Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

declanflynn

downcow wrote: »

I think you premise is a nonsense.
You don’t want to consider people immigrating or moving temporarily for work in UK. You suggest that does not demonstrate a failed state.
But let’s assume everything you say is correct and Roi employment is booming and thousands are flocking from OWC to avail of these jobs.
Surely it tells you the amazing success OWC is if these thousands put up with the daily commute so as they can have the quality of life owc provides, not to mention the nhs, our schools, community, etc. If these people thought Roi was even nearly as good as owc to live in then there is nothing to stop them moving and avoiding 4 hours a day commuting

You might have more jobs but you clearly don’t have the quality of life. I know which one I would measure success by.

I doubt all of them have a 4 hour commute

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I see you`re back to your usual drivel about the UK and WW2-it would be acceptable if your factual knowledge was`nt so woefully lacking.Here`s just a small snippet of information you appear unaware of,which contradicts your assertion the UK was a bit part player in WW2.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ww2-anniversary-arctic-convoys/russia-honours-first-british-arctic-convoy-75-years-on-idUKKCN1162JX

Not gonna bother reading that Rob as I never claimed they were a 'bit part' player. I said quite clearly:

Churchill hadn't a bob left, He was lucky the German's had their head turned and didn't invade. Only Roosevelt pulled a few strings he wouldn't have mounted a challenge at all. The Americans/Russians and the rest of the Allies won the war for him and then finished off the empire.

Correct me if I am wrong but the British were a part of what I called the 'Allies'?

Congress didn't want to lend to him, had Roosevelt not acted and found a way around it, Britain hadn't the wherewithal to resist or fight. The cheaper and less long term damaging way would have not to have cozied up to the Germans in the inter war years and to American arms dealers to make a quick buck and not allow the Germans to rebuild. But that is spilled milk as they say.

Fionn1952

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

200,000 people from the UK moved to Ireland since the turn of the millennium, on a pro-rata basis that would be equivalent to around three million Irish moving to Britain.

I'm sure immigration from Britain to Ireland will remain strong with the utter ****-show Brexit is turning out to be. Also British people settle well in Ireland and fully integrate, maybe Unionists in the north could learn a thing or two from the British.

Bit of an a*seways way of looking at those numbers, Tom.

200,000 British out of a population of 60m would be a third of a percent of the British population emigrated to Ireland since the turn of the millennium. Pro-rata, this would be the equivalent of about 15,000 Irish people emigrating to Britain (a third of a percent of around 5 million). Doing it the other way round wouldn't make much sense. Calculating it as a percentage of the native population doesn't really demonstrate anything except that Britain has a higher population.

Junkyard Tom

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Bit of an a*seways way of looking at those numbers, Tom.

Sorry I'm not great at mental arithmetic, what I mean is that the adding 200k people to our population in the last 20 years would be like adding at least 10 times that to the British population. Does that make sense?

Fionn1952

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Sorry I'm not great at mental arithmetic, what I mean is that the adding 200k people to our population in the last 20 years would be like adding at least 10 times that to the British population. Does that make sense?

Nothing at all wrong with the actual arithmetic, Tom. It does, make sense in that I know where your numbers came from, it just doesn't seem like a very useful metric to me. As I said, all it really demonstrates is that Britain has a higher population than Ireland.

Push/pull factors for immigration are complex and probably worth a more in depth discussion than reducing it down to what percentage of our population is made up of British people, especially when you consider how many of those British people may be of Irish extraction for example. The Irish diaspora massively outnumber the Irish in Ireland after all (though discussing that could be a thread all of its own).

Annd9

downcow wrote: »

I think you premise is a nonsense.
You don’t want to consider people immigrating or moving temporarily for work in UK. You suggest that does not demonstrate a failed state.
But let’s assume everything you say is correct and Roi employment is booming and thousands are flocking from OWC to avail of these jobs.
Surely it tells you the amazing success OWC is if these thousands put up with the daily commute so as they can have the quality of life owc provides, not to mention the nhs, our schools, community, etc. If these people thought Roi was even nearly as good as owc to live in then there is nothing to stop them moving and avoiding 4 hours a day commuting

You might have more jobs but you clearly don’t have the quality of life. I know which one I would measure success by.

