Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

Chips Lovell · 15-03-2021 9:59pm

Mod Note

Reminder about the charter:

When offering an opinion, please state so. Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flaming and a poster/moderator may demand further evidence. When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

ancapailldorcha · 15-03-2021 10:05pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense...this isn't a thread on a UI.
As I said, plenty of studies out there with the areas where benefits can occur are listed and gone into. You are free to agree or disagree, those areas remain the same.

I have read them. My research is done and doesn't require scrutiny from you. If it does, I will ask for it.

I didn't raise the question of a UI. It's what was being discussed when I clicked on this thread.

Vaguely alluding to unknown studies isn't an argument. You'll be convincing very few people with that kind of logic.

But maybe UI is getting a bit off topic so I'll be leaving things there.

FrancieBrady · 15-03-2021 10:09pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I didn't raise the question of a UI. It's what was being discussed when I clicked on this thread.

Vaguely alluding to unknown studies isn't an argument. You'll be convincing very few people with that kind of logic.

But maybe UI is getting a bit off topic so I'll be leaving things there.

I wasn't aware I was trying to 'convince' anyone. I gave my opinion, told you where to find the many areas where growth and benefits can accrue when you asked. If you don't want to research easily found studies fair enough.
I am not arguing a point with you, I just gave an opinion. I'll leave it there. Not the thread for it.

yagan · 15-03-2021 10:28pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What is this based on? What evidence or even projections are there which show that incorporating the north would benefit the Republic and/or NI?

What evidence was there for accepting poor non industrial Ireland into the EEC?

ancapailldorcha · 15-03-2021 10:30pm

yagan wrote: »

What evidence was there for accepting poor non industrial Ireland into the EEC?

I suggest you google it.

Sam Russell · 15-03-2021 10:44pm

yagan wrote: »

What evidence was there for accepting poor non industrial Ireland into the EEC?

Fish.

FrancieBrady · 15-03-2021 10:47pm

yagan wrote: »

What evidence was there for accepting poor non industrial Ireland into the EEC?

Negativity and scaremongering if it had been responded to would have seen us left out, is the answer to that,
We are the perfect example of what happens when investment is made. We are now net contributors to the EU in my lifetime..

View · 16-03-2021 2:03am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Negativity and scaremongering if it had been responded to would have seen us left out, is the answer to that,
We are the perfect example of what happens when investment is made. We are now net contributors to the EU in my lifetime..

NI joining the rest of Ireland is not comparable to Ireland joining the then ECs. In the latter case, it opened up the entire EC countries - vastly multiplying our potential export markets overnight - whereas in the former case, there is no such “vast multiplication” possible (since as NI has already had those opportunities as part of the ECs/EU for decades, there isn’t going to be any sudden improvement there).

As for “investment” in NI, the current subvention to NI from the rest of the U.K. to cover the shortfall in spending there amounts to circa £12bn a year. Where we are supposed to come up with that amount each year when the entire income tax system here brings in a mere €25bn a year - an amount that isn’t lying around in a spare drawer in the Dept of Finance but rather is spent on public services, most of which could do with seeing more expenditure, not less.

PeadarCo · 16-03-2021 7:40am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Negativity and scaremongering if it had been responded to would have seen us left out, is the answer to that,
We are the perfect example of what happens when investment is made. We are now net contributors to the EU in my lifetime..

So project fear. There are genuine questions about how Northern Ireland can be financed by the Republic. The reason the UK is in such a mess is because hard questions were ignored. Obvious questions like Northern Ireland were ignored and waved away. What Brexit showed is that's its relatively easy to win a referendum but that implementing the result can be very difficult. The same lesson should be taken for Northern Ireland. A vote for unification is the easy bit. What comes after is the hard bit. Waving away hard questions ie calling people who highlight issues names or scaremongering is exactly the tactics Brexiters use. You'd hope that the biggest impact that Brexit has on Northern Ireland is that it highlights the need for an open discussion on the implications of unification and plan for them. Brexit shows nationalistic fervour can only carry you so far and won't address hard economic realities.

FrancieBrady · 16-03-2021 10:11am

PeadarCo wrote: »

So project fear. There are genuine questions about how Northern Ireland can be financed by the Republic. The reason the UK is in such a mess is because hard questions were ignored. Obvious questions like Northern Ireland were ignored and waved away. What Brexit showed is that's its relatively easy to win a referendum but that implementing the result can be very difficult. The same lesson should be taken for Northern Ireland. A vote for unification is the easy bit. What comes after is the hard bit. Waving away hard questions ie calling people who highlight issues names or scaremongering is exactly the tactics Brexiters use. You'd hope that the biggest impact that Brexit has on Northern Ireland is that it highlights the need for an open discussion on the implications of unification and plan for them. Brexit shows nationalistic fervour can only carry you so far and won't address hard economic realities.

