Costs of Irish unification.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Here's some bedtime reading Francie...

http://www.portlandtrust.org/sites/default/files/pubs/epm_northern_ireland.pdf

Can you link to the relevant info that will answer the question?

p.s. I am asking relevant questions of people who claim to know this stuff, or at the least claim to have reviewed all the information and have certainly come to a conclusion on it.

As far as I know, info-dumps are against the charter and are certainly against the principle of open discussion.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Does anyone know why the Subvention took a massive rise after the GFA even though their was also huge increases in EU funding?

One theory I have is that the North was ruled better from Westminister than from Stormont. The inability of the two main sectarian parties, who have been in government most of the time, to mange and grow the economy has been the key failure.

The fact that Westminister has ponyed up every single time has helped to hide the exceptionally poor performance of the local politicians.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there's no reason why some of those areas shouldn't get to productivity levels much higher than Roscommon, Leitrim, etc. They have much greater population density; they either have or are much closer to major urban areas, etc, etc.

But, basically, I agree with you. I don't see a good case being made for expecting a reunification dividend which would replace the transfer from the UK. The onus is on those who argue that such a dividend can be looked for to make the case; I'm seeing no serious effort to do this, and I'm sceptical that it can easily be done.

.

There was a study commissioned by some American Friends of Sinn Fein group that more or less assumed that rapid economic growth as well as the magic money tax pool tree would ensure that the cost wasn't too much.

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the other hand, the indefinite payment of a transfer from the UK at the current level cannot be assumed, especially if Brexit is as painful for the UK as some think it might be. There could be a double whammy for NI; further reductions to the productivity of the NI economy as a result of hardening of the border, plus financial/political pressure on the payment of the transfer from an increasingly cash-strapped UK government. In that scenario the opportunity cost of reunification - loss of the transfer - is less, since the transfer declines anyway, and the benefits of unification are greater, since removing the Irish border will reverse some of the damage done by Brexit. Plus, if long-term economic growth in the RoI continues to outstrip that in GB it becomes more and more feasible to think of the RoI replacing at least a part of the transfer from GB.

In short, this is a moveable feast. Right now it seems hard to construct an economic argument for reunification that stacks up well, but that could change in the future, especially if the economic benefits of integration into the UK become less and less.

If the people of the South are behaving rationally (and economics often assumes that they do) why would they agree to replace even a part of the transfer from GB?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you link to the relevant info that will answer the question?

p.s. I am asking relevant questions of people who claim to know this stuff, or at the least claim to have reviewed all the information and have certainly come to a conclusion on it.

As far as I know, info-dumps are against the charter and are certainly against the principle of open discussion.

Just enabling you to do some of your own research!! I'm not interested why the north costs so much. I know that many southern counties nowhere near the border already require ongoing subsidy and most of the 6 counties would fall into this category too.

Why would Fermanagh not require a subsidy that Mayo does?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

One theory I have is that the North was ruled better from Westminister than from Stormont. The inability of the two main sectarian parties, who have been in government most of the time, to mange and grow the economy has been the key failure.

The fact that Westminister has ponyed up every single time has helped to hide the exceptionally poor performance of the local politicians.

I wouldn't disagree with the bolded bit.

Why that is we might disagree on, though not on this thread.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Just enabling you to do some of your own research!! I'm not interested why the north costs so much. I know that many southern counties nowhere near the border already require ongoing subsidy and most of the 6 counties would fall into this category too.

Why would Fermanagh not require a subsidy that Mayo does?

But you say you want a UI, but you aren't interested in how much NI costs?
That doesn't make sense. You have to be interested in the cost if you are interested in a UI.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again with the agression.

I asked: Does anyone know why the SUBVENTION took a massive rise since the GFA.

You answered: Peace dividend, - Titanic Centre being an example.

I asked, How much of that is Subvention and how much is EU funding.

You started lecturing on 'Magic money trees' and 'Fuzzies'.

So I will ask the question again.

Does anyone know why the Subvention took a massive rise after the GFA even though their was also huge increases in EU funding?

Well to follow the earlier logic embraced in certain posts - partition, because it preceded NI's economic woes, was identified as the cause of those woes.....so I'm guessing that the GFA caused the subvention to bloat to its current level.

I offered Titanic as an example......an illustrative example. I think it's a pretty good one - a fine building, a great attraction, but as the NIAO report makes out the intangibles, rather than the tangibles, associated with its construction won out when it was decided o build it. The opportunity cost of building an attraction that offered greater value for money was foregone to build it.