I actually totally agree with you , the quality of life is much better in rural locations hence why we see mass amounts of traffic heading in and out of Dublin . Unfortunately when you are doing a 4/5 hour round trip for work everyday this quality of life is greatly diminished.
This is mostly due to over reliance on Dublin and lack of investment in rural regions , this happens in every country and is not that strange at all . What is strange is having to cross a border every day for work because not only are your rural regions underdeveloped but also urban areas .

downcow

Annd9 wrote: »

I actually totally agree with you , the quality of life is much better in rural locations hence why we see mass amounts of traffic heading in and out of Dublin . Unfortunately when you are doing a 4/5 hour round trip for work everyday this quality of life is greatly diminished.
This is mostly due to over reliance on Dublin and lack of investment in rural regions , this happens in every country and is not that strange at all . What is strange is having to cross a border every day for work because not only are your rural regions underdeveloped but also urban areas .

I don’t understand your point. There are plenty of people here who commute to the mainland and I guess that’s the same in Roi.
I work with a guy who commutes from south of the border to ni every day.
We live in a global society. You need to not be so judgemental of people’s coming to work in your country from pther nations whether that be us in the UK or Latvians poles etc.
You have decided somehow your country is better than theirs with no evidence. It’s a bit rich coming from and Irish person and arrogant

declanflynn

downcow wrote: »

I don’t understand your point. There are plenty of people here who commute to the mainland and I guess that’s the same in Roi.
I work with a guy who commutes from south of the border to ni every day.
We live in a global society. You need to not be so judgemental of people’s coming to work in your country from pther nations whether that be us in the UK or Latvians poles etc.
You have decided somehow your country is better than theirs with no evidence. It’s a bit rich coming from and Irish person and arrogant

I cant understand why you dont, the northern part of this country is poor and people travel south to work where the economy is one of the strongest in Europe, it's way stronger than that of the uk

gourcuff

whether we accept it or not, people in N.I believe they will be worse off in a united ireland, in terms of quality of life, they think our health service is third world and wont accept having to pay 60€ just to see a doctor.

We need to improve our health service as a positive enticement towards uniting the country

FrancieBrady

gourcuff wrote: »

whether we accept it or not, people in N.I believe they will be worse off in a united ireland, in terms of quality of life, they think our health service is third world and wont accept having to pay 60€ just to see a doctor.

We need to improve our health service as a positive enticement towards uniting the country

While downcow talks a good game while burying his head in the sand, all is not well in northern Ireland's health service. Brexit will, (like the oncoming game changer it is) make things astronomically worse.

Given that Northern Ireland’s healthcare system receives the equivalent funding as the system in Great Britain, its present condition is, simply put, an absolute disgrace. The system is in dire need of urgent and drastic reform.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/11/20/northern-irelands-healthcare-system-is-broken/

Perfect chance in a UI to remodel the entire systems on an all-island basis.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

While downcow talks a good game while burying his head in the sand, all is not well in northern Ireland's health service. Brexit will, (like the oncoming game changer it is) make things astronomically worse.



https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/11/20/northern-irelands-healthcare-system-is-broken/

Perfect chance in a UI to remodel the entire systems on an all-island basis.

Any suggestions on how we fund this remodel?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Any suggestions on how we fund this remodel?

In the same way everything else is funded. It's clear both services are to varying degrees, not fit for purpose and need reform - root and branch reform.

Unless you are suggesting leaving things to stagnate and get worse, funding will have to be found if we want to make things better. Two differing health systems on one island are a waste and inefficient.

We do want t make things better?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the same way everything else is funded. It's clear both services are to varying degrees, not fit for purpose and need reform - root and branch reform.

Unless you are suggesting leaving things to stagnate and get worse, funding will have to be found if we want to make things better. Two differing health systems on one island are a waste and inefficient.

We do want t make things better?

So more borrowing? That worked out well for us in the past!

How does having the NHS on the same island make our HSE inefficient?