Yes, and it is after that discussion takes place that polls that are relevant can be taken.

People arriving into the debate with big scary headline figures of 12 billion and 'bills' show their agendas immediately imo. Open discussion probably won't change their minds.

The economic aspect of a UI is not the primary reason for a UI for me anyhow. I think a UI will end the cyclical conflict (Violent and otherwise) partition will cause here and that is why I think it is important we work for it.

The point about the EEC was about the principle of it...had risks not been taken we would probably be in the same place we were in the 60's...a regressive, insular society with a stunted economy, A UI will be a challenge but a worthwhile one in my opinion.

View · 16-03-2021 10:53am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, and it is after that discussion takes place that polls that are relevant can be taken.

People arriving into the debate with big scary headline figures of 12 billion and 'bills' show their agendas immediately imo. Open discussion probably won't change their minds.

The economic aspect of a UI is not the primary reason for a UI for me anyhow. I think a UI will end the cyclical conflict (Violent and otherwise) partition will cause here and that is why I think it is important we work for it.

The point about the EEC was about the principle of it...had risks not been taken we would probably be in the same place we were in the 60's...a regressive, insular society with a stunted economy, A UI will be a challenge but a worthwhile one in my opinion.

The £12bn isn’t a “big scary headline”. It’s grim reality and nothing to do with any supposed “agenda”.

Ignoring isn’t going to make it go away. The old economists’ joke about a country being an economy with a flag stuck on it may be an oversimplification but there is a huge amount of truth in it.

FrancieBrady · 16-03-2021 11:03am

View wrote: »

The £12bn isn’t a “big scary headline”. It’s grim reality and nothing to do with any supposed “agenda”.

Ignoring isn’t going to make it go away. The old economists’ joke about a country being an economy with a flag stuck on it may be an oversimplification but there is a huge amount of truth in it.

The 12 billion figure is used as a scare tactic IMO. Anybody who knows what it is in the first place, knows that it needs to be adjusted
Anybody who uses the 12 Billion figure is also ignoring the fact that a UI will not be an overnight event and preparations can be made for a successful integration and also offers the tantalising (to me anyhow) opportunity for us to fix and repair that which hasn't worked here. A new system, so to speak.

It is now in everyone's (involved) interests that a UI works and is successful. Ireland's, Britain's, and the rest of the EU. I also believe there would be massive goodwill from the rest of the world.

The only people who will want it to fail are belligerent Unionists and those who are, for a variety of reasons stubbornly partitionist in nature.

dogbert27 · 16-03-2021 11:13am

What does the 12 billion cover?

Is it:
NHS costs
Civil servant salaries
Pensions
Community projects
Roads and Infrastructure

Just wondering what it is as it is always described as a lump sum figure.

Mr.Nice Guy · 16-03-2021 10:04pm

I think it was David McWilliams who made the point that the UK's subvention figure involves over a billion on defence spending.

I find it quite depressing to hear Irish people putting a price on their fellow citizens north of the border. If I were told, as a Dubliner, that I stood to make savings if several Munster counties in the ROI broke away, I wouldn't be in favour as I would rather have my country intact. I suspect most people would feel the same way, which is why I can't help but wonder how many of those advocating economic pragmatism regarding NI are actually emotionally attached to partition...

Fionn1952 · 16-03-2021 10:12pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I think it was David McWilliams who made the point that the UK's subvention figure involves over a billion on defence spending.

I find it quite depressing to hear Irish people putting a price on their fellow citizens north of the border. If I were told, as a Dubliner, that I stood to make savings if several Munster counties in the ROI broke away, I wouldn't be in favour as I would rather have my country intact. I suspect most people would feel the same way, which is why I can't help but wonder how many of those advocating economic pragmatism regarding NI are actually emotionally attached to partition...

With most first world countries, the area around the economic capital would benefit from cutting off everywhere else, be that the UK's Greater London area, The Pale area of Ireland or the Industrial Triangle of Italy.

The vast majority of Ireland outside the Pale are net economic receivers.

beggars_bush · 16-03-2021 10:24pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

With most first world countries, the area around the economic capital would benefit from cutting off everywhere else, be that the UK's Greater London area, The Pale area of Ireland or the Industrial Triangle of Italy.

The vast majority of Ireland outside the Pale are net economic receivers.

Not true.
Prove otherwise

Fionn1952 · 16-03-2021 10:30pm

beggars_bush wrote: »

Not true.
Prove otherwise

Sound, let's all pretend the world is sunshine and roses and Longford, Donegal or any of rural Ireland contribute more in taxes than they receive in transfers.

