Border Poll discussion

Cryptopagan

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would anyone want to leave the NI public service when the prospect of being paid the same as your counterparts in the South was in touching distance, let alone the prospect of an enhanced pension in retirement while at the same time, your work would be halved?

And do you really think there is any chance of compulsory redundancy?

Why do you imagine that a united Ireland would automatically take on all these Northern Irish civil servants? Would it be up to Dublin to take on the burden of a bloated public administration that developed under London's watch?

A lot of public servants would either have to be pensioned off by the UK, or transferred elsewhere within it. This would all be subject to negotiation, of course, but working for a branch of the UK civil service in Northern Ireland wouldn't guarantee anyone a public job in a new united Ireland. If their prospects were as rosy as you suggest, they'd be the biggest advocates of unity on the island.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

And Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg keep telling us that while a no-deal Brexit won't be easy or an instant economic bonanza, but it is manageable and a UK outside the EU can be a successful country.

I don't believe them and, to be frank, I don't believe you. Why? Because the economics don't add up in either case and wishful thinking overrides cold analysis.

We are over two years on from the Brexit referendum, and the climbdown by the people you mention was a revelation, not their initial position. The Brexit arguement at the time was based on the assertion that it would be an easy, only upside, instant economic success. I did not believe them at the time of the referendum because it was clearly an arguement based on lies.

Had they made the case that leaving the EU is the best course for the UK in non-economic terms and that while challenging in the short to medium term economically that there may be an economic benefit in the long term, then I could not find much fault with their argument. I still would not agree with it, but at that point it is a question of values and priorities, not one of lies and misinformation on the economic side of it. The problem with Brexit is that the population voter for a seriously challenging economic option under a false promise of immediate economic benefit.

If you want to believe that partition on this island has a positive economic impact on either part, you go right ahead, but good luck finding a credible argument to back it up. The disruption of change would have a negative impact should both parts unify in the short term, but I can't see much by way of an argument that in the long run unification would not be better. The usual argument is that the short term economic hit would be too great to bear, but I have yet to find someone even trying to argue that should the short term hit be bearable that a unified Ireland could not be a successful country in the long term.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would they want to move their families and stay on the same low pay rate, when staying with a big payrise and big pension gain was an available option?

They could move because they consider themselves to be British and want to remain within the British system. I did say 'many', not all. Since the British Civil Service is a lot bigger than the Irish one, they would have more opportunities for promotion. Their pension up to now, would be a liability of the British Government, so they would be paying out the 'big' pensions.

I can't help it that that is the report that those who think unity costs nothing are relying on. That report made some very very optimistic assumptions both about the future of our economy and the future of the North's economy.

The Fitzgerald report I linked to earlier took into account the effect of Brexit and predicted a 15% cut in living standards in the South to pay for unity.

15% cut in living standards is only if nothing changes and NI continues to be a basket case economy.

blanch152

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Why do you imagine that a united Ireland would automatically take on all these Northern Irish civil servants? Would it be up to Dublin to take on the burden of a bloated public administration that developed under London's watch?

A lot of public servants would either have to be pensioned off by the UK, or transferred elsewhere within it. This would all be subject to negotiation, of course, but working for a branch of the UK civil service in Northern Ireland wouldn't guarantee anyone a public job in a new united Ireland. If their prospects were as rosy as you suggest, they'd be the biggest advocates of unity on the island.

So let me see. Before a referendum takes place, you tell all the public sector workers and their families that:

(1) You are not going to get paid as well as your Southern counterparts
(2) You will be pensioned off or sent to the rest of the UK, like it or not
(3) There is no guarantee of a job after the referendum

These are the people you are trying to persuade to vote for a united Ireland.

It will make for an interesting campaign all right.

James Brown

There would need be a period of adjustment for the civil service. Would Northern unions still have binding contracts after reunification? What would happen with pensions? I'd assume the remainder of the UK would be obliged to cover pensions paid in to or accrued up to the date of reunification.
Would our civil service take on some members leaving them to oversee transition? One thing that's guaranteed is that we'll organise a number of highly paid committees and consultants to ponder such things. This is were we'll see a lot of waste.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

They could move because they consider themselves to be British and want to remain within the British system. I did say 'many', not all. Since the British Civil Service is a lot bigger than the Irish one, they would have more opportunities for promotion. Their pension up to now, would be a liability of the British Government, so they would be paying out the 'big' pensions.

