How long before Irish reunification?

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Ok show me these levies they pay? How much are they paying the armed services and monarchy ?

The UK spent 2.1% of GDP on military spending last year which amounted to about £40bn ($48.7 bn). NI's share would be about 4-5% of that so that would have put their contribution around £2 bn last year. The UK is replacing their Trident Weapon system (by 2030) and is estimated to cost about £200 bn.

The monarchy cost £68 million last year.

And then of course there is Northern Ireland's share of the UK national debt which is about 2 trillion I think, which would also be included in calculations as to how much NI is subvented.

Redgirl82 wrote: »

What are the benefits in Cavan/Monaghan? In reality losing the border would hurt them more. Buying goods over the border has always been part of life in these border counties. Now without a border it is even easier.

from my point of view Parcel Motel would be shut down which would be devastating;)

I have asked what the benefits are and nobody can answer. The simple fact is the Republic cannot support the North. So if we had a Unified Ireland instead of been a positive we would need to raise taxes for everyone in Republic and you would have mass unemployment in the North. Who wants that?

Yes as I said I would love a United Ireland, but the numbers don't add up. Next you will hear how Sinn Fein answer to fund Northern Ireland will be to put up corporate tax rate and then drive unemployment up across Ireland.

If people want a United Irelnad, great we all do. But not if we are going to cripple two countries.

I'm going to take a guess that you're not from one of the border counties?

I don't think you'll get much of a vote swing based on telling people they're going to lose popping up to Enniskillen to do a bit of shopping from Cavan or down to Swanlinbar to fill up the car with petrol from Fermanagh.

In terms of benefits, I certainly expect there to be some short to mid-term costs. Currently the North is an economic basket case. It's not surprising - a hundred years of poor governance and two communities killing eachother isn't a great attraction for FDI. Indeed, there is no reason that Belfast and Derry for example, couldn't be strong parts of the Irish economy, if given the stimulus boost required to start the ball rolling. It will never happen in Belfast while SF and the DUP are too busy bickering over flying f*cking flags and walking down streets, and while the city means absolutely nothing to those in Westminster who could affect change. It certainly will never happen in Derry, when the DUP aggressively block any investment in the altogether too, 'taigy' North-West.

If you are expecting someone to give you a roadmap as to how unification will be profitable from Day One, you'll be disappointed. Any major project has up front costs, and takes time to repay those costs. With this as a standard, we would never build a road or new hospital, because it takes time for the value of those to be recognised.

I can see how a city with much lower property prices and an international airport and a great motorway link to the capital could be attractive as a new international hub for a company, with significantly lower costs, and how this could alleviate the increasing housing pressure on Dublin.

I can see how huge savings could be made on an island wide basis by gradually winding down the double-jobbing of having two separate civil services and groups for everything. In the short term, if you dont want any layoffs, rather than two groups working on the same project, redeploy the excess civil servants to different projects and at least you're getting more work done.

With Brexit, I can see the benefits of not having a potentially belligerent at worst (remember the talk of just starving the Irish if we won't play ball), or exclusively self serving neighbour with different political and economic goals to us with a practically unenforceable land border with our country, that comes with a huge stigma attached.

With CoVid-19, I can see the benefits in having one government response for two neighbours living a few hundred metres apart, and the drawbacks caused by the confusion of mixed messages.

From your perspective, it would also potentially hold a party like SF up to much more mature political scrutiny, as their overarching purpose and a significant vote-winner for them is no longer a talking point. What's the point in voting for a party who's main priority has already happened? Either they grow as a party with relevant political goals, or they wither and die on the vine.

Would it be all sunshine and rainbows? Christ no.

Is there a whole heap of work needed to quantify and contextualise potential benefits such as these? Absolutely.

It certainly isn't going to be the black and white, 'everything is better' or 'everything is worse' dichotomy those on the hard end of unification or partition try to portray it as.

Redgirl82 wrote: »

So what is the benefit to the border counties?



People need to stop pointing the finger at the DUP. It is called power sharing. Both Sinn Fein and DUP are to blame. Plus if it is a United Ireland the DUP are not going to suddenly disappear.

The Secretary of State had no problem pointing the finger of blame SOLELY at the DUP for blocking any progress in getting the Executive up and running.
You also need, as a matter of some urgency, to review how the petition of concern has been used. And also, how the Unionist bloc lives up to it's name, by blocking stuff they don't like or think dilutes the Union.