Cork, Limerick and Galway cities perhaps pay in more than they receive, but by in large the tax take in Ireland is highly Dublin/The Pale dominated. Are you actually suggesting this isn't the case?!

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting it as a good idea to cut off the rest of Ireland (as much as some in Cork might love the idea).

Professor Moriarty · 16-03-2021 10:39pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I think it was David McWilliams who made the point that the UK's subvention figure involves over a billion on defence spending.

I find it quite depressing to hear Irish people putting a price on their fellow citizens north of the border. If I were told, as a Dubliner, that I stood to make savings if several Munster counties in the ROI broke away, I wouldn't be in favour as I would rather have my country intact. I suspect most people would feel the same way, which is why I can't help but wonder how many of those advocating economic pragmatism regarding NI are actually emotionally attached to partition...

Emotionally attached to partition! Hahaha! Good one. I equally can't help but wonder how many of those armchair republicans advocating a United Ireland are blinded by nationalistic fantasy and simply refuse to contemplate economic pragmatism or the opinions of a million Unionists. Or, to put it another way, reality.

PeadarCo · 16-03-2021 10:46pm

beggars_bush wrote: »

Not true.
Prove otherwise

https://www.dublinchamber.ie/business-agenda/economic-profile-of-dublin

See the link above. Some key points Dublin contributes over half of Irelands income tax reciepts at 51% and has just below 32% of Irelands working age population.

There was a post done up a good few years ago at this stage by a previous mod called Scofflaw that showed that Dublin and to a lesser degree Cork City financed the rest of the country.

In terms of the impact Brexit will have on Northern Ireland, it will make London poorer long term and adversely impact the UK services economy in general. This in conjunction with no more EU grants will reduce the ability of the UK to support poorer areas of the UK such as Northern Ireland. That has the potential to increase support for unification particularly with people who are unaligned and don't subscribe to the traditional nationalist unionist political duopoly in the North.

Fionn1952 · 16-03-2021 10:56pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

https://www.dublinchamber.ie/business-agenda/economic-profile-of-dublin

See the link above. Some key points Dublin contributes over half of Irelands income tax reciepts at 51% and has just below 32% of Irelands working age population.

There was a post done up a good few years ago at this stage by a previous mod called Scofflaw that showed that Dublin and to a lesser degree Cork City financed the rest of the country.

In terms of the impact Brexit will have on Northern Ireland, it will make London poorer long term and adversely impact the UK services economy in general. This in conjunction with no more EU grants will reduce the ability of the UK to support poorer areas of the UK such as Northern Ireland. That has the potential to increase support for unification particularly with people who are unaligned and don't subscribe to the traditional nationalist unionist political duopoly in the North.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/documents/statistics/receipts/net-receipts-by-county.pdf

Digging a little deeper than just income tax, Dublin alone contributes over 50% on VAT, PAYE Income Tax/USC, Corporation Tax and Capital Gains tax, just under 50% of self employed income tax. Overall Dublin's net contribution was around 56% of the total tax take in Ireland.

Cork is at 11%, Longford at 0.2% for context.

Mr.Nice Guy · 16-03-2021 11:00pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Emotionally attached to partition! Hahaha! Good one. I equally can't help but wonder how many of those armchair republicans advocating a United Ireland are blinded by nationalistic fantasy and simply refuse to contemplate economic pragmatism or the opinions of a million Unionists. Or, to put it another way, reality.

What some call reality, others might call catastrophizing.

yagan · 16-03-2021 11:00pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

With most first world countries, the area around the economic capital would benefit from cutting off everywhere else, be that the UK's Greater London area, The Pale area of Ireland or the Industrial Triangle of Italy.

The vast majority of Ireland outside the Pale are net economic receivers.

I'd query that on a per head of population. Most of Ireland's large pharmas and medical supply companies which have cushions us during Covid are outside Dublin and considering the decades of development gone into plants like Merck near Clonmel I think it's more accurate to say that they generate wealth locally and nationally.

I think there's way too much of a naivety in Dublin about its own importance.

Fionn1952 · 16-03-2021 11:33pm

yagan wrote: »

I'd query that on a per head of population. Most of Ireland's large pharmas and medical supply companies which have cushions us during Covid are outside Dublin and considering the decades of development gone into plants like Merck near Clonmel I think it's more accurate to say that they generate wealth locally and nationally.

I think there's way too much of a naivety in Dublin about its own importance.

Specific numbers provided above, Yagan. Dublin alone contributes ~56% of the tax take (at around 28% of the population) across VAT, Income tax, Capital Gains tax and Corporation tax. Plants like Merck near Clonmel are significant on the local scale, but altogether, Tipperary only contributes around 1% of the overall tax take (while making up over 3% of the population).

