How long before Irish reunification?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Even the Gardai alone, at a figure of 12m a year is a 'cost' to the taxpayer here FH.

WHICH IS WHAT I SAID. It cost the taxpayer money. .

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If 12m a year extra for the Gardai on their own, isn't 'a lot' of money then I think we know who is 'spoofing' around here.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What nonsense are you talking now?

I said the north cost us a lot of money, and it did. 12 million is a conservative estimate for what was spent on the Gardai alone.

The taxpayer paid for it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

12 million is 12 freaking million.

I SAID the north cost us...if you agree the Gardai cost 12 million a year then you agree there was a cost.

Anything else?

You did not take on board yet the small size of 12 million (much of which the government would get back in taxes of one type or another) in the context of overall government expenditure, and the size of our tourism industry compared to that of N.I. at the time.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

You did not take on board yet the small size of 12 million (much of which the government would get back in taxes of one type or another) in the context of overall government expenditure, and the size of our tourism industry compared to that of N.I. at the time.

Oh I did teacher. All I said was the north has cost us a lot of money over the years. Honestly teach, that is all I said, nothing more.

If I am wrong about that then remind me not to give you control of the budget for anything.
If we accept blanch's figure (way too low in my opinion) for Gardai alone, and ignore all the other significant costs for the army, infrastructure etc...that's a cool 360 million over the 30 years of the conflict. Not to mention what the border cost us since partition. 360 million would buy a lot of onions.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If we accept blanch's figure (way too low in my opinion) for Gardai alone, and ignore all the other significant costs for the army, infrastructure etc...that's a cool 360 million over the 30 years of the conflict. Not to mention what the border cost us since partition. 360 million would buy a lot of onions.

So you are against a border in these islands? I suppose that is why other groups of islands in the world are not divided eg New Zealand, Japan, the Canaries etc, it does not make economic sense to divide groups of islands.

If we had not partition, do you think the new childrens hospital would be costing the taxpayer here so much, nearly twice the next most expensive hospital in the world per bed I believe?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

So you are against a border in these islands? I suppose that is why other groups of islands in the world are not divided eg New Zealand, Japan, the Canaries etc, it does not make economic sense to divide groups of islands.

If we had not partition, do you think the new childrens hospital would be costing the taxpayer here so much, nearly twice the next most expensive hospital in the world per bed I believe?

The hospital is costing so much because of years of a power swap between FG and FF and the general uselessness of the public service here. But that is for a completely different thread.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The hospital is costing so much because of years of a power swap between FG and FF and the general uselessness of the public service here. But that is for a completely different thread.

I suppose the public service here, bad and all as it has been under FG and FF governments, would be even worse off under a British or UK government, if these islands were reunited?

The only solution, according to Francie (who never voted for a SF candidate in an election :rolleyes:) is to have a SF government.


:D:D:D:D:D

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

I suppose the public service here, bad and all as it has been under FG and FF governments, would be even worse off under a British or UK government, if these islands were reunited?

The only solution, according to Francie (who never voted for a SF candidate in an election :rolleyes:) is to have a SF government.


:D:D:D:D:D

I wouldn't let SF near the reigns of the Dept Of Finance jan.

I don't think SF are ready for government on their own. They are however a very decent opposition party and fulfill that role better than most and there is no reason they wouldn't make a decent coalition party.

But do keep making ill-informed guesses about me (otherwise known as lies) They're endlessly entertaining.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But do keep making ill-informed guesses about me (otherwise known as lies) They're endlessly entertaining.

So glad you are entertained. I do remember you saying who you mostly voted and did not vote for. That what what was entertaining.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

So glad you are entertained. I do remember you saying who you mostly voted and did not vote for. That what what was entertaining.

Endlessly entertained by your Irish Bad British good shtick jan...endlessly.

Who do you vote for btw?

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Endlessly entertained by your Irish Bad British good shtick jan...endlessly.

There are good and bad in Ireland just as there are in Britain Francie. However you are continually blaming the British for everything, it is quite amusing.
Endlessly entertained by your British / Unionist Bad Irish Republican good shtick Francie.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would think that is way way on the conservative side. But even so, the North has cost the Irish taxpayer money. Add to that what was spent on the army being here permanently in barracks that don't exist anymore.

And add all the other security costs and you have a large figure. Nobody ever suggested it as a counterweight to the Subvention.

Facehugger seems to be under the delusion that it hasn't cost the Irish taxpayer up to this point. It has and more than economically.

Option 1: partition, cost to the taxpayers €12m

Option 2: unification, cost to the taxpayer €12 billion plus


Now if spending €12m is the cost of not spending €12billion, then partition is a bargain to the Irish taxpayer, and they are quids in, rather than it costing anything

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You may not agree with the conclusions, but an analysis it certainly is.

