Republican Mandate

Hannibal

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's actually £5bn.

Do you have a source for this breakdown, or are you just making it all up as you go along?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough. I'd still love to know where Hannibal got his information for his claims on how this money is spent though.

Laugh as you may or call it biased but this information comes direct from Sinn Féin and various press releases, talks and arguments they have given for a United Irelland within the last 6 to 12 months. The British government, northern Ireland unionists or any economist on their behalf haven't countered or responded to these claims which leads to believe they are very close to the truth. If any opposition to a United Ireland were to prove SF wrong then it would blow apart the whole economic argument SF have put on the table and cause short term irrepairable political damage.
Bear in mind that the British government won't open up the books to show the exact ins and outs of northern Ireland so this shows that SF have put a torrent of work into this before releasing these figures. Although highly unlikely with the British government not putting figures on the table it could be a possibility that NI is actually turning profit

The Corinthian

Hannibal wrote: »

Laugh as you may or call it biased but this information comes direct from Sinn Féin and various press releases, talks and arguments they have given for a United Irelland within the last 6 to 12 months.

Apparently the World is about 8,000 years old. Says so in the Bible.

Crooked Jack

Hannibal wrote: »

Laugh as you may or call it biased but this information comes direct from Sinn Féin and various press releases, talks and arguments they have given for a United Irelland within the last 6 to 12 months. The British government, northern Ireland unionists or any economist on their behalf haven't countered or responded to these claims which leads to believe they are very close to the truth. If any opposition to a United Ireland were to prove SF wrong then it would blow apart the whole economic argument SF have put on the table and cause short term irrepairable political damage.
Bear in mind that the British government won't open up the books to show the exact ins and outs of northern Ireland so this shows that SF have put a torrent of work into this before releasing these figures. Although highly unlikely with the British government not putting figures on the table it could be a possibility that NI is actually turning profit

The Corinthian wrote: »

Apparently the World is about 8,000 years old. Says so in the Bible.

Oooooh, bazinga, smart ass reply but alas, one with zero informative content. It looks like we can add you to the heap of people he is talking about who have so far failed to counter SF's claims.

The Corinthian

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Oooooh, bazinga, smart ass reply but alas, one with zero informative content. It looks like we can add you to the heap of people he is talking about who have so far failed to counter SF's claims.

There's plenty of informative content if you're bright enough to see it.

When someone relies on a single, biased, source for their information, they'll end up convinced by it. Not because it's true though, but because they've not challenged themselves to read other sources; opposing or even neutral ones. Hannibal made factual claims he read from this single source, yet he never considered double checking them - instead, it's up to someone else to do so and challenge his sole source.

Not that this would make much difference; I remember SF's economic policies being torn apart by economists when they were first published a few years ago. But this criticism was pretty quickly dismissed by the faithful.

Now, I'm not specifically citing SF for encouraging this kind of behaviour; pretty much all political parties do this to an extent. Some, like the SWP, are even more extreme. And of course religion is the original case in point - hence my above comment.

But if you think it's perfectly normal to base your facts on a single partisan source, without ever checking it against other sources, then fair enough. I believe in respecting all religions, even yours.

Crooked Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's plenty of informative content if you're bright enough to see it.

When someone relies on a single, biased, source for their information, they'll end up convinced by it. Not because it's true though, but because they've not challenged themselves to read other sources; opposing or even neutral ones. Hannibal made factual claims he read from this single source, yet he never considered double checking them - instead, it's up to someone else to do so and challenge his sole source.

Not that this would make much difference; I remember SF's economic policies being torn apart by economists when they were first published a few years ago. But this criticism was pretty quickly dismissed by the faithful.

Now, I'm not specifically citing SF for encouraging this kind of behaviour; pretty much all political parties do this to an extent. Some, like the SWP, are even more extreme. And of course religion is the original case in point - hence my above comment.

But if you think it's perfectly normal to base your facts on a single partisan source, without ever checking it against other sources, then fair enough. I believe in respecting all religions, even yours.

