How long before Irish reunification?

Redgirl82

Deleted User wrote: »

It wont though??
It hasnt worked for last 100 years,ever before sf or dup.come to be top parties there,

Infact its working better now than ever (no sign of civil war),and its still an abject utter failure,by any metric its failed as a state,

Einstein labeled stupid,as repeating same thing over and over,and expecting different results

It is completely different, ever since the Good Friday. The issues now are with the parties, they are useless.

FrancieBrady

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Stupid post. If going to quote me at least have the manner to quote the entire post.

Who is going to put this 'proper party' in place? The person who decides what a proper party is?

Kim style politics there redgirl. Arrogant and dictatorial in equal measure.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Its not....they went 3 years with no government for sake of harmless compromise (irish language act harms noone)

It deosnt work,simple as that,i dont see any point in pretending it will into the future


At partition it was far and away the wealthiest part of island (80% of econmy),now it requires trillions of subsidies to sustain it....

The english will eventually pull the plug on this,and we will have irish people straving on our island again,fcuk.that,we should do better for the citizens of this island

Even if it did work, following a different island, now outside the EU is fraught with danger for our island's economic and health security.

We got lucky with this pandemic that outsiders were persuaded to change tack.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

Redgirl82 wrote:

Stupid post. If going to quote me at least have the manner to quote the entire post.

So he's back at that childish crap again. Just ignore him, not worth it. Too immature.

Edgware

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So...are you going to back up that or is it just another lie, that will waste all out time trying to get you to admit?

No. Check it out in their research library. It will be filed beside Jack and the Beanstalk reference Magic Beans

FrancieBrady

Edgware wrote: »

No. Check it out in their research library. It will be filed beside Jack and the Beanstalk reference Magic Beans

Good job.

It's kind of hard to dispute his figures isn't it?, trust me I have tried too.
That's 3 of you directly asked and FAIL.

Redgirl82

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Good job.

It's kind of hard to dispute his figures isn't it?, trust me I have tried too.
That's 3 of you directly asked and FAIL.

The figures that Pearse found? after years and a paid Sinn Fein report said the figures where not available?

Sinn Fein who also are part of the government and say they don't have the figures?

Sorry but nobody believe's a word from Sinn Fein. Minor problem they have and will be a long time before that is repaired. Want some evidence of Sinn Fein issues with numbers? well look at the figures in the General Election Manifesto, didn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Come back when you actually have figures, you won't even link to the article and just take extracts. Tells it own story as well.

FrancieBrady

Redgirl82 wrote: »

The figures that Pearse found? after years and a paid Sinn Fein report said the figures where not available?

Sinn Fein who also are part of the government and say they don't have the figures?

Sorry but nobody believe's a word from Sinn Fein. Minor problem they have and will be a long time before that is repaired. Want some evidence of Sinn Fein issues with numbers? well look at the figures in the General Election Manifesto, didn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Come back when you actually have figures, you won't even link to the article and just take extracts. Tells it own story as well.

The 'word' isn't from SF though, it is from the ONS of the UK.

FrancieBrady

I condensed the figures out of the article into a list. Can any of those accusing Doherty of making them up, dispute them with contradictory data?

Each year the British Office of National Statistics (ONS) publishes their 'Country and Regional Public Sector Finances',

Total Spend In NI = £26.463bn
Tax Take In NI = £17.3bn

Total Identifiable Expenditure = £20.934bn.
Shortfall/Subvention = about £9bn
Pension Contributions £3.4bn yearly.

'Total Non-Identifiable Expenditure'(money spent directly by the British government in Westminster). = £2.7bn

Servicing the British Military = £1.1bn

Servicing Britain's £1.8trn national debt.= £1.27bn of 'non-identifiable' There will be a trade off on this figure.


'Total Spending Outside the UK' = £679m (spent by Westminster on British embassies and political activities abroad.)

