United Ireland Poll - please vote

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

One could argue that the existence and strength of the two major parties in the North is a symptom rather than a cause. Certainly I can assure you it wasn't sunshine and rainbows growing up there before those two parties were of significance.

Well, all the recent elections show a declining support for those two parties, and long may it continue. In fact you could argue very reasonably that the posturing by the DUP on the Protocol and by SF on a border poll, are designed to shore up their own support and that neither have anything to do with the good of the people in the North.

BonnieSituation

You can argue all you want

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Best to use our GNI* number instead. Still won't explain JH79's exaggerations though.

I did very rough calculation on the calculator on my phone.

I'm happy we are talking realistic sums rather than BS around the true level of the subvention.

Wonder would those in NI be willing to take cuts to services so the Republic doesn't bear all the cost?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This is how propaganda works.

Firstly, something is claimed to be a very reasonable argument, without any evidence to support that.
Secondly, later it is claimed as fact.

The subtle shift in language is key to establishing the propaganda.

So what is NOT FACTUAL in this passage?

I choose the word “abysmally” deliberately, for that is the only conclusion one can draw from the evidence of Government’s performance here since devolution began. This also applies to Government at all levels from political parties and politicians to civil servants within the machinery of Government. To be clear, I’m not saying there aren’t good, competent, hardworking individuals in politics or the civil service; there are. However, the evidence of abysmal Government is there in its actual performance in policy outcome areas where politicians are not sufficiently held to account by the media. We have the longest waiting lists for consultant appointments in the UK or Ireland (~100,000, 1/18 of the entire population waiting for more than a year for a first consultant appointment), all cancer treatment targets have never been achieved since they were set several years ago, schools with insufficient resources to function properly, £1.2bn backlog maintenance in roads, the highest economic inactivity levels in the UK or Ireland, poor educational attainment, and a stagnant economy with an overdeveloped public sector and underdeveloped private sector etc. In short, our outcomes in key policy outcome areas (the acid test for any Government) are “abysmal”.

And yet, N Ireland is the most heavily subsidised region per capita of the UK. So how can we square the circle of having the highest subsidy (and it has been so for decades) and yet some of the worst outcomes?

Burned and evidence to the RHI inquiry gives us some clues in relation to this question. The book references the attitudes of not only politicians, but SPADs, and most interesting of all to me, civil servants in relation to their attitude to subsidy from GB and to the Block Grant.

For those unfamiliar, N Ireland public services are funded through a transfer from Treasury in London to the tune of approximately £20bn every year. Approximately £10bn of this is spent on Annually Managed Expenditure (AME), where the exchequer takes on all the risks of overspend, (welfare payments, state pension) with a further £10bn being spent on Departmental Expenditure (schools, hospitals, roads etc). N Ireland generates in the region of £11bn in taxes, leaving a shortfall of around £9bn a year. In other words, the shortfall between the taxes we generate and the cost of public services is met through the financial transfer from Treasury. Critically, as a devolved region rather than a country, N Ireland Government has the powers to spend the Departmental spending element according to its priorities, but very limited tax-raising powers or responsibilities. In contrast, countries like Ireland for example, have to balance taxation and spend policies to “balance the books” or fund the difference usually through National Debt. N Ireland does not have this responsibility with the books balanced in London at a national level. More on this later.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I did very rough calculation on the calculator on my phone.

I wonder would somebody doing rough calculations on his phone be given credibility anywhere other than a doggy local boot sale.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

€84bn is still a large enough number to make any taxpayer in the South pause for more than a moment.

It certainly is, which is why I'd question the need to grossly exaggerate the number. Granted, when one considers the usefulness of GDP, even those fears are overblown. The economic difference does give me pause for thought though, and I would agree that it would be lunacy to vote for Unification without a solid plan for economic reform in the North. Personally I'd have no problem with an initial outlay being utilised to facilitate this, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be funding NI in perpetuity any more than we do other regions of the country.

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, all the recent elections show a declining support for those two parties, and long may it continue. In fact you could argue very reasonably that the posturing by the DUP on the Protocol and by SF on a border poll, are designed to shore up their own support and that neither have anything to do with the good of the people in the North.

