Answered already.
You have basically admitted that I am correct, because you are saying that circumstances would have to change (in a change akin to the appearance on O'Connell bridge of a herd of unicorns) before the government would change its intention. And in fact, you don't have any evidence, that even if those unicorns did appear that the government would actually produce a plan. If you do, provide a link.
So it remains the position that the government has no intention of producing a plan for a united Ireland.
I suspect there would be an adjustment period where a deficit is run sure. But so what?
Once a unified island economy finds it's legs that GDP % would rocket.
The statement 'the government has no intention....' is factually wrong blanch. End of.
Source? Link?
If that statement is factually wrong, you will be able to produce a relevant source that shows that the government does have the intention of producing a plan.
First off apologies, I didnt (for some reason) get a notification of your previous similar reply.
I read back to page 172 and still don't see it, I do see a comment from yourself on page 173 that says "linked here" but as far as I can see there's no link ?
They will be contributing too. This isn't rocket science
Why would it rocket and do we require unification to see this big increase?
If the SoS calls a BP, they will produce a plan.
What you really meant to say was, the government have no immediate plan to .......
But of course you had to be silly and make a big nstatement you cannot for a second backup with out verbose nonsense.
Apologies, I should have been clear.
Post 5155 from markodaly has the twitter link, if you follow that twitter link you can get into the study.
Funny that reply jh79.
You had the opportunity there to back up your assertion with some sort of supporting evidence. You made the assertion that 35billion over 8 years isn't enough to cover the costs of harmonization of NI (a small area of just 1.8m people).
But you didn't, no doubt because you have nothing.
I'm done debating you because I consider you a sort of troll. You don't do evidence or support your arguments and essentially expect others to feed you.
Nope, that isn't what I really meant to say.
I said that the government has no intention to produce a plan for a united Ireland which I backed up with a relevant link. You have now said that statement is factually untrue. You have been asked to produce a link to back up your position, and you have failed to do so.
Instead, you are talking about unicorn equivalents. Produce a link that shows the statement is untrue or withdraw gracefully.
On what basis do you suggest a unified island economy would rocket? It didn't happen with Germany, where GDP growth was less during the period after unification.
So no reason behind your claim that GDP would rocket. Fair enough. Wasn't expecting one to be honest.
I'm waiting for supporting evidence that the costs of harmonization would exceed 35 billion over 8 years, which was your assertion.
AND still waiting on this one:
Show me a report that spells out that NI and ROI have better economic futures being separate entities.
Utter verbose nonsense.
How can they have no intention when they will if a BP is called. Which can happen at anytime if the SoS sees fit as his own court decteed.
You got caught bullshitting again
Being the case that is the aspiration of Ireland to unite the island, if this prospect made no economic sense, surely we should have some studies that demonstrate this, surely?
You have made a complete fool of yourself on this. No link yet.
Eh, yes, we do.
We have the Fitzgerald study that shows it would cost €15bn a year to the Exchequer. That makes no economic sense.
Have you found the link that tells us that GDP will rocket?
It's all been covered on the thread already. Hubner , Doyle and Fitzgerald are the academics who have produced papers on this.
Out of curiosity, how much of your take home pay would you be willing to sacrifice for a UI?
Why would I have to link to something I didn't claim?
Just to cover the subvention wasn't it?
No, he looked at all the costs, including harmonising public service pay and social welfare.
To put it in context, the cost is about equivalent to building 10 childrens' hospitals every year.
You claimed that the statement was factually untrue, something you refused to back up.
It is. You can't have 'no intention' if a situation may occur that you have to produce a plan for.
Again, what you meant to say and are too stubborn to admit was: 'the government have no intention at the moment....'
Fitzgerald based his sums on a 10bn subvention being replaced.
Not a very sound basis as we know.
Must read it again. Still waiting on his latest.
But the subvention isn't relevant to the harmonization cost. The subvention is just the deficit NI runs.
That'll have to be paid for as well!
So basically Fitzgerald presumes that the people in NI will suddenly no longer be British after a UI vote, and will loose all their pensions as accrued social insurance contributions won't count anymore.
If he has gotten the subvenbon wrong what else has he gotten wrong?
At the end of the day it is just another opinion like Hubner's.
You cannot say any of them are the bible on the matter.
He hasn't got the subvention wrong. He just thinks the British won't be push overs in the negotiations unlike Doyle who thinks it will all go Ireland's way.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7c96e2329b3b29f4a7590b78e75e1224.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)