I suppose given it's a gleaming monument to failure, it's probably apt that it is in Belfast.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you say you want a UI, but you aren't interested in how much NI costs?
That doesn't make sense. You have to be interested in the cost if you are interested in a UI.

I said I am not really interested in WHY the north costs what it costs because I know that most southern counties also cost more than they generate and require social transfers from (mostly) east Leinster.

NI would just add more of those such counties.

Do you accept that most of NI will continue to require subsidy in a UI, just as most southern counties do already?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well to follow the earlier logic embraced in certain posts - partition, because it preceded NI's economic woes, was identified as the cause of those woes.....so I'm guessing that the GFA caused the subvention to bloat to its current level.

I offered Titanic as an example......an illustrative example. I think it's a pretty good one - a fine building, a great attraction, but as the NIAO report makes out the intangibles, rather than the tangibles, associated with its construction won out when it was decided o build it. The opportunity cost of building an attraction that offered greater value for money was foregone to build it.

I suppose given it's a gleaming monument to failure, it's probably apt that it is in Belfast.

Might be a side point, but isn't the Titanic showing signs of paying back the investment in spades?

Is it therefore not a monument to the possible?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I said I am not really interested in WHY the north costs what it costs because I know that most southern counties also cost more than they generate and require social transfers from (mostly) east Leinster.

NI would just add more of those such counties.

Do you accept that most of NI will continue to require subsidy in a UI, just as most southern counties do already?

I see no reason why Antrim (Belfast and urban area around it) and Derry would not be able to generate as economically viable and contributing hubs.

Of course areas will require subsidy, but what those levels are even at the moment, is something we don't know.

The detail is extremely obscure and the figures are disputed. That is not just me saying that, the Irish government agree as well when they looked at the implications of Brexit. Here is the relevant parts of that report:

1.6 Lack of reliable economic data;a challenge and concern
5
With this quote Bradley pointed out that in the constantly contested politics of Northern
Ireland where even the economic facts are disputed, this lack of reliable economic data
helps to fuel dispute and, in the case of Brexit, gives a poor basis on which to plan a
response. As Bradley also points out “policy errors or policy neglect seldom goes
unpunished”.6 In his opinion, policy decisions are based on the data and thefacts
available. To that end if the economic facts are unreliable or disputed then the likelihood
of policy errors increase. This is a very concerning backdrop to the prospect of Brexit as
it provides a very poor basis on which to plan a response.
United States Congressman Brendan Boyle commissioned research from the
Congressional Research Office to assist in the compilation of this Report for the Joint
Committee for the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It demonstrated the
very different figures being portrayed for Northern Ireland’s deficit and the unreliable
way its income and tax take is calculated.
Even data such as the numbers who cross the border every day to work and study is
disputed. The last census results in 2011 stated it was 14,751. However, the joint
research paper by the Research and Information Service of the Northern Ireland
Assembly and the Library and Research Service of the Houses of the Oireachtas for
the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association quoted that “23,000 to 30,000 people
are cross-border workers”, an estimate which came from the Centre for Cross Border
Studies. The British Irish Chamber of Commerce has also quoted a figure of 30,000
a day commuting across the border. The research by the Oireachtas Library and
Research Service showed that 5,722 people a day travel between Ireland and the UK
every day.

“The contributions of the 5 political representatives illustrated how very difficult
it is for them to agree any economic facts or strategies in Northern Ireland.
Where everything is disputed or contested, no progress can be made.”
John Bradley speaking on the theme of ‘Towards an All-Ireland Economy: the
business opportunities and political obstacles’ at the Irish Association conference at
Queens University Belfast in 2014.
46
An Coiste um Fhorfheidhmiú Committee on the Implementation
Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta of the Good Friday Agreement
The Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) produced a working paper prior to
Brexit in April 2016 entitled ‘The Economic Implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland’.
Time and again the report refers to the lack of accurate figures and incomplete data
sets. This is of concern to any policy maker trying to make policy decisions and
economic plans. Without a full set of the current economic facts it is very problematic to
arrive at correct decisions, especially when incorrect decisions can come at such a high
political price.
1.6.1 Northern Ireland incomplete data
In April 2016 The Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) produced a working paper
entitled ‘The Economic Implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland’. The reference to “lack
of figures”, “patchy figure”, and “in-complete data sets” are of concern as stated earlier.
Brexit and Northern Ireland Trade - Northern Ireland incomplete data
The existing dataset for Northern Ireland’s trade is somewhat incomplete. For tradeable
goods there are reliable statistics from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The
figures on service exports are less conclusive. The new Broad Economy Sales and
Exports Survey (NISRA, 2015) estimates that total exports (goods and services) from
Northern Ireland in 2014 were £9.7 billion. Of this, 60 per cent is accounted for by
goods and services in the Manufacturing sector. Overall 56 per cent of goods and
services exports go to the EU and two thirds of all EU exports are bound for the
Republic of Ireland. Table 1.1 shows the broad outline of industries by exports and their
destination; however figures for the EU and the rest of the world are patchy in areas.7
Northern Ireland incomplete data: services
“Looking at Service sector exports, the statistics are still quite primitive
in Northern Ireland. The latest estimates for Northern Ireland indicate
that total exports of goods and services were in the region of £9.7bn in
2014. HMRC figures for goods exports in 2014 account for £6bn of this
figure. This leaves a gap of £3.7bn from the BESES data.”8

