Taxpayers money going North?

A Dub in Glasgo

It was hardly as if all the EU monies we got came from the UK. I think France, and especially Germany paid more didn't they?
Also, when we joined the EU we were alot poorer and more backward compared to these wealthy countries than NI is compared to us.
We are only just now getting to the point where our infrastructure may match theirs and public services are still worse.
In addtion Ireland is not a > trillion dollar economy of (at least) 60 million people as all the EU paymasters are while NI is actually small region of one of these rich countries - not an impoverished little fellow EU nation needing help from the likes of us.
So alot of things are different.

I am sorry for labouring the point, what is different? You say a lot of things are different, yet I cannot see them.

You seem to be against putting any money into NI because you see NI as part of a rich country? Do you prefer to put that money into Romania or Poland? The fact still remains that the RoI is a net receiver of EU funds and the UK is a net contributer of EU funds. I would say that a lot of the non-RoI money that was pumped into the RoI economy came from the UK. If the EU recommended putting money into NI, would you object that RoI money may go to NI?

fly_agaric

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You say a lot of things are different, yet I cannot see them.

I thought my post covered the differences quite well.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Do you prefer to put that money into Romania or Poland?

They need it more than NI does.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If the EU recommended putting money into NI, would you object that RoI money may go to NI?

No, I wouldn't. The scenario of NI getting funding from the EU which "we" as well as others had paid into is much better. Let the EU deal with it. BTW I'm surprised we are still getting so much EU money. I think I have read somewhere that we will finally become a net contributer to it during this (EU) budget??--->

(Yes - http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm [posted above])

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I would say that a lot of the non-RoI money that was pumped into the RoI economy came from the UK.

As already mentioned, that link gives figures which show the net per person contributions of the countries to the EU budget in 2003. UK is in the middle of the bunch of "givers" by this metric.
Germany is giving at twice the rate per capita and since its population is AFAIR 1/3 bigger than the UK's...:) - I think we owe them much more gratitude! Over twice as much. (France gives less per capita and must give less in total since populations are similar.)

I'd just like to say that if this money for NI is to be spent on things which are of use to "us" too I would be less negative about it. We will have to see I suppose.
(The govt. here telling the DUP, Sf etc exactly what projects it will be spent on will not go down too well in NI I think...)

silverharp

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I am sorry for labouring the point, what is different? You say a lot of things are different, yet I cannot see them.

This line of thinking is pointless, IF the Irish Gov give the british gov. 1bn to be spent in NI, it won't be connected to past EU handouts or who gave what.

If the money is being given so that the DUP and co. will tolerate catholics about the place, then this is a bad start. I don't even know what the money is needed for. there is low unemployment and good infrastructure there. Handouts rarely create a dynamic economy.

Glenbhoy

fly_agaric wrote:

As already mentioned, that link gives figures which show the net per person contributions of the countries to the EU budget in 2003. UK is in the middle of the bunch of "givers" by this metric.
Germany is giving at twice the rate per capita and since its population is AFAIR 1/3 bigger than the UK's...:) - I think we owe them much more gratitude! Over twice as much. (France gives less per capita and must give less in total since populations are similar.)

I'd just like to say that if this money for NI is to be spent on things which are of use to "us" too I would be less negative about it. We will have to see I suppose.
(The govt. here telling the DUP, Sf etc exactly what projects it will be spent on will not go down too well in NI I think...)

fly_agaric, your argument here is pretty ridiculous, the per capita net contributions have no relevance here. The UK is a net contributor of an absolute amount in excess of any funds given by ROI to NI, hence, it is possible to state that those exact funds came directly from the UK.
Silverharp, your comments are fair enough and I can understand the rationale, hell, i probably agree with them, I don't actually know what these funds will be used for, because i imagine the north is actually much more advanced than ROI in areas such as education, healthcare, transport infrastructure etc. At least, it's the standard of such facilities up there which make me despair so much about the mess that's been made of them down here.

fly_agaric

Glenbhoy wrote:

fly_agaric, your argument here is pretty ridiculous, the per capita net contributions have no relevance here.

If you do not like what I said about per-capita contributions, then reread the bit about Germany and its contributions to the EU's budget. If we are to bow down and thank anyone for the continued EU money we got over the last few years despite our new wealth they should be first in line - not the UK. They deserve 2.7 times as many thankyouverymuchsirs from us based on their total contribution to the budget as the UK - Okay?

Glenbhoy wrote:

The UK is a net contributor of an absolute amount in excess of any funds given by ROI to NI, hence, it is possible to state that those exact funds came directly from the UK.

Forgive my stupidity and "ridiculous" arguments but does it not make more sense to consider the whole EU "income" got from countries that give rather than take and look at fraction of the UK net-contribution to that (which from the above is ~1/3 of Germany's contribution).
The same fraction of any item of EU expenditure (like giving us money to build infrastructure) is then funded by the UK.
Giving money to us is not the only thing the EU does.
Maybe the actual value of that fraction is at present still greater than what we would be giving to NI (maybe I'll work it out later)?
It definitely won't be when we start contributing to the EU.

