Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

No need for me to invent opinions for you Francie, you have expressed plenty of them yourself and you were caught out.

Stop diverting and going off on tangents Francie. You were caught out. It was you though who said "What they (unionists) have is better than being in a UI.". In other words, you admit that unionists would not have the same civil rights as catholics nationalists in a U.I.

If you want to start a thread on Gay Byrne, do so. Quote by a journalist : "Gay Byrne, still holding off whippersnappers like Pat Kenny, ignited a rumpus by suggesting that we should hand the country back to the queen of England with a letter of apology for the state it was in. And the country was in a state. At its worst in 1988 about 70,000 young Irish people were emigrating. Of the 40 or so in my class only three or four stayed at home."

The quote from Behan was meant to be a satirical criticism of how this country was being run in the 50's. In Gay Byrne's time it was lack of employment and emigration etc. that prompted it's revival. It's a witty and sarky debate starter that could be used today as well, given we have broken records in lack of health and housing provision and homelessness. It's akin to asking should Australia be given back to the Aboriginals or America to the Native Americans. It's never gonna happen but it does provoke debate about the current status quo

That you believe it to be a serious proposal made by Byrne has been proven amply here by the expression of your own views of our history. I am sure there are a few more in the South who might like to be handed back.

P.S. It would be a great question to ask again when we come to the debate on the cost of a UI. We could take stock of how far we have come as a sovereign nation here and contrast it with how NI has fared under her highness and son.

NI recorded a surplus up until the 1930's and has run a deficit since the mid 60's. The conflict/war did severe damage to the economy as all conflicts do but even after it being over for 25 years they still lag behind, almost 1 and a half times in GDP per head in 2016. Pretty stark.

We have done much better as a sovereign entity than they have as a part of the UK.

So too do many local authorities areas in the Republic but I doubt you’d claim that independence was a bad idea for them or use it to justify them leaving the Republic.

The point is that the fact Northern Ireland relies on subvention from the British government is not a good argument for unification on its own. In Ireland every county/local authority outside Dublin and Cork relies on subvention from the Central government. Basically Dublin and to a limited degree Cork funds the rest of the country. Nobody is arguing for independent Republic of Kerry/Mayo etc because they would be better off independent. They have always needed subvention and will probably always need it.

However that's nothing altogether unusual. Areas with higher population densities generally have more economic activity when compared to more rural areas with few exceptions due to stuff like mineral wealth etc. Arguably one of the most important features of any country is that more well areas are pay for less well off areas.

So in short that fact that Northern Ireland relies on subvention from the Central UK government is meaningless on its own and I'm stressing the on its own bit. Its something that happens in every country in the world.

Problem with this argument is that Kerry and Mayo were not historically successful parts of the island. Prior to partition, the north-east of the island, mainly Belfast, was the most economically successful corner of Ireland.

Sorry, I don't understand your point being made here re subventions.

Scotland, the north of England, Wales, the South West of England all require subvention too. The money in the UK is made in London and the south east and a liitle in the east of England.

Here in Ireland The 26 counties requires subvention too, we have borrowed not far off a 160 billion or thereabout over the past 16 years. It is not that long since we had to get a bailout from the EU,UK and IMF.

The second part of your post hits the nail on the head in relation to the damage done to Northern Ireland by the terrorist campaign conducted by the PIRA. This has been further compounded by the childish sectarianists in the DUP and SF who have combined (not) to run the place since the GFA.

However, the kernel of truth in what Francie says is that the North (for whatever reason - Queen or SF) hasn't done as well as the South, but that becomes a double-edged sword for those wanting a united Ireland. Who in their right mind in the South would vote to take that burden on?

Essentially the United Irelanders can't have it both ways. If Northern Ireland is a basket case (as the United Irelanders make out), then a united Ireland will cost the southern taxpayer an awful lot of money to fix (which the United Irelanders deny). This is a huge hole in any argument for a united Ireland.

Of course the UK, like all western countries and most countries arounnd the world (possibly with the exception of oil rich middle eastern countries) borrow. However the point is most counties make most of their money around their capital city / main centre(s) of population. Especially bits that are closer to other countries for trade etc. Remote regions tend to do less well economically. In the Uk, London and the South East and to a lesses extent the East of England are the most viable parts : Scotland, the north of England, Wales, the South West of England and N Ireland all require subvention.

Nothing that strange about that. In the USA for example, while the USA itself borrow huge amounts of money, some states subsidize others.

California pays much more to the Federal Government than it gets back from them. The likes of Mississippi get subventions.  Because of federal programs, people in places like South Carolina and Mississippi are getting a helping hand not from their neighbours a few blocks away or in the next county over, but from residents of Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, and Nebraska. 

Similarily the people of N.Ireland, Scotland, north of England, Cornwall etc get a helping hand from the tax payers of the South East of England, London etc.

Here in Ireland I supect because the multinationals and hi tech jobs and capital city jobs etc are mostly based in the east /near Dublin, and to a lesser extent Cork, the vast bulk of taxes in the country are paid in those counties and they probably subvent the likes of Roscommon etc (no offence to the people of Roscommon etc)

So are you saying now the subvention doesn't matter? What are you saying?

P.S. I didn't say the subvention was 'strange', I made the point that the most prosperous part of Ireland was driven to subvention by the mid 1960's under exclusive Unionist management and has required one since.

Our economy was built on agriculture. We diversified. The north failed to do that under Unionist rule and began to depend on the subvention which some Unionist politicians will proudly say is a reason to cherish the Union. Sad that they think that one way to perserve the 'Union' is to keep the north dependent on subsidy.

The north stagnated and fell behind under Unionist management, that is an undeniable fact.

Prompted by parties from the north the Irish government insisted and so far has prevailed to keep NI in the EU SM. If Unionism once again gets it's way the north will be exposed to the full rigours of Brexit and reach crisis point again.

My point is, would they fare better as a part of a UI where a single ideology cannot hold them back? Would they fare better in a union that does not have many other competing concerns that routinely sees Westminster throw NI under a bus in pursuit of it's own selfish interests?

NI is currently in crisis precisely because Johnson lied to Unionists and promptly threw them under the bus.

This is fact.