Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

NI Census 2021

Options
1568101122

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭eire4


    Then there is also the growth potential which is likely to come over time with Irish reunification which would improve this financially further.



  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭FraserburghFreddie


    The Irish Times article is full of assumptions.Britain will continue to pay pensions and is under some kind of perceived obligation.The US and EU might possibly contribute. It also overlooks that Ireland might actually have to pay for it`s own defence instead of relying on others.

    If Ireland is doing so well,whats wrong with paying for a UI yourselves?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,447 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    State pensions are contributions built up from a career spent paying tax to fund services in the UK. Why would Ireland be on the hook when it's a relatively small concession for the UK to simply pay out the pensions for the small number of former citizens born before year X to gain the pensions they spent their lives paying for? Otherwise Ireland is paying back pensions from tax never collected.



  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭FraserburghFreddie


    Fair comment regarding state pensions,but the rest of the article suggests the UK,US and EU might pay and there is no mention of paying for Irelands defence.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Actually, if you read the article, it says the net cost of NI in a UI is €4 billion a year, not €10 billion, when defence, pensions, and UK debt servicing and other costs are removed. For example the cost of UK defence is a UK charge. Pensions of NI people, earned while working in the UK, should be funded by the contributions those workers made to the UK. Not all pensioners living in NI earned those pensions in NI.

    That €4 billion could be shouldered by Ireland alone, but it would appear likely that some funding could come from the EU, the UK, and the USA. Now that is something I would expect to happen - after all three are backers of the GF agreement and would be slow to be shown up by the generosity of the other two.

    Also, the NI civil service could help with some of the work currently done by our civil service (of course both would be 'our' civil service after unification) as part of a devolution of those services. This decentralisation already happens - as various services are handled by, say, Sligo or Limerick based departments.

    It is also likely that FDI will contribute greatly to the NI economy - or rather the economy of the former NI. If they are as successful as we have been over the last 50 years, the future will be bright for the former NI and the united Ireland that results from unification.

    This is all about economics, but socially it should be also better as NI is a much better place following the Good Friday agreement - although there are still deep seated problems which have not been fully resolved. That will take a few generations yet.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭FraserburghFreddie


    Sam,I did read the article which apart from outstanding pensions only contains suggestions,supposition and perceived obligations over finance.It also mentions removal of defence costs.So who is going to pay for Ireland's defence?If Ireland wants to join nato there would be financial conditions which would have to be met for example,the current recommended spending on defence is at least 2% of gdp.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,814 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The people of the country will pay?

    And the people need to see a need to join NATO as well.

    P.S. The greatest 'supposition' has been the one that claimed adamantly that the cost would be 10+ billion a year.



  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭FraserburghFreddie


    Beyond assumptions there is nothing concrete in terms of credible funding for a UI in that article.Magic money tree economics when pressed on things like paying for defence are self delusional imo.I've attached a link showing Austria which has a slightly smaller gdp than Ireland intends to pay €3.4 billion on defense spending this year.

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/austria-to-significantly-up-military-spending/



  • Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Speedline




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Why would our defence spending rise in a UI outside of our current need to increase spending?

    The UK spend a fortune on Trident subs, which has no impact on our defence. We will not be contributing to that waste of money.

    Our defence spending is totally inadequate and should be increased substantially, but that is not part of any argument on funding of a UI.

    The spending on the NHS in NI is inadequate currently, but again the NHS will be used as an argument against a UI, but it needs more funding now - which it is not getting. The cost of the NI NHS will be funded in the same way the HSE is - hugely.

    Ireland has a growing economy which will spill over into the NI part of a UI. That will mitigate any cost of unification, and will not happen without a UI. The EU funding for many schemes will benefit the NI region following a UI and come from EU funding.

    I think, on balance, in the midterm, NI will be better off in a UI (economically). If the donors (EU,UK,USA) all cough up, it will be better in the short term.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,814 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You are assuming we need to spend the same on defence as Austria...sure why not assume it has to be the same as the US spends. 😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭kazamo


    One point I found interesting was that debt servicing costs was a complete no no.

    NI can’t fund itself, so some of the UK debt is as a result of NI. On the one hand we demand they pay pensions accrued over the decades, but the debt incurred to balance the books in NI, ah no, we won’t be having any of that.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Some of that debt was for defence - like Trident. Some was to fund the corrupt Tories and their chums. More for a GB£3.7 billion spend on a COVID track and trace system provided by a Tory friend that never worked. And Billions spent on COVID personal protection stuff that could not be used and currently is clocking up demurrage charges in Felixstowe.

    Why should a UI be saddled with debts like that run up by a corrupt regime in the UK?



  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭FraserburghFreddie



    If you read the link,Austria(not a member of nato)currently spends less than 1% on defence.I suppose you could just not have a credible defence and save the money.Only problem with that is,if you want to be taken seriously you have to show some intent on the world stage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,814 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    What 'stage'?

    We have currently no interest in playing on that particular stage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭kazamo


    You are bringing up a complete red herring, I never once mentioned defence or any debts related to it.

    NI doesn’t appear to have funded itself for a long time, if ever.

    Money has been poured into NI to balance the books, yet we can now rely on pension liabilities because it suits us, but conveniently ignore the debt servicing costs related to keeping the lights on in NI for the past few decades.

    From the article and the report it’s based on, we want the UK to pay the pension liabilities(correct think to do), ignore all debt servicing costs and by the way, UK to provide additional financial supports for a United Ireland to be successful.

    And when we have that squared off, we get our beggar’s bowl out and guilt the EU and USA to fund the balance until the 4 billion deficit disappears.