47
An Coiste um Fhorfheidhmiú Committee on the Implementation
Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta of the Good Friday Agreement
The Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) produced a working paper prior to
Brexit in April 2016 entitled ‘The Economic Implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland’.
Time and again the report refers to the lack of accurate figures and incomplete data
sets. This is of concern to any policy maker trying to make policy decisions and
economic plans. Without a full set of the current economic facts it is very problematic to
arrive at correct decisions, especially when incorrect decisions can come at such a high
political price.
1.6.1 Northern Ireland incomplete data
In April 2016 The Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) produced a working paper
entitled ‘The Economic Implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland’. The reference to “lack
of figures”, “patchy figure”, and “in-complete data sets” are of concern as stated earlier.
Brexit and Northern Ireland Trade - Northern Ireland incomplete data
The existing dataset for Northern Ireland’s trade is somewhat incomplete. For tradeable
goods there are reliable statistics from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The
figures on service exports are less conclusive. The new Broad Economy Sales and
Exports Survey (NISRA, 2015) estimates that total exports (goods and services) from
Northern Ireland in 2014 were £9.7 billion. Of this, 60 per cent is accounted for by
goods and services in the Manufacturing sector. Overall 56 per cent of goods and
services exports go to the EU and two thirds of all EU exports are bound for the
Republic of Ireland. Table 1.1 shows the broad outline of industries by exports and their
destination; however figures for the EU and the rest of the world are patchy in areas.7
Northern Ireland incomplete data: services
“Looking at Service sector exports, the statistics are still quite primitive
in Northern Ireland. The latest estimates for Northern Ireland indicate
that total exports of goods and services were in the region of £9.7bn in
2014. HMRC figures for goods exports in 2014 account for £6bn of this
figure. This leaves a gap of £3.7bn from the BESES data.”8

Economic Research Institute, <https://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/brexit_wp_250416.pdf>
accessed 9 February 2017, p.5,6. 8 Paul MacFlynn, ‘The Economic Implications of BREXIT for Northern Ireland’ (2016) Nevin
Economic Research Institute, <https://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/brexit_wp_250416.pdf>
accessed 9 February 2017, p.12.
An Coiste um Fhorfheidhmiú Committee on the Implementation
Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta of the Good Friday Agreement
Northern Ireland incomplete data: services
“Previous research has identified that EU membership enhances the
trade volumes across many sectors but in particular the areas of
agriculture, textiles, trade services and transport equipment (Nahuis,
2004). The dearth of data on services exports exposes a key challenge in
estimating the impact of a BREXIT on the Northern Ireland economy”9
Northern Ireland incompete data: manufacturing
“Unfortunately the data at present don’t provide a breakdown of
manufacturing subsector exports by destination.”10
Northern Ireland incomplete data: retail
“Retail jobs are spread across Northern Ireland, with South Belfast
containing the largest proportion of Northern Ireland Retail sector
employment. Unfortunately the data at present do not show where
Retail businesses with large external sales are located within Northern
Ireland, but Figure 18 gives some idea as to where the impacts of any
possible disruption to jobs may be felt. Newry & Armagh and
Fermanagh & South Tyrone Could face a disproportionate hit as they
are border constituencies.”11
Northern Ireland incomplete data: tourism
“Statistics indicate that 9 per cent of overnight visitors were from the
Republic of Ireland but there are no indications of where the remaining 13
per cent of tourists originated from.”12

48
An Coiste um Fhorfheidhmiú Committee on the Implementation
Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta of the Good Friday Agreement
Northern Ireland incomplete data: Brexit and EU Funding in Northern Ireland
“Much of the debate on BREXIT at the national level in the UK has
focused on how much the country would lose or gain financially from
either decision. Once again it is not possible to be definitive on this
matter. The ambiguity arises in attempting to calculate what Northern
Ireland’s notional ‘EU contribution’ is and matching that against what it
actually receives. A further ambiguity arrives in deciding how much the
UK Treasury will benefit from no longer being a member of the EU
because most post- BREXIT scenarios posit some form of close
relationship with the single market, and that relationship is not without
cost.”13

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Why would Fermanagh not require a subsidy that Mayo does?

