United Ireland Poll - please vote

blanch152

mehico wrote: »

It is fairly clear what question will be asked on a future border poll in NI.

What is not really clear is what will ROI voters be asked. As there is already an aspiration for Unity in the ROI constitution, will the vote be based instead on the confirmation of the changes required to facilitate a UI ( or maybe a series of referenda will be required)?

The best approach would be for the SoS to call a non-GFA indicative border poll. If that is passed, conversations could then begin on the full implications of a united Ireland, all of the constitutional changes, all of the education, health, tax and social welfare implications, before a final poll is put North and South in accordance with the GFA.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The best approach would be for the SoS to call a non-GFA indicative border poll. If that is passed, conversations could then begin on the full implications of a united Ireland, all of the constitutional changes, all of the education, health, tax and social welfare implications, before a final poll is put North and South in accordance with the GFA.

And once again, you hand a veto to Unionism.

The absence of something tangible to vote for is always going to weight the vote in favour of the status quo.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And once again, you hand a veto to Unionism.

The absence of something tangible to vote for is always going to weight the vote in favour of the status quo.

Not at all, surely the other way around, with the safety net of a second vote, nothing is lost at that point.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all, surely the other way around, with the safety net of a second vote, nothing is lost at that point.

Polls already show majorities in favour of a border poll in both jurisdictions.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all, surely the other way around, with the safety net of a second vote, nothing is lost at that point.

Let's face it, your world-famous hostility towards Republicans would see you campaign against a UI even if it mean't a 10% rise in living standards for everyone.

If you start from a point of pathological hate then you'll find excuses even where they don't really exist.

Hamsterchops

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Polls already show majorities in favour of a border poll in both jurisdictions.

A border poll that's obviously going to show that a majority still favour keeping the border!

I guess the real reason for a border poll to be carried out would be to test the water to see what work has to be done in order to swing the vote the other way (in a 2nd border poll).

Seven years later?

FrancieBrady

Hamsterchops wrote: »

A border poll that's obviously going to show that a majority still favour keeping the border!

I guess the real reason for a border poll to be carried out would be to test the water to see what work has to be done in order to swing the vote the other way (in a 2nd border poll).

Seven years later?

When the Scottish referendum was called support for Independence was only polling at 32-38%

As we seen that changed dramatically. Why? Because a plan was formulated and discussed and weighed up by the electorate.

It is a nonsense to suggest a UI (without a plan/proposal) is on the same termsas the status quo in an opinion poll.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When the Scottish referendum was called support for Independence was only polling at 32-38%

As we seen that changed dramatically. Why? Because a plan was formulated and discussed and weighed up by the electorate.

It is a nonsense to suggest a UI (without a plan/proposal) is on the same termsas the status quo in an opinion poll.

We heard today from an eminent expert on what it would mean - higher taxes, lower social welfare and decreased standards of living in the South.

Are you prepared to accept that as the price of a united Ireland? And what is so important about a line on a map that you are prepared to bring suffering to people's lives?

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

We heard today from an eminent expert on what it would mean - higher taxes, lower social welfare and decreased standards of living in the South.

Are you prepared to accept that as the price of a united Ireland? And what is so important about a line on a map that you are prepared to bring suffering to people's lives?

As opposed to suffering caused to people's lives by that "line on a map"?

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As opposed to suffering caused to people's lives by that "line on a map"?

Lines on a map don't cause suffering, people and their noxious ideologies do.

BonnieSituation

Sure. Guns don't kill people rappers do.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

We heard today from an eminent expert on what it would mean - higher taxes, lower social welfare and decreased standards of living in the South.

Are you prepared to accept that as the price of a united Ireland? And what is so important about a line on a map that you are prepared to bring suffering to people's lives?

Jury has to be out on that as there is more 'expert' opinion coming.

John Fitzgerald was the co-author of a report that took the 10-12 billion as the base of it's calculations before. That immediately discredited it and calls into question his 'expert' status. Is this the same paper he is discussing at committee or has he adapted it?

*before you start on the 'expert' thing. NPHET are the appointed body to give 'expert' opinion.

