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

Cost of a United Ireland and the GFA

Options
12021232526110

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Irrelevant and a deflection from the point that was made.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Before you posted that, I had edited my post to answer your point about who threw who under a bus. By wrecking the economy / was that not throwing the people of N.I. under a bus?

    My edited answer included " It was the EU, Irish government and Republicans who threw the business sector in N.I under a bus by dividing the UK / having the border down the Irish sea, with all the extra paperwork etc. They wanted to cause the UK as much difficulty as possible, as punishment for "brexit".

    You cannot blame everything on "dem ones"



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The British came up with the idea of the Protocol, agreed it and signed it into their law.This was after Johnson, in Belfast, promised Unionists there would be no border in the Irish Sea.

    Fact again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Would you prefer if it was between the 6 and the 26 ? The Republicans threatened violence so that would not have worked.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The border is where it was always going to be when the UK decided to Brexit. The natural border between these two islands.

    Brexiteers would now be grazing the sunny uplands had it not been for the absurdity of partition catching up with them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    So you think if there was no partition between these islands, no borders anywhere we would all be better off?

    I think we would all be better off in the EEU / EU if it was just the economic union they voted for.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Yes, we would all be better off in The EU as islands. I think polling shows the British electorate are beginning to realise that now. If Brexit ever had a chance of success (I don't think it did BTW) then the partition of Ireland destroyed any chance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭redlough


    Do you understand what Brexit is?

    It's done now but to turn around and say its not a success would suggest you don't actually understand what it is. It will be 20-30 years before anyone can say it is or isn't.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Doesn't matter what you or I 'understand' of Brexit. The facts are more and more British think it was a bad idea and if a referendum were held again it wouldn't pass.

    And it is Brexiteers themselves who claim they haven't gotten the Brexit they wanted and who want the WA and Protocol binned and rewritten.



  • Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭redlough


    So that's a no for understanding it

    Thanks for clearing that up



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    No, I clearly said it doesn't matter in this context. You don't need to understand Brexit to see the fact that more and more British regret it and that key Brexiteers are complaining they have not gotten the one they want.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    If there was a border between these islands, with customs, tariffs, paperwork, etc, then that is a hinderance to trade with our closest neighbour and a G7 economy, no matter which way you look at it.

    I often wonder if there had been no talk of an EU army, if the EU had not expanded east so much, would the UK still be a member? In 1973 it went from 6 to 9 members. That is what the UK voted for when they joined. It was to be an economic union, not a political one. Now there are 28 countries. Either way, the EU lost its second biggest contributer and is in trouble. Unemployment in EU in December was 6.1%, in UK it was only 3.7%. Hundreds of boatloads of refugees are still trying to cross the English channel from the "mighty" EU in to the UK, and are willing to risk their lives to do so.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Wonder away. You can't seriously complain about spilt milk when it was you who spilt it. Exceptionalism at it's finest.

    The UK has been a long-standing, strong supporter of EU enlargement under successive Governments. The Government reconfirmed this position in its 2010 Coalition Agreement and is an advocate of the future accession of all the western Balkans countries and Turkey, subject to their meeting the accession requirements.

    Welcome to GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    "Me" spilt milk? Dunno what you are talking about. I am not British. However, prior to Brexit surveys showed that people were happy to be in the EU if it stayed true to its promises (a healthier economy, protection against terrorism and crime, immigration control, good public sector services etc). Apparently, many people felt abandoned by societal and economic changes and blamed the EU (rightly or wrongly). Being opposed to furthering political union in the EU ( the British are very fond of their own armed forces etc and know an EU army of 28 states across Europe would not work ), the UK regarded enlargement as a way of preventing deepening integration and federalism.

    Brexit has happened now anyway, the EU is vexed and has lost its second biggest contributer and it making things as difficult as possible fo the UK. The UK was a key asset for the EU in the fields of foreign affairs and defence given that the UK was (with France) one of the EU's two major military powers, and had significant intelligence capabilities, soft power and a far reaching diplomatic network. Time, maybe 20 or 30 years as someone has said, will tell if Brexit was a success or not. In the meantime, thousands of refugees are still risking their lives in little inflatable boats to get out of the EU and in to Britain.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Ok, again you are just going to ignore the facts and pivot to something else.

    You claimed the UK had voted for something in '73 and expected the status to remain the same - when it was pointed out with backed up facts from their own governments website that they wholly encouraged expansion you reached for some nameless surveys/polls.


    And you really don't understand what 'making things difficult' means if you think the EU are doing it. The EU could legally and legitimately tell the UK to like it or lump it if they wanted to, but they won't, they'll keep talking to the UK while they watch their economy tank.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Whose economy is tanking - the one with 6.1% unemployment (EU) or the one with 3.7% unemployment (UK)? The economy which the refugees are leaving from in little inflatable boats ( EU) or the one they want to get to (UK)?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    A few sad immigrants? 45,756 people crossed the Channel to the UK in small boats in 2022, an increase of more than 17,000 on the 28,526 who arrived in 2021. They risked their lives, as some more people drowned. We know there is higher unemployment in the EU compared to the UK, but why are the refugees going one way and not from Britain to the EU? Before Brexit I remember here in the EU seeing cartoons of the refugees in little inflatable boats leaving Britain after Brexit, it seems we in the EU got that wrong too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    That's a fraction of the number coming into Europe.

    1.9 million immigrants entered the EU from non-EU countries in 2020.


    The vast majority of people seeking asylum do not come to the UK. But for the relatively smaller number who do, the most common reason they choose the UK is to join their family who are already in the country. Another common reason for people coming to the UK is that they speak the language. Family ties and the ability to speak the language make the task of rebuilding a life easier to face.