I don't see why transfers from the EU we are got in the past or even the ones we are getting right now mean we now somehow "owe" the UK and must do our bit to help pay for upkeep of the corner of this island their past rulers really, really wanted to hang onto.

Glenbhoy wrote:

I don't actually know what these funds will be used for, because i imagine the north is actually much more advanced than ROI in areas such as education, healthcare, transport infrastructure etc.

Then please do explain the reasons why Ireland should give NI a bilion Euro?

Glenbhoy

fly_agaric wrote:

Forgive my stupidity and "ridiculous points" but does it not make more sense to consider the whole EU "income" and look at fraction of the UK net-contribution to that (which from the above is ~1/3 of Germany's contribution).
The same fraction of any item of EU expenditure (like giving us money to build infrastructure) is then funded by the UK.
Giving money to us is not the only thing the EU does.

My apologies for calling your argument ridiculous and I did not intend for you to take the inference of stupidity.
However, fractions are completely irrelevant here. Do you accept that in absolute terms, the UK has contributed more than 1 bn to the EU since inception (in it's various guises), if you do, then you can see that it is possible to say that, since ROI has received more than 1 bn over the years, that the UK have indirectly given 1bn to ROI and thus this latest transfer to NI is just another step in the transfer from UK to NI.
Anyway, this side of the argument is a bit of a side issue - sorry, but I couldn't help but respond. I presume you can see the validity of our argument, but are choosing to ignore it?

Glenbhoy

fly_agaric wrote:

Then please do explain the reasons why Ireland should give NI a bilion Euro?

I don't think there's any reason - but i don't see why ROI taxpayers should moan about it.

Kashkai

If you cut through all the hype and bull**** about the "Celtic Tiger", we are still a poor country when it comes to infrastructure and services. Therefore, the Republic's government should not be throwing money at the nordies until they sort out our own health service, public transport, roads etc. Even then I'd still have problems with my tax money going up to subsidise that diseased little corner of the world (oh, oh my mask is slipping). Let the lunatics run their own asylum without handouts from the rest of the world.

And as for our own handouts, at least we put the EU's money towards a few decent roads, water treatment plants etc.

Long live the 26 county Republic of Ireland.:D

fly_agaric

Glenbhoy wrote:

My apologies for calling your argument ridiculous and I did not intend for you to take the inference of stupidity.

Okay. Sorry about sounding a bit shrill.

Glenbhoy wrote:

However, fractions are completely irrelevant here.

This is what I don't get.
I know we are getting very very sidetracked - but...

Looking at:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/finances-eu-budget/article-141007*

*the figures in 2nd column should be billions I believe

In our example year of 2003 the "givers" transferred E17.6b net which included E2.8b from the UK.
This is 16 % of the total transfers.
We got E1.6b so one could say the UK transferred us E256million that particular year - not E1.6b. (edited - silly error)

Okay?

Glenbhoy wrote:

Do you accept that in absolute terms, the UK has contributed more than 1 bn to the EU since inception (in it's various guises),

Yes, I do. From the above figures I even accept they have probably transferred about E1b to us through the EU in the last 4-5 years or so.

Glenbhoy wrote:

if you do, then you can see that it is possible to say that, since ROI has received more than 1 bn over the years, that the UK have indirectly given 1bn to ROI and thus this latest transfer to NI is just another step in the transfer from UK to NI.

Yes, the UK has transferred us more than we would ever be giving NI, and no it doesn't follow that we would just be a conduit for their money.
As I was saying arguing above, doesn't Germany actually deserve more credit from us for that EU money. Why single out the UK for our largesse? Should we be making transfers to some E. German employment blackspot areas? But that would be crazy, right?
Basically this whole line of argument [the idea that we would really just be giving back money we got from the UK to one of its regions (NI)] is, to quote Silverharp, pointless.

Glenbhoy wrote:

I don't think there's any reason - but i don't see why ROI taxpayers should moan about it.

If it's not necessary (aka a waste of money), why can't we whinge about it?
We moan plenty when money is wasted on other things - so why not NI? Why is it off limits?
We're not so rich yet that these kind of sums (E1b) are not important.
I don't think the funds we got from the EU were loans from the rich countries, and even if they were, Germany is at the top of the queue.
The money was to help us catch up I suppose, and hopefully, if we don't fall flat on our faces, we'll be doing our bit for E. Europe through the EU in a similar way.

fly_agaric

Looking to http://www.finfacts.ie/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm again.

That page says we got E34billion from the EU since we joined.
If the 2003 figures are representative, that's E5.4b from the UK and about E14.9b from the Germans and E3.7b from the French. If the money for NI is justified as part of scratching the UK's back for the EU-dosh I feel sorry for poor FrancoGermany...

LordSutch

bik_ireland wrote:

And who exactly is reponsible for PUTTING the 6 counties into the situation where they NEED that level of subvention?
The north can only start to begin to recover, not only politically and culturally, but economically - after re-unification - and even then - after many years of stability. We in the south abandoned the north in 1922 - having given solemn promise to continue to struggle for british withdrawal from the remainder of the country. You cannot blame the north for issues beyond their control.