Fitzgerald and Morgentroth and Hubner etc are giving their 'expertise' on a non committal basis. They form the basis for discussion and don't have any status beyond that. Unless they favour your bias and you refer to them as gospel that is.

sebdavis

BonnieSituation wrote: »

As opposed to suffering caused to people's lives by that "line on a map"?

What suffering is caused to people lives because of that line? now the troubles are over

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sure. Guns don't kill people rappers do.

Guns used by people kill people, that is true, but lines on the map don't kill people. There is nothing so important about a line on a map that anyone should be killed over it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jury has to be out on that as there is more 'expert' opinion coming.

John Fitzgerald was the co-author of a report that took the 10-12 billion as the base of it's calculations before. That immediately discredited it and calls into question his 'expert' status. Is this the same paper he is discussing at committee or has he adapted it?

*before you start on the 'expert' thing. NPHET are the appointed body to give 'expert' opinion.

Fitzgerald and Morgentroth and Hubner etc are giving their 'expertise' on a non committal basis. They form the basis for discussion and don't have any status beyond that. Unless they favour your bias and you refer to them as gospel that is.

Fitzgerald is on the appointed body - the ESRI - to give "expert" opinion.

You pick and choose whether to abide by expert opinion, depending on whether it favours the actions of Sinn Fein or not. It is transparently obvious to all posters on here. Your stance on the issue of expert opinion has been exposed as laughable posturing.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

Guns used by people kill people, that is true, but lines on the map don't kill people. There is nothing so important about a line on a map that anyone should be killed over it.

All the more reason to be abhorred by the civil wars caused by lines on map; Lines on a map drawn in contravention of the wishes of the majority.

Interesting that this week's talking point seems to be "let's have a practice referendum". You're slowly coming around to the idea of letting the People of Ireland speak to their wishes.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jury has to be out on that as there is more 'expert' opinion coming.

John Fitzgerald was the co-author of a report that took the 10-12 billion as the base of it's calculations before. That immediately discredited it and calls into question his 'expert' status. Is this the same paper he is discussing at committee or has he adapted it?

*before you start on the 'expert' thing. NPHET are the appointed body to give 'expert' opinion.

Fitzgerald and Morgentroth and Hubner etc are giving their 'expertise' on a non committal basis. They form the basis for discussion and don't have any status beyond that. Unless they favour your bias and you refer to them as gospel that is.

Francie, he didn't base his calculations on the figure of 10-12bn. He evens says in the report that the true figure is less but that it was his belief we would pay some of either the national debt or pensions.

His report was on changes to standard of living, the subvention wasn't relevant to the calculations.

You keep repeating this untruth. If I'm wrong quote a calculation he got wrong.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

All the more reason to be abhorred by the civil wars caused by lines on map; Lines on a map drawn in contravention of the wishes of the majority.

Interesting that this week's talking point seems to be "let's have a practice referendum". You're slowly coming around to the idea of letting the People of Ireland speak to their wishes.

Lines on a map are only of importance to those who adhere to toxic ideologies of religion and nationalism.

I engage with the debate as it happens. Have I changed my belief that a border poll is unnecessary, divisive, in breach of the GFA and bound to fail? No, but I am engaging with the debate here as it develops. By suggesting a non-GFA poll, I am getting over the hurdle of the SoS needing to form a view, and allowing the issue to be ended for over a generation if I am right about the likely outcome.

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, he didn't base his calculations on the figure of 10-12bn. He evens says in the report that the true figure is less but that it was his belief we would pay some of either the national debt or pensions.

His report was on changes to standard of living, the subvention wasn't relevant to the calculations.

You keep repeating this untruth. If I'm wrong quote a calculation he got wrong.

Francie doesn't want to hear these things. 100 years of separation mean that income tax, social welfare, health and education have become very very different North and South. In any united Ireland, the changes in these areas would be huge and extreme. They would result in suffering for many through lost income, lost jobs and stressful change to their lives.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, he didn't base his calculations on the figure of 10-12bn. He evens says in the report that the true figure is less but that it was his belief we would pay some of either the national debt or pensions.

