The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Again take child benefit. There are three choices

(1) Harmonise the rates upwards to the rate in the South, putting an extra cost on taxpayers

(2) Cut the rate in the South to match the North, i.e. harmonise downwards, thereby cutting social welfare to those in need

(3) Discriminate against children born in the North, by maintaining two different rates (though why you would unify to introduce discrimination is beyond me)


Your choice, Francie, pick one of the three policy options, I will work out the cost and the implications, or else, name a fourth policy option. We can start with this simple one, and move on to tougher challenges like SF setting out why it wants to cut nurses pay or increase property taxes and bring in water charges.

I can tell you which one FG would plump for.

I won't be in favour of 'harmonising', I will be looking for a new and fair system linked to all other aspects of life in the new state.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can tell you which one FG would plump for.

I won't be in favour of 'harmonising', I will be looking for a new and fair system linked to all other aspects of life in the new state.

So we'll all be worse off as GDP will increase by only 10% but the population by 40%!

SF and their supporters are scared of discussing the true cost of unification. Gonna have to address it at some stage though.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So we'll all be worse off as GDP will increase by only 10% but the population by 40%!

SF and their supporters are scared of discussing the true cost of unification. Gonna have to address it at some stage though.

The scared people are those using the scary 10,11 12 and more billions.

RandomViewer

jh79 wrote: »

So we'll all be worse off as GDP will increase by only 10% but the population by 40%!

SF and their supporters are scared of discussing the true cost of unification. Gonna have to address it at some stage though.

What's the figures if you use GNP, GDP for Ireland isn't a good measure as a lot of the money is only passing through

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The scared people are those using the scary 10,11 12 and more billions.

Subvention is the easy part even at the higher estimates. It's the cost of integration that's the killer hence SF and your focus on the subvention.

If you're worried about the higher estimates of the subvention imagine the reaction in the Republic when the cost of welfare/housing/ public service pay and pension and more importantly inward investment to fix it's economy start being discussed!

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Enda is also open to the existence of unicorns and the tax-raising potential of rainbows, should evidence be produced. That is where he differs from Sinn Fein. They believe in unicorns, rainbow taxes and a united Ireland without any evidence that they either exist or work.

Is he 'not normal' Blanch?
Merely pointing out the former Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael makes comparisons between German reunification and the Irish situation. Quiet rightly IMO.
I don't see how that feeds into your penchant for mentioning unicorns and rainbows.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Subvention is the easy part even at the higher estimates. It's the cost of integration that's the killer hence SF and your focus on the subvention.

If you're worried about the higher estimates of the subvention imagine the reaction in the Republic when the cost of welfare/housing/ public service pay and pension and more importantly inward investment to fix it's economy start being discussed!

I'm not a bit worried about the subvention, which is why I laugh at those who use various figures (depending on how scary they want to be) from one day to the next.

I believe a UI presents a chance for us to build an island wide society and economy which can only be the best way to run an island.
I don't treat the north as something that is helpless and that does not contribute. The north will, like any other region contribute just as much to the island economy.
There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say, and the 'bottom line' is not the only way to look at the success/failure of a society.

Fionn1952

RandomViewer wrote: »

Tax is kind of hard to judge when you figure Dunnes,Tesco,Vodafone etc..all pay their tax centrally in Dublin when that money is collected countrywide,

It's also where their highest paid members of staff would be, paying the highest amount of PAYE tax, and where they would have most stores, generating most profit for Corp. tax.

Without getting bogged down in the minutiae, I found it hypocritical of someone to gurn about keeping Munster taxes for Munster while happily sticking the hand out for transfers from that good old Leinster tax.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not a bit worried about the subvention, which is why I laugh at those who use various figures (depending on how scary they want to be) from one day to the next.

I believe a UI presents a chance for us to build an island wide society and economy which can only be the best way to run an island.
I don't treat the north as something that is helpless and that does not contribute. The north will, like any other region contribute just as much to the island economy.
There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say, and the 'bottom line' is not the only way to look at the success/failure of a society.

