UK considered giving half of NI to ROI

Happyman42 wrote: »

Properly structured and supported by (an enthusiastic Britain) Europe and other world economies (which is what would happen) it would not necessarily cause bankruptcy.
If there was an 'out' for Britain, most British people would be in favour of investing in it.

I would be interested to see the results of the poll that backs this up.

harryr711 wrote: »

Those people who are dead set against a UI have no concept of economic realities and display a typical ignorance whereby they pick and choose headline figures to support their ill-founded viewpoints in the hope that nothing will change, mé féiners who are happy with their feathered nests and don't dare think of the benefits of change or the opportunity costs of maintaining the status quo.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Properly structured and supported by (an enthusiastic Britain) Europe and other world economies (which is what would happen) it would not necessarily cause bankruptcy.
If there was an 'out' for Britain, most British people would be in favour of investing in it.

This is delirium as I have repeatedly pointed out.

Suppose a vote in 2017.

A vote down south would fail because of what has happened since 2008. The country down here is bankrupt and people will want tax cuts, not tax raises to pay for the social welfare increases and public service pay increases that will be needed to bring the north into line with the south. If the plan is to further reduce social welfare and public service pay in the south to bring it in line with the north, well that will fail too as those to suffer down south will vote no.

Up north, people will look and say, the UK gives us billions, what can the ROI give us, fairly little is the answer. So they will stick with their gravy train.

As I have repeatedly said, unification will not be a possibility until the north can make a decent effort at standing on its own feet economically. Paradoxically, that makes independence or continued UK membership equally viable. First the north needs to achive economic viability for itself, secondly, its people need to be persuaded that further economic achievement is better joining up with the south.

Anything else is childish dreams.

moxin wrote: »

Godge, the country ain't bankrupt. We just exited the IMF just like the UK did in the 70's. Public spending on welfare and the public sector has been drastically reduced and will continue to do so to meet the 3% target. Who wants tax cuts? Many people realise income tax cuts will not happen and if they do its reckless electioneering, people have learnt the lesson that you need to fund the state in a prudent way in order to get services in return.
A couple of percent rise in tax rates is hardly a huge rise, we have one of the lowest income tax rates amongst the EU 15. Since 2008 income tax rates(USC as well) has not hit the majority of workers that hard who do not earn above 80k or so. If they have been hit hard, its down to lifestyle choices rather than the rates themselves. It has really only hit the upper earners who can afford it.

The northern economy is being reformed at the moment. Major cutbacks in the public sector is happening and will continue to happen at the behest of Westminister and at the same time investment is flowing in to stimulate the private sector.

And the undeniable (although the Unionists are still in denial about this) thing is that Britain is slowly withdrawing and pushing the institutions of the south and north together.
A 'successful' union of both jurisdictions is in everyone's best interests both culturally and economically.

Godge wrote: »

Look at the number of threads on here these boards complaining about taxes.

I can tell you one thing for certain - nobody wants tax rises and social welfare cuts to pay for a United Ireland.

If anything, the recent crisis (transitory) shows that Irish people WILL tolerate tax rises if it is perceived to be for the greater good and will pay them. I think your point is a bit dodgy in that respect.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If anything, the recent crisis (transitory) shows that Irish people WILL tolerate tax rises if it is perceived to be for the greater good and will pay them. I think your point is a bit dodgy in that respect.

Once again, you have a number of mistaken assumptions.

(1) You are assuming that the immediate achievement of a United Ireland at a significant and possibly huge economic, social and security cost is perceived by the majority of people down South in when it comes down to casting a vote.

(2) You are assuming that the wipe-out of the FF/Green government and its replacement by a FG/Labour coalition was an acceptance at the ballot box of tax rises.

(3) You are assuming that in the next election campaign a party promising tax increases will get a bigger share of the vote.

