United Ireland Poll - please vote

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

I believe that there shouldn't be any social welfare cuts in a united Ireland,

it would be the perfect time to re-evaluate and reorganise the social welfare system

blanch152 wrote: »

neither should there be compulsory redundancies or pay cuts for public servants. Do you believe that?

or course theres going to have to redundancies in the public service - there's be too many duplication.

In saying that - considering it would more than likely take a number of years for the wholer process to complete, it could be left to natural retirements.

No matter - the first part is to actually discuss on a nationwide scale, just what a UI would be. until that happens, its just all bluster.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

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!

I'm very 'positive' about the British wanting out of Ireland and that it is now very much in their interests as well as in the interests of the rest of the EU. In fact, it suits everyone but belligerent Unionists and partitionists..not to mention aficionados of Sainsbury sandwiches and sausages.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

In your vision of a UI that isn't subsuming, you're not suggesting that there isn't a cost? Outlays that will need revenue to fund them.

I'm sure you don't need telling that's bonkers!

Taking influence from Pol Pot???:D

It's not cost! This is year zero, no comparison can be made to what happened before!

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm very 'positive' about the British wanting out of Ireland and that it is now very much in their interests as well as in the interests of the rest of the EU. In fact, it suits everyone but belligerent Unionists and partitionists..not to mention aficionados of Sainsbury sandwiches and sausages.

So a positive bias is allowed but not negative ones!

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

In your vision of a UI that isn't subsuming, you're not suggesting that there isn't a cost? Outlays that will need revenue to fund them.

I'm sure you don't need telling that's bonkers!

Taking influence from Pol Pot???:D

It's not cost! This is year zero, no comparison can be made to what happened before!

Did you yet again miss me saying that I expect there will be a cost to a UI in your rush to mis-represent/lie again?

jh79

maccored wrote: »

it would be the perfect time to re-evaluate and reorganise the social welfare system



or course theres going to have to redundancies in the public service - there's be too many duplication.

In saying that - considering it would more than likely take a number of years for the wholer process to complete, it could be left to natural retirements.

No matter - the first part is to actually discuss on a nationwide scale, just what a UI would be. until that happens, its just all bluster.

Pearce has stuff on the SF website where he says there will be none and they will look at redeployment instead.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So a positive bias is allowed but not negative ones!

No jh79...this is getting embarrassing. Nobody said 'it wasn't allowed'...it is allowed to be 'challenged'. And your negativity was challenged. Time to get over it and move on maybe?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you yet again miss me saying that I expect there will be a cost to a UI in your rush to mis-represent/lie again?

So why are you refusing to discuss opinions on the amounts?

Please don't go back to the "big reveal" narrative!

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No jh79...this is getting embarrassing. Nobody said 'it wasn't allowed'...it is allowed to be 'challenged'. And your negativity was challenged. Time to get over it and move on maybe?

Would you prefer to discuss the difference in the cost of a subsumed NI versus the cost of your vision of a UI ?

Now I don't mean the actual figures just why they are different in meaning in your eyes.

Is a 10% tax increase if NI is subsumed different from a 10% tax increase to pay your vision for a UI ?

It's a very strange concept you've put forward.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So why are you refusing to discuss opinions on the amounts?

Please don't go back to the "big reveal" narrative!

Yes. Look at it this way.

'I'm going to build a house. How much will it cost jh79?'


To answer that question you are going to need a lot more information about the size, specs and look of the house and how it is going to be heated and run.

jh79 nor nobody else would NOT have a clue as to the answer until he sees the plans. In fact any attempt to answer that question could be portrayed as pointless and useless and a waste of everybody's time and effort.

maccored

jh79 wrote: »

Pearce has stuff on the SF website where he says there will be none and they will look at redeployment instead.

as I already mentioned, unless we can discuss a UI (which is what SF want), then we can only make assumptions on what it will look like. If it ended up taking 20 years to get a UI in place, then you wouldnt have to worry about redundancies.

A nationwide debate and discussion needs to take place first, before anything else

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. Look at it this way.

'I'm going to build a house. How much will it cost jh79?'


To answer that question you are going to need a lot more information about the size, specs and look of the house and how it is going to be heated and run.

jh79 nor nobody else would NOT have a clue as to the answer until he sees the plans. In fact any attempt to answer that question could be portrayed as pointless and useless and a waste fo everybody's time and effort.

I'm not going to accuse you of re-hashing your "Big Reveal" narrative just yet.