I'd be delighted to see a move away from Green/Orange politics altogether in the North; while votes moving to APNI are certainly a positive, I don't see the transfer of votes from DUP to TUV as quite the same ray of hope. Ultimately votes transferring to UUP aren't much better, nor SF to SDLP much better than that. Ultimately the vast majority of the electorate still vote along sectarian lines, and I think that will continue so long as partition remains a question which drags that choice into focus. That's without even getting started on quite how much DUP/SF support is voting against themmuns rather than for the party that gets their vote; something I did myself many times.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

I did very rough calculation on the calculator on my phone.

I'm happy we are talking realistic sums rather than BS around the true level of the subvention.

Wonder would those in NI be willing to take cuts to services so the Republic doesn't bear all the cost?

If you're happy to talk about realistic sums, why are you using such rough calculations (up to almost 3 x the actual figure....you might want to check that calculator), and why would you choose the most misleading and unrealistic figure describing economic output possible in GDP?

Absolutely anyone who knows enough to discuss GDP is fully aware of how inflated the Irish GDP actually is, making it a totally useless figure with regards to comparing economies as reflected in the QOL of the average citizen.....and presumably that is what we're interested in discussing here, actual quality of life?

It is almost as if you took the least logically representative figure you could and then tarted it up to massively exaggerate even those inherently exaggerated numbers because you had some sort of agenda behind it!

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wonder would somebody doing rough calculations on his phone be given credibility anywhere other than a doggy local boot sale.

Not your favourite subject this?

So do you think NI should tighten its belt , the Republic should pay or evenly across the Island?

That will require some balancing act to get a majority in both countries.

jh79

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If you're happy to talk about realistic sums, why are you using such rough calculations (up to almost 3 x the actual figure....you might want to check that calculator), and why would you choose the most misleading and unrealistic figure describing economic output possible in GDP?

Absolutely anyone who knows enough to discuss GDP is fully aware of how inflated the Irish GDP actually is, making it a totally useless figure with regards to comparing economies as reflected in the QOL of the average citizen.....and presumably that is what we're interested in discussing here, actual quality of life?

It is almost as if you took the least logically representative figure you could and then tarted it up to massively exaggerate even those inherently exaggerated numbers because you had some sort of agenda behind it!

What do you think will be the per annum cost of a UI initially?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Not your favourite subject this?

So do you think NI should tighten its belt , the Republic should pay or evenly across the Island?

That will require some balancing act to get a majority in both countries.

I think a properly planned transition period preparing both jurisdictions for unification would be the way to go.

Not my favourite discussion when people are scaremongering, no.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

What do you think will be the per annum cost of a UI initially?

Even with a worst case scenario totally two-footed blind approach, significantly less than 200-odd billion you initially suggested, probably by over an order of magnitude. Also significantly less than the €80 odd billion cost of harmonising the GDP of the two places.

An accurate answer depends entirely on how we approach Unification. While I have my own wishes in that direction, ultimately I'm not very likely to have a direct influence on it beyond one vote. The lack of a plan and actual figures would be the primary reason I'd vote No if asked today.

Are you just abandoning the notion that you were trying to discuss realistic sums at this point to throw it back to me then so?

Junkyard Tom

The desperation is hilarious.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The desperation is hilarious.

I agree, that poll is a bodyblow to unification with supporting dropping vis-a-vis last year.

Have you ideas as to why support for a united Ireland is dropping in the North?

jh79

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Even with a worst case scenario totally two-footed blind approach, significantly less than 200-odd billion you initially suggested, probably by over an order of magnitude. Also significantly less than the €80 odd billion cost of harmonising the GDP of the two places.

An accurate answer depends entirely on how we approach Unification. While I have my own wishes in that direction, ultimately I'm not very likely to have a direct influence on it beyond one vote. The lack of a plan and actual figures would be the primary reason I'd vote No if asked today.

Are you just abandoning the notion that you were trying to discuss realistic sums at this point to throw it back to me then so?

I'm not an economist so just taking figures easily found and adjusting for population.

Fitzgerald from the ERSI predicted a drop of 10% in standard of living in the Republic just to maintain NI as it is. he reckons up to 30bn in cuts / tax increases initially. Can't see that getting a majority in the Republic.

Given how tight it is in NI can't see them taking cuts / increased taxes either.

He has another paper on the way soon so will have a read of that when it becomes available.

jh79

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The desperation is hilarious.

Did you miss the show last night?

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

...

jh79 wrote: »

...

How not if.

jimmycrackcorm

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not an economist so just taking figures easily found and adjusting for population.

