United Ireland Poll - please vote

downcow

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, predictions on the cost of a "New Ireland" or annexation whatever you prefer, are all based on readily available information. There is no secret info or data on the cost.

SF or any of the rest could tomorrow produce a report with scenarios such as the British paying x, y and z. There is no excuse.

Excellent point.
Many on here expect unionist parties to enter dialogue on what a UI could be.
Yet the parties that claim to want a UI won’t even put a worked out financial proposal on the table.

Makes a mockery of saying unionists should be involved

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To what end if there is no agreement?

Why would they waste their time?

You are being ridiculous. I wouldn't expect any political party to produce a full plan/proposal. That is the work of a government.

I’ll quote this answer of yours Francie the next time you say unionists should get involved in UI discussions

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, predictions on the cost of a "New Ireland" or annexation whatever you prefer, are all based on readily available information. There is no secret info or data on the cost.

SF or any of the rest could tomorrow produce a report with scenarios such as the British paying x, y and z. There is no excuse.

Readily available are they?

Stick them up there quickly with a full breakdown of said amounts, showing what is actual expenditure versus UK allocated overheads, not applicable to a non UK entity.

Fantastic, this is going to be great. Phew, finally. Readily available all along. Wow.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Readily available are they?

Stick them up there quickly with a full breakdown of said amounts, showing what is actual expenditure versus UK allocated overheads, not applicable to a non UK entity.

Fantastic, this is going to be great. Phew, finally. Readily available all along. Wow.

The bits you mention are part of the subvention. Estimated to be between 2.5bn to 5bn or a 5 to 8 %increase in the standard rate of tax. See papers by Doyle and Fitzgerald for estimates.

The big money is the cost of increasing social welfare for those in the North. Cost of increased PS etc. All that can be planned for now.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

The bits you mention are part of the subvention. Estimated to be between 2.5bn to 5bn or a 5 to 8 %increase in the standard rate of tax. See papers by Doyle and Fitzgerald for estimates.

The big money is the cost of increasing social welfare for those in the North. Cost of increased PS etc. All that can be planned for now.

From The Irish Times May 2021 re the study you referenced.

"A new study by Dublin City University (DCU) academic John Doyle concludes that as little as £2-£3 billion (€2.3-€3.5 billion) of the £9.4 billion would carry over into an all-Ireland entity.:

Let's say €3b a year initially, before looking at funding?

So little? And that ignores the opportunities that a greater population brings, plus if better managed the 6 counties have great potential.

Even in the short term I don't see such a large increase in taxation, not even close.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

From The Irish Times May 2021 re the study you referenced.

"A new study by Dublin City University (DCU) academic John Doyle concludes that as little as £2-£3 billion (€2.3-€3.5 billion) of the £9.4 billion would carry over into an all-Ireland entity.:

Let's say €3b a year initially, before looking at funding?

So little? And that ignores the opportunities that a greater population brings, plus if better managed the 6 counties have great potential.

Even in the short term I don't see such a large increase in taxation, not even close.

From the man himself.

https://twitter.com/JohnDoyleDCU/status/1402556293752176640?s=19


This is from Fitzgerald;

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-unity-would-trigger-financial-shock-in-republic-committee-hears-1.4554930

The subvention would need a 5 to 8% tax increase and that is just to keep things exactly as they are in NI with regards welfare rates and PS pay. Harmonization is the real cost and will be far bigger.

Any party claiming to be Republicans and wanting to end partition really need to get the finger out and tackle the big issues.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

From the man himself.

https://twitter.com/JohnDoyleDCU/status/1402556293752176640?s=19


This is from Fitzgerald;

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-unity-would-trigger-financial-shock-in-republic-committee-hears-1.4554930

The subvention would need a 5 to 8% tax increase and that is just to keep things exactly as they are in NI with regards welfare rates and PS pay. Harmonization is the real cost and will be far bigger.

Any party claiming to be Republicans and wanting to end partition really need to get the finger out and tackle the big issues.

Well Trinity should be embarrassed to be associated with Fitgerald. As suspected, his large increase in taxes is based on a fictional figure. I will give him credit for highlighting the low productivity of NI, but the wolfhound on the street knows that. To sum up, based on that IT article, Fitzgerald is a clown.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Excellent point.
Many on here expect unionist parties to enter dialogue on what a UI could be.
Yet the parties that claim to want a UI won’t even put a worked out financial proposal on the table.

Makes a mockery of saying unionists should be involved

Unionists throught the UK government will be involved in negotiations on a UI downcow...are you saying they will sulk in a corner and allow their future in a UI to be decided for them?


