Why the north outside EU changes everything for the island

Taytoland

Edgware wrote: »

PeaQueue wrote: »

I would have thought anyone that would describe themselves as Irish would refer to the whole island as opposed to just one part. Maybe you see your self as more 'southern irish' or did you tick 'free stater' in the census form?

When you roll out the Free Stater label you've lost the argument. The Northerners didn't do too much between the 20s and the 70s to improve their circumstances.
Having said that I dont agree with this idea that the Six Counties would be a burden on the Republic. As long as unification was an agreed act I would be optimistic. However if there was a simmering Civil War between Loyalists and Republicans then millions would go down the tubes in security costs. There is ample potential in agriculture, I.T.  Tourism Foreign Investment etc to maintain and improve the all island economy

That's a certain.

Capt'n Midnight

Stupify wrote: »

Do any of us even really want a UI at this stage? The north would be a leech on our economy. I actually wouldn't mind a hard border at this stage, it won't hurt us too much in the long run.

The big difference is the North isn't attracting much foreign investment.

I can remember when the roads up there were so much better than ours.

Derry is a little bigger than Galway. But we've got the M6 and the M17/M18. And they've got a higher population density.

The UK is talking about upgrading parts of the A6 to dual carriageway

With more investment they could catch up to us, in time. At partition the three north east counties had 90% of the island's industrial output. Now it's very different.

Stupify

Stupify wrote: »

Do any of us even really want a UI at this stage? The north would be a leech on our economy. I actually wouldn't mind a hard border at this stage, it won't hurt us too much in the long run.

It would hurt the border Counties, economically.
Not as much as it would hurt Northern Ireland - but it would hurt.
There's an amazing amount of cross border trade.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

If so, then is rejoining the UK, as a united ireland, with a devolved local govt in Dublin not the way to make the island one again, and the option that truly is open to Eireans if they a genuinely commited to staying as close to the north, economically and socially, as possible.
The Eu project kept a certain commonality between the two over the last 40 years. The peace process advanced it further. But now Brexit is a serious threat to that. Which no one really foresaw. But given that it has happened, Eire must reassess this rejoining option as the optimum choice in these new circumstances.

Or, y'know - Northern Ireland could consider he Democratic will of its own people, who voted to remain in the EU - and decide whether they want to remain part of the EU by joining Éire, or stay part of the UK.


Because Ireland is under no obligation to change its membership of the EU because some Loyalists want to have their cake, and eat it.

The people of Northern Ireland should now have a choice about what they want to do.

They wanted to remain part of the EU.
England said "NO".
So, now, England is refusing to respect the wishes of, not one, but two of the regions.


It's only reasonable that some people would want a choice between the EU, and Britain.
That choice, however, does not include expecting their neighbours to jump off the same cliff they themselves voted against jumping off....

Peregrinus

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Id like a united Ireland. But there's a lot of backwards thinking up there, just look at the DUP (and by idiots down here who use the term free stater) so I don't see it being feasible any time soon.

Ironically, the backward thinking of the DUP on the Brexit question has done more to further the prospects of a united Ireland and the dissolution of the union with Great Britain than the IRA managed in 25 years of gunplay.

Stupify

PeaQueue wrote: »

Aye, you're a partitionist the sort that probably turned a blind eye to what was going on up in the north because it didn't affect you. Sure you were ok so the ppl in the north can Fck off. Free stater.

Not a free stater, any other labels for me?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057819234

This thread discussed the topic of the costs of reunification, do you realise the costs we would have to bear PeaQueue? Why do you think we should pay these costs?

Stupify

Deleted User wrote: »

It would hurt the border Counties, economically.
Not as much as it would hurt Northern Ireland - but it would hurt.
There's an amazing amount of cross border trade.

I did say in the long run, of course short-term there would be damage to the border counties. I don't want a hard border though, as long as some trade deal can be hashed out to our benefit then I'm all for open borders and free trade between us, but we should not capitulate to British demands just to keep a border open with the North.

Stupify

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The big difference is the North isn't attracting much foreign investment.