Many?

You are suggesting that they will uproot their spouses from their job, take their children out of school, sell their cheap house in Belfast and buy an expensive one in London, commute an extra ten hours a week etc.

Really?

Did nobody learn anything from the disastrous decentralisation project proposed by Charlie McCreevy. Most of those never happened. Those that did required local hires because civil servants wouldn't move.

All because they consider themselves to be British.

Tell me this, where are the thousands of people who have moved South in the last few years because they consider themselves Irish? Why would British people move because they consider themselves British.

jm08 wrote: »

15% cut in living standards is only if nothing changes and NI continues to be a basket case economy.

Losing access to the UK market makes NI even more of a basket case economy than it is today. Brexit is bad for Northern Ireland, full stop. It doesn't matter whether it is the softest Brexit with the UK staying in the SM and CU, a hard Brexit with a border on this island or a hard border down the Irish Sea. All of those options are bad news for Northern Ireland and it will become even more of a basket case economy.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There would need be a period of adjustment for the civil service. Would Northern unions still have binding contracts after reunification?

Will the UK conform with EU Transfer of Undertakings legislation?

Even if it doesn't, international law would provide for a successor state to take on legal obligations.

I cannot see any situation whereby there is a successful vote for unity without there being guarantees for public sector workers. Sure, do you not see local authority workers down here getting a stupid referendum on water to look after their jobs, that is the power of unions.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What would happen with pensions? I'd assume the remainder of the UK would be obliged to cover pensions paid in to or accrued up to the date of reunification.

Yes, to a point. However, if there is a no-deal hard Brexit (the scenario being painted that would favour a border poll), with the UK not paying for the pensions of the UK civil servants in the EU, why would they set a precedent and pay for the pensions of the NI civil servants in a united Ireland?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Would our civil service take on some members leaving them to oversee transition?

See above. We would be stuck with them, like it or not.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

One thing that's guaranteed is that we'll organise a number of highly paid committees and consultants to ponder such things. This is were we'll see a lot of waste.

Miniscule, compared to the cost of taking on thousands and thousands of unnecessary public sector employees.

L1011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What would happen with pensions? I'd assume the remainder of the UK would be obliged to cover pensions paid in to or accrued up to the date of reunification.

I believe the Free State had to take on both obtained and future pension costs for the Civil Service and the Post Office in 1922; only military, judiciary and RIC/DMP pensions remained with the UK. And that we used this as a bargaining chip against the payments towards debt that the UK expected us to give.

Getting conflicting information on whether the NI Civil Service was hived off from the Dublin Castle setup but I have a feeling it wasn't - and we got the entire lot; albeit huge volumes left or were pensioned off early after independence.

These days, where elements - or all - of pensions are actually pension fund rather than exchequer based I'd assume the trusteeship of those funds would be transferred over but whether any deficit was made good is a completely different question, and its very likely they would be in deficit as most large schemes are.

Cryptopagan

blanch152 wrote: »

So let me see. Before a referendum takes place, you tell all the public sector workers and their families that:

(1) You are not going to get paid as well as your Southern counterparts
(2) You will be pensioned off or sent to the rest of the UK, like it or not
(3) There is no guarantee of a job after the referendum

These are the people you are trying to persuade to vote for a united Ireland.

It will make for an interesting campaign all right.

I amn't trying to persuade anyone, and nor, in the event of a referendum, will the Irish government, which I expect will officially be neutral on the question.

Nevertheless, that is a political rather than an economic point you are now making. My hunch is that support for unification would be very low among the Northern Irish civil service anyhow. We could of course work out what a united Ireland would look like before ever holding a border poll - including what, if any, obligations Dublin will have towards NI civil servants, but unionists would fiercely oppose that kind of contingency planning as presupposing the outcome.

But to return to the original point, Northern Ireland's civil servants are employees of the UK, and the cost of maintaining a different government's administrative staff cannot be presumed to fall on Dublin in the event of reunification.

blanch152

Imreoir2 wrote: »

We are over two years on from the Brexit referendum, and the climbdown by the people you mention was a revelation, not their initial position. The Brexit arguement at the time was based on the assertion that it would be an easy, only upside, instant economic success. I did not believe them at the time of the referendum because it was clearly an arguement based on lies.


