RIC and DMP to be commemorated this month

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

Fitzgerald's reputation speaks for itself, he has been a leading light of the ESRI for decades, at a time when its reputation was very high. That lends huge credibility to his analysis.

The other studies that have been referenced have been conducted by less than stellar economists and have mostly been commissioned by Sinn Fein-linked organisations.

If I am wrong on any of that, please show me.

hold on. We have three different economic model or analysis and somehow somebody can pick the only one that is right?


Is it all about reputation you say, well they are funny things, think about these

Eddie Hobbs, the one who had all the answer and was was never wrong, the darling of both TV and the public for years until he advised people to over extend themselves buying property just before a crash that others had predicted but he ignored.

How about George Lee, who thought he had all the answers and FG were so enamoured that they even got him a seat in the Dail. On paper he thought he had all the answer and then realised once elected it was a very different matter. Sometimes is not just about the balance on a spreadsheet or theoretical analysis, if there is sufficient will and determination to get something done usually it works out better than predicted, the converse of course is true, if thing are carried out in a lacklustre fashion rarely are the results the ones predicted.

How about Pam Woodall. Most probably dont recall her. She was the one that consistently predicted the housing boom and eventual crash through out. FF, FG, TV pundits and even the ERSI lambasted her consistently until that day happened, Ireland economy crashed spectacular overnight, and guess who was right all along?
The only link I could easily find in a minute or so mentioning her, but I am certain with a bit of digging there are far better reports
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/beware-the-curse-of-the-economist-37258942.html

the point I am making is even with the very best economists, and those with the most consistent results or reputation, their analysis can only be used at best as an indicator.
Economics is a child of peoples instincts, flaws and habits and every serious economist will agree and tell you that they are hardly things that can be predicted accurately if at all, but they do their best. There's a reason we have economists and not just mathematicians and actuaries. Economists try to include the human factors that in theory should not matter but they certainly do. They often get this part wrong which is to be expected as human nature is well unpredictable at times.

Sometimes it more about the will or the drive to get something done.
Say there was a United Ireland on the table tomorrow morning and all we had to do was swallow an additional estimated cost of €6 to €7 billion for 4 or 5 years.
If the vast majority of the people were behind it, and the politicians and civil servant drove themselves to deliver it because it was something they wanted as well, then it would be perfectly reasonable to suppose that the costs could end up significantly less. If much of the public and many of the politician were not totally behind it then its likely that the best result possible would be the estimate, but its just as possible it could cost more.

I get the prudence argument, and yes is should still very much count and certainly not be dismissed by those who find it against their aspirations or desire because that would be more convenient for them.

It seem to me that both camps are wrong. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to a United Ireland and it is something that is achievable under the right circumstances. It also requires the right economic circumstance, whether it would cost 5 billion a year or 12 billion a year that's a huge amount of money and would have to be got from somewhere.

I dont get the argument that many are using to suggest that its going to cost us X billion a year, it might initially but as services, taxes, employment and other factor become more aligned and harmonised its obvious that what ever X billion is, it would reduce significantly as time goes by. These same people forget that there will be an additional tax revenue from the people living in Northern Ireland which might not offset the cost but it certainly would contribute to the cost. The inital costs would be extremely substantial, but there will come a point where these costs diminish to a point to where they are more or less stable. In the long term these costs might disappear altogether is there is significant economic development in Norther Ireland. But that would still leave those in the republic picking up the bill for the transition period.

It is likely that the reality would be somewhere in between those two camps in my opinion. There would definitely by a significant cost to everyone in the country, there is absolutely no point saying otherwise. But it is pointless I think in this particular situation predicting worst cost scenarios, doom and gloom and Ireland economy being flushed down the toilet. The EU and the USA has got significant interest in making Unification work if that's what both those in the republic and those living in Northern Ireland both want. Even with their help it might be tough, but no where near as tough as many are trying to make out.

Odhinn

facehugger99 wrote: »

It is not in their interest to do so.

The demographics of the people who tend to vote for them suggest that the more highly educated a person is, the less likely they will vote SF.

Their policies only appeal to those who lack either the ability or interest to apply some critical thinking.