I can remember when the roads up there were so much better than ours.

Derry is a little bigger than Galway. But we've got the M6 and the M17/M18. And they've got a higher population density.

The UK is talking about upgrading parts of the A6 to dual carriageway

With more investment they could catch up to us, in time. At partition the three north east counties had 90% of the island's industrial output. Now it's very different.

They could absolutely catch up to us, and I wouldn't begrudge them that one bit, I would celebrate it in fact.

But should we be the ones paying for these infrastructure upgrades? Because the amount of investment needed is significant.

Peregrinus

Stupify wrote: »

They could absolutely catch up to us, and I wouldn't begrudge them that one bit, I would celebrate it in fact.

But should we be the ones paying for these infrastructure upgrades? Because the amount of investment needed is significant.

Who's "we"? The whole point of a united Ireland is that "we" is everyone in Ireland. Taxes paid in Antrim would support expenditure in Kerry, and taxes paid in Kerry would simultaneously support expenditure in Antrim. It's likely that for a number of years at least there would be net flows into (former) NI, but every country has net revenue flows from one part to another.

lawred2

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

If so, then is rejoining the UK, as a united ireland, with a devolved local govt in Dublin not the way to make the island one again, and the option that truly is open to Eireans if they a genuinely commited to staying as close to the north, economically and socially, as possible.
The Eu project kept a certain commonality between the two over the last 40 years. The peace process advanced it further. But now Brexit is a serious threat to that. Which no one really foresaw. But given that it has happened, Eire must reassess this rejoining option as the optimum choice in these new circumstances.

Eireans?

Stupify

Peregrinus wrote: »

Who's "we"? The whole point of a united Ireland is that "we" is everyone in Ireland. Taxes paid in Antrim would support expenditure in Kerry, and taxes paid in Kerry would simultaneously support expenditure in Antrim. It's likely that for a number of years at least there would be net flows into (former) NI, but every country has net revenue flows from one part to another.

We is the Republic, a United Ireland would cause us a significant reduction in our standard of living. It's not just net flows, we would have to take on NIs national debt also.

Peregrinus

Stupify wrote: »

We is the Republic, a United Ireland would cause us a significant reduction in our standard of living. It's not just net flows, we would have to take on NIs national debt also.

NI doesn't have a national debt.

lawred2

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Id like a united Ireland. But there's a lot of backwards thinking up there, just look at the DUP (and by idiots down here who use the term free stater) so I don't see it being feasible any time soon.

There is backwards thinking everywhere... Doesn't mean that they should hold back the majority..

lawred2

Stupify wrote: »

Do any of us even really want a UI at this stage? The north would be a leech on our economy. I actually wouldn't mind a hard border at this stage, it won't hurt us too much in the long run.

well that part is living up to your username alright - of course it would be detrimental in the long term.

The economy will of course grow to a point that the impact to GDP is made up but the lost opportunity cost is impossible to measure. The reality will be is that the economy will undoubtedly perform better without a hard border in place.

lawred2

Stupify wrote: »

We is the Republic, a United Ireland would cause us a significant reduction in our standard of living. It's not just net flows, we would have to take on NIs national debt also.

Actually there would have to be transition arrangement with the UK over a decade if not longer...

You hardly think that it's a case of the UK flicking a switch at midnight and washing their hands of NI. Doesn't work that way.

Stupify

Peregrinus wrote: »

NI doesn't have a national debt.

You're having a laugh if you think they will be able to rejoin us without bringing with them a nice chunk of national debt from the UK.

Stupify

lawred2 wrote: »

Actually there would have to be transition arrangement with the UK over a decade if not longer...

You hardly think that it's a case of the UK flicking a switch at midnight and washing their hands of NI. Doesn't work that way.

Where did I say it would be with the flick of a switch? With a transition period none of what I said would change, we will have to take on some of the UK national debt, our standard of living here will drop.

Stupify

lawred2 wrote: »

well you're living up to your username alright

Typical, don't argue the points and just attack the user.