Genuine enquiry. Does Mayo need a subsidy? How is this subsidy dispersed? Its not as if there is huge investment required for hospitals or schools.

Kerry is also mentioned - I always thought Kerry was a well off county with a huge tourism industry.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Might be a side point, but isn't the Titanic showing signs of paying back the investment in spades?

Is it therefore not a monument to the possible?

The Titanic Centre was developed by Harcourt Developments (came up with 50% of the costs and Northern Ireland Tourist Board came up with the rest). Now the NI tourist board probably got some of the money from the EU and the Ireland Fund.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

The Titanic Centre was developed by Harcourt Developments (came up with 50% of the costs and Northern Ireland Tourist Board came up with the rest). Now the NI tourist board probably got some of the money from the EU and the Ireland Fund.

Yes, that I know.

I am sure Harcourt aren't in it for the lols.

Interested to know why it should be a 'monument to failure' though.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Might be a side point, but isn't the Titanic showing signs of paying back the investment in spades?

Is it therefore not a monument to the possible?

I think you fail to understand the difference between an operator making a profit when they are contracted to run an asset, and an asset investment offering a return on the capital spend.

The company running the attraction turned a profit, grew their cash pile and paid out a healthy dividend......

......to a it's Jersey and Dublin based shareholders. So it's certainly paying off for those investors.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, that I know.

I am sure Harcourt aren't in it for the lols.

Interested to know why it should be a 'monument to failure' though.

Because the ship never made it........

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I see no reason why Antrim (Belfast and urban area around it) and Derry would not be able to generate as economically viable and contributing hubs.

Of course areas will require subsidy, but what those levels are even at the moment, is something we don't know.

The detail is extremely obscure and the figures are disputed. That is not just me saying that, the Irish government agree as well when they looked at the implications of Brexit. Here is the relevant parts of that report:

We have reliable figures for the south. The demographics and geography of the north aren't sufficiently different to expect significantly better results from the north than from the south, so it's perfectly valid to assume (with the possible exceptions of Derry city and the greater Belfast area) that the 6 counties will require at least the same level of social transfers as the majority of southern counties.

Even in the south we have under performing cities. Limerick for example performs much worse than Galway or Cork. I personally don't see Derry being a stellar performer and would be extremely surprised if it didn't also require significant social transfers for a generation at least.

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You missed the point; the bogeyman put forward is the tax payer taking a major hit for a united Ireland. Simply pointing out we've taken far bigger hits for less worthy causes.

Jawgap wrote: »

to put it in context, the €10 billion or so it takes to keep NI from consuming itself amounts to about 45% of the income tax take in the Republic.

Now realistically any unification government isn't just going to jack taxes and keep pouring money into NI, there's going to have to be a combination of tax hikes, cuts to services and some class of dividend.

Even if we assume there is going to be a dividend, and even we assume it amounts to a fantastical and unprecedented 33% of what's required, that still leaves a €6.6 billion sized hole in the accounts......if we get another 33% through service cuts, we're left with about €3.3 billion in taxes - or the equivalent of about 16% of the current PAYE tax take.

You get some extra money through harmonisation - by for example bringing NI's VAT Rate in line with ours.

As for the idea of the EU funding a chunk of the unification bill......how likely do you think that is as long as we insist on not talking about out CT rates? Would Macron et al not be of a mind to tell us to bump our CT rate to closer what the EU average is then come back and talk about expanded funding from Europe?

It amounts to guess work based on the current situation. Everything is subject to change. Yes we could have a damaged reputation as regards Apple tax etc. then there's the PR, which may have merit, of the EU backing regarding any Brexit deal.
This 9 billion will cease. Will it be more or less? I don't know, you don't know. There may even be a grace period with any international financial cartels owed. The U.K. will certainly be still on the hook for a lot, in my view.
I'm not suggesting it will be little or nothing, before anyone jumps in. Basically there will likely be costs, we don't know what. There will be welfare/health bills to be worked out, we don't know what.

murphaph

jm08 wrote: »

Genuine enquiry. Does Mayo need a subsidy? How is this subsidy dispersed? Its not as if there is huge investment required for hospitals or schools.

