Border Poll discussion

Avatar MIA

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that even the most fervent believers in the money-trees aren't claiming it would cost nothing, so I fail to see the relevance of the question.

I can go one better. Eventually it would make Ireland (Great Ireland TM) more prosperous. Economies of Scale.

Chips Lovell

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not saying there will be an easy or simply solution to the financial and economic challenges of reunification. But I am saying that to frame those challenges in terms of the current subvention from Westminister to Stormont is absurdly reductive, and treats the current subvention as an immutable law of nature rather than as the chance outcome of a number of contingent and transient circumstances. You need to look beyond the current subvention at the real issues, and at how they will be changed by the very fact of reunification,.

I think it's a stretch to characterize it as absurdly reductive. The current subvention is the only hard figure we have. And while it certainly won't be identical in the event of a transfer of sovereignty, any serious reduction in the bill won't be achieved by gardening around the edges.

I seriously doubt the British government wants to have Northern Ireland as its most heavily subsided region, but it doesn't have much choice in the matter. If an Irish government were to turn off the taps, I doubt it'll prove any more popular up there.

Dytalus

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I can go one better. Eventually it would make Ireland (Great Ireland TM) more prosperous. Economies of Scale.

Ah but here even I take issue (and I'm nominally on the side of unification).

You're right, counter to the Brexit issue a united Ireland (hereafter, GI because why not) has greater capacity for economic growth and propserity. More people working, paying taxes, Belfast as a secondary large city. All that good stuff. Compare that to the UK where they aren't really personally changing in any manner, save for leaving the EU. They don't get any new cities or new populations. So from that perspective GI has a better chance at being a net-benefit in the long term. (This isn't the Brexit thread so I'll end it there. There's definitely more to be said on the differences between the two though).

However, the issue is not so much a 'will it be better in 20 years with unification' as a 'will it be better in 20 years compared to if there'd been no unification'. If we take a hit to our economic growth and GDP post-unification, however minor, it sets us back. The idea of a permanent standard of living hit (like the previously mentioned 15%) is, quite frankly, ridiculous because economic growth means inevitably we'll wipe out any 15% hit. But if unification happens today, and we take a (let's meet in the middle and say) 7% hit to our standards of living, we're not actually gaining anything until we make back up that 7%.

If that takes 10 years, then our 20 year timelines of the two scenarios won't line up. In the "GI" timeline we'll only have ten years to catch up to the "No unity" graph, because at the halfway point we'll be where the "No" graph has started. (insert a cool graph here. Imagine it has a gold star)

Could the economic boost of a greater population overcome that? My guess is it could. We successfully turned the excessively poor, borderline third-world Ireland around in relatively short order. I imagine we could do the same with NI. Could we overcome the initial setback quickly enough to not cause utter chaos (remember how furious the population was during the recession, imagine that for even longer)? That I'm less sure about.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Saying we don't know what the costs might be isn't ignoring them. Neither is not accepting at best hypothetical costs being sold as ball park fact.
I think saying we can't afford it with no hard facts or figures is just burying your head in the sand.

It's a mater of looking at what might happen and preparing as best we can. The only relation I can see with hard line brexiteers is those saying 'It'll never happen so why bother talking about it'. Very close to the remainers attitude too.

Equally, saying that we should accept unification no matter the cost is not just burying your head in the sand, it is willfully diving into quicksand.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Equally, saying that we should accept unification no matter the cost is not just burying your head in the sand, it is willfully diving into quicksand.

No one is making that point. You will have your chance to cast your vote like the rest of us, even campaign for your desired outcome. If teh vote asses, then yes you will be asked to accept it.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

No one is making that point. You will have your chance to cast your vote like the rest of us, even campaign for your desired outcome. If teh vote asses, then yes you will be asked to accept it.

There have been a number of posters who have loudly proclaimed that a united Ireland is worth it, no matter the cost.

facehugger99

Havockk wrote: »

No one is making that point. You will have your chance to cast your vote like the rest of us, even campaign for your desired outcome. If teh vote asses, then yes you will be asked to accept it.

Oh, there's been a few.

I'm presuming that you're not one of those though - so what is the maximum cost per annum that you would accept for unification? - to the nearest billion say.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

There have been a number of posters who have loudly proclaimed that a united Ireland is worth it, no matter the cost.

And will not you have a chance to vote on it?

Havockk

facehugger99 wrote: »

Oh, there's been a few.

I'm presuming that you're not one of those though - so what is the maximum cost per annum that you would accept for unification? - to the nearest billion say.

I'm a Northerner first off. And why is it so important for you for me to mention a fixed amount? I'll leave that to the likes of David McWilliams or Paul Gosling who make the relevant points about the benefits of unification and the economy and understand it better than you, or I.

RobMc59

For a UI vote to happen would Northern Ireland vote 1st then Ireland?
I imagine there would have to be intense negotiations for at least a year before it even got to that stage.

facehugger99

Havockk wrote: »

I'm a Northerner first off. And why is it so important for you for me to mention a fixed amount?

