How long before Irish reunification?

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

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

You have not provide red a link to the article or a link to the numbers you claim to have. So to this point m proof of anything only your word which is now becoming questionable as you won't provide any links and when asked to you just deflect.

Hamsterchops

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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?

What I'm trying to suggest is that, like Brexit, the grass may not be greener once the utopia has been reached or won. A United Ireland is a worthy aspiration, but if it does happen in some form can we say the prize will be equal to the dream?

Hamsterchops

15-20 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

What I'm trying to suggest is that, like Brexit, the grass may not be greener once the utopia has been reached or won. A United Ireland is a worthy aspiration, but if it does happen in some form can we say the prize will be equal to the dream?

Only one way to find out??

Sure you could say the same about getting the ride

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Most of the report doesn't depend on the 9bn figure and it doesn't invalidate the rest of the paper. Each point stands on its own merit. There is lots in that paper worthy of discussion

I must check again but one section assumes the UK continues with the subvention for 10 years and it still costs the Republic a fortune!

What did you think of the bit about the cost of harmonizing the respective economies making it impossible to fund the investment required to improve NI's economy? Seems logical to me as a lay person.

Thank god we have the referendum commission in the Republic ( is there an NI equivalent?).

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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

Half way through college in 98 ; bit of a blur!

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Most of the report doesn't depend on the 9bn figure and it doesn't invalidate the rest of the paper. Each point stands on its own merit. There is lots in that paper worthy of discussion

I must check again but one section assumes the UK continues with the subvention for 10 years and it still costs the Republic a fortune!

What did you think of the bit about the cost of harmonizing the respective economies making it impossible to fund the investment required to improve NI's economy? Seems logical to me as a lay person.

Thank god we have the referendum commission in the Republic ( is there an NI equivalent?).

Well in that case you cannot dismiss any report. Unless they are found to be using slanted or biased figures.

I would have to read it again to comnent on contents.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

You have not provide red a link to the article or a link to the numbers you claim to have. So to this point m proof of anything only your word which is now becoming questionable as you won't provide any links and when asked to you just deflect.

I don't have to provide you with diddly
I am not claiming the figures to be made up or lies.
That is your baby alone. You doubt them, you back it up.

I explained why the Trinity figure is bogus (they wilfully or incompetently ignored non transferable subtractions).
You need to do the same re: Doherty.

I checked, nobody afaik has rwfuted these figures including the ONS. I also verified the national debt figure on the ONS site and Doherty's figure is bang on.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have to provide you with diddly
I am not claiming the figures to be made up or lies.
That is your baby alone. You doubt them, you back it up.

I explained why the Trinity figure is bogus (they wilfully or incompetently ignored non transferable subtractions).
You need to do the same re: Doherty.

I checked, nobody afaik has rwfuted these figures including the ONS. I also verified the national debt figure on the ONS site and Doherty's figure is bang on.

It's ludicrous.

"Prove to me that you are lying"

This is what it has come down to.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well in that case you cannot dismiss any report. Unless they are found to be using slanted or biased figures.

I would have to read it again to comnent on contents.

No research paper is perfect. As a scientist i've lost count of the number i've read over the years. You can't dismiss them based on single omissions and the purpose of the paper was not to cost the up front value only but to predict future costs too.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

I don't have to provide you with diddly I am not claiming the figures to be made up or lies. That is your baby alone. You doubt them, you back it up.

You haven't provided any link. No link to the article, no link tonthevns figures you claim to have yourself.

FrancieBrady wrote:

I explained why the Trinity figure is bogus (they wilfully or incompetently ignored non transferable subtractions). You need to do the same re: Doherty.

You didn't explain squat. And there's a lot more to that document than just the subvention figure. They suggest the UK will make payments for years and it still costs a fortune.

FrancieBrady wrote:

I checked, nobody afaik has rwfuted these figures including the ONS. I also verified the national debt figure on the ONS site and Doherty's figure is bang on.

You never provided links to anything. So all we have is your word for it. Are we supposed to take the word of a completely biased person?

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

BonnieSituation wrote:

It's ludicrous.[/
"Prove to me that you are lying"

This is what it has come down to.

Smart move for you Bonnie is to sit this one out as you clearly have no understanding of math to go along with your poor understanding of words.

You can't line up as a backup bully boy when you don't understand what you are talking about.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

eagle eye wrote: »

Smart move for you Bonnie is to sit this one out as you clearly have no understanding of math to go along with your poor understanding of words.

You can't line up as a backup bully boy when you don't understand what you are talking about.