Kerry is also mentioned - I always thought Kerry was a well off county with a huge tourism industry.

Most Irish counties have more money spent in them by the state than they generate in tax take. Mayo is by no means exceptional.

The 6 counties would add more such land mass to the country.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you fail to understand the difference between an operator making a profit when they are contracted to run an asset, and an asset investment offering a return on the capital spend.

The company running the attraction turned a profit, grew their cash pile and paid out a healthy dividend......

......to a it's Jersey and Dublin based shareholders. So it's certainly paying off for those investors.

And the local economy?


I still am at a loss as to how it is a monument to failure.

And I also think it does not, as an example, explain why the subvention has risen so dramatically along with EU money.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Which country's courts would have supremacy? (Joint authority doesn't work because of this problem and having 2 governments in charge doesn't change the fundamentals that the NI economy is exceptionally weak).

There's no getting around it...there would be a generation of hardship for many people as the price of a UI.

It would be one Gov. for NI. Instead of 1 Sec. of State, there would be 2 who would work together and manage the Province, operating as if its Direct Rule with maybe the ROI Minister coming up with a development strategy for NI as was done for the ROI by Whittaker/Lemass (such as what industries to concentrate on, setting corporate tax rate).

They could work on further integration of for interest tourism. At the moment there is duplication with Tourism Ireland and NI Tourist Board. One should be able to do it. Similarly with power, waterways, agriculture etc. etc. over a period of 10 to 15 years (with Westminster agreeing the budget).

As an aside, I was at Bloom last year where NI Food had a Stand/Tent. All I can say is 'Need to do much better than this' and it wasn't in an asses roar of competing with the ROI Tent standards.

I believe that the Stormont Assembly is just a complete waste of money and its time to take a different approach.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

We have reliable figures for the south. The demographics and geography of the north aren't sufficiently different to expect significantly better results from the north than from the south, so it's perfectly valid to assume (with the possible exceptions of Derry city and the greater Belfast area) that the 6 counties will require at least the same level of social transfers as the majority of southern counties.

Even in the south we have under performing cities. Limerick for example performs much worse than Galway or Cork. I personally don't see Derry being a stellar performer and would be extremely surprised if it didn't also require significant social transfers for a generation at least.

Yes, we know all of that.
What we don't know is the extent or amount.
I will also say it again, NI does contribute to the pot. So it will not be 'us' paying, we will all be paying, just like we are for the present set up in the south.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the local economy?


I still am at a loss as to how it is a monument to failure.

And I also think it does not, as an example, explain why the subvention has risen so dramatically along with EU money.

OK, - it commemorates a ship that failed in its prime purpose (to remain afloat).

I'm sure it does bring additional spending into the local economy - that wasn't my point. The point was the opportunity cost - as the NIAO found in their report - was significant.

Or to put it in more straightforward terms the

......total cost to construct Titanic Belfast was £76.9m (£97m including VAT and in kind contributions from Belfast Harbour Commissioners). Funders included the Northern Ireland Executive (through DETI – £36.95m), Belfast City Council (£10m), Titanic Quarter Ltd (£16.35m) and Belfast Harbour Commissioners (£13.6m).

.....could have been much better spent.

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

Most Irish counties have more money spent in them by the state than they generate in tax take. Mayo is by no means exceptional.

The 6 counties would add more such land mass to the country.

So what's the problem? Should we consider jettisoning Mayo? It seems more an issue with bad state management than a case against a united Ireland. The north deserves the same as any other Irish counties. Indisputable after a United Ireland.
I take it if gold is discovered in the six counties a teary eyed open arms will appear for them?
It's a case of when will it happen and addressing any financials during the process. Saying, hold on a minute while we consider the tab, is a deplorable view to have imo.

jm08

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you fail to understand the difference between an operator making a profit when they are contracted to run an asset, and an asset investment offering a return on the capital spend.

The company running the attraction turned a profit, grew their cash pile and paid out a healthy dividend......

......to a it's Jersey and Dublin based shareholders. So it's certainly paying off for those investors.

The Titanic Quarter is providing accommodation, shopping centres, office accommodation, pubs, restaurants etc. which provides local employment and attracts visitors to Belfast who spend money there - no different to the Docks Development in Dublin - they are both great additions to both cities.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

Most Irish counties have more money spent in them by the state than they generate in tax take. Mayo is by no means exceptional.

The 6 counties would add more such land mass to the country.

Can you be a bit more specific. I can see how Mayo wouldn't generate a lot of tax, but then it doesn't require as much money to be spent on hospitals, transport (luas!), schools, housing etc. as Dublin does.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

OK, - it commemorates a ship that failed in its prime purpose (to remain afloat).