Had they made the case that leaving the EU is the best course for the UK in non-economic terms and that while challenging in the short to medium term economically that there may be an economic benefit in the long term, then I could not find much fault with their argument. I still would not agree with it, but at that point it is a question of values and priorities, not one of lies and misinformation on the economic side of it. The problem with Brexit is that the population voter for a seriously challenging economic option under a false promise of immediate economic benefit.

If you want to believe that partition on this island has a positive economic impact on either part, you go right ahead, but good luck finding a credible argument to back it up. The disruption of change would have a negative impact should both parts unify in the short term, but I can't see much by way of an argument that in the long run unification would not be better. The usual argument is that the short term economic hit would be too great to bear, but I have yet to find someone even trying to argue that should the short term hit be bearable that a unified Ireland could not be a successful country in the long term.

That is wishful thinking on your part, similar to the wishful thinking by Farage and Rees-Mogg. They can also say that they can't see much by way of an argument that in the long run Brexit would not be better.

There is absolutely no guarantee that Ireland would be better off in the long run unified. The two countries have digressed so far in the last 100 years, that the costs of unification will be a drag for years and years. That is the experience of Germany, which arguably is still struggling nearly 30 years later to deal with the cost of unification.

blanch152

Cryptopagan wrote: »

I amn't trying to persuade anyone, and nor, in the event of a referendum, will the Irish government, which I expect will officially be neutral on the question.

Nevertheless, that is a political rather than an economic point you are now making. My hunch is that support for unification would be very low among the Northern Irish civil service anyhow. We could of course work out what a united Ireland would look like before ever holding a border poll - including what, if any, obligations Dublin will have towards NI civil servants, but unionists would fiercely oppose that kind of contingency planning as presupposing the outcome.

But to return to the original point, Northern Ireland's civil servants are employees of the UK, and the cost of maintaining a different government's administrative staff cannot be presumed to fall on Dublin in the event of reunification.

Again, that is the attitude of the Brexiteers at the time of the referendum. It will be all right on the night, we will be better off and those that are asking what will happen and how much it will cost are engaging in Project Fear.

The parallels are uncanny.

Cryptopagan

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, that is the attitude of the Brexiteers at the time of the referendum. It will be all right on the night, we will be better off and those that are asking what will happen and how much it will cost are engaging in Project Fear.

The parallels are uncanny.

Hardly. As I hint at above, I think we ought to work all this out before even holding a poll. But unionists won't want to do that, for obvious reasons. So if we do have a border poll, and if unity wins, we'll have to figure it out then.

I think most people would acknowledge it would be an enormous challenge, but where membership of the EU has been a huge benefit to the UK, partition has been a damaging one for Ireland, leaving part of the country scarred by bitter sectarian conflict, economic stagnation, and stifling social conservatism.

Imreoir2

The Irish government never signed a contract with any member of the NI civil service. There would be no legal obligation on the Irish state to take on all NI civil servants at the same rate as they are on now, nor to bring them up to the same pay scale as their counterparts already employed by the Irish state. A united Ireland government could choose to simply not take on those civil servants, though from a pratical point of view, quite a few of them will actually be needed to run public services.

Of course the Irish government could also choose to employ all of them at the same rate, or even employ them all and immediately boost their income to bring them all into line with their counterparts in the Irish civil service. The choice that is made in practice will be an issue of planing and negiotiation. One could suggest any number of potential scenarios, featuring transition periods, rationalisation, reforms etc etc, but that would be speculation. All that needs to be said here is that it is an issue that exists, there are a great many ways in which it could be delt with and it will require a great deal of palnning and most likely the investment of significant resources initially to implement those plans.

The question at the bottom of it all is, could the Irish state manage such a process of transition, reform and rationalisation and if it can, could a United Ireland at the other side of that process go on to be a successful country? Further to the question of posibility is the question that even if it is possible, should it be done? The answer to these questions are at least partially subjective, and the answer depends at least in part on your values. For me the answer is yes, the Irish state could manage such a process and yes, having done so Ireland could go on to be a successful country, and yes it is worthwile to do it in my opinion.

I'm sure there are some in Germany who wish unification had not happened and would prefer to live in a divided Germany to this day, but I suggest that the people who hold that view are few and far between. I do not see much evidence of a movement for the repartition of Germany nor many arguing that Germany would be economically better off if it was divided. I suggest it would be the same here 20 years after reunification.

blanch152

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Hardly. As I hint at above, I think we ought to work all this out before even holding a poll. But unionists won't want to do that, for obvious reasons. So if we do have a border poll, and if unity wins, we'll have to figure it out then.

