How long before Irish reunification?

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

jh79 wrote: »

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.

Of course they are. But assumptions can be pretty accurate when they are calculated correctly and not plucked from the sky.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

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.

I don't think he has a clue what he is talking about, I'll rephrase that, he hasn't a clue what he is talking about in that article.

Fionn1952 wrote:

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

Thanks for the link that somebody else couldn't supply. I'm shocked that anybody could take this seriously.

FrancieBrady wrote:

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

I looked at it and couldn't find the word subvention anywhere. Can you point me to where it is?
Interestingly when I looked into who the KRB are I found a hidden SF group.

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.

This is the critica thingl, it's not just a single year amount and they are claiming the UK will pay a lot of money over a number of years and it's still huge money. The upscaling of services to the higher standard will cost ridiculous money too.

BonnieSituation wrote:

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.

I'm was clearly a joke but you can't even see that.

jh79 wrote:

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.

Not just that, upscale of services, dragging the NI economy out of the pits before harmonisation. The Trinity report covers it all.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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.



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.

The subvention will change to a different type of expenditure but it still has to be paid for.

If you read the report you'll see that major investment is needed to stimulate the economy in NI and that cost along with the cost of harmonizing welfare and PS pay rates may be prohibitively expensive.

jh79

Here is the ESRI report.

https://www.esri.ie/publications/the-political-economy-of-a-northern-ireland-border-poll

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

jh79 wrote: »

The subvention will change to a different type of expenditure but it still has to be paid for.

It's not an ongoing bill or invoice for NI though from UI onwards.

Subvention occurs throughout any country. So of course with us taking on a moribund economic backwater that the British created there will be credit/capital transfers from Dublin to the NE to bring aspects of it up to the standards of the South. No one is EVER denying that that will have to occur.

If you read the report you'll see that major investment is needed to stimulate the economy in NI and that cost along with the cost of harmonizing welfare and PS pay rates may be prohibitively expensive.

Again, no one is denying that major investment is not required. There will be costs in the event of a UI, but it's not all money spaffed against a wall.

Harmonizing welfare rates DOWN is no bad thing.

The PS in the North will also reduce as duplication of services and roles are eliminated.

You speak like all of these things are happening in some sort of BIG BANG scenario. Everything will be costed and deliberately enacted upon over a period of time

It's not a case of we vote for a UI on a Wednesday and on a Thursday we are reunited.

But the whole project needs to be discussed and brought forward and haranguing and shouting that "IT'S GONNA COST US €20BN" or "NOBODY IN THE SOUTH WANTS IT" over and over as some are wont to do, is not constructive.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's not an ongoing bill or invoice for NI though from UI onwards.

Subvention occurs throughout any country. So of course with us taking on a moribund economic backwater that the British created there will be credit/capital transfers from Dublin to the NE to bring aspects of it up to the standards of the South. No one is EVER denying that that will have to occur.



Again, no one is denying that major investment is not required. There will be costs in the event of a UI, but it's not all money spaffed against a wall.

Harmonizing welfare rates DOWN is no bad thing.

The PS in the North will also reduce as duplication of services and roles are eliminated.

You speak like all of these things are happening in some sort of BIG BANG scenario. Everything will be costed and deliberately enacted upon over a period of time

It's not a case of we vote for a UI on a Wednesday and on a Thursday we are reunited.

But the whole project needs to be discussed and brought forward and haranguing and shouting that "IT'S GONNA COST US €20BN" or "NOBODY IN THE SOUTH WANTS IT" over and over as some are wont to do, is not constructive.

For the first point is still an expense on the Republic that will only exist if we unify and is therefore a cost of unification.

On your second point you really need to read the report. The cost of harmonization is a yearly cost, without inward investment in NI to Republic levels that cost will continue ad infinitum.

Redgirl82

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.




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.

Is this not the information that was pulled from this report and put in by Sinn Fein into the government report. The government report which recommended the numbers are incorrect and the Rep of Ireland needed to carry out it's own study?

Less of the aggressive posting Francie. It's not nice is it now?

Yeah_Right

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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?