You're getting very aggressive this afternoon just because no one is taking your crap.

And an ad hominem attack to boot.

Bold Eagle Eye, bold.

You have said that the figures from the ONS are nonsense. The onus is upon YOU and YOU alone to back that statement up. Until then mon ami, you're gonna just have to get on with it and find something else to attack.

Ask RedGirl how threads work. She was very eager to "school" us Nationalists yesterday. Oh wait, aren't I a Unionist?

Dang, I just don't know anymore. help me Eagle Eye!

---

We can go back to how you ran from your Republican assertions from yesterday if you wish?

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

BonnieSituation wrote:

You have said that the figures from the ONS are nonsense. The onus is upon YOU and YOU alone to back that statement up. Until then mon ami, you're gonna just have to get on with it and find something else to attack.

You see this shows your poor reading qualities. I never said the ONS figures were nonsense, crap or anything. I only asked for a link to them.

As I said my advice to you is to stay out of it, it's far above your level.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

No research paper is perfect. As a scientist i've lost count of the number i've read over the years. You can't dismiss them based on single omissions and the purpose of the paper was not to cost the up front value only but to predict future costs too.

When the major cost is assumed to be X, and it plainly isn't, then I think we can dismiss the findings, even though there may be some worth in the rest of it.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

jh79 wrote: »

No research paper is perfect. As a scientist i've lost count of the number i've read over the years. You can't dismiss them based on single omissions and the purpose of the paper was not to cost the up front value only but to predict future costs too.

You're absolutely right that you can't dismiss a research paper on the basis of a single omission, but when that omission is a central tenet on which all other calculations are derived, you should certainly take the conclusions of that paper with a HUGE pinch of salt.

Imagine how much value you'd attribute to an economics research paper that didn't account for inflation, or a biology research paper that didn't take into account the differing anatomies of a man and a woman. You might glean some information of value from them, but you sure as hell wouldn't depend on them as your primary source.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

You haven't provided any link. No link to the article, no link tonthevns figures you claim to have yourself.

I provided a statement...in which the person making the statement claims to be using data received from The ONS of the UK.

I have NO REASON to doubt they are from the ONS of the UK. YOU DO, you said you don't trust SF/Doherty etc. and intimated that he is lying or making it up.
You have been asked to back that up...you can't.

Yet again...allegation = no back up or proof.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

eagle eye wrote: »

You see this shows your poor reading qualities. I never said the ONS figures were nonsense, crap or anything. I only asked for a link to them.

As I said my advice to you is to stay out of it, it's far above your level.

Oh my word. I'll leave you alone so.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

eagle eye wrote: »

You see this shows your poor reading qualities. I never said the ONS figures were nonsense, crap or anything. I only asked for a link to them.

As I said my advice to you is to stay out of it, it's far above your level.

The only link I can find to the ONS figures myself is the Belfast Telegraph article indicated by Francie.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/9bn-loss-to-northern-ireland-in-event-of-a-united-ireland-is-a-myth-says-sinn-fein-td-38693013.html

I would reinforce Francie's point that if the figures themselves were in doubt, the BelTel would be the first to jump on it, but I can't find a primary source leading back to the ONS that isn't second hand through Doherty.

Certainly we know the headline numbers to be correct re: tax take vs tax spend to give us the gross subvention figure of ~£9bn. I can't find primary source data on exactly how much is made up in pension, military, debt and outside UK spending, but we're all aware these are significant non-zero costs.

With this in mind, I presume while we can't find an exact figure to agree on, everyone can acknowledge that the net subvention sits at significantly below £9bn when these non-transferable costs are removed?

Redgirl82

eagle eye wrote: »

Smart move for you Bonnie is to sit this one out as you clearly have no understanding of math to go along with your poor understanding of words.

You can't line up as a backup bully boy when you don't understand what you are talking about.

You're wasting your time. They come up with numbers out of thin air and then say its up to you to prove the numbers are wrong.

As per the official report, which was done by Sinn Fein, nobody has access to the numbers. The recommendation from the report was the Rep of Ireland carry out a full analysis and create a report. This has not been done.

So unless Francie and Bonnie are saying that Sinn Fein lied in the official report and are now telling the truth to the Belfast Telegraph I think we can all agree they are rubbish

mehico

15-20 years

I think people asking about the cost of reunification is fair but I think the potential economic benefits for the island as a whole should be considered a bit more. A single all island economy instead of two separate competing economies would seem to make sense on a macro level for a start?

FrancieBrady

Redgirl82 wrote: »

You're wasting your time. They come up with numbers out of thin air and then say its up to you to prove the numbers are wrong.