10000maniacs · 17-03-2021 2:37am

dogbert27 wrote: »

What does the 12 billion cover?

Is it:
NHS costs
Civil servant salaries
Pensions
Community projects
Roads and Infrastructure

Just wondering what it is as it is always described as a lump sum figure.

A lot of those expenses would be owed by the British Government on unification.
Pensions for example.
Hospitals would be converted and taken over by the HSE at considerable cost, but not billions. Most of the work would have been already done. Oven ready as Johnson coined it for something else.
Civil servants would be re-hired as needed and I assume be given redundancy by the British if not re-hired as Irish civil servants. Their contracts were with the British anyway.

Mr.Nice Guy · 17-03-2021 3:44am

Good article here in the Irish Times from Seamus McGuinness, research professor in the ESRI. He says there are 4 unknowns that need to be addressed when discussing the cost to taxpayers regarding reunification: 1) the length of a transition period between a poll result and a transfer of sovereignty 2) the role of the two governments in improving NI's performance during the transition phase 3) negotiations on NI's share of debt and assets 4) the role of external players with influence, like the US and EU.

Key point in relation to the subvention discussion:

The level of subvention, which refers to the gap between government spending and tax revenue in Northern Ireland, is often focused on as a measure of this cost. Subvention in 2014 was £9.16 billion. However, when items of expenditure not directly related to the running of Northern Ireland are subtracted, for example its contribution to UK defence spending or UK government debt, potential subvention levels could fall by about 25 per cent.

The level falls further when account is taken of UK public-sector pensions and contribution-based old-age pensions, both of which would remain a UK liability following unification. Negotiations on Northern Ireland’s share of UK assets may also impact the figure in the event of unification.

Nevertheless, it is Northern Ireland’s low productivity levels that create a need for subvention payments in the first place, and the ultimate cost (or benefit) to the Irish taxpayer would depend on the success of policy reforms aimed at addressing this problem.

And he closes with this:

Any credible assessment of the cost of unification should incorporate reasonable assumptions around all of these unknown factors under various scenarios. There is little to be achieved through a static analysis of Irish unification whereby the estimated current costs of administering Northern Ireland, which are themselves highly debatable, are simply superimposed on the current tax and welfare systems of the Republic. Such a scenario would never seriously be proposed, or ratified, in any border poll.

Responsible debate on the economics of Irish unification should be based on facts that have been established through rigorous research that fully accounts for the likely dynamics associated with any unification process. What we must avoid at all costs is a repeat of the UK Brexit referendum, which is best characterised as a scenario of spurious claims and counterclaims that led, ultimately, to sustained political and economic stalemate.

Peregrinus · 17-03-2021 5:04am

And, to add to what Mr Niceguy says, NI's need for subvention it itself partly the outcome of economic damage resulting from partition, and from NI's unstable and dysfunctional politics. NI was, by a long measure, much more prosperous than the Free State in 1922; over time the position has completely reversed and, while there are obviously other factors at work, a signficant part of this is that being the UK's remote borderland is not economically advantageous. So this provides another reason why it's simplistically wrong to assume that the subvention which partitioned NI requires will continue to be required, long term, after NI is no longer partitioned from its nearest and, now, much wealthier market.

PeadarCo · 17-03-2021 8:12am

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, to add to what Mr Niceguy says, NI's need for subvention it itself partly the outcome of economic damage resulting from partition, and from NI's unstable and dysfunctional politics. NI was, by a long measure, much more prosperous than the Free State in 1922; over time the position has completely reversed and, while there are obviously other factors at work, a signficant part of this is that being the UK's remote borderland is not economically advantageous. So this provides another reason why it's simplistically wrong to assume that the subvention which partitioned NI requires will continue to be required, long term, after NI is no longer partitioned from its nearest and, now, much wealthier market.

And this is exactly the type of discussion that needs to happen. Northern Ireland will need to be subsidised by the Republic at some level. Its not necessarily a show stopper (as already mentioned Dublin supports the country anyway even to NI to a degree indirectly with Dublin port and airport) however it needs to be discussed and teased out. The question of how much subsidy(ie tax increases or spending cuts for the rest of the island) will come up in any future vote. The better the issue is debated before hand the more answers the question will have for better or worse. It reduces the chance of something unexpected coming up in the event of unification. Look at Brexit and the refusal to dicuss the impact of Brexit and all the issues that were widely predicted. As a result of the non debate of the problems leaving the customs Union for example all the paperwork has come as a massive shock to a lot of people. The economy is only one issue that needs to be discussed and its one of less emotive issues. As the assembly has shown flags and the Irish langauge for example can be even bigger Challenges.

