The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It isn't going to be a referendum based on a political party's plan.

So one minute we need a plan and the next it's irrelevant?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So one minute we need a plan and the next it's irrelevant?

A single political party's one is. We won't be voting on one. You are being ridiculous.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is just a modern version of lie down croppy boy.

Majorities in both jurisdictions want a border poll, should they be given one, is the question asked. The Scots were given one with a lot less indicating support.

Your opinion on how a poll would go is irrelevant.

To answer your question, no. A complete waste of time and money as the majority are against unification and the GFA should be respected.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A single political party's one is. We won't be voting on one. You are being ridiculous.

Just so we don't get our wires crossed,

Are you saying there will be a single plan presented that outlines tax increases, PS redundancy etc that will have to be honoured? And we them vote on that.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

To answer your question, no. A complete waste of time and money as the majority are against unification and the GFA should be respected.

Majorities want a border poll. It is undemocratic to deny it therefore.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Just so we don't get our wires crossed,

Are you saying there will be a single plan presented that outlines tax increases, PS redundancy etc that will have to be honoured? And we them vote on that.

There will be a question put to the people formulated by the government of the day with a plan/White Paper behind it and explanations of what a UI means. Just as any referendum is done.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There will be a question put to the people formulated by the government of the day with a plan/White Paper behind it and explanations of what a UI means. Just as any referendum is done.

Very vague. What level of detail are you expecting? Taxes, PS headcount etc?

You said this plan will increase support , what elements will do that and would it be any different from what the likes of Fitzgerald and Doyle will publish this year?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Very vague. What level of detail are you expecting? Taxes, PS headcount etc?

You said this plan will increase support , what elements will do that and would it be any different from what the likes of Fitzgerald and Doyle will publish this year?

It will include the level of detail available. A mere few months ago we were being shouted at that the subvention meant we would need to find 10-12 billion plus.

Is that about to change now somebody is bringing out new info?

A plan that only sees us paying more tax will fail. What we need to see is the vision for what a UI can be. Is the cost an investment in something better etc.

Then ask people what they think.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It will include the level of detail available. A mere few months ago we were being shouted at that the subvention meant we would need to find 10-12 billion plus.

Is that about to change now somebody is bringing out new info?

A plan that only sees us paying more tax will fail. What we need to see is the vision for what a UI can be. Is the cost an investment in something better etc.

Then ask people what they think.

Who said the subvention was 10-12 bn? Fitzgerald, ERSI and Doyle have all said the actual value is less.

As already pointed out it is not the true cost of unification and isn't a barrier for formulating a plan.

Any plan that is put forward will be informed by the likes of Fitzgerald and Doyle. I can't see why this plan will be different from the published research in terms of cost. Doyle's paper might have costing for an NHS. Hardly gonna differ much from the white paper if that option is desired. All will be based on data already available.

Is essentially what you're getting at is there might be a benefactor to reduce the cost ? You're not claiming there is some secret info on the economy to come from the British?

If the white paper says the initial cost will require a budget adjustment of 20-30 bn per annum then it will be up to the government to decide how and the opposition to propose alternatives. Of course if we dislike all the suggestions we can vote no.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Who said the subvention was 10-12 bn? Fitzgerald, ERSI and Doyle have all said the actual value is less.

As already pointed out it is not the true cost of unification and isn't a barrier for formulating a plan.

Any plan that is put forward will be informed by the likes of Fitzgerald and Doyle. I can't see why this plan will be different from the published research in terms of cost. Doyle's paper might have costing for an NHS. Hardly gonna differ much from the white paper if that option is desired. All will be based on data already available.

Is essentially what you're getting at is there might be a benefactor to reduce the cost ? You're not claiming there is some secret info on the economy to come from the British?

If the white paper says the initial cost will require a budget adjustment of 20-30 bn per annum then it will be up to the government to decide how and the opposition to propose alternatives. Of course if we dislike all the suggestions we can vote no.

You can vote no if the plan says we will all become multi millionaires too and many will.

The point is if the opposite to the status quo is what we have now...no plan, no vision, and no final cost, the uptake is always going to favour the status quo (itself likely to change dramatically in the next few years).

What we need from a governmental responsibility point of view is a firm plan and then we need to give the two majorities their democratic wish - a Border Poll.

*BTW read back the various threads and the 10-12 billion figure is touted repeatedly.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can vote no if the plan says we will all become multi millionaires too and many will.

The point is if the opposite to the status quo is what we have now...no plan, no vision, and no final cost, the uptake is always going to favour the status quo (itself likely to change dramatically in the next few years).

What we need from a governmental responsibility point of view is a firm plan and then we need to give the two majorities their democratic wish - a Border Poll.

*BTW read back the various threads and the 10-12 billion figure is touted repeatedly.

If the plan is good the opinion polls will reflect that. No justification to force a border poll.

Would you not ask Carthy as your local TD why they haven't published a plan to push things along rather than hoping the SoS will ignore the likely to pass caveat in the GFA?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

If the plan is good the opinion polls will reflect that. No justification to force a border poll.

Would you not ask Carthy as you're local TD why they haven't published a plan to push things along rather than hoping the SoS will ignore the likely to pass caveat in the GFA?

Majorities want a poll.

Westminster/SoS are liable to do anything if recent history tells us anything.
SF back Hubner's vision afaik.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Majorities want a poll.