If you're from NI, then it's not important.



David McWilliams is widely regarded as a buffoon BTW.

Havockk

RobMc59 wrote: »

For a UI vote to happen would Northern Ireland vote 1st then Ireland?
I imagine there would have to be intense negotiations for at least a year before it even got to that stage.

I imagine it would be after any border poll in the North, and if it is successful the South would get vote to ratify. but I could be wrong on that.

Havockk

facehugger99 wrote: »

If you're from NI, then it's not important.



David McWilliams is widely regarded as a buffoon BTW.

That's nice.

jm08

jmayo wrote: »

And remind us again who will pay the salaries of all those PSNI officers ?

Remind us again who is going to have to pay for all the new Land Rovers with armour plating ?
Or will you just run the old inherited ones into the ground.

:rolleyes:


They will be paid by tax revenues from a UI. Since the dissident republicans will have achieved their aim in a UI, the loyalists are the only ones to be dealt with and from what I gather, they are less threatening than the dissident Republicans and are more into drug dealing and stuff like that now.

Who is the ones paying for the new firearms and the bullets used in training a highly armed police force ?

The tax payers of a United Ireland.
Honestly, you give the impression that all the people in NI are just scoungers and contribute nothing.

Shure isn't Arlene going to leave.

... with her British pension.

Yes, but who will pay their wages ?
Who will pay for all the special surveillance ?

If you read this, you will see the PSNI regard the loyalist paramilitaries (and INLA) as just crime gangs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-47072147

They have a different attitude to dissident Republicans (who are dealt with by MI5). In a UI, the dissident Republican's cause is won. The loyalists are just drug dealers now.

Fook sake the delusion.
NI's industrial past is exactly that, the past.
Harry Ferguson left long ago.

Maybe they can open a new shipyard to compete with the Koreans and build another super ship that famously sinks.
Problem solved. :rolleyes:

The relevant engineering skills are still used today to build trains, planes, and automobiles not to mention all those new eco requirements such as windfarms. Bombardier does just that. Boeing might be interested in moving a plant to Ireland, bearing in mind one of its biggest customers is based here, not to mention that about 75% of the world's leased airlines are owned by companies based in Dublin.

ancapailldorcha

facehugger99 wrote: »

David McWilliams is widely regarded as a buffoon BTW.

Havockk wrote: »

That's nice.

Enough of this please.

BonnieSituation

Havockk wrote: »

I imagine it would be after any border poll in the North, and if it is successful the South would get vote to ratify. but I could be wrong on that.

Correct

James Brown

RobMc59 wrote: »

For a UI vote to happen would Northern Ireland vote 1st then Ireland?
I imagine there would have to be intense negotiations for at least a year before it even got to that stage.

The scaremongering is designed to dissuade any such move or even discussion on the matter being taken seriously.

The reality is the question of when is never going away. We're not sure when, we're not sure about the cost. Deciding it'll be too expensive and dismissing any conversation is akin to King Canute, in the least the issue isn't going anywhere and for anyone to try dismiss it is burying their head in the sand.

Havockk

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The scaremongering is designed to dissuade any such move or even discussion on the matter being taken seriously.

The reality is the question of when is never going away. We're not sure when, we're not sure about the cost. Deciding it'll be too expensive and dismissing any conversation is akin to King Canute, in the least the issue isn't going anywhere and for anyone to try dismiss it is burying their head in the sand.

Yeah, I just don't get the mindset. If you don't plan for something then you're the worst in the world. If you sit down to try and plan it out, you're not much better.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

I'm a Northerner first off. And why is it so important for you for me to mention a fixed amount? I'll leave that to the likes of David McWilliams or Paul Gosling who make the relevant points about the benefits of unification and the economy and understand it better than you, or I.

There have been one or two posters asking those concerned about costs whether they would support a united Ireland if there was no cost. I don't think any of them have shirked answering.

It is legitimate to ask those proclaiming the merits of a united Ireland whether there is a cost that they would baulk at, whether that cost is in lives lost to unionist resistance or whether it is financial and economic cost at a societal or individual level or some other cost such as the flag or the anthem. The replies on the financial issue have been non-existent, some of the other replies have been quite revealing.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The scaremongering is designed to dissuade any such move or even discussion on the matter being taken seriously.

The reality is the question of when is never going away. We're not sure when, we're not sure about the cost. Deciding it'll be too expensive and dismissing any conversation is akin to King Canute, in the least the issue isn't going anywhere and for anyone to try dismiss it is burying their head in the sand.

If you would outline how much you think it would cost and why, I would be more than happy to engage with that conversation. Having a conversation around the financial planning for a united Ireland could be quite informative. You could start with how you envisage harmonisation of social welfare rates working.

ancapailldorcha

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The scaremongering is designed to dissuade any such move or even discussion on the matter being taken seriously.

