United Ireland Poll - please vote

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can estimate the cost of a system that hasn't even been designed yet? Fair play.

You and blanch assume that we will just subsume NI into the south and carry on with what we have. That is a mistake IMO and why I keep saying what I am.

Who knows what will emerge, we could have an entirely new health service and welfare system and a complete overhaul of PS's on both sides. We certainly need them and there will be an appetite and calls for that to happen.

My God it's getting worse.

Any of the political parties can cost their vision for the health service, welfare or PS pay right now.

There is no "big reveal" as all of the gaps in the data that the British have to decide on only affect the subvention.

If you are not pushing a "big reveal" narrative then what are the issues you are talking about?

To save time, we already know it's not how the British will deal with pension entitlements, the exact revenue NI generates or debt commitments as these are only relevant to the subvention.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is simply not true. The assumptions I have used are as follows:

(1) There will be no discrimination in a united Ireland, all citizens will be treated equally
(2) There will be no cuts to social welfare rates for anyone.
(3) Public servants will not be singled out for pay cuts or for compulsory redundancy.


If you disagree with these, please do so explicitly, rather than blatantly misrepresenting me, something you are very very quick to accuse others of.

You repeatedly talk about 'harmonisation'.

Correct me if I am wrong here - 'Harmonisation' means taking two systems and making them one.

The 'two systems' could well be scrapped and a new one's created. Health and Welfare and a PS service for instance.

The cost of running them, the cost of running a new bigger country.

You are assuming stuff and I refuse to do that, mostly because, at this stage it is pointless speculating and rife for scaremongers and anti-UIers to exploit, as we have seen.
Previously, it was the subvention (earlier this year you were claiming it was a fixed figure of 11 billion) now that has transformed into the 'ongoing costs' because an acceptable 'expert' has said the subvention isn't relevant anymore.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You repeatedly talk about 'harmonisation'.

Correct me if I am wrong here - 'Harmonisation' means taking two systems and making them one.

The 'two systems' could well be scrapped and a new one's created. Health and Welfare and a PS service for instance.

The cost of running them, the cost of running a new bigger country.

You are assuming stuff and I refuse to do that, mostly because, at this stage it is pointless speculating and rife for scaremongers and anti-UIers to exploit, as we have seen.
Previously, it was the subvention (earlier this year you were claiming it was a fixed figure of 11 billion) now that has transformed into the 'ongoing costs' because an acceptable 'expert' has said the subvention isn't relevant anymore.

Don't bluster, obfuscate and misrepresent my position. I put my assumptions out there and am asking you to explicitly state which, if any, you disagree with.

Posting nonsense claiming I said something earlier this year won't divert from the simple question you are being asked. Run and hide from the question, or answer it.

At the very least, you should withdraw your fictitious claim that I "assume that we will just subsume NI into the south". I have clearly demonstrated that isn't the case.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is simply not true. The assumptions I have used are as follows:

(1) There will be no discrimination in a united Ireland, all citizens will be treated equally
(2) There will be no cuts to social welfare rates for anyone.
(3) Public servants will not be singled out for pay cuts or for compulsory redundancy.


If you disagree with these, please do so explicitly, rather than blatantly misrepresenting me, something you are very very quick to accuse others of.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You repeatedly talk about 'harmonisation'.

Correct me if I am wrong here - 'Harmonisation' means taking two systems and making them one.

The 'two systems' could well be scrapped and a new one's created. Health and Welfare and a PS service for instance.

The cost of running them, the cost of running a new bigger country.

You are assuming stuff and I refuse to do that, mostly because, at this stage it is pointless speculating and rife for scaremongers and anti-UIers to exploit, as we have seen.
Previously, it was the subvention (earlier this year you were claiming it was a fixed figure of 11 billion) now that has transformed into the 'ongoing costs' because an acceptable 'expert' has said the subvention isn't relevant anymore.

So there is no data missing that prevents the parties costing any policies they would like to implement in a new Ireland.

Glad we cleared that up.

This is a special one though. People should ignore all the expert opinion on the cost of the investment. Because.... they might be perceived as a negative!