You might as well say this:

You may not agree with the contents of the average six-year olds English copybook but analysis it certainly is.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

There are good and bad in Ireland just as there are in Britain Francie. However you are continually blaming the British for everything, it is quite amusing.
Endlessly entertained by your British / Unionist Bad Irish Republican good shtick Francie.

I am quite specific about what I blame the British for jan. Backing and supporting a sectarian and bigoted statelet until it went up in flames and even then continuing to take the Unionist side.
They didn't stop doing that until they got sick of Unionists and ended their veto (which they had no right to in any 'democracy') in agreeing to the Anglo Irish Agreement. And even since that they have had to dragged kicking and screaming to admit their wrongdoing.
I also fully accept that republicans fought too long and committed many atrocities themselves. I, unlike a few others, have fully read up on what happened at Kingsmill for instance and incident like it, and am ashamed and embarrassed that any republican was involved in it.

I want that to end, I want the core reason it happens - partition - to end, so we can build an inclusive and equal society.

You just want to vindicate the British, and praise the infra-structure they left us as a pressie.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Option 1: partition, cost to the taxpayers €12m

Option 2: unification, cost to the taxpayer €12 billion plus


Now if spending €12m is the cost of not spending €12billion, then partition is a bargain to the Irish taxpayer, and they are quids in, rather than it costing anything

You are a 12 billion man. Excellent. Stand downwind of Facehugger, his bill is only 11 billion.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are a 12 billion man. Excellent. Stand downwind of Facehugger, his bill is only 11 billion.

No answer, not surprised.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You may not agree with the conclusions, but an analysis it certainly is.

You might as well say this:

You may not agree with the contents of the average six-year olds English copybook but analysis it certainly is.

Specifics, Blanch, with sources - counter some points from the report rather than just snidely dismiss. The old adage goes, 'that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence', so currently your 'critique' amounts to zip.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No answer, not surprised.

No there definitely is an answer in there. You 12 billion cost is nonsense.

Itemise it for us...what would we be paying 12 billion for and how much would northern Ireland contribute?

'That is the subvention' is not an answer btw.

cj maxx

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am quite specific about what I blame the British for jan. Backing and supporting a sectarian and bigoted statelet until it went up in flames and even then continuing to take the Unionist side.
They didn't stop doing that until they got sick of Unionists and ended their veto (which they had no right to in any 'democracy') in agreeing to the Anglo Irish Agreement. And even since that they have had to dragged kicking and screaming to admit their wrongdoing.
I also fully accept that republicans fought too long and committed many atrocities themselves. I, unlike a few others, have fully read up on what happened at Kingsmill for instance and incident like it, and am ashamed and embarrassed that any republican was involved in it.

I want that to end, I want the core reason it happens - partition - to end, so we can build an inclusive and equal society.

You just want to vindicate the British, and praise the infra-structure they left us as a pressie.

Francie Brady , there's alot of posters on here talking about the rights and wrongs of partition and what it cost in €. Some from Britain and some from down south of where we are. Very few of them know or can possibly understand what it was like living on the border. Going through army checkpoints in your everyweek life , seeing british army near your home ( in the republic), special branch, garda check points on quiet country roads on the way home .
Rangers hiding in ditches ( I hope they were rangers ) but there was soldiers from somewhere on the local roads ! All this stuff is completely over the head of keyboard warriors who were in Belfast once, or have never crossed the border,.
I'm glad the war is over but it happened for a reason. If that pisses some people off so be it .
NI was an apartheid, protestant statelet that as a matter of state and routinely discriminated against Catholics.

eire4

blanch152 wrote: »

Option 1: partition, cost to the taxpayers €12m

Option 2: unification, cost to the taxpayer €12 billion plus


Now if spending €12m is the cost of not spending €12billion, then partition is a bargain to the Irish taxpayer, and they are quids in, rather than it costing anything

Just as there is no hard data as to what the costs of partition were and are for Ireland equally there is only speculation right now as to what the cost of reunification would be to Ireland rather then hard numbers like your claiming.

There is no question reunification would be costly but nobody knows right now how much. For instance as Ireland right now is a net contributor to the EU a reunified Ireland would likely revert back to being a net recipient from the EU annually at least in the medium to short term. In addition it is very likely the EU would be prepared to help Ireland in the short term with the costs. Although how much obviously is unknow at this point. Ireland could raise its corporate tax rate from 12.5% to say 15% still keeping it quite low but bringing in a good sum certainly. The corporate rate in Belfast is I think 20% so that would represent a significant reduction there and an incentive for business to settle there with the potential for significant movement of companies leaving England after brexit and Ireland likely to be a large recipient of these movements. Then there is the bailout loans we still have those and they could be restructured in a way to free up some more money for reunification. Just some ways at getting at the numbers and making things manageable. But clearly this is something that will require some real serious work to figure out what the costs really are and what ways such as say those above can be brought to bear to make the cost manageable.
IMHO reunification is a good thing for Ireland and will benefit us all in the long run and we should work hard to find ways such as the examples I give above to make it workable financially in the short term as I have no doubt in my mind that in the long run reunification would be positive for the whole island economically.

blinding

10-15 years

Leo will give the Brits anything / everything Not to have a United Ireland .

janfebmar

blanch152 wrote: »

Option 1: partition, cost to the taxpayers €12m

Option 2: unification, cost to the taxpayer €12 billion plus


Now if spending €12m is the cost of not spending €12billion, then partition is a bargain to the Irish taxpayer, and they are quids in, rather than it costing anything

Good point, now let's see what Francie says to that.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are a 12 billion man. Excellent. Stand downwind of Facehugger, his bill is only 11 billion.

