How long before Irish reunification?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

It must really hurt that we can go back a few posts every time you try to wriggle and spin.

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.

Caught spoofing again

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

It must really hurt that we can go back a few posts every time you try to wriggle and spin.




Caught spoofing again

janfebmar levels of spinning here Facehugger. You claim I never mentioned the social benefits.

The posts above refute that categorically. More of your obstinacy and ranting.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

janfebmar levels of spinning here Facehugger. You claim I never mentioned the social benefits.

Quite the opposite Francie - I claimed you later introduced it to the original argument and then pulled out the posts to prove it.

You want me to do the same with this point or have you had enough for the day?:cool:

Look Francie, I'll give you a bit of a break. There comes a point when the ease with which I can demolish your arguments takes away from the associated satisfaction - we've reached that point.

I do however, think the thread has proved interesting in showing just how quick pro-unification arguments crumble under the mildest of forensic questioning. Imagine what it would be like if an actual referendum campaign were ever run.

Were it not for the likely destabilising and divisive nature of such a campaign, I'd nearly like to see it for the laugh.

FrancieBrady

Very very difficult to find total figures for the cost of the north's conflict/war to us. If anyone knows of a source it would be good to see them.

But here is a figure for one year (1987) for the Gardai and Army alone.

179 million Irish Punts which if my calcs are right is approx €227 which would be the equivalent of approx 450 million Euros today. (will take correction, if I am wrong on that)

The State Papers show that around 20% of the garda budget for 1987 was spent on policing costs arising from the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

The cost to the Defence Forces was even greater with some 40% of its total spending focused on security linked to what was happening in the North.

The overall figure for the amount spent by the State on this security in 1987 was IR£179 million.

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1230/929051-state-papers-part-two/

Other sources say it was one quarter of the entire state budget. But it isn't backed up with actual figures.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=8yT0O5RkbUYC&pg=PT468&lpg=PT468&dq=increased+security+and+border+patrols+cost+the+Irish+Republic+over+one-quarter+of+its+annual+budget.&source=bl&ots=H1DgnUM1Sp&sig=ACfU3U0bXNg9XRsrgCbd2UV1wj7zu7WWJg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDz5W93-bjAhW0oFwKHfQyAbMQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=increased%20security%20and%20border%20patrols%20cost%20the%20Irish%20Republic%20over%20one-quarter%20of%20its%20annual%20budget.&f=false

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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



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.



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

It has got to the stage now Francie where you have posted so many times and contradicted yourself so often that you could quote in support of anything with a little twisting.

Yes, you will most certainly have said something different a few days ago to what you said today. I think it was Brian Lenihan Snr who preached about the futility of consistency and you certainly seem to be his greatest disciple.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It has got to the stage now Francie where you have posted so many times and contradicted yourself so often that you could quote in support of anything with a little twisting.

Yes, you will most certainly have said something different a few days ago to what you said today. I think it was Brian Lenihan Snr who preached about the futility of consistency and you certainly seem to be his greatest disciple.

'Not man enough', in other words. Cheers blanch, you never let me down.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very very difficult to find total figures for the cost of the north's conflict/war to us. If anyone knows of a source it would be good to see them.

But here is a figure for one year (1987) for the Gardai and Army alone.

179 million Irish Punts which if my calcs are right is approx €227 which would be the equivalent of approx 450 million Euros today. (will take correction, if I am wrong on that)

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1230/929051-state-papers-part-two/

Other sources say it was one quarter of the entire state budget. But it isn't backed up with actual figures.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=8yT0O5RkbUYC&pg=PT468&lpg=PT468&dq=increased+security+and+border+patrols+cost+the+Irish+Republic+over+one-quarter+of+its+annual+budget.&source=bl&ots=H1DgnUM1Sp&sig=ACfU3U0bXNg9XRsrgCbd2UV1wj7zu7WWJg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDz5W93-bjAhW0oFwKHfQyAbMQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=increased%20security%20and%20border%20patrols%20cost%20the%20Irish%20Republic%20over%20one-quarter%20of%20its%20annual%20budget.&f=false

Well even if it is €450m (which I doubt, given your difficulties with figures) that is still a bargain compared to the €12 billion, and is wiped out by the costs of harmonising child benefit.

As for the one quarter of the state budget, that is clearly nonsense, as the public service pay bill is only around that. The only way that could be true is if hundreds of thousands of republicans were working north of the border and claiming social welfare in the South. You might have an insight on that given where you live.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well even if it is €450m (which I doubt, given your difficulties with figures) that is still a bargain compared to the €12 billion, and is wiped out by the costs of harmonising child benefit.

It was never said as a comparison, simply a statement that the border had a cost.

And it fairly shows up your 12 million figure too for what it was...a guess.

As for the one quarter of the state budget, that is clearly nonsense, as the public service pay bill is only around that. The only way that could be true is if hundreds of thousands of republicans were working north of the border and claiming social welfare in the South. You might have an insight on that given where you live.