So much for taking all opinions on board!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't bluster, obfuscate and misrepresent my position. I put my assumptions out there and am asking you to explicitly state which, if any, you disagree with.

Posting nonsense claiming I said something earlier this year won't divert from the simple question you are being asked. Run and hide from the question, or answer it.

At the very least, you should withdraw your fictitious claim that I "assume that we will just subsume NI into the south". I have clearly demonstrated that isn't the case.

What does 'harmonising' mean then?

I don't agree or disagree with you, I am underlining the fact you are 'assuming' things though. I am not doing that ahead of a plan/proposal from the proposers - the government of Ireland - whosoever that be at the time.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So there is no data missing that prevents the parties costing any policies they would like to implement in a new Ireland.

Glad we cleared that up.

This is a special one though. People should ignore all the expert opinion on the cost of the investment. Because.... they might be perceived as a negative!

So much for taking all opinions on board!

Where the hell did I say, people should ignore expert opinion.

Why do you keep altering/inventing stuff? You were caught out offering 'expert' opinion that you didn't agree with and don't think is important anyway. Own it.
You are here to be negative about a UI. I.E. People talk about rationalising the northern PS, you immediately come back talking about 'purges'.

FFS, a bit of self awareness about what your agenda is would be no harm.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What does 'harmonising' mean then?

I don't agree or disagree with you, I am underlining the fact you are 'assuming' things though. I am not doing that ahead of a plan/proposal from the proposers - the government of Ireland - whosoever that be at the time.

Again, where in my question to you is the word "harmonising"? Have a look at the assumptions again. They are very reasonable things that most normal people would take for granted. However, for some reason, you seem unable to tell us whether you agree or disagree with them. In reality, you are running and hiding from the question.

Essentially, you seem to be saying that you have no opinion at all unless and until the government has one, and given your approach on other threads, you will probably fundamentally disagree with the government opinion, no matter what it is. Very strange that someone who has such an interest in a united Ireland cannot even support an assumption that there will be no discrimination in a united Ireland.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is simply not true. The assumptions I have used are as follows:

(1) There will be no discrimination in a united Ireland, all citizens will be treated equally
(2) There will be no cuts to social welfare rates for anyone.
(3) Public servants will not be singled out for pay cuts or for compulsory redundancy.


If you disagree with these, please do so explicitly, rather than blatantly misrepresenting me, something you are very very quick to accuse others of.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where the hell did I say, people should ignore expert opinion.

Why do you keep altering/inventing stuff? You were caught out offering 'expert' opinion that you didn't agree with and don't think is important anyway. Own it.
You are here to be negative about a UI. I.E. People talk about rationalising the northern PS, you immediately come back talking about 'purges'.

FFS, a bit of self awareness about what your agenda is would be no harm.

This is hilarious. No dissenting opinions should be allowed!

I might not agree with the expert but I'm not a lecturer in Politics or Economics. Would be very arrogant of me to dismiss or ignore his views like you suggest.

Doyle didn't mind his constructive criticism but as I said previously presumably not an insecure Republican.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, where in my question to you is the word "harmonising"? Have a look at the assumptions again. They are very reasonable things that most normal people would take for granted. However, for some reason, you seem unable to tell us whether you agree or disagree with them. In reality, you are running and hiding from the question.

Essentially, you seem to be saying that you have no opinion at all unless and until the government has one, and given your approach on other threads, you will probably fundamentally disagree with the government opinion, no matter what it is. Very strange that someone who has such an interest in a united Ireland cannot even support an assumption that there will be no discrimination in a united Ireland.

Are you claiming now you haven't been talking about 'harmonisation' in the past debates here? Ok :rolleyes:

I cannot have an opinion until I see a plan/proposal. And if there are parts of it I disagree with, then I will have no issue, like on those 'other threads' with critiquing it.

You do have an opinion on some nebulous idea of the UI you see. A UI is never possible if we accept your opinion. We get it.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

This is hilarious. No dissenting opinions should be allowed!