A UI will be driven by SF/FF/FG. They will design the plan and then be able to estimate cost. Nothing is stopping them from doing that right now. Negotiations with the British will only affect the irrelevant subvention.

If you disagree with that well I sorry but you are again just re-branding the "big reveal" nonsense.

jh79

maccored wrote: »

as I already mentioned, unless we can discuss a UI (which is what SF want), then we can only make assumptions on what it will look like. If it ended up taking 20 years to get a UI in place, then you wouldnt have to worry about redundancies.

A nationwide debate and discussion needs to take place first, before anything else

I agree but needs to be warts n all not the way Francie would prefer.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. Look at it this way.

'I'm going to build a house. How much will it cost jh79?'


To answer that question you are going to need a lot more information about the size, specs and look of the house and how it is going to be heated and run.

jh79 nor nobody else would NOT have a clue as to the answer until he sees the plans. In fact any attempt to answer that question could be portrayed as pointless and useless and a waste of everybody's time and effort.

Yes, but we have agreed that the house will be built to a certain minimum standard, and we can cost that construction and set a minimum cost. The Italian marble tiles element can be added to the cost at a later date.

maccored

jh79 wrote: »

I agree but needs to be warts n all not the way Francie would prefer.

im pretty sure Francie would want a warts and all discussion. SF have been asking for discussions for quite a while at this stage. If we focused on that, then silly threads like this wouldnt need to exist.

maccored

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not going to accuse you of re-hashing your "Big Reveal" narrative just yet.

A UI will be driven by SF/FF/FG. They will design the plan and then be able to estimate cost. Nothing is stopping them from doing that right now. Negotiations with the British will only affect the irrelevant subvention.

If you disagree with that well I sorry but you are again just re-branding the "big reveal" nonsense.

eh? nothing is stopping them bar they dont have any idea what form a UI will take. therefore theres quite a lot stopping them

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not going to accuse you of re-hashing your "Big Reveal" narrative just yet.

A UI will be driven by SF/FF/FG. They will design the plan and then be able to estimate cost. Nothing is stopping them from doing that right now. Negotiations with the British will only affect the irrelevant subvention.

If you disagree with that well I sorry but you are again just re-branding the "big reveal" nonsense.

I can only YET again point you to what SF have said and what I presume FF and FG agree with.

No plan/proposal can be pre-empted before discussion with all stakeholders as to what their vision/needs/requirements are.

A perfectly reasonable position that enshrines the concept of democracy within it.

Not to mention the fact that it would be a waste of time and resources.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but we have agreed that the house will be built to a certain minimum standard, and we can cost that construction and set a minimum cost. The Italian marble tiles element can be added to the cost at a later date.

Work away, but I guarantee you once you waste your time that somebody will object to the heating system or the finishes in the bathroom or accuse you of skimping on the foundations and we'll go around around in the cement mixer to no end at all.

*Quite a good metaphor for this stuff, if I do say so myself!

jh79

maccored wrote: »

eh? nothing is stopping them bar they dont have any idea what form a UI will take. therefore theres quite a lot stopping them

So SF have not got a vision on what a UI might look like?

Why did Pearse say there wouldn't be redundancies in the PS for example? He could cost that now.

Fair enough on issues like flags etc but hardly gonna impact the cost.

maccored

jh79 wrote: »

So SF have not got a vision on what a UI might look like?

Why did Pearse say there wouldn't be redundancies in the PS for example? He could cost that now.

Fair enough on issues like flags etc but hardly gonna impact the cost.

have you the cost worked out? How did you figure that out?

SF have stated we - as a nation - need to discuss a UI to see how it can be created. Why are you constantly ignoring that fact and assuming everyone knows what a UI is and how much it will cost?

Do me a favour and outline your costs, and back them up where you can. I cant wait to see where you've pulled figures from.

jh79

maccored wrote: »

have you the cost worked out? How did you figure that out?

SF have stated we - as a nation - need to discuss a UI to see how it can be created. Why are you constantly ignoring that fact and assuming everyone knows what a UI is and how much it will cost?

Do me a favour and outline your costs, and back them up where you can. I cant wait to see where you've pulled figures from.

Explain how the ERSI and Hubner could predict the costs and benefits?

Don't forget now, the Hubner report was commissioned by SF and promoted on their website and social media.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can only YET again point you to what SF have said and what I presume FF and FG agree with.

No plan/proposal can be pre-empted before discussion with all stakeholders as to what their vision/needs/requirements are.

A perfectly reasonable position that enshrines the concept of democracy within it.