No that's already part of the deal for living in this country. You want to vote for something that will add a huge expense for this country for no real benefit. If that's what you want then you should be willing to pay for it.

If there was to be a "unification tax" how much are you willing to contribute per annum?

Redgirl82

Yeah_Right wrote: »

No that's already part of the deal for living in this country. You want to vote for something that will add a huge expense for this country for no real benefit. If that's what you want then you should be willing to pay for it.

If there was to be a "unification tax" how much are you willing to contribute per annum?

I think the more interesting question is not about tax, but about a social welfare cut. Let's see the reaction then.

FrancieBrady

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Is this not the information that was pulled from this report and put in by Sinn Fein into the government report. The government report which recommended the numbers are incorrect and the Rep of Ireland needed to carry out it's own study?

Less of the aggressive posting Francie. It's not nice is it now?

You have told two lies about this...Lie = something you said than you cannot and refuse to back up.

Lie No. 1. That Pearse Doherty has made up the ONS of The UK's data.

Lie No. 2. That the authors of the report included in the work of the Oireachtas Committee have made up numbers in their modeling of Unification.

Any numbers they use they give the source of them.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have told two lies about this...Lie = something you said than you cannot and refuse to back up.

Lie No. 1. That Pearse Doherty has made up the ONS of The UK's data.

Lie No. 2. That the authors of the report included in the work of the Oireachtas Committee have made up numbers in their modeling of Unification.

Any numbers they use they give the source of them.

I think the ESRI link i put up might support some of PD's figures.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I think the ESRI link i put up might support some of PD's figures.

Is it all 'made up' or can the crew get behind it?


Cheers, will have a look at that later.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it all 'made up' or can the crew get behind it?


Cheers, will have a look at that later.

Page 22 / 23 . 1.1 bn on defence and 2.4 bn on non-identifiable. Think that matches his figures.

Hamsterchops

I wonder what would happen if the tussle/tug of war had somebody at the other end of the rope?

Currently all the pulling is being done by ourselves, pulling and pulling and doing our best to pull NI out of the UK, but Britain is not pulling back, with the only resistance being the NI population themselves, who just won't let go of Britain......

If Britain was to hold in to the rope it would be impossible to hold on, but seeing as they don't care, we should be able to pull NI out of their grasp very easily, shouldn't we?

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if the tussle/tug of war had somebody at the other end of the rope?

Currently all the pulling is being done by ourselves, pulling and pulling and doing our best to pull NI out of the UK, but Britain is not pulling back, with the only resistance being the NI population themselves, who just won't let go of Britain......

If Britain was to hold in to the rope it would be impossible to hold on, but seeing as they don't care, we should be able to pull NI out of their grasp very easily, shouldn't we?

GFA was their withdrawal in my opinion. All they need is for it to come internally, then they cannot be blamed for anything if it goes pear shaped.

I think they are very aware they cannot waver on it, and as a government must remain scrupulously neutral as they undertook to be in the GFA.

Redgirl82

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have told two lies about this...Lie = something you said than you cannot and refuse to back up.

Lie No. 1. That Pearse Doherty has made up the ONS of The UK's data.

Lie No. 2. That the authors of the report included in the work of the Oireachtas Committee have made up numbers in their modeling of Unification.

Any numbers they use they give the source of them.

So is it the same report?

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

GFA was their withdrawal in my opinion.

I think they are very aware they cannot waver on it, and as a government must remain scrupulously neutral as they undertook to be in the GFA.

So to stick with my tug if war analogy, are you saying that Britain let go of the rope in 1998?

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

So to stick with my tug if war analogy, are you saying that Britain let go of the rope in 1998?

Ever see a tug of war team lying on the rope? Neither being pulled or pulling.

That would be the analogy. The British withdrew in 98, they would never have signed the GFA if they had any belief that NI was a legitimate part of the UK.

Their exit strategy in my opinion is to wait and allow a UI to happen organically and they will as they guaranteed remain neutral on it. 'It is for the people of Ireland to decide their fate...' etc etc

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

So it seems that we are all now in agreement that the cost of a UI is astronomical?
So moving on. An independent national psychology report is something that badly needs to be done in Northern Ireland to see if the country is ready to leave the UK and then ready for a UI.