Peregrinus

Stupify wrote: »

You're having a laugh if you think they will be able to rejoin us without bringing with them a nice chunk of national debt from the UK.

There's precedent. The 26 counties left the UK in 1922 without taking on any of the UK national debt. (And, in 1922, UK national debt was much bigger, relative to GDP, than it is today.)

There's also the fact that the legal default position here is that this debt is the responsibility of HMG in Westminster. It only gets taken on by the Irish government if and to the extent that the Irish government agrees to take it on. Since the UK is committed to supporting a UI if it is the wish of a majority in NI, if a majority in NI do ever opt for a united Ireland I can't see the British turning around and saying "no, only if you agree to pay off our debt". I think that would be completely politically unsustainable.
.

breatheme

I think the UK would be happy enough to rid itself of NI that it may just forget about whatever debt there is. Unless they are super broke after Brexit, then maybe not.

lawred2

Stupify wrote: »

Typical, don't argue the points and just attack the user.

what point?

that a hard border wouldn't hurt 'us' too much?

Well that depends how you define 'us' - I'd define that as Irish people - north and south. We are increasingly interdependent - socially and economically. The GFA has legislated for many cross border administration bodies.

You do know that there would be Irish citizens and Republicans north of this hard border you'd like right?

Stupify

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's precedent. The 26 counties left the UK in 1922 without taking on any of the UK national debt. (And, in 1922, UK national debt was much bigger, relative to GDP, than it is today.)

There's also the fact that the legal default position here is that this debt is the responsibility of HMG in Westminster. It only gets taken on by the Irish government if and to the extent that the Irish government agrees to take it on. Since the UK is committed to supporting a UI if it is the wish of a majority in NI, if a majority in NI do ever opt for a united Ireland I can't see the British turning around and saying "no, only if you agree to pay off our debt". I think that would be completely politically unsustainable.
.

If they don't have to take on any UK national debt that's one thing, doesn't change the fact that the drain NI would have on our economy would reduce our standard of living here and that's the point I'm arguing.

Stupify

breatheme wrote: »

I think the UK would be happy enough to rid itself of NI that it may just forget about whatever debt there is. Unless they are super broke after Brexit, then maybe not.

Definitely might tbh, with the current UK government though who can tell.

Berserker

Edgware wrote: »

When you roll out the Free Stater label you've lost the argument. The Northerners didn't do too much between the 20s and the 70s to improve their circumstances.
Having said that I dont agree with this idea that the Six Counties would be a burden on the Republic. As long as unification was an agreed act I would be optimistic. However if there was a simmering Civil War between Loyalists and Republicans then millions would go down the tubes in security costs. There is ample potential in agriculture, I.T. Tourism Foreign Investment etc to maintain and improve the all island economy

I was going to ask you why would be optimistic if the six counties agreed to leave the UK and join the RoI but I'm more interested in why you think a civil war would cost millions? Security as a whole would need a massive upgrade in a UI, costing billions. Take a look at the cost of policing around the world and top tier police forces require that amount of funding to equip themselves. You would need a whole new police force and army capable of dealing with the terrorist threat from both sides in a UI where NI leaves the UK.

If you want a UI, re-uniting as part of the UK is the only viable option. NI would still be in a position to receiving the funding that it needs to operate from the UK. Unionists would still be part of the UK. Nationalists would be part of the UI. The British security forces have the ability and resources to deal with the threat of terror from the Nationalist community and they could help upgrade the current Irish system.

breatheme wrote: »

I think the UK would be happy enough to rid itself of NI that it may just forget about whatever debt there is. Unless they are super broke after Brexit, then maybe not.

Even if they do and I see no reason to do so, the debt that NI generates would start to pile up from day one in a UI. Add that to the fact that the RoI is still in massive debt, far more than NI and you have a massive financial problem.

lawred2

Stupify wrote: »

If they don't have to take on any UK national debt that's one thing, doesn't change the fact that the drain NI would have on our economy would reduce our standard of living here and that's the point I'm arguing.