Not to mention the fact that it would be a waste of time and resources.

So the big reveal again.

What factors are you referring to? Remember pension, NI revenue, debt etc don't count.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Would you prefer to discuss the difference in the cost of a subsumed NI versus the cost of your vision of a UI ?

Now I don't mean the actual figures just why they are different in meaning in your eyes.

Is a 10% tax increase if NI is subsumed different from a 10% tax increase to pay your vision for a UI ?

It's a very strange concept you've put forward.

Francie, any chance you'd address this?

It's a really bizarre concept you've put forward.

maccored

jh79 wrote: »

Explain how the ERSI and Hubner could predict the costs and benefits?

Don't forget now, the Hubner report was commissioned by SF and promoted on their website and social media.

the Hubner report refers to Brexit and how a UI might benefit the north in such a scenario. It's a strong suggestion that a UI would be beneficial but as already mentioned more than once, WE NEED A NATIONWIDE DISCUSSION ON WHAT A UI WOULD LOOK LIKE.

Not too sure why you cant get that into your head.

Anyway - wheres your data for your costing of a UI?

jh79

maccored wrote: »

the Hubner report refers to Brexit and how a UI might benefit the north in such a scenario. It's a strong suggestion that a UI would be beneficial but as already mentioned more than once, WE NEED A NATIONWIDE DISCUSSION ON WHAT A UI WOULD LOOK LIKE.

Not too sure why you cant get that into your head.

Anyway - wheres your data for your costing of a UI?

No it's a report on the financial benefits of a UI. It's title is "Modelling Irish Unification".

Hubner gives 3 scenario's and what financial benefits he sees based on them.

*The first scenario is the most conservative, indeed almost implausibly so. The unified Ireland finances the entire NI budget deficit; the harmonization of government functions reduces NI public expenditure by 2 percent; and NI’s adoption of the ROI tax system has no impact on attracting FDI or boosting productivity.

*In the second scenario, ROI finances the NI fiscal deficit; NI reduces public expenditure by 2 percent. However in this scenario, the adoption the ROI tax system and approach to FDI catalyzes FDI inflows that drive a convergence of NI productivity to the level of ROI over a 15 year period.

*The third scenario embodies the assumptions of the second scenario with the added twist that government savings are reinvested in the form of public investment.

If these scenarios are good enough for SF to promote the benefits of a UI on their social media surely they are good enough to predict the cost?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So the big reveal again.

What factors are you referring to? Remember pension, NI revenue, debt etc don't count.

Primary over-riding factor - what a plan looks like after discussions with all the stakeholders

maccored

jh79 wrote: »

No it's a report on the financial benefits of a UI. It's title is "Modelling Irish Unification".

Hubner gives 3 scenario's and what financial benefits he sees based on them.

*The first scenario is the most conservative, indeed almost implausibly so. The unified Ireland finances the entire NI budget deficit; the harmonization of government functions reduces NI public expenditure by 2 percent; and NI’s adoption of the ROI tax system has no impact on attracting FDI or boosting productivity.

*In the second scenario, ROI finances the NI fiscal deficit; NI reduces public expenditure by 2 percent. However in this scenario, the adoption the ROI tax system and approach to FDI catalyzes FDI inflows that drive a convergence of NI productivity to the level of ROI over a 15 year period.

*The third scenario embodies the assumptions of the second scenario with the added twist that government savings are reinvested in the form of public investment.

If these scenarios are good enough for SF to promote the benefits of a UI on their social media surely they are good enough to predict the cost?

right, so you dont have any data to back your idea of costs. better just saying that up front instead of posting stuff about "Modelling Irish Unification" and whatever else you are bringing into the conversation

The simple fact is WE NEED TO DISCUSS WHAT A UI WOULD LOOK LIKE before worrying about costs etc. End of story.

maccored

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Primary over-riding factor - what a plan looks like after discussions with all the stakeholders

jh79 doesnt seem to understand the concept of a discussion

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Primary over-riding factor - what a plan looks like after discussions with all the stakeholders

If it's a SF led Unification would you agree that it would be a fair assumption to make that the same scenarios the benefits of a UI is based on will be the basis of any plan and therefore a rough estimate could be predicted now?

If not, surely you think it's disingenuous of SF to promote benefits of a UI based on these scenarios?

jh79

maccored wrote: »

jh79 doesnt seem to understand the concept of a discussion

So SF can promote various plans and promote predicted benefits of these plans on their social media but the rest of us (or SF) can't do the same for the costs?