Calling people who raise potential issues with unification of Ireland partionists/scaremongering etc actively damages any future unified island. The biggest lesson Brexit should have on Northern Ireland is the need to plan. Brexit increases the chance of the UK breaking up and a vote on unification as a result. Nobody wants a united Ireland to repeat the mistakes of Brexit.

Fionn1952 · 17-03-2021 8:17am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Good article here in the Irish Times from Seamus McGuinness, research professor in the ESRI. He says there are 4 unknowns that need to be addressed when discussing the cost to taxpayers regarding reunification: 1) the length of a transition period between a poll result and a transfer of sovereignty 2) the role of the two governments in improving NI's performance during the transition phase 3) negotiations on NI's share of debt and assets 4) the role of external players with influence, like the US and EU.

Key point in relation to the subvention discussion:

And he closes with this:

One that one probably shouldn't hold much faith in is

"2) the role of the two governments in improving NI's performance during the transition phase "

Expecting Britain to engage in activities to improve NI's performance during transition would highlight (or at least be perceived to highlight) that fixing NI was something they could've always done. Not great optics for them on the international stage.

Peregrinus · 17-03-2021 8:59am

Fionn1952 wrote: »

One that one probably shouldn't hold much faith in is

"2) the role of the two governments in improving NI's performance during the transition phase "

Expecting Britain to engage in activities to improve NI's performance during transition would highlight (or at least be perceived to highlight) that fixing NI was something they could've always done. Not great optics for them on the international stage.

To be fair, it's pretty clear that for the present British government "great optics for them on the international stage' is not among their primary concerns.

Fionn1952 · 17-03-2021 9:54am

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be fair, it's pretty clear that for the present British government "great optics for them on the international stage' is not among their primary concerns.

But how does fixing an NI that had been run into the ground help their own interests in any way? Particularly in the light of a post-Brexit Britain, who would just be strengthening a rival for investment.

I just can't envisage a scenario where the British government say, 'Oh aye, could've fixed this mess ages ago.....never got round to it, here you go'.

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 9:57am

PeadarCo wrote: »

And this is exactly the type of discussion that needs to happen. Northern Ireland will need to be subsidised by the Republic at some level. Its not necessarily a show stopper (as already mentioned Dublin supports the country anyway even to NI to a degree indirectly with Dublin port and airport) however it needs to be discussed and teased out. The question of how much subsidy(ie tax increases or spending cuts for the rest of the island) will come up in any future vote. The better the issue is debated before hand the more answers the question will have for better or worse. It reduces the chance of something unexpected coming up in the event of unification. Look at Brexit and the refusal to dicuss the impact of Brexit and all the issues that were widely predicted. As a result of the non debate of the problems leaving the customs Union for example all the paperwork has come as a massive shock to a lot of people. The economy is only one issue that needs to be discussed and its one of less emotive issues. As the assembly has shown flags and the Irish langauge for example can be even bigger Challenges.

Calling people who raise potential issues with unification of Ireland partionists/scaremongering etc actively damages any future unified island. The biggest lesson Brexit should have on Northern Ireland is the need to plan. Brexit increases the chance of the UK breaking up and a vote on unification as a result. Nobody wants a united Ireland to repeat the mistakes of Brexit.

Exactly. A calm and measured analysis of all socio-economic and political impacts of a UI will hasten rather than impede a UI. Flag-waving and sloganeering Republicanism is counterproductive. If there is to be a UI, ways must be found to mitigate the costs. People vote with their pockets. So, a British/Irish/EU economic plan, based on economic and financial realities that people will accept, is very necessary.

Similarly, societal and political realities have to be addressed to make a UI palatable for Unionism. If people think that there will be trouble from Unionism/Loyalism as a result of a UI, they will be inclined to vote against. Again, shallow nationalism will be counterproductive. It is for the Republic to look at itself and make this country a welcoming place where Unionism can feel at home. That will mean enormous change but it must happen.

20silkcut · 17-03-2021 11:18am

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Specific numbers provided above, Yagan. Dublin alone contributes ~56% of the tax take (at around 28% of the population) across VAT, Income tax, Capital Gains tax and Corporation tax. Plants like Merck near Clonmel are significant on the local scale, but altogether, Tipperary only contributes around 1% of the overall tax take (while making up over 3% of the population).

That is due to deliberate government policy over decades. Such imbalances did not exist 40/50 years ago.
The country is a hell of a lot economically better off with this economic balance though.