In it's current dysfunctional vassal state maybe but the reality is that a northern counterweight to Dublin could only be a good thing for an all Ireland economy in the medium to long term.

There have been a number of studies done by independent bodies on the likely benefits of unification

http://prcg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Modeling-Irish-Unification-Report.pdf

I'd also expect that there would be a massive international surge in immeasurable good will towards Ireland post unification that would simply be impossible to quantify. Good will that would lead to an increase in FDI as companies seek to be part of a good news story.

But then I'm a glass half full person. Not everyone is.

Stupify

lawred2 wrote: »

what point?

that a hard border wouldn't hurt 'us' too much?

Well that depends how you define 'us' - I'd define that as Irish people - north and south. We are increasingly interdependent - socially and economically. The GFA has legislated for many cross border administration bodies.

You do know that there would be Irish citizens and Republicans north of this hard border you'd like right?

If you read all the other comments I've posted you can see my point. I won't be engaging with you though, anyone who resorts to attacking someone instead of arguing against what they say I won't waste my time with.

lawred2

Stupify wrote: »

If you read all the other comments I've posted you can see my point. I won't be engaging with you though, anyone who resorts to attacking someone instead of arguing against what they say I won't waste my time with.

Don't be so precious. You didn't make a point anywhere. It was a one liner. Barely tabloid level.

Maybe you could show how a hard border wouldn't hurt 'us' in the long run?

By the way - I didn't 'attack' you personally. I said your post lived up to your username.

Berserker

lawred2 wrote: »

In it's current dysfunctional vassal state maybe but the reality is that a northern counterweight to Dublin could only be a good thing for an all Ireland economy in the medium to long term.

There have been a number of studies done by independent bodies on the likely benefits of unification

http://prcg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Modeling-Irish-Unification-Report.pdf

I'd also expect that there would be a massive international surge in immeasurable good will towards Ireland post unification that would simply be impossible to quantify. Good will that would lead to an increase in FDI as companies seek to be part of a good news story.

Firstly, goodwill doesn't pay the bills and where is this goodwill and FDI going to come from? Your point on NI being a counter balance to Dublin doesn't make any sense. Adding more national debt to national debt isn't going to turn into profit.

lawred2

Berserker wrote: »

Firstly, goodwill doesn't pay the bills and where is this goodwill and FDI going to come from? You point on NI being a counter balance to Dublin doesn't make any sense. Adding more national debt to national debt isn't going to turn into profit.

Belfast would be a counterweight to Dublin.

Stupify

lawred2 wrote: »

Don't be so precious. You didn't make a point anywhere. It was a one liner. Barely tabloid level.

Maybe you could show how a hard border wouldn't hurt 'us' in the long run?

By the way - I didn't 'attack' you personally. I said your post lived up to your username.

Again with the personal insults.

"I did say in the long run, of course short-term there would be damage to the border counties. I don't want a hard border though, as long as some trade deal can be hashed out to our benefit then I'm all for open borders and free trade between us, but we should not capitulate to British demands just to keep a border open with the North."

A previous comment of mine, I don't argue for borders, just that the hard border that is on its way won't impact us too negatively in the long term.

Peregrinus

Stupify wrote: »

If they don't have to take on any UK national debt that's one thing, doesn't change the fact that the drain NI would have on our economy would reduce our standard of living here and that's the point I'm arguing.

Partition has been enormously economically damaging to Ireland as a whole, and to each part of Ireland, considered separately. Yes, right now NI is a bit of a economic basket-case, and massively reliant on transfers from GB, but if you change fundamentally the political and economic circumstances which give rise to that situation you shouldn't also assume that that situation will continue indefinetely.

Some of the economic damage of partition has been alleviated by the Single Market. Brexit now risks re-inflicting that economic damage. If you think we can accept a hard border, and not suffer any decline in our standard of living, then you are wrong.

In short, if standard of living is your concern we're not in a situation whereby we can protect ourselves by sticking our fingers in our ears and going "la-la-la not our problem". If there's a crash-out Brexit and a hard border, there'll be real economic damage both north and south of the border (not to mention in GB, of course). And if the response to that in the North means such a shift that a majority come to favour a united Ireland, then that offers a propspect of repairing some of the economic damage.