Not what I said. No 'dishonest' agenda driven opinion is allowed without criticism, would be more apt.

I might not agree with the expert but I'm not a lecturer in Politics or Economics. Would be very arrogant of me to dismiss or ignore his views like you suggest.

Doyle didn't mind his constructive criticism but as I said previously presumably not an insecure Republican.

I only criticised your use of the opinion. I take on board what he said, just like all the other 'honest' opinions out there.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you claiming now you haven't been talking about 'harmonisation' in the past debates here? Ok :rolleyes:

I cannot have an opinion until I see a plan/proposal. And if there are parts of it I disagree with, then I will have no issue, like on those 'other threads' with critiquing it.

You do have an opinion on some nebulous idea of the UI you see. A UI is never possible if we accept your opinion. We get it.

More drivel to avoid answering the question. Here it is again to remind you. Three simple straight-forward assumptions to ensure that people don't suffer in a united Ireland, and you can't accept them.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is simply not true. The assumptions I have used are as follows:

(1) There will be no discrimination in a united Ireland, all citizens will be treated equally
(2) There will be no cuts to social welfare rates for anyone.
(3) Public servants will not be singled out for pay cuts or for compulsory redundancy.


If you disagree with these, please do so explicitly, rather than blatantly misrepresenting me, something you are very very quick to accuse others of.

Be brave, express an opinion before there is an official Sinn Fein position on an idea.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I only criticised your use of the opinion. I take on board what he said, just like all the other 'honest' opinions out there.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I cannot have an opinion until I see a plan/proposal.

If you take on board the opinion, then you have an opinion, but then in the previous post you don't have an opinion. I think you are more than a little confused.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

If you take on board the opinion, then you have an opinion, but then in the previous post you don't have an opinion. I think you are more than a little confused.

I have an opinion on what a UI can be.

I don't have an opinion on the costs of a UI, because there is no economic plan for one yet.

I am certainly be of the opinion that harmonising failed systems on both sides is not the way to proceed though.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have an opinion on what a UI can be.

I don't have an opinion on the costs of a UI, because there is no economic plan for one yet.

I am certainly be of the opinion that harmonising failed systems on both sides is not the way to proceed though.

You have an opinion on what a United Ireland can be but you have no opinion on a statement that there will be no discrimination in a united Ireland!!!! Laughable. You also have no opinion on a statement that there will be no cuts to social welfare rates for anyone or that public servants will not be singled out for pay cuts or for compulsory redundancy.

What is your united Ireland made up of? Bluster and obfuscation, spin and whataboutery? Three simple statements and you can't bring yourself to have an opinion about them.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is simply not true. The assumptions I have used are as follows:

(1) There will be no discrimination in a united Ireland, all citizens will be treated equally
(2) There will be no cuts to social welfare rates for anyone.
(3) Public servants will not be singled out for pay cuts or for compulsory redundancy.


If you disagree with these, please do so explicitly, rather than blatantly misrepresenting me, something you are very very quick to accuse others of.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Missed this yesterday, sorry.

Doyle reckons it's 3bn, SF reckon it's that too, Fitzgerald puts it at 8/9 bn. Both SF and Doyle reckon the British will play nice and fund pensions. Some reckon in the event of Scottish independence they funding pensions for both becomes less likely. Bottom line is it's up to the British to decide. There is no legal requirement for them to pay future pension obligations.

Obviously the more the subvention is reduced the better but the subvention isn't the major cost of unification as pointed out by Doyle when he said that it was irrelevant to discussions on Irish Unity. It's paying for PS wages, welfare, housing, education, roads etc for 8 million instead of six even though revenue (GDP) practically remains the same.

Now before you accuse the lads of all sorts, SF are using the Hubner Report to support claims of a "benefit" to unification. To achieve that all Government surpluses would need to be re-directed North to encourage growth. That means no extra spending on housing, hospitals, rainy day funds etc. Prediction of how long that would last range from 8 to 20/30 years. The Germans only in the last few years ended their Unity Tax.

None of the parties will be available to produce a document where the investment is pain free.

Here the post in question.