We could sort out this economic imbalance no problem and disperse everyone back into the countryside and give them an acre of land and a plot of turf.
Or make a city state out of Dublin.
But that’s off topic.
But in my opinion a country is better off with its contiguous territory under its jurisdiction even if only for the reason it looks better and makes more sense on a map.
Non sensical borders are generally associated with volatile country’s and are a bad look.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 11:29am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. A calm and measured analysis of all socio-economic and political impacts of a UI will hasten rather than impede a UI. Flag-waving and sloganeering Republicanism is counterproductive. If there is to be a UI, ways must be found to mitigate the costs. People vote with their pockets. So, a British/Irish/EU economic plan, based on economic and financial realities that people will accept, is very necessary.

Similarly, societal and political realities have to be addressed to make a UI palatable for Unionism. If people think that there will be trouble from Unionism/Loyalism as a result of a UI, they will be inclined to vote against. Again, shallow nationalism will be counterproductive. It is for the Republic to look at itself and make this country a welcoming place where Unionism can feel at home. That will mean enormous change but it must happen.

And an economic assessment/plan will not be achieved or arrived at by random comments on an internet forum.

What happens is people select areas where they can prove their inherent positions on a UI, be that positive or negative.

The point is that if the costs are presented as an investment that will pay off in societal and economic dividends I think people will respond positively to that.

Announcing that 'people vote with their pockets' is a form of flag waving too and patronising. They consider their pockets, but it isn't the only factor.

I also don't think 'huge changes' will be required to make Unionists feel at home. A huge change in Unionist perceptions of what Ireland is now is required though.

Fionn1952 · 17-03-2021 11:40am

20silkcut wrote: »

That is due to deliberate government policy over decades. Such imbalances did not exist 40/50 years ago.
The country is a hell of a lot economically better off with this economic balance though.

We could sort out this economic imbalance no problem and disperse everyone back into the countryside and give them an acre of land and a plot of turf.
Or make a city state out of Dublin.
But that’s off topic.
But in my opinion a country is better off with its contiguous territory under its jurisdiction even if only for the reason it looks better and makes more sense on a map.
Non sensical borders are generally associated with volatile country’s and are a bad look.

Throwing everyone an acre of land in in countryside would certainly sort out the economic balance...we'd all be dirt poor.

I don't disagree with you in general though, my point was a counter to those stating that Ireland would be economically better off without unification as the GDP in NI is lower. I pointed out that going purely by this logic, The Pale area would be, 'better off' by jettisoning off everywhere else in the country. It was not meant as a suggestion that had my support.

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 11:46am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And an economic assessment/plan will not be achieved or arrived at by random comments on an internet forum.

Really? Gosh. Thanks for the heads up.

What happens is people select areas where they can prove their inherent positions on a UI, be that positive or negative.

The point is that if the costs are presented as an investment that will pay off in societal and economic dividends I think people will respond positively to that.

And those decisions should be made based on clear and unambiguous economic realities. Then those realities can be placed against any positive or negative societal, political and cultural changes.

Announcing that 'people vote with their pockets' is a form of flag waving too and patronising. They consider their pockets, but it isn't the only factor.

Rather childish portrayal of my opinion. I didn't "announce" anything. Nor is it "flag-waving" or "patronising". And I didn't I say it was the "only factor". Deliberate misrepresentation because of an inability to engage with fact. I said that people vote with their pockets. That is a fact. You may choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your narrative. But it's a fact.

I also don't think 'huge changes' will be required to make Unionists feel at home. A huge change in Unionist perceptions of what Ireland is now is required though

A myopic perspective. British Unionism's "perceptions" must undergo "huge change" so that it stops wanting to be British and wants to become Irish. There we have it. That's the thinking that will ensure a UI is decades away.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 11:51am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Really? Gosh. Thanks for the heads up.

And those decisions should be made based on clear and unambiguous economic realities. Then those realities can be placed against any positive or negative societal, political and cultural changes.

Rather childish portrayal of my opinion. I didn't "announce" anything. Nor is it "flag-waving" or "patronising". And I didn't I say it was the "only factor". Deliberate misrepresentation because of an inability to engage with fact. I said that people vote with their pockets. That is a fact. You may choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your narrative. But it's a fact.

A myopic perspective. British Unionism's "perceptions" must undergo "huge change" so that it stops wanting to be British and wants to become Irish. There we have it. That's the thinking that will ensure a UI is decades away.

What facts am I 'not' engaging in?
And you did said 'people vote with their pockets'...fact.

And I did not say 'British Unionism's "perceptions" must undergo "huge change" so that it stops wanting to be British and wants to become Irish'.
I quite clearly said, 'their perception (it is just a perception) of what Ireland is now needs to change'.
There is no issue with me if they want to maintain their British identity.

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 11:59am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What facts am I 'not' engaging in?
And you did said 'people vote with their pockets'...fact.

And I did not say 'British Unionism's "perceptions" must undergo "huge change" so that it stops wanting to be British and wants to become Irish'.
I quite clearly said, 'their perception (it is just a perception) of what Ireland is now needs to change'.
There is no issue with me if they want to maintain their British identity.

