Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

Financially it is 100%.
And financially a UI makes no sense to taxpayers in the ROI. That's before we consider how folk feel about a new flag, new anthem, new country essentially.

ELM327

Absolutely.
I work in credit risk and had a good discussion with our macro economist about this recently. It's a logical fallacy vs an emotional want.

Hqrry113

Augeo wrote: »

Financially it is 100%.
And financially a UI makes no sense to taxpayers in the ROI. That's before we consider how folk feel about a new flag, new anthem, new country essentially.

The current Irish flag is already perfect a United Ireland the green represents the catholics, orange represents the protestants and the white in the middle represents the peace between them.

That's what the flag stands for.

FrancieBrady

Augeo wrote: »

Financially it is 100%.
And financially a UI makes no sense to taxpayers in the ROI. That's before we consider how folk feel about a new flag, new anthem, new country essentially.

Not so sure that if it was presented as a chance to start again in a lot of key areas that the majority here wouldn't think that was a good thing.
The flag, anthem thing would meet little real resistance IMO also. I think most would understand that was a necessary concession to Unionists if they couldn't get behind it.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not so sure that if it was presented as a chance to start again in a lot of key areas that the majority here wouldn't think that was a good thing.
The flag, anthem thing would meet little real resistance IMO also. I think most would understand that was a necessary concession to Unionists if they couldn't get behind it.

How do explain last year's poll where support for a UI dropped to 30% if it led to an increase in taxes?

Financial situation is way worse now too so that number could be even lower now.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

How do explain last year's poll where support for a UI dropped to 30% if it led to an increase in taxes?

Financial situation is way worse now too so that number could be even lower now.

I'd explain it like any poll - it was a snapshot in time and a reaction to a question phrased in a certain way.

What if the question was phrased differently - here is what we get if we invest in a UI?

What happens if as some believe the actual subvention is much lower than the scary 11-12 billion?

All sorts of variables can change very quickly, just like Brexit in the space of 2 years changed the urgency of this question.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not so sure that if it was presented as a chance to start again in a lot of key areas that the majority here wouldn't think that was a good thing. ..........

The majority of folk want to work, contribute to society, involve themselves in their community to some extent, rare their families and have some reward for their labour.

How can taking on the financial liability that is the 6 counties "presented as a chance to start again in a lot of key areas" not hit folk where it hurts. We are supporting enough wasters in the ROI without taking on more and a bloated public service with them.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

..............The flag, anthem thing would meet little real resistance IMO also. I think most would understand that was a necessary concession to Unionists if they couldn't get behind it.

I reckon it would meet quite some resistance when the replacements are aired/developed/made known.......ie when reality bites....... pre poll hopefully.

FrancieBrady

Augeo wrote: »

The majority of folk want to work, contribute to society, involve themselves in their community to some extent, rare their families and have some reward for their labour.

How can taking on the financial liability that is the 6 counties "presented as a chance to start again in a lot of key areas" not hit folk where it hurts. We are supporting enough wasters in the ROI without taking on more and a bloated public service with them.

This is just silly scaremongering tbh.

On the average wage...what extra taxes would you be expecting btw?

I reckon it would meet quite some resistance when the replacements are aired/developed/made known.......ie when reality bites....... pre poll hopefully.

Again. Try and stay real here. #Pre-poll'?? How would that work exactly...you would expect Unionists to give input to anthems and flags BEFORE a poll that they will be campaigning for a NO vote in? You didn't quite think that one through.
Like others, in fairness, markodaly argued long and hard here that he expected that Unionists would engage and negotiate an agreed UI first then we'd have a vote on it.

Not gonna work like that, because it can't.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd explain it like any poll - it was a snapshot in time and a reaction to a question phrased in a certain way.

What if the question was phrased differently - here is what we get if we invest in a UI?

What happens if as some believe the actual subvention is much lower than the scary 11-12 billion?

All sorts of variables can change very quickly, just like Brexit in the space of 2 years changed the urgency of this question.

There is no certainty that a UI will be a success so it would be a case of what we might achieve with a UI. I suspect those who dropped the support for a UI from 75 to 30 odd % would like to hear the worst case scenario too.