I think you're wrong to focus on the current transfers from GB to NI, because (a) they're a produce of the current political situation in NI; a UI is a game-changer in terms of what NI needs; and (b) by focussing on those, you're ignoring the problem we have have to solve, which is the economic damage wrought by reinstated a hard partition of Ireland.

Stupify

lawred2 wrote: »

By the way - I didn't 'attack' you personally. I said your post lived up to your username.

You said I live up to my username, not my post.

lawred2 wrote: »

well you're living up to your username alright

lawred2

Stupify wrote: »

You said I live up to my username, not my post.

ok fair enough - that wasn't intended to be interpreted so literally but I see how it would be - I'll edit

Stupify

lawred2 wrote: »

ok fair enough - that wasn't intended to be interpreted so literally but I see how it would be - I'll edit

I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way.

Berserker

lawred2 wrote: »

Belfast would be a counterweight to Dublin.

Can you expand of that? If we take a look at jobs, for example. Are you planning on taking public sector jobs out of Dublin and making Belfast the public sector hub of a UI? Your only other option would be to transform the private sector in Belfast, which would require a significant cultural shift for people in NI but you'd have to promote Belfast to the detriment to the rest of the island and Dublin in particular. That would lead to countless problems for people in Dublin in terms of day to day living. No need for me to list them for you.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Partition has been enormously economically damaging to Ireland as a whole, and to each part of Ireland, considered separately.

The RoI is one of the wealthiest countries in the OECD at 4th, iirc, in the OECD-28 rankings.

lawred2

Stupify wrote: »

I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way.

And I've edited it. Can you get over yourself now?

Stupify

Peregrinus wrote: »

Partition has been enormously economically damaging to Ireland as a whole, and to each part of Ireland, considered separately. Yes, right now NI is a bit of a economic basket-case, and massively reliant on transfers from GB, but if you change fundamentally the political and economic circumstances which give rise to that situation you shouldn't also assume that that situation will continue indefinetely.

Some of the economic damage of partition has been alleviated by the Single Market. Brexit now risks re-inflicting that economic damage. If you think we can accept a hard border, and not suffer any decline in our standard of living, then you are wrong.

In short, if standard of living is your concern we're not in a situation whereby we can protect ourselves by sticking our fingers in our ears and going "la-la-la not our problem". If there's a crash-out Brexit and a hard border, there'll be real economic damage both north and south of the border (not to mention in GB, of course). And if the response to that in the North means such a shift that a majority come to favour a united Ireland, then that offers a propspect of repairing some of the economic damage.

I think you're wrong to focus on the current transfers from GB to NI, because (a) they're a produce of the current political situation in NI; a UI is a game-changer in terms of what NI needs; and (b) by focussing on those, you're ignoring the problem we have have to solve, which is the economic damage wrought by reinstated a hard partition of Ireland.

The hard border won't be what will cause our reduction in standard of living though, it'll be our loss of free trade with Great Britain, if a hard border was implemented tomorrow but we still had a free trade agreement with the UK there would be hardly any damage for us. This won't happen of course but I just wanted to use it as an example.

If there's a crash out of the UK from the EU our economy will take a huge hit, we won't be able to take another hit by taking on NI too.

Berserker

Stupify wrote: »

The hard border won't be what will cause our reduction in standard of living though, it'll be our loss of free trade with Great Britain, if a hard border was implemented tomorrow but we still had a free trade agreement with the UK there would be hardly any damage for us. This won't happen of course but I just wanted to use it as an example.

If there's a crash out of the UK from the EU our economy will take a huge hit, we won't be able to take another hit by taking on NI too.