I'd be very interested to hear how Unionism can maintain its British identity in an Irish republic.

Sam Russell · 17-03-2021 12:00pm

20silkcut wrote: »

That is due to deliberate government policy over decades. Such imbalances did not exist 40/50 years ago.
The country is a hell of a lot economically better off with this economic balance though.

We could sort out this economic imbalance no problem and disperse everyone back into the countryside and give them an acre of land and a plot of turf.
Or make a city state out of Dublin.
But that’s off topic.
But in my opinion a country is better off with its contiguous territory under its jurisdiction even if only for the reason it looks better and makes more sense on a map.

There is a distortion to the numbers due to the fact that Dublin is the centre for much of Gov. and commerce.

Most of Gov is centred in Dublin, and many public servants are based in Dublin. The legal system is over-represented in Dublin. Major hospitals are in Dublin as is the HSE headquarters. Companies have a presence for their HQ in Dublin and pay the taxes as if in Dublin. Dublin Port is in Dublin and so the vast majority of imports and exports pass through Dublin. Even Guinness is brewed in Dublin.

When Charlie McCreevy decentralised, he did not do it properly. It was 'One for every constituency' rather than a planned decentralisation.

Why send the Legal Aid to Quay Street, Cahirciveen, Co. Kerry. V23 RD36? Because it was the then Minister for Justice's constituency, instead of Dublin 1, next to the Four Courts and the Bridewell.

If decentralisation was to be done properly, it would have been done with some knowledge as to what functions were being decentralised, together with which other Gov functions they interacted with - simples.

A contrast between, say [Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo], and [Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh] might show the direction a post UI had to travel to get a just and progressive Ireland. I would think there is not a huge difference economically between those two areas.

The North has too many on the public purse, but is this because it was simply a hidden subsidy to prop up a failed state, or because there were too few genuine economically based jobs. The manufacturing base has long gone - H&W long closed, De Lorean long closed, Fruit of the Loom gone, and no FDI based jobs created. Only agriculture and some tourism is left.

Could a UI create jobs in NI? Could a UI allow current public purse jobs to move to NI? Could some Gov departments move to NI? Could the Irish Gov get significant FDI to go north? This is what is needed to revive the NI economy, and remove the need for an undue subvention.

It is 23 years since the GFA.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 12:03pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd be very interested to hear how Unionism can maintain its British identity in an Irish republic.

By being British, just as the Polish here are Polish or the Chinese are Chinese etc.
Or as the Irish have maintained their Irishness anywhere they have gone and in the north.

Fionn1952 · 17-03-2021 12:05pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd be very interested to hear how Unionism can maintain its British identity in an Irish republic.

I'd imagine the same way the significant number of people from countless other cultures who live in Ireland manage it.

Have you ever lived outside Ireland? Did you lose your Irish identity when you hopped on the plane?

That isn't to say we don't have a responsibility to make those from a Unionist background feel welcome and do what we can to support their culture, but the suggestion that we'll have a vote and all of a sudden their identity is gone is quite strange.

dogbert27 · 17-03-2021 12:10pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By being British, just as the Polish here are Polish or the Chinese are Chinese etc.
Or as the Irish have maintained their Irishness anywhere they have gone and in the north.

I'm taking the meaning is that how will it work?

In a United Ireland do the people of Northern Ireland automatically become "Irish citizens"?

If the Unionists want to remain "British citizens" in a United Ireland and Britain is outside of the EU do these people now require visas or will there be an exemption?

This couldn't work on an ongoing basis though as it will unsettle the political peace required for a United Ireland to work.

Are they given the opportunity to re-locate to Britain?

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 12:11pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By being British, just as the Polish here are Polish or the Chinese are Chinese etc.
Or as the Irish have maintained their Irishness anywhere they have gone and in the north.

Just like that? You don't see any subtle differences between Polish-Irish or Chinese-Irish history and British Unionism-Irish history? The idea that Irish emigration is a template for incorporating British Unionism into an Irish republic? Or how Nationalists have existed in NI? You think they are the ways forward for British Unionism in an Irish republic?

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 12:12pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'd imagine the same way the significant number of people from countless other cultures who live in Ireland manage it.

Have you ever lived outside Ireland? Did you lose your Irish identity when you hopped on the plane?

That isn't to say we don't have a responsibility to make those from a Unionist background feel welcome and do what we can to support their culture, but the suggestion that we'll have a vote and all of a sudden their identity is gone is quite strange.

Agreed. Which is why I didn't suggest that.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 12:14pm

dogbert27 wrote: »

I'm taking the meaning is that how will it work?

