So you 'stand by your lies and misrepresenting' of others? Because before you start on another round of misrepresentation, that is what three posters now, have accused you off. Which has NOTHING to do with your posting on what you believe are massive costs.
Its always someone elses fault as regards misrepresentarion......fcuk knows how based in reality these "figures" are,chap is a busted flush
In reality the subvention excluding pensions and military spending is like 4 billion.....which is a quarter of what this pandemic has cost us.
4 billion to run 6 counties,will likely transform to a profit of 10 bn per annum inside 10 years,....same as how eastern europe is saving the eu from collaspe and liberials opposed em joining on cost basis,similar likely to happen here
The only time you ever hear 'affordability' coming into power-swap speak is when they don't actually want to do something.
If they want it, of course it's affordable and they will all 'want' a UI. Can you imagine a major Irish political pary in the south being anti a UI?????
Their position of a UI did happen would be untenable.
It simply isn't going to happen even if the John Bruton, Neale Richmond's would wish otherwise.
Francie, I know what you are at and it's not gonna work.
Call me a liar if you want doesn't bother me but you lied about previously posting about the benefits.
Maybe i missed the post but I have asked for you to quote it.
Good man, your made up figures are actually worse than the papers being discussed!
Doyle has it at only 2.5bn and that requires a 5% tax increase.
Blaaz, the figures all come from peer reviewed research not from me.
My real name isn't Doyle or Fitzgerald and I'm definitely not German so not Hubner either.
A complete and utter scurrilous lie.
Not much I can do about it but that doesn't change your completely untrustworthy debating style.
A bit of controversy earlier over who funded the Hubner. I said it was the "Friends of Sinn Fein" as that's what I read in the Indo or Times.
According to this article it was the "Knights of the Red Branch Inc" who have links to Sinn Fein.
This is interesting from the link;
The report’s Canadian authors made their numbers add up by using a ‘Tory island’ model of small government, low taxes, free markets and no debt, which is perhaps why Sinn Féin sat on it for five months until the southern election was over.
Why didn't they get Hubner to model based on left wing policies similar to their own? Wonder what effect that would of had on the results?
Im sure they do....its not yous to outright lie and misrepresent for attention😴
Interesting that you have gone full on attack one party on a UI thread. Wouldn't be trying to deflect it? That article is from 2016 BTW. Old news.
Sorry, deflect from what?
The Hubner report is the only one on the benefits as far as I know so won't be possible for me to talk about a more recent one.
And of course SF are relevant here given who commissioned it and the level of promotion of the paper by SF.
Have you any comments on the actual substance of the article?
Is it fair to say the paper is based on Tory style economic policy?
Like the benefits I see, it was discussed ad nauseum and at length when it was news (that it was news of any consequence was debatable even in 2016)
The Hubner report is pre the Protocol and WA and Covid, it is more or less redundant and at best a moment in time.
In my opinion I think its lack of traction at the time was due to the results.
I wouldn't say it's redundant as such more of a best case or 2nd best scenario where the Irish Economy isn't influenced by outside forces. I'm saying second best because it assumes a static world economy so best would be a growing worldwide economy.
COVID and the rest i would assume will have a negative effect on the costs and benefits. Personally can't see them having a positive effect.
Don't be ridiculous...you cannot put a price on all island security when confronted by something like Covid.
Again, the paucity of approaching a UI from a purely 'my wallet' perspective.
For God sake Francie, you used COVID as a reason to say the Hubner paper was redundant. Given his paper looks only at the financial side of unification, the context was clearly economic.
You claimed it would have a negative effect...YOU.
Hubner or anyone writing a report would have to consider the benefit economically and otherwise of all island security.
Francie, we were talking about the Hubner paper. It only focuses on the financial side. That is the context here. I think it would have a negative effect on the economic predictions. I shouldn't need to clarify that. The context was crystal clear.
That last sentence is very odd. Hubner is an economist hired to write a paper on the economic benefits of a UI.
If he updated the paper to include COVID he would still be looking at purely from a financial perspective.
Look at the Arins Project. A ton of academic s working on it. They each stick to their own area of expertise.
And a UI would secure the whole island if we were faced with another Covid. Hubner would look at the financial implications of that.
It was YOU who predictably immediately went on the negative re: Covid which is what I responded to.
Just to avoid confusion. If a discussion comes from one of the lads paper my replies will be in that context unless you clarify otherwise.
I said i thought COVID would have a negative effect on the cost. Whole island security is an advantage but obviously i think the net effect would be negative. All the expenses we had for this one but with 8 instead of 6 million. PUP etc.
If you think that it would have a positive effect then give your reasons. I just don't see the negative effect of partition on COVID being sufficient enough not to make unification more expensive.
Tbf, if the question ever comes up for unification - all the benefits and negatives will need to be discussed. And hopefully, the folks that really want it or really dont want it, can man up and not do a brexit bus on the debate.
In respect of covid, A UI might have enabled us to go with a NZ model, but then again - its possible it wouldnt and would have cost an extra 25%. Either one is just as likely and saying one over the other is just beliefs over facts. So both you and francie shouldnt be using this argument re covid.
I didn't say anything about a 'positive effect'.
Because we could have shut the island down efficiently and avoided any costs monitoring a border. Would we have had the massive spike in numbers had we been able to do that? Only somebody qualified can quantify if that would have been a net saving versus a net cost. But of course the negative campaign you have to indulge comes into play immediately.
It's the way you guys look at things that is the problem...i.e. that it will COST you or it will be an EXTRA x%
The extra population will be contributing to the economy and will therefore be as entitled to PUP and support as anybody else. It will be a COST for us all.
That's just my instinct on it. I checked what I wrote and clearly said it was what " i thought" and "I think".We were never going to be COVID free.
Also, COVID has already had its negative effect on the economy. Unification is too late on that one. The models will now incorporate our increased debt . I reckon that might make unification more difficult.
Nothing to back that up just my opinion but Fitzgerald's upcoming paper might include it depending on the cut off point he set.
And I was talking about 'another Covid' meaning another similar event with an unknown virus threat.
All island security is now on the agenda. Again, good luck pitting continued fraught partition against a united island ready to protect itself efficiently and without the fraught politics. More negativity required from the partitionist side.
As you say, it's on the agenda now. We'll know from the next few opinion polls what the public think about it.
I doubt all island security will figure in the next few opinion polls.
Why's that? It's fresh in all our minds.
I doubt anybody will be asking the question in a poll at this point. But who knows.
Yeah might not have a specific question but it would still figure in the overall number.
One of the reasons why I contend it is silly to attach too much value to polls when there is no plan on the table. Many people will not be thinking through the issues until they are a part of the discussion. The job of those in favour will be to give issues such as island security prominence as the campaign starts properly. Then take a temperature in a poll.
See the Scottish Independence ref for a classic example of this, from the low 30%'s in favour when the ref was called to dam near winning the thing.