I think most people would acknowledge it would be an enormous challenge, but where membership of the EU has been a huge benefit to the UK, partition has been a damaging one for Ireland, leaving part of the country scarred by bitter sectarian conflict, economic stagnation, and stifling social conservatism.

If we have a poll without working out all of the details, we will having a poll similar to the Brexit one.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Many?

You are suggesting that they will uproot their spouses from their job, take their children out of school, sell their cheap house in Belfast and buy an expensive one in London, commute an extra ten hours a week etc.

There are public sector jobs available in places like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool etc. They don't really need to move to London.

Did nobody learn anything from the disastrous decentralisation project proposed by Charlie McCreevy. Most of those never happened. Those that did required local hires because civil servants wouldn't move.

Charlie McGreevy plan included small towns in Ireland which were not attractive. Places like Cork, Limerick, Killarney etc. were all very successful.

Tell me this, where are the thousands of people who have moved South in the last few years because they consider themselves Irish? Why would British people move because they consider themselves British.

People tend to stay in where they go to university. I'd expect a lot more coming south now because of Brexit.

Losing access to the UK market makes NI even more of a basket case economy than it is today. Brexit is bad for Northern Ireland, full stop. It doesn't matter whether it is the softest Brexit with the UK staying in the SM and CU, a hard Brexit with a border on this island or a hard border down the Irish Sea. All of those options are bad news for Northern Ireland and it will become even more of a basket case economy.

Northern Ireland is mainly an internal economy (50Bn)


Exports to:
GB=£14 bn
Rest of World (incl. ROI): £11 bn


Will GB stop importing from NI if it leaves?



NI is under performing with little or no investment in it (and what is invested seems to be squandered on schemes like the RHI).

FrancieBrady

Pensions are finite things like mortgages. And after repaying a mortgage you are significantly better off.
If the numbers (which cannot be calculated by an overly pessimistic or optimistic poster on the internet) show that unification is a long term investment that will pay off then why would it not be an attractive proposition.
'Brexit' was shown to be an unattractive proposition as soon as the lies were stripped away.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Pensions are finite things like mortgages. And after repaying a mortgage you are significantly better off.
If the numbers (which cannot be calculated by an overly pessimistic or optimistic poster on the internet) show that unification is a long term investment that will pay off then why would it not be an attractive proposition.
'Brexit' was shown to be an unattractive proposition as soon as the lies were stripped away.

Until somebody can produce credible evidence that unification is a long term investment that will pay off, those peddling unification look an awful lot like those peddling Brexit.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Until somebody can produce credible evidence that unification is a long term investment that will pay off, those peddling unification look an awful lot like those peddling Brexit.

Well you don't seem to be able to do that - properly balance the positives and benefits with the negatives which was the inherent problem with Brexiteerism, which is why it has hit a brick wall and looks like it won't happen or will be much diluted if it does.

Seems to me all or most of the negatives of a UI are finite problems which are to be expected and have been experienced elsewhere.
What has to be added to the conversation now if the UK does crash out is the toxic effect on Ireland solely because of an absurd partition. Even FG now realise this and the absurdity of the problem we find ourselves in because of that partition.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well you don't seem to be able to do that - properly balance the positives and benefits with the negatives which was the inherent problem with Brexiteerism, which is why it has hit a brick wall and looks like it won't happen or will be much diluted if it does.

Seems to me all or most of the negatives of a UI are finite problems which are to be expected and have been experienced elsewhere.
What has to be added to the conversation now if the UK does crash out is the toxic effect on Ireland solely because of an absurd partition. Even FG now realise this and the absurdity of the problem we find ourselves in because of that partition.

It will have to come to a head either way. The positive thing for anyone looking to a united Ireland is even the money men might back it if any hard border damages their pocket. This will leave the likes of the DUP in a bit of a quandary, but they aren't averse to cutting their nose.

briany

Imreoir2 wrote: »

This assumes that your only concern is an economic one, again I am not going to try to convince anyone here that the reason to support a UI is to put a few extra euros in your pocket.