What issue have you with my "use" of his opinion.

Oh, by the way I already say in this post the subvention isn't relevant anyways to the overall cost. Can you explain how I was caught out so?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You have an opinion on what a United Ireland can be but you have no opinion on a statement that there will be no discrimination in a united Ireland!!!! Laughable. You also have no opinion on a statement that there will be no cuts to social welfare rates for anyone or that public servants will not be singled out for pay cuts or for compulsory redundancy.

What is your united Ireland made up of? Bluster and obfuscation, spin and whataboutery? Three simple statements and you can't bring yourself to have an opinion about them.

Why are you making these 'statements' and asking me t agree/disagree with them? I don't understand the point.
Most certainly I agree that there be no discrimination in a UI

I don't know if there will be cuts to welfare or not.
Nor do I know if there will be compulsory redundancy or pay cuts until I see a plan/proposal.
I don't think there needs to be if a proper transition period is applied.

Does that help you, because I have stated this view before, you may have missed it.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Here the post in question.

What issue have you with my "use" of his opinion.

Oh, by the way I already say in this post the subvention isn't relevant anyways to the overall cost. Can you explain how I was caught out so?

Again...I told you before. I have 'issue' with the negative agenda behind your use of an opinion you don't agree with and didn't think was important anyway. That was revealed when you were challenged n the pinion you posted.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why are you making these 'statements' and asking me t agree/disagree with them? I don't understand the point.
Most certainly I agree that there be no discrimination in a UI

I don't know if there will be cuts to welfare or not.
Nor do I know if there will be compulsory redundancy or pay cuts until I see a plan/proposal.
I don't think there needs to be if a proper transition period is applied.

Does that help you, because I have stated this view before, you may have missed it.

I am not asking whether you know if there will be or not. I am asking you to have an opinion on whether there should be or not.

I believe that there shouldn't be any social welfare cuts in a united Ireland, neither should there be compulsory redundancies or pay cuts for public servants. Do you believe that?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again...I told you before. I have 'issue' with the negative agenda behind your use of an opinion you don't agree with and didn't think was important anyway. That was revealed when you were challenged n the pinion you posted.

What? I said it wasn't important within the same post!

Only challenge was to provide a link, which I did. Then the experts opinion was challenged as to whether it was legally the case. I addressed that too. It's the legal case both here and in the UK ie NI.

jh79

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not asking whether you know if there will be or not. I am asking you to have an opinion on whether there should be or not.

I believe that there shouldn't be any social welfare cuts in a united Ireland, neither should there be compulsory redundancies or pay cuts for public servants. Do you believe that?

SF have already said they don't want redundancies by the way.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not asking whether you know if there will be or not. I am asking you to have an opinion on whether there should be or not.

I believe that there shouldn't be any social welfare cuts in a united Ireland, neither should there be compulsory redundancies or pay cuts for public servants. Do you believe that?

I don't think the social welfare rates are adequate to live a decent life so NO I don't think they should be cut. I would like to see a system that isn't wasteful and which targets abuses of it properly.

I wouldn't like to see compulsory redundancy or pay cuts but they may be required if transition is too quick. I would object to a transition that was too quick. Take time and do it properly.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

What? I said it wasn't important within the same post!

Only challenge was to provide a link, which I did. Then the experts opinion was challenged as to whether it was legally the case. I addressed that too. It's the legal case both here and in the UK ie NI.

When CW's challenged you, you eventually said (I posted the quote) that you didn't think they would refuse to pay the pensions.

My issue is your negativity and your use of 'expert' opinion to bolster that negativity.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When CW's challenged you, you eventually said (I posted the quote) that you didn't think they would refuse to pay the pensions.

My issue is your negativity and your use of 'expert' opinion to bolster that negativity.

Because CW said it wasn't legally the case. That they couldn't do it!

Legally it is a fact they can do it. The expert is correct that it is a possibility.

It's my opinion they won't which I made clear in the same post I brought up the experts view!

Jaysus Francie, I'm not buying this playing dumb act. Been on this thread far too long.