People here are playing up on the hard border because of the physical barrier. It'd make no difference to a huge majority of people in the RoI. Keeping the common travel area and having a free trade zone are infinitely more important. If you conducted a poll in Dublin city centre today, I'm confident that most people would be far more concerned about that later than some border which is only going to inconvenience people travelling down from NI or vice versa.

lawred2

Berserker wrote: »

Can you expand of that? If we take a look at jobs, for example. Are you planning on taking public sector jobs out of Dublin and making Belfast the public sector hub of a UI? Your only other option would be to transform the private sector in Belfast, which would require a significant cultural shift in terms of working life for people in NI but you'd have to promote Belfast to the detriment to the rest of the island and Dublin in particular.

Belfast does not need more public sector jobs. But Belfast in a now united Ireland within the EU and with good transport links to Dublin would become an attractive destination for FDI.

I'm interested in this

which would require a significant cultural shift in terms of working life for people in NI

What do you mean?

Berserker

lawred2 wrote: »

Belfast does not need more public sector jobs. But Belfast in a now united Ireland within the EU and with good transport links to Dublin would become an attractive destination for FDI.

To the detriment of the rest of the country though. You can't have the same job in two locations. Also, not sure where the FDI is coming from. Can't see it coming from the US, given the current administration and any new operation setting up in this part of the world would be better served moving to somewhere else in Europe with cheaper operating costs. Finally, a UI wouldn't be part of the EU. It'd need to re-apply to for membership.

lawred2 wrote: »

What do you mean?

As you hinted above, Belfast is heavily reliant on public sector jobs. I used to work up there and they are very public sector orientated in how they work. Working in the private sector is a completely different ball game. We've taken on a few from NI and they've really struggled with the change in working culture, expectations etc.

zapitastas

Berserker wrote: »

To the detriment of the rest of the country though. You can't have the same job in two locations. Also, not sure where the FDI is coming from. Can't see it coming from the US, given the current administration and any new operation setting up in this part of the world would be better served moving to somewhere else in Europe with cheaper operating costs. Finally, a UI wouldn't be part of the EU. It'd need to re-apply to for membership.



As you hinted above, Belfast is heavily reliant on public sector jobs. I used to work up there and they are very public sector orientated in how they work. Working in the private sector is a completely different ball game. We've taken on a few from NI and they've really struggled with the change in working culture, expectations etc.

You are 100% wrong in the claim that a united Ireland would need to reapply. This has already been settled

Stupify

zapitastas wrote: »

You are 100% wrong in the claim that a united Ireland would need to reapply. This has already been settled

It doesn't change any of his other points though.

Most FDI that Northern Ireland would gain from joining a United Ireland would have already been going into the current Republic anyway, there is no gain to be had there.

zapitastas

Stupify wrote: »

It doesn't change any of his other points though.

Most FDI that Northern Ireland would gain from joining a United Ireland would have already been going into the current Republic anyway, there is no gain to be had there.

I didn't say it changed any of his other points but he is making stuff up

lawred2

Berserker wrote: »

To the detriment of the rest of the country though. You can't have the same job in two locations. Also, not sure where the FDI is coming from. Can't see it coming from the US, given the current administration and any new operation setting up in this part of the world would be better served moving to somewhere else in Europe with cheaper operating costs.

Administrations come and go. Multi nationals tend to outlast them. Belfast would be a cheaper location than Dublin but would bring many of the benefits of locating in Dublin.

Berserker wrote: »

Finally, a UI wouldn't be part of the EU. It'd need to re-apply to for membership.

That is not true. Where did you get that from?

Berserker wrote: »

As you hinted above, Belfast is heavily reliant on public sector jobs. I used to work up there and they are very public sector orientated in how they work. Working in the private sector is a completely different ball game. We've taken on a few from NI and they've really struggled with the change in working culture, expectations etc.

That's short termism.

Sure the Republic has had to reinvent its economy and workforce away from unskilled manufacturing to a highly skilled service economy. It takes time but that's no reason to not do it.

J Mysterio

Berserker wrote: »

Can you expand of that? If we take a look at jobs, for example. Are you planning on taking public sector jobs out of Dublin and making Belfast the public sector hub of a UI? Your only other option would be to transform the private sector in Belfast, which would require a significant cultural shift for people in NI but you'd have to promote Belfast to the detriment to the rest of the island and Dublin in particular. That would lead to countless problems for people in Dublin in terms of day to day living. No need for me to list them for you.