The subvention isn't scary at all hence why SF focus on it. That's how much it will cost to change nothing. Economic partition instead.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is just silly scaremongering tbh.

On the average wage...what extra taxes would you be expecting btw?............

Ah yes, typical SF, no need for average wage folk to stump............ up it must be the rich that foot the bill so......... ie anyone earning over €40k :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

....................
.......
Again. Try and stay real here. #Pre-poll'?? How would that work exactly...you would expect Unionists to give input to anthems and flags BEFORE a poll that they will be campaigning for a NO vote in? You didn't quite think that one through.
Like others, in fairness, markodaly argued long and hard here that he expected that Unionists would engage and negotiate an agreed UI first then we'd have a vote on it.

Not gonna work like that, because it can't.

Apoogies, phrased badly. I'd hope folk would realise we'd need to change the flag and anthem etc pre poll, lots of folk reckon a UI is just the ROI taking in the extra 6 and business as usual.

FrancieBrady

Augeo wrote: »

Ah yes, typical SF, no need for average wage folk to stump............ up it must be the rich that foot the bill so......... ie anyone earning over €40k :rolleyes:

What?

I asked what you were expecting the person paying the average wage to pay.

By all means tell us what high earners and low earners would be expected to pay extra too.

FrancieBrady

Augeo wrote: »

Apoogies, phrased badly. I'd hope folk would realise we'd need to change the flag and anthem etc pre poll, lots of folk reckon a UI is just the ROI taking in the extra 6 and business as usual.

What data do you have to suggest they don't understand this?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

I asked what you were expecting the person paying the average wage to pay.

By all means tell us what high earners and low earners would be expected to pay extra too.

It might surprise you FB but I don't have the costings to hand. Someone has to pay and it will quite likely be the exchequer ......... ie the working folk in Ireland. It could be anything up to or in excess of USC type percentages. You can rest assured folk earning more would have to pay more of course. Progressive tax etc etc

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What data do you have to suggest they don't understand this?

It's opinion FB... much like you think the opposite, that's your opinion. You get opinions on discussion forums................ asking for data etc is a petty strawman type agenda that is par for the course for you.

FrancieBrady

Augeo wrote: »

It might surprise you FB but I don't have the costings to hand. Someone has to pay and it will quite likely be the exchequer ......... ie the working folk in Ireland. It could be anything up to or in excess of USC type percentages. You can rest assured folk earning more would have to pay more of course. Progressive tax etc etc

Well, that I do know...nobody has the actual cost. That will only be worked out when the British actually tell us how much the place actually costs them when you take out all the contributions to the UK that will not be there in a UI.

We don't know what level of support will also come from the EU and elsewhere.

FrancieBrady

Augeo wrote: »

It's opinion FB... much like you think the opposite, that's your opinion. You get opinions on discussion forums................ asking for data etc is a petty strawman type agenda that is par for the course for you.

That's fine. I disagree that people here will go into a referendum not knowing the detail of what they are voting on. I have seen many many referendums in my almost 60 years and we don't do referendums Brexit style.

thecomedian

Hqrry113 wrote: »

The current Irish flag is already perfect a United Ireland the green represents the catholics, orange represents the protestants and the white in the middle represents the peace between them.

That's what the flag stands for.

With a United Ireland we will have a new country.
Everything would start as new. There’s never been such a thing as a United Ireland, so to expect the north just to join us and we keep everything the same us very naive.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's fine. I disagree that people here will go into a referendum not knowing the detail of what they are voting on. I have seen many many referendums in my almost 60 years and we don't do referendums Brexit style.

Hopefully that is the case. It's a huge ask for the Republic to absorb another 2-3 million given our size.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Hopefully that is the case. It's a huge ask for the Republic to absorb another 2-3 million given our size.

TBH I think events will overtake any of that.

The OECD is reporting today that the UK economy is behind even that of Italy's in the G7 and that is before Brexit really happens and a 'no-deal/bad deal looking very likely.

Latest OECD now projecting, as we enter last month, that UK will have worst performing economy of the G7 nations this year, again now underperforming Italy with -11.2% (in line with OBR projection...)

