United Ireland Poll - please vote

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have pointed this all out/debated it before. Not really bothered to do it again. I am not here to be interrogated at the court of jh79.

It was your ill advised attempt at revenge that started this.

I take it you can't find anything in his research then?

jh79 wrote: »

It was your ill advised attempt at revenge that started this.

I take it you can't find anything in his research then?

Anything in who's research?

*Revenge for you claiming I said something I didn't say? 'Revenge' would be a full time job around here if stuff like that bothered me.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anything in who's research?

*Revenge for you claiming I said something I didn't say? 'Revenge' would be a full time job around here if stuff like that bothered me.

Doyle's obviously. Your new claim is that he says the subvention is irrelevant, not due to the bigger costs required to fund it but because of the ancillary benefits of unification.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I've also been saying the costs IMO are irrelevant to the benefits of a UI (said again yesterday) so yes I agree with him. But that point was also made by others before.

This post Francie,

You agree with him that the subvention is irrelevant because the true cost is what we spend on welfare, infrastructure , public services as he says in his paper?

or

you agree that it is irrelevant but for your own different reasons?

jh79 wrote: »

Doyle's obviously. Your new claim is that he says the subvention is irrelevant, not due to the bigger costs required to fund it but because of the ancillary benefits of unification.

What? Where did I claim that?

You asked me 'did I agree with HIS claim'. I answered that as somebody to whom the costs are irrelevant that yes, I thought his opinion that the subvention (a cost) was irrelevant.
That is my opinion...I didn't 'claim' anything on HIS behalf.

Stop right now with that one. If you mis-understood, consider it clarified.

StupidLikeAFox

These targeted ads are getting very clever.....

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What? Where did I claim that?

You asked me 'did I agree with HIS claim'. I answered that as somebody to whom the costs are irrelevant that yes, I thought his opinion that the subvention (a cost) was irrelevant.
That is my opinion...I didn't 'claim' anything on HIS behalf.

Stop right now with that one. If you mis-understood, consider it clarified.

Jaysus Francie, still digging!

His reasons for saying it is irrelevant are completely different to yours.

If you bothered to read his research instead of just his tweet you would of known that.

jh79 wrote: »

Jaysus Francie, still digging!

His reasons for saying it is irrelevant are completely different to yours.

If you bothered to read his research instead of just his tweet you would of known that.

You asked ME did I agree. I do agree it is irrelevant. You did not ask me did I agree with his 'reasoning' I DID NOT make a claim about his reasoning.

Jesus Christ. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Perhaps stop calling people you don't agree with 'experts'?

I am 'surprised' by you introducing something you didn't believe would happen.

Ahem,

so you don't agree with his "reasoning". Not an expert in your eyes so.

Jaysus Francie it was obvious as the nose on your face you were trying to avoid saying you disagreed with him because of this post!

jh79 wrote: »

Ahem,

so you don't agree with his "reasoning". Not an expert in your eyes so.

Jaysus Francie it was obvious as the nose on your face you were trying to avoid saying you disagreed with him because of this post!

I didn't say anything about his reasoning. You asked a question, I answered it.
You made a thing about it, I clarified.

Not sure after that, what I can do for you.

BTW, as previously said by me, I agree there will be a cost to a UI. But as I also said there is a cost to running any country and a cost if you invest in a country.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say anything about his reasoning. You asked a question, I answered it.
You made a thing about it, I clarified.

Not sure after that, what I can do for you.

BTW, as previously said by me, I agree there will be a cost to a UI. But as I also said there is a cost to running any country and a cost if you invest in a country.

So when it comes to experts, their reasoning isn't important it's the meaning of single words without context and in isolation that matters?

How's the weather Down Under

jh79 wrote: »

So when it comes to experts, their reasoning isn't important it's the meaning of single words without context and in isolation that matters?

How's the weather Down Under ?

As I said, I did not need Doyle to tell me the subvention was lower than claimed - I have been saying it for years on here. The scaremongers on here, who up until a few months ago were adamantly claiming it was 11 billion, needed this research.

I have also always said I thought there would be a cost to a UI i.e. an investment that would pay dividends.

Weather is fine here thanks.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, I did not need Doyle to tell me the subvention was lower than claimed - I have been saying it for years on here. The scaremongers on here, who up until a few months ago were adamantly claiming it was 11 billion, needed this research.

I have also always said I thought there would be a cost to a UI i.e. an investment that would pay dividends.

Weather is fine here thanks.

Still avoiding the big question I see.

Do you agree with Doyle or not that the subvention is irrelevant as the much larger cost is welfare, ps pay, education and all that jazz?

jh79 wrote: »

Still avoiding the big question I see.

Do you agree with Doyle or not that the subvention is irrelevant as the much larger cost is welfare, ps pay, education and all that jazz?

Look...read this carefully. I am genuinely sick of this and will take no further part in the conversation with you, if you cannot take it on board.

I agree the subvention is irrelevant, I agree that a UI will have costs. Whther that is a 'much larger' cost than the subvention remains to be seen when we have a negotiated plan for a UI. The 'size' of the cost is opinion and speculation until that point.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look...read this carefully. I am genuinely sick of this and will take no further part in the conversation with you, if you cannot take it on board.

I agree the subvention is irrelevant, I agree that a UI will have costs. Whther that is a 'much larger' cost than the subvention remains to be seen when we have a negotiated plan for a UI. The 'size' of the cost is opinion and speculation until that point.

Easier just to say you disagree with his opinion.

Maybe next time read the research before going on another crusade.

jh79 wrote: »

Easier just to say you disagree with his opinion.

Maybe next time read the research before going on another crusade.

Crusade???

Why do you do this exaggeration thing?

I don't agree or disagree, I have taken his opinion on board with all the other opinions and formed my own. You should try it sometime.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Crusade??? Why do you do this exaggeration thing?