I'm sure it does bring additional spending into the local economy - that wasn't my point. The point was the opportunity cost - as the NIAO found in their report - was significant.

Or to put it in more straightforward terms the



.....could have been much better spent.

Was the NIAO not just simply wrong about it?

Am I missing something here, is the venture losing money, failing to meet targets, failing to return it's investment?

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

The Titanic Quarter is providing accommodation, shopping centres, office accommodation, pubs, restaurants etc. which provides local employment and attracts visitors to Belfast who spend money there - no different to the Docks Development in Dublin - they are both great additions to both cities.

It's rejuvenated a whole section of the city, bringing in private money, above and beyond the initial cost.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, we know all of that.
What we don't know is the extent or amount.
I will also say it again, NI does contribute to the pot. So it will not be 'us' paying, we will all be paying, just like we are for the present set up in the south.

You're right there.

Jawgap

jm08 wrote: »

The Titanic Quarter is providing accommodation, shopping centres, office accommodation, pubs, restaurants etc. which provides local employment and attracts visitors to Belfast who spend money there - no different to the Docks Development in Dublin - they are both great additions to both cities.

Yes, I'm sure it does - but that wasn't the point.

Investing and getting a return of X is one thing, but it's money foregone if you could have invested the same amount for a greater return.

By your logic any amount of spending can be justified as long as their is some return - personally, I prefer to see investments made on the basis of a reasonable rate of return, otherwise the payback period is excessive.

Maybe there are more "fluid" ideas when it comes to an internal rate of return on NI projects - which might go a long way to explaining why the place soaks up so much cash.

tomwaterford

Jawgap wrote: »

OK, - it commemorates a ship that failed in its prime purpose (to remain afloat).
.

Tbf it's loyalism only claim to history (other than marching)...

.build a ship,claim.it unsinkable and geos down on its first journey

murphaph

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So what's the problem? Should we consider jettisoning Mayo? It seems more an issue with bad state management than a case against a united Ireland. The north deserves the same as any other Irish counties. Indisputable after a United Ireland.
I take it if gold is discovered in the six counties a teary eyed open arms will appear for them?
It's a case of when will it happen and addressing any financials during the process. Saying, hold on a minute while we consider the tab, is a deplorable view to have imo.

I wouldn't jettison Mayo no (obviously not possible anyway).

Do you have a problem with me pointing out the obvious that most of NI is guaranteed to require a subsidy at least as high as the southern counties that currently do?

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure it does - but that wasn't the point.

Investing and getting a return of X is one thing, but it's money foregone if you could have invested the same amount for a greater return.

By your logic any amount of spending can be justified as long as their is some return - personally, I prefer to see investments made on the basis of a reasonable rate of return, otherwise the payback period is excessive.

Maybe there are more "fluid" ideas when it comes to an internal rate of return on NI projects - which might go a long way to explaining why the place soaks up so much cash.

That is the question that is being asked and until we know the answer, pronouncements that a UI is unfeasible due to cost are totally wrong and premature.

As I posted above even the Irish gov and all it's agencies are complaining about the difficulty of obtaining any reliable figures right up to and including the 'scary' subvention.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was the NIAO not just simply wrong about it?

Am I missing something here, is the venture losing money, failing to meet targets, failing to return it's investment?

You tell us.

You were the one who said.....

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Might be a side point, but isn't the Titanic showing signs of paying back the investment in spades?

Is it therefore not a monument to the possible?

Assuming you've seen those signs, what are they? How much, for example, did the operator of the site remit back to the owner of Titanic (Titanic Foundation) either as a 'franchise fee' for operating the site or as a surplus?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the question that is being asked and until we know the answer, pronouncements that a UI is unfeasible due to cost are totally wrong and premature.

As I posted above even the Irish gov and all it's agencies are complaining about the difficulty of obtaining any reliable figures right up to and including the 'scary' subvention.

The reasons are somewhat academic - if the Republic hikes taxes to pay for a UI no one is going to feel warm and fuzzy about it just because we know the detail of the reasons.

If there is a reason - let the NI government explore it and sort it out - kicking it down the road to a post-UI future is no solution......sure where would be the incentive then for fixing it after a referendum? The paymaster would simply have changed and this is one referendum we definitely won't get a chance to change our minds on.

jm08

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure it does - but that wasn't the point.

Investing and getting a return of X is one thing, but it's money foregone if you could have invested the same amount for a greater return.