Would be like something the DUP and belligerent Unionist would do but Doug Beattie moderate Unionism won't.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well Trinity should be embarrassed to be associated with Fitgerald. As suspected, his large increase in taxes is based on a fictional figure. I will give him credit for highlighting the low productivity of NI, but the wolfhound on the street knows that. To sum up, based on that IT article, Fitzgerald is a clown.

Propose some alternative figures then and point out the flaws in his research.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Propose some alternative figures then and point out the flaws in his research.

What? Do you even read your own posts/suggested sources? FFS. Off with you.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionists throught the UK government will be involved in negotiations on a UI downcow...are you saying they will sulk in a corner and allow their future in a UI to be decided for them?


Would be like something the DUP and belligerent Unionist would do but Doug Beattie moderate Unionism won't.

Francie, negotiations with the UK will only affect the cost of covering the subvention.

The success of a UI is dependent on the more significant harmonization costs.

None of the parties have put forward a proposal or policy document on how to make a UI a success. I've already given my opinion on the reasons why. Would like to hear yours?

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What? Do you even read your own posts/suggested sources? FFS. Off with you.

So you know he's wrong but can't for some reason tell us why?

Isambard

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Have two countries ever merged together successfully let alone peacefully?

and the same can be said of splitting countries arbitrarily. Never works.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

So you know he's wrong but can't for some reason tell us why?

Did you yourself not reference John Doyle, UCD?

Nobody believes the 9-10b per annum figure. Not even those disingenuous enough to bring it up, because of the glaring flaws in it.

So, while they think they are being clever by trying to muddy the waters, they only come across as morons.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, negotiations with the UK will only affect the cost of covering the subvention.

Speculation. You have no way of knowing what form or results will come from the negotiations. You are looking at them from a partitionist wishing well.

The success of a UI is dependent on the more significant harmonization costs.

None of the parties have put forward a proposal or policy document on how to make a UI a success. I've already given my opinion on the reasons why. Would like to hear yours?

There will be aspirational stuff from all parties, the government's white paper or proposal will map out what will be done to mitigate any costs that accrue. That cannot be done until negotiations begin and we know what the British intend to do and what the Unionist majority want and indeed a whole raft of opportunities to reform and fix are investigated.
There will never be anyone committing to an absolute cost.

That is why there is no plan/proposal and further that is why people- including SF are lobbying for the preparations to begin.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Speculation. You have no way of knowing what form or results will come from the negotiations. You are looking at them from a partitionist wishing well.



There will be aspirational stuff from all parties, the government's white paper or proposal will map out what will be done to mitigate any costs that accrue. That cannot be done until negotiations begin and we know what the British intend to do and what the Unionist majority want and indeed a whole raft of opportunities to reform and fix are investigated.
There will never be anyone committing to an absolute cost.

That is why there is no plan/proposal and further that is why people- including SF are lobbying for the preparations to begin.

Francie, negotiations on debt and pension commitments will only affect the subvention nothing else.

Could you give an example of something that might have a more wide reaching affect?

The white paper will be reflective of the government of day. It won't and can't be a binding contract. The real cost will change as policies change with each government.

The "big reveal" white paper narrative is just insecure Republicans being afraid to tackle the difficult issues.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Could you give an example of something that might have a more wide reaching affect?

Maybe there isn't any. Can you provide one?

You've already had the too expensive for the ROI barrier blown out of the water, ironically by your own link.

You got anything else?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, negotiations on debt and pension commitments will only affect the subvention nothing else.

Could you give an example of something that might have a more wide reaching affect?

The white paper will be reflective of the government of day. It won't and can't be a binding contract. The real cost will change as policies change with each government.

The "big reveal" white paper narrative is just insecure Republicans being afraid to tackle the difficult issues.

You have no idea what the British will commit to going forward...you have no idea if a transition period is agreed, you have no idea of what investment might be made by those who benefit from a successful UI.
In fact you have no idea bar a partitionist hope that the British will be parsimonious and obstructive and you still have a predilection for throwing big scary figures and potential disasters around.

In short you are talking about a take over tomorrow and things continuing as they are.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe there isn't any. Can you provide one?

You've already had the too expensive for the ROI barrier blown out of the water, ironically by your own link.

You got anything else?

Can't thing of any myself.

What a strange interpretation of either link i provided! Which link specifically are you referring to?

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe there isn't any. Can you provide one?

You've already had the too expensive for the ROI barrier blown out of the water, ironically by your own link.

You got anything else?

Indeed, the big scary figure - the subvention - has been quietly dropped for other big scary stuff.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Can't thing of any myself.

What a strange interpretation of either link i provided! Which link specifically are you referring to?