Yet there the claim is in print.

facehugger99

blanch152 wrote: »

Well even if it is €450m (which I doubt, given your difficulties with figures) that is still a bargain compared to the €12 billion, and is wiped out by the costs of harmonising child benefit.

It's more of a diversion of resources rather than a 'cost'.

It's certainly true that the actions of the IRA caused us a cost to police, in diverting resources away from other communities.

It's pretty obvious that 'partition' as Francie likes to call it wasn't driving these 'costs', but the illegal and murderous activity of the terrorists certainly was.

That's not the narrative Francie's trying to sell us though.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's more of a diversion of resources rather than a 'cost'.

It's certainly true that the actions of the IRA caused us a cost to police, in diverting resources away from other communities.

It's pretty obvious that 'partition' as Francie likes to call it wasn't driving these 'costs', but the illegal and murderous activity of the terrorists certainly was.

That's not the narrative Francie's trying to sell us though.

Did somebody say something about 'moving goalposts'.

You got your figures for just one year, for the cost to us of the army and gardai.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You got your figures for just one year, for the cost to us of the army and gardai.

You gave some figures (after 24hours of trawling) from 32 years ago on how much of the Guard's and Army's budget was used to police IRA activities.

News flash buddy - your homies in the IRA were defeated and their arms decommissioned - happened a while ago now.

Can you actually give us something a bit more recent in line with the actual quesntion?

facehugger99 wrote: »

Well, as a real taxpayer Francie, perhaps you can supply us with the figure it's costing us?

No bluff, no bluster - just give us a figure for the last 20 years say - round it to the nearest €100k .

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

News flash buddy - your homies in the IRA were defeated and their arms decommissioned - happened a while ago now.

Revert to rant and invective...revert revert.

If you wish to move goalposts you go right ahead Facehugger, there isn't much any of us can do but just have a laugh at your discomfort.

Here is what I said:

As any real taxpayer knows NI has cost them a lot of money over the year's, as it is. And is about to cost us again because of partition.

I said it not believing anyone would genuinely believe it hadn't cost us, I would have thought a child reading the history would realise it had.

You tried to change the point to one of the last 20 years. That is YOUR issue. I have backed up what I said. The border has cost us in the past. And really, I shouldn't have had to.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was never said as a comparison, simply a statement that the border had a cost.

And it fairly shows up your 12 million figure too for what it was...a guess.




Yet there the claim is in print.

It is not a cost if the alternative costs much much more, rather it is a benefit.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

. The border has cost us in the past.

Actually Francie, it is more correct to say the armed struggle campaign of Republicans has cost us in the past, because if Republicans did not vow to maintain the armed struggle , be it the failed border campaign of 1956 - 1962 or the failed armed struggle of the troubles, the Gardai and army would not have had to do the extra policing on the border. Maybe other unlawful activity like smuggling, fuel laundering and the odd murder like the Republican murder of protestant Fine Gael politician in Monaghan Billy Fox ( I think his name was) helped justify the presence of extra Gardai near the border. Of there was not Republican activity at the border we would not have needed so much security.

We are still waiting Francie for you to work out if the government was better off or worse off as a result of the border troubles, because of the extra tourism spin off in the 26 counties, at the expense of northern tourism.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not a cost if the alternative costs much much more, rather it is a benefit.

To a partitionist maybe, who doesn't want to see all the other costs, socially and economically.

A 'benefit'. Jesus, how you arrive at that is deeply worrying.

Ash.J.Williams

The eru only left border duty after the Regency

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

. The border has cost us in the past. And really, I shouldn't have had to.

It's not really 'the border's fault that the IRA refused to accept it for years until they were forced to - that's on them, not the 'border'.

It's funny how you're now admitting that the IRA's terrorist campaign was a 'cost' for us in the ROI - and I thought you were a major fanboy .

Given the IRA were defeated some time ago I'm confused as to why the "real taxpayers" of today need to take this into account when weighing up the alleged benefits of unification

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's not really 'the border's fault

The border has cost us Facehugger, in multiple ways.

It is there because of partition, no other reason. And some of us think that in the long run we would be much better off as an island and a people - economically and socially, if it is gone.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And some of us think that in the long run we would be much better off as an island and a people - economically and socially, if it is gone.

I doubt anyone voting in a referendum will care what you think Francie - your grasp of the figures is, well, let's be generous and say Gerry Adams-esque.

An actual referendum, were it ever to happen, will be run on the facts and figures, not the feelings.

You won't be able to hide the €10bn a year elephant by spoof and bluster.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I doubt anyone voting in a referendum will care what you think Francie - your grasp of the figures is, well, let's be generous and say Gerry Adams-esque.

An actual referendum, were it ever to happen, will be run on the facts and figures, not the feelings.

You won't be able to hide the €10bn a year elephant by spoof and bluster.

So far your 'grasp' of figures has led you to strenuously defend; 37% as a 'vast majority' and the equivalent of 450 million in today's money spent on just the army and Gardai in ONE year alone as - 'no cost' to the Irish taxpayer.