The reality is the question of when is never going away. We're not sure when, we're not sure about the cost. Deciding it'll be too expensive and dismissing any conversation is akin to King Canute, in the least the issue isn't going anywhere and for anyone to try dismiss it is burying their head in the sand.

I don't think that it is scaremongering to suggest that the road to a United Ireland will be anything but easy. There are questions about the Unionist community, an increased tax burden, pensions for NI’s public sector to be answered. Then there’s how it happens if a border poll returns a result in favour of unification. Does it happen gradually or does Dublin assume control in a month or two?

If Brexit has shown us anything, it’s that rushing headfirst into the unknown based on nationalistic fantasy and emotion is an appalling idea.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

There have been one or two posters asking those concerned about costs whether they would support a united Ireland if there was no cost. I don't think any of them have shirked answering.

It is legitimate to ask those proclaiming the merits of a united Ireland whether there is a cost that they would baulk at, whether that cost is in lives lost to unionist resistance or whether it is financial and economic cost at a societal or individual level or some other cost such as the flag or the anthem. The replies on the financial issue have been non-existent, some of the other replies have been quite revealing.

You simply ignore any economic figures or arguments that are presented which don;t match your own preconceived notions. You are completely intransigent, never accepting a single point. That, or your cohorts on that side of the debate simply label those economists 'buffoons'. (I thought that was a highlight tbh).

Havockk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think that it is scaremongering to suggest that the road to a United Ireland will be anything but easy.

You would think the Unionist population of the North are neanderthals just waiting to pounce in murderous violence should they not get their way. Completely disparaging in its own right. Does anyone else remember the arguments about the hand over of power in SA some time back? If that can be negotiated then why cannot the North?

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

You simply ignore any economic figures or arguments that are presented which don;t match your own preconceived notions. You are completely intransigent, never accepting a single point. That, or your cohorts on that side of the debate simply label those economists 'buffoons'. (I thought that was a highlight tbh).

Did I label any economist a buffoon? Don't recall, but then again I wouldn't classify David McWilliams as an economist. After all, his last big idea was to advise Brian Lenihan to introduce the bank bailout and we know how all that panned out. He wrote a number of newspaper articles about Lenihan sitting at his kitchen table having the conversation.

I don't ignore economic figures or arguments, I dismantle them, usually with references to works by others. Sometimes I don't have to say anything. For example, there is no need for me to to say anything about the unification reports commissioned indirectly by Sinn Fein through organisations like the KRB as the Slugger O'Toole website has completely demolished those reports and I can just highlight the relevant bits.

You could call my position "preconceived notions". Alternatively, you could label it as logically supported arguments. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween, but in my opinion more towards the logical end.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Did I label any economist a buffoon? Don't recall, but then again I wouldn't classify David McWilliams as an economist. After all, his last big idea was to advise Brian Lenihan to introduce the bank bailout and we know how all that panned out. He wrote a number of newspaper articles about Lenihan sitting at his kitchen table having the conversation.

I don't ignore economic figures or arguments, I dismantle them, usually with references to works by others. Sometimes I don't have to say anything. For example, there is no need for me to to say anything about the unification reports commissioned indirectly by Sinn Fein through organisations like the KRB as the Slugger O'Toole website has completely demolished those reports and I can just highlight the relevant bits.

You could call my position "preconceived notions". Alternatively, you could label it as logically supported arguments. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween, but in my opinion more towards the logical end.

I've never once on my time on boards seen you dismantle anything. I'll give you this, you are consistant in your arguments. which is what i wrote.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

You would think the Unionist population of the North are neanderthals just waiting to pounce in murderous violence should they not get their way. Completely disparaging in its own right. Does anyone else remember the arguments about the hand over of power in SA some time back? If that can be negotiated then why cannot the North?

An interesting comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_assassinations_in_post-apartheid_South_Africa

If you think that widespread political assassination is a useful outcome, then we could certainly follow the South African example.

We could also look to Zimbabwe for another example of successful handover of power.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

I've never once on my time on boards seen you dismantle anything. I'll give you this, you are consistant in your arguments. which is what i wrote.

Here is one example:

Havockk wrote: »

You would think the Unionist population of the North are neanderthals just waiting to pounce in murderous violence should they not get their way. Completely disparaging in its own right. Does anyone else remember the arguments about the hand over of power in SA some time back? If that can be negotiated then why cannot the North?

blanch152 wrote: »

An interesting comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_assassinations_in_post-apartheid_South_Africa

If you think that widespread political assassination is a useful outcome, then we could certainly follow the South African example.

We could also look to Zimbabwe for another example of successful handover of power.

It is a good example of looking at an argument and using facts to dismantle it.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Here is one example:






It is a good example of looking at an argument and using facts to dismantle it.

Theres 56 million people in SA. And you should read that more carefully.

ancapailldorcha

Havockk wrote: »

You would think the Unionist population of the North are neanderthals just waiting to pounce in murderous violence should they not get their way.

When did I say this?

Havockk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When did I say this?

I never said you did.