His report was on changes to standard of living, the subvention wasn't relevant to the calculations.

You keep repeating this untruth. If I'm wrong quote a calculation he got wrong.

I'll have to read it. Have you a link?

I remember the discussion on the Morgentroth and Fitzgerald study....is this the same one?

suicide_circus

Francis if it were generally agreed amongst economists and sociologists that a UI would result in a prlonged period of hardship, would you vote against it?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll have to read it. Have you a link?

I remember the discussion on the Morgentroth and Fitzgerald study....is this the same one?

Not sure if this will work but here you go.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/tcd/tcduee/tep0619.html

Here is what he says on the subvention;

19 Daly, 2018, has argued that the transfer to Northern Ireland from London is lower than the headline figure published by the ONS. He suggests that, as a result, the burden that would arise for Ireland under unification would be much reduced. However, his paper suggests, firstly, that even after unification the UK would continue to pay £2.7 billion to Northern Ireland for ever – just under a third of the current transfer. The paper assumes that the population in Northern Ireland would not pay for debt interest, overseas aid, defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and other common services if it remained in the UK or was part of a united Ireland. A further £0.7 billion would be saved by firing approximately 50,000 public servants in the North. The residue of between £0.7 billion and £1.8 billion would then be paid by Ireland as a continuing transfer. These assumptions are clearly unrealistic.

blanch152

jh79 wrote: »

Not sure if this will work but here you go.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/tcd/tcduee/tep0619.html

Here is what he says on the subvention;

19 Daly, 2018, has argued that the transfer to Northern Ireland from London is lower than the headline figure published by the ONS. He suggests that, as a result, the burden that would arise for Ireland under unification would be much reduced. However, his paper suggests, firstly, that even after unification the UK would continue to pay £2.7 billion to Northern Ireland for ever – just under a third of the current transfer. The paper assumes that the population in Northern Ireland would not pay for debt interest, overseas aid, defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and other common services if it remained in the UK or was part of a united Ireland. A further £0.7 billion would be saved by firing approximately 50,000 public servants in the North. The residue of between £0.7 billion and £1.8 billion would then be paid by Ireland as a continuing transfer. These assumptions are clearly unrealistic.

From your link, this is the clearest point:

"Whatever form Irish unity took there would be a heavy economic cost for both Northern Ireland and Ireland."

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Not sure if this will work but here you go.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/tcd/tcduee/tep0619.html

Here is what he says on the subvention;

19 Daly, 2018, has argued that the transfer to Northern Ireland from London is lower than the headline figure published by the ONS. He suggests that, as a result, the burden that would arise for Ireland under unification would be much reduced. However, his paper suggests, firstly, that even after unification the UK would continue to pay £2.7 billion to Northern Ireland for ever – just under a third of the current transfer. The paper assumes that the population in Northern Ireland would not pay for debt interest, overseas aid, defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and other common services if it remained in the UK or was part of a united Ireland. A further £0.7 billion would be saved by firing approximately 50,000 public servants in the North. The residue of between £0.7 billion and £1.8 billion would then be paid by Ireland as a continuing transfer. These assumptions are clearly unrealistic.

What's all the 'assuming' and 'suggesting' about? This is his opinion, which is fair enough. Let's hear other opinions now.

A few months ago this subject was answered by 'the subvention - the subvention - the subvention, it's 10-12 (I even seen 14 billions!!!)we were told the subvention (which has been lowered) was the thing that blocked a UI. Now it is the aftermath that is 'the thing' that blocks it.

More opinions needed IMO and I am sure they will come.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What's all the 'assuming' and 'suggesting' about? This is his opinion, which is fair enough. Let's hear other opinions now.

A few months ago this subject was answered by 'the subvention - the subvention - the subvention, it's 10-12 (I even seen 14 billions!!!)we were told the subvention (which has been lowered) was the thing that blocked a UI. Now it is the aftermath that is 'the thing' that blocks it.

More opinions needed IMO and I am sure they will come.