Not the only concern, but it should be the primary one. The economic argument would be the foundation upon which the others would be placed if it's a reasoned debate.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well you don't seem to be able to do that - properly balance the positives and benefits with the negatives which was the inherent problem with Brexiteerism, which is why it has hit a brick wall and looks like it won't happen or will be much diluted if it does.

Seems to me all or most of the negatives of a UI are finite problems which are to be expected and have been experienced elsewhere.
What has to be added to the conversation now if the UK does crash out is the toxic effect on Ireland solely because of an absurd partition. Even FG now realise this and the absurdity of the problem we find ourselves in because of that partition.

The thing is, if Brexit does hit a brick wall and not happen or be diluted, then there won't be any impetus for a united Ireland.

If a hard Brexit happens, we have enough to worry about without taking on the economic burden of the North.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The thing is, if Brexit does hit a brick wall and not happen or be diluted, then there won't be any impetus for a united Ireland.

If a hard Brexit happens, we have enough to worry about without taking on the economic burden of the North.

If a hard Brexit happens unification is the only real answer for us. I expect FG FF and all parties to be working hard for it as a result.
If it doesn't happen, then the uncaring attitude of the UK will have consequences as the debate goes on. The UK is not going to miraculously live happily ever after and faces much more turmoil if they cannot deliver. In short, it isn't going away anytime soon.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If a hard Brexit happens unification is the only real answer for us. I expect FG FF and all parties to be working hard for it as a result.
If it doesn't happen, then the uncaring attitude of the UK will have consequences as the debate goes on. The UK is not going to miraculously live happily ever after and faces much more turmoil if they cannot deliver. In short, it isn't going away anytime soon.

If a hard Brexit happens, they might want to use unification as a distraction all right, but the real issue that they will have to deal with is the holes in the public finances caused by higher unemployment and less income tax.

Unification will have to wait.

Dyr

There are only two preconditions that need to be met before a United Ireland happens: Polls on both sides of the border being passed successfully.

That's it.

The fun thing about the current situation is the degree to which the Dudley Edwardites and Cruise-O'Brienists are experiencing squeaky bum time and throwing out precondition after precondition as to why reunification can't even be discussed

It reminds me of the early peace process talks, the Provos coming out with excuse after excuse not to just call it all off and Reynolds slowly reeling them in because he knew their positions could not stand up to scrutiny.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

If a hard Brexit happens, they might want to use unification as a distraction all right, but the real issue that they will have to deal with is the holes in the public finances caused by higher unemployment and less income tax.

Unification will have to wait.

Partition will begin in a whole new way to cause 'holes in public finances and unemployment'.

It will need to be addressed, FG FF and the rest already know this and are shifting position on it.

briany

Bambi wrote: »

There are only two preconditions that need to be met before a United Ireland happens: Polls on both sides of the border being passed successfully.

That's it.

The fun thing about the current situation is the degree to which the Dudley Edwardites and Cruise-O'Brienists are experiencing squeaky bum time and throwing out precondition after precondition as to why reunification can't even be discussed

It reminds me of the early peace process talks, the Provos coming out with excuse after excuse not to just call it all off and Reynolds slowly reeling them in because he knew their positions could not stand up to scrutiny.

If the concerns around a United Ireland are put to scrutiny and it's found that they do not hold water, that would be absolutely fine. Far better that they are brought up and honestly discussed than waved away with an "it'll be grand..."

Snickers Man

Bombshell opinion piece in Irish Times today entitled Why we should stop worrying and learn to love Brexit urges us to consider the positive benefits of Britain leaving the EU, if only we would suck things up and forget all that United Ireland nonsense.

After painting a rosy picture of the "influence" that can be wielded by an Ireland that has stepped out of Britain's shadow into a new alignment of "similarly minded" European states like the Netherlands, Scandinavia and the Baltics (roses always grow well when fed on bull****) it then gets down to the serious business of what we have to do to enter this brave new world.

Calling the rhetoric that advocates a border poll and a united Ireland "deeply flawed" the writer then states "For Ireland, Brexit should be welcomed as formalising partition, not ending it."

Wow! That's not what the Taoiseach has been saying. Or the Foreign Minister.

Who would write such a thing?

The author, Eoin Drea, is described as " a researcher at the Wilfried Martens Centre, the official think tank of the European People’s Party which includes Fine Gael"

Is public opinion being prepared for another sell out on Northern Ireland?