Remember, there will have to be a referendum down south, not a nice opinion poll for a newspaper. In order to back up your assertion that the Irish people will vote for tax rises, can you give me one example from history (go back as far as you like of either

(a) a government that was elected on the basis of promising to increase taxes or
(b) a party that increased its vote at a general election when it was promising tax increases while the opposition was promising tax decreases.

As I have said repeatedly, it is delirious to expect that a referendum will be passed in the South for a United Ireland if there is a significant price tag attached to it. It is a strange paradox but the only way for the United Irelanders to gain support for a United Ireland down South is to show that the North can pay its own way. The problem then is that those up North will start thinking why don't we go our own way.

The current relatively stable status quo will remain in place therefore for a long time.

Godge wrote: »

Once again, you have a number of mistaken assumptions.

(1) You are assuming that the immediate achievement of a United Ireland at a significant and possibly huge economic, social and security cost is perceived by the majority of people down South in when it comes down to casting a vote.

(2) You are assuming that the wipe-out of the FF/Green government and its replacement by a FG/Labour coalition was an acceptance at the ballot box of tax rises.

(3) You are assuming that in the next election campaign a party promising tax increases will get a bigger share of the vote.

Remember, there will have to be a referendum down south, not a nice opinion poll for a newspaper. In order to back up your assertion that the Irish people will vote for tax rises, can you give me one example from history (go back as far as you like of either

(a) a government that was elected on the basis of promising to increase taxes or
(b) a party that increased its vote at a general election when it was promising tax increases while the opposition was promising tax decreases.

As I have said repeatedly, it is delirious to expect that a referendum will be passed in the South for a United Ireland if there is a significant price tag attached to it. It is a strange paradox but the only way for the United Irelanders to gain support for a United Ireland down South is to show that the North can pay its own way. The problem then is that those up North will start thinking why don't we go our own way.

The current relatively stable status quo will remain in place therefore for a long time.

To equate the consideration of a union with NI to only a 'raised tax issue' is being a bit disingenuous.
Yes, it will be a factor for people to decide on...but the only one? A UI will not happen without extensive debate and the proposing and offer of aid from the international community. The Germans tolerated huge costs in order to re-integrate east Germany because they could see what the long term gains would be.

oscarBravo wrote: »

...if it's someone else that's paying the taxes.

Cheap shot. I frankly don't see large scale 'refusal' or 'insurrection' about paying for the crisis we are currently undergoing. Plenty of complaint which is to be expected but I think people, in the main, realise there is only one real way out.

'Think Tanks' can propose some pretty ludicrous ideas. What's a little bit reassuring is that they didn't follow the advice.

It's an awful mess of a situation though when you look at it from the outside.

My major concern now is that if the Tories take the UK out of the EU it could do immense damage to NI by creating trade barriers and possibly even a new border issue depending on how the common travel area arrangements might pan out.

The EU membership of both jurisdictions helped to minimise the practical impact of partition in a politically neutral way.

I would hate to see a situation where border crossings reappeared due to British anti EU views. They tend to forget that they've an EU land border.

timthumbni wrote: »

In your mind perhaps. Tell me how Britain is slowly withdrawing. As I said many times the British will always be a republicans problem in the form of Northern Irish unionists. I personally think a form of independence financially supported by both the uk and Irish governments is the best way forward. Have you even considered why the Irish would want to take on Northern Ireland aside from some romantic republican notion in your head???

NI is a complete dependency. Why should Britain continue to fund it to the tune of 12 billion per annum. Why should you expect the ROI to support an independent state? Surely "Britishness" (whatever that means) would prohibit forming another independent Irish state?

If NI is not part of UK or the ROI it is for the wolves. It can not sustain itself. Why reason could Northerners possibly give for wanting to go it alone above a United Ireland? The home rule/rome rule excuse wont wash any more obviously.

Some Northerners need to start living in the real world. The ONLY alternative to a UK inc NI, is a UI. The only thing stopping it, is sectarianism and the 12 billion grant.