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

So more borrowing? That worked out well for us in the past!

How does having the NHS on the same island make our HSE inefficient?

You'd imagine having two health services on the same small island leads to a fair bit of double jobbing, no?

With regards to paying for it, I'd highlight that our issues with the HSE are much more attributable to inefficiency than to underfunding. We have a very strong per capita spend on health care, which is why the root and branch reform Francie is discussing is something we need to do regardless of any talk around unification. When the health care spend North and South are looked at, it very well may not be a case of throwing more money at it, but rather spending the money we already throw at it in a better way.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So more borrowing? That worked out well for us in the past!

How does having the NHS on the same island make our HSE inefficient?

Would we have what we have without borrowing? Ridiculous statement there jh in fairness. You borrow to invest, to make things better than they are.

Economies of scale is the answer to your second point. Nobody in their right mind, making an investment, would build the concentration of major hospitals that there are on both sides of the border. Take Cavan and it's proximity to Enniskillen for instance. That, even to my unqualified mind is a waste of resources and an inefficient use of those resources. It's what we keep getting told by the experts when they talk of centres of excellence and centralised facilities.

jh79

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You'd imagine having two health services on the same small island leads to a fair bit of double jobbing, no?

With regards to paying for it, I'd highlight that our issues with the HSE are much more attributable to inefficiency than to underfunding. We have a very strong per capita spend on health care, which is why the root and branch reform Francie is discussing is something we need to do regardless of any talk around unification. When the health care spend North and South are looked at, it very well may not be a case of throwing more money at it, but rather spending the money we already throw at it in a better way.

It's not the sentiment i'm questioning it's how we could afford to fix 2 health services. In the context of unification, opinion polls suggest we would vote no if it led to an increase in taxes.

Any suggestions on how we remodel two health services without increasing taxes?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would we have what we have without borrowing? Ridiculous statement there jh in fairness. You borrow to invest, to make things better than they are.

Economies of scale is the answer to your second point. Nobody in their right mind, making an investment, would build the concentration of major hospitals that there are on both sides of the border. Take Cavan and it's proximity to Enniskillen for instance. That, even to my unqualified mind is a waste of resources and an inefficient use of those resources. It's what we keep getting told by the experts when they talk of centres of excellence and centralised facilities.

Francie, do you not remember the crash? Borrow too much interest, rates go up and the debt is no longer sustainable. Magic money tree economics again.

ELM327

downcow wrote: »

So does that mean, Not born in Ireland = not Irish?

Without meeting some specific caveats, yes it does.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, do you not remember the crash? Borrow too much interest rates go up and the debt is no longer sustainable. Magic money tree economics again.

We are still here JH.


Everyone borrows money to invest. It isn't a sensible scaremongering tactic. We will have to borrow to grow our economy. A more efficient economy is a stronger economy.

The question is, if a whole united Ireland works, is it a good investment for us? Considering what the last 100 years has been, yes, a UI is a wise investment.

ELM327

jh79 wrote: »

So more borrowing? That worked out well for us in the past!

How does having the NHS on the same island make our HSE inefficient?

Because we pay more per capita to the HSE than the UK do to the NHS, yet the NHS is exponentially better for the patient and is free at the point of use.

ELM327

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are still here JH.


Everyone borrows money to invest. It isn't a sensible scaremongering tactic. We will have to borrow to grow our economy. A more efficient economy is a stronger economy.

The question is, if a whole united Ireland works, is it a good investment for us? Considering what the last 100 years has been, yes, a UI is a wise investment.

Not without change, it isn't logically. (It is, emotionally, for many folks, myself included)


Look at all the jobs that are in the PS in the north. It's a financial basket case that only survives because of both GB and EU funding. To the tune of billions per year.



We'd have to change a lot of it, and to be honest, so will GB to afford it if brexit goes through and there's no immediate UI

jh79

ELM327 wrote: »

Because we pay more per capita to the HSE than the UK do to the NHS, yet the NHS is exponentially better for the patient and is free at the point of use.

What's your point? I'm wondering how we pay to fix both? Or how you sell this idea given the majority are not willing to pay any extra taxes for a UI?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are still here JH.