By your logic any amount of spending can be justified as long as their is some return - personally, I prefer to see investments made on the basis of a reasonable rate of return, otherwise the payback period is excessive.

Maybe there are more "fluid" ideas when it comes to an internal rate of return on NI projects - which might go a long way to explaining why the place soaks up so much cash.

I'd imagine that is why we have Governments and organisations like the EU who fund long term investments such as the Luas, motorways, a Ferry Port, the Atlantic Way, etc. etc. You won't get an immediate return on those but long term, they will be.

Jawgap

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf it's loyalism only claim to history (other than marching)...

.build a ship,claim.it unsinkable and geos down on its first journey

As I said.....a good metaphor for NI's economy.......casting off and left to plough it's own course, it ran straight into an ice-berg, shipped unfeasibly large quantities of cash water and left everyone feeling pretty miserable in the end, regardless of where they were on the boat.....all the while expecting other ships to drive into treacherous waters at flank speed to pull their arses out of a situation very much of their own making that they'd been previously and repeatedly warned about.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

You tell us.

You were the one who said.....



Assuming you've seen those signs, what are they? How much, for example, did the operator of the site remit back to the owner of Titanic (Titanic Foundation) either as a 'franchise fee' for operating the site or as a surplus?

I think it would be safe to say that an operation that it is estimated to have brought 105m over 3 years into the local economy and that has tripled it's projected visitor numbers is doing ok for all it's investors.
I cannot find how much it has remitted to the Foundation, but I cannot find any complaints from them either.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

The reasons are somewhat academic - if the Republic hikes taxes to pay for a UI no one is going to feel warm and fuzzy about it just because we know the detail of the reasons.

If there is a reason - let the NI government explore it and sort it out - kicking it down the road to a post-UI future is no solution......sure where would be the incentive then for fixing it after a referendum? The paymaster would simply have changed and this is one referendum we definitely won't get a chance to change our minds on.

'Warm and fuzzy' is just another term to disparge Jawgap.

I don't think your case for not having a close look at all of this via a UI debate with all the stakeholders will hold much water tbh.

Nobody at any time has advocated a UI under the current circumstances, there will be a transition period of at least 10 years imo.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it would be safe to say that an operation that it is estimated to have brought 105m over 3 years into the local economy and that has tripled it's visitor numbers is doing ok for all it's investors.
I cannot find how much it has remitted to the Foundation, but I cannot find any complaints from them either.

Why?

If you don't know the return on the capital employed how can you suggest that ".....the Titanic showing signs of paying back the investment in spades"

Plenty of operations turn over decent amounts and Harcourt's accounts certainly show that it's a bit of cash cow for them - but where does it indicate the investment is paying off for the asset's owner?

In summary, I could open a cash-rich business (for example an amusement arcade) - it could enjoy a heavy footfall, yield prodigious quantities of cash, and turn a decent operating profit, but if it cost me millions (many multiples of turnover) to establish, it would be a poor investment.

James Brown

murphaph wrote: »

I wouldn't jettison Mayo no (obviously not possible anyway).

Do you have a problem with me pointing out the obvious that most of NI is guaranteed to require a subsidy at least as high as the southern counties that currently do?

Of course not. It helps to dispel the bogeyman by showing some other counties in the south need a tax dig out. So why the shock and awe should the six need same? Your post is as much about bad governing than an argument about potential costs of a united Ireland.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Warm and fuzzy' is just another term to disparge Jawgap.

I don't think your case for not having a close look at all of this via a UI debate with all the stakeholders will hold much water tbh.

Nobody at any time has advocated a UI under the current circumstances, there will be a transition period of at least 10 years imo.

So NI is going to cut it's reliance on Westminster funding?

I'll not hold my breath waiting for that to start any time soon.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

So NI is going to cut it's reliance on Westminster funding?

I'll not hold my breath waiting for that to start any time soon.

Westminster is showing signs of doing that.

The question you refuse to acknowledge is a 'question' of just how much of a reliance that is.

Do you disagree with the government assessment about the difficulty of accurately identifying the costs and what happens with the subvention?

Schumi7

jm08 wrote: »

One way to tackle the problems of Northern Ireland would be to have joint authority by Irish and British Gov. for a certain number of years - say 10/15 years. I'd abolish Storment (nothing happens there anyway), have elections, continue to be represented in Westminister (I think there are 18 NI seats there) and have a similar number of seats for the Dail. After 10/15 years there could be a review and decide then whether to continue as is or go for a referendum on a UI.

Whilst a kind of intuitive logic may attach itself to that idea, it would be putting the cart before the horse.

