How long before Irish reunification?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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 accept something that you don't think exists?

Wow - we're really in the Francie-realm of economic arguments now.

So you just accept things because they tie in with your own narrow beliefs but demand proof of things that don't.

Spoken like a true fanatic lad.

Dangerous way of thinking IMO but not surprising coming from yourself.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

You accept something that you don't think exists?

Wow - we're really in the Francie-realm of economic arguments now.

So you just accept things because they tie in with your own narrow beliefs but demand proof of things that don't.

Spoken like a true fanatic lad.

Dangerous way of thinking IMO but not surprising coming from yourself.

I accept that it cost money because I saw the money being spent. Unless the 87 Gardai stationed in my town during the conflict/war were working for free, unless the frequent helicopter flights by the Irish Army were for free, if the infrastructure was free, if all the soldiers stationed in barracks along the border and fed and watered was for free. If the Heavy Gang were armed and equipped for free?
Unless all the problems presented by the border were dealt with for free?


It might be better for you to go back on your holidays. You are not really proving anything here only your inherent obstinacy.

blanch152

eire4 wrote: »

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.

This is a really good example of the taxing unicorns and rainbows approach to unification.

Restructuring of the bailout loans? Already done, the NTMA has been doing this for the last few years, and the savings have been swallowed up by the social welfare increases.

Corporate rate of 20% in the North being cut? That will cost money in the short term before all the businesses wanting to set up in Belfast come charging over the hill.

Are you going to harmonise personal income taxes as well? If so, the precedent you set is downwards so more cost to the Exchequer.

EU funds? Would love to see the figures that claim we will be a net beneficiary again. Anyways, any saving will be dwarfed by the €12 bn.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

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.

Skim the report yourself. You only need to note the formatting and fonts to realise it is a poor quality copy and paste job.

After that, play spot the contradictory statements.

If you are still reading it after that, you have some persistence

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I accept that it cost money because I saw the money being spent. Unless the 87 Gardai stationed in my town during the conflict/war were working for free, unless the frequent helicopter flights by the Irish Army were for free, if the infrastructure was free, if all the soldiers stationed in barracks along the border and fed and watered was for free. If the Heavy Gang were armed and equipped for free?
Unless all the problems presented by the border were dealt with for free?


It might be better for you to go back on your holidays. You are not really proving anything here only your inherent obstinacy.

But what about the economic benefits pointed out to you - do you accept them in the same fashion that you accept the costs? Have you deducted them from the costs? Do you know whether the figure is a net benefit or cost for the taxpayer?

I mean that was the original point - that is was a cost right?

Explain it me again, as the real taxpayer that you are.

Take it from the very start.

FrancieBrady

Here's some holiday reading for you facehugger. Have a read through this,(plenty of opportunities for more in depth research within it as well) then come back and tell us that the border has not cost us a great deal, economically and socially and is about to do the same again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/borderlands/keeping-peace

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

That is a fallacies argument.

You say Northern Ireland has cost us money. That statement is only true if the cost to the South of partition is greater than the cost of unification.

All the evidence suggests the opposite is true by a factor of billions of euro. By leaving the economic basket-case in the hands of the UK, we can continue to save ourselves billions.

P.S. the North only became an economic basket-case after the IRA got going.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

But what about the economic benefits pointed out to you -

Ah sure why don't we bring it all back so.

What in god's name are we dealing with here, with jan and yourself and anyone backing you up. An insidious and downright dangerous partitionism.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a fallacies argument.

You say Northern Ireland has cost us money.

that is exaclty what I said and I never compared it to the cost of unification. Ever.

That statement is only true if the cost to the South of partition is greater than the cost of unification.

All the evidence suggests the opposite is true by a factor of billions of euro. By leaving the economic basket-case in the hands of the UK, we can continue to save ourselves billions.

P.S. the North only became an economic basket-case after the IRA got going.

The essence of partitionist thinking right there blanch.

Let the place burn as long as it doesn't (or we can pretend it doesn't) affect us.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah sure why don't we bring it all back so.

What in god's name are we dealing with here, with jan and yourself and anyone backing you up. An insidious and downright dangerous partitionism.