Why thanks for your vote of confidence.

jmcc

So having failed at getting Ireland to commemorate the Black and Tans (who were members of the RIC), the neo-Unionists are now dragging the thread off-topic by focusing on the costs of reunification. Is this an admission that the Varadkar and Flanagan decision to celebrate British terrorists who tortured and murdered Irish people was not a good one?

Regards...jmcc

facehugger99

efanton wrote: »

I dont get the argument that many are using to suggest that its going to cost us X billion a year, it might initially but as services, taxes, employment and other factor become more aligned and harmonised its obvious that what ever X billion is, it would reduce significantly as time goes by.

That is not in the least obvious.

It is more likely that diverting huge amounts of resources into paying for NI will lead to under-investment in infrastructure, health, education, policing, etc that will be felt for generations.

efanton wrote: »

These same people forget that there will be an additional tax revenue from the people living in Northern Ireland which might not offset the cost but it certainly would contribute to the cost.

Are you for real?

About a third of the workforce are in the public service. They're not generating tax revenues, they're sucking up the revenues.

If the costs ever do become known, the ROI electorate will run as fast as they can in the opposite direction from unification. People won't sacrifice their pay, pensions and prosperity for a few square miles of territory. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only kidding themselves.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

If the costs ever do become known, the ROI electorate will run as fast as they can in the opposite direction from unification.

Charlie Flanagan logic here. 'If I keep saying it, it becomes true'.

What was somebody saying about 'soundbites'?

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

That is not in the least obvious.

It is more likely that diverting huge amounts of resources into paying for NI will lead to under-investment in infrastructure, health, education, policing, etc that will be felt for generations.

Seems we are that way regardless.
We saw the country colapse only for FG to bring FF to the table and both oversee national crises while their apologists sell it as recovery. I think we'll manage a UI. Be nice to have something positive to show for our money.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Are you for real?

About a third of the workforce are in the public service. They're not generating tax revenues, they're sucking up the revenues.

If the costs ever do become known, the ROI electorate will run as fast as they can in the opposite direction from unification. People won't sacrifice their pay, pensions and prosperity for a few square miles of territory. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only kidding themselves.

No they won't. If the RIC/Tan commemoration farce showed us anything, it's that despite ignorance in some pockets of government, the general public, FG TD's included still have feelings on such matters.
I'd seriously love you to run a campaign citing the north as "a few square miles of territory", you'd be ran out of every town and village not currently occupied by the British and many that are

efanton

posted deleted, I responded to wrong person by mistake.

efanton

facehugger99 wrote: »

It is not in their interest to do so.

The demographics of the people who tend to vote for them suggest that the more highly educated a person is, the less likely they will vote SF.

Their policies only appeal to those who lack either the ability or interest to apply some critical thinking.

Are your really claiming that ALL SF voters are uneducated?
Seriously?

The uneducated vote for all parties, The educated vote for all parties.

Using sweeping assumptions (that also happen to be untrue) does nothing to support you argument.

blanch152

efanton wrote: »

.

It seem to me that both camps are wrong. There's nothing wrong with aspiring to a United Ireland and it is something that is achievable under the right circumstances. It also requires the right economic circumstance, whether it would cost 5 billion a year or 12 billion a year that's a huge amount of money and would have to be got from somewhere.

I dont get the argument that many are using to suggest that its going to cost us X billion a year, it might initially but as services, taxes, employment and other factor become more aligned and harmonised its obvious that what ever X billion is, it would reduce significantly as time goes by. These same people forget that there will be an additional tax revenue from the people living in Northern Ireland which might not offset the cost but it certainly would contribute to the cost. The inital costs would be extremely substantial, but there will come a point where these costs diminish to a point to where they are more or less stable. In the long term these costs might disappear altogether is there is significant economic development in Norther Ireland. But that would still leave those in the republic picking up the bill for the transition period.

It is likely that the reality would be somewhere in between those two camps in my opinion. There would definitely by a significant cost to everyone in the country, there is absolutely no point saying otherwise. But it is pointless I think in this particular situation predicting worst cost scenarios, doom and gloom and Ireland economy being flushed down the toilet. The EU and the USA has got significant interest in making Unification work if that's what both those in the republic and those living in Northern Ireland both want. Even with their help it might be tough, but no where near as tough as many are trying to make out.