Everyone borrows money to invest. It isn't a sensible scaremongering tactic. We will have to borrow to grow our economy. A more efficient economy is a stronger economy.

The question is, if a whole united Ireland works, is it a good investment for us? Considering what the last 100 years has been, yes, a UI is a wise investment.

Sensible countries borrow at a rate they can afford. Maybe I'm being very naïve but i can't see us repeating the same mistakes of the crash.

Can you see a scenario where we remodel both without increasing taxes?

FrancieBrady

ELM327 wrote: »

Not without change, it isn't logically. (It is, emotionally, for many folks, myself included)


Look at all the jobs that are in the PS in the north. It's a financial basket case that only survives because of both GB and EU funding. To the tune of billions per year.



We'd have to change a lot of it, and to be honest, so will GB to afford it if brexit goes through and there's no immediate UI

I don't see (and I think again it would be the wisest way to do it) a problem with rationalising both jurisdictions before a hand over.

Unification phased over say - 10 years. During that time the PS in the north is rationalised and scaled down through retirement, voluntary redundancies, redeployment and recruitment embargoes etc Likewise, root and branch reform of the health services happens on both sides in preparation.
Meanwhile we do likewise here.

Nobody is suggesting that on Friday we vote and the handover happens on Monday morning at 9.

ELM327

jh79 wrote: »

What's your point? I'm wondering how we pay to fix both? Or how you sell this idea given the majority are not willing to pay any extra taxes for a UI?

My point is the north have a better health service (even if it's not great) compared to the south. Despite in the south we pay more per person in subventions to the HSE.


We're mismanaging the HSE. We should implement the northern system of free at the point of use.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Because we pay more per capita to the HSE than the UK do to the NHS, yet the NHS is exponentially better for the patient and is free at the point of use.

Per capita I doubt NI folk finance the NHS facilities in NI, nice few quid being sent over to keep that show on the road I imagine.

ELM327 wrote: »

....................

Look at all the jobs that are in the PS in the north. It's a financial basket case that only survives because of both GB and EU funding. To the tune of billions per year.

..........

Indeed, when it comes to it enough folk won't vote to take on a financial basket case IMO. Folk in NI could end up worse off in many regards.

ELM327 wrote: »

............
We're mismanaging the HSE. We should implement the northern system of free at the point of use.

That alone wouldn't make much of an improvement surely?

mrbrianj

ELM327 wrote: »

My point is the north have a better health service (even if it's not great) compared to the south. Despite in the south we pay more per person in subventions to the HSE.


We're mismanaging the HSE. We should implement the northern system of free at the point of use.

And yet we have a greater life expectancy than that of the North.......

FrancieBrady

ELM327 wrote: »

My point is the north have a better health service (even if it's not great) compared to the south. Despite in the south we pay more per person in subventions to the HSE.


We're mismanaging the HSE. We should implement the northern system of free at the point of use.

A 'better health service' is a hard thing to quantify outside the economics of them. Pluses and minuses in both and the northern version of the NHS certainly seems to be in decline. I don't think the prospects with Brexit augurs well for the service that will actually be delivered tbh.

jh79

ELM327 wrote: »

My point is the north have a better health service (even if it's not great) compared to the south. Despite in the south we pay more per person in subventions to the HSE.


We're mismanaging the HSE. We should implement the northern system of free at the point of use.

We get better patient outcomes as far as i know, so that needs to be considered.

Given what the last opinion poll on a UI said, how do you do this without increasing taxes?

ELM327

Augeo wrote: »

Per capita I doubt NI folk finance the NHS facilities in NI, nice few quid being sent over to keep that show on the road I imagine.
Indeed, when it comes to it enough folk won't vote to take on a financial basket case IMO. Folk in NI could end up worse off in many regards.
That alone wouldn't make much of an improvement surely?

Absolutely, as I referenced earlier, both EU and GB send a fk ton of money to keep the north afloat. Brexit would render the EU funds as dead, so, will the british make up the rest of the subvention? Could be in their interests for a UI too.