No figures then? How predictable.

A personal jibe at partitionists? Again, utterly predictable.

Leaving the North in the hands of the UK for the last 50 years has saved us taxpayers in the South countless billlions. Until someone can change that maths, unification will remain a fantasist dream based on taxing unicorns and rainbows.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

that is exaclty what I said and I never compared it to the cost of unification. Ever.



The essence of partitionist thinking right there blanch.

Let the place burn as long as it doesn't (or we can pretend it doesn't) affect us.

Rinse and repeat, the same unchallenged answer for you. Come back with some real figures

blanch152 wrote: »

No figures then? How predictable.

A personal jibe at partitionists? Again, utterly predictable.

Leaving the North in the hands of the UK for the last 50 years has saved us taxpayers in the South countless billlions. Until someone can change that maths, unification will remain a fantasist dream based on taxing unicorns and rainbows.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here's some holiday reading for you facehugger. Have a read through this,(plenty of opportunities for more in depth research within it as well) then come back and tell us that the border has not cost us a great deal, economically and socially and is about to do the same again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/borderlands/keeping-peace

What's this got to do with the questions you were asked?

Deflection alert Folks!

IAMAMORON

Just as a message to all unionists who are contributing and reading this thread, please do yourselves a favour and vote for more progressive unionists at the next general election.

In 20 years you will look back in dismay at how much of an open goal your current reps in Westminster have missed. The fact remains that the policy of " no surrender" has massively misfired this time and the real victims are the people of Ulster, again.

Why Foster, Wilson, Donaldson, Dodds et all have not spent the last 3 years trying to cut a deal for all people in the North is unforgivable. The fact remains that they have missed a chance to keep northern Ireland in the Eu whilst solidifying the human rights of all its' citizens, unionist and nationalist alike. Any deal they demanded would no doubt have been music to the ears of the hardest of Brexiteers, at any point in the last 3 years youse had the opportunity to reap the benefits of being both in the EU economically and in your British Empire nationally. The fact remains that your politicians dropped the ball, at the expense of your own people.

When the good people of Sandy Row and the Ormeau start bitching about the price of their Colcannon and Yorkshire ham this November they will only have the DUP to blame. The same people will be giving out when their heating bills are doubled and their trips to Ibrox are twice the price. All because their own MP's couldn't see the big picture and take advantage, clueless stuff if you don't mind me saying.

Get your heads out of the sand and vote in some politicians that are more interested in Ulster than drinking coffee in the departure lounge of George Best airport of a Monday morning. Talking shight to their PR reps while they work out what " no surrender " bile they are going to spew at Sky News reporters on the steps of Westminster all week. These people do not have your best interests at heart, believe.

Youse will never have a better opportunity to carve out a better future for the north. Get on with it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Rinse and repeat, the same unchallenged answer for you. Come back with some real figures

Like the 12 million you plucked out of the air?

Good man blanch.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

What's this got to do with the questions you were asked?

Deflection alert Folks!

Well before you went on your inane pedantic spin, I was making the point that the border has cost us all a great deal, economically and socially.

That is what that article is about. It isn't fiction.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like the 12 million you plucked out of the air?

What was your figure again Francie?



You grabbed onto Blanch's figure like a drowning man grabs onto a life bouy.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well before you went on your inane pedantic spin, I was making the point that the border has cost us all a great deal, economically and socially.

That is what that article is about. It isn't fiction.

"Socially" is a very recently introduced word by your self Francie :rolleyes: - Any chance of a few figures from the link to back up your argument - couldn't see any myself.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

What was your figure again Francie?



You grabbed onto Blanch's figure like a drowning man grabs onto a life bouy.

No, I said I thought it was 'too low'...more lies from you FH. Are you struggling there?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like the 12 million you plucked out of the air?

Good man blanch.

I didn’t pluck the €12m out of the air.

You put forward 87 gardai, some soldiers and a few bits and pieces from state agencies. That was your suggestion.

I costed it using an average cost per Garda plus add-ons for the other things. You can look back through the posts and query the costings if you like, but they were based on your suggestions so if anyone was plucking things out of the air, it was you. The costings stand up if your original suggestions stand up.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well before you went on your inane pedantic spin, I was making the point that the border has cost us all a great deal, economically and socially.

