Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

What the anti UI people forget too is that if a vote on a UI passes Unionists will hotfoot it to London to seek assurances on these matters. The British while wanting rid of it will not want to be seen 'abandoning' Unionists either.

I think the outcome will be a negociated settlement/plan that will suit everyone.

It's funny this.

On the one hand if somebody makes the point that the subvention is a fortune and the British would get out because of it, we are told that it is a drop in the ocean to them but if there's a suggestion that the British might have to continue paying during a transition period we are told they are broke and wouldn't do it.

Over the years the UK government has issued and incurred debt to finance budget deficit and spending – some of which it can reasonably argued has taken place in N. Ireland. If N. Ireland left the UK, it should assume its fair share of the debt. The question is where to draw that line; is it a share of GDP, a share by population, or by government spending. Either way, it is going to be a mess really. It would of course not be the first time that a country has seceded and not the first time that national debt be divided in such a manner. A sovereign debt restructuring has said that in public international law, when a constituent profits of a state cedes or leaves to join another state – as happened in 1846, when Texas joined the United States – the rule is that any debts incurred by the previously unified state have to be allocated between the two newly independent countries. Another example is the splitting of Czechoslovakia, where the debt, liabilities and assets were split 2:1 between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, based around population size. An independent Scotland would face an eye-watering £180 BILLION debt on day one after Scexit.

Yet another reason why a so called United Ireland is not going to happen, at least not in our lifetime.

Well actually your last line sums up the problem with pensions everywhere - they are equivalent to a ponzi scheme. That is why we have such debates about raising the pension age etc. If we all had a personal fund, things would be ok, but we don't, pensions are paid from current revenue.

Getting back on topic, that is exactly why the Irish taxpayer will pick up the tab.

The most fervent pursuers of Britain viz a viz pension security will be Unionists and what allies they have in Britain. It will be a bargaining chip for them and I think the British will have no issue TBH. They won't want to be seen abandoning Unionists.

But those are not the only examples as I am sure you well know. Here's an article detailing varying outcomes with the important statement made early on, often what happens to the debts depends not only on negotiations between the successor states.

As this issue has not been broached between the negotiating states, you nor I can claim anything about what might happen. We are in the realm of personal opinion.

I don't follow Scottish independence but wasn't it agreed that it would be Scotland's responsibility?(I could be completely wrong on this)

Well, as your article says:

"On December 26, 1991, the Soviet Union legally ceased to exist, leaving in its wake fifteen new independent states, the largest of which were Ukraine and Russia. Naturally, many creditors who had loaned money to the USSR still wanted repayment—from someone. This led to a series of negotiations in which the G-7 states essentially imposed a repayment system on the new states, based on the so-called joint-and-several formula. "

If the UK broke up, the national debt of the UK would be broken up too. It would not matter if it was broken up in to 3 pieces ( say N. Ireland, Scotland and joint England/Wales ) or 15 pieces. If one part got away without paying its fair share the others would want the same deal too. Thats why it is not going to happen.

They don't have an existing long-term funded budget for those payments, they have taxpayers forking out for them. They are losing taxpayers in a united Ireland, of course they will lose the pension payments associated with that.

You also don't factor in the non-contributory pensions.

As for (1), here is the definitive report, I have posted this before.

Relevant highlights:

"The National Insurance scheme is financed on a pay as you go basis with contribution rates set at a level broadly necessary to meet the expected benefits expenditure in that year, after taking into account any other payments and receipts, and to maintain a working balance."

So, pay as you go basis, not a fund as you maintain. Points to consider:

(1) It is on a pay as you go basis, not a built up fund.

(2) There is an annual subsidy from rUK of €500-600m, tab to be picked up by Irish taxpayers in future, because of pay as you go basis

(3) Pension levels in Ireland (€265.30) are above those of the UK (£141.85) by about 60% at current exchange rates. Given expenditure from that fund of £2.8 bn, a 60% increase to harmonise equates to around €1.9 billion being needed from the Irish taxpayer.

So to sum up, the extra cost of taking on NI social insurance pensions comes out at €2.5 billion a year assuming that you want to bring pensions in Northern Ireland to the same level as the South in an equal united Ireland and that no worker faces an increase in contributions.

I fully understand all of that. However, you seem to the failing to grasp two essential points which I have put forward:

(1) The rUK taxpayer subsidises the NI Social Insurance Pension Fund every year by £500-600m. The rest of the fund comes from NI taxpayers. That subsidy will fall on Ireland.

(2) The gap in payment rates is the big issue though. That is something an Irish government will decide to do. It will have two options, cut pensions in the South or raise pensions in the North. If they opt for the latter it will cost upwards of €2bn that the Irish taxpayer will have to find.

Simple as, and these are not accounted for elsewhere.