Look Francie, I get it is uncomfortable for SF and their supporters to talk about the full cost of unification and to focus solely on the subvention but the cat is out if the bag now. No point burying your head in the sand.

The subvention would lead to some tax increases but fixing the "failed statlet" will cost significantly more.

Hubner report (commissioned by SF) bases it's calculations on harmonization of welfare and PS pay. What info is missing to predict the tax implications of that? Fitzgerald says it will be "dramatic" and has out a figure of 8% out there. Have you any data to counter that?

And remember even if someone else pays for it the reward financially is tiny for the 26.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Look Francie, I get it is uncomfortable for SF and their supporters to talk about the full cost of unification and to focus solely on the subvention but the cat is out if the bag now. No point burying your head in the sand.

The subvention would lead to some tax increases but fixing the "failed statlet" will cost significantly more.

Hubner report (commissioned by SF) bases it's calculations on harmonization of welfare and PS pay. What info is missing to predict the tax implications if that? Fitzgerald says it will be "dramatic" and has out a figure of 8% out there. Have you any data to counter that?

And remember even if someone else pays for the reward financially is tiny for the 26.

So what does Fitzgerald suggest can be done to mitigate some of the cost?

I'm not burying any head by the way...I'm just not buying the first thing that agrees with my bias...like the SF Hubner report.

Know what I mean by that. Do you know what a 'discussion about a UI' is? That is why I asked was this stuff 'written in stone'.
This is clearly this economists view ('I suggest', 'assume' etc)

It's a view. Now let's hear other views and lets hear suggestions on how the costs can be mitigated as well. IOW - a discussion.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what does Fitzgerald suggest can be done to mitigate some of the cost?

I'm not burying any head by the way...I'm just not buying the first thing that agrees with my bias...like the SF Hubner report.

Know what I mean by that. Do you know what a 'discussion about a UI' is? That is why I asked was this stuff 'written in stone'.
This is clearly this economists view ('I suggest', 'assume' etc)

It's a view. Now let's hear other views and lets hear suggestions on how the costs can be mitigated as well. IOW - a discussion.

The answers to mitigation of the cost are clear. You can cut social welfare rates and entitlements, you can cut public service pay, you can cut grants to ordinary people and ordinary businesses, those are ways to reduce costs. After that, the options are tiny as between them they account for 70-80% of public expenditure.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What's all the 'assuming' and 'suggesting' about? This is his opinion, which is fair enough. Let's hear other opinions now.

A few months ago this subject was answered by 'the subvention - the subvention - the subvention, it's 10-12 (I even seen 14 billions!!!)we were told the subvention (which has been lowered) was the thing that blocked a UI. Now it is the aftermath that is 'the thing' that blocks it.

More opinions needed IMO and I am sure they will come.

Let's hear other opinions now? But, but, but, you won't listen to other expert opinions on Covid, but when the expert opinion - the ESRI - differs to your worldview, you want to dismiss the expert.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's hear other opinions now? But, but, but, you won't listen to other expert opinions on Covid, but when the expert opinion - the ESRI - differs to your worldview, you want to dismiss the expert.

The appointed expert government advisers are NPHET blanch.

That is an entirely different thing.

Stop now please with the sidetrack.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what does Fitzgerald suggest can be done to mitigate some of the cost?

I'm not burying any head by the way...I'm just not buying the first thing that agrees with my bias...like the SF Hubner report.

Know what I mean by that. Do you know what a 'discussion about a UI' is? That is why I asked was this stuff 'written in stone'.
This is clearly this economists view ('I suggest', 'assume' etc)

It's a view. Now let's hear other views and lets hear suggestions on how the costs can be mitigated as well. IOW - a discussion.

Francie, it's three economists from three different institutes that you suggest we should ignore because of a white paper that might come about but will definitely be based on the work of the very same economists! It's a niche issue too so doubt there will be too many other papers on it either.

Everything is there to estimate the cost the only thing missing is who'll pay for it.

Good luck trying to sell a measly 1.3% over 8 years as a good investment no matter who ends up paying.