The B&A poll from last year predicted only 30 odd % willing to pay for a UI, how do you reverse that especially in a post COVID world?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The B&A poll from last year predicted only 30 odd % willing to pay for a UI, how do you reverse that especially in a post COVID world?

You relax with whatever poll you want. Why are you so bothered if it so cut and dried IYO?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You relax with whatever poll you want. Why are you so bothered if it so cut and dried IYO?

You'll post for days on the "true" identity of a person born in NI but a few posts about the cost of unification and you want to shut it down .

Francie, no point burying your head in the sand like SF. It ain't going away.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

You'll post for days on the "true" identity of a person born in NI but a few posts about the cost of unification and you want to shut it down .

Francie, no point burying your head in the sand like SF. It ain't going away.

It hasn't started jh79.

The idea that I am going to waste my time discussing financial matters with dyed in the wool frightened partitionists is ludicrous.

The only way to do this will be with the vested interests and the stakeholders, not some random discussion on the internet focussing on easy win areas like welfare etc.

Not going to happen with me involved anyhow.

Bubbaclaus

Is Mary Lou calling for border checks on the island?

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1346867624681025541?s=19

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Is Mary Lou calling for border checks on the island?

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1346867624681025541?s=19

She is calling for an island lockdown, I reckon. Common sense in other words.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She is calling for an island lockdown, I reckon. Common sense in other words.

Good luck getting the DUP to agree to that. Common sense yes, but not realistic. I'm sure she is aware of that too.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It hasn't started jh79.

The idea that I am going to waste my time discussing financial matters with dyed in the wool frightened partitionists is ludicrous.

The only way to do this will be with the vested interests and the stakeholders, not some random discussion on the internet focussing on easy win areas like welfare etc.

Not going to happen with me involved anyhow.

You mean you, just like SF,. you are afraid to discuss it because it's the biggest obstacle to unification.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

You mean you, just like SF,. you are afraid to discuss it because it's the biggest obstacle to unification.

Where have SF been 'afraid' to discuss it?

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Is Mary Lou calling for border checks on the island?

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1346867624681025541?s=19

Yes. They've been pushing for an all island approach for some time. It makes the most sense IMO. Surely the like of the DUP can put their ego aside for health?

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Good luck getting the DUP to agree to that. Common sense yes, but not realistic. I'm sure she is aware of that too.

Japers imagine a world were you only make suggestions the DUP might agree with...

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where have SF been 'afraid' to discuss it?

I'd love to see a document from SF on the cost of integrating NI if you have a link?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I'd love to see a document from SF on the cost of integrating NI if you have a link?

But you where asked where have SF been 'afraid' to discuss it, not whether they have produced documents.
*snip*

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can tell you which one FG would plump for.

I won't be in favour of 'harmonising', I will be looking for a new and fair system linked to all other aspects of life in the new state.

You are running away from the debate again. The options are simple, choose one or give another.

Promising a land of milk and honey in the form of "a new and fair system" paid by taxation on unicorns and rainbows is not an alternative proposal. It is a cop-out, a cowardly attempt to evade debate of the issues around unification.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Yes. They've been pushing for an all island approach for some time. It makes the most sense IMO. Surely the like of the DUP can put their ego aside for health?



Japers imagine a world were you only make suggestions the DUP might agree with...

It has been explained many times why an all-island approach wouldn't work.

The Dublin-London air route is the busiest in the world. Why? Because of the extent of the economic integration. A British Isles approach to the virus would have been a good idea, but never flew, for the same political reasons an all-island of Ireland approach doesn't fly.

It is especially galling to see some peddling an all-island approach for political rather than health reasons. People's lives mean less than "the cause" to some.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You are running away from the debate again. The options are simple, choose one or give another.

Promising a land of milk and honey in the form of "a new and fair system" paid by taxation on unicorns and rainbows is not an alternative proposal. It is a cop-out, a cowardly attempt to evade debate of the issues around unification.

I'm not running anywhere...I'm simply not interested in wasting my time with a partitionist who is bitterly opposed to a UI, while pretending to be otherwise. A partitionist who will ally with belligerent Unionism if it means attacking his boogeymen and women in Sinn Fein.