Bring on the debate, I say.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So far your 'grasp' of figures has led you to strenuously defend; 37% as a 'vast majority' and the equivalent of 450 million in today's money spent on just the army and Gardai in ONE year alone as -..)

Our army is quite small per head of population by international standards, and they would have had to be paid anyway Francie. During the troubles it was as easy to pay them to be close to the border as pay them to be in Barracks some other place. No great extra cost to the state. If you want to blame anyone for the cost of the Gardai Francie blame the IRA, because the main threat to the state came from them.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Our army is quite small per head of population by international standards, and they would have had to be paid anyway Francie. During the troubles it was as easy to pay them to be close to the border as pay them to be in Barracks some other place. No great extra cost to the state. If you want to blame anyone for the cost of the Gardai Francie blame the IRA, because the main threat to the state came from them.

The installations and barracks I suppose were built for free and for the craic too?

Keep this line up, it isn't me that is looking an absolute delusional fool casting around for any nonsense to prove a point.

eire4

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Shame you have to start your reply with insults.

Firstly on restructuring the bailout loans I should certainly have been more specific. I was referencing the ones directly from London which have not been restructured. So certainly some scope there.

Your failed to mention my suggested increase in corporation tax from 12.5% to 15% while this would be a reduction in Belfast even in the short term this would certainly overall be a net gain across the island given our economy is naturally larger and as we are already seeing from brexit Ireland is proving to be one of the more attractive destinations for companies moving as a result of brexit. So long term prospects look positive.



In terms of the EU. They have already made it clear in the event of Irish reunification that there would be no question of any application needed for re-entry to the EU but the whole of Ireland would immediately be considered part of the EU again. With this in mind I would be very confident that the EU would be willing to help with the short term immediate costs of said reunification.



In addition as things stand now Ireland is a net contributor to the EU budget. That has been the case since 2014. However our net contribution has and is not a major one. Hovering somewhere around about 200m. However from 1973- when we joined through- 2013 Ireland was a net recipient of EU funds and at a very considerable number over 50b. So over that first 40 years Ireland on average was a net recipient of EU funds to the tune of about 1.25b per year.

Now as regards Belfast overall the EU sends about 500m but when you take out Belfast's share of the overall British net contribution to the EU budget then Belfast is a net recipient of about 50m. So once out of Britain and back in the EU Belfast would be thus a net recipient of EU money and clearly at a rate well about the 50m number. Thus making Ireland overall a net recipient of EU money at least in the short term again as reunification is the major factor.


Now as for your number. You keep throwing 12b as if it was fact. It is not. For instance an Ireland Thinks survey in 2017 using British government estimates put the cost at 9b. They surveyed would you vote for reunification with the cost at 9b and the numbers were split 50-49 in favour.


Now what I am saying is that the costs of reunification while real can be ameliorated quite a bit and the above are just some examples. Plus over time a united economy would prove I believe to be a boost to the living standards on the island overall from where they are currently.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The installations and barracks I suppose were built for free and for the craic too?

No great installations or military complexes were built as part of the border on the southern side, it was not the Berlin wall. The cost of not much more than a few sandbags and portacabins pales in to insignificance compared to what the UK had to and continues to pay for Northern Ireland.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

pales in to insignificance compared to what the UK had to and continues to pay for Northern Ireland.

Tom Clonan wrote:

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.

That'd be 6 barracks that needed to be there.

And nobody ever suggested there was a comparison. Move on jan...even Facehugger has accepted there was a cost to us.

The border costs money to maintain, if we were not partitioned then there would be no border. Logic, even a three year old would grasp.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

it isn't me that is looking an absolute delusional fool casting around for any nonsense to prove a point.

Carlsberg don't do irony.....

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Carlsberg don't do irony.....

Ahem.

So far your 'grasp' of figures has led you to strenuously defend; 37% as a 'vast majority' and the equivalent of 450 million in today's money spent on just the army and Gardai in ONE year alone as - 'no cost' to the Irish taxpayer.

Bring on the debate, I say.

jm08

20-30 years

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?

The UN pays for the Irish Defence Forces when on UN duty. Without that as an earner, we probably wouldn't have any Defence Forces.

_blaaz

10-15 years

janfebmar wrote: »

Our army is quite small per head of population by international standards, and they would have had to be paid anyway Francie. During the troubles it was as easy to pay them to be close to the border as pay them to be in Barracks some other place. No great extra cost to the state. If you want to blame anyone for the cost of the Gardai Francie blame the IRA, because the main threat to the state came from them.

You do know they got extra allowence for border duty and was the mid 2000s before it was ablosihed afaik???


The more you post,the more certain i am that your not from ireland....rake of subtle things point to your not writing from an irish perspective

_blaaz

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious that 'partition' as Francie likes to call it wasn't driving these 'costs', but the illegal and murderous activity of the terrorists certainly was.

:pac:

Chicken and egg sceanrio here.....and what was terrorist campaign,futile as it was, for??