I think we should be told.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Partition was pretty much formalised with the GFA though, and the referendum to give up constitutional claims to the 6 counties, and the agreement that a border poll will be held if and when the British government felt it had a good enough chance of passing favourably for unification, they'd also need to be pretty certain that voters in the 26 would also pass such a referendum (I don't believe that to be a foregone conclusion at all, and may even be getting further away from being acceptable in the 26).

Fr Tod Umptious

I for one cannot grasp the huge leap that people are making that equate Brexit to a united Ireland.

It's one thing for a majority in NI to wish to remain in the EU, it's a completely different matter to suggest that the same majority would vote for an UI.

The two are very very different and I think we should get on with Brexit and dealing with that without even bothering with a border poll for a long long time

Wheeliebin30

SNIP. No more non-constructive posts please.

Snickers Man

Wade Petite Sordidness wrote: »

Partition was pretty much formalised with the GFA though, and the referendum to give up constitutional claims to the 6 counties,

True but the "partition" then existed as part of a larger whole, namely the EU of which both national parties (UK and Ireland) were members. Now one is going to be a member and the other isn't. So it's not the same "Partition" at all. Certainly not the one I voted for when I (along with 90% of people) voted to accept the amendments to articles 2 and 3.

seamus

It's a bit of a stretch to equate an article by a contrarian economist twice removed from Fine Gael, as being official Fine Gael policy, or having been at all written with the assent or co-operation of the government.

The author does seem to make his money saying the economic things that you're not supposed to say.

He wrote an article in the Guardian saying that despite being a remainer, he is fully behind Brexit...because Britain is holding the EU back.

Some quarters seem to be making a taboo out of the suggestion that any Irish person may not want a United Ireland. We've been spoonfed this propaganda about rebellion and partition and oppression since we were toddlers, such that we can't even countenance the idea that perhaps we're not entitled to claim domain over another jurisdiction just because it's connected to us.

The thrust of what the article is saying (IMO) is that making noises about a United Ireland at this stage is premature. The UK and by extension Northern Ireland is going to be an economic and ideological mess for at least a decade. While it seems like a no-brainer that the time to call a UI poll is when the UK is in disarray, economically we'd be opening up a big hole into which we'd have to pour €15bn a year. Considering that's about a fifth of our current budget, it's something that we can't afford.
"Formalising" partition in this context refers to the certainty that we won't have to take on that economic burden in the short-term.

I do however feel that he has missed out on the obvious; the assistance the EU would provide in such a scenario.

professore

I heard on the radio this morning that there's a guy from Cork running buses to Belfast so elderly people can have cataracts removed. Until we sort out the health service, people in NI would be insane to vote to join a united Ireland.

Hell I'd join the UK for that reason alone.

Consider what a disaster it would be if we had a united Ireland. It would be the Bank bailout times 100. PS Salaries and social welfare reduced to UK levels would be a start to pay for it.

prawnsambo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I for one cannot grasp the huge leap that people are making that equate Brexit to a united Ireland.

It's one thing for a majority in NI to wish to remain in the EU, it's a completely different matter to suggest that the same majority would vote for an UI.

The two are very very different and I think we should get on with Brexit and dealing with that without even bothering with a border poll for a long long time

Polling suggests that a UI would have 80% support here. I know it's a very different thing in the abstract to the reality that would emerge should such a vote be required. But it's quite a ways higher than simlar polling in NI at the moment.

professore

prawnsambo wrote: »

Polling suggests that a UI would have 80% support here. I know it's a very different thing in the abstract to the reality that would emerge should such a vote be required. But it's quite a ways higher than simlar polling in NI at the moment.

That's scary. Clearly these people have no clue. Bet its people with landlines, ie older conservative people.

prawnsambo

professore wrote: »

That's scary. Clearly these people have no clue. Bet its people with landlines, ie older conservative people.

Well I think I'll take that bet because:

The “Unifying Ireland Tracking Poll” was carried out face to face by BrandTactics. They questioned 500 people between the ages of 18 and 65+ in the areas of Munster, Leinster, and Connacht between Jan 30 and 31.

FrancieBrady

briany wrote: »

If the concerns around a United Ireland are put to scrutiny and it's found that they do not hold water, that would be absolutely fine. Far better that they are brought up and honestly discussed than waved away with an "it'll be grand..."

There will be a certain amount of risk in embarking on a UI and that is fine. There has been massive risk to ignoring partition too, just observe it's 100 year history.