Fitzgerald from the ERSI predicted a drop of 10% in standard of living in the Republic just to maintain NI as it is. he reckons up to 30bn in cuts / tax increases initially. Can't see that getting a majority in the Republic.

Given how tight it is in NI can't see them taking cuts / increased taxes either.

He has another paper on the way soon so will have a read of that when it becomes available.

The ERSI must be partitionists so, as is anyone pointing out the disadvantages.
Don't want to lose the benefits of the NHS? - must be a partitionist.

eleventh

I would like a UI but we have to be realistic.

If or when it happens, it will be people on the ground laying aside differences, co-operating on something they realise is more important.
It won't be the idea of a UI per se. Uniting against a common enemy, for example, is more likely to be what brings people together and in a meaningful way.

It would be on a region or county-by-county basis if it's to happen.

Junkyard Tom

Just listening to Neale Richmond on BBC NI Talkback.

Now if you'd said 5 years ago that a prominent FG politician would be on a flagship BBC NI radio show advocating a United Ireland everyone reading this would have laughed and the partitonistas would have sneered.



All this too in the middle of one of the biggest global crises in a century? The earth is moving under our feet.



Remarkable.

Hamsterchops

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Finger on the pulse as always

Oh yeah baby, always

landofthetree

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish government can pressure for a poll. They are equal signatories and guardians of the GFA.

Nope.

Boris says no.

No UK PM is going to want be the one that goes down in history as breaking up the UK.

Fionn1952

landofthetree wrote: »

Nope.

Boris says no.

No UK PM is going to want be the one that goes down in history as breaking up the UK.

Ah yes, Boris who has been a faithful friend to NI, always delivered on his promises and with a reputation for his never failing honesty.....

If there was a modicum of personal benefit in it for him, he'd be the first waving goodbye to NI. Given how the British public were scooped up by the £350m a week to the NHS propaganda, I don't think it is too hard to imagine a reality where the Tories could generate a bit of positive publicity for themselves by jettisoning NI.

Not even taking into consideration that the UK could be broken already by the Scottish at that point, which would take a significant chunk who actually do give a toss about NI out of the equation.

joseywhales

Patience. Let the walls slowly tighten around them, let the economic disparity become even more apparent and let them become an ever greater burden for a financially struggling Britain to maintain. My only concern is that we will all become too greedy and selfish in the meantime to take on the burden ourselves. I still think its worth it, given the greater security and sovereignty a united island would have on the world stage. Also the increased potential to build a larger economy after a couple of generations. Ireland as a country is still in it's infancy, if we want to be around for a thousand years, even as bit part small state, we would have to take the opportunity if it arose.

FrancieBrady

landofthetree wrote: »

Nope.

Boris says no.

No UK PM is going to want be the one that goes down in history as breaking up the UK.

No British PM will ever accept a border in the Irish Sea.

Junkyard Tom

joseywhales wrote: »

I still think its worth it, given the greater security

For me security is the greatest prize of Unification. It will be a relief when British military personnel will need permission to be on Irish soil.

Britain will remain the potentially malevolent force it always has been but we can form alliances that will offset the threat.

Ireland is in a strategically valuable position, Lough Foyle would be a good naval base for patrolling the north Atlantic corridor.

Hamsterchops

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Britain will remain the potentially malevolent force it always has been but we can form alliances that will offset the threat.

A malevolent (evil) force, really :cool:

You mean like they might nuke, or gas us, or something else. Not sure I buy into your dark thoughts of British malevolence.

Bit OTT don't you think.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

A malevolent (evil) force, really :cool:

You mean like they might nuke, or gas us, or something else. Not sure I buy into your dark thoughts of British malevolence.

Bit OTT don't you think.

They allegedly bombed several of our towns and our capital not so long ago HC.

Hamsterchops

OK then, best keep Britain at arms length, just in case they strike again. Thankfully there is sea between us.

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

OK then, best keep Britain at arms length, just in case they strike again. Thankfully there is sea between us.

I think that would be the general view of the Tory administration in the EU at the moment.

joseywhales

As far as I can tell, we didn't set up plantations in Britain, so I would say its clear who the aggressor is, it may seem cosy right now but human behavior is the same as it was 500 years ago and in more difficult times, such as regional wars or global famine we cannot rely on the good will of our historical bully to suddenly overcome her more aggressive tendencies. The sooner we have them off the island the safer we will all be.