to it and refuse to accept equal rights, while cooking up get rich schemes etc with the money, I would think lot of the benefits of that agreement are not going to accrue.

Apparently Brexit, which the vast majority didn't want is going to bring great benefits via the Protocol which one ideology adamantly don't want.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well if you have an agreement but one of the main party's to it, don't sign up to it and refuse to accept equal rights, while cooking up get rich schemes etc with the money, I would think lot of the benefits of that agreement are not going to accrue.

Apparently Brexit, which the vast majority didn't want is going to bring great benefits via the Protocol which one ideology adamantly don't want.

blanch152 wrote: »

We can all construct lists like that. Here are the ten republican phases of delusion:

The Ten Republican Phases of Delusion

Phase 1: A united Ireland is inevitable

Phase 2: The demographics are in our favour (i.e. a sectarian head-count will work for us)

Phase 3: There is no such thing as a Northern Irish minority

Phase 4: Blame the partitionists

Phase 5: A united Ireland will bring untold benefits in a land of milk and honey (ignore the economic realities)

Phase 6: Britain has no selfish strategic interest in Northern Ireland

Phase 7: The Dublin government needs to do something

Phase 8: They haven't gone away, you know. They need appeasement.

Phase 9: The Unionists are all Irish anyway, anyone born on the island is automatically Irish

Phase 10: Something, something, unicorns and rainbows

I forgot Phase 4a - Blame themums.

blanch152 wrote: »

I forgot Phase 4a - Blame themums.

:D:D:D Says Mr Non Partisan himself.

There is only one party blocking the GFA from being fully enacted. Fact.

Deleted User wrote: »

You since referenced the DCU prof who stated around €3b. Which can easily be funded at zero or even negative interest rates. As I said the UK can help with this, they created the 800 year mess in the first place. The ROI thrived outside the London centric economy, so can NI once unshackled.

Missed this yesterday, sorry.

Doyle reckons it's 3bn, SF reckon it's that too, Fitzgerald puts it at 8/9 bn. Both SF and Doyle reckon the British will play nice and fund pensions. Some reckon in the event of Scottish independence they funding pensions for both becomes less likely. Bottom line is it's up to the British to decide. There is no legal requirement for them to pay future pension obligations.

Obviously the more the subvention is reduced the better but the subvention isn't the major cost of unification as pointed out by Doyle when he said that it was irrelevant to discussions on Irish Unity. It's paying for PS wages, welfare, housing, education, roads etc for 8 million instead of six even though revenue (GDP) practically remains the same.

Now before you accuse the lads of all sorts, SF are using the Hubner Report to support claims of a "benefit" to unification. To achieve that all Government surpluses would need to be re-directed North to encourage growth. That means no extra spending on housing, hospitals, rainy day funds etc. Prediction of how long that would last range from 8 to 20/30 years. The Germans only in the last few years ended their Unity Tax.

None of the parties will be available to produce a document where the investment is pain free.

jh79 wrote: »

Missed this yesterday, sorry.

Doyle reckons it's 3bn, SF reckon it's that too, Fitzgerald puts it at 8/9 bn. Both SF and Doyle reckon the British will play nice and fund pensions. Some reckon in the event of Scottish independence they funding pensions for both becomes less likely. Bottom line is it's up to the British to decide. There is no legal requirement for them to pay future pension obligations.

Obviously the more the subvention is reduced the better but the subvention isn't the major cost of unification as pointed out by Doyle when he said that it was irrelevant to discussions on Irish Unity. It's paying for PS wages, welfare, housing, education, roads etc for 8 million instead of six even though revenue (GDP) practically remains the same.

Now before you accuse the lads of all sorts, SF are using the Hubner Report to support claims of a "benefit" to unification. To achieve that all Government surpluses would need to be re-directed North to encourage growth. That means no extra spending on housing, hospitals, rainy day funds etc. Prediction of how long that would last range from 8 to 20/30 years. The Germans only in the last few years ended their Unity Tax.

None of the parties will be available to produce a document where the investment is pain free.

Excellent post.

It is important that the figures such as those presented by Fitzgerald are kept front and centre so that the costs of unification are plain to see. The pretence of it being an "investment" is just nonsense-peddling.

jh79 wrote: »

Missed this yesterday, sorry.

Doyle reckons it's 3bn, SF reckon it's that too, Fitzgerald puts it at 8/9 bn. Both SF and Doyle reckon the British will play nice and fund pensions. Some reckon in the event of Scottish independence they funding pensions for both becomes less likely. Bottom line is it's up to the British to decide. There is no legal requirement for them to pay future pension obligations.

I'm not sure you understand how pensions work. My father worked in the UK for a relatively short time, and was getting a pension for decades after he moved back to Ireland.