The RoI is one of the wealthiest countries in the OECD at 4th, iirc, in the OECD-28 rankings.

Ireland needs decentralisation, it is far too dublin centric as things stand.

Peregrinus

Berserker wrote: »

The RoI is one of the wealthiest countries in the OECD at 4th, iirc, in the OECD-28 rankings.

And that situation has largely come about since the hard border was eliminated in the early 90s by the completion of the Single Market. This is not a coincidence, Beserker.

Berserker wrote: »

People here are playing up on the hard border because of the physical barrier. It'd make no difference to a huge majority of people in the RoI. Keeping the common travel area and having a free trade zone are infinitely more important. If you conducted a poll in Dublin city centre today, I'm confident that most people would be far more concerned about that later than some border which is only going to inconvenience people travelling down from NI or vice versa.

We had a common travel area, a customs union and a free trade zone all in place from 1973, and yet the 70s and 80s were a profoundly depressed time. It's the single market that's the key to this. And the concern about a hard border is not inconvenience to travellers - there won't be any inconvenience to travellers - but the disruption to cross-border business, which will be devastating.

J Mysterio

Berserker wrote: »

To the detriment of the rest of the country though. You can't have the same job in two locations. Also, not sure where the FDI is coming from. Can't see it coming from the US, given the current administration and any new operation setting up in this part of the world would be better served moving to somewhere else in Europe with cheaper operating costs.

US multinationals like Ireland because pf low operating costs, low tax etc. They also like an educated populace with good graduates, they like the common culture and intergenrational links, they like it being the first stop across the Atlantic, they like it being an English speaking country in the EU - soon to be the only English speaking country in the EU.

Berserker wrote: »

Finally, a UI wouldn't be part of the EU. It'd need to re-apply to for membership.

Not the case. A UI entails North being subsumed by Ireland ('the Republic of').

The idea of Belfast being a counterweight to Dublin would serve Ireland well - as would the idea of Galway, Waterford, Limerick, Cork, Derry & Athlone being a counterweight to Dublin.

Far too much of Ireland's economy is now in Dublin and the only winners are property owners in Dublin (and even many of them are losers who won't know it until the next bust). Many, many companies are losing prospective employees because of property costs, countless people are forced to live in substandard accommodation here and families with children who pay their rent on time can still be easily evicted under Irish law for sham excuses such as the house is needed for a relative.

So, yes, anything that can spread the population and economic activity of Ireland will have heaps and heaps of positive consequences for this entire country from Ballycastle to Tralee. So many of those urban areas of rural Ireland could get a new lease of life. We have an Electoral Commission whose job it is to decide on electoral boundaries and it is well respected as being impartial. Why can't we have a similarly impartial Decentralisation Commission as part of a reunified Ireland? The potential of unification to reinvigorate all of Ireland beyond the Pale could be huge if we keep the grubby little parochial political mé féiners out of the decisions.

Finally, I don't think people really realise how weak the NI economy is - although the number of people from the Six working in Dublin should be a very good indicator. An enormous 31% of the workforce in the North is employed in the public service - in the Republic it is 18.4% and over in Britain it is 20% (all 2014 statistics, taken from here). And in the latest boom in the UK NI has actually fallen even further behind. With EU funds now being removed (and rural, farming areas and deprived urban areas where inter-communal conflict is most prevalent suffering far more because of this removal) and Britain almost certainly unable to subsidise NI to anything like the same extent, the economic picture is looking staggering unattractive even in the event of another bust in Dublin (which will, of course, happen).

Stupify

Deleted User wrote: »

The idea of Belfast being a counterweight to Dublin would serve Ireland well - as would the idea of Galway, Waterford, Limerick, Cork, Derry & Athlone being a counterweight to Dublin.

