Border Poll discussion

FrancieBrady

Like the 9-10-11-12 billion figure, I see a '15% drop' in the living standards of all Irish people forever more is being shoehorned in as fact. :rolleyes:

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

How can it be hypocritical of me to criticise the cost overruns on the Children's Hospital but also criticise the cost of unification? That is a bizarre accusation, especially when I am bemoaning the cost to other capital projects of diverting money to the hospital project. I am accepting that if one particular thing costs money or extra money, something else somewhere else in the system has to lose out. That is the complete opposite of magic money tree thinking.

Because the costs of unification are infinitely higher than the cost overrun of the Children's Hospital - even if we accept the lower estimations, it is the equivalent of one Children's Hospital overrun every year - we really need to apply a bigger critical eye on the costs of unification than on the costs of the Children's Hospital. After all, the critical failure in relation to the Children's Hospital was walking into a scenario where the full costs had not been examined and were not known. The lesson to be learned from the Children's Hospital fiasco is that the State should not take on a cost without being sure how much it actually will cost. That is more than true of something which will be at least one Children's Hospital every year, but could actually be 10 or 12 Children's hospitals every year.

My point about the magic money tree and hypocrisy in criticising the Children's Hospital (as posters have done on this and other threads) but dismissing unification costs (as the same posters have done in this thread) absolutely stands.

I am going to have to ask you to back up this claim. Can you point out a poster in this thread claiming that unification would have no cost, or that the potential costs should not be examined. You really need to be able to back up these claims, if you cannot you should refrain from making them.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I am going to have to ask you to back up this claim. Can you point out a poster in this thread claiming that unification would have no cost, or that the potential costs should not be examined. You really need to be able to back up these claims, if you cannot you should refrain from making them.

Well here is one that dismisses the cost as something not to be bothered about.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't think so. We took much worse for far less. You may recall the bail outs, taking one for the team and 'practically eating out of bins'.
This would likely be far less of a financial burden to bear

Edit: And to make my main point, posters up in arms about the Children's Hospital should, if they are consistent, be extremely concerned about the exponentially greater costs of unification.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

How can it be hypocritical of me to criticise the cost overruns on the Children's Hospital but also criticise the cost of unification? That is a bizarre accusation, especially when I am bemoaning the cost to other capital projects of diverting money to the hospital project. I am accepting that if one particular thing costs money or extra money, something else somewhere else in the system has to lose out. That is the complete opposite of magic money tree thinking.

Because the costs of unification are infinitely higher than the cost overrun of the Children's Hospital - even if we accept the lower estimations, it is the equivalent of one Children's Hospital overrun every year - we really need to apply a bigger critical eye on the costs of unification than on the costs of the Children's Hospital. After all, the critical failure in relation to the Children's Hospital was walking into a scenario where the full costs had not been examined and were not known. The lesson to be learned from the Children's Hospital fiasco is that the State should not take on a cost without being sure how much it actually will cost. That is more than true of something which will be at least one Children's Hospital every year, but could actually be 10 or 12 Children's hospitals every year.

My point about the magic money tree and hypocrisy in criticising the Children's Hospital (as posters have done on this and other threads) but dismissing unification costs (as the same posters have done in this thread) absolutely stands.

It's quite simple. We have cost over runs, bail outs, taking one for the team, generational debt and spiraling budgets as part of doing business, can't be helped but is regretful on one hand and magic money tree on the other, depending on the issues. It's the use of the term 'magic money tree' like finding money for some costs is fantasy, but for others not so much, (see emergency accommodation versus social housing). It's low brow dismissive nonsense.

Now, none of your comment above addresses the false narrative you've been perpetrating inferring people believe there'll be little to no cost or going on 'it'll be alright on the night'.
You don't want your taxes going towards a united Ireland, that's fine. As I said, we've paid a hell of a lot for a lot less IMO.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Well here is one that dismisses the cost as something not to be bothered about.

I'd point out that's another false inference by you but it's plain for all to see.
Some things are worth the price to some people. It's a pretty basic premise you seem to be more than willing to misunderstand, giving you the benefit of the doubt.

blanch152 wrote: »

Edit: And to make my main point, posters up in arms about the Children's Hospital should, if they are consistent, be extremely concerned about the exponentially greater costs of unification.

I agree, it is a concern. FYI: They've not completed the hospital yet

McMurphy

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah and he said it was coming soon. Neither of us can actually know when it's coming so nobody can say the other is factually incorrect as we are in the realm of prediction. I'm tired of these semantics now.

You know where I stand.

Where?

On the contrary, you made a statement, I corrected you. No point trying to rewrite history.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Where?

On the contrary, you made a statement, I corrected you. No point trying to rewrite history.

Or county borders.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

Well here is one that dismisses the cost as something not to be bothered about.

I don't think that is what the poster did, there is a difference between dismissing something and putting it in context. It is true that the recession back in 2008 led to a greater burdern on the Irish state than Unification would.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think that is what the poster did, there is a difference between dismissing something and putting it in context. It is true that the recession back in 2008 led to a greater burdern on the Irish state than Unification would.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1023/914665-46-7-billion/


Total cost of 45bn as opposed to a 15bn cost for 20 or 30 years. Unification makes even the bank bailout look cheap.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed. A border poll called because nationalists have 50% +1 of the votes in a general or assembly election almost certainly does not mean a vote to end partition. There are far too many (disproportionately so iirc) small n nationalists working in public sector jobs for that to happen.

I'm 40 by the way. I stand by my belief that absent a hard Brexit there will be no poll and certainly no UI in my lifetime but with a hard Brexit the exact opposite and probably in a fairly short timeframe.

This is too black and white. Brexit shows the limitations of British rule and it isn't over yet. The British are unlikely to entirely settle down and some version of the backstop might yet come into existence. Any surplus of public servants in the 6 ccounties might not be as great when the British economy slows down and those who remain will note that their counterparts in the south earn a lot more.

A nationalist majority, or even plurality, simply isn't stable given the lack of interest by the British in NI. The best plan is to use a backstop type mechanism to try and improve the private sector in NI so that the economic gap is not too large. we now see that two thirds of NI favour that.

zapitastas

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is too black and white. Brexit shows the limitations of British rule and it isn't over yet. The British are unlikely to entirely settle down and some version of the backstop might yet come into existence. Any surplus of public servants in the 6 ccounties might not be as great when the British economy slows down and those who remain will note that their counterparts in the south earn a lot more.

A nationalist majority, or even plurality, simply isn't stable given the lack of interest by the British in NI. The best plan is to use a backstop type mechanism to try and improve the private sector in NI so that the economic gap is not too large. we now see that two thirds of NI favour that.

As well as that there is the Scottish issue and given that Scottish concerns in relation to brexit were given no consideration, it is likely the end of GB once the chance of a referendum comes up again. In that instance partition on this island is finished as well

FrancieBrady

The centre cannot hold as fastidiously as it has done either. The centre of the UK as it always has been, being England.
The truth is these other places are getting in the way of where a lot of Englanders want to go. Prominent representatives of that demographic will be actively encouraging leaving and unification.
The times have certainly changed

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1023/914665-46-7-billion/


Total cost of 45bn as opposed to a 15bn cost for 20 or 30 years. Unification makes even the bank bailout look cheap.

If you want to claim that unification would cost 15bn a year for 20 or 30 years, you really really need to back that claim up. Do you have a single shred of evidence to back that up?

facehugger99

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If you want to claim that unification would cost 15bn a year for 20 or 30 years, you really really need to back that claim up. Do you have a single shred of evidence to back that up?

It's really up to the proponents of unification to set out the costs.

Given the size of the current subvention and the increased security costs, €15bn a year sounds a reasonable starting point to me.

If you have some better figures you'd like to present, by all means go ahead.

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's really up to the proponents of unification to set out the costs.

.

This is a new revelation to me, because as long as I've been a member of the site, it's been a long standing tradition, indeed unwritten rule that those making a claim have been asked to back up a claim they have made with a source when challenged.

You appear to want to now discard this, in favour of leaving any facts and figures to let sit as fact unless those questioning the claims (no matter how far fetched they might sound)

For some bizarre reason I'm now picturing a scene from a movie with Dr Evil holding his pinky to his mouth shouting one hundred billion dollars guffawing into the camera.

facehugger99

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This is a new revelation to me, because as long as I've been a member of the site, it's been a long standing tradition, indeed unwritten rule that those making a claim have been asked to back up a claim they have made with a source when challenged.

You appear to want to now discard this, in favour of leaving any facts and figures to let sit as fact unless those questioning the claims (no matter how far fetched they might sound)

For some bizarre reason I'm now picturing a scene from a movie with Dr Evil holding his pinky to his mouth shouting one hundred billion dollars guffawing into the camera.

There's only one relevant figure at the moment - €0.

That's the cost of not taking on NI.

Anyone proposing a change to the current arrangement needs to set out a costed plan.

It's quite a simple and widely accepted practice.

Peregrinus

facehugger99 wrote: »

There's only one relevant figure at the moment - €0.

That's the cost of not taking on NI.

Anyone proposing a change to the current arrangement needs to set out a costed plan.

It's quite a simple and widely accepted practice.

That's an absurd argument. It assumes that partition imposes no costs on us, and rejecting unification after a border poll in NI has voted for it will impose no costs on us. You only have to articulate those assumptions to see how silly they are.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If you want to claim that unification would cost 15bn a year for 20 or 30 years, you really really need to back that claim up. Do you have a single shred of evidence to back that up?

The costs of subvention plus cost of harmonisation of social welfare plus cost of harmonisation of public service pay plus cost of NHS for the South would easily add up to €15bn a year. That doesn't include the opportunity cost of the drag on the Southern economy to pay for all that.

If you don't have social welfare harmonisation and you don't have public service pay harmonisation etc., then you won't get a yes vote in the North. While people in the South might believe in the magic money tree paying for it or that the extra taxes will be paid by someone else, and so it could pass in the South, if there is any risk that social welfare rates would be cut or frozen in the South, then it won't pass there either. Essentially, everything comes back to money in the pocket. If the proponents of unification can convince everyone that there is no cost only benefit (ala Brexit), then it will pass.

PokeHerKing

blanch152 wrote:

If the proponents of unification can convince everyone that there is no cost only benefit (ala Brexit), then it will pass.

BREXIT is driving investment away from the UK. Irish unification would not drive investment away from the island.

They are completely different scenarios both in context and in implementation.

Stop conflating them, it's completely wrong and makes you look like an idiot.

Junkyard Tom

Nobody wants to pay to keep the north as an eternal dependency, that's a red herring.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's really up to the proponents of unification to set out the costs.

Given the size of the current subvention and the increased security costs, €15bn a year sounds a reasonable starting point to me.

If you have some better figures you'd like to present, by all means go ahead.

Is it? It's others like yourself making specific claims. Anyone looking at it logically, has to admit, we don't know. There are many variables. Trying to put a price on it is merely guess work based of ifs.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

There's only one relevant figure at the moment - €0.

That's the cost of not taking on NI.

Anyone proposing a change to the current arrangement needs to set out a costed plan.

It's quite a simple and widely accepted practice.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time.

We know it'll likely cost us a sum. Having lived through a number of times were our flawed system failed us to the detriment of the tax payer, only to be returned to pretty much the exact same situation, to varying degrees, time and again, the tax payer is use to being fleeced to bolster certain people, parties and this flawed way we do business. Unification provides a tangible result for what ever the cost may be and some things are more important to people than bailing out private gamblers or sweet deals for private conerns. If we can 'take one for the team', we can certainly take one for our own.
The English have no loyalty to the north. It's used as PR or for DUP votes. This is the glaring reality. Were as we all 'love ulster'. I can see the DUP becoming the Healy-Rae's of the north.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is it? It's others like yourself making specific claims. Anyone looking at it logically, has to admit, we don't know. There are many variables. Trying to put a price on it is merely guess work based of ifs.

Strange you would want to proceed with something if you don't know what the cost of it is going to be.

I'd suggest that anyone who will be called upon to pay for it (i.e. the same band of PAYE workers who pay for everything else in this country) will not have that kind of blasé attitude.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Strange you would want to proceed with something if you don't know what the cost of it is going to be.

I'd suggest that anyone who will be called upon to pay for it (i.e. the same band of PAYE workers who pay for everything else in this country) will not have that kind of blasé attitude.

Strange to you, doing the right thing for me.

No, blasé would be not caring about the financials. Again, to be clear, there will be a price to pay. I am willing to pay it. This does not mean we disregard the financial consequences, we prepare as best we can.
I disagree. After decades of paying through the nose to keep others in a style to which they've become accustomed, people might find it refreshing to be given something tangible for all Ireland not just helping private interests get back on their horse.

If family are being taken in, you do it and deal with any financials as best you can. That is not being blasé.

Chips Lovell

I think when it comes to a border poll, you've got three constituencies.

a.) Hardcore nationalists who'd vote yes, regardless of the costs.
b.) Hardcore unionists who'd vote no, regardless of the benefits.
c.) The soft, squidgy middle whose vote very much depends on how they think it'll all turn out.

There's little or no point lobbying a.) and b.) because they've their mind already made up and wild horses won't budge them. It's c.) who'll decide it.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, blasé would be not caring about the financials. Again, to be clear, there will be a price to pay. I am willing to pay it.

Eh? - That's literally the definition of not caring about the financials.

Anyway - your opinion is so far on the extreme of the spectrum that it can be safely disregarded - willing to pay any price (500 billion, 1,000 billion?) - the vast, vast majority of people won't look at it in this way.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

. Again, to be clear, there will be a price to pay. I am willing to pay it.

How much is the price you are willing to pay?

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

Eh? - That's literally the definition of not caring about the financials.

Anyway - your opinion is so far on the extreme of the spectrum that it can be safely disregarded - willing to pay any price (500 billion, 1,000 billion?) - the vast, vast majority of people won't look at it in this way.

No it's not. Not caring about the financials would be not caring about the financials.

I disagree. I think you underestimate the average Irish person's willingness to support a united Ireland.
Nobody is disregarding anything. You are misunderstanding the basic concept of wanting something and at the same time realising there's a price, being willing to pay it and preparing as best you can.
In short plucking figures from the air is not an argument against something people are willing to pay for.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No it's not. Not caring about the financials would be not caring about the financials.

I disagree. I think you underestimate the average Irish person's willingness to support a united Ireland.
Nobody is disregarding anything. You are misunderstanding the basic concept of wanting something and at the same time realising there's a price, being willing to pay it and preparing as best you can.
In short plucking figures from the air is not an argument against something people are willing to pay for.

I don't think you can calculate the average Irish person's willingness to support a united Ireland without putting a price on it. For example, I already asked how much you were willing to pay.

If it meant an increase of 7% in the standard rate of tax, a 10% cut in social welfare, the quadrupling of the property tax, and an increase in water charges, would you still be willing to pay?

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No it's not. Not caring about the financials would be not caring about the financials.

I disagree. I think you underestimate the average Irish person's willingness to support a united Ireland.
Nobody is disregarding anything. You are misunderstanding the basic concept of wanting something and at the same time realising there's a price, being willing to pay it and preparing as best you can.
In short plucking figures from the air is not an argument against something people are willing to pay for.

I'm not misunderstanding your viewpoint -'I want this thing and I'm willing to pay any price for it regardless'- I'm just very confident it can be disregarded as it's not a view that would be shared by very many people.