So now you're reduced to saying people who are negative about a UI shouldn't refer to experts that might also have a negative view!

On a forum dedicated to discussing all aspects related to Irish Unity no less!

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Because CW said it wasn't legally the case. That they couldn't do it!

Legally it is a fact they can do it. The expert is correct that it is a possibility.

It's my opinion they won't which I made clear in the same post I brought up the experts view!

Jaysus Francie, I'm not buying this playing dumb act. Been on this thread far too long.

So now you're reduced to saying people who are negative about a UI shouldn't refer to experts that might also have a negative view!

On a forum dedicated to discussing all aspects related to Irish Unity no less!

I wouldn't be as confident about the UK paying the pensions. After all, they have to sell a united Ireland to the rest of the UK. Saying that we have to keep paying for it after we let it go is a difficult sell.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Because CW said it wasn't legally the case. That they couldn't do it!

Legally it is a fact they can do it. The expert is correct that it is a possibility.

It's my opinion they won't which I made clear in the same post I brought up the experts view!

Jaysus Francie, I'm not buying this playing dumb act. Been on this thread far too long.

So now you're reduced to saying people who are negative about a UI shouldn't refer to experts that might also have a negative view!

On a forum dedicated to discussing all aspects related to Irish Unity no less!

ok, I initially said it was irrelevant, my bad. Didn't want to do a ninja edit.

Even then doesn't help your ridiculous revenge mission. What the British do about the pension won't impact the overall cost.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think the social welfare rates are adequate to live a decent life so NO I don't think they should be cut. I would like to see a system that isn't wasteful and which targets abuses of it properly.

I wouldn't like to see compulsory redundancy or pay cuts but they may be required if transition is too quick. I would object to a transition that was too quick. Take time and do it properly.

Great, now we have that out of the way, we are agreed that there should be no discrimination, no social welfare cuts and no pay cuts or compulsory redundancy, we can work out some of the costs of a united Ireland.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Because CW said it wasn't legally the case. That they couldn't do it!

Legally it is a fact they can do it. The expert is correct that it is a possibility.

It's my opinion they won't which I made clear in the same post I brought up the experts view!

Jaysus Francie, I'm not buying this playing dumb act. Been on this thread far too long.

So now you're reduced to saying people who are negative about a UI shouldn't refer to experts that might also have a negative view!

On a forum dedicated to discussing all aspects related to Irish Unity no less!

You made it 'clear', really?
Here you are saying when challenged, that you didn't know whether they would or not:

jh79 wrote:

I've no idea if they will or not but I think there is a moral obligation even if there is no legal one.

which changed to you thinking that they would when further challenged:

jh79 wrote:

Still, I can't see them not paying.

Clear as the proverbial dishwater.


I am challenging your negative agenda as is my right on a 'discussion' of a UI

jh79

blanch152 wrote: »

I wouldn't be as confident about the UK paying the pensions. After all, they have to sell a united Ireland to the rest of the UK. Saying that we have to keep paying for it after we let it go is a difficult sell.

Wouldn't say I'm confident. Mostly basing my opinion on the fact that it's small money relative to their economy. It is a valid point though that Scottish independence might lead them to negotiate a smaller outlay due to the overall cost of paying for both.

I do find it funny that posters that have a very negative view of the British suddenly think they'll be sound about pensions!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Great, now we have that out of the way, we are agreed that there should be no discrimination, no social welfare cuts and no pay cuts or compulsory redundancy, we can work out some of the costs of a united Ireland.

Not if we are back to harmonising/subsuming NI in to the existing systems. By all means you go ahead if you think that is what will happen.

Don't expect me to partake.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You made it 'clear', really?
Here you are saying when challenged, that you didn't know whether they would or not:


which changed to you thinking that they would when further challenged:



Clear as the proverbial dishwater.


I am challenging your negative agenda as is my right on a 'discussion' of a UI

I made it clear it was irrelevant as the cost of pension only has a small impact on the overall cost as per Doyle. And as i said in the original post , it's entirely up to the British anyways.

And me saying I personally don't think they will stop paying the pensions is an issue because???:D