In a United Ireland do the people of Northern Ireland automatically become "Irish citizens"?

If the Unionists want to remain "British citizens" in a United Ireland and Britain is outside of the EU do these people now require visas or will there be an exemption?

This couldn't work on an ongoing basis though as it will unsettle the political peace required for a United Ireland to work.

Are they given the opportunity to re-locate to Britain?

This has all been agreed in the GFA.
The British and Irish governments have agreed in a binding agreement to make the majority will of the people work.

If a UI is voted for, it is up to Unionists to make the case for what they want. It isn't for me or the Irish end of the deal to do that.

BonnieSituation · 17-03-2021 12:17pm

dogbert27 wrote: »

I'm taking the meaning is that how will it work?

In a United Ireland do the people of Northern Ireland automatically become "Irish citizens"?

If the Unionists want to remain "British citizens" in a United Ireland and Britain is outside of the EU do these people now require visas or will there be an exemption?

This couldn't work on an ongoing basis though as it will unsettle the political peace required for a United Ireland to work.

Are they given the opportunity to re-locate to Britain?

For starters they're already Irish citizens. So that wouldn't be an issue.

Entitlement to British citizenship after reunification is a matter for the UK. Though I would imagine it would be a similar situation to here after the Republic of Ireland Act was enacted.

Relocation would be an issue for the UK. No one would have to leave their homes as a result of a democratic vote on favour of a UI. But if those that are too belligerent to accept such a vote, well I guess they could clamour for some sort of relocation. Up to them.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 12:24pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just like that? You don't see any subtle differences between Polish-Irish or Chinese-Irish history and British Unionism-Irish history? The idea that Irish emigration is a template for incorporating British Unionism into an Irish republic? Or how Nationalists have existed in NI? You think they are the ways forward for British Unionism in an Irish republic?

Why would there have to be ways forward for 'British Unionism' in a new unified Irish republic that a majority want? They are quite entitled to remain a political force and attempt to convince a majority to unify with Britain if they see that as a possibility.

A few minutes ago we were talking about maintaining a 'British identity'.

Professor Moriarty · 17-03-2021 12:30pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would there have to be ways forward for 'British Unionism' in a new unified Irish republic that a majority want? They are quite entitled to remain a political force and attempt to convince a majority to unify with Britain if they see that as a possibility.

A few minutes ago we were talking about maintaining a 'British identity'.

Because if Unionism doesn't feel welcome in an Irish republic then a UI may not happen. I'll repeat myself. A UI is much more likely if all societal, cultural, economic and political realities are made clear and unambiguous and are addressed prior to any referendums. Handwaving away Unionist concerns and economic impacts on Ireland is counterproductive.

BonnieSituation · 17-03-2021 12:32pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because if Unionism doesn't feel welcome in an Irish republic then a UI may not happen. I'll repeat myself. A UI is much more likely if all societal, cultural, economic and political realities are made clear and unambiguous and are addressed prior to any referendums. Handwaving away Unionist concerns and economic impacts on Ireland is counterproductive.

But there will ALWAYS be unionist concerns. Even when they agree to things they are concerned about them 5 minutes later.

There's a certain point you just have to give up on and move on.

The narrative being formed by many is that unionists will be "railroaded" or "forced" into a UI against their wishes despite a UI only happening as a result of the democratic choices of the people of Ireland.

FrancieBrady · 17-03-2021 12:34pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because if Unionism doesn't feel welcome in an Irish republic then a UI may not happen. I'll repeat myself. A UI is much more likely if all societal, cultural, economic and political realities are made clear and unambiguous and are addressed prior to any referendums. Handwaving away Unionist concerns and economic impacts on Ireland is counterproductive.

I'm not handwaving anything away.

I am adamant that Unionism be allowed to propose what they want and that it is considered.

A UI is likely if a majority vote for it...full stop. That has already been agreed by a majority on this island.
That will involve compromise by all, but not capitulation.
And an acceptance that you won't get everything you want.

Snickers Man · 17-03-2021 12:50pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Or as the Irish have maintained their Irishness anywhere they have gone and in the north.

Woah!!! Do you want to claim ALL the Irish "wherever they have gone"?

It's all very well saying "We gave the world Spencer Tracey, JFK, John McEnroe, Andy Townsend, etc etc"
Good chaps all!

But "we" also gave them:
Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity
Jacob Rees Mogg
Daniel Hannon
Brendan O'Neil
Liam Halligan
Mike Pence
Wayne Rooney
Colin Moynihan

........and quite a lot of others in the basket of deplorables.

I kinda hope the Unionists DO retain their identity in the event of a United Ireland. If they mutate into native Irish counterparts to some of the above.......YEEESH!!!

Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

Comments