YOU said the numbers were 'made up'. You were asked to back that up. Standard proceedure in the politics/current affairs section here on boards.ie.

You haven't, so we can rightly call you out on that.

As per the official report, which was done by Sinn Fein, nobody has access to the numbers. The recommendation from the report was the Rep of Ireland carry out a full analysis and create a report. This has not been done.

So unless Francie and Bonnie are saying that Sinn Fein lied in the official report and are now telling the truth to the Belfast Telegraph I think we can all agree they are rubbish

What do you mean...nobody has access to the numbers? The sources of the numbers they are using are all given in the fecking report.

Here it is...check it out for yourself.

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

Just lie after lie from you.

Okay, dispute the findings...but the lie after lie that YOU refuse to back up is just crazy levels of delusion here.

Yeah_Right

I think the only fair way to pay for a united Ireland would be if everyone who votes for it in a referendum also provides their PPS number. Then if it goes through, the government can take a percentage of their wage/salary/social to pay for it. I wonder how many pro UI people would vote for it if that was the case.

jh79

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You're absolutely right that you can't dismiss a research paper on the basis of a single omission, but when that omission is a central tenet on which all other calculations are derived, you should certainly take the conclusions of that paper with a HUGE pinch of salt.

Imagine how much value you'd attribute to an economics research paper that didn't account for inflation, or a biology research paper that didn't take into account the differing anatomies of a man and a woman. You might glean some information of value from them, but you sure as hell wouldn't depend on them as your primary source.

That figure is not a central tenet on which all other calculations are derived. Look at the sections on whether the South is harmonized with welfare / PS in the North or vice versa, increased inward investment etc and the cost of that.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

That figure is not a central tenet on which all other calculations are derived. Look at the sections on whether the South is harmonized with welfare / PS in the North or vice versa, increased inward investment etc and the cost of that.

So synopsise it...what data are they basing it on?

Are they assuming figures as they did with the subvention?

FrancieBrady

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I think the only fair way to pay for a united Ireland would be if everyone who votes for it a referendum also provides their PPS number. Then if it goes through, the government can take a percentage of their wage/salary/social to pay for it. I wonder how many pro UI people would vote for it if that was the case.

Will they do that when they ask me to pay my share of Dublin or Cork infrastructure, services etc?

Yeh...your idea is the usual partitionist bitchy begrudgry

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I think the only fair way to pay for a united Ireland would be if everyone who votes for it a referendum also provides their PPS number. Then if it goes through, the government can take a percentage of their wage/salary/social to pay for it. I wonder how many pro UI people would vote for it if that was the case.

I don't want to pay for the medical cards for cosseted over-70s, so when I give my PPS no. can you take the appropriate charge off my bill.

This is how this works right?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When the major cost is assumed to be X, and it plainly isn't, then I think we can dismiss the findings, even though there may be some worth in the rest of it.

My take on it as a lay person is that the subvention is not the major cost. How to harmonize the economies of the Republic with NI is what will cause the lasting damage.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So synopsise it...what data are they basing it on?

Are they assuming figures as they did with the subvention?

Not being smart but how else to you model for something in the future. All reports on the cost of unification are based on assumptions.

jh79

If you google "Seamus McGuinness ESRI and unification" you'll find a report on unification. Had a quick read and it has ONS figures in it.

Here is something he wrote in the IT

Any credible assessment of the cost of unification should incorporate reasonable assumptions around all of these unknown factors under various scenarios. There is little to be achieved through a static analysis of Irish unification whereby the estimated current costs of administering Northern Ireland, which are themselves highly debatable, are simply superimposed on the current tax and welfare systems of the Republic. Such a scenario would never seriously be proposed, or ratified, in any border poll.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/four-known-unknowns-of-the-cost-of-irish-unity-1.4030297

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

jh79 wrote: »

My take on it as a lay person is that the subvention is not the major cost.

Correct. The Subvention will cease to exist in the same way we don't show the subvention for road building in Mayo or water treatment in Tipperary.

But the subvention asit exists within the UK is important as a starting point. and the argument that those of us on the pro-UI side continue to stress is that to start with a ridiculously high and inaccurate figure is disingenuous.

How to harmonize the economies of the Republic with NI is what will cause the lasting damage.

Why is it "lasting damage"?

The economy is fairly harmonised as it is. There are aspects that will need to be improved on both sides of the border on reunification of course, but that would be expected in any case especially as the North is currently being "run down" and devoid of investment that will only leap on reunification.