    But another reason people leave France, hoping to find safety in the UK, is because of the conditions in French refugee camps and informal settlements.

    One might say 'their colonial past following them home'.

    Doesn't get away from the main point that Brtiain's economic outlok is bleak.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    The economic outlook in the EU is also bleak. Unemployment is higher in the EU, and inflation in Netherlands is close to 12% for example, much higher than Britains. The UK was one of the first major countries to emerge from lockdown. The UK economy is also less exposed to the fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Their trade and financial links with Russia are relatively limited, though no one can escape the volatility in energy prices.

    Anyway, the point of the thread is the Cost of a UI and the GFA. A UI will not happen in our lifetime so no need to worry about it too much. A hundred years ago 33% of people in N.I wanted a UI, now it is 32%.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭redlough


    The discussion seems to be here that if we have a vote and both Northern Ireland and republic decide to become a United Ireland that suddenly the rest of the UK will say, great here is billions and billions to make it happens.

    The same person who is saying this is also claiming now that the UK economy is tanking.

    Now this is just the latest in a long line of conflicts that one person is posting


    So, lets take the last claim, the UK economy is tanking which means the UK won't have the money available to pay for a United Ireland plus if the rest of the UK is in such a bad position would the population allow the government to hand money over to people that have said they want to leave? no they won't

    So the answer then is for the Rep to fund a United Ireland at a cost of, I have no idea but it's billions. Can the Rep fund this without additional taxes? no it can't.

    So why is this thread not a discussion about the actual topic, how much? and how would that revenue be generated in the Rep to pay for it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I have never couched it as the UK 'giving' billions. Stop making stuff up.

    I have clearly said that Ireland and the UK will reach settlements on various issues that are in the interests of both. They will also arrange a transition period when rationalising can take place, The PS etc.

    The more the UK economy tanks the more likely it is that they will look to offload what is costing them huge sums of money. Some initial pain for long term gain etc.

    The scaremongers claiming the UK will just walk away are just that - scaremongers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The EU economy is expected to grow in 2023, The CBI expects the UK economy to shrink by 0.4% in 2023. It also said this:


     it’s concerning that longer-term weakness in productivity and business investment appears to be bedding in,” the CBI’s lead economist, Alpesh Paleja, said in a statement. “It does not bode well for living standards and the economy’s capacity to grow over the longer-term.”

    That's as good as saying the outlook is 'bleak'.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM




  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    And we pivot to individual countries now.

    We were discussing the EU and you should know the IMF update their outlook all the time. That quote is out of date. Here is there latest forecast from 30th of January

    Accordingly, we have slightly increased our 2022 and 2023 growth forecasts. Global growth will slow from 3.4 percent in 2022 to 2.9 percent in 2023 then rebound to 3.1 percent in 2024.

    ...

    Euro area conditions are more challenging despite signs of resilience to the energy crisis, a mild winter, and generous fiscal support. With the European Central Bank tightening monetary policy, and a negative terms-of-trade shock—due to the increase in the price of its imported energy—we expect growth to bottom out at 0.7 percent this year.


    That is growth. Meanwhile in the UK...see links I posted above.


    Global Economy to Slow Further Amid Signs of Resilience and China Re-opening (imf.org)



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,330 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Economic forecasts change the whole time, but this thread is about the Cost of U.I. etc.  Anyways, as someone else said "lets take the last claim, the UK economy is tanking which means the UK won't have the money available to pay for a United Ireland plus if the rest of the UK is in such a bad position would the population allow the government to hand money over to people that have said they want to leave? no they won't

    So the answer then is for the Rep to fund a United Ireland at a cost of, I have no idea but it's billions. Can the Rep fund this without additional taxes? no it can't.

    So why is this thread not a discussion about the actual topic, how much? and how would that revenue be generated in the Rep to pay for it?"

    And who is going to take on N. Irelands share of the UK national debt, which costs billions per year just to pay interest on alone?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The reason this thread is not a discussion about the actual topic is because the advocates of a united Ireland want to do a Brexit on it. They want to keep everything vague, promise that everything will be perfect in the new land of milk and honey, that taxes on unicorns and rainbows will fund whatever is necessary and if that doesn't work, the three fairy godmothers of the EU, US and UK will step in and pick up the tab.

    Once you start picking holes and pointing out issues like the big financial hole in the separate NI social insurance fund, or the difference in the rates of pension and unemployment benefit, they run an absolute mile. Not to mention different VAT rates and excise duty. I mean, has anyone told the alcoholics of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland means a big increase in the cost of beer and wine, and before they have a cigarette to calm themselves down, don't tell them what they cost. Of course, I will be told that people will be so delighted to have a united Ireland that such things won't matter.

    The whole discussion is completely unrealistic. There isn't going to be a border poll this decade, the numbers don't add up for a united Ireland anyway. The only way of getting a united Ireland over the line is to spend the next twenty years slowly moving towards harmonisation of tax, social welfare, education, minimum wage etc. Once that is a good distance down the road, it may be possible to have a realistic discussion, but until then, only the most lunatic will be seriously proposing it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Economic forecasts change the whole time

    Exactly, and yours was out of date.



  • Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭redlough


    It is funny to watch, post something and the propaganda answer comes back which is all sweetness and light for a United Ireland.

    Either they haven't a clue what they are posting about, or they are simply ignoring facts for propaganda.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It is a mix of both, together with a worldview stuck in the middle of the last century, when countries could be self-sustainable and the big powers would bail out small countries like Ireland. Not happening any more, lads.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement