Border Poll discussion

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure; and those in favour of union will talk up the positives. People talking up their side of the argument is healthy in a democratic exercise.

As I've said before, the people who need to be sidelined are those who dismiss out of hand either the positives or the negatives. Let's have the facts - actual facts, not strongly-held opinions - and make our minds up.

You are correct, we need the 'facts' about the things that we can be factual about. But as I said before there will be an element of risk, in things staying how they are or in a UI.
That is where the strongest opinion will win, the negative or the positive outlook. I am definitely in the positive camp there because I believe there will be rewards beyond the economic.

murphaph

I've said before that absent Brexit I'd need serious convincing about the merits of a UI. With a hard Brexit the story changes radically for me as I voted for the GFA and a hard border is anathema to that, but I wonder how low the threshold is for the posters who would be more in favour of unification right now.

Would you accept say 5k a year less in your pocket? Would you be happy to push that burden on others who may not be so financially comfortable?

What is your top price you'd be willing to pay for a UI personally? Everyone has their price. You can't live on fresh air.

blanch152

murphaph wrote: »

I've said before that absent Brexit I'd need serious convincing about the merits of a UI. With a hard Brexit the story changes radically for me as I voted for the GFA and a hard border is anathema to that, but I wonder how low the threshold is for the posters who would be more in favour of unification right now.

Would you accept say 5k a year less in your pocket? Would you be happy to push that burden on others who may not be so financially comfortable?

What is your top price you'd be willing to pay for a UI personally? Everyone has their price. You can't live on fresh air.

Some of them are like coal-miners in the US who voted for Trump to make America great again. Others are like Sunderland car-workers who voted for Brexit to make Britain great again. Money doesn't matter, it doesn't count for people like that, no price is too high. So they will vote for a united Ireland to make Ireland great again (?was it ever?) and it is the emotion and the passion and the triumph that matters.

facehugger99

murphaph wrote: »

What is your top price you'd be willing to pay for a UI personally? Everyone has their price. You can't live on fresh air.

I suspect many of the most vocal proponents aren't too used to paying for anything.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

it is the emotion and the passion and the triumph that matters.

And putting a historic wrong right, and welcoming our fellow members of the Irish nation into a single political unit, and working towards a United Ireland in order to secure prosperity and equality for all, and finally ridding Ireland of the nefarious British state, and reversing the unwanted dragging of Irish people out of the EU by means of Brexit..

and so on

and so on.

jm08

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

We aren't even succeeding to a large extent in getting FDI in Cork... I'd hate to imagine what would happen to Cork if Belfast was thrown into the mix. Same with Galway/Derry.

It seems that the southern part of Ireland (Cork, Limerick, Waterford) is third richest in EU (just behind Luxembourg and parts of London).

Residents of this region have a GDP per capita of €74,700, or 220 per cent of the EU average, when adjusted for purchasing power. The region is home to multinationals such as Apple, Boston Scientific and Regeneron.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/southern-part-of-ireland-third-richest-in-eu-but-west-lags-behind-1.3811364

Boston Scientific has plants in Galway, Cork and Clonmel. Interesting hearing what their CEO has to say about Ireland and what is happening here.
https://youtu.be/_H5xfzgdibE?t=324

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Some of them are like coal-miners in the US who voted for Trump to make America great again. Others are like Sunderland car-workers who voted for Brexit to make Britain great again. Money doesn't matter, it doesn't count for people like that, no price is too high. So they will vote for a united Ireland to make Ireland great again (?was it ever?) and it is the emotion and the passion and the triumph that matters.

I think those who claim they would like a UI but continually come up with objections to one are more similar to the 'don't let facts get in way' Brexiteers tbh. It is they who are clinging to a belief, even though we can see clearly that partitioning this island will always be a problem.
I oppose unionism, politically and I understand why somebody would be off that view. However I don't pity unionists, but I do pity partitionists. They are the result of generations of subordination and being told they are somehow inferior. Everything Irish, from the language to the culture is somehow 2nd rate and needs to be demeaned and has no inherent value. It is all about the money they shout.
I am daily glad that my life does not revolve around such things. Money is important but it is never everything.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...I do pity partitionists. They are the result of generations of subordination and being told they are somehow inferior. Everything Irish, from the language to the culture is somehow 2nd rate and needs to be demeaned and has no inherent value.

Your patronising attitude to people who don't share your political view is noted. You should make sure to repeat them as loudly and obnoxiously as you can when the time comes to vote on a UI. I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your patronising attitude to people who don't share your political view is noted. You should make sure to repeat them as loudly and obnoxiously as you can when the time comes to vote on a UI. I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways.

There are some 'political' views I don't believe have any integrity because of where they come from. One of them is partitionism, therefore the patronising tone is unavoidable.
Thankfully I don't believe there are that many of them so my 'tone' will have little effect.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think those who claim they would like a UI but continually come up with objections to one are more similar to the 'don't let facts get in way' Brexiteers tbh. It is they who are clinging to a belief, even though we can see clearly that partitioning this island will always be a problem.
I oppose unionism, politically and I understand why somebody would be off that view. However I don't pity unionists, but I do pity partitionists. They are the result of generations of subordination and being told they are somehow inferior. Everything Irish, from the language to the culture is somehow 2nd rate and needs to be demeaned and has no inherent value. It is all about the money they shout.
I am daily glad that my life does not revolve around such things. Money is important but it is never everything.

You are well aware that the term partitionist is one used by Sinn Fein supporters as a means of abuse and an insult.

However, I take it as a compliment that the points I made in this discussion can only be rebutted by insults.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You are well aware that the term partitionist is one used by Sinn Fein supporters as a means of abuse and an insult.

It is generally a derogatory term, because it describes something that has largely negative effects.

However, I take it as a compliment that the points I made in this discussion can only be rebutted by insults.

I see plenty of rebuttal of your points. I have already given my opinion of them - they are unbacked up mostly and chosen specifically because you wish to oppose a UI at any cost.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

the points I made in this discussion.

Here's the salient one.

blanch152 wrote: »

I would be delighted if we could have a united Ireland, so long as there is no hassle or disturbance to our society and economy down here.

'I would love to go swimming but I just wouldn't accept getting wet'.

Don't pretend you'd like to see a UI.

oscarBravo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Don't pretend you'd like to see a UI.

Oh cool: do others get to tell you what your beliefs are also?

So much for a respectful conversation on the issues.

Junkyard Tom

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh cool: do others get to tell you what your beliefs are also?

It'd be interesting seeing as I'm never too sure myself.

So much for a respectful conversation on the issues

I don't think it's disrespectful to highlight when someone attempts, evasively, to mask their views behind the desire for a 'perfect solution'.

FrancieBrady

Very interesting to see northern GAA members starting to get vocal about the implications of Brexit.
Personally I think that the pivotal push for a border poll will come from outside politics, in farming, business and sporting/social organisations.

seamus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This is utter nonsense. The Irish state would have no obligation to fulfil British state pensions.

You can't state this as a fact.

The UK aren't just going to say "Bye" to part of their jurisdiction and continue to pay civil service pensions.

You have to be realistic; any unification will be a negotiated process where such state-level costs are transferred or shared. There's no good reason why the British would continue to pay. Your distaste at the thought of paying an RUC pension is irrelevant. This is the cost of unification.

In the event that there was no negotiation, that an NI assembly declared they were leaving the Union, then the UK can just say, "OK so, but we're not paying your pensions. Seeya".

There are some funny parallels here with Brexit. Talking about how the UK will keep paying pensions for foreign civil servants sounds very much like the Welsh farmers being surprised that they're going to lose their EU subsidies.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

You can't state this as a fact.

The UK aren't just going to say "Bye" to part of their jurisdiction and continue to pay civil service pensions.

You have to be realistic; any unification will be a negotiated process where such state-level costs are transferred or shared. There's no good reason why the British would continue to pay. Your distaste at the thought of paying an RUC pension is irrelevant. This is the cost of unification.

In the event that there was no negotiation, that an NI assembly declared they were leaving the Union, then the UK can just say, "OK so, but we're not paying your pensions. Seeya".

There are some funny parallels here with Brexit. Talking about how the UK will keep paying pensions for foreign civil servants sounds very much like the Welsh farmers being surprised that they're going to lose their EU subsidies.

So the UK would just keep the pension contributions made by these work forces?
Seems unlikely to me that there wouldn't be some if not a lot of onus on them to contribute to what would be a finite commitment.
It would be down to how anxious the UK would be to see a UI and the end of their costly commitment to or strategic interest in northern Ireland.

seamus

The UK could hold them in trust. They could restrict payment only to UK citizens or UK residents. They could refuse any unification agreement unless the Irish Government agreed to buy half of the pension fund. Etc.

My point is that it's not a simple matter of, "Sure the Brits will continue to pay that". The best financial plans are pessimistic. We have to assume that the current £10bn cost of NI will be transferred to us. We can't just cross our fingers and say, "Ah no, the Brits will shoulder most of that".

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

The UK could hold them in trust. They could restrict payment only to UK citizens or UK residents. They could refuse any unification agreement unless the Irish Government agreed to buy half of the pension fund. Etc.

My point is that it's not a simple matter of, "Sure the Brits will continue to pay that". The best financial plans are pessimistic. We have to assume that the current £10bn cost of NI will be transferred to us. We can't just cross our fingers and say, "Ah no, the Brits will shoulder most of that".

The point is..again. We cannot 'assume' anything. Neither that it actually costs 10bn to actually run or what the UK are prepared to do in the event of a UI.

To allude to Brexit from the other side here, the UK claimed it could negotiate this that or the other, however when it came to it, their international commitments and the negotiating skills of others meant that they couldn't deliver what they claimed.

There isn't imo a hope in hell that they will walk away from their share of responsibility here. There will be a negotiated path forward to making a success of a UI...why? Because it will be in everyone's interest.

jm08

seamus wrote: »

The UK could hold them in trust. They could restrict payment only to UK citizens or UK residents. They could refuse any unification agreement unless the Irish Government agreed to buy half of the pension fund. Etc.

No, they would not get away with using pensions as a bargaining tool. The person who was working for the British Public Service earns their pension (by in some case earning less than in the public sector). They have contributed to their own pension fund. Its the pensioners money, not the British or Irish Government. Private companies collect pension contributions along the way, and legally the private company can't touch them because the employee owns them. Because Governments are meant to be responsible, they are not required to collect pension contributions along the way but pay them out of their working funds.


Options that the British Government would be either to give a lump sum to the Irish Gov. to cover them, or what they will more than likely do, continue to pay those who are already retired as they are now, and continue to make an annual contribution to the Irish Gov. for the years that those that are still employed.


There were no negotiations whatsoever over the UK/EU pensions (other than from what I recall, the UK is going to make an annual contribution for pensions rather than paying a lump sum to buy out their liability).

Junkyard Tom

seamus wrote: »

There are some funny parallels here with Brexit.

There are alright, like believing you can walk away from your commitments and in this case your former territory without settling up.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the UK would just keep the pension contributions made by these work forces?
Seems unlikely to me that there wouldn't be some if not a lot of onus on them to contribute to what would be a finite commitment.
It would be down to how anxious the UK would be to see a UI and the end of their costly commitment to or strategic interest in northern Ireland.

Your post betrays a lack of understanding of public service pensions, which in many cases are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis rather than through a funded arrangement.

In Ireland, all public service pensions are funded by current contributions, not past contributions. While there are some differences in the UK - local authorities and universities are in funded schemes - the same principles apply. Public service pensions are paid from current resources, not past contributions. Therefore it would be natural for the UK to expect that the pensions for any retired RUC and UDR personnel to be paid for by current PSNI contributions with any shortfall made up by the Irish taxpayer.

As I said before, the exception would probably be military pensions.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Your post betrays a lack of understanding of public service pensions, which in many cases are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis rather than through a funded arrangement.

In Ireland, all public service pensions are funded by current contributions, not past contributions. While there are some differences in the UK - local authorities and universities are in funded schemes - the same principles apply. Public service pensions are paid from current resources, not past contributions. Therefore it would be natural for the UK to expect that the pensions for any retired RUC and UDR personnel to be paid for by current PSNI contributions with any shortfall made up by the Irish taxpayer.

As I said before, the exception would probably be military pensions.

I do understand that. What you seem to be willfully missing is the onus on a state to pay these pensions. Using PAYG as an excuse to stop paying them would never wash as you well know as the employee has given service in the expectation that they will receive a pension. Ireland, the UK etc pay pensions to people resident in other states all the time without a problem.

Rather than us arguing back and forth on this, maybe if you could provide a link to where it has been officially said that the UK would welch on pension commitments, that would be good.

ancapailldorcha

facehugger99 wrote: »

I suspect many of the most vocal proponents aren't too used to paying for anything.

Don't post like this here again please.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Your post betrays a lack of understanding of public service pensions, which in many cases are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis rather than through a funded arrangement.

In Ireland, all public service pensions are funded by current contributions, not past contributions. While there are some differences in the UK - local authorities and universities are in funded schemes - the same principles apply. Public service pensions are paid from current resources, not past contributions. Therefore it would be natural for the UK to expect that the pensions for any retired RUC and UDR personnel to be paid for by current PSNI contributions with any shortfall made up by the Irish taxpayer.

As I said before, the exception would probably be military pensions.

If that is the way it will go, does that mean that say Drew Harris has lost all his PSNI pension rights because he changed jobs to the Gardai?

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

And putting a historic wrong right, and welcoming our fellow members of the Irish nation into a single political unit, and working towards a United Ireland in order to secure prosperity and equality for all, and finally ridding Ireland of the nefarious British state, and reversing the unwanted dragging of Irish people out of the EU by means of Brexit..

and so on

and so on.

If you are including me and many like me in your welcome then you have a bit of work to do on your language. Remember that approx one million people in this new welcoming state will still see their roots, history and culture in what you refer to as the nefarious British State

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I do understand that. What you seem to be willfully missing is the onus on a state to pay these pensions. Using PAYG as an excuse to stop paying them would never wash as you well know as the employee has given service in the expectation that they will receive a pension. Ireland, the UK etc pay pensions to people resident in other states all the time without a problem.

Rather than us arguing back and forth on this, maybe if you could provide a link to where it has been officially said that the UK would welch on pension commitments, that would be good.

The issue of already paying people in other states is irrelevant to this discussion.

If a PSNI officer retired and moved to Spain, he would still get his pension in Spain, if he moved to the US, he would still get his pension there. The issue is who is liable to fund that pension - the UK or Ireland.

Your last point is strange. Why would there be a link where the UK would say that they will welch on a commitment that they haven't given? There is nothing anywhere that says that in the event of unity, the UK will continue to pay pensions. Without such a commitment from the UK, then there is nothing to welch on .

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

If that is the way it will go, does that mean that say Drew Harris has lost all his PSNI pension rights because he changed jobs to the Gardai?

Nope, it doesn't. It has nothing to do with this point. Not a single person will lose pension rights, the issue is who pays for them.

Under the old Scheme, Harris could have transferred his service from the PSNI into the Gardai under certain circumstances (I would need to know a lot more about his personal circumstances to be able to tell). However, given his date of recruitment, he is a member of the Single Pension Scheme, and there is currently no provision for the purchase of service or transfer of service in that scheme. It is something that D/PER should fix.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The issue of already paying people in other states is irrelevant to this discussion.

If a PSNI officer retired and moved to Spain, he would still get his pension in Spain, if he moved to the US, he would still get his pension there. The issue is who is liable to fund that pension - the UK or Ireland.

Your last point is strange. Why would there be a link where the UK would say that they will welch on a commitment that they haven't given?

They would be welching on a committment to pay the pensions of people who had given their service to that state.

There is nothing anywhere that says that in the event of unity, the UK will continue to pay pensions. Without such a commitment from the UK, then there is nothing to welch on .

Exactly - you are guessing as to what would happen after negotiations. We have seen with Brexit it is difficult to walk away from your commitments if you want to maintain any international standing.
Abandoning your responsibility to those who have worked their lives for you would be one of those and I would guess they will not even consider that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They would be welching on a committment to pay the pensions of people who had given their service to that state.



Exactly - you are guessing as to what would happen after negotiations. We have seen with Brexit it is difficult to walk away from your commitments if you want to maintain any international standing.
Abandoning your responsibility to those who have worked their lives for you would be one of those and I would guess they will not even consider that.

With Brexit, the party that wants something (the UK) has to pay a price. Would it be any different for the party that wants something (Ireland) having to pay in the case of unity?