I've read through your post a few times but I still dont see one of these counter claims you say are so numerous.
Perhaps that's because SF are the only party to put any actual effort into researching the possibility of a reunified Ireland, which is a shame because the goal of a united Ireland does not belong to SF, it's something all parties should be looking at the pros and cons of.
Contrary to your belief that anyone who supports a united Ireland is a single minded idiot who never considers other points of view, I've listened to plenty of arguments against a united Ireland, particularly while debating in university, and none of them convinced me.

Hannibal

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's plenty of informative content if you're bright enough to see it.

When someone relies on a single, biased, source for their information, they'll end up convinced by it. Not because it's true though, but because they've not challenged themselves to read other sources; opposing or even neutral ones. Hannibal made factual claims he read from this single source, yet he never considered double checking them - instead, it's up to someone else to do so and challenge his sole source.

Not that this would make much difference; I remember SF's economic policies being torn apart by economists when they were first published a few years ago. But this criticism was pretty quickly dismissed by the faithful.

Now, I'm not specifically citing SF for encouraging this kind of behaviour; pretty much all political parties do this to an extent. Some, like the SWP, are even more extreme. And of course religion is the original case in point - hence my above comment.

But if you think it's perfectly normal to base your facts on a single partisan source, without ever checking it against other sources, then fair enough. I believe in respecting all religions, even yours.

As I said it's hard to be factual when those who hold the facts (British government) won't reveal the facts to have an informed debate for a unified Ireland. SF are a partner in government in Stormont and I presume through the various ministirial roles they've held (crucially not Finance) they've totted up what the British government are billing NI for which is coming out of that £10bn, including funding the army, imperial museums in England and Scotland and the life of luxury and an army of servents for the royal family.

I noted in my comment that the statement could be biased but as I said there's a lot of people with a vested interest and if SF were wrong they could very easily make their economic argument for a unified Ireland look ridiculous. Nobody has responded because they don't want a debate based on facts. The reason SF are the only source is that SF are the only party on this island who are continually and proactively pushing the Irish question to the fore.

Sinn Fein's economic policy in the south was tore apart but these are the same parties and economists who oversaw the collapse of capitalism, the collapse of the banking sector, plunged us into austerity and now enforcing austerity and which left the Irish citizens paying for the mistakes of those in high positions for the next few decades while all those conveniently claim bankruptcy.

The Corinthian

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I've read through your post a few times but I still dont see one of these counter claims you say are so numerous.

What all 15,000 of them? Or did you mean just in this thread, because I never claimed that there had been plenty of counter claims here.

Perhaps that's because SF are the only party to put any actual effort into researching the possibility of a reunified Ireland, which is a shame because the goal of a united Ireland does not belong to SF, it's something all parties should be looking at the pros and cons of.

Thing is that most parties have looked at it and it doesn't take long to realize that it's a bit of a distance away. It's also questionable, after almost a century of separation, whether there's a point to doing so, beyond nationalistic principle.

I've tried to keep out of this discussion for the most part, because these debates never get anywhere - they're exactly the same as debating God with born again Christians. Nonetheless, my initial contribution to this thread, which I'm sure you'll have read, stated that I do believe that a majority want to see unification, but that the Devil is ultimately in the detail.

Presuming that the pro-unification economic and political arguments are valid (huge presumption), there's a difference between support for a vague aspiration and a political and economic reality. Would NI agree to annexation into the present Republic? Would the Republic agree to a federal model that sees Lenster bankrolling the rest of the country indefinitely (and there's plenty of precedent for that, if one looks at Germany)? Would the Unionist community meekly go along with it all (as nationalists often claim)? If there is a cost to unification, how much of a cost would the South be willing to bare, and for how long?

So for all the claims of SF's "actual effort into researching the possibility", I've note really heard a lot, at least here, on these caveats.

Contrary to your belief that anyone who supports a united Ireland is a single minded idiot who never considers other points of view, I've listened to plenty of arguments against a united Ireland, particularly while debating in university, and none of them convinced me.

And if you were a "single minded idiot who never considers other points of view", how would your reaction to opposing arguments differ?

T runner

The Corinthian wrote: »

Presuming that the pro-unification economic and political arguments are valid (huge presumption), there's a difference between support for a vague aspiration and a political and economic reality.Would NI agree to annexation into the present Republic?