This discussion started because I asked a couple of simple questions. The main one been where the money would come from to support a United Ireland. That hasn't been answered

You don't even know how much will be needed.

So for al the talk of a United Ireland they very very very basics haven't even been thought about. Yet we have Sinn Fein on TV going on about it all the time.

As per my comments, go off and let them get their numbers together and Coe back.

Utter nonsense.
You can't be taken seriously if your answer is either to ignore what has been said. Claim figures are made up and not back it up or just say basically, Nah...that's not true.

If that is the quality of the anti UI debate, we needn't waste money having a vote because it will be demolished.

Redgirl82 wrote: »

You have spent nearly two days now and you still don't know
1. Where the money comes from
2. How much it will cost]

As I say...if you are going to completely ignore what has been said, as a strategy to reject a UI...knock yourself out. That will be an easy win for the pro UI side.

You seem to be very anti unionist? so what's your plans for that party of the community?

I am anti belligerent Unionist. I never made any bones about that.

Redgirl82 wrote: »

So what is the benefit to the border counties?



People need to stop pointing the finger at the DUP. It is called power sharing. Both Sinn Fein and DUP are to blame. Plus if it is a United Ireland the DUP are not going to suddenly disappear.

This discussion started because I asked a couple of simple questions. The main one been where the money would come from to support a United Ireland. That hasn't been answered

So for al the talk of a United Ireland they very very very basics haven't even been thought about. Yet we have Sinn Fein on TV going on about it all the time.

As per my comments, go off and let them get their numbers together and Coe back.

You do have a peculiarly aggressive way of discussing these things, don't you?

Regarding benefits to the border counties, I've already highlighted some of those, and the best you could retort was a bit about nipping up to do some shopping in Asda in Enniskillen. The reduction in difficulty in engaging with infrastructure projects across two states would be a further benefit. The increase in financial stability caused by currency fluctuations for the many people living one side and working in the other would be another, or the cost to business of these currency fluctuations and a lack of certainty around them. The avoidance of obvious potential Brexit issues along the border would be a further benefit to the border counties. Even the most ardent of those who argue that we can't afford unification don't dispute that it would be beneficial in the border counties. Have you discussed it with many people living in these areas? There is a reason that support for unification is at it's highest in the border counties, as they are the ones negatively impacted by partition the most. It probably doesn't have the same impact on a person living in Blackrock or Dalkey, so it is unsurprising that support for unification is lower there.

I'd suggest further work on your reading comprehension, and perhaps a little on your understanding of the power sharing agreement in the North. Firstly, my fingerpointing included both SF and the DUP, secondly you keep spouting, 'power sharing' as if this means every decision is equally supported by SF and the DUP. You may particularly benefit from reading up on the Petition of Concern mechanism, and the number of times it has been enacted by each party.

You have also had the question on where the money would come from to pay for reunification answered repeatedly. The same place that the money that is paying for the rural broadband scheme is coming from. Likely supported by partial EU and UK based funding in the short term. In the mid to long term, the idea being it would pay for itself through an increased tax take in the six counties, and a decrease in the need for a government subvention to support expenditure there.

Short to mid-term there would absolutely be a net cost that you and I as taxpayers would have to stump up, as the reforms and economic uptick certainly won't come about overnight.

If this is your only objection, I'm surprised that you aren't clamouring to stop every single government infrastructure spend, every new hospital, the aforementioned rural broadband scheme and any other use of our tax coffers which don't bring about an immediate result. It is a total strawman of an objection. As with any project, the only rational fiscal argument against it is whether that investment is worth it.

If you wish to make an argument that it is inconceivable that the six counties in the North can be reformed to such an extent that they are economically prosperous, it is an entirely different debate. If you wish to make an argument that an economically reformed and self-financing six counties don't bring enough other benefits to be worth the initial investment it would cost to get to that point, that too is an entirely different debate.

I totally agree that more work needs to be done on quantifying exactly what the investment required will look like when the NI subvention numbers are broken down and stripped of the costs which will no longer be part of it. This would be the likes of civil service pensions, military pensions, other military expenditure and other expenses which will remain a British responsibility. We will also have to look at the cost of leveling things such as welfare and adding that. All too often, rather than trying to find actual figures for this, you'll find people just parroting agenda-laden best/worst case scenario numbers and insisting THEIR numbers are right rather than striving to better projecting real numbers.

Redgirl82 wrote: »

You seem to be making a lot of comments in regards to Unionist for someone who doesn't live in the North.