The only scenario in which a form of Joint Authority would be acceptable is after any successful referendum on unity. It would be a period of managed transition conducted by both the Irish and British governments with probable EU input and possible oversight.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Westminster is showing signs of doing that.

The question you refuse to acknowledge is a 'question' of just how much of a reliance that is.

Do you disagree with the government assessment about the difficulty of accurately identifying the costs and what happens with the subvention?

We know how much the reliance is:

http://www.factcheckni.org/

Northern Ireland Annual Fiscal Deficit (£m)

Year Nominal Adjusted(2014£)

2008-09 £8,718 £10,113
2009-10 £10,291 £11,547
2010-11 £9,956 £10,673
2011-12 £9,634 £10,029
2012-13 £9,459 £9,601
2013-14 £9,160 £9,160

....or between 25 & 30% of GDP.

There may be some debate to be had on where exactly the money goes, but there seems little doubt that:
(a) it goes
(b) its billions

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

We know how much the reliance is:



....or between 25 & 30% of GDP.

There may be some debate to be had on where exactly the money goes, but there seems little doubt that:
(a) it goes
(b) its billions

And how much of it would not be required in a UI, and how much can be saved and how much can be cut?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And how much of it would not be required in a UI, and how much can be saved and how much can be cut?

Eh?

Are kids going to go untaught, pensioners unpensioned, the sick untreated, welfare recipients unpaid?

Again, the public services account for nearly 50% of NI's GDP (almost twice what they cost in the Republic)......in the vast, vast majority of public services staff costs (salaries, pensions etc) account for 80 to 90% of the spending - do you not understand that?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the question that is being asked and until we know the answer, pronouncements that a UI is unfeasible due to cost are totally wrong and premature.

As I posted above even the Irish gov and all it's agencies are complaining about the difficulty of obtaining any reliable figures right up to and including the 'scary' subvention.

The question is being asked the completely wrong way.

We know the North costs a vast sum of money every year in subsidies between €6 and €10 billion. We know this is money spent on public services. We know the South cannot afford to pay for this. Not a single poster on this thread has been able to successfuly challenge or cast doubt over these facts.

As these things are clear, the default position is that a UI is financially unfeasible.

If that default is to change, the requirement is to show what changes can be made to how the North is financed, operates etc. or what taxes, social welfare and other public services need to be cut or raised North and South of the border in order to make a UI feasible.

Otherwise the economic argument will win every time at the ballot box in the last week.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The question is being asked the completely wrong way.

We know the North costs a vast sum of money every year in subsidies between €6 and €10 billion. We know this is money spent on public services. We know the South cannot afford to pay for this. Not a single poster on this thread has been able to successfuly challenge or cast doubt over these facts.

As these things are clear, the default position is that a UI is financially unfeasible.

If that default is to change, the requirement is to show what changes can be made to how the North is financed, operates etc. or what taxes, social welfare and other public services need to be cut or raised North and South of the border in order to make a UI feasible.

Otherwise the economic argument will win every time at the ballot box in the last week.

Can you show where anyone has attempted to state otherwise? It's been agreed there will be a costs associated. The finer details are up in the air.
One thing for certain there will be changes in how the six counties operate during and after. Feasibility, from a purely financial perspective is unlikely to be reached. How many bring such concerns to the ballot box will be the deciding factor. It will be interesting to see how any willing parties try raise that in the run up.
Which will try sell, 'I'd love to see a united Ireland, but we can't afford it'. With our economic history, it'll be amusing to say the least.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And how much of it would not be required in a UI, and how much can be saved and how much can be cut?

...and which areas are run more efficiently already in NI and would become more expensive in a UI? (eg welfare rates would presumably go up significantly or do you favour the north's citizens receiving less, the NHS costs would presumably go up as the HSE is less efficient, due to high wage costs).

You don't get to cherry pick the costs that might go down in a UI without also discussing those that would actually go up!

BonnieSituation

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Can you show where anyone has attempted to state otherwise? It's been agreed there will be a costs associated. The finer details are up in the air.
One thing for certain there will be changes in how the six counties operate during and after. Feasibility, from a purely financial perspective is unlikely to be reached. How many bring such concerns to the ballot box will be the deciding factor. It will be interesting to see how any willing parties try raise that in the run up.
Which will try sell, 'I'd love to see a united Ireland, but we can't afford it'. With our economic history, it'll be amusing to say the least.

Bar some old school PD's or Renua folk coming out of the wood work I can't see a single political party or politician coming out against a UI. It would take some gall to do so.