12 billion minus 12 million is 11 billion? I see it was not just your history lessons but your maths lessons you were dozing in at school, Francie. Oh, I forgot, it is the British who are to blame for our educational standards too, all post colonial societies are victims of colonialism generations after the oppressor leaves. I feel sorry for you.

_blaaz

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Well , if there was no partition in these islands, we would not be paying 2 billion for a new childrens hospital, the most expensive per bed by far in the world.

Wtf

This makes no sense....how is the childrens hospiteal fault of partition

janfebmar

_blaaz wrote: »

Wtf

This makes no sense....how is the childrens hospiteal fault of partition

Nobody said the "childrens hospital was the fault of partition", but Francie was going on about the cost of partition on the taxpayer here, and the point was made that if we had not partition in these islands (if we were still part of the UK), it would be unlikely the taxpayer here would be stung for 2 billion for building a new hospital....nearly twice as much per bed as the next most expensive hospital in the world.
Good man Francie.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

janfebmar wrote: »

_blaaz wrote: »

Wtf

This makes no sense....how is the childrens hospiteal fault of partition

Nobody said the "childrens hospital was the fault of partition", but Francie was going on about the cost of partition on the taxpayer here, and the point was made that if we had not partition in these islands (if we were still part of the UK), it would be unlikely the taxpayer here would be stung for 2 billion for building a new hospital....nearly twice as much per bed as the next most expensive hospital in the world.
Good man Francie.

You don't half spout some awful dung

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Nobody said the "childrens hospital was the fault of partition", but Francie was going on about the cost of partition on the taxpayer here, and the point was made that if we had not partition in these islands (if we were still part of the UK), it would be unlikely the taxpayer here would be stung for 2 billion for building a new hospital....nearly twice as much per bed as the next most expensive hospital in the world.
Good man Francie.

Is this a serious post?

janfebmar

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You don't half spout some awful dung

Francie is right to be giving out about "partionists". It is costing the island dearly. As the great Gay Byrne ( Irelands biggest TV personality and chat show host ever) once said, "we wanted our independence, we have to pay for it".

facehugger99

janfebmar wrote: »

If the troubles cost us 12 million in extra Gardai, how much did we benefit by all the tourists who wanted to come to Ireland coming south of the border ( instead of all over the island) and benefiting our economy?

Excellent point.

I would imagine that hotels/restaurants in the border regions of the ROI see a large increase in business around the 12th July celebrations for example.

I'd imagine the additional VAT on its own cancels out any overtime Gardai bill of €12m.

Quite possible that partition is providing a net gain to the exchequer.

No doubt Francie will have some actual costings (or more likely bit of bluster) to dispute this

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Excellent point.

I would imagine that hotels/restaurants in the border regions of the ROI see a large increase in business around the 12th July celebrations for example.

I'd imagine the additional VAT on its own cancels out any overtime Gardai bill of €12m.

Quite possible that partition is providing a net gain to the exchequer.

No doubt Francie will have some actual costings (or more likely bit of bluster) to dispute this

No doubt you'll be joining janfeb's new political movement advocating we re-join the UK to get freebie children's hospitals to go along with all the lovely infrastructure they built for us the last time?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No doubt you'll be joining janfeb's new political movement advocating we re-join the UK to get freebie children's hospitals to go along with all the lovely infrastructure they built for us the last time?

Was that really the best you could come up with?

I mean you said

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As any real taxpayer knows NI has cost them a lot of money over the year's, as it is.

Like, what's the difficulty in backing this up?

You said it like it was so self-evident that you had easy-to-hand proof.

The only figures you gave us are those Blanch generously worked out for you.

This is getting like one of those Gerry Adams interviews from a few years ago where he'd be asked actual economic questions and he'd flounder around while everyone else sniggered at him - it's a bit car-crash TBH.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Like, what's the difficulty in backing this up?

.

I said NI has cost us money.

If you want to continue telling us that that maintenance of the border was free or a tax write off that actually enriched us (which is what jan seems to be saying through the jumble of nonsense) knock your self out.

I don't think the 'actual' figure exists for what the maintenance of the border cost us.

And I am not bothered going looking for them. I accept it cost us money, a great deal of money as well as the social cost.

You can try and demean that point all you wish, it won't change the reality.