Fr Tod Umptious

professore wrote: »

That's scary. Clearly these people have no clue. Bet its people with landlines, ie older conservative people.

Well no I'd say it across the board.

Another poster said we have been feed this romantic narrative of rebellion etc since we were kids and that romantic view of a united Ireland remains strong.

In the event of a border poll both NI and Ireland (the 26 counties) would have to individually vote for reunification.

I'd imagine that 80% would be a lot less come polling day after a campaign for and against, however I still think a majority in Ireland would be in favour.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

cgcsb wrote: »

Sure, no problem, here's some links from the UK and USA for example:

Financial Times:
https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/hard-brexit-could-cost-island-of-ireland-42-5-billion-over-seven-years-1.3689807

https://prcg.com/modeling-irish-unification/report.pdf

https://senatormarkdaly.org/2018/07/23/northern-irelands-income-and-expenditure-in-a-reunification-scenario/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/16/united-ireland-brexit-irish-unification-back-on-agenda

The department has delayed their report on unification in line with the Irish government's Brexit policy, which is quite telling.
https://www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-costings-4144760-Jul2018/

You claimed there was an IMF report and then failed to provide the IMF report.

Chips Lovell

While I don't think the piece is in any way supposed to be representative of Fine Gael policy, at the same time you'd want to be seriously deluded to think that they're in favour of a united Ireland.

None of the major political parties, barring SF and a few of the more traditional element of FF, are serious about wanting one. It's something you pay lip service too rather than actively pursue, because there's nothing politically to be gained from actively opposing.

If a border poll was ever on the cards, expect most of them to try and edge away from it, something along the lines of "We're in favour in principle, but now is not the right time etc..."

FrancieBrady

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

You claimed there was an IMF report and then failed to provide the IMF report.

Not seeing where he/she claimed 'there was a report', can you link/quote?

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not seeing where he/she claimed 'there was a report', can you link/quote?

cgcsb wrote: »

This has been rubbished multiple times, even by the IMF, who are not friends of SF. The Irish civil service also has produced a report on same. The budget would be balanced a lot quicker than Germany's post unification budget.

Please note the word "also" and that neither report has been provided to my knowledge.

FrancieBrady

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Please note the word "also" and that neither report has been provided to my knowledge.

Very selective reading of the word 'also'.

For instance saying that 'Liverpool scored against Man U and also drew with Arsenal' is perfectly acceptable grammar and use of the word 'also' if it is said in the context of winning the league.
Context is everything.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very selective reading of the word 'also'.

For instance saying that 'Liverpool scored against Man U and also drew with Arsenal' is perfectly acceptable grammar and use of the word 'also' if it is said in the context of winning the league.
Context is everything.

We have a few Friends of Sinn Fein reports which say it will be all right on the night, just like Brexit. The FDI that will flow into Northern Ireland sounds a lot like the great trade deals that will be done when the UK escapes the stranglehold of the EU.

We have another report from two respected Irish economists who say that unification will lead to a 15% drop in living standards for people down South.

I know which one I believe.

MrMusician18

seamus wrote: »

It's a bit of a stretch to equate an article by a contrarian economist twice removed from Fine Gael, as being official Fine Gael policy, or having been at all written with the assent or co-operation of the government.

The author does seem to make his money saying the economic things that you're not supposed to say.

He wrote an article in the Guardian saying that despite being a remainer, he is fully behind Brexit...because Britain is holding the EU back.

Some quarters seem to be making a taboo out of the suggestion that any Irish person may not want a United Ireland. We've been spoonfed this propaganda about rebellion and partition and oppression since we were toddlers, such that we can't even countenance the idea that perhaps we're not entitled to claim domain over another jurisdiction just because it's connected to us.

The thrust of what the article is saying (IMO) is that making noises about a United Ireland at this stage is premature. The UK and by extension Northern Ireland is going to be an economic and ideological mess for at least a decade. While it seems like a no-brainer that the time to call a UI poll is when the UK is in disarray, economically we'd be opening up a big hole into which we'd have to pour €15bn a year. Considering that's about a fifth of our current budget, it's something that we can't afford.
"Formalising" partition in this context refers to the certainty that we won't have to take on that economic burden in the short-term.

I do however feel that he has missed out on the obvious; the assistance the EU would provide in such a scenario.

professore wrote: »

I heard on the radio this morning that there's a guy from Cork running buses to Belfast so elderly people can have cataracts removed. Until we sort out the health service, people in NI would be insane to vote to join a united Ireland.