Just to look at these points. Both economies would have to be very similar before the jump, with an obvious carrot (proportionally more FDI) to NI that would mean an improvement for them. 20-30 years for the economic reality. Middle of the road nats and unionists will be ready then. More fundamentalist religious unionists wont, nor will loyalists as the issue of sectarianism has been once again left to fester. There have been 10 or so periods of serious sectarian disturbance over the last 400 years. There may be one more. In that case all bets are again off.

Would the Republic agree to a federal model that sees Lenster bankrolling the rest of the country indefinitely (and there's plenty of precedent for that, if one looks at Germany)?
Would the Unionist community meekly go along with it all (as nationalists often claim)?

I dont think it would be fair to change the policing arrangements in NI. I think any federalisation would have security not economics as its driver.
So, potentially. ROI subsumes borer areas of NI for the purposes of policing and local services.
A second area in East Ulster (with a large Protestant majority), and a third of greater Belfast (50-50). That and allowing NI res' to be Brit citizens, and allowing the odd parade around the metaphorically mainly nationalis garvaghy road might swing it.
Fiscal policy in Dublin.

If there is a cost to unification, how much of a cost would the South be willing to bare, and for how long?

The South would carry the weight for it if it was the right thing to do. The boat must be able to take the weight, not an anchor dropped from a height through the deck. and If were in were in for keeps.

Crooked Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

What all 15,000 of them? Or did you mean just in this thread, because I never claimed that there had been plenty of counter claims here.

Post. Post is singular.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thing is that most parties have looked at it and it doesn't take long to realize that it's a bit of a distance away.

Yeah, we wouldnt want to do something stupid like look to the future, best to just deal with things as they pop up.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's also questionable, after almost a century of separation, whether there's a point to doing so, beyond nationalistic principle.

I've tried to keep out of this discussion for the most part, because these debates never get anywhere - they're exactly the same as debating God with born again Christians. Nonetheless, my initial contribution to this thread, which I'm sure you'll have read, stated that I do believe that a majority want to see unification, but that the Devil is ultimately in the detail.

Presuming that the pro-unification economic and political arguments are valid (huge presumption), there's a difference between support for a vague aspiration and a political and economic reality. Would NI agree to annexation into the present Republic? Would the Republic agree to a federal model that sees Lenster bankrolling the rest of the country indefinitely (and there's plenty of precedent for that, if one looks at Germany)? Would the Unionist community meekly go along with it all (as nationalists often claim)? If there is a cost to unification, how much of a cost would the South be willing to bare, and for how long?

So for all the claims of SF's "actual effort into researching the possibility", I've note really heard a lot, at least here, on these caveats.

This is exactly my point. Reunification does not belong to SF. All parties should be looking at this. Those opposed to it should explain why and those in favour should do the same.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if you were a "single minded idiot who never considers other points of view", how would your reaction to opposing arguments differ?

So your argument is that I should take up a view that I disagree with in almost every way just to prove to you that Im not a single minded idiot. Basically your political argument is "I double dare you to be a unionist."

I can see why, as you pointed out earlier, these discussions with you never go anywhere.

An Coilean

T runner wrote: »

Looks like your wikipedia link .......may be wrong.....



Thats roughly half of total public service monies every year gifted from London!

On the bright side for Unionists.......the complete lack of will to sort this makes a UI unlikely. Doing the right thing (cutting dependency on London and creating an open dynamic economy to further reuce the deficit)....makes a UI economically very possible. Im betting on the former in the short term.

I may be wrong here, but that £10.5bn is a gross figure is it? Ie, thats the total expenditure without any regard to income?

T runner

An Coilean wrote: »

I may be wrong here, but that £10.5bn is a gross figure is it? Ie, thats the total expenditure without any regard to income?

Hi, sorry for delay replying. The figure is Net deficit (see attached.)

Thats £5,850 per capita which is 3 times the UK average.

An Coilean

T runner wrote: »

Hi, sorry for delay replying. The figure is Net deficit (see attached.)

Thats £5,850 per capita which is 3 times the UK average.