    We are not demanding much, are we 🤔 🤔


    A concern I have from the report on which this article is based on, is that it got down to a 4 billion deficit, then mentioned the poor health, education and pension outcomes and the requirement to focus future UI spend on each as they are behind the similar metrics in the South. The report doesn’t quantify those costs but had no issue getting from 10.5 billion to 4 billion with a few assumptions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,984 ✭✭✭Christy42


    People say that the DUP helped the United Ireland's cause by supporting Brexit and opposing the protocol. However the main argument against a UI at the moment is that NI is completely crippled economically. If it ever got to be a strong economy then a united Ireland would be possible. Now I don't think this was intentional. It is however weird that we end up with the case that the greatest argument that NI should be ruled by London/Stormont is that London/Stormont have mismanaged it so badly that no one else can take it over.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Balancing the 'books' for NI is a nonsense. There are no books.

    Some taxes are charged for the whole of the UK, and some expenditure is paid out for the whole of the UK. These figures are not available nor published to allow a breakdown. The UK then uses a fudge to distribute these costs and incomes to each 'nation' using the Barnet formula - that benefits England.

    For example, Tesco, Sainsburys, M&S operate a whole UK accounting system and pay their corporation tax and VAT from their HQ in England. M&S distribute to the island of Ireland from Scotland - logistically daft. Pensions are also administered for the whole of the UK.

    The GB£10 billion is just plucked out of the air. The GB£4 billion is also plucked out of the air and is derived from an analysis of the GB£10 billion figure making reasonable suppositions - but is equally bogus.

    The article states we could live with the GB£4 billion. The UK could agree to give GB£6 billion for a decade to bring the bogus GB£10 billion down to the equally bogus GB£4 billion and appear to be generous. The EU and the USA could give a similar amount of real money.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,932 ✭✭✭✭josip


    In financial terms it would simply come down to how much the UK would be prepared to pay in order to divest itself of a long-term liability.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,713 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    However the main argument against a UI at the moment is that NI is completely crippled economically.

    NI isn't crippled economically, just politically. NI is currently outperforming most of the UK now that it has been given a chance



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭kazamo


    Why did you post a link to an article that you now refute ?

    If you reject all the numbers as simply wishful thinking, then why didn’t you state that earlier ?


    So we are now back to NI could be costing anything, it might even be producing a large surplus every year, but sure it will be all right as long as the United Irelanders are happy.

    And if it costs money, the EU/UK/USA will fund the shortfall until we get ourselves organised and we are all happy.

    Everyone’s a winner…..yippee 🤔 🤔



  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭kazamo


    Changing the flag and head of state doesn’t mend the divided community in NI.

    And a divided NI doesn’t portray a great image for foreign direct investment.

    I don’t see any real reconciliation taking place in the short term, so with a UI, the financial enabler changes.

    However it becomes more onerous when the shortfall lands on a population of 5 million.

    And outside parties won’t bankroll this indefinitely.



  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭FraserburghFreddie


    That's nearly as entertaining as Trump's "we're going to build a wall and you're going to pay for it" statement 😀



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I am not refuting the article.

    The article is dissecting the figure given by many that NI gets a subvention of GB£10 billion a year. I see that number as bogus, but dissecting it to remove some of the fiction still leaves it based on a bogus base.

    NI is costing more money that it produces in taxes, and could not support itself without a subvention from the Gov.

    You could say the same about many counties in Ireland - but how would you count the cost of the Gardai, teachers, the health service? That is why the figures for NI are bogus.

    There are no figures for NI. There are not even trade figures for NI. I know because I searched for them for ages and found none.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,688 ✭✭✭eire4


    I actually thought the Irish Times articles down played how beneficial Irish reunification could be going forward economicaly in coming up with its 4B figure not counting any help that likely would come from the US and the EU post reunification as well as the likely growth benefits over time.

    As for pensions that indeed would be something for the UK to pay for given thats whom the contributions were made to for them. As for defense costs certainly that is an area where again savings are realistic to make. In 2020 the UK's spending was about 2.3% of gdp last data for Ireland put us at about 0.3%. No question IMHO we need to spend more but that is a debate to be had within Ireland as to how we reshape our defense and security needs and gradually build them up. Certainly not something that will happen overnight.



  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭kazamo


    We can all agree that The Northern Ireland economy doesn’t have enough tax revenue to meet it’s outgoings. The value of the shortfall is the great unknown, and I agree 10 billion looks inflated but perhaps 4 billion is a more realistic number.

    I read most of the 132 page report and it has framed the analysis as an annual shortfall in the current funding received in the subvention, and hence why it is underperforming. To me, that sounds like the shortfall will increase rather than decrease because the authors want the same standards as in the South. Instead of trying to close the gap, we run the risk of widening it even further and I am not sure Ireland has the capacity to cover all this.

    Please remember that in 20 years time there will be far less workers for every retired person and although we had longer to prepare for it than other EU countries, we did f all about it other than talk. We don’t plan for the future, we just talk about planning and kick the can down the road.

    A UI is ideal that we all in the South aspire to, but not at any cost.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,814 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Some suppositions in that post too.

    With two cities and full infrastructure there is no reason why the north cannot perform and contribute like anywhere else in the country. In 20 years time we will not look at it as a 'cost', it will just be another part of the whole.



  • Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭kazamo




  • Registered Users Posts: 68,814 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I'm sure there will be some pining for the days of partition, but very quickly northern Ireland will become just another region like Munster or Connacht - i.e. part of a country. Heavily invested in, by some of the biggest entities in the world, in order that unification works - because it is in all their interests that it does work. That includes Britain BTW.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,844 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    State pensions are paid from current revenues. We will gain the tax revenues from Northern Ireland taxpayers yet some people expect us not to have to pay the expenditure due from those revenues.



Advertisement