Anyone who considers either George Lee or Eddie Hobbs to be proper economists deserves everything that happens to them from listening to them. And you can add David "I thought of the bailout, no wait, it wasn't me" McWilliams with them as well.

The EU and the USA will pay lip service and small beer money to a united Ireland but they won't make any kind of significant contribution.

As for taxes raised in the North, the current taxes raised in the North fall €12 billion short of the expenditure in the North, so how will they create additional tax revenue? Unless of course, you plan to increase their taxes? Will you tell them before or after the border poll?

blanch152

efanton wrote: »

Are your really claiming that ALL SF voters are uneducated?
Seriously?

The uneducated vote for all parties, The educated vote for all parties.

Using sweeping assumptions (that also happen to be untrue) does nothing to support you argument.

He said that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to vote for Sinn Fein, that does not mean that ALL SF voters are uneducated.

buried

blanch152 wrote: »

He said that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to vote for Sinn Fein, that does not mean that ALL SF voters are uneducated.

This is what he said

Their policies only appeal to those who lack either the ability or interest to apply some critical thinking.

Supremacist horse manure

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Anyone who considers either George Lee or Eddie Hobbs to be proper economists deserves everything that happens to them from listening to them. And you can add David "I thought of the bailout, no wait, it wasn't me" McWilliams with them as well.

The EU and the USA will pay lip service and small beer money to a united Ireland but they won't make any kind of significant contribution.

As for taxes raised in the North, the current taxes raised in the North fall €12 billion short of the expenditure in the North, so how will they create additional tax revenue? Unless of course, you plan to increase their taxes? Will you tell them before or after the border poll?

'The only real experts are those who agree with my preconceived notions'.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Anyone who considers either George Lee or Eddie Hobbs to be proper economists deserves everything that happens to them from listening to them. And you can add David "I thought of the bailout, no wait, it wasn't me" McWilliams with them as well.

None of them were paid to recognise when the economy was in danger or to inform government policy.
Your economist was.

By his own admission he failed.
When in your own greenhouse you shouldn't be throwing stones blanch.

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

Anyone who considers either George Lee or Eddie Hobbs to be proper economists deserves everything that happens to them from listening to them. And you can add David "I thought of the bailout, no wait, it wasn't me" McWilliams with them as well.

The EU and the USA will pay lip service and small beer money to a united Ireland but they won't make any kind of significant contribution.

As for taxes raised in the North, the current taxes raised in the North fall €12 billion short of the expenditure in the North, so how will they create additional tax revenue? Unless of course, you plan to increase their taxes? Will you tell them before or after the border poll?

That would be the case on day 1, no disputing that.

But I would hope with a government here in Dublin implementing policies that have generally worked with regards to job creation and inward investment that that would change pretty rapidly. I didnt claim it would change to the extent that the additional tax revenue raised would completely offset the the cost of a transition period that would last years (5 years at least I would think, 10 years at most) but it certainly would reduce the costs within a few years.

Personally I don't think it is even close the the 12 billion and even UK government figures don't agree with it.
It was at one time a 12 billion deficit but is now at 9.5 billion and that downward trend has been steady over the last 5 years

https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/09/22/northern-irelands-fiscal-deficit-is-shrinking-but-not-in-a-sustainable-way/

have always found this site to be accurate with regards UK and Northern Ireland spending. very useful as you change choose what to display on the charts
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1990_2018NIb_17c1li111mcn_F0t30t


That deficit of 9.5 billion also includes running a totally separate devolved government a significant cost that will be redundant or significantly reduced when departments are absorbed by departments here. At the moment this accounts for 430 million of the total spending in Northern Ireland.