I strongly believe that Northern Ireland is not ready for a United Ireland. They may be ready to leave the UK, I'm not sure about that.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

So it seems that we are all now in agreement that the cost of a UI is astronomical?
So moving on. An independent national psychology report is something that badly needs to be done in Northern Ireland to see if the country is ready to leave the UK and then ready for a UI.

I strongly believe that Northern Ireland is not ready for a United Ireland. They may be ready to leave the UK, I'm not sure about that.

You want to 'assess the electorate psychologically'??

Has a more arrogant derogatory post about people ever been made here?

Did you read/think about that before posting?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Page 22 / 23 . 1.1 bn on defence and 2.4 bn on non-identifiable. Think that matches his figures.

Would you agree that the subvention is a lot lower than 9 billion on the basis of that and Doherty's more comprehensive figures?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would you agree that the subvention is a lot lower than 9 billion on the basis of that and Doherty's more comprehensive figures?

ESRI say its 25% less but also that static numbers are not a serious way of costing a UI.

Pearse's figures are correct just to simple to predict the true cost.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

Would you agree that the subvention is a lot lower than 9 billion on the basis of that and Doherty's more comprehensive figures?

I actually thought Doherty was quite smart until I read that report.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

ESRI say its 25% less but also that static numbers are not a serious way of costing a UI.

Pearse's figures are correct just to simple to predict the true cost.

I don't think Doherty was predicting the cost of a UI.
He was just rubbishing the idea that the subvention is as high as the 'big bullions and bullions scary figures' bandied about.
Makes the Trinity guys look a bit amateur to be honest.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

I actually thought Doherty was quite smart until I read that report.

You should have him 'tested'.

He didn't write the report by the way.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think Doherty was predicting the cost of a UI.
He was just rubbishing the idea that the subvention is as high as the 'big bullions and bullions scary figures' bandied about.
Makes the Trinity guys look a bit amateur to be honest.

Nobody knows how much of the non-identifiable is an expense of NI so i reckon the Prof just stuck to the figures that could be confirmed.

I didn't read the whole thing so there could be an explanation on there somewhere.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British withdrew in 98, they would never have signed the GFA if they had any belief that NI was a legitimate part of the UK.

That's a crazy assertion, as you might also say the same of Scotland & Wales since they too got their devolved assemblies, they also have self determination as to whether or not they stay (or leave) the Union, that is the United Kingdom.

Legitimate regions & countries all as recognised by international law and by our own government.

Once you start suggesting that NI is not legit, then you give credence to the Terrorists aims.

RobMc59

10-15 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

That's a crazy assertion, as you might also say the same of Scotland & Wales since they too got their devolved assemblies, they also have self determination as to whether or not they stay (or leave) the Union, that is the United Kingdom.

Legitimate regions & countries all as recognised by international law and by our own government.

Once you start suggesting that NI is not legit, then you give credence to the Terrorists aims.

The GFA has effectively neutered the ira and so that is a win for Britain.The win for Ireland is that sometime in the future there is a genuine possibility of a UI.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

That's a crazy assertion, as you might also say the same of Scotland & Wales since they too got their devolved assemblies, they also have self determination as to whether or not they stay (or leave) the Union, that is the United Kingdom.

Legitimate regions & countries all as recognised by international law and by our own government.

Once you start suggesting that NI is not legit, then you give credence to the Terrorists aims.

There is no third non-UK country involved with Scotland and Wales. They agreed with a non UK country that they have no future say in what a territory they owned decides to do. Why would you do that if you thought your ownership was legit?
They will leave people who identify as British behind, I don't think they would agree that with another country in respect to Scotland or Wales. It was tacit withdrawal.

Sunny Disposition

15-20 years

In many ways the unionists are a funny aul crowd, against gay marriage, mad religious, like sectarian things like the Orange Order. Why are they so tied up with trying to be British though? Britain doesn’t even like them really, ditched them in the Brexit negotiations. Wouldn’t they be taken much more seriously if they threw their lot in with us? We could have a new flag and a therm, make Irish optional in school in the north as it is now. They’d be much happier. Yeah