Hell I'd join the UK for that reason alone.

Consider what a disaster it would be if we had a united Ireland. It would be the Bank bailout times 100. PS Salaries and social welfare reduced to UK levels would be a start to pay for it.

Everything time the cost of unification is mentioned it increases. €5-7bn is generally the accepted figure, the IT author has it at €10bn, seamus had it at €15bn and professore has it at €72tn.

A UI would almost certainly involve a period of co-sovereignty transition of up to 40 years in length.

seamus

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Everything time the cost of unification is mentioned it increases. €5-7bn is generally the accepted figure, the IT author has it at €10bn, seamus had it at €15bn and professore has it at €72tn.

I'm paywalled from the IT article, but I recall his figure was £10bn, not euro. So I put some overhead in there because there will be increased integration and development costs for us in the medium-term. The UK pumps in £10bn just to keep NI afloat. If we want a functioning economy, we'd need to pump in billions in development funding on top of that.

I'm not sure where the €5-7bn figure comes from. Maybe thats's the one-off cost after a border poll. But it's definitely not the ongoing cost.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

We have a few Friends of Sinn Fein reports which say it will be all right on the night, just like Brexit. The FDI that will flow into Northern Ireland sounds a lot like the great trade deals that will be done when the UK escapes the stranglehold of the EU.

We have another report from two respected Irish economists who say that unification will lead to a 15% drop in living standards for people down South.

I know which one I believe.

This looks like something a lazy student cobbled together on a Sunday night after a weekend on shots and lager. :D

http://dublineconomics.com/papers/8502.pdf

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

I'm paywalled from the IT article, but I recall his figure was £10bn, not euro. So I put some overhead in there because there will be increased integration and development costs for us in the medium-term. The UK pumps in £10bn just to keep NI afloat. If we want a functioning economy, we'd need to pump in billions in development funding on top of that.

I'm not sure where the €5-7bn figure comes from. Maybe thats's the one-off cost after a border poll. But it's definitely not the ongoing cost.

The €5-7bn comes from the Friends of Sinn Fein reports.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/


A more interesting take on the possibility of unification here:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/03/12/a-united-ireland-is-not-inevitable-here-is-why/

"There are hundreds of questions for Nationalists to address before they can put a case for Northern Ireland seceding from the Union with the UK to join with the Republic of Ireland under the rule of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

What happens to the NHS – will we see GP & presciption charges? (€40-€65 to see your doctor in the Republic)

What of EU inspired water and bin charges based on usage/weight?
Would a United Ireland be a unitary State or would there still be a devolved Stormont?
What happens to Northern Irish civil servants, firemen, police officers etc?
What happens on pensions and benefits?
What about the subvention Northern Ireland receives – could the South afford it?
Will the Union flag be hoisted alongside the Tri Colour on the Dail in the name of parity and equality?
Will we get a new agreed all-Ireland flag?
Will we get a new agreed all-Ireland National Anthem?
Will we be entitled to dual British & Irish citizenship and passports?
What happens to the cross-border bodies?
Will mandatory powersharing be implemented in the Dail with D`Hondt?
Will their be an all-Ireland parades commission?"

Of course, we could just have a referendum like the Brexit one in the UK, where we vote based on sentiment and promises and lies.

Dyr

briany wrote: »

If the concerns around a United Ireland are put to scrutiny and it's found that they do not hold water, that would be absolutely fine. Far better that they are brought up and honestly discussed than waved away with an "it'll be grand..."

The concerns and scrutiny of the voters I assume. Or do you mean the concerns and scrutiny of a small set in the Republic who are four square set against a UI regardless of the potential benefits or pitfalls? Because I'm not worried about wasting time on them

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

Until somebody can produce credible evidence that unification is a long term investment that will pay off, those peddling unification look an awful lot like those peddling Brexit.

You have yet to produce anything that shows the benefit of the status quo. There is plenty of evidence that the UK's membership of the EU has been a positive thing for the UK. Is there any evidence that NI being in the UK has been a positive for NI's economey? Or that partition has had a positive economic impact on the island as a whole? I can't say I have seen such evidence.

You say we are "peddling unification", I suggest that until you can provide some credible evidence to support your own position then you are doing little more than peddline partition.