Pensions cost 6.9 billion a year, but that's an interesting issue?
Obviously the British government have been collecting pension contributions and putting that into their National fund. I would assume that if a United Ireland did happen, those contributions would be transferred to the Irish government.
What that could end resulting in is the Irish government getting a huge lump sum that would significant pay towards any transitional costs of an United Ireland. obviously that money would have to be replaced, but it would allow our government to spread any cost of a United Ireland over a longer period than the time it takes for a transition.
Alternatively the British government would repay those contributions yearly or over a phased period. I would imagine no Chancellor in Westminster would be happy with a bill amounting to billions of pounds, but at the same time the Irish government would be keen to be managing those pension reserves themselves for best returns. We dont know what will happen but if it was a single lump sum that would make a United Ireland far easier to take on as there would be some ability to defer costs somewhat.But if thr UK insists on continuing to pay existing pensions that a huge reduction the deficit or costs of absorbing Northern Ireland

Currently, Northern Ireland’s share of the UK’s defence budget, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and similar items is around €1.5bn. Now ZERO of that appears in Northern Ireland's spending budgets. BUT it does very much appear in UK subvention or the 9.5 billion deficit.
Straight away the 9.5 billion has now reduced significantly to somewhere around €8 billion


equalising the vat rate (Ireland currently 23% UK currently 20%) would bring in an additional dividend. total dividend unknown to me as no published figure that I could find were specific to Northern Ireland consumer spending or tax revenue.
Even so this would be a pretty substantial amount
For comparison Republic of Ireland collected a total of 17.9 billion VAT in 2017


Also as part of accounting practice, "Consumption of fixed capital”, or 'depreciation of government assets' to put it into plain language, is currently 2 billion of that 9.5 billion subvention. The last value I could find (2016). To put that into context the Irish government last year stated that their "Consumption of fixed capital” for the republic of Ireland was 3.7 billion. Now that 2 billion depreciation seems inordinately high when the two are compared especially when the population of the republic is considerably greater, it likely that that has been used to some degree as an accounting fudge. As part of a transfer from the UK to Ireland that 2 billion will almost certainly be reduced and many of those assets sold off either before unification by the UK or after. There could easily be 500 million of a reduction there.

When the EU partially funded the German unification it amounted to about 3% of GDP for entirety of the EC (the EU came later with Maastricht). I found it extremely hard to dig out real figures for this as being this was agreed in the period of the EC there appears to be no relevant document on the EU portal, but the 3% figure is fairly certain as it was mentioned by the then current German Chancellor and other EC ministers in many newspaper interviews. (im afraid you will have to google that for yourself I didnt save the links).
What I found shocking was that the EU gave so much to Germany.
GDP for the EU in 1990 $7.6 trillion (dollars, figures from world bank). @ 3% that equates to total EU funding for Germany unification in 1980 of $228 billion (again dollars, sorry. Would be great to get accurate figures in euros and a proper break down supplied by EU but I haven't found it.)
That is an absolutely staggering amount of money. I know Germany has a extremely large economy now (approx $3.8 trillion at present, dollars again), and has a very large population, but even so.

My point here is it appears the EU have given extremely significant aid in a previous Unification process. Far more than any one of us might expect, certainly way way more than I expected.
I'm not suggesting for one minute that we would get a deal that came to even a tiny fraction of that, but a tiny fraction would still be very very significant.

Anyhow let stick to solid figures.
Already with fairly solid and reasoned figures It appears that the 9,8 billion subvention the UK currently pays would very realistically fall below 7.5 billion if the costs that would not apply or be relevant in a united Ireland were removed and that doesn't even take into account the pensions issue. If the UK insists on continuing to pay for them rather than hand over huge pensions reserves there's yet another 6 billion per year right there.
If they wipe their hands of the whole matter then our government would be looking at a huge pension reserve fund. They couldn't spend it but they certainly could prudently borrow from it to extend the costs on unification. Either way the pensions costs are more or less deductible from the deficit for a number of years or until that pension reserve fund runs out.

With the pension reserve issue, and other savings and a bit of aid from the EU a United Ireland could quite possibly become reasonably affordable

jmcc

The latest Mail on Sunday poll shows that 50% of FG supporters think that Flanagan's decision to commemorate the Black and Tans was a good decision. Other parties and respondents consider it to be a very bad 77% to 97% against depending on party and group) decision.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220031756021194753

Regards...jmcc

McMurphy

jmcc wrote: »

The latest Mail on Sunday poll shows that 50% of FG supporters think that Flanagan's decision to commemorate the Black and Tans was a good decision. Other parties and respondents consider it to be a very bad 77% to 97% against depending on party and group) decision.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220031756021194753

Regards...jmcc

Unsurprising really, you could see it from within these very forums tbh.

I would love to see Charlie lose his seat in GE2020, that would be the icing on the cake for me.