'Accounting Adjustments' = £2.7bn

Corporation Tax Underpayment = £500m.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

It isn't what I was referring to. That is the study carried out by an American organisation commissioned by SF. Here is what Doherty said again...there are figures in there, can you dispute them with different figures or explain why they would remain part of the costs?

I'd need the official figures that he is apparently using. It's very simplistic and it's not complete. It also doesn't take into account the upgrade of services which has to take place in both areas. It doesn't talk about the state of the NI economy. There's nothing in it only what looks like a lot of guesswork.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

I'd need the official figures that he is apparently using. It's very simplistic and it's not complete. It also doesn't take into account the upgrade of services which has to take place in both areas. It doesn't talk about the state of the NI economy. There's nothing in it only what looks like a lot of guesswork.

They are the official figures...if they aren't, you need to back that up.

Where is the 'guesswork'.
They are costs that will not transfer.

FrancieBrady

DUP Dogma again. Rightfully being ridiculed.

https://twitter.com/EmmandJDeSouza/status/1262749213412089863

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

They are the official figures...if they aren't, you need to back that up.

I didn't introduce those figures. He needs to produce a document or link so we can look at them.
Do you expect us to believe a SF member when they put out a report that was debunked?

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't introduce those figures. He needs to produce a document or link so we can look at them.
Do you expect us to believe a SF member when they put out a report that was debunked?

So how did the Trinity guys back up their subvention figures?

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

So how did the Trinity guys back up their subvention figures?

More deflection.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

More deflection.

You are refuting these figures on the basis they might be lies and are throwing out the findings.
When asked for your verification methodology for another study that you support the findings of, you shout 'deflection'.

I think it is clear what is going on here.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I condensed the figures out of the article into a list. Can any of those accusing Doherty of making them up, dispute them with contradictory data?

There goes the spreadsheet I was just working on so.

Ha ha.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

eagle eye wrote: »

More deflection.

Are we redefining deflection today?

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

There goes the spreadsheet I was just working on so.

Ha ha.

I knew I was probably wasting my time and the answer would be 'Them's lies, just because. But hey, let's all believe this report here with a made up figure I haven't checked and the report authors haven't bothered subtracting any non transferable costs from'.

As I said yesterday, if that's all the anti-UIers have come the referendum campaign it will be a walkover.

p.s. I checked some of Doherty's figures on the ONS site and got a shock at the size of the UK's debt, it is indeed as stated in the article. :eek:

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

You are refuting these figures on the basis they might be lies and are throwing out the findings. When asked for your verification methodology for another study that you support the findings of, you shout 'deflection'.

I asked first, then you deflected.
When you can back up those figures I'll point you to the figures from the Trinity study.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

I asked first, then you deflected.
When you can back up those figures I'll point you to the figures from the Trinity study.

Sorry, you guys have said the figures are 'made up or lies'.


I backed up why the base figure used by the Trinity profs was a dodgy basis for a report.

Now it's your turn.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

Sorry, you guys have said the figures are 'made up or lies'.

You put up a quote from a very biased source, no links, no links to figures. I put up a link to a full report from an unbiased source.
I never said they were lies, I said I'd need proof of the figures as SF have already put out a report that was debunked.

FrancieBrady wrote:

I backed up why the base figure used by the Trinity profs was a dodgy basis for a report.

You did not. You are here asking me to show where these figures come from and claiming you backed up why they are dodgy?
You are full of crap.
It's quite clear you didn't even read the Trinity study.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

You put up a quote from a very biased source,

The Belfast Telegraph was the link. A well known Unionist centric newspaper.
You can cross check the figures on the ONS site if you doubt them. I did doubt the National debt figure and checked and it is indeed at the level stated in the article.

I put up a link to a full report from an unbiased source.
I never said they were lies, I said I'd need proof of the figures as SF have already put out a report that was debunked.