But we can blame the Provisional IRA for their thirty year campaign which effectively brought the Northern Economy to its knees......
(which is where we are today)! and as for British withdrawl, what do you suggest we do with the one million Brits that live up North?

The IRA tried to exterminate them (didnt work) and now you suggest that we find another way "for them to withdraw" to where exactly?

Glenbhoy

ArthurF wrote:

But we can blame the Provisional IRA for their thirty year campaign which effectively brought the Northern Economy to its knees......
(which is where we are today)! and as for British withdrawl, what do you suggest we do with the one million Brits that live up North?

The IRA tried to exterminate them (didnt work) and now you suggest that we find another way "for them to withdraw" to where exactly?

Very accurate summation there alright Arf:rolleyes: What with NI being that model of social inclusion from 1922 - 1968.

bik_ireland

ArthurF wrote:

But we can blame the Provisional IRA for their thirty year campaign which effectively brought the Northern Economy to its knees......
(which is where we are today)!

Firstly - even if one were to accept your statement in which you claim blame can be laid at the door of the Irish Republican Army (provisional, I presume you mean) - this is STILL not the fault of the entire population of the north. Or even of the entire nationalist population of the north. And while we're on that point - the IRA campaign over that period began as one of protection for nationalists (reluctantly - as Dublin was slow to react at the time of the civil rights campaigns causing the eventual split of the movement) One cannot condemn the IRA for the war it engaged in over that period without fully taking into account many other factors of that era. Would you prefer that they had sat back and done nothing to protect the nationalist population? You know what? Now that I think about that - you might be right! If the IRA had done nothing the nationalists would have eventually all fled south leaving the north free for the unionists to enjoy full economic prosperity.

The IRA tried to exterminate them (didnt work) and now you suggest that we find another way "for them to withdraw" to where exactly?

The IRA never tried to "exterminate" anyone on the basis that they felt they were british. And they should "withdraw" to their own country. I would have thought that point was obvious.

... and as for British withdrawl, what do you suggest we do with the one million Brits that live up North?

If they (I think it's more like 848,000 if you are basing this on religion) believe they are brits they have every right. However - I'm not looking to have them put anywhere. They were born here and have the same rights as any Irish person. By british withdrawal - and I know you know what I mean - I mean withdrawal of british military and the complete return of the north of Ireland to our nation.

LordSutch

I am old enough to remember the beginnings of the troubles (just) and as a teenager I remember well that the Norths economy/ Roads/ Infrastructure/ Retail sector were the envy of many people down here!

I even remember queues of drivers going up North for petrol, and queues of people going North by car & train to do their christmas shopping, because there was little or no retail choice here in the Republic!

As the years went by (early 70s) and the bombs went off on a 'Daily' basis the retail sector & indeed the whole Economy of the North was brought to its knees or at least 'severly retarded' by the constant drip-drip of bombing, Death, & distruction!

And then the Cetic Tiger arrived in the South & the IRA declaired that its War was over in the North ............... better late than never I suppose, but the fact is that the dammage is done and the North's once proud Economy is in tatters (fact)!

So I say yes ~ we should contribute billions to the rebuilding of their economy its the least we can do, and its a great 'Good Will Gesture' just as long as we dont get the impression that a financial package means political interference!

Political interference in their affairs (might = trouble)?

silverharp

ArthurF wrote:

So I say yes ~ we should contribute billions to the rebuilding of their economy its the least we can do, and its a great 'Good Will Gesture' just as long as we dont get the impression that a financial package means political interference!

Political interference in their affairs (might = trouble)?

The Irish state was not responsible for the troubles so I am not sure about the "it's the least we can do argument" you almost imply some collective guilt we should have. Your agument also ignores that NI's economic past was based on sunset industries and was too small an economy to go hi tech in a serious way.

Zebra3

ArthurF wrote:

what do you suggest we do with the one million Brits that live up North?

Can you back that figure up?

fly_agaric

ArthurF wrote:

So I say yes ~ we should contribute billions to the rebuilding of their economy its the least we can do, and its a great 'Good Will Gesture' just as long as we dont get the impression that a financial package means political interference!

Political interference in their affairs (might = trouble)?

Yay! So we'll get to shell out hundreds of millions and, as I also suggested above, the govt. can't even have an input into what it would be spent on (in case the benighted pehpol of Uhlster think the Popish State is trying to subvert their loyal province and some of 'em decide to set matters right with a few well placed suspect devices!).

What a great plan. What a wonderful use of resources....(NOT!)

Glenbhoy and others said the UK funnelled money to Ireland through the EU and we would now be returning some of it to NI. At least there was some oversight/input from the "givers" in the former case. I think the EU had to ok the projects the structural funds were to be spent on and also kept on eye on things to make sure the money was not being squandered. We do that with NI and it will count as "Dublin meddling in the internal affairs of Loyal Uhlster".