I don't agree or disagree, I have taken his opinion on board with all the other opinions and formed my own. You should try it sometime.

The irony given your complaints about me posting opinions from experts I personally don't agree with!

If you don't want posters highlighting alternative views from experts how will you be able to take all opinions on board

jh79 wrote: »

The irony given your complaints about me posting opinions from expert I personally don't agree with!

If you don't want posters highlighting alternative views from experts how will you be able to take all opinions on board ??

I posted Doyle's findings here.

Jaysus jh79...give it up!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I posted Doyle's findings here.

Jaysus jh79...give it up!

Now Francie your failed little revenge mission started as a criticism of my posting of a published replied to Doyles paper by an expert who believes the British won't pay full pension commitments if Scotland goes too.

It was only yesterday, find it hard to believe you've forgotten already

jh79 wrote: »

Now Francie your failed little revenge mission started as a criticism of my posting of a published replied to Doyles paper by an expert who believes the British won't pay full pension commitments if Scotland goes too.

It was only yesterday, find it hard to believe you've forgotten already

But you don't agree with him.

We got that eventually. You also don't think the whole thing is that important anyway.

So I'll ask you again...what relevance/importance does it have?

The 'revenge' stuff says more about your arrogance than anything else. Did you or somebody else award you '100%' for lying about what I said - the 'Big reveal' invention? Par for the course around here.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you don't agree with him.

We got that eventually. You also don't think the whole thing is that important anyway.

So I'll ask you again...what relevance/importance does it have?

The 'revenge' stuff says more about your arrogance than anything else. Did you or somebody else award you '100%' for lying about what I said - the 'Big reveal' invention? Par for the course around here.

Relative to the much higher costs of harmonisation, the exact cost of the subvention is less relevant or important. However, in and of itself, the cost of the subvention to the Irish taxpayer could be enough to sink a united Ireland.

However, at least we have got away from the completely unfounded and unsubstantiated notion that the UK is required to pay for all the pensions.

jh79 wrote: »

Just so we don't waste each others time. What do you mean by benefits? Peace , equality that kind of stuff or do you mean the financial benefits make the cost irrelevant?

Just to rule that out before I reply properly.

Also, are you basing this on the paper? Nothing in his Irish Times article fits the bill.

My understanding is that the process to benefits is something like this

Successful sectarian headcount →
United Ireland →
???????????? →
Peace, prosperity, wealth and happiness for all the unicorns

blanch152 wrote: »

Relative to the much higher costs of harmonisation, the exact cost of the subvention is less relevant or important. However, in and of itself, the cost of the subvention to the Irish taxpayer could be enough to sink a united Ireland.

However, at least we have got away from the completely unfounded and unsubstantiated notion that the UK is required to pay for all the pensions.

Are you inventing that notion as one I have claimed?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you don't agree with him.

We got that eventually. You also don't think the whole thing is that important anyway.

So I'll ask you again...what relevance/importance does it have?

The 'revenge' stuff says more about your arrogance than anything else. Did you or somebody else award you '100%' for lying about what I said - the 'Big reveal' invention? Par for the course around here.

I thought you wanted to take all opinions on board, why would you have an issue with another opinion being provided if that is the case?

If the British refuse to pay pensions then the tax increases will be a little higher than the 5% Doyle has predicted for the 2.5bn subvention.

The tax increases required for our larger PS pay, social welfare etc will be much bigger according to the experts and Doyle says this is where we all should be focusing.

With regards the "big reveal";

So you didn't say we can't estimate the cost of the extra PS workers and welfare recipients now and all the other costs outside of the subvention?

jh79 wrote: »

With regards the "big reveal";

So you didn't say we can't estimate the cost of the extra PS workers and welfare recipients now and all the other costs outside of the subvention?

Looking forward to an answer to this.

jh79 wrote: »

I thought you wanted to take all opinions on board, why would you have an issue with another opinion being provided if that is the case?

If the British refuse to pay pensions then the tax increases will be a little higher than the 5% Doyle has predicted for the 2.5bn subvention.

The tax increases required for our larger PS pay, social welfare etc will be much bigger according to the experts and Doyle says this is where we all should be focusing.

With regards the "big reveal";

So you didn't say we can't estimate the cost of the extra PS workers and welfare recipients now and all the other costs outside of the subvention?

You can estimate the cost of a system that hasn't even been designed yet? Fair play.

You and blanch assume that we will just subsume NI into the south and carry on with what we have. That is a mistake IMO and why I keep saying what I am.

Who knows what will emerge, we could have an entirely new health service and welfare system and a complete overhaul of PS's on both sides. We certainly need them and there will be an appetite and calls for that to happen.

Whatcar212

blanch152 wrote: »

Successful sectarian headcount →
United Ireland →
???????????? →
Peace, prosperity, wealth and happiness for all the unicorns

Successful sectarian headcount? That's your nuisance of the situation? Seriously?

Well at least I know you're posts are not worth reading I guess. Good job invalidating everything you've post on here in just 1 line.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can estimate the cost of a system that hasn't even been designed yet? Fair play.

You and blanch assume that we will just subsume NI into the south and carry on with what we have. That is a mistake IMO and why I keep saying what I am.

Who knows what will emerge, we could have an entirely new health service and welfare system and a complete overhaul of PS's on both sides. We certainly need them and there will be an appetite and calls for that to happen.

That is simply not true. The assumptions I have used are as follows:

(1) There will be no discrimination in a united Ireland, all citizens will be treated equally
(2) There will be no cuts to social welfare rates for anyone.
(3) Public servants will not be singled out for pay cuts or for compulsory redundancy.

If you disagree with these, please do so explicitly, rather than blatantly misrepresenting me, something you are very very quick to accuse others of.