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd explain it like any poll - it was a snapshot in time and a reaction to a question phrased in a certain way.

What if the question was phrased differently - here is what we get if we invest in a UI?

What happens if as some believe the actual subvention is much lower than the scary 11-12 billion?

All sorts of variables can change very quickly, just like Brexit in the space of 2 years changed the urgency of this question.

What sort of nonsense is that? Some 1970s wooly-headed economic theory at work?

Where do you get the funds to invest? We have added €20bn onto the national debt this year, where does the money come from?

Are you going to cancel the Metro Project, Dart West and the M20 for this investment? Cloud cuckoo economics is all that is spouted by those calling for a united Ireland.

The pathetic document produced by Sinn Fein a few weeks ago was supposed to be a blueprint for a united Ireland, it is barely fit for toilet paper.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

TBH I think events will overtake any of that.

The OECD is reporting today that the UK economy is behind even that of Italy's in the G7 and that is before Brexit really happens and a 'no-deal/bad deal looking very likely.

Not really relevant to voters in the Republic though. Doesn't affect our ability to pay for a UI. (If anything lower demand for Irish exports would make it even harder)

Their economy is too big to worry about a subvention of 2 to 10 BN anyways.

jm08

Augeo wrote: »

Ah yes, typical SF, no need for average wage folk to stump............ up it must be the rich that foot the bill so......... ie anyone earning over €40k :rolleyes:

Do you have link to that that claim please?

Only reference I can find to a proposed increase in personal taxation is on earnings over €100k in the last budget.

Introduce a 3% Solidarity Tax on individual incomes above €140,000



Remove tax credits on a tapered basis on incomes above €100,000236


Introduce an additional 12.05% Employers PRSI rate on the portion of salaries above €100,000

https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/Alternative_Budget.pdf

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What sort of nonsense is that? Some 1970s wooly-headed economic theory at work?

Where do you get the funds to invest? We have added €20bn onto the national debt this year, where does the money come from?

Are you going to cancel the Metro Project, Dart West and the M20 for this investment? Cloud cuckoo economics is all that is spouted by those calling for a united Ireland.

The pathetic document produced by Sinn Fein a few weeks ago was supposed to be a blueprint for a united Ireland, it is barely fit for toilet paper.

Where did the money come from for these?
Metro Project, Dart West and the M20

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Not really relevant to voters in the Republic though. Doesn't affect our ability to pay for a UI. (If anything lower demand for Irish exports would make it even harder)

Their economy is too big to worry about a subvention of 2 to 10 BN anyways.

Alright, if the economic implosion of the UK and what that means for the union is not 'really relevant', nothing more to be argued/debated with you.
You carry on looking the other way.

jm08

jh79 wrote: »

Hopefully that is the case. It's a huge ask for the Republic to absorb another 2-3 million given our size.

What is the risk?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Alright, if the economic implosion of the UK and what that means for the union is not 'really relevant', nothing more to be argued/debated with you.
You carry on looking the other way.

So how does a poor UK economy change the opinions of the those who won't pay extra taxes for a UI? It's a sizeable cohort. Support for a UI drops from 70+% to 30+% if taxes increase.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So how does a poor UK economy change the opinions of the those who won't pay extra taxes for a UI? It's a sizeable cohort. Support for a UI drops from 70+% to 30+% if taxes increase.

Let's take a snapshot in time and ask people which they would prefer of these two:

Do you want a part of this island heading back to huge economic deprivations and the instability that brings, or an ordered and supported unification?

Hqrry113

In the 70s polls generally showed in the republic 80-95 percent of people being in favour of a United Ireland complete unilateral immediate british withdrawal from northern Ireland.

Now all people think about is "will I have to pay more taxes" it really goes to show that wealth really can spoil you.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let's take a snapshot in time and ask people which they would prefer of these two:

Do you want a part of this island heading back to huge economic deprivations and the instability that brings, or an ordered and supported unification?

The GFA protects us from a return to terrorism. The subvention will always be paid.

Unification is a high risk unknown. You have no idea if it would be supported or by how much.

Could you explain how the wording of the question in the poll skewed the findings? It was a straight forward question.