If he is saying the subvention replacement cost will be 10bn going forward, he is wrong...sorry, that has been conclusively proved now I think it is safe to say.
Bottom line is, until the two governments sit down and thrash it out, nobody can say what it will cost/ If somebody tells you they know, get a clothes peg for your nose, the whiff of bullshit will be strong.
"The ‘shared island’ offers considerable economies of both scale and scope, which if harnessed dynamically would outweigh the overblown static costs of subventions,” says Ibec chief executive Danny McCoy."
When Ibec says that stuff, we are talking double digit growth.
Can you show where it has been conclusively proven?
We know it could be anywhere between 2 and 10 bn but we also know the big money is the harmonization.
No, Francie, my statement was true. You have made a claim, now back it up.
Nope, he has eight different scenarios in his paper, only one of them assumes that. That is a £15 bn cost. I think the most realistic one is the £13 bn cost.
We know we won't be making contributions to UK costs. We won't be paying pensions.
No, he didn't. He analysed the subvention costs and stripped out those we wouldn't need to pay. Then he added in the cost of harmonising public service pay and social welfare.
That led to a cost of €13 bn per year. That is what it will cost unless you want to fire public servants or cut their pay.
That is pretty significant coming from the head of the countries largest business lobbying and representative group given that their focus is always going to be on pushing for policies that allow their members to make more money.
😁😁 Stubborn is as stubborn does.
I proved my claim blanch, if the SoS announces a border poll under the terms of the GFA the Irish government will present a plan.
They can never therefore be said to 'have no intention of doing so'.
Sorry fella, facts is facts.
No you didn't. You have offered an opinion that the Irish government will do that, you haven't presented a single piece of evidence.
That makes it the second statement (after saying that mine is untrue) that you have been unable to back up in the last few hours.
Covering just the subvention means lower wages and social welfare in NI.
Is that what you want for an United Ireland?
What's your source for that claim?
What? 😁
So you were saying that even if the SoS calls a poll the Irish government will say they have no intention of making a plan?
I think I've had enough of this pedantic nonsense. Whatever blanch.
Unfortunately they are under no legal obligation to pay those pensions.
Do you trust the British to do the moral thing and pay for them?
So the British would more or less be saying to their indigenous workforce that their pensions are not guaranteed? That the government they paid their taxes to will welch on them if it is expedient or they are required as a bargaining chip?
Really jh? Are you even trying to be credible here?
It's an unknown but I think they will personally as it's not big money for them anyways.
Given yourself and others have such a low opinion of the British establishment , I'm surprised you don't think it's a possibility they won't.
Nothing to do with the height of my opinion, it is just common sense that domestically it would cause ructions for them.
Would it though?
NI leaves the UK and a person in London will care that the Irish Exchequer is paying the pension of a retired teacher in Belfast instead now they no longer want to be part of the UK?
Anyways, they'll have left the UK , not like they'll be losing any votes.
Can't be bothered jh79.
Honestly, if you think it is something the British will do, I am not interested in disabusing you of the notion. Like blanch and his fantasy 'facts', you carry on believing.
Fair enough. While unlikely it's still a possibility.
Anyways, Doyle assumes they will pay the pensions and the subvention is 2.5bn. Essentially, best case scenario. As he said, it's a red herring. It's harmonization that will cost the most.
Personally I think a UI would shake up the political landscape, which is long over due.
Absolutely, massive opportunity for a grand reset.
The idea that because Ireland didn't exist as a modern single state over a thousand years ago that it means it wasn't ever a united country is purely revisionism meant to undermine those who seek Unification.
You cannot square that circle. You admit that Ireland was not united as a single state, yet then claim it was a untied country?
Can you tell me who these rulers of the entire Island of Ireland were?
Just on pensions and the like....
If anyone thinks in the event of a UI, that from year zero that all pension liabilities will be paid for by Westminister alone and all workers pay income tax directly to Dublin, are living in cloud cuckoo land.....
There will be a lot of hard bargaining here and Ireland will have to put its hand out and be the pensions of the people of NI.
Source for this claim?
Try re-reading what you replied to....I've even italicised the relevant word to help, Mark. The federalist Irish society at the time may not be akin to modern unitary states, but only one so historically blinded by their need to undermine those who support Unification could even attempt to argue the line you're taking. If we examine historic texts, the people of Ireland were certainly viewed as such by those from outside the island. It is ridiculous revisionism, and a concept pushed by precisely no one pre-partition.
As for your question, I'd suggest looking for a list of Ard Rí. I've gone through this in quite a bit of detail in the past with you, including naming multiple Ard Rí who were without opposition. Brian Boru would probably be the one most akin to a modern king, as he made the position much more significant than the, 'first among equals' type of position it was before.
I've also covered how even during periods with opposition, the people certainly viewed themselves as one people (read accounts of Cerball mac Muirecáin and Máel Finnia mac Flannacan joining together to push, 'the heathens' out of Dublin for a clear picture that even though they certainly had periods of internal warring, they clearly viewed those from outside Ireland as, 'other').
Consider the concept of the Gall-Goídil and note that it is not Gall-Laighin or another such localised term which would imply that the different parts of the island viewed eachother as a different people.
Consider the existence of one legal system across the island (Brehon law).
As I said, I've covered this in a great deal more detail before in response to you and your pals pulling up this nonsense.....and rather than address my points, posters have gone scurrying off, dropped the point and pretended it never happened before throwing the same sh*te up a few months later, so you'll excuse me if I don't take the time to provide a heavily sourced, more comprehensive explanation on each of those starting points, but in my experience it isn't worth the effort only to have you pretend it didn't happen and pop back in six months to parrot off the, 'Ireland was never united' line again.
Why would we paying towards UK cost Mark?
Do you want to make contributions towards UK defense and the monarchy?
Contact your local TD maybe?
If you read the Wiki page on Scottish Independence referendum there is a long list of items that were debated, I remember especially North Sea Oil (obviously), currency and what exact angle the border line was to be drawn in the sea were big issues. None of these were debated or picked over or detailed before the referendum was announced a full 1.5 yrs before the actual vote. There was then 1.5 yrs for the debate and Tory lies before the referendum. NI will be no different, first up the referendum is announced, then there will be a debate where very similar items will be talked about and detailed.
Any other approach is cart before horse.
Also to all who are pro-union and quoting this 34% figure, I wouldnt be relying on that Liverpool University study as a valid guide to current attitudes on UI - it's a very shady document and that's being kind. The very fact the figures are 'adjusted for religion' means its not a representative sample right from the off. And if you read through the twitter feed of the author (Jon Tonge) you might come to the conclusion that he isn't entirely independent on the issue.
Where has the government said that if the SoS calls a poll, they will produce a plan.
If such an intention exists then you will be able to point to it. You have blustered on this point for several days now without ever producing a single piece of evidence to back you up. It is a dishonest way to engage in discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 34% was true. Support for the two nationalist parties in the North has been declining for quite some time and is below 40%. Support at the local elections in 2019 was only 37%.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7c96e2329b3b29f4a7590b78e75e1224.svg)