That does not really answer the question I was asking, essentially I wanted to know is what is the total cost of running NI, and how much revinue is raised in NI.

As I understand it, it is not a case that NI operates financhially as an independant country raising their own taxes to pay for the running of the state, with the UK Government giving them a grant to cover the amount to run NI above what they can raise themselves. What actually happens as far as I can tell is that almost all taxes raised in NI go straight over to Westminster and the NI executive are then given back a Block Grant to pay their costs. Which would mean that the Block Grant is not the figure needed to pay for NI above what is raised in NI its self, it would include money raised in NI, and whatever the gap is between the amount raised in NI and the amount needed to pay the total cost of NI.
Would that be correct?

Essentially what I wnted to know was, is the 10.5bn figure the amount of the Block Grant, or the difference between the revinue raised in NI and the total cost of running NI.

Muahahaha

Aside from all the pro and con arguments of a united Irelnad what are the main parties FF/FG/Lab saying about it? If they are all silent on the issue then it is a long way off IMO

Hannibal

An Coilean wrote: »

That does not really answer the question I was asking, essentially I wanted to know is what is the total cost of running NI, and how much revinue is raised in NI.

As I understand it, it is not a case that NI operates financhially as an independant country raising their own taxes to pay for the running of the state, with the UK Government giving them a grant to cover the amount to run NI above what they can raise themselves. What actually happens as far as I can tell is that almost all taxes raised in NI go straight over to Westminster and the NI executive are then given back a Block Grant to pay their costs. Which would mean that the Block Grant is not the figure needed to pay for NI above what is raised in NI its self, it would include money raised in NI, and whatever the gap is between the amount raised in NI and the amount needed to pay the total cost of NI.
Would that be correct?

Essentially what I wnted to know was, is the 10.5bn figure the amount of the Block Grant, or the difference between the revinue raised in NI and the total cost of running NI.

The British government won't provide a detailed breakdown of what actually goes in and out of NI. This is why the discussion on a border poll is important as it will have to put the facts and figures on the table to show people the pros and cons of what they are actually voting for. Don't forget the British and Irsh governments and the people of all Irelands 32 counties agreed and voted in favour of the GFA in which the provision to hold a border poll was stated.

tdv123

Leftist wrote: »

Yep. That and the lunatics putting up a plaque on the ardoyne road commemorating a man who killed 9 civilians including two children.

Very confident the majority of the south would vote no to unification. We do not want that animal behaviour.

I was for unification for a long time. But recently things like the flag riots & 12th of July riots are starting to make me think otherwise.

I think the best thing Republicans (peaceful ones) in the south should aim for is turning the Irish Republic into what it was suppose to be a shinning example to the world.

I'd like to see SF in power in the Republic, it would be a refreshing change from the likes FF & FG. And if SF doesn't work out then we can go back to our inward looking conservative past.

gallag

tdv123 wrote: »

I was for unification for a long time. But recently things like the flag riots & 12th of July riots are starting to make me think otherwise.

I think the best thing Republicans (peaceful ones) in the south should aim for is turning the Irish Republic into what it was suppose to be a shinning example to the world.

Interesting that it is the flag protests and 12th July putting you off and not the more serious weekly murder/bombing/security threats from the dissident republicans?

Also you are absolutely correct about forgetting about the north at the present, as a unionist if I was looking across the boarder enviously at a really prosperous republic it would be a better base to start than trying to drag my country down with the bankrupt economy and even more morally bankrupt politicians from the south.

tdv123

gallag wrote: »

Interesting that it is the flag protests and 12th July putting you off and not the more serious weekly murder/bombing/security threats from the dissident republicans?

Also you are absolutely correct about forgetting about the north at the present, as a unionist if I was looking across the boarder enviously at a really prosperous republic it would be a better base to start than trying to drag my country down with the bankrupt economy and even more morally bankrupt politicians from the south.

But theirs weekly murders in Dublin, Limerick & Cork. These drug gangs are just if not more ruthless than dissidents A we seen with Alan Ryan. Most of the bomb attacks usually fail, & the ones that succeed cause very little damage.

I agree with pretty much everything else.