You've got people in NI that have paid into pensions for decades and, what, you think the UK can walk away, stealing the funds? You wrote something else after the above paragraph, but I didn't read further, I cannot invest more time into someone that's so clueless.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how pensions work. My father worked in the UK for a relatively short time, and was getting a pension for decades after he moved back to Ireland.

You've got people in NI that have paid into pensions for decades and, what, you think the UK can walk away, stealing the funds? You wrote something else after the above paragraph, but I didn't read further, I cannot invest more time into someone that's so clueless.

I am not sure you understand how pensions funded from the Exchequer work.

There are no funds. Public-service pensions and social security pensions are funded out of current expenditure (or the social security fund, funded out of current year PRSI subscriptions). So, to give an example, the social security pensions paid in 2021 in Northern Ireland are funded by the social security contributions of workers in Northern Ireland in 2021. In the event of a united Ireland, the UK will be losing the funding source of those pensions, so why would they agree to continue paying them? Ditto public service pensions.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how pensions work. My father worked in the UK for a relatively short time, and was getting a pension for decades after he moved back to Ireland.

You've got people in NI that have paid into pensions for decades and, what, you think the UK can walk away, stealing the funds? You wrote something else after the above paragraph, but I didn't read further, I cannot invest more time into someone that's so clueless.

100%.
Pensions are a contract. Spain is riddled with British retirees receiving UK pensions.
The anti-Scottish independence people tried the same scaremongering.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how pensions work. My father worked in the UK for a relatively short time, and was getting a pension for decades after he moved back to Ireland.

You've got people in NI that have paid into pensions for decades and, what, you think the UK can walk away, stealing the funds? You wrote something else after the above paragraph, but I didn't read further, I cannot invest more time into someone that's so clueless.

Morally it would be wrong but legally they can.

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not sure you understand how pensions funded from the Exchequer work.

There are no funds. Public-service pensions and social security pensions are funded out of current expenditure (or the social security fund, funded out of current year PRSI subscriptions). So, to give an example, the social security pensions paid in 2021 in Northern Ireland are funded by the social security contributions of workers in Northern Ireland in 2021. In the event of a united Ireland, the UK will be losing the funding source of those pensions, so why would they agree to continue paying them? Ditto public service pensions.

Going by this the north funds all it's own pensions?

Welfare payments, (including non-contributory pensions) would need to be paid for by the Irish state IMO. But as you say, we'll have the tax income from the north to balance some of that, being realistic.

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not sure you understand how pensions funded from the Exchequer work.

There are no funds. Public-service pensions and social security pensions are funded out of current expenditure (or the social security fund, funded out of current year PRSI subscriptions). So, to give an example, the social security pensions paid in 2021 in Northern Ireland are funded by the social security contributions of workers in Northern Ireland in 2021. In the event of a united Ireland, the UK will be losing the funding source of those pensions, so why would they agree to continue paying them? Ditto public service pensions.

That's irrelevant. Just because the UK is 'robbing' Peter to pay Paul, it doesn't mean it can renege on this commitment. Are you saying the UK would be willing to be a rogue state. The country that has such a huge financial service industry, is going to Welch on its pension obligations.

Sigh, I've much more faith in the UK than a unionist. Ye have been trampled into the dirt by your overlords.

jh79 wrote: »

Morally it would be wrong but legally they can.

What, they can create a law that theft is legal? What are you smoking?

Shebean wrote: »

100%.
Pensions are a contract. Spain is riddled with British retirees receiving UK pensions.
The anti-Scottish independence people tried the same scaremongering.

As I said to the other poster, the legal position is they don't have to.

I though the same as you guys but the economists say it's a common misconception among the general public that their pension is ring fenced and protected. Probably the exact same situation here too.

Deleted User wrote: »

What, they can create a law that theft is legal? What are you smoking?

Have a look on google. From memory you are just paying into a pension pot. How that money is used is up to the government of the day. The money isn't reserved for you.

I was surprised too but that is the law so it would seem.

jh79 wrote: »

As I said to the other poster, the legal position is they don't have to.

I though the same as you guys but the economists say it's a common misconception among the general public that their pension is ring fenced and protected. Probably the exact same situation here too.

HRMC collect NI contributions with the purpose of funding a pension and other benefits.

Who is saying this is not guaranteed? Can you link to some economic genius that HMRC is taking money from people that may not be used to fund pensions?

jh79 wrote: »

Have a look on google. From memory you are just paying into a pension pot. How that money is used is up to the government of the day. The money isn't reserved for you.

I was surprised too but that is the law so it would seem.

can you do the honours seeing as you're making the statement.

Quick Links