Far too much of Ireland's economy is now in Dublin and the only winners are property owners in Dublin (and even many of them are losers who won't know it until the next bust). Many, many companies are losing prospective employees because of property costs, countless people are forced to live in substandard accommodation here and families with children who pay their rent on time can still be easily evicted under Irish law for sham excuses such as the house is needed for a relative.

So, yes, anything that can spread the population and economic activity of Ireland will have heaps and heaps of positive consequences for this entire country from Ballycastle to Tralee. So many of those urban areas of rural Ireland could get a new lease of life. We have an Electoral Commission whose job it is to decide on electoral boundaries and it is well respected as being impartial. Why can't we have a similarly impartial Decentralisation Commission as part of a reunified Ireland? The potential of unification to reinvigorate all of Ireland beyond the Pale could be huge if we keep the grubby little parochial political mé féiners out of the decisions.

Finally, I don't think people really realise how weak the NI economy is - although the number of people from the Six working in Dublin should be a very good indicator. An enormous 31% of the workforce in the North is employed in the public service - in the Republic it is 18.4% and over in Britain it is 20% (all 2014 statistics, taken from here). And in the latest boom in the UK NI has actually fallen even further behind. With EU funds now being removed (and rural, farming areas and deprived urban areas where inter-communal conflict is most prevalent suffering far more because of this removal) and Britain almost certainly unable to subsidise NI to anything like the same extent, the economic picture is looking staggering unattractive even in the event of another bust in Dublin (which will, of course, happen).

I agree with almost all of that, but think the investment in a second city makes more sense for Cork or maybe at a stretch Limerick.

J Mysterio

Stupify wrote: »

I agree with almost all of that, but think the investment in a second city makes more sense for Cork or maybe at a stretch Limerick.

Limerick is a perfect place for this.

Shannon airport is 20 minutes from the city. At plassey/ National Technology Park, you have plenty of space and there are a number of big multinationals there already - these already have links to R&D and Science and Tech in the University which is situated there also.

You also have the Regional Hospital which is now University Hospital Limerick.

I would like to see a Luas in Limerick, linking the University/ National Technology Park to to the City and then out to Raheen/Dooradoyle and the University Hospital.

We need to invest in that type of infrastrutucre to grow and develop the city and surrounds.

PeaQueue

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Stupify wrote: »

Do any of us even really want a UI at this stage? The north would be a leech on our economy. I actually wouldn't mind a hard border at this stage, it won't hurt us too much in the long run.

The big difference is the North isn't attracting much foreign investment.

I can remember when the roads up there were so much better than ours.

Derry is a little bigger than Galway. But we've got the M6 and the M17/M18. And they've got a higher population density.

The UK is talking about upgrading parts of the A6 to dual carriageway

With more investment they could catch up to us, in time. At partition the three north east counties had 90% of the island's industrial output. Now it's very different.

The infrastructure issue in and around Derry in particular isn't the fault of the people of Derry. Derry like most places west of the Bann river in the North has had barely any infrastructure investment over the years due to the fact that it is mainly nationalist area and the purse strings were held by unionists both in government and in the civil service prior to the more recent incarnation of Stormont. Mismanagement of investment, as opposed to the lack of investment, is the main thing holding derry back. This is starting to quietly change on the ground with some major employers in Belfast expanding their operations West as well as the cross border traffic to the many jobs in Letterkenny.
Remember too that the same thing could be said about the south (taking out the political reasoning) about the Dublin-centric foreign investment both in roads and jobs. It's only fairly recently that those motorways around the likes of Galway (great that they are) have sprung up but the likes of Letterkenny which expanded at explosive pace (has a sizeable workforce as well as sizable amount of foreign investment in the form of Pramerica, SITA and United Healthcare) doesn't actually have a motorway serving it. Infact the only section of dual carraigeway is about 3 or 4 miles long and is the main access from Derry and Strabane/Lifford.
All that said, the A6 upgrades are under way and will provide a faster direct route to Belfast as well as the upgrades to the A5 which will route traffic from Derry, Letterkenny and the wider northwest to Dublin. Its hoped that this work will form part of a wider initiative to expand the motorway to Letterkenny from Dublin.