That is what that article is about. It isn't fiction.

No you weren’t, you were talking purely about financial costs. Spin again.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

"Socially" is a very recently introduced word by your self Francie :rolleyes: - Any chance of a few figures from the link to back up your argument - couldn't see any myself.

More pedantic lies from FH.

FrancieBrady wrote:

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.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110865517&postcount=2229

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn’t pluck the €12m out of the air.

You put forward 87 gardai, some soldiers and a few bits and pieces from state agencies. That was your suggestion.

I costed it using an average cost per Garda plus add-ons for the other things. You can look back through the posts and query the costings if you like, but they were based on your suggestions so if anyone was plucking things out of the air, it was you. The costings stand up if your original suggestions stand up.

87 Gardai in one town.

FrancieBrady

Tom Clonan reckons that there were 1800 permanent troops on the border in 8 barracks.

At that point, the Irish Army had approximately 1,800 troops permanently deployed in support of border operations in eight barracks and military installations along its length.

In 2019, on the eve of Brexit, the Irish Defence Forces have just two military posts along 300 miles of a twisting, turning border with over 300 crossing points.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Tom Clonan reckons that there were 1800 permanent troops on the border in 8 barracks.

Does he now?

Was probably cheaper keeping them up there than sending them off to the Leb and the Congo like we do now.

Sounds like a saving to me - any actual figures for us Francie?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More pedantic lies from FH.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110865517&postcount=2229

More Spoof.

Here's the post one more time.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One gets very suspicious the more you say this.

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

The original point concerned "real taxpayers" - remember?

Your arms must be getting tired moving the golaposts. :pac:

Gosh, if only we didn't have a record of which of us was actually lying - eh Francie?

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Does he now?

Was probably cheaper keeping them up there than sending them off to the Leb and the Congo like we do now.

Sounds like a saving to me - any actual figures for us Francie?

I never said I had figures Facehugger.

But I am sure there are many many people who will be delighted to hear that their suffering contributed a net benefit to the state.

That contention has to be the most bizarre one on this thread so far, and that is saying something when somebody else suggested we would have gotten freebie children's hospitals had we remained in the care of the UK.

Get that barbie going and stop embarrassing yourselves.

FrancieBrady

Here is your post. I was talking about other costs as well. As shown. If you want to scroll back the thread I talked about it before too. When I argued that for me the real benefit of a UI is the social benefit, removing the core cause of the conflict - partition.

But go ahead and spin your lie.

facehugger99 wrote: »

"Socially" is a very recently introduced word by your self Francie :rolleyes: - Any chance of a few figures from the link to back up your argument - couldn't see any myself.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I never said I had figures Facehugger.

But, but, but.....you said real taxpayers know that it's cost a lot of money.

How do they know this without figures? Is it like believing in God or the Tooth Fairy or the great-United Ireland myth?

Do you just need to have the faith of a true believer?

Sore arms from moving the goalposts and dizzy from the spinning - I'd suggest a nice lie down Francie - it's not been your best performance today, to be fair.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is your post. I was talking about other costs as well. As shown. If you want to scroll back the thread I talked about it before too. When I argued that for me the real benefit of a UI is the social benefit, removing the core cause of the conflict - partition.

But go ahead and spin your lie.

How is the removal of the border a social benefit when the majority up there want to keep it?

The nonsense from you gets worse.


Edit: and you are only mentioning the social benefits now because you got hammered on the money bit

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

How is the removal of the border a social benefit when the majority up there want to keep it?

Forgive me again, but are we not talking about a time when the 'majority' vote for it?

The nonsense from you gets worse.


Edit: and you are only mentioning the social benefits now because you got hammered on the money bit

Not surprised you want to get in on the lie blanch. A post from just 2 days ago on this VERY thread. Add iot to the one I posted to counter FH's lie.

Are you man enough to withdraw your lie? I wonder.

And again, in many people's minds the 'economic' cost is not everything if there are other benefits.
We pay for many things that we don't personally benefit from in this state. Not everyone is selfish in other words.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110853364&postcount=2159