Westminster/SoS are liable to do anything if recent history tells us anything.
SF back Hubner's vision afaik.

Hubner from what i remember didn't say how it would be paid for just looked at possible benefits. One flaw in his paper was an assumption that growth would match the Republic even though they are miles behind in the major driver of FDI, education.

No party has put forward any proposal in hiw it would be paid for.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Hubner from what i remember didn't say how it would be paid for just looked at possible benefits. One flaw in his paper was an assumption that growth would match the Republic even though they are miles behind in the major driver of FDI, education.

No party has put forward any proposal in hiw it would be paid for.

If the north pays its way, what has to be "paid for"?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the north pays its way, what has to be "paid for"?

How will that happen? Hasn't it's deficit increased every year since the GFA.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

How will that happen? Hasn't it's deficit increased every year since the GFA.

Read the report?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Read the report?

Hubner doesn't explain where the money to stimulate growth will come from.

I'll have a look at it again. In the meantime when he says there will be benefits does he mean from day zero we will see increases in GDP or true benefits where the per capita increases above the Republic's current levels?

There's actually a precedent set with the Uniting of Germany, a lot of EU funding would support a UI
It would also reverse Irelands net contribution status for a few years
Both of those amount to significant funds
Plus of course Britain would have to agree a severence package
Theres 3 sources anyway
Long way to go yet though
The main work is on persuasion, inclusion and parity of esteem
That's a lot of work in a hot bed of sectarianism

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Hubner doesn't explain where the money to stimulate growth will come from.

I'll have a look at it again. In the meantime when he says there will be benefits does he mean from day zero we will see increases in GDP or true benefits where the per capita increases above the Republic's current levels?

Personally not all that interested in political party takes.

More interested in the government getting the finger out and stsrt planning for our constitutional aspirations.

Off for the constitutional now myself.

Brendan Bendar

Marine Layer wrote: »

There's actually a precedent set with the Uniting of Germany, a lot of EU funding would support a UI
It would also reverse Irelands net contribution status for a few years
Both of those amount to significant funds
Plus of course Britain would have to agree a severence package
Theres 3 sources anyway
Long way to go yet though
The main work is on persuasion, inclusion and parity of esteem
That's a lot of work in a hot bed of sectarianism[/QUOTE]

First sensible post in about three pages of rubbish.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Personally not all that interested in political party takes.

More interested in the government getting the finger out and stsrt planning for our constitutional aspirations.

Off for the constitutional now myself.

Just had a flick through it. Yikes!

Nevermind the flaw that FDI will match the Republic even though educational standards are far behind in NI. We would need to spend all savings to possibly gain 1.2% in a decade!

Must check our normal growth rate .


"These changes are projected to increase GDP per capita in the long run by 4 to 7.5 percent in
Northern Ireland and by 0.7 to 1.2 percent in the Republic of Ireland."

"Unification Scenario 3
Unification in combined scenario 3 means the ROI pays 100% of NI’s government deficit, harmonization of functions of government reduces NI’s government expenditure by 2% annually from 2018-2025, and adoption of the ROI’s tax regime and foreign investment policy platform attract a higher presence of multinational firms, which catalyzes returns to
productivity in NI. Government savings are not applied to deficit reduction, but are spent to expand and improve functions of government. Over a 15 year period NI’s productivity structure converges with that found in the ROI."

jh79

Just for a bit of context our GDP was 49k USD ten years ago. It's now 79k USD

SF and DUP will have nothing to do with a United Ireland. They are the problem and not the solution. The cult members don’t realise that though.

Necro

Folks, while I get that a thread can naturally take a divergence I have to ask we get back on topic here. Further discussion of a United Ireland can be continued in the dedicated thread linked below. Thanks

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058171743

Will Matt Carthy be commemorating the IRA member who carried out this sectarian atrocity?

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Will Matt Carthy be commemorating the IRA member who carried out this sectarian atrocity?

It is as tragic as any one of the almost 4000 deaths in the conflict/war.

Not sure what you are trying to achieve but it won't be exploitation of victims from me in return anyhow.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Will Matt Carthy be commemorating the IRA member who carried out this sectarian atrocity?

Without a doubt, the man was a legitimate target, so Matt would be delighted to celebrate his killer. Once Covid is over, you might get Mary-Lou at the celebration as well.

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is as tragic as any one of the almost 4000 deaths in the conflict/war.

Not sure what you are trying to achieve but it won't be exploitation of victims from me in return anyhow.

Maybe it’s to highlight the stupidity and apparent callous indifference to actions of this type by certain by SF TDs in recent weeks.

Maybe it’s to shine a light on the seemingly tacit acceptance by some people that events like this were somehow routine and inevitable.

Shamefull stuff for sure.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Maybe it’s to highlight the stupidity and apparent callous indifference to actions of this type by certain by SF TDs in recent weeks.

Maybe it’s to shine a light on the seemingly tacit acceptance by some people that events like this were somehow routine and inevitable.

Shamefull stuff for sure.

How do we highlight the tacit acceptance and callous ignoring of the situation that led to these tragic events happening in the first place?

Certainly not by exploiting the victims of those tragic events.

I am not buying the lofty motives you give to the poster Brendi, funnily enough.

nigeldaniel

I myself can not work out why some folks have such a need to celebrate murder and terror as some kind of noble work ethic. Do people get gee'd up by madmen and madwomen doing such things?