John Doyle, UCD, cost to support the North would be about €3b a year. So, we get the UK to pay for it out of reparations. If not we borrow it at negative interest and pay it back once we've the North's economy functioning. Which we have a vested interest in doing, rather than the SE of England.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have no idea what the British will commit to going forward...you have no idea if a transition period is agreed, you have no idea of what investment might be made by those who benefit from a successful UI.
In fact you have no idea bar a partitionist hope that the British will be parsimonious and obstructive and you still have a predilection for throwing big scary figures and potential disasters around.

In short you are talking about a take over tomorrow and things continuing as they are.

I think the UK will be grand during the negotiations. It's not big money to them given there size.

I do think it's a fair point that Scottish independence at the same time might change things cost wise.

But in summary the subvention isn't a big issue and the negotiations with the British will only have a small effect on the cost.

The British have no influence on what we spend on social welfare, public service pay and inward investment in the "New Ireland".

It's a silly narrative that it's all a big unknown. SF and their supporters are running scared due to the inevitable unpopular tax increases.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I think the UK will be grand during the negotiations. It's not big money to them given there size.

I do think it's a fair point that Scottish independence at the same time might change things cost wise.

But in summary the subvention isn't a big issue and the negotiations with the British will only have a small effect on the cost.

The British have no influence on what we spend on social welfare, public service pay and inward investment in the "New Ireland".

It's a silly narrative that it's all a big unknown. SF and their supporters are running scared due to the inevitable unpopular tax increases.

Again with the unsubstantiated 'running scared' stuff. SF are calling again and again for preparations to begin.
Not to mention the adamant claim about what the British will or will not do.

Back this stuff up or accept that you don't know.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again with the unsubstantiated 'running scared' stuff. SF are calling again and again for preparations to begin.
Not to mention the adamant claim about what the British will or will not do.

Back this stuff up or accept that you don't know.

They got the Hubner report commissioned for the benefits, they could easily of done one on the cost.

SF have pushed a certain narrative similar to yourself on the cost of a UI. My assumption is they are running scared from it.

It's all a big unknown is not a credible excuse in the slightest.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Indeed, the big scary figure - the subvention - has been quietly dropped for other big scary stuff.

Now Francie you know i was saying the subvention was only a minor part of the cost from the beginning.

Remember when you said Doyle was going to shake the whole thing up with his paper and recommended i follow him in twitter? I did and found this tweet very quickly!

https://twitter.com/JohnDoyleDCU/status/1402556293752176640?s=19

jh79

https://twitter.com/JohnDoyleDCU/status/1408391356200931338?s=19


Francie, what's preventing any political party in the Republic telling us how they would design the welfare system in a "New Ireland"?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

They got the Hubner report commissioned for the benefits, they could easily of done one on the cost.

SF have pushed a certain narrative similar to yourself on the cost of a UI. My assumption is they are running scared from it.

It's all a big unknown is not a credible excuse in the slightest.

It is an unknown when you don't know what a UI will be and what will be contributed to it or not.
You have taken the scary stance - fair enough, but it is a 'stance' not a factual roadmap. Try to remember that.

Part of the scare story is that the electorate won't tolerate a tax rise, but here is the results of a hot off the press poll that shows a majority see their taxes as 'investment' in the running of the country. That is how any government will present a UI - an investment in our future - and that will be the challenge for partitionists to reject. Good luck with it.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JohnDoyleDCU/status/1408391356200931338?s=19


Francie, what's preventing any political party in the Republic telling us how they would design the welfare system in a "New Ireland"?

Has anyone designed one that will plunge us into fiscal disaster?

The guy tells you why in the fecking tweet jh79.

requires us to decide what sort of society we want to build and support

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is an unknown when you don't know what a UI will be and what will be contributed to it or not.
You have taken the scary stance - fair enough, but it is a 'stance' not a factual roadmap. Try to remember that.

Part of the scare story is that the electorate won't tolerate a tax rise, but here is the results of a hot off the press poll that shows a majority see their taxes as 'investment' in the running of the country. That is how any government will present a UI - an investment in our future - and that will be the challenge for partitionists to reject. Good luck with it.

We both know each others stances on this. My issue is the inaction of SF as the all island Republican party. Some will like the plan others won't but for god sake they need to provide one at some stage. There is no excuse and that's why I think they are afraid. The Hubner report back fired on them so maybe that is a factor.

I'm surprised that you as a self proclaimed Republican have no issue with them sitting on their hands.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

We both know each others stances on this. My issue is the inaction of SF as the all island Republican party. Some will like the plan others won't but for god sake they need to provide one at some stage. Their is no excuse and that's why I think they are afraid. The Hubner report back fired on them so maybe that is a factor.

I'm surprised that you as a self proclaimed Republican have no issue with them sitting on their hands.

Email SF?

Any plan/proposal at this stage is just speculation and are essentially ideas. They is a way to go before anyone can produce an accurate one.