You did not. You are here asking me to show where these figures come from and claiming you backed up why they are dodgy?
You are full of crap.
It's quite clear you didn't even read the Trinity study.

I read the Trinity report when it was published and there is a long discussion of it here on the site.
They used one of the commonly used subvention figures and assumed it to be the ongoing cost of a UI that would have to be met.

Dodgy science, if you are not going to subtract non transferable costs.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

The Belfast Telegraph was the link.

There was no link in your post.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Belfast Telegraph was the link. A well known Unionist centric newspaper.
You can cross check the figures on the ONS site if you doubt them. I did doubt the National debt figure and checked and it is indeed at the level stated in the article.


I read the Trinity report when it was published and there is a long discussion of it here on the site.
They used one of the commonly used subvention figures and assumed it to be the ongoing cost of a UI that would have to be met.

Dodgy science, if you are not going to subtract non transferable costs.

Was just skimming through the Trinity report just now. I did wonder about his use of the 9bn too.

But it's sobering reading all the same. Even if the British pay us to take it, reunification will cost the South a fortune for decades after the event.

Also, whatever direction we go is gonna disproportionally effect one side over the other. Given that 2 countries have to pass referendums, it's gonna be near impossible to make it palatable to both.

Hamsterchops

I agree with the poll....

Ulster Says No. It will never happen.

Not because I want it to happen, (or don't want it to happen) but because the reasons for & against are so complex, specially with Scotland's position within the UK being so uncertain. And if a form of Irish unification ever does happen, will it be what the Republicans were expecting? Probably not.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I agree with the poll....

Ulster Says No. It will never happen.

Not because I want it to happen, (or don't want it to happen) but because the reasons for & against are so complex, specially with Scotland's position within the UK being so uncertain. And if a form of Irish unification ever does happen, will it be what the Republicans were expecting? Probably not.

So we shouldn't do things that are hard?

Why are you referring back to the poll now at this stage given you have engaged on the thread a good while now?

Are you trying to reset the current "figures" impasse because its unpalatable to you?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Was just skimming through the Trinity report just now. I did wonder about his use of the 9bn too.

But it's sobering reading all the same. Even if the British pay us to take it, reunification will cost the South a fortune for decades after the event.

Also, whatever direction we go is gonna disproportionally effect one side over the other. Given that 2 countries have to pass referendums, it's gonna be near impossible to make it palatable to both.

Of course it is 'sobering' reading - that was the purpose of it, I suspect.
When somebody uses a figure that anyone with a shred of independence or neutrality knows needs to have subtractions made from it, they are slanting their finding. No two ways about that simple fact.

I reckon this is what will happen up until the Irish and British governments engage and produce their Papers on it.

You will have slanted reports from each side, 'sobering' and 'over optimistic' etc. We have had a number of these.

The basic subvention figure and the breakdown of it in the quoted Doherty piece is hard to refute though.

I have looked for refutation of those figures he got from The ONS of UK and nobody has objected (including the ONS) or refuted them that I can see.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

jh79 wrote: »

Was just skimming through the Trinity report just now. I did wonder about his use of the 9bn too.

But it's sobering reading all the same. Even if the British pay us to take it, reunification will cost the South a fortune for decades after the event.

Everything costs money and countries' are always in debt. But there are savings possible and the expansion of the taxbase is to be welcomed, especially the addition of a large cohort of young people to pay your pension in the years ahead.

Also, whatever direction we go is gonna disproportionally effect one side over the other. Given that 2 countries have to pass referendums, it's gonna be near impossible to make it palatable to both.

Partition disproportionately affected Nationalists though, should that not be taken into consideration?

You need to imagine that the referendum will be conducted in the fashion of an Irish referendum and not one conducted in the UK. So I don't see the issue there.

Do you remember the 1998 referenda on the GFA and Articles 2 and 3?

Redgirl82

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'word' isn't from SF though, it is from the ONS of the UK.

Show the report from ONS UK so? not some extract from a newspaper