maccored wrote: » The simple fact is WE NEED TO DISCUSS WHAT A UI WOULD LOOK LIKE before worrying about costs etc. End of story.
maccored wrote: » have you the cost worked out? How did you figure that out? SF have stated we - as a nation - need to discuss a UI to see how it can be created. Why are you constantly ignoring that fact and assuming everyone knows what a UI is and how much it will cost? Do me a favour and outline your costs, and back them up where you can. I cant wait to see where you've pulled figures from.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Primary over-riding factor - what a plan looks like after discussions with all the stakeholders
jh79 wrote: » So SF can promote various plans and promote predicted benefits of these plans on their social media but the rest of us (or SF) can't do the same for the costs?
Shebean wrote: » FF/FG can't predict the cost of a hospital even after planned and costed construction has begun. Why do you expect people to be able to set a cost on a UI when we don't know the variables until after a long logistical discussion?
jh79 wrote: » Sure it could be SF making the plan. Is your point that there is no point in having a plan anyways?
maccored wrote: » the Hubner report refers to Brexit and how a UI might benefit the north in such a scenario. It's a strong suggestion that a UI would be beneficial but as already mentioned more than once, WE NEED A NATIONWIDE DISCUSSION ON WHAT A UI WOULD LOOK LIKE.
Shebean wrote: » As stated in my comment, we can discuss what form a UI may take and how we might go about it. The first step is never cost. You need discuss what may happen and arrive at a cost. As for benefits, we knew we'd be getting a new NCH, it was planned and discussed and even then they were way off the mark on cost. The point, as has been repeated to you numerous times is having a cost before any other discussion can take place, is not how things work. A cost is arrived at through discussion. You plan and a cost is arrived at. You seem to be suggesting we need a cost before we can engage in planning, which is arse about tit quite frankly.
jh79 wrote: » If it's a SF led Unification would you agree that it would be a fair assumption to make that the same scenarios the benefits of a UI is based on will be the basis of any plan and therefore a rough estimate could be predicted now? If not, surely you think it's disingenuous of SF to promote benefits of a UI based on these scenarios?
jh79 wrote: » So how were SF able to commission a report on the benefits without knowing the plan?
briany wrote: » And the first thing they'd say is that we need to bring in the Unionist parties on this discussion. The problem is that they'd never agree to anything. Why would they want to formulate a vision of what is their worst nightmare? So that'd leave us with just parties this side of the border discussing what a UI would look like, which would make Unionists just as angry, as if those down south are all in a huddle plotting how to completely extinguish Unionist culture. There probably should have been more of a procedure laid out in the GFA as to what exactly would happen after a successful border poll. Would there be a transition period? If so, how long? Would there be talks on what a UI would look like? Who with? What would happen if these talks reached an impasse? As already said, the DUP and TUV would never agree to anything, so they nearly wouldn't even need to bother showing up to any talks that were held.
jh79 wrote: » Let's be more specific so. P Doherty has already said in his vision there wouldn't be any PS redundancies. Are you saying that can't be costed now? Michelle O'N and Connor Murphy (Finance isn't he?) couldn't tell him what the numbers are at each grade and what they earn and he then calculate what that would cost in our PS in euros.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Again SF say it would pre-empt a proper discussion to draw up a plan. Think about it...what would happen just on these boards if they did. Counter-productive if not anti the whole rhetoric about a new and shared and united island. Pearse expressing his opinion, is just like you and I expressing ours or a FGer expressing theirs (Richmond) and it being different to Coveney's. The same way I can decide I want a UI for reasons other than costs. This ain't rocket science jh.
jh79 wrote: » Saying they don't want to is not the same as saying they can't. That's my issue. They can predict the costs of the 3 scenarios outlined in the Hubner report but have chosen not too. Obviously they would prefer to only talk about the benefits. The same caveats apply to the predicted benefits as the predicted costs.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And so we come back around to suggesting you email SF and put it on a list of why you wouldn't vote for them. If there's any room. And you are absolutely correct as already pointed out - Hubner is giving an opinion. How 'expert' you wish to call that depends on your bias/needs/wants I suppose.
jh79 wrote: » Good enough for SF anyways. At least we can put to bed the idea that SF (and the others) can't predict the cost. SF have already done so for the benefits.
blanch152 wrote: » But, but, but.......it wasn't SF who commissioned it, it was FOSF who commissioned it. Or something like that. Plausible deniability of involvement and responsibility. Gerry can give Mary-Lou plenty of advice on that.
jh79 wrote: » Unfortunately for them SF promoted it all over their social media! Pearse rather disingenuously tweeted (paraphrasing) "Who says we can't afford a UI" Some how he was able to tell us this without costing scenario 3 in the same report!
Shebean wrote: » Did he supply a costing? Unless he was talking in generalities I don't see how he could. When a UI is voted in, it will be the government of the days job to plan and cost it. All we can realistically do now is discuss what form it might take and broadly guess at costs associated.
jh79 wrote: » Think you're missing the point. Pearse was claiming the 35bn over 8 years potential benefit means we can afford a UI. How could he possibly know we can afford it without costing scenario 3 that the figure is based on.
FrancieBrady wrote: » But you used that figure to to dismiss the benefits.
jh79 wrote: » Jaysus Francie. Again? *I don't think 35 bn over 8 years is impressive. But Pearse is at worst pretending to. Strange he didn't go by the more useful metric of 1.3% over 8 years! Polishing a turd springs to mind. *Over 8 years what extra spend would Unification bring that otherwise wouldn't of existed as per Scenario 3. How many bn on the extra PS staff, extra welfare etc If it's truly a benefit then the extra spend will be less than 35bn. No accident SF are happy to make assumptions when it comes to "benefits" but not the cost.! To be fair if they knew the end result was going to be only 35bn the report wouldn't of been commissioned in the first place.
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » These targeted ads are getting very clever.....
blanch152 wrote: » I wouldn't be as confident about the UK paying the pensions. After all, they have to sell a united Ireland to the rest of the UK. Saying that we have to keep paying for it after we let it go is a difficult sell.
Deleted User wrote: » That's disingenuous. The people have paid their NI with the expectation of getting a pension.What National Insurance is for National Insurance contributions count towards the benefits and pensions in the table.https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/what-national-insurance-is-for#:~:text=Change%20of%20circumstance-,What%20National%20Insurance%20is%20for,9%2C569%20or%20more%20do%20not%20usually%20count%20towards%20state%20benefits.,-Previous I can't see the UK doing a fast one with people's money. Their credibility would be North Korea level.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Pearse only asked a question. You quoted it yourself. 'Who says we can't afford a UI?'
jh79 wrote: » I paraphrased not quoted first of all. Second the tweet was something along the lines of; "Who says we can't afford a UI, a UI would generate 35bn for the economy." He left out the 8 years bit of course and went for the figure rather than % as expected too. Will i dig out the tweet? I admire his neck on this one. A country with a GDP of 355 bn gaining 4.4 bn a year while having to pay for a region known for excess PS employment and high unemployment. In your honest opinion would 4 bn cover all the extra PS workers, welfare, infrastructure and educational spending required for scenario 3?
FrancieBrady wrote: » We're back to taking over/subsuming...:) You are all over the shop here. Happy to use figures you don't agree with/that aren't important as long as you can get a negative spin on them. That agenda again.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)