Now, same question to you, who first mentioned it...where have Sinn Fein been afraid to discuss the cost of a UI?

Note: Just because you don't agree with what they say does not indicate 'fear'.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It has been explained many times why an all-island approach wouldn't work.

The Dublin-London air route is the busiest in the world. Why? Because of the extent of the economic integration. A British Isles approach to the virus would have been a good idea, but never flew, for the same political reasons an all-island of Ireland approach doesn't fly.

It is especially galling to see some peddling an all-island approach for political rather than health reasons. People's lives mean less than "the cause" to some.

It SHOULDN'T be the busiest route in the world at the moment...that is the point.

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

I'd love to see a document from SF on the cost of integrating NI if you have a link?

Not read these. Quick Google:

Economic Benefits of a UI

Sinn Féin says it won't cost as much as people think to bring about a united Ireland

Not 'afraid to discuss it' anyway.
The arguments against are no more or less valid than any arguments against a spend. It's down to how much you think it's worth and how much you feel it should cost.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not running anywhere...I'm simply not interested in wasting my time with a partitionist who is bitterly opposed to a UI, while pretending to be otherwise. A partitionist who will ally with belligerent Unionism if it means attacking his boogeymen and women in Sinn Fein.

Now, same question to you, who first mentioned it...where have Sinn Fein been afraid to discuss the cost of a UI?

Note: Just because you don't agree with what they say does not indicate 'fear'.

Well they've produced documents on the possible benefits and the likely true value of the subvention yet nothing on the costs. Seems to be they are running scared from the biggest issue among voters in the Republic.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

It has been explained many times why an all-island approach wouldn't work.

The Dublin-London air route is the busiest in the world. Why? Because of the extent of the economic integration. A British Isles approach to the virus would have been a good idea, but never flew, for the same political reasons an all-island of Ireland approach doesn't fly.

It is especially galling to see some peddling an all-island approach for political rather than health reasons. People's lives mean less than "the cause" to some.

Can you show me how a partitioned border would work better than an all Island air/sea border?

I'd agree, if it were the case. As scurrilous as dismissing an all Island approach because shinners something something...

jh79

Bowie wrote: »

Not read these. Quick Google:





Not 'afraid to discuss it' anyway.
The arguments against are no more or less valid than any arguments against a spend. It's down to how much you think it's worth and how much you feel it should cost.

Neither addresses the costs of adjusting PS pay and pensions/welfare/social housing/HSE etc basically all the stuff that will cost more when a population increases by 40% but doesn't contribute much to the economy.

As i said they are afraid to discuss the true cost of unification as they know it will go down like a lead balloon. Only 30 something% in favour of a UI if there is a cost involved.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Not read these. Quick Google:





Not 'afraid to discuss it' anyway.
The arguments against are no more or less valid than any arguments against a spend. It's down to how much you think it's worth and how much you feel it should cost.

Those documents don't address any of the issues. In fact, the most scary thing about them is the childish nature of the economic analysis and the lack of deep consideration of the costs of unification.

If the party considered to be most in favour of unification has done so little work on the costs, what hope is there?

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

Neither addresses the costs of adjusting PS pay and pensions/welfare/social housing/HSE etc basically all the stuff that will cost more when a population increases by 40% but doesn't contribute much to the economy.

As i said they are afraid to discuss the true cost of unification as they know it will go down like a lead balloon. Only 30 something% in favour of a UI if there is a cost involved.

blanch152 wrote: »

Those documents don't address any of the issues. In fact, the most scary thing about them is the childish nature of the economic analysis and the lack of deep consideration of the costs of unification.

If the party considered to be most in favour of unification has done so little work on the costs, what hope is there?

Not addressing specific queries in that document is hardly 'afraid to discuss the cost'. I'd do a bit of research before I made such a claim.

I guarantee you you'll see a much bigger wave of good feeling and support for a UI than any other referendum. Cost won't be a factor for many. Especially any scare mongered guestimates. A UI is bigger than SF or any FG/Tory party.

IMO, a lot of dismissing or talking it down is more about keeping the shinners in check than a UI, which is sad.