The right to comment only exists for those in the Six? Funny that. Can you take your own advice? Or are you trying to shut down debate as you're being backed into a corner again with your empty rhetoric?

Though, Francie could spit to the border from his backyard if I'm not mistaken.

I've again waded through your waffle from today and it's the same tired and repeated Partitionist tropes with no substance.

And I'm gonna have to wade back to find your response to my post from this morning.

Your most disingenuous and aggressive posting style is wearisome.

Redgirl82 wrote: »

So far your only posts have been an attack on me. Have you added anything constructive to the thread?

What corner am I in? I am just commenting that Francie seems to be making a lot of comments on unionist and trying to belittle them, is this not when all the problems started when the same happened to the Catholics?

I have yet to see anyone mention one issue with Sinn Fein or catholics. It is DUP and unionists and trying to put them into a box and shove them in corner.

I only have issue with belligerent Unionism (you'll probably pretend that doesn't exist too)

I disagree with 'Unionism' as an ideology for the island of Ireland and I have many discussions with Unionists about that.

Triangle wrote: »

Unfortunately it's hard to debate with someone who believes in something 100%. Facts and figures won't knock a dent in their beliefs.

Where has Redgirl presented 'facts and figures'?

Redgirl82 wrote: »

So far your only posts have been an attack on me. Have you added anything constructive to the thread?

What corner am I in? I am just commenting that Francie seems to be making a lot of comments on unionist and trying to belittle them.

I have yet to see anyone mention one issue with Sinn Fein or non-unionist.

I have attacked your posts and posting style. I have not attacked you. Please point out where I have attacked you? It might have been inadvertent or misunderstood and I will gladly withdraw if that's the case.

---

I have contributed to this thread and their ilk on numerous occasions. And I will constantly engage with people like yourself who throw around the same old rubbish when it comes to this fantasy bill for a UI.

You've also failed to figure out what the difference is between a "beligerent unionist" and a "unionist" us as you keep attacking Francie of belittling unionists. Of which he has done no such thing.

eagle eye wrote: »

Anybody claiming that the figures it would cost to set up a UI is under 20 billion is an outright liar.
The best scenario from an economic point if view is for Northern Ireland to honour in it's own for a period of time, address their economic issues and then we can all look at a UI in 20 or 30 years.

As a Republican, a person that puts the Republic of Ireland first, I don't want us absorbing the nightmare financial abyss that is Northern Ireland.

Apart from the invention of a big scary 20 billion figure, allowing NI to be independent when it has abjectly failed to run itself would be criminal irresponsibility by the the two states that run it under an international agreement. There is no sentence, clause or paragraph that mentions an independent NI in the GFA. It is not an option for a reason.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's only your opinion. Figures have been out forward by numerous sources and have been shouted down and yet we just have to "believe" the likes of your goodself on the €20bn.

Also, sir, you are not a Republican, you're a Partitionist. Own it.

I put the Republic of Ireland first so I'm a Republican and I'll own that. I'm not a patitionist s you call it either, I'm against it in the short to medium term for financial and security reasons, not forever.

I've finally got to a laptop so have the opportunity to put up links. So here you go....
This is a study from Trinity College which puts the cost at £30 billion
I'm not believing any figures from a politician that's been proven to be bull.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I have attacked your posts and posting style. I have not attacked you. Please point out where I have attacked you? It might have been inadvertent or misunderstood and I will gladly withdraw if that's the case.

---

I have contributed to this thread and their ilk on numerous occasions. And I will constantly engage with people like yourself who throw around the same old rubbish when it comes to this fantasy bill for a UI.

You've also failed to figure out what the difference is between a "beligerent unionist" and a "unionist" us as you keep attacking Francie of belittling unionists. Of which he has done no such thing.

Redgirl. The problem with you is that you are producing clear factual evidence. My experience is that there is a small number of Unionist haters on here who detest clear factual evidence.
You are showing great patience with them

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A lot of work has been done on this already. We have the new Unity Unit proposed.
This won't be a leap in the dark. There is too much at stake.

There is so much at stake that the best option is to do nothing at all. Arent Ireland and Northern Ireland getting on just grand as we are? Little violence and people getting on with their lives. The Catholic population seems to have regained their confidence. However they really need to row in behind Stormont and not undermine the Institutions. These spats over the Irish language were unedifying. And Dont bring up unufication at all would be my advice.
I dread the day that there will ever be a need to have a referendum on unification. Theres nothing to gain except strife. As Sean would say 'up here in the UK' things are going allright in 2020